I argued that Sola Scriptura is the same as Solo Scriptura, and that in the end there is no formal difference between the two.
Called to Communion did a post on this a long time ago which was brilliant. Please read it, or at least part 4 where the Catholic argument begins (http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/)
Their basic argument is that Protestants define 'the gospel' being preached as a necessary pre-requisite for a Church. With Sola Scriptura, the individual reads and defines what the gospel is for himself, and then picks the church that agrees with him. If at any time the church disagrees with him, he leaves and either establishes a new church or joins a new church that agrees with his view of the gospel. Therefore, sola and solo scriptura are the same thing in the end.
Their argument is more nuanced but that is the basic line of it.
Protestants can talk about submitting to the Councils, but if I say to them "one baptism for the remission of sins" they deny it, saying baptism cannot remitt sins, because the bible says: x. If I show them the second council of nicea (787) that declares iconic veneration of Christ and the Virgin, they say it can't be true because of what the bible says. Thus even the universal agreement of the Church is not enough to trump their own private interpretation. Which is why Solo and Sola Scriptura are no different.
This was pretty much the straw that broke the camels back for me with Anglicanism. I wanted to refute what the priest was saying in his sermon on sunday, but I know that all I can do is offer my interpretation of scripture and the councils and Tradition of the Church, but in the end, Anglicanism allows the individual to decide and interpret whatever they want.
True submission, is accepting the teaching of the Church when you DON'T personally feel it is right. This can never happen in Protestantism, because the Church always has to remain subject to Scripture, which means it has to remain subject to the individual's interpretation of scripture.
With Sola Scriptura, the individual reads and defines what the gospel is for himself, and then picks the church that agrees with him. If at any time the church disagrees with him, he leaves and either establishes a new church or joins a new church that agrees with his view of the gospel. Therefore, sola and solo scriptura are the same thing in the end.
ReplyDeleteI would qualify what constitutes a disagreement worthy of separation. There are more important and less important differences.
For instance, if I believe a group claiming to be the church has undermined the gospel by adding to the work of Christ in saving sinners, then I should separate from it. The truth of the gospel is important 1 Cor.2:2; Gal. 1:9; 2:14). We should not be ashamed of it (Rom. 1:16-17). Unity is more important than that.
Likewise, if I believe Roman Catholicism cannot ultimately err and that it alone can insure true interpretations of Scripture. Then I should follow my conscience and submit to Rome with docility.
Nonetheless, in either case I am trusting in what amounts to an essentially perspicuous and self-attesting ultimate authority. The Church and I are either governed by Scripture alone or the Scriptures and I are governed by the Church alone.
Also, notice that in neither case should we be seeking to follow our own individual, private interpretation as the ideal. No one but the anabaptists have said this. Instead, we should carefully listen to the teachers of the church throughout her history. God gave them to her for her good. We should be thankful for their faithful defense and promotion of biblical truth. And we should beware of arrogantly casting aside God's providential work by these teachers, particularly if their teachings were received ecumenically (like the early creeds). Nonetheless, where equally credentialed teachers contradict themselves and one another should we confess contradictions? Of course not. We should expect later teachers, when the problem comes to the fore, to do the hard work of biblical exegesis in concert with other teachers to determine what is true. This is the nature of doctrinal development in the history of the church.
*Either the Church and I are governed by Scripture alone or the Scriptures and I are governed by the Church alone.
ReplyDeleteMy original wording was a bit clumsy.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/#sola
ReplyDeleteHe refutes the claim that Catholicism is essentially arguing "The Church Alone".
His argument is that Catholicism has 3 authorities: Scripture is the deposit of faith, interpretted by Tradition and the Magesterium.
The Roman church cannot declare an interpretation on something that isn't there, for that would be asserting continual revelation. This is the claim of Protestantism against Catholicism, as it is the claim of Socinian against Calvin. homoousia is not in the very words of Scripture, yet Confessional Protestantism affirms it as binding on the conscience because it is an authoritative interpretation of Scripture. This is why I think Protestantism is reducible to Unitarianism/Liberalism if you make the claim that the Church is innovating.
So the debate is simply, who has the authority to interpret scripture.
homoousion*
ReplyDeleteI agree that Roman Catholicism has multiple authorities. In the same way, Protestantism has multiple authorities.
ReplyDeleteThe question is this: what is the ultimate authority? For Protestantism, Scripture alone is ultimate. Church tradition is subservient to the text (i.e. the Apostolic teaching). For Roman Catholicism, the church alone is the ultimate. The text is subservient to the church (i.e. the Apostolic office).
Historic Protestantism confesses that the Apostolic teaching is essentially perspicuous and self-attesting. Scripture is the only infallible interpreter of Scripture.
Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, confesses that the Apostolic office is essentially perspicuous and self-attesting. The magisterium is the only infallible interpreter of Scripture.