by CBTS Student | Apr 26, 2022 | New Testament, Old Testament
The doctrine of the threefold division of the law is central to a correct understanding of theology proper, protology, ethics, and soteriology. The threefold division of the law was, for most of church history, an agreed upon doctrine, as Phillip Ross points out, “Not uniquely Eastern or Western; Roman Catholic or Protestant; conservative or liberal; Patristic or Puritan; Thomist, Calvinist, or anything else; the threefold division of the law is catholic doctrine.”[1] However, today, it is a highly questioned and debated doctrine among modern Christians. The threefold division of the law is, in fact, biblical and it needs to be reaffirmed and reasserted.
The doctrine of the threefold division of the law teaches that God’s law, as revealed and given to the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai, can be and should be divided into three elements. These are the moral law, ceremonial law, and judicial law. Within this doctrine, it is further taught that the moral law, as revealed in the Ten Commandments, is perpetually binding and it existed before Sinai and continues to be the ethical standard for all people, including Christians. Our study, therefore, will begin not in the book of Exodus at Mount Sinai, but in the book of Genesis at the creation of the world.
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen.1:1) Before anything in our cosmos existed, before time and space, God was. He creates the world and all that is in it in six days for His glory. As the apex of His creation, God creates Man on day six. “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness…God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created Him; male and female He created them.” (Gen. 1:26–27). Commenting on this verse Richard Barcellos states, “In this text, whatever ‘image of God’ means, it is what man is, not what man possesses.”[2] So what does it mean to be created in the image of God? Subsequent divine revelation on this topic will be of much help. Ecclesiastes 7:29 says, “Behold, I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices.” This is helpful as it shows that, “Man was originally holy. He had integrity of soul. He was righteous… Creation imago Dei included moral integrity.”[3] So, Man is created morally perfect but to what standard of morality? Again, further subsequent divine revelation will be of aid in answering this question. Romans 2:14–15 says, “For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them.” God’s law is the standard. This is where the terms moral law, natural law, and positive law become crucial in our discussion on this topic.
The moral law of God is “God’s bedrock standard of morality and holiness, that is a reflection of his moral character, therefore unchanging.”[4] As Herman Bavinck has said,
The moral law as such is not an arbitrary positive law but a law grounded in the nature of God himself…In maintaining the law, God maintains himself and vice versa. It is therefore unbreakable and inviolable. It bears this character throughout the Scriptures; our Own conscience bears witness to it; and the entire so-called moral world order, with its phenomena of responsibility, sense of duty, guilt, repentance, dread, remorse, punishment, and so on, is based on this inviolability.[5]
God’s moral law is a reflection of His character and we as humans, created in his image, are to live in accordance to that. This is where natural law comes in and it is defined as, “In substance the same as the Moral Law of God, but specifically refers to the work of God’s moral law impressed upon the heart of mankind and is related to his being made in God’s image.”[6] Finally, the last definition to consider is that of positive law. Positive law is “laws that God adds, out of His own free will, that aren’t inherently good or evil, and tied to a specific covenant.”[7]
We see all of these laws playing out in the first few chapters of Genesis. The infinite triune personal God creates the universe in six days and rests on the seventh day and blesses and sanctifies it. He also writes His perfect moral law on the heart of His human image-bearer and then places him in the Garden of Eden and gives him a positive law to obey on top of the natural law. This positive law was the command found in Genesis 2:16–17 which says, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” When Adam disobeys God and eats of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not only does he disobey God’s positive law but also his moral law.
As we will see, this moral law is summed up in the Ten Commandments given at Mount Sinai and each one of them was broken in the fall as Adam transgressed and ate the fruit. The 1st commandment was broken in the eating of the fruit because Adam was unbelieving and self-seeking. The 2nd was broken because he tolerated false religion coming from the serpent. The 3rd was broken because Adam did not reverently uphold God’s words. The 4th was broken because his violation kept him from entering his eternal Sabbath rest. The 5th was broken because Adam dishonored God his Father. The 6th was broken because he caused the curse of death to fall upon himself and his wife and all those who would come after him. The 7th was broken because he did not protect his marriage from harm and was spiritually adulterous towards God. The 8th was broken because he permitted his wife to steal the fruit. The 9th was broken when he failed to speak the truth about God when God’s goodness was questioned. The 10th was broken when he coveted the fruit.[8] Even after the Fall, we see the 10 commandments repeated or broken and judged in some way even before Mount Sinai. The 1st (Gen. 15:7, Gn. 17:1, Ex. 3:6) the 2nd (Gen. 35:2,4, Job 31:27-28) the 3rd (Gen. 12:3, Job 1:5) 4th (Exod. 16:23,30) the 5th (Gen. 9:18-29, Gen. 27:43) the 6th (Gen. 4:8,10, Exod. 1:15–17) the 7th (Gen. 19:24–25, Job 31:1) the 8th (Gen. 30:33, Gen. 44:8–9) the 9th (Gen. 4:9, Job 24:25) and the 10th (Gen. 20:18, Exod. 18:21).[9]
As we move on to Mount Sinai and the Mosaic law a summary from Ross on what was just discussed above would be helpful. He states that “From the beginning, law was written on the heart of man. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.”[10] This is in line with what the Apostle John says in 1 John 3:4 where he says, “sin is the transgression of the law.” When God delivers the Israelites from bondage in Egypt and brings them to Mount Sinai to make a covenant with them, He gives them the Mosaic Law, which contains the moral law, in order to govern and set apart his holy nation. As we will see this law was added “because of transgression, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.” (Gal. 3:19)
In Exodus chapter 19 the people of Israel approach Mount Sinai and the LORD comes down and then in Exodus 20 thunders out the Ten Commandments to them. Ross remarks,
Unlike other ancient societies where the law is ‘a human construct,’ Israel’s law is divine speech. This, according to Nicholson, gives ‘theological and apologetic significance to the direct transmission of the Decalogue to Israel… It was a testimony also to his holiness and wholly otherness.[11]
This is important, as the Decalogue clearly is placed in a separate category from the rest of the laws given to Israel in the Mosaic Law. It is placed first amongst the rest of the ordinances given, it alone is written by the finger of God on stone tablets, it is also placed in the ark of the covenant distinct from the other laws, and it is the bases for all the other laws that come after it.[12] In Exodus 21-23 the judicial laws are given and then in Exodus 25 and onward the ceremonial laws are added.[13] It is interesting to note that “the Decalogue is distinctive from the rest of the Mosaic Code by virtue of its antecedence. It is distinctive because it is not a distinct historical development.”[14] This is what we have seen above. The Decalogue, though not totally identical to the moral law, is a codified summary of that universal law that reflects God’s nature and is binding on all His creatures before the fall, after the fall, and before Sinai, and after Sinai. Again, by what standard would God be using before the flood when He rightly judges that “the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Gen. 6:5)?
The remaining laws given in the Pentateuch, according to the doctrine of the threefold division of the law, can be classified as ceremonial or judicial. We see these distinctions clearly in two places in Deuteronomy, the first in chapter 4 verses 13 to 14, and secondly in chapter 6 in verse 1. The first section says,
So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone. The Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might perform them in the land where you are going over to possess it. (Dt. 4:13-14)
Here we see the distinction between the Ten Commandments and the “statutes and judgments.”
And in Deuteronomy 6:1 we read, “Now this is the commandment, the statutes and the judgments which the Lord your God has commanded me to teach you, that you might do them in the land where you are going over to possess it.” Thomas Aquinas sees in these three words; commandment, statute, and judgment, the division of the law into moral, civil, and ceremonial.[15] The ceremonial laws, or statutes, were about purity and sacrifice and the ritual aspects of the worship of God and the building and functioning of the tabernacle which were patterned after heavenly realities.[16] Whereas the civil laws, or judgments, were “to be observed ‘within the land’ (Deut. 4:5, 14; 5:31, 6:1; 12:1). No such qualifications apply to the laws about sacrifice or purity.”[17] These civil and ceremonial laws are positive laws and they are attached to Israel’s life in the land and their tabernacle/temple worship. There is, however, a needed and helpful qualification given by Ross when he says, “There may be overlap between those categories in the Pentateuch, but the threefold division allows such overlap and broadly reflects those distinguishing features.”[18]
When we come to the New Testament, we see similar distinctions made within the Mosaic Law by Jesus and His Apostles. Jesus, Himself seems to primarily equate commandments with the Decalogue, (Matt. 15:1-20; Lk. 19:16-30; Lk. 18:18-30)[19]. He emphasizes mercy and not sacrifice, (Matt. 9:13) and in the fifth chapter of Matthew’s gospel, in the sermon on the mount, Jesus provides a deeper and broader application of the Decalogue. In this section, Jesus says, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” There is much to discuss with this statement and it is beyond the scope of this paper to deal with the debate surrounding this verse, however, I agree with Ross’ view of Jesus fulfilling the law when he says, “Jesus fulfills the law and the prophets in his person and teaching, by his obedience, and in all that he does to actualize them in his followers. His fulfillment is eschatological, soteriological, and moral…”[20] This is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Jeremiah 31 of the coming new covenant. By his active obedience, Jesus perfectly obeys the whole law and produces a perfect righteousness that he is able to impute to His people. By His passive obedience, He dies the death and pays the debt He did not owe, being the sacrificial lamb that takes away the sin of the world, thereby procuring forgiveness of sins. He raises from the dead on the third day and ascends on high and pours out the Holy Spirit on His people. The Spirit enables His people to walk in newness of life and with the law written on their hearts, they walk in Spirit-filled obedience to it, bearing fruit unto God.
In light of all of this, we see the Apostles bring further clarity to the subject of the threefold division of the law. As regards ceremonial laws, they have been fulfilled in Christ and are not something Christians are to continue to observe. We see this clearly in the book of Hebrews, Colossians, Ephesians, and Galatians, where the ceremonial laws are referred to as copies and shadows and ordinances that Christ has abolished in his flesh. As Robert Reymond comments concerning Galatians and 1 Corinthians:
Here Paul exhorts Christians to understand that ‘circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts [ἀλλὰ τήρησις ἐντολῶν θεοῦ]’. He says essentially the same thing in Galatians 5:6 when he writes: ‘In Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love,’ love being viewed here as active obedience to God’s commandments. Contrary to what most studies have concluded, by setting circumcision, which was itself a ceremonial command of God, in contrast to the ‘commandments of God’ (ἐντολῶν θεοῦ), as he does in 1 Corinthians 7:19, Paul distinguishes here between the ethical and the ceremonial, that is, between the permanent and the temporary aspects of the Law, insisting on the essentiality of keeping God’s moral law while at the same time insisting on the non-essentiality and insignificance of keeping the ceremonial law.[21]
Christ has obeyed the ceremonial law for us as our federal head, so as a Christian, in regard to the ceremonial law, I agree with Martyn Lloyd-Jones when declares “But seeing it all fulfilled and carried out in Him, I say I am fulling it all by believing in Him and by subjecting myself to Him. That is the position with regard to the ceremonial law.”[22]
When it comes to the judicial/civil laws, the NT teaching on ceremonial and moral law produces by default this category of civil law for the remaining parts of the Mosaic code. These too have been changed in a sense. Christ fulfills the prophecy in Genesis 49, which says “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet Until Shiloh comes,” the Messiah’s coming had an impact on Judah’s status as lawgiver and ruler.[23] Ross adds more helpful commentary by adding,
When Emmanual causes the law to be written on the hearts of ‘disciples of all nations, then the law has now permanently breached the borders of Israel. Unless the Messiah had defined his reign as rule over a new global super-state, then whatever portion of the law specifically regulated Judah’s body politic no longer had the same function…the ‘statues and ordinances’ that were to be obeyed ‘in the land’ had now fulfilled what Galatians describes as their protective and tutelary role (Gal. 3:19, 24). This approach is reflected throughout the epistles in three ways: submission to secular authorities, memorial and foretoken in judicial laws, and the application of general equity.[24]
We see this in Paul and Peter’s commands to obey rulers and all them that are in authority, (Rom. 13; 1 Pet. 2) for the gospel had to go into a multitude of different cultures and contexts and the church had to be able to function under different governments and societies without demanding political change. We also see this general equity principle in 1 Corinthians 9 and 1 Timothy 5:18-19 where Paul applies the principles behind animal husbandry laws and criminal witness laws to the church in terms of providing for elders and protecting them from false witnesses. In addition to all of this we see the Decalogue, (the moral law) reaffirmed and assumed by the Apostles to be still in force and still the ethical standard for Christians, as Reymond points out:
Paul and the other New Testament writers also allude to every commandment in some one place or other in their letters to the churches: the first, second, and third commandments lie behind many of the statements in Romans 1:21–30, 2:22, 1 Corinthians 6:9, Ephesians 5:5, Colossians 3:5, James 2:7, 19, and Revelation 21:7; the fourth commandment lies behind the designation of the first day of the week—the Christian’s day of worship—as ‘the Lord’s day’ (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor 16:2, and Rev 1:10; cf. Isa 58:13);the fifth commandment lies behind statements in Romans 1:30, Ephesians 6:2–3, Colossians 3:20, and 1 Timothy 1:9;the sixth commandment lies behind statements in Romans 1:29, 13:9, 1 Timothy 1:9–10, James 2:11, 1 John 3:15, and Revelation 21:8;the seventh commandment lies behind statements in Romans 2:22, 13:9, 1 Corinthians 6:9, Ephesians 5:3, 1 Thessalonians 4:3, 1 Timothy 1:10, James 2:11, Revelation 21:8; the eighth commandment lies behind statements in Romans 2:21, 13:9, 1 Corinthians 6:10, Ephesians 4:28, 1 Timothy 1:10;the ninth commandment lies behind statements in Romans 13:9, Ephesians 4:25, Colossians 3:9, 1 Timothy 1:10, and Revelation 21:8; and the tenth commandment lies behind statements in Romans 1:29; 7:7–8, 13:9, 1 Corinthians 6:10, Galatians 5:26, Ephesians 5:5, Colossians 3:5, and Hebrews 13:5.[25]
From the Old Testament to the New Testament we see God’s moral law as the foundation for ethics and in the plan of redemption further laws were added to bring about the nation which would produce the Messiah who would redeem people from every nation, tribe and tongue. The doctrine of the three-fold division of the law is essential in understanding how God’s moral requirements for His creatures is applied throughout the history of redemption. As we have seen the Mosaic Law is not one indivisible unit that is totally done away with, but it is actually tripartite and it was made so for God’s plan of redemption, and His antecedent universal law moral law was the foundation for it, and that moral law continues to bind all.
Author
Nick Mattei has served for many years in different homeless-youth ministries, evangelistic outreaches and abortion outreaches since becoming a Christian in 2014. He is currently an MDiv student at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary following the call on his life to become a pastor. He is currently a member of Oakridge Community Church in Stillwater Minnesota.
Nick and his beautiful wife Holli live in Bloomington, Minnesota. He enjoys hiking, hunting, clean eating, and wholesome music, but when all is said and done, Nick enjoys nothing more than to sit and talk with people about the Scriptures and the scope of Scriptures which is the person and work of the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ.
[1] Phillip S. Ross, From the Finder of God (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications Ltd, 2010),
[2] Richard C. Barcellos, Getting the Garden Right (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2017), 120.
[3] Ibid, 121.
[4] Jon English Lee, “The Decalogue & Sabbath in Redemptive History” (Lectures given at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, Owensboro, KY, May 22-26th, 2020).
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Phillip S. Ross, From the Finder of God (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications Ltd, 2010), 6.
[11] Ibid, 82.
[12] Samuel E. Waldron A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (Welwyn Garden City, UK: EP Books, 1989), 282.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Phillip S. Ross, From the Finder of God (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2010), 80.
[15] Ibid, 106-107.
[16] Ibid, 113.
[17] Ibid, 114.
[18] Ibid, 115.
[19] Ibid, 193.
[20] Ibid, 202.
[21] R. L. Reymond, Paul, Missionary Theologian (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2000), 477.
[22] D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976), 170.
[23] Phillip S. Ross, From the Finder of God (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications Ltd, 2010), 297.
[24] Ibid, 298.
[25] R. L. Reymond, Paul, Missionary Theologian (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2000), 479.
This blog post is authored by a student of Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary.
by Rexford Semrad | Apr 21, 2022 | Apologetics, Social Media
An Irenic Clarification
Some public responses to Dr. Waldron’s recent blog post, “Do We Still Believe in Sola Scriptura?” (( https://cbtseminary.org/do-we-still-believe-in-sola-scriptura-sam-waldron/ )) have demonstrated a misunderstanding of both the purpose of the article and the main point of the article. This article was not in any way intended to be an attack on any particular person or group of people. That was the main reason for not providing the sources for the various quotes he gave. The issue here is statements, not personalities. The question is not whether or not those who made these statements believe in Sola Scriptura, but whether or not these particular statements are truly compatible with Sola Scriptura. We do not believe that any of those who made these statements are deliberately trying to undermine this foundational doctrine. We do, however, find these statements troubling. I hope what follows will help to clarify why. (Some statements have been shortened in order to clarify the exact portion of the statement that seems problematic.)
Statement 1
Semper Reformanda … does not mean changing doctrine, but it means applying the doctrine to our lives. It is a clarion call to a vital experiential understanding of the truth in the lives of Christ’s sheep. So, it’s not changing our doctrine, but applying the doctrine that we already know to be biblical.
Context:
This statement was made a number of years ago in a lecture on confessionalism which we really appreciated overall. It appeared in the context of pointing out that some have seemingly attempted to use Semper Reformanda to undermine the confessional position of an association of churches. We agree fully that such use is improper. But we find this statement to be an overreaction.
Problem:
The statement has the appearance of making the doctrine of the confession beyond the possibility of reformation, as the only thing that can be further reformed is our application of doctrine. The principle of the matter is the issue here. If Scripture is authoritative over all doctrinal statements, those statements must be seen as reformable, should Scripture call for it. The Congregationalists “reformed” the Westminster Confession and the result is the Savoy Declaration. The London Baptists further “reformed” those Confessions and the result is the 2LBC. We do not believe that the Holy Spirit is incapable of shedding further light from Scripture on these documents that would call for further reformation.
Clarification:
We are not calling for the amendment of any doctrine in the 2LBC. We just want to be clear that Scripture is in every way authoritative over any such document and fear that the idea that all doctrine contained therein is above the very possibility of reformation undermines that authority. We recognize that the terminology of Semper Reformanda did not originate in the reformation and that it has been abused by some. But we use it as a representation of a truth held by the reformers and Puritans alike, that all human documents are subject to the authority of Scripture. We desire to say no more than Bavinck when he wrote, “And, finally, the confessions do not impede a growth in knowledge but keep it in the right course of development, and they are themselves to be checked and revised against the Holy Scriptures as the only norm of faith. Such examination and review can take place at any time, though it must be done in warranted and legitimate ways.” (( Herman Bavinck, The Wonderful Works of God (Westminster Seminary Press, 2019), 103 ))
Statement 2
“Everything necessary for the Christian life is found in the Bible. But not every detail of the faith is there.”
Context:
This statement is found in an online review (( https://www.thelondonlyceum.com/book-review-the-failure-of-natural-theology/ )) of Jeff Johnson’s book The Failure of Natural Theology. The author is in no way purposefully attempting to undermine the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. But we’ve spoken with both Thomists and non-Thomists alike who find the statement problematic.
Problem:
As the author of the statement notes, “2LCF 1.1 confesses the following: ‘The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience…’”
A short analysis of this pithy expression of Sola Scriptura may clarify the issue. The basic statement is: Holy Scripture is the rule. Rule is first modified by four adjectives, only, sufficient, certain, and infallible. We take this to mean that Scripture is the only sufficient rule, the only certain rule, and the only infallible rule. Rule is further modified by “of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience.” We take this to mean that Scripture is the only sufficient rule, the only certain rule, and the only infallible rule for all saving knowledge, for all faith, and for all obedience. So to the point at hand, Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule for faith.
If Scripture is the rule for all faith, then the statement that “not every detail of the faith is there” is problematic. If a doctrine is not derived either explicitly or implicitly from Scripture, it is not the faith.
Clarification:
We do not deny that our confession of faith serves as a subordinate rule of faith. We only mean to stress that it is indeed subordinate to Scripture at every point. It may be the case that the author of this statement is simply including such things as “circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence” (2LBC 1:6) in his definition of the faith. If this is the case we are simply working with differing definitions of “the faith.” Again, we are not seeking to discredit the author of this statement by insisting he meant something he did not intend. The point is simply this: if we are referring to the faith once for all delivered to the saints, every article of it must be either explicitly or implicitly derived from Scripture.
Statement 3
“Heresy is a belief that contradicts, denies, or undermines a doctrine that an ecumenical church council has declared biblical and essential to Christianity.”
Context:
This statement appears in the book Simply Trinity, by Mathew Barrett. Dr. Waldron found a great many aspects of this book helpful and necessary and is not implying that Dr. Barrett is willfully undermining Sola Scriptura.
Problem:
The problem is defining heresy as contradicting, denying, or undermining an ecumenical church council, rather than contradicting, denying, or undermining Scripture. For one thing, how would we condemn many of the errors found in Trent? What ecumenical council would we point to in order to condemn transubstantiation as heresy? Do we need an ecumenical council in order to condemn the doctrine of Mary as co-mediatrix? Yes, contradicting, denying, or undermining the Nicene Creed is indeed heresy, but not by virtue of the fact that the Creed came from an ecumenical council, but by virtue of the fact that the Nicene Creed accurately sets forth the teaching of Scripture.
Clarification:
Perhaps this statement was not meant to be a full definition of heresy. Our point is simply that it should not be considered the full definition. If no Reformed theologian considers this a full definition, we praise God.
Statement 4
When pressed on the lack of biblical evidence for this (doctrine usually today associated with Roman Catholicism), he insinuated that I was being a biblicist. I said that our doctrine should come both implicitly and explicitly from Scripture, he said some of our doctrine comes from outside of Scripture.
Context:
This comes from a conversation between three friends of mine, all of whom I consider to be faithful brethren who are faithfully serving our risen Lord.
Problem:
The issue is the same as statement 2 above. If Scripture is our rule of faith, what doctrine must we hold that is neither explicitly nor implicitly derived from it? Can a doctrine that is neither explicit nor implicit in Scripture be considered biblical doctrine?
Clarification:
I dearly love all the men who were in this conversation and in no way desire to alienate any of them. That doesn’t change the fact that I don’t believe that the idea that some doctrine comes from outside of Scripture comports with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
Statement 5
Thomas Aquinas held Sola Scriptura.
Context:
Because Thomas demonstrably had a high view of Scripture, some have concluded that he held to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
Problem:
- While Thomas Aquinas made statements that appear to support Sola Scriptura like, “The reason is that only canonical Scripture is a measure of faith.” He also made statements such as, “The Apostles, led by the inward stirring of the Holy Ghost, handed down to the churches certain instructions which they did not leave in writing, but which have been ordained in accordance with the observance of the Church as practiced by the faithful as time went on. Therefore the Apostle says: ‘STAND FAST, AND HOLD THE TRADITIONS WHICH YOU HAVE LEARNED, WHETHER BY WORD’ — that is by word of mouth — ‘OR BY OUR EPISTLE’ — that is by word put into writing (2 Thess 2:15) ….” which demonstrate his belief in oral tradition as equally authoritative.
- To ascribe the doctrine of Sola Scriptura to someone who held church tradition as well as Scripture as equally authoritative demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura.
Clarification:
Dr. Waldron did not conclude or imply that therefore there is nothing useful in Aquinas, that all of his writings should be categorically dismissed, or anything else of that nature. Rather, two conclusions should be drawn: 1. If one’s definition of Sola Scriptura does not exclude Thomas, that definition is not really Sola Scriptura. 2. Aquinas must be read with great discernment. The fact that the theologian you are reading did not consistently hold to Sola Scriptura (contradicting it in multiple places) must be kept in mind when you read him.
Conclusion:
Hopefully we have been able to clarify why we are convinced that such statements are a danger to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I sincerely hope no one continues to have the idea that we are accusing some group of theologians of deliberately undermining the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. If that had been the case, we would have named names and tried to prove that they were all associated with that group.
Our desire moving forward with this conversation would be to see interaction with the statements in question. Perhaps you agree with the statements but don’t think they actually undermine Sola Scriptura. Perhaps you are convinced that Sola Scriptura is not as important as we’re making it out to be. It would be most helpful if those who still disagree with Dr. Waldron after reading this clarification would take the time to explain why they do not find these statements as troubling as we do.
We find this clarification necessary because we have witnessed the way some have misinterpreted his statements, misunderstood his purpose, and attributed intentions to him that he did not have. Our desire is for irenic discussion by which we may be of mutual benefit to one another.
The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.
-rex
Rexford Semrad has served as an administrator at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary since 2015. He is married to his wife of 32 years, Marion, and has 8 children. He is a member of Grace Reformed Baptist Church of Owensboro, KY where he serves as a Deacon and a Gifted Brother. Among other things, Rex particularly enjoys theology, hot sauce and Church history.
by Tom Nettles | Apr 19, 2022 | Practical Theology
Daniel’s prayer of repentance and intercession in Daniel 9 gives quite a remarkable lesson in how to pray and for what to pray. Daniel, as was his habit, had been reading and meditating on Scripture as he had it. His reading of Jeremiah prompted this prayer. As he looked at the prophecy in Jeremiah in 25:11-13, he was drawn to lift before the Lord the truth of Scripture in God’s covenantal dealings with his people. Now in captivity for about seventy years, Daniel was reminded that not only were the seventy years prophesied but the destruction of the kingdom of the Chaldeans.
That Daniel regularly studied the Scripture as he had it and based his worship and prayers on that truth is seen in the words, “I, Daniel, observed in the books.” What he observed was a prediction that “these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” Then words of devastating judgment —the “fierce anger” of the Lord—against the nations that had been party to the captivity of Judah and the destruction of the land were also a part of Jeremiah’s message and thus of Daniel’s prayer.
These books, now written and having become Scripture, he accounted as “the word of the Lord” (Daniel 9:2). The witness to written revelation is pervasive throughout Scripture. In this passage Daniel refers also to “His teachings which He has set before us through His servants the prophets,” and “the oath which is written in the law of Moses the servant of God,” and again, “as it is written in the law of Moses” (Daniel 9:10, 11, 13).
We hold the same conviction that Daniel did about this inscripturated text. The immediate revelations given to prophets and apostles, chroniclers and kings, were written for our instruction even as they instructed Daniel and led him to prayer. Paul refers to the constant stream of rebellion among the rescued people of Israel and the judgments that came on them as having been “written down for our instruction.” (1 Corinthians 10:11-13). Even though the “end of the ages” had now appeared in the person and work of Jesus Christ, still instruction from those things written in the Old Testament were relevant. Paul drew inspired doctrinal principles from those examples and urged them on the Corinthians: “Therefore, let anyone who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man.”
Joshua 1:8 reports, “This book of the Law” set before Joshua was worthy of his meditation day and night. With only the first five books given at that time, of how much stouter sobriety should we receive the admonition. A former colleague of mine, and dear friend, was persuaded that Joshua wrote Psalm 119. It stands, therefore, if such is true, of the great blessing that comes to the soul in such a meditation on the word, law, precepts, statutes, judgments, commandments, testimonies, wonders, ordinances, righteousness, and lovingkindness of God as manifest in that initial biblical canon. As it did with Daniel, scripture revelation when believed as an object of serious reflection and meditation gives rise to repentance, request, and worship informed by eternal truth.
Paul had no doubt that the word he received in his gospel ministry was indeed revealed truth, the very word of God, that came to him “through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal 1:12). The Thessalonians received his preaching “not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers” (1 Thes 2:13). He also affirmed that his spoken word and his written word were equally revelation handed down by God: “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter” (2 Thes 2:15). For Paul as for Daniel, and Joshua, the word stood not only as a statement of unerring truth but as a power for transformation and informed worship: “not in word only but in power: … which is at work in you believers” (1 Thes 1:5; 2:13).
Revelation 22:18, 19 gives a severe warning implying the necessity of hearing and heeding the “words of this book.” It is a legitimate conclusion that this refers to the whole of the completed canon of Scripture revealed, inspired, infallible, and sufficient to inform and guide our lives in this world and to light the path into eternal life.
Dr. Tom Nettles is widely regarded as one of the foremost Baptist historians in America. He joined the faculty of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary after teaching at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School where he was professor of Church History and chairman of that department. Previously, he taught at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary. He received a B.A. from Mississippi College and an M.Div. and Ph.D. from Southwestern. In addition to writing numerous journal articles and scholarly papers, Dr. Nettles has authored or edited nine books including By His Grace and For His Glory, Baptists and the Bible, and Why I Am a Baptist.
Courses taught: Historical Theology of the Baptists, Historical Theology Overview, Jonathan Edwards & Andrew Fuller.
