“The Baptist Version of Sola Scriptura” Revisited
Following are a few excerpts which will give you an idea of Mathison’s treatment of the subject of Solo Scriptura:
“The twentieth century could, with some accuracy, be called a century of theological anarchy. Liberals and sectarians have long rejected outright many of the fundmanetal 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 full-preterism. 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.”
“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.”
Here Mathison begins to summarize three views on the relationship between Scripture and tradition, borrowing clever labels from Heiko Oberman:
Tradition 1: “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 Testmanet 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 neighter 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.”
Tradition 2: “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. . . 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 Tradition1, the position of the early church. The beginnings of a strong movement toward Tradition 2 did not begin in earnest until the twelfth century.” Willaim of Ockham was one of the first medieval theologians to officially adopt this two-source view of revelation in the fourteenth century.
Mathison shows how the Reformation, in part, was a move back to “Tradition 1,” the view that Scripture was the sole source of divine revelation, to be interpreted by the church within the context of the regula fidei, the hermeneutical tradition, if you will.
“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.”
I, myself, wrote on the Reformation of Tradition 2 once.
Now here’s where the trouble starts in relation to misunderstanding the idea of Sola Scriptura:
Tradition 0?: “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, 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.”
Is this beginning to sound familiar? I thought so.
Now, back to my own opinion, and application of these historical matters. It was the 1644 edition of the London Baptist Confession of Faith that complains that their movement is “commonly (though falsely) called Anabaptists.” Having adopted fully Reformed theology, including the doctrine of paedobaptism, when I compare how the Baptist tradition from its very inception, so completely embraced Reformed theology with the full scope of understanding of these doctrines in accord with “Tradition 1,” the ancient view that Scripture alone is divine revelation, to be interpreted within the traditional hermeneutic of the regula fidei. But then, when one examines the teaching of these otherwise Reformed Christians on baptism, hints of tendency toward “Tradition 0,” the Anabaptist view of the relationship between Scripture and tradition, begin to emerge.
This is what I meant by “The Baptist Version of Sola Scriptura.” I don’t “falsely” claim that Baptists are Anabaptists, I just think they took baby steps away from Reformation and toward Anabaptism on baptism (and maybe congregationalism?). That’s all. But rank and file Baptists, like many otherwise evangelical paedobaptists, have moved with the spirit of the age to embrace the modern revisionist tendency toward “Solo Scriptura.” And I think that’s a problem. Work must be, and is being, done to correct this problem here and there. That’s why I like to publicize the Cambridge Declaration of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.
Ordinary Means of Illumination
No Retreat
In this passage, Owen writes, “Now, it being our duty to mortify, to be killing of sin whilst it is in us, we must be at work. He that is appointed to kill an enemy, if he leave striking before the other ceases living, doth but half his work. These are words that “struck” me.
Galatians. 6:9 “And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.”
Hebrews 12:1 “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us . . . “
2 Corinthians 7:1 “Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.”
This text from 2 Corinthians is especially helpful when considered in its context. Paul here encourages the Corinthians to purify themselves and perfect holiness out of reverence for God. But what indicatives form the basis for these imperatives? To what gospel promises does Paul appeal in order to motivate such a response? At the end of chapter six, Paul stated several of God’s promises from the Old Testament which speak of his gospel intention to enjoy the company of his Redeemed.”What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, ‘I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them and I will be their God, and they shall be my people’ (cf. Leviticus 26:11-12; Jeremiah 32:38; Ezekiel 37:27). Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you” (Isaiah 52:11; Ezekiel 20:34, 41).
What are God’s gospel intentions which call us to remain separate from, leave untouched, and, indeed, kill, sin? By the gracious redemption purchased by Christ in his victorious life of active obedience to God and utter defeat of sin in his death and resurrection for sinners, God’s intention is to “make (his) dwelling with them.” Think about that: if you are redeemed, it is because God is pleased to live with you! “. . . And walk among them . . . ” As the company of the redeemed, we ought not gather to have a good time with each other, or to impress each other with our outward displays of godliness, but we are called to gather and walk together because God is pleased to walk among the company of those redeemed by Christ from their bondage to sin! How easily we forget this as we walk ever so thoughtlessly in our sinful, defiling lusts. “I will be their God.” Our God? He redeemed us, so he could be our God? Who are we that he is mindful of us? We are nobodies in and of ourselves! But God was graciously pleased to place sinners such as us into his beloved Son in whom he is well pleased (Matthew 17:5). ” . . . ‘And I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me,’ says the Lord Almighty” (v. 18).
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, with Grandma and the Indians . . .
Owen continues:
“2. Sin doth not only still abide in us, but is still acting, still laboring to bring forth the deeds of the flesh. When sin lets us alone we may let sin alone; but as sin is never less quiet than when it seems to be most quiet, and its waters are for the most part deep when they are still, so ought our contrivances against it to be vigorous at all times and in all conditions, even where there is least suspicion.” This resembles those scenes in the old war movies where the general is unnerved by the enemy’s silence: “It’s quiet–too quiet!” Believers must remain on guard even when they aren’t conscious of temptation–your inner enemy, sin, is merely reloading and plotting your downfall.
Here are some of the Scriptures Owen cites in support of the above statements:
Sin doth not only abide in us, but “the law of the members is still rebelling against the law of the mind,” (Romans 7:23);
and “the spirit that dwells in us lusteth to envy” (James 4:5)
It is always in continual work; “the flesh lusteth against the Spirit” (Galatians 5:17)
Lust is still tempting and conceiving sin (James 1:14)
The Holy Spirit who indwells the believer has desires for his behavior which contradict the desires that his indwelling sin nature has for him. The flesh (sinful desire) seeks on an ongoing basis to entice the believer to sin and the Holy Spirit is calling him to rely on him out of love for the Son of God to do what he desires him to do. Believer, hear the Spirit’s call and heed it, while, like Russel Crowe’s character in the movie, A Beautiful Mind, resisting, ignoring, neglecting and marginalizing the flesh’s regular attempts to lure you into sin.
Here are my concluding thoughts which were spurred by Owen’s words:
Since sin will dwell in the justified believer for his entire life, and is constantly engaged with him in a fight to the death, the justified believer must likewise engage in an offensive to the death against sin, relying not on his own moral strength, but on the power of the sanctifying Holy Spirit in the Word of God (the Law and the Gospel–1 Peter 1:25) as it is carefully heard, prudently applied and diligently obeyed (James 1:19-25). How a professing believer responds to the onslaughts of his own indwelling sin has eternal consequences (1 Timothy 4:7-8).
If the believer refuses up front, or surrenders to a life of unrepentant sin before his own death (Matthew 21:28-32), he stands liable to the judgment of God as a false believer who allowed sin to kill him, finding that he was never a justified believer to begin with (Matthew 7:23). But if the believer perseveres in the fight to the death with sin, then, when he dies, he will be found finally as a justified believer who has spent his life being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, and now stands to be glorified (1 Corinthians 15:50-58) to live forever in his flesh, finally victorious over sin in Christ, who himself defeated sin for us (Matthew 4:1-11) in order to defeat sin in us as we gratefully return our love to him by our obedient resistance to temptation, and disciplined pursuit of godliness and righteousness (Matthew 5:6; 6:33).
“Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation” (Matthew 26:41).
Onward, Christian soldiers,
marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus
going on before.
Christ, the royal Master,
leads against the foe;
Forward into battle
see His banners go!
Onward, Christian soldiers,
marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus
going on before.
At the sign of triumph
Satan’s host doth flee;
On then, Christian soldiers,
on to victory!
Hell’s foundations quiver
at the shout of praise;
Brothers lift your voices,
loud your anthems raise.
Onward, Christian soldiers
marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus
going on before.
Like a mighty army
moves the church of God;
Brothers, we are treading
where the saints have trod.
We are not divided,
all one body we,
One in hope and doctrine,
one in charity.
Onward, Christian soldiers
marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus
going on before.
What the saints established
that I hold for true.
What the saints believèd,
that I believe too.
Long as earth endureth,
men the faith will hold,
Kingdoms, nations, empires,
in destruction rolled.
Onward, Christian soldiers,
marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus
going on before.
Crowns and thrones may perish,
kingdoms rise and wane,
But the church of Jesus
constant will remain.
Gates of hell can never
‘gainst that church prevail;
We have Christ’s own promise,
and that cannot fail.
Onward, Christian soldiers,
marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus
going on before.
Onward then, ye people,
join our happy throng,
Blend with ours your voices
in the triumph song.
Glory, laud and honor
unto Christ the King,
This through countless ages
men and angels sing.
Onward, Christian soldiers,
marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus
going on before.
Christian Headknowledge and Historical Claims
Recent Comments