Well, right there we disagree with the premise. While Apostolic faiths give credit to men for authoring scripture, we give all the credit to God. As Daniel1212 noted, it was God who led the body of believers to gradually accept the correct books that we have today. The organized Church mostly just codified what already was in practice. And if you think about it, Sola Scriptura matches giving God all the credit for the authorship and organization of scripture. For those who give credit to man and Tradition, naturally Sola Scriptura doesn't cut it since men want to add so many things. If God's word really WAS God's word (discussed below), then Tradition could be a stumbling block since it would have the potential to conflict. Sticking with the Bible alone eliminates this possibility.
What you read in the NT (lousy English translations aside) is there because bishops of The Church, the guys who believed in, for example, the Real Presence, said those scriptures were in accord with "what The Church always and everywhere believed", Holy Tradition. The ones that didn't make the cut were not entirely in accord with "what The Church always and everywhere believed".
If true, then I maintain that it is wrongful for these believers to call the Bible "God's word", since it really is, by the belief you just stated, man's word ABOUT God. If men make the decisions on their own authority, then it is BY men. Besides that, I thought that in Orthodoxy what was determined to be "what the Church always and everywhere believed" was not even known or understood for almost a thousand years after the time of Jesus (Revelation). That sounds like quite a while to discover what one has always known. :)
Every time I am convinced that the HS is surely guiding me, however, I remind myself of the hundreds and hundreds of writings of the Desert Fathers about monks whose lives revolved around the scriptures, real people who came to spiritual destruction because they failed to discern that a demon was guiding them rather than the HS. Why has the danger from demonic influence apparently fallen away for Protestants over the past 500 years when for all the billion and a half members of The Church, it is a constant struggle to overcome the wiles of the demons to this day?
I don't think anyone on my side has claimed any sort of immunity from being fooled by satanic forces. We are all engaged in spiritual warfare, which is very real and ongoing. And, we Protestants often succumb to being fooled. But when that does happen, the postmortem analysis will invariably show a substitution of the desires of the person for the teaching of the scripture.
I wouldn't worry so much about comparing myself to those in the distant past on some things because we have had the benefit of their mistakes. For example, there used to be Christian clergy who rationalized that it was right and proper to set up special brothels for themselves. We can laugh (or cry) at that today, but for them there was no conflict. So in some senses our understanding has strengthened since then. It is easy for us to see the scriptural error in what they did. Perhaps 500 years from now they will see error in common decisions we make today that we think are scriptural. So be it, but the only test we need concern ourselves with is the conformity with the image of Christ. That never changes, and we should be able to handle it with reasonable success. All of us here have profound theological differences, but none of us considers for a moment whether Jesus would have approved of brothels for clergy.
FK, I sincerely want to understand, even if I likely won't accept, why you folks believe that you individually can unerringly interpret scripture (corrupted texts notwithstanding), free from the influence of Holy Tradition and safe from demons posing as the HS?
To my knowledge, none of us claims infallible personal scriptural interpretation, even though we do claim leadership by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does give us truths, but not all of them at once. And, as I said, we are not immune from demon attacks. So, it is entirely possible that I could be given a truth which I then foolishly add to as a result of succumbing to my own wants and desires (or demon influence).
But if that happens, then scripture will expose and convict me. I think it is far easier to discover this with the Sola Scriptura approach since we say the Bible interprets itself. Therefore, my error would have to be backed up throughout scripture instead of my just wrongly interpreting one verse. I think that's much harder to do than if there is also a ton of Tradition out there which may indeed agree with my error.
How is it that Western Christianity is riven with hundreds of interpretations of the same passages in scripture?
I don't think that's really true if Western Christianity is really whittled down to the Latins and the Bible-believing Protestants. Of course there are differences, but IMO most of them really can be traced back to a fundamental disagreement about the meaning of a very very few verses. When I think about it, only a small hand-full of words in scripture allegedly give the Apostolic Church plenary power over the Christian faith. I think the vast majority of our disagreements boil down to that fact, does God lead and have authority over the earthly Church or does man (did God delegate to an extraordinary degree)? After this difference, I think we all pretty much agree on the other basics, such as the fundamental identity of Christ, etc.
Do you really believe that "...for some reason it does serve God's purpose for there to be many Christians out there with profound theological differences." Is there any passage in scripture where confusion in the faith is applauded?
Yes, I really believe that. If we all agreed on everything and we were all right, then we would have the full knowledge of God on these matters and not be able to grow any closer to Him. That will never happen here on earth. We are commanded to grow closer to Him. We couldn't if we all already had all the answers.
I'm not sure of any passage that glorifies confusion, but I do remember Metmom quoting from Romans 14 the other day. I think it's relevant here:
This passage appears to fully allow for different interpretations of scripture on certain matters not being any real problem. It isn't a question of Holy Spirit leading correctly or incorrectly for some. The issue is what inspires growth in true faith. Holy Spirit might lead one person to fast once a month, but not another. There is nothing wrong with this.
Contrary-wise what about John 17:20-23? How does a veritable babel of theological opinion advance fulfillment of Christ's prayer?
We are all one on the defining core issues of Christianity. We all believe in the same Christ, that He died for our sins, and that under normal circumstances we need faith in Him for salvation, etc. These have been revealed to all of us in many different ways and I think it points to Christ's prayer. We are to be "brought to complete unity" meaning we start with differences. We won't actually reach complete unity until the next life.
Then you must be holier than St. Luke! For he writes:
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the gospel, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; [Luke 1:1-3]
Clearly, he give all credit to himself and other humans, but not to God. Gee, poor Luke would have never passed muster in your assembly!
As Daniel1212 noted, it was God who led the body of believers to gradually accept the correct books that we have today.
How does Daniel know that? Because a man known as Apostle Paul says so? Also, Apostle Paul doesn't specify what constitutes scriptures, or who and how does one determine what writings are scriptures.
The Jews did not agree on that. The Essenes had their own version and canons, and so did the Samaritans (yes, they are also Jews), the Sadducees recognized only the Torah, while the Alexandrian Jews used the Septuagint with the so-called "apocrypha" (not all, as some were actually written in Greek later on). What you call the "Hebrew Bible" today is the canon of Palestinian Pharisees, the only Jewish sect that survied, the rabbinic Judaism (not counting the remaining the 700 or so Samaritans).
Actually, the Church can rightfully claim authorship at of least the New Testament, because all authors of the New Testament were Christians. Surely you'd agree the Church is competent to recognize its own! But the Church is also the author of the codex you call the Christian Bible, as the selection of books that were to be read exclusively was made by the Church hierarchy.
The banal argument that the body of believers gradually came to accept the correct books that we have today is not supported by historical documents. It is a myth. And while it is true that some three hundred years after Christ most local churches contained almost all the books of the Christian Bible, they also contained many heretical ones which is a detail most Christian apologetics today choose to ignore or don't know.
The early Christian alphabet soup had many letters in it, not only those used today but also numerous others that are no longer used, because there was no uniformly agreed upon Christian dogma.
Historical evidence shows without any serious challenge to the contrary that the Catholic Church hierarchy, through its episcopal authority, spooned out everything it didn't consider fit for reading in that soup, and that this was done in a series of episcopal council meetings in the fourth century—but only after the very same Church set in stone the Christian dogma (the First and Second Ecumenical Councils of the 4th century).
So the selection was made in accordance with the Church dogma, which is based on the Holy Tradition (understanding here that the Greek word paradosis doesn't mean tardition in the modern Engish sense of the word), which is itself base don the Aposotlic faith passed on by the succesisve bishops, and their collecitve interpretation of the scriptures, and in accordance with the way the Church worshiped (lex orandi, lex credendi), since the Eastern liturgical service of today (The Divine Liturigies of SS. Basil and John Chrysostom) reflect and coincide with that time period of theological and canonical consolidation of Christian faith directly by the Church authority.
So, the theological basis and the actual codification of the Christian Bible to the exclusion of all other books took place in the Catholic Church and under Catholic Church's episcopal authority, and not, as the Protestants confabulate, through some sui generis "spiritual" guidance of the lay believers.
So, it is really disingenuous for the Protestants to insist that the Church has no spiritual authority when it comes to scriptures, when it is clear that the they accept, by necessity, the decision of the Church as to what constitutes Christian canon.
Excellent post, FK. I agree that we are already united on the major tenets of the faith and that God has certainly allowed liberty on minor ones. What happens far too often, in my opinion, is that some religious leaders demand complete obedience in those minor areas and, by exerting that control, they ensure their power over God’s people.
“How does a veritable babel of theological opinion advance fulfillment of Christ’s prayer?”
The unity attested to in the book of Acts was not that of a comprehensive theological kind (and considering its scope and depth this is ever a goal), but one which was based upon core truths, and surrender to the Christ of them to do his will.
And it is faith in the biblical Lord Jesus Christ , and his gospel, and the resultant conversion that results in the essential unity of spirit, and those who know if it realize that this transcends all denominational boundaries, despite disagreements on some of the things. The real division is between those whose unity is based upon the dedication was one particular church, thus they remain in it, despite the many various opinions, which can be just as numerous.