<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: A Defense.
Review: Hello. Even though I have read the book, I want to give a defense of the book.<<(1) While the subtitle is "*The* Protestant Position on the Bible," the attentive reader will notice that each of the authors seems to have a slightly different view of what the term even means!>> I read the book and I saw no such thing! <<(2) While each claiming (to whatever degree) that *everything* needs to be in Scripture, the authors give at best marginal evidence that "sola scriptura" is itself taught by Scripture... or even consistent with it. I'd urge anyone reading the book to carefully read the (few) cited passages *in context* and ask him/herself if they truely mean what the authors of this book claim that they do! Scripture is full of texts that tell the reader that it is *from* God and thus, reliable. The fundamental problem that the authors have is that they all seem to jump to the conclusion that therefore Scripture is the *only* source of information that God has given us... a notion totally foreign to Scripture!>> When you say that everything needs to be in scripture do you mean doctrine? If so, then yes it has to be. Read Proverbs 30:6. Your not to add to God's word. If you do you will be repoved and be found a liar. The book deals with other verses about how "all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the bible." The RCC have added many things to God's word and they twist verses in order to support their beliefs. The RCC has been found to be a liar and thats what caused the Reformation to begin with. <<One section of the book that the average reader might want to be wary of is the chapter by James White on ancient Christian writers' view of Scripture... quite a few of his proof-texts seem to be taken out of the context of what these men actually believed and taught... but, unfortunately, not everyone has access to their writings. I'd suggest checking them against Robert Sungenis' book on sola scriptura (also available on amazon). The lucky people that have the time could look up a lots of the original texts online, but not many *have* that much time.>> Do you think that refering to Sungenis book means anything? As if his book has conclusively refuted Sola Scriptura? HA! Robert Sungenis has lost debates with Dr. James White. Dr. Robert Morey has challenged Sungenis and he, to this day, has not responded. <<One final note: The Catholic Church does *not* teach, nor has she ever taught,"sola ecclesia"... it's just a "straw man" someone cooked up. (Maybe by a "sola scriptura" advocate that hoped to saddle the Catholic Church with a notion as non-Biblical as "sola scriptura"?) The Catholic Church (like Scripture itself!) puts forth Scripture, Tradition *and* the Church as having authority>> The assumption of Mary is a tradition that is not taught in the Bible nor in the early church fathers. So why do RC's believe it? BECAUSE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TOLD THEM TOO! To the Catholic the church is the final authority, thus catholics believe on SOLA ECCLESIA! I have 2 conclusions: Either you never read the book or you read it with a biased mind who just trying to misrepresent Sola Scriptura. Thank you. I will be giving my reveiw of this book soon.
Rating: 
Summary: Weak
Review: I'll never understant the point of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone)Especially when one reads *(John 20:30, John 21:25, 2 Thess 2:15, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16 and certainly [1 Tim 3:15])* Anyone that likes a book such as this needs to read and meditate on those verses, because the doctrine of scripture alone cannot even be backed up with scripture.
Rating: 
Summary: Good polemics... but I am still unconvinced
Review: 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!
Rating: 
Summary: A good beginner's book on Sola Scriptura.
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Solid Introductory Work on Central Protestant Doctrine
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Attempting to defend the unsupportable
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Unclear, Better Works Available
Review: Unfortunately, this work was not well organized on the part of the authors. I sometimes found the material to be confusing in its presentation, and I didn't gain a solid understanding of the doctrine after reading it. I think this is due largely in part to the fact that there wasn't great collaboration between the multiple authors.
I would recommend other works on the topic of Sola Scriptura.
Rating:
Summary: Weak
Review: Very weak. Engages straw men. Flawed, filled with scriptural eisegesis.
<< 1 >>
| 
