The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith Mathison Reviewed chapter by chapter, with discussion (As with other documents on my site this document may change from time to time when I find typos or errors.) Chapter 1 I'm very glad that someone with ties to the Credenda/Agenda tribe has decided to do a book on sola scriptura. Their position is far more reasonable and consistent than most of the nonsense we hear today. Most importantly, they are trying valiantly to assert sola scriptura and the authority of the church, and that is a big step in the right direction. There's a lot to say about Keith's first chapter, but for now I will mention only a few points. First, the question he has to answer is whether all doctrines received by the church were inscripturated. He seems to think he has answered that question, but I don't believe he has. More on that later. Keith distinguishes between a one-source and a two-source view of revelation. A one-source view says that the entire deposit of faith is transmitted entirely in Scripture and in tradition. That is, Scripture contains all special revelation, but so does Tradition. A two-source view says that some special revelation is in Scripture and some in tradition. It is worth pointing out that the RCC has not -- to this day -- ruled on this question. Catholics are free to adopt either position. I tend to prefer the one-source position, but I can understand the church's reluctance to decide, which brings me to my second point. There is a huge, gaping hole in his analysis of the fathers. He is reading them as if they were articles in a Presbyterian journal -- as if they are precise and careful in their language (lest the wrath of the Truly Reformed fall upon them). But it is quite evident that the fathers frequently spoke hyperbolically. For example, if someone were to say that the sum total of the Christian faith is contained in Baptism, we should not understand him to mean that Baptism is materially sufficient for the entire Christian faith. We have to understand that he's exaggerating just a little. To the church fathers, there is no contradiction between saying that the Scriptures are all-sufficient and then saying that some things are not in Scripture. It sounds weird to us, but that's the way they spoke, and Keith seems to miss it. This is most easily shown by looking at Augustine and Basil. Both of them support position 2 above, but both of them also say things that imply the sufficiency of Scripture. IOW, in their minds there is no contradiction between the sufficiency of Scripture and the existence of extra-scriptural, binding traditions. A fair analysis of the fathers would have to deal with this rather weird way of talking, and without it, Keith's conclusions are iffy. This is especially true because of the conflict with the Gnostics, which Keith mentions, but he doesn't seem to grasp how it hurts his argument. If Augustine and Basil can speak of the sufficiency of Scripture and also speak of the necessity of extra-Scriptural traditions, the earlier church fathers might have had the same mindset, and since the Gnostic controversy gave them ample reason to minimize the existence of extra-Scriptural traditions, their seeming assertion of the material sufficiency of Scripture does not contradict a belief in extra-Scriptural traditions. (I'm going to write this review as if Keith has cited all the relevant patristic data. I have a strong suspicion that there are other quotes from the early church fathers that would contradict material sufficiency.) The last thing I'll mention is the oddity of material sufficiency in historical context. My first reaction to Keith's first chapter was that he started too late -- with the fathers. He should have started with Jesus' earthly ministry and talked through the shape of NT special revelation as it progressed through Pentecost, through the writing of the NT letters, etc. The modern Christian has to remember that the church existed -- and functioned -- and knew how to worship, and what to believe, and all that -- before the NT existed. So how did they do it, and how does that relate to the subsequent relationship between Scripture and tradition? Keith seems to assume an identity of content between tradition and Scripture, but does that really make any sense? Where do we get the idea that all of the content of divine revelation was inscripturated? Again, I prefer the material sufficiency position, but I have a very hard time imagining material sufficiency in the early church -- before there even was a canon. And Keith doesn't even touch on this question. Greg See the discussion Chapter 2 I'm going to avoid comment on Keith's statements about the papacy except to say that there are volumes and volumes written on this subject going both ways and that I've read a lot to contradict what Keith maintains. *** The following is somewhat of a tangent. I had an interesting dialog with another Reformed guy on the senses of Scripture. He said that all the Reformers wanted was a fixed text and a fixed way to interpret it -- i.e., a clear map and clear rules so people could figure out where to go. I sympathize with the sentiment, but there are serious problems with that issue from a Reformed perspective. Most of us realize the problem with the idea of a "fixed text." The scope of the canon was a difficult issue at the time. But the concept of a fixed method of interpretation raises even more problems. First, as Keith points out, the church had long recognized other methods of interpreting Scripture. But second -- and this really bugged me back when I was in the OPC -- who says that the literal sense is ruling method for determining doctrine? Where is that in Scripture? Rather, we have to admit that Scripture itself uses some rather odd methods of interpreting Scripture. (E.g., Paul's comments on the singular use of the collective noun "seed" in Galatians.) So it seems to me that the dominance of the literal sense cannot be derived from Scripture. *** Keith mentions the need to interpret the Scriptures "within the church." I'm itching to comment on this in the context of Luther (I have started but not finished that chapter), but for now I just want to point out that this is a proper departure from the pedestrian variety of sola scriptura, and I think it is very relevant to the whole perspicuity debate. Scripture may be unclear to a Martian who knows nothing of our culture, but within the life of the church Scripture is adequately clear. I can't remember if I mentioned this before, but something on p. 75 brought it to mind so I'll mention it now. I have often wondered if Basil's comments on extra-biblical tradition didn't apply to rites rather than doctrines. But then as soon as I think that I wonder if it may be an artificial distinction since "the rule of prayer is the rule of faith" -- IOW, the church has sometimes based doctrinal positions on the liturgical practices of the church. This doesn't necessarily relate to material sufficiency. The church could use extra-biblical traditions as part of the "rule of faith," which is a guide to interpretation. IOW, all doctrines must be present in Scripture, but the liturgical traditions of the church could provide the framework in which those doctrines are to be understood. Of course this kind of thing is complete heresy to OPC types, which is why I found myself drifting further and further from the OPC mentality. Finally, is William of Ockham the devil's own son? It seems that everyone wants to blame him for all the troubles of the Reformation era. Keith blames him for pushing the two source theory. Louis Bouyer blames him for infecting the whole world with that dreaded philosophy of evil -- "nominalism" [oooohh] -- which forced Protestant and Catholic polemicists to take opposite, and erroneous, horns of the same dilemma. Just kidding, of course. Greg See the discussion Chapter 3, part 1 -- Luther Keith asked me to comment on chapters 3 and 4 together, but I fear I'm going to have to have two installments on chapter 3 -- one on Luther and one on Calvin. Because now we get to some of the hard stuff. And to preface my remarks I want to say something I’ve said many times before. I believe the Reformation was Rome’s fault. It was not caused by radical, angry young rebels who wanted to rule the world by their private judgment [as some RC apologists seem to claim]. Rome caused the Reformation by its laxity in preaching the gospel, by stupid applications of weird and questionable doctrines, by its tyrannical claims to power, and so forth – some of which Keith points out in his book. And if I lived at that time, I’m not sure what I would have done. The relevant question for me is which church I ought to be in today, and who was right in the 16th century is a very very small part of that question. So please don’t interpret my remarks as if I’m trying to defend the RCC that existed then – I’m not. I’m also not trying to condemn the Reformers. I want to comment on how the conflict then relates to our present understanding of the issues. Keith has stated – rightly, I say – that the Bible has to be interpreted in and by the church. The problem with Luther and Calvin’s doctrine is that – practically speaking -- it does not allow the church to do this. Keith is right that they did not intend to throw the church, or individual Christians, back onto their own subjective judgment, as if their own opinion was a law unto itself. But by tearing down the authority of popes and councils without recognizing any other practical way for “the church” to interpret Scripture, that is precisely what they did. If the Bible has to be interpreted in and by the church (and please recall the language of the early church fathers on this point, whom Keith called as witness to his position), and if we are not to depart from the judgments of that church (I’m sure you’re all aware of the cite in Irenaeus about the necessity of conforming to the interpretation of the church at Rome), then the church has to have a way to publish the official interpretation of Scripture, and individuals must be bound to it. Not under all circumstances, surely. If a church teaches something plainly and necessarily false, no one has to follow that. But if what the church teaches falls within some “zone of reasonableness,” no one has the right to reject it. Luther’s and Calvin’s positions do not allow for such a thing. Sure, we can find some words here and there that seem to give some level of authority to the church. Luther often called for a general council. We have to presume he meant that people should submit to its decrees. But what Luther and Calvin give with the left hand they take away with the right. Other elements of their teachings destroy any authority they might have given to councils. Or so it seems to me, and so, apparently, it seems to all the followers of Luther and Calvin, who have never, to this day, been bound to any official interpretations by the “ecclesial bodies” they created. So much for the preface. Here are some specific comments on chapter 3. In Luther’s famous statement before Worms he is reported to have said, “I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other.” This highlights a huge epistemological problem for anyone who wants to go back and unscramble the Reformation egg. Of course Luther was right on one point. Popes and councils have contradicted one another. The modern RCC has clarified just when popes and councils are considered to be infallible, but in Luther’s day it had not. There were all kinds of nutty things being said. But Luther goes too far. He says “I do not accept the authority of popes and councils.” Whatever else Luther may have said, this is the message of Lutheranism – councils have no authority whatsoever. So Luther has demolished any foundation for that ancient doctrine of the church that Keith summarized in chapter one – that the Bible is supposed to be interpreted in and by the church. How can it do that when people say “I do not accept the authority of popes and councils”? Again, I’m not trying to judge dear Brother Martin personally. The issue was far from clear in his day and he took a difficult stand in a tight spot. He “sinned boldly,” one might say – to his everlasting credit. But by denying any practical authority to any council, the church cannot interpret the Bible. “Tradition I” is a dead letter. Keith tries to rescue Luther from this conclusion, and I am willing to concede that Luther did not really intend to take such a radical position. On p. 100 he is quoted as saying “the decrees of the genuine councils must remain in force permanently ….” (Emphasis supplied.) But we have to ask which are the “genuine” councils. Are they the ones Luther happens to approve of, perhaps, or is there some other, more objective standard? Keith says, “Luther rejected both the autonomy and the radical individualism” of the radical reformers, but what did he temper it with? The problem is that when you tear down the authority of a council and fail to put any rule in its place – e.g., these are the kinds of councils we should obey, within these guidelines – and without falling back on individual judgment – the result is the same, despite intentions. Greg See the discussion Chapter 3, part 2 -- Calvin The question in dispute between the Reformers and Rome was what is the correct interpretation of Scripture, to which Keith's "Tradition 1" position would correctly answer, "the church's," which leads inevitably to the question of how we define "the church's" interpretation. Calvin simply doesn't grasp that problem -- or, grasping it, he is afraid of the answer. Re: the canon, we've been over this many times before. To the extent that Calvin is saying that the authority of Scripture does not depend on the church's recognition of the canon, he is certainly correct. The authority of Scripture depends on God who speaks. But the question at hand was how Christians are to know which books belong in Scripture, and Calvin can sound as if he's answering that question with a Mormon-like "burning in the bosom" answer. As with Luther we can see that whatever Calvin may give with the left hand -- as far as a sound ecclesiology goes -- he takes away with the right. Everything devolves to a subjective analysis of doctrine. If the teaching of the prophets and apostles is the foundation, this must have had authority before the church began to exist. Groundless, too, is their subtle objection that, although the church took its beginning here, the writings to be attributed to the prophets and apostles nevertheless remain in doubt until decided by the church. Yes, they remain in doubt as to authenticity, not as to authority if they are authentic. For if the Christian church was from the beginning founded upon the writings of the prophets and the preaching of the apostles, wherever this doctrine is found, [note the appeal to his independent analysis] the acceptance of it -- without which the church itself would never have existed -- must certainly have preceded the church. It is utterly vain, then, to pretend that the power of judging Scripture so lies with the church that its certainty depends upon churchly assent. Thus, while the church receives and gives its seal of approval to the Scriptures [and how, pray tell, does it do this authoritatively?], it does not thereby render authoritative what is otherwise doubtful or controversial. (Emphasis supplied.) It's almost amusing how he skips over the point here. He wants to be sure that no one thinks the authority of Scripture flows from the church, but in so doing he makes the standard Protestant (anti-"Tradition 1") leap -- "See here, we have the Scriptures independent of the authority and interpretation of the church, and if we analyze the doctrine in them we see what the church is supposed to be like, and we find Rome lacking." This is not consistent with the "Tradition I" of Irenaeus. And our surety that these books are genuine and belong in the Bible? Oh, we can see that just as plainly as we can see the difference between light and darkness. Like Luther with the authority of councils, Calvin seems so afraid to give any ground to his opponents that he tears down a necessary doctrine and replaces it with nothing but subjective, personal faith. No matter how many other things he says about the authority of the church, that is the practical impact of his position on his followers. "We will hold this so-called church up to our scrutiny, based on our interpretation of the Bible, which we have independent of the church." I should clarify something about my comment re: Irenaeus. It's well and good for Irenaeus to point to the necessity of the church when the church is actually teaching what the Bible teaches. But how does Irenaeus' doctrine work when the church is teaching a bunch of foolishness? That was the crisis of the Reformation. The Reformers erred toward one extreme -- essentially, if not intentionally, throwing everyone back on their own resources in interpreting a Bible that has been stripped away from the life of the church -- while those defending Rome erred towards another extreme -- making the church the arbiter of all truth independent of Scripture. Now we turn to an interesting difference between Luther and Calvin, and once again we can see that, despite all their talk to the contrary, they really did rely on their own judgment -- to such an extent that they didn't even agree with one another on a very important part of the dispute: is Rome a true church? Luther didn't feel the need to justify his separation from the RCC because he was on the receiving end: they kicked him out! But Calvin had to come up with some reason for actively leaving. And it comes down to this: we can put up with a lot from a church, and so long as it remains a true church we have to stay with it, but once it crosses the line, we have to leave. Luther and the Lutheran tradition have always maintained that Rome remained a true church. So Calvin has to come up with a method of judging the church. Where does he propose to get this standard? It seems to me that "Tradition 1," which says that we interpret Scripture in the context of the rule of faith, would give a good guide: we'd look at what the church had already said on the subject. We might use the creed (gosh, what a thought!) as the dividing line. Or perhaps the major decrees of the major councils. But oh, no, that won't work. Rome is still faithful to the creed, so that doesn't give us the ground for justifying our split, and the councils support things like the veneration of images, and we don't like that, so we need a new standard. You see, "Tradition 1" has died. Scripture is no longer being interpreted in and by the church, within the rule of faith. Scripture is now the plaything of the individual interpreter. Luther can say that Rome is a true church and Calvin can say it is not. They can say all they like about respecting church authority, but when it comes to this question (what defines a true church?) they are on their own. This post is getting overly long. Sorry. There is one other point I wish to make re: Calvin's analysis of apostolic succession. He makes validity of office depend on the sincerity of those who ordain and the orthodoxy of the one ordained. That is obviously unbiblical. Even wicked men remained priests. They were apostate priests, and God's judgment fell on them, but they were still priests. In summary I'd like to say again that Calvin sometimes sounds as if he's on the right track. We can dig up quotes that assert the authority of the church and so forth. But he just can't bring himself to say what needs to be said without qualifying it so severely that he ends up saying nothing. And those qualifications speak more loudly than his half-hearted assertions, which may explain why the churches most closely associated with Calvin are notorious at splitting! Louis Bouyer tries to deal with this in The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism. After praising the positive principles of the Reformation, he tries to discover what negative principles caused it to go astray. I'm not thrilled with some of his analysis, but his basic insight is correct. The Reformers were dead-on-center right on lots of things. But mixed in with their correct opinions were other ideas that were fatal to ecclesiology. As I said before, I'm not sure what I'd have done during the Reformation. Ecclesiology is not the end-all of Christianity, and if it's a choice between ecclesiology and genuine Christian life, I'll take genuine Christian life. Fortunately Rome has reformed a lot of things since then, and I have to deal with the modern RCC, not the one back then. Bouyer tries to make Rome sound all noble and smart in rejecting the negative principles of the Reformation. "Yes, these things are good, but these other things are poison and we can't accept them without subtly undermining the whole of the faith," etc. I think that's apologetic wishful thinking. Rome reacted against the Reformers for political reasons, and by the time they issued a sober theological judgment on doctrine (Trent) things were so far out of hand that reasonable dialog was impossible. They had to react to a veritable hoard of crazy ideas from all sides. Again, the Reformation was Rome's fault. It was God's judgment on an arrogant papacy, and I don't blame Luther and Calvin for it. But while their doctrine is essentially sound on many points, their ecclesiology is full of battlefield jargon and wild polemic (in Calvin's case, self-justifying polemic) and doesn't support the "Tradition 1" we find in the early church. Greg See the discussion Chapter 4 Of course I agree with Keith that the radical Reformation and its modern followers is full of bunk. But I dispute Keith's claim that Luther and Calvin actually follow the "Tradition 1" that he outlined from the early church. So let's review what "Tradition 1" really means. Against the "solo scriptura" ("Tradition 0") position of the radical Reformation, "Tradition 1" asserts the material sufficiency of Scripture but not the formal sufficiency of Scripture. "Tradition 1" also asserts that Scripture must be interpreted in and by the church. I have already mentioned that I believe Luther and Calvin only pay ineffective lip service to that aspect of "Tradition 1." But there is a third aspect of the "Tradition 1" of the early fathers that Keith is shying away from: the material sufficiency of Tradition. On p. 24 Keith cited F. F. Bruce as follows. When the summary of the apostolic tradition is called the rule of faith or the rule of truth, the implication is that this is the church's norm, the standard by which everything must be judged that presents itself for Christian faith or claims to be Christian doctrine, the criterion for the recognition of truth and exposure of error. If at times it is formally distinguished from Scripture in the sense that it is recognized as the interpretation of Scripture, at other times it is materially identical with Scripture in the sense that it sums up what Scripture says. Plainly what was written down by the apostles in their letters and what was delivered by them orally to their disciples and handed down in the church's tradition must be one and the same body of teaching. Keith argues that Irenaeus believed in the material sufficiency of Scripture. Maybe so, maybe not. But listen to Irenaeus on the material sufficiency of Tradition. When, therefore, we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek among others the truth which is easily obtained from the Church. For the Apostles, like a rich man in a bank, deposited with her most copiously everything which pertains to the truth; and everyone who wishes draws from her the drink of life. For she is the entrance to life, while all the rest are thieves and robbers. That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them, while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. What then? If there should be a dispute over some kind of question, ought we not to have recourse to the most ancient Churches in which the Apostles were familiar, and draw from them what is clear and certain in regard to that question? What if the Apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the Churches? (Against Heresies, cited in Jurgens.) So "Tradition 1" has at least three elements: the material sufficiency of Scripture, the material sufficiency of Tradition, and the church as the place where and by whom both are to be interpreted. In the beginning of chapter 4 Keith argues that the RCC embraced "Tradition 2" (that some divine revelation is in Scripture and some in Tradition) against the Reformers. I'm sure that some RCs did embrace Tradition 2, but I'm not convinced that the RCC has definitively answered this question. The collection of modern RC scholars who dispute that notion is rather impressive. But I do note that none of the Reformers truly maintained "Tradition 1": first, in that they implicitly denied that the Scriptures are to be interpreted in and by the church (despite words to the contrary), and second in that they denied the material sufficiency of Tradition. Recall Irenaeus' words about the sufficiency of the church's teachings as you read these words from Hodge: "With them [Protestants] the written word is the only source of knowledge of what God has revealed for our salvation…" (cited on p. 148). I dub this "Tradition 0.5." It is a clear departure from the teachings of the church. Keith objects to the Council of Trent because it says "it [the council] also perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand." (The emphasis is Keith's.) But isn't that exactly what Irenaeus said? This language is consistent with "Tradition 1" -- the material sufficiency of both Scripture and Tradition -- and it is consistent with "Tradition 2" -- the "partim/partim" view -- but it is not consistent with the view Keith is advocating. (Tradition 0.5) But note that it is Keith who is departing from the teachings of the early church, not Trent. When I asked Keith where he got the idea that all divine revelation was inscripturated, he said "from the fathers of the early church." Okay. I'm glad he didn't try to come up with one of those half-cocked exegetical arguments that we hear in the sola scriptura debates. But those same fathers Keith relies on for the material sufficiency of Scripture also teach the material sufficiency of Tradition. On p. 135 Keith claims that "this view of tradition" -- a view espoused by some Catholic theologian that the fact of a current consensus in the RCC indicates that the sources of revelation teach that position -- "is a virtual declaration of autonomy on the part of the Roman church, and when it is combined with the doctrine of papal infallibility, it amounts to a Church for whom Scripture and tradition are essentially irrelevant." This is faulty reasoning, but I've heard this kind of stuff too many times from Reformed apologists not to reply. Let's imagine that an English class reads a book and unanimously concludes that the author means X. Every one of them, reading and meditating on the book, got the same message. They conclude that the author really intended that. Maybe they were right and maybe they were wrong. Perhaps they all got that conclusion because they also watched the same episode of "The Simpsons." But to say that this method amounts to saying that the book itself is "essentially irrelevant" is just plain silly. They attribute the consensus to reflection on the book, for crying out loud. Now I don't think much of that kind of theology, and it troubles me sometimes when Catholics speak as if "we do it, therefore it is right." It is a real phenomenon in the RCC, and I don't like it one bit. But it is a long way from fulfilling Keith's accusation. On p. 139 Keith says, "Scripture is the sole source of revelation and it is sufficient." I would like to point out again that this conclusion has no exegetical support. It may be based on half of an interpretation of the early church fathers, or it may be based on something else, but there isn't a word in Scripture that teaches this doctrine. Toward the end of the chapter when we get to the WCF on the authority of councils, the passage cited on p. 140 makes me think of the foolish woman who convinces her married lover to divorce his wife and marry her. He tells her he will be faithful even while he is unfaithful to his current spouse -- and she, like an idiot -- believes it. In the same way the Reformers -- casting aside the declarations of the councils they don't like, without any reasonable standard other than their own opinion -- say that councils can resolve disputes and determine controversies of faith and whatnot. "Do what I say, not what I do." One last remark engendered by Keith's summary conclusion of this chapter. Keith argues that Rome abandoned "Tradition 1" at Trent against the Reformers, who championed it. But let's remember what "Tradition 1" really means. It means that Scripture is materially sufficient, but must be interpreted in and by the church, consistent with the rule of faith. If anyone has suffered through to this point, I ask you to read one of the doctrinal portions of Trent and ask yourself if it bases its doctrines on unwritten apostolic traditions, or whether it bases them on Scripture, as Scripture has been interpreted in and by the church. You may disagree with Trent's conclusions based on your opinions about the meaning of Scripture. But let's be fair. Some Catholic theologians may talk about Tradition as a distinct source of divine revelation, but Trent simply teaches what the church has said about the meaning of Scripture. Greg See the discussion Chapter 5 Chapter 5 is very good and I agree with most of it. Keith steers a good course between the silly folk on each side of this debate. His analysis of the Berean passage is very good, but there is a rather typical Protestant error -- or, I think I should say, oversight. On p. 161 he comments on Bob Sungenis' argument that "we must agree that oral revelation 'in addition to Scripture' is as authoritative as Scripture today. The error in this argument is the failure to distinguish between an era in which God's revelation was still being communicated to His people and an era in which it has been completed." Well, no. The question is not whether the oral revelation is still being communicated. The question is whether we have sure access to it. It's not as if everyone suddenly forgot all the oral revelation as soon as the last word of Scripture was penned. I think Keith recognizes this and just wasn't being careful, because on p. 166 he says "note that this attribute [being 'God-breathed'] obviously applies to all God-given special revelation …. Any word from God is by definition God-breathed whether communicated in writing or orally. …. This leaves only one question. Does any of the 'God-breathed' oral revelation communicated by the Apostles to the Church survive today outside of Scripture?" Yes, that is exactly the question. I prefer the material sufficiency view because I don't see any evidence of this body of oral revelation -- unless it is contained in liturgical formulas. I don't believe the cardinals sit around the Vatican and whisper in each other's ears, "St. Paul said Mary was ever-virgin. Pass it on." Once I challenged an Orthodox apologist for some examples of extra-biblical infallible teachings and he actually came up with a list. The liturgy. The Proscription against praying with heathen, heretics, and apostates. The quotations of Christ found in St. Clement and St. Justin Martyr's writings. The 85 Apostolic Canons The interpretation of the Scriptures that Christ is God, and not simply a Divine Creature. The Tradition that the Four Gospels are authentic, and written by Ss. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Tradition that St. Paul's writings are to be accepted, and not discarded on the grounds that he was an apostate from the law, and clearly in contradiction with the view of the Law found in the Gospels. Keith reiterates his claim that there is no evidence of extra-scriptural instruction from the apostles in the earliest church fathers. I have loaned out some of my books on the early church fathers, so I can't say much about this, but one quote came to mind as I was reading this chapter. Cyprian was commenting on the practice of allowing the people over whom a bishop is appointed to acclaim him, and he justifies this with a comment that it "evidently comes to us with apostolic authority." Also, there are Scriptural indications that the oral teachings of the apostles were more extensive than their writings. See, e.g., 1 Cor. 11:2 and 34, which seem to imply that Paul gave more instructions in person than in his letters. I think it is rash to conclude the matter one way or the other, and that was why I finally -- after years of trying desperately to salvage it -- had to abandon sola scriptura. I could not say for certain that these teachings are not from the Lord or the apostles (thus I had to admit that there might be special revelation outside of Scripture), and I could not say for certain that church decrees are always fallible (so I had to admit that there might be other infallible rules for the church). Keith also reiterates his charge that "many" Roman Catholic doctrines have no attestation in the early church. Of course the web is completely full of resources to show the apostolic origin of RC doctrines. In his comments on Luke 1, Keith makes a rather odd statement. "Theophilus had already received the apostolic tradition through oral instruction according to Luke (v. 4). But this was deemed insufficient." Huh? So when John writes, "Having many things to write to you, I do not want to do so with paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, that your joy may be made full" (2 Jn. 12, Cf. 3 Jn. 13), are we to conclude that writings are insufficient? Again on Luke 1 Keith says, "It is to be an orderly account of 'all these things,' not some of these things." But we know from Matthew, Mark and John that Luke did not record all "these things," so any argument that extra-scriptural oral teachings are excluded by virtue of this statement from Luke would also mean that Matthew, Mark and John are excluded. On p. 181 Keith points out that it begs the question to assume that the oral traditions of the apostles are the same as the traditions and teachings of the RCC. Too many RC apologists seem to assume that if they can prove the existence of extra-biblical authority, that will prove the validity of RC authority, but that is a bad argument. Greg See the discussion Chapter 6 I was looking forward to The Shape of Sola Scriptura because I suspected that Keith would be able to chart a middle course between the excesses we too often hear in Protestant-Catholic dialog. Chapter 5 was a pretty good example. Chapter 6 is a major disappointment. It is basically a "rally the troops" chapter for Protestants. Keith seems to be making more and more gratuitous and/or questionable assertions as he moves along. Keith continues to make claims about the early church that directly contradict things I've read in other sources. (What a surprise, eh?) He has repeated several times that there is no evidence of appeals to extra-scriptural traditions in the early fathers, but a relatively simple search on the web will uncover a few. (For example, on this page see the cites attributed to Papias, Eusebius of Caesarea and Clement of Alexandria.) And I have already mentioned the cite from Cyprian about the appointment of bishops. Keith will undoubtedly respond that he is relying on patristic scholars, but of course there are patristic scholars on both sides of these questions. That should be mentioned. The same criticism can be leveled against his claims about the Petrine passages. Having read a lot of this stuff, his claims sound like groundless assertions. It's one thing to say "sure, the evidence is out there, but I disagree with the conclusion" (as he has done, on this board at least, with the question of whether Rome permits material sufficiency), but it is another thing entirely to make blanket statements about there being no evidence for something. Some of the arguments in this chapter are poorly considered. E.g., on p. 186 he says that papal succession doesn't make any sense because the successor to Peter would have had authority over the Apostle John (who was living for quite a while after Peter died), and "even Rome" (those wackos!) "does not claim that the successors to Peter had the same unique authority as the Apostles." Boy, those silly Catholics who never thought of this! He's mixing apples and oranges. Authority in office is a different issue from the apostles' charism. If that were not so, how does James exercise authority over the other apostles, as Keith claims, in Acts 15? You can't have it both ways, Keith. If Peter's successor could not exercise authority over John, then James (the brother of Jesus, and not one of the twelve) could not exercise authority over Peter. There are other points he misses. E.g., on p. 191 he says "although the authority to bind and loose is specifically addressed to Peter in this verse, the identical power is given to the disciples as a whole in Matthew 18:18." Okay. So Peter is given individually what the others are given collectively. Or on p. 192 where he argues against the significance of "I will pray for you (singular)" in Luke by appealing to Mark. What happened to the narrative strategy of the author, context and all that stuff? Keith is appropriately worried that "Tradition 0" Protestants will dislike his book. Perhaps this chapter is in here to make them feel better. Greg See the discussion Chapter 7 Maybe I should just skip to Chapter 8, since I like it a lot more. :-) As I read Keith's book I take notes, and my first note on Chapter 7 is, "By this point he's talked himself into a fervor and the arguments are just posturing and polemic." There are too many grand, dogmatic, sweeping claims without any recognition that competent scholars take other views. He doesn't have to agree with those other views, but you get the sense that he doesn't even know that they exist, and that undermines the persuasiveness of his argument. On p. 219 Keith makes a valid criticism: that there is no list of the ex cathedra statements of the pope. I agree that there ought to be one, but note two things. First, the church existed for a long time without a fixed canon of Scripture, so it can survive without a fixed canon of Tradition. I'd rather not, but there's nothing inherently wrong with the idea. Second, again I must laugh at Doug Jones' "Roman perfectionism." If only he knew! :-) In his section on Orthodoxy, I agree with Keith that the Orthodox answer makes the brain hurt. I simply couldn't wrap my mind around it and ended up dismissing it as a live option. When talking with Orthodox priests and theologians, I raised the same kinds of criticisms Keith has mentioned and I got either blank stares or incomprehensible answers. On. pp. 225-226 Keith says, "According to Orthodoxy, tradition is an all-embracing concept which may be seen as the continuing presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church." I note in passing that this understanding would make a lot of sense out of Irenaeus. (Cf. my discussion with Dave on that point.) Keith rightly points out that the problem with the Orthodox answer is that we have no objective way to recognize which councils are ecumenical. (In my comments on Chapter 8 I will argue that Keith's position is subject to the same criticism.) In his comments on the "inspiration" of the fathers, I believe Keith has overlooked the Orthodox concept of "divinization." I also notice how much Keith likes the word "autonomous." That's the kind of habit you pick up from reading lots of Reformed stuff. :-) Greg See the discussion Chapter 8 One of Keith's claims is that the Magisterial Reformers followed a view of the interplay between Scripture and Tradition (he calls it "Tradition 1") in which the Scriptures must be interpreted in and by the church in the context of the church's apostolic tradition and the rule of faith. Keith contrasts this with the modern Evangelical view ("Tradition 0") in which independence from any ecclesiastical tradition is considered a virtue. It is my contention that the Reformers held to something like Tradition 1 with the right hand while they grasped Tradition 0 with the left, and that this tension never really made any sense. So when Keith expresses surprise (on the top of p. 238) that the "classical Reformed doctrine" has been overturned with hardly a peep of protest, I hear Protestants utter a huge sigh of relief. They never could reconcile those two things anyway, so now they're adopting the more consistent Protestant position. Of course I agree with most of Keith's criticism of "solo scriptura" (Tradition 0). All that occurs [under solo scriptura] is that one Christian measures the scriptural interpretation of other Christians against the standard of his own scriptural interpretation. Rather than placing the final authority in Scripture as it intends to do, this concept of Scripture places the final authority in the reason and judgment of each individual believer. And again ... The problem that adherents of solo scriptura haven't noticed is that any appeal to Scripture is an appeal to an interpretation of Scripture. The only question is: whose interpretation. Of course Keith is dead-on center with these accusations, but we can and should take them further and criticize the Reformers' alleged faithfulness to Tradition 1. They claim to be interpreting doctrine in light of Scripture and Tradition, but what they are really doing is interpreting doctrine in light of their interpretation of Scripture and Tradition. The question is, whose interpretation should govern the church, and the answer is just as obvious here as it is in Keith's argument: the church's solemn, official judgments must rule, and while individuals have liberty of conscience to believe what they will, they do not have the liberty to set up rival institutions in opposition to the considered, deliberative judgments of the church. Keith says that solo scriptura denies "any real authority to the ecumenical creeds of the church." Yes it does -- to exactly the same degree that the Reformers' view denies any real authority to church councils. Keith says that solo scriptura allows "no real objective doctrinal boundaries within Christianity." True enough. But so does his position. The solution is to argue backwards. Keith has properly analyzed the problem. We require real authority for the ecumenical creeds of the church, and we require objective, doctrinal boundaries within Christianity. What does that imply? What is required to make that happen? For one thing, it requires that we can trust the decisions of the church -- at least at some level. For another, it requires that we have an objective way to determine the church that we're going to trust. Keith has correctly evaluated the subjective nature of appeals to the Bible apart from an objective framework in which to interpret the Bible (tradition), but he has neglected to take that criticism to the next level: that interpretations of tradition are subjective in nature apart from an objective framework in which to interpret tradition. [Under the Evangelical view,] Christianity ... no longer has any meaningful objective definition. Since solo scriptura has no means by which Scripture's propositional doctrinal content may be authoritatively defined (such definition necessarily entails the unacceptable creation of an authoritative ecumenical creed), its propositional content can only be subjectively defined by each individual. We can rephrase this. Under Keith's view, "Christianity no longer has any meaningful objective definition. Since sola scriptura has no means by which Scripture's propositional doctrinal content may be authoritatively defined within the context of Tradition (such definition necessarily entails the definition of an authoritative council), its propositional content can only be subjectively defined by each individual." Or perhaps each denomination. Keith's criticism is right, but he has propagated a virus that will reformat his own hard drive. Greg See the discussion Chapter 9 On the "perfection of Scripture," Keith quotes Wayne Grudem as follows: "Scripture 'contains all the words of God he intended his people to have at each stage of redemptive history ....'" As I demonstrate in my paper on Scripture and Tradition, that is plainly unbiblical. (See the discussion of the passages from 2 Chron.) On p. 261 Keith illustrates how he takes away with one hand what he wants to give with the other. These fallible traditions, these fallible fathers, and this fallible Church must be measured against the one infallible perfect standard. It is impossible to detect the errors within the tradition if one is measuring the tradition against itself. This means that the decrees of the church must always be up for revision. You see, "solo scriptura" keeps showing up. On p. 263 Keith says that churchly infallibility is of "no practical use" unless there is a "canon" of infallible church decrees. This is clearly not true, and clearly contrary to "Tradition 1." There was no canon of Scripture in the early church, but the church fathers didn't think Scripture was "of no practical use." A huge problem with Keith's proposal is that he can't identify "the church" in an objective way. He (rightly) wants to confess "outside the [visible] church there is no salvation," and he (rightly) wants to say that "the church" has to define the shape of Scripture, but he can't tell us what "the church" is. All this talk about the "authority of the corporate church" and "objective doctrinal boundaries" boils down to nothing (i.e., to solo scriptura) unless Keith can tell us what "the corporate church" is. Rome can answer this question. Keith may not like Rome's answer, but at least Rome has an answer. Any attempt to promote Keith's "Tradition 1" without answering this question is doomed to failure, which is why I gave up the task after several years of trying to make it all work. Greg See the discussion Chapter 10 Overall, chapter 10 is very good and I agree with almost all of it. In fact, several years ago James White sponsored a listserv to discuss the subject of sola scriptura and I made many of the same arguments that Keith is making. However, there are a few nits to pick. On p. 290 Keith answers Pat Madrid's request for "just one time" in the history of the church when sola scriptura practically worked by pointing to the first few centuries of the church. But this assumes the validity of his argument that (his version of) sola scriptura was taught in the early church fathers. On p. 300 Phil Blosser says that sola scriptura advocates can't find "a Church Father who affirms that the whole content of God's revelation for the ongoing instruction of His Church was committed wholly to Scripture ...." I believe I challenged Keith on this as well. It is one thing to say that the position of the early fathers is consistent with this element of sola scriptura, but it's another thing to show that they actually taught this. I don't believe Keith has done that. On p. 303 Keith says that advocates of Tradition 1 are "calling" the church to a better position. And, indeed, Keith's version of "Tradition 1" is a vast improvement over the nonsense in Evangelicalism these days. But this "call" will be ineffective until the advocates of "Tradition 1" wrap up a few rather glaring loose ends. "Tradition 1" assumes that doctrinal interpretation is done in and by "the church," but "the church" hasn't been defined. Keith's solution is subject to the same criticism he levels against the Orthodox. They claim that a council is ecumenical if it is accepted by the whole church, but they don't give us any objective way to determine what "the whole church" is. Keith appeals to decisions of "the whole church" -- not only prospectively, but for the creeds we have already accepted as ecumenical -- but he hasn't given us any explanation of what that means. Greg See the discussion The End Keith has done a good job of trying to defend a Protestant perspective on Scripture and Tradition that is more historical and reasonable than what we typically hear. He is right that Scripture has to be read and interpreted in and by the church, which means that creeds, councils and church fathers have to have some authority. But there are two large, glaring problems with his thesis. First, the assertion that Reformed Protestantism represents the current expression of the faith of the early church is very questionable -- to the point of being amusing. Second, and more to the point of the book, he is unable to establish an objective criteria to explain why such-and-so churches and such-and-so councils should be considered authoritative while others should not. On the one hand, why include standards that exclude the Copts? On the other hand, why exclude the 7th ecumenical council, which was accepted by the entire church before the east-west split? And why should that particular split make any difference? Without some standard by which Keith can say "this is the church," all his judgments fall under the very same criticisms he levels against the "solo" scriptura advocates -- they reduce to personal opinion. To illustrate, let's assume that some theologian wants to modify orthodox Christology based on his study of Scripture. So Keith says, "you can't do that because the council has already resolved that issue." To which the theologian replies, "that council is just the fallible opinion of fallible men and must, of necessity, be subject to the word of God which is our sole infallible standard, against which all other standards must be measured." Keith's system can't tell the theologian why he has to submit his opinion to the judgment of the council because Keith's system can't guarantee that the council's decision was correct. How can he condition the word of God on the basis of a standard that has no guarantee of accuracy? In order to issue such a guarantee his system would have to recognize that some councils are given a special grace that keeps them from error in certain circumstances, but Keith has denied that possibility. He says that infallibility (that's what that special grace would be called) is a usurpation of Christ's authority. Keith will say that fallible councils can issue inerrant decrees. True enough. But while it's all well and good to say that fallibility doesn't necessitate error in every case, it's another thing entirely to assert a lack of error in a specific instance. How does he know, other than by reference to his own opinion? He can't appeal to "the church," because he can't define the church. There are other people -- who call themselves Christians -- who dissent from that council. Why do we exclude them? Keith is right that Scripture interpretation divorced from Tradition becomes a subjective mess. What he fails to see is that Tradition interpretation divorced from an objective doctrine of the church becomes just as much of a subjective mess. (Which is why some Reformed Christians can say that their faith is consistent with the church fathers, and Anglicals can say theirs is, and Roman Catholics theirs, etc. etc. etc.) The RCC can answer these problems. Keith's version of sola scriptura cannot. I realize that there are historical difficulties with the Roman answer, but they are not insurmountable, and a workable solution with difficulties is better than an unworkable solution. One of the problems of reading the RC answer back into history is that the RC answer developed. Think about it. Keith's position on Scripture and Tradition is far more developed than Luther's. It takes time for people to digest things, and new circumstances test our theories. We have to refine them against new situations and criticisms from other people. And it takes time for consensus to build. It's true that certain questions about the papacy weren't answered until after the council of Constance, but maybe that's because there wasn't any need to answer them until then. In any event, the papacy provides a workable structure on which answers can be built. One final note. I have tried to limit myself to discussing the points that directly address the question of Scripture and Tradition. There's also lots of anti-Roman rhetoric in the book, but I've tried to ignore most of that. I realize that it's impossible to be a living, breathing Reformed Christian without becoming baptized in that kind of stuff, and it's even worse when you have some interaction with Catholic apologists and their extremist anti-Protestant rhetoric. :-) Greg See the discussion Return to Greg's Home Page