Joshua Schooping is an Eastern Orthodox priest. He has written a few interesting volumes, including a work on the Eastern Orthodox approach to presuppositionalism and that of the apologetic methodology of Irenaeus of Lyons. In this volume, he offers the following critique of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura:
Keith Mathison, a Protestant
defenders of sola scriptura states: “Roman Catholic and Orthodox
apologists have been effective in their criticisms in large part because of the
fact that most Protestants have adopted a subjective and individualistic
version of sola scriptura that bears little resemblance to the doctrine of the
Reformers” (Keith Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura [Moscow, ID:
Canon Press, 2001], 14). One presupposition here is that “the doctrine of the
Reformers” is able to carry any type of authority, for he is clearly
stating that something ought to resemble their doctrine, that they represent
some type of group who maintained the proper conclusion. Why else refer to it?
Without the Reformers as a type of standard, all that is left in his personal
exegetical and rhetorical prowess. Clearly, Mathison is appealing to tradition.
Doctrine is intrinsically
interpretive in nature, and in this way the very notion of doctrine itself
presupposes tradition, and in his case Reformed tradition, for tradition is the
only thing that can sustain doctrine. Without tradition there is no mechanism
for maintaining the ”implicit” doctrines of Scripture. The complain that sola
scriputra unjustly collapses into some type of solo scriptura is
therefore a complain that the Reformed position, i.e. tradition, equally open
to debate, is failing to be mtained properly. He thus will seek to go back to
history and Scripture in order to persuade his readers that the traditional Reformed
doctrine is the right reading of Scripture. If he states that the Church is
authoritative, that historic orthodoxy is binding, then he is clearly suffering
form an attempt at trying to both have his cake and eat it, too, to both secure
all the benefits of tradition while at the same time denying both the authority
of tradition and the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church’s ability to
make authoritative and binding statements of faith. Even the doctrine of sola
scriptura is itself a tradition, along with the other four “solas.”
A supremely
authoritative object requires a supremely authoritative view. Neopatristic
presuppositionalism therefore exposes the inadequacy of, and provides the
needed correction to, Reformed presuppositionalism. It asserts both the supreme
authority of the Scriptures while at the same time holding for the Church’s
supreme interpretive authority of these Scriptures. It also provides ground for
faith in the Church’s doctrine, and a context in which the Scriptures can be
interpreted in consistently faithful, rather than ceaselessly fractioning,
ways. Orthodox Presuppositionalism answers the question: By what authority is
an interpretation of Scripture maintained? (Joshua Schooping, Irenaeus
and Orthodox Apologetic Methodology: A Neopatristic Presuppositionalism [2017],
92-94)
I have written much on the topic of Sola Scriptura (though contra one ex-Mo who should get a refund on his M. Div as he clearly did not learn much, it is not a "hobbyhorse" of mine--I have written a great deal on many other topics, including book-length studies of baptismal regeneration and the Eucharist)--for more, see
Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura
