Sola Scriptura Article-Highlight
I am still reading through this article, however here is a highlight I wanted to share.
Everyone needs to read this whole article sometime. It sums up the whole issue brilliantly.
Third, sola scriptura is self-defeating, because it rests on a presupposition that cannot be proved from Scripture (let alone from history)—namely, that the whole content of God’s revealed will for the ongoing instruction of His Church was committed “wholly to writing,” so that no unwritten residue of divinely inspired instruction survived from the oral teachings of Jesus and His apostles that remained binding on God’s people after the New Testament (NT) was written. This assumption, stated more or less audaciously, is ubiquitous among Protestants.[30] But where does Scripture say this? How could one claim to know this? The data of history and the Church Fathers weigh heavily against it. It does not even make good sense. First, if all bindingly authoritative oral instruction ceased with the death of the last apostle, and if the early churches did not have copies of all the NT books until well after that time, who spoke for the Lord Jesus and the apostles in the interim? Second, how is one to plausibly imagine the transition from the partially oral framework of authoritative instruction (OT + teachings of Jesus and apostles) to a wholly written framework (OT + NT) required by this hypothesis? Gregory Krehbiel offers a wry scenario: “One imagines all the churches dutifully obeying Paul’s oral instructions on the Eucharist [1 Cor 11:34] and anxiously awaiting the publication in the Antiochian Post of the last apostle’s obituary, at which point they are to rewrite their book of church order and eliminate everything based on oral instructions.”[31] The whole idea, of course, seem ridiculous, but scarcely more so than some of the assertions commonly made in this connection (see n. 30).
But then, in all seriousness, what is the partisan of sola scriptura to say about those who remembered the oral instructions of the apostles—concerning, say, the Eucharistic liturgy—who perhaps even wrote down and preserved these, even though they never made it into the NT canon? The writings of the early Church are filled with extrabiblical sayings of Jesus, practices of the Christian community, liturgical and Eucharistic formulas, and so forth, which presuppose the divine origin and authority of these things.[32] On the Catholic view, there is no problem here, since the writings of the NT are viewed as fragments of a larger normative tradition, not as a complete set of catechetical instructions for new believers, but as occasional writings with an “eye to the situation in the churches,” often intended to correct abuses.[33] But what is the Protestant Partisan to do with instructions and practices that claim to be apostolic but were never put in writing in the NT? Again, Krehbiel offers an imaginative scenario:
Imagine, if you will, John Calvin, Bible in hand, visiting the church of Corinth in the year 125. Calvin notices some practices in the church of which he has never read specific mention in Scripture, and he rebukes the church for “adding to God’s word.”
One of the presbyters approaches Calvin and says, “Have you not read in Paul’s first epistle to this church, in the passage about the Lord’s Supper, ‘And the rest I will set in order when I come’? (1 Cor 11:34) Dear brother, I was a young man when the apostle visited this church. These church practices you condemn came from the apostle’s very lips. Are you greater than Paul? We also have in our possession Paul’s letter to the church of the Thessalonians. He commands them to continue in the traditions, whether delivered by word of mouth or by epistle. (2 Thes 2:15) Are we to obey you or the apostle?” (Krehbiel, 6).
By means of this simple historical fiction, Krehbiel illustrates the unbiblical and unhistorical nature of the assumptions required by sola scriptura. There is no reason to suppose that early Church practices are contrary to apostolic teaching or were intended to be only temporary, simply because we can find no explicit description of them in Scripture today. In fact, Krehbiel offers an interesting biblical refutation of this supposition from 2 Chronicles 29:25 and 35:4, where both Hezekiah and Josiah used extrabiblical teachings in their reforms, from prophets who had been dead for hundreds of years, in violation of the assumption that only those teachings preserved in canonical Scriptures are authoritative.[34] What is interesting about the first verse (29:25) is that the instructions of David, Gad and Nathan followed by Hezekiah are described as being the command of the Lord through His prophets, even though (1) they were long dead by the time of Hezekiah and (2) there is no record in canonical Scripture that serves as a basis for Hezekiah’s actions. The same is true of the writings of Solomon whose instructions Josiah is cited as following in the second verse (35:4). What is also remarkable is the altogether unexceptional manner in which these actions are described. As Krehbiel observes, “In no case did the believing community rebuke Hezekiah or Josiah for violating sola scriptura. On the contrary, they accepted the fact that divine instruction, through the mouths of God’s prophets, had been preserved for the church’s use for hundreds of years apart from Scripture.”[35]
Everyone needs to read this whole article sometime. It sums up the whole issue brilliantly.
Third, sola scriptura is self-defeating, because it rests on a presupposition that cannot be proved from Scripture (let alone from history)—namely, that the whole content of God’s revealed will for the ongoing instruction of His Church was committed “wholly to writing,” so that no unwritten residue of divinely inspired instruction survived from the oral teachings of Jesus and His apostles that remained binding on God’s people after the New Testament (NT) was written. This assumption, stated more or less audaciously, is ubiquitous among Protestants.[30] But where does Scripture say this? How could one claim to know this? The data of history and the Church Fathers weigh heavily against it. It does not even make good sense. First, if all bindingly authoritative oral instruction ceased with the death of the last apostle, and if the early churches did not have copies of all the NT books until well after that time, who spoke for the Lord Jesus and the apostles in the interim? Second, how is one to plausibly imagine the transition from the partially oral framework of authoritative instruction (OT + teachings of Jesus and apostles) to a wholly written framework (OT + NT) required by this hypothesis? Gregory Krehbiel offers a wry scenario: “One imagines all the churches dutifully obeying Paul’s oral instructions on the Eucharist [1 Cor 11:34] and anxiously awaiting the publication in the Antiochian Post of the last apostle’s obituary, at which point they are to rewrite their book of church order and eliminate everything based on oral instructions.”[31] The whole idea, of course, seem ridiculous, but scarcely more so than some of the assertions commonly made in this connection (see n. 30).
But then, in all seriousness, what is the partisan of sola scriptura to say about those who remembered the oral instructions of the apostles—concerning, say, the Eucharistic liturgy—who perhaps even wrote down and preserved these, even though they never made it into the NT canon? The writings of the early Church are filled with extrabiblical sayings of Jesus, practices of the Christian community, liturgical and Eucharistic formulas, and so forth, which presuppose the divine origin and authority of these things.[32] On the Catholic view, there is no problem here, since the writings of the NT are viewed as fragments of a larger normative tradition, not as a complete set of catechetical instructions for new believers, but as occasional writings with an “eye to the situation in the churches,” often intended to correct abuses.[33] But what is the Protestant Partisan to do with instructions and practices that claim to be apostolic but were never put in writing in the NT? Again, Krehbiel offers an imaginative scenario:
Imagine, if you will, John Calvin, Bible in hand, visiting the church of Corinth in the year 125. Calvin notices some practices in the church of which he has never read specific mention in Scripture, and he rebukes the church for “adding to God’s word.”
One of the presbyters approaches Calvin and says, “Have you not read in Paul’s first epistle to this church, in the passage about the Lord’s Supper, ‘And the rest I will set in order when I come’? (1 Cor 11:34) Dear brother, I was a young man when the apostle visited this church. These church practices you condemn came from the apostle’s very lips. Are you greater than Paul? We also have in our possession Paul’s letter to the church of the Thessalonians. He commands them to continue in the traditions, whether delivered by word of mouth or by epistle. (2 Thes 2:15) Are we to obey you or the apostle?” (Krehbiel, 6).
By means of this simple historical fiction, Krehbiel illustrates the unbiblical and unhistorical nature of the assumptions required by sola scriptura. There is no reason to suppose that early Church practices are contrary to apostolic teaching or were intended to be only temporary, simply because we can find no explicit description of them in Scripture today. In fact, Krehbiel offers an interesting biblical refutation of this supposition from 2 Chronicles 29:25 and 35:4, where both Hezekiah and Josiah used extrabiblical teachings in their reforms, from prophets who had been dead for hundreds of years, in violation of the assumption that only those teachings preserved in canonical Scriptures are authoritative.[34] What is interesting about the first verse (29:25) is that the instructions of David, Gad and Nathan followed by Hezekiah are described as being the command of the Lord through His prophets, even though (1) they were long dead by the time of Hezekiah and (2) there is no record in canonical Scripture that serves as a basis for Hezekiah’s actions. The same is true of the writings of Solomon whose instructions Josiah is cited as following in the second verse (35:4). What is also remarkable is the altogether unexceptional manner in which these actions are described. As Krehbiel observes, “In no case did the believing community rebuke Hezekiah or Josiah for violating sola scriptura. On the contrary, they accepted the fact that divine instruction, through the mouths of God’s prophets, had been preserved for the church’s use for hundreds of years apart from Scripture.”[35]
posted by Sean at 2/16/2006 01:33:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home