Read this thread on sola scriptura. Notice the misrepresentations of sola scriptura, and notice that the misrepresentations are repeated after being corrected. As Matt Schultz (Avatar) explains, sola scriptura doesn't need to be directly taught by scripture in order for the concept to be Biblical by implication.
The problem for Roman Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox and other critics of sola scriptura) is that their concept of tradition can't be defended historically. And Jesus and the apostles were historical figures. If we're to believe that they established an infallible church or passed on traditions outside of scripture, how do we objectively demonstrate that fact if not by means of historical argumentation?
What critics of sola scriptura will often do is set up an arbitrary, unreasonable standard that sola scriptura supposedly must meet, such as claiming that the concept must be directly taught by scripture. Then they'll suggest that a system like Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy is the only alternative to sola scriptura. But there's no need for scripture to directly teach sola scriptura in order for the concept to be valid, and systems like Catholicism and Orthodoxy aren't the only alternatives to sola scriptura.
When the earliest post-apostolic sources refer to tradition, they're usually referring to concepts contained in scripture, such as monotheism, the Messiahship of Jesus, and the resurrection. Sometimes they'll refer to extra-Biblical concepts, such as oral traditions about premillennialism or matters of discipline, such as how to pray. But credible extra-Biblical traditions are few in number, they aren't of much significance, they don't have as much supporting evidence as scripture has, and their content is radically different from the content of Catholic and Orthodox tradition, sometimes even contradicting the traditions of those two groups.
Given that both Catholicism and Orthodoxy claim to be the one true church, and given how unhistorical they often claim Protestants are, why is it that they have so little evidence to work with? Why are they so often misrepresenting sola scriptura and making vague appeals to tradition when the tradition in question is radically different from what they believe in?
I find it ironic that they have a problem with Sola Scriptura and will even contend that the scriptures don't justify it. I thought Jesus said, "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
ReplyDeleteAnd didn't Paul state, "So faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God"?
Now, if faith is the essential vehicle for regeneration (Eph 2:8-9), and it comes from scripture, how is it they can disagree?
Well, I believe I know the answer to this already; but it too comes from scripture. The bible makes it quite that the unregenerate man cannot discern spiritual truth (1Cor 2:14). For folks to argue salvation apart from scripture is foreign to the bible for sure. But then again, Finney made it quite popular to argue salvation apart from the Holy Spirit.
-Mike
Mike,
ReplyDeletePeople can argue, and rightly so, that the word of God hasn't always been equivalent to scripture. I don't object to Catholics, Orthodox, and other opponents of sola scriptura denying that a passage like Matthew 4:4 teaches sola scriptura. There are some passages used to support sola scriptura that don't actually support it. I think Evangelicals are often careless in their arguments on this subject. But Catholics and Orthodox are even more careless when they ignore other means of arriving at sola scriptura and when they suggest that refuting sola scriptura would lead to a system like Catholicism or Orthodoxy as the only alternative. If sola scriptura is wrong, then it isn't wrong by much. There aren't many credible extra-Biblical traditions that could be added to scripture. If we were to reject sola scriptura, the most reasonable alternative would be to add a small number of extra-Biblical traditions to scripture, not the large amount of traditions (and traditions so lacking in credibility) that have been added by Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
A further reason is that, while Catholics have good reason to mock divisions among Protestants based on differing interpretations of Scripture, their own church doesn't offer a cure for it. "Papal infallibility", in practice, should end all futile theological squabbling. In practice, it is used about once every millennium and to define doctrines (Marian dogmas) that all Protestants with their Bibles open reject. It's not as if Baptists split from Presbyterians over whether Jesus' mother was immaculately conceived. On issues that do divide Protestants, all the Papacy does is to allow Catholics to hold one of two competing positions, neither of which harmonises with Scripture. So you can be a Thomist or a Molinist on predestination, as long as you read Romans 9 down to nothingness either way. Calvinists, Lutherans and Methodists may differ over the mechanics of how "by faith and not works" operates, but the solution is not to decree "Actually, you are saved by works after all".
ReplyDelete