Sola Scriptura

Sola Scriptura originated in the Protestant Reformation of the 1500s as one of the five Solae, a set of statements that defined the Reformation.  They have become known as the pillars of the Reformation.

 The statements are Sola Fide (faith alone), Sola Gratia (grace alone), Sola Christo (Christ alone), Sola Scriptura (scripture alone), and Soli Deo Gloria (To God alone be Glory).  These formed the basis of what we know as the Protestant Reformation.  In the future, we may have posts on the other points, but we think it is especially important to understand Sola Scriptura.

The Westminster Confession of Faith puts the doctrine this way:

 “Chapter 1, Section VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”

Consistency

One of the great theological debates between Protestants and Roman Catholics is what the basis of interpretation and authority of our Theology should be.  Protestants believe in "Sola Scriptura," that the Bible, in and of itself, is authoritative.  (Most) Catholics have historically quickly and quite intelligently objected that this reasoning is circular, for it would seem to be the case that scripture is giving authority to itself.  

The history of this debate begins in the 16th century with the Council of Trent.  Here, Catholic theologians declared that the revelation of God was not entirely contained within scripture, for He has also been revealed through oral tradition (or the tradition of the Church), so it would follow that “Scripture alone” is not a sufficient basis.  Despite the fact that Catholic circles are still very much in debate of the impact of tradition, the question remains, is scripture sufficient?

It’s extremely important to note that the early church very much believed in the authority of scripture alone, as attested by the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, Barnabas, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus..  Namely because scripture is comprised of authors personally given authority by God, so the sinfulness of man doesn’t deter its perfection.  From this it seems that the contention of tradition’s authority really comes from a perceived need rather than (ironically) tradition itself.  

The perceived need is precisely the problem raised earlier: the notion that Scripture’s authority is

circular. This is an important issue, for the conclusion of the debate guides each Christian in the proper way of interpretation of scripture.  If scripture is not authoritative in and of itself, then one must always consult tradition or the official teachings of the (Catholic) Church to be given the correct interpretation.  However, we think that this view, when examined, is nothing more than a denial of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. (side note: for questions on responding to these questions from atheists, see picture on the right. There will be a post on this in the future)

A really simple formulation of the problem:
1. Scripture is authoritative in and of itself (assumption of Protestants).

2. Scripture says that Holy Spirit guides interpretation of those reconciled in Christ (the Bible).

3. Necessarily, the Holy Spirit guides the interpretation of those reconciled in Christ (1,2).
4. Each person reconciled in Christ can read scripture (technical assumption).

5. Therefore, each person can interpret scripture through the guidance of the Holy Spirit (3,4).

Proponents of tradition will point out that without (1), not everyone can interpret Scripture.  That with (1), the circularity arises.  However, I think the above formulation can be re-written to circumvent this objection.

1. If the Holy Spirit exists, it would have the power to guide the interpretation of Scripture (assumption of Protestants).

2. Personal revelation in the hearts of followers of Christ confirm the existence of the Holy Spirit (this is an uncontested experiential truth and properly basic belief).  

3. Therefore, the Holy Spirit can guide the interpretation of Scripture.

This deduction seems really simple.  However, the fact that Scripture acknowledges the existence and effect of the Holy Spirit does not nullify any of these basis .  (2) is uncontested in Christian theology on almost all accounts, and (3) is a correct logical deduction, so the issue is (1).  The most common contention is closely phrased as “you cannot know if the Holy Spirit can guide the interpretation of Scripture without reading that in Scripture.”  However, I think that is insufficient to make (1) fall.  For example, my personal experience with the Spirit, apart from Scripture affirming the truth of this transformation, is that the Spirit truly transformed my heart and mind.  There is a conscious reality of the effects of the Spirit, and the truth value of those effects can be placed logically prior to the knowledge of Scripture’s prediction of such effects.  This experience has, in me, justified my “knowing” the power of the Spirit, and accordingly apart from Scripture’s affirmation of this fact.  Thus there is good reason to believe that this is logically valid.

 Again, these are only our views, and if you have any questions or concerns, please email us or comment!  Sorry we didn't post this past week, both of us have been extremely busy.

Grace and Peace,

Excelsior

Athanasius

Popes, Priests, and the Price of Salvation

Christians often take lightly or entirely disregard the diversity of doctrinal beliefs between Christianity’s various denominations.  As a few of our blog posts have hopefully illustrated, we believe very strongly and try to show that the truth is important, and thus defending and clarifying the truth has great value.  Some views are apparently Christian, but some digging reveals disparities between these views and orthodoxy (e.g. Mormonism; see our post about it here).  However, some groups aren’t usually questioned.  In the spirit of the Lord’s commandment to test things so that we may know the will of God, and what is holy, acceptable, and perfect, (Romans 12:2)  This time we’d like to step out into troubled waters. Is Catholicism orthodox Christianity?

We know, this may seem a bit unorthodox (haha get it?).  Perhaps it goes without saying, but we feel that many Catholics are saved and love God with all their heart, and love their neighbors as themselves.  It is important to us that we further clarify our utmost respect for many Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ, including respectable churches trying to do what they believe is the true will of God.  However, it is concerning how little Christians today know of Catholic doctrine - even those who consider themselves Catholic.  In this post, we aim to briefly examine and explain some of the differences between orthodox Christianity (as explained in our blog post here) and Roman Catholicism, with a few reasons we think orthodoxy is more consistent.

Popes, Creeds, and Councils

The great reformer, Martin Luther in his defense before the Holy Roman Emperor at Worms said the following.  

“I can not submit my faith either to the pope or to the council, because it is as clear as noonday that they have fallen into error and even into glaring inconsistency with themselves. If, then, I am not convinced by proof from Holy Scripture, or by cogent reasons, if I am not satisfied by the very text I have cited, and if my judgment is not in this way brought into subjection to God’s word, I neither can nor will retract anything; for it can not be right for a Christian to speak against his conscience. I stand here and can say no more. God help me. Amen.” 

Although I disagree with Luther on quite a few points and several of his methods, one cannot help but be blown away by the courage of this lone man standing before the might of both the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman church.  Furthermore, his critique of Popes and councils is quite correct.  A first major difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism is where absolute truth is to be found.  Protestants traditionally hold to a doctrine known as “Sola Scriptura” (Latin-Scripture Alone) and thus that all authority on doctrine and theology come directly from Scripture as the inspired word of God.  The Roman Catholic Church holds that in addition to scripture, there is a sacred Church  tradition which is also infallible.

    “Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different. They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churches. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible. The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church, who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church. The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption.”

 We are going to have a post soon explaining why we believe Sola Scriptura; however, for now this will have to suffice.  There is no place in scripture where God gives infallibility to anyone or their teachings.  We realize this is apparently circular on our view - assuming scriptural authority, then recognizing that scripture gives authority to itself and not the view the Roman Catholic church holds.  But reflect on this a bit.  Our presupposition is the Bible.  We deduce from that basis all that we know, and find a beautiful consistency, including knowledge of our Lord, teachings on all aspects of life, and confirmation of our presupposition in practice.

Priests or the Priesthood of all Believers?

Another big question between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism is how the believer approaches God.  Roman Catholics believe that it is often necessary to reach God through the intercession of one more holy.  This may be a Saint, Mary, or a priest.

"As the prayers themselves witness, the Church teaches us that we should pray not only directly to God, but also to those who are close to God, those who have the power to intercede upon our behalf. Indeed, we pray to the angels to help and watch over us; we pray to the saints in heaven to ask their intercession and assistance; we pray to the Blessed Mother to enlist her aid, to ask her to beg her Son to hear our prayers. Further, we pray not only on our own behalf, but also on the behalf of those souls in purgatory and of those brothers on earth who are in need. Prayer unites us to God; in doing so, we are united to the other members of the Mystical Body."

To the protestant, this belief is nullified by the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.  Since Scripture specifically says in Revelation 1:6 and 1 Peter 2:4-12 that Christians are a nation of priests to God this seems logical.  Further proof comes from book of Hebrews and the Gospels.  In Hebrews 4, there is a rather extensive demonstration of the fact that since Jesus is our high priest we need no other.  In my opinion, one of the most extraordinary events during Jesus crucifixion is the tearing of the Temple veil.  All three of the synoptic Gospels record this magnificent event.  The veil of the temple dividing “the holy place” from the “holy of holies” was 80 ft high by 30 ft wide and 4 in thick.  Every year it was tested by tying a horse to each end and having them try to break it.  Then in a moment, as the Son of God died it was ripped from top to bottom; that those who have been brought near by his death may enter the Holy of Holies crying out “Abba Father.”  There was only  a need for an intermediary until Christ came.

Saving Ourselves or Saved in Spite of Ourselves?

One of the main differences between Protestants and Catholics is the understanding of salvation.  Protestants believe in Faith-based salvation, concluding that the Bible’s various teachings of our fallen nature imply that we lack the power to live the life necessary to be seen as pleasing to God.  As explained before, this really is the essence of Christianity.  Despite our radically depraved nature, and inability to do anything right, Christ still came and died for our sins.  We are justified by works, but not our works -  because ours could never be enough.  It follows logically then that is not our works that save us, but rather faith in Christ, whose death atoned for ours.  Roman Catholicism teaches a different understanding.  In the Church’s conception, our good works coupled with Christ’s death cause us to earn salvation.  Works such as belonging to the Catholic Church, doing good things as taught in the Bible, or even following the Pope on twitter (see this link; or a more precise source here; we know that bringing up "indulgences" will strike a cord with some Catholic readers - we encourage you to research history and their current standing, for they are very much still an aspect of the church) can earn one’s salvation, or even do things like take “time-off” purgatory, a place Roman Catholicism teaches exists as an intermediary before Heaven for those that are saved (see explanation here).    The definitions can be explained by these two equations (note from Athanasius: See Excelsior? I can use math words too)

Catholicism:

Good Works + Faith = Salvation

Protestantism:

Good Works + Salvation = Faith

For these reasons and others, we would argue that Roman Catholicism teaches another gospel from that found in scripture, and thus should be rejected as Paul told the Galatians. (Gal 1:8-9)  This does not mean we are hating on those who are catholic or that we condone any hatred toward them.  It simply means that they are being led astray by false teaching.  But for the Grace of God, we would all be in the same place.  This is a controversial question and answer.  If you have any questions or concerns, please comment or email us!  Also, a special shout out to Kevin, a reader who is currently serving America overseas.  Please keep Kevin  in your prayers!

In Christ Alone,

Excelsior

Athanasius