Posted on 08/21/2006 1:16:57 PM PDT by Teófilo
The conclusion of Brief Reflections on the Trinity, the Canon of Scripture, and the Protestant idea of Sola Scriptura.
The Church in action during the Trinitarian Settlement
Let's return to the doctrinal development that gave us the theological definitions regarding the Triune nature of God. We've discovered that this was a centuries-old process which involved the entire Church, but specially the magisterial Church, as represented by the bishops of the different Christian sees.
The questions before them were very important, since even today these questions go to the heart of Christianity:
The Church answered these questions via a series of Ecumenical Councils, that is, meetings attended by bishops from the "entire world" (oikumene in Greek, hence our word "ecumenical") to shape and to debate exactly these issues, to give shape to a new kind of theological language that could express the faith they had received via Tradition from previous generations of Christians.
- Who is Jesus? Is He a mere man, surely a prophet, but merely a man? Was he an exalted creature, an angel perhaps, in human form? Was he a man within which God indwelt, yet remaining a man?
- What does it mean when Christians call Jesus "Son of God"? What's this relationship exactly? Does it mean that God adopted the man Jesus by making him the receiver of exceptional powers, yet remaining a man? Or was it a "natural relationship" and if it was, what exactly is it meant by "nature" and "relationship"?
- What is "the Word of God," the logos which was with God "from the beginning"? Is this just a metaphor for God's power and intellect? Is this "Word" just a "mode" of divine operation? How's the Word "the Son"? Is the Word something indwelling "the man Jesus" along with "the man Jesus' soul" or is it something that takes the place of "the man Jesus' soul?"
- What exactly is the nature and scope of Christ's vicarious atonement? How the answers to the questions above affect the nature and scope of Christ's redemptive death? Could a mere man's death atone for all and every sin? Could an incarnated angel's? Would the sacrifice of a man inside whom God inhabited "in parallel" with that man's humanity, but not in perfect "hypostatic union" with that man's nature, really atone for sin?
- Who is the Holy Spirit? Is He (it?) a mere personification of God's power, a "force" but not a "person," a mode of God's action but not a Divine Actor? What is a "person" anyway? Is this a clinical-psychological term? Is it a philosophical term with nuance meanings and what meanings must it take if applied to the Godhead? When Christians refer to God as a Personal God, what exactly does that mean?
The Church's Magisterium comes of age as the proximate Rule of Faith
The first seven Ecumenical Councils grappled with these issues during a period lasting 400 years. Read about them in New Advent's Catholic Almanac and then consider these theses:
The Protestant thesis of Sola Scriptura's impact upon the ancient Trinitarian settlement
- The same Church who lovingly, exhaustively, and intently defined the Canon of Scripture following a vigorous discussion of dissenting viewpoints, is the same Church that authoritatively discerned the teaching from the oral and written Tradition regarding the doctrine about the Triune God, with the same intensity. The product was a definition of the boundaries of orthodoxy; between what was true doctrine against what was false teaching.
- The settlement of the Canon of Scripture and the settlement of the Trinitarian questions were parallel processes. These processes both answered urgent questions about the objective contents of the faith and the nature and scope of the rule of faith. These questions fed on each other and needed almost simultaneous solutions; the final Trinitarian and Canon of Scripture settlement occurred in the sixth century.
- The settlement of the biblical canon and Trinitarian doctrine demonstrate that the settled teaching of the Church's Magisterium constitute a second regula fidei or "rule of faith" outside Holy Scripture which defines, clarifies, and bounds its meaning into orthodox channels.
- The rule of faith wielded by the Magisterial Church consists primarily of the hermeneutical framework "encasing," so-to-speak, the questions themselves, i.e., the belief in monotheism, in the precedent Hebrew revelation, in progressive revelation from the Old to the New Testament, in the "economy" of salvation, in the divinity and humanity of Jesus, in the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and in the divine institution, constitution, and permanent character of the Church. Second, this rule of faith includes the conciliar process itself, which presupposed a consciousness of the office, powers, duties, and collegiality among monarchical bishops; an awareness of conciliar precedents found in Scripture; and the need for the concurrence by all patriarchal bishops in the oikumene and from the Bishop of Rome in particular in all conciliar definitions. Lastly, the final "product" of these processes, the dogmatic conciliar decisions themselves, the terminology, vocabulary, and method, they all form the explicit contents of this rule of faith, which theologians now call the proximate rule of faith to distinguish it from Holy Scripture which was considered a rule of faith needing explanation and definition and therefore more "remote" in respect to the conscience of the individual believer. This is the way that Church solved the "problem of the interpreter" until the advent of the Protestant revolt.
Once again, Protestant faithful to the teaching and worldview of the magisterial Reformers find themselves in a paradox. The Reformers passed down to their children the Church's Trinitarian faith lock, stock, and barrel. For example, the first article of the Lutheran Augsburg Confession states:
Our Churches, with common consent, do teach that the decree of the Council of Nicaea concerning the Unity of the Divine Essence and concerning the Three Persons, is true and to be believed without any doubting; that is to say, there is one Divine Essence which is called and which is God: eternal, without body, without parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, visible and invisible; and yet there are three Persons, of the same essence and power, who also are coeternal, the Father the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And the term "person" they use as the Fathers have used it, to signify, not a part or quality in another, but that which subsists of itself.Similarly, the Reformed Westminster Confession, in its second chapter, states:They condemn all heresies which have sprung up against this article, as the Manichaeans, who assumed two principles, one Good and the other Evil- also the Valentinians, Arians, Eunomians, Mohammedans, and all such. They condemn also the Samosatenes, old and new, who, contending that there is but one Person, sophistically and impiously argue that the Word and the Holy Ghost are not distinct Persons, but that "Word" signifies a spoken word, and "Spirit" signifies motion created in things.
1. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.The order of the concepts, even the very wordings, are reminiscent of the words of earlier councils and even in parts appear lifted right off from St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica!2. God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleaseth. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.
3. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, not proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.
As consistent as this effort appears to be, the Reformers spread the seeds of future dissent by embracing Sola Scriptura and disregarding the Church's Magisterium as the proximate rule of faith. They hoped that a hermeneutical method solely derived from the internal structure of the Scriptures (the belief and attitude expressed in the saying "Scripture interprets Scripture") would evolve naturally among the reformed Christian cultures that would hold the traditional understandings of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit without the need to appeal to the Church's Magisterium as a rule of faith.
The reverse exactly happened. The "Manichaeans, Valentinians, Arians, Eunomians, Mohammedans, and the Samosatenes" (Sabellians or Monarchian Modalists) decried by the Lutherans—not to say the "Mohammedans"—came back with a vengeance, all appealing, in words often wrenched from the Westminster Confession, to the effect that "…the supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture" to justify their heterodox teachings. That's why we find among us today "Oneness Pentecostals and Jehovah Witnesses" and "Latter Day Saints," modern heterodox holding to variant doctrines on the nature of God, all purportedly based upon the Holy Scriptures. Adherence to Sola Scriptura enables these sects to dissent from the Trinitarian teaching received by the Reformers, and no Protestant, no matter how Fundamentalist or Evangelical—or both—can blame them.
This realization leads me to the following conclusion:
Just as the Protestant tenet of Sola Scriptura leads to an open Scriptural canon and the possibility of continuing revelation, it also reopens the debate about the nature of the Father, Son of God, and the Holy Spirit by destroying the Trinitarian settlement and allowing for the rebirth of ancient heresies.If we hold to Sola Scriptura, our understanding of God, of Jesus Christ, of his status as Son of God, and of the Holy Spirit, is open to debate once again. In fact, this is the exact argument the aforementioned sects utilize to state their cases, which leads me to this second conclusion:
The adoption of Sola Scriptura as the sole rule of faith, over and against the Church's Magisterium, leads to this very kind of sectarianism. It can be effectively argued, in my opinion, that sects such as the Oneness Pentecostals, the Jehovah Witnesses, and the Latter Day Saints epitomize the real Protestant Reformation spirit and together constitute the Reformation's most authentic exponents.In fact, I also argue that the theologies of these are more internally consistent than that of the garden variety Protestant precisely in their absolute rejection of anything smacking of Catholic theological precedent in any form, much less of appealing to any ancient consensus and settlement the way the Reformers did in their aforementioned confessions of faith. These heterodox sects are the true heirs of the Reformers.
Conclusion
The Protestant tenet of Sola Scriptura has proven an utter failure. The tenet has lead to doctrinal chaos, anarchy, disobedience, contempt, and ultimately, to ignorance of the very Scriptures the tenet supposedly protects and exalts. It has lead to confusion, disunion, ignorance, fatigue, exhaustion and then to indifference. Sola Scriptura has undermined, not solidified, the religious certainty Christians ought to have in matters pertaining to God, Jesus Christ, salvation, the Church, and even the last things—heaven, hell, purgatory, death, and the Second Coming of Christ. As applied thus far, the tenet has failed miserably to confirm Christians in their faith and therefore constitutes a principal factor underlying today's Culture of Death, secularism, relativism, and religious indifference.
In fact, I accuse Sola Scriptura of weakening the moral fiber and the cohesion of the Christian West. It has become a cause of the fracture, fragmentation, and weakening of Western European civilization. We have grown weaker, not stronger, because of it.
The solution to these ills lies in the full acceptance by all the non-Catholic brethren who still hold to ancient and orthodox beliefs about the Triune God, to embrace once again the understanding of the Church's Magisterium as the proximate rule of faith, along with Holy Scripture, and to reject Sola Scriptura. This is also the only logical and consistent solution to the "problem of the interpreter" which is both ancient and Christian.
In this manner, Christians would not only approach something resembling unity in matters of faith, morals, and discipline, but also show the world a unified testimony of mutual love and communion as befitting our dignity as Christians.
I am pretty sure that if the Reformers had known what they had unleashed through Sola Scriptura, they would never have embraced such a doctrine. The Reformation would have proceeded along Catholic channels, thereby saving the Christian West a lot of grief, religious cintriversies, wars, precluding the weakened status in which it finds itself today in the face of militant Islam, Oriental religions, and the resurgence of Paganism and New Age cults.
We should learn this lesson while we still have time.
PING!
Good article, and completely on target. A waste of time, though, as the "reformed Christians" will, as usual, not admit that the doctrine of "sola scriptura" is itself NON-SCRIPTURAL. Scripture itself SPECIFICALLY says that it, alone, is not "all truth" about Jesus and his teachings (both St. Paul and St. John say so--specifically).
No. Sola scriptura-pushers do. Drop the filter and read again.
-Theo
Question: other than the written record of the teachings of the Prophets and Apostles, by what mechanism do you suggest we use to determine if a theological statement or system is consistent with the Apostolic Faith or is something way off in Griswold land?
Gee whiz. This essay answered that very question. Please, drop the defense mechanism and read it again!
Thus, when we speak of Sola Scriptura, we are speaking of the Bible and the explanation that we have of the Bible as a church consensus of orthodoxy. These are deemed traditions. We could label this view Tradition 1. Tradition 2 would encapsulate an extra scriptural written account of the apostles that has been given to the church but not the church at large. This is the position in which the Roman Catholic Church takes in relation to their authority. It is a two-source tradition that propagates both what is entailed in Tradition 1 and extra-scriptural writings that are only privy to the pope and Catholicism at large. Or, that the Pope himself is able to add to, but not take away, from what is given as the rule for faith and practice. This is where they place “tradition” on the same level as “Scripture.” But this is not the same as Sola Scriptura.The cults are a manifestation of solo Scriptura. They are at one extreme end of the theological continuum. At the other end are the extreme traditionalists within the Roman communion.This should cause those believing in “Sola Scriptura” to reject, out rightly, the false and twisted idea of SOLO Scriptura. No one through history believed that we should not comment and explain the Bible. The Reformers, for example did not believe in the “tradition” of the Catholic Church in the manner described above. Rather, they believed in the regula fidei that included the explanation of the Bible according to the apostolic teaching.
The via media of the protestant reformers is the only position consistent with Scripture which can deal effectively with both errors.
See also A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura and The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith Mathison.
It is interesting to note that when Roman Catholics compare their "one" church with what they claim to be an uncontrollably large number of Protestant denominations, they are in fact using an apple and oranges argument. A better comparison would be to compare the result of the "sola scriptura" model with the model of the "Bible plus an infallible interpreter". The former gives us Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. The latter gives us Roman Catholicism, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, etc.
Bump for later.
I think the author's ideas about sola scriptura are far more valid than yours. To me, what you say is sola Scriptura is not sola Scriptura. How does a "church consensus" (whatever that is) have anything to do with Sola Scriptura?
by Dr. W. Robert Godfrey
There are two main issues that divide Protestant Catholics from Roman Catholics. Both groups claim to be catholic, that is, part of the apostolic, universal church of Jesus Christ. Roman Catholics believe we Protestants departed from that church in the sixteenth century. Protestant Catholics believe they departed earlier.
The theme of this opening chapter is one of the issues that still divides us: the source of religious truth for the people of God. (The other main issue, that of how a man is made right with God, has been dealt with in the book Justification by Faith ALONE!, published by Soli Deo Gloria in 1995.) As Protestants we maintain that the Scripture alone is our authority. Our Roman opponents maintain that the Scripture by itself is insufficient as the authority of the people of God, and that tradition and the teaching authority of the church must be added to the Scripture.
Author
Dr. W. Robert Godfrey is President of Westminster Theological Seminary in Escondido, California. He is also Professor of Church History. He received the A.B., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees from Stanford University, and the M.Div. degree from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. He has taught at Westminster Theological Seminary (both in Pennsylvania and California) for over twenty years. He is an ordained minister in the Christian Reformed Church. Dr. Godfrey was a contributor to John Calvin: His Influence on the Western World; Reformed Theology in America; and Scripture and Truth. He edited the Westminster Theological Journal for several years, and is a frequent speaker at Christian conferences. Dr. Godfrey is a native of California. He and his wife Mary Ellen have three children: William, Mari, and Robert. ___________________________ This article originally appeared as Chapter I in Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible, Don Kistler, General Editor and published by Soli Deo Gloria Publications.
Good Grief! ping
Why would anyone want to belong to a church that teaches error?
And who decides what is and isn't apostasy?
Who knows? Just look at the confusion caused over this issue on another thread:
Church Fires Teacher for Being Female
Ahh...such unity! Refreshing isn't it? Fruits of Sola Scriptura?
I don't want to have to have to alert the Religion Moderator on this one, so I will tell you to your face. That was a very rude comment and you have essentially called all Catholics stupid. Not only that, but that we should forsake Christianity to become Muslims! Don't you know how to debate or prove your point without resorting to such inflammatory insults?
If not, then perhaps Catholics shouldn't engage in conversation with you. It would be a practice in futility.
God.
Those who are in fellowship with Him, may be futher sanctified while we in fellowship with Him, through faith, and by the work of the Holy Spirit upon our soul (our thinking) and our spirit.
If we think improperly by His standards, i.e. sin in our thoughts, He is not free in His Perfect Righteousness to sanctify that faulty thinking.
Since we all have a scarred thinking faculty, referred to as an old sin nature by some, or the natural man, or the old man, our rationalistic modes of thinking might be independent of faith through Christ, hence a scarred thinking.
One method for us to catch ourselves through faith in Him, is to always repent or turn away from disobedience to Him, and confess or name or pray to Him of our sinfulness, to include those sins inherant in our thinking which we may have become callous and scarred to perceiving.
Once back in fellowship with Him through faith in Christ, He is free to further sanctify our thinking.
When we read and think the Word of God, His revealed Word is made available to our thinking. The Holy Spirit is then free to recognize our faith and proper thoughts, which are the same as His (when we think Scripture as He communicated/revealed it), and also free to further sanctify our thinking in soul and then our spirit.
Maybe further truth exists, but then again, many a test, trail, and growth in our walk with Him, may ebb upon even the most simple thoughts of His Word.
I must admit, I cannot give testimony of ever knowing any person, other than our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, who was so well sanctified in Scripture, to have to search for more truth other than as the Father may have made available to Him by His standards.
I admit, I have my hands full, merely mastering Scripture already provided by Him, by always remaining in faith in all my thinking with Him and allowing Him to do the work of sanctifying me. Searching for further truth than Scripture, might be tempting, and testing of our discernment, but I suspect many more believers may be tempted to follow false teaching and false Christs when they seek such truth outside of Scripture.
Likewise, perhaps some of the Roman Catholic denomination have perceived some carnal Christians, who have fallen into legalism, and fail to study Scripture in fatih through Christ, but instead seek truth in His Word as a rationalistic rulebook independent of faith in Christ. Such legalism merely scars the soul of the legalist and is a type of moral degeneracy.
There remains, though, many a believer who seeks to further their walk with the Lord by focusing on His Word, finding sola Scriptura as a useful tool to remind their thinking to return to Him in all things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.