Sola Scriptura - 9 November 2009 |
|
Here are the remaining questions for session 5 of the Guided Reading Course.
Douglas Wilson, ‘Sola Scriptura, Creeds, and Ecclesistical Authority’
Introductory note
‘Hyper-preterism’ (sometimes called ‘full preterism’ or [by its advocates] ‘consistent preterism’) refers strictly speaking to the view that all of the future-oriented texts in the Bible have now been fulfilled. In practice, it tends to describe the claim that all of the texts traditionally thought to refer to the general resurrection, final judgment and so on were in fact fulfilled with the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in AD 70. Hyper-preterism therefore entails (among other things) a denial of the traditional orthodox doctrines of the future bodily resurrection of believers, the final judgment, and so on.
Hyper-preterism must be carefully distinguished from ‘preterism’ (sometimes called ‘partial preterism’), which states that some, but not all, of the future-oriented texts in the Bible have already been fulfilled. For example, some preterists (such as evangelical NT scholar R. T. France) hold the perfectly respectable and orthodox view that Mark 13:1-31 was fulfilled in AD70. But only a hyper-preterist would make the heretical claim that 1 Corinthians 15:50-55 has already been fulfilled.
For more, see ‘What is preterism’ and ‘Objections to preterism’.
1. What, in Wilson’s view, is ‘the fundamental question’ (p. 256) to be addressed? Why (pp. 257ff.)? Do you agree?
2. Why can’t a hyper-preterist simply appeal to Scripture in his rejection of creedal eschatology (p. 258; cf. p. 265)?
3. Why is the tradition of the church particularly significant in the debate about hyper-preterism (p. 259)?
4. In what way(s) do hyper-preterists misunderstand the doctrine of sola Scriptura (p. 260ff.)? Why is this significant?
5. How might Wilson respond to the claim that his view would allow the church’s ‘traditional’ teaching to drift from generation to generation (pp. 265, 257)?
6. Does Wilson’s view of the authority of the church imply that the church is infallible (pp. 269, 280)? Why or why not?
7. ‘The positions adopted within modern evangelicalism actually are the same as Rome’s teaching’ (p. 279). What does Wilson mean by this? Do you agree?
8. ‘If we insist on individual “veto power” over all the creeds of men, we have not successfully gotten away from man-made creeds’ (p. 284). Why not? Do you agree?
Posted by Steve Jeffery · Topics: Guided Reading Course, Minister's Blog