Customer Reviews

Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible (Reformation Theology Series)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This book is written by a compilation of authors who successfully articulate and defend the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, and also successfully contrast this doctrine with the practical sola ecclesia of Roman Catholicism. Similar to Soli Deo Gloria's Justification by Faith Alone compilation, this book is a solid introduction that clearly and unmistakenly reveals that the theological and doctrinal differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are real and substantive and should not be mindlessly thrown aside in the interests of achieving a unity without foundational meaning.

The reader of this book, once the book is read, is faced with a choice. Roman Catholicism has repeatedly made itself clear that it denies the unequal authority and sufficiency of Scripture over doctrine and salvation, in favor of a doctrine of Scripture plus 'Sacred Tradition' as being sufficient. However, it has long been clear that Roman Catholicism's 'Sacred Scripture plus Sacred Tradition' concept is really based on a more fundamental doctrine of sola ecclesia. This is the view that states that since both Scripture and Tradition have their origins in the church, both are ultimately subject to the authority of the church in terms of interpretation and dogmatics. And herein lies the central disagreement on this issue - is the Bible alone sufficient in providing humanity with the gospel message and the ability to embrace salvation, or is the Bible by itself insufficient and thus needs to be augmented by church tradition and ex cathedra pronouncements from Rome? This is the dividing line, and it's a very clear one. Has God preserved His Word in sufficient detail that people can properly interpret its contents without an official and earthly third party mediator between God and man, or has God destined the Roman Catholic Church to be the preserver of His Word and to be the final authority on correct Biblical interpretation upon which all believers should assent?

This book leaves no doubt that this fundamental difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism exists, that it is substantial, and that the answers we arrive at on these questions go a long way towards framing our theological outlook. I happen to strongly believe that the Protestant position is by far the more defendable position. The Roman Catholic arguments that Scripture doesn't teach the view of Scripture alone are very weak arguments that are contextually shallow, in my view. I thought that James White's chapter was the best part of the book, although Sproul's chapter is also very good. I'm aware that White is held in particular revulsion among many Roman Catholics, but his extensive citations of the early church fathers and their views continue to be tough for the modern Roman Catholic to deal with. White, as he has done multiple times before, shows quite convincingly that Roman Catholic doctrine is inconsistent over time, with many contemporary Catholic views on things such as what exactly is 'sacred tradition' not reconciling very well with the views of the early church. To me, this is quite clear that such inconsistency (or even an evolving perspective that is more sympathetic to Rome) casts serious doubt on the viability of the notion that the Roman Catholic Church alone has authority over Scripture and Tradition in such a way that it adequately reflects the unchanging character of God.

In summary, this is an introductory work, so I highly recommend this book for beginners who want to understand one of the central doctrines that separate Protestantism from Roman Catholicism, and why it matters. In an age of increasing ecumenism that has witnessed a number of mainline Protestant denominations jettisoning the doctrinal distinctives of the Reformation in order to achieve a supposed unity with a Church that hasn't moved an inch away from the doctrinal distinctives that created the Reformation in the first place, it would be a good thing for Christians either to familiarize or refamiliarize themselves with who's saying what, who believes what, and why such differences are hugely important in preserving the integrity of the faith.

This book is a compilation of several authors. Those I am most familiar with are James White, R. C. Sproul, and John MacArthur.
For the most part, this book is very understandable. Sproul's chapter is a little more gray cell stretching, but the rest is relatively easy to follow.
I think this is a better book to have than a book on the same subject by a single author, because you get a broader perspective of adherants of this important teaching. The best part, too, is the final chapter, which focuses on why Sola Scriptura is so important, which is the transforming nature of Scripture.

R.C. Sproul's Ligonier Ministries (and publishing arm, Reformation Trust) has a justly deserved reputation for talking about the same things over and over. We appreciate that because those "same things" include the holiness of God, the Gospel of Christ, the power and inerrancy of Scripture, the intellectual heritage of Christianity, etc.--in other words, the things that desperately need to be repeated, as loudly and as often as possible.

In Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible, the latest book from the "Ligonier Gang" (a group of pastors and theologians including Sproul, John MacArthur, Sinclair Ferguson, Derek W.H. Thomas, and others who routinely speak at Ligonier events and publish books through RT), the contributors articulate for today's generation the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation: that the Bible is our only authority and source of our knowledge of God and His redemption of the world.

At times, it feels as though the writers are simply re-hashing the Reformation, fighting an old battle against Roman Catholic doctrine. However, it becomes clear that this is intentional for two reasons: 1) they obviously consider the work of the Reformation incomplete, owing to the fact that there are still over 1 billion Roman Catholics in the world, the vast majority of which hold a distorted view of Scripture that prevents them from grasping the truth, and 2) they wisely perceive the trend within Evangelicalism of Christians holding their personal, emotional experiences of faith on par with revealed truth (though few would admit it), leading to a rise in the reliance on "tradition" over Scripture that is just as destructive to the faith as that of the Pharisees and Roman Catholics.

Overall, Sola Scriptura is a winsome declaration of why Protestants believe what they do, the authority of Scripture, its power to transform, and the completeness and sufficiency of God's Word written. They explore these issues from Scripture itself, the writings of the Church fathers, and the testimony of the Word's power through the centuries. The book asks the vital question, "do you treat Scripture the same way Jesus did?," reminding readers that how we view Scripture is indicative of how we treat Christ (as He is the Word made flesh) and that the Church truly does rise and fall on the truth of the Bible.

A collection of essays on several issues regarding Sola Scriptura. Helpful and clarifies several issues. Not too technical. Contains relevant quotes from ancient Church History. Helps me want to keep the Bible as God's infallible guide for the Church (instead of the Church as the infallible guide to the Bible.)

Sola Scriptura, is it important? The short answer is yes but you ask "why?" and in order to answer that I would refer you to a book by the same title put out by Reformation Trust. The book is a compilation which I find greatly encouraging since it shows unity among believers and this in such an important topic. I highly recommend this book especially to those that think church is church and the stance one takes on an issue such as this is not all that important. The authors do a fabulous job of showing its importance and implications of adhering to such doctrine as well as the alternative of which Roman Catholicism adheres. The book is relatively short just over 150 pages and perhaps for that reason you may consider it a book for the new Christian. Nevertheless the reader will leave understanding the issue at its core as well as the implications and importance. I highly recommend it.

This book is a good opener for the people who would like to study Sola Scriptura (Scripture only). Basically, this book teaches what SS is and what it isn't, what the early church fathers believed concerning the Bible, and answers some of the basic arguments against SS. This book was written by some of the most prominent Protestant Apologists in the world. After reading this book, you will know what SS is and why Christians should adhere to it. The teaching of Sola Scriptura is not a denial of the authority of the catholic (universal) church, nor the traditions of the church (providing they don't contradict the Scriptures), nor the denial of the authority of the clergy in the church.

The essence of SS is an appeal to scripture. When deciding a doctrine what do you appeal to? The Scrptures. When judging a church to see if what they teach is correct what do you appeal to? The Scritures. When an Apostle teaches you something, what do you appeal to to know wether that Apostle is telling you the truth? The Scriptures. And thats what happened in Acts 17:11 concerning the Apostle Paul.

Sola Scriptura is also the teaching of the sufficieny and clearity of the Scriptures and is clearly taught in 1 Timothy 3:15-4:2 over and over again. What we need to know about Salvation and Life is taught in the Scriptures.

Sola Scriptura is not the cause of church splits but it's due rather to personal issues like what the pastor was teaching. for example, there was a church in the south where a pastor wasn't teaching the Deity of Christ as much as he was teaching the humanity of Jesus, so the members of the church "split" and made they're own church where they teach the Deity of Christ all of the time. Was that split caused by SS? No! It was caused by personal likes and dislikes of the members of the church.

In closing, I would like to say that in these perilous and secularized times, where people claim to receive "revelations" from God (especially the RCC), we should be relying on the Holy Scriptures for the truth and practice. Amen.

Featuring a collection of essays from some of the more prominent figures of the conservative end of Reformed Christianity, Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible attempts to lay out the Biblical, historical, and theological underpinnings of one of the Reformation's central tenants.

The book is written as a response to the many ways the authority of Scripture alone has been contested and neglected. A response to, as Michael Horton puts it in the introduction "a new famine of hearing God's word".


I must confess to feeling quite torn while reading this book. In many ways I very much wanted, due to the subject matter, to be on the authors' side.

In their affirmation of the Bible as the authoritative word for the people of God, I offer no disagreement. Yet again and again I felt myself frustrated by the methodology through which conclusions were made, by the tenor, and by what I felt was in the end a short-changing of a beautiful reality of God's actions in the world.

Because of the authors involved, including Sproul, Beek, and MacArthur, I had rather expected their foil to be either postmodernism or classical liberalism. This would have intrigued me because I live in a geographical context that is largely Reformed, while I take a position that, though not expressly emergent and surely not liberal, is certainly more progressive.

Such a focus would have helped me to better engage in dialogue and see how the Reformed community perceives other Protestant views.

Both postmodernism and liberalism received passing mentions, but in fact all seven essays set their sights firmly on Rome.


Unfortunately in doing so the essays relied heavily on quotes from the council of Trent, and the ostentatious tone of Vatican I, and largely ignored the dramatic changes the Catholic Church has undergone since Vatican II.

Now, I am Protestant for a number of reasons, and I don't fully agree with the contemporary Roman Catholic doctrine of Scripture, but it is neither fair nor helpful to frame the debate as if Vatican II never happened.

I think it could have been very useful to my own thinking through of these questions if I could have seen a clear contrast between contemporary Roman Catholic thought and a Protestant alternative. As it was, I felt that the essays sadly lost that opportunity by spending their time arguing with a straw man.

No doubt the authors involved in this book were writing with the best of intentions. They clearly are passionate about God's Word and want the people of God to preserve the gains of the Reformation. But the way they use and understand the Scriptures betrays that behind the words lays a very different foundational Story. A foundation that begins with the Scriptures as a reference work, a massive (albeit disorganized) encyclopedia, from which facts are to be drawn and commands followed - see as evidence consistent use of context free proof texting in the essays.

We've tried the "my list of verses beats your list of verses" approach; it gets us nowhere and when that foundation begins to show through the project as a whole loses its luster.

Declaring you have a high view of Scripture isn't enough - and let the implications of this quote speak to how high a view these authors have,

"It is a great blasphemy to exalt the Spirit at the expense of God's Word, for God has magnified His Word above His name (Ps. 138:2). Rather, God transforms through a combination of these two great powers, each indispensable to the other, and both inseparably joined together, so as to accomplish all of God's purposes for His people." Pg 113

A "high" view is just rhetoric if it is not at the same time a Scriptural view. And for all the good intentions in these essays, I did not finish the book convinced that it placed the Bible properly within the mission of God, or fit it to what the Bible says about itself.


I don't think that diminishes the deep truths and power contained in the Reformation's call of Sola Scriptura, but it may signal much work is to be done before our call (same words or not) has the profound effect theirs did.


*I received a gratis copy of Sola Scriptura from Reformation Trust for the express purpose of reviewing it at New Ways Forward, though no stipulations were put on the content of said review.

Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible is a well-articulated assertion of the doctrine of sola scriptura or scripture alone, one of the pillars of the Reformation. The book contains a compilation of scholarly but accessible essays by a number of well-respected scholars and spiritual leaders from the reformed church and tradition. Their firm stance on the sufficiency of scripture exalts the Word of God distinctly against church tradition. While the book does introduce the doctrine of sola scriptura fairly and clearly, the largest portion of the book is dedicated to apologetics defending the doctrine of sola scriptura against Roman Catholic apologetics and attacking the Roman Catholic Church's exaltation of tradition above scripture. This emphasis provides illumination on the debate between Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars and on the foundational importance of believing in the sufficiency, in-errancy and authority of Scripture. The book functions primarily as an apologetic assertion and defense of sola scriptura and secondarily as a call to the Protestant church to return to the Word of God.

Sola Scriptura intends to be a clarion call to the church as well as an eloquent and sound defense of the doctrine that "Scripture alone is our authority" (p.1) and jointly that "all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible with enough clarity that the ordinary believer can find them there and understand" (p. 2). This intention is both needed and noble; however, the majority of the book is dedicated to combating Roman Catholic doctrines and defenses of tradition to which most Protestants are either indifferent or ignorant. While the writing is clear, succinct and interesting, most readers will enter into a debate which they are not directly invested in, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant. That said, the arguments set down guide the reader through the early church, the formation of the canon and the reformation, revealing the truth of the sufficiency of scripture in a way that is relevant (though perhaps incidentally) to the Christian who is not directly involved in the debate. A lesser portion of the book is dedicated to a defense of sola scriptura against liberalism and subjective revelation, and a still lesser portion instructs in the application of sola scriptura. This makes the book a welcome introduction to a classical doctrine and the debate surrounding it; however, a specific investigation of how Protestants set aside sola scriptura would have been more penetrating and perhaps more relevant to the casual reader.


My own reaction to the book was somewhat mixed. I found the apologetics between the two sides interesting , but my intention in reading the book was for more of a direct exaltation of scripture and its application, not an introduction to what has become a centuries old debate between the Protestant and Catholic Church. Furthermore, at least two of the authors directly state that any subjective revelation or personal hearing of God's voice or leading is a denial of the sufficiency of scripture. I absolutely disagree with this position, and I found the arguments dedicated to this subject somewhat illogical and inconsistent with the book's own definition of what sola scriptura is and is not. Dr. Sproul goes so far as to say that anyone who believes they have heard or felt the leading of God is attempting to add to the canon (the logical extrapolation is that they are consequently putting themselves under a curse) (p. 55-56). For the sake of this review I will note my objections and table them. I received this book as a review copy from Reformation Trust, and I knew the authors of the book were both highly Reformed in their theology and strong cessationists. I greatly value many of the doctrines of the Reformed church, but I am not a cessationist, and I believe that the ministry of the Holy Spirit and the character of our relationship with God and our perception of His voice is not and should not be different than what is described in the book of Acts. My only possible objections to the doctrine of sola scriptura would be an acknowledgement of the Holy Spirit's office of applying the Word to the believer's life generally, specifically and personally.

The book's final essay "The Transforming Power of Scripture" by Joel R. Beeke and Ray B. Lanning is the longest essay in the collection and without a doubt is the best. Its pure exaltation of the scripture and dynamic description of applying the Word's transforming power is a must read. The entire book is worth this one chapter. It just may be the finest succinct description of how to apply the word to both the individual and the congregation that I have ever read. While the previous chapters of the book are an important introduction, description and defense of sola scriptura, this final essay is the vital application. It functions the way I wish the entire book would have: as a spiritual spark to set the believer's heart aflame. I will cherish this essay and return to it for years to come; it alone is a more convincing defense of sola scriptura than all the rest of the scholarship, logic and debate combined. Not because the apologetics are not useful or brilliantly argued, but because they are meat for the mind rather than a flame for the heart and the spirit.

In conclusion, this book is a valuable introduction for any student of the Word, especially to those engaged in Reformed theology or Roman Catholic debate. At its worst, the book focuses on combating a Roman Catholic audience. At its best the book challenges and engages the reader to cast their heart, soul, mind and strength into the Word of God, and this is transforming.

My thanks to Reformation Trust for providing this free electronic review copy. I was not required to give a positive review, but an honest review that was "serious, substantive and fair." In exchange for this review, I will receive a hard copy of the book.

Biblereadingproject.com

This book represents the efforts of various Reformed theologians and apologists who attempt to prove that Sola Scriptura, one of the watershed doctrines of the Reformation, is both solidly biblical and correct. Personally, as I have dug deeper into this issue I have become more convinced that Sola Scriptura is not scriptural. The Bible never attempts to establish this doctrine and when one attempts to defend it they have to resort to clever hermeneutics to make a verse such as 2 Timothy 3:16 teach this doctrine. I am not saying that this position cannot be argued for, I am just saying that it is not as cut and dry as the authors would like us to believe.

The authors attempt to convince the reader that Sola Scriptura was adhered to by the Early Church Fathers(James White), but Dr. White fails to deal with the numerous Fathers who speak about the importance of tradition. The contributors would also have us believe that Scripture is perspicuous and can be read and interpreted by every believer through the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, but Scripture nowhere states that this is the case. Instead, Acts 8:30-31 illustrates that Scripture is hard to understand unless we have a guide to teach us and 2 Peter 3:14-18 tells us that Paul's Epistles contain some things that are hard to understand. Furthermore, Peter warns his audience to be careful and not ruin themselves like the unstable do by interpreting these hard sayings incorrectly which leads to their destruction. So Scripture is difficult to understand and that is why we need a personal guide just like the Apostle Phillip guided the Ethiopian Eunuch.

Finally, if Scripture is all sufficient as Pastor MacArthur argues and it is easy to understand then the contributors to this volume should be in relative agreement on doctrinal issues; If this is the case, then this will be the greatest proof in favor of their position. Yet, a close examination and comparison of the different beliefs held by these men proves otherwise. Now I admit that since all of these men come from a Reformed background they all hold to traditional Reformed Soteriology, including Depravity, Unconditional Election, and Irresistable grace. Nevertheless, it is also equally true that there are many things that these men disagree on.

For instance, Dr. James White, a Reformed Baptist, believes that Baptism should only be administered to an indivdual after they have made a profession of faith, but Dr. Sproul, a Presbyterian, believes that baptism can and should be administered to infants. Furthermore, Dr. Sproul has even shown signs of espousing a view of baptismal regeneration. Dr. Sproul endorsed Michael Horton's book, "In the Face of God", in which Dr. Horton clearly states that he believes baptism is a part of the overall regenerative process of the believer and that it imparts grace to the recipient. This view is diametrically opposed to the Baptist views of Dr. White and Pastor MacArthur, who is associated with the Baptist demoniation, because they believe that baptism is just an outward expression of an inner renewal that has already occured; In their theological opinion baptism is merely symbolic. Looking at the Lord's Supper, both Ferguson and Sproul as Presbyterians believe that there is a spiritual presence in the Eucharist and that the elements are spiritually Jesus' Body and Blood. On the other hand, White and MacArthur believe that communion is merely a symbolic gesture and that the elements are simply bread and wine.

When it comes to theological systems Sproul endorses a system of Covenant Theology and is very anti-dispensational, while MacArthur believes in a unique version of dispensational theology. In addition, MacArthur has taught the strange idea that it was not Jesus' blood that saves us, but his death on the cross. Yet again, this is something that the other contributors of this book would disagree with and would argue is not biblically correct. There are also many other differences between these men regarding ecclesiology, eschatology, and other issues but to point every one out would take way too long and would simply be redundant.

They argue that scripture is perspicuous and easy to understand, yet they disagree on a whole host of issues. On every one of these issues only one party can be right, and even more disturbing is the idea that maybe none of them are right. If every one of these men are wrong on the issue of the Lord's Supper and their interpretation of John 6, then they are in big trouble because Jesus says, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." If they are all wrong, and the Catholics/Orthodox are correct, then they are in for a rude awakening. The point is, they argue for a position that is not validated by their own personal beliefs. They all interpret scripture and they interpret it differently and that means that many, and maybe all of them, are arguing for erroneous positions.

The book "Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible" is formatted as a series of essays from Reformed authors trying to prove one aspect or another about Sola Scriptura, one of the cornerstones of the Reformation. This approach is unfortunate because it really doesn't afford each of the authors a chance to dig deep in the scriptures and try to defend their view. Thus the reader who is unconvinced of the scriptural grounds for Sola Scriptura (I number myself in this camp) won't find much in the way of a systematic response to the numerous internet "e-pologists" who have, in my opinion, exposed the weak scriptural and philosophical grounds of this vital doctrine.

Moreover, most of the authors, in fact try to slip through numerous unproved assertions as though they were fact. These include: the Word of God is solely contained in the scriptures, Scripture is self-authenticating, the "inner witness" of the Spirit confirms the truth of the scriptures (this is, by itself, interesting because many of the authors condemn the hopelessly subjective nature of mainstream evangelicalism... seems like the pot is calling the kettle black), Jesus or the Apostles quoting an OT book automatically makes it part of the canon (Ecclesiates, Esther and Song of Soloman are not quoted in the NT, moreover Paul quotes pagans in both Acts 17 and his letter to Titus) etc.

Although space does not afford me a detailed review of the flaws of each author's essay, I wanted to point out one that stuck out in my mind in particular. Dr. Sproul mentions the fact that Luther questioned the canonicity of James and tries to salvage Luther's dispicable and hopelessly subjective comments as not undermining the authority of scriptures (Luther excluded James and Hebrews from the canon because he felt it undermined the doctrine of Sola Fide), but when he condemns the modernists who excluded passages of scripture that they felt did not concern "the historical Jesus," he hypocritically condemns them.

The final two objections I have are the most serious. First, none of the authors seriously address the most crippling indictment against Sola Scriptura (and the reason most begin to disbelieve it): it leads to doctrinal anarchy, lack of authority and religious relativism. The history of the post-Reformation church bears this out. Second, no one addresses 1 Tim 3:15, yet another indictment against Sola Scriptura.

In conclusion, if you are looking for a "silver bullet" to beat back those who would attack Sola Scriptura, skip this one. It's too short to really dig deep into the issues surrounding this controversial doctrine. But, if you're looking for a brief, one-sided and polemical book that will probably confirm what you probably already believe... buy it!