Reading Scripture in Tradition: Why Sola Scriptura Doesn’t Work

[IgnatianPhilo]

If I am asked to make scripture the final arbiter of things I ask how this is possible. In order to read the bible you need a mind and in any given mind you are going to approach things with certain predispositions which will affect your reading of a text. I think it is evident that your history, culture and personality affect how you will read the New testament.

Yet behind the presupposition of sola scriptura is that all you need at the core is the text. All you need is the bible to arrive at trinity, incarnation of God and other familiar doctrines. Yet I think this is false, it seems the heretics will ever find ways to read the bible and come to completely different understanding than most would and they always tend to do this apart from the tradition or a method of reading the bible.

There must be a rule seperate from the bible in order to read the bible. A framework by which we approach the question of Jesus and what we believe about him. We must believe he is the Son of God who came in the flesh for the salvation of us all. Before we accept the bible, before we do anything we should look to the faith which is taught without the bible.

The author of the article is quite correct, scripture does’t work without tradition, without the church. At the same time however there are times when the church is wrong and one person will stand up, and I can only think of one person who was regarded as a saint in this way, that being Maximos the confessor. HE was right to teach that Christ has two wills according to his two natures against the church of Constantinople at the time. But in the end it was a council that affirmed him and his teaching as correct.

Seems to me we can only make a choice based on our conscience, to which we must submit to God if we were wrong and beg forgiveness.

 

[JRKH]

Interesting article. Has some good, bad, and ugly. One point is the alleged fruit, bad fruit, of SS as in “confusion” and diversity, many churches, many views.

Yes - Although We RC and EO will gladly admit that “diversity” and "many views’ are not necessarily a bad thing. Where it becomes problematic is when it becomes “confusion”. That occurs because the “many churches” you speak of have no way of resolving their differences.
Yes they all have the bible and they cling to “Sola Scriptura” - right up to the point where the bible says “tell it to the church” and “listen to the church”. At this point there is a serious disconnect because it that passage (and Acts 15 that clearly supports it) flying the face of the other great protestant Tradition (capital t intentional). That Tradition is “Private interpretation”.

The article really says scripture is not formally sufficient and needs the whole church tradition (preferably Orthodox) .

Yes - Amen - And this is actually what Scripture teaches.

Today I see that as just as problematic. I would say what the article proposes is also not formally sufficient either, for now how do you decide which church to choose from ( CC or O or any segment of P’s)?

Well - that can indeed be difficult. But perhaps the more important take-away here is the recognition of the need for unity. Scripture teaches unity. The problem you mention above is the result of disunity…So - for RC, EO, and protestant alike, a formal, visible, doctrinal unity needs to be the goal.

Some bad fruits of that view are conformity, uniformity at the cost of a certain level of individual responsibility and even freedom and difficulty in correction or problems stemming from absolute or entitled “authority”.

Yes this can be an issue, but consider that the RC is, right now composed of some 30 or so individual “rites” and also has just established then “Anglican Use Ordinariate”. Seems like quite a bit of diversity can be found in the Church.

…Fact is Jesus said truth will always divide. Truth is also absolute from the big to the small to every jot and tittle. So wisdom is needed in determining how we are unified, and when we are not, is it a big deal. Are we wise enough and challenged enough in love to see how we are all “ecclesia”, the called out ones, the Church, the Body, the Bride ? Can we not rest to much on our parochialism, defining others out of certain Christian dignities?

That is the big question.
In reply I can only suggest this. The RC, and the EO - the two ancient Christian groups are seeking greater ties to each other. Maybe one day even reunification.
The “Sola Scriptura” believers need to make this a goal amongst themselves. They need to formally recognize and admit to themselves that the “Sola Scriptura”, as practiced, not only does not work but leads to confusion amongst believers. This is extremely unbiblical.
Only when those in the “Bible only” community come to recognize this fatal flaw in their Tradition will the problem you mention above be solvable.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

If I am asked to make scripture the final arbiter of things I ask how this is possible. In order to read the bible you need a mind and in any given mind you are going to approach things with certain predispositions which will affect your reading of a text. I think it is evident that your history, culture and personality affect how you will read the New testament.

Yet behind the presupposition of sola scriptura is that all you need at the core is the text. All you need is the bible to arrive at trinity, incarnation of God and other familiar doctrines. Yet I think this is false, it seems the heretics will ever find ways to read the bible and come to completely different understanding than most would and they always tend to do this apart from the tradition or a method of reading the bible.

There must be a rule seperate from the bible in order to read the bible. A framework by which we approach the question of Jesus and what we believe about him. We must believe he is the Son of God who came in the flesh for the salvation of us all. Before we accept the bible, before we do anything we should look to the faith which is taught without the bible.

The author of the article is quite correct, scripture does’t work without tradition, without the church. At the same time however there are times when the church is wrong and one person will stand up, and I can only think of one person who was regarded as a saint in this way, that being Maximos the confessor. HE was right to teach that Christ has two wills according to his two natures against the church of Constantinople at the time. But in the end it was a council that affirmed him and his teaching as correct.

Seems to me we can only make a choice based on our conscience, to which we must submit to God if we were wrong and beg forgiveness.

From the RC side we have had saints such as St Francis of Assisi and St Catherine of Sienna who also have stood up and told the Church leadership that they were wrong - In this case it was not in teaching, but in matters of behavior.

But you are absolutely right. Councils are the gift from God - recorded in Scripture - by which such questions are resolved. I have always found it interesting that “Sola Scriptura”, the 66 book bible, and the protestant reformation were not the result of a council. Certainly not one seeking to resolve the issues between the various protestant camps.

Peace
James