A definition of SS by Reformed Theologian RC Sproul

[Catholic Dude]

Here are a few passages of what a famous modern day Protestant theologian named RC Sproul says during a show:

-Here is what the introduction host says on that show:

God has blessed the Church with shepherds to protect and feed the flock...Given us elders to protect the purity of the Church, servants of God who are worthy of our honor and respect, we ought to submit to the authority given them by Christ. But what happens when those in authority teach things contrary to the word of God? Is there a higher court we can appeal to? The answer is yes! The appeal was made in the 16th century and the motion still carries. Reformers call this Sola Scriptura. (0:35)
​

-Sproul talks about SS as the ultimate authority and only thing binding on one's conscience but adds this as well:

And though we are called to be submissive to lesser authorities and respectful of other authorities, in my own church I am called to submit to the authority of the Presbytery or to the Session of the local church there are all kinds of levels of authority, and if Im told I find in conscience I can no longer genuinely submit then it is my duty to withdraw from that communion peaceably, but otherwise Im not to disturb the peace of the church by acting in direct conflict to the confessions of the government of the church... (11:40).
​

-He continues with:

...and yet at the same time the church says, "we know our confessions could be wrong, and some of the ordinances of our church are possibly incorrect, but this is what we believe to be the truth and as long as your going to serve here you have this obligation to submit... (12:15)"
​

-He goes on to say:

...its not that SS eliminates other authorities, but what it says is that there is only one authority that can absolutely bind the conscience and that authority is Sacred Scripture. And that all controversies over doctrine and theology must be settled in the final analysis by Scripture(12:25)

​

-He goes onto talk about "the principal of private interpretation" here is what he says:

Every Christian has the right and responsibility to read the Bible for themselves and they have the right to interpret it for themselves. --Now that was heard by Rome, as witnessed in the 4th session of Trent, to mean that the Protestants were giving license to the rank and file Church member not only to read the Bible for themselves, but to distort it at will.-- And of course the Reformers were horrified at that idea, they said every Christian has the right to interpret the Bible for themselves, but no Christian ever has the right to misinterpret it or todistort it according to their own whims or their own prejudices (19:15).
​

-Here is what he transitions into:[font=&quot]
[/font]

The principal of "private interpretation" was based on another principal...Luther said there were many part of Scripture that were difficult to handle, thats why we need teachers in the church and commentaries and all of that, but that the basic message, that message that is necessary for a person to undersand and grasp is plain for any person to see it, and when Luther talked about giving the Bible to the laity the Church said if you do that that will open up a flood gate of iniquity because people will start creating all kinds of horrible distortions, which is exactly what happened, but Luther said if that is the case and if a flood gate of iniquity is opened by opening the pages of the Bible to the people-so be it (20:00).
​

-Here is what he says next:[font=&quot]
[/font]

But the message that is clear is so important, it contains the message of our salvation. It is so important and so clear that we will take the risks of all the distortions and all of the heresies that go with that, to make sure that the central message of Scipture is heard (20:50).
​

-And he concludes with this:[font=&quot]
[/font]

And as a result of this affirmation of Sola Scriptura, the Bible was put into the church, and the reading of the Scriptures and preaching from the Scriptures became central to the liturgy and to the worship of historic protestantism (21:15).
​

(Here is the place where you can hear it, look for the show called "Sola Scriptura" the numbers in brackets are the time of quote.)

Do you agree with the way RC Sproul defines SS? What are your thoughts on this and do you know of other definitions out there by respected Reformed Theologians?

 

[papakapp]

I disagree. Sproul would not have been reformed unless Luther and Calvin had, in the past acted as if they disagreed with Sproul too.

If he is a PROTESTant then he gets his name fron guys who went against their leaders.

 

[Jon_]

Do you agree with the way RC Sproul defines SS? What are your thoughts on this and do you know of other definitions out there by respected Reformed Theologians?

I absolutely agree with R. C. Sproul's definition of Sola Scriptura. But that's not what's being presented here. What's being presented is an attempted distortion of R.C.'s view that's being taken out of context and out of character with his original intention. You have not even begun to present Sproul's definition of Sola Scriptura. What you have presented are the delineations and clarifications to his definition, but you've omitted that altogether.

If the question is if I agree with Sproul, the answer is an emphatic yes. If the question is if I agree with the Sproul you're trying to present, the answer is an emphatic no.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

I disagree. Sproul would not have been reformed unless Luther and Calvin had, in the past acted as if they disagreed with Sproul too.

If he is a PROTESTant then he gets his name fron guys who went against their leaders.

I don't understand this at all. Could you clarify your point for the benefit of your fellows?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[papakapp]

looks to me like Sproul is supporting the notion of the reformers (which I also support) of sola scriptura. But, he also accepts the institutionalisationism that Calvinism became (which I do not necesarily support). I am a pretty firm Calvinist, but I do not agree with the institutional nature of it, which I believe were actually vestiges of Calvin's culture.

One cannot fully understand Calvin's position on paetobaptism, for example, without understanding that when everybody was Catholic, getting baptized was the equivalent to getting a social security card. It's cultural.

Anyway, if you look at history, christianity has frequently been shoehorned into the culture of the day. When Christianity met the greeks, it leaned towart philosophy, then the Romans and it leaned toward an institution, then to europe (calvin's Europe) and it became a culture, then America and it became an enterprize.
However, there are always breakaway groups that seem to have a better grasp of Christianity regardless of culture. For example, the Celts of Ireland and the Jesuits of NA. Both of which sprang from the institution of Catholism, by the way.

So, I would say theat Sproul was a strong man of faith, but he fell into the same trap that his predecessors, and the Catholics that they rebelled from, fell into. Essentially, the 'guru fallacy' which assumes that an educated person is more qualified to accurately interpret scripture than an average guy who is not a 'professional Christian'.

The contradiction of Sproul is that he is basically arguing that people should either follow their leaders, or else discreetly leave, however, protestants do not have a history of discreetly leaving.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I would have to agree with Jon above. The quotes don’t seem to fit quite right. I acan tell you what I do agree with on the subject of Sola Scriptura. I agree with Keith Mathison and his book the The Shape of Sola Scriptura. It is a book I would recommend to everyone and you can get it from RC Sproul’s Ligonier Ministries. So I assume Sproul too agrees with this work.

I also agree with St. Vincent of Léren’s position on this matter. St. Vincent who was a contemporary of St. Augustine and St. Jerome wrote a wonderful piece early 5th century that touches this subject. That work is The Commonitory: For the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of All Heresies.

St Vincent wrote “…the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient…”

He also said “as to the more ancient schisms or heresies, we ought either to confute them, if need be, by the sole authority of the Scriptures, or at any rate, to shun them…”

My quotes above do not give a full picture of St. Vincent’s position. He had strong views about tradition that Protestants should look at and (IMHO) heed as well, but his view of the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is not in line with either the modern Roman Catholics or the hyper individualism of modern Protestants.

I give more expanded quotes from St. Vincent work in an article titled St. Vincent, Sola Scriptura and Tradition.

To see a short review of Mathison’s book lookHERE.

Coram Deo,
Kenith