kairos

In Part 1 of this article on tradition, we looked at the distinction between sola Scriptura and so-called “solo” Scriptura while emphasizing the necessity of tradition.  Sola Scriptura does indeed mean “Scripture alone” as the ultimate authority of faith and practice, but this doesn’t mean that biblical interpretation is done in a vacuum.  The practice of modern Evangelicalism appears to be the me-and-my-Bible approach of “solo” Scriptura in which all tradition is thrown out altogether or otherwise made subordinate to the interpretative whims of the individual.

With respect to the individualism found in modern Evangelical approaches to biblical interpretation, it is important to concede that Roman Catholic critics are at least partly right.  There is most certainly an element of the “lone ranger Christian” at work here along with a very low view of the church.  Membership in the local church is now seen as something loose or fluid, assuming that it exists at all.  Yet where these same Roman Catholic critics err is their assertion that this situation in modern Evangelicalism is somehow representative of historic Protestant teaching.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Aside from Scripture, the magisterial Reformers consciously and openly appealed to early church fathers as well.  They made it clear that their efforts at reforming the church were not rooted in something novel, but had the backing of centuries of church tradition.  Indeed, John Calvin relied heavily upon the testimony of early church fathers in his famous reply to Cardinal Sadoleto in which he articulated a systematic defense of Reformation doctrine.  In particular he cited Chrysostom in echoing the warning to beware of those who promote new doctrines under the auspices of the Holy Spirit, for the Spirit affirms what God has already spoken in the Scriptures rather than theological novelties.  Both Rome and the Anabaptists had been guilty of the latter. Continue reading →

In today’s milieu of theological discussions, it seems prudent to properly define our terms and ensure that all participants are on the same page.  The onset of post-modernism certainly hasn’t helped matters and our discourse is often given over to confusion more than anything else.  I’ve noticed this especially in discussions between Roman Catholics and Protestants regarding the issues of sola Scriptura and the proper role of tradition.  There’s a great misunderstanding on each side both in terms of the definitions themselves as well as the history behind them.

The point of this article isn’t so much to refute Roman Catholic arguments as it is to help fellow Protestants to understand what sola Scriptura actually means while at the same time articulating an appreciation for tradition in its proper role.  Many Protestants have an incomplete or even distorted view of what constitutes tradition.  In a knee-jerk reaction against Rome, there are Protestants who deny that they have any kind of tradition at all.  While having good intentions, they mistakenly assume that upholding the doctrine of Scripture-alone means eschewing tradition altogether.

Yet as Keith Mathison and others have demonstrated, there is a huge difference between sola Scriptura and so-called “solo” Scriptura.  Roman Catholics and Protestants alike seem to miss the difference.  This, I believe, is what has given rise to the “solo” Scriptura defense among Protestants who simply don’t know any better.  Here we see the importance of church history along with a solid understanding of basic theological terms.  The modern Evangelical church is woefully ill-equipped in this regard. Continue reading →