# Solo Scriptura - The Difference a Vowel Makes



## Semper Fidelis

I contacted _Modern Reformation_ and gained approval to have this article made available on their site as it is normally only viewable in part on their site unless you have an account.

http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=19&var3=main

http://www.bible-researcher.com/mathison.pdf
[valid link added by AMR in 2017]

If you do not subscribe to _Modern Reformation_ then you really ought to. Along with _The Confessional Presbyterian Journal_ it is one of the best regular resources to get scholarly and pious Reformational thought.

This article is particularly timely here given our recent discussions on the nature of Confessions vis-a-vis the Scriptures. The article appeared a few months ago in their issue "Gods Unto Ourselves" which is an apt description of those who practice Solo Scriptura.

An excerpt:


> The twentieth century could, with some accuracy, be called a century of theological anarchy. Liberals and sectarians have long rejected outright many of the fundamental tenets of Christian orthodoxy. But more recently professing evangelical scholars have advocated revisionary versions of numerous doctrines. A revisionary doctrine of God has been advocated by proponents of "openness theology." A revisionary doctrine of eschatology has been advocated by proponents of full-preterism. Revisionary doctrines of justification sola fide have been advocated by proponents of various "new perspectives" on Paul. Often the revisionists will claim to be restating a more classical view. Critics, however, have usually been quick to point out that the revisions are actually distortions.
> 
> Ironically, a similarly revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura has arisen within Protestantism, but unlike the revisionist doctrine of sola fide, the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura has caused very little controversy among the heirs of the Reformation. One of the reasons there has been much less controversy over the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura is that this doctrine has been gradually supplanting the Reformation doctrine for centuries. In fact, in many segments of the evangelical world, the revisionist doctrine is by far the predominant view now. Many claim that this revisionist doctrine is the Reformation doctrine. However, like the revisionist doctrines of sola fide, the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura is actually a distortion of the Reformation doctrine.
> 
> The adoption of the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura has resulted in numerous biblical, theological, and practical problems within Protestant churches. These problems have become the center of attention in recent years as numerous Protestants have converted to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy claiming that their conversion was due in large part to their determination that the doctrine of sola Scriptura was indefensible. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists have been quick to take advantage of the situation, publishing numerous books and articles devoted to critiquing the doctrine of sola Scriptura. One issue, however, that neither the converts nor the apologists seem to understand is that the doctrine they are critiquing and rejecting is the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura, not the classical Reformation doctrine. In order to understand the difference, some historical context is necessary.


----------



## KMK

I loved the article and highly recommend MR as well. The article really spoke to me in that many are Romanists in that they make themselves the Pope!


----------



## Gryphonette

I've never been clear, though, on exactly which "church" it is Keith was speaking of when he wrote "To summarize the Reformation doctrine of _sola Scriptura_, or the Reformation doctrine of the relation between Scripture and tradition, we may say that Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine revelation; it is the only inspired, infallible, final, and authoritative norm of faith and practice. It is to be interpreted in and by the church; and it is to be interpreted within the hermeneutical context of the rule of faith."

Which church?

Ken's a pastor of a credobaptist church, while Rich, though through necessity attending a Baptist church is actually a Presbyterian.

Yet you _both_ agree that Scripture is to be "interpreted in and by the church"? Even though you still disagree on what Scripture teaches?

I've just never quite seen how "sola Scriptura" _works_, practically speaking. Every time anyone migrates from an Arminian to a Calvinist church there's obviously more than a little "solo Scriptura" in play, since the immigrant is rejecting what his current church teaches that Scripture says.

When I converted to the RCC back in my early 20's, the RCC's claim to be the One True Church with the right and duty to interpret Scripture was mighty compelling. What is to keep a Protestant from swimming the Tiber so as to connect with a 'church' forthrightly insisting it's the real deal when it comes to interpreting Scripture, when the Baptist denominations and Presbyterian denominations, not to mention the Anglican denominations, all say_ they're _true churches - though usually they do not claim to be THE true church - and they interpret Scripture differently?


----------



## KMK

Gryphonette said:


> I've never been clear, though, on exactly which "church" it is Keith was speaking of when he wrote "To summarize the Reformation doctrine of _sola Scriptura_, or the Reformation doctrine of the relation between Scripture and tradition, we may say that Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine revelation; it is the only inspired, infallible, final, and authoritative norm of faith and practice. It is to be interpreted in and by the church; and it is to be interpreted within the hermeneutical context of the rule of faith."
> 
> Which church?
> 
> Ken's a pastor of a credobaptist church, while Rich, though through necessity attending a Baptist church is actually a Presbyterian.
> 
> Yet you _both_ agree that Scripture is to be "interpreted in and by the church"? Even though you still disagree on what Scripture teaches?



I would venture to say that Rich and myself do not disagree any more than he and some of his Presbyterian brothers do in spite of the fact that I am a baptist.

But I am sure Rich will have a great answer to your question.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> This article is particularly timely here given our recent discussions on the nature of Confessions vis-a-vis the Scriptures.



Highly, highly recommended. The caption on the top right of the article is well worth committing to memory.


----------



## Gryphonette

I'll eagerly await the great answer. ;^)

You know, something I suppose what bothers me a smidge about the lip-curling at "me and my Bible" is considering how many believers _have_ come to Christ pretty much alone, just them and the Bible. Surely this is why over the years churches have smuggled outlawed Bibles into areas they are forbidden to be, such as North Korea? Or dropped them via air into isolated, hard to reach areas?

And by golly, sometimes a missionary will eventually show up and darned if there isn't a Christian or two or three waiting for him, having gotten hold of one of the rogue Bibles, read it, and with the in-working of the Holy Spirit, came to Christ in faith.

What's fascinating to me is how so many people DO read the Bible for themselves....in a way guaranteed to horrify sola Scripturists and RC's and EOC's alike....and darned if they don't essentially wind up on virtually the same doctrinal page. Oh, some are Arminian and some are Calvinist, but for the most part, they're really quite doctrinally close.

If that's not explained by the Holy Spirit, I can't think what the explanation would _be_.

No one, though, ever became, with only the Bible as their guide, either an RC or an EOC. A missionary entering a previously unreached-except-by-smuggled-Bibles region might come across a tacit Baptist or Presbyterian, but he sure as check _isn't_ going to come across an RC.


----------



## MW

Gryphonette said:


> You know, something I suppose what bothers me a smidge about the lip-curling at "me and my Bible" is considering how many believers _have_ come to Christ pretty much alone, just them and the Bible.



Do you think this is a true representation of their conversion, or is it rather the case that the Holy Spirit works so powerfully in bringing them to conviction by means of the Word that they are apt to minimise the part human ministry has played? I would not suggest it is wrong to downplay the human element in conversion, because salvation is all of grace, from first to last, and the excellency of the power belongs to God and not to the earthen vessels. Nevertheless, in formulating a biblical view of conversion we should not underestimate the part which human ministry performs in the bringing of the means of grace to men. It is still a fact that the Word requires "understanding" in order to be beneficial, and the Lord uses the systematic teaching of the Word to bring that understanding to the souls of men. How can they hear without a preacher?


----------



## Gryphonette

One certainly prefers there should be a preacher, no doubt about it! It'd be frightful were the church to _ever_ take the position "Ah, just drop some Bibles on 'em and call it a day." 

The existence of the exceptional occurrence ought never be used as an excuse to replace or ignore the explicit, Scriptural command. Make no mistake about that!

Still, it does please the Holy Spirit to work individually with and in some believers until they have the opportunity to be joined to the visible church.

So "solo Scriptura" isn't a _complete _nonstarter. If it were, there'd be no sense in smuggling or dropping Bibles into areas where Christianity is illegal or otherwise nonexistent.


----------



## DTK

I agree wholeheartedly it has pleased God that it is through the foolishness of the message/word preached to save those who believe. That should never be minimized. At the same time, I think it's also important, as Protestants, to emphasize that Scripture is not a dead letter, but is often efficacious in and of itself. And one can find examples of this in patristic literature...

*Chrysostom (349-407):* Finally, if the ceremonies of the Jews move you to admiration, what do you have in common with us? If the Jewish ceremonies are venerable and great, ours are lies. But if ours are true, as they are true, theirs are filled with deceit. I am not speaking of the Scriptures. Heaven forbid! It was the Scriptures which took me by the hand and led me to Christ. _FC, Vol. 68, Discourses Against Judaizing Christians_, Disc. 1.6.5 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1979), pp. 23-24.

*Augustine (354-430):* Call this fancy, if it is not actually the case that men all over the world have been led, and are now led, to believe in Christ by reading these books. _NPNF1: Vol. IV, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean_, Book XVI, §20.

I think this is one reason why the Westminster Confession of Faith Reads, 25:2 The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, *out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation*.

Ordinarily, the Church is most often the initial and outward means by which men are called to faith in Christ, for it is the Church to which the ministry of the word/gospel has been committed.

DTK


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Gryphonette said:


> I'll eagerly await the great answer. ;^)
> 
> You know, something I suppose what bothers me a smidge about the lip-curling at "me and my Bible" is considering how many believers _have_ come to Christ pretty much alone, just them and the Bible. Surely this is why over the years churches have smuggled outlawed Bibles into areas they are forbidden to be, such as North Korea? Or dropped them via air into isolated, hard to reach areas?



A Bible and me. That is how I became a Christian in a Navy Barracks back in 1981. I wasn't involved in Church and only had stepped into a Church for a short time during my teen years. I didn't even know Jesus was God. And I had never heard the Gospel.

I became a Christian by reading the four Gospels from a Living Bible. God providentially sent me a guy from the Navigator Ministry into my life later.


----------



## Scott

Gryphonette said:


> I've never been clear, though, on exactly which "church" it is Keith was speaking of when he wrote "To summarize the Reformation doctrine of _sola Scriptura_, or the Reformation doctrine of the relation between Scripture and tradition, we may say that Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine revelation; it is the only inspired, infallible, final, and authoritative norm of faith and practice. It is to be interpreted in and by the church; and it is to be interpreted within the hermeneutical context of the rule of faith."
> 
> Which church?
> 
> Ken's a pastor of a credobaptist church, while Rich, though through necessity attending a Baptist church is actually a Presbyterian.
> 
> Yet you _both_ agree that Scripture is to be "interpreted in and by the church"? Even though you still disagree on what Scripture teaches?
> 
> I've just never quite seen how "sola Scriptura" _works_, practically speaking. Every time anyone migrates from an Arminian to a Calvinist church there's obviously more than a little "solo Scriptura" in play, since the immigrant is rejecting what his current church teaches that Scripture says.
> 
> When I converted to the RCC back in my early 20's, the RCC's claim to be the One True Church with the right and duty to interpret Scripture was mighty compelling. What is to keep a Protestant from swimming the Tiber so as to connect with a 'church' forthrightly insisting it's the real deal when it comes to interpreting Scripture, when the Baptist denominations and Presbyterian denominations, not to mention the Anglican denominations, all say_ they're _true churches - though usually they do not claim to be THE true church - and they interpret Scripture differently?


I agree with the article and really appreciate Mathison. His book on sola scriptura had a lot of influence on me. At the same time, I think Gryphonette has some great questions that are difficult to answer. I think one challenge is that our modern context is so much different from that of the Reformers. The Reformers had state churches. We have a plurality of denominations. The Reformers forcibly suppressed other denominations and did not respect the interpretations of the dissenters enough to allow them their own churches, at least not initially. In the context of that kind of ecclesiastical monopoly, there was not a lot of problem about deciding which church provide the right interpretative context, except perhaps deciding between protestant or Roman Catholic. There was only one game in town. 

Our context is completely different. We are heirs to an ecclesiastical explosion of denominations. Every individual, at least theoetically, has a bewildering number of ecclesial options from which to choose. Now there can be only localized and provincial expressions of an ecclesial context for sola scriptura. It may be that the Reformers' understanding of sola scriptura must be understood and applied in quite a different way today than they understood or applied it.

Further, the ability to easily leave one church and join another effectively insulates people from meaningful church discipline. Of course, there is no civil discipline of any sort. To the Reformers, sola scriptura did not mean that individuals were to be insulated from civil and ecclesial discipline for beliefs and practices that differed from the state church's interpretations. Indeed, publicly opposing state church interpretations could bring criminal penalties, from fines to death. In practical terms there was not a lot of accommodation for individual interpretation, at least on several important matters.


----------



## MW

Gryphonette said:


> So "solo Scriptura" isn't a _complete _nonstarter. If it were, there'd be no sense in smuggling or dropping Bibles into areas where Christianity is illegal or otherwise nonexistent.



I can't see it myself. Suppose, for the sake of the arguement, there were people who came to a proper understanding of salvation by the solitary use of the Scriptures, with no human ministry whatsoever to point them in the right direction, the very irregularity of it would be a point of concern, so that the person would need to come under the ordinary means of grace in order to *verify* that they have properly understood. If they refused to come under the means of grace, the visible church would look with suspicion on their "conversion;" and if they humbled themselves to come under the means of grace, they themselves testify the inadequacy of their experience. Which is as much as to say, the idea of solo Scriptura is a myth, and finds no substantiation in Scripture whatsoever. Even the irregular conversions of the apostolic church were effected through the means of human ministry being brought to people in extraordinary ways (e.g., Ethiopian eunuch, household of Cornelius), not without the use of human means.

With respect to the Chrysostom and Augustine quotations, these would be an example of what I questioned previously, namely, such a magnification of the work of the Spirit in blessing the Word to the soul, as that the individual minimises the "help" they have received from human ministry.


----------



## Gryphonette

Someone once made the observation at a discussion board I frequent that Scripture _is_ essentially an outreach of the church.

For what it's worth, I'd agree - were someone to posit this - that Bibles ought not be smuggled/dropped into a region without some plan afoot to send a missionary in behind it within a reasonable time frame. It might be as long as a few years, still, where the Bible goes, preachers _should_ follow in a timely manner.

This doesn't answer the question of "_which_ church did Keith have in mind?" though. ;^)

How anyone could ever move from one church or denomination to another based upon becoming convinced one's doctrinal position is more accurate than another's, if one takes a strict "sola Scriptura" view, I can't imagine. Seems as if you'd be stuck like a skeeter in amber _wherever_ the LORD first plopped you, out of fear of committing the sin of "solo Scriptura". 

Or if one has come to Christ through the evangelistic efforts of someone passing through (perhaps a seat mate on a long-haul flight?), how one would decide which church to attend. Each denomination/church obviously believes_ it_ is being the most true to God's Word, after all.


----------



## DTK

Gryphonette said:


> I've never been clear, though, on exactly which "church" it is Keith was speaking of when he wrote "To summarize the Reformation doctrine of _sola Scriptura_, or the Reformation doctrine of the relation between Scripture and tradition, we may say that Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine revelation; it is the only inspired, infallible, final, and authoritative norm of faith and practice. It is to be interpreted in and by the church; and it is to be interpreted within the hermeneutical context of the rule of faith."
> 
> Which church?


For any interested, Dr. Mathison's book received a rather scathing review by a writer in _The Banner of Truth_ magazine. See Issue 490, July 2004.

DTK


----------



## beej6

The answer to Gryphonette's question, "Which church?" cannot be answered easily except in a negative sense. Since there's no one true church, contra the Roman Catholics, one must struggle with the tension between Scripture and one's church (which shouldn't be a lot). This is a weakness of Western Protestant Christianity, and why many "swim the Tiber" or, dare I say, the Bosphorus to Rome or the Orthodox church. The idea of a secondary authority (not secondary in their minds, though) is just too alluring.

Yet, if your church is faithful enough, one need not be restive. This always needs to be tested against Scripture, as with the Bereans. That hasn't changed in two millennia.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

The article discusses some things that we have not discussed and I want to ask if there are variations of the traditions. Some mixture of Tradition 0 and 1 possibly, or 1 and 2 possibly, or even 2 and whatever 3 is?

I did appreciate this part....


> The Bible itself simply does not teach "solo" Scriptura Christ established his church with a structure of authority and gives to his church those who are specially appointed to the ministry of the word (Acts 6:2-4). When disputes arose, the apostles did not instruct each individual believer to go home and decide by himself and for himself who was right. They met in a council (Acts 15:6-29). Even the well-known example of the Bereans does not support "solo" Scriptura (cf. Acts 17:10-11; cf. vv. 1-9). Paul did not instruct each individual Berean to go home and decide by himself and for himself whether what he was teaching was true. Instead, the Bereans read and studied the Scriptures of the Old Testament day by day with Paul present in order to see whether his teaching about the Messiah was true.



One thing that I find lacking in tradition 0 is the historical context and use of the languages, creeds, and historical theology probably. But something that this article does not consider is that Luther came to understand Justification by faith alone apart form the creeds and writings of the Church fathers, and that he went farther in his biblical understanding of the doctrine than Augustine did whom he charished. I believe he even criticizes Augustine for not going far enough in the doctrine. 

John Darby (the designer of dispensatinalism) had a problem in that he rejected the authority of the Church and Americans lapped up his views of Dispensationalism even though it was something new in biblical theology. I also believe part of his problem had to do with a wrong understanding of progressive revelation. He believed it was still going on evidently. 

Do I need to say anything about position 2... Yuck...

Another thing that is not readily discussed in this argument is that solo scriptura also eliminates the use of outside sources for truth in some persons thinking. Sola Scriptura also recognized the use of the sciences where they are nill in most of those who desire to hold to a solo scriptura understanding. 

Just some of my thoughts for considering....

[clarification] I am not saying no one had ever writen with clarity on the Doctrine of Justification by faith alone before Luther or that he didn't have any help in growing in his understanding outside of himself. He did and some of his friends in the Church helped him and nursed him along the way.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

One more thing.... Let me put a plug in for DTK... (PCA)Teaching Elder David T. King

He and William Webster have done a 3 volume set on this topic. 

You can read a little about them here.http://www.the-highway.com/br_solascriptura.html 
and order them here.http://www.christiantruth.com/books.html


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Sorry I've been busy to weigh in on this. Have some thoughts but will wait until I have more time to flesh some of those thoughts out.

I would just note that Sola Scriptura doesn't undermine the notion that the Scriptures are able to make a man wise unto salvation (to which the Confessions admit).

Think about it this way, though: Suppose a man finds the Word of God and is converted by it. He then reads in the Scriptures where Christ institutes the Church and its disciple-making activities. He reads about submitting to his elders and being a part of a Church.

Is he being faithful to the Scriptures at the point that he understands those teachings and decides he's going to ignore those portions of Scripture?

I grant that the finding of the perfect Church is an impossibility but the Scriptures themselves teach the concept of Sola Scriptura - that is that the Church has a role in leading men to the knowledge of the Truth.

Men like Harold Camping utilize Solo Scriptura - potentially to their eternal damnation for flagrantly ignoring the very things the Scriptures command them to do.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pastor King,

I'm curious if you found the article to be well written in general and, if you have criticisms, what they are. I didn't notice the author denying the fact that the Word is able to save men's souls but I also don't think you were noting that in your response as a specific criticism of the article.

Thanks!

Rich


----------



## Scott

puritancovenanter said:


> But something that this article does not consider is that Luther came to understand Justification by faith alone apart form the creeds and writings of the Church fathers, and that he went farther in his biblical understanding of the doctrine than Augustine did whom he charished.


It is also relevant that Luther's answer to the Roman Catholic Church of the day was to reform and to keep the established church in place. The established church was used it to suppress dissent. He did not move toward Tradition 0, freedom from ecclesial authority in interpretation, or the like.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Scott said:


> puritancovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> But something that this article does not consider is that Luther came to understand Justification by faith alone apart form the creeds and writings of the Church fathers, and that he went farther in his biblical understanding of the doctrine than Augustine did whom he charished.
> 
> 
> 
> It is also relevant that Luther's answer to the Roman Catholic Church of the day was to reform and to keep the established church in place. The established church was used it to suppress dissent. He did not move toward Tradition 0, freedom from ecclesial authority in interpretation, or the like.
Click to expand...


Maybe I am not understanding your point but Luther sure changed ecclesiatical authority in Germany. He may have used the Church in suppressing dissent but he also used the Electors and he maintained that death to heretics was wrong. He also changed the look of ecclesiology and maintained the office of Bishop but made it into a Pastoral position for the most part unless there was no one to fulfill the position and then the Elector usually took up that position. The Bishop was also elected by congregations and not by the laying on of Hands. A lot changed with the Lutheran Reformation.


----------



## Gryphonette

Of course people such as Harold Camping are in deep weeds, doctrinally, particularly as it comes to the church.

Is this all that solo Scriptura is? A refusal by an individual to belong to or even attend a church, assembling with the saints as the Bible commands?

I hadn't brought that up, but now both Pastor Winzer and you have done so; what perplexes me is that I'd gotten the impression over the years that such a "lone ranger" mentality is regarded as the logical end result of the error of "solo Scriptura", rather than the error itself.

OTOH, there's nothing more likely than that I've misunderstood. There's a lamentable amount of precedent, I fear.

To reiterate, what puzzles me most is how anyone could ever move from the doctrinal position held by their current church to another doctrinal position without indulging in a spot of solo Scriptura.

Christ Chapel doggedly teaches unlimited atonement.

I absolutely disagree with Christ Chapel on this, being just as dogged a believer in particular redemption.

So. Am I a wicked dickens, to privately hold out against the authorities in the church I've attended for several years, and where I came to Christ? I've never officially joined it, largely _because _of their UA stance. 

How am I _not_ being a rank solo Scripturist by effectively preferring my private judgment over that of Christ Chapel?


----------



## kceaster

There is one church.

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Anyone who picks up the Bible, reads it, and is converted has not been brought in either as an individual or is alone. If they understand what the Scriptures say, it is because these things have been given to THE church of which this person is now a part. This person's conversion outside of the ordinary means does not mean that they have been saved individually. Christ died for the ELECT unto salvation, not elected ones, not elected groups.

Therefore, if anyone understands Scripture, they must understand it in the context of the church since they cannot understand it outside of the church. No one outside the church can understand the oracles of God.

The question of which church is moot. There is only one. It doesn't have any labels or acronyms or anything. Therefore, we have to end up with how Mathison defined Sola Scriptura. Anything else gives too much power to either the individual as Pope, or too much power to another man as Pope. That's how we end up with SOLO. The covenant was made to Abraham and his Seed, that is Christ, not to his seeds, as Paul says. So, we can only infer from this that whoever is in Christ will understand the Scriptures as every other one who is in Christ does. Not perfectly, not all having the same fullness of understanding. But collectively, the church understands the Scriptures, which is the place of biblical tradition. If we are out of step with accepted orthodoxy, then we need to adjust, or as our forbears called it, reform.

500 years from now, should the Lord tarry, we will understand the Bible pretty much as the Reformers did. They returned to a biblical understanding of the early church. So, we have seen Sola Scriptura at work. And, I believe that it is a doctrine that is most important to understand and defend.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Civbert

_(I did not mean to write such a long post, but once I got started... and so I apologies if this is not concise as it concise as it could be.) _

Anne Ivy's point is spot on:



Gryphonette said:


> This doesn't answer the question of "_which_ church did Keith have in mind?" though. ;^)




Or "who's creed?". Or: who decides which creed? And can anyone decided for you which creed? Doesn't it still come down to an individual and his bible working out what it says and determining which creed is scriptural and which is not while praying that the Holy Spirit will protect him from false doctrines. I think one of the things the reformation did was reject implicit (blind) faith in the words of men - even "church men". 

*"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen." * Martin Luther 

And this quote from the article:


> The liberal minister Simeon Howard (1733-1804), for example, advised pastors to "lay aside all attachment to human systems, all partiality to names, councils and churches, and honestly inquire, 'what saith the Scriptures?'"



Nothing is wrong with this in itself. We still must, as individuals " honestly inquire, 'what saith the Scriptures?'".


> Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
> (Act 17:10-11 NKJV)



Mathison gets into trouble with his total rejection of "individualism".


> Every doctrine and practice is measured against a final standard, and that final standard is the individual's personal judgment of what is and is not biblical.


The alternative is _implicit_ trust in the words of men - not Scripture. This is contrary to what Luther was saying: "Unless _I_ am convinced _by Scripture and plain reason _..." 

Mathison's rejection of individualism can only lead to placing implicit trust in the authority of a church to interpret Scripture. The Bereans studied scripture - not the Bereans put faith in the church and Scripture. They were actually comparing the words of men (church) to the Word of God to confirm if the words of men were the same (to see if the church speaking was really the Church speaking). Only then did they accept the words of men as true. 

Mathison seems to think that the Scriptures can not speak univocally to men (that men must depend on the church in order to understand the Word:


> In terms of hermeneutics, the doctrine of "solo" Scriptura is hopeless. With "solo" Scriptura, the interpretation of Scripture becomes subjective and relative, and there is no possibility for the resolution of differences.



This does not follow from Mathison's description on "solo scriptura" unless he assumes that God does not really speak through his Word. God's word is a living Word. God speaks to up when we read the Bible. Mathison does not seem to trust the relationship between the individual and the living Word of God. He thinks we need someone to interpret the text before we can know God's Word. 


> It is a matter of fact that there are numerous different interpretations of various parts of Scripture. Adherents of "solo" Scriptura are told that these different interpretations can be resolved simply by an appeal to Scripture.


Apparently, Mathison does not believe God's Word is sufficient for interpreting God's word. We need a third party to speak for God. 


> The only real question is: whose interpretation?


Indeed. But are we to implicitly accept the interpretation of Mother Church, the Church of Rome, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Lutherans, PCA, PCUSA, RPC, CREC, NBC, CBS? Who? Again, it still requires that individuals either accept a church's word implicitly, or that individuals do as Luther and the Bereans did - go to the Word of God and pray and trust in God and "find out whether these things were so. (Act 17:11).


> According to "solo" Scriptura, that someone is each individual, so ultimately, there are as many final authorities as there are human interpreters. This is subjectivism and relativism run amuck. The proponents of "solo" Scriptura rightly condemn the hermeneutical tyranny of Rome, but the solution to hermeneutical tyranny is not hermeneutical anarchy.



This is contrary to Scripture.


> knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
> (2Pe 1:20-21 NKJV)



A true solo Scripturalist would reject that there can be many valid interpretations. There is only one meaning to God's Word for the Word is the one God speaking, no the words of many individual men. 

One can still believe that the Word of God speaks to us directly (without needing a third party) without accepting a plurality of interpretations. I think the problem I have with Mathison's article is he does not have an answer for the necessity of the individual to be fully satisfied in his own mind that what the church is saying is what the Word of God says. The "fact is" that there are many churches with many interpretations, so Mathison's rejection of individualism is a rejection of the current state of the church and can only be answered (by Mathison's standard) by a return to the Mother Church of Rome - the church that claims to speak with one voice as the true Church.


----------



## Timothy William

I just read through the full article. I may be missing the point, but I couldn't work out exactly what he meant by Sola Scriptura, in the sense of I could not work out the exact definition he was using. I could understand and agree with both his criticisms of the RCC view and solo scriptura, but his view seemed to be avoiding the two extremes simply by stating that he was somewhere between the two. I would have liked to see a coherent, robust definition of sola scriptura from which it could be logically demonstrated, from a single definition, how both extremes are avoided.


----------



## kceaster

In my humble opinion, too much is made of Luther's statement, "...unless I am convinced." If we take that out of context, he is clearly solo scriptura.

Here are the things I'm thoroughly convinced of:

1. My heart is desperately wicked and fully able to twist every Scripture to my own ends - the Bible tells me so.

2. Jesus didn't die for me and me alone. He died for the Elect. If I am in Him and He is in me, there is no way that my interpretation is any better than anyone else in Christ. Therefore, it is not a violation of my person if I submit to someone else's opinion. I am not my own, I was bought with a price. There is no reason for me to believe that my conscience is damaged if I believe orthodoxy, even where I don't completely agree or understand.

3. The Spirit is to guide US. He didn't say he'd lead us individually (the you is not singular) it is plural. Further, Jesus is telling his disciples this, not one disciple in particular.

There's far too many individualistic notions that come from Luther's words.

It would be better for us to leave our ivory-tower-conscience-bastion at the door. We'd get along better.

Don't get me wrong, divisions and factions are needful, just like Paul (divinely inspired) intimated. But we do not resemble the Church for which Christ died until we agree and are one with the brethren. Otherwise we are the eye saying to the hand, or the head saying to the feet. 

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Calvibaptist

kceaster said:


> 3. The Spirit is to guide US. He didn't say he'd lead us individually (the you is not singular) it is plural. Further, Jesus is telling his disciples this, not one disciple in particular.



Can I be perfectly honest here? Just because Jesus didn't take each individual disciple aside and individually tell them, "Matthew, the Spirit will guide you, and I am using the singular here. Peter, the Spirit will guide you, and I am using the singular here..." doesn't mean that this doesn't apply to each individual Christian.

Do we assume that the Spirit only guides the whole church? What if one member of the church were missing that Sunday, is the Spirit not guiding?

I agree that individuality (especially American) is a HUGE problem, but to ignore the individual benefits of salvation completely in order to emphasize the corporate is just as wrong as individualism.


----------



## kceaster

Calvibaptist said:


> kceaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The Spirit is to guide US. He didn't say he'd lead us individually (the you is not singular) it is plural. Further, Jesus is telling his disciples this, not one disciple in particular.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I be perfectly honest here? Just because Jesus didn't take each individual disciple aside and individually tell them, "Matthew, the Spirit will guide you, and I am using the singular here. Peter, the Spirit will guide you, and I am using the singular here..." doesn't mean that this doesn't apply to each individual Christian.
> 
> Do we assume that the Spirit only guides the whole church? What if one member of the church were missing that Sunday, is the Spirit not guiding?
> 
> I agree that individuality (especially American) is a HUGE problem, but to ignore the individual benefits of salvation completely in order to emphasize the corporate is just as wrong as individualism.
Click to expand...


Good questions. I think you'd agree that the gospel of John is full of 'being one'. Jesus stressed this over and over. The great commission also points to a oneness in making disciples. Everyone being taught, everyone being baptized, and I am with you all. It doesn't mean that He doesn't teach individuals or baptize individuals, or that He isn't with individuals.

The issue is how did God design the church? Jesus isn't marrying each individual believer, but their representation in the whole, His bride. As a result, everything is for everyone and everyone is for everything. Given our democracy and independence, we cringe at that because it sounds like socialism. But that's how God created us. We are all in it together. We didn't hatch out of eggs laid in the forest by a mystical beast. We were born into families with close, intimate ties to each other.

So, even though there is a sense of individuality in every Scripture, in that we must be responsible individually for what we hear and do, there is also a universal sense of the whole church. That is why the word catholic was used.

The means of grace are a picture of that. How will anyone come to Christ unless preachers are sent and the word is preached? Why are there weak and sick among you all? It's all because we are not believers in a vacuum but make up a whole of holy priests to our God.

It must also be that way with the Scriptures. We must teach all that the Lord taught us and talk it about it when we lie down and when we rise up so that when our sons ask us.... well, you get the point.

We are not alone. We should never act as if our liberties are being threatened if we are close to one another and share our lives with each other. Being on the same page according to the Scriptures is so much more that just coming together every Sunday with our own little group. We belong to the one holy catholic and apostolic church and I would challenge anyone to deny that according to the Scriptures. If that applies to one thing, surely it applies to all things that were meant to be shared.

The thing we most need is in the church is to agree about what the Bible teaches. Anything other than agreement is not what God intended and not of what His Spirit works so hard to convince us.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Calvibaptist

kceaster said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kceaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The Spirit is to guide US. He didn't say he'd lead us individually (the you is not singular) it is plural. Further, Jesus is telling his disciples this, not one disciple in particular.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I be perfectly honest here? Just because Jesus didn't take each individual disciple aside and individually tell them, "Matthew, the Spirit will guide you, and I am using the singular here. Peter, the Spirit will guide you, and I am using the singular here..." doesn't mean that this doesn't apply to each individual Christian.
> 
> Do we assume that the Spirit only guides the whole church? What if one member of the church were missing that Sunday, is the Spirit not guiding?
> 
> I agree that individuality (especially American) is a HUGE problem, but to ignore the individual benefits of salvation completely in order to emphasize the corporate is just as wrong as individualism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good questions. I think you'd agree that the gospel of John is full of 'being one'. Jesus stressed this over and over. The great commission also points to a oneness in making disciples. Everyone being taught, everyone being baptized, and I am with you all. It doesn't mean that He doesn't teach individuals or baptize individuals, or that He isn't with individuals.
> 
> The issue is how did God design the church? Jesus isn't marrying each individual believer, but their representation in the whole, His bride. As a result, everything is for everyone and everyone is for everything. Given our democracy and independence, we cringe at that because it sounds like socialism. But that's how God created us. We are all in it together. We didn't hatch out of eggs laid in the forest by a mystical beast. We were born into families with close, intimate ties to each other.
> 
> So, even though there is a sense of individuality in every Scripture, in that we must be responsible individually for what we hear and do, there is also a universal sense of the whole church. That is why the word catholic was used.
> 
> The means of grace are a picture of that. How will anyone come to Christ unless preachers are sent and the word is preached? Why are there weak and sick among you all? It's all because we are not believers in a vacuum but make up a whole of holy priests to our God.
> 
> It must also be that way with the Scriptures. We must teach all that the Lord taught us and talk it about it when we lie down and when we rise up so that when our sons ask us.... well, you get the point.
> 
> We are not alone. We should never act as if our liberties are being threatened if we are close to one another and share our lives with each other. Being on the same page according to the Scriptures is so much more that just coming together every Sunday with our own little group. We belong to the one holy catholic and apostolic church and I would challenge anyone to deny that according to the Scriptures. If that applies to one thing, surely it applies to all things that were meant to be shared.
> 
> The thing we most need is in the church is to agree about what the Bible teaches. Anything other than agreement is not what God intended and not of what His Spirit works so hard to convince us.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


Kevin, I completely agree with everything you said here and like the way in which it was said. I simply objected to the apparent denial of individual guidance and blessing of the Holy Spirit in order to make a point. There is no church without the individual members of the church. There is no body without the hand, foot, eyes, ears, etc. THEREFORE, each one has a responsibility to study the Scripture as they interact with the Body to verify that what they are learning is, in fact, what the Scriptures teach. Both are necessary. the RCC emphasizes the corporate to the neglect of the individual and Solo Scriptura emphasizes the individual to the neglect of the corporate.


----------



## DTK

kceaster said:


> 3. I agree that individuality (especially American) is a HUGE problem, but to ignore the individual benefits of salvation completely in order to emphasize the corporate is just as wrong as individualism.


I think this is important to remember. I think we are witnessing an over-reaction on the part of some of the Reformed persuasion due to the criticism of non-Protestants who have made "individualism" one of their chief apologetic tools. It is not Christ died for individual members of the church *OR* the church collectively, *but rather both*. Christ died for all individual members of His body, as well as for the church corporately. Christ (God) did purchase the Church (Acts 20:28) with His own blood. But Paul did not hesitate to speak of his salvation, or his union with Christ, on a personal basis...

Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Galatians 2:20 "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me."

If we emphasize one aspect to the exclusion of the other aspect, I do not think we are being true, or doing justice, to the NT witness itself. Jesus could say, with no tongue in Cheek, to Zacchaeus, "Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham." (Luke 19:9). His words to Nicodemas as an individual was, "You must be born again." (John 3:7). It is not an either/or paradigm, but both.

And I also think that it is important to remember, with respect to the principle of _sola Scriptura_, that the abuse or misuse of the principle does not negate the principle itself.

Here is the definition of _sola Scriptura_, as I understand it...



> The historical meaning of the term _sola Scriptura_, which served as the principle of the Reformers (and the watchword of the Post-Reformation Reformers), is that Scripture alone is the only certain,1 infallible norm by which all theology, doctrine, creeds (beliefs), practice2 and morality of the Christian Church are to be regulated, in accordance with that which is “either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.”3 Furthermore, Scripture alone is the only extant body of special divine revelation sufficient to communicate clearly all truths necessary for man’s salvation and conduct of life;4 and that the inscripturated Word of God is the final bar of judgment before which all theological and ecclesiastical controversies of the same are to be adjudicated,5 because what Scripture says, God says.6
> 
> 1. E.g. Calvin referred to Scripture as “that sure rule of faith” in his Tract against Albertus Pighius, _The Bondage and Liberation of the Will: A Defence of the Orthodox Doctrine of Human Choice against Pighius_, Book II, ed. A. N. S. Lane and trans. G. I. Davies (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, Reprinted 1996), p. 64. Elsewhere Calvin writes, “Yet this, as I have said, is the difference between the apostles and their successors: the former were sure and genuine scribes of the Holy Spirit (certi et authentici Spiritus sancti amanuenses), and their writings are therefore to be considered oracles of God; but the sole office of others is to teach what is provided and sealed in the Holy Scriptures.” See his _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, 2 Vols., Vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), IV.viii.9, p. 1157.
> 
> 2. Cf. Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 1, p. 71 (II.v.4, 7) where He speaks of Scripture as our “rule of faith and practice” (fidei et morum regula).
> 
> 3. Westminster Confession of Faith, I:6.
> 
> 4. These exegetical implications are derived specifically from 2 Tim. 3:15-17, where Paul declares explicitly the ability (pres. pass. part.) of Scripture to make one “wise for salvation,” and “thoroughly equipped (perf. pass. part. ) for every good work.” See _Calvin’s Commentaries_, Vol. XXI, trans. William Pringle (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, reprinted 1979), pp. 248-250 where he affirms this two-part commendation of Holy Scripture.
> 
> 5. The early Church Fathers recognized the adjudicating authority of Holy Scripture and appealed to it as the final, infallible, criterion of objective truth. Gregory of Nyssa, the younger brother of Basil of Caesarea wrote, “But the ground of their complaint is that their custom does not admit this, and Scripture does not support it. What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.” _NPNF2: Vol. V, On the Holy Trinity, and of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit_, second paragraph. The same text is found in a letter of Basil which many ascribe to Gregory of Nyssa, _NPNF2: Vol. VIII, Letters_, Letter 189 - To Eustathius The Physician. The Greek text of these two passages are virtually identical:Cf. Werner Jaeger, ed. _Gregorii Nysseni Opera Dogmatica Minora_, Vol. 3-I:5-6 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1958), and Migne, PG 32:683. See also the words of Augustine in his controversy with the Donatists, _NPNF1: Vol. IV, On Baptism, Against the Donatists_, Book II, Chapter 6, where he wrote, “Let us not bring in deceitful balances, to which we may hang what weights we will and how we will, saying to suit ourselves, ‘This is heavy and this is light;’ but let us bring forward the sacred balance out of holy Scripture, as out of the Lord’s treasure-house, and let us weigh them by it, to see which is the heavier; or rather, let us not weigh them for ourselves, but read the weights as declared by the Lord.” And Augustine (354-430) again, "What does “homoousios” mean, I ask, but The Father and I are one (Jn. 10:30)? I should not, however, introduce the Council of Nicea to prejudice the case in my favor, nor should you introduce the Council of Ariminum that way. I am not bound by the authority of Ariminum, and you are not bound by that of Nicea. By the authority of the scriptures that are not the property of anyone, but the common witness for both of us, let position do battle with position, case with case, reason with reason." See _The Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to Maximinus_, Part I, Vol. 18, ed. John Rotelle, O.S.A., trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (New York: New City Press, 1995), p. 282.
> 
> 6. Cf. NPNF1: Vol. I, _The Confessions of St. Augustin_, Book XIII, Chapter 29, where Augustine affirmed, “Unto these things Thou repliest unto me, for Thou art my God, and with strong voice tellest unto Thy servant in his inner ear, bursting through my deafness, and crying, ‘O man, that which My Scripture saith, I say; and yet doth that speak in time; but time has no reference to My Word, because My Word existeth in equal eternity with Myself.’” See also _NPNF1: Vol. IV, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean_, Book XII, §10; and John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., _The Works of Saint Augustine_, Part 3, Vol. 2, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermons, Sermon 22.3 (Brooklyn: New City Press, 1990), p. 43, “Everything we have heard in the scriptures, brothers, is the voice of God saying ‘Watch out!’ . . . Repent at the voice of scripture, for at the voice of the judge when he is here you will repent in vain.” E.g. Gal. 3:8—Gen. 12:1-3; Rom. 9:17—Ex. 9:16; Matt. 19:4-5—Gen.2:24; Heb. 3:7-8—Ps. 95:7-8; Acts 4:24-26—Ps. 21-2; Acts 13:34—Is. 55:3; Acts 13:35—Ps. 16:10; Heb. 1:6—Ps. 97:7; Heb. 1:7—Ps. 104:4; Heb. 1:8-9—Ps. 45:6-7; Heb. 1:13—Ps. 110:1. These texts are of the first class to which B. B. Warfield referred when he used these examples as demonstrations of his point that “It would be difficult to invent methods of showing profound reverence for the text of Scripture as the very Word of God, which will not be found to be characteristic of the writers of the New Testament in dealing with the Old. Among the rich variety of the indications of their estimate of the written words of the Old Testament as direct utterances of Jehovah, there are in particular two classes of passages, each of which, when taken separately, throws into the clearest light their habitual appeal to the Old Testament text as to God Himself speaking, while, together, they make an irresistible impression of the absolute identification by their writers of the Scriptures in their hands with the living voice of God. In one of these classes of passages the Scriptures are spoken of as if they were God; in the other, God is spoken of as if He were the Scriptures: in the two together, God and the scriptures are brought into such conjunction as to show that in point of directness of authority no distinction was made between them,” _The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible_ (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1948), p. 299. Thus, Warfield's ontological model, "What Scripture says, God says" is an Augustinian and Reformed view of Holy Scripture.



Ecclesiastical authority, to which we must submit (e.g., Heb 13:7, 17, 24) is derivative from Scripture itself, and I think that it is a clear biblical command. It did not take God by surprise that we are commanded to submit to fallible men, but even the judgment of men must be subordinate to and adjudicated by the word of God. This is why in the PCA, for example, we have the process of appeal.

DTK


----------



## kceaster

Another thought, consider this:

There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.

This teaches us that the Spirit distributes to each one individually for the profit of all.

If a person practicing true solo scriptura comes up with their own interpretation that knocks down centuries of belief with its novelty, how could the Spirit be in that? Is it of profit to all? Perhaps only as an example of what being a lone ranger does to the church.

However, if someone diligently studies and really understands the Scripture from their own use of it, they are bound by the Spirit to tell others what they have found. It is then up to the church to say if it is truly edifying based upon the same Spirit and what He has done in the church. We don't validate the truth. The truth is validated in us by the Spirit working. And yet we see that the Spirit doesn't work in us so that we can keep it to ourselves, but for the express purpose of building up the body of Christ.

That which does not build up, tears down. And therein lies the difference between solo and sola. Perhaps that is a litmus test of sorts. It isn't solo if the church (past and present) is in agreement.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## JohnV

kceaster said:


> Another thought, consider this:
> 
> There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.
> 
> This teaches us that the Spirit distributes to each one individually for the profit of all.
> 
> If a person practicing true solo scriptura comes up with their own interpretation that knocks down centuries of belief with its novelty, how could the Spirit be in that? Is it of profit to all? Perhaps only as an example of what being a lone ranger does to the church.
> 
> However, if someone diligently studies and really understands the Scripture from their own use of it, they are bound by the Spirit to tell others what they have found. It is then up to the church to say if it is truly edifying based upon the same Spirit and what He has done in the church. We don't validate the truth. The truth is validated in us by the Spirit working. And yet we see that the Spirit doesn't work in us so that we can keep it to ourselves, but for the express purpose of building up the body of Christ.
> 
> That which does not build up, tears down. And therein lies the difference between solo and sola. Perhaps that is a litmus test of sorts. It isn't solo if the church (past and present) is in agreement.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC



That's what I was going to say too.


----------



## Calvibaptist

kceaster said:


> If a person practicing true solo scriptura comes up with their own interpretation that knocks down centuries of belief with its novelty, how could the Spirit be in that? Is it of profit to all? Perhaps only as an example of what being a lone ranger does to the church.



Exactly. I worry about any "novel" idea of what Scripture teaches. If you study the Scripture and what you think it says disagrees with 2,000 years of church writings, you'd better reconsider what you think it says.


----------



## Civbert

Calvibaptist said:


> kceaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a person practicing true solo scriptura comes up with their own interpretation that knocks down centuries of belief with its novelty, how could the Spirit be in that? Is it of profit to all? Perhaps only as an example of what being a lone ranger does to the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. I worry about any "novel" idea of what Scripture teaches. If you study the Scripture and what you think it says disagrees with 2,000 years of church writings, you'd better reconsider what you think it says.
Click to expand...


Think of how Martin Luther must have felt when he discovered he disagreed with the churches teachings. I'm sure it was a scary position to be in.


----------



## Calvibaptist

Civbert said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kceaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a person practicing true solo scriptura comes up with their own interpretation that knocks down centuries of belief with its novelty, how could the Spirit be in that? Is it of profit to all? Perhaps only as an example of what being a lone ranger does to the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. I worry about any "novel" idea of what Scripture teaches. If you study the Scripture and what you think it says disagrees with 2,000 years of church writings, you'd better reconsider what you think it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think of how Martin Luther must have felt when he discovered he disagreed with the churches teachings. I'm sure it was a scary position to be in.
Click to expand...


And rightly so!


----------



## JohnV

Well, at least until he found out that he wasn't disagreeing with the Church's position. It was the present manifestation of the Church that was disagreeing.


----------



## Calvibaptist

JohnV said:


> Well, at least until he found out that he wasn't disagreeing with the Church's position. It was the present manifestation of the Church that was disagreeing.



True. He discovered that he had the support of the Church throughout history.


----------



## Civbert

JohnV said:


> Well, at least until he found out that he wasn't disagreeing with the Church's position. It was the present manifestation of the Church that was disagreeing.


I'm sure the Church of Rome would say otherwise. They would also have said that the teachings of the RCC agreed with Scripture. They would have simply said that the problem was Luther being and individualist, and not bowing the authority of the true Church to interpret the Word. As Mathison said, it's all a matter of interpretation. Who was Luther to disagree with the Church's interpretation?


----------



## Gryphonette

*Just so.*



Civbert said:


> JohnV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least until he found out that he wasn't disagreeing with the Church's position. It was the present manifestation of the Church that was disagreeing.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the Church of Rome would say otherwise. They would also have said that the teachings of the RCC agreed with Scripture. They would have simply said that the problem was Luther being and individualist, and not bowing the authority of the true Church to interpret the Word. As Mathison said, it's all a matter of interpretation. Who was Luther to disagree with the Church's interpretation?
Click to expand...


There's no way to get around the fact when it's all boiled down, we each have to decide for ourselves how Scripture is to be interpreted. It's always amusing to read a convert to Rome wax eloquent regarding how _he's_ Seen The Light and turned his back on "Protestant individualism", yet when pushed into a corner he is bound to acknowledge that his decision to go to Rome was itself an individual, personal decision, resulting from personal study, etc.

Unless one spends one life huddled in a closet, eyes scrunched shut, fingers in one's ears and humming loudly, one is stuck having to eventually _make_ a personal, individual decision regarding what Scripture says, even if it's only to decide to stand pat and not vary from one's childhood faith.


----------



## JohnV

Gryphonette said:


> There's no way to get around the fact when it's all boiled down, we each have to decide for ourselves how Scripture is to be interpreted. It's always amusing to read a convert to Rome wax eloquent regarding how _he's_ Seen The Light and turned his back on "Protestant individualism", yet when pushed into a corner he is bound to acknowledge that his decision to go to Rome was itself an individual, personal decision, resulting from personal study, etc.
> 
> Unless one spends one life huddled in a closet, eyes scrunched shut, fingers in one's ears and humming loudly, one is stuck having to eventually _make_ a personal, individual decision regarding what Scripture says, even if it's only to decide to stand pat and not vary from one's childhood faith.



It seems to me, Anne, that you are making a supposition here that has no warrant. We do not decide for ourselves how Scripture is to be interpreted any more than we decide what shape a tree half a world away will take. The Bible already means what it says long before we read it, before we decide on anything. Whatever we decide, our decision has nothing to do with what the Bible really says. 

Instead, the question centres around how much of the Bible we can and will believe. 

I can see how it is a problem if the Bible itself does not say anything until man has put his own interpretation upon it. But that is not the case. Its meaning is rooted in the One who wrote it, not in the readers. The Bible is a letter to us so that we may know, and in knowing also believe. 

So the question is not of which interpretation a man may subject the Bible to, but whether he is willing to subject himself to the Bible's teachings. It is not an impossible question; it is rather that any other results in the impossible.


----------



## JohnV

Civbert said:


> JohnV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least until he found out that he wasn't disagreeing with the Church's position. It was the present manifestation of the Church that was disagreeing.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the Church of Rome would say otherwise. They would also have said that the teachings of the RCC agreed with Scripture. They would have simply said that the problem was Luther being and individualist, and not bowing the authority of the true Church to interpret the Word. As Mathison said, it's all a matter of interpretation. Who was Luther to disagree with the Church's interpretation?
Click to expand...


But it is a rather simple task to show that such a charge would be false. They were clearly unwilling to accept the challenge to prove their Scriptural integrity. A true Church would accept it easily and gladly, as Luther did also.


----------



## DTK

Gryphonette said:


> There's no way to get around the fact when it's all boiled down, we each have to decide for ourselves how Scripture is to be interpreted. It's always amusing to read a convert to Rome wax eloquent regarding how _he's_ Seen The Light and turned his back on "Protestant individualism", yet when pushed into a corner he is bound to acknowledge that his decision to go to Rome was itself an individual, personal decision, resulting from personal study, etc.
> 
> Unless one spends one life huddled in a closet, eyes scrunched shut, fingers in one's ears and humming loudly, one is stuck having to eventually _make_ a personal, individual decision regarding what Scripture says, even if it's only to decide to stand pat and not vary from one's childhood faith.


Actually, I think Anne is spot on. No man acts contrary to what he understands Scripture to be saying, and ultimately the churches into which we settle, and whose authority to which we submit, is never apart from what we ourselves understand to be the truth. I don't see how one can get around Salmon’s critique of the Roman critique on private judgment. Now, surely, this is no license to be novel in our interpretations of Holy Scripture, or for unreasonable rebellion against rightful ecclesiastical authority; I understand that. But what man truly acts contrary to his own understanding and conscience?



> *George Salmon:* That submission to the Church of Rome rests ultimately on an act of private judgment is unmistakeably evident, when a Romanist tries (as he has no scruple in doing) to make a convert of you . . . What does he ask you to do but to decide that the religion of your fathers is wrong; that the teachers and instructors of your childhood were all wrong; that the clergy to whom you have looked up as best able to guide you are all mistaken . . . Well, if you come to the conclusion to reject all authority which you have reverenced from your childhood, is not that the most audacious exercise of private judgment? But suppose you come to the opposite conclusion, and decide on staying where you were, would not a Romanist have a right to laugh at you, if you said that you were not using your private judgment then; that to change one’s religion indeed is an act of private judgment, but that one who continues in his father’s religion is subject to none of the risks to which every exercise of private judgment is liable? Well, it is absurd to imagine that logic has one rule for Roman Catholics and another for us; that it would be an exercise of private judgment in them to change their religion, but none if they continue in what their religious teachers have told them. George Salmon, _The Infallibility of the Church_ (London: Sherratt and Hughes, reprinted 1923), pp. 48-49.



DTK


----------



## Gryphonette

Wow. Here I've been babbling on and it turns out George Salmon said what I was trying to say, only he said it decades ago and much, much better.

The point made in other posts in this thread cannot be stressed too much, which is that if one has found a really keen new interpretation of a verse or passage, one is pretty much guaranteed to be wrong.

(Bruce Wilkinson, call your office.)

If this is at the heart of "sola Scriptura", that one doesn't try to reinvent the doctrinal wheel by being wide open to all sorts of innovative, creative, fresh new doctrines that no one's ever heard of before, or at least no one that anyone with any sense wants to be associated with, that's great. 

It's such innovation, creativity, and freshness that's landed us with feminism, "openness theology", Benny Hinn-style _Let the bodies hit the floor_ "healings", Christian Science, "Paul was talking about Jewish identity badges", and so on and so on. 

All the advocates of such innovations had to do was scrutinize church history and they'd have seen that these doctrinal "improvements" are without precedent.

Which _should_ act as a big red flag.

When it comes to questions of limited v. open-ended atonement, mode of baptism, etc. then It seems to me sola Scriptura isn't much help, as there is a fair chunk of precedent for competing doctrinal positions. If there's Scripture that can be reasonably used to support the competing positions, and there's historical church precedent for the competing positions, then one is left to rely upon the much-maligned 'private judgment', aka: solo Scriptura.

Perhaps _sola_ Scriptura is what protects the church as a whole, along with its individual members, from going totally off the rails, while _solo_ Scriptura is used by those individual members to decide which of the acceptable doctrinal variations one will throw one's lot in with?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I detect in this thread there are two different concerns. One sees in the article something I don't see: That the article is denying the Christian the right to read and be persuaded by the Word and the testimony of the Spirit. The other concern, as I see it, is a criticism of the thought that Sola Scriptura begins and ends at that point. I need to read the critique of Mathison's article because I'm missing why the first point seems to be in dispute where I don't see that point being made.

At the close of 2 Timothy 3 and through 2 Timothy 4, Paul talks about the Word's sufficiency to make men wise unto salvation but then charges Timothy, an elder, with seeing to it that he is an instrument to the Word's ministry. Elsewhere, members of Churches are called to submit to their Elders and to make their work joyful as those that must give account.

I think some are making the mistake of assuming that having a serious view of this submission amounts to leaving your private interpretation completely at the door. I don't.

I believe kceaster hit the nail on the head as to the goal. I don't agree that private interpretation is the ultimate goal of the Church but the unity of the faith is. We ought not be satisfied with the fact that we're merely convinced of the Word but labor to bring all in the Church to a mature man. We also ought to recognize that there are those around us, who we have demonstrated wisdom and Godliness, that we ought to heed in their understanding of the Scriptures and not presume our own interpretations to be wiser than they are.

Ultimately, the Church's authority stands or falls where they accurately interpret the Word and no man should uncritically listen to his elders. Yet, the issue today is that most Churches suffer from a lack of concern among individuals that there are differing levels of maturity and that our responsibility to our brethren is to participate in the building up of the Body. Missing worship on Sundays is seen as something primarily affecting _me_ as oppposed to affecting both me and the body. Churches are evaluated, in large measure, on what they offer in terms of programs and not on what they offer in terms of solid teaching.

I'm not shy about standing against an overstatement of Church authority. I thought the article had done a good job of avoiding that pitfall while offering a perspective on authority that pointed to this unifying role and challenged modern men to think beyond themselves a little bit. As I stated, I'll read the review and try to find out what this undercurrent is caused by because I'm missing the force from the article that is causing others to see in it a denial of conscience.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Gryphonette said:


> There's no way to get around the fact when it's all boiled down, we each have to decide for ourselves how Scripture is to be interpreted. It's always amusing to read a convert to Rome wax eloquent regarding how _he's_ Seen The Light and turned his back on "Protestant individualism", yet when pushed into a corner he is bound to acknowledge that his decision to go to Rome was itself an individual, personal decision, resulting from personal study, etc.
> 
> Unless one spends one life huddled in a closet, eyes scrunched shut, fingers in one's ears and humming loudly, one is stuck having to eventually _make_ a personal, individual decision regarding what Scripture says, even if it's only to decide to stand pat and not vary from one's childhood faith.



This may be true but one does not come to the conclusions that are correct without outside sources. No one just picks up the Bible and understands it on their own understanding and capacity to reason it out. And no one can fully understand it without the help of others or without the gifts of pastors teachers and books that help to explain it. We all need a Stephen in our lives just as the Ethiopian needed him also. To say you don't need these things is Solo Scriptura and not Sola Scriptura.

(Act 8:30) And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

(Act 8:31) And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.


I depend regularly upon other Proffessors and pastors to help me with understanding the Greek and historical significance of things spoken of in the texts. 

Here is a very simple example of what I mean. 

(Pro 22:28) Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.

The first time I read this with my own understanding I thought it had something to do with a landmark, like a monument, as in one of the twelve rocks set up on the side of the Jordan River as a memorial that the Lord caused them to pass over into the Promised land.

(Jos 4:6) That this may be a sign among you, that when your children ask their fathers in time to come, saying, What mean ye by these stones?


But that is not the case. Remove not the ancient landmarks has to do with Property markers. I learned this through other materials. In other words I couldn't use the Bible here to interpret the Bible as I assumed I was doing in the first place by equating the memorial stones to the landmarks. I had to learn some good form. Sola Scriptura.

That is why we hold to sola sciptura instead of Solo scriptura. 

Pax,
Randy


----------



## MW

Gryphonette said:


> I hadn't brought that up, but now both Pastor Winzer and you have done so; what perplexes me is that I'd gotten the impression over the years that such a "lone ranger" mentality is regarded as the logical end result of the error of "solo Scriptura", rather than the error itself.



Solo Scriptura, like any error, can be sometimes less sometimes more dangerous. It is less dangerous when the person submits to the ordained means of grace. More dangerous when the person lives above the means. But either way there are problems. Sometimes those problems are the result of not thinking about things properly. At other times they are the result of deep seated pride and independency. Let's take the more benign, the fact that the person hasn't thought about things properly. First, how did the person get the Bible? The oracles of God are committed to the church. Second, how did the Bible find its way into their language? Third, whence did the key thoughts arise which set the person thinking in terms of the fundamental message of the Bible? These are important points to think about. The failure to accredit the right place to human helps can very easily lead a person into fanaticism, and ultimately undermine their Christian faith, which God has ordained to be nourished and built up in union with other believers.


----------



## kceaster

*Miss Anne...*



Gryphonette said:


> There's no way to get around the fact when it's all boiled down, we each have to decide for ourselves how Scripture is to be interpreted. It's always amusing to read a convert to Rome wax eloquent regarding how _he's_ Seen The Light and turned his back on "Protestant individualism", yet when pushed into a corner he is bound to acknowledge that his decision to go to Rome was itself an individual, personal decision, resulting from personal study, etc.
> 
> Unless one spends one life huddled in a closet, eyes scrunched shut, fingers in one's ears and humming loudly, one is stuck having to eventually _make_ a personal, individual decision regarding what Scripture says, even if it's only to decide to stand pat and not vary from one's childhood faith.



I won't dare deny the responsibility each of us has of our choices, but what I've said before (and it is not my saying but Christ's) is completely true: The Spirit will guide us. None of us will happen on the concept of unlimited atonement in the Scriptures. It's right there in front of us, but we will never understand it. The most brilliant minds in the world cannot glean truth from the Bible. NEVER.

But with God, all things are possible. With the Spirit to guide, we can now see glimpses of spiritual truth through spiritual eyes. How is this done? The Spirit who indwells the regenerated man, interprets it for us, helping us discern spiritual things. Therefore, although it seems we decide or judge on our own, it is not due to us that a correct judgment is made. And I think you'll agree that the one who goes back to Rome has been enticed by the Angel of Light, the Prince of this world. It is not the Holy Spirit who guides one back to Rome, but we know that it is the Holy Spirit who guides one to the truth.

So do we judge and come to our own concensus? I'm uncomfortable with saying yes to that. It would be better to say that we come to the knowledge of the truth by the grace of God, not what we have done. If I judge aright, it is only because the Ever-Living One helps me to that judgment. I'm pretty sure you'll agree with that, but I just wanted to clarify it.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## JohnV

The article says a few things that are important to our time. It is not enough, though. There's more of a problem here than this. I do not see, for instance, that there are some standing on _sola Scriptura_ who are actually reinventing history itself, the end result being exactly the same as "solo' Scriptura". 

I think that what I've seen the most of is a taking advantage of people's ignorance in various areas. This gives the proponent of some new idea a chance to paint things the colours he likes, thus presenting the views he's advocating in a context that appears clearly superior. It even seems like the only right thing to believe. Such a one couches his arguments in historical accounts, in quotes from the Church fathers, in arguments that seem to cover the whole spectrum, and even as "sola Scriptura". But in reality they're carefully crafted to take advantage of the ignorance of ordinary people and even of scholars. 

In such a case the "solo" part is not so much individualist but instead a herd mentality. People get caught up in the paradigms, to the point where the true traditionalist, the true historicist, the true doctrinaire, is the one who's out of it, who doesn't know what he's talking about. 

There's nothing like a solid catechism training when one is young to protect him from the various teachings that have all the appearance of orthodoxy but are not. I am suggesting that a solid catechism training results in these early lessons becoming the beginning and base of all his life-long growth in the faith. And as he understands more he may also test this basis again and again. He stands in the tradition of the Church, and yets stands firm in his own faith.


----------



## Scott

Gryphonette said:


> Civbert;296329[FONT=Palatino Linotype said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no way to get around the fact when it's all boiled down, we each have to decide for ourselves how Scripture is to be interpreted. [/FONT]It's always amusing to read a convert to Rome wax eloquent regarding how _he's_ Seen The Light and turned his back on "Protestant individualism", yet when pushed into a corner he is bound to acknowledge that his decision to go to Rome was itself an individual, personal decision, resulting from personal study, etc.
> 
> Unless one spends one life huddled in a closet, eyes scrunched shut, fingers in one's ears and humming loudly, one is stuck having to eventually _make_ a personal, individual decision regarding what Scripture says, even if it's only to decide to stand pat and not vary from one's childhood faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that this is ironic. The convert wants to leave the uncertainty of individualism, but his most important decision is still an individual decision (deciding which church, or set of interpretations, is right).
Click to expand...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

The irony with the RC, of course, is that Churches don't really exercise any oversight over their parishioners. They pretty much leave everybody to believe whatever they like or do whatever they like (unless a priest or nun decides to marry).

Both my brothers have gotten divorced and their ex wives and they both still attend Church without anybody having stated a single word to them. Of course, my brother got re-married so he's barred from communion unless he gets an annulment. But that's the only time they'll talk to him about it.

The authority is so uninvolved and detached.

Biblical leadership and body life is much more sacrificial and caring. It loves the sheep enough to actually confront people with their sin.

The greatest irony is that the Roman Catholic Church, though most "technically" authoritarian in its teaching allows the greatest liberty to "do what is right in your own eyes" because nobody ever checks up on you as long as you "punch the ticket" and go to mass every week and attend on all the holy days.


----------



## Scott

SemperFideles said:


> The irony with the RC, of course, is that Churches don't really exercise any oversight over their parishioners. They pretty much leave everybody to believe whatever they like or do whatever they like (unless a priest or nun decides to marry).
> 
> Both my brothers have gotten divorced and their ex wives and they both still attend Church without anybody having stated a single word to them. Of course, my brother got re-married so he's barred from communion unless he gets an annulment. But that's the only time they'll talk to him about it.
> 
> The authority is so uninvolved and detached.
> 
> Biblical leadership and body life is much more sacrificial and caring. It loves the sheep enough to actually confront people with their sin.
> 
> The greatest irony is that the Roman Catholic Church, though most "technically" authoritarian in its teaching allows the greatest liberty to "do what is right in your own eyes" because nobody ever checks up on you as long as you "punch the ticket" and go to mass every week and attend on all the holy days.



I have noticed this too. Most Catholics I meet in person are indistinguishable from secular counterparts. The first state to have its Supreme Court approve of homosexual marriage was Mass, which is half Catholic. There was little outcry from their Catholic population and I believe many if not all of the justices were Catholic. Most priests certainly do not follow RC canon law:


> Can. 529 §1 So that he may fulfil his office of pastor diligently, the parish priest is to strive to know the faithful entrusted to his care. He is therefore to visit their families, sharing in their cares and anxieties and, in a special way, their sorrows, comforting them in the Lord. If in certain matters they are found wanting, he is prudently to correct them . . .


----------



## Scott

SemperFideles said:


> I detect in this thread there are two different concerns. One sees in the article something I don't see: That the article is denying the Christian the right to read and be persuaded by the Word and the testimony of the Spirit. The other concern, as I see it, is a criticism of the thought that Sola Scriptura begins and ends at that point. I need to read the critique of Mathison's article because I'm missing why the first point seems to be in dispute where I don't see that point being made.


You are right. People have trouble reconciling a duty to the scriptures and a duty to the church. The fear is that these duties are either inconsistent or that duty to the church functionally replaces duty to the scriptures. I don't see a problem. This situation is analagous to parental authority. Children have a duty to accept and obey the doctrinal and religious teachings of their parents (see, e.g. Prov. 1:8). Yet they also have a duty to obey the scriptures. These duties are no more inconsistent than having duties toward both church and scripture. 

I think part of the problem is that people don't believe that the church has real authority.


----------



## KMK

Scott said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I detect in this thread there are two different concerns. One sees in the article something I don't see: That the article is denying the Christian the right to read and be persuaded by the Word and the testimony of the Spirit. The other concern, as I see it, is a criticism of the thought that Sola Scriptura begins and ends at that point. I need to read the critique of Mathison's article because I'm missing why the first point seems to be in dispute where I don't see that point being made.
> 
> 
> 
> You are right. People have trouble reconciling a duty to the scriptures and a duty to the church. The fear is that these duties are either inconsistent or that duty to the church functionally replaces duty to the scriptures. I don't see a problem. This situation is analagous to parental authority. Children have a duty to accept and obey the doctrinal and religious teachings of their parents (see, e.g. Prov. 1:8). Yet they also have a duty to obey the scriptures. These duties are no more inconsistent than having duties toward both church and scripture.
> 
> I think part of the problem is that people don't believe that the church has real authority.
Click to expand...


I think this pretty well sums it up. Are we under the authority of Scripture? Yes. Are we under the authority of the Church? Yes. The two are not mutually exclusive. However, I can understand how difficult it is to identify where the two meet. You could say that it is similar to predestination and human responsibility. Some people are uncomfortable when any of their theology is not compartmentalized in some way so they fight to the death to deny one side or the other.


----------



## Gryphonette

Scott said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I detect in this thread there are two different concerns. One sees in the article something I don't see: That the article is denying the Christian the right to read and be persuaded by the Word and the testimony of the Spirit. The other concern, as I see it, is a criticism of the thought that Sola Scriptura begins and ends at that point. I need to read the critique of Mathison's article because I'm missing why the first point seems to be in dispute where I don't see that point being made.
> 
> 
> 
> You are right. People have trouble reconciling a duty to the scriptures and a duty to the church. The fear is that these duties are either inconsistent or that duty to the church functionally replaces duty to the scriptures. I don't see a problem. This situation is analagous to parental authority. Children have a duty to accept and obey the doctrinal and religious teachings of their parents (see, e.g. Prov. 1:8). Yet they also have a duty to obey the scriptures. These duties are no more inconsistent than having duties toward both church and scripture.
> 
> I think part of the problem is that people don't believe that the church has real authority.
Click to expand...


And still I wonder...very seriously, and desiring to understand...how anyone can ever move from one church/denomination to another. 

If one's church has real authority over one's doctrinal beliefs, how can it be right to reject one's church's teachings in favor of another church's?

I wouldn't be surprised if there's someone here who was raised in the PCUSA or ECUSA, but have shaken the dust of those abysmal denominations (if such they can be legitimately called, and I have my doubts) off their feet.

If Peter Presbyterian's reading of Scripture leads him to think the PCUSA's gone doctrinally strange, properly takes his worries to the pastor, but the pastor assures him _he's _the one misreading Scripture and the PCUSA's authorities are dead on target and he should respect them, I'm not seeing - based upon Scott and Rich's posts - how Peter could do other than what his pastor advises.

This has given me fits for years now, trying to square submitting to one's chosen church's authority with being on guard against inaccurate, even heterodox, teaching coming _from_ that church.

We submit until we disagree with them regarding what Scripture says? In which case all bets are off, and we're going to go with our own interpretation, especially if it's been around since Hector was a pup (say, a more-than-memorial view of the Lord's Supper)?

Submitting when we agree isn't actually submitting at all. Submission only comes into play when we say _this_ while our legitimate authority says _that_.

How do we know when we should tell our legitimate ecclesiastical authorities "forget it, I'm leaving"?


----------



## kceaster

When the minority of a body become unsound, there is no remedy but excision. When the majority become unsound, there is no remedy but secession. Error desires nothing, demands nothing but toleration. It is sure of ultimate success if let alone. Its advocates, to prevent alarm, maintain that the differences are but slight, perhaps merely verbal, or at most philosophical, and frown at suspicion and inquiry as calculated to disturb the peace of the church... Error is more congenial than truth; the love of it is the normal state, and its power of assimilation in this world is greater than that of truth. The gospel wins its way, and maintains its advantages against the current. Error floats with it, and gains its destination without lifting an oar. Truth in this world is an exotic. Error is indigenous. The former cannot live but by constant protection; the latter thrives without it. Error, therefore, needs nothing but toleration in any communion, for its spread and success. The only successful preventative is excision or secession. To this rule there can be found no exception in the history of the past.

Lewis Cheeseman, _Differences between Old and New School Presbyterians_. (Rochester, NY. Erastus Darrow, 1848), p. 22.


----------



## Gryphonette

"When the minority of a body become unsound, there is no remedy but excision. When the majority become unsound, there is no remedy but secession."

Who determines what's sound and unsound? Isn't that basically the axis around which the current discussion revolves? Is an individual Christian permitted to decide for himself that there's error afoot in his church, or should he submit to his legitimate ecclesiastical authority when it assures him everything's fine?

To my way of thinking, he should be a Berean, searching the Scriptures first, then move on to church history to make sure what he's thinking is traditional doctrine_ is_, in fact, traditional.

If what he's now considering to be error is similarly traditional, even though different from what he believes, he should probably just pipe down. If his church is orthodox in all other respects, and the "error" is within acceptable boundaries (credobaptism v. paedobaptism, for example, barring outright aberrations such as anabaptism or baptismal regeneration; or indefinite v. definite redemption; or varying theories of eschatology ), it's most prudent to stay where he is.

If the error is more serious, especially if it's some newfangled nonsense such as feminism or openness theology or the NPP, _then_ it's time to find a new church home. (Which explains why I'm still at Christ Chapel. It's gone a bit peculiar, but not enough to warrant giving it the ol' heave-ho.)

Still, when it comes right down to it, _he's_ the one making the final decision.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Anne,

A brother has been kind enough to interact with me offline and he brought a perspective to the work since I hadn't read the book itself or the critiques of it.

One of the things that kceaster has noted in this thread and both the historic Church and especially the Reformers emphasized is the perspicuity of the Scriptures. It's not as if a man in the pew has an excuse when he sees a homosexual priest ordained to think: "Well the Church says it, that settles it."

I would like to think that God prevents all division by leading all his elect into the same physical Church but that doesn't happen. There is a sense, however, that the elect are kept from bending the knee to Baal and understand the Truth when they see it.

I would caution men, of course, that this perspective requires a great deal of humility. Too many who "see the Truth" take the attitude that others are not worth their time. There may be an individual Church that is mixed with error that is your only place to worship. Men can decide they'll stay home, then, because those folks aren't good enough for him to help. He may, alternatively decide to labor and pray to help.

In a town with lots of choices, I think it takes prayer and humility to try to ensure that your Church is confessing the Scriptures but the attitude ought to be balanced between a concern for the Truth as you understand it with a healthy desire to serve the Body. 

Perspectives about error are much different in the same body from the people that are concerned about Truth for their personal benefit than those who are concerned about Truth for the benefit of the entire Body of Christ.


----------



## Scott

Gryphonette said:


> Scott said:
> 
> 
> 
> And still I wonder...very seriously, and desiring to understand...how anyone can ever move from one church/denomination to another.
> 
> If one's church has real authority over one's doctrinal beliefs, how can it be right to reject one's church's teachings in favor of another church's?
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if there's someone here who was raised in the PCUSA or ECUSA, but have shaken the dust of those abysmal denominations (if such they can be legitimately called, and I have my doubts) off their feet.
> 
> If Peter Presbyterian's reading of Scripture leads him to think the PCUSA's gone doctrinally strange, properly takes his worries to the pastor, but the pastor assures him _he's _the one misreading Scripture and the PCUSA's authorities are dead on target and he should respect them, I'm not seeing - based upon Scott and Rich's posts - how Peter could do other than what his pastor advises.
> 
> This has given me fits for years now, trying to square submitting to one's chosen church's authority with being on guard against inaccurate, even heterodox, teaching coming _from_ that church.
> 
> We submit until we disagree with them regarding what Scripture says? In which case all bets are off, and we're going to go with our own interpretation, especially if it's been around since Hector was a pup (say, a more-than-memorial view of the Lord's Supper)?
> 
> Submitting when we agree isn't actually submitting at all. Submission only comes into play when we say _this_ while our legitimate authority says _that_.
> 
> How do we know when we should tell our legitimate ecclesiastical authorities "forget it, I'm leaving"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are all legitimate questions and hard to answer. I would note that they are not limited to church authority, though. They apply to disagreement with any authority. A child has a duty to obey his parents and accept their teachings. Yet there are times when a the parent is seriously wrong and the child should disobey. We have a general duty to obey the government. Yet there are times when it is legitimate to disobey. When does this happen? The answers are not clear and disobedience is fraught with peril. Yet at times it is permissible.
> 
> In any event, I think we have to accept a certain amount of uncertainty because the denominational splintering we have inherited is not biblical. The Bible does not tell us how to function in that situation. So we have to use Christian prudence.
> 
> Scott
Click to expand...


----------



## Scott

SemperFideles said:


> Anne,
> One of the things that kceaster has noted in this thread and both the historic Church and especially the Reformers emphasized is the perspicuity of the Scriptures. It's not as if a man in the pew has an excuse when he sees a homosexual priest ordained to think: "Well the Church says it, that settles it."


They also used the machinery of the church and government to forcibly suppress a lot of views of scripture that many of us would say are unclear. Church government is one. We have wonderful Baptist brethern on the board. We also have presbyterians, Anglicans, and others. The reformers supported an established church and at times did not permit (or argued that the government should not permit) contradictory interpretations of church government to be practiced. Presumably, they believed that church government was clear enough to warrant supressing contradictory ideas. There are other things like that. 

Also, numerous important things are not clear. As KCEaster noted, one of those things was whether Isa. 53 applies to Christ (from Acts 8). The Eunuch reading that passage said that he could not even figure out if the prophet was speaking of himself or someone else. He said he could not understand apart from having a teacher. It was that unclear. Even Peter complained about Paul's writings being hard: "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things: in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16. This passage is cited by the WCF for the position that some parts of scipture are unclear.

The WCF's statement about perspicuity is fairly limited in scope:


> VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[


Basically, it says that the things necessary to be believed for salvation are clear enough to be understood by due use of ordinary means. From the common evangelical perspective (including most modern reformed), this is a small amount of information. For example, the PCA's church covenant simply requires someone to who wants to join to acknowledge that he is a sinner, rests on Christ alone for salvation, and promises to live as a follower of Christ. That leaves a lot of other stuff open. IN any event, a lot of good people debate a lot of important issues.

I (and I think most of us here are) am thankful for the work of the universal church in resolving issues of the Trinity, synods and assemblies of the Reformation for establishing wonderful confessions, and my own denomination (the PCA) for dealing with issues like 6 day creation, the federal vision, exclusive psalmody and the like. 

Scott


----------



## Scott

I think this excerpt from the WCF is helpful:


> III. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, *but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word*.


I think solo sciptura people would disagree with the bolded statement, if not the whole paragraph. The main issue is: do synods have real power or not?


----------



## JohnV

Gryphonette said:


> "When the minority of a body become unsound, there is no remedy but excision. When the majority become unsound, there is no remedy but secession."
> 
> Who determines what's sound and unsound? Isn't that basically the axis around which the current discussion revolves? Is an individual Christian permitted to decide for himself that there's error afoot in his church, or should he submit to his legitimate ecclesiastical authority when it assures him everything's fine?
> 
> To my way of thinking, he should be a Berean, searching the Scriptures first, then move on to church history to make sure what he's thinking is traditional doctrine_ is_, in fact, traditional.
> 
> If what he's now considering to be error is similarly traditional, even though different from what he believes, he should probably just pipe down. If his church is orthodox in all other respects, and the "error" is within acceptable boundaries (credobaptism v. paedobaptism, for example, barring outright aberrations such as anabaptism or baptismal regeneration; or indefinite v. definite redemption; or varying theories of eschatology ), it's most prudent to stay where he is.
> 
> If the error is more serious, especially if it's some newfangled nonsense such as feminism or openness theology or the NPP, _then_ it's time to find a new church home. (Which explains why I'm still at Christ Chapel. It's gone a bit peculiar, but not enough to warrant giving it the ol' heave-ho.)
> 
> Still, when it comes right down to it, _he's_ the one making the final decision.



Anne:

I agree with you on one point, namely that one needs to be careful about which issues are of the kind to separate from and which are the kind that one needs to tough it out. There is a difference. I have found that liberalism and conservatism are not that much different on the important issues of Bible centrality. One has to be careful. 

But I disagree with you on your last sentence. I believe you're right if you're talking about someone leaving a particular church because he doesn't feel at home there, or likes it better somewhere else, or feels "better fed" by a pastor in another church. Any change that comes from personal preference is suspect. But when someone changes denominations as he should, because, for example, there is no room left for him, or that he needs to flee, or that his vows no longer mean anything, then it is not he himself that is making the decision. It is made for him. He stands alongside so many other faithful men, and is determined to continue to stand. 

It shouldn't be easy to leave a denomination. It takes a lot of careful and soul-searching thought. I believe one has to rule out any thought of the "solo" aspect. One has to stand against error only by standing in the truth, and this has to be in unity with the Church. It is not a separation from a local congregation so much as it is a maintaining of unity with the one true Church. One does not stand alone in that. Even if you're outnumbered a whole denomination to one, you've still got them outnumbered. It shouldn't be easy, because it is too easy to do it on your own.


----------



## DTK

Scott said:


> They also used the machinery of the church and government to forcibly suppress a lot of views of scripture that many of us would say are unclear. Church government is one. We have wonderful Baptist brethern on the board. We also have presbyterians, Anglicans, and others. The reformers supported an established church and at times did not permit (or argued that the government should not permit) contradictory interpretations of church government to be practiced. Presumably, they believed that church government was clear enough to warrant supressing contradictory ideas. There are other things like that.


This paradigm has been presupposed a number of times without historical qualification as to the views of the Reformers regarding the involvement of the civil magistrate in the affairs of religion. Correct me, if I am wrong, but I get the impression that you either laud this model as a step in the right direction toward a desired condition of church and state, or that for practical reasons it is necessary for the preservation of true religion. To be sure, this does seem to be the position of Zwingli, and Bullinger his successor after him in Zurich, and was approved by at least some of the Lutherans if not most of them, in that they promoted the view that the civil magistrate ought to enforce ecclesiastical law. But this paradigm was specifically rejected by Calvin. In his _Institutes_, Book 4, and beginning with Chapter 11, he argues that the church’s power is purely spiritual and ministerial (which, btw, is emphasized in the PCA Book of Church Order today). He pointed out that “the pope with his whole royal entourage preens himself is an impious tyranny opposed to God’s Word and unjust toward his people. Indeed, under the term “spiritual power” I include boldness in formulating new doctrines by which they have turned the wretched people away from the original purity of God’s Word, the wicked traditions with which they have ensnared them, *and the pretended ecclesiastical jurisdiction which they exercise through suffragans and officials. For if we allow Christ a kingdom among us, it can only result in this whole kind of dominion being at once cast down and falling into ruin.* Calvin argued that “the *church* does not have the right of the sword *to punish or compel, not the authority to force; not imprisonment, nor the other punishments which the magistrate commonly, inflicts.* Then, it is not a question of punishing the stoner against his will, but of the sinner professing his repentance in a voluntary chastisement. The two conceptions are very different.” Calvin stated that “we are not presently concerned to discuss the power of the sword, which they also claim, because it is not exercised over consciences....*The church does not assume what is proper to the magistrate; nor can the magistrate execute what is carried out by the church.”* In fact, Calvin argued against this model from the scriptures, stating, 


> If we seek the authority of Christ in this matter, there is no doubt that he wished to bar the ministers of his Word from civil rule and earthly authority when he said, “The rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them but you do not do so” [Matthew 20:95-26; Luke 12:25-26 p.]. He means not only that the office of pastor is distinct from that of prince but also that the things are so different that they cannot come together in one man.


Calvin pointed out that this was the practice of the Romanists, with their exalted and carnal view of church authority, in seeking to persuade the magistrate to intervene in ecclesiastical matters. Of them, Calvin said, “Those bishops who misused this great bounty of the princes to their own benefit, by showing this one example, have given proof enough and more that they are no bishops. For if they had had any spark of the apostolic spirit, they would doubtless have answered from the words of Paul: “The weapons of our warfare are not physical, but spiritual” [1 Corinthians 10:4]. But, seized with blind greed, they have destroyed themselves, their successors, and the church. _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), IV.11.11, pp. 1222-1223.

Now, in Book 4, and chapter 20, Calvin does state that he commits “to civil government the duty of establishing religion,” but it is the upholding of God’s moral law and the freedom of the exercise of religion that he has in mind. For Calvin goes on to say, “For, when I approve of a civil administration that aims to prevent the true religion which is contained in God’s law from being openly and with public sacrilege violated and defiled with impunity, I do not here, any more than before, allow men to make laws according to their own decision concerning religion and the worship of God.” (4.20.3). 



> The Eunuch reading that passage said that he could not even figure out if the prophet was speaking of himself or someone else. He said he could not understand apart from having a teacher. It was that unclear. Even Peter complained about Paul's writings being hard: "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things: in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16. This passage is cited by the WCF for the position that some parts of scipture are unclear.


When Calvin himself comments on this passage, he does not use it as a tool to argue “It was that unclear” as you have and as Romanists seize upon this example so to do. Rather Calvin underscores the humility of the eunuch in his willingness to be instructed. He may have been untaught, but he was not unstable...


> “Most excellent modesty of the eunuch, who doth not only permit Philip who was one of the common sort, to question with him, but doth also willingly confess his ignorance. And surely we must never hope that he will ever show himself apt to be taught who is puffed up with the confidence of his own wit. Hereby it eometh to pass that the reading of the Scriptures doth profit so few at this day, because we can scarce find one amongst a hundred who submitteth himself willingly to learn. For whilst all men almost are ashamed to be ignorant of that whereof they are ignorant, every man had rather proudly nourish his ignorance than seem to be scholar to other men. Yea, a great many take upon them haughtily to teach other men. *Nevertheless, let us remember that the eunuch did so confess his ignorance, that yet, notwithstanding, he was one of God’s scholars when he read the Scripture. This is the true reverence of the Scripture, when as we acknowledge that there is that wisdom laid up there which surpasseth all our senses; and yet notwithstanding, we do not loathe it, but, reading diligently, we depend upon the revelation of the Spirit, and desire to have an interpreter given us*.”


And Calvin himself affirmed, rather than denied, the plainness of the Prophet in speaking of Christ...


> *Calvin:* “Therefore, first, he hath matter of full instruction brought to his hand by the secret direction of the Spirit; secondly, the form is plainly applied to the ministry of man. This is an excellent prophecy of Christ, and above all others to be remembered; *because Isaiah saith plainly there* that such should be the manner of redeeming the Church, that the Son of God do by his death purchase life for men, that he offereth himself in sacrifice to purge men’s sins, that he be punished with the hand of God, and that he go down even unto the very hell, that he may exalt us unto heaven, having delivered us from destruction. In sum, *this place teacheth plainly* how men are reconciled to God, how they obtain righteousness, how they come to the kingdom of God, being delivered from the tyranny of Satan, and loosed from the yoke of sin; to be brief, whence they must fetch all parts of their salvation.”


Just because plain things become plainer to us when explained, does not mean that they were unplain or unclear before. Surely, this is an experience to which we all can relate. One ought to read the ancient church father Chrysostom’s comments on this very passage, which he commented upon rather frequently, each time affirming the perspicuity of Holy Scripture in this specific passage.

With respect to 2 Peter 3:16, which the Romanists likewise employ in all their attempts to disprove the basic obscurity of Holy Scripture, Calvin said the following...


> *Calvin:* _In which are some things._ The relative _which_ does not refer to _epistles_, for it is in the neuter gender. The meaning is, that in the things which he wrote there was sometimes an obscurity, which gave occasion to the unlearned to go astray to their own ruin. We are reminded by these words, to reason soberly on things so high and obscure; and further, we are here strengthened against this kind of offense, lest the foolish or absurd speculations of men should disturb us, by which they entangle and distort simple truth, which ought to serve for edification.
> But we must observe, that we are not forbidden to read Paul's Epistles, because they contain some things hard and difficult to be understood, but that, on the contrary, they are commended to us, provided we bring a calm and teachable mind. For Peter condemns men who are trifling and volatile, who strangely turn to their own ruin what is useful to all. Nay, he says that this is commonly done as to all the Scripture: and yet he does not hence conclude, that we are not to read it, but only shews, that those vices ought to be corrected which prevent improvement, and not only so, but render deadly to us what God has appointed for our salvation.
> *It may, however, be asked, Whence is this obscurity, for the Scripture shines to us like a lamp, and guides our steps? To this I reply, that it is nothing to be wondered at, if Peter ascribed obscurity to the mysteries of Christ's kingdom, and especially if we consider how hidden they are to the perception of the flesh. However the mode of teaching which God has adopted, has been so regulated, that all who refuse not to follow the Holy Spirit as their guide, find in the Scripture a clear light.* At the same time, many are blind who stumble at mid-day; others are proud, who, wandering through devious paths, and flying over the roughest places, rush headlong into ruin.



I think the comments of the ancient church father Ambrose, on 2 Peter 3:16, is relevant...


> *Ambrose (c. 339-97):* In most places Paul so explains his meaning by his own words, that he who discourses on them can find nothing to add of his own; and if he wishes to say anything, must rather perform the office of a grammarian than a discourser. See William Goode, _The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice_, Vol. 3, p. 262, Chemnitz, _An Examination of Trent_ Vol. 1, p. 167, and Whitaker, _A Disputation on Holy Scripture_ pp. 398, 492, who all render plerisque as “most.”
> *Latin text of Ambrose:* In plerisque ita se ipse suis exponat sermonibus, ut is qui tractat, nihil inveniat quod adjiciat suum; ac si velit aliquid dicere, grammatici magis quam disputatoris fungatur munere. _Epistola_ XXXVII.1, PL 16:1084. The translation found in _FC, Vol. 26, Saint Ambrose: Letters 54. Ambrose to Simplicianus_ (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1954), p. 286, has mistranslated this word plerisque to read “in some instances” rather than the correct translation of “most places.”


The Reformers followed the members of the ancient church in affirming the basic perspicuity of Holy Scripture.


> The WCF's statement about perspicuity is fairly limited in scope:
> 
> 
> 
> VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, it says that the things necessary to be believed for salvation are clear enough to be understood by due use of ordinary means.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I do not believe that the “WCF’s statement about perspicuity is fairly limited in scope.” 1) For one thing, “those things necessary” is rather broad than narrow in scope. But even so, this is not all that the WCF affirms regarding the perspicuity of Holy Scripture, for the divines went on to affirm with respect to interpretation to state (WCF 1:9) that “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, *when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture* (which is not manifold, but one), *it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.* This is precisely, as I have shown elsewhere (_Holy Scripture, the Ground and Pillar of Our Faith_, vol. 3), was the overwhelming testimony of the ancient Church. Yes, conciliar authority is affirmed by the Westminster Confession, but it is presupposed in our standards that their decisions are to be established by the testimonies from the Holy Scriptures, and not as though their authority is anything but derivative from the voice of God speaking in Scripture, as our Confession affirms explicitly...


> 1:10 The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined; and in whose sentence we are to rest; can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.


As William Whitaker observed...


> *William Whitaker (1547-1595):* The second argument wherewith Stapleton confirms the assumption of the preceding syllogism is this: All other mediums that can be attempted are insufficient without making recourse to the judgment of the church; and then he enumerates the mediums upon which we rely. For as to the style (says he) and phraseology, and other mediums, by which the scripture is usually distinguished,—these the church knows best, and is best able to judge aright. There, &c. I answer: If by the church he understand the pope and the bishops (as the papists always do), I deny that they are best able to distinguish the style and phraseology of scripture; I deny that this is the true church of Christ which knows the voice of Christ. But if he speaks of the true church, this fallacy is that called _ignoratio elenchi_, and the state of the question is changed. For before this he had been speaking of the external judgment of scripture, which perhaps may properly belong to the bishops: but here he understands the internal judgment, which is not only proper to the pastors, but common to all Christians: for all Christ’s sheep know his voice, and are internally persuaded of the truth of scripture. Secondly, although we should concede all this to him, yet where will be the coherence of his reasoning,—The church knows best the voice of the spouse, and the style and phraseology of scripture; therefore its authority is the most certain? For what though the church know? What is that to me? Are these things therefore known and certain to me? For the real question is, how can I know it best? Although the church know ever so well the voice of its spouse, and the style and phraseology of scripture, it hath that knowledge to itself, not to me; and by whatever means it hath gained that knowledge, why should I be able to gain it also by the same? Thirdly, from what he says, the contrary of his conclusion might much more correctly be inferred, namely, that the authority of scripture is more certain than that of the church. For if the authority of the church be therefore most certain, because it knows best the style of scripture, and judges by the style of scripture, it is plain that the authority of scripture itself is far more certain, since it indicates itself to the church by its style. But I (you will say) should not know that this was the voice of the spouse, that this was the style of scripture, unless the church were to teach me. This, indeed, is untrue, since it can be known that this is the voice of Christ and true and genuine scripture without the judgment of the church, as shall hereafter be shewn more at large. But, although we were to grant him this, that it could not be known otherwise than through the church, that these were the scriptures, yet even so the argument would be inconsequential. For many would not have known Christ, if John had not taught them, pointed him out, and exclaimed, “Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world!” Was then the authority of John more certain than that of Christ? By no means. For John brought many to Christ, who afterwards believed much more on account of Christ himself, than on account of the preaching and testimony of John. So many through means of the church believe these to be the scriptures, who afterwards believe still more firmly, being persuaded by the scriptures themselves. Besides, Paul and Peter and the other apostles best knew the voice of Christ; must therefore their authority be rated higher than that of Christ himself? Far from it. It does not therefore follow that because the church knows very well the voice of Christ, the authority of the church is greater than that of Christ. But as to his pretence that because the church delivers the rule of faith, it must therefore be the correctest judge of that rule; we must observe that the terms _deliverer_ and _judge_ are ambiguous. *The church does indeed deliver that rule, not as its author, but as a witness, and an admonisher, and a minister: it judges also when instructed by the Holy Spirit. But may I therefore conclude, that I cannot be certain of this rule, but barely by the testimony of the church? It is a mere fallacy of the accident. There is no consequence in this reasoning: I can be led by the church’s voice to the rule of faith; therefore I can have no more certain judgment than that of the church. William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: University Press, reprinted 1849), pp. 286-288.*


*
and...



William Whitaker (1547-1595): The fathers proved their opinions out of the scriptures. Therefore the scriptures are clearer than the writings and commentaries of the fathers: for no one proves what is unknown by what is still more unknown. William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: University Press, reprinted 1849), p. 390.

Click to expand...

and...



William Whitaker (1547-1595) rightly pointed out: For there is nothing in Scripture so plain that some men have not doubted it; as, that God is Almighty, that he created heaven and earth, that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, conceived of the Holy Ghost, and so forth: these are indeed plainly and openly set down in Scripture, and yet there are controversies about them. Things therefore are not presently obscure, concerning which there are many controversies; because these so manifold disputes arise rather from the perversity and curiosity of the human mind, than from any real obscurity. The apostle says that the minds of infidels are blinded by the devil, lest they should see that brilliant light and acquiesce in it: which is most true of our adversaries. William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: University Press, reprinted 1849), pp. 388-389.

Click to expand...





From the common evangelical perspective (including most modern reformed), this is a small amount of information.

Click to expand...

I think that the voice of one should take caution not to attempt to represent “the common evangelical perspective.” I don’t think that “those things necessary” represent a small amount of information. 



For example, the PCA's church covenant simply requires someone to who wants to join to acknowledge that he is a sinner, rests on Christ alone for salvation, and promises to live as a follower of Christ. That leaves a lot of other stuff open. IN any event, a lot of good people debate a lot of important issues.

Click to expand...

Our covenant vows, as members of the PCA, should not be construed in such a way as though they directly or indirectly address the issue of the perspicuity of Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture is full of explicit and clear commands that are not explicitly referenced in our vows as members. But the lack of explicit statements in our vows, regarding these, should not be used as a means to argue that this “leaves a lot of other stuff open.” A lot of good people do debate (as I trust we are here), but the fact that we do engage in debate should not be an argument against the perspicuity of Holy Scripture, but rather a comment on our own fallenness and sinfulness. Virtually all of the Reformers and post-Reformation Reformed have been cautious to point out that such pragmaticism is no valid argument against the perspicuity of Holy Scripture, and that this serves as the potential for ecclesiastical tyranny to form Scripture, as a nose of wax, by which they may read into it whatsoever decrees or dogmas they deem to prove. Now, maybe there are some who are of a mind to believe that this is all a matter of viewing the glass as “half empty or half full.” 

But the question we should ask is this, how does God view his own word. Does he view it as imperfect and unable to address the issues with which we wrestle as insufficient, or does he view His own word as perfect and essentially clear to reveal His mind and His will for His people? There is no doubt in my mind as to how God views his own word. And though Peter indicated that there are some things in Paul’s writings that are difficult to understand, he also emphasizes that it is this category of Paul’s writings “which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction,” 2 Peter 3:16, and not the people of God. This approach to Holy Scripture, which I am seeing among Reformed folk today, is both shocking and sad to me for a number of reasons. 1) It has the tendency of fostering a lack of confidence in the perspicuity/clarity of Holy Scripture for which all the Reformed argued in opposition to Rome; and is (in my opinion) an implicit complaint against God himself, as though He has stammered and stuttered and mumbled His revealed will. 2) It discourages the very act, for which the Bereans were commended, in Acts 17:11, who “received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.” These were new converts, to be sure, but they were not unstable people who misunderstood the things Paul proclaimed. They understood him sufficiently enough and the Scriptures sufficiently enough to compare what he said with what they said. 3) To argue in this way against the general perspicuity of Holy Scripture is to play right into the hands of Romanists, and implicitly affirms the very paradigm, which they employed for ecclesiastical tyranny in order to defend their lust for power and the invention of man-made traditions and dogmas.

Now, what I am about to say, I did not want to say publicly because I love him, appreciate him, and have never received from him anything but kind and encouraging words; and I do not want to come across as self-serving because I’ve been published on the same subject. Moreover, Dr. Mathison is one of the most gracious men with whom I have ever corresponded. But this is where I think that Dr. Mathison’s book is seriously deficient, indeed flawed, in representing the historic principle of sola Scriptura. I think he has conceded too much to the Roman contention with a failure to defend the Reformational emphasis on the perspicuity of Holy Scriptures, which they (the Reformers) defended with respect to the principle of sola Scriptura. And this is why his book received such a scathing review in the July 2004 (issue # 490) in the Banner of Truth magazine, wherein the reviewer concluded: “This reviewer regards the analysis of Oberman, developed by McGrath, and popularly presented by Mathison, as a subtle departure from the historic doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Its subtlety makes it all the more dangerous. A better title for this book would be 'A Reshaping of Sola Scriptura'.”

I think it is of paramount importance for us of the Reformed persuasion to assume the posture of the Reformers in defending the basic perspicuity of Holy Scripture, bearing in mind that any abuse or misuse of the principle of sola Scriptura is no argument against the rule itself. The principle of perspicuity does not mean that everything in Scripture is equally clear or that there is nothing difficult to understand. But, it is to say with D.A. Carson that ‘Christians will insist that the sovereign/personal God is a talking God; that he has left a record of his words in Scripture; that we can understand those words truly, if not wholly or flawlessly.’(cf. D.A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), p. 544.) 

We must not overreact, and charge Holy Scripture with obscurity today, simply because the spirit of the age (e.g. postmodernism, individualism, and spiritual anarchy) cries against it, and have abandoned God’s word under the pretext of obeying it. So did the ancient Israelites frequently, and God judged them for it (Judges 2:2; 6:10; 1 Kings 20:36 2 Kings 22:13; Jer 3:13; Dan 9:14, etc.). Proverbs 28:5 tells us that “ Evil men do not understand justice, But those who seek the LORD understand all.” We do not have to argue that the Scriptures are obscure, as did/do the Romanists (which they did/do to perpetuate their ecclesiastical tyranny), in order to promote humble submission to our church officers and courts which are fallible. In fact, Holy Scripture is sufficiently plain in itself when it commands us to do so, (Heb 13:17), and God did so knowing full well the weakness of their fallibility. But this is not a command to place implicit trust in ecclesiastical authority, but to submit to them (1 Cor 4:15-16) with a Berean spirit as they follow Holy Scripture. Our own confession also affirms the liberty of conscience (WCF chapter 20), instructing us that “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men”; not to be rebels, lone rangers, or people possessed by a contumacious spirit, but freedom to be what we were made to be and freedom to do what we were made to do, i.e. humbly to submit to our Creator God and His covenant Head, our Lord Jesus Christ.

We need not understand Scripture exhaustively nor infallibly in order to understand it sufficiently. And though the elect are not by any means gifted with the attribute of infallibility, collectively or individually, nonetheless God himself has declared that they will not ultimately be overcome by deception of the most intense nature (Matt. 24:22–24; Mk. 13:20–22). Christ himself has declared that his sheep recognize the voice of their shepherd, follow him in obedience, shall never perish, and are so firmly held in his hand that no one can snatch them away (Jn. 10:27–29). It is a non sequitur to insist that an infallible Bible requires an infallible human interpreter, as though our sovereign God is not capable of making himself sufficiently clear to his creatures. God does not stammer and stutter and mumble in the revelation of His will in Holy Scripture.

DTK*


----------



## Civbert

DTK said:


> ...We need not understand Scripture exhaustively nor infallibly in order to understand it sufficiently. And though the elect are not by any means gifted with the attribute of infallibility, collectively or individually, nonetheless God himself has declared that they will not ultimately be overcome by deception of the most intense nature (Matt. 24:22–24; Mk. 13:20–22). Christ himself has declared that his sheep recognize the voice of their shepherd, follow him in obedience, shall never perish, and are so firmly held in his hand that no one can snatch them away (Jn. 10:27–29). It is a _non sequitur_ to insist that an infallible Bible requires an infallible human interpreter, as though our sovereign God is not capable of making himself sufficiently clear to his creatures. God does not stammer and stutter and mumble in the revelation of His will in Holy Scripture.
> 
> DTK





Great point. Can I use that quote in my defense of Scripturalism?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

DTK,

Excellent post for the depth of analysis and historical information. I understand your concern better now and appreciate your interaction over PM.

For my own part, my argument for Sola Scriptura and the role of the Church has never been, in my mind, a denial of the perspicuity of the Scriptures but, rather, an acknowledgement of the sinfulness of men.

Call it a "pragmatism" if that is a good term but there are internal evidences in the Scriptures themselves that point to the role of Elders (and even Councils) to guide men to seeing that which is clear where they not "invested" in obscuring it. Is not the preaching of the Gospel itself in part designed to cause the scales to fall off of eyes which supress that which is manifest to them?

For my own part, I hate any approach to the Word that seeks to provide a "code" that replaces the simple presentation of much of Scripture. You have to be a PhD to even grasp what Barth is saying and he's supposedly interpreting the Scriptures. You have to understand the research on 1st Temple Judaism to comprehend N.T. Wright. To some extent, you need new archeological information to come up with new names for the Abrahamic and Mosaic administrations in Kline (I don't have as much frustration with him but the point is why do we always have to come up with new names).

My post above that wondered if part of the disagreement over the article was over something I didn't fully appreciate is confirmed. As the article was relatively short and hadn't the time to develop the point you're concerned about, I can see how the article is read in a light that caused concern. For my part, I thought the author assumed the perspicuity of the Scriptures and the article was aimed at those who take indepency a little too far.

In the end, my main concern is that men are trying to attain to the unity of the faith and the unity is only achieved by Church men interpreting the Scriptures and humbly laboring to convince one another and train others in the grammar of the Word so the things that are plain in them are known. I've found the same thing - that the Word itself is clear but many either need to simply be guided to fix their attention on what it is saying or they've been told by men who twist the Scriptures to ignore what is clear for what is obscure.

Once again, thank you for the post and I sincerely appreciate the time you labored to explain the perspicuity of the Scriptures.


----------



## DTK

SemperFideles said:


> In the end, my main concern is that men are trying to attain to the unity of the faith and the unity is only achieved by Church men interpreting the Scriptures and humbly laboring to convince one another and train others in the grammar of the Word so the things that are plain in them are known.


I think I can appreciate this concern/desire, so long as we take into account that 1) we are truly seeking the unity of the faith, and not mere outward uniformity of confession. There can be true unity in the midst of diversity, if we in grace understand that we and our fellow pilgrims in grace are not only subject to mere fallibility in our understanding of holy Scripture, but also understanding that we all possess our own blind spots which ensue from our own sinfulness and dullness of mind. I am not speaking of "necessary things," but of secondary and peripheral issues that we tend to exalt as grounds for contention and separation, and yes, such issues with which we can and do often confuse with "those necessary things." We must confess for the sake of true unity, in these matters (as our confession does), that "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men." There can be true unity, in spite of our diversity on those matters that do not strike at the vitals of our faith, and 2) we do not make the end of controversy the _litmus_ test for the ultimate appeal to Holy Scripture.

In other words, *the end of controversy* should not be made the _litmus_ test for the propriety of our appeal to Holy Scripture. William Goode offered this response to the Tractarians: "That it [Scripture] cannot end controversies, forms no valid objection to this appellation, for no mere testimony on the subject, however clear and definitive, could do that…" See William Goode, _The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice_ (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), 2nd ed., Vol. 2, p. 61. Only the Judge of the last day has the power to silence every dissident, and this the Lord of glory will do when he ‘divides his sheep from the goats’ (Matt. 25:32). Till that day, the wheat will always be mingled with the tares (Matt. 13:24–30), and the Lord will sort them out with infallible judgment. Scripture, history, and human nature all combine to teach us that there is no truth, no matter how clearly set forth and expounded, but that impenitent and rebel sinners will reject and suppress it in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-32). Goode argued further:



> But, with this state of things the lovers of Church–authority will not be satisfied. They must wield a power over the consciences of men to bind them to belief in what they deliver, otherwise, they tell us, there will be no end of controversies and heretical sects. Now, is not this the very source of their errors, that they expect that there should be in this world an end of controversies and heretical sects? The Apostles had no such expectation. They tell us, that there must be heresies, that they which are approved may be made manifest. (1 Cor. 11. 19.) We entertain, therefore, no such expectation; and, consequently, when we are told that if the Bible is the sole authoritative Judge of controversies in religion, there will be no end of controversies and heretical sects, for that the Bible cannot force people to believe the truth, we reply, that this is perfectly true, but no reasonable ground of objection against the view for which we contend, for this is a trial which the Church of Christ ought to expect and look for, as the natural consequence of the present state of things. While human nature remains what it is, there will be dissensions among men on such points. William Goode, _The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice_ (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), 2nd ed., Vol. 2, p. 159.


This is why our own standards insist that "God alone is Lord of the conscience" (James 4:12, Romans 14:4-8). Sometimes our doctrinal standards only succeed in backing up the interpretive process one step, and even when conciliar statements offered as official interpretations of Holy Scripture, these are likewise themselves subject to the interpretive process by the human mind, which are not always processed or interpreted the same way. How often have we found ourselves attempting to interpret for others certain expressions found in the language of our doctrinal standards? Now, this doesn't give me cause for any lack of confidence in our secondary standards as such, any more than it gives me cause for pause with respect to Holy Scripture, but it is only to recognize the awful reality of our own fallenness and dullness of mind and heart to receive the things of the Lord, even as converted men and women. We must never believe this side of eternity we shall obtain uniformity of understanding, if we refuse to embrace our brethren who differ with us. *Anne* had a very helpful insight - we don't know if we are striving to maintain the unity of the faith when we all perfectly agree with one another, but it's when we manage to maintain the unity of the faith when we *disagree* with one another. This requires our diligence in patience with one another. One of the acid tests of our Christianity is whether we love the brethren. Well, we never know if that's true until God is pleased to place in the pew beside us a man or woman, who in manifold ways, tends to rub us the wrong way. And then the Lord, as it were, says, "you claim to know and love me, prove it by cherishing the best interests of that person sitting in the pew next to you." For 1 John 4:20 tells us, _ If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? _

Let us seek true unity, and not merely uniformity of expression in confession, and thereby, in God's grace, find it.

DTK


----------



## Scott

Pastor King:

Thanks for the reply. Just a few points.

(1) To be clear, I don't support using the civil government as a means to suppress heresy. I subscribe to the American version of our confession. I am simply think this background is relevant to understanding how the reformers understood and handled sola scriptura. It was applied in an ecclesial context. It did not devolve into individualism. It did not exclude church synods with actual power, supression of dissenting churches even if based on sincerely held beliefs and the like. As one author of the era suggested, the "new presbyter is the old priest writ large" because of the suppression of undesireable interpretations and doctrines. I think that is relevant to understanding this doctrine.

For example, the WCF teaches sola scitpura. The original also said:


> III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.


So, the WCF teaches sola scriptura and also teaches that there are authorities who have a duty to trump certain individual interpretations, sincerely held or otherwise. The framers of the confession saw no contradiction. That tells us something about sola scriptura.

(2) On 2 Peter 3:16, I am not sure what the issue is. Our own men at the Westminster Assembly cited it as a proof text for the proposition that some parts of scripture are unclear. That is all I was saying.

(3) As far as the scope of information necessary for salvation, in my experience it is treated fairly minimally in the PCA. Perhaps you experience is different. But the terms of admission to communing membership are pretty much the standard from what I have seen. Often something along the lines of the EE questions are the baseline. 

In terms of the WCF's statement affirmation that scriptures necessary for salvation are perspicuous, that limitation (necessary to be known for salvation) seems pretty narrow to me. I understand that you disagree and that is fine. It would have been easy to word the WCF much more broadly if that was the intent. For example, it could have said, "All things with a few exceptions are clear." To me that is much broader than the current wording. I know in the past in discussing the bare minimum of saving knowldge with others on the board, the content is fairly small. That said, I do believe that the scriptures are clear on many more points. They are public documents and are meant to be read and understood by the average person. The reading of the law was to all of Israel, even the children. The congregational epistles were circulated and read to congregations. So, they are clear and intended to be understood. Still, there are disagreement among important matters, even by solid people of good faith. Baptism, church government, and other issues are examples.

Scott


----------



## Semper Fidelis

DTK said:


> I think I can appreciate this concern/desire, so long as we take into account that 1) we are truly seeking the unity of the faith, and not mere outward uniformity of confession. There can be true unity in the midst of diversity, if we in grace understand that we and our fellow pilgrims in grace are not only subject to mere fallibility in our understanding of holy Scripture, but also understanding that we all possess our own blind spots which ensue from our own sinfulness and dullness of mind. I am not speaking of "necessary things," but of secondary and peripheral issues that we tend to exalt as grounds for contention and separation, and yes, such issues with which we can and do often confuse with "those necessary things." We must confess for the sake of true unity, in these matters (as our confession does), that "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men." There can be true unity, in spite of our diversity on those matters that do not strike at the vitals of our faith, and 2) we do not make the end of controversy the _litmus_ test for the ultimate appeal to Holy Scripture.
> 
> In other words, *the end of controversy* should not be made the _litmus_ test for the propriety of our appeal to Holy Scripture. William Goode offered this response to the Tractarians: "That it [Scripture] cannot end controversies, forms no valid objection to this appellation, for no mere testimony on the subject, however clear and definitive, could do that…" See William Goode, _The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice_ (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), 2nd ed., Vol. 2, p. 61. Only the Judge of the last day has the power to silence every dissident, and this the Lord of glory will do when he ‘divides his sheep from the goats’ (Matt. 25:32). Till that day, the wheat will always be mingled with the tares (Matt. 13:24–30), and the Lord will sort them out with infallible judgment. Scripture, history, and human nature all combine to teach us that there is no truth, no matter how clearly set forth and expounded, but that impenitent and rebel sinners will reject and suppress it in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-32).
> 
> This is why our own standards insist that "God alone is Lord of the conscience" (James 4:12, Romans 14:4-8). Sometimes our doctrinal standards only succeed in backing up the interpretive process one step, and even when conciliar statements offered as official interpretations of Holy Scripture, these are likewise themselves subject to the interpretive process by the human mind, which are not always processed or interpreted the same way. How often have we found ourselves attempting to interpret for others certain expressions found in the language of our doctrinal standards? Now, this doesn't give me cause for any lack of confidence in our secondary standards as such, any more than it gives me cause for pause with respect to Holy Scripture, but it is only to recognize the awful reality of our own fallenness and dullness of mind and heart to receive the things of the Lord, even as converted men and women. We must never believe this side of eternity we shall obtain uniformity of understanding, if we refuse to embrace our brethren who differ with us. *Anne* had a very helpful insight - we don't know if we are striving to maintain the unity of the faith when we all perfectly agree with one another, but it's when we manage to maintain the unity of the faith when we *disagree* with one another. This requires our diligence in patience with one another. One of the acid tests of our Christianity is whether we love the brethren. Well, we never know if that's true until God is pleased to place in the pew beside us a man or woman, who in manifold ways, tends to rub us the wrong way. And then the Lord, as it were, says, "you claim to know and love me, prove it by cherishing the best interests of that person sitting in the pew next to you." For 1 John 4:20 tells us, _ If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? _
> 
> Let us seek true unity, and not merely uniformity of expression in confession, and thereby, in God's grace, find it.
> 
> DTK



Something to chew on for sure. I probably have given the impression in some polemics that I think there should be a bootstep conformity to the WCF. That is probably misleading as there are things that I take exception to in my own conscience.

I think where I differ from some in that regard, however, is I try not to trouble the Church greatly with my disagreements. Some wear their peculiar theologies on their sleeves in the Body and create a lot of turmoil. It's one thing to debate on this forum but the Church is a completely different matter. I see you concern related to a large extent to be able to successfully argue against those who insist on too much eclestiastical power while my "battles" have primarily been with Churches where people hardly give a thought to their responsibilities to learn from and submit to those in Church authority. When I interacted with my brother (a Roman Catholic like the rest of my family) who challenged me to provide the basis for Sola Scriptura I argued from a very different angle. You've definitely helped me to refine some of my thoughts and consider how I might better state the case.

I think the problem I see, however, is manifest in the FV reaction to the PCA report. I consider those matters to be primarily striking at the heart of the Gospel. I would that sober Church men would be woken up that that ruling not because Councils are infallible but because, like nearly every NAPARC body, the views surrounding the FV have been roundly rejected and demonstrated dissonant with the Word itself.

I suppose those in opposition are content to assume that the authority is merely secondary and, since they believe they have Truth on their side, it is worth continuing schism within the Church.

Yet, from my perspective, they are without excuse because not only is their error perspicuous from the Scriptures themselves but now men, rightly confessing the Scriptures plainly to them and reproving and rebuking from them have told them to turn aside. I don't know how to best form what I'm trying to say but the Scriptures themselves do attest to the teachers of the Church guiding others into that which is perspicuous. Since the FV are troublers of the Church then the Church has every right to put them out.

Thus, the authority of the entire "transaction" begins in the main from the perspicuity of the Scriptures but it is also taught by the Church to remove all possible obstacles to having the truth declared plainly. When all of that error is pushed aside, sober and Godly men ought to repent and when they do not the Church, by the authority of Christ and His Word may excommunicate.


----------



## MW

In the Confession the perspicuity of Scripture is not seen in isolation from the use of the ordinary means in coming to a proper understanding of Scripture. WCF 1:7 specifically ties them together: "those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, *in a due use of the ordinary means*, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I fully agree Rev. Winzer. This is why I was having trouble understanding this thread as it developed. For my part, the perspicuity of the Scriptures is assumed - as is the proper authority the Word gives to Elders in the task of convincing, rebuking, and exhorting with all longsuffering and teaching.


----------



## kceaster

Gryphonette said:


> "When the minority of a body become unsound, there is no remedy but excision. When the majority become unsound, there is no remedy but secession."
> 
> Who determines what's sound and unsound? Isn't that basically the axis around which the current discussion revolves? Is an individual Christian permitted to decide for himself that there's error afoot in his church, or should he submit to his legitimate ecclesiastical authority when it assures him everything's fine?
> 
> To my way of thinking, he should be a Berean, searching the Scriptures first, then move on to church history to make sure what he's thinking is traditional doctrine_ is_, in fact, traditional.
> 
> If what he's now considering to be error is similarly traditional, even though different from what he believes, he should probably just pipe down. If his church is orthodox in all other respects, and the "error" is within acceptable boundaries (credobaptism v. paedobaptism, for example, barring outright aberrations such as anabaptism or baptismal regeneration; or indefinite v. definite redemption; or varying theories of eschatology ), it's most prudent to stay where he is.
> 
> If the error is more serious, especially if it's some newfangled nonsense such as feminism or openness theology or the NPP, _then_ it's time to find a new church home. (Which explains why I'm still at Christ Chapel. It's gone a bit peculiar, but not enough to warrant giving it the ol' heave-ho.)
> 
> Still, when it comes right down to it, _he's_ the one making the final decision.



The place from whence Cheeseman is arguing is in the midst of widescale disagreement of a denomination. If the majority of that denomination becomes unsound, then the minority must secede. If the minority is unsound, they must be excised. Both of these actions have happened in the last 200 years by various groups and for various reasons. It is never an easy thing to determine. However, it should never be done alone and never with the thinking that, "I'm better than you. My way is best."

When it comes right down to it, there are only three results of being convinced of your position: 1) you're sinfully obscuring the Word of God for your own ends and walking alone, or 2) you've no idea where to land and you're being tossed to and fro by every wind (another sinful position), or 3) you're following the Spirit's guide and walking in the footsteps of those who have gone before.

How do we know we're on the right path? Because there's a path. Many have trod where we're going. The Holy Spirit never gives us a machete and tells us to forge ahead where no one has gone before. Christianity is not Star Trek... I get a kick out of those who say that they must make up their own minds. If God is God, He's already gotten our minds out of the way. That's what regeneration and the continuing work of sanctification is for. Any lone ranger out there who says otherwise really needs to be taught. And I think that is pretty much the thing right there: Why are there over 26,000 denominations? Lack of true discipleship and too much independence. People aren't taught what to believe, they're simply taught to believe and make their own way.

Some may disagree, but confessionalism is a good thing for this very reason. It teaches us what to believe concerning the Scriptures. If it isn't everyone's cup of tea, then they are free to go someplace else. But as for we who hold to the creeds and confessions, we'll continue on in this vein, knowing that we aren't trailblazers, and content to be so.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Civbert

kceaster said:


> ... I get a kick out of those who say that they must make up their own minds. If God is God, He's already gotten our minds out of the way. That's what regeneration and the continuing work of sanctification is for. Any lone ranger out there who says otherwise really needs to be taught. And I think that is pretty much the thing right there: Why are there over 26,000 denominations? Lack of true discipleship and too much independence. People aren't taught what to believe, they're simply taught to believe and make their own way.
> 
> Some may disagree, but confessionalism is a good thing for this very reason. It teaches us what to believe concerning the Scriptures. If it isn't everyone's cup of tea, then they are free to go someplace else. But as for we who hold to the creeds and confessions, we'll continue on in this vein, knowing that we aren't trailblazers, and content to be so.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC



No one here is denying the mind renewing transformation by the power of the Holy Spirit. But that's not the kind of "making up the mind" that is being presented. For if you truly meant the same thing, then you would be asserted a kind of robotic response to the Sprite - a blind and thoughtless faith that rest on the what we are told to believe, and not what we are convinced is true from Scripture. 

If confessionalism tell you what to believe, then I'm against it. For me, Scripture tells me what to believe, and the confession is what I believe is Scripture, and in common with others of my faith. The confessions are never the foundation of my faith, Scripture is. The confessions second what I believe Scripture says. They never tell me what to believe. 

BTW: The whole reformation could arguably be said to be started by trailblazers who rejected the creeds of the Church of Rome. Luther did not simply follow the steps of men before him, because those men were wrong. The Word is the light to my path, not the "Church".


----------



## Scott

SemperFideles said:


> I see you concern related to a large extent to be able to successfully argue against those who insist on too much eclestiastical power while my \"battles\" have primarily been with Churches where people hardly give a thought to their responsibilities to learn from and submit to those in Church authority.


You are not alone in this concern. There are a lot of reformed people today (such as Sproul, Mathison, D.G. Hart, Michael Horton, and others) who share the same concerns. Church authority in America has been on a steady decline since the founding of the country. Nathan Hatch documents this well in his classic, The Democratization of American Christianity, which is required reading in some reformed seminaries. America started with a high view of church authority and has descended into the view that there is virtually no ecclesial authority. He linked this to a number of causes, one of which was the idea that the right to private interpretation obviated any need for ministerial authority or any kind of ecclesial authority to resolve disagreements. There was this kind of thinking during the radical reformation too, but it did not gain widespread success because of the efforts to supress it. The same kinds of ideas returned (although perhaps less extreme in some ways) and picked up steam with the Revolution. Respect for ministers and their authority is at a low (even by their own congregants) compared to their position in church and society one or two hundred years ago. 

In the evangelical world, authoritarianism is not much of a problem from the research I have seen (and certainly in my own experience). Even in the Catholic world, as you have mentioned, there is little practical authority of any sort. While there might be some paper authority, Catholics are generally free to believe and do what they want with little or no repercussions from the Church. I see the Roman Catholic Church in America today primarily as a mainline liberal church, as opposed to the authoritarian creature of the Reformation.


----------



## Gryphonette

I really am not intending to be thick as a brick, but I'm not seeing how or why someone shouldn't be RC, based upon your reasoning. Give the RCC its due, it affirms every point of doctrine in the creeds (Apostles', Nicene, and there's another one I'm blanking on).

I certainly cannot see how someone who is currently RC could possibly be expected to leave it, as the RCC is creedal, and to leave it necessarily involves a personal decision to reject its claimed authority.

Treading the right path sounds good, but there are myriad paths with signs pointing to them saying "I'm the Right Path! Tread on ME!"; how would you advise someone to evaluate these conflicting claims so as to identify one as THE path?

Especially if that someone isn't to be permitted to make up his own mind or make a decision?

It seems to me you're saying he must rely upon a confession or other established tradition to tell him what's true so as to avoid the taint of individualism; if he's not already committed to a particular confession or other established tradition, though, how's he supposed to choose one to which to commit without personally evaluating the various contenders and then making up his mind?

I'm missing how someone not already in a confessional church could ever join one, or conversely, how someone currently in one could ever decide it's wrong and leave it for another.


----------



## Civbert

Scott said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you concern related to a large extent to be able to successfully argue against those who insist on too much eclestiastical power while my "battles" have primarily been with Churches where people hardly give a thought to their responsibilities to learn from and submit to those in Church authority.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not alone in this concern. There are a lot of reformed people today (such as Sproul, Mathison, D.G. Hart, Michael Horton, and others) who share the same concerns. ....
Click to expand...



Isn't interesting the the greater the size of the church, the less authoritarian they seem to be regarding doctrine (big umbrella churches). In fact, it is the smaller denominations who are saying 'to be part of this church, this is what you must believe'. Ironically, the it seems the reason we have so many micro-denominations is because of men leaving larger denominations that refuse to require men to follow the confession. If anything, many micro-denominations are not started by trail-blazers, but men who want to restore respect for the creeds of the early reformed churches.


----------



## Gryphonette

Since our very act of breaking away from England and setting up our own nation was an absolutely breathtaking demonstration of "_my_ way not _your_ way", and because one of the founding principles of America is the innate right of an individual to choose his own path, that authoritarian ecclesiology would rapidly deteriorate in such an environment isn't surprising.

It'd have been a whole lot more surprising had it managed to continue.


----------



## Scott

Gryphonette said:


> Since our very act of breaking away from England and setting up our own nation was an absolutely breathtaking demonstration of "_my_ way not _your_ way", and because one of the founding principles of America is the innate right of an individual to choose his own path, that authoritarian ecclesiology would rapidly deteriorate in such an environment isn't surprising.
> 
> It'd have been a whole lot more surprising had it managed to continue.


True. It applies to all areas of authority too. We did not see a major breakdown of parental authority until the 60s, although it has finally come. I would not link it to the American Revolution. Still, rebellion in one sphere of authority fosters rebellion in other spheres of authority. A rebellious mindset is generally not submissive.


----------



## Scott

Gryphonette said:


> I really am not intending to be thick as a brick, but I'm not seeing how or why someone shouldn't be RC, based upon your reasoning. Give the RCC its due, it affirms every point of doctrine in the creeds (Apostles', Nicene, and there's another one I'm blanking on).
> 
> I certainly cannot see how someone who is currently RC could possibly be expected to leave it, as the RCC is creedal, and to leave it necessarily involves a personal decision to reject its claimed authority.
> 
> Treading the right path sounds good, but there are myriad paths with signs pointing to them saying "I'm the Right Path! Tread on ME!"; how would you advise someone to evaluate these conflicting claims so as to identify one as THE path?
> 
> Especially if that someone isn't to be permitted to make up his own mind or make a decision?
> 
> It seems to me you're saying he must rely upon a confession or other established tradition to tell him what's true so as to avoid the taint of individualism; if he's not already committed to a particular confession or other established tradition, though, how's he supposed to choose one to which to commit without personally evaluating the various contenders and then making up his mind?
> 
> I'm missing how someone not already in a confessional church could ever join one, or conversely, how someone currently in one could ever decide it's wrong and leave it for another.



Anne: I am not sure who this is addressed to. I will give my two cents though. The reason someone should leave an RC Church is that it does not preach the gospel. It is a mainline liberal church. In terms of old-line traditional RC congregations (there are some, not many), it still has the same set of problems it has had since the reformation, works-based justification, the papacy, prayer to and worship of the saints, idolatry, etc. It is really the same set of issues it has always been.

In terms of making individual decision vs. submitting to decisions of others, let me use the parent/child analogy again. A child has a duty to obey his parent and accept their teachings. A child who chooses to submit makes an individual choice. A child who refuses to submit likewise makes an individual choice. Yet, one child is properly described as submissive and the other is properly described as headstrong or self-willed. One is good and one is bad. 

Obedience to parents is qualified. A child should not accept instructions to do something immoral, adopt beliefs that are evil (eg. a parent's atheism). That does involve independent judgment. The lines between when it is proper to exercise independent judgment and accept parental teaching can be gray. Satan is good at obscuring the line. This independence does not cancel the general duty to obey, though. It only acknowledges that the duty is qualified.

The church is similar. So is civil government for that matter. There is a general duty to obey but there are times to resist. Often the lines are not clear because the argument is over where the lines are. 

Perhaps a lot of this discussion is more aspirational and ideal rather than practical. In some ways, telling people today to obey the Church is like telling an child of divorce to obey his parents. Which parent? The genetic mom or the step mom? The genetic dad or the step dad? The genetic mom or the genetic dad? There are numerous, often contradictory, voices. Which one deserves attention? In a world of a fragmented and sectarian church, there are numerous voices as well. God's instructions for parental obedience don't envision divorce, joint custody, and the like. Yet, the child has to muddle through. Likewise, the Bible does not envision a Church broken into more pieces than we can count. We are the children of numerous ecclesial divorces and remarriages. We likewise have to deal with the situation we have been given.

I know that does not provide clear direction on the issue but I am not sure there is any.


----------



## kceaster

Civbert said:


> No one here is denying the mind renewing transformation by the power of the Holy Spirit. But that's not the kind of "making up the mind" that is being presented. For if you truly meant the same thing, then you would be asserted a kind of robotic response to the Sprite - a blind and thoughtless faith that rest on the what we are told to believe, and not what we are convinced is true from Scripture.
> 
> If confessionalism tell you what to believe, then I'm against it. For me, Scripture tells me what to believe, and the confession is what I believe is Scripture, and in common with others of my faith. The confessions are never the foundation of my faith, Scripture is. The confessions second what I believe Scripture says. They never tell me what to believe.
> 
> BTW: The whole reformation could arguably be said to be started by trailblazers who rejected the creeds of the Church of Rome. Luther did not simply follow the steps of men before him, because those men were wrong. The Word is the light to my path, not the "Church".



Agreed, the confession is only useful as it is true to Scripture. That's not what I was getting at. I guess what I'm saying is that we don't have to go hide in the hills waiting for some special unction of the Spirit to tell us what the Scripture says. We don't even have to have individual illumination, per se. I'm illumined by what others have said. Well, that's really what preaching is. Illumination is always the Spirit working, but some of His work has already been well established. In that sense, the common creeds and confessions tell us what we ought to believe the Scriptures are saying. They are not the foundation, but a dictionary or glossary or summation of the Scriptures.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Gryphonette

I'm sorry, Scott! Somehow I managed to reply to your post when I meant to reply to Kevin's.

Thanks for your response, though. Always appreciated. ;^)

I suppose it's the presence of the "given" that trips me up, as in "the RCC doesn't have the gospel." Okay, what's the gospel, exactly? If I'm a very, very new believer and I've got someone trying to get me to join them at St. Ethel's, and someone else trying to get me to join First Congregational, and someone else trying to get me to join Calvin Presbyterian, It seems to me the main recourse I have is to delve into the Bible and compare the competing theological traditions to it. 

I need to actually _make_ a decision, though. No way to get around it that I can see.


----------



## kceaster

Gryphonette said:


> I really am not intending to be thick as a brick, but I'm not seeing how or why someone shouldn't be RC, based upon your reasoning. Give the RCC its due, it affirms every point of doctrine in the creeds (Apostles', Nicene, and there's another one I'm blanking on).



I guess I'm not relying so much on reason or will, but on the Holy Spirit who can change both (in fact, has to change both because He is the leader, we aren't leading ourselves). This change is not a new thing. Many have left because of the Spirit's leading them out. 



> I certainly cannot see how someone who is currently RC could possibly be expected to leave it, as the RCC is creedal, and to leave it necessarily involves a personal decision to reject its claimed authority.



I'm still uncomfortable about personal decision. Sheep don't decide where to go, they follow the Great Shepherd. We know there have been, are, and will be other flocks and false shepherds. And while those sheep are responsible for their "decisions," in the end they are not following the true shepherd's voice because they have never heard it, nor do they have ears to to so.



> Treading the right path sounds good, but there are myriad paths with signs pointing to them saying "I'm the Right Path! Tread on ME!"; how would you advise someone to evaluate these conflicting claims so as to identify one as THE path?
> 
> Especially if that someone isn't to be permitted to make up his own mind or make a decision?



The great thing about following this Shepherd is that He gives us the faith to follow. There aren't many paths, only one. The true sheep will hear the true shepherd.



> It seems to me you're saying he must rely upon a confession or other established tradition to tell him what's true so as to avoid the taint of individualism; if he's not already committed to a particular confession or other established tradition, though, how's he supposed to choose one to which to commit without personally evaluating the various contenders and then making up his mind?



Again, true sheep will follow... He doesn't have to make up his mind, he follows. I'm not advocating anti-intellectual behavior here, either. But even our intellect is guided by the shepherd's rod. It will be made clear.



> I'm missing how someone not already in a confessional church could ever join one, or conversely, how someone currently in one could ever decide it's wrong and leave it for another.



The sovereign hand of God is shown most abundantly in John 6. This is a full-orbed salvation. From the effectual call to glorification, there is nothing missing of one's life, even life in the church and issues of such. And none can be taken, all will follow.

We can't rely solely on our reason, will, and intellect (if each of these are different parts). We must have faith that He who began a good work, will be faithful to complete it.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Scott

Gryphonette said:


> I'm sorry, Scott! Somehow I managed to reply to your post when I meant to reply to Kevin's.
> 
> Thanks for your response, though. Always appreciated. ;^)
> 
> I suppose it's the presence of the "given" that trips me up, as in "the RCC doesn't have the gospel." Okay, what's the gospel, exactly? If I'm a very, very new believer and I've got someone trying to get me to join them at St. Ethel's, and someone else trying to get me to join First Congregational, and someone else trying to get me to join Calvin Presbyterian, It seems to me the main recourse I have is to delve into the Bible and compare the competing theological traditions to it.
> 
> I need to actually _make_ a decision, though. No way to get around it that I can see.


Agreed. That is the way it goes.


----------



## Gryphonette

Isn't that generally the way it goes, though? When political freedom increases, respect for authority diminishes, including parental authority?

Seems to me that's the way it tends to happen. Even the limited amount of freedom the Chinese have managed to score for themselves appears to have led to a decrease in their traditional respect for elders and family.

It's odd, isn't it? It's as if we're all the personification of OT Israel, either being in a state of rebellion, or else demanding kings.


----------



## Scott

I think the natural state of fallen man is rebellion and desire to be free from authority. People naturally seek to expand this and test the limits.


----------



## DTK

Scott said:


> For example, the WCF teaches sola scitpura. The original also said:
> 
> So, the WCF teaches sola scriptura and also teaches that there are authorities who have a duty to trump certain individual interpretations, sincerely held or otherwise. The framers of the confession saw no contradiction. That tells us something about sola scriptura.
> ...
> ...
> In terms of the WCF's statement affirmation that scriptures necessary for salvation are perspicuous, that limitation (necessary to be known for salvation) seems pretty narrow to me. I understand that you disagree and that is fine. It would have been easy to word the WCF much more broadly if that was the intent. For example, it could have said, "All things with a few exceptions are clear." To me that is much broader than the current wording. I know in the past in discussing the bare minimum of saving knowldge with others on the board, the content is fairly small. That said, I do believe that the scriptures are clear on many more points. They are public documents and are meant to be read and understood by the average person. The reading of the law was to all of Israel, even the children. The congregational epistles were circulated and read to congregations. So, they are clear and intended to be understood. Still, there are disagreement among important matters, even by solid people of good faith. Baptism, church government, and other issues are examples.


Just narrowing down a response, though I would like to address other points made, but I'm not going to invest the time with everything...

So, there are other authorities to trump individual interpretations. Let's consider this for a moment - As for the civil magistrate, and the original language of the WCF, having read all the parts again, I don't know how the civil magistrate could be involved beyond the point of calling for a synod, according to the language of the WCF. Now, that is precisely what happened with respect to the Westminster Assembly. I'm thinking that there is a lot of idealism that is being proffered here, because only a few years later following the Westminster Assembly, the "prince" (Charles II) intervened with His Act of Uniformity in 1662 and turned this paradigm on its head, so to speak. The Puritans who refused to conform to these religious strictures, could not do so for conscience's sake? They all acted as individuals and refused to bow the knee to the prince. Who trumped their individual interpretations? They were convinced that God in Scripture had so bound their conscience, and His truth trumped that of the prince. Who can forget Rutherford's _Lex Rex_?

Now, the point I long to make by this is...that any man convinced against his understanding and will - is of the same opinion still. Granted, that can be very bad, but it can also be very good. The Puritans were right to resist Charles II. And the point is that I'm not convinced that the insistence on church authority, as being part and parcel of the principle of _sola Scriptura_, is correct. In fact, I think they're being rather naïve and idealistic in response to the sordid state of evangelicalism today, which all lovers of godliness and Christ's church abhor.

But one must understand, and understand very clearly if he/she is going to be honest with the facts of history, _Sola Scriptura_ was the _formal cause_ of the Reformation, which means that God speaking in Scripture trumped the voice of the church for the Reformers in their day. That's why Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, and others acted contrary to the rule of the church in their day. I think that the title of one of Pelikan's books puts it best, _Obedient Rebels: Catholic Substance and Protestant Principle in Luther's Reformation_.

Granted, it doesn't mean that the Reformers jettisoned the biblical doctrine of submission to ecclesiastical authority, but it does mean that they assumed the posture of a Berean spirit, because their consciences could be bound by nothing greater than God's word. Think about it, if men will not bow to the voice of Almighty God speaking in Holy Scripture, they are certainly not going to bow to any kind of exalted notions regarding church authority; unless, of course, they have replaced the voice of God speaking in Holy Scripture for the voice of the church as their ultimate authority. 

Now, I am all for synods and councils and their deliberations and decisions. But the fallout, following the Council of Nicea Itself, resulted in a virtual Arian captivity of the church for 50 years. These ecclesiastical structures have never been ideal, because they are, in the end, susceptible to error (as our Confession has noted, "The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error...All synods or councils since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. *Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice; but to be used as an help in both."*).

The principle of _sola Scriptura_ was, as Richard Muller expressed, based on the reality that Scripture can and does trump the voice of any other competing authority...


> *Richard Muller:* The logical priority of Scripture over all other means of religious knowing in the church — tradition, present-day corporate or official doctrine, and individual insight or illumination — lies at the heart of the teaching of the Reformation and of its great confessional documents. Indeed, it is the unanimous declaration of the Protestant confessions that Scripture is the sole authoritative norm of saving knowledge of God. The Reformed confessions, moreover, tend to manifest this priority and normative character by placing it first in the order of confession, as the explicit ground and foundation of all that follows. Richard A. Muller, _Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725:_ Vol. II, Holy Scripture, The Cognitive Foundation of Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), p. 151.



The point should not be, "let's remind people that they ought to submit to the church," but to teach them that the *Scriptures themselves teach* that men should submit to proper ecclesiastical authority with a Berean spirit. I would never compel an individual to embrace a doctrine simply because our church teaches it. I would never seek to bound his/her conscience by the words of men, collectively or individually. I would strive with every gift, that I trust God has been pleased to give me, to show him where this is the teaching of Holy Scripture. In the end, I want to see his conscience bound to the word of God, not men. The Reformers never entertained the skepticism, which we do today, that the word of God is incapable of showing clearly why they were bound by conscience before God to seek to reform the Church. The question is, given the fact that men by nature are blind and corrupt and dead in their sins, do we really trust God's Holy Spirit speaking in Holy Scripture as the God-ordained means of humbling and convicting men, and showing them their sinfulness and error, and disrespect for the authority of Christ's church?

The cure to the rampant individualism today, if it is ever to come, is not the preaching up of church authority (the Romanists were/are all about that), but the proclamation of God's word, which commands people who profess to be Christians to submit to proper ecclesiastical oversight. God alone is worthy of our implicit faith, and even He is pleased to condescend to our level in Holy Scripture to make it an explicit faith.

I am not convinced that the proponents of the so-called _solo Scriptura_ position even have a proper perspective on the nature of Scripture itself, let alone their propensity to exalt their private opinions and judgments. Again, I think the cure for it is to be found in their hearing the voice of God speak in Holy Scripture, if they are ever to be humbled in their sin and corrected in their practice.

DTK


----------



## Scott

Pastor King: Thanks for your helpful thoughts and I think we agree. We have an unqualified duty to God speaking in the scriptures. The scriptures are perfect and unchangeable. We have a qualified duty to church authority. And church authority is fallible and reformable. And church authority flows from the authority of scripture and not vice versa. When I think solo scriptura I think Carlstadt. When I think sola scriptura I think Luther. Both rebelled but, as you say, Luther was an obedient rebel. As you also noted, evangelicalism is suffering right now, and for that I know many of us are very sad. Scott


----------



## Civbert

Scott said:


> Pastor King: Thanks for your helpful thoughts and I think we agree. We have an unqualified duty to God speaking in the scriptures. The scriptures are perfect and unchangeable. We have a qualified duty to church authority. And church authority is fallible and reformable. And church authority flows from the authority of scripture and not vice versa. When I think solo scriptura I think Carlstadt. When I think sola scriptura I think Luther. Both rebelled but, as you say, Luther was an obedient rebel. As you also noted, evangelicalism is suffering right now, and for that I know many of us are very sad. Scott



I agree. Pastor King's post was very good. So what do you and Pastor King think of the article referenced in the OP (original post)?


P.S. My thought is that "sola scriptura" need not be qualified with "church athority" - and doing so risks undermining the doctrine of sola scripture. It's like saying 'we believe the bible is the final athority, but...".


----------



## Scott

Civbert said:


> Scott said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pastor King: Thanks for your helpful thoughts and I think we agree. We have an unqualified duty to God speaking in the scriptures. The scriptures are perfect and unchangeable. We have a qualified duty to church authority. And church authority is fallible and reformable. And church authority flows from the authority of scripture and not vice versa. When I think solo scriptura I think Carlstadt. When I think sola scriptura I think Luther. Both rebelled but, as you say, Luther was an obedient rebel. As you also noted, evangelicalism is suffering right now, and for that I know many of us are very sad. Scott
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Pastor King's post was very good. So what do you and Pastor King think of the article referenced in the OP (original post)?
> 
> 
> P.S. My thought is that "sola scriptura" need not be qualified with "church athority" - and doing so risks undermining the doctrine of sola scripture. It's like saying 'we believe the bible is the final athority, but...".
Click to expand...

I like the article and I like Mathison quite a bit. I don't believe that the church's teaching authority undermines scriptural authority any more than parental teaching authority over children undermines scriptural authority. Do you see parental teaching authority on religious matters, and the child's corresponding duty to adopt those teachings, as contradicting or threatening sola scriptura?


----------



## Civbert

Scott said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pastor King: Thanks for your helpful thoughts and I think we agree. We have an unqualified duty to God speaking in the scriptures. The scriptures are perfect and unchangeable. We have a qualified duty to church authority. And church authority is fallible and reformable. And church authority flows from the authority of scripture and not vice versa. When I think solo scriptura I think Carlstadt. When I think sola scriptura I think Luther. Both rebelled but, as you say, Luther was an obedient rebel. As you also noted, evangelicalism is suffering right now, and for that I know many of us are very sad. Scott
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Pastor King's post was very good. So what do you and Pastor King think of the article referenced in the OP (original post)?
> 
> 
> P.S. My thought is that "sola scriptura" need not be qualified with "church athority" - and doing so risks undermining the doctrine of sola scripture. It's like saying 'we believe the bible is the final athority, but...".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like the article and I like Mathison quite a bit. I don't believe that the church's teaching authority undermines scriptural authority any more than parental teaching authority over children undermines scriptural authority. Do you see parental teaching authority on religious matters, and the child's corresponding duty to adopt those teachings, as contradicting or threatening sola scriptura?
Click to expand...


I did not use the phrase "church's teaching authority". I'm not sure if that means the chuch's teaching _about _athority, or the athority of the church to teach. But my concern is with the idea that the church has athority to tell us what to believe. 

I would say the church as "a _duty _to teach". But individules only have a duty to believe the Scriptures.


----------



## Scott

Civbert said:


> I did not use the phrase "church's teaching authority". I'm not sure if that means the chuch's teaching _about _athority, or the athority of the church to teach. But my concern is with the idea that the church has athority to tell us what to believe.
> 
> I would say the church as "a _duty _to teach". But individules only have a duty to believe the Scriptures.


Individuals have a duty to accept the teachings of their parents, right? See:
> Proverbs 1:8: "Listen, my son, to your father's instruction and do not forsake your mother's teaching. 9 They will be a garland to grace your head and a chain to adorn your neck."
> Proverbs 6:20-21 "My son, keep your father's commands and do not forsake your mother's teaching. 21 Bind them upon your heart forever; fasten them around your neck."

A child has a duty to accept parental teaching, especially on religious matters, as well as scriptual teaching, right? Do you see a conflict in the two duties?

Scott


----------



## DTK

> I like the article and I like Mathison quite a bit. I don't believe that the church's teaching authority undermines scriptural authority any more than parental teaching authority over children undermines scriptural authority. Do you see parental teaching authority on religious matters, and the child's corresponding duty to adopt those teachings, as contradicting or threatening sola scriptura?


I do not like the article, but I do like Dr. Keith Mathison quite a bit. Now, to be sure, a church that submits to the voice of her Head speaking in Scripture, and then strives to teach what His word prescribes, is surely a church to which its members ought to submit. But Dr. Mathison's thesis (found in both article and book) fails in that it does not, indeed does not even attempt, to identify this church of which he speaks. In other words, the big question that goes unanswered is *which church?* The church of the historic creeds is not the same church represented in Non-Protestant groups today. God's voice can be objectively identified in His inscripturated word, but the church cannot be, unless its identity is defined by the Scriptures, and even then good men of strong convictions differ. The church must be _semper reformada_, always reforming to the voice of her Head. This thesis does not attempt to navigate through the nitty-gritty problem of church history to show that churches today (including Non-Protestant groups) can and do fail to listen to the voice of her head speaking in Holy Scripture. The problem today, as I understand it, is not some mutated or mutilated form of _sola Scriptura_, but a departure from it.

The problem with the analogy above is that it assumes this church is faithful to Scripture and is just as clearly identifiable as a child who knows his/her parents. If history has taught us anything, it has taught us that the very real danger exists for a church to cease listening to the voice of her Head speaking in Scripture, and that a child can just as surely cease to obey his/her parents whom he/she knows. Whether he is conscious of it or not, Mr. Roberts has been wrestling with this question repeatedly here on this board from time to time, and I don't know that he's found the answer for it. He has often asked about what to do when members of Reformed churches want to be released into non-Reformed bodies. I can understand why he wrestles with this. Like non-protestants, who wish to trace the church back to the post-apostolic church and thereby claim some kind of apostolic succession, he (if I've understood him correctly) seems to want to trace the church back to the Reformers, and particularly that of the Post-Reformation Reformed, claiming for them some kind of apostolic succession as well. My response to that - is that it is an arbitrary rather than an objective attempt, and Anne (in her own way and words) has echoed that repeatedly in this thread.

I would add that this is why Roman apologists have seized on Dr. Mathison's book, insisting that it is the best Protestant work available today on _sola Scriptura_, because it insists that the church has real authority, and they (Non-Protestants) assume that the church of the ancient creeds is the same as their church today. Non-Protestant churches, like the so-called evangelical proponents of _solo Scriptura_ (which, btw, as far as I know is a term invented by the folks in Moscow, Idaho, who own Canon Press, and which published Dr. Mathison's book, _The Shape of Sola Scriptura_), no longer listen to the voice of the head of the church speaking in Scripture. Every time I encounter some "lone ranger," professing Christian who claims he is submitting to Holy Scripture, I always ask him this question..."If you really believe the Bible and submit to its directives, how do you make conscience of a text like Hebrews 13:17?" I have yet to find one who can answer that question. They "hem and haw" and hurry to find some negative thing to say about all churches. I don't call that "_solo Scriptura_," I call it a departure from _sola Scriptura_.

Interestingly enough, an ancient father like Augustine, in his rebuke of the Donatists, instructs us as to how to identify the church...


> *Augustine (354-430):* Whether they [i.e. the Donatists] hold the Church, they must show by the Canonical books of the Divine Scriptures alone; for we do not say, that we must be believed because we are in the Church of Christ, because Optatus of Milevi, or Ambrose of Milan, or innumerable other bishops of our communion, commended that Church to which we belong, or because it is extolled by the Councils of our colleagues, or because through the whole world in the holy places which those of our communion frequent such wonderful answers to prayers or cures happen. For translation, See William Goode, _The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice_, 2nd ed., 3 Vols. (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 2, pp. 341-342 and Vol. 3, p. 165.
> *Latin text:* Sed utrum ipsi Ecclesiam teneant, non nisi de divinarum Scripturarum canonicis libris ostendant: quia nec nos propterea dicimus nobis credi oportere quod in Ecclesia Christi sumus, quia ipsam quam tenemus, commendavit Milevitanus Optatus, vel Mediolanensis Ambrosius, vel alii innumerabiles nostrae communionis episcopi; aut quia nostrorum collegarum conciliis ipsa praedicata est; aut quia per totum orbem in locis sanctis, quae frequentat nostra communio, tanta mirabilia vel exauditionum, vel sanitatum fiunt . . . _De Unitate Ecclesiae_, Caput XIX, §50, PL 43:429-430.
> 
> *Augustine (354-430):* Whatever things of this kind take place in the Catholic Church, are therefore to be approved of because they take place in the Catholic Church; but it is not proved to be the Catholic Church, because these things happen in it. The Lord Jesus himself when he had risen from the dead . . . judged that his disciples were to be convinced by the testimonies of the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms . . . These are the proofs, these the foundations, these the supports for our cause. We read in the Acts of the Apostles of some who believed, that they searched the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so. What Scriptures but the Canonical Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets? To these have been added the Gospels, the Apostolical Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John. For translation, See William Goode, _The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice_, 2nd ed., 3 Vols. (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 2, pp. 341-342 and Vol. 3, pp. 165-166.
> *Latin text:* Quaecumque talia in Catholica fiunt, ideo sunt approbanda, quia in Catholica fiunt; non ideo ipsa manifestatur Catholica, quia haec in ea fiunt. Ipse Dominus Jesus cum resurrexisset a mortuis,...eos [i.e., discipulos] testimoniis Legis et Prophetarum et Psalmorum confirmandos esse judicavit,...Haec sunt causae nostrae documenta, haec fundamenta, haec firmamenta. 51. Legimus in Actibus Apostolorum dictum de quibusdam credentibus, quod quotidie scrutarentur Scripturas, an haec ita se haberent: quas utique Scripturas, nisi canonicas Legis et Prophetarum? Huc accesserunt Evangelia, apostolicae Epistolae, Actus Apostolorum, Apocalypsis Joannis. _De Unitate Ecclesiae_, Caput XIX, §50-51, PL 43:430.



Ambrose's instructions are fitting as well...


> *Ambrose (c. 339-97) commenting on ‘And whatsoever house ye enter into, there abide.’ (Lk. 9:4):* So the faith of the Church must be sought first and foremost; if Christ is to dwell therein, it is undoubtedly to be chosen. But lest an unbelieving people or heretical teacher disfigure its habitation, it is enjoined that the fellowship of heretics be avoided and the synagogue shunned. The dust is to be shaken off your feet [cf. St. Luke 9:5], lest when the drynesses of barren unbelief crumble the sole of your mind it is stained as if by a dry and sandy soil. For a preacher of the Gospel must take upon himself the bodily weaknesses of a faithful people, so to speak, and lift up and remove from his own soles the worthless actions like to dust, according as it is written: “Who is weak, and I am not weak?” [II Corinthians 11:29]. Thus, any Church which rejects faith and does not possess the foundations of Apostolic preaching is to be abandoned, lest it be able to bespatter some stain of unbelief. This the Apostle also clearly affirmed, saying, “A man that is an heretic after the first admonition reject” [Titus 3:10]. Saint Ambrose of Milan, _Exposition of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke_, trans. Theodosia Tomkinson (Etna: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998), Book VI, §68, pp. 216-217.
> *Latin text:* Fides igitur imprimis Ecclesiae quaerenda mandatur, in qua si Christus habitator sit, haud dubie sit legenda. Sin vero perfidus populus, aut praeceptor haereticus deformet habitaculum, vitanda haereticorum communio, fugienda Synagoga censetur. Excutiendus pedum pulvis, ne fatiscentibus perfidiae sterilis siccitatibus, tamquam humi arido arenosoque mentis tuae vestigium polluatur. Nam sicut corporeas infirmitates populi fidelis suscipere in se debet Evangelii praedicator, et tamquam propriis inania gesta pulveri comparanda, allevare atque abolere vestigiis, juxta quod scriptum est: Quis infirmatur, et ego non infirmor (II Cor. XI, 29)? Ita si qua est Ecclesia quae fidem respuat, nec apostolicae praedicationis fundamenta possideat; ne quam labem perfidiae possit aspergere, deserenda est. Quod Apostolus quoque evidenter asseruit dicens: Hoereticum hominem post unam . . . . correptionem devita (Tit. III, 10). _Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam_, 6.68, PL 15:1686.



DTK


----------



## MW

It seems to me that there is one thought lingering behind this thread which has not yet been brought out into the open. It is this -- we cannot trust human authority because human authority errs. But the problem I find with this skepticism is the fact that the person doesn't seem to distrust their own fallible humanity, but seems quite confident in the espousal of private judgment. Surely any distrust of human fallibility must apply as equally to oneself.

The antidote to this distrust is rather simple, and it is twofold. First, ask yourself, is my private judgment in no sense dependent upon human helps? The answer is obviously, No; and the more you think about it the more you see that your private judgment is merely the sum total of your experiences in this world. And here the Bible teaches us, not to minimise human help in the hope of avoiding the pitfalls of fallibility, but to increase counsellors because in the multitude of them there is wisdom. Secondly, there is a judgment of charity in which we think the best of those who are over us until they prove otherwise. We cannot jump from the idea that men _might_ err to the assumption that they _do_ err. We ourselves might err, and yet it is a working principle with us that we must act on the basis of what we think is right. Likewise, in relation to human authority, we must give the benefit of the doubt to those who have the care of our souls and trust they are acting on the basis of what is right until it can be clearly shown that they are in error. Only once error has been clearly demonstrated is there cause to distrust what they say, and even then there are varying degrees of error which must be taken into account when deciding how to act in response.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Gryphonette said:


> I really am not intending to be thick as a brick, but I'm not seeing how or why someone shouldn't be RC, based upon your reasoning. Give the RCC its due, it affirms every point of doctrine in the creeds (Apostles', Nicene, and there's another one I'm blanking on).
> 
> I certainly cannot see how someone who is currently RC could possibly be expected to leave it, as the RCC is creedal, and to leave it necessarily involves a personal decision to reject its claimed authority.
> 
> Treading the right path sounds good, but there are myriad paths with signs pointing to them saying "I'm the Right Path! Tread on ME!"; how would you advise someone to evaluate these conflicting claims so as to identify one as THE path?
> 
> Especially if that someone isn't to be permitted to make up his own mind or make a decision?
> 
> It seems to me you're saying he must rely upon a confession or other established tradition to tell him what's true so as to avoid the taint of individualism; if he's not already committed to a particular confession or other established tradition, though, how's he supposed to choose one to which to commit without personally evaluating the various contenders and then making up his mind?
> 
> I'm missing how someone not already in a confessional church could ever join one, or conversely, how someone currently in one could ever decide it's wrong and leave it for another.



Anne,

I thought I explained why somebody could not be in an RCC and claim to be faithful to this principle.

Sola Scriptura is not an argument that we just find a Confession and submit to it because it's the tradition of the Church. Sola Scriptura is the view that the Scriptures are perspicuous (clear) in the things necessary for salvation. The Scriptures themselves provide clear instruction to each man that he is to believe upon and rest upon Christ. There is no room in the Scriptures for an implicit faith where you merely have to trust that the Church teaches the correct doctrines and you simply trust that everything that comes out of the Priest's mouth is true.

We are commanded to learn the Word for ourselves and to be convinced, personnally, of the Truth found therein. Now, in so doing, we are not autonomous - judging the truth of the Word by our authority but the Word itself judges us. It is only by the illumining work of the Holy Spirit that we can come to the knowledge of the Truth.

Thus, it is not possible, given one God who has one Truth, for their to be as many systems of doctrine as their are Churches who affirm it or people who claim it for themselves. There is only one infallible authority and all other authority either rightly derives its authority from it or fallaciously claims authority outside of the Word itself.

It is no excuse, therefore, for a Roman Catholic who has the oracles of God opened up every week to supress the Truth of God's special revelation and to encounter the Book of Romans and say: "Well, the RCC says differently than what I see so I guess what I'm guessing is wrong." In fact, the RCC requires that Roman Catholics go to Penance if their personal study of the Word leads them in a direction that causes them to come in conflict with the doctrines of the Church.

Yet, in saying all of this, the converse to how a right study of the Word is to take place is not to assume that the Scriptures are merely written to us personally. As we read the Word, it is inescapable that God has ordained Pastors and Teachers for the building up of the Body. Not all have that gift. We are to be worshipping with those who are, of the same Spirit, worshipping the Triune God.

You might ask me for a simple test of how one can know which Church. The answer cannot be granted so simply. I agree with kceaster that the Holy Spirit performs this work. It requires humility and prayer on our part to ensure that we are not either blindly following false doctrine nor are we proudly rejecting sound Biblical doctrine from our elders.


----------



## Scott

DTK said:


> The problem with the analogy above is that it assumes this church is faithful to Scripture and is just as clearly identifiable as a child who knows his/her parents. If history has taught us anything, it has taught us that the very real danger exists for a church to cease listening to the voice of her Head speaking in Scripture, and that a child can just as surely cease to obey his/her parents whom he/she knows. Whether he is conscious of it or not, Mr. Roberts has been wrestling with this question repeatedly here on this board from time to time, and I don't know that he's found the answer for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the way you describe the analogy, it would be just as applicable to a child who knows his parent well and is put in a position that he has good cause to reject a known and legitimate parent's authority. Of course that happens and is common, but it does not cancel the general duty of children toward parents.
> 
> As for the issue of discerning the correct parents, in this thread I have mentioned that some of Mathison's thesis is more aspirational than practical. Identifying which church to follow is problematic in a age of denominational fragmentation. I likened it to a child's duty to divorced parents who are of different minds on key issues. The child has a general duty to obey his parents - all of them. Yet, he has arguably at least four parents to listen to, his genetic father, his genetic mother, his step father, and his step mother. The different sets of parents will often teach contradictory things. There are even lawsuits among divorced parents who want to instruct children differently in relgious and moral matters - usually teaching the children that the other parent is wrong. One parent who wants to teach one set of religious beliefs and the other, divorced, spouse who wants to teach something contrary. The child still has a general duty to obey parents (all four of them), but working it out is a practical problem. He is told one thing by one and something contradictory by another. We face a similar problem, as we are heirs of many ecclesial divorces.
> 
> The sola scriptura view (as expressed by Mathison and contra solo scriptura) is more applicable in the context of a biblical ecclesiology before the Church had devolved into extensive sectarianism. Like the child who is the subject to many divided parents, so we are the subject of many voices.
> 
> Anyway, as a practical matter, I expect we approach the situation the same way. We both see our allegiance to God speaking in scripture as unqualified. Our allegiance to church authority is important, but qualified. I do agree with Mathison, Sproul, and others that solo scriptura is not the answer. I know you have issues with their position, and that is fine. I don't see issues of ecclesial authority as fundamentally different or more difficult than other spheres of authority (such as a child's general duty to accept parental teaching, which hopefully nobody thinks encroaches on sola scriptura). They all have their ambiguities.
Click to expand...


----------



## Scott

armourbearer said:


> It seems to me that there is one thought lingering behind this thread which has not yet been brought out into the open. It is this -- we cannot trust human authority because human authority errs. But the problem I find with this skepticism is the fact that the person doesn't seem to distrust their own fallible humanity, but seems quite confident in the espousal of private judgment. Surely any distrust of human fallibility must apply as equally to oneself.
> 
> The antidote to this distrust is rather simple, and it is twofold. First, ask yourself, is my private judgment in no sense dependent upon human helps? The answer is obviously, No; and the more you think about it the more you see that your private judgment is merely the sum total of your experiences in this world. And here the Bible teaches us, not to minimise human help in the hope of avoiding the pitfalls of fallibility, but to increase counsellors because in the multitude of them there is wisdom. Secondly, there is a judgment of charity in which we think the best of those who are over us until they prove otherwise. We cannot jump from the idea that men _might_ err to the assumption that they _do_ err. We ourselves might err, and yet it is a working principle with us that we must act on the basis of what we think is right. Likewise, in relation to human authority, we must give the benefit of the doubt to those who have the care of our souls and trust they are acting on the basis of what is right until it can be clearly shown that they are in error. Only once error has been clearly demonstrated is there cause to distrust what they say, and even then there are varying degrees of error which must be taken into account when deciding how to act in response.


These are excellent points.


----------



## DTK

Scott said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that there is one thought lingering behind this thread which has not yet been brought out into the open. It is this -- we cannot trust human authority because human authority errs. But the problem I find with this skepticism is the fact that the person doesn't seem to distrust their own fallible humanity, but seems quite confident in the espousal of private judgment. Surely any distrust of human fallibility must apply as equally to oneself.
> 
> The antidote to this distrust is rather simple, and it is twofold. First, ask yourself, is my private judgment in no sense dependent upon human helps? The answer is obviously, No; and the more you think about it the more you see that your private judgment is merely the sum total of your experiences in this world. And here the Bible teaches us, not to minimise human help in the hope of avoiding the pitfalls of fallibility, but to increase counsellors because in the multitude of them there is wisdom. Secondly, there is a judgment of charity in which we think the best of those who are over us until they prove otherwise. We cannot jump from the idea that men _might_ err to the assumption that they _do_ err. We ourselves might err, and yet it is a working principle with us that we must act on the basis of what we think is right. Likewise, in relation to human authority, we must give the benefit of the doubt to those who have the care of our souls and trust they are acting on the basis of what is right until it can be clearly shown that they are in error. Only once error has been clearly demonstrated is there cause to distrust what they say, and even then there are varying degrees of error which must be taken into account when deciding how to act in response.
> 
> 
> 
> These are excellent points.
Click to expand...

Good points, to be sure, thank God for human helps. I can readily vouch that I don't know where I would be today, but for God's providence with human helps. However (don't we all hate dealing with these "howevers" and "buts"), I don't charge the framers of our doctrinal standards with skepticism for thinking it important enough to remind us that "The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error...All synods or councils since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice; but to be used as an help in both." They thought it important enough to include this reality in our standards, and I don't think (nor do I think that you would think) that they were acting out of skepticism.

The only other thing I would hasten to add about private judgment is that we should learn to distrust ourselves. I recall from the second part of Bunyan's _The Pilgrim's Progress_, Greatheart's response to Christiana, who asked him how he managed to defeat Giant Maul. His reply was, "I have learned to mistrust my own ability, that I may have reliance on him who is stronger than all.” We do well to question our motives, our abilities, our understanding, and learn to listen to a multitude of counselors, in whom Holy Scripture says there is safety. But I do so knowing that in the last day, _we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad._ And when that day comes, I will not be able to point to anyone else, and lay the blame at their feet for any of my misdeeds and false sentiments. 

I think personal responsibility is inescapable, no matter what divine help through human helps we receive.

DTK


----------



## MW

DTK said:


> Good points, to be sure, thank God for human helps. I can readily vouch that I don't know where I would be today, but for God's providence with human helps. However (don't we all hate dealing with these "howevers" and "buts"), I don't charge the framers of our doctrinal standards with skepticism for thinking it important enough to remind us that "The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error...All synods or councils since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice; but to be used as an help in both." They thought it important enough to include this reality in our standards, and I don't think (nor do I think that you would think) that they were acting out of skepticism.
> 
> The only other thing I would hasten to add about private judgment is that we should learn to distrust ourselves. I recall from the second part of Bunyan's _The Pilgrim's Progress_, Greatheart's response to Christiana, who asked him how he managed to defeat Giant Maul. His reply was, "I have learned to mistrust my own ability, that I may have reliance on him who is stronger than all.” We do well to question our motives, our abilities, our understanding, and learn to listen to a multitude of counselors, in whom Holy Scripture says there is safety. But I do so knowing that in the last day, _we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad._ And when that day comes, I will not be able to point to anyone else, and lay the blame at their feet for any of my misdeeds and false sentiments.
> 
> I think personal responsibility is inescapable, no matter what divine help through human helps we receive.



 No "but" to offer to that sound advice.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Well said all.

I think the Proverbs are full of the idea of personal responsibility yet calling men fools who despise correction or the wisdom of elders.


----------



## Gryphonette

To be sure! And may I say what a pleasure it is to partake - even lightly - of a spirited discussion on such a weighty matter where all participants involved maintain civility and respect toward each other.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

True to Pastor King's assessment of the Godly Character of Dr. Mathison, he sent me the following kind note:


> Thank you also for the kind words regarding the Modern Ref article, and thank you for getting them to post the entire thing online. It didn’t even occur to me that they would consider doing that, so I never asked.
> 
> The one thing in the thread that comes to mind immediately that it seemed you wanted clarification about is what I thought about the idea of the perspicuity of Scripture. You indicated in one post that you assumed the article presupposed the perspicuity of Scripture. You are correct. For that article, Modern Ref. asked me to address one issue specifically. I didn’t have enough space to spell out everything related to it, which is one reason I had them let readers know that I said more in the larger book _The Shape of Sola Scriptura_. I actually addressed the issue of perspicuity on pages 279–81 of that book as part of my summary of the doctrine of sola scriptura.
> 
> As I understand it, the perspicuity of Scripture itself supports what I wrote regarding the role and subordinate authority of the ecumenical creeds. I agree with Charles Hodge who explained the relation as follows:
> 
> “If the Scriptures be a plain [i.e., perspicuous, K.M.] book, and the Spirit performs the functions of a teacher to all the children of God, it follows inevitably that they must agree in all essential matters in their interpretation of the Bible. And from that fact it follows that for an individual Christian to dissent from the faith of the universal Church (i.e., the body of true believers), is tantamount to dissenting from the Scriptures themselves” (Hodge, Systematic Theology I:184).
> 
> The problem is not the perspicuity of Scripture. The Word of God is absolutely clear. The problem is with us. The Word of God is perspicuous. Our minds are not. We still carry within us the noetic effects of sin. That’s where I see the problem, not with Scripture itself.
> 
> There’s more to say on that, of course, but I think you get the point. In any case, if there were some points on which you wanted more explanation of what I meant, I would be more than happy to try to clear up any confusion my article caused.



and of DTK he wrote warmly:


> Pastor King is one of the good guys. I haven’t corresponded with him in some time, but he was a great help when I was responding to the Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis’ critique of my book on sola scriptura.


 Dr. Mathison. One of the good guys indeed.


----------



## DTK

SemperFideles said:


> Dr. Mathison...of DTK he wrote warmly:


That speaks more to the character of Dr. Mathison than anything else, always gracious, always kind, always showing the grace of a gentleman in Christ.

DTK


----------

