Sola Scriptura

The Sin Of Democracy

Our modern age has drunk the kool-aid of philosophical democracy (the autonomous authority of the individual) to the dregs and seeks to use the Bible to underwrite the project. A book that could not have been owned by an individual prior to the printing press in the 15th century (by reason of cost) cannot be used philosophically to support the autonomy of the individual right and competency to read and interpret. With the sole exception of Philemon, the letters of the New Testament are not written to individuals (Timothy and Titus receive letters only by virtue of their position as leaders of a community). They are letters to the Church and the individual is not a Church. The practice of the reading of Scripture for nearly 1400 years was largely that of listening to its being read within the assembly of the Church - and this continued for quite some time even after the printing press' advent. The doctrine of "soul competency" is a modern invention, contrary to the New Testament itself and the practice of primitive and early Christianity. The Kingdom of God is not a democracy. Every pretender to its throne is a usurper. -- Fr. Stephen Freeman

Salvation by Grace Through Faith

Much of what today passes for Protestantism is nothing of the sort. Rather, it is a thinly veiled cloak for the democratic spirit at "prayer." Salvation by grace through faith is a slogan for individualism, a Christianity "by right." There are no works, no requirements, only a "grace-filled" entitlement. For the ultimate form of democracy is the person who needs no one else: no Church, no priest, no sacrament, only the God of my understanding who saves me by grace. -- Fr. Stephen Freeman

*Note

Much of the following was taken from a series of podcasts by Matthew Gallatin

Apostles themselves did not believe in Sola Scriptura

The truth is not in scripture; the truth is in the Church of the Living God.

I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you in case I am delayed, to let you know how people ought to conduct themselves in the household of God, because it is the church of the living God, the support and bulwark of the truth. -- 1 Tim 3:14-15 (NET)

Advocates of Sola Scriptura turn to 2 Timothy for support:

Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work. -- 2 Tim 3:16-17 (NET)

However, this passage only supports Sola Scriptura if one has already assumed that Sola Scriptura is right. First, what is St. Paul talking about here when he speaks of scripture? Since there was no New Testament at that time, he can only be referring to the Old Testament; the scriptures that Timothy has known since childhood (v.15). If we examine what the Apostles taught, we find them often in conflict to what is taught in the Old Testament. So the Apostles themselves did not believe in Sola Scriptura (Gal 4:9-11 and Col 2:16-17 vs Lev 23).

More evidence that the Apostles did not follow Sola Scriptura

In Acts 15 we hear the story of Paul and Barnabas, upon returning to Jerusalem, reporting about the conversion of the gentiles. And it says,

But some from the religious party of the Pharisees who had believed stood up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise the Gentiles and to order them to observe the law of Moses." -- Acts 15:5 (NET)

The scripture goes on to relate that the apostles and elders met together to deliberate on this issue. Peter finally settled the debate, saying,

"Brothers, you know that some time ago God chose me to preach to the Gentiles so they would hear the message of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, has testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between them and us, cleansing their hearts by faith. So now why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they are." -- Acts 15:7-11 (NET)

So, it was decided that the gentiles would not be required to be circumcised. Yet, if the apostles had been committed to the doctrine of sola scriptura at that time, it would have favored those believing pharisees who were insisting that the gentiles be circumcised. Peter did not rely on the scriptures to settle the matter. Instead Peter appealed to the witness of his experience with the Holy Spirit. To which the council fell silent. Peter's testimony was followed by Paul's and Barnabas'. In this way, the first great doctrinal challenge of the Church was settled, not by a "sola scriptura" appeal to the Bible, but by an appeal of the apostles' experience with the Holy Spirit -- an experience which they held to be the final authority for their decisions.

It is important to note that St. James reminded the council that what was witnessed by Peter, Paul, and Barnabas, et al, agreed with what was written by the prophet Amos,

"After this I will return,

and I will rebuild the fallen tent of David;

I will rebuild its ruins and restore it,

so that the rest of humanity may seek the Lord,

namely, all the Gentiles I have called to be my own." -- Acts 15:16,17 (NET)

This is not a direct scriptural argument against circumcision, rather James was proving that God was bringing gentiles into His fold, and all could see that they were experiencing the Holy Spirit without being circumcised. If God was not requiring it, why should men, regardless of what the scriptures said?

The living witness, of the living spirit, within the living body of the living Christ, the Church of the living God was what the apostles of the early Church looked to for the truth. Of course the holy scriptures were part of that witness, as James indicated. So the decision of the first council was consistent with scripture, but scripture was not the ultimate authority.