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

I doubt that most fundamentalist Protestants support the idea that all individuals have the right to their own interpretation of the Bible. They almost certainly believe that there is only one correct interpretation of the Bible, and where the various denominations disagree is on what that correct interpretation happens to be--hence the variety of denominations. But the way the article phrased it, it almost suggested some kind of embracing of pluralism of biblical interpretations among conservative protestants, and I doubt that this is quite they way they view it. soulpatch


 * Most fundamentalist Protestants believe they have the right to interpret the Bible for themselves, though they would probably call it a responsibility. They believe there is only one correct interpretation of the Bible: their own. They often cite the passage in Acts... 15 or 17 I think, when Paul preached to the people in Berea(?), and the Bereans searched the scriptures to see if what Paul said was true, and it was credited to them as righteousness. They don't have a central authoritative interpretation of scripture; they would probably see that as bad as appointing a new Pope. The first item in a fundamentalist home-brewed Statement of Faith typically concerns the authority of the Bible. If the article seems to suggest a kind of pluralism where multiple conflicting interpretations are ok, then it should be revised to clarify that point. Thanks for the catch. Wesley 18:28 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)


 * "Fundamentalist" is a very wide spectrum; the people who call themselves Fundamentalists (as opposed to that much larger group, whom non-evangelicals call "fundamentalists") have the attitude that you describe, and separate themselves not only from those who do not have the same interpretations, but also from those who do not have the same attitude about separation.


 * Right. This also includes the more conservative Amish and Mennonites who wouldn't necessarily call themselves Fundamentalist, but are still separatist for similar reasons. Probably a few other groups like that. Wesley


 * However, the larger part of the fundamentalist movement are not what you are describing at all. Most are of a vanilla, non-specific, "Bible-believing" sort - who send their kids to "non-denominational Christian schools", go to "non-denominational" churches or hop from one church to another sampling various evangelical traditions, even dipping into the charismatic circles in non-evangelical churches.  They are Baptists who listen to the Methodist James Dobson, and list among their favorite authors calvinist Anglican J.I. Packer, Arminian Anglican layman C.S. Lewis, or Anglican clergyman John Stott.  They consider Presbyterian Dan Quayle, and Baptist Billy Graham both to be "Bible believers".   They admire the Christian Missionary Alliance author, A.W. Tozer, as well as hyper-calvinist, A.W. Pink, and listen to the "Lutheran hour", "Through the Bible", "White Horse Inn", or "Family Radio" although they don't agree with everything they hear. A growing number of them are charismatics who go to churches that don't speak in tongues or have healing services.  They have mild opinions about the differences between the Lutheran, Calvinist, and Arminian interpretations of the Atonement, and think that there are probably Catholics and even Mormons who have a personal relationship with Jesus despite bad teachings.  By age 40, they have had at least one experience in an "abusive church".  They tolerate a lot of disagreement by keeping the non-negotiables very small in number. They have changed their views on a great many things over the years, which they consider to be a healthy thing. Usually their churches have never disciplined anyone for doctrinal differences (which they tend to resolve by simply moving on to a different church), although they have chosen sides in a church split, probably at least once.  Typically, they are ecclectic in their appreciation of other evangelical approaches, and in their churches try to accomodate different backgrounds and preferences.  They pray together at mealtimes, their kids wear Jesus T-shirts and listen to Christian rock toward which their parents are ambivalent. They sing "praise choruses" and participate in "neighborhood bible studies", and want to learn more about how to "witness". They are enthusiastic about Christian education, but suspicious of theological seminaries (which they believe are inclined to "go liberal").  Their highest values are the Christian family, voluntary association, liberty of conscience as well as social conservatism, and above all, belief in the Bible: not any particular set of doctrines. Non-evangelicals tend to stereo-type these people one way (narrow, right-wing, bigoted), and separatist Fundamentalists tend to stereo-type them in another way, quite the opposite (ecumenists, worldly, liberals). I think that these people outnumber the separatists by a very wide margin. Mkmcconn


 * Aieeee, you're right of course. How quickly I forget. One reason we converted to Orthodoxy was to escape that "steeplechase" (old Steve Taylor song), and because none of the churches we went to could tell us what their hermeneutic was, or principle/method for interpreting scripture. (There were other reasons too of course.) My wife went and got an M.Div., but even that didn't help. So I suppose the group you describe could almost be described as pluralist up to a point, being ready to agree with both sides of conflicting issues like calvinism/arminianism, possibility or necessity of speaking in tongues, etc. In most Bible studies and Sunday Schools we went to in evangelical churches, flat-out contradictory interpretations of a passage would be met with "Isn't that interesting" with no means of resolving the conflict, or even seeing a need to. Wesley

You can't claim that "the leaders of the early Church did not encounter the notion that scripture and tradition were mutually exclusive sources of authority" and then two paragraphs further down describe a clear example of exactly such an encounter. soulpatch


 * Hmmm. There may be a better way to say that. It's also not necessarily true that they "rejected" the idea that they were mutually exclusive, as I don't find that scripture and tradition were pitted against each other. Were the Ebionites even a Christian sect at any time? I had thought that they were more a Jewish sect, but could be wrong. As for Arius, I'm sure he claimed that he was following the teachings of the earlier apostles as well as scripture; he didn't suggest that the scriptures contradicted the apostles who wrote them, but that his contemporaries misunderstood both the scriptures and the teachings of the first apostles. In the middle of the fourth century when Arianism was very prevalent, those who disagreed and affirmed the divinity of Christ did so based on both the scriptures they had and the earlier teachings of the apostles and other church leaders as they received them.


 * Historically, the books of the New Testament were not packaged and sold at bookstores, or distributed through inns to be found by chance strangers. They were the books that were read in the churches, and recommended for people to read because they taught and expressed the Christian faith. Those people that believed this, had to have trusted the people telling them that these particular books expressed the Christian faith. And if they trusted them in this, they generally would have also trusted other things taught about the Christian faith. Any disagreements or arguments involved appeals not only to scripture but also to tradition. Wesley 17:30 Nov 26, 2002 (UTC)


 * Soulpatch, I'm uncomfortable with the bias that is being applied by emphasis on "the leadership". I'm sure it's true that Christianity has never been anarchistic, so that if the Church is going to define explicitly what the Church is, then it's going to be the leadership that defines this.  But, they defined it in terms of universal practices and beliefs, as evidenced in tradition and Scripture.  The Arians never really claimed that tradition was on their side.  They appealed to the Bible against tradition.  Over against them, the Catholics appealed to formularies of prayer, some of which exalted Mary, and the writings of earlier fathers and the apostles, some of which were used even in the Arian churches, to show that the universal faith was and always had been that the Son is of the "same substance" as the Father, eternally existent and uncreated.  Constantine's original intent was to effect a reconciliation between Athanasius and Arius.  To do so would have been to alienate the church of New Rome from the church of history and of the rest of the world; and so he was pursuaded to support the orthodox party rather than seek an accomodation of Arianism.  It wasn't an arbitrary decision of "the leadership".  Furthermore, this is the pattern by which heresies were combatted everywhere - the examples are quite literally "beyond count", that it was a specific interpretation of Scripture that was being defended, which did not originate in the councils which vindicated it, but was found throughout the civilized world over against which the heresies were found by the councils to be incompatible aberrations. &mdash; Mkmcconn


 * Mkmcconn, any good pointers so I can read up on what the Arians did claim? All I can recall are some scattered quotes from Eusebius. In any case, they could not have appealed to the "Bible" per se, as the collection we have today wasn't finalized until much later, or even listed until Athanasius' 367 Easter letter. Of course they may have appealed to specific books that were later canonized, but it seems they would be relying on the books' traditional widespread usage for any weight such quotations would be expected to carry in a debate. At that point in time, I don't think you can really show a dichotomy between scripture and tradition, though you could certainly show that some traditions were given more weight or were more widespread than others. Unless you mean they were relying on Old Testament passages to support their christology? Just trying to learn. Wesley


 * It's important to remember that in the early church, "the Scriptures" are the Jewish Scriptures, as well as the writings commonly accepted as having apostolic authority. Cardinal Newman's book on the conflict with the Arians gives a thorough account of the way that the Catholics viewed the Arians, and the way that the Arians defended themselves by a philosophizing argument based on a handful of texts, especially from the first chapter of John, which guide the interpretation of some statements elsewhere by Paul.  Florovsky's book on Scripture and Tradition has a compatible view of the controversy. Appeal to "the Scriptures", meaning the Apostolic writings inclusive, did not originate with the closing of the canon.  The two books I mentioned are the sources I've relied on for my understanding of the issue.  As I recall, the article on Arianism in the Catholic Encyclopedia is written by Newman.  ...


 * Furthermore, especially in the east, "Tradition" is not just what is written or decided in councils, but the whole life experience of the Church, which the councils affirm. Arianism is not compatible with this living commonality of experience, and that is why "the leadership" decided against it - it is counter-factual, that the Church has ever been Arian. And, the Arians acknowledged this. Leaving aside their claim that their ideas could be proven from the Scriptures including the apostolic writings, they traced their understanding to Arius (this is more in line with Florovsky's approach, as distinguished from Newman's more "textual" explanation).  &mdash; Mkmcconn

A couple of points. First, I would argue that "tradition" has not been as monolithic as claimed, that in fact there were multiple traditions, going back to the very beginning, which is why I made the point of pluralizing the word in the article. Second, the matter of Church hierarchy is very critical, which is why I make this point. The leadership are the winners in the theological debates, and the losers don't even get to write a minority report, because they are marginalized and suppressed, labeled as heretics and excluded from being defined as part of "tradition". When you have a hierarchy, rather than the faithful as a whole, that gets to decide what is "true" and what isn't, and they get to determine from among the various competing traditions the one they like, and call it "tradition" (singular instead of plural), then of course they can claim that they are simply "affirming" tradition. The tradition they are "affirming" is the one they agree with. In my view, that is why it is important to stress that the leadership, namely the winners in these theological debates, are the writers of history, as all winners get to do, and to point out that the Church leadership claims that only those from a self-perpetuating and self-selecting hierarchy (namely, themselves) get to decide what is true and what isn't. I am no fan of "sola scriptura"--in fact, I reject it out of hand as utter nonsense. But I also think that this article should make it clear that theology within Christian history was the province of a self-selected hierarchy; the fact that the doctrine that only they get to decide what is true and what isn't is, in the final analysis, self-serving, but we can leave that as an exercise for the discerning reader to figure out for themselves. soulpatch


 * This perspective comes through clearly in what has been added. That's why I think that your most recent edits are not in fact "neutral", and rather than leaving the readers to decide for themselves whether "orthodoxy" is nothing more than history the way that the "winners" have written it, the article is in danger of being over-weighted toward trying to tell them that that's the way it is.  Mkmcconn


 * I agree. For much of this we have a clear historical record, albeit with some gaps, like any other record. Soulpatch seems determined to undermine and discredit what happened. It seems ridiculous to me to suggest that the early church 'leaders' were being self-serving in the first few centuries when persecution was rampant. They also returned a lot of money to Marcion of Sinope for example, when it was clear he was wanting the church to change its theology. Marcion took his money and founded a set of competing churches. This isn't about something abstract like the nature of the Trinity or the deity of Jesus Christ, this is about a clear historical record. Challenges to the record should be based on well-founded evidence, not speculation. Wesley


 * Ok, I just tried to compromise on things like multiple traditions, and also break up and clarify some rather long and confusing sentences, like the one mentioned below. Hope we can work towards a decent article that will actually be helpful to someone unfamiliar with the topic. Wesley

--

"However, this view was not universally accepted within the Church. Throughout the history of the Church who argued that the prevailing Catholic Tradition was in conflict with Scripture. Those who took that position were labeled heretics [.....]".

Sorry, I cannot extract the meaning of this passage.

S. - Mkmcconn, could you clarify something for me concerning the passage that begins Sola scriptura did not originally signify a radical rejection of all authority of the Church to interpret the Scriptures, but rather represented a claim that the teaching authority of the Church is regulated by the Bible, constrained by Scripture in both a limiting and a directing sense. Did the Reformers lay down any guiding principle(s) for interpreting the Scriptures, or did they assume that the correct interpretation would be obvious to anyone who read them? My presumption is that they did not lay down any guiding principals, but that may very well be due to my own ignorance. Thanks, Wesley 17:31 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)
 * Wow. That's a big topic that would go far beyond the limits of our little article, here. So, I'll post my answer on my talk page.  I'll apologize ahead of time for being pretentious and presumptuous - because I can't see how I can presume to answer that question without being pretentious.  Mkmcconn


 * Returning to the current topic, I have to say that I strongly disagree with the referenced paragraph. In my opinion, the Reformers did in fact reject the authority of the Church to interpret Scripture, and transferred that authority to individuals. This is evident from the large number of conflicting interpretations that arose during the Reformation itself, with no authoritative mechanism to identify which were acceptable. They also did NOT reject every tradition that was not directly supported by Scripture. They continued to celebrate Christmas on December 25, for example; I don't recall any Bible passage saying that Christ's birth should be celebrated or commemorated each year, let alone on a particular date. Rather, they were selective in what they kept and what they rejected, and different reformers used different criteria. I realize that my opinion isn't NPOV either, but I think it needs to be somehow incorporated in a way that's fair and neutral. I'm presenting it here for suggestions of how best to do that. Wesley 17:08 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you expect from them - they were excommunicated from their church. The Reformation view was that tradition is difficult to read and is self-contradictory - and to understand it, the clarity of the Scriptures is needed.  So, they reversed the Catholic order of teaching authority.  They did not deny the teaching authority of the Church, they subordinated it to the Bible.  By turning tradition on its head this way, they opened it to continual re-evaluation in light of what the Bible says.  This isn't radical enough of a view of what they did, for you?  You want the article to say that they denied the teaching authority of the church entirely - but that simply is not the case ... Mkmcconn


 * Well, an alternative response to their excommunication would have been to say "No, WE are the true church". This is what the Western church said in response to the Eastern Church and what the Eastern church said in response to the Western Church in response to the Great Schism, and also what the Coptic Orthodox Church did following Chalcedon. How about this: "They subordinated the teaching authority of the Church to each individual's interpretation of the Bible." Does that better reflect their stance? Wesley


 * As for the Christmas issue - there is no Protestant church that makes the celebration of Christmas an article of faith. In fact, some Protestant councils recommended that if it becomes an issue of contention or seems to work against sanctifying the Lord's day, it would be better not to keep Christmas at all. Most do - and the reason they keep it on December 25 is because that's the traditional Western date.  They also kept Easter according to the Western calendar, but not because the keeping of Easter is essential to the Christian faith.  It is the traditional date, and many kept the custom.  Even in Reformed churches, some continued to preach according to the liturgical calendar - but they forbade themselves to make the keeping of the calendar essential to the faith.  "Christ said, 'I am the truth.'  He did not say, 'I am the custom.'" (Libosa of Vega-Numidia).  Mkmcconn


 * That perfectly proves my point. The article says that the reformers began rejecting traditions that they didn't see backed up in Scripture, but the fact is that they kept a number of traditions which aren't explicit in scripture, but with which the reformers didn't personally disagree. In other words, scripture was not their sole criterion for accepting or rejecting traditions. Perhaps the article should say they rejected articles of faith that were not supported by their interpretation of the Bible? I presume that by 'article of faith' you mean a dogma. Wesley 19:32 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

- The most recent changes help make it clear which traditions the reformers challenged: those which they believed the Roman church had made "central" to the Christian faith and which they did not believe were supported by scripture. I think my biggest problem with this article in general is that it tends to use the word "scripture" in places where it would be more accurate to say "individual interpretation of scripture". For example, one could argue as John of Damascus did that the veneration of images was in fact endorsed by the Bible, as in the example of the carved cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant, and the carved snakes which Moses held aloft (at God's direction) for the people to gaze at for their healing. Whether these passages endorse other uses of images is of course a matter of interpretation. Another interpretation is that of some Amish, who refuse to be photographed or to paint faces on their dolls because to do either would create a 'graven image', which they believe would violate one of the Ten Commandments. These things are a matter of interpretation of scripture, not a matter of "plain" scripture. Wesley 20:17 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, mainly because I think it pretty much *all* boils down to interpretation of scripture. But my suspicion is that Protestants who hold to "sola scriptura" may think that (at least some or most?) scripture offers truth that is self-evident and needs no interpretation.  (Perhaps Kpearce can offer a perspective on this.)  soulpatch


 * Even if you think that the complete rejection of the teaching authority of the Church was inevitable, it just doesn't fit the historical record to claim that this is what the original Reformers did. Look at how the anabaptists rejected the Lutheran and Swiss Reformations as too conservative.  What sense can you make of the separatist and Baptist movements, or the Pietist movements, etc.  Each of these were increasingly radical rejections of the teaching authority of the Church.  How can they be increasingly radical, if they were originally as radical as you can get?  I originally started work on this article with you, Wesley, by complaining that sola scriptura is too often used as a slogan without appreciation of the very significant historical degradation that it has undergone since the Reformation.  Now you are arguing for a position that would ignore that historical development. Mkmcconn


 * Earlier, I meant to amend my initial suggestion (complete rejection of the teaching authority of the church), to what I hoped was a middle ground between that and subjugation of the teaching authority of the church to scripture: subjugation of the teaching authority of the church to individual interpretation of scripture. I thought the only remaining difference between our suggested statements was "scripture" versus "individual interpretation of scripture". I asked whether there was a binding principle or hermeneutic that the reformers laid down; your response coupled with what I know of history seems to indicate that they were guided by tradition and church history, but were selective in which traditions and teachings they accepted and allowed to guide them. Later movements rejected more and more traditional teachings, but the principle of freedom of conscience for the individual, and settling of differences through schism, was established in the Reformation. A deviation in course of just 5 degrees will eventually lead to a growing divergence. If the 16th century reformers had a higher authority than individual interpretation, I'm still willing to be educated. Wesley


 * You are forgetting that the original reformers were teachers in the Church. They were drafters of confessional documents, in many cases sponsored by Christian princes, who were persecutors of those who argued for individual interpretation over against the teaching authority of the Church.  The evangelical Church WAS the church, where the Protestant reformation took hold.  Don't run ahead two hundred years - let history tell its story. Mkmcconn


 * And what was required to become a teaching reformer? At least for many Anabaptists, apparently only that you could get people to listen to you. Others may have required some sort of state or royal sponsorship. They drafted confessional documents, but their confessions were in various degrees of conflict with each other, and this was apparently mutually acceptable. In many places the local Protestant expression became the new state church and WAS the church there. But by 1579 or so IIRC, in Holland the Mennonites who had rejoined the state church, convinced the authorities to stop arresting and persecuting the remaining Mennonites who were independent of the state church. So you had a state-sanctioned church (Presbyterian of some sort??), and a group of Mennonites, who strongly disagreed with each other but agreed to coexist before the end of the sixteenth century. Apparently, each individual could choose which to join, though being Mennonite was still more costly in social terms. Besides that, you also had the church in Germany vigorously disagreeing with the church in Switzerland primarily because of theological differences between Luther and Zwingli; there was no higher authority to whom these two could appeal, and no framework for them to try to reach consensus in council, or at least none was employed. Wesley 15:08 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)


 * Wesley, it just isn't like you to approach an article with the idea to prove that everyone ought to convert to your religion :-) What is your point, exactly; that the Reformation didn't have a central authority by which to universally enforce conformity?  That it jettisoned the doctrine of apostolic succession (not all did - and they persecuted other Protestants)?  That Protestants found themselves persecuting protestants (or, that they eventually stopped)? That there is a difference between the Anabaptists and the state-sanctioned protestants (or that there is a relatively small difference from your point of view)?  All of these things are true, but it does not help me to see how you want the article to be changed, or why you want it said in this entry instead of some other. I'll make an attempt in a moment, though.  Mkmcconn 17:00 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)

Well, I've been trying to figure out what change(s) should be made, and it hasn't been easy. That's one reason I haven't touched the actual article while discussing this. Let's talk about these two paragraphs from near the top:


 * Sola scriptura reverses the order of the Church's authority, as it had been understood by the Catholic tradition. Instead of tradition being the interpretor of Scripture, sola scriptura makes Scripture the interpretor of tradition. It is the foundational claim of the Reformation.

First, I don't see how it can make scripture the interpreter of tradition, if by scripture we mean the actual text. It would anachronistic to ask a 1st century text to interpret a 5th or 10th century tradition, for example. Someone will at least de facto be in the role of applying or using scripture to evaluate later traditions, but that is an act of interpretation. I suppose it may be accurate to say that the statement as it stands is exactly what the reformers claimed, but in that case, it should at least be noted that they did not lay down any binding rules as to who should be trusted to properly interpret it or how. If they did lay down any such binding rules, than those would be worth noting here.


 * I think that you are reading the paragraph through the eyes of Catholic apologetics, instead of looking at it as a simple historical remark, Wesley. It isn't intended as a piece of theological rhetoric, and it shouldn't be read that way.  Where the catholics believed that Tradition interpreted scripture, it required that Tradition should also be interpreted.  The Reformers put Scripture above all other sources of tradition, finally determinative in all disputes of doctrine if another traditional source contradicted what the scriptures say. Mkmcconn


 * Ok, I suppose it is couched to indicate that's the claim the Reformers were making. I would have to take a closer look at the actual arguments to see when they began to also exclude things that were merely omitted from scripture, rather than overtly contradicted by it. Now I'm not sure whether that bit needs clarifying. Wesley 21:21 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)


 * Sola scriptura did not originally signify a radical rejection of all authority of the Church to interpret the Scriptures, but rather represented a claim that the teaching authority of the Church is regulated by the Bible, constrained by Scripture in both a limiting and a directing sense. The Reformers argued that the Scriptures are guaranteed to remain true to their divine source, and thus, only insofar as the Church retains scriptural faith it is assured of all the promises of God. Likewise, if it were possible for the Church to entirely lose Biblical faith, its authority would be reduced to nothing. Therefore, the Reformers targeted traditions which the Roman church had elevated to central issues of the Christian faith (transubstantiation, communion in one kind, that works of saints add to the church's treasury of merit, the doctrine of purgatory, the veneration of images, masses dedicated to the dead, etc.), which the Reformers believed had no basis in Scripture, in the attempt to prove that the Church had gradually substituted traditions as the primary definition of the faith instead of the Bible, in order to demand of the Church that it should return single-mindedly to the Scriptures alone as the foundation of catholic faith. 

Again, it's not at all clear to me what it means for the authority of the Church to be regulated by the Bible per se. What does it mean for the Church to "retain scriptural faith"? Does faith here mean trust in God, or does it refer to dogmas? Does it mean that only dogmas that are explicit in Scripture are scriptural, or that dogmas that do not actually conflict with Scripture are scriptural? And in either case, did they establish who gets to decide whether a dogma conflicts with scripture? At the very least, this section could be clarified so it's meaning is more clear.

Underneath all this is the concern that the article as it is almost seems to suggest that the Catholic church had in fact elevated scripture above tradition. This presupposes that scripture and tradition are two different things (a matter of opinion I suppose), and also implies that the Catholic church acknowledged that their traditions conflicted with scripture but persisted in them anyway. I don't think this is the point where they disagreed. Wesley 17:40 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)


 * (I'm supposing here that you mean that the article suggests that the Catholics elevated Tradition above Scripture). Indeed they did acknowledge that the Scriptures were dangerous, and shouldn't be read by ordinary people.  The Catholic apologists said that tradition is plain, Scripture is mysterious and difficult to understand: how is Tradition plain? it is plain because all you have to do is entrust yourself to the pope.  The pope is tradition. Scripture says what he says, because he says it.  Tradition says what he says, because he says it does.  And indeed they did say that some of their doctrines came in by a secret way, whispered in the ear of the first pope and passed on.  What sort of nonsense couldn't come in that way?  There were two sources of Roman Catholic dogma, at the time of the Reformation: one biblical and historical, and the other secret, a practically Gnostic idea of revelational interpretation, premised on the supernatural mediation of the Vicar of Christ.  In fact, the modern solution to the conflict between Scripture and Roman tradition has been to appeal to a kind of evolutionary theory of doctrinal development, which resolves by history conflicts that defy reason.  I would think that as an Orthodox believer who is not in communion with the Pope, you would know that there are features of Roman theology which are simply not catholic, which are not only not Biblically derived, but can't even be found outside of the Roman communion.  Mkmcconn


 * I wasn't aware that the Catholics were quite that beholden to 'secret' knowledge. I had thought the main sources of their errors originally were Augustine and later Middle Ages scholasticism's efforts to get too specific, and take Augustine further than Augustine probably meant some of his doctrines to be taken. Obviously, I'm still learning. As an Orthodox believer, I still like Vincent of Lerins' Commonitory. The questions remain though: what is meant by "scriptural faith" in that paragraph? And exactly who or what replaced the Pope as authoritative interpreter of scripture in the Reformation, if not the individual reader of the Bible? Whereas the Middle Age Catholics relied on the supernatural mediation of the Vicar of Christ, it seems that Protestants rely on direct supernatural inspiration of the Holy Spirit to understand the Bible, via their personal relationship with God, etc. Upon what else did the Reformers rely when they composed their creeds? Wesley 21:21 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)

Using Vincent's test, the Roman Catholics fail according to Protestants. The original aim of the Protestant movement was to be catholic and protestant. The Real Presence is catholic, but transubstantiation is not. The primacy of the pope is catholic, but the pope as head of the Church is not. And so on. Catholicism of the Reformation times was not possible to reconcile with Catholicism of earlier ages in the opinion of the Reformers. Doctrines for which no public precedence could be found, which became traditional without any attempt to reconcile their seeming contradiction of Scripture, were the target of the Reformation. In making this claim, they were harking back to the unanswered challenges of Wyclif and Hus, to prove the fault of their doctrine by the Scriptures. The Reformers attempted to establish consensus with one another, through councils of their own. As the decades wore on after the excommunication, this became harder and harder to do, because doctrine was developing in independent directions. The Lutherans were becoming more insistent upon their formulations, and the Reformed were establishing a more and more wide and international consensus, with greater insistence upon the self-determination of the various national churches. The result was a plurality - evangelical churches not accountable to one another although in the same nation (Lutheran, and Reformed) - but this denominationalism was not the desired state of affairs. The Lutherans saw (and still see) the Reformed as too liberal; and branded them all according to their most liberal accomodation (especially Zwinglianism, which was repudiated but not purged). The Reformed saw the Lutherans as too closely tied to Luther, and under-appreciative of the importance of uniting the evangelical churches. Even Melancthon, whose disciples attempted to bridge the gap between Lutheran and Reformed by the formulas of the Heidelberg Catechism, was finally branded a crypto-Calvinist (by which the Lutherans meant crypto-Zwinglians). The Lutherans solidified their vision in the Formula of Concord, and a strict idea of confessional subscription aimed at removing all but true Luther-followers. The result was that the breach became permanent. Nevertheless, neither side wished to utterly condemn the other, resolving instead to blame pride and sin (usually, the other guys') for Lutheran/Reformed evangelical denominationalism. Those Reformed churches which retained the doctrine of Apostolic succession, over time developed more synthetic formulations of catholicism and protestantism. For examples of these, the churches of Ireland and of England, retained both, episcopacy and Reformed articles of religion, and thereby have been the most successful in maintaining the original Protestant contention that there is no contradiction between "Protestant" and "Catholic" (but over time, have increased their distance from other Protestant churches) see www.ireland.anglican.org this page for an example Mkmcconn


 * No question there were problems to address in 16th century Roman Catholicism, many of which still persist to this day. From an Eastern Orthodox perspective, Protestantism also fails the same Vincentian test because, in its effort to strip away what the Romans added to the catholic faith, it stripped away far too much, and tried to roll the clock too far back. For example, in rejecting transubstantiation and papal infallibility, they also rejected veneration of icons, an ordained priesthood, and in some cases pedobaptism, in many cases the real efficacy of the sacraments in imparting Grace, etc. In trying to return all the way to the Bible without supplying a consistent means of interpreting it, they left the door open for anyone to come along and reinterpret the Bible, and set the stage for further schism. This is more than just lack of civil authority to enforce conformity; it's lack of even religious authority or principle to achive conformity or consistency. Your above history ignored the Anabaptists, who though smaller in number illustrate the variety of ways that the Bible was already being interpreted and applied from the beginning of the Reformation.


 * Not that any of the above paragraph needs to go into the article. Can we at least clarify what is meant by "scriptural faith" and how they determined that, and mention the hermeneutical methods employed and the extent to which the Reformers considered them binding? Perhaps I should consider actually making some edits, if only to focus discussion. Wesley 23:33 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)


 * The article at this point only addresses what the original intent of the Reformers was - not what Protestantism became, nor even what it is from a Catholic point of view. The Protestant aim was to re-establish that the Church has one source of truth, not two independent sources - that from the outset, the Church tradition is the Biblical faith, not merely traditional teachings.  I'm having trouble understanding why their hermeneutical methods are relevant, if what is being described is their aim and not their hermeneutical methods - although, I've tried to describe that hermeneutic in our discussion ...


 * Wesley, aren't you trying to judge the correctness or defensibility of Protestantism? Let's let that go, please, because the entry does not argue that the Protestants were correct.  It should only describe what the Protestants were attempting to do, and the background against which they were attempting to do it - and how the rhetoric of sola scriptura has gradually allowed the substitution over time of a much more radical principle, which served to justify the further splintering of Protestantism beyond anything that the Lutheran/Reformed Evangelical churches originally envisioned.  Mkmcconn


 * Maybe you're right. I just read through the article again, top to bottom, probably for the first time in too long. Evidently I was losing sight of the forest for the trees. I'm going to step back for a while. Thanks for being patient with me. Wesley 17:07 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)


 * "This is more than just lack of civil authority to enforce conformity; it's lack of even religious authority or principle to achive conformity or consistency". Oh horror of horrors.  People formulating opinions without having others standing over them and telling them what to believe and think?  That's just outrageous.  soulpatch