I get in trouble in cycles. About 7 or 8 years ago I, through study, exited the Seventh-day Adventist church and entered the mainstream of protestant Christianity. This caused a major crisis in the Glass family. My spiritual steps go in cycles. I take a step and then settle into it for a while.
Over the last year or so I have been contemplating how to explain my thoughts on Sola Scriptura. It is not easy to explain. It is akin to trying to explain something in English to a person who only speaks Spanish. To a protestant it is as fundamental as gravity. It is so foundational to most protestant thought that protestant thought does not exist without it. It is the dividing line between protestantism and traditional Christianity.
The simple truth is that Sola Scriptura is a newfangled teaching. It was unknown to the Christians of the first century. It has only been around since Luther. It is not even supported by the scripture itself (a fatal flaw). So I was pleased to read a recent post by my favorite blogger Father Stephan. This post explains it better than I ever could.
What does this mean? It means that I can no longer in good conscience call myself protestant. What remains? The Roman Catholic West or the Orthodox East. That choice still lies ahead.
8 Comments
Brian,
You many never have to make the choice, and for two reasons.
Firstly, because the choice may in reality be made for you in your circumstances.
Secondly, because the step you take may not be the last stop in the line. Remember those cycles!
Don’t fall into the denominational trap. Obey the commandments. Love thy neighbour (as best you can).
Do make a choice, if you feel that being “Protestant” is a hindrance (why should it be?) but keep your heart and mind firmly on Him who counts.
It is God Himself who saves. When you can call Him Father, you know you have arrived. And remember all Fathers have names. God is no different!
I disagree with the previous comment for obvious reasons – it’s a protestant comment. How would they know since they see everything as just another Protestant Church.
I would add, that I do not think Rome a workable choice. An infallible papacy fails for the same reasons as Sola Scriptura. Sola Papa is not an improvement.
I have read through your comments and Father Stephen’s blog post. I am not sure that either of you fully have the meaning of sola scriptura correct, at least not in terms of the reformed tradition.
As Father Stephen points out, there are a lot of protestant churches who divorced themselves entirely from tradition. However, the reformers did not do this, and the reformed tradition today continues to use tradition in its understanding of Scripture. Notably, Luther, Calvin and others frequently referred back to the teaching of Augustine and other early church fathers to show where the Roman church had strayed from the historical understanding of the Gospel – the Gospel as taught in the Scripture.
For the reformed churches, sola scriptura does not mean that you never look at tradition, it means that when a teaching in tradition is contrary to the teaching of Scripture, that Scripture governs the interpretation. It also means that we are very hesitant about traditions that go beyond the teaching of Scripture.
Frankly, I think the Orthodox tradition has much to offer both protestants and Roman Catholics in the understanding of the role of community in the Gospel. However, protestants may also have something to offer the Orthodox. There is a lot of room for dialogue and discovery here. I encourage you to not be hasty in your decisions and take it all prayerfully.
Steve, I agree with Fr. Stephen. The protestant movement is a tiny blip on the time-line of history and a protestant denomination is a far cry from Catholicism or Orthodoxy.
John, you’re forgetting the living tradition. Written tradition (and scripture) is important, but there is something lost when you divorce yourself from the living organization. There is an organizational memory that cannot be replicated. You’re also forgetting the authority of the church and the broken pieces left by the reformation. There are just way too many issues to go into. The reformation was a disaster.
Brian – I think that you are reading the typical protestant view that opposes all tradition into my comment. I agree with you that there is a living tradition that needs to be embraced. However, you are suggesting (wrongly in my opinion) that the living tradition and authority of the church speaks with one voice.
A major problem with Fr. Stephen’s argument against protestantism is that he states (in his comments on his post) that the authority of the church is limited to those writers within the Eastern Orthodox tradition that stay faithful to the creeds. What this misses is that there are numerous writers within the Eastern Orthodox tradition that have not stayed faithful to the creeds, by a semantic gesture, he has wiped away all the heresy in the history of the Eastern Orthodox tradition as though it never existed, while citing the heresy within the Roman Catholic tradition or the protestant traditions as the primary proof of his argument. There is a need to be consistent in how you look at all of the traditions.
The test for the creeds was whether the teaching aligned with the apostolic faith. The best evidence that we have for the apostolic faith is the writing of the apostles. The value of a holistic sola scriptura is that it embraces the living tradition, the historic authority of the church, and uses the writings of the apostles and prophets as the test to ensure that the teaching is consistent with the living Word of God. It also uses the tradition as a corrective to prevent the loose cannon interpretation of Scripture that Fr. Stephen rightly complains about.
To call the reformation a disaster may not be wholly inaccurate, but the Schism was equally a disaster. Both sides of the Schism must shoulder some of the blame. The beauty of the Church (in all three traditions) is that in spite of repeated human disasters, God is still sovereign and still glorified.
John,
Yes, the schism was a disaster, but it was not of the same nature of the reformation.
The schism was more like a close brother and sister who drift apart because they live on opposite sides of the country. The sacking of Constantinople by the crusaders basically solidified the rift between the two. That does not remove the fact that both halves of the church retained an apostolic succession and tradition going back to the apostles.
The reformation had a completely different character. It was based in the “progressive” thinking of the time and tied to the same mentality of the French revolution. It was based in rebellion against authority and a belief that “I” know better than those who came before me. “I” can interpret scripture for myself and don’t need no stinking church.
What adherents to sola scripture seem to forget is that the scriptures themselves are a form of tradition protected and compiled by The Church through the centuries.
If I cannot trust the church that brought me the scriptures, then I cannot trust the scriptures either.
Brian -
I hope that the discussion doesn’t go beyond what you intend. I don’t want to be a troll, or to hijack your blog. Let me know if you want to stop the dialogue.
I think your reading of the schism is not historically accurate. The schism occurred hundreds of years prior to the sacking of Constantinople. The schism included mutual anathemas and excommunications that were bitter and divisive. It was an all out war of words, not a growing apart. Each side accused the other of radically departing from the apostolic tradition. In fact, I think both sides were trying to understand how to express God’s truth, but they did not agree. (Which makes it quite like the Reformation.) Don’t let romanticism suggest that it was less severe than it actually was.
Your view on the Reformation is also historically inaccurate. To tie the reformation to the French Revolution just doesn’t work. For the most part, the reformers were very tied to the traditional teaching of the church. However, they saw the Tradition of the Roman Catholic church as having veered tragically and significantly from the Apostolic tradition. You need to remember that the reformers referred not only to Scripture, but to the teaching of fathers of the church. They saw themselves not as progressive, but as conservatives fighting against a heretical drift (Which sounds quite like the Schism.)
The French Revolution was 500 years after the Reformation. France remained a Roman Catholic country. The French Revolution flowed more out of the 18th century social, economic and political changes than from the forces that shaped the Reformation.
You continue to suggest that Apostolic succession and Apostolic tradition means that the Western and Eastern churches speak with one voice and have not strayed from the historic Truth of Christianity. I just don’t think the history supports that view.
History shows that the church from time to time has taught contrary to its own tradition and the Scriptures. When this happens, we need to go back to the source.
John,
There is no instant along the time-line of history at which you can say the schism occurred. it was a gradual process punctuated by the events you describe. In fact some of those excommunications and anathemas were at times reversed or reinstated. In fact there is some debate today in Orthodoxy as to whether a schism ever “officially” occurred. The sacking of Constantinople is what solidified the estrangement at the grass-roots level. It had the same effect the American civil war had on the US. There is still a great deal of resentment between the north and south.
No, the reformation and revolution did not occur exactly at the same time and were separated by many years. It is once again a gradual trend I am speaking of. It was and still is a gradual trend of man thinking of himself as better and better. Today it is about as bad as it gets. We all know better than our ancestors with our “advanced technology.” Our ancestors were fools compared to us.
Israel at times strayed from the path. At times they sacrificed their own children to idols. Yet they remained God’s chosen people. The church has made many mistakes throughout history, but that does change its status as the church. I ask again, if I cannot trust the church that preserved and established the Bible, then how can I trust the Bible?
No, I do not suggest west and east speak with one voice. They are very different. But the difference between them is small compared to the tens of thousands of voices of the protestant denominations. The confusion that was created by the reformation is an absolute disaster.
For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears. – 2 Tim 4:3
A friend of mine is walking down this
path with me. Read some of his thoughts here http://thewooleyswamp.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/powerful-authority/