Interesting that you cite the growth of Protestantism as a key point of "evidence" for its veracity. Could you not make the same claim for any other religion, such as Islam?
I would reconsider your prior assumptions.
Also, how would you answer the objection of:
* Sola Scriptura is nowhere to be found in Sacred Scripture. The closest approximation is in one of Timothy's letters, but that just deals with the fact that Scripture is useful for teaching and without error (and even still, which books did Timothy specifically have in mind when he wrote that). This is different than saying Sacred Scripture is the only source for the deposit of faith.
* And on the contrary, Sacred Scripture arises from Sacred Tradition. This is merely a basic, chronological fact of history, given that it was through the authority of the Church (as established by Christ Himself) that we now "know" which books to include in the list of books, that we now call the "Bible".
2 Thessalonians 2:15
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."
"Either by word of mouth or by letter". We should pause and reread this 5 times slowly to really let it sink in, before personal confirmation bias and emotions get in the way.
The fullness of Divine Revelation occurred through the Incarnation, Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. This revelation was handed on to others through both word and letter. And we should not forget that for many centuries, the Christian believer only had access to the oral tradition.
John 21:25
"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."
The doctrine of sola scriptura would suggest that all these "other things" aren't *that* important because we didn't write them down. Personally, I prefer to have MORE of Jesus, not less. Thank God that he has provided us with the fullness of the faith through his spouse, the Church.
Finally, let us remember that Jesus did not leave us with a book, he left us with the Church. Sacred Scripture is infallible and should be revered, but we should not arbitrarily discard the Sacred Tradition and Succession that Christ established. Without Sacred Tradition, we wouldn't know the specific details of things like the Trinity, the fact that Jesus was 100% God and 100% Man at the same time, etc.... And again, we wouldn't even know which books to include in Sacred Scripture! Would you disagree with this seemingly obvious point?
Sola scriptura is a reactionary invention of the Protestants, in response to the corruption they saw within the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church had its own reformers whom God used to restore balance; unfortunately folks like Luther took it too far and decided to leave the Church and quit entirely. Now many Christians have fallen into the illusion that they can be their own "church" , subject to however their own conscience personally interacts with the Sacred Scripture (while holding fingers crossed, metaphorically speaking, that it's the Holy Spirit inspiring their personal rendition of the faith, which is one of 10,000+ alternatives), disregarding the lineage of truth, goodness, and beauty, which has been handed off from one generation to the next, since Jesus Christ walked this earth.
I pray the Church may be reunified in this next era of human civilization.
You may have some points, but how do you deal with the Orthodox churches? They undoubtably have an equal claim on Church tradition and history, and yet both sides have serious issues with the other, including the filioque for the Orthodox, and the rejection of the Pope by the Roman Catholics.
Besides, the Sacred Scripture point is usually resolved by marking the Nicene Creed and corresponding council as the last fully accepted and therefore valid universal Christian truth, although I wouldn't say that is a good answer, at least not without answering some tough questions, simply acknowledging some counterpoints.
I agree that sola scriptura is not discernible from within the Bible itself, and in fact the opposite is pretty clear. Paul frequently tells his churches to follow what he has taught them both in letter and in person. The former is "scripture" (written); the latter is "tradition" (practices). Sola scriptura would be if the church of Corinth, upon hearing of Paul's execution in Rome, said, "well, everybody forget everything you thought Paul taught you; we're only going to use what he wrote in those two letters now." They didn't do that. That would be insane.
I believe the Orthodox have best retained this combination of scripture and practice, and also never went down the hard scholastic / nominalist road that Catholicism (and Protestantism) did. When I started this blog I didn't realize that, but I'm fairly sure will my spiritual home will eventually be in Orthodoxy.
I assure you that not all Protestantism is 'nominalist.' While certain segments are or may be, as a Lutheran I can assure you we retain a firm (albeit not as loudly proclaimed compared to the RC) trust in natural law. I agree that nominalism is a plague upon the church however, and acknowledge it has its place among some Lutheran congregants, although not ever in doctrine.
There are also a number of questionable practices that the Orthodox have retained, for me most notably (although I am sure there are others, I just haven't done a ton of research on the matter) the retention of the Apocrypha. The Protestant fathers were at least right in one thing when they pointed out the ridiculousness of a faith (Christianity) that is supposedly the New Israel adding books to the Bible (the OT) that Israel and the Jews never did.
While we should value these books more in Protestantism than we presently do (considering the high respect granted them throughout early Christendom) I presently believe they clearly shouldn't be a part of Holy Scripture and help reveal some inherent flaws in the Orthodox/Roman Catholic approach to things.
And Peter and Jude quote Enoch, which Eastern Orthodox tradition does not affirm as Scriptural. The mere quoting of text in the Bible, does not itself prove its position in Scripture. I still don't have a firm stance on the whole issue, not having done nearly enough reading nor prayer, but I can at least say that particular argument is too simple.
The last part about Luther's "wanting an excuse to throw out James" is at best conjecture. I've read the texts where he discusses James, Jude, Hebrews and the like, and it seems far more so that he didn't want to throw James out despite some serious doubts regarding theology and its historical position in the church, because he seriously liked it and its beauty.
It would be my contention that Luther seriously loved many of the Apocrypha, especially Tobit, but found himself forced to by the realities of the situation. He mentions how Tobit in particular was a struggle because it fully aligns with Scripture (as far as he can tell) in teaching and wisdom, and has a lot to offer faithful believers.
I will mention I am interested in hearing rebuttals of these points, perhaps you have some sources, because while I am a Protestant I am not confidently so.
I am not so certain about the "filioque is not an issue" either. I have heard some Orthodox say such things, but I have also heard other Orthodox priests denouncing it as the "fundamental flaw/heresy of Catholicism," and other dramatic statements. It seems (from the outside at least) the question of the filioque and its importance are in dispute within Eastern Orthodoxy.
246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."75
247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447,76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.
248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason",78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.
------
In other words, it's a both/and, in different senses.
Yes, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. But yes we can also say that it's Father and Son, because the everything that belongs to the Father has been given to the Son.
I think there was some council or event in recent years between Catholics and Orthodox that even issues some sort of joint declaration - I forget exactly.
---
With respect to the books, it's true that merely quoting something doesn't automatically mean you believe it's infallible. Though at the same time, Jesus and the apostles weren't merely just quoting it. It was used in very authoritative sense.
Frankly, much of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount appeared to be inspired by the Book of Sirach.
But let me flip it back and ask you two questions:
1) If the Church had one Bible and Canon until 1500 years later when Luther decided to remove some books, don't you think the unbiased thing would be to start with this original Bible (used by the Church for ~1,500 years) and then put the scrutiny and burden of proof on Luther and those who wanted to introduce a **change** to how the Church had been operating since the canon of Scripture was first formed ?
2) I encourage you to read Sirach and the book of Wisdom, for example. It's like Proverbs on steroids. When I first converted, I was expecting that when I read the deutorocanonical books (which Protestants call the "apocrypha") they would be like a lower-tier, not as solid type of scripture.
On the contrary! I soon discovered that there are some of the BEST books of the Bible. The teaching is so rich. I'd encourage you to on your own read through these and see what parts you would actually end up organically object to.
Instead, I would expect that you'll find them edifying to your journey as a Christian.
Interesting that you cite the growth of Protestantism as a key point of "evidence" for its veracity. Could you not make the same claim for any other religion, such as Islam?
I would reconsider your prior assumptions.
Also, how would you answer the objection of:
* Sola Scriptura is nowhere to be found in Sacred Scripture. The closest approximation is in one of Timothy's letters, but that just deals with the fact that Scripture is useful for teaching and without error (and even still, which books did Timothy specifically have in mind when he wrote that). This is different than saying Sacred Scripture is the only source for the deposit of faith.
* And on the contrary, Sacred Scripture arises from Sacred Tradition. This is merely a basic, chronological fact of history, given that it was through the authority of the Church (as established by Christ Himself) that we now "know" which books to include in the list of books, that we now call the "Bible".
2 Thessalonians 2:15
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."
"Either by word of mouth or by letter". We should pause and reread this 5 times slowly to really let it sink in, before personal confirmation bias and emotions get in the way.
The fullness of Divine Revelation occurred through the Incarnation, Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. This revelation was handed on to others through both word and letter. And we should not forget that for many centuries, the Christian believer only had access to the oral tradition.
John 21:25
"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."
The doctrine of sola scriptura would suggest that all these "other things" aren't *that* important because we didn't write them down. Personally, I prefer to have MORE of Jesus, not less. Thank God that he has provided us with the fullness of the faith through his spouse, the Church.
Finally, let us remember that Jesus did not leave us with a book, he left us with the Church. Sacred Scripture is infallible and should be revered, but we should not arbitrarily discard the Sacred Tradition and Succession that Christ established. Without Sacred Tradition, we wouldn't know the specific details of things like the Trinity, the fact that Jesus was 100% God and 100% Man at the same time, etc.... And again, we wouldn't even know which books to include in Sacred Scripture! Would you disagree with this seemingly obvious point?
Sola scriptura is a reactionary invention of the Protestants, in response to the corruption they saw within the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church had its own reformers whom God used to restore balance; unfortunately folks like Luther took it too far and decided to leave the Church and quit entirely. Now many Christians have fallen into the illusion that they can be their own "church" , subject to however their own conscience personally interacts with the Sacred Scripture (while holding fingers crossed, metaphorically speaking, that it's the Holy Spirit inspiring their personal rendition of the faith, which is one of 10,000+ alternatives), disregarding the lineage of truth, goodness, and beauty, which has been handed off from one generation to the next, since Jesus Christ walked this earth.
I pray the Church may be reunified in this next era of human civilization.
You may have some points, but how do you deal with the Orthodox churches? They undoubtably have an equal claim on Church tradition and history, and yet both sides have serious issues with the other, including the filioque for the Orthodox, and the rejection of the Pope by the Roman Catholics.
Besides, the Sacred Scripture point is usually resolved by marking the Nicene Creed and corresponding council as the last fully accepted and therefore valid universal Christian truth, although I wouldn't say that is a good answer, at least not without answering some tough questions, simply acknowledging some counterpoints.
I agree that sola scriptura is not discernible from within the Bible itself, and in fact the opposite is pretty clear. Paul frequently tells his churches to follow what he has taught them both in letter and in person. The former is "scripture" (written); the latter is "tradition" (practices). Sola scriptura would be if the church of Corinth, upon hearing of Paul's execution in Rome, said, "well, everybody forget everything you thought Paul taught you; we're only going to use what he wrote in those two letters now." They didn't do that. That would be insane.
I believe the Orthodox have best retained this combination of scripture and practice, and also never went down the hard scholastic / nominalist road that Catholicism (and Protestantism) did. When I started this blog I didn't realize that, but I'm fairly sure will my spiritual home will eventually be in Orthodoxy.
I assure you that not all Protestantism is 'nominalist.' While certain segments are or may be, as a Lutheran I can assure you we retain a firm (albeit not as loudly proclaimed compared to the RC) trust in natural law. I agree that nominalism is a plague upon the church however, and acknowledge it has its place among some Lutheran congregants, although not ever in doctrine.
There are also a number of questionable practices that the Orthodox have retained, for me most notably (although I am sure there are others, I just haven't done a ton of research on the matter) the retention of the Apocrypha. The Protestant fathers were at least right in one thing when they pointed out the ridiculousness of a faith (Christianity) that is supposedly the New Israel adding books to the Bible (the OT) that Israel and the Jews never did.
While we should value these books more in Protestantism than we presently do (considering the high respect granted them throughout early Christendom) I presently believe they clearly shouldn't be a part of Holy Scripture and help reveal some inherent flaws in the Orthodox/Roman Catholic approach to things.
The filioque is no longer an issue.
Papal authority remains the only real difference between Catholics and Orthodox.
Also your statement about "adding books to the Bibles that the Jews never did" is a false one.
Or at least, why did Jesus and his disciples so heavily rely on the Septuagint and quote some of these books, which you claim are illegitimate?
The truth is that we had the proper Bible, then Luther decided to get rid of books that he didn't like and used the weak Jewish argument as an excuse.
If it was up to Luther and he could have had the excuse, he would have gotten rid of the book of James
And Peter and Jude quote Enoch, which Eastern Orthodox tradition does not affirm as Scriptural. The mere quoting of text in the Bible, does not itself prove its position in Scripture. I still don't have a firm stance on the whole issue, not having done nearly enough reading nor prayer, but I can at least say that particular argument is too simple.
The last part about Luther's "wanting an excuse to throw out James" is at best conjecture. I've read the texts where he discusses James, Jude, Hebrews and the like, and it seems far more so that he didn't want to throw James out despite some serious doubts regarding theology and its historical position in the church, because he seriously liked it and its beauty.
It would be my contention that Luther seriously loved many of the Apocrypha, especially Tobit, but found himself forced to by the realities of the situation. He mentions how Tobit in particular was a struggle because it fully aligns with Scripture (as far as he can tell) in teaching and wisdom, and has a lot to offer faithful believers.
I will mention I am interested in hearing rebuttals of these points, perhaps you have some sources, because while I am a Protestant I am not confidently so.
I am not so certain about the "filioque is not an issue" either. I have heard some Orthodox say such things, but I have also heard other Orthodox priests denouncing it as the "fundamental flaw/heresy of Catholicism," and other dramatic statements. It seems (from the outside at least) the question of the filioque and its importance are in dispute within Eastern Orthodoxy.
I appreciate your levelheadedness and open-minded curiosity about these things.
FWIW I used to be an Anti-Catholic Protestant.
Regarding: the Filioque, please see the following from the Catholic catechism, paragraphs 246-248 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#246):
246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."75
247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447,76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.
248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason",78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.
------
In other words, it's a both/and, in different senses.
Yes, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. But yes we can also say that it's Father and Son, because the everything that belongs to the Father has been given to the Son.
I think there was some council or event in recent years between Catholics and Orthodox that even issues some sort of joint declaration - I forget exactly.
---
With respect to the books, it's true that merely quoting something doesn't automatically mean you believe it's infallible. Though at the same time, Jesus and the apostles weren't merely just quoting it. It was used in very authoritative sense.
Frankly, much of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount appeared to be inspired by the Book of Sirach.
But let me flip it back and ask you two questions:
1) If the Church had one Bible and Canon until 1500 years later when Luther decided to remove some books, don't you think the unbiased thing would be to start with this original Bible (used by the Church for ~1,500 years) and then put the scrutiny and burden of proof on Luther and those who wanted to introduce a **change** to how the Church had been operating since the canon of Scripture was first formed ?
2) I encourage you to read Sirach and the book of Wisdom, for example. It's like Proverbs on steroids. When I first converted, I was expecting that when I read the deutorocanonical books (which Protestants call the "apocrypha") they would be like a lower-tier, not as solid type of scripture.
On the contrary! I soon discovered that there are some of the BEST books of the Bible. The teaching is so rich. I'd encourage you to on your own read through these and see what parts you would actually end up organically object to.
Instead, I would expect that you'll find them edifying to your journey as a Christian.