Welcome to The Kingdom Come Where Christ is King!
Eccesiology Eschatology Soteriology Bibliology Christology Pneumatology
Hamartiology Hermeneutics History Apologetics Humor Website
 
Welcome to The Kingdom Come Where Christ is King!
Home » view

Sola Scriptura and the Regula Fidei

Sola ScripturaThe purpose of this very brief excerpt is to concisely and simply set forth the doctrine of Sola Scriptura over the false, modern-day evangelical doctrine of SOLO Scriptura that always seems to rise up among religious sects through church history.  Evangelicals today, for whatever reason, seem to be confusing Sola Scriptura with Solo Scriptura without understanding either precisely.  Those evangelicals who say they hold to the Sola Scriptura hermeneutic of the Reformation are really using the Reformed terms of the Reformation but are, in actuality, denying the authentic doctrine itself.  This is not just a play on words or some kind of semantic game.  Rather, this is a conflagration of the true doctrine, and a propagation of something the church has deemed in error by way of a faulty hermeneutic.  Hopefully the following points will clarify this and amend this theological mayhem.

It is unfortunate that false view of Sola Scriptura today is aiding the modern church in further schism, rather than unifying the church.  Sola Scriptura should not be used as a “me and my bible” hermeneutic which allows “each individual Christian” to maintain their own theological view point on a given doctrine.  That is not what the Reformers intended, and it is not what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura teaches.  If you believe that Sola Scriptura means “each individual Christian should, on an individual level, use the Bible alone in understanding and determining the corpus of biblical truth” you have completely missed the idea and point of the doctrine itself.  Many people believe that the moment they hear the word “tradition” (the “t” word) that this is a very bad thing.  They want to say “the Bible alone!”  But they have missed the point again.  They believe this as a knee jerk reaction to Roman Catholicism which has a very different view of tradition than what Sola Scriptura teaches.  I want to note here and now, the Reformed position of Sola Scriptura is not, in any way, the same thing, as the view of the Roman Catholic Church’s view of Tradition PLUS Scripture as the church’s ecclesiastical authority.  Hopefully this will be made clear in a moment.

READ THE REST OF THIS GREAT ARTICLE By Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

Follow this link: http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/McMahonSolaScriptura.htm

By Outside contributor on 2008 Mar 23 - 14:03 | Apologetics | add new comment | email this page | printer friendly version | 1332 reads

a Response to both Rod and Kurt

Rod,

you raise a very valid point in the teaching of the historic church. However, Kurt raises an equally valid point in the "hierarchy" concerning the teachings of the historic Christian Church. It is definitely important for doctrine to be protected by the elders of the church as to not see, or allow, any corruption. However, it does become a crying shame that the church has become an hierarchy structure that keeps the peasants down on the level they belong. (I, of course, am using sarcasm when I say this.) My wife (Brigitte) and I have been attending a PCA church since Dr. Birks left Omaha. This church is in the same Presbytery that Dr. Birks was in before they decided to " church" him, bringing judicial charges against his "heretical views" within eschatology. The other night they wanted to interview me for membership. (Yes, that is right, an interview to see if we were eligible for membership.) As we met, I was placed in the precarious situation of accommodating the ruling elders, in front of the teaching elder, to answer the questions that they had for me. I answered them the best that I could, about two hours worth, with them attaching a quote from the Book of Church Order as the reason why they would not be able to accept us as members. This quote is from Chapter 29:1, it says, An offense, the proper object of the judicial process, is anything in the doctrines or practice of a Church member professing faith in Christ, which is contrary to the Word of God. The Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, together with the formularies of government, discipline, and worship are accepted by the Scripture in relation to both faith and practice. Nothing, therefore, ought ot be considered by any court as an offense, or admitted as a matter of accusation, which cannot be proved to be such from Scripture. So, with that written, the Session said that their hands are tied. They could not accept us as members in good standing. Sadly, they decided this even before they asked me any questions. There is no questioning the doctrine of the Westminster Divines. The only question is, how do you respond to what the Divines wrote? This is much like the how the RCC responded to the heretics of the first reformation, and then later, the second reformation.

As Christians, we are not allowed to respond negatively to any of the hierarchy of the Church. You see, the BCO and WCF are the regulatory influences of many Reformed Denoms. Those documents are not inspired, but brought out by men, in their own mind making the best attempt to deduce the exegetical content of Scripture. Who wrote them? Not lay people. So (outside the arena of eschatology) if I do not believe in the WCF chapter "Of the Covenant of Works" then I can be "churched" because of that offense. Many people do not realize this; however, many more will say that they do believe in the Covenant of Works just because it is in the WCF (thus, removing them from any reason for judiciary action), and this without any knowledge of "covenant."

Roderick, it would be the same (concerning important doctrines) about the resurrection of the dead. If the resurrection of the dead (even that hastefully written statement, resurrection of the body) is such a precious doctrine for the church to hold, why did the WCF choose only to write four very simple paragraphs concerning that doctrine?

Sincerely,

Dallas Crist

By Dallas C. (not verified) on April 6, 2008 - 22:58 | parent | reply