Clarification on Sola Scriptura

[theCardinalbird]

Is it true that Sola Scriptura or Bible alone believing Christians reject tradition and only think that the Bible holds infallible teachings?

 

[HopkinsReb]

reject tradition

Not necessarily

only think that the Bible holds infallible teachings?

Yes

 

[theCardinalbird]

Not necessarily

So what is the typical belief of Protestants on Church tradition?

 

[HopkinsReb]

HopkinsReb:

Not necessarily

So what is the typical belief of Protestants on Church tradition?

That’s an unanswerable question. Protestants’ beliefs vary quite a bit. Some, like Anglicans, hold to many traditions but reject the idea that those traditions are infallible, even if they may be salutary. Others simply reject all tradition whatsoever.

Protestants generally would, however, say that tradition is not to be used for determining doctrine.

 

[Vonsalza]

Is it true that Sola Scriptura or Bible alone believing Christians reject tradition and only think that the Bible holds infallible teachings?

It varies.

Some Sola Scriptura Christians use it as the sole infallible rule of faith and try to exclude as many additional practices as they can under the guise of “man made tradition” (often given with a heavily negative connotation).

Some feel the same as above, but will make various concessions in the name of pragmatism, like having a separate youth-group in the Church.

Others still use it as a source of necessary Christian practice and belief, but are happy to engage in other traditions like Lent - so long as everyone knows that it’s just a tradition and not a mandate.

So it’s like everything else in Protestantism or its Evangelical offspring - the exact doctrinal view varies from church-door to church-door.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Ok thank you @HopkinsReb and @Vonsalza

 

[lanman87]

Not everyone who says they practice sola scriptura actually practices sola scriptura. Most of American Evangelism actually adheres to solo scriptura.

Here is a brief essay that explains the differences in Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura. There has been a movement in American Evangelical churches over the past decade or so to move the church (people of God) back to the reformers position of Sola Scriptura.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Not everyone who says they practice sola scriptura actually practices sola scriptura. Most of American Evangelism actually adheres to solo scriptura.

Here is a brief essay that explains the differences in Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura. There has been a movement in American Evangelical churches over the past decade or so to move the church (people of God) back to the reformers position of Sola Scriptura.

I think there’s a problem with this distinction, in that the early church was not united on the questions in dispute. If we accept the Bible as the only infallible source of teaching while saying that it should be guided by the tradition of the early church, we have to then decide which tradition of the early church we follow. Then we’re back to a sort of solo scriptura, in which we can say that we are interpreting the Bible according to tradition, but we’re picking and choosing which traditions by which to interpret. For example, the XXXIX Articles of the Anglican Church recognizes the results of four early Church councils (I forget which four) on the basis that their findings can be proved by Scripture. But that’s just another way of saying that they accept those four councils on the basis that the council agrees with the Anglican writers’ interpretation of Scripture.

Plus, it still doesn’t answer the simplest Catholic argument against Sola Scriptura: where in the books of the Bible does it provide the Bible’s table of contents?

 

[lanman87]

Did you read the essay?

 

[HopkinsReb]

Did you read the essay?

Skimmed. But the logical premise still doesn’t hold up. If we reject the authority of tradition, instead opting for it as basically an aid to interpretation, it’s a distinction without a difference.

 

[lanman87]

Skimmed. But the logical premise still doesn’t hold up. If we reject the authority of tradition, instead opting for it as basically an aid to interpretation, it’s a distinction without a difference.

The you read this:

The Reformation debate over sola Scriptura did not occur in a vacuum. It was the continuation of a long-standing medieval debate over the relationship between Scripture and tradition and over the meaning of “tradition” itself. In the first three to four centuries of the church, the church fathers had taught a fairly consistent view of authority. The sole source of divine revelation and the authoritative doctrinal norm was understood to be the Old Testament together with the Apostolic doctrine, which itself had been put into writing in the New Testament. The Scripture was to be interpreted in and by the church within the context of the regula fidei (“rule of faith”), yet neither the church nor the regula fidei were considered second supplementary sources of revelation. The church was the interpreter of the divine revelation in Scripture, and the regula fidei was the hermeneutical context, but only Scripture was the Word of God.

The debate is really about defining what tradition is or is not.

 

[HopkinsReb]

The debate is really about defining what tradition is or is not.

And herein comes the problem. Because, as I pointed out earlier, the composition of Scripture is a matter of Tradition. Thing is, by chopping seven books out, the Reformers got rid of this notion. It is quite natural for the adherents of sola scriptura to drift into solo scriptura because they have separated the infallible authority of Scripture from the infallible authority of the Church which defined it.

Then consider the Reformation itself. The author of the article claims that the Reformers appealed to the Church Fathers to help their interpretations, while rejecting the actual authority of the Church’s formal declarations, in their attempts to return to a primitive Christian orthodoxy. If this approach were reliable, we wouldn’t have the level of disagreement between, say, Calvin and Luther that we have. If an appeal to the Church Fathers and Scripture, rather than the Church’s authority and Scripture, led to Christian orthodoxy, we wouldn’t have Luther preaching the Real Presence while Calvin preaches the spiritual presence; we wouldn’t have Luther preaching the free acceptance of God’s gift while Calvin preaches predestination.

The fact of the matter is that if we consider Tradition merely as the teachings of the Church Fathers, rather than as authoritative declarations of the Church, we’re left in the exact same situation that “solo scriptura” leaves us in. The Bible was no less difficult to analyze in 150 AD than it is now; authority was just as necessary then as it is now. The Church Fathers were constantly divided over doctrine.

 

[Gorgias]

Then we’re back to a sort of solo scriptura

Interesting notion!

in which we can say that we are interpreting the Bible according to tradition, but we’re picking and choosing which traditions by which to interpret.

So… when you say ‘tradition’, what do you mean? Catholics would use this term to signify “Sacred Tradition”, by which we’d mean “the authoritative teaching of the apostles and their successors”.

So, the “picking and choosing” is pretty simple and unremarkable: if it was taught by the Church, it’s ‘tradition’. If not, then it’s not ‘tradition’.

 

[HopkinsReb]

So… when you say ‘tradition’, what do you mean? Catholics would use this term to signify “Sacred Tradition”, by which we’d mean “the authoritative teaching of the apostles and their successors”.

So, the “picking and choosing” is pretty simple and unremarkable: if it was taught by the Church, it’s ‘tradition’. If not, then it’s not ‘tradition’.

This is basically my point, because any other definition of “tradition” leaves us right back at a bunch of individual interpreters shouting at each other, only this time instead of saying “no, I’m right about Scripture,” they’re saying, “no, I’m right about Scripture and tradition!”

 

[lanman87]

So, the “picking and choosing” is pretty simple and unremarkable: if it was taught by the Church, it’s ‘tradition’. If not, then it’s not ‘tradition’.

That is the one of the major problems I have with Catholic Theology. By that definition tradition isn’t what was taught by the apostles is it “whatever we say it is”. The church changes from the pillar and foundation of the truth (the Gospel of Christ) to the source of truth. The Church is not the source of truth. God is the source of truth, this truth was handed to the apostles who taught the early Christians. The churches job is to teach and protect that truth, not make up new “truths” as it goes along.

 

[Vonsalza]

@lanman87
What the ancient Churches provide is a visible structure where new questions not covered in scripture can be, at least somewhat, authoritatively answered.

Protestants and their evangelical children simply have no mechanism to do this. The very best solution they have is to try and stretch the bible into addressing issues it doesn’t even come close to actually addressing.

And please don’t forget, the biblical literacy you take for granted didn’t exist for the vast majority of Christians until roughly 100-200 years ago.

If you knew how the passages in Romans went, it’s because your priest/pastor/whatever READ it to you and you memorized it.

Even further still, there was no authoritative bible for the first 300 years of the Church and it was still up for debate (the last half of the NT) until almost the time of the Reformation.

“Me and my Bible” Christianity is a relatively recent innovation.

And be sure, this isn’t coming from a man trying to argue in favor of Catholicism. I’m not Catholic.

 

[HopkinsReb]

By that definition tradition isn’t what was taught by the apostles is it “whatever we say it is”.

By that definition Tradition includes but is not limited to what was explicitly written down by the apostles.

The church changes from the pillar and foundation of the truth (the Gospel of Christ) to the source of truth.

By the sola scriptura view, the Bible, not the Church, is the pillar and foundation of truth.

The Church is not the source of truth. God is the source of truth, this truth was handed to the apostles who taught the early Christians.

This is another way of saying that the Church teaches truth. After all, Paul didn’t spend any time following Jesus around and being taught by him, and yet most Protestants take a single letter of Paul, written to a specific group of people to address a specific controversy, as the fundamental explanation of the fundamental Christian doctrine of how to be saved. So which is it: were the apostles just repeating what they were told by Christ, in which case Paul probably shouldn’t have had much to say, or were they given the ability, as agents of God through His Church, to speak infallibly when they spoke with one accord and/or in agreement with Peter?

The churches job is to teach and protect that truth, not make up new “truths” as it goes along.

The Church would deny that it “makes up new ‘truths’ as it goes along.” It would say that it fleshes out and formalizes existing beliefs, often beliefs that had been around since the early days but had only recently come under fire.

 

[lanman87]

So which is it: were the apostles just repeating what they were told by Christ, in which case Paul probably shouldn’t have had much to say, or were they given the ability, as agents of God through His Church, to speak infallibly when they spoke with one accord and/or in agreement with Peter?

God was using Paul to write God Breathed Scriptures. Unless you say the New Testament isn’t God Breathed. And yes, the church identified which books were God Breathed. This doesn’t make the church infallible anymore than the Jews were infallible when they identified the Old Testament Books. God was working through both fallible groups of people to reveal His infallible word.

Traditions are revealed in the scriptures and scriptures reveals the traditions.

 

[BartholomewB]

Here is a brief essay that explains the differences in Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura.

I had never heard of “solo scriptura” till now. Is it supposed to be a joke? It’s not a very good one.

In addition to those who have already posted on this thread, it would be helpful to hear from @Hodos, if he sees this.

 

[HopkinsReb]

God was using Paul to write God Breathed Scriptures. Unless you say the New Testament isn’t God Breathed.

I do say that it is God-directed. And I say that I know it’s God-directed because the Church infallibly declared it to be so.

And yes, the church identified which books were God Breathed.

Do you accept the Church’s identification, or do you shave off the Deuterocanon? Because if you shave off the Deuterocanon, you’re saying that decisions of what books to count or not count are up to the individual.

This doesn’t make the church infallible anymore than the Jews were infallible when they identified the Old Testament Books. God was working through both fallible groups of people to reveal His infallible word.

God always works through fallible groups of people. But in the case of the Church, there are conditions which, when met, assure correctness.

Traditions are revealed in the scriptures and scriptures reveals the traditions.

This is circular reasoning. “I know what the Bible says because someone told me what it says, and I know that what he says it says is true because it says that what he says about it is true.”