CHRISTIANITY TODAY DITCHES SOLA SCRIPTURA AND TAKES UP CHURCH TRADITION

Christianity Today Ditches Sola Scriptura and Takes up Church Tradition

By Bob DeWaay

In a cover article for Christianity Today, The FUTURE lies in the PAST, church history professor Chris Armstrong examines the trends in evangelicalism that have resulted in current evangelicals looking to ancient practices and teachings from church history from which to draw inspiration. He cites a D. H. Williams comment on "the almost overnight popularity of bishops and monks, martyrs and apologists, philosophers and historians who first fashioned a Christian culture 1,500 years ago,"[i] and  correctly identifies Robert Webber and Richard Foster as key early leaders of the movement that takes us back to ancient Christian practices and ideas.

            In his article, Armstrong talks about individuals, unhappy with "the spontaneous style of free-church Protestant" groups, who were subsequently attracted to more liturgical churches such as Episcopalian, Orthodox, or Roman Catholic. It is true: some evangelicals have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy and even to Roman Catholicism. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church today has a number of ex-evangelicals who serve as apologists for Rome.

            Webber, as cited by Armstrong, divided current evangelicalism into three categories: Traditional evangelicals focused on doctrine and Bible studies, pragmatic evangelicals focused on church growth, and the younger evangelicals who want something more "authentic."[ii] This "younger" thinking is expressed in the Emergent Church movement which unabashedly embraces ancient Roman Catholic practices and even has people experimenting with monasticism.[iii] Armstrong points out that these "ancient-future Christians" reject both the "rigid propositional definitions" of some (people who believe true Biblical doctrine) and the "pragmatic promises of the church-growth movement" in favor of ideas and practices drawn from church history.

            But where do they end up? My research suggests that mysticism is a key uniting factor amongst all the diversity of this movement. The "ancient-future Christians" want a spirituality that has no Biblically set boundaries. Armstrong writes, "From Dallas Willard, Richard Foster, and living practicing monks and nuns, they must learn both the strengths and the limits of the historical ascetic disciplines."[iv] Armstrong himself clearly approves of this process:

This is the road to maturity. That more and more evangelicals have set out upon it is reason for hope for the future of gospel Christianity. That they are receiving good guidance on this road from wise teachers is reason to believe Christ is guiding the process. And that they are meeting and learning from fellow Christians in the other two great confessions, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, is reason to rejoice in the power of love.[v]

I could hardly believe that this assessment came from a professor at a Baptist college[vi] and that it was published in Christianity Today, whose first editor was Carl F. H. Henry. Such movement away from the publication's base is shocking. Henry wrote the six volume series God, Revelation and Authority that refuted ideas such as these in their earlier iteration, where it was known as neo-orthodoxy. Needless to say, no such article promoting Roman Catholic tradition as "hope for the future of gospel Christianity" would ever have been published in Christianity Today under Henry's watch!

            What Armstrong's article introduces is bad enough, but what he fails to address is worse. Armstrong fails even to discuss the implications of the Reformation doctrine Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) in regard to the new mysticism. My question is this: Has the new evangelicalism fully abandoned Sola Scriptura? It appears that very few take it seriously. When I debated Doug Pagitt, a proponent of the type of spirituality discussed in the CT article, my key issue was boundaries.[vii] Are there boundaries to our religious practices? I claimed that there are. If there are boundaries, are they determined by God or man? I claimed that God determines the boundaries of how we come to God and how we serve Him. I further claimed that the boundaries are spelled out in Scripture. On that basis, I claimed that Pagitt's "free-style" spirituality was false. His rejoinder was that I was guilty of "binary reductionism," which means that my "either/or" statements failed to account for valid third or fourth options.

            Let's step back and assess this logically.  If boundaries exist, either God or man determines the boundaries (if they don't exist, then universalism is true and we do not need this discussion). The only other rational beings in the universe are the holy angels and Satan and his minions. The holy angels perfectly do God's bidding, so if they did set the boundaries, the boundaries would be His. On the other hand, it would be rather absurd to claim that Satan, who is God's enemy, would set valid boundaries for how we come to Him. So what exactly are these other options? There are none.

            Continuing our examination, if God has set the boundaries, has He done so through Scripture? Here there are indeed options. God could have set the boundaries through the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or some other religious text. But this is supposedly a Christian debate so there really are only two options-either God has spoken once for all as the Bible claims in Hebrews 1:1, 2 or God continues to give binding revelation through the church.

This brings us to the debate at the time of the Reformation: has God spoken in a binding, authoritative way only through Scripture, or does He speak throughout history through the Roman Catholic Church and her traditions?

            If the Reformers were correct, then the article in Christianity Today is senseless. Why would we believe "Christ" is guiding a process that is not spelled out in Scripture? Why consult church history rather than search the Scriptures for the beliefs and practices God has ordained?

The only answer to these questions is that these postmodern "evangelicals" have rejected the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. They want to reject "rigid propositions" but refuse to do the hard work of learning the Bible and learning how to determine what are or are not valid implications from Scripture. It never even occurs to the article's author to ask whether the Bible ordains asceticism and mysticism (they are condemned in Colossians 2 and Deuteronomy 18).

            Armstrong claims that these spiritual innovators "are receiving good guidance on this road from wise teachers." This statement only makes sense if one rejects Scripture alone as a valid principle. The "wise teachers" like Dallas Willard and Richard Foster are spiritual innovators who have only pragmatic tests to determine their practices.[viii] These new evangelicals may have rightly rejected the pragmatic promises of the church-growth movement; but they have embraced a far more dangerous pragmatism where one uses experimentation to determine what sort of spiritual practices "work." The world of spirits is a world where pragmatists who refuse to submit to the authority of Scripture become deceived.

            So why did an earlier editor of Christianity Today write a massive six-volume monograph defending the validity of God's propositional revelation in Scripture only now to publish a cover article about the supposedly positive development of a new mysticism in which the question of Biblical support for such a movement is not even seen as worthy of discussion? Armstrong writes, "Today's ancient-future Christians have begun recovering buried veins of treasure-in exegesis, theology, spirituality, praxis, and ecclesiology-from the deepest deposits of our shared tradition."[ix]  This assumes that the issue of whether these practices are Biblical is not important. Instead, it is assumed that as long as some living spiritual masters are guiding the process, we can consider ourselves safe on the journey back to Rome. Good reasons for the Reformation still exist. Casting aside Sola Scriptura can only lead to the demise of the evangelical movement that had been nurtured and watched over so tenderly by people like Carl F. H. Henry.

End Notes

By Bob DeWaay Click here for bio and archived articles

EXCELLENT Posted On: 07/08/08 06:45:27 PM Age 38, MN Thank you pastor Bob. Right on the nose as always. Scripture Alone Posted On: 04/24/08 03:54:34 PM Age 48, MN AL: Could you please list the "traditions" that are God sanctioned and who decided those? Thank you. Scripture Alone Posted On: 04/24/08 03:38:34 PM Age 48, MN AL: Could you please list the "traditions" that are God sanctioned and who decided those? Thank you. "Sola Scriptura" or "Nuda Scriptura"? Posted On: 03/10/08 12:24:35 PM Age 44, MN I am interested in your take here. I want to point out that "Sola Scriptura" does not, nor did it ever, mean "Scripture alone," as if we should never listen to anyone who has thought deeply about Scripture and written wisely about it during the 2,000 years of church history. A better interpretation of what the Reformers meant by this principle would be "Scripture above all"--that is, all other authorities must be submitted to the final authority of Scripture. Do you believe in the Trinity? The word, as you no doubt know, never appears in Scripture. The concept does appear there, of course. And it needed to be protected from followers of Arius in the early 300s who insisted that according to the Gospel of Mark, Jesus was clearly a "servant of God," who did not know certain things that God the Father knew, and who said "call no man good, only God," etc. . . . and that Jesus, subservient to God, was therefore clearly a creature--not an eternal member of the Trinity. The church met to combat this heresy at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Their resulting statement, adding nothing to the authority of Scripture, but rather explaining its teachings on the Trinity, is called the Nicene Creed. Whether we should consider the Nicene Creed to be the last word for our churches today, or whether we should repeat it together in church services, I don't know. But I do know that without that council and that creed, the heresy denying the divinity of Christ would have been much more widespread than it was. This is the kind of "tradition" I affirm: not tradition as an equal authority alongside Scripture, but tradition as a subsidiary authority, a hermeneutical aid: the collective wisdom of wise teachers, both honored and recognized as a "normed norm"--that is, a guide that itself must always be checked and corrected (normed) by Scripture. Why do we need this sort of tradition? Because what Scripture says on every matter is not always obvious and clear to every reader. That's why the blessed fundamentalists (I'm not being flip--I owe my faith, indirectly, to their faithfulness) have split into hundreds of mutually contradicting warrior-churches: Individual interpretations of Scripture, founded securely on proof-texts but un-moored from other texts and the history of wise interpretation, have been the cause of every heresy since the beginning of the church. Do we, then, affirm a Magisterium--a single church like the Roman catholic, whose hierarchy has all the answers, and which must never be questioned? By no means. That is why I join other evangelical voices, in my article, in arguing against conversion to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. But does that mean we throw every Christian back on their own individual reason as they read the Bible? Do we refuse to follow the example of Martin Luther and John Calvin, who read, quoted, and honored the many voices of biblical interpretation from church history; who repeated and affirmed the creeds of the early councils; who published compendiums of the early church fathers' teachings on justification; who read and honored (and sometimes re-published) such medieval teachers as Bernard of Clairvaux and such late medieval mystical works as the _Theologia Germanica_? Did Luther and Calvin affirm the authority of any of these sources above that of Scripture? God forbid! Did they engage these sources to grow wiser and better in the teaching and living of the gospel? They certainly did! For more on the Reformers' use of tradition, read the fourth chapter of Baylor professor and Baptist D. H. Williams's recent Book _Evangelicals and Tradition_. And I'd be happy to dialogue with you further, if you'd like. Peace, Chris THERE IS ONLY ONE BOOK - THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD Posted On: 03/07/08 03:23:25 PM Age 64, OH You say,We who believe in following "Scripture alone" do not believe that we gain eternal life through Scripture alone -- but ALSO with the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit. The PARTNERSHIP OF THESE TWO POWERS (Holy Spirit and the Gospel) is clearly indicated in Scripture: Holy Spirit giving life: John 6:63, "...It is the Spirit who gives life..." AND life through the Word of God: - Well for what you say to be true, we would have to rewrite The Book of Isaiah. 3 For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior; and again Before me no god was formed,nor will there be one after me. 11 I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior. - God Almighty makes it very clear there is NO PARTNERSHIP OR ANY OTHER POWER. The whole of the Holy Scriptures tell us that there is but One and Only One God. There is Only One Life giving force in this universe and that is The Lord Jesus Christ and Jesus is THE WORD OF GOD and there is no other. You say that "we... do not believe that we gain eternal life through scripture alone". This is heresy to The One True Savior. It is written in the Holy Scriptures that if anyone trusts in Jesus and something else to save them; then Jesus can not save them. FOR IT IS WRITTEN THAT WE MUST TRUST IN JESUS ALONE FOR HIM TO SAVE US. We must not trust in the creation (the Book is part of the creation) but we must trust in The One and Only CREATOR. Lou THE WORD OF GOD IS A SPIRIT NOT A BOOK Posted On: 03/07/08 03:02:18 PM Age 64, OH Friend it was the pharisees who believed in SCRIPTURE ALONE, as you do, who had the muddled thinking. The disciples followed The person of The Lord Jesus Christ and then found that scripture agreed with what Jesus had told them. You say,We who believe in following "Scripture alone" do not believe that we gain eternal life through Scripture alone. - Talk about muddled thinking; you are saved or lost by what you follow. Your god is what you look to and you have stated that you look to a Book. - You TRUST what you follow and you follow what you trust. You want to trust in the Book but then say you are trusting in Jesus. Are you saying that we should not Trust The Holy Spirit of the Lord Jesus. Are you saying that He is not trustworthy OR are you saying that he is not able to cause us blind men to see. Men who trust in the Book are proven to go astray. How many interpretations are there of any scripture. A Book is not trustworthy because every man will read it different. But if a man trust in the Lord Jesus He is willing and ABLE to make us see His interpretation which is always the One correct Way. - There are those who claim to follow the Spirit and do not, but follow their own desires. These men all disagree and there are many groups of them. There are also those who claim to follow the Book and there are just as many groups of them; because when they read the Book there understanding is influenced by their desires the same as those who claim to follow the Spirit. The Sons of God are NOT those who claim to follow the Spirit and also not those who follow the Book. THE SCRIPTURES SAY THE SONS OF GOD ARE THOSE WHO FOLLOW THE SPIRIT. The Book itself tells us to follow the Spirit. There is no place where we are told to follow the Book. Lou Not quite Posted On: 03/07/08 11:28:08 AM Age 47, MO You are suggesting that being saved is a mental accent or agreement. This may work for an openn minded intelectual but does nothing for a child or the infirmed. Friend, Jesus is the word of God and He plants that seed (of Himself) in our hearts. Indeed, it is the seed of the gospel (The gospel, the good news) is Christ. You need to rethink your thesis. John Misapplication Posted On: 03/06/08 02:22:31 PM Age 40, CA Jesus knew what was in the heart of man. He knew that the Pharisees were "sons of the devil," "a brood of vipers," "open sepulchers," or in other words -- they did not have eternal life. And Jesus said it in the verse you cited (John 5), "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life." Jesus said that they depended on Scripture alone to gain eternal life. We who believe in following "Scripture alone" do not believe that we gain eternal life through Scripture alone -- but also with the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit. The partnership of these two powers (Holy Spirit and the Gospel) is clearly indicated in Scripture: Holy Spirit giving life: John 6:63, "...It is the Spirit who gives life..." AND life through the Word of God: 1 Pet 1:23, "...for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God." and Rom 1:16, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes..." In simple terms, the Holy Spirit deposits the imperishable seed (the Gospel) in the heart of an unbeliever, and life (eternal life) begins to grow. As you know this is comparable to the way a male deposits his seed into a female and life begins to grow. One problem most people have, who don't believe in Scripture alone, is that they become a little confused and therefore, as a consequence, their theology becomes muddled. cults Posted On: 03/06/08 12:29:32 PM Age 40, CA This belief that you have is the same belief every cult leader had when he or she started his or her cult. I see Posted On: 03/06/08 12:26:54 PM Age 40, CA You are an apostolic or pentecostal. I understand why you don't believe in depending on Scripture alone. There are a lot of things you guys practice that can't be proven through Scripture, so, you use experiences and sensations (alone) to prove some of your beliefs. Me, I am simply a born-again Christian who uses the Bible and only the Bible to form a doctrine on which to base my life with Christ. If it ain't in the Bible, I don't preach it.