But my characterization is what sola scriptura means. As explained by FourtySeven on the last thread:
I think it’s important to note, and I’m surprised the Protestants on this thread haven’t picked up on this, that what Father is speaking of is technically not “sola scriptura”, rather it’s “solO scriptura”.
That is, and I’m stating this to be fair since to be intellectually honest is the only way to get to truth via reason, sola scriptura states that there is a role for tradition, it’s simply lower than Scripture just like any other source of knowledge.
Thus, an historic Protestant would say, “Well, traditionally speaking, the 66 books of the Bible were always accepted as canonical, thus, Christian tradition tells us what books should be in the Bible”. A statement pretty close to the Catholic position really. Of course, we disagree what “tradition” states, vis a vis the canonical books (we say 72, they say 66).
The issue that really separates historical Protestants from Catholics is an issue of authority. Historic Protestants believe that since there was corruption in the Church (not universal corruption, but corruption of individuals) then that “tainted” the authority the “RCC” had before, and thus, they were justified to break away and form their own church(es). They also (obviously) don’t believe apostolic succession is of any great concern; indeed they must believe that or else they wouldn’t have any basis for leaving the Church.
Now, of course not all Protestants are “historical”; there are of course many today that hold to solO scriptura, and to those, Father’s argument makes sense. However, again, it doesn’t apply to historical Protestants (in a strict sense) as historical Protestants would answer Father’s questions as above.
Of course, as an aside, Father could ask the historical Protestants “on what basis did/do you believe you have the authority to leave the Church, and reject apostolic succession?” This line of questioning (IMO) would lead to constructive criticism of those churches which hold to solA scriptura.
227 posted on 03/25/2008 2:41:09 PM EDT by FourtySeven
Of course, Sola doesn’t throw out the baby with the bathwather it just sets Scripture as the highest test of everything. Vol. 1 of Calvin’s Institutes is pretty much pure Catholic dogma which used Augustine as it’s most referenced athority other than Scripture.
If you are talking about Fourty Seven, why didn’t you ping him. (Poor manners for FR)
“Of course, as an aside, Father could ask the historical Protestants “on what basis did/do you believe you have the authority to leave the Church, and reject apostolic succession?” This line of questioning (IMO) would lead to constructive criticism of those churches which hold to solA scriptura”
By the same Authority that Christ himself broke with and denounced the religious authorities of his day, by pointing out the hypocrisy of their lives in line with what Moses and the prophets had actually written in the old testament(sola scriptura argument), not by what talmudic traditions had taught.
When the Catholic Church suffered its biggest schisms via the Reformation, it was in a sinful state. The “shepherd” had been struck through her own sin and arrogance, would you not expect the sheep to scatter and attempt to gather around its strongest remaining Rams?!!
sola scriptura states that there is a role for tradition, it’s simply lower than Scripture just like any other source of knowledge
Yes. In that regard, it is useful to separate the Protestants in two groups, one that doesn't aknowldege ANY authority in the matter of the faith other than the scripture (as truncated in their tradition), and the other that acknowledges that the Early Church (never identified as Catholic and Orthodox) put together the scripture, but denies authority of the Catohlic (or Orthodox) church from some historical point onward. The article chiefly addresses the error of the first group.
What can we say to the second group? If they acknowledge the authority of the Early Church, but reject the Catholic authority today, then they should be able to (1) point out where the Catholic Church of today separated herself from the Early Church, and (2) study the expression of authority in the Early Church and submit to it as superior to what modern thinkers might think about the Holy Scripture.
On (1) the historical Protestants are vague and concentrate on abuses of the penance system such as sale of indilgencies and Roman splendor of 15c. This still leaves out the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages and the corrections instituted at Trent.
On (2), I don't see any effort to study, say, pre-Nicean fathers of the Church such as Irenaeus, Ignatius or Cyprian. Instead, the least early of the pre-medieval Fathers and the most Westernized, Augustine is the only Early Church father read in the Protestant circles. His mentor Ambrose even is not read. If the "historical Protestants" kept their intellectual committment to the Early Church which gave them the scripture, they would end up in a hierarchical on the episcopal level, sacramental, heavily liturgical and liturgically conservative Orthodox Church, which denies the uniquely Protestant doctrines with no less vigor than Rome.