|
Sometimes
I really do feel like a lone voice in the wilderness. Since 1989
I've been preaching the same message: Rome's apologists are
focusing upon a glaring weakness in Protestant evangelicalism,
and they are using it as effectively as the Jehovah's Witnesses
use the Trinity. I'll admit, I'm normally ignored. But if the
recent crop of new books from major Roman Catholic publishers
like Ignatius Press and Our Sunday Visitor mean anything at all,
they confirm this: I was right.
You
see, sola scriptura is today the "Achilles
heel" of the Protestant Church, not because it is indefensible
(as our Roman Catholic critics assert), but because it
is ignored. That is, our seminaries rarely speak of it,
hence, our ministers normally assume its truth but are
unable, when pressed, to give a reasoned response. We hardly ever
hear anything about it from the pulpit: it's like its the taboo
subject. There is no reason for it, really. The doctrine is
beautiful, biblical, historical, comforting---all the things
Roman apologists say it isn't. But they normally get away with
ravaging sola scriptura through gross misrepresentation
of what it really means simply because there are very few who
know the doctrine well enough to call their bluff! The blame for
Rome's success in taking advantage of this blind spot in
Protestant apologetics cannot be given to Rome's apologists.
Instead, the blame must be laid squarely upon the shoulders of
Protestant theologians, leaders, and scholars, who have lost
sight of what is really important, and as a result have let this
vital truth "fall through the cracks" in our college
and seminary training.
I do
not, in making these comments, even speak to the liberalism that
has crippled so many of our institutions of learning. Those
denominations and churches that no longer even believe the Bible
to be supernatural revelation abandoned sola scriptura
(of necessity) a long time ago. I speak to the conservative,
believing Evangelical institutions that still exist in our nation
and overseas. One cannot believe in the sufficiency of Scripture
if one does not believe in the inspiration of Scripture. Hence, I
speak to my fellow brethren who still believe what the Lord Jesus
said: "Your word is truth" (John 17:17).
Sola
Scriptura is not just a "marginal issue," or a
theological novelty to be discussed after a Systematic Theology
class in seminary. It is fundamental, vital, and necessary
to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Without it,
the very basis upon which the gospel is to be defined is changed,
and, historically speaking, this has always resulted in
the degradation of the gospel message itself. Without
the affirmation that the Scriptures are the final court of
appeal, we are left open for every kind of "teaching"
that finds its origin and source in the heart of man. One need
only look to Fatima or Lourdes for illustrations of what happens
when sola scriptura is abandoned and denied. Look at the
modern Roman Catholic doctrine of indulgences (see the
document at: http://listserv.american.edu/catholic/church/papal/paul.vi/p6indulg.txt) for a frightening glimpse
at what happens to the gospel of grace when human traditions and
institutions become infallible organs of doctrinal definition.
The
modern crop of apologists are exploiting the distractedness of
the Protestant Church. They are not, in fact, providing much of a
meaningful challenge to the actual doctrine of sola
scriptura. Most refuse to actually deal with the doctrine as
it really exists and as it is defined in the major
confessions of faith. Their attacks on the doctrine are mainly so
that they can promote their own viewpoint, which I call sola
ecclesia, but without really having to bear the burden of
proving their own case. It's a matter of "well, your system
doesn't work, so ours is the only other possibility."
Despite the weakness of such argumentation, we are seeing people
swayed thereby.
The
books noted above by Mark Shea, David Currie, and Stephen Ray,
all make the same argument: we left Protestantism for many
reasons, but one of the most important was our inability to
defend sola scriptura. Sadly, for each of them, they
were unable to define the doctrine either, and, if you
can't define your beliefs, you will have a real hard time
defending them! They were like so many other Protestants today:
they assumed the belief, but they didn't know the
belief. As a result, they were converts ready to happen, boats
without an anchor tossed on a sea that is all too ready to send
you across the Tiber River into the hands of Rome.
It is
not my purpose here to even begin to review these books, let
alone provide a discussion or defense of sola scriptura.
Instead, I wish to implore my fellow Protestant theologians,
teachers, and pastors: we are the recipients of a tremendous gift
of grace in our Protestant heritage. Sola scriptura is a
vital part of that heritage, and despite how
"counter-culture" it is to believe in such things as
the sufficiency of inspired Scripture, we dare not allow
this truth to remain in obscurity. We must rekindle the zeal of
our forefathers for this vital truth. We must learn what the
doctrine really says, so that we can point out the
constant misrepresentations of it that are so prevalent in our
society. But most importantly, we must love this truth
so that we can speak of it from the heart. Nothing less
is worthy of the great truth of the sufficiency of the Scriptures
to function as the sole infallible rule of faith for Christ's
Church.
|
