Thursday, August 13, 2009
Is Sola Scriptura a blueprint for anarchy?
James Swan, one of the contributors to the Pros Apologian Blog, wrote an excellent article that points to the hypocrisy of Roman Catholic apologists who criticize protestants for not being as "unified" as they are. The problem is, Catholic apologists need to look in their own backyard before hurling such accusations. Or better yet, they should start implementing a Watchtower-style disfellowshipping policy for anyone and everyone who disagrees with even the smallest of Roman Catholic doctrine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Roman Catholicism's only basis for its vaunted unity is a nebulous acknowledgment of Papal Authority. Protestants by definition protested this and voila are each and all "mini-popes" -- a difficult state for unity when there is so much disagreement. Since the Second Vatican Council the Roman Catholic denomination has increasingly been "protestantized" among the rank and file. Actually, most Roman Catholics and Protestants today use these terms for self identity without having much grasp of what they mean.
I think your label of "mini popes" is quite appropriate for many protestants. However, given your comment i'd be curious to hear your thoughts on unity and where the line should be drawn with regards to ecclesiastical authority and sola scriptura.
Actually I don't believe a line should be drawn with regards to true ecclesiastical authority and I reject sola scriptura precisely because it naturally generates the proud, half-baked "mini pope" phenomenon. Joseph Smith, Jr. and his tablets along with Charles Taze Russell and his deductions didn't sprout out of a vacuum. As long as Protestants profess the nebulous "invisible Church theory," comprised of believers from out of countless contradictory denominations, the only unity that is possible is that of the flaccid ecumenical movement with its reduction to the least common denominator, i.e. the appellation of "Christian", whatever that means. What good is such a unity where the truth is not paramount? Matthew 7:21 dispenses with the notion.
So, you would concede that Scripture is not the sole infallible rule of faith for Christians? It would seem that if you reject Sola Scriptura, then you'd have to advocate that there is at least something of equal authority to the Bible?
Perhaps you could point me to a resource in which I could get a more detailed explanation to your position, as i'm interested in hearing about it further.
Obviously Scripture is not the sole infallible rule of faith for Christians when there are so many contradictory infallible interpretations. If I may suggest, "The Church in History: Formation and Struggles, The Birth of the Church AD 33-200" by Veselin Kesich, SVS Press. I think it would be helpful for your study.
Also, the bible has always been the written medium of the Jewish and later Christian community, and has never existed on its own, as God's monologue. Or more precisely, the bible itself, as the accumulation of the canonic texts as a later invention, necessarily reflects a Church tradition. Berefting the text of its church/community-bound context leads to the loss of important aspects of the original context. Individual efforts to fully understand the whole Bible may result in new religions, reflecting the dominant social penomena of the time and thus putting the text in new light. Such are the representatives of religious rationalism, such as our witness friends. And it is probably the same reason why America is a leading power when it comes to 19th century religious movements.
I suggest checking out Robert Sungenis' "Not By Scripture Alone" and his other Not By... series in regards to this topic.
Post a Comment