Sermon Tone Analysis

! Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes

KEITH A. MATHISON

MARCH~/APRIL 2007 MODERN REFORMATION

The twentieth century could, with some accuracy, be called a century of theological anarchy.

Liberals and sectarians have long rejected outright many of the fundamental tenets of Christian orthodoxy.

But more recently professing evangelical scholars have advocated revisionary versions of numerous doctrines.

A revisionary doctrine of God has been advocated by proponents of “openness theology.”

A revisionary doctrine of eschatology has been advocated by proponents of fullpreterism.

Revisionary doctrines of justification /sola fide/ have been advocated by proponents of various “new perspectives” on Paul.

Often the revisionists will claim to be restating a more classical view.

Critics, however, have usually been quick to point out that the revisions are actually distortions.

Ironically, a similarly revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura has arisen within Protestantism, but unlike the revisionist doctrine of sola fide, the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura has caused very little controversy among the heirs of the Reformation.

One of the reasons there has been much less controversy over the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura is that this doctrine has been gradually supplanting the Reformation doctrine for centuries.

In fact, in many segments of the evangelical world, the revisionist doctrine is by far the predominant view now.

Many claim that this revisionist doctrine is the Reformation doctrine.

However, like the revisionist doctrines of sola fide, the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura is actually a distortion of the Reformation doctrine.

The adoption of the revisionist doctrine of /sola Scriptura/ has resulted in numerous biblical, theological, and practical problems within Protestant churches.

These problems have become the center of attention in recent years as numerous Protestants have converted to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy claiming that their conversion was due in large part to their determination that the doctrine of /sola Scriptura/ was indefensible.

Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists have been quick to take advantage of the situation, publishing numerous books and articles devoted to critiquing the doctrine of /sola Scriptura/.

One issue, however, that neither the converts nor the apologists seem to understand is that the doctrine they are critiquing and rejecting is the revisionist doctrine of /sola Scriptura/, not the classical Reformation doctrine.

In order to understand the difference, some historical context is necessary.

!! Historical Observations

Part of the difficulty in understanding the Reformation doctrine of /sola Scriptura/ is due to the fact that the historical debate is often framed simplistically in terms of “Scripture versus tradition.”

Protestants are said to teach “Scripture alone,” while Roman Catholics are said to teach “Scripture plus tradition.”

This, however, is not an accurate picture of the historical reality.

The debate should actually be understood in terms of competing concepts of the relationship between Scripture and tradition, and there are more than two such concepts in the history of the church.

In order to understand the Reformation doctrine of /sola Scriptura/ we must understand the historical context more accurately.

The Reformation debate over /sola Scriptura/ did not occur in a vacuum.

It was the continuation of a long-standing medieval debate over the relationship between Scripture and tradition and over the meaning of “tradition” itself.

In the first three to four centuries of the church, the church fathers had taught a fairly consistent view of authority.

The sole source of divine revelation and the authoritative doctrinal norm was understood to be the Old Testament together with the Apostolic doctrine, which itself had been put into writing in the New Testament.

The Scripture was to be interpreted in and by the church within the context of the /regula fidei/ (“rule of faith”), yet neither the church nor the /regula fidei/ were considered second supplementary sources of revelation.

The church was the interpreter of the divine revelation in Scripture, and the /regula fidei/ was the hermeneutical context, but only Scripture was the Word of God.

Heiko Oberman (1930-2001) has termed this one-source concept of revelation “Tradition 1.”

The first hints of a two-source concept of tradition, a concept in which tradition is understood to be a second “source of revelation that supplements biblical revelation, appeared in the fourth century in the writings of Basil and Augustine.

Oberman terms this two-source concept of tradition “Tradition 2” (Professor Oberman had many gifts.

The ability to coin catchy labels was apparently not one of them).

It is not absolutely certain that either Basil or Augustine actually taught the two-source view, but the fact that it is hinted at in their writings ensured that it would eventually find a foothold in the Middle Ages.

This would take time, however, for throughout most of the Middle Ages, the dominant view was Tradition 1, the position of the early church.

The beginnings of a strong movement toward Tradition 2 did not begin in earnest until the twelfth century.

A turning point was reached in the fourteenth century in the writings of William of Ockham.

He was one of the first, if not the first, medieval theologian to embrace explicitly the two-source view of revelation.

From the fourteenth century onward, then, we witness the parallel development of two opposing views: Tradition 1 and Tradition 2. It is within the context of this ongoing medieval debate that the Reformation occurred.

When the medieval context is kept in view, the Reformation debate over /sola Scriptura/ becomes much clearer.

The reformers did not invent a new doctrine out of whole cloth.

They were continuing a debate that had been going on for centuries.

They were reasserting Tradition I within their particular historical context to combat the results of Tradition 2 within the Roman Catholic Church.

The magisterial reformers argued that Scripture was the sole source of revelation, that it is to be interpreted in and by the church, and that it is to be interpreted within the context of the /regula fidei/.

They insisted on returning to the ancient doctrine, and as Tradition 1 became more and more identified with their Protestant cause, Rome reacted by moving toward Tradition 2 and eventually adopting it officially at the Council of Trent.

(Rome has since developed a view that Oberman has termed “Tradition 3,” in which the “Magisterium of the moment” is understood to be the one true source of revelation, but that issue is beyond the scope of this brief essay).

At the same time the magisterial reformers were advocating a return to Tradition 1 (/sola Scriptura/), several radical reformers were calling for the rejection of both Tradition 1 and Tradition 2 and the adoption of a completely new understanding of Scripture and tradition.

They argued that Scripture was not merely the only infallible authority but that it was the only authority altogether.

The true but subordinate authority of the church and the /regula fidei/ were rejected altogether.

According to this view (Tradition 0), there is no real sense in which tradition has any authority.

Instead, the individual believer requires nothing more than the Holy Spirit and the Bible.

In America during the eighteenth century, this individualistic view of the radical Reformation was combined with the rationalism of the Enlightenment and the populism of the new democracy to create a radical version of Tradition ) that has all but supplanted the Reformation doctrine of /sola Scriptura/ (Tradition 1).

This new doctrine, which may be termed /“solo” Scriptura/ instead of /sola Scriptura/, attacks the rightful subordinate authority of the church and of the ecumenical creeds of the church.

Unfortunately, many of its adherents mistakenly believe and teach others that it is the doctrine of Luther and Calvin.

!! The Reformation Doctrine of Sola Scriptura

To summarize the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura, or the Reformation doctrine of the relation between Scripture and tradition, we may say that Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine revelation; it is the only inspired, infallible, final, and authoritative norm of faith and practice.

It is to be interpreted in and by the church; and it is to be interpreted within the hermeneutical context of the rule of faith.

As Richard Muller observes, the Reformed doctrine of /sola Scriptura/ did not ever mean, “all of theology ought to be constructed anew, without reference to the church's tradition of interpretation, by the lonely exegete confronting the naked text.”

That this is the Reformation doctrine of Scripture, tradition, and authority may be demonstrated by an examination of the reformers' writings, only a sampling of which may be mentioned here.

Martin Luther is well known for his declaration at the Diet of Worms: “Unless I am convicted 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.”

Many point to this statement as evidence that Luther rejected Tradition 1, the teaching of the early church, but other factors must be considered before coming to such a conclusion, namely, the historical context of this statement and the fact that Luther said and wrote much more on the subject.

As simply one example, in a 1532 letter to Duke Albert of Prussia about the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, Luther wrote the following:

This article moreover, has been clearly believed and held from the beginning of the Christian Church to this hour—a testimony of the entire holy Christian Church, which, if we had nothing besides, should be sufficient for us.

For it is dangerous and terrible to hear or believe anything against the united testimony, faith and doctrine, of the entire holy Christian Church, as this hath been held now 1,500 years, from the beginning, unanimously in all the world.

Whoso now doubted thereon, it is even the same as though he believed in no Christian Church, and he condemneth thus not only the entire holy Christian Church as a damnable heresy, but also Christ himself and all the apostles and prophets.

The second-generation Lutheran scholar Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586), writes along similar lines in his /Examination of the Council of Trent/:

This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages ... We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture.

And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture.

Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.

Another of the magisterial reformers who addressed this issue was John Calvin.

In the 1559 edition of his /Institutes of the Christian Religion/, for example, he writes:

In this way, we willingly embrace and reverence as holy the early councils, such as those of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus I, Chalcedon, and the like, which were concerned with refuting errors—in so far as they relate to the teachings of faith.

For they contain nothing but the pure and genuine exposition of Scripture, which the holy fathers applied with spiritual prudence to crush the enemies of religion who had then arisen.

And further:

We indeed willingly concede, if any discussion arises over doctrine, that the best and surest remedy is for a synod of true bishops to be convened, where the doctrine at issue may be examined.

To sum up the traditional Protestant view, the words of the nineteenth-century Reformed theologian Charles Hodge (1797-1878) are appropriate:

Again, Protestants admit that as there has been an uninterrupted tradition of truth from the protevangelium to the close of the Apocalypse, so there has been a stream of traditionary teaching flowing through the Christian Church from the day of Pentecost to the present time.

This tradition is so far a rule of faith that nothing contrary to it can be true.

Christians do not stand isolated, each holding his own creed.

They constitute one body, having one common creed.

Rejecting that creed, or any of its parts, is the rejection bf .the

fellowship of Christians, incompatible with the communion of saints, or membership in the body of Christ.

In other words, Protestants admit that there is a common faith of the Church, which no man is at liberty to reject, and which no man can reject and be a Christian.

!! The Revisionist Doctrine of “Solo” Scriptura

In contrast with the Reformation doctrine of /sola Scriptura/, the revisionist doctrine of /“solo” Scriptura/ is marked by radical individualism and a rejection of the authority of the church and the ecumenical creeds.

If we compare the statements made by advocates of /“solo” Scriptura/ with the statements of Reformational Christians above, the difference is immediately evident.

It is also important to observe the source of this doctrine in early America.

As Nathan O. Hatch notes, the first Americans to push the right of private judgment over against the church and the creeds were unorthodox ministers.

The liberal minister Simeon Howard (1733-1804), for example, advised pastors to “lay aside all attachment to human systems, all partiality to names, councils and churches, and honestly inquire, 'what saith the Scriptures?'“

In his own effort to overturn orthodox Christianity, Charles Beecher (1815-1900) denounced “creed power” and argued for “the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible.”

The universalist minister A. B. Grosh (d.

1884) declared in a similar way, In religious faith we have but one Father and one Master, and the Bible, the Bible, is our only acknowledged creed book.

The radical American version of “solo” Scriptura reached its fullest expression in the writings of the Restorationists asthey applied the principles of Democratic populism to Enlightenment Christianity.

In 1809, the Restorationist Elias Smith (1769-1846) proclaimed, “Venture to be as independent in things of religion, as those which respect the government in which you live.”

Barton Stone (1772-1844) declared that the past should be “consigned to the rubbish heap upon which Christ was crucified.”

Alexander Campbell (1788-1866) made his individualistic view of Scripture very clear, declaring, “I have endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had read them before me, and I am as much on my guard against reading them to-day, through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system whatever.”