The Vanity of Their Minds: Sola Scriptura

www.archangelsbooks.com ^ | Fr. John Whiteford

[JohnRoss]

Sola Scriptura In the Vanity of Their Minds by Fr. John Whiteford

AN ORTHODOX EXAMINATION OF THE PROTESTANT TEACHING Introduction: Are Protestants Beyond Hope?

Since my conversion from Evangelical Protestantism to the Orthodox Faith, I have noted a general amazement among many of those who have been raised Orthodox that a Protestant could be converted. This is not because they are uncertain about their own faith, usually they are just amazed that anything could break through a Protestants stubborn insistence on being wrong! What I have come to understand is that most Orthodox people have a confused and limited grasp of what Protestantism is, and where its adherents are coming from. Thus when "cradle Orthodox" believers have their run-ins with Protestants, even though they often use the same words, they do not generally communicate because they do not speak the same theological language — in other words, they have no common theological basis to discuss their differences. Of course when one considers the some twenty thousand plus differing Protestant groups that now exist (with only the one constant trait of each group claiming that it rightly understands the Bible), one must certainly sympathize with those that are a bit confused by them.

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

"Is this Protestant bashing week on Free Republic?"


The article is not bashing Protestants. It points out some of the flaws in the assertion that a religion can be based on the bible alone. There is not a single religion that is based upon the bible alone, so it's a reasonable topic for a forum dedicated to religious discussion.

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

"Perhaps the PCA was a bit to ecumenical when we removed certain parts of the Westminster Confession of Faith."

Which parts of the Westminster Confession of Faith would you like to restore?

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

"Why are there so many Catholic sectlets?"

It's a serious question, and you aren't answering it at all, you're simply changing the subject. If scripture alone as a sole rule of faith is sufficient to establish the truth of Christianity, why are there hundreds of disagreeing sects based upon the bible?

Some say there are tens of thousands of religions based upon the bible. Most of us could name several dozen without too much trouble, all claiming they used the bible to derive their beliefs. Why do they disagree if the bible alone is sufficient? The answer is because nobody uses scripture alone. Nobody. There is no religion based solely on the bible. Can you at least admit that this is a problem?

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

"I say if you like the liturgy and the costumes, more power to you."

?????

[papertyger]

As a Scripture Only Christian and former Catholic, I've met very few Catholics who don't put the musings of men above the Word of God.

As a former Protestant, I find your claim curious. I suppose it's easy to forget it was the "musings of men" that caused one congregation to become two, four, eight, etc. when members of one's own congregation are all members of the same faction.

My experience has been that you can never pin a Catholic down on anything. It's always "Well, some Catholics may believe that or practice that, but not ALL Catholics do."

Perhaps it would be wise to recall the adage about throwing stones from glass houses. Would you feel compelled to defend every vagary of doctrine practiced by every Protestant denomination?

As long as the truth isn't made to seem like a needle in a haystack of ritual and rote recitations, which it often has been.

Is the "truth" any less obscured by the myriad of competing hermeneutics found amongst the Protestants?

For me, the unvarnished truth is enough.

I hope you're right.

[papertyger]

Pleased to meet you!

And I, you. What was your determination?

[papertyger]

Jesus appealed to scripture as his authority.

Then where does the Tanahk explain the Sermon on the Mount, His addition to the "Shema," or His discourse on divorce?

Conflating particulars of the analogy with what was being analogized simply dodges the fact the Protestant church has no means of settling disputes.

And while you're perfectly welcome to pontificate on what is and isn't valid from Scripture, I see in David's treatment of Saul, both a sound rebuttal to your contentions and a guide for our comportment toward our own Supreme Court.

[Gamecock]

Christian

[don-o]

Don-o, was it you who's uncle wrote

Pretty good memory there. Fr John Whiteford, Orthodox priest in Texas; no blood relation, but I know him.

[Gamecock]

It's a serious question, and you aren't answering it at all, you're simply changing the subject. If scripture alone as a sole rule of faith is sufficient to establish the truth of Christianity, why are there hundreds of disagreeing sects based upon the bible?

Actually I'm not changing the subject. Division of Protestant Churches was used here as proof of the error of Sola Scriptura. I merely pointed out that there are some 300 Catholic sectlets out there.

There are not nearly as many Protestant Churches out there as many say. The term Protestant today is used wrongly to identify non-Romanist churches.

By the traditional definition, there are very few churches that are still protesting. There are many who will not claim the name Protestant. I am protesting, therefore I am a Protestant.

I am pinging a few Protestants. This is a very important subject and I am sure that they will be able to add much to the discussion.

[jude24]

The problem is that we would not have a New Testament Canon, nor know what it was, if it weren't for the Traditions of the Church.

Protestants are forced to either recognize the value of the Church's Tradition in determining the canon, or to ignore the thorny question of the canon.

The Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and of life; that does not make our own personal interpretations of the Scripture infallible, however, nor does this make the Bible the only rule of faith and of life. Sola Scriptura, not Solo Scriptura..

Personally, I argue that the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds predate and are contemporary with the formation of the NT canon, respectively, and the Didache and 1Clement were written within a generation of the New Testament. These sources help to define what the NT means.

[newberger]

Ummmmm, GC, I don't think you read the post, at all.
Your reply is a non sequitor.

This isn't a pro-catholic article at all.

The author is Orthodox, not Roman Catholic.
He has some strong things to say about the Roman church.

Adress the arguments in the actual paper.

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

"Actually I'm not changing the subject."


Actually, you are.

If scripture alone as a sole rule of faith is sufficient to establish the truth of Christianity, why are there hundreds of disagreeing sects based upon the bible?

That's all I'm asking.

[Gamecock]

Before I can address anything, we have to agree on definitions. That's all I'm trying to do. And my point stays the same.

[irishtenor]

Actually, if you examined most of the differences in the various Protestant churches you will find that the disagreements are about the form of church government(congregational vs elder rule, single elder vs multiple elder, etc) and other issues (dunking vs sprinkling, etc.)that are not specifically spelled out in the Bible.

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

Gamecock,

I'm asking you a very simple question. If scripture alone as a sole rule of faith is sufficient to establish the truth of Christianity, why are there hundreds of disagreeing sects based upon the bible?

[HarleyD]

I'm not surprised by this article. My friend jo kus and I have been discussing this very issue for the last several days. As I've harp on this until everyone out here gets sick of reading my posts (I know I do) the issue really revolves around our interpretation of God and man.

While the Catholics and Orthodox don’t like to admit it, there are many "sects" of Catholics and Orthodox as well as Protestants albeit probably not as many. People bounce around these various sects like Pacheco balls simply because they have the wrong soteriology. The leap isn’t that great anymore. It doesn’t surprise me when an AOG, Baptist or even a liberal Presbyterian becomes Orthodox, a Catholic becomes Protestant, an Orthodox become Catholic, etc.

The distinction between most churches is growing fainter with ecumenicalism as the message gets distilled down into “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.” This is the tradition of men.

Luther had it right. Sola Scriptura. You must look to the scriptures first and THEN the tradition of men. You cannot look to tradition first PLUS the scripture. This was the early church fathers belief, especially Augustine and Jerome, and the primary reason they distinguish the inspired writings from the uninspired. The church fathers knew they and we were prone to make mistakes and traditions based upon mistakes.

That didn’t stop us.

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

"Actually, if you examined most of the differences in the various Protestant churches you will find that the disagreements are about the form of church government(congregational vs elder rule, single elder vs multiple elder, etc) and other issues (dunking vs sprinkling, etc.)that are not specifically spelled out in the Bible."


So the differences between the hundreds of competing sects are really not significant, and there was no church government established in the bible?

The only difference between Saddleback, the local PCA congregation, the local Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is a minor and insignificant disagreements over leadership structure?

You too are changing the subject.

I'm asking a very simple question. If scripture alone as a sole rule of faith is sufficient to establish the truth of Christianity, why are there hundreds of disagreeing sects based upon the bible?