Tradition and Sola Scriptura
By novice on Sep 23, 2009 in Church History, Ecclesiology, Historical Theology, Theology
Sola Scriptura…one of the cornerstones of the Reformation that continues to be at the heart of most of the disagreements between the Protestant and Catholic/Orthodox churches even today. But while most Protestants would argue vehemently for Sola Scriptura, how many truly live it day to day in their understanding of the faith and scriptures?
One thing that I’ve learned in the last couple of years is that to read scripture and honestly only let scripture speak for itself for the purpose of determining and working out belief and doctrine requires a LOT of time and a LOT of study and a LOT of background knowledge. Some would convincingly argue that it would require working knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, or at least frequent use of Strong’s concordance and dictionary plus scholarly commentaries. The effort that goes into really learning the depths of truth of one NT book alone can be extensive, but we know that we must weigh the whole counsel of God. Thinking about studying the entire OT in depth honestly makes my head ache…it is literally going to be years before I feel very comfortable with my understanding of every OT book (hopefully in this lifetime).
Now, I’m not saying one cannot get basic meaning or truth out of cursory and occasional meditative reading alone (without commentaries, lexicons, background studies, etc.). Certainly, the simplicity of the gospel is readily understood when reading much of the NT. However, filling in the theological details in many of the doctrines that cause division (baptism, election, church authority, etc.) requires an in depth understanding of all of scripture that only comes with the effort, time and knowledge I mentioned above.
Knowing that the majority of believers do not really have the will or capacity to engage in this level of study, we primarily rely on our churches’ theology and increasingly, it seems, our own world views (which are influenced by many things, some not sacred at all) for doctrine and also as lenses for interpreting scripture (whether we realize it or not). Alas, this is another obstacle to understaning scripture itself; learning to put aside the assumptions we bring to the text based on our current theology and world view.
If the majority of Protestants, then, understand theology and the scriptures primarily within the frameworks of what their churches have taught them and personal world views…how different are we in practice from our Catholic and Orthodox brothers who interpret and understand scripture in the context of their church tradition? Are they just honest and upfront about it while we decieve ourselves, thinking that we have mastered scripture to determine our [articalr interpretations? Or do we greatly rely on the teachings of men like Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Augustine, Piper, Westminster confessions, etc. as much as the Catholics rely on the catechism, creeds and popes?
One thing you may be thinking, and you would be right, is that there is still one big distinction. That is, namely, that the Catholic/Orthodox understanding of tradition is that it stands somewhat independently of scripture, though never in contradiction to it (theoretically)…even that scripture was birthed out of and confirmed by tradition. On the other hand, evangelical Protestant churches would claim that their tradition/theology is sourced only in scripture, though the many disagreements among Protestants about various doctrines would suggest the scriptures might be difficult to interpret at points.
While that distinction is important, in day to day practice the average Protestant operates much like the average Catholic in that their theological understanding is primarily based on the particular teachings of their church combined with personal world views, rather than an objective and in depth understanding of scripture on its own terms.
My point is simply this…to urge humility in our theology and debates with our Catholic and Orthodox brothers, and to spur us on to diligent study of the scriptures.
Humility is certainly an essential element to any conversation, especially when one is (1) discussing such serious spiritual matters, and (2) when these spiritual matters can have eternal consequences.
The problem with study is the same for those outside of the Protestant Tradition too. The community I live in is absolutely what I consider “culturally” Catholic.
While all of the various differences are certainly good to discuss amongst Protestants and Catholic/Orthodox, I find it boils down to two central issues (from a Protestant perspective):
(1) In regards to Authority. What role does the Church and tradition (or Sacred Tradition) play?
(2) How is a person Justified before God?
Those two questions are obviously the key issues between the various Christian traditions and, essentially, what brought about the Protestant Reformation.
Regarding 1: I take issue with “Sacred Tradition” because, as Luther noted, “for I confide neither in the Pope nor in a Council alone, since it is certain they have often erred and contradicted themselves.” Even a cursory look at the Papal Bulls seem quite contradictory (e.g. those concerning slavery). Even the councils have issues and, in one ecumenical council, the concept of “one” Bishop (i.e. the Pope) being the head of the Church was REJECTED (I believe it was one of the Ephesian councils).
Regarding 2: Justification has eternal ramifications and is as the very heart of the Gospel. So it’s a huge issue.
But, while these two issues are big, I think there is a lot that Protestants can learn from Catholicism. There’s a strong Ecclesiology that may have issues, but it’s strong nonetheless. Many Protestants are influenced, once again, by American Individualism, and that’s destructive to the nature of the Church as a prophetic and redemptive organism commissioned by Christ and empowered by the Spirit!
Furthermore, the “cultural” aspect of Catholicism has weaknesses (e.g., “I’m Catholic because my family is”) but it also has strengths (Catholicism entails more than just “going to Mass”).
In my opinion, it would seem that before any real significant dialogue can occur, humility must be expressed and the subject of Authority must be addressed. From there, the skies the limits!
Great thoughts.
luke g. | Sep 25, 2009 | Reply
Luke, you bring up core issues that I wasn’t really intending to comment on in this post, but I alluded to your point on Authority in my post when I talked about the distinction that remains. My post was more to address our own attitudes and self realization on a personal level regarding our understanding of our theology and where it comes from…most of us take it on some degree of faith that the theological framework we receive is indeed based on and supported by the scriptures alone.
novice | Sep 25, 2009 | Reply
yeah, ha ha… I got on a bunny trail that had raspberries on it, so I didn’t stop
Actually, I’ve been in the midst of several discussions regarding this very topic, which is kind of neat. I am a part of an organization that has currently been in the midst of a deep conversation on Formal Sufficiency and Material Sufficiency regarding Sola Scriptura. And then I’ve been attempting to pastor a couple that attends our congregation that has a husband that is Protestant and a wife who is a practicing Roman Catholic who I have no doubt is born-again. It has been very, very interesting and has taught me a lot.
In fact, to kind of go along with your original intention, I’ve learned to be more careful in my preaching. It’s sometimes easy to paint Catholicism in a certain light that probably does more damage than help, though the painting may be true.
I believe the issue of self-study is huge, though. I guess I’ve given my life to do all that I can to be used by God to help people express passion for God by reading His Word… and yet I cannot do it without the help of the Holy Spirit!
Closing thought: I really get upset when Protestants (1) misrepresent Protestant Theology and (2) when they misrepresent Catholicism.
Hopefully my initial comment was viewed in that I have differences with the RCC, but have a great deal of respect for certain aspects of it. And I’d certainly love more dialogue (i.e., let’s get some Catholics back here!!!).
How do you see this issue taken care of? How should people express their faith in their specific tradition? How does that weigh with being a Berean?
luke g. | Sep 25, 2009 | Reply
I don’t have answers…just questions! Ha! I’m thinking of some practical conclusions to those thoughts that I might come back and post given their clarity and the time to do so.
novice | Sep 25, 2009 | Reply
i grew up catholic and now i’m just a christian. most of my family is still catholic but they don’t really know much or go to church ever. once in awhile but not normaly.
sometims it’s hard to talk to them about what i believe because they think i’m so wrong. I need to be more humble.
iamlegend | Sep 25, 2009 | Reply
Luke, I would suggest that a simple ‘solution’ would be to help people encounter God through the written Word.
Isaiah 55:11 says “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”
There is power in the Word of God. It’s of interest that God would choose that which people don’t hunger for to bring about hunger.
Dr. Glazer | Sep 26, 2009 | Reply