Protestantism is based on several Traditions of Men which originated, or were publicly enunciated, in the 16th Century.  Of these, I want to examine two -- those having to do with the place of Scripture in Christianity, and how it is interpreted.

Sola Scriptura

    "Sola Scriptura" is the product of the fertile minds of Philip Melanchthon and Ulrich Zwingli, who publicly announced it in 1535.  As rhetoric -- propaganda against the admittedly erratic teachings of the late Middle Ages -- it is brilliant.  As theology , it stinks.  There is evidence of people using the principle on and off through the history of the Church, but 1535 is the first time it becomes a principle at the base of Ecclesiology and Theology.

    What Sola Scriptura says is that the Bible contains all of Christian teaching.  It also says that the Church takes its authority from the Bible.   Both of these are laughable, when examined historically.

    The printed King James Version of the Bible did not fall out of the sky, full and complete, before the adoring eyes of the Protestant divines. There is a long history to the Bible, going back to about 40-45 AD -- the earliest date for one of Paul's Epistles. After that, there were other writings -- hundreds and hundreds, if early sources are to be believed -- from which the overall Church chose those which best reflected the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.

    It was written over a period of time by the luminaries of the Early Church -- Apostles and their successors (Mark was the secretary of Peter, and became Patriarch of Alexandria; Luke knew James, in Jerusalem, and likely Mary and John).  It was edited during the period 200 to 400 A.D. by a process of prayerful dialogue between Churches, of which we get glimpses in the work of Eusebius of Caesarea, the first Church historian, writing in the late 300s.  It was published by Church Councils --- like Hippo in about 400 A.D., which defined a Canon, which was then accepted, with some emendations, by the rest of Christendom, and used, and copied, and broadcast.

    The Bible is the Church's written witness to Her Savior, and to the teachings received from His Apostles.  It is in no way complete -- John says, at the end of his Gospel:  "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." (John, 21:25).  Both Jesus and the Apostles said and did many  more things than are contained in the New Testament -- and taught things not captured there.

    Jesus also gave to the Apostles the power and authority to govern the Church as they saw fit -- which they did, later, in abolishing the requirement that Christians observe the minutiae of the Jewish Law.  "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." (Acts 15:28-29)

    Notice that the decision is not made by one man, but by the Church met in Council, prayerfully invoking the Holy Spirit, and discussing the matter.  This has been the pattern followed by the Successors of the Apostles -- Bishops -- from that day to this.  authority rests in the whole Church, and the voice of the Holy Spirit speaks through the Councils and Synods.

    Not, be it noted, to the individual.  

Solo Mio

    Which brings me to the second Tradition of Men:  Solo Mio.   By this I mean the almost universal Protestant idea that:  "I (and only I) am the sole infallible interpreter of Scripture."  This idea has popped up in one form and another throughout the Church's history, and been roundly condemned as heresy.

    Peter, in his 2nd Epistle, says:  "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation," (2 Peter 1:20).  Valid Prophecy is not a matter of individual interpretation, nor is the interpretation of Scripture an individual exercise.

    It always amazes me when Protestants  go on about Papal Infallibility -- he is the only Catholic who claims that, while each and every Protestant does.  Sheer, amazing, laughable hypocrisy.

    The argument usually goes:  "The Spirit told me", or "The Spirit guides me".   Yeah, sure.

    The Holy Spirit does, indeed, talk to individuals, but for individual edification only.  Not for teaching in the Church.

    The "spirit" who whispers in the ear of the Protestant is the spirit of divisiveness and heresy -- which is the Greek word for individual interpretation.  The fruit of this spirit -- by which we judge it -- is the multitudes of little Protestant sects in storefront churches, each divided from the other by differences in interpretation.  Thousands of them.  Hundreds of different sorts of Baptists.

How does the Church Interpret Scripture?

    First, by looking at how the Church has already interpreted that Scripture.  We have been doing interpretations for some 2,000 years, and there is an enormous corpus of written interpretation.  In most cases, it is not necessary to create an interpretation for every verse of the Bible -- it's been done, and done, and done for the last 2 millenia.  Councils only issue rulings on belief when there is an argument.  The first Ecumenical council at Nicea, in 325 AD, was called to deal with the Arian heresy -- the individual idea that Jesus was not God, but just a man especially blessed by God.  They do no rule on what everyone believes. Thus, there are things that every Christian believes devoutly, which were never captured in Scripture.

    Second, by discussion -- long discussion.  Every part of the Church needs to comment on a new idea or a new practice.  Most things fall by the wayside -- they are forgotten, and don't influence the Faith.  Others prevail -- the whole body of the Church takes them to heart and lives them.
 
    The Church has a continuous and unbroken history, from Jesus to the present day -- there was no 1400 year gap from 100 AD (Death of John) to 1500 (the Protestant Deformation).  And no chaos of competing individual interpretations.  

The Epistemological Question: "How do you  know that?"

    . . . is one the practitioner of "Solo Mio" cannot answer.  

    He will go around in circles, saying "The Spirit told me." 
    To which the answer is "How do you know which spirit that it?",
    Which usually gets "The Spirit agrees with the Bible.".  
    The next round is:  "Your spirit tells you how to interpret the Bible, yes?"
    "Yes."
    Next I ask: "And you judge the spirit by how well it agrees with how that spirit has told you to interpret the Bible, yes?
    "Yes."
    "How do you know who or what spirit that is?'
    At which point they start foaming at the mouth.

    At BEST, that spirit is their own imagination -- which is shown by the thousands of little Protestant sects, each shrilly maintaining the infallibility of their interpretation, above all others.  At worst, it leads to things like the Jehovah's Witnesses, with their denial of Jesus' divinity and their lies and brainwashing.  They have no assurance that anything they say or do is correct -- no authority whatever.  Simply individual caprice.

    The Church, on the other hand, can point to a direct line of authority, through the Bishops to the Apostles and Christ Himself, and to a tried and tested means of determining correct interpretation -- the Conciliar model.

---

Click here to comment