Conciliar Post

Dialogue Across Christian Traditions

Top Posts

The Old Testament in OrderDecember 13, 2024
How the Christ Defined the ChristianAugust 15, 2025
Life After Life After DeathOctober 7, 2024
What the Church Can Learn From Heavy MetalJune 16, 2014
The New Testament in OrderApril 14, 2021
Is Sola Scriptura Really a Disagreement?March 4, 2016
The (Actual) Good PlaceSeptember 30, 2024
Reflections on UnityOctober 18, 2016
The Eastern Orthodox Church and EvangelismJune 3, 2016
Do You Have to Be Anti-Western to Be Eastern Orthodox?August 23, 2016

Is Sola Scriptura Really a Disagreement?

in

, , ,
Matthew Bryan

I’ve been enjoying a collaborative book titled “Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism,” a book full of meaningful dialogue across Christian traditions. In it, Bradley Nassif offers the perspective that Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism are highly compatible. Nassif is Eastern Orthodox and appears to bear the approval of Antiochian Eastern Orthodox hierarchy (even though he does not enjoy unanimous agreement among all of the Eastern Orthodox). Within his broader argument1 for compatibility between these two traditions, Nassif argues that Sola Scriptura is often misunderstood and does not in fact divide Evangelicalism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

SOLO OR SOLA?

Nassif reminded me of clarifying comments by George Aldheizer in conversation under this article: “There is this assumption that ‘sola scriptura’ means ‘solo scriptura,’ which just isn’t what the reformers and today’s Protestant theologians mean. Sola Scriptura is to say that the scriptures are the supreme authority, the ‘norming norm’ to use Kevin Vanhoozer’s words, that stands above all other norms.” Prior to George’s comment, I had not heard of a distinction between Solo and Sola Scriptura.

Jeff Hart also tackled Sola Scriptura in this article, stating, “I would not defend the sort of solo scriptura ‘just me and my Bible’ hermeneutic that, sadly, is prevalent within modern evangelicalism.”

NASSIF AGREES

Nassif appears to agree with George and Jeff as he states, “The church, the Bible, and Holy Tradition form an unbreakable unity of checks and balances wherein Scripture is given the most authoritative voice on matters of faith and practice.”

Nassif presented the evangelical understanding of Sola Scriptura as wholly compatible with Eastern Orthodoxy. So doing, he juxtaposed the “Radical Reformation” of the Anabaptists with the “Magisterial Reformation” of Luther, Calvin, and Anglicans. According to Nassif, the Anabaptists veered toward the common misunderstanding of many modern Protestants:

Members of the Radical Reformation (Anabaptists) maintained that the Bible is all that is needed and that church councils, creeds, church fathers, and liturgies have no significant role to play in the theological formulation of the faith. The private judgment and conscience of an individual’s interpretation of Scripture stand above the corporate judgment of the church.2

Then he contrasts:

The Magisterial Reformation (Luther, Calvin, and Anglicans), however, upheld the church’s traditional interpretation of Scripture and viewed the church fathers, councils, creeds, and liturgies as valuable guides to the correct understanding of Scripture. They were not ambivalent toward tradition, but stood only against its abuses. Scripture was still the primary authority for faith and practice, but it was not the only authority.3

IS SOLA SCRIPTURA REALLY A DISAGREEMENT?

By all appearances, I and many others conversing at Conciliar Post have failed to clarify the Anabaptist versus the “Magisterial” understandings of Sola Scriptura when debating the topic. Apparently the historic view of most Protestants aligns with the views of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, to which we could add the Assyrian Church of the East and Oriental Orthodoxy. That is to say:whether Protestant or adhering to one of the four continuous traditions, most of us see valid portions of Church Tradition as complementing Scripture with both Tradition and Scripture affirming the authority of the other.

Alyssa Hall seems to have agreed as well in her comments below this article: “I am not making the claim that all traditions are bad. God’s traditions are good and are to be kept diligently.” Later, she added:

I believe that while the Orthodox or Catholic liturgies, ecclesiology, etc. that you mentioned may indeed be sound (I’m not writing off everything they believe – I’m certainly open to study!), there seem to be elements within the Catholic/Orthodox churches that have evolved into something that was never intended to exist.

While he disagreed in part with Alyssa, Ben Winter appears to also see Scripture and Tradition as complementary in his comments on the same article:

Nothing is possible, either, without Scripture. So this is not an elevation of Tradition above Scripture. You are correct to note that, due to my position on the authority of the Catholic Church, I see Tradition as on equal footing with Scripture. It seems to be the only tenable position in light of the history of the unified, Spirit-guided Church across time and space.

SOLO EQUALS SOLA

While some on Conciliar Post have offered a distinction between Sola and Solo, these two forms are from the same adjective, the first being feminine and the second masculine in the “ablative” or instrumental Latin case4, indicating “by” Scripture alone. Thus, arguing Sola Scriptura is, by definition, an argument for “by Scripture alone.” If one agrees that proper Tradition properly interprets Scripture—as Protestant authors appear to repeatedly admitted at Conciliar Post—then I submit that we should bypass arguments over Sola Scriptura altogether. The real issue is which traditions one believes to be violation of the otherwise united testimonies of Scripture and Church Tradition.

If on the other hand, one claims what Nassif attributes to the Anabaptists, let him or her defend the proposition as is. Sola Scriptura means “by Scripture alone.” Yet it appears to be a position which Protestant contributors to Conciliar Post do not truly hold. Let us debate improper traditions as the real issue. “By Scripture Alone” (Sola Scriptura) has been surrendered often enough in this ecumenical dialogue that it appears to enjoy our unanimous agreement to be a misnomer, even among Protestant contributors. Tradition protects us from harmful interpretations of Scripture just as Scripture protects us from bad traditions. The two operate together, never solo.

[wpex more=”View Sources” less=”Hide Sources”]

  1. Nassif’s broader thesis: “I will contend that there are no core disagreements between evangelicals and Eastern Orthodox over the issues that define the evangelical movement, issues that are also present in the Eastern Orthodox Church. There are major differences, however, over the extent to which the Orthodox understand and manifest, as evangelicals do not, those larger principles of evangelical identity through the church’s incarnational Trinitarian vision of life.”
  2. Gundry, Stanley N., and James Stamoolis, eds. Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 65
  3. ibid
  4. http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/adjective:solus

[/wpex]

Comments

26 responses to “Is Sola Scriptura Really a Disagreement?”

  1. Ben Cabe Avatar
    Ben Cabe

    “Bad ” or “false” traditions are always a result of the improper or wrong exposition or wrong understanding of what Scripture is saying. It was so with Arius (and others) and it is so today. The question is how do you know which tradition is the right Tradition? One cannot pick and choose from Christian traditions. There is One Tradition that is wholly reliable. When others traditions error or develop in ways they should not, it is because they have broken off from the One Tradition, by not accepting or yielding to it, and have gone off to interpret scripture “solo” . . . Which inevitably creates another “tradition” which then backs it’s adherent’s has a “500 year old tradition” when 500 years pass, etc.

    Reply
  2. Eric Avatar
    Eric

    Brother Matthew do you have an email or Facebook I can send you a question based on all this????

    Reply
    1. Matthew Bryan Avatar
      Matthew Bryan

      Surely. I’m the Matthew Bryan with a goofy hat on FB or matthew@matthewbryan.net

      Reply
  3. George Aldhizer Avatar
    George Aldhizer

    Yeah, this argument is crucial. And it gets at a lot of things I’ve been writing about, I’m not so sure that there can be a middle ground between apostolic succession and individualism. And that article is very convincing. The conundrum it seems, if one is to agree whole-heartedly with the argument, is to decide between the apostolic successions.

    Reply
    1. Matthew Bryan Avatar
      Matthew Bryan

      Or view all four apostolic successions as a whole. It does not appear to me to be necessary that we decide one succession does not err.

      Reply
  4. George Aldhizer Avatar
    George Aldhizer

    I don’t think I agree with your argument here Matthew. Without having read the book you reference (and Nassif’s puzzling “highly compatible” stance), I’m not so sure that we’re all here operating under similar assumptions. I think the article Ben Winter cites below gets at a fundamental difference, Protestants always have a way out of submitting to an ecclesial authority. There is a crucial difference between apostolic succession full stop, with the resultant practice of submitting wholeheartedly to an apostolic tradition, and a sola scriptura that always leaves the believer with an *interpretive option* to go against the church, regardless of how much of the tradition one submits to.

    I do stand by your citation of me in your article, and its distinction between solo and sola scriptura. But I’m not so sure that there is an *at bottom* distinction between the two. In my heart of hearts, I truly wish that “evangelicalism and eastern orthodoxy are highly compatible” but I see little evidence, historical or hermeneutical, that that is the case.

    Reply
    1. Matthew Bryan Avatar
      Matthew Bryan

      Thanks, George. What I tried to point out is that Sola Scriptura is really a misnomer for those who tend to offer it here. The Anabaptist stance which Nassif clarified is not a stance defended by Protestants on Conciliar Post. When pressed, Sola defenders on Conciliar Post appear to consistently concede some authority to Christian Tradition in contrast with the Anabaptist, pure Sola Scriptura stance.

      You make an excellent point however, that Protestants often side-step Tradition. I submit however, that such a sidestep could be viewed as a secondary issue. I’d love to see someone build on this article: Since CP articles and discussion comments here appear to agree that Tradition has some level of authority, a voice from the elder traditions could then more directly address the Protestant tendency to find an escape clause. Are those escape routes consistently grounded in documentable errors and historical digression by a Christian faction away from proper Tradition, or are such Protestant escapes strictly arbitrary and grounded in personal opinion alone?

      Thanks again,
      Matthew

      Reply
  5. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Hi Matthew, I enjoyed your article, and it actually introduced me to the sola/solo distinction. Thanks for sharing. I’ll throw in my two cents below.

    I think you’re right to note that no one actually follows the literal meaning of “by Scripture alone” and that Tradition is the root of the disagreement. But, I’m not so sure that Sola Scriptura, defined as “the norming norm that stands above all other norms,” is in alignment with “the views of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy…”

    I can’t speak to Eastern Orthodoxy or the other churches you mentioned, but while both magisterial protestants and Roman Catholics view Tradition as valuable, I think the value they respectively accord it is qualitatively different. Tradition “as valuable guide” doesn’t seem all that aligned with Tradition considered “on equal footing” with Scripture, especially considering how the former decision to put Scripture above Tradition forces believers to assemble the shape of the faith through either personal judgment of Scripture (solo) or communal judgment of Scripture, creeds, and councils (sola), rather than receiving it on authority as given.

    I agree with you that Sola Scriptura is a misnomer and I think it would be nice to bypass arguments over it altogether. I think it tends to function nowadays as a byword for faith rooted in judgement. And that’s where the real question emerges for me. Can the handmaiden of God’s words, the Church, carry them to the world without lessening their authority?

    Reply
    1. Matthew Bryan Avatar
      Matthew Bryan

      Good to hear from a fellow Matthew! Nassif as an EO writer actually placed Scripture above Tradition to my surprise: “The church, the Bible, and Holy Tradition form an unbreakable unity of checks and balances wherein Scripture is given the most authoritative voice on matters of faith and practice.”

      Ben Winter as a RC writer used the term “equal footing,” yet it’s my understanding that such footing relies on the agreement between Scripture and Tradition. In such a view, if Scripture and Tradition were discovered by the RCC to be at odds, I trust the RCC would correct Tradition in deference to Scripture rather than the reverse. If so, then it begs the question as to whether Tradition is truly on equal footing.

      Perhaps the more difficult issues between Protestants and the elder churches lie in the areas less defined by Scripture. Where Scripture is silent, Tradition often speaks loudly. As one who has cast off Protestantism and become a serious student of Tradition, I personally wrestle with how much to concede to Tradition where Scripture is silent. I’m much more comfortable letting Tradition interpret the subjects on which Scripture speaks, than on letting Tradition interpret subjects on which Scripture does not speak. Do you have advice in that area?

      Sincerely,
      Matthew

      Reply
      1. Matthew Avatar
        Matthew

        *Double Matthew fist bump*

        Nassif’s comments are very interesting, but I don’t know enough about Orthodoxy to place them. I’m not sure what he has in mind by “checks and balances.” I need to read more about Orthodoxy.

        If it were possible for Tradition to be at odds with Scripture then I think you’re right to say Catholics would reform Tradition by Scripture, but I don’t know if it would be possible for Tradition to be at odds with Scripture, since in the words of Dei Verbum, they both flow “from the same divine wellspring…and tend toward the same end. Tradition begot Scripture, subsequently canonized and placed it first among other sources of divine revelation, à la prima scriptura, and continues to preserve and proclaim it in its full purity. I don’t know if the two can help but be in full agreement. That’s what I imagine Ben had in mind when he said “equal footing,” that is, not an accidental agreement but a substantial one. So even though Scripture may come first, “both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.”

        I don’t really have any advice, but I’d say to the last area you mentioned, as a Roman Catholic, that even if every piece of what is now Scripture had gone the way of Paul’s lost epistles or been burned during early persecutions, I would still have no problems trusting the Tradition of the Church. If Tradition was good enough for the first believers, it’s good enough for me. Scripture is icing on the Cake. It doesn’t seem to be essential for the Christian Faith, though it’s extremely valuable. I think the only time in the NT where someone was commanded to write down what they heard was John in the book of Revelation. All the other Apostles were commanded to teach, but I don’t recall any other Old Testament-esque “Write down what you hear” commands in the NT. Though, I suppose someone could have neglected to write down that command.

      2. Matthew Bryan Avatar
        Matthew Bryan

        Your reply makes a lot of sense, Matthew. I’m not yet on the same page with you though, probably due to a lack of understanding on my part. It sounds like the Protestant doctrine of inspired, inerrant, infallible Scripture is matched or replaced in the RCC with inspired, inerrant, infallible Tradition. Please correct me if I’m off-base there.

        Scriptures don’t change, but it’s my impression that Tradition does change. I don’t say this to attack Catholicism or even to rebut your explanation. I’m just trying to follow the logic, and I don’t think I could swallow the idea that Tradition is infallible. Help me out. Maybe I’m confusing topics here?

      3. Benjamin Cabe Avatar
        Benjamin Cabe

        Capital “T” Tradition does not change. Small “t” tradition varies by culture. In Orthodoxy this looks like slight variations in iconography, birthday and feast celebrations, etc. But Tradition that guides us through scripture does not. I have major issues with what I’ve heard of Bradley Nassif’s arguments. They’re prone to wrong interpretation. I doubt he means what some Protestants would read in to them. If he does, he’ll have to take it up with his Bishop.

      4. Matthew Avatar
        Matthew

        I get nervous when prompted to speak for the RCC, but, as I see it, I’d say that something like the “Protestant doctrine of the inspired, inerrant, infallible Scripture” is seen in the RCC’s “inspired, inerrant, infallible Tradition,” that is itself nourished by the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God Himself in the Eucharist. Though the written records of the Apostles could be wiped out completely, if every consecrated priest on earth died or was killed and the Eucharist could no longer be confected, then the Anno Domini in which we live would have definitely ended. But I’m still a novice Catholic, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

        And for the record, I’ve definitely swallowed the idea that Tradition is infallible. I’d also say that Tradition does change but that, as the Newmanism goes, “it changes to stay the same.”

      5. Matthew Bryan Avatar
        Matthew Bryan

        Thanks for your feedback!

      6. Matthew Bryan Avatar
        Matthew Bryan

        Hi, Ben. Tragically the preview of your link stopped at page 31 for me, so I have not read what you offered.

        If Tradition is/were inerrant, I guess the next logical question is what is Holy Tradition versus human tradition. It would be rude for me to offer a list of errors committed under the name or umbrella of Roman Catholicism, so I won’t since I have no wish to affront. Yet I’m sure some will readily come to your mind; forgive me. How does one distinguish between erroneous traditions and inerrant Tradition without being accused of convenience rather than consistency?

      7. Matthew Avatar
        Matthew

        Thanks for dropping in Ben. That was a pleasure to read, and I look forward to checking out the links you’ve shared.

      8. Matthew Bryan Avatar
        Matthew Bryan

        I read all of the Congar pages, but not all of the Vatican links. Your clarification does help me, but leaves a few problems.

        First, it appears to lend itself to conveniece instead of consistency. Whatever now seems to have been correct in Catholic history was Tradition, while whatever now seems wrong was only tradition. I don’t say this to attack. This is simply what I see.

        Second, the division between doctrine and practice seems untenable. With all due respect, serious errors have occurred over the course centuries with the support of Catholic hierarchy. Such erroneous traditions are doctrinal, since someone had to learn and be taught (indoctrinated) to perform these erroneous traditions. The writings of Catholic leaders who erred in condoning and instructing religious persecution (by modern standards) are extant. They used Scripture to validate doctrines of persecution.

        I appreciate the perspective you offered. It lifted my eyes and allowed Tradition a better light. After consideration though, I find it difficult to agree.

      9. Matthew Bryan Avatar
        Matthew Bryan

        Much appreciated, Ben!

  6. Blake Hartung Avatar
    Blake Hartung

    Matthew, you’re right to point to the parallels between a well-reasoned (and traditional) Protestant understanding of Sola Scriptura, and, say, an Eastern Orthodox view of Scripture as the highest authority for the Church. However, these parallels seem to quickly fall apart once you start to investigate them carefully. The crucial presupposition of the Protestant Reformation (and I say this as a Protestant) is that the Church can be in error in its interpretation of Scripture (and thus require Reformation). Mainstream Eastern Orthodoxy, on the other hand, in principle doesn’t accept that the teaching of the Church can err. So we come to an impasse.

    So, even for evangelical theologians like myself, who have a deep and abiding love and respect for the Tradition, tradition is a far more flexible guide than the authoritative interpretive lens that it is for Orthodox theology. From the inception of Protestantism, Protestants have said: “the Church has erred and must be corrected.” With a well-articulated understanding of doctrinal development, Roman Catholics can admit something similar, but only within the framework of the teaching of the magisterium (which brings us to another impasse). So I’m not convinced that there’s any real resolution to this issue, particularly between EO’s and Protestants.

    You can see the glaring divide right here in this comment section.

    Reply
    1. Matthew Bryan Avatar
      Matthew Bryan

      Hi, Blake. I agree with much of what you say. I appreciate your frustration with Eastern Orthodoxy even though I have a deep love for EO theology and praxis, albeit as an outsider.

      The difference between my approach and that of Protestanism is that I recognize and embrace the four apostolic successions as Tradition. Protestants are rarely familiar with the grand story of Oriental Orthodoxy (distinct from Eastern Orthodoxy) and the Assyrian Church of the East. When viewed as four branches of Tradition, the erroneous traditions of each branch are held in check. Yet the unanimous agreement of all four branches establishes Tradition in miraculous form. It’s shocking how many things all four have in common despite their ancient separation.

      Without holy Tradition, I believe Protestantism suffers from both the personal whim and the popular whim of Scripture’s interpretation. I’d be interested in your thoughts on that viewpoint.
      Sincerely,
      Matthew

      Reply
      1. Blake Hartung Avatar
        Blake Hartung

        Matthew,

        I’m frustrated, but also as someone who has a deep love for Eastern Christianity. I’m frustrated that there’s no easy solution to this divide.

        I’m glad to hear your appreciation of Oriental Orthodoxy and the Church of the East. I’m working on a dissertation on St. Ephrem and have a great love for the Syriac tradition. So in your understanding, the common “mere Christianity” of the four constitutes the Tradition? That would be essentially Nicaea and Constantinople. What do you do, for example, with the Council of Chalcedon?
        And just as a sidenote, where does the Anglican Communion fit in your understanding of Apostolic succession?

        I agree with your assessment of Protestantism, which is why I align with the classical Reformation, which took very seriously the ecumenical councils and the teachings of the Fathers. Still, as highly as we both hold the Great Tradition, both your understanding of Tradition and mine are at odds with the EO position.

      2. Matthew Bryan Avatar
        Matthew Bryan

        To start, I admit that I know far too little of Anglicanism. My appreciation for Oriental Orthodoxy and the ACOE diminishes (probably in error) my curiosity about offshoots of the RCC and EO, including Anglicanism. The RCC and EO are wonderful and appreciated though. Imagine for example, how much worse the tragedy of abortion would be in America and around the world without the labors of Roman Catholics.

        I agree with you in recognizing the councils of Nicea and Constantinople as exclusively ecumenical. And yes, the miraculous agreement of 4 branches despite centuries of division appears to me to be holy Tradition. I can think of no other explanation for such deep agreement across territorial divisions.

        Where would the world be without all four of these branches? Where would India be without the ACOE? Or the vast reaches of Russia without Eastern Orthodoxy? Ethiopia, Egypt, etcetera without Oriental Orthodoxy? South America or the Philippines without Catholicism? Add to that the efforts (despite some weaknesses) of Protestants, and we have an imperfect, but awesome miracle!

    2. Ben Cabe Avatar
      Ben Cabe

      Just a clarification as an Orthodox Christian. From our point of view, to say the “Church” can err is the same thing as saying the Holy Spirit can err. But this delves into what we understand the “Church” to mean—and here, our differences in Ecclesiology and Authority would have to be further hashed out before we have footing for any further dialogue. That is, we have to define our terms, etc.

      Reply
      1. Blake Hartung Avatar
        Blake Hartung

        Thanks Ben,

        That’s a good point to make, and a crucial distinction between Protestants and Orthodox Christians. I’m curious as to how you apply that principle. What do you do when much of the apostolic succession of the Church (the “magisterium” for lack of a better word) is in error? Take for example, the two periods of iconoclasm before and after Nicaea II.

        Also, how would you deal with particular traditions practiced in the churches (popular piety, etc.) which a council never ruled upon? Can individual believers stand up against such practices on the basis of Scripture? It was large-scale abuses of this sort in the West that triggered the Reformation. Do such abuses constitute errors? How would you understand this from an Orthodox perspective?

      2. Ben Cabe Avatar
        Ben Cabe

        There have always been periods where Saints have had to stand contra mundum. Athanasius / St. Maximus, etc. But they stood firm and, per the promise of Christ, the gates of Hades did not prevail. This is a pastoral answer: we must always seek to follow Christ—and that means being aware that danger lies in wait everywhere. However, we should be careful not to reject things out of pride or egotism—which often do not come to us blatantly but try to sneak in under the guise of “righteous anger” or “preserving the faith.” It is a fine line. Though cryptic, I believe this stands as an answer to both. Just because there have been times when heresy has run rampant (and we can recognize it today) does not mean by necessity that what the Church teaches about it ever changed or that it is “wrong” or necessarily unstable today.

        It is everyone’s job to preserve the faith. This in the Orthodox understanding. There is a story of an Orthodox Priest in the late nineteenth century who attended a conference and claimed that all gods are the same: the hindu gods, the Orthodox god, etc. When we arrived back at his parish and put his key in to open the door, it didn’t work. The locks had already been changed. This is why the Orthodox rely on the Ecumenical Councils . . . “What seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” as in Acts. But before Matthew jumps in to say we should accept all the traditions (which seems incoherent to me since they differ in many fundamental ways—even in their understandings of the “essentials” which Matthew may like to point out as how we should see them agreeing) we would have to talk, as stated above, about our terms and Ecclesiology: Church, Authority, Scripture, Tradition.

        For the Orthodox, Scripture is part of the Tradition. That is, it came from the Church and is to be used by the Church. The two are inseparable.

      3. Matthew Bryan Avatar
        Matthew Bryan

        Thank you, Ben.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Conciliar Post

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading