# PC(USA) Vice Moderator: "Sola Scriptura" is Dead



## Marrow Man (Nov 6, 2010)

This article contains the comments of the current Vice Moderator of the PC(USA), Landon Whitsitt. Here is a taste:



> When we say ‘Sola Scriptura, Scripture alone’ and when someone says ‘Landon what do you think Scripture alone says?’, and then I hold forth on what I think Scripture says I have made Scripture into an idol, I have made myself into an idol, I have decided unequivocally that I can speak on behalf of God, on behalf of the Scriptures that we have.



I posted comments on my blog here.


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Nov 6, 2010)

That's amazing.

Not everything in scripture is equally clear. When we state that our interpretation of that less-clear subject is the only valid one, making it the litmus test of orthodoxy, then I think that we can make our interpretation of scripture, and ourselves, an idol. We're idol factories after all. However, I suspect that this isn't what the PC(USA) moderator being quoted is saying.


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 6, 2010)

This is not at all surprising... this is how Scripture is viewed, by and large, by all the mainline churches...


----------



## rbcbob (Nov 6, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> PC(USA) Vice Moderator: "Sola Scriptura" is Dead



The Moderator misspoke; it is the PC(USA) that is dead.


----------



## Rich Koster (Nov 6, 2010)

rbcbob said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > PC(USA) Vice Moderator: "Sola Scriptura" is Dead
> ...


 
Good observation, but unfortunately they are not the sole holders of this position.


----------



## Poimen (Nov 6, 2010)

I agree that "Sola Scriptura" is dead in the mainline & evangelical churches. I am convinced of this every time I walk into a Christian bookstore. 

But instead of merely declaring it so and going to its funeral we ought to seek to revive it.


----------



## Wayne (Nov 6, 2010)

> When we say ‘Sola Scriptura, Scripture alone’ and when someone says ‘Landon what do you think Scripture alone says?’, and then I hold forth on what I think Scripture says I have made Scripture into an idol, I have made myself into an idol, I have decided unequivocally that I can speak on behalf of God, on behalf of the Scriptures that we have.



Am I mis-reading here, or is he in effect saying that, in his view, we can't properly say what Scripture says?


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 6, 2010)

Poimen said:


> I agree that "Sola Scriptura" is dead in the mainline & evangelical churches. I am convinced of this every time I walk into a Christian bookstore.
> 
> But instead of merely declaring it so and going to its funeral we ought to seek to revive it.


 
Very, very true.... especially as this same attitude is not without representation in reformed churches to some degree. There is often a hesitancy to say that there might be wrong interpretations out there, and a hesitancy to affirm very strongly even the most basic of reformed tenets (e.g. the full sovereignty of God in salvation)


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Nov 6, 2010)

> When we say ‘Sola Scriptura, Scripture alone’ and when someone says ‘Landon what do you think Scripture alone says?’, and then I hold forth on what I think Scripture says I have made Scripture into an idol, I have made myself into an idol, I have decided unequivocally that I can speak on behalf of God, on behalf of the Scriptures that we have.



He has unequivocally said that God has not spoken. Why can't that be idolity by the same arugment? If you can't be certain it is, how can you be certain it's not. It would be better just to keep your mouth shut.


----------



## baron (Nov 6, 2010)

puritanpilgrim said:


> and then I hold forth on what I think Scripture says



Maybe I am taking this out of context.

The problem I always see. A majority of people I see always say this is what it means to me. In one meeting we had, we broke into six groups and all were discussing the same scripture verses. At the end there were six diffrent opinions as to what the meaning was. No one agreed as to what the Scripture said.


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 6, 2010)

The blind leading the blind.


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist (Nov 6, 2010)

Maybe my head is a bit fuzzy after a 12 hr shift in the trauma room, but this statement seems illogical and full of holes. It's like someone making a statement that sounds clever but is actually a load of nonsense. I think we are supposed to respond with a,"Hmm, very insightful." Wouldn't it just be more honest to say that he rejects the authority and veracity of Scripture because he doesn't like what it says.


----------



## Herald (Nov 6, 2010)

Poimen said:


> I agree that "Sola Scriptura" is dead in the mainline & evangelical churches. I am convinced of this every time I walk into a Christian bookstore.
> 
> But instead of merely declaring it so and going to its funeral we ought to seek to revive it.



Daniel, how very right. We revive it by teaching it. We revive it by personally believing it. We live our lives by the Book. We teach our children the Book. We worship God in the church, but we do so according to the how the Book directs. We settle conflicts and administer discipline by and according to the Book. We view the world from a perspective gained from the Book.


----------



## jwithnell (Nov 7, 2010)

We have an historic Presbyterian mainline church here in town. Each time I drive by the building I try to remember to pray that God would restore a God-fearing congregation to that site.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 7, 2010)

Wayne said:


> > When we say ‘Sola Scriptura, Scripture alone’ and when someone says ‘Landon what do you think Scripture alone says?’, and then I hold forth on what I think Scripture says I have made Scripture into an idol, I have made myself into an idol, I have decided unequivocally that I can speak on behalf of God, on behalf of the Scriptures that we have.
> 
> 
> 
> Am I mis-reading here, or is he in effect saying that, in his view, we can't properly say what Scripture says?


 
That's how I read him too Wayne. He's certainly not speaking of sola-Scriptura according to the Reformation principle. It becomes increasingly difficult to have rational conversations on these things when language becomes so malleable.


----------

