Do Not Move the Ancient Landmark

There is a continual desire among men to improve on God's words and ways, not because they are found inadequate, but because they are considered antiquated: the church is not culturally relevant.  This is not a new trend.  Fifth-century churchman, Vincent of Lérins, sought to keep the church on a true course by giving the following warning against pursuing novel teaching by pointing to the solidity of the past and what was and is universally held to be true:

But here some one perhaps will ask, "Since the canon of scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the church’s interpretation?"  For this reason,—because, owing to the depth of holy scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters.…

Moreover, in the catholic church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.  For that is truly and in the strictest sense “catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally.  This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent.  We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

A Commonitory, 5-6

What happens when a section of the church goes off target and pursues a different teaching—so common today among those claiming to be God's elect?  Hold fast to what is resolved and certain from the past.

What then will a catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith?  What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member?  What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the church, but the whole?  Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.

A Commonitory, 7

And lastly, what happens if the ancient church was mistaken at some point?  Go to the decrees and creeds.  What if the decrees and creeds do not address the matter?  Study those who were considered faithful and hold fast to what was generally accepted in accordance with scripture.

But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province?  Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient general council to the rashness and ignorance of a few.  But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear?  Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one catholic church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation.

A Commonitory, 8

Fourteen centuries later William D. Conybeare echoed this sentiment when he wrote:

Yet assuredly, we should greatly mistake the intention of our church, did we imagine that she called on us to neglect the information which the venerable relics of Christian antiquity have preserved to us, in recording the sentiments of the primitive ages of the faith.  Our holy mother would never encourage us to depreciate the high and honorable claims of the first standard-bearers, and foremost champions of our religion.  The true line taken by our church appears to be this.  She knows nothing of tradition as an independent rule of faith; but genuine and primitive tradition she anxiously seeks to discover, and when found she honors, not indeed as a rival mistress, but as a faithful handmaid of scripture.

An Analytical Examination into the Character, Value, and Just Application

of the Writings of the Christian Fathers during the Ante-Nicene Period, 6-7

What God's people have received was given to establish and keep a holy and elect people.  It is our honor to faithfully share the Lord's good word to the next generation, that they might pass it to their children.  May we not forget this.

[The Lord] established a testimony in Jacob
        and appointed a law in Israel,
which he commanded our fathers
        to teach to their children,
that the next generation might know them,
        the children yet unborn,
and arise and tell them to their children,
        so that they should set their hope in God
and not forget the works of God,
        but keep his commandments;
and that they should not be like their fathers,
        a stubborn and rebellious generation,
a generation whose heart was not steadfast,
        whose spirit was not faithful to God.  (Psalm 78:5-8)

Following the Pattern of Sound Words

Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.  2 Timothy 1:13

It behooves those who preside over the churches, every day but especially on Lord’s days, to teach … words of piety and of right religion, gathering out of holy Scripture meditations and determinations of the truth, and not going beyond the limits now fixed, nor varying from the tradition of the God-bearing fathers.  And if any controversy in regard to Scripture shall have been raised, let them not interpret it otherwise than as the lights and doctors of the church in their writings have expounded it, and in those let them glory rather than in composing things out of their own heads, lest through their lack of skill they may have departed from what was fitting.  For through the doctrine of the aforesaid fathers, the people coming to the knowledge of what is good and desirable, as well as what is useless and to be rejected, will remodel their life for the better, and not be led by ignorance, but applying their minds to the doctrine, they will take heed that no evil befall them and work out their salvation in fear of impending punishment.

Canon 19, Council in Trullo, A.D. 692

Asking If Sola Scriptura Is an Oxymoron

Doug Chaplin has written a blog entry entitled "Is 'the Bible alone' an oxymoron?"  His thesis is that since the diverse, individual books of scripture were developed in a specific community context, they cannot rightfully be considered a single flow of thought and purpose apart from a "church" context.  As I was reading it and the comments, the idea struck me that Chaplin had asked the correct question but for the wrong reason.

The Westminster Confession defines Sola Scriptura this way:

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (Chapter 1, paragraph 6).

This assumes that God has revealed himself to mankind in a recognizable way, and we understand that to be through the accumulated writings of the apostles and prophets which are acknowledged to have been given at various times and ways over the course of centuries.

Note especially the phrase "by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture."  The divines are to be commended for adding this vital piece, because it acknowledges the formation of a body of orthodox doctrine that Tertullian referred to as "the rule of faith" (regula fidei) which he described as

that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen “in diverse manners” by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh.  This rule, as it will be proved, was taught by Christ, and raises amongst ourselves no other questions than those which heresies introduce, and which make men heretics.

Prescription Against Heretics, cap. XIII

So to refine the WCF, I would have added that there was and is that faith once for all delivered to the saints and carried forward by godly men as they entrusted the Word of God to faithful men being able to teach others.  This was accomplished by taking what had already been revealed by God and adding to it the new revelation, whenever it came, then asking:

• How does the new instruction fit with the old?
• What, if anything, has changed from the old?
• What does the new tell about the old?
• How do we practice the new instruction?

We then come to a more full theology of a matter and live based on that.  This process stops when special revelation stops.  On a macro level, this is different from what Roman Catholics do by continuing to create canon law ex cathedra.  Protestants do not work at creating something new, but continually re-check their doctrine and practice according to the body of apostolic teaching and make necessary adjustments—semper reformanda.  This can be applied on a micro level, we faithfully pass on from one generation to the next what the apostles gave us and make adjustments where needed, not as individuals but in a multitude of counselors.

Going back to the original question then, is Sola Scriptura an oxymoron?  No, if one assumes the WCF understanding of that phrase in its limited definition; yes, if we think that one can pick up a Bible and formulate a fully-orbed, correct understanding of the doctrines contained therein without help from those older in the faith.