Against Sola Scriptura: "A must read for a Protestant"
- Thread starter ChristopherPaul
- Start date
- Status
crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
After a quick scan of the article (not read...) I see that he doesn not cite from Protestant scholars at all. No Warfield, no Whitaker, no one from Westminster etc. I would start by checking all of his assertions and make sure there are no straw men. I'll try to read it later this weekend...My initial 
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
I haven't read it yet but I can almost bet my life that he is operating around solo scriptura (the evanjellyfish view) than Sola Scriptura.
Very interesting article. It's a perspective I don't often think about.
I'm sure this will be a vigorous argument against sola scriptura. And the author is correct in saying the sola scriptural is the critical doctrine of protestants. He makes an over-simple statement about protestants believing the scripture is to be interpreted by each person alone, and apart from the Traditions of the Church. (His first false statement.) But I've always considered the "Traditions of the Church" not as a way of interpretations, but a source of extra-biblical doctrine. I reject extra-biblical doctrinal sources, but not the interpretations of the Church Fathers..
I always given great consideration to the interpretations of the Fathers of the Church (Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Augustine, G.H. Clark) in history and contemporary. And when I disagree with the Divines, I consider that I am misunderstand Scripture. But I never believe any interpretation is true just because a church Father said it was true. I want to understand the scripture for myself, and not blindly follow the teaching of others. I think that's a point the author of the article misses. It's not about personal interpretation, but the command of God to understand the Scriptures as best we can, and not blindly follow the words of men. To have understand and knowledge of God's revelation, and to protect us from heretical teachings of men who would rather us not understand the Word.
I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the article. I'm sure he will find many errors in common protestant thinking. But he can't destroy sola scriptura because that not simply a conclusion of arguments or based on simple evidence, it's a presupposition of faith, something we believe because of the testimony of the Holy Spirit - but neither is it in contradiction to reason.
[Edited on 3-31-2006 by Civbert]
I'm sure this will be a vigorous argument against sola scriptura. And the author is correct in saying the sola scriptural is the critical doctrine of protestants. He makes an over-simple statement about protestants believing the scripture is to be interpreted by each person alone, and apart from the Traditions of the Church. (His first false statement.) But I've always considered the "Traditions of the Church" not as a way of interpretations, but a source of extra-biblical doctrine. I reject extra-biblical doctrinal sources, but not the interpretations of the Church Fathers..
I always given great consideration to the interpretations of the Fathers of the Church (Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Augustine, G.H. Clark) in history and contemporary. And when I disagree with the Divines, I consider that I am misunderstand Scripture. But I never believe any interpretation is true just because a church Father said it was true. I want to understand the scripture for myself, and not blindly follow the teaching of others. I think that's a point the author of the article misses. It's not about personal interpretation, but the command of God to understand the Scriptures as best we can, and not blindly follow the words of men. To have understand and knowledge of God's revelation, and to protect us from heretical teachings of men who would rather us not understand the Word.
I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the article. I'm sure he will find many errors in common protestant thinking. But he can't destroy sola scriptura because that not simply a conclusion of arguments or based on simple evidence, it's a presupposition of faith, something we believe because of the testimony of the Holy Spirit - but neither is it in contradiction to reason.
[Edited on 3-31-2006 by Civbert]
New wine skin
Puritan Board Freshman
Adding to what Chris said above-
I read several pages of this article and found so many problems with it I wouldnt know where to begin. I noticed several over generalizations about Protestantism. While I agree that there may be isolated groups or movements within Protestantism in the last few hundered years to confirm some of the concerns EO has against us, this in no way disproves or invalidates Protestantism as a whole.
I read several pages of this article and found so many problems with it I wouldnt know where to begin. I noticed several over generalizations about Protestantism. While I agree that there may be isolated groups or movements within Protestantism in the last few hundered years to confirm some of the concerns EO has against us, this in no way disproves or invalidates Protestantism as a whole.
New wine skin
Puritan Board Freshman
to sum it up in a nut shell this is an issue over Authority.
Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
"I haven't read it yet but I can almost bet my life that he is operating around solo scriptura (the evanjellyfish view) than Sola Scriptura."
A big problem is that solo scriptura is probably held by 99 percent of the conservative prot community (just a guess, but it would be a supermajority).
A big problem is that solo scriptura is probably held by 99 percent of the conservative prot community (just a guess, but it would be a supermajority).
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
But it was not the position of the Reformation, nor what I hold to, so I am not phased by the argument.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
I just finished the book. He teaches you how to think in paradigms that prevent you from falling into Roman/EO traps. I cant recommend it highly enough. ANything Mathison writes is well worth the read.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
I especially like his work on Protestant Transubstantiation.
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
As I recall, and it's been awhile since I read it, the RCC considers the doctrine of sola scriptura to be the interpretation of every believer. So largely, the RCC talks past the Reformation view. They're attacking a view we don't hold, though I'm sure that many evangelicals would have trouble answering them. Mathison wouldn't have trouble shooting it down.
In Christ,
KC
In Christ,
KC
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
After scanning, I can tell you that he is not talking about Reformed sola scriptura. Why? Two reasons: his background is Nazarene, which hardly means that he's approaching this from the Reformed view, and he doesn't interact with any Reformed works on the position.
He's talking past us.
In Christ,
KC
He's talking past us.
In Christ,
KC
ChristopherPaul
Puritan Board Senior
I appreciate the discussion. Thank you for the insights.
I come to appreciate this message board more and more.
I come to appreciate this message board more and more.
Archlute
Puritan Board Senior
Something that Dr. Clark said in our Medieval and Reformation Church history course yesterday applies to this fellow and his article. He noted that one of the biggest problems with the internet is that any idiot that has access to a computer can write the most ignorant and unproven statements and post them for all the world to see and just waste a lot of people's time. That statement is true of this article. What a waste of paper. There is no scholarly proof whatsoever to his claims, just bare and general assertions.
For example, in his discussion of Protestant interperative approaches which "don't work", he states that "no doubt" the approach that the first reformers took was to "just take the bible literally". Really? Where is his proof for that? Why then did early reformers such as Luther critique various heretical sects for doing just that very thing in distorting the Scriptures?
Whiteford seems unaware that not only Luther, but many pre-magesterial reformation forerunners had very advanced scholastic training in theology and scripture and continued to incorporate these studies into their debates and interpretation. There was no wooden biblicistic approach to their work at all. His anachronistic reading of a modern "fundamentalist, evangelical, and charismatic" hermeneutic as a primative extension of early reformational interpretation is unsupportable by any honest academic study of those authors and their works. In fact, the writings of Calvin and Luther (to name only the most well known) are highly critical of those who would employ this approach. To which we should briefly add that Calvin's sensus literalis does not mean the "literal sense" (i.e. wooden biblicism), but the sense that is properly conveyed by the literature, an essential part of which is understanding it's genre and intent.
As well, there is no interaction with confessional Protestantism and her theologians whatsoever. That is very telling to me, for what it essentially gives away is the fact that that he is reading his own fundamentalist, Nazarene experience into his argument as being the defining hermeneutic of Protestantism. Did Ursinus, Olevian, and the Westminster divines reject the guidance of earlier Christian theologians and debates? By no means, and the same holds true for Lutheran theologians as well.
Someone above pointed out the real issue that needs to be addressed by him, and that is "from whence comes our authority, where is ultimate authority for faith and life in the Church grounded?". To do that he will have to interact with the nature of inspiration and the character of Scripture as God's word. I didn't perceive that happening in this essay. He gives lip service to the unique nature of Scripture as "God's Holy Word" by qualifying them, in his conclusion, as being "perhaps the summit of the Holy Tradition of the Church (notice how he puts "holy tradition" in caps)". If he took primacy of their divine nature seriously, he wouldn't be able to toss off a statement like that without more of a defence.
And just because one historically uninformed EO member endorsed this article as being an insuperable argument against the Protestant doctrine, doesn't make it necessarily so...
It's really not worthy of a serious refutation.
For example, in his discussion of Protestant interperative approaches which "don't work", he states that "no doubt" the approach that the first reformers took was to "just take the bible literally". Really? Where is his proof for that? Why then did early reformers such as Luther critique various heretical sects for doing just that very thing in distorting the Scriptures?
Whiteford seems unaware that not only Luther, but many pre-magesterial reformation forerunners had very advanced scholastic training in theology and scripture and continued to incorporate these studies into their debates and interpretation. There was no wooden biblicistic approach to their work at all. His anachronistic reading of a modern "fundamentalist, evangelical, and charismatic" hermeneutic as a primative extension of early reformational interpretation is unsupportable by any honest academic study of those authors and their works. In fact, the writings of Calvin and Luther (to name only the most well known) are highly critical of those who would employ this approach. To which we should briefly add that Calvin's sensus literalis does not mean the "literal sense" (i.e. wooden biblicism), but the sense that is properly conveyed by the literature, an essential part of which is understanding it's genre and intent.
As well, there is no interaction with confessional Protestantism and her theologians whatsoever. That is very telling to me, for what it essentially gives away is the fact that that he is reading his own fundamentalist, Nazarene experience into his argument as being the defining hermeneutic of Protestantism. Did Ursinus, Olevian, and the Westminster divines reject the guidance of earlier Christian theologians and debates? By no means, and the same holds true for Lutheran theologians as well.
Someone above pointed out the real issue that needs to be addressed by him, and that is "from whence comes our authority, where is ultimate authority for faith and life in the Church grounded?". To do that he will have to interact with the nature of inspiration and the character of Scripture as God's word. I didn't perceive that happening in this essay. He gives lip service to the unique nature of Scripture as "God's Holy Word" by qualifying them, in his conclusion, as being "perhaps the summit of the Holy Tradition of the Church (notice how he puts "holy tradition" in caps)". If he took primacy of their divine nature seriously, he wouldn't be able to toss off a statement like that without more of a defence.
And just because one historically uninformed EO member endorsed this article as being an insuperable argument against the Protestant doctrine, doesn't make it necessarily so...
It's really not worthy of a serious refutation.
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Who here has read both Mathison's work and White's book on the subject? Are there significant differences in the focus or how they approach it?
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
DTK is A OK!
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Thanks, Scott.
New wine skin
Puritan Board Freshman
Reformed theory of tradition is built on not being contradictory to scripture. Tradition and Reason are subordinate to Scripture, but never rejected entirely.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
solo--me and my bible and no traditions (which is itself a tradition, and an autonomous one).
sola--scripture is interpreted by the church in the church within the context of the regula fidei (rule of faith). Tradition is fallible and bows to Scripture. However, the corporate interpreation by the rule of faith keeps the interpreter from becoming autonomous.
tellville
Puritan Board Junior
I actually own the original book copy of this article 
This is one of the books/articles I want to respond to after I graduate (less then a month, YAY!).
I've had it for a few years now. Ironically, it was one of the books that led me to Reformation theology as I searched for answers to the points brought up in this book.
I will continue to proclaim that the Reformed community has dropped the ball big time in regards to the Eastern Orthodox. It's a total shame.
[Edited on 4-1-2006 by tellville]
This is one of the books/articles I want to respond to after I graduate (less then a month, YAY!).
I've had it for a few years now. Ironically, it was one of the books that led me to Reformation theology as I searched for answers to the points brought up in this book.
I will continue to proclaim that the Reformed community has dropped the ball big time in regards to the Eastern Orthodox. It's a total shame.
[Edited on 4-1-2006 by tellville]
- Status
