I caught some flack for a comment I posted recently on Revelife, to the effect that the Protestant church needs to understand itself as a protest movement within the Catholic Church to remain intelligible, and that the way
sola scriptura is used is often borderline heresy. (The flack was not public because the person did the biblical thing and approached me about it one-on-one.)
Of the first part of the comment all that needs to be said is that though I am not Roman Catholic, neither do I consider myself a protestant. The church movement I am a part of (the Church of God Reformation Movement, with ministry headquarters in Anderson, IN), has not primarily understood itself in those terms, as it grew out of Wesleyan holiness concerns meshed with Anabaptist social postures. Still, from where I stand it seems that both the Church of God Movement and the Protestant Reformation are in danger of losing perspective and seeing themselves as ends in themselves. That is a problem.
My friend was fine with that, after some discussion, but my comments about
sola scriptura still bothered him (since
sola scriptura is more or less the battle-cry of Protestants, even today). So let me explain. We all have influences, people who have or who continue to influence the way we view the world, the way we think about things and the way we read scripture. For me, some of my influences are scholars like N. T. Wright, Gregory Boyd and William Cavanaugh, some are professors I had at university, and some are people I've known like Mark Shaner, my first youth pastor and Travis Blankenship.
These influences fall in the Roman Catholic category of Tradition. Everyone who has read and attempted to understand Scripture before us teaches us how to understand Scripture (or, in many cases, how to avoid misunderstanding it). The problem with the way Protestants often use
sola scriptura is that it often comes to mean not that only scripture has authority, but that only my tradition's reading of scripture has authority.
Stanley Hauerwas, drawing on ethicist Alisdair Macyntire's account of moral practices, has written that the individual is wholly unsuited to the task of scriptural interpretation. The idea of "just me and the KJV" is a myth. In truth, we can only even begin the task of interpretation once we have been shown how by an individual or a community. What is more, it is the character of the community that will largely determine how we interpret what we read. "To put it as contentiously as possible," Hauerwas writes at one point, "only a pacifist church can read the Sermon on the Mount rightly."
This begs the question, then, how does a church become dedicated to nonviolence if not through first reading and understanding Jesus' teachings? For Hauerwas, again, the answer is Tradition. As we grow up in the church, there are saints and martyrs who influence us by embodying what faithful discipleship look like, and thereby giving us a key to interpreting scripture rightly.
If the account Hauerwas (and, for that matter, Stanley Fish) gives us about the nature of scriptural interpretation is anything like right, then
sola scriptura is potentially a dangerous and self-deceptive standard around which to rally.
Who has influenced the way you think about the world? Has anyone influenced the way you understand scripture? Is this view of Tradition incompatible with your view of sola scriptura?
True
Comments (30)
Again, flattered. Move to the NW and let's be a church.
Tradition certainly gives us a lens through which to see, but if upon reading the scriptures together we notice that our Tradition has erred, hopefully that lens will be corrected appropriately. And I do believe that church communities can be self-correcting as they continue to read the scriptures. Consider the story of King Josiah.
My difficulty with the Catholic understanding of Tradition stems from the "The Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent" (Nov. 13, 1565). It says all faithful Catholics must agree: "I shall never accept nor interpret it [the Bible] otherwise than in accordance with the unanimous consent of the Fathers." Maybe it's the Protestant (or U.S. culture) in me, though I did nearly convert to Catholicism, but I don't like being excluded from the lens correcting process. I do know, however, that many Catholics disagree on how to interpret the scriptures and by voicing differences of opinion are offering lens corrections for the Fathers to consider. And maybe that's your point, we all do this with our own Christian traditions which were originally attempts to correct the lens of the Roman Catholic Church.
I think that having Christian influences is a good and necessary thing because I do believe that God works through His people. However, I actually come from the opposite viewpoint that straying too far from sola scriptura is a dangerous thing. While learning from others is a great thing, what people say must be taken with a grain of salt since they are people and the Bible is the word of God. I know that the Bible can be used out of context and people can interpret it wrong, but I think if one reads the Bible and takes it as a whole, it's pretty clear. I do not believe that we need someone to interpret scripture for us, but rather that we should let scripture interpret scripture. I'm not saying that spiritual instruction is a bad thing, because spiritual instruction is a biblical practice. However, it is very important that we test what people have to say to make sure it is in line with what scripture says. The apostle Paul often wrote that message in his epistles. If we believe the Bible to be the word of God then it should be our ultimate standard.
James 1:5 "If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him."
1 John 2:26-27 "I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him."
2 Timothy 4:3 "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."
Sola scriptura has been refuted by the church as early as the second century. Many of the early church fathers spoke out against it.
http://musicologynut85.xanga.com/707726361/posts-and-commments/
@rectangularprism@xanga - I agree with you. That is exactly what we are to do. Just this last Sunday our Pastor said he expects everyone to look into what he preaches and come to him and point out where he may be wrong or where he may have strayed from the truth of the Word. We are to read it for ourselves to make sure :)
I'm sorry, but I consider total pacifism to be morally wrong. To watch as another person is attacked, for example, and not do anything... that's a sin. Christians are called to take a stand against evil, not stand back and let it happen- pacifism is a petty excuse to avoid action and effectively promote violence by refusing to resist it. As such, I tend to consider pacifism as an attempt to justify sin....
@Lynnjynh9315@xanga - This is all I will say on this thread about pacifism. Pacifism does not encourage idle living or cowardly living. To not be violent does not mean to neglect justice. A life void of violence is not void of responsibility and action. Pacifist would also consider it morally wrong to stand by and watch others die or be abused unjustly and let evil thrive.
@TheGreatBout@xanga - Then I concede- that was my only point.
@Lynnjynh9315@xanga - It's an understood and popular one. Pacifism is poorly named. It makes people think pacifists are passive when they really aren't. They just aren't violent. You should read Engaging the Powers by Walter Wink. He spends a chapter or two discussing that (and just war theory in similar fashion).
"Stanley Hauerwas, drawing on ethicist Alisdair Macyntire's account of moral practices, has written that the individual is wholly unsuited to the task of scriptural interpretation. The idea of "just me and the KJV" is a myth. In truth, we can only even begin the task of interpretation once we have been shown how by an individual or a community. What is more, it is the character of the community that will largely determine how we interpret what we read. "To put it as contentiously as possible," Hauerwas writes at one point, "only a pacifist church can read the Sermon on the Mount rightly." "
The premise here involves disputing sola scriptura on the basis of one mans interpretation of another mans account of moral practices. So you are positing that Christianity in effect is basically just moralism and therefore can be reduced to the sermon on the mount and pacifism.
If that works for you..........
Sola scriptura may be one of the most misused of terms. All Luther was saying that only scripture could be taken into account in one debate. He was just saying prove your heresy using sola scriptura. That is what indulgences are, a heresy. Paying your way into heaven was and is a heresy. Sola scriptura is not about disregarding all tradition. Only tradition that contradicts scriptures.
Sola scriptura has more to do with authority, not that you can't use commentary to help understand scripture.
@MusicologyNut85@xanga - And many of the early Church fathers commended the idea of scripture being the final authority on matters of faith... ie. Sola Scriptura.
I was raised to believe that there is a difference between pacifism and nonresistance. Pacifism is the use of resistance as long as there is no physical force, nonresistance is the absence of any resistance whatsoever. Nonresistant people usually dislike being called pacifists because they define it as still allowing for some types of resistance. I don't necessarily hold to that sentiment, just saying that pacifism is not the only path of nonviolence; some people take it a step further.
The teaching 'sola scriptura' is simply using the Scriptures as the rule and norm to judge. It is not a 'battle cry', but a method to discern.
When the Reformation happened, I think there was this idea that if people just used the bible as the sole authority, then everyone would have the same ideas, because they would all be looking at the same bible. However, as we know, within a short period of time, there were many disagreements over exactly what the bible meant. And I know myself that, when I've questioned the meaning of something, I have been told well we interpret it this way. Why? Because, as mentioned in the article, that's the traditional interpretation for that particular denomination.
I think all Christians use tradition to interpret the bible. The only difference is how far their particular denominational interpretation goes back. Even when we use commentaries, we're looking at how that bible verse has been interpreted by the people who have gone before us. And if we all solely relied on the bible as our authority, without any regard for tradition, we would have as many different interpretations in the world as there are Christians.
@Lynnjynh9315@xanga - @mikenpeg@xanga - My father was a self-proclaimed pacifist/non-resistant - He always expressed opposition to Christians using any physical force for any reason. He did not believe Christians should join the military or take any job that would require fighting or violence. He was adamantly opposed to any sports that required physical force, violence or fighting...and martial arts was out of the question for sure. Learning self defense was just an excuse to impose violence and avert trusting in God. Jesus said to turn the other cheek, and that's exactly what He meant.
When I was 13, I was riding my bike through my neighborhood, and some gang bangers pushed me off my bike and gave me a good beat down. They steal my bike, they just beat me up and walked away. I tried to fight back at first, but I gave up...mostly because I was in too much pain and shock and didn't really know how to fight, but also because I figured it was the right thing to do.
So I get home, my face all bruised up, I tell my dad what happened, and he asks me "did you fight back?" And I said something like "I tried but I couldn't" and he angrily bursts out with "well you have these, don't you(holding up his fists)!?"
So yeah...screw total pacifism. Screw non-resistance.
@trunthepaige@xanga - Just to clarify, an indulgence is not, by definition, paid for. We still have indulgences. The Holy Father issues plenary indulgences at least twice a year. But they are free, of course. The paying part was wrong, though.
To clarify, further, I think indulgences are misunderstood. An indulgence is not a ticket into Heaven or a free pass on Hell. An indulgence is not absolution, it is, for lack of a better way of explaining, a credit for time served on a sin that has already been committed. When we sin, we must reconcile with God. We need to confess and be forgiven regardless; an indulgence does not erase that need. But we also still need to account for our sin, be it by penance given by a priest, or fully accepting the real-world consequences of our sin. In any case, only God determines if our penance is fulfilled, so we accept that most of us still have a little cleansing coming once we die, i.e., Purgatory. An indulgence erases that time due, but it doesn't mean guaranteed Heaven because we all, every single time, turn right around and sin again.
NOTE: To everyone else. Paige knows I explain all this as a Catholic. Please do not think I am saying anyone else needs to do any of this or is wrong or whatever. Do your thing, and I will do mine. Sorry, but disclaimers seem to be necessary here.
As far as tradition is concerned, sola scriptura IS a tradition of man.
this is definitely a tough question..
through my discussions of the Bible with other people the most important thing I learned is Balance.
It's okay to be the middle man.
Finding concrete, sure answers to everything and having the answers right by you at all times would be awesome; but life is not just that way. No one way has the answer, not one thing will solve the problem; and sometimes the best way to look at life is through abstract thinking, being open to other ideas and insights;
because eventually, through all the 'supposed' answers you are given and left to analyze for yourself; the answer will be something in between.
there's really never one way to look at or interpret anything; including the Bible.
@scrambledmegzntoast@hardestlevel - I understand, but when Luther made the famous offer to debate the issue of indulgences "Sola Scriptura" with the pope. The issue was paying for your sins and doing so in advance. That was a different time and that pope was corrupt. My point is that Protestants do not believe that all thing are decided by scriptures alone, they never did. We do believe in tradition, the Nicene Creed the The Apostles' Creed the scriptural cannons themselves. but we do not believe the word of a man (the Pope) where he contradicts the sculptures.
Isa 29:13 NASB - "Then the Lord said, "Because this people draw near with their words And honor Me with their lip service, But they remove their hearts far from Me, And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned {by rote,}"
Mat 15:2 NASB - ""Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.""
Mat 15:3 NASB - "And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?"
Mat 15:6 NASB - "he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And {by this} you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition."
Mar 7:3 NASB - "(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, {thus} observing the traditions of the elders;"
Mar 7:5 NASB - "The Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?""
Mar 7:8 NASB - ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.""
Mar 7:9 NASB - "He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition."
Mar 7:13 NASB - "{thus} invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.""
1Cr 11:2 NASB - "Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you."
Gal 1:14 NASB - "and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions."
Col 2:8 NASB - "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ."
2Th 2:15 NASB - "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word {of mouth} or by letter from us."
2Th 3:6 NASB - "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us."
What tradition did Paul advocate? That which he passed on to the churches verbally in person, or in his absence in writing. Sadly, we have very little of Paul’s oral “tradition,” but we have a great deal of his written tradition: most of the NT epistles. Paul summarized that tradition in this:1Cr 15:1-5 NASB - Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
In 1 Cor 11, Paul also says that he received the instruction for the Lord’s Supper (Communion, Eucharist, whatever your tradition calls it), from the Lord Jesus; but even the details for that are sparse enough to accommodate most forms observed by the church catholic (small “c” on purpose).
The problem with tradition comes in the changing of times. For instance, once upon a time an American woman would never allow her ankles to show below her dress; now, even 'Christian' women think nothing of flashing their cleavage about to anyone willing to look (contra 1 Tim 2:9 NASB - "Likewise, {I want} women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, … ,"). Among Roman Catholics it has been in my lifetime (Vatican II, 1962 - 1965) that the tradition of the Latin Mass was replaced with the vernacular mass. In 1950, the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Assumption of Mary became elevated from long held informal tradition to official dogma by a Papal Bull. This doctrine was dogmatically and infallibly defined by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950, in his Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus.
In my own denomination (SBC) the tradition of not ordained women is being challenged; partly by liberal feminism (boo - hiss) and partly because the teaching of Paul in the NT is not in line with the practices described in the NT, especially Acts. By the time Paul wrote Romans, the office of ‘Deacon’ was an established office of the church; Paul described Phoebe with that title in Romans 16:2, διάκονον. We Baptists must be careful to not allow liberal readings and exegesis of the Bible to infiltrate through this argument into the hermeneutics we practice, even though that would make it easier to make the case for ordaining women.
The elder’s tradition was condemned by Jesus because it negated God’s Law; God condemned the rote traditions of Isaiah’s time because the tradition had become ritual; and, Paul condemned the traditions of men because they modified or negated the Gospel he had received from Jesus and had passed on to the churches. So we see the problem with tradition as a source of authority.
In matters of faith, the only reliable remaining source of authority in the faith is Scripture, thus Sola Scriptura. Scripture does not change. We need to compare Scripture with Scripture, and be informed by the best and the brightest scholars and holy men of God. In this we need to be like the noble Bereans: Act 17:10-11 - The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily {to see} whether these things were so.
@trunthepaige@xanga - At Luther's time, Indulgences were abused. The Church agreed with Luther that the abuse must stop, but they disagreed on his claims that the theology behind Indulgences was unsound. (What many people don't realize is that the Church accepted and implemented nearly half of Luther's 95 theses)