+ Christian Book Reviews +

Book Review: Lonely Scripture

November 1st, 2008 at 02:31pm Albert McIlhenny

Holy Scripture (The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith), Volume I: A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura – David T. King Christian Resources (October 2001) Topic: Bibliology, Hermeneutics, & Exegesis; Protestantism Summary: A Biblical defense of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura Rating:

One of the most cited works among Protestant apologists in recent memory is Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith by David T. King and William Webster. This three volume work is a defense of the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura written by two prominent Protestant apologists from the Reformed Baptist tradition. This volume, written by King, is the first in the series and has as its stated purpose the presentation of a “Biblical defense of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura”.

Since this series is often mentioned glowingly by many Protestants as providing the standard of research for the defense of the sola scriptura, its importance is further underscored. It also must be considered in the context of many other books written on the topic both pro (Mathison, White) and con (Meyendorff, Sungenis). Thus one would expect at a minimum a sound exegesis of the principles of sola scriptura from Holy Scripture, a discussion of the objections raised by Catholic and Orthodox critics of the Protestant position, and a consideration of the interrelation of Scripture and tradition in formulating doctrine.

By any standard, this book fails on almost every account. Any hopes that he would address the key points in the debate are quickly dashed as King descends into an anti-Catholic polemic that presents the issue in terms of a false dichotomy with his particular species of sola scriptura and Rome as the two choices. Without even addressing the quality of his arguments against Rome, one can easily defuse his argument by pointing out how he completely ignores the Eastern Churches (who dispute both sola scriptura and Rome) as well as Anglicans and other Protestants who agree on sola scriptura in principle but whose understanding of its application bear little resemblance to King’s view. The overall approach amounts to little more than a “bait and switch” whereby complex hermeneutical questions are sidestepped and replaced with accusations against the Roman Church’s handling of Scripture that do not specifically address the issue at hand.

Examples of this tactic occur early and often. After a fairly routine discussion on the difference between general and special revelation, King immediately attacks claims for tradition by Catholics as spurious. His first rebuttal is to the lack of determining the specific doctrinal content within the Catholic tradition. He then adds to this by claiming the supplementation of Holy Scripture with extra-biblical tradition is the same path to heretical teaching employed by the ancient gnostics. The latter claim is clearly absurd as the gnostics did not “supplement” Holy Scripture since they did not recognize the canonical books as inspired. Gnosticism was really a different religion with a totally different collection of sacred books. The first contention applies to Scripture (try to get Baptists and Lutherans to agree on its doctrinal content).as much or more than to Catholic tradition which can be determined fairly well by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. After all, throughout this book King seems to have no problem figuring out what the Catholic Church teaches. Yet even were one to accept the above two contentions, it is not an argument for sola scriptura but one against the Catholic application of tradition.

In the second portion of the book, King does move to the core of his argument – the Scriptural case for the doctrine of sola scriptura. Here he expectedly immediately zeroes in on II Timothy 3:16-17 but completely misses the point of the criticism of using that as a basis for proof. In exegeting the passage, he tries to avoid the obvious fact that Paul could only be speaking of the Old Testament (the context is of the Scriptures Timothy has known since his youth) by asserting the quantifier “all Scripture” speaks of the nature of Scripture and thus would extend to the New Testament. However, this is not a point of contention since the argument is not over whether the properties Paul speaks of can be applied to the New Testament as well but whether Paul was applying them to the New Testament and specifically whether Paul was speaking of sola scriptura.

Since the New Testament did not yet exist, Paul could not have been so doing and hence the argument fails. Furthermore, the term “all Scripture” universally quantifies so the property applies to each individual Scripture on its own and not just to the collection as a whole. Thus the subject of discussion could not be sufficiency unless King is willing to see the Epistle of Jude or the Book of Esther on their own as sufficient to derive the Christian faith. Yet each of these on their own merits do meet Paul’s standard of being “inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work”. While Paul was definitely speaking of a property each Scripture had on its own, it did not address the role of the completed canon.

King also never addresses the real problem with the sola scriptura as practiced within Protestantism. Many Catholic and Orthodox Christians agree that the essential truths of the faith are contained in the pages of Holy Scripture but do not see sola scriptura as defined by Protestants as leading to those truths. The disagreement is not over the existence of the deposit of faith within Holy Scripture but in its perspicuity. In the very nature of its “historical-critical” exegetical methodology, Protestantism absorbs modern assumptions as to how texts are to be interpreted that are at odds with the typological and other methodologies of the historic Church.

The errors in not addressing this question become almost embarrassing in his use of patristic sources to bolster his case. For example, he quotes John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and John of Damascus as supporting his views but the quotations actually do no such thing. Yes the three men did have a very high opinion of Holy Scripture and accorded it the central role in disputes. But their actual exegesis was far removed from anything common in Protestantism and this merely underscores the fact that King does not realize sola scriptura is not just about Scripture but how one uses it. The best way of seeing this is to merely look at the actual beliefs of those quoted. Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria and John of Damascus are well known for, respectively, their development of Eucharistic theology and liturgy, the defense of a key role for the Virgin May in Christian devotion, and the defense of the veneration of icons.

Equally strange is his treatment of tradition in the New Testament. He contends Paul’s mention of tradition was applicable then because the full revelation in Scripture had not yet been completed. This, however, works against his position since one could also point out that this would also rule out sola scriptura being in Scripture since one cannot assert something about a complete revelation until the revelation has been completed. Again, scoring polemical points against Catholicism seems to be a higher concern that logical exposition of his views.

In the final section, King describes what he believes are the implications of sola scriptura. Unfortunately, he at this point again fails to address the major questions and merely engages in a path of reasoning that can only be considered circular. For example, he disputes Catholic apologist Mark Shea’s assertion that the introduction to Luke’s Gospel was underscoring the use of tradition by asserting the New Testament writings inscripturated what was necessary. However, he overlooks the fact that neither Luke nor Theophilus had any way of knowing that what was being written would be later recognized as such and Luke was engaging in the handing on of Apostolic tradition. Nor does it address the existence of implicit typological messages throughout Luke that the common exegesis of Protestantism might very well ignore.

King does spend an invest in addressing inaccuracies in the Latin Vugate translation. One supposes he intends to make a point about tradition but all it might prove is that the Roman Church erred in following what they thought was Holy Scripture. Again, the author has spent an inordiante amount of effort addressing specific apologetics points with Catholicism that does not address the question at hand.

The does finally address the issue of perspicuity but fails to make any important points. The majority of his arguments for the perspicuity of Scripture are either quoting Protestants stating it is perspicuous or attacking Catholics saying it isn’t. It all amounts to saying it is perspicuous because we say it is and those other guys who disagree with us don’t know what they’re talking about. The quotes from Holy Scripture that are used all point to how Scripture is vitally important and how it is inspired but this is not disputed by either side.

King then points to the difference between supporters and detractors of sola scriptura as amounting to sola scriptura vs. sola ecclesia. Here his opponents can easily point out that by separating the Scriptures from the Church he has demonstrated the modernism at the root of his entire methodology. All documents must be interpreted in their context and the context for the Bible is the Church. One cannot decide between Scripture and the Church any more than one can decide between the Constitution and the United States’ system of government. The former can only be described in the context of the latter and the latter is bound by the former. Separating the two inherently distorts its message.

This first volume of the combined efforts of Webster and King simply fails to address key issues and confuses attacking Catholicism with demonstrating sola scriptura. He claims to be producing a “Biblical” defense of the position but spends very little of the book prviding such a defense. If the intent were to provde an illustration of where he disagrees with Catholicism, it could be judged as far more successful. As it stands it cannot be seen as even approaching its intent.

While this book may be of interest to apologists because of its use as a source material in debates, it does not offer an effective presentation of the sola scriptura position. If one seeks such a defense, Mathison’s The Shape of Sola Scriptura is superior in every respect. This effort is primarily for the fundamentalist choir and will convince few with any broader perspective on the issues that divide Christians.

Entry Filed under: Bibliology, Hermeneutics, & Exegesis, Protestantism