Sola scriptura?

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
But no current tradition is actually 1st Cent.
It depends on how you look at it. See below.

It's unreasonable to expect any 21st Cent church to simply reproduce 1st Cent belief.
Nobody says it has to. Or I'm not saying that anyway. Indeed, the Catholic Church has freely admitted that her understanding of doctrine has improved over time. It's a bit simplistic to say that we believe the same things today as we did centuries ago, with the only difference being a better understanding now as compared to then. But at the same time, I don't think that's a terribly inaccurate way to phrase it.

We have the same problem as the Apologists: we're a different culture facing different questions than the 1st Cent church. But in many cases I think we're better off to do our reinterpretation directly from NT sources, rather than starting with a tradition that is already a reinterpretation.
With respect, I think that sells the ancients short and, at the same time, vastly overestimates modernity's importance. I am a male American Millennial. Now, I can study history, pray, pore over the scriptures and everything else. But at the end of the day, that is my perspective: male, American, Millennial. I can't be something other than what I am. My life is a speck of dust on the canvas of history.

Sacred Tradition gives me access to a larger, broader Christian experience which takes into account my own limited perspective at the point in time in which I live, while at the same time providing a continuity of belief which goes back to day one of the Church.

With the acknowledgement that this is strictly opinion, I personally find that approach to be more trustworthy than simply relying upon my own limited perspective.

This is to some extent what the Reformers thought they were doing. But we have a lot better sources than they do, both for the 1st Cent and even for patristic and medieval theology.
A fact which, again, with respect, argues my point better than it does yours. The "reformers" sought to "correct" what they perceived as errors in the teaching of the faith, though without realizing they lacked superior sources and more comprehensive knowledge of the history of theology.

Nobody's perfect. Mistakes are understandable. We're all only human. But people of good faith staked their souls and eternal destinies on what the "reformers" taught, then and now. And by your own admission, what was taught was flawed, incomplete and not properly understood.

When I talk to Protestant friends about these matters, I ask them semi-rhetorically if God cares about which doctrines we believe in. If the answer is "no", it's hard to justify separating from Rome. If the answer is "yes", it's equally hard to argue that "reformers" didn't do more harm than good, at least in the short term.

I'd like to pause here and state that I am rather enjoying this discussion with you as your posts seem calm and fact-based. Thank you for elevating the conversation.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Sacred Tradition gives me access to a larger, broader Christian experience which takes into account my own limited perspective at the point in time in which I live, while at the same time providing a continuity of belief which goes back to day one of the Church.
I like tradition, too. But it's simply false that there is complete continuity of belief going back to day one. There was a significant reinterpretation between Jesus and the authors of the Epistles. This is not surprising, since Christianity was based on the experience of the resurrected Jesus. But still, Paul's definition of Gospel is rather different from Jesus. There were other reinterpretations starting with the Apologists, who tried to make theology that would make sense to educated Romans. There was a period of several centuries while the Church flailed around, trying to formulate the Trinity and Incarnation. The East and West have their own related but distinct versions of this. Various schools during the late medieval period made substantial changes.

I can understand and be sympathetic with what each of these people did. But I don't see any reason that we're not allowed to do our own reinterpretation. Indeed given the changes in knowledge of all kinds (including understanding of what Jesus actually meant), failure to do so is suspicious. Again I note that Catholic theologians are part of the community doing this. (I actually suspect that the Catholic Church and mainline Protestantism will end up converging. But it will take a couple of centuries, because of the idea that the faith never changes.)
When I talk to Protestant friends about these matters, I ask them semi-rhetorically if God cares about which doctrines we believe in. If the answer is "no", it's hard to justify separating from Rome. If the answer is "yes", it's equally hard to argue that "reformers" didn't do more harm than good, at least in the short term.
There are a number of answers to this. But the one that I think the Reformers would give is that belief has consequences. Luther wouldn't have attacked the Church if Tetzel hadn't been misleading his people. But he concluded that a variety of damaging practices had their root in theological errors.

No, I'm sure God won't give us a theology test. But Jesus said his mission was to establish God's rule (kingdom) on earth. Indeed one problem with pop Protestantism is the idea that the only purpose of Jesus was to save our souls from hell. For both the Prophets and Jesus, God cares about how we live. Understanding what Jesus actually wanted is important to getting this right.

The Reformers didn't get everything right, but they made a start in the right direction. My big problem with most Protestants is that they have abandoned the Reformers' commitment, and settled in on new de facto inerrant Holy Traditions based on their founders' beliefs. Despite Protestant claims to being willing to follow Scripture and Catholic claims that their beliefs never change, in practice Catholic theologians are on average doing a better job of dealing with Scripture than Protestant ones. However since I live now and not the hypothetical future when the Catholic Church has accepted what its scholars tell it, for the moment I'm better off with mainline Protestantism.

(I think what I'm saying is that both most Protestants' claim to follow Scripture independent of Tradition, and Catholics claim not to, are to a substantial degree false.)
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,934
5,593
49
The Wild West
✟461,707.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
It depends on how you look at it. See below.

Nobody says it has to. Or I'm not saying that anyway. Indeed, the Catholic Church has freely admitted that her understanding of doctrine has improved over time. It's a bit simplistic to say that we believe the same things today as we did centuries ago, with the only difference being a better understanding now as compared to then. But at the same time, I don't think that's a terribly inaccurate way to phrase it.

With respect, I think that sells the ancients short and, at the same time, vastly overestimates modernity's importance. I am a male American Millennial. Now, I can study history, pray, pore over the scriptures and everything else. But at the end of the day, that is my perspective: male, American, Millennial. I can't be something other than what I am. My life is a speck of dust on the canvas of history.

Sacred Tradition gives me access to a larger, broader Christian experience which takes into account my own limited perspective at the point in time in which I live, while at the same time providing a continuity of belief which goes back to day one of the Church.

With the acknowledgement that this is strictly opinion, I personally find that approach to be more trustworthy than simply relying upon my own limited perspective.

A fact which, again, with respect, argues my point better than it does yours. The "reformers" sought to "correct" what they perceived as errors in the teaching of the faith, though without realizing they lacked superior sources and more comprehensive knowledge of the history of theology.

Nobody's perfect. Mistakes are understandable. We're all only human. But people of good faith staked their souls and eternal destinies on what the "reformers" taught, then and now. And by your own admission, what was taught was flawed, incomplete and not properly understood.

When I talk to Protestant friends about these matters, I ask them semi-rhetorically if God cares about which doctrines we believe in. If the answer is "no", it's hard to justify separating from Rome. If the answer is "yes", it's equally hard to argue that "reformers" didn't do more harm than good, at least in the short term.

I'd like to pause here and state that I am rather enjoying this discussion with you as your posts seem calm and fact-based. Thank you for elevating the conversation.

I myself believe that a reconciliation between sola scriptura, the Catholic Magisterium, and the Holy Tradition of the Eastern churches, is possible, because the latter can mostly be shown to be scriptural, and nothing in my opinion in, for example, the Holy Tradition of the Eastern church, contradicts Scripture (nor do I disagree with the essential idea of the Magisterium; my main concern is Popes who seem to want to redefine it, like Paul VI and Francis, and Vatican I creating the appearance that they have that power).

The real problem in my opinion is Nuda Scriptura, which is the extreme rejection of anything “not in the Bible”, which was never the doctrine of the magisterial reformers (Luther, Cranmer, even Zwingli or Calvin), but was rather a Puritan concept. This may sound ironic coming from a minister in the Congregational tradition, which is partially descended from the Puritans of New England, but suffice it to say we have moved on.

I really like the Anglican idea of scripture, tradition, and reason, or the Wesleyan Quadrilateral of scripture, tradition, reason, and the experience of the church (a living rather than static tradition, albeit one not permitting dogmatic innovation, because the idea is to interpret Scripture rationally, based on the ancient Tradition of the early Church, to accomodate the pastoral needs of the church today based on the experience of the Church over the centuries in what works and what does not when it comes to the cure of souls and the Great Commission).

In General Theology, I saw some Sola Scriptura vs. Catholic debates, in which the people claiming to represent Sola Scriptura were really advocating a doctrine based on a Restorationist church from the 19th century of the Millerite or Darbyite variety, which amounted to a tradition, but a new tradition, and the unwillingness to admit that made me decide to not involve myself in the debate. Because I believe that sola scriptura, the Magisterium, and Holy Tradition are all compatible, but new doctrines, new traditions, that originated with alleged prophets and “bible scholars” and which continue to emerge even now, some of which like Federal Vision are mild, and others of which, like the work of John Shelby Spong or Hal Lindsay, is just completely off the wall and not in accord with what I understand the Catholic church we confess a belief in, in the Nicene Creed, to represent. I love what St. Vincent of Lerins said, around AD 400, that that which had been believed by everyone, everywhere and at all times (like the Virgin Birth,Trinity, the Resurrection, the Old Testament prophecy of Christ and its fulfillment, and the Last Judgement), is truly Catholic.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,815.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I think that the primary problem (as is often the case) is a matter of definition.

I strongly agree with you that "sola scriptura" as understood by Luther is not different from almost all current understanding.
====
That being said, many Protestants seem to believe in "solo scriptura", that we are to turn to the Scripture as canonized without interpretation, that Scripture stands for itself, and that we are all able to interpret Scripture for ourselves. For this view, there is no need for Church or even historical interpretations by church bodies. As I have said for decades, Luther would not recognize many Protestant churches of our age, and would be appalled by the interpretation of many doctrines.

Hello and welcome to CF. :)

I remember being struck by writings of Martin Luther on sola scriptura. I've looked for that particular piece since then (it's actually quoted by me in an old post here SOMEwhere). I remember being struck that his idea of SS (at least at that time) were not essentially different from what the Orthodox Church holds.

Luther was arguing for the authority of Scripture as historically interpreted by the Church.

Orthodoxy essentially will say that Scripture is a part of Holy Tradition (which by that we mean what we received from the Apostolic deposit of faith - meaning that it must be used as traditionally understood). Further that within all of Holy Tradition, Scripture is of the highest authority. It's difficult to find a major functional difference between early Luther and Orthodoxy (unless it is the lack of information within those that reject the remainder of Holy Tradition, of things that didn't get handed down otherwise).

Anyway. If you haven't listened to it, you might like Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick's teaching on SS (I'd highly recommend the one on sola fide also) - with the caveat that he tends to be polemical and doesn't mince words or have an irenic approach to the degree that he can be off-putting. But for raw information and a good framework for understanding, he's very helpful.

These are in his book - Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy - or in podcasts.

Here's the one on sola scriptura - The Magisterial Reformation - Part 1a - Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy | Ancient Faith Ministries

And the rest of the solas here - The Magisterial Reformation - Part 1b - Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy | Ancient Faith Ministries

I hope this can help.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ~Anastasia~
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,815.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Hello and welcome to CF. :)

I remember being struck by writings of Martin Luther on sola scriptura. I've looked for that particular piece since then (it's actually quoted by me in an old post here SOMEwhere). I remember being struck that his idea of SS (at least at that time) were not essentially different from what the Orthodox Church holds.

Luther was arguing for the authority of Scripture as historically interpreted by the Church.

Orthodoxy essentially will say that Scripture is a part of Holy Tradition (which by that we mean what we received from the Apostolic deposit of faith - meaning that it must be used as traditionally understood). Further that within all of Holy Tradition, Scripture is of the highest authority. It's difficult to find a major functional difference between early Luther and Orthodoxy (unless it is the lack of information within those that reject the remainder of Holy Tradition, of things that didn't get handed down otherwise).

Anyway. If you haven't listened to it, you might like Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick's teaching on SS (I'd highly recommend the one on sola fide also) - with the caveat that he tends to be polemical and doesn't mince words or have an irenic approach to the degree that he can be off-putting. But for raw information and a good framework for understanding, he's very helpful.

These are in his book - Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy - or in podcasts.

Here's the one on sola scriptura - The Magisterial Reformation - Part 1a - Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy | Ancient Faith Ministries

And the rest of the solas here - The Magisterial Reformation - Part 1b - Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy | Ancient Faith Ministries

I hope this can help.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I myself believe that a reconciliation between sola scriptura, the Catholic Magisterium, and the Holy Tradition of the Eastern churches, is possible, because the latter can mostly be shown to be scriptural, and nothing in my opinion in, for example, the Holy Tradition of the Eastern church, contradicts Scripture

Sola Scriptura, as traditionally understood, allows for creeds and other traditions, as long as they can be shown to be scriptural. I think Catholics would agree that parts of their Magisterium can't be derived or inferred from Scripture alone.

The real problem in my opinion is Nuda Scriptura, which is the extreme rejection of anything “not in the Bible”, which was never the doctrine of the magisterial reformers (Luther, Cranmer, even Zwingli or Calvin)

That's also commonly called Solo Scriptura. As you say, it's not a traditional Reformed belief.
 
Upvote 0

quintessentialramble

Active Member
Mar 7, 2018
250
131
40
New York
✟73,204.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I've first heard Sola Scriptura within the Reformed Calvinist denomination..currently the church I attend.
While yes, men wrote as they were instructed and guided by the Holy Spirit...this in and of itself should lend itself should tell you everything you need to know. The Bible tells us that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, and correction, for instruction, for training in righteousness." Yes, the canon was agreed upon by councils over the years..but even among the churches I've attended they have all disagreed upon how they came about. Some say the council members were guided by the Spirit; while others defend that they relied on the reliability of what manuscripts were available to them at the time..citing the historical date of those manuscripts to be a measure of it's reliability--also citing whether or not the books contained were referenced by Jesus himself in the Gospels (this was the big contention between Protestants and Catholics--and is partially the reason why the Catholic bible is different). This is why I believe it's incredibly important to look at church history, as well as historical context when reading the BIble..without these, understanding is lost. George Santayana once said, if we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.
Much of Pentecostal theology in terms of speaking in tongues and prophetic visions stems from a revival in the 1900's called Azusa street, which thus has caused me to view such theology with much skepticism.
Ultimately..when I look at a church, I look at two factors: Are they strictly in the Word of God...or is the Word of God plus many other sources...when most Christians haven't even read the Word of God...the Word should be vital and forefront.
The second is..do they love each other? If there are clear divisions, or you don't see any actual love being shown...then be cautious..it is likely they use grace as a license to sin; instead of being convicted of their sin leading to repentance.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,815.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I think that many refuse to distinguish between the doctrines of the "scripture alone" and "sufficiency of scripture".

I suspect that almost all believe that all that is needed for salvation is contained within Scripture. That is the doctrine of sufficiency. There still are the matters of translation and interpretation.

I also believe that almost all believe that any doctrine that we hold cannot be in contradiction of Scripture.
Scripture alone is the supreme authority to go when we seek to evaluate doctrine. Again, there are the matters of translation and interpretation.

The view of Scripture championed by Lerens and by Luther do not have these issues. All, this isn't an issue for the Orthodox.
=======
I find very strange the rather new doctrine that Scripture speaks for itself and requires no interpretation. This doctrine is often called "Sola scriptura" and falsely attributed to the Reformation leaders. I think that Luther, Calvin and Wesley would be appalled at such a doctrine (and probably Svingli also).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,887
3,526
✟320,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I come from a Protestant evangelical background. I am struggling with the position of sola scriptura and would like to hear your thoughts.

First of all, is sola scriptura even internally consistent? For we wouldn't even have the scriptures without the tradition of the church. It was men, not God, that determined the canon of the Bible. Sola scriptura itself seems to be a philosophical argument, not an exegetical one. The scriptures don't make that claim for itself, nor give the scope of divine inspiration.

Isn't the appeal to the scriptures first and foremost an appeal to church tradition? For the scriptures we have are determined by men and tradition through church history (ie God did not appear to me and tell me what books were canonical). That a collection of writings are published together in the same volume is not the authority. The Reformers are the ones that excluded the Apocrypha from the Protestant canon, after all, not God. Those men decided that those books were not canonical, because they supported doctrines they did not agree with (eg purgatory, praying to saints, etc). Other men, centuries before, did the same for the gnostic gospels. We cannot appeal to the book of Hebrews or Peter or Revelation vs the Didache vs the Shepherd of Hermas vs Clement vs the Apocrypha vs the gospel of Thomas without first having had human beings agree/decide for us which is canonical (the scriptures don't in themselves include a table of contents).

If it's not an appeal to church tradition, on what other basis can we understand canonicity? And therefore inspiration and inerrancy? From this perspective, it seems both Protestants and Catholics appeal to scripture (at least to some degree) but obviously disagree on the scope of the canon. What is an appeal to scripture to the Catholic is not an appeal to scripture to the Protestant.
Eventually, with thought, study, prayer, and endless wrangling with others over competing interpretations, one must inevitably come to the logical conclusion that the doctrine is, simply put, bankrupt.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Eventually, with thought, study, prayer, and endless wrangling with others over competing interpretations, one must inevitably come to the logical conclusion that the doctrine is, simply put, bankrupt.

Well, no, actually.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Well, we obviously have a difference of opinion then. I used to hold to the doctrine but cannot in good conscience anymore.
I guess we expected a little more analysis than what was posted. If the word of God himself isn't more reliable than what's in second place, I have to wonder why not?
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,887
3,526
✟320,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I guess we expected a little more analysis than what was posted. If the word of God himself isn't more reliable than what's in second place, I have to wonder why not?
It has nothing to do with the reliability of God's word and everything to do with the reliability of the human interpreter. The problem is that all biblical interpretation is necessarily filtered through the faculties of the individual reader. And even if he's a highly credentialed scholar fluent in biblical languages and knowledgeable of the cultural context of the ancient times involved etc, instead of a regular Joe like myself, he may very well disagree with other equally educated exegetes on significant matters.

Implicit in the belief in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the belief that the individual reader, independent of any external input such as the tenets that the church has carried down with her through the centuries, may rely on Scripture to serve as the authoritative judge over any and all belief claims, even though Scripture is necessarily being interpreted by that reader-who may disagree with any other reader, both having plausible arguments. The interpreter necessarily holds a very firm (infallible?) belief in his own ability to discern
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Implicit in the belief in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the belief that the individual reader, independent of any external input such as the tenets that the church has carried down with her through the centuries, may rely on Scripture to serve as the authoritative judge over any and all belief claims, even though Scripture is necessarily being interpreted by that reader-who may disagree with any other reader, both having plausible arguments. The interpreter necessarily holds a very firm (infallible?) belief in his own ability to discern
That's not the definition used by the magisterial Reformation or the churches that come from us.

However there's another problem, which is easy to confuse with it. With lots of different versions of Christianity, how is an individual going to decide on what one to choose. That is, by necessity, going to be the individual's decision. For many people, a key part of their decision is going to be looking at Scripture to see which tradition seems consistent with it. I see no way to avoid an individual decision in this context. An individual deciding to follow Tradition is no less an individual decision.

Thus my own individual decision is that the mainline tradition is closest to what Jesus intended. That's an individual decision, but the tradition I've chosen to follow interprets
Scripture as a community. My decision to accept it is individual, but there's no way I as an individual would have the knowledge to produce the tradition I'm accepting on my own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mark46
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Implicit in the belief in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the belief that the individual reader, independent of any external input such as the tenets that the church has carried down with her through the centuries

Not at all. The traditional definition can be found in e.g. the Belgic Confession #7:

We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe, unto salvation, is sufficiently taught therein. For, since the whole manner of worship, which God requires of us, is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were "an angel from heaven," as the apostle Paul saith [Galatians 1:8]. For, since it is forbidden, to add unto or take away anything from the word of God, it doth thereby evidently appear, that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects.

Neither do we consider of equal value any writing of men, however holy these men may have been, with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, for the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself. Therefore, we reject with all our hearts, whatsoever doth not agree with this infallible rule, which the apostles have taught us, saying, "Try the spirits whether they are of God" [1 John 4:1]. Likewise, "if there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house" [2 John 1:10].
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
It has nothing to do with the reliability of God's word and everything to do with the reliability of the human interpreter.
Well, then answer me this:

How does reliance upon Holy Tradition solve that problem? While it is true that there are different interpretations people make with Scripture, it is also true that individuals and churches also make all sorts of different interpretations of the information that is supposedly derived from Tradition.

None of the Catholic-type churches which affirm Holy Tradition have the same set of doctrines derived from Holy Tradition. The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Old Catholics, and the others all have different doctrines, including the ones that they say are true because...Holy Tradition.

One might argue that even though there are more Protestant churches than Catholic ones, they are more in synch with each other in belief, using Scripture, than are the Catholic churches.

To put it more succinctly, your point is erroneous.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Tigger45
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,887
3,526
✟320,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
That's not the definition used by the magisterial Reformation or the churches that come from us.
But that’s still probably a distinction without a difference. Because I think no matter how we cut it, once Scripture is made the sole and final authoritative rule of faith then, 1) we’ve now effectively placed the means of correctly understanding the faith in the hands of any and all individuals, with no designated, established entity recognized with having that purpose, and 2) any other potential sources of revelation are rendered optional for all practical purposes.
However there's another problem, which is easy to confuse with it. With lots of different versions of Christianity, how is an individual going to decide on what one to choose.
And yet those different versions are predominately direct offsprings or results of the doctrine of Sola Scripture. That’s the main reason for those differences, ironically.
That is, by necessity, going to be the individual's decision. For many people, a key part of their decision is going to be looking at Scripture to see which tradition seems consistent with it. I see no way to avoid an individual decision in this context. An individual deciding to follow Tradition is no less an individual decision.

Thus my own individual decision is that the mainline tradition is closest to what Jesus intended. That's an individual decision, but the tradition I've chosen to follow interprets Scripture as a community. My decision to accept it is individual, but there's no way I as an individual would have the knowledge to produce the tradition I'm accepting on my own.
And while I agree that there’s necessarily a subjective element to this decision, I also agree with the broader basis of your decision, which apparently includes a more objective element, a recognition of the importance of history, perhaps including creeds and early conciliar decrees, etc. That means that some of your beliefs are not divorced from the beliefs of the larger historical Christian community dating back to the beginnings of the faith.

But the doctrine of SS IMO in no way inherently supports or encompasses the need for any such reliance on the past, and, in fact, logically opens the door to the kind of rejection of the past that we increasingly witness in evangelical circles today. Anyone who can read can have a whole fresh, new take on the Christian faith and present it to the world their way-and there’s certainly no central entity that can oppose novel doctrines with any kind of success or universal support. These groups may, plausibly enough perhaps, understand Scripture as opposing a belief in baptismal regeneration- as being a legalistic concept- or of infant baptism as being invalid. Likewise, they generally deny the Real Presence in the Eucharist. But these have been non-issues, not even controversial, in the east and west since time immemorial because they were settled at the beginning. Only the doctrine of Sola Scriptura could serve to lead people into a confused and ever-changing landscape of Christian beliefs.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,934
5,593
49
The Wild West
✟461,707.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
But still, Paul's definition of Gospel is rather different from Jesus

Forgive me, but I can’t agree with this at all, Hedrick; I see no discontinuity at all between what the Apostle Paul said, and the Gospel message conveyed by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the four canonical Gospels. In particular, Luke, Acts and John come to mind as reinforcing the Pauline message, but there is no real comtradiction even with the Petrine epistles.

The contrast between the Epistle of James and the Synoptics, on one hand, and the Gospel of John and the Pauline epistles, on the other, is the sole “tension”, if we read eisegetically rather than exegetically and ignore the rationale the early church used when determining the canon (which was not an arbitrary process; the New Testament canon first expressed by Athanasius is similiar to the contents of the Bibles ordered for Rome and Constantinople, from Alexandria and Caesarea (the latter of which were produced by Eusebius the historian and semi-Arian, who had a slightly different opinion), and is best understood as a refinement.

Furthermore, this tension evaporates when we see the dialectical process between Saints Paul and James of Jerusalem unfolding in the Acts of the Apostles; they did not lose their temper at each other, whereas St. Paul at one point “withstood St. Peter to his face”, but this was over the issue of the reception of gentile converts, and this was really the sole bone of contention, and it was resolved in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem. The harmony furthermore between the Gospel according to Luke, the Acts of the Apostles as recorded by Luke, and the Pauline and Petrine apostles has the effect of diffusing this.

And we can say that Martin Luther unfortunately did err in his opinions concerning the Epistle of James and the rest of the “antilegommena” and his insertion of the word “alone” into Romans. So there exists in some Protestant communities this idea, this meme, much as I hate to use a philosophical concept proposed by Dawkins, that Paul and James are irreconcilable and likewise, among more liberal communities, that the Pauline epistles are materially divergent from the Gospel message as given by our Lord. But if we look at the text, for example, at 1 Corinthians, this simply does not hold water. And if we use the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, or the formula for Catholicity proposed by Vincent of Lerins in the fifth century, this tension can be seen, in my opinion, to be illusory.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,934
5,593
49
The Wild West
✟461,707.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
But that’s still probably a distinction without a difference. Because I think no matter how we cut it, once Scripture is made the sole and final authoritative rule of faith then, 1) we’ve now effectively placed the means of correctly understanding the faith in the hands of any and all individuals, with no designated, established entity recognized with having that purpose, and 2) any other potential sources of revelation are rendered optional for all practical purposes.

And yet those different versions are predominately direct offsprings or results of the doctrine of Sola Scripture. That’s the main reason for those differences, ironically.

And while I agree that there’s necessarily a subjective element to this decision, I also agree with the broader basis of your decision, which apparently includes a more objective element, a recognition of the importance of history, perhaps including creeds and early conciliar decrees, etc. That means that some of your beliefs are not divorced from the beliefs of the larger historical Christian community dating back to the beginnings of the faith.

But the doctrine of SS IMO in no way inherently supports or encompasses the need for any such reliance on the past, and, in fact, logically opens the door to the kind of rejection of the past that we increasingly witness in evangelical circles today. Anyone who can read can have a whole fresh, new take on the Christian faith and present it to the world their way-and there’s certainly no central entity that can oppose novel doctrines with any kind of success or universal support. These groups may, plausibly enough perhaps, understand Scripture as opposing a belief in baptismal regeneration- as being a legalistic concept- or of infant baptism as being invalid. Likewise, they generally deny the Real Presence in the Eucharist. But these have been non-issues, not even controversial, in the east and west since time immemorial because they were settled at the beginning. Only the doctrine of Sola Scriptura could serve to lead people into a confused and ever-changing landscape of Christian beliefs.

This is why I think the Wesleyan Quadrilateral or the Anglican model of scripture, tradition and reason, work better than sola scriptura, or the more stripped-down form of it we see among some highly divergent communities, some of which are non-Christian, like the J/Ws, known as “nuda scriptura.” The magisterial reformers such as Hus, Cranmer, Wesley, John Jewell, Luther, and Calvin, and especially Archbishop Laud, did not rock the boat excessively in my opinion; in the case of Jan Hus we can clearly see the workings of an idea, to reimplement certain aspects of the Byzantine Rite which were suppressed with the forced Latinization of the Czech church following the conquest of Bohemia by Hapsburg Austria.
 
Upvote 0