The Tim 3:6 always felt like the strongest argument that most Protestants rely upon and it is very weak. Was Paul referring to the 4 Gospels? Unlikely given the timings of when they were written and the fact he never explicitly refers to the gospels. Was he referring to his own various letters, some of which have survived? Even more unlikely. And the other books of the NT? Even more unlikely again. (Plus your point about what constituted the OT in Paul's mind).
Tbh I'd even throw inerrancy up for debate if that didn't seem to frighten away most Christians. I prefer George MacDonald's approach that the Bible is like the moon, it only reflects the light, whereas God is the sun, the only source of light.
the one scripture i left out is the one at the end of revelation where it says nothing may be added to what is written in that book but is often taken out of context by prots to defend sola scriptura. i am more into natural theology than biblical theology and find the topic of innerancy to be a minefield of sorts as one needs to circumscribe the sort of truth claims that can count. which is to day i know its something that, if pressed, i would struggle to defend well but think its edifying to hold to it in a naive sense. if heard of the metaphor for Mary also, the moon metaphor. where does he write that?
2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
This is really excellent. As a cradle Catholic, I am told by my now-Catholic mademoiselle (former Presbyterian, very conservative politically but her former church uses a service book modeled on the BCP, so it’s hardly what I think of as Presbyterian; anyway) that I have an understanding of what it means to grow up Protestant, which I attribute solely to being placed among good coworkers at a Chick-fil-A who were Baptist and Presbyterian grad students in their respective MTS/M.Div. programs, where I learned to just answer with “this is the doctrine, it seems obviously true, and here’s why, take it or leave it.”
1 Tim 3:6 does not say “only Scripture”. On top of this everyone has favorite passages, not just to prooftext or commit eisegesis, but because they speak to us more than others, and sometimes, it’s just not that interesting of a passage. The Coptic laity in N. America have developed a fantastic app (website) called Catena, which is exactly what you think it is. Sometimes, you go looking for a commentary on a verse, and all that the Father does is summarize the content.
As to whether Our Lord taught after the Resurrection: the answer seems to be unequivocally “yes” based on the conclusion of John, but also the patristic (and therefore Saint Thomas’s) understanding of the church coming into being from the piercing of Our Lord’s side (in a way, this, not Pentecost, is the birth of the church, although Catholic children are taught the latter, and it’s not just because of the Divine Mercy prayers that I mention the holy wound in Our Lord’s side) to Pentecost itself. He had instituted, or at least signaled, the institution of the sacraments before the Passion, but the Apostles needed some instruction. Yes, their office would be an opening for extraordinary inspiration, but Scripture gives no hints to this, e.g. they choose a successor to Judas. Is it the obvious thing to do? How do they know to do it as if Our Lord himself had chosen this man? Well, my happy understanding is that they had instruction. Ditto the diaconate and even the presbyterate.
thanks for reading and commenting. as regards post resurrection instruction. the similitude of all ancient liturgical rites makes a strong case for this. i really think a lot of this is diabolical. sola scriptura makes no sense in principle. and if there were and doubt about this, in practice its proven to be a catastrophe. i may write a follow up on sola fide.
Yes; actually, and to anticipate, no, I don’t know why I don’t have my own Substack: my favorite example, to tie the two together, is the use of the Gospel on Marian feasts. The Roman rite settled on the use of Luke 11:27 for ordinary feasts where there was no reason to institute a special pericope. This includes most Saturdays of the BVM. The Byzantine rite also uses this text, which obviously has a Marian character. What is not so obvious is the text preceding it on Marian feasts in the Byzantine liturgy. The first half of the gospel is the pericope from Luke wherein Our Lord declares that Mary (Magdalene, but certainly of Bethany) hath chosen the better part. To me, it is obvious that the contemplative life is institute in Scripture, just as Our Lord establishes the evangelical counsels (in fact, to me, the contemplative life is the religious life simpliciter; everything else is a concession) and that the BVM is cause of both apostolic activity and of contemplation, but that the latter is objectively better (Saint Thomas certainly agrees there) and that the one Mary points to the other.
In the Byzantine rite, Luke 11:27 is attached, and this gospel is routinely read on Marian feasts as such. The Roman rite in its sobriety never jumps so far from one story to another, although sometimes two stories are read together on one occasion and not on another (e.g. the healing of the centurion’s servant is found on a Sunday after the Epiphany as part of one gospel pericope, then in isolation during Lent, in the classical lectionary; I confess to not really knowing much anymore about the Pauline arrangement, despite having grown up with it). However, Luke 11:27 is read on Marian feasts as the usual gospel throughout the year, including on Saturdays of the BVM and therefore at votive Masses, but the “better part” text is read historically (until 1950…) on the feast of the Assumption, which makes a lot of sense once you read the epistle from the book of Sirach/Ecclesiasticus, 24:11ff. It also has a character of a passage applicable to a woman who has a religious (contemplative) vocation!
the only way to preserve scripture as a souce of light and insight is to keep her guarded by and in tradition. protestants accept contraception for instance.
Thought-provoking, thank you. I may write a response to this and elaborate on some of my arguments in my fairly recent essay in favour of Sola Scriptura.
The exchange between Stephen and Jake Dell should mandatory reading for all Christians who write on Substack. It is a substantive exhange made without compromise, but in the spirit of respect and genuine interest in understanding the other. I routinely fall short of both of these men when challenged or engaging in polemics. Well done to both!
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not teach that Scripture is the "sole authority." You've argued against a position Protestants don't hold. To prove my point, I quote 19th Century Presbyterian theologian, Charles Hodge, of Princeton:
"Protestants admit that there has been an uninterrupted tradition of truth from the protoevangelium to the Apocalypse, so there has been a stream of traditionary teaching flowing through the Christian Church from the day of Pentecost to the present time.
This tradition is so far a rule of faith that nothing contrary to it can be true. Christians do not stand isolated, each holding his own creed.
Rejecting that creed, or any of its parts, is the rejection of the fellowship of Christians, incompatible with the communion of saints, or membership in the body of Christ.
In other words, Protestants admit that there is a common faith of the Church, which no man is at liberty to reject, and which no man can reject and be a Christian. They acknowledge the authority of this common faith for two reasons.
First, because what all the competent readers of a plain book take to be its meaning, must be its meaning.
Secondly, because the Holy Spirit is promised to guide the people of God into the knowledge of the truth, and therefore that which they, under the teachings of the Spirit, agree in believing must be true."
mr dell, thanks for your thoughtful response and criticism. i am not familiar with charles hodge, but its unclear what traditionary teaching he is referring to. If it includes the church fathers then the veneration of Mary and the Saints is apart of it, as well as Eucharist and Priesthood. If its the Nicene creed then a visible unity to the Church, also a sacrificial Mass (canon 18), and penances (the other canons). All of these are doctrines that cannot be accepted in a protestant tradition. but the teaching of sola scriptura is that scripture stands over the church, not vice versa, and the proof of scripture being the sole authority in practice at least, protestants can claim something else in word, is that scripture alone as an authority principle has not ceased to splinter and fracture protestant sects into more and more denominations. what mr hodge thinks is tradition will be seen as unscriptural by other protestants, and perhaps they will invent their own "tradition." but tradition is not a private fantasy but a public deposit of faith. The real tradition is bound with the institution tasked with stewarding both sacred scripture and tradition. without this incessant division happens becuase they are being directed by a book, or men abusing a book, and not the Holy Spirit. I do thank you for your efforts. if you wish to help me then i have the following questions, (1) what does sola scriptura mean. you offer no counter definition. (2) how does this sola combine with a second traditiary teaching and what is that teaching and creed exactly and who gets to decide it on what grounds. and (3) whatever sola scriptura means to you, perhaps I have misunderstood it, if unity is a sign of the working of the Holy Spirit, and the expressed will of Jesus Christ in John 17, how can you possibly think sola scriptura has anything to do with the working of the Holy Spirit or the will of Jesus Christ.
I tend to agree with most of what you've written, both in your OP and in your reply. All I set out to demonstrate was that you made a cogent case against something Protestants don't actually believe. This is why I find myself mostly agreeing with you.
Very briefly, then, let me try to answer the questions you put to me in your reply.
2) The "combination," as you put it, of scripture and tradition is the fruit of the discernment over the years by the Church Catholic as she reads and contemplates this infallible witness under the guidance of the Spirit. In other words, there is a tradition which all Christians can recognize and to which they can give their assent. The canon of scripture itself is an example of this combination.
3) Given 2 and 3 above, what other principle of unity could there be for the Church than her prophetic and apostolic foundation, and the common, universal (meaning "catholic") interpretation of it?
if you agree with even half of what i am saying you should become a catholic.
1. i think sola scriptura has to have two components. a. only scripture is true, and b. only scripture is authoritative. So there is a sort of epistemological and political aspect. if there were no political aspect then the reformation could never have been justified. even if the political aspect is understated, in practice its been the most important thing. because once you give poeple the right to break off on account of a new reading of scripture, then scripture itself is going to be interpreted against the tradition by the progeny of those who follow. its hard to take this interpretation seriously as it fails to make sense of how people who believe in sola scriptura have acted in history and currently. both claims are wrong, but you seem to be saying only 1 and its disingenuous. (2) where is this tradition for you? how does it manifest itself publically, how does it defend itself? if it is only manifest in scripture, even here, as i highlighted, this is disputed, whethter you have a 66 or 73 book canon. but the problem is that you are once again missing the whole other vector, tradition is an active principle, and thereby must manifest itself in a person or group of people. who are these people for you? (3) the principle of unity is materially the Bishops of the roman catholic church united under Peter who was given power to bind and to loose, formally the teaching of the Holy Spirit in tradition. if you are a protestant minister, you lack both matter and form. An interpretation cannot unite, this would be a sort of gnosticism, only the office of Peter unites, only the investment of the power and charism of a bishop to teach and to judge can unite the visible Body of Christ. .... thanks for the argument, i wish you well. i will check out your article later. this exchange has helped me sharpen my thinking some and i am grateful.
Good, I am gad it is helpful, and, for what it is worth, I was a Roman Catholic for 10 years.
We are certainly going beyond the scope of the OP and my (very minor) quibble with it. We are at the point where the comments section can no longer do our conversation justice. Perhaps I will attempt a post of my own that deals with your other questions, all of which are good ones.
I would only point out that in your latest reply you have reasserted a definition of Sola Scriptura ("only scripture is [the? a?] true deposit of faith" and "only scripture is authoritative") that I don't think holds up to historical scrutiny as to what Protestants now or ever have believed.
To say "only scripture is [the] true deposit of faith" is too vague to be worth saying and to say that "only scripture is authoritative" is a position I will gladly argue alongside of you against anyone who holds it.
Thank you for this well-reasoned post which is basically compatible with my own Anglican understanding of the place of Scripture in the life of the Church. I would submit the qualification, which is of patristic rather than modern origin, that the Church cannot enjoin anything which clearly contradicts Scripture: no Council can decree, for example, that Christ did not rise from the dead. This is because it is, as the Creed says, written in the Scriptures. But as Archbishop Michael Ramsey was wont to attest, there is a logical priority of the Church over the Scriptures.
On two points of information, both Luther and Calvin maintained the perpetual virginity of Our Lady. Also, it was St James as Bishop of Jerusalem rather than St Peter who finally arbitrated at the Council in Acts. This text points to Peter's authority but suggests proper episcopal limits to its exercise.
What do you mean Protestantism doesn’t teach “Scripture is the sole authority”? I’ve seen Protestants regularly attack Orthodox beliefs and practices (Toll Houses, to give an example) by claiming they’re “not in the Bible”. So much for that claim of yours. Here at the Protestant website “Got Questions”, we see the author contradicting himself in the same article. First he writes “Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian.” Authoritative, meaning able to be trusted. Then he says something more similar to what Hodge says: “The Word of God is the ultimate and only infallible authority for the Christian faith.” These two claims contradict one another. The second one allows for other authorities while claiming they’re fallible. How do we resolve this issue? Are these other Protestants not “True Protestants” in your opinion? Also “what all the competent readers of a plain book take to be its meaning, must be its meaning”? Who defines what a competent reader is?
Two points. One. You have completely ignored all the differences between the various Protestant churches. The magisterial Protestants of the reformation, such as the Lutheran and Presbyterian churches, do openly acknowledge there are other authorities besides scripture. The proof is that they have their confessions, which historically have been binding statements interpreting scripture, the sacraments, the authorities of the church, etc. They are, respectively, the Book of Concord and the Westminster Catechism. The Church of England and the wider Anglican communion also recognizes there are other authorities, especially the Church. The 39 Articles say the church has authority to set regulations, holy days, and other facts of the Christian life so long as they are “not repugnant” to Scripture. Which brings me to why I even clicked on this post. Protestants who don’t believe in the perpetual virginity (which Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, and John Wesley all believed in) don’t deny because it’s “not in the Bible.” They deny it because, according to their reading of the Bible, this belief is directly contradicted by the fact that scripture refers to Jesus as having brothers and sisters. There’s an argument to be had there, but let’s acknowledge their actual point.
2) “I’ve seen Protestants online” is a terrible argument. I’ve seen Catholics and orthodox say all kinds of false things online about their churches. I’ve seen online Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Calvinism that paints a very skewed picture of what all of these traditions represent. For example, if I only go off of online Catholics, I would think that the Latin Mass is a major issue in contemporary Catholicism. In America at least, it isn’t. Latin Mass goers represent a severe minority of actual practicing Catholics. It’s not a value judgement, just an observation. Most Catholics don’t think the Novus Ordo is some abomination, but r/Catholicism will have a thread every two hours that all but calls it such. That’s why it is much better to read histories, catechisms, etc. of other traditions to get a balanced picture of what they teach, and even, just maybe, attend their services, rather than take the word of an online presence that may very well be fringe.
i never once claimed ive seen prots online. what are you talking about?
ok so even the 39 articles are not binding on candidates for baptisn or ordination. the westminster confession has been revised. the nonbinding and revisable nature of the prot confessions vis a vis ecumenical councils tells us that its not the Holy Spirit teaching in these cases.
you are right about the apparent contradiction with scripture and Our Ladies virginity but it doesnt change the force of my argument there.
I apologize, I wasn’t replying to you (at least not intentionally, maybe I hit the wrong button). I was replying to someone else, who did say “I’ve seen Protestants online say _____.”
It was the Reformed Magisterial Protestants who supported banning Christmas celebrations, both in England and New England, by arguing "Christmas celebrations are not in the Bible". Forgive me if I'm unconvinced that Protestantism ackshyually has such great respect for the Extrascriptural.
That doesn’t disprove the point, nor is it accurate. Yes, the Puritans in England and New England more or less banned Christmas. They didn’t do so because it “wasn’t in the Bible.” The impetus was because of its usual drunken revelries that accompanied it. And then, yes, they held to the Regulative Principle, which says no worship practices are permitted that aren’t found in Scripture. That does not, however, disprove that the magisterial churches held to extrabiblical authorities. They still held to confessions which they believed to be binding interpretations of the Scriptures. They still accepted the earliest ecumenical councils as authoritative. They still adhered to the Apostolic and Nicene creeds. Still baptized babies. And, to your shock I’m sure, they still quoted abundantly from the church fathers to demonstrate the authenticity of their practices. In fact, when Calvin argues for the perpetual virginity of Mary, he cites Jerome and quotes his breakdown of the biblical objections.
I don’t agree with the Reformed churches and find Calvinism to be one of the worst things that happened to Christianity, but at least argue in good faith here.
As to 1) true, but the Fathers do not carry the load like they do for the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox), wherein the unanimous consent of the Fathers means that a teaching is dogmatic, which answers the point about perpetual virginity.
As to 2) this is just proof that the above is not responding to a straw man. There is a deficient understanding of Sola Scriptura. But this gets back to 1). The later Protestants, especially Baptists, have their confessions too. But they get into dangerous waters re: the authority of Scripture. And I’ve met people like this, so it’s not just online! In fact, balanced (that is, well-educated, sober) academic Protestants are overrepresented online (although I’ve also met them in the wild!), and they cross my feeds more than the knucklehead polemicists do.
I think the problem is that not even Protestants are convinced by the academic theological treatments. Either they are totally unfamiliar, and they set out to defend what they think is Sola Scriptura (I would argue that we are not fighting a straw man after all, as a consequence of this style of apologetics). Or, in fact, they know the academic theology and decide to become Catholic (or Orthodox, but I think the more honest position is becoming Catholic). I realize that there are many intelligent, well-read Protestant ministers, theologians, and otherwise ordinary church-goers. But it’s a fairly small, if crowded, and lonely island.
And this gets even more troublesome for Baptists who basically say, even at the heart of the SBC about as far from Catholicism as one can get, “gee, the creeds have a point, we should make sure that our statements of faith specifically assent to the articles of the Nicene Creed at least”. Well, that’s in conflict with the ideas above, I think. Why not adopt the Nicene Creed itself? Why not subordinate the various confessions to it, rather than the other way around? After all, even Catholicism didn’t stop at Nicaea and Constantinople (I, in both cases).
yeah ive always found it interesting that sbc boys like richard land insist on an originalist Interpretation of the constitution, but nicea they see as a living, evolving text. the ad hoc nature of all of this proves theres something lacking in sola scriptura.
thanks for reading Father. im aware of luther and calvins view of the perpetual virginity of mary. almost no protestants have maintained this line and the reasons seem obvious. in some ways using the assumption as a case would have worked better, as its not mentioned at all while Our Ladys perpetual virginity is apparently contradicted by scripture on one reading. my reading of the significance of st peters decision in acts 15 comes from von balthasars book on the petrine office. is there a text i could look at to explore your reading of acts 15 with james as the presiding bishop, etc?
The reason I hold to Sola Scriptura is that the Bible to me is inspired by the Holy Spirit and acts as a grounding against the folly of sinful men. The Roman Catholic church, particularly now, will be guided by the agenda of whoever gets elected to the Pontificate. My Reformed Church has the Bible above all and if our Pastor should stray from Biblical principles the Church Statutes allow the Members to rebuke and even remove him. The same goes for Elders and Deacons. If you have no solid foundation you have a very shaky house!
The Tim 3:6 always felt like the strongest argument that most Protestants rely upon and it is very weak. Was Paul referring to the 4 Gospels? Unlikely given the timings of when they were written and the fact he never explicitly refers to the gospels. Was he referring to his own various letters, some of which have survived? Even more unlikely. And the other books of the NT? Even more unlikely again. (Plus your point about what constituted the OT in Paul's mind).
Tbh I'd even throw inerrancy up for debate if that didn't seem to frighten away most Christians. I prefer George MacDonald's approach that the Bible is like the moon, it only reflects the light, whereas God is the sun, the only source of light.
the one scripture i left out is the one at the end of revelation where it says nothing may be added to what is written in that book but is often taken out of context by prots to defend sola scriptura. i am more into natural theology than biblical theology and find the topic of innerancy to be a minefield of sorts as one needs to circumscribe the sort of truth claims that can count. which is to day i know its something that, if pressed, i would struggle to defend well but think its edifying to hold to it in a naive sense. if heard of the metaphor for Mary also, the moon metaphor. where does he write that?
I assume that you mean this passage:
2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Beautifully presented Stephen. Kinda irrefutable.
thanks for reading!
This is really excellent. As a cradle Catholic, I am told by my now-Catholic mademoiselle (former Presbyterian, very conservative politically but her former church uses a service book modeled on the BCP, so it’s hardly what I think of as Presbyterian; anyway) that I have an understanding of what it means to grow up Protestant, which I attribute solely to being placed among good coworkers at a Chick-fil-A who were Baptist and Presbyterian grad students in their respective MTS/M.Div. programs, where I learned to just answer with “this is the doctrine, it seems obviously true, and here’s why, take it or leave it.”
1 Tim 3:6 does not say “only Scripture”. On top of this everyone has favorite passages, not just to prooftext or commit eisegesis, but because they speak to us more than others, and sometimes, it’s just not that interesting of a passage. The Coptic laity in N. America have developed a fantastic app (website) called Catena, which is exactly what you think it is. Sometimes, you go looking for a commentary on a verse, and all that the Father does is summarize the content.
As to whether Our Lord taught after the Resurrection: the answer seems to be unequivocally “yes” based on the conclusion of John, but also the patristic (and therefore Saint Thomas’s) understanding of the church coming into being from the piercing of Our Lord’s side (in a way, this, not Pentecost, is the birth of the church, although Catholic children are taught the latter, and it’s not just because of the Divine Mercy prayers that I mention the holy wound in Our Lord’s side) to Pentecost itself. He had instituted, or at least signaled, the institution of the sacraments before the Passion, but the Apostles needed some instruction. Yes, their office would be an opening for extraordinary inspiration, but Scripture gives no hints to this, e.g. they choose a successor to Judas. Is it the obvious thing to do? How do they know to do it as if Our Lord himself had chosen this man? Well, my happy understanding is that they had instruction. Ditto the diaconate and even the presbyterate.
thanks for reading and commenting. as regards post resurrection instruction. the similitude of all ancient liturgical rites makes a strong case for this. i really think a lot of this is diabolical. sola scriptura makes no sense in principle. and if there were and doubt about this, in practice its proven to be a catastrophe. i may write a follow up on sola fide.
Yes; actually, and to anticipate, no, I don’t know why I don’t have my own Substack: my favorite example, to tie the two together, is the use of the Gospel on Marian feasts. The Roman rite settled on the use of Luke 11:27 for ordinary feasts where there was no reason to institute a special pericope. This includes most Saturdays of the BVM. The Byzantine rite also uses this text, which obviously has a Marian character. What is not so obvious is the text preceding it on Marian feasts in the Byzantine liturgy. The first half of the gospel is the pericope from Luke wherein Our Lord declares that Mary (Magdalene, but certainly of Bethany) hath chosen the better part. To me, it is obvious that the contemplative life is institute in Scripture, just as Our Lord establishes the evangelical counsels (in fact, to me, the contemplative life is the religious life simpliciter; everything else is a concession) and that the BVM is cause of both apostolic activity and of contemplation, but that the latter is objectively better (Saint Thomas certainly agrees there) and that the one Mary points to the other.
In the Byzantine rite, Luke 11:27 is attached, and this gospel is routinely read on Marian feasts as such. The Roman rite in its sobriety never jumps so far from one story to another, although sometimes two stories are read together on one occasion and not on another (e.g. the healing of the centurion’s servant is found on a Sunday after the Epiphany as part of one gospel pericope, then in isolation during Lent, in the classical lectionary; I confess to not really knowing much anymore about the Pauline arrangement, despite having grown up with it). However, Luke 11:27 is read on Marian feasts as the usual gospel throughout the year, including on Saturdays of the BVM and therefore at votive Masses, but the “better part” text is read historically (until 1950…) on the feast of the Assumption, which makes a lot of sense once you read the epistle from the book of Sirach/Ecclesiasticus, 24:11ff. It also has a character of a passage applicable to a woman who has a religious (contemplative) vocation!
How do we then avoid having people follow their own desires if the scripture is not our guiding light…
the only way to preserve scripture as a souce of light and insight is to keep her guarded by and in tradition. protestants accept contraception for instance.
Thought-provoking, thank you. I may write a response to this and elaborate on some of my arguments in my fairly recent essay in favour of Sola Scriptura.
thanks! do it!
The exchange between Stephen and Jake Dell should mandatory reading for all Christians who write on Substack. It is a substantive exhange made without compromise, but in the spirit of respect and genuine interest in understanding the other. I routinely fall short of both of these men when challenged or engaging in polemics. Well done to both!
I think you've argued (very well) against a straw man!
go on.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not teach that Scripture is the "sole authority." You've argued against a position Protestants don't hold. To prove my point, I quote 19th Century Presbyterian theologian, Charles Hodge, of Princeton:
"Protestants admit that there has been an uninterrupted tradition of truth from the protoevangelium to the Apocalypse, so there has been a stream of traditionary teaching flowing through the Christian Church from the day of Pentecost to the present time.
This tradition is so far a rule of faith that nothing contrary to it can be true. Christians do not stand isolated, each holding his own creed.
Rejecting that creed, or any of its parts, is the rejection of the fellowship of Christians, incompatible with the communion of saints, or membership in the body of Christ.
In other words, Protestants admit that there is a common faith of the Church, which no man is at liberty to reject, and which no man can reject and be a Christian. They acknowledge the authority of this common faith for two reasons.
First, because what all the competent readers of a plain book take to be its meaning, must be its meaning.
Secondly, because the Holy Spirit is promised to guide the people of God into the knowledge of the truth, and therefore that which they, under the teachings of the Spirit, agree in believing must be true."
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, n.d.), 113-114.
mr dell, thanks for your thoughtful response and criticism. i am not familiar with charles hodge, but its unclear what traditionary teaching he is referring to. If it includes the church fathers then the veneration of Mary and the Saints is apart of it, as well as Eucharist and Priesthood. If its the Nicene creed then a visible unity to the Church, also a sacrificial Mass (canon 18), and penances (the other canons). All of these are doctrines that cannot be accepted in a protestant tradition. but the teaching of sola scriptura is that scripture stands over the church, not vice versa, and the proof of scripture being the sole authority in practice at least, protestants can claim something else in word, is that scripture alone as an authority principle has not ceased to splinter and fracture protestant sects into more and more denominations. what mr hodge thinks is tradition will be seen as unscriptural by other protestants, and perhaps they will invent their own "tradition." but tradition is not a private fantasy but a public deposit of faith. The real tradition is bound with the institution tasked with stewarding both sacred scripture and tradition. without this incessant division happens becuase they are being directed by a book, or men abusing a book, and not the Holy Spirit. I do thank you for your efforts. if you wish to help me then i have the following questions, (1) what does sola scriptura mean. you offer no counter definition. (2) how does this sola combine with a second traditiary teaching and what is that teaching and creed exactly and who gets to decide it on what grounds. and (3) whatever sola scriptura means to you, perhaps I have misunderstood it, if unity is a sign of the working of the Holy Spirit, and the expressed will of Jesus Christ in John 17, how can you possibly think sola scriptura has anything to do with the working of the Holy Spirit or the will of Jesus Christ.
I tend to agree with most of what you've written, both in your OP and in your reply. All I set out to demonstrate was that you made a cogent case against something Protestants don't actually believe. This is why I find myself mostly agreeing with you.
Very briefly, then, let me try to answer the questions you put to me in your reply.
1) Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that the Scriptures are the only infallible witness to the prophetic and apostolic teachings that the Church has. (I deal with this in more detail here: https://open.substack.com/pub/jwdell/p/ignatius-of-antioch-scourge-of-protestants.)
2) The "combination," as you put it, of scripture and tradition is the fruit of the discernment over the years by the Church Catholic as she reads and contemplates this infallible witness under the guidance of the Spirit. In other words, there is a tradition which all Christians can recognize and to which they can give their assent. The canon of scripture itself is an example of this combination.
3) Given 2 and 3 above, what other principle of unity could there be for the Church than her prophetic and apostolic foundation, and the common, universal (meaning "catholic") interpretation of it?
if you agree with even half of what i am saying you should become a catholic.
1. i think sola scriptura has to have two components. a. only scripture is true, and b. only scripture is authoritative. So there is a sort of epistemological and political aspect. if there were no political aspect then the reformation could never have been justified. even if the political aspect is understated, in practice its been the most important thing. because once you give poeple the right to break off on account of a new reading of scripture, then scripture itself is going to be interpreted against the tradition by the progeny of those who follow. its hard to take this interpretation seriously as it fails to make sense of how people who believe in sola scriptura have acted in history and currently. both claims are wrong, but you seem to be saying only 1 and its disingenuous. (2) where is this tradition for you? how does it manifest itself publically, how does it defend itself? if it is only manifest in scripture, even here, as i highlighted, this is disputed, whethter you have a 66 or 73 book canon. but the problem is that you are once again missing the whole other vector, tradition is an active principle, and thereby must manifest itself in a person or group of people. who are these people for you? (3) the principle of unity is materially the Bishops of the roman catholic church united under Peter who was given power to bind and to loose, formally the teaching of the Holy Spirit in tradition. if you are a protestant minister, you lack both matter and form. An interpretation cannot unite, this would be a sort of gnosticism, only the office of Peter unites, only the investment of the power and charism of a bishop to teach and to judge can unite the visible Body of Christ. .... thanks for the argument, i wish you well. i will check out your article later. this exchange has helped me sharpen my thinking some and i am grateful.
Good, I am gad it is helpful, and, for what it is worth, I was a Roman Catholic for 10 years.
We are certainly going beyond the scope of the OP and my (very minor) quibble with it. We are at the point where the comments section can no longer do our conversation justice. Perhaps I will attempt a post of my own that deals with your other questions, all of which are good ones.
I would only point out that in your latest reply you have reasserted a definition of Sola Scriptura ("only scripture is [the? a?] true deposit of faith" and "only scripture is authoritative") that I don't think holds up to historical scrutiny as to what Protestants now or ever have believed.
To say "only scripture is [the] true deposit of faith" is too vague to be worth saying and to say that "only scripture is authoritative" is a position I will gladly argue alongside of you against anyone who holds it.
God bless!
Thank you for this well-reasoned post which is basically compatible with my own Anglican understanding of the place of Scripture in the life of the Church. I would submit the qualification, which is of patristic rather than modern origin, that the Church cannot enjoin anything which clearly contradicts Scripture: no Council can decree, for example, that Christ did not rise from the dead. This is because it is, as the Creed says, written in the Scriptures. But as Archbishop Michael Ramsey was wont to attest, there is a logical priority of the Church over the Scriptures.
On two points of information, both Luther and Calvin maintained the perpetual virginity of Our Lady. Also, it was St James as Bishop of Jerusalem rather than St Peter who finally arbitrated at the Council in Acts. This text points to Peter's authority but suggests proper episcopal limits to its exercise.
https://www.gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html
What do you mean Protestantism doesn’t teach “Scripture is the sole authority”? I’ve seen Protestants regularly attack Orthodox beliefs and practices (Toll Houses, to give an example) by claiming they’re “not in the Bible”. So much for that claim of yours. Here at the Protestant website “Got Questions”, we see the author contradicting himself in the same article. First he writes “Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian.” Authoritative, meaning able to be trusted. Then he says something more similar to what Hodge says: “The Word of God is the ultimate and only infallible authority for the Christian faith.” These two claims contradict one another. The second one allows for other authorities while claiming they’re fallible. How do we resolve this issue? Are these other Protestants not “True Protestants” in your opinion? Also “what all the competent readers of a plain book take to be its meaning, must be its meaning”? Who defines what a competent reader is?
Two points. One. You have completely ignored all the differences between the various Protestant churches. The magisterial Protestants of the reformation, such as the Lutheran and Presbyterian churches, do openly acknowledge there are other authorities besides scripture. The proof is that they have their confessions, which historically have been binding statements interpreting scripture, the sacraments, the authorities of the church, etc. They are, respectively, the Book of Concord and the Westminster Catechism. The Church of England and the wider Anglican communion also recognizes there are other authorities, especially the Church. The 39 Articles say the church has authority to set regulations, holy days, and other facts of the Christian life so long as they are “not repugnant” to Scripture. Which brings me to why I even clicked on this post. Protestants who don’t believe in the perpetual virginity (which Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, and John Wesley all believed in) don’t deny because it’s “not in the Bible.” They deny it because, according to their reading of the Bible, this belief is directly contradicted by the fact that scripture refers to Jesus as having brothers and sisters. There’s an argument to be had there, but let’s acknowledge their actual point.
2) “I’ve seen Protestants online” is a terrible argument. I’ve seen Catholics and orthodox say all kinds of false things online about their churches. I’ve seen online Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Calvinism that paints a very skewed picture of what all of these traditions represent. For example, if I only go off of online Catholics, I would think that the Latin Mass is a major issue in contemporary Catholicism. In America at least, it isn’t. Latin Mass goers represent a severe minority of actual practicing Catholics. It’s not a value judgement, just an observation. Most Catholics don’t think the Novus Ordo is some abomination, but r/Catholicism will have a thread every two hours that all but calls it such. That’s why it is much better to read histories, catechisms, etc. of other traditions to get a balanced picture of what they teach, and even, just maybe, attend their services, rather than take the word of an online presence that may very well be fringe.
i never once claimed ive seen prots online. what are you talking about?
ok so even the 39 articles are not binding on candidates for baptisn or ordination. the westminster confession has been revised. the nonbinding and revisable nature of the prot confessions vis a vis ecumenical councils tells us that its not the Holy Spirit teaching in these cases.
you are right about the apparent contradiction with scripture and Our Ladies virginity but it doesnt change the force of my argument there.
I apologize, I wasn’t replying to you (at least not intentionally, maybe I hit the wrong button). I was replying to someone else, who did say “I’ve seen Protestants online say _____.”
It was the Reformed Magisterial Protestants who supported banning Christmas celebrations, both in England and New England, by arguing "Christmas celebrations are not in the Bible". Forgive me if I'm unconvinced that Protestantism ackshyually has such great respect for the Extrascriptural.
your presence is most welcome here! herr stefan. ive always thought that too little was made of the protestant derision of christmas.
That doesn’t disprove the point, nor is it accurate. Yes, the Puritans in England and New England more or less banned Christmas. They didn’t do so because it “wasn’t in the Bible.” The impetus was because of its usual drunken revelries that accompanied it. And then, yes, they held to the Regulative Principle, which says no worship practices are permitted that aren’t found in Scripture. That does not, however, disprove that the magisterial churches held to extrabiblical authorities. They still held to confessions which they believed to be binding interpretations of the Scriptures. They still accepted the earliest ecumenical councils as authoritative. They still adhered to the Apostolic and Nicene creeds. Still baptized babies. And, to your shock I’m sure, they still quoted abundantly from the church fathers to demonstrate the authenticity of their practices. In fact, when Calvin argues for the perpetual virginity of Mary, he cites Jerome and quotes his breakdown of the biblical objections.
I don’t agree with the Reformed churches and find Calvinism to be one of the worst things that happened to Christianity, but at least argue in good faith here.
As to 1) true, but the Fathers do not carry the load like they do for the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox), wherein the unanimous consent of the Fathers means that a teaching is dogmatic, which answers the point about perpetual virginity.
As to 2) this is just proof that the above is not responding to a straw man. There is a deficient understanding of Sola Scriptura. But this gets back to 1). The later Protestants, especially Baptists, have their confessions too. But they get into dangerous waters re: the authority of Scripture. And I’ve met people like this, so it’s not just online! In fact, balanced (that is, well-educated, sober) academic Protestants are overrepresented online (although I’ve also met them in the wild!), and they cross my feeds more than the knucklehead polemicists do.
I think the problem is that not even Protestants are convinced by the academic theological treatments. Either they are totally unfamiliar, and they set out to defend what they think is Sola Scriptura (I would argue that we are not fighting a straw man after all, as a consequence of this style of apologetics). Or, in fact, they know the academic theology and decide to become Catholic (or Orthodox, but I think the more honest position is becoming Catholic). I realize that there are many intelligent, well-read Protestant ministers, theologians, and otherwise ordinary church-goers. But it’s a fairly small, if crowded, and lonely island.
And this gets even more troublesome for Baptists who basically say, even at the heart of the SBC about as far from Catholicism as one can get, “gee, the creeds have a point, we should make sure that our statements of faith specifically assent to the articles of the Nicene Creed at least”. Well, that’s in conflict with the ideas above, I think. Why not adopt the Nicene Creed itself? Why not subordinate the various confessions to it, rather than the other way around? After all, even Catholicism didn’t stop at Nicaea and Constantinople (I, in both cases).
yeah ive always found it interesting that sbc boys like richard land insist on an originalist Interpretation of the constitution, but nicea they see as a living, evolving text. the ad hoc nature of all of this proves theres something lacking in sola scriptura.
Nice.
thanks peregrinus!
thanks for reading Father. im aware of luther and calvins view of the perpetual virginity of mary. almost no protestants have maintained this line and the reasons seem obvious. in some ways using the assumption as a case would have worked better, as its not mentioned at all while Our Ladys perpetual virginity is apparently contradicted by scripture on one reading. my reading of the significance of st peters decision in acts 15 comes from von balthasars book on the petrine office. is there a text i could look at to explore your reading of acts 15 with james as the presiding bishop, etc?
The reason I hold to Sola Scriptura is that the Bible to me is inspired by the Holy Spirit and acts as a grounding against the folly of sinful men. The Roman Catholic church, particularly now, will be guided by the agenda of whoever gets elected to the Pontificate. My Reformed Church has the Bible above all and if our Pastor should stray from Biblical principles the Church Statutes allow the Members to rebuke and even remove him. The same goes for Elders and Deacons. If you have no solid foundation you have a very shaky house!
do your pastors teach that using contraception is a grave sin.
I have not asked but I don’t think it would be encouraged. Here is a convo on the subject on a reformed forum https://puritanboard.com/threads/contraception-and-the-bible.61208/
you seem well.