Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Sola Scriptura

Martin Luther once said that an uneducated layman armed with the Scriptures was to be believed above popes and councils without the Scriptures. As a seminary president and professor of theology, no one valued education more than Luther. He simply valued the unvarnished Word of God to the polished trappings of the academy and church hierarchy. So high was Luther’s view of God’s Word that he was condemned by Catholic authorities with a very ironic statement: “The impatient monk is more scurrilous than becomes the gravity of a theologian. He prefers the authority of Scripture to the [church] Fathers…” What a blessed condemnation!

The Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century was driven along by two very important doctrinal commitments. These two doctrines came to form the core of what it would mean to be evangelical. The first was the doctrine of justification which is rightly understood as the material principle of the Reformation. Justification deals with how sinners are reconciled to God. The second elemental doctrine of the Reformation, sometimes called the formal principle, was the doctrine of Scripture. These two doctrinal commitments were forged in the midst of crisis. The church, having become corrupt, perverted the biblical understanding of justification. In addition, the church had pronounced as infallible, sources of authority other than Scripture. Popes, councils, and church tradition were believed to speak with equal authority as the Bible. From that crucible was forged several battle cries. Commonly referred to as “the solas,” they were to act as a kind of compass guiding the church out of its self-imposed exile in the darkness.
Led by reformers like Knox and Latimer in Great Britain, Luther and Melancthon in Germany and Calvin and Beza in Geneva the infallible authority of the papacy and the pronouncements of councils was being aggressively challenged. It was Luther who became the theological pit bull of the movement. His feverish writings, lectures, and sermons led to the declaration of “Sola Scriptura” or “Scripture alone.” At the heart of Sola Scriptura is the belief in the inspiration, infallibility, and clarity of the Bible. In other words, the origins of Scripture are divine, its content is without error, and its meaning is clear. Practically speaking Sola Scriptura upholds the sufficiency of Scripture. All the truth we need to attain to salvation, grow in faith, and guide the church is found in the Bible.

The Bible is not merely a theological source book. It is instrumental both to govern our doctrine and also to instruct us in godliness. As much as God rules over us (and delights to do so) His intention is also to walk with us in loving fellowship. But a close relationship can only happen when those involved know each other. God knows us even to the extent of having our hairs numbered. The means He has given us to know Him is His Word for we can know nothing of Him unless He tells us. J.I. Packer has written, “God sends His Word to us in the character of both information and invitation. It comes to woo us as well as to instruct us; it not merely puts us in the picture of what God has done and is doing, but also calls us into personal communion with the loving Lord Himself.” Sola Scriptura is good news because it affirms the Bible’s sufficiency for both our need to know about God and to know God. Any doctrine of Scripture that fails to deal with this instruction / intimacy dialectic is inadequate.

Sola Scriptura is under attack in our day (it probably always has been). Perhaps most disturbing, however, is that in evangelical circles the doctrine of Scripture is undergoing a steady softening. Not long ago I was reading a book by the leading pastor/writer/speaker in the “emergent church” movement which is a very influential force within evangelicalism. He wrote that the solas of the Reformation are “dangerous” because they are “too restrictive.” He has also written that he is uncomfortable calling the Bible “The Word of God” and yet he maintains that he has a very high view of the Scriptures. It hasn’t helped that our congregations are increasingly biblically illiterate and that pastors are seeing the Bible as increasingly impractical for preaching. These are prime times for pastors to return to the Bible in their preaching. It will require a humble tenacity. “Humble” because, though Scripture is infallible, we are not. “Tenacity” because the spirit of the age will constantly tell us that as long as we uphold Scripture in all our preaching and worship we will be hopelessly irrelevant.

I conclude with Luther’s famous words before the Diet of Worms where he was condemned as a heretic. The authorities demanded that Luther recant his writings. He refused.

“Since then Your Majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, I will answer without horns and without teeth. 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 tot eh Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.”

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Sola Scriptura is under attack in our day..." With Sola Fide, the 'Reformed' say that it is absolutely faith only with nothing else. But with Sola Scriptura they say it's Scripture plus the WCF. And they deride those who follow Scripture alone as being stupid and not knowing the difference between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura (which isn't even Latin I don't think). But nay--it is they who have ABANDONED Sola Scriptura in favor of a new papacy....one occupied by dead men.

Kelly Randolph said...

egomakarios,
The "ego" part of your moniker is beginning to appear quite accurate. I thought you were banned from this blog. So let me get this straight, the heirs of the Reformers have abandoned Sola Scriptura because they don't agree with your private interpretation of the Bible?

The difference between Solo and Sola is that Sola humbly appreciates the value of what the church has said about Scripture in the past while never allowing the words of the past to usurp the authority of the Bible alone. Solo arrogantly ignores what the church has said in the past as though the Word of God just dropped out of the sky into their laps yesterday.

Todd Pruitt said...

Ego...

I did request that you stop posting on this blog. I am instructed in Proverbs to avoid endlessly striving with one who is unteachable. However, I will let this entry stand because it is sometime useful to have certain individuals around to be reminded to the proliferation of error in the church.

Pastor Randolph makes a point you need to listen to well. You are guilty of the classic error of "solo (not sola) scriptura". You think you read the Bible without any preconceived notions of your own. You imagine that you do not "interpret." You simply read it and believe it. But the fact is, your mind is not a blank slate (although it does appear blank for the most part). You, like everyone else, carry certain a priori assumptions into your reading.

Sola Scriptura recognizes the importance of our history. It recognizes that we read the Bible in the presence of a great cloud of witnesses. Those whom you so arrogantly dismiss as heretics are men who shoes you are not worthy to untie.

I understand that the traffic at your blog site is probably a bit slow. But keep up the work. I am sure you will gain some traffic from curiosity seekers.

Anonymous said...

"Those whom you so arrogantly dismiss as heretics are men who shoes you are not worthy to untie."

You aren't saying anything that Rome didn't say or doesn't still say.

Todd Pruitt said...

Ego...

I am flattered that you take the time to read my blog. I can only hope that the truth will sink in and we will be able to welcome you into the fold of those who accept and love the Gospel as it is revealed in Scripture.

I find your words very ironic since your own theology, confused as it is, so closely conforms to that of Rome.

I would suggest you take a break from haunting biblically orthodox blogs and spend some significant time studying. I have a link to recommended reading that you may want to check out. If you would like to know where to start just let me know and I would happy to help.

All the best on your journey.

By the way, I would consider allowing you to post more on this site if you would reveal your identity. I understand why you are hiding - plausible deniability. However, if you do not have the courage to attach your own name to your ideas (strange as they are) then you really will not be able to post them here.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Todd Pruitt said...

Ego...

You don't follow instructions very well do you? I am not going to post any more of your comments unless you stop hiding your identity. If you are going to throw bombs on this blog then you will need to own up to your comments and your "theology" such as it is.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.