Which is the historical Sola Scriptura?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brett:

Those are great questions. I don't think it is a matter of one trumping the other. I am a lawyer and so I deal with this kind of stuff regularly and I am familiar with it in other contexts.

Our legal system has a heirarchy of laws. The US Constitution is on top. Federal statutes are below. Then we have state statutes. That is in a nutshell the legal relation between the constitution and statutes.

Now, not everyone agrees with what words of the Constitution and statutes mean. We could respond in a couple of ways. We could say, well each individual needs to decide for himself what the statutes mean. That would lead to chaos. We might have a statute that says "If you injure someone because of you negligent driving, you must recompense the injured person." Say, a driver is not watching the road (chaging his radio) and hits someone. Is this negligent? The driver would probably say no, everyone changes their radios sometimes. The injured person would likely say yes, the driver should keep a proper lookout.

Anyway, if each individual decides the meaning of the word "negligent," then there is an impasse.

Another option is to have a court system resolve the issue. That is what we do. That is what God has left the church, too, in the way of councils and the like (see Acts 15).

That does not mean that church councils are infallible anymore than courts are infallible. Yet, they are better equipped typically than individuals. They also are necessary to resolve disagreements.

The existence of a court does not "trump" the statute (although it might seem that way to the losing litigant) anymore than an individual making a decision about the meaning of a statute "trumps" the statute. It is simply a question of radical individualism over community. Which entity resolves disgareements about the meaning of the statute, which all agree is the highest standard.

Scott
 
[quote:88a3a0c581]
Now, not everyone agrees with what words of the Constitution and statutes mean. We could respond in a couple of ways. We could say, well each individual needs to decide for himself what the statutes mean. That would lead to chaos.
[/quote:88a3a0c581]

Well, we don't even agree what country to live in. Your analogy assumes an agreed upon authority. A better analogy would include the idea that we can move to whatever country that suites our interpretation.

[quote:88a3a0c581]
That does not mean that church councils are infallible anymore than courts are infallible. Yet, they are better equipped typically than individuals. They also are necessary to resolve disagreements.
[/quote:88a3a0c581]

But, if we disagree with the decesion, we start our own country (Trent).

[quote:88a3a0c581]
The existence of a court does not "trump" the statute (although it might seem that way to the losing litigant) anymore than an individual making a decision about the meaning of a statute "trumps" the statute. It is simply a question of radical individualism over community.
[/quote:88a3a0c581]

I am with you on this, I abhor individualism, but I also think that the Protestant view of sola scriptura ultimately leaves the individual, with the Holy Spirit, to decide based on scripture. Of course, everything should be done in a collective manner, but there is no monolithic authority.

[/quote]
Which entity resolves disgareements about the meaning of the statute, which all agree is the highest standard.
Scott [/quote]

If it is the individuals responsibility to decide which authority to obey, then the individual resolves the agreement, not the Church. Otherwise, we should obey Trent.

[Edited on 3-30-2004 by raderag]
 
Brett...

[quote:f6cfa63e87]Scott, I have a question. Do you agree then that it is ultimately the individuals responsibility for deciding what the Church is? The individual must decide, based on their understanding of scripture, which confession or creed to accept and reject. The only other standard could be apostolic succession. Furthermore, if this is true, then individual understanding of scripture trumps the Church's, because it was used to decide which Church.

Am I missing something?[/quote:f6cfa63e87]

If I may chime in... We have a testimony that should be a witness to us in our hearts, without any one person trumping another. But where we fall short is in the area of pride. We do not submit to one another. We would rather argue than agree. And because of this, things become subjective.

But when have you ever known that something just rings true? Why is it that you believe it? Well, if it is really the truth, then it can only come by the Holy Spirit. It was not born out of our own desire to see it, necessarily. We do have to hunger and thirst for it, but even that comes from the Holy Spirit.

Do you have to make yourself hungry, physically? No. Just go without food and it happens automatically. It is the same with the Spirit. He makes us hunger for the Truth of the Word of God.

There is only one caveat. We all eat the same meat. There is nothing different in our food. So why is it we can come to opposite experience in the Scriptures? The answer is quite obvious. Because of sin, we are not illumined. It is either pride, or disobedience that makes us unfit for the truth. The Holy Spirit will lead us in all truth, we know that. But can He lead us where we, in our flesh, do not want to go?

Therefore, all heresy and all wrongful interpretation is a result of our disobedience and sin. We do not thwart the plan and providence of God in this, though. He has made us as we are. But we are still responsible for our sins. So much so, that the Spirit will even allow us to become dark in our thoughts. Whatever illumination we had will be taken away and we will believe a lie.

But we have this hope, then. If we hunger and thirst for the Word, and we are humble, and we submit to one another in love and not quarrel, then we do not hinder the Spirit's illumination. He will freely give to those who ask Him. This is not automatic or a formula, though, because we still have sin that so easily entangles us.

One thing we may know for certain. Whatever is true, has been seen before. There is no new truth born. Whatever the Spirit has put within the saints of all time, should be a witness to us, and should testify within us to the truth.

Does this fall upon denominational lines? No. Does it fall within particular churches? No. It is upon the church universal. Therefore we need to know what was believed and why it was believed, so that we may ascertain whether or not, by the Spirit, the Word is testified to us as the truth.

In the end, though, we are going to have to set aside all pride of knowledge, or sin of autonomy, if we are going to see the witness of the church entire. This means that we may have to change what we have believed.

But I would much rather believe something that others have believed, than to think something on my own. For I know that if I am on my own, I am outside of God's design. He did not create us to be at odds with one another, but to love each and every who is of the like precious faith.

If it is a faith once for all delivered to the Saints, then that faith is for all and should be embraced by all.

We should submit ourselves to the Apostolic rule of faith and practice as found in the Scriptures. For this is the testimony of the early church and that of the Reformation.

In Christ,

KC
 
Thanks very much, and I think we are in agreement. I agree that wrong doctrine is a result of sin, and that pride is the greatest enemy in the Church. As a Presbyeterian, I can only see that rampant in my denominations history.


[quote:4d67c8d359][i:4d67c8d359]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:4d67c8d359]
But I would much rather believe something that others have believed, than to think something on my own. For I know that if I am on my own, I am outside of God's design. He did not create us to be at odds with one another, but to love each and every who is of the like precious faith.

KC [/quote:4d67c8d359]

I agree 100% on this. Perhaps, we should speak of this as the 'mind of the Church' rather than the authority of the Church?
 
Brett:

Regarding Westminster's position I think you overlooked some language in 31:2, which you quoted:

III. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, [i:c9b7db2d84]but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his Word[/i:c9b7db2d84].

Not that the decisions are counsels are to be received with reverence and submission not only because they agree with the word but also for the power whereby they are created.

Note also that paragraph 2 expressly addresses the issue of who should resolve controversies of faith (the sole individual or the church wokring through a synod). Westminster affirms the synod and notes it special power. The proof texts are Acts 15, which should give you a flavor of what is being addressed.

Scott
 
[quote:8b48b3ca4e][i:8b48b3ca4e]Originally posted by Scott[/i:8b48b3ca4e]
Brett:

Regarding Westminster's position I think you overlooked some language in 31:2, which you quoted:

III. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, [i:8b48b3ca4e]but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his Word[/i:8b48b3ca4e].

Not that the decisions are counsels are to be received with reverence and submission not only because they agree with the word but also for the power whereby they are created.

Note also that paragraph 2 expressly addresses the issue of who should resolve controversies of faith (the sole individual or the church wokring through a synod). Westminster affirms the synod and notes it special power. The proof texts are Acts 15, which should give you a flavor of what is being addressed.

Scott [/quote:8b48b3ca4e]

Scott, I don't think I was overlooking that, but rather I was noting that we should obey them, but they were not a rule of faith. I do see your point though, but I was under the impression that WCF meant it in matter of practice rather than faith. Anyway, perhaps I need to study this issue more with reguard to WCF.


IV. All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; [b:8b48b3ca4e]therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both.[/b:8b48b3ca4e]
 
Good books?

Scott, can you recommend a good book on reformed ecclesiology? I would rather not read something that is trying to prove a particular point, but rather maybe a good survey of reformed thought.
 
Brett:

I understand your comments about living in different countries. I use that analogy all the time to illustrate problems with the schisms in Christ's single body. This has been a scandal in Christ's church since 1054 AD and got much worse with the Reformation (a tragic necessity) which resulted in the splintering of Christ's single church into thousands of divisions. Where there was one country, there are now tens of thousands and unbelievers rightly mock us for this.

My earlier comments are directed to the biblical ideal of what we should strive for, which will include organizational unity, as the Church had for a millennium and largely had for another 500 years (with the one large east/west division). When the Bible was written there was organizational unity. It was written in that context and assumes unity much as the Law was written in the context of an assumed unity of Israel and became in many ways impossible to apply after the kingdom divided into North and South.

For more on where we are, its problems, and some solutions, see (this is an outstanding book, and I am not really a fan of Frame):
John Frame, Evangelical Reunion
http://www.thirdmill.org/magpt_main.asp#frame

John Nevin, Catholic Unity
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/john_nevin/catholic_unity.htm

Our present disunity is atrocious. This is a great prayer from the 1928 Anglican Book of Common Prayer:

A prayer for the unity of God's People (BCP 1928)

O GOD, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Saviour, the Prince of Peace; Give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions. Take away all hatred and prejudice, and whatso-ever else may hinder us from godly union and concord: that as there is but one Body and one Spirit, and one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may be all of one heart and of one soul, united in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.


Scott
 
[quote:89ffff7b8d][i:89ffff7b8d]Originally posted by Scott[/i:89ffff7b8d]
Brett:

I understand your comments about living in different countries. I use that analogy all the time to illustrate problems with the schisms in Christ's single body. This has been a scandal in Christ's church since 1054 AD and got much worse with the Reformation (a tragic necessity) which resulted in the splintering of Christ's single church into thousands of divisions. Where there was one country, there are now tens of thousands and unbelievers rightly mock us for this.

My earlier comments are directed to the biblical ideal of what we should strive for, which will include organizational unity, as the Church had for a millennium and largely had for another 500 years (with the one large east/west division). When the Bible was written there was organizational unity. It was written in that context and assumes unity much as the Law was written in the context of an assumed unity of Israel and became in many ways impossible to apply after the kingdom divided into North and South.

For more on where we are, its problems, and some solutions, see (this is an outstanding book, and I am not really a fan of Frame):
John Frame, Evangelical Reunion
http://www.thirdmill.org/magpt_main.asp#frame

John Nevin, Catholic Unity
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/john_nevin/catholic_unity.htm

Our present disunity is atrocious. This is a great prayer from the 1928 Anglican Book of Common Prayer:

A prayer for the unity of God's People (BCP 1928)

O GOD, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Saviour, the Prince of Peace; Give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions. Take away all hatred and prejudice, and whatso-ever else may hinder us from godly union and concord: that as there is but one Body and one Spirit, and one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may be all of one heart and of one soul, united in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.


Scott [/quote:89ffff7b8d]

Scott, I agree with you fully about the state of the Church. I think this problem is the reason many reformed go over to the Orthodox or Roman position. There is a more objective standard for the Church over there. Too bad there is so much heresy to go along with it.

I have been thinking about ecumenicism for a while now, but I still don't know the right answers. I will check out some of those articles.
 
Brett,

[quote:65047f0d49]The problem is that you have to make a judgment of what church. Roman Catholic, Westminster, Lutheran, etc. That is still ultimatly personal judgment unless you believe in some kind of succession.[/quote:65047f0d49]

The point of the question is not to suggest that we just blindly accept what the church says. Of course there is personal judgment. I made the decision to leave the Baptist church and join the PCA. But why would it be wrong for me to submit my own understanding of Scripture to that of the church, particularly on the issue of paedocommunion, given the fact that historically, the Reformed church has rejected paedocommunion?

And concerning the catholic (universal) church on fundamental issues like the Trinity, for example, why would it be wrong for me to say, "The church has always interpeted the Scriptures this way, so therefore, I believe it"? Is my personal interpretation of Scripture more reliable than the church's?

And that's the one thing everybody in this thread needs to understand. EVERYBODY has an INTERPRETATION of Scripture. NOBODY's theological beliefs are "just the Bible". If our views were just the Bible, all we'd be doing is quoting Scriptures at one another, and our theology would be just as confusing as the Bible. If our views were just the Bible, there would be no commentaries because we would just be copying word for word the text of Scripture. But the fact that we write commentaries and Systematic Theologies and engage in long discourse about our views proves that our views are interpretations.

So you have (1) the church's interpretation of Scripture (either catholic doctrines or denominational distinctives) and (2) your own personal interpretation of Scripture. Now why should #1 bend the knee to #2?

Now let me just say, I am just laying these two options side by side asking a question. I am not setting one over against the other here. But the Tradition 0 people are setting #2 over against #1, and I just want to know why.
 
[quote:ab10d2424e][i:ab10d2424e]Originally posted by Scott[/i:ab10d2424e]
I don't think your response to the question to the Epistle to the Laodecians answers the question. Let's try another approach. Someone comes to you with the Epistle to the Laodecians and says, "What process should I go through to tell if this document is inspired or not?" What would you say?[/quote:ab10d2424e]

Is it in the Bible? No? Then it's not inspired.



[quote:ab10d2424e][i:ab10d2424e]Originally posted by Scott [/i:ab10d2424e]
This is the difficulty. Jesus is in heaven. We are not. He does not appear to you bodily and speak audibly to you, telling you which books are inspired and which are not.[/quote:ab10d2424e]

I feel as though we are running in circles here. [i:ab10d2424e]He has already told us[/i:ab10d2424e] which books He has inspired. It is [i:ab10d2424e]the Bible[/i:ab10d2424e].
The Bible is scripture. It is the complete Word of God. I am fully confident in God's ability to preserve it through the ages without losing any of it or having anything erroneous added to it. If I lack the faith to believe in the integrity of His Word, what good is tradition?

[quote:ab10d2424e][i:ab10d2424e]Originally posted by kceaster [/i:ab10d2424e]
But I would much rather believe something that others have believed, than to think something on my own.[/quote:ab10d2424e]

Brothers, please; no one here is suggesting that we just "think something on my own".

[quote:ab10d2424e] [b:ab10d2424e]1 Corinthians 2[/b:ab10d2424e]
9 But as it is written:

"Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him."

10 But [b:ab10d2424e]God has revealed them to us through His Spirit[/b:ab10d2424e]. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. [/quote:ab10d2424e]

See, we're not talking about extra-biblical revelation. We're talking about Biblical revelation.
Illumination, some would call it.

[quote:ab10d2424e][i:ab10d2424e]Originally posted by Scott[/i:ab10d2424e]

His Church is key to Him.[/quote:ab10d2424e]

No, His Word is key to Him. The Church is the building. You must first have the key to enter the building.


.
 
[quote:b08d0817aa][i:b08d0817aa]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:b08d0817aa]
NOBODY's theological beliefs are "just the Bible".
[/quote:b08d0817aa]

Well, that may be true... but some people's beliefs are more dependent upon the Bible than other people's beliefs!
:poke:
 
Right. But everybody seems to think that their views are the ones that are most Biblical and its everybody else that is relying too much on other things.
 
[quote:eebf196d08][i:eebf196d08]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:eebf196d08]
Brett,

[quote:eebf196d08]The problem is that you have to make a judgment of what church. Roman Catholic, Westminster, Lutheran, etc. That is still ultimatly personal judgment unless you believe in some kind of succession.[/quote:eebf196d08]

The point of the question is not to suggest that we just blindly accept what the church says. Of course there is personal judgment. I made the decision to leave the Baptist church and join the PCA. But why would it be wrong for me to submit my own understanding of Scripture to that of the church, particularly on the issue of paedocommunion, given the fact that historically, the Reformed church has rejected paedocommunion?

And concerning the catholic (universal) church on fundamental issues like the Trinity, for example, why would it be wrong for me to say, "The church has always interpeted the Scriptures this way, so therefore, I believe it"? Is my personal interpretation of Scripture more reliable than the church's?
[/quote:eebf196d08]

Ok, I agree with you here for the most part. However, why would it be wrong to invoke the 7th ecumenical council (iconoclastic contraversy) over the Westminster?

[quote:eebf196d08]
And that's the one thing everybody in this thread needs to understand. EVERYBODY has an INTERPRETATION of Scripture. NOBODY's theological beliefs are "just the Bible".
[/quote:eebf196d08]

I couldn't agree with you more, but if we use our interpretation of Scripture to determine which denomination to join, we are ultimatly using our view of Scripture over the Church's.

[quote:eebf196d08]
So you have (1) the church's interpretation of Scripture (either catholic doctrines or denominational distinctives) and (2) your own personal interpretation of Scripture. Now why should #1 bend the knee to #2?
[/quote:eebf196d08]

I don't know, why does it? The fact is that in the reformed view, unless there is only one true reformed Church, personal view of scripture supercedes any one Churchs view as it is the only standard to judge which Church has true doctrine. My point is that those arguing that the church is the Standard don't really believe that.

[quote:eebf196d08]
Now let me just say, I am just laying these two options side by side asking a question. I am not setting one over against the other here. But the Tradition 0 people are setting #2 over against #1, and I just want to know why. [/quote:eebf196d08]

I am not, I just think that Tradition 1 is no more objective than Tradition 0. Rather, it pretends to follow the Church, when in fact it follows individual human reason.

Why are you reformed and not Lutheran?
 
Here is what I am trying to say.

The Church's interpretation of scripture is very important.
The mind of the Church should be considered even more heavily than a personal opinion.

However, ultimately, one will have to use their personal judgment on scripture to decide which creeds, synods, and confessions are true. Trent and Westminster cannot both be true, so we must decide based on scripture which one is.

Furthermore, this must be dynamic as even a church you have decided to alighn with may err on a synod or confession.

Therefore, the standard of the Church cannot be used to understand doctrine as the Church itself must be determined by ones individual view of scripture. To say that I believe in doctrine A because confession C says it is fine. The question is why do you believe in confession C? The Protestant answer is because it contains doctrine A, thus we have circular logic. Do we believe Doctrine A becuase the Church says it, or do we believe the CHurch becuase Doctrine A is biblical in our personal view?
 
Something to Ponder.

Did Luther leave the Roman Church because Rome didn't properly apply its creeds, synods, and confessions to its doctrine?

To what extent did Luther apeal to tradition in reforming the Church?
 
Brett:

I too have been struggling with the concept of visible unity in the church. I think the Frame book is outstanding on that issue. One other book to check out is:

Thomas M'Crie, On the Unity of the Church and Its Divisions
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/Unity_00.htm

This is a good Reformed perspective. Fortunately it is available online too.

Scott
 
"I feel as though we are running in circles here. He has already told us which books He has inspired. It is the Bible."

Don: I still think we are not connecting. Let me try this:

[1] Were is there an inspired list of the books of the Bible?

[2] Where did God say that the Book of Hebrews is part of the Bible?

Scott
 
Brett:

I would define orthodoxy as interpretations of the church in her creeds that have had universal acceptance (even for a time) and reception. That would include the first 4 councils and the Apostle's Creed. Thomas Oden has written on this in his book on orthodoxy.

It is not only the rendering of the decision but the reception by the universal Church that counts. Christ's Bride know His voice.

With its divisions, the Church is not in a position to do this presently.

Scott
 
Brett...

[quote:f5701b023d][i:f5701b023d]Originally posted by raderag[/i:f5701b023d]
Did Luther leave the Roman Church because Rome didn't properly apply its creeds, synods, and confessions to its doctrine?

To what extent did Luther apeal to tradition in reforming the Church? [/quote:f5701b023d]

He was an Augustinian Monk. Do you think that may have had something to do with his views? Of course Scripture was the basis for his stance. But it was viewed through the light already given, through light the Spirit had already illumined.

What makes Westminister over Trent? Because Westminster lines up with Scripture and does not contradict it. What makes Westminster over others? It is a clearer definition than most confessions.

Why am I Presbyterian? Why am I OPC? Because I can affirm the Standards and place myself in submission to them. I, like Charles Hodge can say, "Having become satisfied that the system of doctrines taught in the symbols of the Reformed Church is taught in the Bible, I have endeavored to sustain it, and am willing to believe even where I cannot understand."

Now, am I affirming it because of my judgment, so that it is subjective? No, I am bowing to the judgment of others. I am submitting to them, not conforming them to my sensibilities, but I am conforming to theirs.

I am still responsible for what I believe. And where I am in error, even if I am just upholding what someone else has put forth, it is my error. That is why I am most comfortable believing what the Reformation believed. Because they believed what the early church believed. I don't believe that, in myself, I can come to better conclusions. If I did, I believe I would be ignoring what the Spirit has illumined in others. How can He show me the truth, when I choose not to believe it?

Along with this, we also have to understand the nature of the Reformation. If it was a true Reformation like some of us believe, then it did return to the faith of the Apostles. It was a Reformation not a revolution. Therefore, to believe the theology of the Reformation is to believe the theology of the Bible. They are not inerrant and they may well have gotten some things wrong. But the witness of my spirit with theirs and theirs with the early church, is sufficient for me to see that what they have taught is what the Bible teaches.

In Christ,

KC
 
[quote:38e70244a4][i:38e70244a4]Originally posted by Scott[/i:38e70244a4]
Brett:

I would define orthodoxy as interpretations of the church in her creeds that have had universal acceptance (even for a time) and reception. That would include the first 4 councils and the Apostle's Creed. Thomas Oden has written on this in his book on orthodoxy.

It is not only the rendering of the decision but the reception by the universal Church that counts. Christ's Bride know His voice.

With its divisions, the Church is not in a position to do this presently.

Scott [/quote:38e70244a4]

So westminster has no bearing on orthodoxy?
 
It may be helpful to consider that these issues involve a balance of personal judgment as well as submission to authority. This is an issue present in all areas of authority.

We are told to obey our parents and to obey God. When parents tell us to do something God forbids, we should follow God. The problem is when there is a difference of opinion between parent and child about what God forbids. Should the child go with his intepretation or should he submit to his parent's? In God's design, the parent is better equipped than the child to make judgments. Yet, parents are often wrong too (even the best, much less the worst).

There are time when it is right to contradict parental authority, yet when they regard matters of interpretation, the child's making the call about when to disobey is hard.

Remember, nobody has said that the church is infalible or irreformable. We are just saying that Her collective judgments are typically more reliable than our own. This is most true in areas in which there has been almost universal agreement among the church (such as the Trinity after the councils defined its meaning).

Luther described himself as a loyal son of the church, which he called his spiritual mother.

Scott
 
[quote:21ea0396c6][i:21ea0396c6]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:21ea0396c6]

What makes Westminister over Trent? Because Westminster lines up with Scripture and does not contradict it. What makes Westminster over others? It is a clearer definition than most confessions.
[/quote:21ea0396c6]

You mean that in your own view of Scripture, Westminster is more correct than Trent, right?


[quote:21ea0396c6]
Why am I Presbyterian? Why am I OPC? Because I can affirm the Standards and place myself in submission to them. I, like Charles Hodge can say, "Having become satisfied that the system of doctrines taught in the symbols of the Reformed Church is taught in the Bible, I have endeavored to sustain it, and am willing to believe even where I cannot understand."
[/quote:21ea0396c6]

I understand that you are willing to submitt to things you don't understand, but only as long as the overall thrust of the Church aligns with your personal view of Scripture. Otherwise, you would accept the mass.

[quote:21ea0396c6]
Now, am I affirming it because of my judgment, so that it is subjective? No, I am bowing to the judgment of others. I am submitting to them, not conforming them to my sensibilities, but I am conforming to theirs.
[/quote:21ea0396c6]

Only if they more or less agree with your personal view of scripture.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but you are using your personal view of scripture as the final authroity, not the Church's. That is my point.
 
Westmister incorporates all key elements of orthodoxy.

Yet, it is much more and takes definite positions on controvserial issues. So, I would say that Westminster is not a test of orthodoxy. It is the highest expression of Christian doctrine yet developed. I would hold those in other denominations as orthodox so long as they meet the test I mentioned. I work willingly with them. So, I work with baptists, methodists, etc., even though I believe they err on issues.

Scott
 
Brett:

IN terms of being Lutheran, PCA, or whatever, I would say that you are right, personal judgment on the interpretations of scripture is our main guide. There is no collective judgment of the "mind of the church" on issues that divide orthodox denominations (consubstantiation vs. spiritual presence). The Bible is our guide on those issues, like all others, yet there is no body in the universal church to mediate our differences (like Acts 15).

However, on the issue of the difference between orthodox churches and unorthodox churches, we do have the mind of the catholic Church. A local church that is unitarian, as opposed to Trinitarian, is outside the pale of pronouncements of the universal church. If we are unclear about the Trinity, we should submit to our Mother (the universal church), who has decided these issues long ago. Submission to our spiritual mother is a personal decision, but so is submission to our genetic mother. Yet, we have an obligation to do both.

Scott
 
[quote:33f5554419][i:33f5554419]Originally posted by Scott[/i:33f5554419]

Remember, nobody has said that the church is infalible or irreformable. We are just saying that Her collective judgments are typically more reliable than our own. This is most true in areas in which there has been almost universal agreement among the church (such as the Trinity after the councils defined its meaning).

Luther described himself as a loyal son of the church, which he called his spiritual mother.

Scott [/quote:33f5554419]

I agree with you on all accounts, it just seems that saying that we put the Church's interpretation over and above our own isn't true if we use our interpretation to evaluate the Church.

If tradition were of this much of a concern, I would at least have to be Lutheran as their view on the sacraments was much closer to the ECFs than is the reformed.
 
Good answer.

[quote:34df0bf137][i:34df0bf137]Originally posted by Scott[/i:34df0bf137]
Westmister incorporates all key elements of orthodoxy.

Yet, it is much more and takes definite positions on controvserial issues. So, I would say that Westminster is not a test of orthodoxy. It is the highest expression of Christian doctrine yet developed. I would hold those in other denominations as orthodox so long as they meet the test I mentioned. I work willingly with them. So, I work with baptists, methodists, etc., even though I believe they err on issues.

Scott [/quote:34df0bf137]

Dordt declared the denial of five point Calvinism a heresy, is that in error?
 
Agreed.

[quote:8b759a318c][i:8b759a318c]Originally posted by Scott[/i:8b759a318c]
Brett:

IN terms of being Lutheran, PCA, or whatever, I would say that you are right, personal judgment on the interpretations of scripture is our main guide. There is no collective judgment of the "mind of the church" on issues that divide orthodox denominations (consubstantiation vs. spiritual presence). The Bible is our guide on those issues, like all others, yet there is no body in the universal church to mediate our differences (like Acts 15).

However, on the issue of the difference between orthodox churches and unorthodox churches, we do have the mind of the catholic Church. A local church that is unitarian, as opposed to Trinitarian, is outside the pale of pronouncements of the universal church. If we are unclear about the Trinity, we should submit to our Mother (the universal church), who has decided these issues long ago. Submission to our spiritual mother is a personal decision, but so is submission to our genetic mother. Yet, we have an obligation to do both.

Scott [/quote:8b759a318c]

I agree on all accounts.
 
In embracing the Gospel of the Bible, the Reformation emphasized a return to the original text of the Holy Scripture and the ability to exercise skill in sacred philology. The question of "authority" was central and the humanists pressed for a return ad fontes to the sources of antiquity that could place them in contact with the original intent of the writers. This placed an importance on Greek and Hebrew rather than relying on the inaccurate Latin Vulgate. Unless one is able to understand the heart of the Scripture without the use of commentaries of "filters" to confuse the actual text, the vera theologia could never be obtained. In this way, then, the idea of Sola Scriptura takes an interesting turn. Since the ploughboy would not be able to exegete the text based on Hebrew or Greek, the interpretation of Scripture was really limited to a certain group who had the skills to do this. Here, the Reformation followed Erasmus and medieval scholasticism given the inability of the lay congregation to interpret the Bible for themselves. The question of "tradition" (or "Theologian Traditionalism") opposes "private interpretation" to a certain extent, though it is often misunderstood practically. Though Scripture alone is sufficient for the [i:39ba31c76f]vera theologia,[/i:39ba31c76f] how would one know that they have a correct interpretation except by an ecclesiastical and historical orthodox consensus affirming their finds? The Roman Catholic Church had the decreetals of the papacy. The Reformers held to the exposition of the Scriptures based on the reality that Scripture interprets Scripture, but is affirmed intellectually within the "sphere of the church." This is a delicate balance.

The Reformation was built upon a proper understanding of hermeneutics, though in different methodologies, which gave way to a solid doctrinal stance on Sola Scriptura. In the beginning, young Luther embraced the scholastic fourfold sense of hermeneutical interpretation of a given passage (literal, allegorical, anagogical and tropological). This Quadriga was later replaced by sound exegesis, though at the time, men like Calvin were ridiculed for handling the text in a literal fashion. Zwingli first utilized this literal interpretation in following after Erasmus' insistence on obtaining knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. As a result, the Quadriga influence on Luther (and later his "eight senses") would not be influential upon the Reformed church. Instead, Luther more positively influenced interpretation by applying the [i:39ba31c76f]lex[/i:39ba31c76f] and [i:39ba31c76f]evangelium[/i:39ba31c76f] in balance. Later, in his theology surrounding justification, Luther more readily abandons the Quadriga (or rather his heightened eight sense theory) and adheres to a literal sense as the Reformed church exemplified. The hermeneutics, though, of both the Lutheran Church and the Reformed church seem to have little in common at the outset. Rather, the commonality of their views of Scripture emerge from the their mutual attachment to the patristic fathers.

I say all that to say this: Sola Scriptura is not "me and my bible". It never was meant in that way. Even Christ said, "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think
you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of
Me." The exegesis of the Christ to them, throught eh Holy Spirit is what they lacked. In parallel so it is with the manner in which the church is used to interpret the Bible, not as Catholicism taught, but as the Reformers and Confessionalism have stated. Not to rule by way of binding the conscicne on faith and practice as to their "say" but in terms of their rightly, by concensus, interpreting the word.
 
Brett:

Perhaps it may also help to clarify what is meant when we say collective judgment over private judgment. Accepting and submitting to a collective judgment is a personal decision and involves personal judgment.

Still, it is proper for a person under authority (any authority) to say, I am not going to follow my own will or ideas and will submit to those of the authority. The decision to submit is a personal decision, but in a different way. If I have idea X and an authority over me has idea Y, when I make a decision to accept idea Y (and not follow idea X), there is a sense in which I am rejecting my own will in favor of the authority. Yet, in a second sense, I am using my own will to submit to the authority.

BTW, I don't think failure to affirm of Calvinism is heresy. I do think that affirmation of full pelagianism is.

Scott
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

sotzo
  • Locked
Sola Scriptura
Replies
13
Views
2K
Mathetes
Mathetes
jfschultz
  • Locked
Sola Scriptura
Replies
0
Views
2K
jfschultz
jfschultz
T
  • Locked
Sola Scriptura and the Church
Replies
1
Views
1K
RamistThomist
RamistThomist
Scott
  • Locked
There is no evidence of sola fide in the church from the clo
Replies
13
Views
8K
DTK
D
J
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
Which form of church government is more scriptural?
2
Replies
32
Views
11K
Rich Koster
Rich Koster
Back
Top