Sola Scriptura and Protestantism’s Hermeneutical Chaos

Orthodox-Reformed Bridge ^ | Robert Arakaki

[HapaxLegamenon]

Which undermines the whole concept of a “Protestant”Church. Some Protestants protest that they don't like statues and religious pictures (yet put them in the Hall of Statues in the Capital or in their garden), others want the right to divorce (as Henry VIII the founder of the Episcopal Church did), others accept open sodomites as "clergy", where does it end? Either Our Lord sent they apostates (Matthew 28:18) or we are all free (Sola) to decided for ourselves.

[BlueDragon]

You raise very good, solid points, right from the first sentence;

The core of the argument doesn’t run to sola scriptura but rather to the split between liberalism and evangelicals— which is something different.

Restated, in a different but related, expanded upon way;

Again, the author conflates two different points. One is differences in interpretations of the bible and the other is collapsing membership.

Sola scriptura has been a too convenient boogie-man for all sorts of claims. Some accurate, others quite misleading.
Other than the obvious outliers, such giving the "ok" sign to that which is very clearly contrary to both plain reading of the texts, and Christian tradition across the board (openly practicing lesbians offering communion? same sex marriages in the church? God forbid), there is stronger unanimity on basic key points, than critics of those who are focused strongly on scripture, as an ultimate test, will admit.

More than a few early church fathers held scripture up as a standard upon which differences in arising doctrines could be compared to, and either condemned by, or supported for.

Nowadays, we keep hearing about the outliers, then all other differences are exaggerated, with the accusation coming from Catholic corners that all other than themselves are headed that way solely due to "sola scriptura", which is only one of five solas, thus continually taken out of context if one were to rely upon it singularly as a guide, and also when one comes marching in criticism for it.

And I'm not even a Calvinist, lol, but here I am not necessarily defending the doctrines, just hoping for more clarity and honesty when such is part of a discussion.

[HapaxLegamenon]

Which undermines the whole concept of a “Protestant” Church. Some Protestants protest that they don't like statues and religious pictures (yet put them in the Hall of Statues in the Capital or in their garden), others want the right to divorce (as Henry VIII the founder of the Episcopal Church did), others accept open sodomites as "clergy", where does it end? Either Our Lord sent they apostates (Matthew 28:18) or we are all free (Sola) to decided for ourselves.

Did Jesus Christ who promised His followers to be always with them wait 1519 years (Luther) or 1535 (Henry VIII), or 1720 (Wesley) or 1960 (Pat Robertson) to fulfuill his promise?

There is no "Protestant" church today adheres to the Diet of Worms or the Augsburg confession. It is one evolution after another.

[Ecliptic]

What about Satan’s influence, or did I miss that?

[boatbums]

Dude...you need to learn how to do a hypertext link!

[boatbums]

Also, are you aware of what an "Ecumenical" caucus label is for? This tome has quite a bit of provocative language that is anything BUT ecumenical. We already know Evangelicals have been your primary target ever since you signed up, but it is disingenuous to open a thread that discourages argument when so much of it demonizes one group in particular. Kinda cowardly, if you ask me.

[BlueDragon]

What's with the huge data dump? One can hardly determine who is saying what after a while.

This constant fighting against sola scriptura seems a head feint to allow Rome and others to replace it's decided upon traditions, for principles that some of the Ante-Nicene, Nicene & Post fathers did not mention, or support, and at times can be reasonably interpreted to have rejected. The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles (if it can be trusted) doesn't much support some of the later inventions, either, though I do recall that being brought here recently by yourself.

[don't get me wrong...I'm not saying all "tradition" should be ignored, not at all, but perhaps that some parts are not beyond needful challenge of attention]

There surely wasn't [the previously acknowledged to be needful, see Vincent of Lerins] unanimity concerning a few points, including that "tradition" could change what can be reasonably seen to have been previously held scriptural understanding, changing clear meanings with later arrived at, but grown over many centuries, dogmas.

Many quotes can be found which are quite explicit for that cause. Other quotes, (some of which have been misused to the extent to support opposite of originally implied meaning!) need be taken in context of a particular (ECF) writer's other writings, and style, to properly understand their meanings, in a simple, scholarly way.

Webster points towards a few of both, and those do indeed have powerful ramifications. Argue with Webster, if one can, for though he may be over-stating the case to an extent in portions of his own editorial comment, the underlying thesis is solid. The very doctrines and dogmas most in dispute, cannot be seen to have been passed down from the beginning, as claims for such is still made for, here and elsewhere.

The real record, if one looks closely, show significant differences, and those of which the more astute and learned in Catholicism have long been aware of, as he touches upon, and then pillories.

He ends one of his own Living Tradition (Viva Voce - Whatever We Say) link target being the subheading, with:

So, in effect, the new teaching of tradition in Rome is no longer that of continuity with the past but living tradition, or viva voce — whatever we say. Instead of sola Scriptura, the unanimous principle of authority enunciated by both Scripture and the Church fathers, we now have sola Ecclesia, blind submission to an institution which is unaccountable to either Scripture or history. That blind submission is not too strong an allegation is seen from the official Roman teaching on saving faith. What Rome requires is what is technically referred to a dogmatic faith. This is faith which submits completely to whatever the Church of Rome officially defines as dogma and to refuse such submission results in anathema and the loss of salvation, for unless a Roman Catholic has dogmatic faith, he or she does not have saving faith. Rome’s view is based on the presupposition that the Church is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and is therefore infallible. She cannot err. But the presupposition is faulty. Historically, the Roman Church has clearly proven that she can and has erred and is therefore quite fallible. Her gospel is a repudiation of the biblical gospel.

This is where we ultimately arrive when the patristic and Reformation principle of sola Scriptura is repudiated for the concept of living tradition and an infallible magisterium — the embracing of teachings which are not only not found in Scripture or the teaching of the early Church, but which are actually contradictory to Scripture and in many cases to the teaching of the Church fathers.

Should I go to the link and paste the entire thing here? Please spare me any complaint that this was "orthodox-reformed" discussion --- unless one wishes to sift through both piles of material, and point to where your above data dump post differs, from what he is raising points to the contrary for.

The argument set forth in the article which you bring, is yet another attempt to discredit any form of sola Scriptura, is it not? Then those persons wishing to do so, perhaps could take their argument to Webster, (even as I can hear the apologetic ramping up, with one or two itching to tell me all about how such is artfully explained, and how it is so right, with the twists and turns of the apologetic able to sweep all else aside in the spectacular double-talk of the present "official" teaching).

Like I said, the argument (should one choose to accept the assignment --- cue the mission impossible theme) is with the points which Webster raises, and those similar. He brings nothing new, but simply encapsulates portions of the disagreements, which the Reformers themselves brought centuries ago, in a focused, albeit challenging manner.

The principle of sola scriptura wasn't apparently such a foul idea to Augustine, at least.

Though one might need read it entirety (my apologies) to fully grasp his position, Webster again, to explain my mention of Augustine, I'll bring here this small portion;

However, the theological giant who provided the most comprehensive and influential defense of the symbolic interpretation of the Lord’s Supper was Augustine.¹³ He gave very clear instructions and principles for determining when a passage of Scripture should be interpreted literally and when figuratively. Passages of Scripture must always be interpreted in the light of the entire revelation of Scripture, he concluded, and he used John 6 as a specific example of a passage that should be interpreted figuratively.¹⁴

Augustine argued that the sacraments, including the eucharist, are signs and figures which represent or symbolize spiritual realities. He made a distinction between the physical, historical body of Christ and the sacramental presence, maintaining that Christ’s physical body could not literally be present in the sacrament of the eucharist because he is physically at the right hand of God in heaven, and will be there until he comes again. But Christ is spiritually with his people.¹⁵ Augustine viewed the eucharist in spiritual terms and he interpreted the true meaning of eating and drinking as being faith: ‘To believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again.’¹⁶

13. For comments by Augustine on the nature of the Eucharist and the Real Presence refer to Appendix 8.
14. If the sentence . . . seems to enjoin a crime or vice. . . it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.’ Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. II, St. Augustin: The City of God and On Christian Doctrine, On Christian Doctrine 3.16.2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), p. 563.
15. 'In respect of the presence of the Majesty we have Christ always; in respect of the presence of the flesh, it was rightly said to the disciples, But Me ye will not always have. For the Church had Him in respect of the presence of the flesh, for a few days; now, by faith it holds, not with eyes beholds Him.’ A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John by S. Augustine, Homily 92.1, p. 873; Homily 50.13 (Oxford: Parker, 1849), pp. 677-78.
16. Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, St Augustin, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Tractate XXVI.I (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), p. 168.

[boatbums]

Amen! God IS in control and He knows His own.

[boatbums]

It’s called having a dialog. Perhaps, Protestants should do more listening and less fighting. Besides, this is an ecumenical thread, so fighting is not allowed.

Having a dialog would be fine if only the article wasn't another polemic against Protestants and Evangelicals - something you have done nothing BUT post ever since you signed up. How about you pick something that doesn't viciously attack someone's faith next time? When you START a fight, expect the same. Perhaps YOU need to listen more?

[ckilmer]

Which undermines the whole concept of a “Protestant”Church.
.........
Protestant church is just short hand term for western denominations that somewhere a ways back broke away from the catholic church. its just short hand. but it doesn’t mean much beyond that. never has.

for example we don’t think of small eastern christian sects in moslem lands —that are not orthodox—as protestant.

Similarly you’ll hear unitarians say the word trinitarian is not used in the bible. that’s because “trinitarian” is short hand for a theological position. same goes for unitarian. unitarian is not used in the bible. its a shorthand word for a theological position.

for that matter the word catholic is not used in the bible. but catholic is not short hand. nor is eastern orthodox. but they can be used as short hand for theological positions.

a definition of terms is always helpful. it saves a lot of trouble later on.

[boatbums]

Well said. Sola Scriptura is hardly the problem. Even the Catholics and Orthodox accept the divinely inspired nature of the Bible. They call it "God's Word" and state it is authoritative and inerrant. So, one might ask if this is so, why would there need to be anyone or thing in authority over it? Is God not able to preserve His word, to make it perspicuous and to lead His children into all truth through the indwelling Holy Spirit? Nearly to a man, the Early Church Fathers expressed concerns that nothing they taught be accepted unless it was found in Holy Scripture.

[boatbums]

Yes, let's look at the FULL guidelines for Ecumenical threads:

To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others. Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenic” thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.

More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.

Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions. <> Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenic” thread, I’ll be looking for the source. <> Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.

Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.

[ckilmer]

here’s newt on current anti catholic bigotry by the government and mainstream media.

http://www.therightscoop.com/newt-slams-media-for-ignoring-anti-christian-bigotry/

[BlueDragon]

Dude...you need to learn how to do a hypertext link!

Freerepublic 2012 HTML Sandbox

It's easy enough. One can use the "preview" function to see if one got the html coding right before posting. At that sandbox thread feel free to do test posts of whichever.

[boatbums]

Thank you. Very well stated. Of course Webster, because he left the Roman Catholic Church, will have no credibility to some here, but he is a brilliant theologian and brings up important points. I totally agree that this constant barrage against sola scriptura is being conducted to replace its authority for one that NEEDS it to be subordinate so that "it" may be the real authority.

“Once he does so [enter the Roman church by use of reason], he has no further use for his reason. He enters the Church, an edifice illumined by the superior light of revelation and faith. He can leave reason, like a lantern, at the door.”

"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers." (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapter XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York ) http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18438/18438-h/18438-h.htm)

[StonyBurk]

A lecture is an odd sort of dialogue —one person speaking -another receiving....but I was taught dialogue required two
speakers( and both receiving what the other offers?) IT was a long read -most would not muddle through it. Made some good points worth latter revisit.At first read I suggest the author is both right—and blinded by his own discovery. Much more to consider than possible in initial reply.

[driftdiver]

The whole idea of dialog is spoiled when the original post includes an attack on Protestants.

Too bad all this energy isn’t spent on spreading Gods Word instead of spreading divisiveness.

[driftdiver]

“It’s called having a dialog. Perhaps, Protestants should do more listening and less fighting.”

you sound just like Obama when he complains that Republicans won’t cooperate, meaning they won’t let him win.

If you want dialog then don’t start it off as an attack.

[Iscool]

If I wanted to read a book, I'd pick up something by Mark Twain or Edgar Rice Burroughs...

When it discarded Holy Tradition as binding and authoritative, Protestantism threw out the basis for a consistent and proper reading of Scripture (#2). Thus, Protestantism’s sola scriptura has resulted in its DNA code (the Bible) being stripped of its telomeres (Holy Tradition).

How funny...You can't read scripture along beside your catechism...They don't mix well...Like water and oil...

Didn't get very far in this piece...Didn't have to...

And again, it left me with the feeling that I had just dealt with a used care salesman...

[muawiyah]

Hmm, entirely too complex ~ so, to reduce that to a few simple aphorisms, in an ecumenic thread you can speak in the third person about your own beliefs and church history, but not in the first or second person.

Sounds kinda' nutty but it works.