Problems with Sola Scriptura

Share Embed


Descrição do Produto

SOLA SCRIPTURA: RETRIEVING A PROTESTANT DOCTRINE

Richard (Lanny) Wilson Seminar in Doctrine III Presented to Dr. O’Brien November 30, 2012

SOLA SCRIPTURA: RETRIEVING A PROTESTANT DOCTRINE Introduction Sola scriptura is in a state of crisis. The clarion call of the reformers to put the Bible first has come under sustained criticism. Even within Protestant circles there are competing visions on the nature and role of sola scriptura. This essay proposes that a retrieval of the magisterial reformers’ (i.e., Martin Luther, John Calvin, and their immediate successors) understanding of sola scriptura bypasses common criticisms and refocuses attention on the role of the Church in the interpretive process, which is where the debate belongs. Michael Horton states well the familiar Protestant understanding of the importance of sola scriptura when he says, “Not only must we recover the official commitment to the sufficiency of Scripture, it must be the only voice we hear from those who assume the momentous task of being God’s spokesmen.”1 The Bible alone is the “voice” that must be heard, unmixed with the traditions received by the pastor/priest. It is common to hear the phrase, “no creed but Christ, and no book but the Bible.” As D. H. Williams puts it, for most Protestants “sola scriptura is meant to exclude any rival authority in the governing of Christian belief and devotion.”2 Craig Allert has noted that “Evangelicals often make the claim that the reformers chose Scripture over tradition, thus propagating and manifesting the sola scriptura principle.”3 Evangelical John Armstrong defines sola scriptura as “the only source and norm for Christian theology.”4 Thus, the common Protestant understanding of sola scriptura is the Bible only and the Bible alone is the sole source of authority. But is this common understanding defensible?

1

2 Much of this paper is a response to what I perceive to be the primary argument against the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.5 Namely, that sola scriptura is unbiblical and selfreferentially incoherent. After elaborating this objection, this essay will develop two historical themes for consideration. First, a brief survey of how the doctrine itself evolved from the time of the Reformation, through the Radical Reformation, and to today. Second, a brief look at the historical relationship between the Christian Church with Scripture and tradition. This section will utilize categories as set forth by historian Heiko Oberman and modified by A. N. S. Lane. Their work may allow sola scriptura avoid certain devestating pitfalls and be useful for today’s Protestant Church. Next, this essay will argue for a retrieval of the magisterial reformers’ understanding of sola scriptura which avoids the challenge of the primary objection. Finally, this essay will respond to the primary objection from this retrieved vantage point.

The Primary Objection to Sola Scriptura: Sola scriptura is unbiblical and self-referentially incoherent6 Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid states, “The ironies of sola scriptura are endless. Chief among them, though, is that the Bible nowhere teaches it. . . . When we examine the various classical Protestant creeds, we find that sola scriptura becomes a self-refuting proposition.”7 After citing part of the Westminster Confession Madrid states, “I call your attention to the statement, ‘All things necessary for . . . man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.’ This means that the doctrine of sola scriptura itself must be found in the Bible – but it isn’t.”8 Indeed, Madrid calls this objection the “fatal flaw” of sola scriptura.9 There are two ways in which he says this can be proved: negatively, the Bible does not support it; positively, the

3 Bible supports the “tripartite model of authority i.e., Scripture, Tradition, and the magisterium.”10 The Bible is never alone with “recourse to Sacred Tradition . . . and the Magisterium.”11 Philip Blosser argues along the same lines. He levels two charges against sola scriptura. First it is unbiblical.12 Second, it is self-referentially inconsistent.13 To prove this second charge Blosser lays out four arguments. First, following Peter Kreeft he states that sola scriptura is self contradictory because it is not taught in the Bible. Second, sola scriptura assumes the “sufficiency of Scripture” and that the “essential teachings” are clear, but the history the Church shows this to be plainly false. Third, sola scriptura claims to give the Bible ultimate authority but actually subjugates the Bible to individual interpretations.14 Finally, sola scriptura cannot account for how the canon of the Bible was compiled without some extrabiblical revelation.15 The contention from Madrid and Blosser is that sola scriptura requires a direct (or at least implicit) justification from the Bible. As they understand sola scriptura, the Bible and the Bible alone is the only authority from which Protestants believe they can deduce spiritual truths. Since sola scriptura is a “spiritual truth” it should be found in the Bible. Since it is not found in the Bible sola scriptura should not be believed. This is a powerful argument and it is easy to see why it is popular among Catholic apologists and theologians. For indeed, the one principle that many Protestants use to invalidate reliance upon Catholic tradition, is itself invalid under it’s own stipulation.

4 Historical Backdrop Regarding Sola Scriptura Martin Luther and John Calvin Martin Luther never gave a systematic treatment regarding biblical authority.16 As David Lotz notes, Luther often used the terms “Word (of God), Scripture(s) and gospel in the same context without clearly distinguishing among them.”17 Other times, though, Luther does make distinctions, thus leading to the current confusion.18 A few things need to be considered. First, for Luther, Scripture is God’s Word since God is ultimately the author.19 Second, there is “no access to the gospel and to Christ apart from Scripture.”20 Third, Scripture is to rule the church and Scripture is to be ruled by Christ.21 Finally, “Scripture exists for the sake of Christ.”22 From this it is concluded that “while Scripture and gospel belong inseparably together, Scripture itself – in its dual role as source and norm of present proclamation – always exists for the sake of the gospel.”23 Luther assumes a Christ centered approach to Scripture. Luther accepted the common view at that time that Scripture was the source and standard of revealed truth, and that Scripture was the divinely inspired and infallible Word of God.24 Where Luther broke from his contemporaries was in assigning an “indissoluble unity” between Scripture and Church tradition, which had formed over the centuries.25 But Luther did not derive his view regarding the authority of the Bible from some “formal” Scripture principle (i.e., he did not see where the Bible taught Scripture was the only authority).26 Hence, any criticism of his position cannot blame him for claiming to find sola scriptura in the Bible. He found the Bible authoritative because he thought that it was the self-authenticating witness to the risen Christ.27 Luther approached Scripture christologically and soteriologically. He thought that Scripture was: oriented toward Christ; points to Christ as the goal and content of the law-gospel dialectic; and

5 presents Christ as the acting subject in gospel proclamation.28 This christological focus gives Scripture it’s derived authority as the norm for Christian faith and practice.29 Therefore, when Luther was arguing for sola scriptura he was actually arguing for solus Christus.30 It is popular to say Luther ignored tradition when interpreting the Bible. The coup de gras for this charge is his famous proclamation at the Diet of Worms, “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.”31 However, it may not be fair to level this criticism in full to Luther as his thought developed over the years. Remember, his “here I stand” proclamation was made only a couple of years after he nailed the ninety-five theses do the door at Wittenberg and hardly account for the maturation of his thought. As Allert shows, Luther continued to wrestle with the implications of sola scriptura long after Worms and had pastoral reasons for developing a version that incorporated tradition.32 In 1539 he wrote about who could lay claim to the ancient councils as authoritative. Interestingly, he did not argue against their acceptance.33 This may signal either a “softening” of Luther’s original position, or it could represent a “maturing” of thought. Given his practical and pastoral concerns, it is more likely a maturation of thought. Calvin seemed to make a stronger claim that the early Church fathers would have supported the Reformation outright.34 Like Luther, Calvin did not deny the ancient tradition. Indeed, he saw himself as restoring it, and Calvin constantly referred back to the early fathers as evidence of his “recovered” position.35 Tradition may not be normative for Calvin, but it should certainly be consulted and be in harmony with one’s theology.36 His main argument against the

6 Church in The Institutes is not that tradition is irrelevant, but that the Church is not the determinative factor of authentic doctrine as this would essentially put human will above Scripture (ICR 1.7.1). Both Luther and Calvin referenced and relied on the Church fathers as proof of their position regarding Scripture Against the church. They did not depict the Church fathers as pitting Scripture against tradition, but rather that they had the correct understanding of the Church fathers on tradition. Luther and Calvin were not rejecting tradition in toto.37 They did not argue that Scripture was against tradition, but the tradition had come to be equated with the “traditions” of medieval Christianity and not the tradition of the Church fathers. The Catholic Church was claiming authority not on the basis of Scripture and tradition, but “by virtue of the church’s claim to the office of authority.”38 Hence, the magisterium was interpreting tradition in light of medieval “traditions.” Luther and Calvin did not reject tradition but thought it needed to be regulated in light of Scripture.39 The magisterial reformers were not trying to dispense with tradition but to conserve the ancestral doctrines.40 Indeed, Luther used the Church fathers as models to follow, seeing that they subjugated themselves to Scripture. Scripture and tradition should never conflict.41

The Anabaptists and the Radical Reformation It is fair to say that the “magisterial reformers [Luther and Calvin] had a different understanding of the sola scriptura principle when compared with the radical reformers.”42 Whereas Luther would back-off from the position that Scripture needed no tradition. The Anabaptists and other radical reformers, took that idea and exploded it. For them, man-made

7 tradition was the problem. If people would hear the unadulterated words of God from the Scriptures, then they would have all they need, and they would be all that God wants them to be. They held sola scriptura writ large. The Bible only, the Bible alone, no tradition, and no manmade interference. It is a me-and-my-Bible approach. Me against the world and how I read the text. This has sometimes been called solo scriptura. The Bible is the only authority to which we must engage. It is Scripture versus tradition. Tradition is the product of man, Scripture the product of God. One needs only the Bible and the Holy Spirit to come to a true understanding of the Scriptures. The Bible and the Holy Spirit are the only, and appropriate, authorities.43 Williams notes that the goal of the radical reformers was to have a “community modeled in the New Testament, where the Spirit moved freely and liberally among the believers, unencumbered as they were by creeds, clergy and rituals.”44 The radical reformers thought the institutional (i.e., Catholic) Church had become removed from the “original gospel of Jesus.” Hence, questions of right doctrine were separated from ecclesiology.45 The Bible is the only authority to which one needs to adhere. They saw this as restoring the proper authority to the Bible that had been lost through the centuries.46

The Modern Split in Understanding Sola Scriptura Robert Godfrey represents well the ambiguity within the contemporary Protestant and Evangelical position. He wants to be found within the “historic train of Protestant apologists” that defend sola scriptura, but his view of the influence of tradition on the interpretation of Scripture is minimal and dismissive.47 That is, while he wants to be identified with Luther or Calvin his position is closer to that of the Anabaptists. Godfrey is not alone, many Protestants

8 and Evangelicals follow the exact same approach to Scripture and tradition. The convictions of the radical reformation form of sola scriptura “serve as the warrant for rejection of all authoritative structures in favor of a privatized faith and the prerogative of personal interpretation.”48 This is a me-and-my-Bible approach. Tradition is neither needed, nor desirable. In fact, it is a hindrance to truly understanding the Bible and relating to God. Williams points out that the magisterial reformers showed an “extensive familiarity” with the Church fathers that modern Protestants tend to neglect.49 This leads to Protestants trying to “proof-text” the Church fathers as endorsing their modern version of sola scriptura, which is ultimately a doomed project. This also leads to incorrectly construe the debate as one of Scripture against tradition.50 Many Protestants and Evangelicals simply assume that tradition must be manmade, hence, subject to human error. And if it were the case that traditions were merely manmade, then the point may be well taken. But that is precisely what is being denied. Not all tradition is man-made, but it does need to be determined what is legitimate tradition and what is not. A difficult question to answer to be sure, but it is the correct question to ask. The magisterial reformers “were trying to restore the ancient catholicity of the church.”51 Hence, when Calvin and Luther utilize the idea of sola scriptura they are seeing Scripture in concert with tradition, with Scripture acting as the final arbiter of what is allowable and what is not, with the understanding that it must be interpreted through the tradition.52 For the magisterial reformers it is Scripture and tradition, not Scripture versus tradition.

9 Historical Consideration Regarding Scripture and Tradition Harvard historian Heiko Oberman has theorized that the early Church fathers taught that Scripture and tradition “coinhere.”53 That is, Scripture and tradition come from the same source – God. Thus, at least early on, there was no “extra-scriptural” tradition.54 In pre-Augustinian theology “the single term traditio actually covers two concepts of tradition”: first, the tradition of God (vertical); second, ecclesiastical traditions (horizontal).55 This represents the earliest period of the Christian Church in coming to terms with the relationship between the two. D. H. Williams elaborates Oberman’s point that for the Church fathers, the term “tradition” primarily meant doctrine in connection with Scripture, and secondarily as practices of the Church.56 He goes on to say that the “idea that the Tradition involves a deposit of revealed truth separate from scripture is completely foreign to the writers of the early church, given that both scripture and the Tradition originate from the Holy Spirit and are materially manifestations of the apostolic preaching.”57 It leads to confusion when the debate over sola scriptura is phrased as Scripture against tradition, “as if the reformers relied totally on Scripture for their doctrine and the Roman Catholics relied totally on tradition.”58 The issue is not Scripture versus tradition, but rather two different concepts of “tradition.” For Oberman, the pre-Augustinian church basically equated Scripture, tradition, and kerygma. This would deny an “extra-scriptural” tradition since “the kerygma is traditioned . . . only in the Church.”59 Oberman labels this single-source theory of Scripture -Tradition as “Tradition I.” This is “the traditional way of interpreting scripture within the community of faith.”60 “Tradition I” represents “the sufficiency of Scripture as understood by the fathers and doctors of the Church. . . . here Scripture has final authority.”61 Put simply, “Tradition I relies on a proper context within which the scriptures must be interpreted. That

10 context is the ancient rule of faith and the great ecumenical creeds of Christianity.”62 A transition would occur about the time of Augustine and Basil. In the early middle-ages equal respect was paid to written and unwritten traditions as they were seen as flowing from the same font.63 Basil was the first to discuss Scripture and tradition in relation to liturgical practices and represents the first time Scripture and tradition are separated.64 While Augustine still seemed to hold Scripture as the highest authority, he too suggests that there may be an authoritative oral tradition.65 Things change in the middle ages after Augustine. Scripture and Tradition are no longer seen as coinciding but as being two coherent yet distinct sources for the Christian faith.66 As Allert puts it, “The teaching of the church thus became equated with the teaching of scripture supplemented where needed by tradition.”67 It is during this time period where official teachings of the Church began to appear that were not taught in Scripture. The tradition(s) as believed or practiced by the Church were brought to bear on whatever topic was being considered. What was practiced by the Church was assumed to go back to the practice of the apostles. The Church’s liturgical life was essentially becoming a source for official doctrine.68 This led to a crisis between Scripture and the Church, not Scripture and tradition (as it is normally thought). Oberman labels this two-source theory of Scripture and tradition as “Tradition II,” which “allows for extra-biblical oral tradition.”69 This view of tradition gained prominence within the Church as the canon lawyers grew in stature.70 As such, one can now see that late medieval Catholicism somewhat naturally subordinated “Tradition I” to “Tradition II.” Oberman’s main thesis is that the magisterial reformers were attempting to recapture Tradition I from the Church.71 Hence, Luther and Calvin both relied heavily on the Church

11 fathers for the advancement of their positions. The radical reformers took a different approach, however. They gave no role for tradition whatsoever in interpreting the biblical text. This has prompted the observation that the radical reformers could be labeled as “Tradition 0.”72 The Bible can be interpreted however one sees fit, so long as they are “being led” by the Holy Spirit. Those that think along this line tend to: disparage the Church fathers; see the Church as almost completely “spiritual”; stress the guidance of the Holy Spirit; stress a “spiritual” interpretation of Scripture; and stress the role of personal conscience in interpretation (i.e., “listen with the heart” when reading Scripture).73 Many Protestants following this line of thought say that nothing should be believed or practiced unless it is taught in the Bible. Anything that is not “in accord” with Scripture (i.e., found in the Bible) is to be abandoned. This can lead to some absurd consequences, however. For example, the Bible does not mandate singing (in fact, Paul forbids it. Cf., Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16) and given our contemporary circumstances, it would forbid riding in cars or airplanes since Scripture does not sanction these actions either.74 With this in mind, it should be clear that the principle of sola scriptura of the radical reformers is a different form than that of Luther or Calvin. The radical reformers dismiss tradition altogether, the magisterial reformers incorporate tradition into the principle itself.

Sola Scriptura Is Best Understood as: Tradition I (with some modification) It is easy to see why there has been some confusion on the role of Scripture within modern Protestantism and evangelicalism. With great regularity, when sola scriptura is described, it is understood as the position of Tradition 0.75 Some of the ambiguity is historical.

12 For example, Jonathan Edwards: professed repeatedly that our only authority in religion is the written text of the Scriptures. But in practice he seemed to operate with the tacit recognition that the Bible can be read only through and with tradition. And that ultimate religious authority is mediated by God through a story of divine redemption, which is known by theological reflection and transmitted through a theological tradition. Therefore tradition, whose importance he explicitly downplayed, proved to be more significant in actual practice.76 The Reformation should be viewed as a response to the teachings of the Church, not as a response to tradition. It is wise not to underestimate the influence that the Church has on doctrine, nor minimize its importance for developing doctrine, practices, and beliefs. Cardinal Newman’s project showed that “religious authority founded on sola scriptura cannot be sola in the sense that one can make any sense of Scripture without the help of tradition.”77 Tradition I avoids this error.78 “The Bible is not, strictly speaking, self-interpreting.”79 Tradition is used in interpreting the Bible, whether one recognizes it or not.80 While tradition is needed to interpret Scripture, we still need to correct tradition in light of Scripture.81 There is some circularity in this, but it provides us with the ability to make necessary corrections when needed. Though Scripture is interpreted through tradition, Scripture is stable and tradition is not. The text of Scripture is set, but tradition must continuously be produced. Hence, whereas Scripture cannot change (even though the interpretation can), tradition can change – both authentically or artificially. Hence, tradition helps interpret Scripture, but must be judged against Scripture. This demonstrates why for the Reformers the issue was not Scripture versus tradition, but rather Scripture versus the Church’s interpretation of Scripture. It was “a clash over what the traditions had become.”82 Thus, sola scriptura must be seen in concert with the tradition of the Church and not as antagonistic to it.83

13 Church history demonstrates why appeal to the Bible alone cannot function as a complete principle. Multiple heresies grew and flourished under a pretext of “Bible only.” For example, the debate with Arius was regarding who had a “correct” interpretation of the Scripture. Both the Arians and the Orthodox were appealing to Scripture as proof of their position.84 Hence, there needed to be something outside of the Bible to show which interpretation was the “correct” one.85 Here there was appeal to the regula fidei. As Williams notes, the regula fidei was a “summary of essential doctrines of Christianity.”86 Though the regula fidei is consistent with Scripture, it is “based” outside of it in the early tradition of the Church. However, it was seen by the Church fathers as “mirroring” the earliest revelation as received by the apostles.87 The regula fidei goes back to the earliest period of the Church, it is by no means a late development. Scripture and tradition were seen together. Scripture was interpreted by tradition as seen by the regula fidei. And tradition was limited by Scripture. The regula fidei prevented obvious error in interpreting Scripture.88 Thus Luther and Calvin represent “Tradition I” (with modification) which is not a clash of Scripture versus tradition, but rather “a clash between two concepts of tradition.”89 Sola scriptura was not directed toward tradition, but rather to the Catholic Church at that time. There are two modifications that need to be made to the understanding of Tradition I for the magisterial reformers. First, whereas the Church fathers were attempting to show the identity of the Church with the apostolic teaching, the reformers were attempting to show the opposite.90 That is, it is not the Church that leads to apostolic teaching, but that it is apostolic teaching that leads to the Church. The magisterial reformers “did not reject tradition, but neither did they accept it without judging it against the final arbiter of Scripture.”91 Second, the Church “fathers accepted the

14 inherited faith because it was apostolic while the reformers accepted the creeds only because they believed them to be scriptural.”92 The reformers wanted to separate “true” tradition from “corrupt” tradition. But they thought this could only be done by comparing “tradition” against Scripture. Thus, Scripture becomes the norm for identifying true tradition. To them the Church was not in “total” error, but there had been an obvious change for the worse.93 The challenge for the magisterial reformers was this: they thought the medieval church had clearly contradicted Scriptural principles, thus they rejected the teaching authority of the Church and appealed to Scripture. But this did not mean that the Bible could then be interpreted in just any fashion.94 The magisterial reformers did not reject tradition, but rather called on Scripture to be the final arbiter rather than the church.95 Allert points out that the “‘sola’ in the great slogan was a call for scripture alone, unencumbered by the oral traditions of the dual-source theory.”96

Reply to the Primary Objection: The problem with the argument that sola scriptura should not be believed because it is not taught in the Bible, only applies if sola scriptura requires that the Bible is the only source from which we can derive truth claims. If it is possible to view sola scriptura as something other than solo scriptura (the Bible as the only authority), as in the Bible being the highest or final authority, then this specific objection disappears.97 Likewise, sola scriptura can only be considered self-referentially incoherent, if it requires for the principle to be stated directly in Scripture. As such, those forms of sola scriptura that do think it is taught directly in Scripture succumb to this criticism. However, if one conceives of sola scriptura deriving implicitly from the Bible or as a normative principle of “final” authority, then the incoherence charge simply

15 does not apply.98 Similarly, we can now respond to Blosser’s four arguments regarding the selfreferentially incoherence of sola scriptura. First, as already noted, he is assuming a form of sola scriptura that is being specifically denied in this essay. His criticism is applicable to Tradition 0, but not Tradition I forms of sola scriptura. Second, I have not argued for the “sufficiency of Scripture” in this essay. But, again, this argument would only apply to Tradition 0 forms of sola scriptura. The third argument will be dealt with below. Finally, like the other criticisms, Blosser’s Fourth argument only applies to the Tradition 0 form of sola scriptura. The third argument deserves special attention as it is the only argument that affects Tradition I forms of sola scriptura. Even though Blosser says that believing the Bible to be the ultimate authority leads to position that Scripture is self-interpreting, I deny this – at least as stated.99 But that is not the primary issue. His main point is that the Bible as the “ultimate” authority will still require an extra-biblical interpretation.100 To which he ascribes Catholic tradition. This is only partially correct. If we view sola scriptura as Tradition I, then we have the extra-biblical tradition needed to base most of our interpretation. It is a tradition that informs interpretation, but is judged by Scripture. Blosser assumes Tradition II, but accuses sola scriptura as necessarily being Tradition 0 and then claims sola scriptura is circular. As shown above Tradition I sola scriptura is not circular because it works in concert with tradition, not against it.

Summary and Conclusion Make no mistake, the debate over sola scriptura is a debate over authority – who/what has it, who/what is primary, and who/what is acceptable. Sola scriptura as a Protestant doctrine

16 should be seen as claiming that Scripture is the highest (or final) authority for the life and practice of a Christian. It works in concert with tradition to derive a proper interpretation, but tradition is always subject to the authority of Scripture. The doctrine itself when understood as being in concert with tradition is neither unbiblical nor self-referentially incoherent. Only those versions of sola scriptura that deny a role to tradition are susceptible to this charge. This does not mean that sola scriptura may not have other difficulties, but rather it suggests that difficulties that arise based on the magisterial reformers’ understanding of the doctrine is where the discussion needs to move. This essay has shown that sola scriptura is consonant with Oberman’s thesis that the early Church held a view of Scripture and tradition that eventually changed as the Church developed. Oberman’s thesis was seen to need slight modification, but in the main, it offers a promising account of how Scripture and tradition related in the early Church, and how the magisterial reformers wished to retrieve that understanding (to a degree). Tradition is shaped by the Church, and tradition guides interpretation of Scripture, but if Scripture is thought to be God’s Word in written form, then it retains the highest seat of normative authority and judges both tradition and the Church, while being interpreted in light of tradition by the church community. This is what is meant by sola scriptura.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Allert, Craig D. “Review of Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura.” Scottish Journal of Theology 62, no. 2 (2009): 247-251. Allert, Craig D. “What Are We Trying to Conserve?: Evangelicalism and Sola Scriptura.” Evangelical Quarterly 76, no. 4 (2004): 327-348. Blosser, Philip. “What are the Philosophical and Practical Problems with Sola Scriptura?” In Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Edited By Robert A. Sungenis. Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Pub. Co., 1997. 31-108. Godfrey, W. Robert. “What Do We Mean by Sola Scriptura?” In Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible. Edited By Don Kistler. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Pub., 1995. 1-26. Horton, Michael. “Forward.” In Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible. Edited By Don Kistler. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Pub., 1995. xiii-xix. Lane, A. N. S. “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey.” Vox Evangelica 9 (1975): 37-55. Lotz, David W. “Sola Scriptura: Luther on Biblical Authority.” Interpretation 35, no. 3 (1981): 258-273. Madrid, Patrick. “Sola Scriptura: A Blueprint for Anarchy.” In Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Ed. Robert A. Sungenis. Santa Barbara: Queenship Pub. Co., 1997. 1-29. McDermott, Gerald R. “Is Sola Scriptura Really Sola? Edwards, Newman, Bultmann, and Wright on the Bible as Religious Authority.” In By What Authority? The Vital Question of Religious Authority in Christianity. Edited By Robert L. Millet. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2010. 66-95. McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought. 3rd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1999. Oberman, Heiko A. The Harvest of Medieval Theology. 1983. Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000.

17

18 Sungenis, Robert A., ed. Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Santa Barbara: Queenship Pub. Co., 1997. Sungenis, Robert A. “Point/Counterpoint: Protestant Objections and Catholic Answers.” In Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Edited By Robert Sungenis. Santa Barbara: Queenship Pub. Co., 1997. 211-324. Williams, D. H. “The Search for Sola Scriptura in the Early Church.” Interpretation 52, no. 4 (1998): 354-366.

ENDNOTES 1.Michael Horton, “Forward,” in Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible, ed. Don Kistler (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Pub., 1995), xviii (emphasis in original).

2.D. H. W illiams, “The Search for Sola Scriptura in the Early Church,” Interpretation 52, no. 4 (1998): 355. It should be noted that W illiams does not endorse this understanding of sola scriptura, but he is giving the popular understanding of it.

3.Craig D. Allert, “W hat Are W e Trying to Conserve?: Evangelicalism and Sola Scriptura,” Evangelical Quarterly 76, no. 4 (2004): 342.

4.John H. Armstrong, “Introduction: Two Vital Truths,” in The Coming Evangelical Crisis: Current Challenges to the Authority of Scripture and the Gospel, ed. John H. Armstrong (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996), 78, quoted in Craig D. Allert, “W hat Are W e Trying to Conserve?: Evangelicalism and Sola Scriptura,” Evangelical Quarterly 76, no. 4 (2004): 344.

5.This essay will mostly be interacting with the arguments as put forward by the Catholic apologetic text Not by Scripture Alone, edited by Robert A Sungenis. This text appears regularly in recent literature as a collection of the major Catholic arguments against sola scriptura.

6.By “primary” I mean, “popular.” This objection appears repeatedly in the literature on this topic. Of course many arguments could be brought forth, and all arguments should be treated respectively. However, I will deal only with this argument given the space requirements of this essay.

7.Patrick Madrid, “Sola Scriptura: A Blueprint for Anarchy,” in Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ed. Robert A. Sungenis (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Pub. Co., 1997), 5.

8.Ibid. This also highlights a third objection to sola scriptura known as the “sufficiency” of Scripture. W hile this objection is important, it would take me too far beyond the bounds of this essay to address. The point being at this time is the concern that sola scriptura is not taught explicitly in the Bible.

9.Ibid., 19. 10.Ibid.

19 11.Ibid., 20. 12.Here Blosser follows Patrick Madrid. As such, I will not elaborate his argument in this area. 13.Philip Blosser, “W hat are the Philosophical and Practical Problems with Sola Scriptura?” in Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ed. Robert A. Sungenis (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Pub. Co., 1997), 42-50.

14.Blosser specifically rejects the notion that Catholics have the same “circularity” problem. Ibid., 51. He devotes about five pages responding to this charge, and though a whole essay would be necessary to fully examine and reply, a short response will have to do for this paper. As it is, I do not think he is successful in countering the circularity charge. For example, he states that the Catholic Church interpreting the Bible is logically the same as the NT authors interpreting the OT and claiming divine authority for doing so. Perhaps, but that is also precisely what some Protestants claim as well. Also, it is precisely what is at issue – does the Catholic Church have the same authority as the NT authors? Blosser affirms this only by begging the question.

15.Ibid., 50-51. 16.David W . Lotz, “Sola Scriptura: Luther on Biblical Authority,” Interpretation 35, no. 3 (1981): 259. 17.Ibid.: 260 (emphasis in original). 18.For example, Luther will say that “the Word is first and foremost Jesus Christ.” Other times he will equate “Christ” with the “W ord”; the “W ord of God” with the “gospel”; “gospel” with “Christ”; “W ord of God” with Jesus as the “personal W ord”; “gospel” with the “spoken W ord”; and “spoken W ord” with “Holy Scripture.” Sometimes, Luther shows a hierarchy within this system. Thus, “the personal W ord (Christ), the spoken W ord (gospel), and the written W ord (Scripture) – may be distinguished and ranked, although they must not be separated.” Ibid.: 260-264.

19.Ibid.: 263. 20.Ibid. 21.Ibid.: 264. 22.Ibid.: 265. Lotz goes on to show that for Luther the same gospel as taught originally by Christ is now in Scripture. Scripture is a record of past proclamation made in the present, and at the same time regulates the present proclamation. Scripture exists for the sake of the original gospel as given by Christ, and hence, has authority as a container of the original Gospel of Christ.

23.Ibid. 24.Ibid.: 266-267. 25.Ibid.: 267. 26.Ibid.: 268. 27.Ibid.: 269.

20 28.Ibid.: 270-271. 29.Because of this focus, Luther used Scripture to not only be critical of church tradition, but to criticize the biblical canon itself. He disliked the book of James because he did not think it was as faithful a witness to the resurrected Christ. For Luther the real nature of the gospel is Christ as proclaimed overcoming sin, death, and hell and giving life. Scripture is a witness of the Christus Victor not as a set of historical texts. By extension, the biblical texts do not have authority because they were written by apostles, but the apostles have authority because they preach Christ. Luther’s christological focus determines apostolicity and canonicity, and by therefore biblical authority. “The Bible’s authority is clearly a derived authority.” Ibid.: 272-273.

30.Ibid.: 273. 31.Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand (New York: New American Library, 1978), 144. Quoted in Philip Blosser, “W hat are the Philosophical and Practical Problems with Sola Scriptura?” in Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ed. Robert A. Sungenis (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Pub. Co., 1997), 91. Blosser, here, uses this statement as proof that Luther rejected all tradition and appealed only to conscience. And Blosser is not alone. Luther is often described as a radical reformer even by Protestants. Allert, “W hat Are W e Trying to Conserve?”: 342.

32.Allert, “W hat Are W e Trying to Conserve?”: 338. Indeed, he shows that a major mistake of both critics and supporters of Luther make is only looking at pre-1522 Luther and not the more mature Luther. As Allert points out, the mature statements on sola scriptura are considered by Luther in interacting with the radical reformers and how they portray the principle.

33.W illiams: 357. See also, Allert, “W hat Are W e Trying to Conserve?”: 339. 34.A. N. S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey,” Vox Evangelica 9 (1975): 43. 35.Ibid.: 43-44. 36.Ibid.: 44. 37.W illiams: 357. 38.Ibid. 39.Ibid. 40.Allert, “W hat Are W e Trying to Conserve?”: 342. 41.W illiams: 357. 42.Allert, “W hat Are W e Trying to Conserve?”: 329. 43.W illiams: 358. 44.Ibid.

21 45.Ibid. 46.Allert, “W hat Are W e Trying to Conserve?”: 330. 47.W . Robert Godfrey, “W hat Do W e Mean by Sola Scriptura?” in Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible, ed. Don Kistler (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Pub., 1995), 2-3, 12.

48.W illiams: 358. 49.Ibid.: 356. 50.Ibid. 51.Ibid.: 363. 52.Ibid. 53.Heiko A. Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology (1983; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000), 366-367.

54.This is not to say that Scripture and tradition “functioned” the same way. Oberman is quick to point out that the early Church understood the writings of the Apostles to “contain the original kerygma in toto.” Ibid., 367 (emphasis in original). The distinction between Scripture and tradition is there, but it appears nebulous at times.

55.Ibid., 368. 56.W illiams: 357. 57.Ibid.: 364. 58.Allert, “W hat Are W e Trying to Conserve?”: 332. 59.Ibid.: 332-333. 60.Ibid.: 333. 61.Ibid.: 334. 62.Craig D. Allert, “Review of Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura,” Scottish Journal of Theology 62, no. 2 (2009): 248.

63.Allert: 333. 64.Oberman, 369. 65.Allert, “W hat Are W e Trying to Conserve?”: 333. See also Augustine, On Baptism 22; 36.

22 66.Lane argues that Augustine appealed to the authority of the Church, not to just oral tradition. He holds that for Augustine, the Church was “a de facto source of binding tradition.” Lane: 41-42. See also, Allert, “W hat Are W e Trying to Conserve?”: 335.

67.Allert, “W hat Are W e Trying to Conserve?”: 335. 68.Ibid.: 336. 69.Ibid.: 333. 70.Allert, “Review of Keith A. Mathison,”: 248. 71.Oberman, 372. 72.This term is not Oberman’s. It is attributed to Alister McGrath in expounding Oberman’s thesis. Alister McGrath, Reformation Thought, 3rd ed. (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1999), 154-157. See also, Allert, “W hat Are W e Trying to Conserve?”: 340.

73.Allert, “W hat Are W e Trying to Conserve?”: 340-341. Allert utilizes a letter from Sebastian Franck to John Campanus as an example of this type of thinking and shows the danger where it can lead, by pointing out that Franck denied the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. His private judgment in reading Scripture only led to heresy.

74.Ibid.: 341. Regarding the biblical verses it is important to note that both verses say to “sing” in one’s “heart.” Since neither verse says to sing with the “mouth,” this is taken as evidence that physical singing should not happen.

75.Ibid.: 343. 76.Gerald R. McDermott, “Is Sola Scriptura Really Sola? Edwards, Newman, Bultmann, and W right on the Bible as Religious Authority,” in By What Authority? The Vital Question of Religious Authority in Christianity, ed. Robert L. Millet (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2010), 77.

77.Ibid., 81. 78.A. N. S. Lane has written extensively and insightfully that Oberman has not quite grasped the situation. Lane comments that the magisterial reformers did not just revert back to Tradition I as Oberman holds, but made an additional distinction that the early Church fathers did not. Oberman only considers Scripture and Tradition in his formula, whereas Lane shows that the Church plays a third part. Lane thinks Oberman is generally correct in the relationship between Scripture and Tradition for Tradition I and II (Lane labels these the Coincidence, and Supplementary), but he thinks Oberman is wrong for saying the reformers simply adopted Tradition I. Rather, the reformers adopted an “Ancillary” view. The reformers only accepted Tradition as it was Scriptural. Scripture was the highest authority. Hence, we can schematize Oberman like this: Tradition I (Scripture = Tradition); Tradition II (Scripture & Tradition); Tradition 0 (Scripture & Tradition). Lane can be schematized this way: Coincidence (Scripture = Tradition = Church); Supplementary (Scripture & Tradition < Church); Ancillary I - magisterial reformers (Scripture > & . Tradition > & … Church); Ancillary II - radical reformers (Scripture > Tradition > & … Church). Lane also discusses Newman’s “Unfolding” tradition proposal, here is it’s schema just for the sake of completeness (Scripture # Tradition < Church). For Lane, the magisterial reformers’ Ancillary I position is similar to Oberman’s Tradition I – but with some modification. Likewise, Ancillary II is similar to Tradition 0. See Lane: 3755.

23 79.McDermott, 93. 80.Ibid. 81.Ibid., 94. 82.W illiams: 357. 83.Ibid.: 364. 84.Allert, “W hat Are W e Trying to Conserve?”: 343. 85.W illiams: 362. 86.Ibid.: 359. 87.Ibid. 88.W illiams: 359. The regula fidei “safeguarded” the orthodox teaching, hence it would be inaccurate to equate Scripture with the regula fidei. Allert, “W hat Are W e Trying to Conserve?”: 346.

89.Allert, “W hat Are W e Trying to Conserve?”: 334. 90.Ibid.: 337. 91.Ibid. 92.Ibid. 93.Ibid. 94.Ibid.: 338. 95.Ibid.: 339. 96.Allert, “Review of Keith A. Mathison,”: 248. 97.Indeed, others may take its place: W hat is the use of the phrase sola scriptura mean if not the Bible alone? Sola scriptura – as understood as the highest or final authority – is not even taught in the Bible by implication. Etc.

98.Though other issues may be necessary to address (e.g., does the Bible actually teach sola scriptura implicitly? Can sola scriptura actually be a normative principle? etc.). Interestingly, Robert Sungenis makes the following claim, “No responsible Catholic apologists with which we are aware have ever published a statement saying that sola Scriptura need not be formally taught [i.e., explicitly stated] in the Bible to be believed.” Robert A. Sungenis, “Point/Counterpoint: Protestant Objections and Catholic Answers,” in Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ed. Robert Sungenis (Santa Barbara: Queenship Pub. Co., 1997), 227. I find this to be either a dishonest statement (which is unlikely), or an attempt to sidestep a route to sola scriptura that he wishes to quickly counter (more likely). W hat makes this statement so incredible is that it is completely contrary

24 to the very criticism that Sungenis (and others like Madrid) make against sola scriptura – which is that it is not found in the Bible. Indeed, only a few pages before this statement Sungenis claims, “Since no statement in Scripture defines sola scriptura, any proposed definition is in reality begging the question . . . . Not only must he extract the principle of sola scriptura from a Scripture which does not explicitly teach the doctrine, he must perform the more difficult task of formulating a precise definition of sola scriptura based on this same lack of information.” Ibid., 212 (emphasis in original). Thus Sungenis says: 1) sola scriptura needs to be derived from Scripture; and 2) sola scriptura need not be derived from Scripture. He is correct that the “rub” is in developing a satisfactory definition of sola scriptura, but he cannot have it both ways – he cannot claim Protestants must derive sola scriptura from Scripture and then deny he says this.

99.There is a sense in which “Scripture interprets Scripture,” but it assumes that we are already “within” the text. The issue at hand is how to get “into” the text to begin with. For example, if we want to learn more about Mary from the Bible, we can look at the various Scripture passages and see how “Scripture interprets Scripture,” and we could come to some knowledge on Mary. If, however, we wanted to derive further information about Mary, then we would need to look at extra-biblical information (whether from Church tradition or elsewhere). Hence, a Catholic may say that unless you listen to the Church’s tradition on Mary, then you may never come to the true knowledge of who Mary is, simply because following the principle of Scripture interpreting Scripture it would be difficult to arrive at Mary’s immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, or assumption. But surely, the Catholic will say, this is important information about Mary. It is this second sense, that is at stake, not the first.

100.Blosser, 50-51.

Lihat lebih banyak...

Comentários

Copyright © 2017 DADOSPDF Inc.