A critique of the evangelical doctrine of solo scriptura

The Highway ^ | Keith Mathison

[B-Chan]

"...Christ did not establish a level playing field. He did not establish a democracy."

As a monarchist, and as a Catholic loyal to the Magisterium, I obviously agree. Christ is the King of the Universe, not its president, and His Holiness is the Prince of the Church, not its chairman. My fellow American Catholics need to realize that in matters of faith and morals vox populi is most definitely not vox dei; quite the opposite, in fact.

Democracy sucks -- and as a way to govern Christ's Church it's an evil failure as well. The mainstream Protestants have voted themselves into irrelevance; let's learn from their mistakes instead of repeating them.

Divine Hierarchy bump.

[lockeliberty]

You still come down to the same old problem in the final analysis - WHO decides whether any teaching supports the Apostolic tradition?

Simply, those teachers and theologians who strictly adhere to the rule of Faith. The RCC gave up that right when it added non-apostolic tradition to the rule of Faith.

[lockeliberty]

"an Evangelical/Reformed thinker" who doesn't lap up YOPIOS?

Most 'Reformed thinkers' have never 'lapped up YOPIOS'. Luther just returned us to the original 'rule of Faith' when the RCC abandoned the Apostolic tradition for APATTAT. (A Popes addition to the Apostolic tradition.)

[Domestic Church]

"He did not establish a democracy."

And He handed out some very important keys to the Kingdom.

[Domestic Church]

"Unlike the Roman Catholic position and the Eastern Orthodox position, however, which invariably result in the autonomy of the Church, the modern Evangelical position inevitably results in the autonomy of the individual believer."

Then why did Jesus hand out keys in the first place?

[Gophack]

I agree with you.

I think it's important to note that many Protestants are good, God-fearing people who are sincerely trying to live as Jesus commands. I have utmost respect for those who are constantly seeking the Truth and spreading the Word. I know many wonderful and, dare I say, holy Protestants who are more "Catholic" than some of my CINO friends. I am praying for their eventual return to the true Church established by Christ because we ARE one body in Christ and the body is within His Church.

God bless.

[Gophack]

One of my favorite programs, which I listen to on radio, is Martin Grodi's The Journey Home, where former Protestants, Jews, Atheists, fallen Catholics, etc. discuss their spiritual journey and how they came into the Catholic faith. One thing strikes me every time I listen: these new Catholics understand and truly love the Catholic faith more than most cradle Catholics I know. They have a deep understanding of Scripture (which is important to Protestants) that they are sharing with Catholics. Too many Catholics ignore the Bible and Scripture -- I never picked up a Bible to simply read outside of Church until I "reverted" back to the faith a few years ago.

These converts have shown through their collective stories why many Catholics have left the faith, and what the attraction is in the Protestant churches, particularly the evangelical denominations. The overwhelming love for Christ and the fellowship helps feed the soul.

Of course, I believe your soul can never truly be feed without the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; still, I think we can learn a lot of from them.

God bless.

[Tantumergo]

""an Evangelical/Reformed thinker" who doesn't lap up YOPIOS? Will wonders never cease?"

Sounds like they would have to market a new brand if they took this one up:

YOPIOSAROF

Your Own Personal Interpretation of Sripture and Rule of Faith.

[Iowegian]

Sounds dangerously Roman to me!!

You are right, it is. And it should be rejected, just as RCC authority should be. The early church did not believe in the absolute authority of the apostles. The Bereans were commended, not for accepting the teachings of the apostles (or any other church authority) out of hand, but for checking their teachings against the written Holy Scriptures.

[lockeliberty]

Your Own Personal Interpretation of Sripture and Rule of Faith.

That sounds Romish. A Popes personal interpretation of scripture and rule of Faith. A Reformed thinker knows that the rule of Faith is an objective standard and not merely the whim of some Pope.

[Iowegian]

Luther just returned us to the original 'rule of Faith' when the RCC abandoned the Apostolic tradition for APATTAT. (A Popes addition to the Apostolic tradition.)

Luther was a good beginning, but accepted many errors due to his RCC upbringing.

[Tantumergo]

"Simply, those teachers and theologians who strictly adhere to the rule of Faith."

You get straight back to the same problem that the "solos" have - How do you decide which teachers and theologians strictly adhere to the rule of faith?

In what you propose it still falls on the shoulders of the fallible, non-omniscient, time-bound individual believer to judge which of their potential "elders" or "teachers" are orthodox according to their own personal criteria.

"The RCC gave up that right when it added non-apostolic tradition to the rule of Faith."

Again WHO so decides that any non-apostolic tradition has been added? Who conferred authority on you to make this judgement?

You are simply asserting your personal and individual opinion, measured according to your personal and individual understanding of what scripture and the "Rule of faith" teaches.

It is this same absolutist individualism which has bedevilled the heirs of the Reformation with the spirit of schism for the last 450 years.

[lockeliberty]

Luther was a good beginning, but accepted many errors due to his RCC upbringing.

True. I'm not suggesting that we accept any non-revelational source as the ultimate defining understanding of scripture and God. We are finite and due to our noetic structure there will never be complete agreement on interpretation. The Apostolic tradition gives us the framework in which we proceed. We neither add nor subtract from the rule of Faith.

[Iowegian]

The New Testament is the apostolic tradition.

[Tantumergo]

"A Reformed thinker knows that the rule of Faith is an objective standard"

LOL!!! - then a Reformed thinker believes in an oxymoron.

Nothing is objective if the rights of the individual intellect to interpret it according to its own authority are always paramount.

The destination of this doctrine is straight down the liberal yellow-brick road of "What's true for you may not be true for me". It invites subjectivism and relativism as surely as the original sola fide doctrine.

[Iowegian]

LOL!!! - then a Reformed thinker believes in an oxymoron.

Oxymoron? You mean like the "infallible teachings of the Pope"?

[Domestic Church]

"The Bible can't save me"

The Bible is the Word and it can certainly save but it is important to recognize that Christ would have handed out keys to all the Apostles if he meant that and he would have given all his friends copies but he chose a key holder for the Body of Christ.

Another aspect that never seems to surface in discussions of this sort is the Mystical...this is where one needs a God given key.

[Domestic Church]

"The New Testament is the apostolic tradition."

But the NT wasn't written until after Apostolic Tradition had been handed down for several generations.

[Iowegian]

But the NT wasn't written until after Apostolic Tradition had been handed down for several generations.

I disagree, but it matters not unless you believe that the "apostolic tradition" was different than the written Scriptures.

[Tantumergo]

"Oxymoron? You mean like the "infallible teachings of the Pope"?"

Nope - no oxymoron here because this doctrine acknowledges and hinges on the very fact that causes all the problems for "sola scriptura":

AUTHORITY IS PERSONAL BECAUSE GOD IS PERSONAL.

You can never devolve a person-dependent attribute onto an inanimate object - even where that object is scripture itself.