The Reformers and Sola Scriptura

[Chesterton]

And if all of the Church (including Orthodoxy - and presumably Catholicism?) holds Scripture to be the highest authority ... blend that with a tendency to discard traditions that seemed to be problematic, and it seems you have a recipe for subjugating Church practice to Scripture for reasons that never existed in the early Church.

Am I making sense? Are there large errors in this thinking, or does it seem reasonable?

Yes you're making sense to me, but one reason (among others) that I became Orthodox is because the East really didn't have "traditions that seemed to be problematic". For that reason (and to resist discussing specific churches) I probably shouldn't be in this thread. I should make some popcorn and just read.

Recommended reading which (IMO) relates to sola scriptura: The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man.

 

[~Anastasia~]

No, I didn't say "middle ground." I said it was in the middle of that mess of half-truths, whatever they might be called, that I was speaking about. I didn't mean to convey any idea that it is the halfway point between extremes or anything like that.

Thank you for the correction then. I was having a difficult time figuring out what you meant in the case I was misreading.

I've been around, and I think I know what you're telling us there about those churches. But I feel that "Bible only" talk is just a way of driving home the point that extraneous religious opinion, religious speculation, and so on, is NOT what the churches you are referring to deal in. And they don't. But they do actually utilize reason and the historical record of the Apostolic faith, etc. in their thinking processes. That's not a contradiction.

A Lutheran pastor, for example, may well speak of the Bible as our guiding light and the Bible only, but he's been to seminary and, in an inquirers' class, he's just as likely to tell you that the early church--according to all the historical material and information we can find--did not ordain women. Of course, he's saying it to show that the Bible's directions were being upheld by those closest to the Apostles and that the traditional policy of a male-only pastorate is right. He's proving the point. But you might say he was giving a nod to something other than just the verses found in the Bible. Yes, in a way, but at all in the way that "Sacred Tradition" operates in the Catholic churches.

I have no doubt that you have extensive experience among Churches.

But I think you may not have in mind what I am describing.

Some of the churches I attended had pastors that attended seminary, or at least had degrees in history or something along those lines. And those churches were more likely to have set beliefs that were to guide interpretation (pre trib rapture, OSAS, Zwinglian understanding of the sacraments, and the like).

But .... I'm really speaking more of a different scenario. I don't wish to say unkind things. Let's just say the last one I belonged to - several years back - no one in the church that I could tell had beyond a high school education and who was pastor had more to do with family tradition than any Church tradition.

Honestly, it was a bit extreme. Hence my reaction against it, finally.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I understand this leaves leeway for pious thought and actions that are not promoted, but neither are they prohibited, in Scripture?

Would a problem come in if the Church began (or always had) required something that was not a part of Scripture?

Thank you.

It depends on what it is that is "required" and in what sense it is required.

For example, I think it is appropriate that as the Church we require that Baptism be performed "in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit"; not necessarily because Scripture explicitly states this as the only permissible baptismal formula, but rather to require it in casu confessis or in statu confessionis; Latin for "in case of confession" and "in [a] state of confession".

This phrasing is used in Article X of the Epitome of the Formula of Concord concerning adiaphora,

"The chief question, however, has been, whether, in time of persecution and in case of confession, even if the enemies of the Gospel have not reached an agreement with us in doctrine, some abrogated ceremonies, which in themselves are matters of indifference and are neither commanded nor forbidden by God, may nevertheless, upon the pressure and demand of the adversaries, be reestablished without violence to conscience, and we may thus [rightly] have conformity with them in such ceremonies and adiaphora. To this the one side has said Yea, the other, Nay."

In other words if something can be said to be adiaphora--indifferent--but yet in our doing it seemingly show ourselves to be in agreement with those who err, then it is better not to do it, and to place ourselves "in a state of confession".

I would argue that this is one of the chief reasons why the Church historically has only permitted the explicitly Trinitarian formula, on account of heretics who used other formulae, such as "in the name of the Lord Jesus" doing so as an express denial of Christian truth. It is not necessarily that "in the name of the Lord Jesus" or some other formula is itself to null the Sacrament, or as though the Trinitarian formula were a magical incantation; but that the Church must take a stand on matters where truth and error are at stake. And thus it is appropriate that we insist and require that baptisms be done in the Three-fold name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--to proclaim our confession over and against the errors of heretics.

This is an instance where it is right to require something not explicitly spelled out in Scripture, not necessarily because it is in and of itself "required" but because we must make a stand.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Albion]

Some of the churches I attended had pastors that attended seminary, or at least had degrees in history or something along those lines. And those churches were more likely to have set beliefs that were to guide interpretation (pre trib rapture, OSAS, Zwinglian understanding of the sacraments, and the like).

Yes....but these are positions taken as a matter of interpreting Scripture. There's no input from anything like "Sacred Tradition" involved. Of course, believing in Sola Scriptura doesn't guarantee that there will be only one interpretation, and that's why we have different denominations.

But .... I'm really speaking more of a different scenario. I don't wish to say unkind things. Let's just say the last one I belonged to - several years back - no one in the church that I could tell had beyond a high school education and who was pastor had more to do with family tradition than any Church tradition.

Sure, there are such churches. The question I'd have still is "Do they rely upon tradition as the source of doctrine. I don't think that's the case. It appears to me that you are saying that they went along with what their church had always said was the truth, and perhaps rather dumbly at that. BUT did those t4teachings derive from a Bible interpretation or...OTOH from a legend of the saints, St. Thomas Aquinas' philosophy, ancient folklore, a theologian's logical deduction, etc.?

 

[ViaCrucis]

"...unwillingness to read the Scriptures within the confessional and believing communion of saints throughout history"

This sounds like the person who wrote this wants to read the Scriptures through creeds drawn up by ecclesiastical authorities, rather than the other way round.

"...the Canon's dependence upon the history and tradition of the Christian Church a stumbling block..."

This means that what Scripture is in all its authority, is supposedly dependent on ecclesiastical tradition.

It's not a one-way street. The Church is the Church because it is the people of God's Word, the bearers, hearers, and confessors of God's Word. And as such our confession of God's Word--which is passed down through the generations in our Creeds and confessional statements--are not to be scorned, but welcomed.

The Church does not approach the Bible in a vacuum, but rather in the midst of community, within the great "cloud of witnesses" which the author of Hebrews mentions. That there is a Communio Sanctorum--Communion of Saints--in which we approach and engage the Holy Scriptures; and those same Holy Scriptures in turn engage us, they read us.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[faroukfarouk]

It's not a one-way street. The Church is the Church because it is the people of God's Word, the bearers, hearers, and confessors of God's Word. And as such our confession of God's Word--which is passed down through the generations in our Creeds and confessional statements--are not to be scorned, but welcomed.

The Church does not approach the Bible in a vacuum, but rather in the midst of community, within the great "cloud of witnesses" which the author of Hebrews mentions. That there is a Communio Sanctorum--Communion of Saints--in which we approach and engage the Holy Scriptures; and those same Holy Scriptures in turn engage us, they read us.

-CryptoLutheran

Thus saith Joe, in other words.

Sorry; for me Holy Scripture stands apart, and sheds its light on my failings and imperfections, and not the other way round.

 

[Tzaousios]

Some of the churches I attended had pastors that attended seminary, or at least had degrees in history or something along those lines. And those churches were more likely to have set beliefs that were to guide interpretation (pre trib rapture, OSAS, Zwinglian understanding of the sacraments, and the like).

I think you have determined the crux of the problem right here. It is the huge elephant in the room that many Protestants consistently ignore, feign ignorance of, or are ignorant of in actual fact.

It is especially common in non-denominational, Evangelical, and Baptist circles for pastors and apologists to rail against all of the terrible traditions that the Catholic and Orthodox churches (sometimes even the Lutheran church) accumulated during the time from after the apostles to the Reformation. They self-legitimate and -justify their supposed lack of traditions by appealing to "what the Bible plainly says," "Bible only," "old time Bible preaching," and Sola Scriptura (conflated with Solo Scriptura).

It fools many of the average Joes and Janes in the pews but not those who have journeyed outside the comfort box to examine history and doctrinal interpretation. One can go down the line and see rather clearly how these particular Protestants have accumulated and internalized Wycliff's and Zwingli's gutted views on the Eucharist, Baptism, clergy, and iconography; the Anabaptists' view on Baptism, Darby's and the Plymouth Brethren's eschatology, and Carroll's Trail of Blood theory of church history. Usually they accomplish this through trickle-down osmosis; sometimes by conscious effort. Rarely does one receive any admission or acknowledgment of tradition for reasons I am sure you know why.

 

[Rick Otto]

"...unwillingness to read the Scriptures within the confessional and believing communion of saints throughout history"

This sounds like the person who wrote this wants to read the Scriptures through creeds drawn up by ecclesiastical authorities, rather than the other way round.

"...the Canon's dependence upon the history and tradition of the Christian Church a stumbling block..."

This means that what Scripture is in all its authority, is supposedly dependent on ecclesiastical tradition.

I haven't caught up on this thread,... did you get called a name yet?

 

[Rick Otto]

Yes you're making sense to me, but one reason (among others) that I became Orthodox is because the East really didn't have "traditions that seemed to be problematic". For that reason (and to resist discussing specific churches) I probably shouldn't be in this thread. I should make some popcorn and just read.

Recommended reading which (IMO) relates to sola scriptura: The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man.

Interesting link.

 

[MoreCoffee]

A Catholic perspective on apostolic tradition is that sacred scripture and the liturgy and liturgical prayers inform the church about what is true and what is false because these sources are revealed to mankind by God. Doctrine and morals are to be informed by these things and by the church's teaching over the centuries about these things.

The Nicene creed is an example of church teaching that is informed by sacred scripture and the liturgy and the prayers of the church as well as the church's teaching in the centuries leading up to the deliberations of the first council of Nicea in 325 AD and the church councils that followed up to and including the first council of Constantinople in 381 AD.

Another example is the formula of Chalcedon (451 AD).

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes you're making sense to me, but one reason (among others) that I became Orthodox is because the East really didn't have "traditions that seemed to be problematic". For that reason (and to resist discussing specific churches) I probably shouldn't be in this thread. I should make some popcorn and just read.

Recommended reading which (IMO) relates to sola scriptura: The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man.

Thanks for the recommendation. And thanks for understanding - at least I put some words together in sense order, LOL.

I probably could have worded that differently. What I meant is that whoever was making the decisions looked at the traditions of some church, and had a problem with them ... and so interpreted Scripture purposely without considering those traditions, or perhaps in reaction to disprove them, etc.

Not talking about anything specific here, but I meant that the traditions seemed problematic to whoever was codifying the doctrine. I'm sure there are various examples, depending on who you ask. It's more a matter of perception, for the sake of discussion, than a commentary on the actual traditions.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It depends on what it is that is "required" and in what sense it is required.

For example, I think it is appropriate that as the Church we require that Baptism be performed "in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit"; not necessarily because Scripture explicitly states this as the only permissible baptismal formula, but rather to require it in casu confessis or in statu confessionis; Latin for "in case of confession" and "in [a] state of confession".

This phrasing is used in Article X of the Epitome of the Formula of Concord concerning adiaphora,

"The chief question, however, has been, whether, in time of persecution and in case of confession, even if the enemies of the Gospel have not reached an agreement with us in doctrine, some abrogated ceremonies, which in themselves are matters of indifference and are neither commanded nor forbidden by God, may nevertheless, upon the pressure and demand of the adversaries, be reestablished without violence to conscience, and we may thus [rightly] have conformity with them in such ceremonies and adiaphora. To this the one side has said Yea, the other, Nay."

In other words if something can be said to be adiaphora--indifferent--but yet in our doing it seemingly show ourselves to be in agreement with those who err, then it is better not to do it, and to place ourselves "in a state of confession".

I would argue that this is one of the chief reasons why the Church historically has only permitted the explicitly Trinitarian formula, on account of heretics who used other formulae, such as "in the name of the Lord Jesus" doing so as an express denial of Christian truth. It is not necessarily that "in the name of the Lord Jesus" or some other formula is itself to null the Sacrament, or as though the Trinitarian formula were a magical incantation; but that the Church must take a stand on matters where truth and error are at stake. And thus it is appropriate that we insist and require that baptisms be done in the Three-fold name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--to proclaim our confession over and against the errors of heretics.

This is an instance where it is right to require something not explicitly spelled out in Scripture, not necessarily because it is in and of itself "required" but because we must make a stand.

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you. I knew it would make more sense with a particular example for illustration.

You bring up another interesting point I hadn't thought of. The need to disallow something not because it's necessarily a problem, but because to allow it could imply agreement with something else.

I think ... that reminds me of the reasons some books were eventually decided not to be part of the canon? They were essentially good writings, as I understand, but they were being misused and wrongly applied by certain heretics, so it was decided not to keep them at all. Which is similar to not wanting the Canon associated with those teachings. Mildly similar. (I'm not saying it was the actual reason - I'm sure the real reason was more direct.)

That's such an interesting point. I want to file that one away to think about some more. I think some other interesting points could come out from both positive and negative examples.

Thanks for the reply!

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes....but these are positions taken as a matter of interpreting Scripture. There's no input from anything like "Sacred Tradition" involved. Of course, believing in Sola Scriptura doesn't guarantee that there will be only one interpretation, and that's why we have different denominations.

I do understand your point. Though on-topic, I would wonder if weight ought not to be given to "traditional interpretation" or not?

Sure, there are such churches. The question I'd have still is "Do they rely upon tradition as the source of doctrine. I don't think that's the case. It appears to me that you are saying that they went along with what their church had always said was the truth, and perhaps rather dumbly at that. BUT did those t4teachings derive from a Bible interpretation or...OTOH from a legend of the saints, St. Thomas Aquinas' philosophy, ancient folklore, a theologian's logical deduction, etc.?

The real answer about the church I mentioned in this case ... is that some was what they had traditionally believed, and some was creeping in that were associated with personal interpretation and personal revelation. The first had some errors (imo) and the second was particularly prone to error (imo).

But it gets too far afield from the topic, especially since it was a tangent from something I actually misunderstood from your post.

 

[faroukfarouk]

When it comes to authority it's the church versus Scripture and there is no contest.

 

[MoreCoffee]

When it comes to authority it's the church versus Scripture and there is no contest.

"When it comes to authority it's the church versus Scripture and there is no contest." <--- Not quite but the outcome is obvious; the church both came before the bible and will exist after the bible. The church is the body of Christ, it has everlasting life while my printed bible is paper, ink, and glue and these things will perish.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think you have determined the crux of the problem right here. It is the huge elephant in the room that many Protestants consistently ignore, feign ignorance of, or are ignorant of in actual fact.

It is especially common in non-denominational, Evangelical, and Baptist circles for pastors and apologists to rail against all of the terrible traditions that the Catholic and Orthodox churches (sometimes even the Lutheran church) accumulated during the time from after the apostles to the Reformation. They self-legitimate and -justify their supposed lack of traditions by appealing to "what the Bible plainly says," "Bible only," "old time Bible preaching," and Sola Scriptura (conflated with Solo Scriptura).

It fools many of the average Joes and Janes in the pews but not those who have journeyed outside the comfort box to examine history and doctrinal interpretation. One can go down the line and see rather clearly how these particular Protestants have accumulated and internalized Wycliff's and Zwingli's gutted views on the Eucharist, Baptism, clergy, and iconography; the Anabaptists' view on Baptism, Darby's and the Plymouth Brethren's eschatology, and Carroll's Trail of Blood theory of church history. Usually they accomplish this through trickle-down osmosis; sometimes by conscious effort. Rarely does one receive any admission or acknowledgment of tradition for reasons I am sure you know why.

Hmmmmm.

Well, everyone is of course free to believe what they want.

But to deny that there is any "tradition" involved in the teaching of one's church ... Even in the churches I have been in that had precious little teaching at all, there was some tradition (though I have also been in ones that put a premium on all things "new" such that tradition played a much smaller role).

To date, the church that I have been in that was the most strict about how one must behave and believe, has been a denominational evangelical church of what I suppose is the newer type - I only fairly recently learned of the older Confession of that denomination's start. The pastor there was VERY hard-line that everyone must believe exactly their doctrines, keep to exactly their morals (which were extra-Biblical), etc.

The second-most structured with traditions was a type of denominational Pentecostal church.

Neither of these were at all what one would consider one of the "Traditional Churches" ... yet it is impossible to deny that they had plenty of their own traditions.

I don't say this as a bad thing. It's simply true that most churches have them. The ones that have the fewest, teach the least of anything. In my experience, at least.

Editing: I'm breaking my own rule - I'm going to remove the denom names, because I don't wish to make this about particular churches, LOL.

 

[~Anastasia~]

When it comes to authority it's the church versus Scripture and there is no contest.

But the question is not "the church versus Scripture".

(In our Church, it never is that I'm aware of ... Scripture IS the highest authority, and the Church never goes contrary to it.)

Instead the question is ... how does the Church read and interpret Scripture?

 

[MoreCoffee]

The above is a test, though the chapter from J N D Kelly's "Early Church Doctrines" has something to say about this topic - sola scriptura.

 

[Albion]

But to deny that there is any "tradition" involved in the teaching of one's church ... Even in the churches I have been in that had precious little teaching at all, there was some tradition (though I have also been in ones that put a premium on all things "new" such that tradition played a much smaller role).

You are describing adherence to traditional beliefs. The question that has to be asked next is "Where did those beliefs come from?"

Are they someone's interpretation of Scripture? Are they thought to be the Holy Spirit guiding the church into accepting some new truths that were not earlier revealed in his word (Scripture)? Which?

We cannot be fooled by the different uses of the words tradition, traditions, Tradition, and traditional. The key to understanding the difference is to be found in how those questions above are answered.

To date, the church that I have been in that was the most strict about how one must behave and believe, has been a denominational evangelical church of what I suppose is the newer type - I only fairly recently learned of the older Confession of that denomination's start. The pastor there was VERY hard-line that everyone must believe exactly their doctrines, keep to exactly their morals (which were extra-Biblical), etc.

The second-most structured with traditions was a type of denominational Pentecostal church.

Neither of these were at all what one would consider one of the "Traditional Churches" ... yet it is impossible to deny that they had plenty of their own traditions.

I don't say this as a bad thing. It's simply true that most churches have them. The ones that have the fewest, teach the least of anything. In my experience, at least.

Still being misled by the use of tradition in some form to mean something other than what is meant by "Tradition" in the Catholic churches. It is NOT the case that any of these churches you have in mind is functioning on the basis of the same thing, even though they claim to be Bible-centered or Sola Scriptura.

It IS possible that they are mistaken in their interpretations of Scripture and it's possible that they have allowed false and unbiblical ideas to creep into their thinking, but even so, it does not qualify as a version of "Tradition" as that is used and understood in the RCC and EO.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I see your point. But I am not being purposely deceptive or any such thing. What I am looking for is the way any Church interprets Scripture - at least that was my point in this particular dialogue. If you thought I meant something else, then my words might be implying something different to you than I meant.

Yes, there are differences of Tradition, tradition, traditional. Again, I think not being purposely deceptive. But there are levels. That would be another interesting topic, but I can't manage more than the threads I am in right now. Maybe soon.

You are describing adherence to traditional beliefs. The question that has to be asked next is "Where did those beliefs come from?"

Are they someone's interpretation of Scripture? Are they thought to be the Holy Spirit guiding the church into accepting some new truths that were not earlier revealed in his word (Scripture)? Which?

This is really the key question. And the answer is going to vary, depending on which belief, which Church, and so on. I'm very interested in those answers. Sometimes they may be obvious, and sometimes I may not know where they came from.

I wish EVERYone would ask themselves these questions about all their beliefs.

In the first century Church, particularly the very earliest years, I think everything that was believed and everything that was done was necessarily by Tradition (perhaps carried over from Jewish temple worship? Or newly established?) or the oral teachings for the most part. How well this was established probably had an effect on later Traditions, and how the Writings received would have informed it.

For ourselves, many centuries later ... some of our Churches already have their Traditions, their interpretations, and of course their Scripture in place. Presumably they already have a typical way of interacting with Scripture.

For some though, there are traditional interpretations, informed by (what?). Older Tradition? A rejection of that tradition, replaced with something else? (Such as the anti-sacramentalism?) They may have prescribed ways of dealing with Scripture and interpreting it as well. (In my experience at least, they actually have usually had quite a lot to say here.)

And for some, yes, the Holy Spirit is thought to be leading into new Truth. They usually have a different way of interacting with Scripture, and fewer traditional interpretations to appeal to.

Ah, I don't want to make this about churches, but maybe it necessarily is? Sorry, but this is where your question took me.

We cannot be fooled by the different uses of the words tradition, traditions, Tradition, and traditional. The key to understanding the difference is to be found in how those questions above are answered.

Still being misled by the use of tradition in some form to mean something other than what is meant by "Tradition" in the Catholic churches. It is NOT the case that any of these churches you have in mind is functioning on the basis of the same thing, even though they claim to be Bible-centered or Sola Scriptura.

It IS possible that they are mistaken in their interpretations of Scripture and it's possible that they have allowed false and unbiblical ideas to creep into their thinking, but even so, it does not qualify as a version of "Tradition" as that is used and understood in the RCC and EO.

This is true. I don't mean to confuse different uses of the word Tradition.

I do maintain that most churches of any kind have a set way of dealing with Scripture. And as you move across the spectrum, they have sometimes a great deal to say about this, and a great many beliefs they pass down regarding doctrine and moral conduct.

Whether you call it tradition or not, it is true that they pass something down that affects how they interact with Scripture. (Unless they are part of the churches that DO utterly reject - as much as they can - any set interpretation or teaching - and even those will likely hold to certain chosen doctrines.)