Sola vs Solo Scriptura | Church Government

[Scott]

"Given the fact - almost immediately from the beginnings of the Reformation - of Lutherans, Zwinglians, Geneva, English Protestants and Dutch Protestants, can we say this is the case?"

I think so, understanding that I am not saying that all Protestant churches were in agreement or applied the sword in the same way. Each jurisdiction had its own monopoly. Protestantism was very factured from the beginning. Within each jurisdiction the civil magistrate and state church had sway. So, for example, the official church of a particular jurisdiction (say, Saxony) worked hand-in-glove with the prince of that jurisdiction and enforced that brand of theology and ecclesial piety. I think this principles were codified in documents like the Edict of Nantes, the Peace of Augsburg, and Peace of Westphalia.

One of the remarkable things of the period was how nations changed religions so often. Switching from Catholic to Calvinist or Lutheran and back again based on who was in control. Most citizens docilely submitted in many regions.

However, the principle was that a prince had the authority to establish and enforce religion in his own jurisdiction (which, admitedly, were quite diverse in the Protestant world).

[Edited on 2-4-2005 by Scott]

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by Scott
I don't think focusing on the philsophical aspects of the issue are that helpful. We all agree that private judgment of some sort is involved at all stages, even if it is private judgment about whether to submit to or rebel against the church.

Aside from the philosophical issues, there are practical, mechanical differences in the ways ordinary evangelicals differ in their approach to resolving doctrinal problems than do classical Reformed. Let's use Acts 15 to illustrate the problem.

Certain believers of the group of Pharisees were teaching in the church of Antioch that gentiles needed to be circumcised and observe the other ceremonies of the Law of Moses in order to be saved. Paul and Baranabas opposed them in Antioch. This local debate did not resolve the issue.

What should they do now? Who should make the decision? There are a couple of ways they could approach this. The first view is that the decision should be made by the mind of the collective church (contrasted with private judgments of individuals). This was the actual approach taken in Acts 15. This is what I advocate is the biblical view, which is conciliar and is modeled on Acts 15.

The church is brought together and the Holy Spirit works through her to come to the right conclusion. This is how the problem of circumcision (and all that entails with the ceremonial law) at Antioch was addressed. Note that the decision of the council was approved by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15) and the various congregations were obligated to obey the decision (Acts 16). It is through this process that what is
now taken for basic orthodoxy, such as the Trinity, was resolved in the great ecumenical councils.

A second view - the view most popular among modern American evangelicals - leaves biblical interpretation to private judgment. Many people would make themselves (as opposed to the collective mind of the church) the sole judge of biblical doctrine. Their answer to the dispute in Antioch (described in Acts 15) would have been to provide each member of the church of Antioch with a copy of the scriptures and have each individual decide for himself what he thought the scriptures taught. If the parties could not agree, they should split off into further sects. In contrast to this individualism, the Bible teaches that these decisions rest with the community of the covenant (as expressed by their leaders in a council).

Radical individualism in matters of interpretation will necessarily lead to anarchy. And that is what has happened.

Scott

[Edited on 2-4-2005 by Scott]

No one can dispute the present state of evangelicalism as described. But Acts 15, as biblical and attractive as it is, was not the paradigm universally followed by all the churches of the NT age. The problem reflected in evangelicalism today also surfaced in the churches of Asia Minor in the NT age itself, which brought the direct intervention of the risen and glorified Christ speaking through Holy Scripture to adjudicate their affairs in Rev. 2-3. These churches has their sects too; Ephesus had abandoned its first love, Pergamos tolerated the doctrines of Balaam and the Nicolaitans, Thyatira tolerated the seductive teaching of the “prophetess” Jezebel, Sardis had only a few who had not defiled their garments, Laodecia was lukewarm. Thus the church has in every age been ravaged by the entrance of wolves and heretics from within. But the positing of the apostolic model of Acts 15 is as simplistic repeating the problem. There the church was unified in addressing the problem from within. But even among Reformed churches today, there is no unified body to represent them all. Yes, we must emphasize afresh the importance of the church, and its role in declaring authoritatively, albeit ministerially, the meaning of Scripture. But that appeal is still vague, and you and I cannot realistically expect people simply to recognize the PCA as the ecclesiastical answer to this dilemma. The question remains, what church? Because what helpful purpose does it serve to keep raising the problem without an answer? That is, to be sure, your own philosophical waterloo, Scott . Because it simply keeps positing repeatedly the same, real, but nonetheless philosophical problem. Hence I can suggest with equal force that your own construing of the issue is a focus on “the philosophical aspects of the issue.” How can it be otherwise?

We have to move toward something more concrete than a vague appeal to ecclesiastical authority. Because that doesn’t move us any further along toward a solution. It’s a beginning, yes, but I think I’ve shown that it’s too simplistic to stop there. There has to be a common starting point, and there is no other on which we are agreed than that of Holy Scripture.

The problem is not so much with private judgment, but with remaining sin and dullness of heart to the word of the living God. It is the private reading of Holy Scripture properly that needs to serve as our beginning point. We are not left to ourselves as to how to proceed. The Larger Catechism directs us...

Question 156: Is the Word of God to be read by all?
Answer: Although all are not to be permitted to read the Word publicly to the congregation, yet all sorts of people are bound to read it apart by themselves, and with their families: to which end, the holy Scriptures are to be translated out of the original into vulgar languages.
Question 157: How is the Word of God to be read?
Answer: The holy Scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very Word of God, and that he only can enable us to understand them; with desire to know, believe, and obey the will of God revealed in them; with diligence, and attention to the matter and scope of them; with meditation, application, self-denial, and prayer.

We are likewise to attend on the preaching thereof...

Question 158: By whom is the Word of God to be preached?
Answer: The Word of God is to be preached only by such as are sufficiently gifted, and also duly approved and called to that office.
Question 159: How is the Word of God to be preached by those that are called thereunto?
Answer: They that are called to labor in the ministry of the Word, are to preach sound doctrine, diligently, in season and out of season; plainly, not in the enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit, and of power; faithfully, making known the whole counsel of God; wisely, applying themselves to the necessities and capacities of the hearers; zealously, with fervent love to God and the souls of his people; sincerely, aiming at his glory, and their conversion, edification, and salvation.
Question 160: What is required of those that hear the Word preached?
Answer: It is required of those that hear the Word preached, that they attend upon it with diligence, preparation, and prayer; examine: What they hear by the Scriptures; receive the truth with faith, love, meekness, and readiness of mind, as the Word of God; meditate, and confer of it; hide it in their hearts, and bring forth the fruit of it in their lives.

In other words, we must be confronted by God’s word privately and individually before it we will ever begin to make conscience of it collectively and corporately. Since only the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture is our supreme judge by which to adjudicate controversy, He must begin by addressing the controversy of our own hearts with the God who made us. We must be confronted personally as responsible moral agents with the egalitarian sin of our own minds in the areas of our controversies with God. All of that cannot by-pass the personal level. It is only as the word of God itself informs and convicts us on the personal level that we begin to make conscience of God’s commands to obey (for example) our ecclesiastical authorities. The problems we see rampant in evangelicalism today has plagued the church of every age, the NT era, the early church, the medieval church, and even the Reforming church in the age of the reformation (as Fred Greco) has pointed out. As an aside, I think this is one of the problems with the whole Federal Vision movement. Though they have complained about the problems of evangelicalism today, they’ve simply reproduced those problems either by creating their own denomination, or raising controversy within the ones of which they’re members.

But to repeat myself (and thanks for your kindness and patience), the problem is not so much with private judgment, as it is with private sin and personal autonomy that seeks out proof texts to justify its rebellion, and which finds its roots as far back as Genesis 3. A call to implicit faith in some undefined and unidentified ecclesiastical authority is not the panacea mandated by God in Holy Scripture. He calls us first to yield to the yoke of His word as a gracious master, saying, “Come now, and let us reason together...” (Is 1:18). I can tell you about something just as bad as “Radical individualism in matters of interpretation” that “necessarily lead to anarchy.” And that is a radical corporate ecclesiasticism in matters of interpretation that does and has led to tyranny and bondage. That model equally has its tragic paradigm in the history of the church, to be sure. Private rebellion is to be deplored. But I can think of something even worse, a concerted and corporate rebellion that is to be deplored even more.

Again Scott, thanks for engaging me,
DTK

 

[Scott]

But the positing of the apostolic model of Acts 15 is as simplistic repeating the problem. There the church was unified in addressing the problem from within. But even among Reformed churches today, there is no unified body to represent them all. Yes, we must emphasize afresh the importance of the church, and its role in declaring authoritatively, albeit ministerially, the meaning of Scripture.

David:

I appreciate your thoughts and discussion. These are very challenging issues and there are few easy answers. Let me suggest a few points in reply to your observation above. Perhaps my objectives have been unclear. There are several issues at stake.

[1] Several people deny, in principle, that the Bible teaches that the institutional Church should have actual teaching and interpreting authority. They deny that Acts 15 is a model for resolving church disputes. This is a mistake that should be rejected.

Understanding the biblical requirement and ideal would be helpful in returning to that ideal. People who are principially opposed to it will not seek that form of biblical unity. So, proclaiming this message is one step to returning the the unity required of the Bible

[2] Even if there is no unified, single body, that does not destroy the authority of regional or denomination bodies. Denominational bodies are similar to provincial synods that have provincial authority. While this does not contain the universal authority of a universal council, it does have actual authority over those under its jurisdiction. Its decisions are to be obeyed for more than the fact that they are consistent with God's word but for the authority God has given them.

By analogy, if the US Supreme Court stopped functioning for some reason, that would not immediately destroy the power of the Texas Supreme Court. Its decision would still be applicable for the state of Texas, even if they did not have national consequence.

People who oppose church authority and take an extreme form of solo scriptura deny in principle or ideal that any Church (regional or universal)has actual teaching authority.

[3] I agree that the chuch is broken due her denominational splits (I would call independent churches simply denominations of one). As you point out, some things just don't function rightly. That was a point I tried to make in a post. We are analogous to the split of the tribes of Israel into two nations. Israel was created in unity and her division made certain biblical commands impossible to perform. Worship in Jersualem, for example, was practically impossible for the tribes at war with her.

That did not undermine the need to examine the biblical teaching on Israel and seek for unity. Hezekiah actively sought this unity in spite of seeming impossibility of the situation. See 1 Chron. 30 for this wonderful passage.

Hope that helps.

Scott

[Edited on 2-7-2005 by Scott]

 

[Scott]

I can tell you about something just as bad as “Radical individualism in matters of interpretation” that “necessarily lead to anarchy.” And that is a radical corporate ecclesiasticism in matters of interpretation that does and has led to tyranny and bondage. That model equally has its tragic paradigm in the history of the church, to be sure. Private rebellion is to be deplored. But I can think of something even worse, a concerted and corporate rebellion that is to be deplored even more.

I know what you are saying. There are dangers on both ends. We can analogize this to both parental and civil authority.

To analogize to parents. Some parents are abusive and tyranical and require children to hold false teachings. This is wrong and children and the right and in some cases responsibility to reject these parental teachings and commands. That does not mean that there is no general presumption in favor of embracing parental teaching. Indeed this presumption is very high. God expressly requires it. As Fred said, the presumption is rebuttable, though. The answer to parental abuse is not to deny parentl authority, teaching or otherwise.

Many evangelicals have wrongly used past ecclesial abuses to deny (in principle) church authority altogether. This is as wrong a using an example of an abused child to deny parental authority altogether.

 

[DTK]

The answer to parental abuse is not to deny parentl authority, teaching or otherwise.

Many evangelicals have wrongly used past ecclesial abuses to deny (in principle) church authority altogether. This is as wrong a using an example of an abused child to deny parental authority altogether.

Thanks Scott for these exchanges.

I agree that abuses do not argue against the right use of ecclesiastical authority. We have to have it; It is clearly mandated by Holy Scripture. But, it does seem to me that the one caveat that is often missing from critiques of what has been termed solo scriptura is that it does not underscore the right of appeal, and it is the right of appeal (always driving us back to the Scriptures themselves) that Anthony N. S. Lane underscored in his article, "Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post–Reformation Slogan" in P.E. Satterthwaite and D.F. Wright, A Pathway into the Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), p. 327. "For the Reformation and for evangelical theology Scripture remains the final authority, to which one can appeal against all ecclesiastical authority. This was and remains the heart of the meaning of sola Scriptura."

Now, your point on the need for ecclesial authority is surely well received by me (I trust). The only caution is that in the zeal to repudiate this problem so designated as "solo scriptura," the perspicuous nature of Holy Scripture as to its essentials must be guarded, as well as the efficacious nature of Scripture's essential spirituality. We must be careful to maintain what Justin Martyr (wrote after 151) described when he wrote: "Moreover, I would wish that all, making a resolution similar to my own, do not keep themselves away from the words of the Savior. For they possess a terrible power in themselves, and are sufficient to inspire those who turn aside from the path of rectitude with awe; while the sweetest rest is afforded those who make a diligent practice of them." ANF: Vol. I, Dialogue of Justin, Chapter 8.

I do appreciate this exchange.

Blessings,
DTK

[Edited on 7-2-2005 by DTK]

 

[Scott]

And I do think it is important to interpret the Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura in the context of actual Reformed practices. Luther may have defied the Roman church based on conscience but he did not countenance people defying the Lutheran church based on conscience. He did not want his example in the Roman church to be others' examples in the Lutheran church.

The princes of their jurisdictions controlled the churches in those jurisdictions. I think a few key points are important in illustrating the practical effects of sola scriptura for the average church member. Say the Catholic prince of a jurisdiction just died and was replaced by a Reformed prince, holding to sola scriptura. The Reformed prince imposes Reformation creeds, including sola scriptura, on the state church (and he allows no others). The guy in the pew asks these questions:

[1] Am I allowed to teach things contrary to the Reformed confessions of the church, if, in my reading of scripture, I disagree?
Answer: No. Disobedence bring ecclesiastical and civil punishment.

[2] Am I allowed to plant a church of my own if in my judgment the polity, worship or doctrine of the state church is inconsistent with the the scriptures?
Answer: No. Disobedence bring ecclesiastical and civil punishment.


[3] Am I allowed to believe things contrary to the Reformed creeds?
Answer: No.

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by Scott
And I do think it is important to interpret the Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura in the context of actual Reformed practices. Luther may have defied the Roman church based on conscience but he did not countenance people defying the Lutheran church based on conscience. He did not want his example in the Roman church to be others' examples in the Lutheran church.

Yes Scott,

1) Luther did defy the Roman communion based on his conscience, and it is true that he did not want his own followers to emulate him in that respect. In a certain sense, he wanted his cake and eat it too.

But thank God, even Luther could speak with a better heart than his own practice in respect of this because...

2) He spoke of a two-fold judgment (very much the same as I’m contending), both with respect to individual judgment and ecclesial judgment. In other words, Luther affirmed the very balance that I see missing from critiques of “solo scriptura.”

Martin Luther to Erasmus: It is true that we shall not detect the spirits by appeals to learning, life, abilities, majorities, distinction, or to ignorance and lack of education, or numbers, or standing. However, I do not applaud those who take refuge in bragging about the Spirit. I fought last year, and am still fighting, a pretty fierce campaign against those fanatics who subject the Scriptures to the interpretation of their own spirit. On the same account I have thus far hounded the Pope, in whose kingdom nothing is more commonly said or more widely accepted than this dictum: ‘the Scriptures are obscure and equivocal; we must seek the interpreting Spirit from the apostolic see of Rome!’ No more disastrous words could be spoken; for by this means ungodly men have exalted themselves above the Scriptures and done what they liked, till the Scriptures were completely trodden down and we could believe and teach nothing but maniacs’ dreams. In a word, that dictum is no mere human invention; it is poison sent into the world by the inconceivably malevolent prince of all the devils himself!
This is our contention: that spirits must be detected and tried by a double judgment. The first is internal. By it, through the enlightening of the Holy Ghost, the special gift of God, one enjoys complete certainty in judging of and deciding between the doctrines and opinions of all men as they affect oneself and one’s own personal salvation. Of this judgment it is said in 1 Cor. 1: ‘The spiritual man judges all things, but he himself is judged by no man’ (1 Cor. 2.15). It belongs to faith, and is needful for every Christian, even for a layman. This is what we earlier spoke of as the internal perspicuity of Holy Scripture. Perhaps this was in the mind of those who answered you by saying that everything must be decided by the judgment of the Spirit. But this judgment benefits none but him who has it, and is not our concern in this present debate. Nor, I think, does anyone doubt its reality.
The second is an external judgment. By it, we judge the spirits and doctrines of all men, also with the greatest certainty, and now not for ourselves only, but also for the benefit and salvation of others. This judgment is the province of the public ministry of the Word and the external office, and is the special concern of teachers and preachers of the Word. We employ it when we strengthen the weak in faith and refute opponents. We spoke of this earlier as the external perspicuity of Holy Scripture. We hold that all spirits should be proved in the sight of the church by the judgment of Scripture. For it should be settled as fundamental, and most firmly fixed in the minds of Christians that the Holy Scriptures are a spiritual light far brighter even than the sun, especially in what relates to salvation and all essential matters. Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will (Grand Rapids: Fleming H. Revell, 1957) pp. 124-125.

Now then, Scott, since you have stated, indeed insisted (I don’t think that’s too strong) that you think we need to define sola scriptura according to the way the Reformers defined it, are you going to affirm Luther’s principle of this two-fold judgment concerning the principle of sola scriptura?

I, for one, do not believe that the Reformers owned the principle of sola scriptura, as though it was something that belonged to them exclusively to define. I see the same principle of a two-fold judgment (as espoused by Luther above) in the writings and practice of the early church. I see the principle of sola scriptura as a legacy that Christ bequeathed to His Church in all ages, as I’ve attempted to prove by way of publication in another medium. We must not relegate the principle of sola scriptura to the period of the Reformation alone, as though it were something new to be defined exclusively by their principles and practices, although I don’t find them differing from how it was practiced in every age of the Church. Again, it is the bequeathed testament of Christ to His Church for all ages. I think that, perhaps, is what I see lacking in what you're offering as "sola scriptura." I can understand how you would want to limit your definition of sola scriptura to the actual practices of the Reformers, but their actual principles (and I would contend) *the* principle of sola Scriptura must transcend the fallible practices of men.

Blessings,
DTK

 

[Scott]

Thanks for the Luther quote. That is very interesting and it sounds right to me, at least at a general level. My main concern is with people who deny the public character of institutional judgments altogether (I do not count you among those).

I also agree that sola scriptura is not limited to the Reformation. I am focusing on that period as this is the focus of this board. I also see the emphasis on sola scriptura as being more on the absence of any authoritative oral tradition, as opposed to an affirmation of private judgment of individuals. At least, that it how things played out in practices approved by the same Reformers who promoted sola scriptura.

Both Rome and the Reformers agreed that there should be institutional courts to resolve controversies of faith and these courts took precedence (at least presumptively) over individuals. For the Catholics, that court was the Pope collaborating with Catholics princes. For the Reformers it was the lawfully ordained Reformed divines of particular jurisdictions (eg. Geneva) collaborting with Reformed princes.

I don't think in substance this differs much from the practice of the patristics. They imposed external (ecclesial and, when in power, criminal) penalties for those who did not subscribe to right doctrines. In these practices, they were not much different than the Reformers or Catholics.

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by Scott
Thanks for the Luther quote. That is very interesting and it sounds right to me, at least at a general level. My main concern is with people who deny the public character of institutional judgments altogether (I do not count you among those).

Thanks, I don't.

I also agree that sola scriptura is not limited to the Reformation. I am focusing on that period as this is the focus of this board. I also see the emphasis on sola scriptura as being more on the absence of any authoritative oral tradition, as opposed to an affirmation of private judgment of individuals. At least, that it how things played out in practices approved by the same Reformers who promoted sola scriptura.

I'm glad you don't see the principle as limited to the Reformation. But focusing on that period (though very important) is removed from where we are today. That's why the principle itself must transcend history.

Both Rome and the Reformers agreed that there should be institutional courts to resolve controversies of faith and these courts took precedence (at least presumptively) over individuals. For the Catholics, that court was the Pope collaborating with Catholics princes. For the Reformers it was the lawfully ordained Reformed divines of particular jurisdictions (eg. Geneva) collaborting with Reformed princes.

But the point is, in practice, although the Reformers desired such justice, they were denied it by the Roman communion. That's why individuals, such as Luther, rose up and protested. But to limit it to the practices of the Reformers is an arbitrary paradigm if the the principle isn't larger than its place in the lives of the Reformers, as I will show below with an illustration.

I don't think in substance this differs much from the practice of the patristics. They imposed external (ecclesial and, when in power, criminal) penalties for those who did not subscribe to right doctrines. In these practices, they were not much different than the Reformers or Catholics.

Well, I do think you might be missing the substance, i.e., in this sense. There must always be recourse to Holy Scripture. That's was Luther's point of a two-fold judgment, whether it be that of the individual or the collective body of the church. There must always be an appeal to infallible authority. That is, as lane contended, the heart of sola Scriptura.
Luther, in this respect, has his parallel in ancient history in the person of Athanasius. As Louis Berkhof pointed out in his, The History of Christian Doctrines, p. 88, "'Unus Athanasius contra orbem' (one Athanasius against the world). Five times this worthy servant of God was driven into exile and succeeded in office by unworthy sycophants, who were a disgrace to the Church." Indeed, Jerome could testify of that period...

Jerome (347-420): After these proceedings the Council [i.e. the Synod of Ariminum] was dissolved. All returned in gladness to their own provinces. For the Emperor and all good men had one and the same aim, that the East and West should be knit together by the bond of fellowship. But wickedness does not long lie hid, and the sore that is healed superficially before the bad humor has been worked off breaks out again. Valens and Ursacius and others associated with them in their wickedness, eminent Christian bishops of course, began to wave their palms, and to say they had not denied that He was a creature, but that He was like other creatures. At that moment the term Usia was abolished: the Nicene Faith stood condemned by acclamation. The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian. NPNF2: Vol. VI, The Dialogue Against the Luciferians, §19.

Jerome (347-420): The Church does not depend upon walls, but upon the truth of its doctrines. The Church is there, where the true faith is. But about fifteen or twenty years ago, heretics possessed all the walls of the Churches here. For, twenty years ago, heretics possessed all these Churches. But the true Church was there, where the true faith was. See William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 2, p. 344.
[Latin text: Ecclesia non parietibus consistit, sed in dogmatum veritate. Ecclesia ibi est ubi fides vera est. Caeterum ante annos quindecim aut viginti, parietes omnes hic Ecclesiarum haeretici possidebant. Ante viginti enim annos, omnes Ecclesias has haeretici possidebant. Ecclesia autem vera illic erat, ubi vera fides erat. Breviarium in Psalmos, Psalmus CXXXIII, PL 26:1223.

To focus on the Reformation period exclusively to find one's paradigm for the practical expression of sola Scriptura is inevitably arbitrary in terms of the application of the principle itself. There must always be recourse to Scripture, to which the Church must submit. Either this appeal/recourse to Scripture is the heart of the meaning of sola Scriptura, or we're left with an arbitrary standard in the church, for the question ever remains, "what church and what standard delineates that church?" If not, what right did Athanasius have to stand against the Arians? As Michael J. Hollerich pointed out in some editorial remarks...

At a second session of the council of Nicea, apparently summoned by Constantine at the end of 327, Arius was readmitted and the excommunications of Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicea were lifted. By the end of Constantine's reign in 337, the Arian party was in the ascendancy everywhere in the East. See Michael J. Hollerich, Eusebius of Caesarea's Commentary on Isaiah: Christian Exegesis in the Age of Constantine (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), p. 25.

If there isn't always this appeal back to Scripture, then we are in the end ultimately left with an arbitrary appeal to the church, and which church only God can judge. Calvin himself warns us in this respect...

John Calvin: Since we have proved that the church has not been given the power to set up a new doctrine, let us now speak concerning the power which they claim for it in interpreting Scripture.

We indeed willingly concede, if any discussion arises over doctrine, that the best and surest remedy is for a synod of true bishops to be convened, where the doctrine at issue may be examined. Such a definition, upon which the pastors of the church in common, invoking Christ’s Spirit, agree, will have much more weight than if each one, having conceived it separately at home, should teach it to the people, or if a few private individuals should compose it. Then, when the bishops are assembled, they can more conveniently deliberate in common what they ought to teach and in what form, lest diversity breed offense. Thirdly, Paul prescribes this method in distinguishing doctrines. For when he assigns the distinguishing of doctrines to the separate churches [cf. 1 Corinthians 14:29], he shows what should be the order of procedure in more serious cases—namely, that the churches should take common cognizance among themselves. And the very feeling of piety so instructs us that, if anyone disturb the church with a strange doctrine, and the matter reach the point that there is danger of greater dissension, the churches should first assemble, examine the question put, and finally, after due discussion, bring forth a definition derived from Scripture which would remove all doubt from the people and stop the mouths of wicked and greedy men from daring to go any farther.

Thus, when Arius rose up, the Council of Nicaea was summoned. By its authority it both crushed the wicked efforts of that ungodly man, restoring peace to those churches which he had troubled, and asserted the eternal deity of Christ against his sacrilegious teaching. Then, when Eunomius and Macedonius stirred up new tumults, the Council of Constantinople provided a like remedy for their madness. At the Council of Ephesus, Nestorius’ impiety was overthrown. From the beginning, then, this was the ordinary method of maintaining unity in the church whenever Satan began any machinations.

But let us remember that not every age or place has men like Athanasius, Basil, Cyril, and such vindicators of true doctrine, whom the Lord raised up at that time. Indeed, let us ponder what happened at the Second Synod of Ephesus, where Eutyches’ heresy prevailed, and that man of holy memory, Flavian, with some other godly men, was cast into exile, and many misdeeds of this sort committed. That happened because Dioscorus, a quarrelsome man of very evil character, and not the Spirit of the Lord, presided. But, you say, the church was not there. I admit it. For I am quite convinced that truth does not die in the church, even though it be oppressed by one council, but is wonderfully, preserved by the Lord so that it may rise up and triumph again in its own time. But I deny it to be always the case that an interpretation of Scripture adopted by vote of a council is true and certain. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), IV.9.13, pp. 1176-1177.

John Calvin: There is the other evil, the correction of which is not less necessary. The laws which the tyrants recommend under the name of the Church they term Spiritual, as being destined to rule the conscience. An appendage to this evil is the superstition which I mentioned, viz., their pretense that the observance of them pertains to the worship of God. But God claims spiritual government for himself alone, and for his word, that conscience untouched by man may learn to look only to his word. John Calvin, The True Method of Giving Peace to Christendom and Reforming the Church (Dallas: Protestant Heritage Press, 1995).

Moreover, Calvin pointed out that they were accused of this very thing...

John Calvin: From what has been said, it will doubtless be easy for you to perceive how little attention is due to the calumny of our adversaries, when they accuse us of impious presumption, and as it were inexpiable audacity, in having attempted to purify the Church from corruption, both in doctrine and ceremonies, without waiting for the beck of the Roman Pontiff. They say we have done what private individuals have no right to do. But, in regard to ameliorating the condition of the Church, what was to be hoped from him to whom we were required to give place? Any man who considers how Luther and the other Reformers acted at the outset, and how they afterwards proceeded, will deem it unnecessary to call upon us for any defense. When matters were still entire, Luther himself humbly besought the Pontiff that he would be pleased to cure the very grievous disorders of the Church. Did his supplication succeed? The evils having still increased, the necessity of the case, even had Luther been silent, should have been stimulus enough to urge the Pope to delay no longer. The whole Christian world plainly demanded this of him, and he had in his hands the means of satisfying the pious wishes of all. Did he do so? He now talks of impediments. But if the fact be traced to its source, it will be found that he has all along been, both to himself and to others, the only impediment.
But why insist on these lighter arguments? Is it not in itself alone an argument of sufficient clearness and sufficient weight, that, from the commencement up to the present time, he gives us no hope of transacting with him until we again bury Christ, and return to every impiety which formerly existed, that he may establish them on a firmer basis than before? This, unquestionably, is the reason why still, in the present day, our opponents so strenuously maintain that we had no right to intermeddle with the revival of the church — not that the thing was not necessary, (this it were too desperate effrontery to deny,) but because they are desirous that as well the safety as the ruin of the Church should be suspended on the mere beck and pleasure of the Roman Pontiff. John Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church (Dallas: Protestant Heritage Press, 1995), pp. 136-137.

John Calvin: I come to the right of interpreting, which they arrogate to themselves whenever the meaning is doubtful. It is theirs, they say, to give the meaning of Scripture, and we must acquiesce. For everything which they bestow upon the Church they bestow upon themselves. I acknowledge, indeed, that as Scripture, came not by the private will of man, (2 Peter 1:21) it is unbecoming to wrest it to the private sense of any man. Nay, in the case of an obscure passage, when it is doubtful what sense ought to be adopted, there is no better way of arriving at the true meaning than for pious doctors to make common inquiry, by engaging in religious discussion. But that is not now the question. They wish, by their tyrannical edict, to deprive the Church of all liberty, and arrogate to themselves a boundless license; for, be the meaning which they affix to Scripture what it may, it must be immediately embraced. Except themselves, moreover, no man will be permitted to prove anything out of Scripture. Would that they were equal to the performance of so great a task. But oxen usurp the reins, or rather asses the lyre. In short, their aim is to make all revere a Scripture hidden in darkness like the mysteries of Ceres, and let none presume to aspire to the understanding of it. John Calvin, Acts of the Council of Trent: With the Antidote (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983 reprint of Calvin’s Tracts), pp. 65-66.

There must always be the right of appeal to the Scriptures as ultimate authority, for that and that alone is the heart of sola Scriptura. Otherwise, the critique of "solo scriptura" plays right into the hands of the Roman apologist, for he has an instant, ready-made reply.

Again, I do think that this exchange is helpful for all concerned. Moreover, I do not think that a uniform interpretation of Scripture is strictly necessary to maintain unity with respect (for example) to non-essentials. There can be diversity in unity; for unity is not and should not be defined by uniformity.

Thanks again, Scott, for indulging me,
DTK

 

[AdamM]

Scott, what role (if any,) do you have for private interpretation?

 

[Scott]

"Well, I do think you might be missing the substance, i.e., in this sense. There must always be recourse to Holy Scripture."

Maybe I am missing something and maybe not. But in terms of the Reformed understanding of sola scriptura, it is important to understand that the Reformers' doctrine of sola scriptura did not express itself in giving the laity recourse to the Holy Scripture as an appeal from the judgment of the Reformed Churches and their collaborating princes. Right or wrong, their understanding of sola scriptura still allowed them to monopolize ecclesiastical life in terms of dogma and practice.

I will answer Adam's question below and that might help things a bit.

To focus on the Reformation period exclusively to find one's paradigm for the practical expression of sola Scriptura is inevitably arbitrary in terms of the application of the principle itself.

It is very relevant, as you quote several Reformed writers. It is as important to understand the practical, real-world expressions of their views as the abstract writings. It helps us interpret the writings rightly. That is not to say that we should model them in all things, only that we should rightly understand what they taught.

[Edited on 2-7-2005 by Scott]

 

[Scott]

"Scott, what role (if any,) do you have for private interpretation?"

Adam: Good to hear from you again.

I believe that the view set out in the confession is right. I also agree with Calvin's comments quoted by David, at least when understood in their historical context in terms of the practices of the Reformed churches. I agree that the individual is ultimately responsible before God. The individual is responsible for his own judgments, including judgments about whether or not to submit to lawful authorities.

I also believe that the Church, especially the Church acting in a universal fashion, has actual authority. Provincial synods have actual authority too, although significantly less.

God has specially charged these synods with resolving controversies of faith. This is, as the WCF says, not only because the decisions are consistent with the Word, but because of the real authority given to these councils to resolve the problems.

I believe that councils can and have erred. They are not infallible or irreformable.

I believe that there are times when individuals in the exercise of their private judgment can and should rebel against these authorities, and this judgment should be based on the private interpretations of scripture. Yet, this is not the norm. This is something extraordinary, as extraordinary as a citizen rebelling against his government or a child rebelling against his parent. At times this should happen, but not ordinarily. My concern is that many reformed have taken this exception and made it into the rule.

These issues are challenging and, I think, substantially the same as other autority settings, such as issues facing a child who wants to rebel against a parent or a citizen who wants to rebel against his government. When this should happen is very blurry. There are few clear answers.

In evangelicalism today there is a much different model. The idea of any real ecclesial authority is lacking. The idea of using Acts 15 in a way that binds local congregations (see Acts 16:4) is unheard of in some circles.

 

[Scott]

BTW, David and Adam, please take a look at this thread:
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=9071

I would be curious about your views on this. I think answers to the question I ask there may implicate ecclesial issues too.

Thanks

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by Scott
Maybe I am missing something and maybe not. But in terms of the Reformed understanding of sola scriptura, it is important to understand that the Reformers' doctrine of sola scriptura did not express itself in giving the laity recourse to the Holy Scripture as an appeal from the judgment of the Reformed Churches and their collaborating princes. Right or wrong, their understanding of sola scriptura still allowed them to monopolize ecclesiastical life in terms of dogma and practice.

Scott, all the reformers didn't begin as clergy. Calvin didn't begin as such, and he resisted the "ecclesiastical life" of his day.

It is very relevant, as you quote several Reformed writers. It is as important to understand the practical, real-world expressions of their views as the abstract writings. It helps us interpret the writings rightly. That is not to say that we should model them in all things, only that we should rightly understand what they taught.

Scott, I didn't say it wasn't relevant. I said they should not be our exclusive paradigm for its expression. Moreover, I don't think your understanding of them merits the full picture of their own example for a balance perspective. Now, I've sought to demonstrate that, and I suppose that we will simply have to agree to disagree. Again, our unity need not be defined by uniformity.

Blessings,
DTK

 

[DTK]

I have a question for you, Scott. Given your paradigm, was the CREC justified in creating their own Reformed denomination?

Thanks,
DTK

 

[Scott]

On the CREC issue, I don't know enough about the situation. My general view is that the endless formation of new denominations is not good. We should move toward consolidation, not splintering.

On the broader issues, thanks for the conversation. I doubt our views differ that much in practice, as you see Ch. 31 of the WCF as correct. Perhaps our difference is more on emphasis.

 

[AdamM]

BTW, David and Adam, please take a look at this thread:
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=9071

I would be curious about your views on this. I think answers to the question I ask there may implicate ecclesial issues too.

Scott, thank you for your reply. I apologize for not getting back sooner, but I agree with the thrust of your argument. I think you have correctly pointed out that biblically, the hurdle that needs to be cleared before a person rejects church authority is very high, but that concept is foreign to most Christians today. At least in our circles (PCA) I think some of it has to do with people witnessing church authority corrupting the church from top down in various denominations and it creates a once burned, twice shy approach.

[Edited on 10-2-2005 by AdamM]