Posted on 10/04/2005 7:51:36 PM PDT by JohnRoss
Sola Scriptura In the Vanity of Their Minds by Fr. John Whiteford
AN ORTHODOX EXAMINATION OF THE PROTESTANT TEACHING Introduction: Are Protestants Beyond Hope?
Since my conversion from Evangelical Protestantism to the Orthodox Faith, I have noted a general amazement among many of those who have been raised Orthodox that a Protestant could be converted. This is not because they are uncertain about their own faith, usually they are just amazed that anything could break through a Protestants stubborn insistence on being wrong! What I have come to understand is that most Orthodox people have a confused and limited grasp of what Protestantism is, and where its adherents are coming from. Thus when "cradle Orthodox" believers have their run-ins with Protestants, even though they often use the same words, they do not generally communicate because they do not speak the same theological language — in other words, they have no common theological basis to discuss their differences. Of course when one considers the some twenty thousand plus differing Protestant groups that now exist (with only the one constant trait of each group claiming that it rightly understands the Bible), one must certainly sympathize with those that are a bit confused by them.
(Excerpt) Read more at archangelsbooks.com ...
Take a look sometime and see how many of the 95 theses could apply to various Protestant churches that routinely try to convince their members that their salvation is linked to what portion of their income they give to the church.
I have an even more crucial question:
If sola scriptura was so vital, why isn't it even alluded to in the Bible?
Can we stick to the subject here? The link in the OP is about PROBLEMS WITH THE DOCTRINE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA. It's a bit long, but presents an interesting critique of contemporary Christianity and the doctrine that the bible alone is the sole rule of faith. The topic is a fundamental one for modern Christians. In fact, the subject is the elephant in the living room of contemporary Christianity.
It would indeed be nice if we could all act like adults and actually stick to the subject and be objective, rather than resorting to internecine griping.
The intention of the thread was to bash protestants. Just read posts 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, & 11 and you can see that this thread started out as flame bait. If a protestant were to post a similar article about the Catholic Church and a bunch of other protestants jumped on the bandwagon, I suspect the article would have been moved to the smokey back room or yanked before you could say "Two Babylons."
Catholic sectlet ? What is a Catholic sectlet ?
Jesus created a human church. He empowered his disciples to go forth and teach and forgive sins and gave them the gift of the Holy Spirit to answer their questions. That human church he created was the Catholic Church in direct human succession from the disciples.
The disagreements between Episcopalians and Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventists are vastly more substantial than administrative disagreements.
the issue really revolves around our interpretation of God and man.
Our anthropology of who is man is very important to the question of how God and man relate to each other. Harley has an excellent point on this matter - especially when one considers how humanism has pervaded our society, and by osmosis, into our own thoughts. While we don't agree on our anthropologies, (specifically on man's free will) we need good Calvinists to remind us of who we are in comparison to God! We can forget God's sovereignty and how EVERYTHING that we do depends on Him - whether faith or good deeds. This is opposed to our society's view that has turned decidely Pelagianistic.
While the Catholics and Orthodox don’t like to admit it, there are many "sects" of Catholics and Orthodox as well as Protestants albeit probably not as many.
While I would agree that there are fewer Protestant denominations than advertised by some Catholic apologists, I don't agree with the term "sect" when discussing the various "wings" of Catholicism - such as Traditional Catholics, Liberal Catholics, Neo-Conservatives, etc. I do agree with Harley, though, that we as Catholics are no longer as monolithic-appearing as we once were. While my studies of the history of thought in Catholicism has yielded a pretty good diversity, (there has ALWAYS been a number of theologians who had varying opinions on matters) the typical lay person probably believed roughly the same thing wherever one went. Maybe because of the speed of communication and modernism, things have changed somewhat on this. Or maybe it is the effect of ecumenicism. This would be an interesting topic to further explore.
God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.” This is the tradition of men
Of course, since our anthropologies are different, I must disagree with my friend's total view of Scripture. This line of thought is similar to Manichaeism, a Gnostic heresy of early Christianity that had a strongly negative view towards the material world and man. From my reading of the Church Fathers, I find that there was a Gnostic component that had to be dealt with - men such as Marcion who could not see that the OT and NT God was the same one. However, orthodox beliefs won over - God is love. The message of the entire Bible is that God, despite man's disobedience, condescended to save us because we were worth saving - and He loved us. This message is reflected in nearly every Christian writer who was not overreacting to Pelagianism. We posit that God so loved the world that He gave His only Son - not because He had to, because He wanted to.
Luther had it right. Sola Scriptura. You must look to the scriptures first and THEN the tradition of men. You cannot look to tradition first PLUS the scripture
Luther's initial impetus was correct. Some of the Catholic Church were emphasizing tradition to the EXCLUSION of Scripture. Luther began the swing of the pendulum back to the balanced position that the Church Fathers had seemed to always have a knack for - Apostolic Tradition being used to interpret the Scriptures - the Scriptures being the "source" of our beliefs. Yes, all of the Church's beliefs come from the Scripture, either implicitly or explicitly. And the Apostolic Tradition is used to interpret these writings. To be a Christian the way the early Christians were, one MUST read the Scriptures with the Apostolic Traditions as background. Even in 200, Tertullian could say that heretics didn't deserve the Scriptures because they twisted them to their own intents.
Luther's mistake was that he went too far. Sola Scriptura led to each man to become his own tradition. Unfortunately, the idea that the Spirit inspired men outside of the Church's presentation of the faith is patently false. Christ didn't teach that, nor did the Apostles. Proof of this is noted by Luther HIMSELF.
"If God had not closed my eyes, and if I had foreseen these scandals {drunkenness, despising the word of God, and no longer caring for the churches}, I would never had begun to teach the gospel" (WL 6, 920)
"If the world last long, it will be again necessary, on account of the different interpretations of Scripture which now exist, that to preserve the unity of faith we should receive the Councils (of the Catholic Church) and decrees and fly to them for refuge" (Letter to Zwingli, Contra Zuingli et Oecol.)
Luther became disillusioned with Sola Scriptura. By ignoring Apostolic Tradition to help us interpret the Scriptures, we come up with hundreds of creeds, some quite different from the others, such as on the Eucharist, Baptism, salvation, who is God, and so forth. Christ did not intend for His community to be so divided on such primary issues.
Scriptures are clear that the "heirarchy" (those who the "elders" layed their hands upon) was commanded to "hold onto the traditions passed down to you, whether given orally or in written word", NOT the individual with his bible and notes in tow. NOWHERE does the Scripture teach that we are to read the Scriptures and come to conclusions in opposition of the Church on what God wants from man and how we are to pick up our crosses daily and follow Christ.
Brother in Christ
You are equating God's Word with man's interpretations. The issue is GETTING the truth from His Word - this is not so easily done by oneself, considering the result of the various interpretations of the Scriptures, some diametrically opposed.
Regards
Because it is God's will.
By the way, it is not "scripture alone". If there are traditions in the Church, they must be consistent with the cannon of inspired scripture. There are many traditions which not only have no basis in scripture, but are plainly in violation of scripture. If a tradition is not based upon or justified by the plain language of the inspired word of God, then it has no place in the Christian Church. All things must be tested against the inspired word of God. That is the basis for the doctrine of "sola scriptura".
That question is a red herring, posed by a man-made corporation.
b'shem Y'shua
Would you care to elaborate on just what those "sects" are disagreeing on? As a corellary, would you explain which doctrines/practices are considered completely non-negotiable?
You presuppose a singular interpretive mind for the scripture. To say that the different sects are evidence that scripture alone are insufficient requires that there be an acceptance of a single, inviolate interpretation of the scripture in every detail.
That is the Roman Catholic tradition - an Ex Cathedra mindset, where the "infallible teachings" can never fail or be wrong. Your question cannot be answered in the terms you pose it, because you have presupposed adherence to the RC hierarchical positions on the primacy of teachings of the church.
How do you define "Sectlets"?
Since Vatican II, the Catholic Church has been beset by the same sorts of modernistic heresies that started out in Protestantism.
Alex,
I'm asking a very simple question. If scripture alone as a sole rule of faith is sufficient to establish the truth of Christianity, why are there hundreds of disagreeing sects based upon the bible?
Luther simply established his own traditions of men. It is simple vanity to say Protestant interpretations of the Bible represent Bible teaching.
Even Lucifer knows how to quote scripture.
The only difference between Saddleback, the local PCA congregation, the local Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is a minor and insignificant disagreements over leadership structure?
Oh really, Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, grace in the sacraments and private confession. Try that at Saddleback.
As a former Lutheran, I can tell you they are in some respects far closer to Catholicism than they are to Saddleback or the PCA.
The extreme Radical "Reformers" began the process of Christianity's dissolution by denying the divinity of Christ by the Bible alone and a whole host of extremist beliefs that led to the shipwreck of the "Enlightenment."
What Evangelical would affirm private confession?
http://members.aol.com/SemperRef/private.html
That Luther wanted private confession retained as a separate sacramental rite of the Church cannot be questioned. In his article, Of Confession, he says, "I will let no one take away private confession and would not exchange it for all the wealth of the world, for I know what strength and comfort it has given me."
"In his eighth sermon against Carlstadt (1522), who had abolished private confession in Wittenberg during Luther's absence, Luther closed with the words, "I know the devil well. If you had known him as well as I, you would not have thrown private confession so quickly to the wind."
In his Babylonian Captivity of the Church Luther writes, "Of private confession, which is now observed, I am heartily in favor, even though it cannot be proved from the Scriptures; it is useful and necessary, nor would I have it abolished; nay, I rejoice that it exists in the Church of Christ, for it is a cure without equal for distressed consciences."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.