Below we have been discussing whether or not dialog between Oneness Pentecostals and Trinitarians can be profitable. One commenter argued that Trinitarians are committed to the evolution of apostolic doctrine in the early church rather than the position of Sola Scriptura. This statement seemed odd to me. Let me explain why.
I know that the Reformers argued against Rome that the Scriptures are the only infallible ecclesiastical authority ( = therefore, not the Pope nor the Creeds). I have always struggled with this assertion. The canon of Scripture was not established either (a) by the apostles nor (b) by the texts we now call “Scripture”. Therefore, it seems to me, that to be logically consistent we would need the canonical list to be found within the canon itself.
Our canon is either (1) the decision of the early church or (2) using Protestant language a “discovery” of the early church. Either way we have a canon settled ecclesiastically. I am not saying this should lead to the kind of skepticism exhibited by folk like Bart D. Ehrman who suggest the canon was the aftermath of political debate since we see a core evolving very early (e.g. the four gospels and the Pauline corpus circled as units very early). I am saying that the formation of the canon was a Pneumatological endeavor. It was the doctrinal consideration of the church. It was an evolution based on the “rule of faith” which is the apostolic teaching passed along by early orthodox Christians from one generation to another which we find preserved in text in those books we now call “the canon”.
I say that to say this: we cannot dismiss things like (a) some sort of apostolic succession to orthodox bishops like Polycarp or Irenaeus, (2) a rule of faith that was available through this succession orally that preserved the core of the faith even when no canon was available, and (2) a high Pneumatology that suggest that we can trust the canon’s fidelity because we trust that the Holy Spirit would “lead you into all truth”. This means that forming orthodoxy on the basis of Scripture alone void of any tradition seems impossible to me since we would not have Scripture without the assistance of tradition!
To return to the discussion with my Oneness friends. I know you reject the doctrine of the Trinity because you think it was developed by the early church and because it is not “in Scripture”. I disagree that it is not in Scripture. I think the principle doctrine is there and the Creeds give us the best language for formulating the Scriptural data. That being said how can you appeal to the canon which formed in a very similar way to the doctrine of the Trinity? It is very ironic to me that the great Bishop Athanasius of Alexander, a champion of the Nicene Creed, is the first one to circulate in written form the twenty-seven books of the New Testament that we call authoritative today. How can he be seen as corrupt in his defense of an orthodox doctrine of God that argued to be in line with the tradition passed from the apostles yet there be no doubt he got this canon thing correctly? That seems a bit misguided to me. Did the Holy Spirit guide the church to correctly understand those doctrines that were essential to her being such as the doctrine of God and the doctrine of Scripture or not?
See also: A Catholic critique of Sola Scriptura.
the archives near Emmaus 
I agree with a lot of your reasoning, but I don’t see how this supports the doctrine of Sola Scriptura – if anything it’s saying it is not logically consistent!
Nick,
Actually, I am not defending Sola Scriptura! If anything I think it needs qualifications. At best, we can say that the canon formed when formed presents to “Constitution” of the church. But we must acknowledge how this Constitution was formed.
Sola Scriptura makes me uncomfortable too, mostly because of its logical outcome (thousands of denominations). I don’t know I could ever shake it completely though. It’s so wired into to how I think (indeed most of the Church cultures have merely assumed it with no articulation). The Orthodox and Catholoc positions are both appealing to me.
I think it’s important here to recognize what sola scriptura means. The reformers never intended to say that Scripture was our only source for theological understanding. All of the reformers continued to engage earlier theologians and church tradition as an important source of theological knowledge. What they wanted to say was that scripture alone was the final authority in all theological matters. Although there can be multiple sources of knowledge, they must all be placed in submission to scripture. So, there’s absolutely nothing inherently inconsistent in affirming both sola scriptura and church tradition as long as they are rightly related.
Maybe Jorge was suggesting that Trinitarians are more committed to HOC-Historic Orthodox Christianity (to borrow the acronym of Sabin) than sola Scriptura — in other words creeds, confessions, and theological or philosophical reflections take precedence. This is the argument that Trinitarianism arises from dogma and history rather than the Scriptures itself. Metzger has some very interesting remarks on this as well in his Oxford Companion to The Bible:
“When we call Jesus God, it must be carefully nuanced: Jesus is not all that God is. He is the incarnation of that aspect of the divine being which is God going forth from himself in reactive, revelatory, and saving activity. In terms of later dogma, he is the incarnation of the Second, not of the First, person of the Trinity.” The Oxford Companion to the Bible pg. 363
Brian –
I think this is worth noting. It’s a real hard one, though. Sometimes, I want to not be a fundamental biblicist, but at least look to base more of our language in what Scripture says, careful to not coin all these other terms. The doctrine of the Trinity takes a lot of effort to build and defend. I am not here to bash it, as I hold to it. But sticking to biblical language might just be easier than all this other stuff. But they fought hard in those days to protect from heresy, and that is an important part of our faith.
I do believe doctrinal development is worth noting as well. I believe the Holy Spirit has been and will continue to be completely active. I even believe He gives revelation today (see my recent blog article – http://wp.me/pp5z1-AN). We don’t need to put it into the canon, as the canon is the ultimate testimony of the redemptive revelation summed up in Christ. There is nothing to add to that. But He still speaks and reveals today, as our lives and situations (small & big) are not written out in Scripture. It was always His plan. Always!
As for sola scriptura, I think Marc shares what most sola scriptura proponents would say. Scripture is not the only source, but it is the final source/measuring stick. I’m ok with that, but practically, it can make it easy to be ‘people of the book’ (in an unhelpful way) rather than ‘people of the Spirit’. I think we are ultimately called to be the latter, though one of the ways the Spirit helps us be so is through the theopneustos Scriptures.
Ok, long comment. Whew!
Alex: I find both attractive as well though there are other aspects of Catholicism and Orthodoxy that will prevent me from seriously considering these two expressions any time soon. I wish there was a middle ground.
Marc: I can comprehend the Reformer’s view when I think of the canon as a Constitution of sorts. My problem is that the Oneness Pentecostals I have been in dialog with seem to act as if the church began to fall into corruption around AD 101. If this is so how can we trust the canon? The very people that formed our constituting documents by the guidance of the Spirit also provided the language that we use to speak of God from the Christian perspective. My challenge to them is why do they seek to have their cake and eat it too, or, how can they reject the post-apostolic church as corrupt, especially as relates to the doctrine of the Trinity, while accepting the documents they determined captured the “rule of faith” that had been passed down from generation to generation.
James: I understand that but our canon is dogma! I just don’t see this as consistent. If the Spirit failed to guide the church post-100 AD in so many areas as OP’s suggest (nature of God, baptism, the nature of the infilling of the Spirit, etc) how did the canon escape corruption?
We are on more solid a surface if we realize that the early Christian Creeds use the best language to capture the rule of faith passed down generation to generation (yes, some changes in language and expression) and that the canon was determined by the church, via the guidance of the Spirit, to be the early documents that capture and express this rule of faith best.
Scott: What do you see as being the qualitative difference between canonical and modern “revelation”?
Brian,
What about the Anglican church for middle ground?
JohnDave,
Honestly, I can’t find myself submitting to a bishopric based in the UK while ignoring more ancients sees if I were to find myself in an episcopal system. If I can find a way to stay free-church(ish) evangelical, I will, but that may just be because I am such an individualist!
Brian,
Well, then, you should just form your own religion! 😀
John,
At CLC I was voted most likely to do just that. But isn’t that the nature of modern Protestantism? We all are just forming it for ourselves?!!! 🙂
Brian –
Well, I believe that we could categorise revelation in 2 categories, though I would use these loosely (some might want to pick holes at it). There is 1) redemptive revelation and 2) non-redemptive revelation. There is no new redemptive revelation because Christ is the final word on that. But there is new non-redemptive revelation, in that God has continued to speak all throughout history, revealing Himself, and our present lives and situations are not in Scripture, and so He continues to speak, reveal and guide into such situations.
I would also say Scripture, as a measuring stick, testifies to the full and final redemptive revelation and message in Christ and the gospel. And, again, that aspect of revelation is closed. But it also has non-redemptive revelation, i.e. the prophecies of Agabus. And we see that God even speaks outside of Scripture with the prophecies we read that were given to Timothy in 1 Tim 1:18-19.
I hope that gives a little more info from my standpoint.
Scott,
Makes sense to me. I like your categories. Very helpful.
Brian –
One more thing I generally teach about revelation and prophecy. I think you would be aware of the passage in Rev 19:10, really just the last statement – ‘For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.’
I would still argue, that whether or not something is classified as redemptive or non-redemptive revelation, it still testifies and centres in the reality of Jesus. Since it is the Spirit of Jesus that brings revelations and prophecies, it connects into the great redemptive revelation of God in Christ. But I also don’t believe that this means that each new revelation today has to somehow mention Jesus in a more ‘legalistic’ sense. I.e., God has recently revealed a message that Belgium needs to hear: God Is Alive. Belgium as a whole does not believe that. So, while that did not specifically have Jesus in that statement, it obviously is connected to the reality of Jesus Christ being proof of the aliveness of God. I was even reading Acts 1:3 this morning – He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs…
So those were just some more thoughts to share.
Scott: You said, “But sticking to biblical language might just be easier than all this other stuff.” Not really. When you consider that all the disputes were over “biblical language” then it becomes necessary to reach to language outside of the Bible for clarification. Everyone was quoting the same passages of Scripture; but they were all saying different things about them. It’s the nature of the beast.
Some Protestants have the notion that Catholics do not “believe” in the Bible, so they bring up Second Timothy 3:15-16 to support their belief of Sola Scriptura:“… from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”
Certainly Catholics believe in the Bible (Catholics put together the Bible!) but this verse does not really support the belief of Sola Scriptura; it does not say that scripture alone is an adequate guide to the faith For that matter, the whole Bible does not say that we should believe in the Bible alone, nor does it say which books are inspired by God. This is only one hole in the belief of Sola Scriptura; there are many more.
http://michael-boystown.blogspot.com/