Tracing the belief differences between Catholics and Protestants to the belief in Sola Scriptura or the Scripture Alone.
Do you want to know how and why Roman Catholics and Protestants differ so widely on so many issues? The reason involves two words: Sola Scriptura.
That two-word term, Sola Scriptura, is Latin for "by Scripture alone," and it was among the principal mottos of the Protestant Reformation. One can trace virtually every major difference in belief between mainstream Protestant Christianity and Roman Catholicism to Sola Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura is, of course, only one of the five "solas" that Protestant Reformers championed during the Reformation period. The others were:
Sola fide ("by faith alone")
Sola gratia ("by grace alone")
Solus Christus ("Christ alone")
Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")
Yet these other declarations stand on an understanding of divine revelation that hinges on that first Sola - Sola Scriptura.
The Rise of Rome
After the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and the death of Jesus' remaining apostles, the church in Rome emerged as the leading Christian congregation of the Roman world. With the rise of Constantine, the Christian church became institutionalized and the rest of the Christian community increasingly looked to Rome for leadership. (And also to Byzantium, which partly explains the East-West split). When the western Roman Empire fell, the medieval Christian church became the most solid institution in Europe. It was also, at this time, being called more and more the "catholic" (or universal) church.
Apostolic Succession
Christians in the medieval church grappled with the doctrine of apostolic succession, along with other pressing theological matters. Did the successors to the apostles carry the same authority as the original apostles? And did the institutional church (specifically its leadership) have the authority to designate who those successors were?
Advocates of apostolic succession pointed to Paul's exhortation to Timothy: "The things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (II Timothy 2:2)
One of the leading voices for a strong apostolic succession was Irenaeus, a deeply influential leader of the second-century Christian church. However, it was expected one would stay consistent with the teachings of the original apostles.
Toward the beginning of the third century, Tertullian, an early Christian leader and theologian, wrote: "No other teaching will have the right of being received as apostolic than that which is at the present day proclaimed in the churches of apostolic foundation." In other words, those preachers, elders, and presbyters authorized to teach must teach according to the "apostolic foundation" of the church.
The Protestant Reformation
One of the frustrations that led Martin Luther to challenge the Roman Catholic Church was the apparent abuse of apostolic succession and consequent ecclesiastical authority. Luther became convinced that the Scriptures alone were authoritative, and that the Church must bow to them. "God's Word shall establish articles of faith," wrote Luther, "and no one else, not even angel can do so."
Today, most Protestant Christians (including many who don't even like to call themselves "Protestant," such as the Baptists) hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Though their interpretations of Scripture often vary, they do not accept the ecclesiastical authority of a hierarchical body (such as the Vatican) to dictate the meaning of Scripture, nor do they accept the right of the Pope (or any other institutional officer) to announce new revelation from God.
Of course, some Protestant denominations are more hierarchical than others, such as the Anglican Church. Nevertheless, for most Protestant Christians (especially those coming from an evangelical perspective), it's Sola Scriptura - the Scriptures alone.
*****
For more on this issue, consult:
A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, edited by David W. Bercot
The Story of Christianity by Justo Gonzalez
The copyright of the article Sola Scriptura in Protestantism is owned by Brian Tubbs. Permission to republish Sola Scriptura must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Jan 13, 2008 8:54 AM
Pink
:
. All of which brings us back--full circle--to questions about how the Bible came to be considered the Word of God. . In the final analysis, it's <i>Sola Fide</i> no matter how you slice it; but, the questions here are about what it is in which a person places their faith. . Generally, most honest persons are able to agree that the Gospel of Jesus was about an individual's ability to have a personal relationship with God outside the authority of any extrinsic thing. .
Jan 13, 2008 5:50 PM
Migisi
:
. Quoting Brian's article: <b>"Luther became convinced that the Scriptures alone were authoritative, and that the Church must bow to them."</b> . Which Scriptures? . Quoted from: http://freethought.mbdojo.com/canon.html .... "Most Christians believe that all of the books of the Bible, and only the books of the Bible, have been accepted as canonical by all Christians. And yet, how far from this is the truth! In every age of the church there have been Christians, eminent for their piety and learning, who either rejected some of these books, or who accepted as canonical books not contained in the Bible. . "Not one of the five men who contributed most to form the canon, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, Jerome, and Augustine, accepted all of these books. . "Late in the second century Melito, Bishop of Sardis, a contemporary of Irenaus, was deputed to make a list of the books belonging to the Old Testament. His list omitted Esther and Lamentations. The Muratori canon, which is supposed to belong to the third century, omitted Hebrews, James, First and Second Peter, and Third John. The Apostolic canon omitted Revelation, and included First and Second Clement and the Apostolic Constitutions. . "Of Origen, the great Christian Father of the third century, "Chambers' Encyclopedia" says: "Origen doubted the authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews, of the Epistle of James, of Jude, of the Second of Peter, and the Second and Third of John; while, at the same time, he was disposed to recognize as canonical certain apocryphal scriptures, such as those of Hermas and Barnabas." In addition to the apocryphal books named, Origen also accepted as authoritative the Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Egyptians, Acts of Paul, and Preaching of Peter. . "The Rev. Jeremiah Jones, a leading authority on the canon, says: "Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and the rest of the primitive writers were wont to approve and cite books which now all men know to be apocryphal." (Canon, p. 4). . "Theodoret says that as late as the fifth century many churches used the Gospel of Tatian instead of the canonical Gospels. Gregory the Great, at the beginning of the seventh, and Alfric, at the close of the tenth century, accepted as canonical Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans. . "Early in the fourth century the celebrated church historian, Eusebius, gave a list of the acknowledged and disputed books of the New Testament. The disputed books-- books which some accepted an
Jan 13, 2008 7:37 PM
redback
:
<i>"Do you want to know how and why Roman Catholics and Protestants differ so widely on so many issues?"</i> A helpful introduction, Brian. :)
Just how functional is the loss of Papal authority? The Pope is replaced with eg Moderators and other Primates of whatever name...Archbishops etc...in other churches. Same result...different title? There are organisations unifying same-name churches within a country. I cynically feel the Anglican Church Property Trust is such an umbrella Anglican organisation here.
In effect, haven't all churches, including Baptists, still have some level of heirachy where someone is recognised as either the...leading or most senior 'minister'...or universal disendorsement as NOT a leader? And with such leadership...isn't the tone and focus of faith slanted until new leadership provides a "new path".
In OZ, the Roman Catholic Church is re-named the Australian Catholic Church (Property Trust) altho the full when and why of it is hard to pin down. I understand some part is less Papal authority here but could be wrong. Another aspect is a semantic(?) separation of the Catholic Anglican and Roman Catholic?
There seems such an ancient, entrenched divergence between denominations, any merger seems unrealistic. So, talk of successful mergers (where the 'majority' of leaders seek compromise of faith issues and unity...the flock will tag along) is still alive???
<i>"Not one of the five men who contributed most to form the canon, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, Jerome, and Augustine, accepted all of these books..."</i>
It seems to me from your post, Migisi, there are not only Books of inclusion and exclusion...but Books of higher and lesser authority. So, the five above may have only come to qualified agreement when it came to specific scripture.
But there is (anecdotal?) consensus all agreed on all matters that mattered.
Jan 14, 2008 10:55 AM
Migisi
:
. <b>But there is (anecdotal?) consensus all agreed on all matters that mattered.</b> . In a way, yes -- ecumenical councils were convened to decide on doctrine. But their decisions didn't settle the matters that mattered. Schisms and sects sprang up shortly after Jesus' death. Paul confirms it in his letter to the Corinth church.... "What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas "; still another, "I follow Christ." (1 Corinthians 1:12). And he complains frequently about 'false teachings' and 'other gospels', confirming that there was little consensus even among the early churches. . A couple of centuries later, dissenters ('heretics') in matters that mattered were seriously punished by the Church with excommunication, banishment, loss of property, and execution. Who would dare risk that? Some did. The Hispanic Priscillian of Avila was the first person to be executed for 'heresy', a mere sixty years after the First Council of Nicaea in 385. 'Heresy' was defined by Thomas Aquinas as "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas." Spanish schoolmaster Cayetano Ripoll was the last known person to be executed for heresy (1826). . The Church usually destroyed all 'heretical' treatises and letters, so we often only get an ~annecdotal~ glimpse of their 'heresies' through responses declaiming them, written by the Church's pious authorities. . The Church has a long history of turmoil and has never been united in doctrine. There have been major schisms over single points of doctrine, particularly regarding the Trinity, the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the immaculate conception. . The major Protestant doctrines that the Catholic Church considers 'heretical' today (as Bri mentioned) are the belief that the Bible is the sole source and rule of faith ("sola scriptura"), that faith alone can lead to salvation ("sola fide") and that there is a universal priesthood of believers. . So, I wouldn't conclude that there is consensus on all matters that mattered at any time, or now. Just my POV, of course.
Jan 14, 2008 6:28 PM
redback
:
<b>In a way, yes..."</b>
In many ways - no? :) It seems "matters that matter" can be subjective. The history (maybe repeating itself) is interesting to me. For me, it seems to go to a question of joining any church...as distinct from accepting a specific belief in a faith or having faith in a belief...to the extent these terms don't overlap.
<i>"Transubstantiation"</i> (by any name)
If God can manifest himself into eg human form...then why not bread and wine...or a Holy river etc? If one believes these <i>'accidents'</i> happened, seems a benign ritual to continue the symbolism. Or do they believe the bread & wine miraculously (aka accident) transforms in 2008 and so claim they actually can taste the difference? Belief aside, does it actually happen...is also the perennial question.
<i>"universalisms"</i>
I'm a bit underwhelmed about the contrasts between the Roman Catholic Church and others over the 'universal priesthood' per my earlier post. The lay 'priest' masses accede to the heirachal ordained 'priest', don't they.
<i>"Sole fide"</i>
to me, is about a substantive difference in interpretation of the Bible. The thin edge of the wedge that implies other interpretations also <b>validly</b> co-exist. And what if they fly off on a tangent from Roman Catholic or Protestant mainstream belief or in fact any organised 'church' belief.
<i>"sola scriptura"</i>
Well, I can see from the discussions here and offline the Bible is the <b>primary</b> source document. But is it better to be dependent on different views from only one source or seek a number of views from a number of sources then look for endorsement from the accredited primary source.
Solely relying on a scripture poorly interpreted is within the doctrine of sola scriptura.
Jan 15, 2008 7:38 AM
Pink
:
. <i>Sole fide:
to me, is about a substantive difference in interpretation of the Bible. The thin edge of the wedge that implies other interpretations also validly co-exist. And what if they fly off on a tangent from Roman Catholic or Protestant mainstream belief or in fact any organised 'church' belief.
</i>I'm confused wondering if you're using faith as a word to describe denomination. . I see "Sole Fide" to mean that the individual considers their belief to be based on 100% faith--nothing else. . And, the question gets to be about what it is on which the person has based their faith. It appears that there has been a major shift in American Christianity regarding what is a proper foundation for faith. It looks like the Bible's authenticity has come to be that foundation--forget anything else. . In fact, the challenge is if you don't put your faith in the bible, then, you're not worthy to call yourself a Christian. . The title, Christian, has come to be a synonym for Biblicist. Or is it the other way around. . Can someone show me a person who is accepted as a Christian by any Evangelical who doesn't subscribe to the idea that the Bible is the Revealed Word of God/ .
Jan 15, 2008 8:44 AM
Migisi
:
. <b>It seems "matters that matter" can be subjective.</b> . One man's trash is another man's treasure? . <b>The history (maybe repeating itself) is interesting to me.</b> . And to me, especially the 'repeating' of it i.e. the possibility that the church and state will merge and become the political governing body, as in the Middle Ages. . <b>For me, it seems to go to a question of joining any church...as distinct from accepting a specific belief in a faith or having faith in a belief...to the extent these terms don't overlap.</b> . IMO, when/if one does join a church, it's presumed and expected that the joiner fully accepts that church's doctrine (whatever it is). If not, why bother joining -- except for the social or business connections it might provide. . <b>"Transubstantiation"... If God can manifest himself into eg human form...then why not bread and wine...or a Holy river etc? </b> . Some believe God is present in everything - human, animal, vegetable, air, water, dirt, rock, etc. since God created it all. The Church considers this belief 'pagan' (pantheism). Yet, Church dogma insists that God is present in bread and wine - which is made from nature's grain and grape? . <b>Belief aside, does it actually happen...is also the perennial question.</b> . That seems the be the core controversy. Is it real or is it Memorex? (wink) But other questions plague the theology. First, it violates the law given to Noah against blood eating. Some of Jesus' disciples, taking what he said literally, left him because of that law. Secondly, the ancients in many 'pagan' cultures believed (in modern terms) 'you are what you eat', or one could at least obtain desirable attributes/spirit of the one you ate, i.e. one could obtain courage from eating lion, or stealth from a tiger, etc. In John 6, Jesus says "...he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him". Bringing the pagan concept forward, can Jesus' ~nontangible~ spirit 'abide in' someone simply by consuming wafer and wine - even IF his physical 'substance' ~is~ actually present? And it ~could~ be present ... given that all that exists(ed) consists of common basic chemical and atomic elements (everything's made of the same 'stuff'). . <b>The lay 'priest' masses accede to the heirachal ordained 'priest', don't they.</b> . From what I've observed and read, just about every church, temple, synagogue, had and has a man-made government - a chain of command, positions of authority o
Jan 15, 2008 11:59 AM
Migisi
:
. Looks like it's just you, me, and spider now. :) . I'll be back. Chores to do.
Jan 15, 2008 5:47 PM
Brian Tubbs
:
Redback, obviously, I'm limited in my Suite101 articles (in terms of length) and therefore can't address all the different aspects of these issues.
Do other denominations / faiths have their own form of "papal authority" (whether centered on one figure or several - whether global, national, or local)? The answer is...YES.
This fact explains (partly) the wide diversity of beliefs within Protestant circles.
It does not, however, change the fact that one of the PIVOTAL points of divergence between Catholics and Protestants is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura contrasted with the perspective of "Sacred Tradition" and the practice of papal authority.
Jan 15, 2008 5:50 PM
Brian Tubbs
:
<i>Solely relying on a scripture poorly interpreted is within the doctrine of sola scriptura.</i>
You've identified the Achilles' Heel of Sola Scriptura - its primary weakness and danger.
However, this is why Protestants (by and large - there are exceptions) and especially Baptists and nondenominational evangelicals emphasize the free agency of the individual believer and the local autonomy of the church.
