#1015 - Michael Horton's Response to Me on Sola Scriptura (REBUTTED)
May 2, 2025
auto_awesome
In this discussion, Michael Horton, a Reformed theologian from Westminster Seminary California, critiques the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. They dive into historical perspectives, highlighting challenges to its claims rooted in early Church teachings. Horton examines Clement of Rome’s emphasis on oral traditions over written texts and Irenaeus’ defense of scripture against Gnosticism. The conversation grapples with the complexity of scripture and tradition, arguing for the necessity of communal interpretation in preserving theological integrity.
The absence of early Church Fathers' support for Sola Scriptura prior to Nicaea raises doubts about its historical validity.
The podcast emphasizes the essential role of tradition and the Church in preserving doctrinal authority, challenging the exclusivity of scripture as the sole rule of faith.
Deep dives
The Dilemma of Sola Scriptura
A significant challenge for Protestant beliefs arises from the claim that early Church Fathers endorsed Sola Scriptura, especially in the pre-Nicaean period. The argument highlights the absence of citations from early Fathers regarding this doctrine, noting that many Protestant apologists tend to reference the fourth to fifth centuries instead. This lack of witnesses before the Council of Nicaea raises the question of whether the doctrine can truly be traced back to the origins of the Church. Moreover, if early Christians upheld Sola Scriptura, they simultaneously adhered to Catholic teachings including the priesthood, the sacrifice of the mass, and the necessity of bishops, further complicating the Protestant stance.
Misinterpretation of Scriptural Evidence
The critique of Dr. Horton's interpretation of Scriptural passages calls into question his claims of Sola Scriptura's validity. Specific verses like Galatians 1:8 and 1 Corinthians 4:6 are presented as evidence, yet they are argued to not explicitly support the doctrine in question. The notion that the gospel serves as a complete rule of faith is challenged, emphasizing that these passages may lack connections to the idea of scripture being the sole authoritative source. The discussion reveals a critical distinction between the concepts of scripture's sufficiency and its exclusivity as the infallible rule of faith.
The Authority of Tradition and the Church
The necessity of the Church and tradition is underscored as vital for the preservation and interpretation of the faith. Early Church Fathers like Irenaeus and Jerome are cited for their emphasis on maintaining doctrinal authority not solely through scripture but through the continuity of tradition. This highlights a significant theological divide, suggesting that Sola Scriptura fails to account for the church's role in discerning and articulating doctrine. The argument culminates in the assertion that without an authoritative interpretative body, such as the Church, the potential for misinterpretation and chaos within Protestantism exists.