All too many modern Christians are not conversant with the foundations of Christian theology. In one sense, there is no need for them to be, provided that they are willing to follow the lead of the Church. But, when any Christian considers themselves to be an absolute authority on Christian theology, then they often end up in some type of heresy that was anathematized centuries ago. Often the Christians who most often fall into some type of ancient heresy are those who appeal the most to some type of Scripture-alone interpretation, or who reject the Councils of the Church.
Now, before some jump on me, let me hasten to explain that I am not talking purely about the principle of sola scriptura. That principle has been held by non-Romans, non-Orthodox since the Reformation. I am talking about the manner in which that principle is held.
It is not well known that while the Reformers held to sola scriptura, they did not mean that only Scripture could be used and held in high value but rather that Scripture was the ultimate ground of authority in the Church. Ultimate is a different word than only. The Reformers did not hold that only Scripture could be used but that only Scripture is the ultimate authority. It is important to note that all the Reformation churches, and some of the Baptists published creeds, to which they expected their pastors to accept and to abide. They also accepted the historic Nicene Creed and the western Apostles’ Creed.
Additionally, more than one of the Reformation churches stated that the early Ecumenical Councils did indeed have a certain degree of authority in the Church. For instance, The Episcopal Church states, ” Because of their crucial role in defining the doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation, Anglicans often regard the first four councils as the most important.” The Lutherans state, “The Holy Tradition as ongoing action of the Holy Spirit in the Church expresses itself in the Church’s whole life. The decisions of the ecumenical councils and local synods of the Church, the teaching of the holy fathers and liturgical texts and rites are especially important and authoritative expressions of this manifold action of the Holy Spirit.”
What it comes down to is that only the Anabaptist or Baptistic descended churches claim that sola scriptura means “no creed but the Bible.” Because those churches have had an outsize influence in the history of American Christianity, it is common to assume in the USA that being a Christian means relying only on the Bible, with little to no reference to either the history of the Church or to the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. But, that is not the stance of the overwhelming majority of Christians around the world.
In both liberal and sola-scriptura-no-ecumenical-councils-no-creeds circles, the failure to honor the inheritance of those early Christians has led to all sorts of reprises of heresies already anathematized by those Early Councils. Liberals tend to reject both the normative authority of Scripture and the normative authority of the Early Christian Church. As a result, they develop a Christianity that would be unrecognizable to Conciliar Christianity. Oddly enough, at the other end, Anabaptistic Conservatives also develop a Christianity that would be unrecognizable to Conciliar Christianity. Both will preach sermons periodically that violate either the Councils or the Scriptures as interpreted by the Councils. And, both extremes consider themselves to have true authority to reinterpret both Scriptures and the history of the Church as they wish.
Now, neither side would ever say that they were reinterpreting as they wish, but the reality is that their unwillingness to submit to Conciliar Christianity shows that they interpret as their intellects sway them. Heresy after ancient heresy keeps turning up in both circles. Yet, both sides insist upon their personal and private authority to interpret both Church history and the Holy Scriptures as they wish. Both sides insist that those in their circles are engaging in good-will acts of interpretation. The fact that there is nowhere near close to a unity of interpretations is not an issue, supposedly. This is because both sides posit a God who will be so happy that their children were trying to interpret things correctly that there will be no consequences for a wrong interpretation. Meanwhile, denomination after denomination keeps springing up worldwide as interpretation after interpretation becomes the norm.
If we are honest, it is time for us to return to a Conciliar Christianity in which Scripture is interpreted in the light of received Traditions from the Early Church. Rather than continuing to scatter, we need to come back toward the center, toward what was received and that we must pass on. I am tired of gasping when I read yet another article by some Christian pastor who is so violating the early Councils of the Church.
Yes! This is an excellent article. It’s so discouraging when you observe someone “newly” discovering an old old heresy and presenting it with some thinly drawn verse as support. We need to lean on the Saints before!
It would be preferable if you had addressed some actual theology you disagree with and why, but as it stands I must completely disagree with the premise of this article. When it boils down to it, you are merely identifying “conciliar” Christianity as somehow preserving what those who hold to Sola Scriptura do not, without offering a substantive argument as to what particularly validates “conciliar” Christianity.
First of all, the West Romans called and they want their Empire back.
Second,
QUOTE: “they develop a Christianity that would be unrecognizable to Conciliar Christianity.”
You are quite right! We should be asking why would any Christian who looks to scripture for guidance consider “Conciliar” Christianity, which has developed in unrecognisable ways to be more authentic than the Roman Papist Empire church from which they were released? But why stop there? – WHICH Conciliar movement should be looked to as “undeveloped” in this sense – or are we to assume that somehow Conciliar – i.e. in this context EO – Christianity represents the authentic Christian faith where the Roman Church does not?
Yet EO is merely a schism of the East Roman Byzantine Empire from the West at a fixed point in time with a rationale for doing so based around their own “council” Vs that of Rome? It contains within it all of the developments in the shared Church history between the 2 basic environments, including its own versions of their rites development in Mariology (but halted), Saint Veneration, Just War, Dominionist theology, State Church governance along with all the pomp and position which accompanies it, etc.
All of which are indisputably foreign to the actual ORIGINAL Christian faith delivered by the Apostles.
Although EO is “less” developed than RCC in many areas and has resisted some of the development, the development is still there and there are many sub-splits which claim the title Orthodox as well. Plus, Eastern churches were slow to accept the Revelation of Jesus Christ in history. So what particularly validates this “Conciliar” over the ones that have said “enough” to man’s traditions and will take their lead from the God breathed scripture
Vs the blind leading the blind approach of “traditional” Christian nations?
And please believe I’m not saying this to be offensive. I’m simply suggesting that since you appear to be having a go at those who hold to Sola Scriptura principles because they do not take off their shoe and offer it to an EO priest, you should also understand there are many reasons for this!
Another of those being that Orthodox evangelism outside their own area has historically been quite sedentary?
You make some excellent points in your two comments. However, I would point to the second paragraph in my post in which I explicitly say that I am not talking about the principle of sola scriptura, per se, but about how it is handled. I cite the Reformers in a very positive way for holding to the early councils and the creeds and themselves being creedal.
That is, even as they said sola scriptura, they realized that they could not ignore the history of the Church, nor its early councils without risking ending up with a Christianity which would not be recognizable to the actual Christians of the first five centuries of the Church. Their fears came true in both the Anabaptist/Baptist movements and the Liberal movements in that both take a stance toward both Church history and Scripture that allows them to become the judge of both. Both see a human reason, powered by both scholarship and the Holy Spirit as capable of judging both Scripture and history.
Oddly enough, both the Anabaptist/Baptistic and the Liberal types say that they stick to Scripture, However, in the case of the first group, they interpret Scripture as they wish without regard to those first five centuries, ignoring them as though they had little to teach us and thus repeating the old heresies and coming up with doctrines (pre-millennial rapture followed by a millennial kingdom that were simply not found at the beginning). The second group pushes the problem back into Scripture itself, criticizing St. Paul as a misogynist who Hellenized Christianity and St. Peter as an under taught apostle. This allows them to define a Jesus who is not found in any early Christian writings and who conveniently approves all their changes to received morality.
Validating Conciliar Christianity is not as difficult as you might assume. Or, rather, if there is not a validity to Conciliar Christianity neither is there a validity to Scripture. We conveniently forget that as late as St. Athanasius in fourth century, the list of New Testament books was not settled. He was the first recorded saint to fully identify, in one of his episcopal letters, the 27 books that we consider the New Testament canon.It took nearly another century before the full Church gave the full faith and acceptance of those books. Prior to this, there were various New Testament lists with either additional books included or currently present books excluded.
Liberals use this well-documented fact to add or subtract “Scriptures” as needed. Non-Conciliar Protestants develop doctrines, such as the testimonium of Scripture, to argue that the Holy Spirit ensured that the Church recognized only the God-approved books. I find it interesting that the Holy Spirit was unable to keep the same Church from falling into untruth in just about every other subject.
Finally, the anti-developmental argument has a problem. You see, the Old Testament Jews never stayed with the Tabernacle. They developed the Temple. Then that Temple was destroyed. The Temple that Jesus worshipped in was actually the Second Temple. The anti-development argument has to argue that God would never have approved the development of Christianity from its early simpler liturgical beginnings to a more complex expression. Yet, all the very Early Church Fathers argue that they were following the traditions handed to them, even while they were developed, just as the Temple was.
I could go on, however, notice that nowhere in the article did I argue for an Eastern Orthodox or a Roman Catholic viewpoint, but rather for a more general Conciliar viewpoint.