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.

[JohnRoss]

The liberals in the Catholic Church should be called Neo-Protestants because their spirit is Protestant, not Catholic.

[P-Marlowe]

You are outside the Church. The Church is built upon the Apostolic preaching, both written (the Bible) and oral (Tradition). Protestantism is built upon the traditions of men from the 16th century.

Protestantism is built upon the Rock of Christ Jesus and the authority of scripture.

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

"Nothing happens that is outside God's will."

P-Marlowe, it's the will of God that all Christ's disciples be one. Scripture tells us that. Not a theoretical one, but an absolute and united one. As one as the Father and the Son are one. Respectfully, you're answer is untenable. You are arguing from theory, and not from Scripture. Therein, I think you will find, lies the answer.

[magisterium]

Agreed. I said just that in my third paragraph.

[MortMan]

Touche. (I'm relieved that some here on FR can still debate contentious issues with comity and mutual respect. Thank you.)

[wagglebee]

The liberals in the Catholic Church should be called Neo-Protestants because their spirit is Protestant, not Catholic.

Actually, they are secular humanists, and their like can be found in all Protestant denominations. And we should all realize that they are a far greater danger to Christianity than any disagreement between Catholics/Orthodox and Protestants will ever be.

[Frumanchu]

You are outside the Church. The Church is built upon the Apostolic preaching, both written (the Bible) and oral (Tradition). Protestantism is built upon the traditions of men from the 16th century.

As He did throughout history, God preserved a faithful remnant among His people.

That remnant wasn't at Trent.

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

"Just as I thought. This article has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura, but the Arminian anti-Reformation warping of Sola Scriptura into the doctrine of Solo Scriptura"

"....I say Calvinist because we are the only true Protestants clinging to the core beliefs and the 5 battle cries of the Reformation...."

Respectfully, LordCalvinus, the Calvinists don't have a monopoly on the doctrine of sola scriptura. The issue is not who is really a true Protestant. The issue is that there are potentially thousands of disagreeing Christian groups that claim to be based upon the Bible alone.

Am I to infer, from your answer, however, that the reason that there are hundreds of disagreeing groups claiming to be based upon the same bible alone is because all except the Calvinists are in error?

[Wallace T.]

Men can split over a theology built on Scripture and Tradition as much as one constructed on sola Scriptura. For example, the Eastern Orthodox churches view tradition somewhat differently than do Roman Catholics. Orthodox tradition incorporates the writing of the Church fathers and the first seven ecumenical councils, as Roman Catholics do. However, it rejects the infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith and his role as the vicar of Christ. Therefore, Orthodox churches do not accept the teachings of the later councils, such as the Lateran, Trent, and Vatican I councils as true tradition, even if they may agree with some of their teachings.

Within Roman Catholic ranks are numerous factions, particularly within the traditionalist ranks. I have read their disputations, and they are as contentious with rival groups within the overall traditionalist group as, say, conservative Calvinists are toward separatist fundamentalists. While all traditionalist groups accept the concept of the Papacy and apostolic succession, some believe that the liturgical changes made in the wake of Vatican II have invalidated the Mass and Holy Orders, thus making most sacraments increasingly invalid, especially as older priests die and retire and are replaced by improperly ordained priests. Others, such as Hutton Gibson (Mel Gibson's father) are sede vacantists, believing that there has not been a valid Pope since the death of Pius XII 47 years ago.

Many sede vacantists regard those who accept the validity of the current Pope as compromisers, even if they are themselves traditionalists who support the Tridentine Mass and believe in extra ecclessia nulla salus. All of the traditionalist factions regard themselves as staunch Catholics, and better ones than those who supported or at least accepted the changes in their church since 1960.

There are other dissidents on the left as well, such as the so-called liberation theologians. In any case, the Roman Catholic Church cannot claim strength in its unity as opposed to Protestant divisiveness. Even if sola Scriptura is insufficient, people can and do fight over the Magisterium.

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

"And I asked that you put your unstated beliefs on the table for all to see. "

I can think of a number of hypotheses about why Christians are so divided, and why those divisions persist despite the belief by many Christians that their beliefs are based upon the bible. I already put my central belief on the table at the start of the thread; namely, no Christian sect is actually based upon the bible alone.

I'm interested in seeing the various opinions discussed. As I'm reading through this thread, I think I see three hypotheses so far. I can think of at least three more that I haven't seen yet. This is an important topic to take seriously, and it's important for the conversation to be advanced beyond a point of denial or easy polemic.

There are two great scandals to modern Christianity. One, the poor example of Christian behavior, and two, the many competing and disagreeing sects within Christianity. The author of the opening piece sees the thousands of bible based denominations as the fruit of a faulty doctrine; namely, sola scriptura. It's a reasonable hypothesis. We can accept it, or we can disagree with it. It's a hard to disagree with it, however, if there are not reasonable alternative explanations. As you can see, there is a strong tendency to simply duck the question. That we must overcome.

The rest of your questions are excellent ones.

[Alex Murphy]

The rest of your questions are excellent ones.

And the entirety of your own answers are nonexistant. So much for decrying the tendency to simply duck the question.

[magisterium]

In quoting 1Cor. 4:6, you ignore the same writer in 2 Thess. 2:15 "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

Here, not only does St. Paul allude to "traditions," he even says that they sometimes come in an oral (unwritten) form.

Tradition had already found development in the early Church. Much of what Christ taught was not written down in the Gospels, and no reasonable person would suppose that the remainder was entirely dealt with in the remainder of the New Testament. John 21:25 is sufficient testimony to that.

ALL of the so-called extra-biblical tradtions of the Catholic Church find at least their seed in the teaching and history of the Church during the apostolic era. Some of them were not included in the writings of St. Paul or in the Universal Epistles because they were not relevant to specific issues such writings were meant to address (much of the New Testament outside of the Gospels and Acts is written as damage control, after all, against spurious teaching of this or that). Many things taught by the Church then as now did not need specific treatment in the New Testament writings because they were not controversial or were so much common knowledge that they were "givens."

The fundamental problem with the argument against alleged non-biblical teachings finds its foundations here. Sola Scriptura was embraced as a concept not because of any specific scriptural warrant (the Scriptures never say "the Scriptures alone" in so many words) but because it was a convenient dodge for Luther and the others to get around Church teachings they didn't like, purgatory serving here as a prominent example.

Tradition in the early Church is manifest in Scripture. It is clear that the writings of St. Paul and everyone else were merely corroborating oral teaching within the Church already extant before a single word of the New Testament was written. St. Paul himself didn't write a word of his contribution to the New Testament until he wrote to the Thessalonians around AD 48. Specific oral teachings find their way into the written NT as anecdotal asides (eg: Acts 20:35), clearly indicating a rich treasury of such existed that never found its way into the canon. Note how Acts 20:35 has a distinct flavor to it that shows that people already had a deep familiarity with the deposit of faith even *without* its being written down. So, too, with some of the "extra-biblical" Catholic (and Orthodox!) teachings found to be so abhorent by some of the Sola Scriptura adherents today.

Perhaps the problem is best described this way: modern Protestantism, now nearly 500 years removed from the living vine which is the fullness of the Faith, is so far removed from its own historical patrimony that it cannot see it for what it is. It looks at Tradition as a set of "accretions," whereas the Catholic Church looks at the removal of Tradition as a source of revealed truth to be a "deletion" of part of God's word by the Protestants, and 1500+ years after the founding of the Church, at that.

In the end, it all comes down to what constitutes "Authority" in the body of Christian believers. I would submit that the divine Providence of God would have preserved the authority of the teaching Church intact, per Matthew 16:18-19 dovetailed with Matthew 20:16-20, Colossians 1:23, 1Timothy 2:15 and Galatians 1:8, among others.

If God created an inspired source of truth in the Bible (and He did!), He clearly meant it to be a source of Truth without division. For Truth cannot be self-contradictory. Yet recent Christian history alone shows how quickly and thoroughly mere human lights can stray from a unity in Truth. The Church itself, primarily through St. Peter and his successors, was meant to be the guarantor of the required fidelity to the Truth. Question: If revelation is inerrant and inspired, would it not seem that the will of God is that it would have unity of interpretation for all time? Otherwise, what good is Truth that is subject to so much division? If that unity in fidelity to interpretation was lost or bastardized early-on, as Protestant theory requires we believe, then, again, what good was the presentation of that Truth to the world to begin with? Where is divine Providence in all of this, where a mockery of the promises of Matthew 28:20 seems to have been suffered by Almighty God for nearly 1500 years, until the "Reformers" finally straightened things out?

[P-Marlowe]

P-Marlowe, it's the will of God that all Christ's disciples be one

Indeed, and they all are one, be they Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist or Non-Denominational. The church is not one of those organizations, but members of all of those organizations are included in the "Church" which is simply the members of the Body of Christ or those who have been saved by God's grace through faith.

IMO the divisions of sects does more to unite the Body of Christ than to divide it. A single heriarchical organization which calls itself "THE Church" is a recipe for disaster. Church history is replete with examples of why that is true. Our allegiance should not be to any heirarchical organization, but to Christ alone. The "Church" is headed by Christ and Christ alone and not by any man or committee of men. I do not deny that you are a member of that Church. Do you deny that I am?

[magisterium]

True. Liberals, as commonly understood today, are plentiful under both the Protestant and Catholic umbrellas. They are little more that the secular humanists you posit, brushed with a thin patina of Christian asides used to justify their membership in the various denominations.

My only intent was to point-out that Gamecock's Catholic "sectlets" are comprised mostly of these very secular humanists, and, discounting them as true Catholics, most of the "sectlets" are thereby removed from his assertion.

[JohnnyM]

"why are there hundreds of disagreeing sects based upon the bible?"

Because man is a flawed sinner and no organization lead by men or by one man will ever be anything else. The sin of Protestantism is its tendency to divide. Someone disagrees on predestination or the rapture or baptism or whatever and they go and create a new denomination/division, making the Body of Christ divided. This disunity is not caused by Sola Scriptura but by the pride of man. We are to be united in the Spirit. Jesus says that they will know us by our love for each other. We have gotten to the point where the Lord lays on our heart not to do some habit, and then in our fallen nature, we apply this standard to our brothers and sisters and division occurs and we are no longer walking according to love. Paul deals with just this issue in the letter to the Romans.

Romans 14
1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.
2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only.
3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.
4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.
6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.
7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself;
8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord's.
9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
11 For it is written, "AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD."
12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.
13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this--not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.
14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15 For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.
16 Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil;
17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
18 For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.
19 So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another.
20 Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense.
21 It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.
22The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.
23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

JM

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

"And the entirety of your own answers are nonexistant. So much for decrying the tendency to simply duck the question."

No need to get upset. I did not finish my sentence in that last post. It should have read,

"Your other questions are excellent ones, and would be well put to the rest of the readers of this thread, or would make a great topic for another thread."

I typed that, but snipped it while proof-reading.

Your other three questions were: "

What are they disagreeing on? What common ground remains between them? Is any disagreement, on any issue for any reason, permitted in your view?

Those are indeed the million dollar questions, Alex. What are we disagreeing on? That would be an extremely long list, wouldn't it? Free will, predestination to hell, man's role in salvation, is baptism necessary for salvation, what should we believe about infant baptism, is the Lord's supper merely a symbol or is Jesus physically present in it, limited vs. unlimited atonement, eternal security, is it necessary to keep the ten commandments or not, the rapture, to say nothing of abortion and homosexuality. Don't really need to go into the Resurrection as an historical event, the virgin birth, inerrancy of the bible,and the timeline of creation, as we're on Free Republic. I think someone else mentioned differences in church government as well back on # 36.

"What common ground remains between them? "

Quite a bit, I'd say, and this is the question that begins all ecumenical conversations. This would be a great subject for another thread, or for that matter, this thread.

"Is any disagreement, on any issue for any reason, permitted in your view?"

Of course, but let's not trivialize the disagreements. What we're talking about here is disagreements big enough to split denominations.

Now, Alex, I've answered your questions, and would be interested in your answer.

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?

[Quester]

Luther's Luciferian personal behaviors and teachings eschewed me of being a Lutheran.

And so now ... you follow the pristine popes, eh ?

[Quester]

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?

I believe that it is perfectly understandable that fallible men will not agree upon every Christian teaching ... even as based upon the scriptures.

The scriptures are are inexhaustible source of spirtual wisdom ... and many truths within it's pages are only comprehended by the wisest and most spiritual of saints.

It might be more profitable to speak of where Protestants ... and Catholics ... and the Orthodox ... agree ... as to their beliefs ...

... for it is upon these that we base our unity.

The Nicene Creed is a good example of such agreement ...

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I like your tag, "ByGraceThroughFaith."

But it seems if you were to actually believe that, you would be anathematized along with the rest of us Protestants per the Council of Trent.

"If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation … and that … men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification … let him be anathema." -- Council of Trent, Seventh session, On the sacraments in general, Canon

Trent has been affirmed by every Vatican Council. According to Rome, we are all cursed.

Do you think one who believes Ephesians 2:8-9 is going to hell?

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Not of works, lest any man should boast."

[Alex Murphy]

An excellent response, Quester. I tip my hat to you!