The core of the argument doesn’t run to sola scriptura but rather to the split between liberalism and evangelicals— which is something different. But but the author can’t seem to get himself to say that the core of the problem created by liberalism’s higher criticism is that liberalism —in effect — embraced the arian heresy. that is a low view of christ. that is, that Jesus is just a man.
higher criticism took over the divinity schools in europe in the 1850’s at about the same time that atheism took over the philosphy departments there. The higher criticism school made the jump back over the atlantic about the end of the 19th century to american liberal divinity schools and by 1940’s had taken over all the liberal protestant divinity schools.
The premises of the higher criticism school is not sola scriptura but rather a notion passed from the greek tradition by descartes that man is the measure of all things—including God. You can see it in his tree of knowledge that starts with (greek)metaphisics as the root, with philosophy as the trunk and religion/witchcraft in the branches. The higher criticism school treated the bible as a myth like greek or norse myths. (The problem here is that theology is on a whole different root and tree than philosphy. Why? Because theology begins with the premise that God is the measure of all things. And two, God is outside of Man and outside of nature.)
If the problem were with sola scriptura then the problems posed by the Greek philosophy would be limited to the liberal protestant churches where membership is naturally on the fast track to extinction. (Why? Because you have a freaking creepy human sacrifice as the main mystery at the alter.)
Again, the author conflates two different points. One is differences in interpretations of the bible and the other is collapsing membership. The two are not related. If collapsing membership was caused by sola scriptura then the problems posed by the Greek philosophy —that is the collapse of their membership—would be limited to the liberal protestant churches—. However, its not. The catholic church membership as well in steep decline —especially in south america and Europe.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,805075,00.html
And much of the reason for this can be laid at the feet of the arian heresy. More than one pope in recent decades has railed against the arian heresy which is passed through liberal catholic seminaries and bishops.
fwiw the USA & latin american evangelical and charismatic churchs are all increasing their membership. there are different interpretations of the bible for example differences between arminians and calvinists. but they are all considered to be within the pale of orthodoxy as are the catholic church and the eastern orthodox church.
however, the arian churches are not within the pale of orthodoxy. this stuff can get really grievous too. three or four generations after the liberal protestant churches embraced higher criticism and the low view of christ—their denominations embraced homosexuality in the priesthood. Among catholics, you can bet that seminaries where the young novices were hit on — also took soto voce the low view of christ.
My Roman Catholic friends might disagree with me, but I think the roots of ecclesiastical rationalism were sown by the scholastics.
As the author points out, the Orthodox world has largely been spared a lot of the thorns that higher criticism has sown.
Places like Holy Cross might be an exception, but I haven’t seen the sort of widespread theological liberalism among the Orthodox as one sees among the Western denominations.
Good post, thanks for the ping. I’m too exhausted to rebut now, but will follow the replies...
Restated, in a different but related, expanded upon way;
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.
“fwiw the USA & latin american evangelical and charismatic churchs are all increasing their membership. there are different interpretations of the bible for example differences between arminians and calvinists. but they are all considered to be within the pale of orthodoxy as are the catholic church and the eastern orthodox church.”
The problems with the evangelicals and the charismatic folks, isn’t one of membership, and I think you are very right about Arianism and the ‘low view’ of Christ. The problem is the leadership.
What we are seeing is a consistant pattern. A church rebels against the Catholic church, has a period of consistant growth, gets big, votes itself in a paster who is an Arian and then collapses, only to form other new ‘churches’ governed along the exact same pattern.
Look at Methodism? Is there anything substantially different from what we are seeing with the evangelicals, from the Methodist movement in the 19th century? Same principle. You look at the Methodists now, and they are turning away from Orthodoxy.
Provided that the Catholic church continues to reject contraception, she will be the only one standing. All the others will contracept themselves out of existence and fall under Arianism again.