First, I still don't see a difference between Sola and Solo Scriptura nor does the author sufficiently explain it.
Second, the conclusion is contradictory:
>> Ultimately, the fundamental problem with solo scriptura is the same problem that exists within the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox concepts of Scripture and tradition. All of these concepts result in autonomy. All result in final authority being placed somewhere other than God and His Word. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrines result in the autonomy of the Church. Solo scriptura results in the autonomy of the individual believer who becomes a law unto himself. Scripture is interpreted according to the conscience and reason of the individual.
Is the author a non-Christian? If the answer isn't in the autonomy of the Church nor the individual believer as the conclusion states, then what is the pillar and foundation of Truth? What is this article supposed to conclude?
First, I still don't see a difference between Sola and Solo Scriptura nor does the author sufficiently explain it.
Welcome to the Board!
I haven't a clue who "Matthew" is, but I suspect you are responding to someone's post in another thread? Be that as it may, I'll pick up the ball here and entertain your question and statement below.
The difference between "SolA Scriptura" and "SolO Scriptura" is that the latter stands on individual autonomy for understanding the Scriptures and the former takes into account what the Church has concluded and officially declared in its Ecumenical Councils, e.g., the Athanasian Creed, Nicean Creed, Chalcedon, et al. Also, "SolA Scriptura" recognizes the value of those who have lived before and have shown a particular gift in biblical interpretation, e.g., Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Owen, Edwards, Boston, Goodwin, Hodge, Berkhof, etc.
Quote
You then remarked: Second, the conclusion is contradictory:
>> Ultimately, the fundamental problem with solo scriptura is the same problem that exists within the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox concepts of Scripture and tradition. All of these concepts result in autonomy. All result in final authority being placed somewhere other than God and His Word. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrines result in the autonomy of the Church. Solo scriptura results in the autonomy of the individual believer who becomes a law unto himself. Scripture is interpreted according to the conscience and reason of the individual.
Is the author a non-Christian? If the answer isn't in the autonomy of the Church nor the individual believer as the conclusion states, then what is the pillar and foundation of Truth? What is this article supposed to conclude?
Why would you question the spiritual state of the author? FYI, Keith Mathisen, as best as can be discerned, is a very orthodox, godly and educated Christian man.
The Church is the "pillar and ground of the truth". But the Church is decidedly NOT specifically a man, e.g., a pope, nor a council, e.g., the Magisterium, who decides what the truth is. The Church is the totality of those who have been genuinely converted by grace throughout the centuries. Within the Church, God has raised up various men, gifted by the Holy Spirit to understand the Scriptures and to guard against error. However, each and every true believer is likewise indwelt by the Holy Spirit, Who witnesses to the truth and allows the individual to confirm that which others have written. It's a check and balance system. However, the most important point is that Scripture is its OWN authority and depends not upon any man for it is self-authenticating; Scripture interprets Scripture.
Perhaps these other articles on "Sola Scriptura" will aid in a proper understanding of the doctrine:
The question of whether he was Christian wasn't accusatory. I thought he was discrediting Christianity, perhaps, because he dismissed both the Church and Sola (Solo) Scriptura in his conclusion and I simply wanted to know his faith tradition and would never presume to know his heart.
You said:
Quote
The Church is the totality of those who have been genuinely converted by grace throughout the centuries. Within the Church, God has raised up various men, gifted by the Holy Spirit to understand the Scriptures and to guard against error. However, each and every true believer is likewise indwelt by the Holy Spirit, Who witnesses to the truth and allows the individual to confirm that which others have written. It's a check and balance system. However, the most important point is that Scripture is its OWN authority and depends not upon any man for it is self-authenticating; Scripture interprets Scripture.
But, that is exactly what his article is arguing against...
Quote
Scripture itself indicates that the Scriptures are the possession of the Church and that the interpretation of the Scripture belongs to the Church as a whole, as a community. In particular it has been entrusted to specially gifted men. This has already been examined in some detail in the previous discussion of the Bereans and the Jerusalem Council. The Apostles did not tell every individual believer to take their Bibles and decide by themselves and for themselves whether the Judaizers were correct. On the contrary, they gathered in a council as a body and discerned the truth of the matter. Their decision then was given to the various churches. The fundamental point is that Christ established His Church with a structure of authority that is to be obeyed (Heb. 13:7). Even in the first years of the Church, there were those who were specially appointed to the ministry of the Word (Acts 6:2-4). In his letters to Timothy and Titus, Paul indicates that a special teaching ministry was to continue after his death (cf. 1 Tim. 3:1-7; 2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 8:5-9). The modern Evangelical doctrine of Scripture essentially destroys the real authority of ministers of the Word and the Church as a whole.
Adherents of the Evangelical position also ignore the positive scriptural references to tradition. The Gospel was preached for at least 15-20 years prior to the writing of the first book of the New Testament, and that preached gospel was authoritative and binding. This apostolic tradition was the faith of the churches who received the first books of the New Testament, and it was the context within which these books and the books of the Old Testament were to be interpreted. This is the tradition to which the churches were commanded to adhere (e.g., 2 Thess. 3:6). We have already discussed the manner in which this apostolic kerygma was taught to every catechumen and recited from memory at baptism. It is important for our purposes here simply to note that this hermeneutical context of Scripture was not abrogated once Scripture was completed. The Scriptures were written to already existing churches, and this means that these churches had the Gospel before they had the completed Scriptures.
And:
Quote
It renders the universal and objective truth of Scripture virtually useless because instead of the Church proclaiming with one voice to the world what the Scripture teaches, every individual interprets Scripture as seems right in his own eyes.
You said:
Quote
The difference between "SolA Scriptura" and "SolO Scriptura" is that the latter stands on individual autonomy for understanding the Scriptures and the former takes into account what the Church has concluded and officially declared in its Ecumenical Councils
Then if the RC and EC churches are no longer valid, on whose authority was that declared? When did they cease to be a part of the Church and when did the last Ecumenical Councils cease? I think he's falling on his own sword by his own subjectivity that he claims exists only in SolO Scriptura. Did he coin that term or is it commonly used? I'm familiar with Sola ScripturA.
Quote
I haven't a clue who "Matthew" is, but I suspect you are responding to someone's post in another thread? Be that as it may, I'll pick up the ball here and entertain your question and statement below.
Astralis said: The question of whether he was Christian wasn't accusatory. I thought he was discrediting Christianity, perhaps, because he dismissed both the Church and Sola (Solo) Scriptura in his conclusion and I simply wanted to know his faith tradition and would never presume to know his heart.
Perhaps your statement above is indicative of why you are having a problem, at least in part, understanding both Mathisen's article and this errant view called, "SolO Scriptura"? Keith wasn't discrediting Christianity but rather establishing it and what it has believed since the days of the Apostles, i.e., the Scriptures are self-authenticating and possess an inherent authority. Likewise, he didn't and never has "dismissed" the Church or "SolA Scriptura", but rather he dismisses the error of "SolO Scriptura"; distinguishing between it and the historic doctrine of "SolA Scriptura".
The Church's proclamations are subordinate to the Scriptures. Yet, within the Church God has preserved truth. The Protestant Reformation is paradigmatic in that it exemplifies the principle of "SolA Scriptura". The teachings of the Church were subject to the Scriptures, which men like Luther found to be at variance when he studied the written Word of God.
I'm confident that if you would take the time to read those articles which I provided the links for, you will come to see the grave difference between the modern view of "SolO Scriptura" and the historic doctrine of "SolA Scriptura". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Could you address the contradictions I saw and how he can determine what is and what is not the Church?
What I'm finding is that he discredits SolO Scriptura and fails to realize the same thing exists within SolA Scriptura. Did he coin the term "SolO Scriptura"? For all intents and purposes, I can't see anything different from SolA Scriptura.
Astralis I will let Pilgrim give a more thorough answer, but I thought maybe you were misunderstanding something.
I will deal with Solo Scriptura first. If Solo Scriptura was the true biblical model, it would mean that Scripture was open to private interpretation (see 2 Peter 1:20). In Roman Catholic tradition, they recognize their tradition and interpretation of Scripture as being on par with Scripture. Sola Scripture on the other hand recognizes the value of people gifted in interpreting the Bible, but realizes that unlike the infallible Word of God, man being fallible can error. Hence their interpretation is only as good as it is biblical. For correct interpretation, the infallible (Scripture) must be compared with the infallible (Scripture). Confessions such as the WCF and the LBCF were created to combat heresy. But they hold firmly to Sola Scriptura. The Reformers (who believed in Sola Scriptura) fought on two fronts, against the Roman Catholic side of the issue and those who went too far (those who believed in Solo Scriptura). Though I believe the term "Solo Scriptura" wasn't coined until years later.
I don’t see anywhere in Matheson’s article that conflicts with this.
Thanks! In a nutshell, your reply is clearer. I'll read Pilgrim's links when I get time. But, I still see a major contradiction and hope you can perhaps clear it up...
Quote
In Roman Catholic tradition, they recognize their tradition and interpretation of Scripture as being on par with Scripture. Sola Scripture on the other hand recognizes the value of people gifted in interpreting the Bible, but realizes that unlike the infallible Word of God, man being fallible can error. Hence their interpretation is only as good as it is biblical. For correct interpretation, the infallible (Scripture) must be compared with the infallible (Scripture). Confessions such as the WCF and the LBCF were created to combat heresy. But they hold to Sola Scriptura.
This is what the author stated:
Quote
The problem that adherents of solo scriptura haven’t noticed is that any appeal to Scripture is an appeal to an interpretation of Scripture. The only question is: whose interpretation? When we are faced with conflicting interpretations of Scripture, we cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve our difference of opinion as if it were a Ouija board. In order for Scripture to serve as an authority at all, it must be read, exegeted, and interpreted by somebody. In order for the Holy Spirit to speak through Scripture, some human agency must be involved, even if that human agent is simply one individual reading the text of Scripture.
How are the Evangelicals different than the Reformers in this matter?
Quote
The Apostles did not tell every individual believer to take their Bibles and decide by themselves and for themselves whether the Judaizers were correct. On the contrary, they gathered in a council as a body and discerned the truth of the matter. Their decision then was given to the various churches. The fundamental point is that Christ established His Church with a structure of authority that is to be obeyed (Heb. 13:7). Even in the first years of the Church, there were those who were specially appointed to the ministry of the Word (Acts 6:2-4). In his letters to Timothy and Titus, Paul indicates that a special teaching ministry was to continue after his death (cf. 1 Tim. 3:1-7; 2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 8:5-9). The modern Evangelical doctrine of Scripture essentially destroys the real authority of ministers of the Word and the Church as a whole.
Why does he dismiss the RC and EO for appealing to Tradition when he claims to do the same?
Quote
But despite the very real differences, the modern Evangelical position shares one major flaw with both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox positions. Each results in autonomy.
So, Evangelicals appeal to themselves for autonomy and it's wrong. RC and EO appeal to their ministers for authority and it's wrong. Reformers appeal to their ministers for authority and it's right.
He admits that he believes in the canon, so we know he appeals to Tradition so that puts him right on par with the RC and EO, thus, one of the several contradictions I find in this article.
Just to clarify, Roman Catholic tradition is that the magisterium as the only determiners of Scriptural interpretation. It is not the individual ministers, but the magisterium. Their view is that Sola Scriptura is 1) not taught in the Bible 2) circular reasoning 3) has, as its natural conclusion, the fragmentation of the church into thousands of separate groups or denominations.
Hmm, maybe they are right with the many thousand different Protestant denominations?
Roman Catholic tradition is that the magisterium as the only determiners of Scriptural interpretation. It is not the individual ministers, but the magisterium.
Right. I agree...I should have made that distinction. But, it is administered through human agents.
Is the Reformed tradition different or does each minister not appeal to their own tradition or can they have different interpretations?
How are reformed ministers more correct than the OC and RCC and less autonomous as the author claims?
Why does he dismiss the RC and EO for appealing to Tradition when he claims to do the same?
He doesn't appeal to "capital T" Tradition, which the Roman Catholics consider of equal authority to Scripture and which the Eastern Orthodox consider the overarching category of which Scripture is but one part. He appeals to tradition, the teachings and practices of the church universal; yet these are only authoritative insofar as they are in agreement with Scripture.
Quote
Quote
But despite the very real differences, the modern Evangelical position shares one major flaw with both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox positions. Each results in autonomy.
So, Evangelicals appeal to themselves for autonomy and it's wrong. RC and EO appeal to their ministers for authority and it's wrong. Reformers appeal to their ministers for authority and it's right.
Many modern Evangelicals submit the Scripture to their own authority (i.e., "how I read the Bible is right, and I don't need to consider what anyone else says"), and the RC and EO submit the Scripture to clerical authority (i.e., "whatever the Magisterium says is the correct interpretation of Scripture"). Reformed believers submit all things to the authority of Scripture (i.e., "whatever Scripture says is true, and we must endeavor to understand all things in its light").
Quote
He admits that he believes in the canon, so we know he appeals to Tradition so that puts him right on par with the RC and EO, thus, one of the several contradictions I find in this article.
The canon is inherently authoritative, since it contains the revealed Word of God. It is not authoritative because the church says so.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Sola Scriptura means Scripture alone. As Protestants we maintain that the Scripture alone is our authority. Our Roman Catholic opponents maintain that the Scripture by itself is insufficient as the authority of the people of God, and that tradition and the teaching authority of the church must be added to the Scripture.
The Protestant position, is that all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand.
Solo Scriptura is very different and that's what Keith Mathison is pointing out in the article you read. He summarizes his critique by writing:
Quote
Proponents of solo scriptura have deceived themselves into thinking that they honor the unique authority of Scripture. But unfortunately, by divorcing the Spirit-inspired Word of God from the Spirit-indwelt people of God, they have made it into a plaything and the source of endless speculation. If a proponent of solo scriptura is honest, he recognizes that it is not the infallible Scripture to which he ultimately appeals. His appeal is always to his on fallible interpretation of that Scripture. With solo scriptura it cannot be any other way, and this necessary relativistic autonomy is the fatal flaw of solo scriptura that proves it to be an unChristian tradition of men.
I hope you can see the BIG difference here. Private fallible interpretation and relativistic autonomy make this treatment of Scripture speculative at best.
Quote
"Open my eyes, that I may behold Wonderful things from Thy law" Psalm 119:18; "....I will bow down toward Thy holy temple, And give thanks to Thy name for Thy lovingkindness and Thy truth; For Thou hast magnified Thy word according to all Thy name...." Psalm 138:2; "You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them; and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:14-17
The doctrine that the Bible alone is the ultimate authority was the "Formal Principle" of the Reformation. In 1521 at the historic interrogation of Luther at the Diet of Worms, he declared his conscience to be captive to the Word of God saying, "Unless I am overcome with testimonies from Scripture or with evident reasons -- for I believe neither the Pope nor the Councils, since they have often erred and contradicted one another -- I am overcome by the Scripture texts which I have adduced, and my conscience is bound by God's Word." Similarly, the Belgic Confession stated, "We believe that [the] holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein...Neither may we consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with those divine Scriptures nor ought we to consider custom or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God... Therefore, we reject with all our hearts whatsoever does not agree with this infallible rule" (VII).
There are at least a couple aspects in which Sola Scriptura is in jeopardy in today's church. Firstly, it is with great irony that many who call themselves "Reformed" now impart to historic confessions an authority due only to the Scriptures. When this occurs the creeds are the end of a doctrinal debate. Where do the Scriptures speak of giving authority to subsequent creeds? Do not the creeds themselves disallow for such a position? Roman Catholicism cries "Scripture and Church Tradition". Should we now cry "Scripture and Creedal Tradition"?! By no means! Solo Scriptura! Secondly, many in today's church impart the force of authority to experience. This is where much of the Charismatic movement derails. The Holy Spirit illuminates the hearts and minds of men with Scriptural truths. This is not the issue at hand with the Charismatic movement. What is often said is that "the Lord showed me...". The statement then rises above being questioned unless there is blatant Scriptural error.
By what authority do we derive our convictions and practices? May it be by Scripture alone!
Wes
When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
li0scc0 said: Hmm, maybe they are right with the many thousand different Protestant denominations?
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/jawdrop.gif" alt="" /> You wouldn't happen to be Roman Catholic would you?
One of the sad things about denominations today is the fact that there are splits and new denominations form as a result. Most are caused because heresy enters in and either the faithful are forced out, or the one's who embrace heresy leave.
In the case of Martin Luther (if I understand history), he did not try to leave the Church(he was excomunicated). He tried to reform the Church from heretical teaching, by appealing to Scripture itself. The Roman Catholic Church officials however, were not interested in listening; they knew that if Luther got his way, they would lose their meal tickets. For instance, they would no longer be able to collect money from people who wanted to help themselves and their loved ones out of purgatory. (I can speak more on this aspect if asked)
Unfortunately, splits sometimes are necessary this side of heaven.
By the way, don't let Roman Catholics fool you, when they use that argument. They are more diverse than many people realize. Here is an example of what I am talking about.
Quote
1. Vatican II Catholics - Which view Protestants as separated brothers and sisters estranged from the true Church and they have placed a new emphasis on Bible Study. (Typical of them would probably be of course the current Pope as well as Scott Hahn) They also are borderline Universalists when it comes to the salvation of Jews and Muslims.
2. Council of Trent Catholics - The old guard. Many of them believe the Church is too contemporary and they believe Mass should still be in Latin and see Protestants primarily as heretics. (Mel Gibson is a Latin rite Catholic I believe)
3. Liberal Catholics - Like liberal Protestants they question the authority of scripture ( John Dominic Crossan is one such RC liberal) and are generally Pro Abortion, Pro Homosexual (John Kerry, Ted Kennedy for example) and for women in the priesthood and deny the Pope is infallible.
4. Eastern Rite Catholics - Very similar to the Eastern Orthodox though unlike the Eastern Orthodox they accept the leadership of the Pope, and embrace the RCC position on the Mass as well as differing with the Eastern Orthodox on other theological issues. The Eastern Rite Catholics are very conservative in their theology than probably the Vatican II Catholics.
There are also other "Evangelical" Roman Catholics that often speak at Evangelical Protestant gatherings such as CCM singer Kathy Troccoli, Oliver North, and Alan Keyes. Waldo
The very fact that we have a canon of scripture means we depend on the decisions and points of view of people long dead. What we have today as far as scripture is the results of a long, complicated process that no one ever refers to plainly. Some how these conflicts between differing Christian groups became the "working of the Holy Spirit." Also, the winners of these conflicts became the ones God used to "perserve the scriptures." Whether we appeal to Catholic Tradtion or reformed tradition, the very nature of biblical study depends on tradition of some kind plain and simple. It seems to me that it comes down to what tradition you are going to follow. If you choose not to follow a "traditional" tradition, then you are labeled a theological loner and in error. What do y'all think? Am I just confused?
The very fact that we have a canon of scripture means we depend on the decisions and points of view of people long dead. What we have today as far as scripture is the results of a long, complicated process that no one ever refers to plainly. Some how these conflicts between differing Christian groups became the "working of the Holy Spirit." Also, the winners of these conflicts became the ones God used to "perserve the scriptures." Whether we appeal to Catholic Tradtion or reformed tradition, the very nature of biblical study depends on tradition of some kind plain and simple. It seems to me that it comes down to what tradition you are going to follow. If you choose not to follow a "traditional" tradition, then you are labeled a theological loner and in error. What do y'all think? Am I just confused?
But, all those Catholic groups believe in the same doctrine, not the same practice. I know in Houston, there is a Charismatic Catholic center that is within the Diocese of the Houston Catholic Church but their practice is much different than other Roman Catholic churches. But, their doctrine is identical.
I think this may be the crux of the issue. What authority has the authority to teach? Mathison admits that Reformed traditions must appeal to tradition. But, how do you know what tradition to appeal to?
Astralis said: I think this may be the crux of the issue. What authority has the authority to teach? Mathison admits that Reformed traditions must appeal to tradition. But, how do you know what tradition to appeal to?
For me, that question is easily answered: I appeal to that "tradition" that submits to the authority of Scripture ALONE and not to some individual or group of individuals. Prof. John Murray wrote an excellent article on this very subject which you can read here: Tradition: Romish and Protestant
When I look at these various groups of Catholics, even from what is written in my last post shows that their doctrine is different. Even if I was to accept what you said as true, what would it really matter? Someone can say they believe in something, but if their practice doesn't show it, in actuality their practice shows what they actually believe.
I disagree. A church that uses more incense or uses it more often than another church doesn't mean their doctrine is different. It's a difference in practice. From what I have seen, none of these churches teach different doctrine. If you can point out something specific, that would help.
I think this may be the crux of the issue. What authority has the authority to teach? Mathison admits that Reformed traditions must appeal to tradition. But, how do you know what tradition to appeal to?
John Murray answers your question in the article Pilgrim suggested you might like to read.
Quote
Murray writes:
Tradition is always subject to the scrutiny and test of Scripture. Its rightness or value is always determined by its conformity to Scripture. This is just saying that it is never proper to appeal to tradition as having intrinsically an authority in matters of faith or morals. Tradition when true and right and good always flows from the Scripture and is simply God's will as revealed in Scripture coming to expression in thought and life. Tradition, when right, is always derived; it is never original or primary. And this is invariably true from whatever aspect tradition is viewed.
There you have it! You've always got to go to the source, the Bible.
When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
Tom, No I am not Roman Catholic nor am I fooled by the Roman Catholics. That said I think it quite funny as to the numerous denominations yet the supposed unity of the Christian church. Sometimes churches and OFTENTIMES theologians spend more time refuting their counterparts in other sects than they do addressing the Christian faith. If I hear another Dispensational vs. Preterist, 4 point vs. 5 point, etc. sermon I will scream! How is it that those in the pews sometimes understand an eschatological table (Dispy's) or can tell you that Arminians are clueless (Reformed folks), yet they do not know what the gospel is?
Perhaps you might tell us what the Gospel is? Maybe also you might explain to me why learning about the cluelessness of Arminius and the ememies of the Gospel might be a waste of time?
Is it possible that you might be one of those that say: Give us the "spirit" and damn the doctrine. Or worse yet: For the sake of unity let us burn our bibles and "party". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" />
Denny
Roms: 3 22-24
Denny
Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." [John 6:68]
Hi there, thanks for ignoring the point of my post and going straight to the ad-hominem attacks! Well done! You will win many converts that way!
But you substantiated the point of my post. Instead of actually sharing the gospel, I find churches would rather engage in such attacks. And instead of seeing that sharing the gospel is important, I am very sad that you would rather go down a different path.
As to the gospel, in case you think I am the only one who thinks sharing the gospel is the most important, I will share a mission statement for Hope Protestant Reformed Church. Maybe you will label the PRC as one of those wacky "spirit led, give us the spirit and damn the doctrine"?
"The preaching of the gospel is the most important part of the worship of God. God's people are saved by its power and also constantly strengthened and encouraged in their faith. The preaching at our church is based on clear and careful exposition of the scripture. "
Having been to many a PRC church, they have it right. To be sure they spend a large amount of time with polemics, but they are ALWAYS sharing the gospel, they are ALWAYS Christ centered. They are NOT "ashamed of the gospel". (Note: It should be noted I am NOT a member of the PRC.)
You have once again missed the point, who said anything about not proclaiming the Gospel. Of course we should and are obligated to proclaim the Gospel. As Paul said: "Wo is me, if I do not proclaim the Gospel."
The problem however, is much of what is proclaimed in many evangelical circles today, is not the Biblical Gospel. An example of this is the tract ‘Four Spiritual Laws’.
li0scc0 said: "The preaching of the gospel is the most important part of the worship of God. God's people are saved by its power and also constantly strengthened and encouraged in their faith. The preaching at our church is based on clear and careful exposition of the scripture."
First, let me say that I am NOT happy the way this discussion is going and I do hope that ALL parties will consider abstaining from furthering the direction it has taken.
Secondly... you may have "attended" a number of PRC congregations, but so have I. Even more salient is the fact that I have studied at the PRC Seminary and therefore have a little different insight into what the PRC is and what they believe.
Thirdly, the statement you quoted from Hope PRC I find in error.
The preaching of the gospel is the most important part of the worship of God.
This topic has been discussed on the Board several times in the past, i.e., what should the focus be in a Christian worship service? Most of the Reformed persuasion, who do not embrace the "seeker friendly" model, are agreed that corporate worship is a time when professing believers come together to offer praise to God, confess their sins, hear the Word of God preached and then leave as changed individuals whose primary desire is to live holy lives before the Lord. This is not to say that the Gospel message isn't ever to be preached in a corporate worship setting. But again, it is clearly NOT to be the focus nor is it the "most important part" of the worship of God.
Lastly, from what I heard taught at the Seminary and what I heard at the various PRC congregations I visited (yes, there were exceptions and those churches were not well looked upon) the "gospel" was discernible different than that which Reformed churches historically preached. And this was due to their distorted doctrines concerning the "free offer" and how they viewed covenant children. According them, one must first come to know that he/she is one of the elect in order to have the right to believe upon Christ.
Now, if you would like to discuss any of this further, then I would suggest that a new thread be started so that the subject of this thread, "Solo Scripture" may continue on track.
"Thirdly, the statement you quoted from Hope PRC I find in error. 'The preaching of the gospel is the most important part of the worship of God.' This topic has been discussed on the Board several times in the past, i.e., what should the focus be in a Christian worship service?"
Sorry, semantical difference. What I meant, and what I believe Hope PRC means, is not that this is a seeker sensitive Gospel message, but that that is the cornerstone of all preaching.
Agreed, we are all off-topic. I'm happy to take this to another post if anybody wants to start it.
Sorry, last post on this topic, I do realize I am off-subject <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/3stooges.gif" alt="" /> Tom, critical to the Gospel, I would say, is justification by faith alone. If you would like a more detailed exposition on my view of the Gospel we can take it off-line. However, all you will will not be of my own creation, but rather words from Ursinus' exposition of the Heidelberg catechism, Kersten's Dogmatics, Calvin, and the like. I do apologize for my lack of originality in what the Gospel is. Sorry to disappoint! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/coffee2.gif" alt="" />
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/biggrinking.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
