Sola Scriptura?

[hedrick]

I mean that if I've read it once I've read it fifty times on these forums...A Protestant will say that the Bible is how to know correct doctrine, and the Roman Catholic opponent, or sometimes an Orthodox Christian, will respond by saying that although the Protestant rejects Tradition, he follows his own Tradition (meaning whatever the Protestant's church teaches).

The problem is, this attack is demonstrably true. Most Protestant do in fact accept traditional interpretations of Scripture, and are only in theory open to changes. The only part of the tradition that actually is open to change (mainline / liberal) is rejected by most Protestants in CF.

From my point of view the Reformers operated during a brief time when for all kinds of political and social reasons basic beliefs were open for reexamination. I think they made a good start. They really were wiling to follow the implications of Scripture. Since then, while Protestants still claim it, I see little difference in practice between traditional Protestants and Catholics except that Protestants have a Holy Tradition that in my opinion was significantly improved by the Reformers.

 

[Albion]

The problem is, this attack is demonstrably true. Most Protestant do in fact accept traditional interpretations of Scripture, and are only in theory open to changes.

This may be true...but it completely misses the point.

The comparison is being made between what you've just described (and I won't comment on the accuracy of it for the moment) and the Catholic meaning of Tradition. This comparison is indefensibly wrong. They are NOT the same.

 

[All4Christ]

Well, that (as you've worded it) is a perfect example of people getting it wrong. Fortunately, many who hold that view and many who believe in the correct meaning of Sola Scriptura are willing to admit that it's something different -- SolO Scriptura.


I'd be interested to know which (Protestant) denominations say, unequivocally, that their belief is not Sola Scriptura but, instead, Prima Scriptura or "Scripture totally alone and isolated." That's as opposed to what individuals who may claim to be affiliated with such a denomination might say, of course.

The Protestants agreeing with Prima Scriptura were some who post here on Traditional Theology. Perhaps they were speaking on a personal basis rather than as a denomination? There certainly are ranges within some of the more traditional (for the lack of a better word) churches. Some Anglicans I know, for example, do accept Prima Scriptura. Based on your response, I'm guessing that isn't a universal belief among your church?

As for the second, many non-denominational and evangelical churches I am familiar with (although not all) claim that they are influenced by the Bible and the Bible alone. Perhaps the phrase "Scripture totally alone and isolated" isn't used, but the concept is there.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Anastasia! I don't quite follow all of that, but no apologies are necessary. We can resume any time you want, or let it go if that's better.

Sorry, Albion. Recovering from surgery. Surgeon says I'm "overdoing" with right side, but all I do is post here. I rested, it got better, so I thought I could post again, but got worse again. I am impatient, is all. Nothing to worry about - the worst is past (hopefully and God willing).

Thank you for your kind understanding.

 

[hedrick]

As for the second, many non-denominational and evangelical churches I am familiar with (although not all) claim that they are influenced by the Bible and the Bible alone. Perhaps the phrase "Scripture totally alone and isolated" isn't used, but the concept is there.

Sure. But is that an honest description of how they actually work?

I'm not accusing anyone of lying, but I wonder if they're thinking clearly about how their traditions actually work.

 

[All4Christ]

Sure. But is that an honest description of how they actually work?

I'm not accusing anyone of lying, but I wonder if they're thinking clearly about how their traditions actually work.

No, you're right; in reality it isn't exactly how it works. That is the perception some hold, however.

 

[Tangible]

As for the second, many non-denominational and evangelical churches I am familiar with (although not all) claim that they are influenced by the Bible and the Bible alone. Perhaps the phrase "Scripture totally alone and isolated" isn't used, but the concept is there.

Growing up Baptist I heard this quite often. I've encountered it in other baptistic denominations and non-deniminations as well.

The problem comes in when RCC and OE posters lump traditional Protestants in with these groups which are actually quite different from us and have a significantly different approach to interpreting the scriptures.

Then you wind up with thread after thread attacking Sola Scriptura when what they're really criticizing is something quite different.

 

[All4Christ]

Growing up Baptist I heard this quite often. I've encountered it in other baptistic denominations and non-deniminations as well.

The problem comes in when RCC and OE posters lump traditional Protestants in with these groups which are actually quite different from us and have a significantly different approach to interpreting the scriptures.

Then you wind up with thread after thread attacking Sola Scriptura when what they're really criticizing is something quite different.

Yes, they really are very different approaches. I didn't realize the difference until I started looking into other denominations (I was Pentecostal at the time). The Traditional Theology forum has helped underscore the difference in my mind.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Growing up Baptist I heard this quite often. I've encountered it in other baptistic denominations and non-deniminations as well.

The problem comes in when RCC and OE posters lump traditional Protestants in with these groups which are actually quite different from us and have a significantly different approach to interpreting the scriptures.

Then you wind up with thread after thread attacking Sola Scriptura when what they're really criticizing is something quite different.

I was surprised to read Luther's writing on Sola Scriptura, and to realize it aligned closely with EO.

It was nothing like I'd been taught to think it meant, coming from Southern Baptist, evangelical, non-denoms, and the like.

 

[Albion]

The Protestants agreeing with Prima Scriptura were some who post here on Traditional Theology.

So...no church or denomination, nothing official or standard. Yes, I know that other folks here have written as you say, but there are a vast range of personal opinions on just about everything, aren't there?

I certainly have read posts here from people who say they are Orthodox and yet advocate some idea that is contrary to what the Orthodox churches teach; this is why I was curious to know which Protestant/Reformed denominations might actually disavow Sola Scriptura. Of course, all the Catholic-type churches are out of consideration because we already know that Sola Scriptura never was part of their theology.

As for the second, many non-denominational and evangelical churches I am familiar with (although not all) claim that they are influenced by the Bible and the Bible alone. Perhaps the phrase "Scripture totally alone and isolated" isn't used, but the concept is there.

I'm sorry, but what's the concept supposed to be? And have we decided that we're talking only about some independent congregations?

 

[Albion]

Sorry, Albion. Recovering from surgery. Surgeon says I'm "overdoing" with right side, but all I do is post here. I rested, it got better, so I thought I could post again, but got worse again. I am impatient, is all. Nothing to worry about - the worst is past (hopefully and God willing).

Thank you for your kind understanding.

I am very sorry to learn this, my friend, and I have some idea of how it is. If you're like me, recovering means spending a lot of time thinking and thinking and wondering about your recovery...which is an almost useless exercise but tough to shake. More important, however, is the news you bring that the worst is past and you're feeling positive.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I am very sorry to learn this, my friend, and I have some idea of how it is. If you're like me, recovering means spending a lot of time thinking and thinking and wondering about your recovery...which is an almost useless exercise but tough to shake. More important, however, is the news you bring that the worst is past and you're feeling positive.

Oh I've had a year of thinking. They tell me news is good now. I'm just impatient to live life again, lol. Not at all good being VERY sidelined. It will get better though. Just more slowly than I could wish. Thank you.

 

[All4Christ]

So...no church or denomination, nothing official or standard. Yes, I know that other folks here have written as you say, but there are a vast range of personal opinions on just about everything, aren't there?

I certainly have read posts here from people who say they are Orthodox and yet advocate some idea that is contrary to what the Orthodox churches teach; this is why I was curious to know which Protestant/Reformed denominations might actually disavow Sola Scriptura. Of course, all the Catholic-type churches are out of consideration because we already know that Sola Scriptura never was part of their theology.


I'm sorry, but what's the concept supposed to be? And have we decided that we're talking only about some independent congregations?

One question - in my readings about Anglicanism (I considered all the more traditional denominations before I became Orthodox), I read that high church Anglicans teach Prima Scriptura while low church Anglicans teach Sola Scriptura. Is that inaccurate?

Also, I've read that Wesleyan Quadrilateral approach is a form of Prima Scriptura. Perhaps I am wrong in that as well.

 

[Albion]

Anglicanism is about as broadly based as any of the major Christian denominations, so it's often dangerous to say "Anglicanism believes X." With some teachings, yes, there is a clear standard, even if there is a great measure of tolerance for those who have somewhat different views about it. But on other teachings, it's harder to nail down a standard.

That said, it is widely agreed that Scripture contains all that is necessary for salvation and that no member can be required to believe anything as being necessary for salvation which doesn't meet this test. That does leave open the possibility of the church taking a stand on other matters, but when it comes to what is necessary--it's the Bible. This is asserted in Article 6 of the Articles of Religion (often called the Thirty-nine Articles), entitled "Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation."

The terms High Church and Low Church refer only to ceremony, by the way, not to doctrine. There are, however, Anglo-Catholics or Anglo-Papalists who disavow almost all the historic Anglican formularies, and there are Evangelical Anglicans who are more traditional and Bible-oriented. Frankly, you're fortunate as an Orthodox Christian not to have such internal splits because most other communions or denominations these days, the Roman Catholic Church included, have them. I think ours are just better known by title than is the case with other denominations!

 

[All4Christ]

Perhaps you could indulge me with some exploration of the subject? Honestly, it seems like there is some overlap between Sola and Prima Scriptura in some churches. Some of the more traditional church's usage of Sola Scriptura at times seems to be the one side of Prima Scriptura, while Orthodox Christian's views would be close to the other side of Prima Scriptura (though we consider Scripture to be the most important part of Holy Tradition, not two separate sources, which in turn allows other sources to formulate necessary doctrines, albeit not able to contradict Scripture). Both believe Scripture is the Primary source of doctrine. Sola Scriptura would say that all necessary for salvation would be in Scripture, but still accepts other sources for doctrinal statements, albeit not salvific doctrines.

Any thoughts?

 

[Albion]

Perhaps you could indulge me with some exploration of the subject? Honestly, it seems like there is some overlap between Sola and Prima Scriptura in some churches. Some of the more traditional church's usage of Sola Scriptura at times seems to be the one side of Prima Scriptura, while Orthodox Christian's views would be close to the other side of Prima Scriptura (though we consider Scripture to be the most important part of Holy Tradition, not two separate sources, which in turn allows other sources to formulate necessary doctrines, albeit not able to contradict Scripture). Both believe Scripture is the Primary source of doctrine. Sola Scriptura would say that all necessary for salvation would be in Scripture, but still accepts other sources for doctrinal statements, albeit not salvific doctrines.

Any thoughts?

I dunno. I think you have said it well.

Sola Scriptura doesn't dismiss tradition, reason, and possibly emotion as part of understanding the meaning of the Scriptures. But such things are not authorities in themselves. In the Catholic Church, however, "Holy Tradition" is a separate and equal authority. The Reformation rejected that. Yes, it's said that the Bible is included as part of Tradition, but it's the other material that is the issue.

 

[All4Christ]

I dunno. I think you have said it well.

Sola Scriptura doesn't dismiss tradition, reason, and possibly emotion as part of understanding the meaning of the Scriptures. But such things are not authorities in themselves. In the Catholic Church, however, "Holy Tradition" is a separate and equal authority. The Reformation rejected that. Yes, it's said that the Bible is included as part of Tradition, but it's the other material that is the issue.

Thanks for the clarification. One clarification on our part - I believe Catholics (RCC) assert two parallel sources - Holy Tradition and Scripture. Depending on who you talk to in the RCC, I believe they are at times considered to be equal. If I'm wrong, our RCC brothers and sisters can correct me on that point

Orthodox, on the other hand, assert one source with multiple facets - Holy Tradition, with Scripture being the Primary source which cannot be contradicted.

 

[Albion]

Orthodox, on the other hand, assert one source with multiple facets - Holy Tradition, with Scripture being the Primary source which cannot be contradicted.

Yes, my reservation about that is that it apparently asserts that doctrines can be developed that have no Scriptural basis. Not that they conflict with Scripture, because that wouldn't be allowed, but which are nevertheless extra-Scriptural beliefs. Why any church would think that process to be necessary to engage in, I cannot appreciate.

 

[All4Christ]

Yes, my reservation about that is that it apparently asserts that doctrines can be developed that have no Scriptural basis. Not that they conflict with Scripture, because that wouldn't be allowed, but which are nevertheless extra-Scriptural beliefs. Why any church would think that process to be necessary to engage in, I cannot appreciate.

Certainly we can agree to disagree I just wanted to clarify the differences between the two approaches (RCC vs Orthodox)...because it does make a significant difference. I can explain more nuances later if desired, but I need to meet my parents for a mother's day service soon

 

[Albion]

Have a good day!