A critique of the evangelical doctrine of solo scriptura

Aquinas' teaching on natural theology does not have to do with intelligence. Btw, it is also something that we Protestants (at least in contemporary Reformed circles) agree upon.

Well, I certainly defer to your greater knowledge but I think even within contemporary Reformed circles there is disagreement on this. I'm not the one to delinate the difference between Aquinas' natural theology and what is known within the Reformed tradition as General revelation but certainly it is an very important difference.

Hodges and Warfield of the old Princeton Theology certainly agreed with Aquinas that natural man had a religous nature and the ability to understand God through this natural religous nature(reason). Contrast that to Kuyper and Berkhof who believed that all true knowledge of God is possessed only within the Christian community, that Faith and Reason must be clearly delinated, that all knowledge of God originates from God and not from our own natural reason.

Since I agree with Kuyper and Berkhof on the important distinction between Faith and Reason it seems to follow that those who believe that Faith is not a necessary presuppositional principal for true knowledge of God, especially in a monarchial form of government, then the overriding deciding factor on power within that form of government should be based upon the individual with the greatest Reason. I agree that intelligence is not necessarily the same as reason but certainly is included with and necessary for reason. You'll have to show me where my logic breaks down and makes my hyposthesis into a false premise.

"The author of this article is wrong about some things, but when he says that sola leads inevitably to every man becoming his own Pope, he's right on the money. I'm not smart (or holy) enough to be my own Pope."
Good. Cuz popes arent scriptural.
Oh, really?
Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."[Matt 16:17-19]
When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).
Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.
Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).
Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.
Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled. [Source]
1. The papacy is scriptural, because the apostolic succession is scriptural.
2. Scripture alone does not contain the complete deposit of God's Word.
3. The doctrine of sola scriptura is not found in scripture.
4. The canon of scripture itself is the product of Tradition.

5. Every Christian follows some pope -- either himself, the one behind his church's pulpit, or the Pope of Rome.

Recently this debate is going on within Reformed circles. The old School as you point out was divided. There were two schools of apologetical thought that was formed out of this division. The first is called presuppositionalism, and was championed by Cornelius Van Till. The name is descriptive. One presumes the existence of God and that the bible is God's revelation to mankind. From that the apologia is brought out. i suspect that you can see the logical flaw...the entire premise is circular, assuming God to prove God, using the bible to prove the bible. This has been the majourity report of Reformed Christianity since old Princton split.

There is a "back to the future" revolution going on at the moment. A student of Van Till named John Gerstner and two students of his, RC Sproul, and Art Lindsley examined the argunents, and the history of the Classical (sometimes called evidential) apologetic, and have confronted the very basis of the Van Till apologetic. The results and formulation is outlined in the book CLASSICAL APOLOGETICS by the three authors mentioned above.

The classical method supposedly fell out of favour as a response to Immanuel Kant, who supposedly destroyed the traditional theological proofs in Critique of Pure Reason. yet no one at the time ever seemed to question whether or not Kant was wrong. Even from a Presuppositional standpoint the question remains: If The Psalmist is right in Psalm 19, and Paul is right in Romans 1, THEN KANT MUST BE WRONG. i see the presuppositional apologetic as an accomodation to the world spirit, and (with apologies to Dr. Van Till), a spirit of sloth on the part of the Christian community who was not willing to do the work to provide a rebuttal to the work of Kant.

Some never did cave in. As i pointed out in my last post, Edwards maintained a classical apologetic, i believe that Charles Hodge did also. I cannot speak for J Gresham Machen, or Donald Gray Barnhouse, but i know that a student of Barnhouse, a certain Walter Martin, was an evidentialist.

Kuyper and Berkof run into dangerous territory by suggesting that only the Christian community has all true knowlege of God, since it suggest that, contrary to Romans 1, man DOES have an excuse. i do agree that faith and reason have separate functions and boundaries.

i don't know if that was any help to you. i have offered only a cursury comment on the subject, as space and time and my knowlege of how to place a link to another site do not permit me to exhasustively, (if that were possible!) answer.

Well, if I'm not mistaken I believe those in Kuyper, Berkhof, and Van Til camp would reference Proverbs 9:10.

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."

This is a classical example of parrellism in Hebrew poetry. Yahweh, (The LORD or Jehovah), in the first part relates to God's immanence or our ability to comprehend God through nature. Qedoshim ,(The Holies or the Holy One), relates to God's transcendence or the absolute otherness of God.

I think the arguement that follows is that to even approach the Qedoshim side of God requires Faith. Also, it appears to me that evidentialism and presuppositionalism are not mutually exclusive. As you noted in a previous post for a tautology to be correct it must be proven outside the system. So, if we use an evidentialist approach to prove the validity of the Bible we are allowed within the tautology.

The Apostolic Tradition, as I have been trying to contend, is the presuppositional framework with which we begin our interpretation of scripture. As William DiPuccio states:

In this instance, the early Fathers seem to have fully grasped the notion that our understanding of Christianity and the Bible is conditioned by a priori ideas and commitments which originate in the community and culture. Hence, they made no pretensions about epistemological neutrality or detached objectivity. For them the tradition of the church constituted the only legitimate sphere of Biblical interpretation.

But, how then can we demonstrate that the church's oral tradition is true over/against the oral tradition of the gnostics? Here we must turn to that unpopular Romish concept that burns in the ears of so many Protestants: Apostolic succession. Setting aside later alterations and/or distortions of this idea, the original concept of apostolic succession (which included deacons or presbyters as well as bishops) was not so much a succession of ordination, as a succession of living faith and truth as these are embodied in the Scriptures and the ancient Rule of Faith.[12]

And later on he notes:

So the authority and veracity of the Rule was not established by philosophical debate over first principles, but by the continuity of history. Hence, only a historical argument can break the deadlock over first principles. Like us, the early church operated in a society of philosophical pluralism. While apologists such as Quadratus, Aristides, Justin, and Athenagoras, successfully engaged pagan philosophers on their own ground, objectively speaking, the first principles of Christian faith, like the resurrection itself, rest finally upon the faithfulness and authority of the apostolic witness.

So the question becomes one of tautology and Dipuccio answers it:

But upon first consideration, the reasoning of the Fathers seems to be circular since they proved the Scriptures from the Rule and proved the Rule by appealing to Scripture. This tautology was broken in two ways: First, as already mentioned, unlike the NT Scriptures, the Rule is established and transmitted solely by apostolic succession and oral tradition. So, though the Rule may be identical in content to the Bible, it was handed down orally by historical succession. It is the viva vox the living voice of what the Scriptures are in writing. Or, as Yves Congar has pointed out, the same tradition is manifested in two different forms. Second, the Rule marks only the essential doctrines of Scripture and was never intended to comprehend its entire contents. As already mentioned, the Rule functioned in a way similar to Luther's Christological principle by ordering and unfolding the entire corpus of faith.[17]
Hermeneutics, Exegesis, and the Rule of Faith: An Ancient Key to a Modern Question

Thus, I would contend, that presuppostionalism is a necessary formulation within the Christian church but not mutually exclusive from evidentialism.

"Well, if I'm not mistaken I believe those in Kuyper, Berkhof, and Van Til camp would reference Proverbs 9:10."

This is precisely the point that was made earlier, Van Till had to presuppose the bible as God's revelation to man in order to use it as his starting point. To the heathen in the first century, it would be a matter of question begging. To the skeptic of today, it is question begging.

To be certain, all systems of epistomology are presuppositional, it is necessary to find universal presuppositions. Gerstner, Lindsley and Sproul found three:

1) The Law of Non-contradiction.
2) The Law of Causuality.
3) The basic reliability of human senses.

Without these three basic presuppositions, man can have no basis for knowlege at all, let alone knowlege of God. i do agree that a presuppositional apologetic is useful...why reinvent the wheel? There are matters within the Roman Catholic Magisterium that are articles of faith in Protestantism, simply because they are derived from what both factions agree upon as the Apostolic Tradition. There are other Articles that are not, since there is no agreement that the derivation was within the Apostolic Tradition. The main point of this thread is not whether there is an Apostolic Tradition, it is rather what does that Tradition entail. Catholics and Protestants do not disagree on all points.

The main point of this thread is not whether there is an Apostolic Tradition, it is rather what does that Tradition entail.

Agreed. It's patently obvious to everyone except a Roman Catholic that because scriptures prove the Apostolic Tradition that any tradition outside of scripture is necessarily false.

As to our side discussion I can only hazard to guess that Kuyper and Berkhof would not agree with Van Til's strict presuppositionalism. However, I would still agree with Kuyper's 'sacred theology' that understanding the Transcendent God necessarily entails a "fear of the Lord". Thus, I would contend, that the external conditions you posited are secondary to the first principle of Faith posited by Berkhof.

BTW, this is how to post a link. <a href="?">??</a> (?=the address of the page, ??=title of link)

"However, I would still agree with Kuyper's 'sacred theology' that understanding the Transcendent God necessarily entails a "fear of the Lord". "

And i would agree, if one can first establish the existence of this Transcendent God. There is one school of thought on natural revelation that could establish such a basis, namely what has been called "immediate imputation".

Immediate imputation is nothing more than saying that God has "hard wired" us with knowlege of His existence without the use of a media such as the creation. The theory has never been taken seriously by either Catholics or Protestants. Perhaps it would be of use on the Infant Baptism thread, that is now almost 950 posts long, but i am not certain that such an idea can be proven.

Without immediate imputation, one is still stuck with presupposing God to prove God, and one thing that the presuppositionalist would readily admit is that the God revealed in scripture is not irrational so as to revel in circular reasoning. Once the fact of God's revelation to man is established, our reason must submit to that revelation, trusting that finitus non caprax infinitum...The finite does not comprehend the Infinite.

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.