Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Therefore, I will not present a defense of tradition or apostolic succession in this thread, but merely point to it as the only logical alternative to resolving this dilemma between sola/solo scriptura.
So we are to accept a "secondary" source as authority over the actual primary writings of our apostles?
How is that logical?
I do think there is a difference between the two outlooks, and it is a pretty big one.
I think sola scriptura where the community must understand scripture together is way way closer to the Catholic, and perhaps especially to the Orthodox view. Those groups see the Truth is given through the Church (the community) and Scripture/Tradition, and those forms of Protestantism also see those things as authoritative. It is simply a somwhat different hierarchy of those elements, a slightly different view of what is essential and what is not, and slightly different view of how the community is stuctured.
But for both, faith is not only in the truth of scripture, but in the way the Holy Spirit protects the Church.
In solo scriptura (I also am not crazy about the term) there is nothing outside the text allowed. I don't actually think this is really a coherent position though, because it does not explain how the Scriptures themselves came to exist, and strictly speaking, it doesn't allow for the interpretation of the individual, since that comes from outside of Scripture. But of course no one comes to a text as a blank slate, and thinking one does is dangerous.
As for whether they are ultimately the same - well, maybe? I think if you look at how they operate, they are pretty clearly different in many ways. Confessional Christianity is a lot different than the most extreme individualist Christianity. But it may be that one leads to another. My initial thought is that it is perhaps more a matter of a different understanding of the Church than of scripture really, and that sola scriptura, and then sola scriptura, both flow from a misunderstanding of the hierarchy and nature of the Church.
.
I'm wasting my time and setting myself up for a spam violation but.....
An Example:
The dispute -
The Big Fat Denomination says that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance that the earthly father of Jesus was named Eric.
The Russian Skyrocket Denomination says that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance that the earthly father of Jesus was named Robert.
The Hillbilly Mountain Denomination says that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance that the earthly father of Jesus was named Joseph.
The possibilities -
1. They all could be right.
2. They all could be wrong.
3. One or two could be right, one or two could be wrong.
4. It cannot be determined with sufficient realiability (to the level claimed)
The key issue -
The key issue that MUST be addressed first is this: Does truth matter? If truthfulness and honesty in Christian dogma doesn't matter, then there's no need to proceed. Who gives a rip? "What is truth?" as Pontius Pilate sarcastically put it.
But if truth does matter, then we've embraced accountability. But we aren't done: does accountability apply only to Hillbilly Mountain Church but not to the Russian Skyrocket Church? Is the RSC church exempt from the issue of accountability because it itself exempts it itself from this process? Because it demands "I'm right so I'm right when I say I'm right, so I'm right - so there?"
THIS is the point where many Protestants depart from the RCC and LDS (and if you are correct, perhaps the EO). Protestants tend to embrace that all teachers AMONG US - our current denominations for example - are accountable, none is exempt on the basis that self so exempts self alone. The RCC insists that it is too special, too close to Jesus to be accountable. It DEMANDS that all OTHERS are fully, immediately and passionately accountable (it was burning people at the stake long before Luther was born) but it is not. Thus, at this point - the RCC (and LDS and maybe EO) exit the issue. "My position is exempt from the issue of truth."
So, the FIRST ISSUE (and the foundational one) is this: Does it matter? Does truth matter? Is accountability embraced or rejected (at least for self)?
Norming -
For those remaining, accountability has been embraced. Truth matters. So, we now have that issue before us: What was the name of Jesus' earthly father? Is the BFC right? Is the RSC right? Is the HMC right? Or are they all, or are none of them, or can't it be determined definitively?
Norming is the issue of determining correctness, truthfulness, validity...
Those who rejected accountability (for self anyway) aren't "here" for a very simple reason - they regard it as moot.
The Rule -
The first order of business (if you will) for those who care and who embrace accountability (and thus norming) is to agree upon the most sound, common rule ("straight edge")/ canon ("measuring stick")/ norma normans ("norm that norms"). Without a common rule - nothing can be accomplished. This is our "plumbline" our "standard."
In epistemology, the best norma normans is the one that is most objectively knowable by all and alterable by none (above and beyond all parties), seen as reliable by all suffient for this determination (it need not be inerrant, obviously - although it would be GREAT if it were so embraced by all parties), and the one with the most historical and broad embrace. In my field (physics - I work in scientific research), we use math and laborative evidence (both with rather carefully defined terms). We don't believe either if inerrant but we subject all views to those canons - which are outside, above and beyond all, including the proponents of the various views - a very flawed process (we know) but the best we have, the most sound available. What would be rejected as the most flawed would be the views of self as the rule/canon for the views of self - If I say it's so, it's so, so if I say it - it's so. Circles always lead you home - but not necessarily to truth.
So, the second issue is for a consensus among all as to the common rule. THIS IS THE SOLE ISSUE OF THE RULE OF SCRIPTURE (what Luther and Calvin called Sola Scriptura). Yes, it assumes the previous issues - that truth matters and thus accountability matters and that norming is to be embraced.
The Arbitration -
But, of course, all agreeing to embrace norming and a common norma normans resolves nothing. NO ONE SAID IT DID - you keep harping on some false notion that Sola Scripture is some authoritative ruling when it has been stressed - over and over - that the Rule of Scripture is using Scripture as the rule - not arbitration. I suspect this comes from the RCC/LDS understanding of "authority" as unmitigated, unaccountable POWER to lord it over others.... Whatever the reason, you seem to keep missing this.
You also seem to miss that arbitration is needed because each individual will just interpreter some verse and the process ends. This, I'm sure, is because of the RCC/LDS enormous emphasis on individual interpretation and the HUGE emphasis given to the POWER (lordship) of self interpreting stuff (see CCC 85 and 87 for example). You keep missing - over and over and over - that embracing the Rule of Scripture in norming is embracing Scripture as the Rule, it's not a principle of hermeneutics.
In arbitration, there is some process ALSO agreed upon whereby a resolution will be attempted. RESOLUTION is not the same thing as INFALLIBLE/UNACCOUNTABLE DECLARATION. It seems, we're going to resolve the debate. ACCORDING TO A RULE.
Let's say you insist you were not speeding. A friendly policeman insists that you were. There is a dispute. This may go to arbitration (court) and the court will operate UNDER THE RULE OF LAW. Whether you were speeding MATTERS (you cannot exempt yourself from the issue cuz you just do), there is a knowable/objective Rule applying to all (you, the policeman, the judge, the jury), it will be arbitrated. Now, do we believe that every decision of every courtroom is 100% infallibly correct? But embracing accountability for all, embracing a common objective reliable rule over all, and a sound arbitive process probably leads to that better than any other process. So much so, that typically it resolves the issue ( VERY few cases are appealed - and if they do, are overturned). Keeping the process open and UNDER THE LAW - the embraced rule - is important, of course.
Now, let's get back to our example.... Maybe all 3 denominations have the humility and the respect for truth to accept accountability - thus norming. Perhaps all 3 accept that Scripture is reliable for this purpose. We have embraced accountability/norming and we have embraced a common rule. Now (if necessary) we go to arbitration UNDER THAT RULE (Scripture). Not that Rule plus whatever the Hillbilly Mountain Denomination teaches or Scripture PLUS whatever the Holy Spirit happens to secretly whisper to the leader of the Russian Skyrocket Church. Now, as we look at Scripture (alone) - we can together likely resolve this one, don't you think?
Can you always? No. Sometimes the conclusion is that the position cannot be determined to a level that resolves it. Perhaps instead of the name of Jesus' father, the debate was the name of his dog? Perhaps the conclusion would be: "it cannot be determined - definitively - who (if anyone) is correct on this."
Thus, arbitration can have 3 possible outcomes: The view is right (doctrine), the view is wrong (heresy) or the view is indeterminant (neither dogma or heresy).
The RCC/LDS "problem"
The RCC (and maybe EO) left the building WAY back at step one: Accountability. It never engaged in ANY aspect of norming (at least for its own positions) because it never accepted the even theoretical possibllity that it MIGHT be wrong. It rejects accountability and the issue of Truth and replaces it with the issue of POWER (it likes to call it "authority") that is unmitigated, unaccountable and divine. Quiet, docilic SUBMISSION to ITSELF is the issue, not truth. It's left the room... Thus, it's objection to the Rule of Scripture (and any other, in the case of itself).
I had a Greek Orthodox friend explain to me why arbitation is so difficult. She LONGED for the POSSIBILITY of a real Ecumenical Council today but said this: "Image that the Eighth Council was planned! Say for Sydney, Australia! Church leaders from around the world are invited, prayers by over 2 billion Christians are raised up to God! Delegates check into the hotel for what could be many weeks. Then they gather in the large hall for the opening worship service, telecast live around the world. It's lead by Anglican Archbishop, with participants from dozens of churches worldwide. People join - boldly and faithfully - in signing "Lift High the Cross" and all join - each in their own tongue - in praying the Lord's Prayer. HOPE fills - supersaturates - the room! After the service, the Orthodox and Lutheran representatives literally embrace, the Methodist and Baptist enjoy stories of their ministries and pray for each other - love fills the room. Then they are called back for the opening session. Each takes their spot. The Orthodox representive leads the opening prayer, and then the Chairman comes to the podium - a Lutheran. The Chairman calls the meeting to order and immediately the Catholic representative stands and demands to be recognized. He is out of the order, but the Chairman desires to open on an evanglical/embracing note. The Catholic speaks into the mic: "I'm infallible. I CANNOT be wrong in these matters. When I speak, Jesus is speaking. I'm right because I agree with me, you are wrong because you don't agree with me. Does anyone have any questions?" You could hear a pin drop...... Silence fills the room..... The Orthodox representative, still nearby from the opening prayer, leans over to the Chairman, covers the mic with his hand, and says "We told 'ya." The Pentecostal representative calls for adjournment of the Council. The Catholic seconds it. And everyone goes home.....
There are THREE pieces of the "puzzle" - to resolution (see my signature of every post).
1. Acountability - with none exempting self cuz self does.
2. A COMMON sound, knowable, objective rule/canon.
3. A COMMON arbitration that at least largely resolves the debate.
The RCC and LDS have no "pieces" at all. They reject # 1 (making 2 and 3 entirely moot).
Many Protestants have # 1 AND #2. Sadly, they don't have # 3. That means, we still have MUCH work to do - but it puts us 2 steps ahead of the RCC and LDS (and maybe the EO). But yes - a COMMON arbitration exists NOWHERE (and hasn't for some 1200 years) - even a flawed and poor one. All we've had for 1200 years is DENOMINATIONAL, we can arbitrate to resolution things on that level (as the RCC and LDS also do) but not ECUMENICALLY. Lutherans long for this. But we need a sense of humility and community before it is possible. Luther inherited a Christianity SUPERSATURATED with pride, individualism, institutionalism. He helped, he by no means "solved" things - and NO ONE claims he did. We have 2 pieces of resolution, 2 more than the RCC (and from you, it seems than the EO) but while that helps - it doesn't "fix" the mess created by the RC (and as I've gleen from you, the EO).
I doubt that accomplished anything.....
Yup, it's all been said several times before....
.
Well, this is going to go wayyyy off topic, but since you brought it up:
I reject your claim that you have piece 1 and 2 of "the puzzle". The simple fact is because in order for scripture to be authoritative, it must be interpreted
and under sola scriptura (as well as solo) no one is accountable to anything other than scripture
(more aptly, your preferred interpretation of scripture), as no one else can bind your conscience regarding doctrine or truth except self. See the vicious circle?
So much as you are accountable to your own interpretation of scripture; but I hardly call this accountability. Self is accountable to self.
And hey, since we can't agree on a common view of what scripture is, we can always remove some of it, or add some books to it.
there is no scripture common to all of Christianity.
Knowable? Well, knowledge implies understanding
It is because it is your interpretation, your individual interpretation, that is authorative, which is accountable to no one.
BTW, I already and several others already mentioned (several times) that there is at least one other denomination (armenian apostolic) that only accepts 22 books of the new testament, so we don't have 66 in common amonst all of us (you really need to update your copy/paste files).
this thread isn't about SS vs. Tradition.
So we are to accept a "secondary" source as authority over the actual primary writings of our apostles?
How is that logical?
I was raised in a denomination which was not (and still is not) accountable to much nor could it be held accountable because there was nothing to serve a a means or standard to do so. The Bible was proclaimed to be such a deep and mystical book that only seminary-trained men were capable of reading it and explaining it to the rest of us mere mortals. However, in all of the church services I attended the Bible was regularly ignored in favor of more interesting things (at least interesting to the preacher).
It was after I became a Christian that I read the Bible for the first time in my life. I was quite stunned that it was surprisingly simple and clear to understand and that it contained a lot of stuff my church had rejected and had refused to mention as I was growing up. Things like sin, for instance.
Without the Bible that denomination is sailing steadily along toward the abyss as more and more of its passengers have been bailing out.
It can be shown that apostolic succession is the only legitimate alternative without addressing it directly, that is, by eliminating sola scriptura. That is later though, we still haven't gotten to that point (and i'm not sure we ever will at this rate).
It can be shown that apostolic succession is the only legitimate alternative without addressing it directly, that is, by eliminating sola scriptura. That is later though, we still haven't gotten to that point (and i'm not sure we ever will at this rate).
I would also like to see a thread started on thatI'd like for you to start a thread to document that: namely:
1. Apostolic Succession is more inspired by God, more inerrant, more reliable, more objectively knowable and more ecumenically embraced (say by 50,000 denominations) , more historical (say to 1400 BC), than is Scripture.
2. That the disputed doctrines among us (which, unfortunately, includes Apostolic Succession) can be held up to the light of Apostolic Succession in a way more objective than to Scripture.
I'm more than curious how you would present that...
And I'd be more than curious to see how you even define Apostolic Succession for this: If it is people being appointed by other people - then I have Apostolic Succession and I'm part of this rule/canon you are presenting. If it's a view taught by the 13 Apostles, then how is that different than Sola Scriptura since the only objective, knowable, ecumenically embraced "place" where that teaching is recorded is in the NT (all you've done is eliminate at least 45 books from the rule of Scripture - leaving us with only the 13 books of Paul, 5 books of John, 2 of Peter and 1 of Matthew - now mandating that we can prove those ARE the penmen of those books and that the Apostles are more reliable than God).
Start a thread proposing Apostolic Succession as the norma normans in norming. I'll see how you address those points, I'm VERY curious how you'd do that!!!!!! Beware: the Catholics will oppose that one, too - unless it is limited to it's OWN clergy who are upholding the teachings of the RCC. All Protestants will reject it too, not because they reject accountability (the RCC's problem) but because we don't regard man as above God..
Ah, it appears I have lured the boar out of the bushes!
In this article we argue that there is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura with respect to the holder of ultimate interpretive authority, and that a return to apostolic succession is the only way to avoid the untoward consequences to which both solo scriptura and sola scriptura lead."
Notice that a defense has not been made for tradition here. It is merely presented as the only recourse to the dilemma presented by both sola/solo, and says nothing about the validity or veracity of the former. Therefore, I will not present a defense of tradition or apostolic succession in this thread, but merely point to it as the only logical alternative to resolving this dilemma between sola/solo scriptura.
My first goal in this thread was to determine whether or not other forumers agreed with Mathison's assessment, which concluded that solo scriptura is indeed an 'unbiblical position.' I do not seem to notice any concensus, nor have I seen anyone outright condemn solo as being unbiblical. If anyone wants to discuss the differences between sola/solo, and your views regarding both, please feel free to do so.
However, I would also like to discuss in more detail the idea of interpretative authority with regards to both varieties of SS. I guess I could start by returning to this:
"All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. The only real question is: whose interpretation? People with differing interpretations of Scripture cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve their differences. In order for the Scripture to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone."
Does everyone agree with this bolded statement? Why or why not?
Yes, there is a difference between the two, but is there a fundamental difference with respect to the "ultimate interpretative authority"? If not, why do these other differences matter, if Solo is essentially Sola "boiled down" without the "middle men", so to speak?
Sorry you've addressed this before, and if you don't want to discuss it anymore I certainly don't blame you. I don't see much else of relevance to discuss in this passage.
Well, I googled "boar in the vineyard" and I found the original reference. Gave me a chuckle, thanks for that.I sure hope you get the reference and thus the humor, especially when you see that that pig's got flowers in his hair!
Apostolic succession is a traditional doctrine, not an biblical one (you don't cast lots to determine your next bishop, do you?). Therefore, we can't help but bring up tradition because the question involves a doctrine derived from tradition. Sorry brother, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.
That being said, apostolic succession is not as you say "the only logical alternative to resolving this dilemma" at all because as I've hinted at, apostolic succession cannot prevent heresy or schism (as history clearly demonstrates) and does not allow for any resolution in the case of the church falling into radical corruption and refusing to be reformed.
Besides, Anglicans and some Lutherans have "apostolic succession." What does this prove? Well, it simply proves that we also have apostolic succession.
Of course, the instant we ask this question we quickly see that there's not even universal agreement as to what constitutes "valid" apostolic succession. For RCC, you can still have valid succession, but be in both heresy and schism, which is why they felt the need to officially invalidate Anglican apostolic succession. It's also why the EO are considered to still have valid sacraments even though they're in schism with Rome and hold beliefs which Rome has historically rejected and condemned. For the EO, one's apostolic succession becomes invalid in the case of either heresy or schism, which means that everyone who is not EO, regardless of the fact that they could trace their episcopal lineage back to the apostles (and even here things get a bit slippery since there's disagreement in the earliest sources regarding lineages), it really dosen't matter because if you're a schismatic or heretic, your succession is invalid.
So the question becomes, who's definition of apostolic succession can "logically" save us from the perils of this horrid dilemma of sola vs solo scriptura where we still have to interpret Scripture!? The next question, is how can it resolve this issue? But of course, this brings us right back to the problem which you want to avoid, but can't, because it brings us to problem of validating tradition, since as we see, there's various views on what apostolic succession means.
But "logically speaking," we don't even need to go there since it's blatantly obvious from history that apostolic succession cannot prevent heresy or schism. Did it prevent the schism with the OO? They have valid succession. Did it prevent the Great Schism? I mean, both have valid succession according to their version of tradition. How about the Great Western Schism? We had not one, not two, but three popes who all had apostolic succession! Who do we believe!? What about us heretical Anglicans or Lutherans who also have apostolic succession? Does it prevent us from not rejoining one of the "One True Church"es?
I know it's not a thread about this, but you're making the claim that such things are absolutely true. So we don't have much choice but to point out that one can't claim that both sola and solo are false without implying (which you go far beyond here) that one needs to treat tradition with more authority.
As I've stated, they are simply terms to differentiate between very real and very obvious epistemological differences. Do you dispute this? If so, please support your argument.
Does that work for ya?
Yes, of course. The difference between the two is that one interprets Scripture as a church, the other as an individual or as a church who is under the delusion that their epistemology is uninfluenced by other sources like tradition or reason (well, maybe they're right on the last one... ).
....
Sola scriptura says that you need the church and must be a part of the church to be a Christian.
Yes. But Scripture is clear, Christians are a part of Christ's body and must work within His body, the church. The "middle man" as you say it, is the church. Solo scriptura takes the church out of the equation and elects every person pope.
It's not so much I don't want to discuss it, but rather me wondering why you keep bringing the issue up while seemingly refusing to take the time to really understand the Protesant POV?
Excellent post, as usual. And very informative. (Not sure if it's accurate,Yes. But Scripture is clear, Christians are a part of Christ's body and must work within His body, the church. The "middle man" as you say it, is the church. Solo scriptura takes the church out of the equation and elects every person pope.
I disagree with your suggestion though, that those who dare to fly solo on reading the Bible are taking the church out of the equation. Unless I missed something, but I think I understood you.
As i pasted in another thread, 23 But the seed falling on good soil refers
to someone who hears the word and understands it. This is the one who
produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.”
We are the church, and each of us a part of the body of Christ, living stones.
But that doesnt take away from the fact that we're men, individuals who
read Scripture, and pray and reason ALONE as individuals as well.
It's often when I am alone that I experience a deeper fellowship with
the Father, and it's naturally during such time and in such an atmosphere that one might expect God to REveal things to us, His children.. Jesus didn't die on the cross so we could have church services..He died that He might change the world.
God bless you!
That's the requirement taught by our apostle for being considered a part of the body of Christ, but watch how many institutionalized Christians throw up something else considered tradition to try and defeat this clear teaching from Paul.1Co 12:13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?