Solo Scriptura - The Difference a Vowel Makes

[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]

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]

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.

 

[Scott]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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