Talk:Sola scriptura/Archive 1

There is a great difference between modern evangelical and liberal views, which may ascribe no authority to tradition and acknowledge no help from tradition in the interpretation of Scripture, and the original meaning according to which the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, speaking infallibly in the Scriptures, and with derivative authority in reason, tradition, councils, etc.

More precisely, the church speaks infallibly only in the Scriptures; and otherwise speaks infallibly insofar as her teachings are what the Scriptures teach, and because her teachings are according to the Scriptures. In its present form, the entry (unintentionally) implies that Lutherans and Reformed do not believe in 'sola scriptura', because they have secondary authorities which govern their judgments concerning faith and practice. I tried to fix that by replacing "sole source and rule" with "only infallible source and rule". I'm not sure this is a complete fix, however, considering what is said in contrast to the view, later in the entry. Mkmcconn 19:12 Oct 10, 2002 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting the relationship of secondary authorities, especially where it has been clearly spelled out. For example, I think John Wesley used what became known as the "Wesleyan quadrilateral" of scripture, tradition, reason, and experience, in roughly that order of importance; I may have reversed reason and tradition. Even so, it would appear that even the early reformers felt free to disregard earlier church tradition and church councils when they felt that such tradition and councils were contrary to their view of scripture. Modern evangelicals have just taken the same principle much further. And (in my view) the reformers were merely extending the action taken by the Roman popes when they chose to ignore the counsel of the other patriarchs more than 500 years before. Please correct me if I'm dreadfully misreading the history. Wesley

I think I'm not just being a Protestant if I claim that the Church has always found the problem of interpretation challenging. "The Early Church had no doubt about the "sufficiency" of the Scriptures and never tried to go beyond, and always claimed not to have gone beyond. But already in the Apostolic age itself the problem of "interpretation" arose in all its challenging sharpness." - Florovsky.

More Protestantly: From this distance we all look back on the history of interpretation with a selective eye, if not with creative imagination: not only on the Scriptures, but also on tradition. Thus, the entry quotes St. Vincent of Lerins as though he vindicates the Catholic view; when, in fact, he is most frequently quoted in controversies (where the meaning of tradition is in dispute), and probably originally wrote against Augustinianism in favor of a view which had been rejected by Western councils and popes. Roman Catholics might as easily quote him in refutation of the Greeks, pointing to a few innovations of their own which put distance between themselves and what other Christians believed in other times and other places . Even now, Orthodox writers speak with self-vindicating intent, against the "West" all the way back to Pope Stephen: is that "everywhere and at all times" kind of thinking? In answer, the Protestants say, regardless of all that, the Scriptures are what all Christians everywhere and at all times appeal to, and they are the Church's infallible declaration of the truth. Nothing else has that kind of universally acknowledged authority. Only Scripture.

Certainly, the problem of interpretation has always been challenging. And St. Vincent of Lerins himself acknowledges this; he wrote his Commonitory in an effort to work out for himself how to safely thread his way through various controversies. Protestants may be "unified" around scripture, but they remain fragmented into 20,000+ denominations, often because of sharp disagreements over interpretations of scripture. Last I heard, that number was still climbing.

When we look back over 2,000 years of history, we can see not only numerous controversies and different ways they were resolved, but also recurring answers and consistent themes. On many if not most questions, we can say, "this is what the majority of the Church has taught, from Alexandria to Rome, from Asia to Europe, from the first century up until now, this has been the answer." In some cases you might have to start from the third century, or exempt a patriarchate like Rome or Alexandria that disagreed for a time, but overall, the final answers to the "timeless" questions have been consistent. Wesley

The point here is that, sola scriptura was originally rhetoric. It is symbolic of an argument, and is not a "doctrine" in the full sense. It has an historical context, which is largely forgotten by the bumper-sticker generation. And, not knowing that context, all the solas are over-simplified by both, the sloganeers and their opponents. All that having been said, the problem is how to decide what is the meaning of sola scriptura today. Does it even matter that it is misunderstood in an historical sense? Perhaps that misunderstanding is what it means now; and then my desire to fix that in this entry would be revisionist with regard to facts, not merely descriptive. Mkmcconn

---

I'm sure you're right about it being more of a short-hand argument than a full doctrine. As far as the article is concerned, would it be fitting to address its historical meaning and contemporary (mis)understanding in separate sections? Wesley

I'll try to write a fuller description of the way that 'Sola scriptura' has been understood historically, and a comparison to how it appears to be used today, especially in Fundamentalism and Neo-evangelicalism. It's bound to be a reflection of my own perspective, though; and I would appreciate help in balancing it out, if I ever get around to posting it. Mkmcconn

I'd like to raise a point of terminology. First of all, when describing the early church, I'd like to use some term that includes both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox branches, since for the first 1,000 years they were the same church. Referring to this church as "Catholic" with a capital "C" means "Roman Catholic" to most readers today. Of course the church was both catholic and orthodox, and both "branches" believe that both those adjectives apply to them today. Perhaps "catholic" could be substituted, or else "mainstream Christian" (although Arianism was in the majority for a time)?

I think that this is certainly right. One way of saying this might be to use Catholic and Orthodox interchangeably and together, besides just a small "c"? The term 'catholic church' in modern use sometimes has the connotation of generic "Christianity", without the idea of visibility, of people and places, episcopates, and established doctrines - which would not be the correct idea in the context. It should say, and mean, "Catholic and Orthodox" Mkmcconn

Really, before the Great Schism, there was just the early church. Unless you want to draw a distinction between them and, say, the Nestorians or monophysites, in which case you could say the Chalcedonians. But since that distinction doesn't really come in to play, they were just the Christians; I've altered the article to attempt to reflect that. After the schism, it becomes appropriate to refer to Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox as distinctly separate entities. Wesley

The revisions look fine to me, and fit the intention of the entry as I understood it. Mkmcconn

Also, for the Eastern Orthdox and presumably for the Catholics, Scripture and Tradition are not two separate things. Scripture is the most authoritative part of tradition; we have a New Testament canon because of tradition. Describing them as two separate things creates a false dichotomy, at least when talking about the Church of the first millennium. Wesley

I had thought that the early paragraphs made this continuity very clear. I hope that the entry would show the attempt to communicate this continuity as clearly as possible without giving preference to the controversial idea that the Old Testament was viewed by the Apostles as the same thing as the tradition of the elders, for example. On the other hand, that they used a traditional Bible (the Septuagint), is not controversial. There is a difference between the fact that scriptural Canon is tradition, and the controversial idea that this implies that the authority of all other tradition is on a level with what is written in Scripture.

You're right. Going back and re-reading what you wrote, it seems clear that you did try to set out the relationship between them. The Septuagint was certainly the most popular text used by early Christians, but not necessarily the only one. Incidentally, the Septuagint remains as the chief Old Testament text used in Eastern Orthodoxy, either directly or in translation. Wesley

In the Apostolic period, "the Scriptures" had primary reference to the scriptures of the Old covenant; and in the early church, the same high idea of "it is written" was attached to the writings of the Apostles and of those who adhered to their teachings and wrote under the Apostles' personal guidance, who interpreted the Scriptures in light of the revelation of the Son of God, of which they were eye witnesses. I think that it can be easily shown, also from modern Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox writers, that this is not a distinctively Protestant version of things.

Sure; this can be seen in how Peter refers to Paul's writings for instance. Books like the Shepherd of Hermas were quoted authoritatively as well in some circles; which books were used was a matter of local tradition, under the guidance of the local bishops. Wesley

I hope that the entry will attempt to grant the Orthodox and Catholic view of the historical development of canon, without going so far as to make the case incredible to some Orthodox and Roman Catholics as well as Protestants. The canon of Scripture is the tradition of the Church; that is a fact. Therefore what is written in Scripture is part of Holy Tradition; also a fact. But, the idea that the Scriptures therefore are nothing distinguishable from all other traditions, and of no different character with regard to the esteem in which they are held, or their uniqueness as authority, would be a controversial idea even among Orthodox and Catholics - and also, the suggeston that the early church had this idea of Scripture as nothing above other traditional writings, would also be controversial. Mkmcconn

Certainly, the Scriptures have a unique and elevated place in Tradition. Would it be fair to say though, that many or most modern Protestants have rejected the bulk of Tradition unless they personally find it directly supported by Scripture? Wesley

That would be unfair to "high" Anglicans, not a nice thing to say about Lutherans, a goad well-applied to Calvinists and "low" Anglicans, and a point of pride for Baptists and evangelical charismatics. The key is your word, "personally". Anglicans are liturgical, and so are most Methodists. The Lutherans are liturgical as well as confessional. And, the Reformed churches are confessionalists. These are opposed to radical individualism. They do not credit every individual with the authority to declare for himself (and thus for everyone else) what the word of God is. Mkmcconn

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that all protestants were radical individualists. I was catechized and confirmed as a Lutheran back in my early teens. I meant to ask how much pre-Reformation Tradition was retained be the Reformers, and how much is still retained today. You seem to have a better grasp on the broader spectrum of Protestantism. Wesley

---

No offense taken - but I'm impressed by your sensitivity; I hope I can emulate it. There are definable gradations that set off one "color" from another, in Protestantism.

• First, is the priesthood, or "prelacy". The more exclusively the idea of apostolic succession is believed to reside in the ordained ministry, the more fully appreciative that line of Protestantism will be, of pre-Reformation Tradition.
• Second, is the continuity between Old and New covenants, in their ritual aspects. The more a church sees the New testament church as the heavenly archetype on earth upon which the Old testament tabernacle was patterned, the more likely it will be that a church will be interested in maintaining in its practice a sense that its actions of worship are a fulfillment of the Temple: and consequently, the more interest they will show in the patterns of worship (and doctrine) in the history of the Church.
• Third, is the idea of Liturgy in general. The more fully it is believed that worship is the seminary of the church, the "Lex orandi", the environment in which doctrine is first of all a life and a "phronema" or mindset, the more likely it will be that this stream of Protestantism will show a desire to preserve the forms of prayer and the traditional practices.
• Fourth, is the Eucharist. Where it is believed that disunity is caused by forgetting, and unity can only be found by "remembering", there is more interest in the story of the Body of Christ including since the Apostolic age. It is important in these churches that Christ always has been, and always will be present in the Church, to be seen and heard by those who believe in Him, even if the world does not see or hear.

There will be no interest in Tradition where the Eucharist is only a mental act of meditation on Jesus, or a cel(r)ebration of Christian unity; and where freedom, originality and spontenaeity in prayer are supremely prized; and where the Church is conceived as primarily an invisible concept that is roughly equivalent to anonymous believers in Jesus; and where there is a radical distrust of the Law of Moses and the sacrificial system of the Jews; and where there is an idea that the ordained ministry is a contradiction of the priesthood of all believers. But whatever the numbers represented by this view, it is at the far end of the spectrum.

Of course, ours is a post-modern age, which complicates the picture. There is a great deal of interest in traditional forms, which are then embued with an entirely foreign meaning; which can produce some pretty grotesque results.

Is that a helpful overview? Does it ring true? Mkmcconn

Well, partly. One phenomenon I've observed is a number of "charismatic" evangelical churches that are generally indifferent to older tradition, but are trying to reincorporate some Jewish elements into their worship. The Jews for Jesus movement has probably influenced this. My own experience in Lutheran, Methodist and Assembly of God, and Mennonite churches, was that church history consisted of the New Testament, the Reformation (especially in Lutheran and Mennonite churches), and then the specific experience of that denomination (Azusa St. revival for the Assemblies of God for example). I never heard of the Desert Fathers before starting to study Orthdoxy, and was only vaguely aware of Augustine. That's strictly a lay experience of course, I'm sure at least a couple of my pastors had a bigger grasp on church history. But nothing and nobody from the first 1500 years of Christianity seemed to matter to those of us in the congregation, even in the relatively liturgical Lutheran Church. My wife has an M.Div. degree from a Protestant seminary, and received much the same sort of church history there: New Testament, one or two folks like Augustine, then the Reformation and forward.

Also, almost all evangelicals I've met believe in the universal Church as an invisible concept of anonymous believers in Jesus, as you put it. That's how they account for the multitude of denominations all being part of the "one holy catholic and apostolic church". Another idea along those lines is that each denomination has been given one part of the overall Truth to safeguard. Kind of like the Hindu story of the blind men and the elephant. I have no idea how representative or widespread these ideas are though; can't cite any literature or studies.

Another anecdote that comes to mind: My Lutheran catechism was centered around the Apostles Creed. At the time, I didn't believe the phrase that says "he descended into Hell", despite my pastor's explanations. Time came to be confirmed, and the pastor gave me permission to omit that part when reciting the Apostles Creed. My interpretation of the Bible as a 14-year-old or so was allowed to take precedence over my pastor, the congregation, and the people who composed and handed down that creed for centuries. IWesley

I'm sure that most Protestants share your experience, or something like it. Since Protestantism is symbolic (for protestants) of rejection by Tradition of Scriptural authority, you can always find what "we" believe, and what "I" think the scriptures say, struggling with one another more than is typical in a Catholic layman's experience, for example. You're right about that. That's partly theological, but mostly habitual. In principle, the creeds and confessions of Lutheranism are supposed to be symbolic of the True Faith. (Wiki is doing that random thing again. Very weird; and, it artificially jacks up the access count.) Mkmcconn