"Fundamental Doctrines" Chuck Out Scriptural Sufficiency

The nature of the Bible is analagous to our American Constitution. The Constitution is the source of American law in our society, but that does not in any way undermine the real authority of judges and courts to interpret and apply the Constitution in individual cases. Ecumenical councils are the ecclesial equivalent of the Supreme Court, and the same principle applies down the line to more geographically limited councils and assemblies. Evangelicalism may on occasion give the deferential nod to the teaching office of the Church catholic, and allow its judgments some degree of consideration, but it then feels free to ignore such rulings if they should contradict what they think they see in their Greek New Testament. This is why Evangelicals feel free to call into question such fundamental doctrines as: the eternal generation of the Son and eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, Episcopal ecclesiology, baptismal regeneration and forgiveness, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, the sacrificial character and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the priestly nature of the ministry, and indeed the very notion of binding, authoritative Tradition at all. Modern Evangelicalism in all its chaotic variety (including its modern “Reformed” expressions) is the offspring of ecclesial anarchy.

The is in the context of Paul Owen’s discussion on 2 Timothy 3:16. I agree with him that Sola Scriptura is not Solo Scriptura. While the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the believer and in and of themselves sufficient for matters of doctrine and practice, they are not to be isolated from the context of the local church and the illumination of the Holy Spirit. However, Owen’s “Catholicity” causes him to venture in a direction that is simply not allowed in this passage. Owen the “Catholic Protestant” (or, according to Steve, the-papistical-syncretistic-mariolatrous-schismatic-Protestant) ends up rejecting Scriptural sufficiency in the above paragraph. According to Owen, “fundamental doctrines” are lost if the Scriptures are taken apart from a the “mediator of doctrine” of church councils. Yes, the Scriptures are meant to be applied by the Spirit in the church. But that does not mean that they do not sufficiently present all “fundamental doctrines” apart from the church. But note the “fundamental doctrines” that Owen lists. When Owen’s agenda is realized in reading this list, it becomes quite evident why he comes to reject Scriptural sufficiency.

The Scriptures do not even begin to present “fundamental doctrines” such as “the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, the sacrificial character and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the priestly nature of the ministry, and indeed the very notion of binding, authoritative Tradition.” But when your “Catholicity” has caused you to tightly grip onto such traditions of men, you will appeal to the authority that has you to keep such traditions, not the authority that rejects them. Owen’s starting point is not the Holy Scriptures. His starting point is the assumption that certain doctrines are necessarily “fundamental,” and if the Scriptures do not affirm such “fundamental doctrines,” they are not sufficient. His handling of 2 Timothy 3:16 is not exegetical one. Paul does not state, “The Scriptures are sufficient on all matters, except for when they fail to cover those doctrines which have already been considered ‘fundamental.’ At that point, they cease to be sufficient.” Because of Owen’s Catholic agenda, one more text of Scripture is grossly mishandled, and one more “Sola” of the Reformation is chucked to the ground.

Evan May.