Sola Scriptura?

Albion said:

From the beginning of the thread, those who are unsympathetic to the concept of Scripture Alone have attempted to denigrate it by saying that different readers of Scripture--and different churches--come up with different interpretations. Regardless of how this relates to Holy Tradition, Sola Scriptura is not right or wrong on account of how anyone interprets Scripture. The point of Sola Scriptura is that it--Scripture--contains all that is necessary for us to know in order to accomplish his purposes with us in this life.

IF, however, you want to itemize the doctrines of various church bodies that subscribe to Sola Scriptura (as I took to be the case), I was saying to go ahead and do so, and I will pay attention.

Two things about that should be acknowledged, however.

First, no matter how may doctrinal differences might be listed, that doesn't affect the correctness (or invalidity) of Sola Scriptura in any way. Sola Scriptura doesn't guarantee a correct understanding of Scripture by you or me or some particular church; it's a concept that says that it IS Scripture that holds the answers, not something else.

Secondly, you started with a list a few posts back, but unfortunately, the first part of it used Anglo-Catholics -- who do not accept Sola Scriptura -- and the second part listed doctrines but didn't identify any church bodies. That's why a pause was needed at that time.

So, if you want to start into this project, I'd be interested in what you come up with, that's for sure. But if you think doing so will debunk Sola Scriptura, it won't...and that's because Sola Scriptura is neither proven nor disproven in this way.

Interestingly, someone else earlier mentioned the opposite side of that coin, pointing out that, although the RCC and the EO both claim Tradition, the two of them have come up with different doctrines while saying that it's (the same)Tradition that produced them.

Click to expand...

As I am at work (a quick lunch now), I will need to respond in more detail later. That said, I would like to clarify some of my feelings on the matter.

I came from a "Scripture only (Solo Scriptura)" church, not a traditional Sola Scriptura church. I strongly disagree with that former. However - I respect those who follow a traditional understanding of Sola Scriptura. I carefully considered it during my spiritual journey (which will continue until my repose). I do firmly believe in the view of the Orthodox Church, but I appreciate the views of the more traditional Protestant Christians in this areas. There is a range of acceptance of tradition (albeit not Holy Tradition) within Sola Scriptura, and I have seen some people here on Traditional Theology which I can relate to their opinions. I could list some of those people, but I don't want to skip others who I may not think of at the moment.

Regarding the validity of Sola Scriptura based on the differences of beliefs: I personally believe it is something that should be considered when one is determining his or her beliefs on the matter. I am not suggesting that it is a slam dunk reason to scrap the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, especially if Prima Scriptura is also used. However, it is a consideration.

The last point you made is a matter of contention between your opinions and my opinion, though I understand your view on the matter. We can discuss that later.

In Traditional Theology, I don't discuss topics to try to prove people that they are wrong. Rather, I seek to explain what we believe, why we believe it or don't believe it, to learn what other traditional Christians believe, their reasons for their beliefs, and what is common or different between us. I personally feel that is the purpose of Traditional Theology. @MarkRohfrietsch - as you were key in the creation of TT, feel free to correct me on that . I sometimes fail in that, but it is my goal.

All this said, I hope we can all discuss topics, try to avoid attacks on eachother, and at least respect the opinions of other Traditional Christians (and really - understand the view of all Christians, though this forum is specifically topical to Traditional Christians). That is my perspective and what I hope to gain from discussions here.

A request to all - Let's clarify our beliefs, explain where we are coming from, listen to eachother and try to understand, albeit not necessarily agree, eachother's beliefs.

I think we're on the same page, A4C. The topic is Sola Scriptura and it began with several confused posts that IMHO didn't serve to clarify much but did establish that it was Sola Scriptura, not Tradition, which was being questioned. My part in this has been to try to defend Sola Scriptura and dispel mistaken opinions about it and not much more than that.

BTW, when I used the term Scripture Alone, I was referring to Sola Scriptura which, after all, is what the term means when translated. I did not refer to the SolO Scriptura folks who IMO are not part of this.

Albion said:

I think we're on the same page, A4C. The topic is Sola Scriptura and it began with several confused posts that IMHO didn't serve to clarify much but did establish that it was Sola Scriptura, not Tradition, which was being questioned. My part in this has been to try to defend Sola Scriptura and dispel mistaken opinions about it and not much more than that.

BTW, when I used the term Scripture Alone, I was referring to Sola Scriptura which, after all, is what the term means when translated. I did not refer to the SolO Scriptura folks who IMO are not part of this.

Click to expand...

Apologies for my incorrect terminology. I prefer to use the English translation, but there isn't a succinct translation that I can think of for Solo Scriptura I think my reluctance is due to Solo Scriptura being incorrect grammar in Latin.

All4Christ said:

In Traditional Theology, I don't discuss topics to try to prove people that they are wrong. Rather, I seek to explain what we believe, why we believe it or don't believe it, to learn what other traditional Christians believe, their reasons for their beliefs, and what is common or different between us. I personally feel that is the purpose of Traditional Theology. @MarkRohfrietsch - as you were key in the creation of TT, feel free to correct me on that . I sometimes fail in that, but it is my goal.

All this said, I hope we can all discuss topics, try to avoid attacks on eachother, and at least respect the opinions of other Traditional Christians (and really - understand the view of all Christians, though this forum is specifically topical to Traditional Christians). That is my perspective and what I hope to gain from discussions here.

A request to all - Let's clarify our beliefs, explain where we are coming from, listen to eachother and try to understand, albeit not necessarily agree, eachother's beliefs.

Click to expand...

Well stated!

Albion said:

I wouldn't say "not much" when several of the most critically important doctrines (in the minds of both Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians) account for the greatest schism in Christian history. I refer of course to Papal Supremacy, later made worse by the addition of Papal Infallibiliity.

However, my thinking is that any disagreement on any supposedly infallible doctrinal matter that's derived from Tradition is as significant as any that are derived from Scripture Alone.

What's more the RC and EO are but two separate communions. I would expect there to be fewer areas of disagreement between them than exist among the many Protestant denominations, including many that never had any common history. It's always easy, remember, to denigrate Protestants simply by referring to a few of the least typical and orthodox church bodies who, nevertheless, are classified as Protestant.

All that a Catholic Christian has to do in order to nail down his argument is to pair Lutherans or Anglicans with Unitarians or Mennonites and then say, "What a difference! 'Protestants' are really in disarray, so 'they' can't be right!"

Click to expand...

Again, you have SOMETHING of a point, that very disparate groups can be considered "Protestant" and thus compared unfavorably in light of Scripture alone keeping everything on track.

But do they really share "no common history"? That us impossible. We ALL have a common history, if we go far back to the early Church. So really, the way I see history -

Yes, Rome had her own ideas. Holy Tradition was not responsible for the schism. Rome's ideas and interpretations were. Yes, the Orthodox and Rome are different. (I'm not sure I would classify that as the main schism either - a good many Protestants are not even aware of it, but they mostly all know about the Reformation.)

Anyway, yes, then the Reformation happened, SS entered as a stated doctrine (I will say once again that Orthodoxy had always embraced at least one definition Luther put forth) ... and began to have an effect on development in Christendom. And from there, divergence began to grow even wider. No offense, but looking to all of history, it seems apparent to me that SS has failed to keep everyone on the same track of understanding and interpreting Truth.



ETA: In catching up a bit more, I'm sorry you feel SS is being disparaged. I've tried to state when appropriate (and I know that I have many times) that Orthodoxy would support the idea of SS in a certain sense. As A4C has pointed out, we (Orthodox) do not view Scripture as apart from Holy Tradition, but as the most important part of it. It really is impossible for us to have a situation where "Tradition vs. Scripture" .... in the same way you can't (or shouldn't) view "Scripture vs. Scripture". My posts may disagree with certain points you make, but overall I am not trying to argue with SS, though I DO disagree strongly with the way some folks (wrongly) understand SS to be - that anything not explicit within Scripture is forbidden.

Going back to "sufficiency" ... once again, I would never say that Scripture is insufficient, since I believe you could remove the bulk of it, and a few passages would be "sufficient" along with the grace of God. But otoh, a diet of stale bread and fetid water might be "sufficient" to support human life. Yet if a sumptuous and nutritious diet was available, would that not be preferred? Why is "sufficiency" a virtue? A very small understanding of God is enough to "be saved" but if one is able to develop a rich spiritual life and be further changed into the image of Christ, wouldn't that be far better?

ToBeLoved said:

How is this so? Where did we get the Last Supper from if not scripture?

Christianity did not exist before Christ. The Old Covenant was for the Hebrew/Israelite's, not Gentiles.

Click to expand...

I'm glad to see that Hedrick replied. My apologies, I haven't been on in a couple of days. But I hope you can see that we certainly did not get Communion from the Scriptures, but rather from the Apostles, in the context of Church, before there were any Scriptures.

ToBeLoved said:

So what that person is saying is that they can trace everything done in their church and every tradition back to the apostles or before? Before Paul's death and Peter's and John's.

Click to expand...

If by "the person" you mean me?

No, I do not say that every single thing in the Church can be traced to the Apostles and before. But we do generally know where each thing came from. Very much of it from the Apostles, yes. Some prior to the Apostles, in a sense, since it was modified from Jewidh worship by the early Christians. Some after the Apostles (the music and such was written through various times).


It really should be clear that the practice of Communion was prior to the writing of Scripture, though. It was already going on in the Churches because letters were being written by the Apostles to correct mistakes, and refer to things in the past (some have fallen asleep because they did not regard the Body of the Lord).

But yes, we generally know who introduced each element, when, and why. The Lord's Supper came about in the earliest days, before the writing of any Scripture.

I hope that helps.

~Anastasia~ said:

If by "the person" you mean me?

No, I do not say that every single thing in the Church can be traced to the Apostles and before. But we do generally know where each thing came from. Very much of it from the Apostles, yes. Some prior to the Apostles, in a sense, since it was modified from Jewidh worship by the early Christians. Some after the Apostles (the music and such was written through various times).


It really should be clear that the practice of Communion was prior to the writing of Scripture, though. It was already going on in the Churches because letters were being written by the Apostles to correct mistakes, and refer to things in the past (some have fallen asleep because they did not regard the Body of the Lord).

But yes, we generally know who introduced each element, when, and why. The Lord's Supper came about in the earliest days, before the writing of any Scripture.

I hope that helps.

Click to expand...

You are correct. It is unfortunate that the all or nothing approach to SS often seen in the more zealous and legalistic forms of Protestantism seems to be the defining norm on the application of SS. Certainly SS was only one of the five solas together, with none usurping the others:



Some of my Lutheran friends will disagree, but traditionally, In Confessional Lutheranism and Anglicanism, Sola Scriptura might more rightly be called "Prima Scriptura". Speaking only for confessional Lutherans, Scripture is normative. Regarding the reformation and the reformers, when used in a normative manner, a number of Catholic abuses were identified (many of which the CC has also acknowledged and dealt with during the counter reformation). Sola Scriptura does not preclude tradition(s), but it has verified many as being highly valued and valid, and others as being Adiaphora.

If we look at the Great Schism as a " pre or proto-reformation" (many of the causes were the same) and later the Lutheran Reformation as cleansings; we see later applications of Sola Scriptura have all too often resulted in the baby being thrown out with the bath water.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

You are correct. It is unfortunate that the all or nothing approach to SS often seen in the more zealous and legalistic forms of Protestantism seems to be the defining norm on the application of SS. Certainly SS was only one of the five solas together, with none usurping the others:



Some of my Lutheran friends will disagree, but traditionally, In Confessional Lutheranism and Anglicanism, Sola Scriptura might more rightly be called "Prima Scriptura". Speaking only for confessional Lutherans, Scripture is normative. Regarding the reformation and the reformers, when used in a normative manner, a number of Catholic abuses were identified (many of which the CC has also acknowledged and dealt with during the counter reformation). Sola Scriptura does not preclude tradition(s), but it has verified many as being highly valued and valid, and others as being Adiaphora.

If we look at the Great Schism as a " pre or proto-reformation" (many of the causes were the same) and later the Lutheran Reformation as cleansings; we see later applications of Sola Scriptura have all too often resulted in the baby being thrown out with the bath water.

Click to expand...

Often, it seems like the Orthodox view is one side of the Prima Scriptura view, and your side (Traditional Sola Scriptura) would be the other side of the coin.

~Anastasia~ said:

Going back to "sufficiency" ... once again, I would never say that Scripture is insufficient, since I believe you could remove the bulk of it, and a few passages would be "sufficient" along with the grace of God. But otoh, a diet of stale bread and fetid water might be "sufficient" to support human life. Yet if a sumptuous and nutritious diet was available, would that not be preferred? Why is "sufficiency" a virtue? A very small understanding of God is enough to "be saved" but if one is able to develop a rich spiritual life and be further changed into the image of Christ, wouldn't that be far better?

Click to expand...

Sufficiency is a particularly Anglican bugbear.

One of the 39 Articles (which I linked to earlier) says this:

"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."

Other things besides Scripture might be good and useful and helpful, but they can never be requisite or necessary. And I think there is a suspicion - if we use your metaphor of a meal - that by allowing things besides Scripture to be "an article of the Faith," we open the door, not only to a more sumptuous meal but also - at least potentially - to something more akin to junk food (I do not mean to imply that anything in Orthodox practice is spiritual junk food, but simply to point out what the concern is).

This way of viewing things provides a reassurance; the Scriptures are enough; in a world of competing traditions, we do not need to buy into anxiety about this or that extra-Scriptural aspect of Tradition in order to be assured of our salvation. We know that we have what we need.

This also allows for a degree of diversity and flexibility. If you and I both hold to some different things which are not in Scripture, I do not need to be concerned that I am condemned for not believing or living as you do; nor do I need to be concerned that you are condemned. If we both hold to what is in Scripture, both of us have enough and we are able to allow each other a degree of freedom.

Paidiske said:

Sufficiency is a particularly Anglican bugbear.

One of the 39 Articles (which I linked to earlier) says this:

"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."

Other things besides Scripture might be good and useful and helpful, but they can never be requisite or necessary. And I think there is a suspicion - if we use your metaphor of a meal - that by allowing things besides Scripture to be "an article of the Faith," we open the door, not only to a more sumptuous meal but also - at least potentially - to something more akin to junk food (I do not mean to imply that anything in Orthodox practice is spiritual junk food, but simply to point out what the concern is).

This way of viewing things provides a reassurance; the Scriptures are enough; in a world of competing traditions, we do not need to buy into anxiety about this or that extra-Scriptural aspect of Tradition in order to be assured of our salvation. We know that we have what we need.

This also allows for a degree of diversity and flexibility. If you and I both hold to some different things which are not in Scripture, I do not need to be concerned that I am condemned for not believing or living as you do; nor do I need to be concerned that you are condemned. If we both hold to what is in Scripture, both of us have enough and we are able to allow each other a degree of freedom.

Click to expand...

No offense intended here, but I honestly don't see how significant flexibility of beliefs is a good thing (i.e. Anglo-Catholic vs low-church Anglican). How can you truly be in communion with different beliefs, when communion means being united together in beliefs? Perhaps it has a different definition in the West?

Diversity of praxis is one thing, but flexibility of beliefs doesn't seem like a good thing, as there aren't multiple truths. Sometimes there are many facets of truth, but some that are diametrically opposed to eachother cannot both be true. Also, if we focus on one facet of truth, the other facets should at least be recognized and acknowledged (i.e. Western Orthodox vs Eastern Orthodox rite...different praxis, some different focus, but the same beliefs).

Again, no offense intended...just some thoughts I have when thinking about it.

My experience of the breadth of Anglicanism, on the whole, is that it tends to be the same truth expressed in different ways. I have often used the metaphor of speaking two languages to explain how I have encountered that. I have not - extreme exceptions aside - found that we are pursuing different truth claims, although you could be forgiven for thinking that if you only look at the surface of either way of being Anglican.

~Anastasia~ said:

Again, you have SOMETHING of a point, that very disparate groups can be considered "Protestant" and thus compared unfavorably in light of Scripture alone keeping everything on track.

But do they really share "no common history"? That us impossible. We ALL have a common history, if we go far back to the early Church.

Click to expand...

The first thing that comes to my mind is that Catholic (RC or EO) posters often insist that Lutheran, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and others have no history prior to the Reformation. Yet now I'm reading that a Congregationalist or Unitarian is supposed to have a common history with them????? Because they both believe in the Bible in some fashion? Because none of these are RC or EO?

Maybe we need to have a discussion on this point as well as the rest of what we're discussing.

Yes, Rome had her own ideas. Holy Tradition was not responsible for the schism. Rome's ideas and interpretations were.

Click to expand...

and where does Rome get those ideas? What does she say accounts for them and justifies them? Why, it's Tradition.

No offense, but looking to all of history, it seems apparent to me that SS has failed to keep everyone on the same track of understanding and interpreting Truth.

Click to expand...

I don't know why posters keep coming back to this point. The Bible is the word of God and yet different readers and different churches that consider it inspired disagree on doctrine. The churches that claim Tradition disagree on doctrine. That different churches which agree on Sola Scriptura have different beliefs isn't a failing of Sola Scriptura. The point is that we first need to know what is the proper source of guidance. Then we can debate how it is supposed to be understood.

ETA: In catching up a bit more, I'm sorry you feel SS is being disparaged. I've tried to state when appropriate (and I know that I have many times) that Orthodoxy would support the idea of SS in a certain sense. As A4C has pointed out, we (Orthodox) do not view Scripture as apart from Holy Tradition, but as the most important part of it. It really is impossible for us to have a situation where "Tradition vs. Scripture" .... in the same way you can't (or shouldn't) view "Scripture vs. Scripture". My posts may disagree with certain points you make, but overall I am not trying to argue with SS, though I DO disagree strongly with the way some folks (wrongly) understand SS to be - that anything not explicit within Scripture is forbidden.

Click to expand...

I have read it argued that Scripture is inadequate, so there's a tendency to defend Scripture against that idea. However, I agree that it's Sola Scriptura which is the issue, and it's Sola Scriptura that is paired against Holy Tradition, not tradition, in our conversation, if we want to be precise.

Going back to "sufficiency" ... once again, I would never say that Scripture is insufficient, since I believe you could remove the bulk of it, and a few passages would be "sufficient" along with the grace of God. But otoh, a diet of stale bread and fetid water might be "sufficient" to support human life. Yet if a sumptuous and nutritious diet was available, would that not be preferred?

Click to expand...

]Why not a diet of mud and gasoline? Part of the opposition to Holy Tradition's additions is that there is absolutely nothing that directs us to the sources--the legends, scattered opinions, customs, etc.--as opposed to anything else. There really isn't any either-or in this except that some churches have decided to make something else the equal of Scripture. And you are saying that the "other" which your church has identified is rich and fulfilling, etc., which isn't the issue.

Why is "sufficiency" a virtue? A very small understanding of God is enough to "be saved" but if one is able to develop a rich spiritual life and be further changed into the image of Christ, wouldn't that be far better?

Click to expand...

The issue here deals with doctrine. More specifically, it is about determining doctrine. It's not about enhancing our spiritual life, even though that's good in itself. You could study The Way of a Pilgrim or a hundred other writings and get a lot from them, but that is not the issue with Sola Scriptura or, OTOH, Holy Tradition.

Paidiske said:

My experience of the breadth of Anglicanism, on the whole, is that it tends to be the same truth expressed in different ways. I have often used the metaphor of speaking two languages to explain how I have encountered that. I have not - extreme exceptions aside - found that we are pursuing different truth claims, although you could be forgiven for thinking that if you only look at the surface of either way of being Anglican.

Click to expand...

I admittedly am not an expert in Anglican theology, so please take this as someone who is curious to understand your beliefs. I've been reading lately about various church's beliefs on the Eucharist, and came across this: Anglican eucharistic theology - Wikipedia

Is that description of three different views of the Eucharist within Anglicanism accurate? Do you consider them to be along the lines of what you mentioned - two languages expressing the same belief?

Btw @Albion, I do want to pursue what we discussed earlier, but I may not be able to post it until later this week, as it is the middle of the work week, and it will take time to properly put it together.

All4Christ said:

No offense intended here, but I honestly don't see how significant flexibility of beliefs is a good thing (i.e. Anglo-Catholic vs low-church Anglican).

Click to expand...

Anglo-Catholic = Catholic theology.
Low Church Anglican = opposed to excessive ceremony.

How can you truly be in communion with different beliefs, when communion means being united together in beliefs? Perhaps it has a different definition in the West?

Click to expand...

Sometimes you can't, as witness the many Anglican churches in our country that are not in communion with The Episcopal Church anymore. But it is possible--and it did hold until relatively recently--to be in communion so long as certain essentials were upheld.

We really do not fret over such things as how many candles are on the altar or whether the priest is wearing a chasuble or simply cassock and surplice, although other Christians suppose that we do. We, for our part, are stunned when, in an EO church, the Divine Liturgy comes to a halt so that the priest and an acolyte or other server can argue between themselves at the iconostasis over some minor point of ritual. So, what you're referring to can go two ways and not just one.

All4Christ said:

Btw @Albion, I do want to pursue what we discussed earlier, but I may not be able to post it until later this week, as it is the middle of the work week, and it will take time to properly put it together.

Click to expand...

Sounds good.

Albion said:

Anglo-Catholic = Catholic theology.
Low Church Anglican = opposed to excessive ceremony.


Sometimes you can't, as witness the many Anglican churches in our country that are not in communion with The Episcopal Church anymore. But it is possible--and did hold until relatively recently--so long as certain essentials were upheld.

We really do not fret over such things as how many candles are on the altar or whether the priest is wearing a chasuble or simply cassock and surplice, although other Christians suppose that we do. We, for our part, are aghast when, in an EO church, the Divine Liturgy comes to a halt so that the priest and an acolyte or other server can argue between themselves over some minor point concerning the ritual. So, what you're referring to can go two ways and not just one.

Click to expand...

FTR, I have not seen an argument like that in my church, though our fallen nature does show up occasionally in all churches. (Incidentally, that's one reason we don't believe we can rely on any single person to be infallible, including the church fathers.)

I'm not referencing praxis in my previous post (which would include candles, etc at the extreme application); rather I am referring to beliefs - as in doctrines, dogma or theology. I do appreciate that the Anglican Church has more unity of beliefs than many Churches, which is one reason we tend to have good relations with the Anglican Church.

ETA: Catholic theology does seem to be diametrically opposed to some beliefs held by other Anglicans (from an outside perspective).

All4Christ said:

FTR, I have not seen an argument like that in my church, though our fallen nature does show up occasionally in all churches.

Click to expand...

I've seen it several times and been told it's not rare.

I'm not referencing praxis in my previous post (which would include candles, etc at the extreme application); rather I am referring to beliefs - as in doctrines, dogma or theology.

Click to expand...

Yes, I thought I might not have answered that as well as I might have. The point there was that we do not think communion is broken, or should be, if the issue is a non-essential. Rather than use that candles example, I might better have cited something like a disagreement over one of the Marian beliefs or something dealing with the afterlife.

I do appreciate that the Anglican Church has more unity of beliefs than many Churches, which is one reason we tend to have good relations with the Anglican Church.

Click to expand...

Albion said:

and where does Rome get those ideas? What does she say accounts for them and justifies them? Why, it's Tradition.

...

The churches that claim Tradition disagree on doctrine. That different churches which agree on Sola Scriptura have different beliefs isn't a failing of Sola Scriptura. The point is that we first need to know what is the proper source of guidance. Then we can debate how it is supposed to be understood.

Click to expand...

The churches that claim tradition have different views of Holy Tradition.

One believes that all doctrines and dogmas were given in the apostolic deposit of faith. We can clarify heresies, but cannot develop new doctrines. Praxis may change, but not dogma or doctrines.

The other believes that sacred tradition deepens and matures, allowing development of new dogmas and doctrines. Both call it Holy Tradition (and to an extent they both have the same core), but there is a significant difference.

Most things we disagree with are developments later, whereas the church was fairly united (as a whole) in the early church. Certainly there were heresies, but the ecumenical councils were the way to affirm and clarify the unified belief of the church for that time and the future.

We can agree to disagree on this, but this is a general overview of the Orthodox perspective.