Sola Scriptura and Liberal Protestants
Much of what I have said already about sola scriptura would be pleasing to theological liberals. They are glad that tradition, church and Holy Spirit are acceptable to sola scriptura. Some amoung them would also be glad that I am focussing my attention on what Luther and the Reformers believed when they spoke of sola scriptura. They wish to affirm sola scriptura as Luther did, but with different content than those modern Reformed churches. However, such is not possible. Sola scriptura cannot be watered down to mean anything that these liberals would be happy with.
Some liberals believe that sola scriptura merely means that scripture is the primary source of authority, second to none. However, they also wish to affirm that there are secondary authorities such as reason, tradition and the church. Although sola scriptura does entail that scripture is the primary authority, that does not exhaust the meaning of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura means scripture alone and if the Reformers wished to say that scripture is primary, they would have said prima scriptura instead. In fact, the Westminster confession states that "nothing at any time is to be added [to scripture]".
Another liberal belief is the confusion of sola scriptura and inerrancy. Both the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches have always believed in inerrancy. That was not the controversy at the time of the Reformation. Sola Scriptura sought to place scripture above a mere statement of inerrancy, so that Scripture was the judge of the church as well. The Reformer's belief in sola scriptura is such that the belief entailed a belief in the inerrancy of scripture.
Since prima scriptura is not enough, it will certainly not do to claim that the Protestants were opening scripture to the claims of Reason. Although the Protestants were all open to logic and sound argument, they did not trust philosophical claims that were not based, at least indirectly, on the framework of scripture. On this matter, they were not any more open to the claims of Reason than the Roman Catholic church was.
These set of misunderstandings have further increased our knowledge of sola scriptura. Sola Scriptura is not merely a primary authority, but a sole authority. Although it entailed inerrancy, it is not to be confused with it or changed so that it no longer entails it. Finally, sola scriptura does not open scripture to the claims of Reason. Together with my previous post, this gives us some idea of what the Reformers did mean by sola scriptura. But there is no substitute for actually examining their confessions.
Some liberals believe that sola scriptura merely means that scripture is the primary source of authority, second to none. However, they also wish to affirm that there are secondary authorities such as reason, tradition and the church. Although sola scriptura does entail that scripture is the primary authority, that does not exhaust the meaning of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura means scripture alone and if the Reformers wished to say that scripture is primary, they would have said prima scriptura instead. In fact, the Westminster confession states that "nothing at any time is to be added [to scripture]".
Another liberal belief is the confusion of sola scriptura and inerrancy. Both the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches have always believed in inerrancy. That was not the controversy at the time of the Reformation. Sola Scriptura sought to place scripture above a mere statement of inerrancy, so that Scripture was the judge of the church as well. The Reformer's belief in sola scriptura is such that the belief entailed a belief in the inerrancy of scripture.
Since prima scriptura is not enough, it will certainly not do to claim that the Protestants were opening scripture to the claims of Reason. Although the Protestants were all open to logic and sound argument, they did not trust philosophical claims that were not based, at least indirectly, on the framework of scripture. On this matter, they were not any more open to the claims of Reason than the Roman Catholic church was.
These set of misunderstandings have further increased our knowledge of sola scriptura. Sola Scriptura is not merely a primary authority, but a sole authority. Although it entailed inerrancy, it is not to be confused with it or changed so that it no longer entails it. Finally, sola scriptura does not open scripture to the claims of Reason. Together with my previous post, this gives us some idea of what the Reformers did mean by sola scriptura. But there is no substitute for actually examining their confessions.
posted by Matthew at 11:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home