Sola Scriptura?

[Albion]

Whoever sees fit to interpret the Bible in this or that way.

Hmm. Well, that isn't what happens in my church. It isn't what happened in the other churches I've attended or belonged to since I've been grown, and you know what? They are all Protestant by definition. So where does that leave us?

My point is that in terms of a hermenuetic position - how one reads the Bible -- there is not a lot of difference between the man who says "I will follow the Roman Pope's position, in deference to his authority to interpret" and the one who says "I will follow what it appears that scripture is saying to the simple layman", because in either case it is individual interpretation which ultimately decides "what the Bible says" -- in the case of the Roman Catholic, the Pope's; in the case of certain forms of Protestantism, the layperson's.

We may be getting closer, but the one-man thing is wrong with everyone except the non-denominational congregation and the Roman Catholic church when we get right down to it.

Certain other forms of Protestantism, it should be said, do not follow such an individualistic interpretation

The truth is that hardly any of them do. I guess that this is the main sticking point with me on this matter.

This is a discussion that Protestant Christians should have among themselves, I suppose, as it is their hermeneutic to define.

And that's the other thing. What you said here supposes that there is such a thing as The Protestant church--or that it's a family of faith of some sort-- and, well, it has had a few schisms.

In reality, any church that is not Catholic (including Orthodox) is going to be called Protestant (with the exception of the cults) and they most often have very little in common other than thinking the Bible to be the ultimate rule for doctrine.

 

[Albion]

Perhaps it is another difference between "sola" and "solo" scriptura.

I still think the original definition of sola scriptura was more like prima scriptura, with the sola indicating that all needed for salvation can be found in Scripture, yet the interpretation was guided corporately, not individually.

I don't think that the "interpretation guided corporately, not individually" part is involved with Sola Scriptura at all.

That said - if there was a disagreement that could not be reconciled (with a large enough group of followers), a new denomination or church was born, often initially based on the teaching of the "father" of that movement...i.e. Calvin, Wesley, Luther, Zwingli, etc.

A number of churches have stemmed off from the canonical Orthodox churches. Do we call them all Orthodox? Do we blame a defect in Tradition for the schisms?

 

[dzheremi]

Hmm. Well, that isn't what happens in my church. It isn't what happened in the other churches I've attended or belonged to since I've been grown, and you know what? They are all Protestant by definition. So where does that leave us?

With the uncomfortable fact that the plural of anecdote is not data? (See below)

We may be getting closer, but the one-man thing is wrong with everyone except the non-denominational congregation and the Roman Catholic church when we get right down to it.

Eh...I was raised Presbyterian and attended a Baptist church after the previous Presbyterian congregation split when the new pastor came in and began preaching certain things in a style that made a lot of people uncomfortable. Neither the Presbyterians nor the Baptists are what anyone could call "Roman Catholic" or "Non-Denominational", so I would imagine that a good take away from this experience is that the way that a particular church actually operates in the world often has less to do with the sign on the door than with the particular culture of a given community. There are a lot of otherwise traditional Protestant churches that have been heavily influenced by revivalism and evangelicalism (in the new/post-1730s sense of the word), such that there is not a large difference in how they approach the faith and how a non-denominational church would.

In reality, any church that is not Catholic (including Orthodox) is going to be called Protestant (with the exception of the cults) and they most often have very little in common other than thinking the Bible to be the ultimate rule for doctrine.

What do you mean by this? Who is going to call the Orthodox Chuch "Protestant", and by what measure?

That's just odd.

 

[All4Christ]

I don't think that the "interpretation guided corporately, not individually" part is involved with Sola Scriptura at all.

No? That's not what I've seen from traditional churches or heard from many others in the Traditional Theology forum. What is the three legged stool in the Anglican Church then?

A number of churches have stemmed off from the canonical Orthodox churches. Do we call them all Orthodox? Do we blame a defect in Tradition for the schisms?

Non-canonical Orthodox for most if I need to label them. Oriental Orthodox or Coptic Orthodox for the Coptic / Oriental Church....though that is different than the other non-canonical churches.

And we all are human...no person is infallible. Many times, Orthodox churches that schismed from the canonical Orthodox churches rejoin. Sadly, humanity sometimes causes schisms. Oftentimes though, we join back together in communion, as we are very similar in theology. Think of the Old Calendarists...almost identical, but due to humanity, we weren't able to reconcile our opinions on using new vs old. Our beliefs are 99% the same though. Even though we aren't in communion, both the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches are Orthodox. I pray that someday we are reunited.

We aren't perfect- but even after schisms we have very similar Theology since we have the same roots.

 

[Albion]

Eh...I was raised Presbyterian and attended a Baptist church after the previous Presbyterian congregation split when the new pastor came in and began preaching certain things in a style that made a lot of people uncomfortable. Neither the Presbyterians nor the Baptists are what anyone could call "Roman Catholic" or "Non-Denominational", so I would imagine that a good take away from this experience is that the way that a particular church actually operates in the world often has less to do with the sign on the door than with the particular culture of a given community. There are a lot of otherwise traditional Protestant churches that have been heavily influenced by revivalism and evangelicalism (in the new/post-1730s sense of the word), such that there is not a large difference in how they approach the faith and how a non-denominational church would.

Now that that's off your chest, let's seriously discuss who the one man is who makes up all the doctrines for either of these churches and whether that's what all Protestant churches do.

What do you mean by this? Who is going to call the Orthodox Chuch "Protestant", and by what measure?
That's just odd.

It isn't what I wrote, either. And I'm still waiting to know who the one man is who makes doctrine for all the thousands of Protestant churches. Then we can turn to all the different varieties of Tradition that have divided each and every Catholic/Orthodox church from every other one.

 

[Albion]

No?

No. It means that the Bible is the sole rule of faith.

What is the three legged stool in the Anglican Church then?

Three different methods of studying the issues.

And regarding Orthodox to be Protestant...not true.

I agree.

We aren't a branch split off from the communion of Catholic Churches.

They say you are.

 

[All4Christ]

No. It means that the Bible is the sole rule of faith.


Three different methods of studying the issues.

I've still heard differently from some others. And you have official Anglican beliefs, correct? How did you get those beliefs if it wasn't corporately decided? Don't you have the Augsburg Confession?

I agree.


They say you are.

Yes, many of them do. I think the balanced view is we split.

I could say something along the lines of "we kept what was originally there and they developed new beliefs", but we may get into controversial statements which are unnecessary.

 

[toLiJC]

So as of right now, I'm coming to the conclusion that Sola Scriptura is basically impossible. Protestants, while claiming Scripture Alone, are informed theologically by a massive library of very diverse theologians, authors, TV personalities, radio personalities, and pastors as diverse as John Calvin and Joyce Meyer who basically tell their audience what the Bible says, what it means, and how to live it out.

What's the difference between this and Tradition interpreting Scripture? Because the points of Calvinism are no where spelled out point by point in Scripture, line by line, yet Christians adhering to Reformed Soteriology interpret the Bible through the thoughts and writings of Calvin and others. Likewise Protestants generally interpret the Scriptures through the lens of Sola Fide, in spite of numerous verses that seem to indicate that our works in Christ *do* determine where we go when we die.

So in light of all this, why get upset by Catholics and Orthodox who interpret Scripture through their Tradition, when Protestants do the exact same thing, essentially? Thoughts?

the existence of cleavage, disagreement and division that leads to emergence of many religious factions is not a sign of the existence of true faith - there is one faith presented in the Bible, but in the world there are so many different religious factions, including such that claim they are not religious or religions...

Blessings

 

[dzheremi]

Now that that's off your chest, let's seriously discuss who the one man is who makes up all the doctrines for either of these churches and whether that's what all Protestant churches do.

It isn't what I wrote, either. And I'm still waiting to know who the one man is who makes doctrine for all the thousands of Protestant churches. Then we can turn to all the different varieties of Tradition that have divided each and every Catholic/Orthodox church from every other one.

Again, Albion, I am not saying that there is one man akin to the Roman Catholic Pope who makes doctrine for all the thousands of Protestant churches. I addressed this already in post #396. There is no one man who decides doctrine for Protestant churches, but some versions of Sola Scriptura embraced by Protestants who identify themselves as such operate by giving the authority to interpret the scriptures to one man, following the idea endorsed by Luther that a simple layman ought to be able to do that.

 

[Erose]

It IS terribly ironic, isn't it? Being two different kinds of Orthodox, neither you nor I have "a dog in that fight" ... but really it does boil down to each side claiming both their right to determine what Scripture means - based on the interpretation of one man - while at the same time criticizing the other side on the basis of doing the same. Just a different man in either case.

I'm not sure who this one man is on either side. The pope didn't establish how we see Scripture, the Church did. If it was just Martin Luther espousing "Sola Scriptura" it wouldn't have gained traction. Sola Scriptura IMO came from the necessity to reject the Catholic Church as the Dogmatic Authority, and those who rebelled against this needed another dogmatic authority, ala the Bible. So the true question of this debate is who/what has dogmatic authority? the Church or the Bible.

 

[Albion]

And you have official Anglican beliefs, correct?

Yes.

How did you get those beliefs if it wasn't corporately decided?

Of course all these doctrines are "corporately decided." When we all started into this discussion, BTW, the argument was that it was "individually" decided, so maybe that represents a gain.

Don't you have the Augsburg Confession?

Nope. That's the Lutherans.

 

[Albion]

Again, Albion, I am not saying that there is one man akin to the Roman Catholic Pope who makes doctrine for all the thousands of Protestant churches.

Very well, but that is what started us all down this path.

I addressed this already in post #396. There is no one man who decides doctrine for Protestant churches, but some versions of Sola Scriptura embraced by Protestants who identify themselves as such operate by giving the authority to interpret the scriptures to one man

Well, if that is so, who is it and what denomination are you thinking of?

FROM 396: there is not a lot of difference between the man who says "I will follow the Roman Pope's position, in deference to his authority to interpret" and the one who says "I will follow what it appears that scripture is saying to the simple layman", because in either case it is individual interpretation which ultimately decides "what the Bible says" -- in the case of the Roman Catholic, the Pope's; in the case of certain forms of Protestantism, the layperson's.

Ah, the "in certain forms of Protestantism" argument by which any splinter is representative of all Protestants and Protestant churches everywhere. That's exactly what is not allowed by any Orthodox or Roman poster who immediately insists that his denomination is unique and has no connection to any other.

 

[All4Christ]

Yes.


Of course all these doctrines are "corporately decided." When we all started into this discussion, BTW, the argument was that it was "individually" decided, so maybe that represents a gain.

I have maintained what I said above since my first post in this thread.

Nope. That's the Lutherans.

Apologies . I mixed up the Confessions with the 39 Articles.

 

[dzheremi]

Ah, the "in certain forms of Protestantism" argument by which any splinter is representative of all Protestants and Protestant churches everywhere.

Would you rather differences between the various Protestant churches not be recognized? I should think that the Anglican would not want to be confused with the Mennonite, nor the Methodist with the Baptist, and so on.

Again, the point is about Sola Scriptura as a hermeneutic, not any kind of claim that there is a Pope-like figure in any given Protestant church.

That's exactly what is not allowed by any Orthodox or Roman poster who immediately insists that his denomination is unique and has no connection to any other.

Not sure where this is coming from. Has that ever been claimed by anyone in this thread?

 

[Albion]

Would you rather differences between the various Protestant churches not be recognized? I should think that the Anglican would not want to be confused with the Mennonite, nor the Methodist with the Baptist, and so on.

That is hardly the issue. What I was speaking to was the persistent practice of characterizing "Protestants" by some splinter group that the speaker thinks unappealing or even people who have no church affiliation at all. That is simply unfair, even if it is not deliberately done in order to denigrate all Protestants.

Again, the point is about Sola Scriptura as a hermeneutic, not any kind of claim that there is a Pope-like figure in any given Protestant church.

Again, it would not have been mentioned had not another poster made that claim.

 

[~Anastasia~]

And there is a very broad segment that fall under the label of "non-denominational" or are otherwise independent, whose doctrine as a community is usually decided by one man.

For the sake of not derailing the discussion, I will retract all comment about "one man" since that seems to be a sticking point.

What I meant initially is not that each denomination has a "pope" ... but each denomination was generally started by one man. Luther was responsible for a group that separated from Catholicism. Calvin was responsible for a whole school of thought. And the church up the road was started by a man who disagreed with the pastor at the church I used to go to, and left, taking about 1/3 of the congregation with him to start a new church. At the start of most (maybe all?) of them is one man. Has there ever been a full and equal council that got together and decided to separate and create a new denomination, without the leadership of one man?

And what I meant above is that many non-denoms ARE started by one man, dependent upon his theology, and when a new pastor comes in, various beliefs may change, based on that man's interpretations. I've seen it happen in many churches around here. And John MacArthur is a larger example with his own church.

But it doesn't really matter to sola scriptura, so ... I will retract it as unimportant.

But when it comes down to whether those Scriptures speak of Christ ACTUALLY PRESENT in the bread and wine, or mere symbolism. Of salvation that requires perseverance, or whether it is impossible NOT to persevere. Whether baptism is a means of grace, or just a public statement. The role of women in the Church. And a thousand other questions - there is disagreement. And ALL will point to the same Scriptures (seen through their particular lens or that of their denomination) to justify their dissenting answers to those and many other questions.
.

The majority of Protestants belong to churches that agree with you on every one of those doctrinal points you just mentioned. But the relatively few non-denoms or 'never was' freelance people define the issue and you say....disagreement.

On this point I disagree with you. Actual presence of Christ? Lutherans and some others will agree with Orthodoxy. But Baptists, Pentecostals of all stripes and others will disagree. Impossible to lose salvation? Those who subscribe to Calvinism and a few others will agree, but a good many Evangelicals and almost all Pentecostals will disagree. Baptism? Lutherans, Anglicans, and a few others will agree with Orthodoxy, while Baptists, Pentecostals, non-denoms, and many others will disagree. The role of women in the church is a changing issue where some Lutherans, some Baptists, and a few other small denominations resist ordination of women, while nearly all others have changed their position over the past century.

I don't think the majority of Protestants agree with me, or with each other on these issues. But I don't say that as some kind of implication that "Protestants are not united". Of COURSE they aren't. They were never really intended to be, since most of their denominations are founded on some kind of reformation, or disagreement, depending on how you look at it. The underlying desire may well be noble because I have no doubt that every one of them was motivated to seek and move closer to Truth. But the outcome has been repeated schism, as we would see it.

My point though is not to criticize Protestants, but rather I think the label "Protestant" is essentially meaningless.

However, as it relates to the discussion of sola scriptura, never mind the labels. What it DOES demonstrate is that sincere people with a love for God, doing their very best to interpret Scriptures correctly (who ever does otherwise?) can and do arrive at completely polar opposite conclusions, using "scripture alone". And that's the bottom line. We can do with that as we will, but it is a fact that I don't see how it could be disputed, as it is in very plentiful evidence.

 

[Albion]

For the sake of not derailing the discussion, I will retract all comment about "one man" since that seems to be a sticking point.

For sure, I didn't think challenging that point would lead to all the posts we've seen from people other than yourself. So, sure. I agree.

What I meant initially is not that each denomination has a "pope" ... but each denomination was generally started by one man. Luther was responsible for a group that separated from Catholicism. Calvin was responsible for a whole school of thought. And the church up the road was started by a man who disagreed with the pastor at the church I used to go to, and left, taking about 1/3 of the congregation with him to start a new church. At the start of most (maybe all?) of them is one man. Has there ever been a full and equal council that got together and decided to separate and create a new denomination, without the leadership of one man?

My "issue" is not with the alleged starter, but with the idea that those churches permit, allow, promote, or whatever...a "one man" doctrine-decider. Even when it may be possible to trace the start of opposition to a single person, the confessions of faith and the doctrinal developments in subsequent years are never done by edict. There are all sorts of ecclesiastical structures--councils, synods, conventions, etc.--that do this.

And what I meant above is that many non-denoms ARE started by one man, dependent upon his theology, and when a new pastor comes in, various beliefs may change, based on that man's interpretations. I've seen it happen in many churches around here. And John MacArthur is a larger example with his own church.

Yes, but to characterize Protestantism by such non-denominational megachurches or whatever is quite wrong IMHO. It would be like defining Orthodoxy by pointing to the 'Old Believers' in Russia, saying that this is what Orthodoxy does or is like.

But it doesn't really matter to sola scriptura...

right. It doesn't.

On this point I disagree with you. Actual presence of Christ? Lutherans and some others will agree with Orthodoxy. But Baptists, Pentecostals of all stripes and others will disagree.

And these represent a minority of Protestants, don't they. That's what I said--most Protestants belong to churches that affirm the Real Presence, so it's incorrect to talk as though the typical Protestant is something else.

 

[Erose]

I would like make a few points here.

1) I do not think the term Protestant is meaningless. I do think it describes a certain group of non-Catholic/Orthodox faith groups; but I think it is misapplied especially here on CF. Protestant doesn't mean every Christian denomination that isn't Catholic/Orthodox but here on CF that is how it is viewed.
2) This usage of the pope thing you guys are doing quite honestly displays a level of ignorance of the Catholic church that is surprising to see, especially from who it is coming from.
3) When it comes to Sola Scriptura we cannot confuse it with Solo Scriptura. IMO only a few denominations outside the traditional Protestant churches adhere to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Most evangelical, pentecostal and non-denominational faith groups are really follow Solo Scriptura.
4) I do think that Albion has a point here, that you have to be careful of what group you are referring to, as I truly think that there are different shades of Sola Scriptura found throughout the denominations who adhere to it, just like there are different shades of Sola Fide.

 

[All4Christ]

And these represent a minority of Protestants, don't they. That's what I said--most Protestants belong to churches that affirm the Real Presence, so it's incorrect to talk as though the typical Protestant is something else.

Perhaps our experience in our regions is different. My experience of the Protestant Church population matches this pretty closely, though the amount of Protestants is a significantly high amount among Christians in my area.

Religious Landscape Study

14% mainline Protestants vs 26% evangelical Protestants

(The 6% historic black Protestant is underrepresented in our area, assuming that means separate churches.)

 

[Erose]

And these represent a minority of Protestants, don't they. That's what I said--most Protestants belong to churches that affirm the Real Presence, so it's incorrect to talk as though the typical Protestant is something else.

If you use the more limited definition of Protestant, i.e. the mainline Protestant churches you are right. But if you use the broader term then that isn't true.