Basic Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

The title says it all.  If you're struggling with the basics of how to present Orthodox views on theology with a Protestant, here are a few of the basic ways to argue against Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura comes in a variety of forms, but ultimately teaches (in all its forms) that Scripture should form not only the core of how Christians "do" theology, but indeed should be the sole input into that theology.  This gets presented in different ways, which I'll label "prima scriptura," "sola scriptura" and "solo scriptura"

Prima Scriptura: The scriptures should provide the highest norm against which theology is checked.  They have a veto power over any theology, though other sources may produce theology.  Things not explicitly forbidden in Scripture are probably ok provided they fit within the general theology of Christianity.

Sola Scriptura: Scripture is the sole content of theology when properly harmonized with itself.  Theology that is not directly traceable to Scripture should be denied.  It is ok for things that are direct implications of Scripture to be believed and practiced, and it is ok for non-theological practices (i.e. style of music) to change.

Solo Scriputura: Scripture is the sole content of theology and ONLY those practices specifically COMMANDED or permitted by Scripture ought to be practiced by the Church.  Nothing else; nothing less.

On the Reality of the Eucharist: Part Two

So, to recap, we have four "basic" understandings that we could take from those three passages:

1. Eucharist is a command and the real flesh and blood of Christ.
2. Communion is a command, but is metaphorical.
3. Communion is not a command, but is real flesh and blood.
4. Communion is not a command, and was just symbolic.

Number three seems the least likely to be forwarded, but remains plausible from a strictly textual standpoint.

I have a few passages from various early church fathers to post here, and I'll explain them after the jump:

On the Reality of the Eucharist: Part One

There are several approaches one can take to discussing / debating the sacraments (in particular the Eucharist) with those who teach a “merely symbolic” view.  Generally, those holding to a non-sacramental view believe in sola-scriptura, and this complicates the debate.  Any argument you utilize (even from Scripture) may or may not be dismissed as mere adherence to tradition.  As such, the debate on this issue typically falls back into a debate on sola-scriptura vs. not-sola-scriptura.  One approach, then, is simply to argue against sola-scriptura.

A second approach is to refuse to engage in the sola-scriptura debate and to focus on deep exegetical debates over the relevant passages of Scripture.  Ultimately, I do think this can succeed, but not in a short and casual debate.  Additionally, though many won’t like what I’m about to say, the Scriptures have a lot of ambiguity.  That makes debating over them rather difficult.  It’s the same difficulty people have in debating over literature – there are “better” interpretations (more insightful, more honest to the text), but it is difficult to establish (on the basis of the text itself) a single, correct, interpretation.  Indeed, even the literary theory (new historicist, formalist, phenomenological, etc.) can vary.  In a certain sense, this is the real issue between sola-scriptura and more traditional systems.  We agree (to a point) on the text, but have different theories of interpretation.

So a third approach, the one I prefer and will use in this post, is to utilize the debate over the meaning of the Eucharist to demonstrate WHY sola-scriptura produces more division and tradition works better to produce concrete answers.  This works, in particular, because the earliest sources really do show a consensus on the meaning of communion.  Why?  Because the docetist heresy denied the Eucharist’s reality (along with denying that Christ ever had a body at all), and this gave occasion to orthodox writers to defend the reality of the Eucharist.

Continued below the jump.