# Against Sola Scriptura: "A must read for a Protestant"



## ChristopherPaul

This 19 page article by Fr. John Whiteford is considered the stake driven through the heart of Sola Scriptura. 

One Eastern Orthodox member commented on this article: 



> If a protestant can answer all the questions posed by Fr John Whiteford on his article, then I will repent and become a Sola Scriptura Protestant.
> 
> Since I know this is not possible since I have given this article to many protestant ministers and they read it and say "such questions can not be answered." One of them interestingly said "Sola Scriptura doesn't work - you have to work Sola Scriptura - and every one else is doing it wrongly!"



For those who take the time to read the pamphlet, I would appreciate your thoughts.


----------



## crhoades

After a quick scan of the article (not read...) I see that he doesn not cite from Protestant scholars at all. No Warfield, no Whitaker, no one from Westminster etc. I would start by checking all of his assertions and make sure there are no straw men. I'll try to read it later this weekend...My initial


----------



## RamistThomist

I haven't read it yet but I can almost bet my life that he is operating around solo scriptura (the evanjellyfish view) than Sola Scriptura.


----------



## Civbert

Very interesting article. It's a perspective I don't often think about.

I'm sure this will be a vigorous argument against sola scriptura. And the author is correct in saying the sola scriptural is the critical doctrine of protestants. He makes an over-simple statement about protestants believing the scripture is to be interpreted by each person alone, and apart from the Traditions of the Church. (His first false statement.) But I've always considered the "Traditions of the Church" not as a way of interpretations, but a source of extra-biblical doctrine. I reject extra-biblical doctrinal sources, but not the interpretations of the Church Fathers.. 

I always given great consideration to the interpretations of the Fathers of the Church (Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Augustine, G.H. Clark) in history and contemporary. And when I disagree with the Divines, I consider that I am misunderstand Scripture. But I never believe any interpretation is true just because a church Father said it was true. I want to understand the scripture for myself, and not blindly follow the teaching of others. I think that's a point the author of the article misses. It's not about personal interpretation, but the command of God to understand the Scriptures as best we can, and not blindly follow the words of men. To have understand and knowledge of God's revelation, and to protect us from heretical teachings of men who would rather us not understand the Word.

I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the article. I'm sure he will find many errors in common protestant thinking. But he can't destroy sola scriptura because that not simply a conclusion of arguments or based on simple evidence, it's a presupposition of faith, something we believe because of the testimony of the Holy Spirit - but neither is it in contradiction to reason.

[Edited on 3-31-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## New wine skin

Adding to what Chris said above-

I read several pages of this article and found so many problems with it I wouldnt know where to begin. I noticed several over generalizations about Protestantism. While I agree that there may be isolated groups or movements within Protestantism in the last few hundered years to confirm some of the concerns EO has against us, this in no way disproves or invalidates Protestantism as a whole.


----------



## New wine skin

to sum it up in a nut shell this is an issue over Authority.


----------



## beej6

Per Anthony's observation above, the orthodox (small 'o') father is representing sola scriptura as solo scriptura, a common error. There is a difference between the Scripture alone as the ultimate authority, and *only* Scripture as the only authority.


----------



## Scott

"I haven't read it yet but I can almost bet my life that he is operating around solo scriptura (the evanjellyfish view) than Sola Scriptura."

A big problem is that solo scriptura is probably held by 99 percent of the conservative prot community (just a guess, but it would be a supermajority).


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "I haven't read it yet but I can almost bet my life that he is operating around solo scriptura (the evanjellyfish view) than Sola Scriptura."
> 
> A big problem is that solo scriptura is probably held by 99 percent of the conservative prot community (just a guess, but it would be a supermajority).



But it was not the position of the Reformation, nor what I hold to, so I am not phased by the argument.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

I have not read Pastor King's book on sola scriptura (or the EO article referenced in this thread) and I gather that it is geared towards Roman Catholicism, but I wonder if it would be useful ammunition for a Protestant response.


----------



## john_Mark

*Andrew, yes.*



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I have not read Pastor King's book on sola scriptura (or the EO article referenced in this thread) and I gather that it is geared towards Roman Catholicism, but I wonder if it would be useful ammunition for a Protestant response.



Get Pastor King's book, get all three volumes. They will help with those types of arguments. They are very good and very well documented with 6 years of work put into them.


----------



## Preach

Keith Mathison wrote a book dealing with the difference between solo and sola Scriptura. It was good, but I can't think of the title. Anyone know the title?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Preach_
> Keith Mathison wrote a book dealing with the difference between solo and sola Scriptura. It was good, but I can't think of the title. Anyone know the title?



_The Shape of Sola Scriptura_, I think, from which this article was taken.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by john_Mark_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I have not read Pastor King's book on sola scriptura (or the EO article referenced in this thread) and I gather that it is geared towards Roman Catholicism, but I wonder if it would be useful ammunition for a Protestant response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get Pastor King's book, get all three volumes. They will help with those types of arguments. They are very good and very well documented with 6 years of work put into them.
Click to expand...


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Preach_
> Keith Mathison wrote a book dealing with the difference between solo and sola Scriptura. It was good, but I can't think of the title. Anyone know the title?



I just finished the book. He teaches you how to think in paradigms that prevent you from falling into Roman/EO traps. I cant recommend it highly enough. ANything Mathison writes is well worth the read.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Preach_
> Keith Mathison wrote a book dealing with the difference between solo and sola Scriptura. It was good, but I can't think of the title. Anyone know the title?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just finished the book. He teaches you how to think in paradigms that prevent you from falling into Roman/EO traps. I cant recommend it highly enough. ANything Mathison writes is well worth the read.
Click to expand...


I especially like his work on _Protestant Transubstantiation_.


----------



## kceaster

As I recall, and it's been awhile since I read it, the RCC considers the doctrine of sola scriptura to be the interpretation of every believer. So largely, the RCC talks past the Reformation view. They're attacking a view we don't hold, though I'm sure that many evangelicals would have trouble answering them. Mathison wouldn't have trouble shooting it down.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Scott

> He teaches you how to think in paradigms that prevent you from falling into Roman/EO traps. I cant recommend it highly enough. ANything Mathison writes is well worth the read.





> But it was not the position of the Reformation, nor what I hold to, so I am not phased by the argument.


I am with you.


----------



## Scott

> Keith Mathison wrote a book dealing with the difference between solo and sola Scriptura. It was good, but I can't think of the title. Anyone know the title?


The Shape of Sola Scriptura. It address EO and RC separately.


----------



## kceaster

After scanning, I can tell you that he is not talking about Reformed sola scriptura. Why? Two reasons: his background is Nazarene, which hardly means that he's approaching this from the Reformed view, and he doesn't interact with any Reformed works on the position.

He's talking past us.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## ChristopherPaul

I appreciate the discussion. Thank you for the insights.

I come to appreciate this message board more and more.


----------



## Archlute

Something that Dr. Clark said in our Medieval and Reformation Church history course yesterday applies to this fellow and his article. He noted that one of the biggest problems with the internet is that any idiot that has access to a computer can write the most ignorant and unproven statements and post them for all the world to see and just waste a lot of people's time. That statement is true of this article. What a waste of paper. There is no scholarly proof whatsoever to his claims, just bare and general assertions. 

For example, in his discussion of Protestant interperative approaches which "don't work", he states that "no doubt" the approach that the first reformers took was to "just take the bible literally". Really? Where is his proof for that? Why then did early reformers such as Luther critique various heretical sects for doing just that very thing in distorting the Scriptures? 

Whiteford seems unaware that not only Luther, but many pre-magesterial reformation forerunners had very advanced scholastic training in theology and scripture and continued to incorporate these studies into their debates and interpretation. There was no wooden biblicistic approach to their work at all. His anachronistic reading of a modern "fundamentalist, evangelical, and charismatic" hermeneutic as a primative extension of early reformational interpretation is unsupportable by any honest academic study of those authors and their works. In fact, the writings of Calvin and Luther (to name only the most well known) are highly critical of those who would employ this approach. To which we should briefly add that Calvin's _sensus literalis_ does not mean the "literal sense" (i.e. wooden biblicism), but the sense that is properly conveyed by the literature, an essential part of which is understanding it's genre and intent.

As well, there is no interaction with confessional Protestantism and her theologians whatsoever. That is very telling to me, for what it essentially gives away is the fact that that he is reading his own fundamentalist, Nazarene experience into his argument as being the defining hermeneutic of Protestantism. Did Ursinus, Olevian, and the Westminster divines reject the guidance of earlier Christian theologians and debates? By no means, and the same holds true for Lutheran theologians as well.

Someone above pointed out the real issue that needs to be addressed by him, and that is "from whence comes our authority, where is ultimate authority for faith and life in the Church grounded?". To do that he will have to interact with the nature of inspiration and the character of Scripture as _God's_ word. I didn't perceive that happening in this essay. He gives lip service to the unique nature of Scripture as "God's Holy Word" by qualifying them, in his conclusion, as being "perhaps the summit of the Holy Tradition of the Church (notice how he puts "holy tradition" in caps)". If he took primacy of their divine nature seriously, he wouldn't be able to toss off a statement like that without more of a defence.

And just because one historically uninformed EO member endorsed this article as being an insuperable argument against the Protestant doctrine, doesn't make it necessarily so...

It's really not worthy of a serious refutation.


----------



## Me Died Blue

Who here has read both Mathison's work and White's book on the subject? Are there significant differences in the focus or how they approach it?


----------



## Scott

Chris: You might find this and this useful.

[Edited on 3-31-2006 by Scott]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

DTK is A OK!


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Chris: You might find this and this useful.



Thanks, Scott.


----------



## satz

Could someone just explain quickly to me the difference between solo and sola scripture?


----------



## New wine skin

Reformed theory of tradition is built on not being contradictory to scripture. Tradition and Reason are subordinate to Scripture, but never rejected entirely.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by satz_
> Could someone just explain quickly to me the difference between solo and sola scripture?



solo--me and my bible and no traditions (which is itself a tradition, and an autonomous one). 
sola--scripture is interpreted by the church in the church within the context of the regula fidei (rule of faith). Tradition is fallible and bows to Scripture. However, the corporate interpreation by the rule of faith keeps the interpreter from becoming autonomous.


----------



## tellville

I actually own the original book copy of this article 

This is one of the books/articles I want to respond to after I graduate (less then a month, YAY!). 

I've had it for a few years now. Ironically, it was one of the books that led me to Reformation theology as I searched for answers to the points brought up in this book.

I will continue to proclaim that the Reformed community has dropped the ball big time in regards to the Eastern Orthodox. It's a total shame.

[Edited on 4-1-2006 by tellville]


----------



## Archlute

Mark,

You should probably explain what you mean by the Reformed dropping the ball "big time" with the EO, and what exactly has been dropped.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Archlute_
> Mark,
> 
> You should probably explain what you mean by the Reformed dropping the ball "big time" with the EO, and what exactly has been dropped.





Mark, exactly what do you mean?


----------



## Pilgrim

For reasons enumerated in this thread and others, until recently EO has not been on the radar screen for most, and rightfully so since the various EO churches are not missionary minded and most (other than converts) are not aggressive in criticizing Reformed beliefs, etc. There seems to be a few places where there are exceptions, but they are few and far between.

Even on the internet, I can only remember once coming across an aggressive EO apologist, and as you might guess, he was a convert. Aggressive RC apologists are ubiquitous.


----------



## tellville

> _Originally posted by Archlute_
> Mark,
> 
> You should probably explain what you mean by the Reformed dropping the ball "big time" with the EO, and what exactly has been dropped.



I´ll just say what I have said in other threads:

Reformed people think our apologetics against Roman Catholicism is good enough to refute Eastern Orthodoxy. This couldn't be farther from the truth. We NEED to start writing literature that deals with Eastern Orthodoxy in the same way Reformers wrote literature to deal with Roman Catholicism. Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholcism are NOT the same thing. 

There was a debate here in Edmonton between a Reformed univeristy Chaplain (Dutch Reformed) and an Eastern Orthodox monk. Needless to say, the Reformer got his touche handed to him on a platter. 

Listen to James White's debates against Roman Catholicism. Almost all of his points don't apply to the Eastern Orthodox.

*In response to someone asking if I had read "œThree Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism"* Yeah, I own it. It's not really the best book there is. But then again, I got it the day it came out and at that time I was still struggling with Reformed theology. So maybe Horton's essay really wasn't as bad as I thought it was back then. Maybe it's good. I should read it again. 

The really crappy thing about the book is that Bradley Nassif writes the best essay, except he thinks we are compatible. 

On the positive note, at least somebody got off there touche and realized we needed a book like it!

*in response to the tug of Eastern Orthodoxy* This is probably one of the reasons why I wish there was more from a Reformed perspective on this topic. There is still a tug because while the Reformed make the most positive case (it is *cleary* the most *Biblical* and the most consistent with the Gospel) it has dropped the ball and has made no real effort to make a negative case for the EO. Thus, the EO gets to make its case without any opposition and one is left with that unfortunate tug. 

And my favourite phrase so far: 
Reading Reformed people on the RCC I'd have to be a complete unregenerate moron to leave Reformation theology and go to Rome. Reading Reformed people on the EO I'd just have to be unregenerate  *clarification: to go to Constantinople*


----------



## tellville

Alberta is home many Ukrainians because of the similar topography of Plains/Steppes. We have quite a few Eastern Orthodox who are quite evangelistic. There is an apologetics radio program (which I have posted on this site in other threads) that runs here in Edmonton. There has already been a convert to EO interviewed because of this show, and who knows how many others have converted because of it. They stage debates between Reformed people (I don't think the people who run these debates really respect any other form of Protestantism) and Roman Catholics quite frequently. Western Christians tend to do bad against EO apologetics because we aren't use to their arguments. They have certain nuances to them that just don't exist in Western Christianity. It's harder to pin them down on things. It is sometimes easier to talk to Western Christians who have converted to EO because they still think like us in a lot of ways, but home grown EO are another breed altogether. You get a good EO monk and you better know church history and your Bible inside out, but from an Eastern perspective. 

It just frustrates me. I guess I've just gotten use to reading the "greats" on these issues to help me, but when it comes to the EO, I have to really do the grunt work. However, most people don't do that, and then are easily convinced of EO apologetics. It's bad enough hearing an argument you've never heard before and not having an answer. It's even worse when you can't find an answer later, nor your pastor, nor the big names in your faith. It makes you think "well, I guess these guys really are the true church". There's no where to turn to. 

Sorry, I'm ranting. But hopefully my point is coming across.

[Edited on 4-2-2006 by tellville]


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> For reasons enumerated in this thread and others, until recently EO has not been on the radar screen for most, and rightfully so since the various EO churches are not missionary minded and most (other than converts) are not aggressive in criticizing Reformed beliefs, etc. There seems to be a few places where there are exceptions, but they are few and far between.
> 
> Even on the internet, I can only remember once coming across an aggressive EO apologist, and as you might guess, he was a convert. Aggressive RC apologists are ubiquitous.



The EOC actually don't blame us for finding fault with Rome and protesting per se. They see the Protestants as a schism of a schism, so they kind of just sit back and watch the heretics fight each other and start more and more denominations.

They are comfortable with their claimed Apostolic succession and believe they are the true one holy catholic and apostolic church that was started by Christ and His Apostles and handed down through bishops through the centuries.

Protestants boast to have assembled the Westminster confession of Faith as their church document based on scripture of course. The EOC claims to have assembled the New Testament along with the old (and thus closed the canon) as their church document.

In other words:

Protestant church = Westminster Confession of Faith (and then a plethora of other various confessions and statements)

Eastern Orthodox church = Holy Scripture

So why would they criticize Reformed beliefs? From their point-of-view they dealt with us way back in 1054


----------



## Scott

Mark: Read Mathion's book. He address EO separatelt from RC.


----------

