The following is a short summary from a Logic Chapter. In it I simply outline the thought differences between what has too broadly been called:
Faith + Works v/s Sola Fide (Faith Alone)
There is a misconception that there is no place for tradition in Protestant Thought.
There is also a misconception that there is no true and valuable place for works in Protestant thought. However, Faithful Protestants believe "Faith without works is dead." as much as their Roman Catholic friends. How Protestants feel about the role of works is best defined through Ephesians 2:8-10.
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Now, on to the Comparison - all is meant kindly. Anyone who knows me knows I never intend to offend.
*iff - if and only if
: : means ... is equivalent to...
I am not a Catholic. I am a Protestant. To be very specific, I am someone who believes in Christ and the theology of the church fathers as stated in the Nicene Creed who follows the Reformed tradition. Now, how in the world did I manage to decide on so specific a statement? I mean, that’s quite an elevator speech. Can you imagine?
“So, tell me about yourself.”
“I am a thirty-eight year old mother of three who had ten years in sales and marketing, homeschooled for eight years, married, and follow the reformed traditions of the Christian church after having been a “new-ager,” and now am completing a religious studies BA at a Catholic university.”
Are you exhausted? Me, too. How in the world did I come to such a belief system? It was through a lot of reading and a lot of logic. There were assumptions to be sure and wandering through the mire of ideas and constructions was dizzying. In each situation, a complete detail of ideas and they do or do not work together is a start. Then, once these can be established, they can be examined against one another. It starts with a number of small steps which each then lead to more involved steps, definitions and hopefully an understanding if not a conclusion.
Reformed Theology is commonly known for what is called the “Cries of the Reformation”: Sola Scriptura, Sola Gracia, Sola Fide, Sola Christus, Soli Deo Gloria. This means: Scriptura Alone [preaching] Grace Alone through Faith Alone in Christ Alone to the Glory of God Alone.
The very first cry of “Sola Scriptura” is at the heart of all subsequent theology. According to the reformers, scripture alone determines orthodoxy in the Christian church. This is the first and main point of contention between the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and the reformers (TR). Scripture alone or scripture plus tradition? The answer appears to be, “yes.”
Logically, this is instantly a Tautology. It is not satisfying in any way to the inquirer, but it is valid nonetheless. According to www.britannica.com, the statement “cannot but be true because it asserts every possible state of affairs: it is true whichsoever of its constituents are true, and it is also true whichsoever are false.”
So, proper Christian theology is scripture & tradition and not scripture & tradition.
Or, Christian theology is Scripture plus tradition and not plus tradition.
In conversations and readings on both sides of the argument, I have found the difficulty lies in the definition of the meaning of Sola Scriptura and in the meaning of tradition. My RC friends state that simply by its own words, sola scriptura is self-referentially absurd. They assert that one cannot declare all to be revealed in scripture alone when scripture alone doesn’t even declare which books are scripture; only tradition has settled which books are in the canon.
My R friends respond by saying that such a definition is purposefully obtuse because the reformers themselves do not deny tradition, merely that all tradition must be consistent with scripture alone on not only with other tradition.
S: Scripture C: Canon T: Tradition O: Orthodoxy
So, my RC friends assert that what is true is:
C : : T ∙ S
O : : T ∙ C
My R friends however, believe the following:
C : : T ∙ S
O : : T ∙ S iff T : : ~(~S)
Ultimately the issue is what defines tradition? Which traditions are consistent with scripture? Which traditions conflict with scripture? If they conflict with scripture or seem a poor extrapolation of scripture (an eisegesis) then should the ideas be held because of their instance by the RCC or should they be rejected because they conflict with the plain reading of scripture?
So, who and what determine tradition? According to the RCC, tradition is based on the continuing revelation to the Magisterium (the collection of the pope and bishops). So now there is a new term which is R: Revelation. To keep the definitions fair, the RCC states that there is no new revelation insofar as an addition to the canon of scripture.
“God has reveled himself fully by sending his own Son, in whom he has established his covenant forever. The son is his Father’s definitive Word; so there will be no further Revelation after him.” Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 73
Here both sides agree.
S → R
S
R
But, in CCC 66, the RCC declares, “Yet, even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.” How does Christian faith grasp full significance? “The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.” CCC 2051
Let’s call the saving truths equivalent with O, orthodoxy. And M: Magisterium
O iff M
What my R friends assert is that the Magisterium has declared dogmas which are not consistent with Holy Scripture. If they are correct, then the following would be true.
O iff S
S : : ~M (at least some of the time)
[so] O : : ~M
Therefore, the next question (at the assumption that all tradition must be consistent with scripture) is for one to examine if the Magisterium is consistent or inconsistent with scripture.
Back again – Sola Scriptura?
My hope is to begin with these simple elements and move them forward. As a visual learner, I’m extremely tempted to cover the wall with paper and just begin using the elements and rules to make a greater determination. But at the end of the day, the one learned is that usually the best I can hope for is consistency in the argument. The things of God become mystery at some point.
