The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Attack on Sola Scriptura

AllToHim,

In addition to Pilgrim's references above, let me recommend a fairly recent work which I found very helpful in giving a condensed, layman-accessible overview of the issues involved in the relation of Scripture to tradition; the single volume is small enough to be an evening's read:

<i>The Shape of Sola Scriptura</i> by Keith Mathison.

I think you would find it a good introduction to the core of the pro-Sola Scriptura arguments, especially since Mathison defends the reformational position in detail not only against older Roman Catholic, newer Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox positions, but also against the anti-traditional protestant "solo Scriptura" position, and the arguments of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists who frequently attack the strawman of "solo Scriptura" even though they claim to be attacking "sola Scriptura".

In a nutshell, Mathison is able to see 4 principal views of the relation between Scripture and oral tradition throughout the history of the Church, which he labels "Tradition 0" through "Tradition 3". His "Tradition 1"/T1 is what the reformed would call Sola Scriptura, in which the Scriptures faithfully contain the essence of the apostolic oral tradition, and in which the universal church tests all non-explicitly-Scriptural tradition with the Scripture as the final determining authority. He maintains that this view--basically Scripture OVER Tradition--prevailed, largely, through (this is from memory, my copy is elsewhere) the 5th-6th century in both the West and East, but between then and about the 12th C. was gradually supplanted by T2--Scripture AND tradition--in which both had equal voice at least in theory. I think he would say that T2 is still the position in the East. T3--Tradition OVER Scripture--was finally enshrined as late as the 19th C. in Rome with the settlement of papal infallibity. Then the rather odd T0--Scripture WITH NO REFERENCE to Tradition--has become the predominant de facto practice in sub-reformational evangelicalism, in which any private interpretation can hold sway with no reference to universal, historical interpretation.

I seem to remember a fair number of pages being devoted to the Eastern position, both ancient and modern, and it is a very quick read, so I think it really could give you, in the short term, a good framework from which to work out a response to what you posted.