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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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:

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

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]

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