The vast majority of Protestants (in whatever group, or in no organized group at all) tend to question suspiciously everything that the Catholic Church has done since the beginning of the Reformation movement. These same people will not question the decisions made in Catholicism prior to that point. When asked, many of them believe that the contents of the Bible were determined at an Ecumenical ("churchwide") Council many years ago; therefore, they only question the deuterocanonical (or "apocryphal") books that were excluded by Martin Luther. Some protestant groups question the practice of infant baptism, but as we will observe shortly, infant baptism was affirmed at an Ecumenical Council. On the whole, it appears that many of the strongest statements by protestants made in favor of the early councils are made so that certain doctrines will not be questions. Chief among those "unquestionable" doctrines is that of the Trinity, which they believe to have been understood since the First Century.
In a public letter addressed to me, one protestant minister wrote:
"We make a distiction [sic] between what the early
church may have said and done and that which was decided in formal ecumenical
councils. For example, the early church may have used various extrabiblical
books not in our canon. But when they met to agree on which books were
inspired, their consensus in the ecumenical counsels should settle the matter
for us."
That particular minister was confusing certain REGIONAL councils with the Ecumenical (i.e., churchwide) councils. So, let us define for Protestants what were the Ecumenical Councils, and what did they address?
The six Ecumenical Councils generally accepted by both the Eastern and Western Church (as well as the Church of England, in general) were as follows:
In addition, the following Ecumenical Councils occurred prior to the East/West split:
Baptists, who do not believe that baptism is part of the salvation process, have said to me that none of the councils was called to address the topic of baptismal regeneration. Therefore, they conclude, their objections to the notion of baptismal regeneration are essentially objections to something that was never decided on prior to the Reformation. On the other hand, we'll see that B.R. was in unanimous practice throughout the church during the period when those councils occurred; therefore, there was no need to address an issue over which there was no controversy. The question that I want to raise is whether or not that makes them right. Does a unanimous practice between the fourth and seventh centuries necessarily coincide with the original teachings of the apostles? I claim that this is not necessarily the case. The only serious question regarding baptism seems to have been whether the person performing the baptism and/or the recipient of the sacrament had to in some way. This schism was never labeled a heresy. Questions also arose as to under what situations someone would have to be baptized a second time, but no Ecumenical Council ever addressed those questions.
However, if it can be shown that practices found "objectionable" by some Protestants were deliberately affirmed in Ecumenical Councils, then why shouldn't all of the councils be questioned? If anyone is to tend toward sola scriptura, then no human judgment must ever be taken as having deciding power. My pastor contact was also incorrect in saying that an Ecumenical Council addressed the issue of the canon of the OT or NT prior to the Reformation. Let's look at that for a moment.
As the Catholic Encyclopedia indicates, there was considerable dispute about the books through the fifth century, with local groups issuing statements as to which books they used. Revelation was in dispute in some circles in the eighth century. After that time, discussion died down because the disputes essentially ceased. No final decision was ever made about the canon until the Council of Trent (1546). Why? Because by that time the Reformation was vocal in wanting to exclude the deuterocanonical books. The only firm decision made by an Ecumenical Council about the canon was made in reaction to the Protestant movement.
This Protestant scholar's page also makes the case that the canon was not settled until Trent, meaning that (in his view) Luther and his followers were justified in separating out the deuterocanonical books from the OT and NT.
The decision of the Council of Trent in history is undeniable, given the historical record. So plain is that record that one Catholic scholar states, "The Canon of the Bible was determined by the Catholic Church. Thus, 'sola Scriptura' necessarily requires a Tradition and Catholic (conciliar and papal) Authority. Not to mention the preservation of Bible manuscripts by monks." (Is Catholicism Christian?, by Dave Armstrong, debating James White) Anderson pleads a case that the New Testament canon was limited by the Council of Carthage (397). It would be inaccurate, though, to say that the whole canon was decided and closed then, because there was still dispute among Catholics afterward, and the statement at Carthage was not made at a churchwide council but at a council limited to Catholics in Africa. In fact, the OT list given at Carthage (Canon 24) includes Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Odes of Solomon, all of which are excluded by Protestants today. In Fact, the Odes are rejected fairly universally among Christians. Another Catholic site is somewhat more precise:
"Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books. The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.
"There was no canon of scripture in the early Church; there was no Bible. The Bible is the book of the Church; she is not the Church of the Bible. It was the Church--her leadership, faithful people--guided by the authority of the Spirit of Truth which discovered the books inspired by God in their writing." (from Catholic Apologetics)
In the view of the Catholic Church, the canon was "discovered" by the Catholic Church, through the authority and guidance of God. This is a very strong view that in essence subjects the Bible itself to the authority granted to it by tradition. If you're a Protestant reader, you're shaking your head right now, but Catholics are right in saying that the complete and infallable list of books was not declared until after the reformation began. They are also correct in stating that Luther's Reformation disagreed with the decision, but the canon had not been infallably decided prior to that time. Therefore, must Protestants rely even on later Ecumenical Councils? Or should they reject the incomplete statements of the earlier local councils? Which councils ought to be called into question? And if any, why not them all?
In fact, it is very constructive to examine precisely what the first six councils did decide. Some Protestants, for example, claim that the Ecumenical Councils explicitly rejected the idea of "subordination in the godhead." Did they discuss "subordination" or not? What were the issues involved? I searched the writings that I have access to and could find no direct statement regarding subordination in the Trinity. However, here is what I did discover:
As we all know, Nicaea addressed Arianism explicitly. The other "heresies regarding the person of Christ" were not explicitly mentioned; however, their statement was detailed enough so that it certainly excluded things like gnosticism (in all of its forms). Using the statements of Eusebius as a base, the Council explicitly declared Jesus to be:
"the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made...."
The belief that was anathematized and declared heretical included Arianism specifically:
"Those who say, "there was [a time]
when he was not,'
and, 'Before he was begotten he was not,'
and that, 'He came into being from what is not,'
or those who allege that the son of God is
'of another substance or essence'
or 'created'
or 'changeable'
or 'alterable,'
these the universal and apostolic church
anathematizes."
The creed was restated slightly at the Council of Constantinople, because there was still a hot debate about the subject. Quoting from Documents of the Christian Church, an explanation is given as to the restatement of the Creed at Constantinople:
"The decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority, and they were misunderstood and disliked by many who were not adherents of Arius. In particular the terms 'of the substance' and 'same substance' aroused opposition, on the grounds that they were unscriptural, novel, tending to Sabellianism...and erroneous metaphysically."
Throughout the fourth century, attempts were made to eliminate or perhaps redefine certain elements of the Creed of Nicaea. Toward the end of the century, dispute arose as to whether to emphasize the divinity of Jesus or his humanity. Apollinarius held that God's "word" (logoV) took the place of the natural human soul. His beliefs were condemned by progressively larger sections of the Church. The Council of Constantinople (381) explicitly declared his teachings anathema. Exact records of the majority of the proceedings at Constantinople have been lost, but in one later citation of what took place at the Council, this wording appears:
"And those who say that there was [a time] when the Son was not,
or when the Holy Spirit was not,
or that either was made of that which previously
had no being,
or that he is of a different nature or substance,
and who affirm that the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are subject to change and
mutation;
all such people the universal and apostolic Church,
(the mother both of you and of us,) anathematizes.
And further we anathematize those who do not
acknowledge the resurrection of the dead, as well as all
heresies which are not in accord with the true faith." (reported
by Epiphanius, who died in 403).
Additionally, the revised form of the Nicene Creed was issued. The phrase "before all ages" was added after "begotten of the father," and a few other changes (mostly cosmetic and clarifying) were made.
So...while the 4th century was marked by attempts to compromise the views of Arius and Athanasius, the Council of Constantinople leaned in favor of the Trinitarian viewpoint of Athanasius, adding a condemnation against the allies of Apollinarius. They had taught that Jesus was fully divine from the moment of conception, but their view gave way to the more popular view that Jesus' divinity was somehow "wrapped in humanity." So, if Jesus wasn't wholly divine but had a human nature, what was his relationship to the Father like? Later Christians debated this.
Some modern groups teach that Jesus' relationship to God was like that of husband and wife. These same groups propose that the wife must occupy a subordinate role to her husband. This is what some of their opponents label "subordination in the Trinity." Historically, these kinds of theories were nothing new. By the fifth century, Nestorius of Constantinople was claiming that Jesus and God had a union like HUSBAND and WIFE, who became "one flesh" while remaining distinct. Nestorius emphasized the humanity of Jesus more than the divinity, even creating some separation between the human nature and the divine, and objected to the use of the term "God-bearer" to describe Mary because he believed that it was not God but a dwelling for God which Mary bore. Many of these teachings had come from his older cousin, Theodore of Mopsuestia, who was not personally condemned.
Cyril of Alexandria declared Nestorius' beliefs anathema, but his own disagreement was not enough. After a few years, an Ecumenical Council was held at Ephesus, declaring Nestorianism to be anathema, specifically defending the use of "god-bearer" to describe Mary.
"he took flesh from the holy virgin and made it his own, undergoing a birth
like ours from her womb and coming out a man from a woman.
He did not cast aside what he was, but although he assumed flesh and blood,
he remained what he was, God in nature and truth.
We do not say that his flesh was turned into the nature of the godhead or
that the unspeakable Word of God was changed into the nature of the flesh."
Thus, the Council ran toward a middle ground between divinity and humanity, implying that Jesus was equally human and divine. The council also affirmed that Mary was rightly called "mother of God," and those who believed otherwise were pronounced to be anathema. That would include nearly all Protestants today.
At the same council, Pelagius was condemned. He taught the freedom of human will and denied original sin, saying that everything we do is "done by us, not born with us." Pelagius' opponent, Augustine, favored the doctrines of "Irresistable Grace" and "Predestination." Actually, Pelagius and his teachers and partners reasoned things like "Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died." Such things ran counter to the philosophy expressed by Augustine, and so he was condemned.
A regional conference had been held in Carthage, declaring:
"1. Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin.
2. New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin.
3. Justifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives
assistance for the avoidance of future sins.
4. The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God's commandments, but
also imparts strength to will and execute them.
5. Without God's grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely impossible to
perform good works.
6. Not out of humility, but in truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners.
7. The saints refer the petition of the Our Father, "Forgive us our trespasses",
not only to others, but also to themselves.
8. The saints pronounce the same supplication not from mere humility, but from
truthfulness.
9. Children dying without baptism do not go to a middle place (medius locus), since the non
reception of baptism excludes both from the kingdom of heaven and from eternal
life."
This proclamation by the Western Churches was upheld at the Ecumenical Council in Ephesus, and Pelagius was declared anathema. After the council at Ephesus, Pelagianism lost favor in the West and all but disappeared in the East. But do modern protestants, who agree with some of his points, return to question the Ecumenical Council? Usually not.
Notice that this list explicitly sanctions the doctrines of original sin, infant baptism, and baptismal regeneration -- although canon 9 is not found in every manuscript. The overall portrait of the period following Nicaea is one of great confusion. Having eventually decided that God was a Trinity, the noble Christian leaders took to trying to discern what exactly that term meant, trying to balance Jesus' divinity with his humanity. Some began claiming that Jesus was subject to God in the Trinity, but (as we have seen) that belief was anathematized and its adherents were mostly labeled as heretics.
During the fifth century, there arose an opposing movement to Nestorianism which unified the natures of Father and Son. These Eutychianists claimed that the human nature was "absorbed" by the divine. At Chalcedon (451), Eutychianism was condemned by the Council, and Leo I explicitly declared that Jesus was "known in two natures;" that statement was approved.
That council also decided territorial disputes between bishops and made various statements regarding the clergy, including:
"no one should be ordained except he were assigned to some ecclesiastical office"
Clergy could not join the military or occupy political office.
"no deaconess should be ordained below the age of forty; and no person once ordained a deaconess was allowed to leave that state and marry."
"since the city of Constantinople was honoured with the privilege of having the emperor and the Senate within its walls, its bishop should also have special prerogatives and be second in rank, after the Bishop of Rome." That was decided by an Ecumenical Council? Yes. I wonder how many protestants agree with that decision...? (The above quotes are from the Catholic Encyclopedia.)
Having pontificated that God had "two natures," the dispute over how distinct were the "two natures" (of Father and Son) continued into the years that followed, with the Eastern churches largely condemning the supposed Nestorianism in the West. That is, East and West disagreed as to how distinct the natures were.
Emperor Justinian noticed that Nestorius' cousin Theodore had never been formally condemned along with Nestorius (although they believed basically the same things). He also observed that two other men who believed like Nestorius had been restored to their places.
Eventually, these charges were formally condemned at Constantinople II (see this page)
With a rift forming between East and West, efforts were made to appease both groups. Nestorianism had been condemned already, and at Constantinople III (680/1), its the "one nature" notion was also condemned and its proponents were anathematized. This left a two nature view, but it alienated many Christians. As the Pope himself had written, the Council affirmed that "in each of the two natures (human and Divine) of Christ there is a perfect operation and a perfect will" -- explicitly affirming that the two natures of Jesus are in full operation -- i.e., one is not absorbed in the other.
The council was controversial. In fact:
"And in addition to these we decide that
Honorius also, who was Pope of Elder Rome, be with them cast out of the Holy
Church of God, and be anathematized with them...."
Some later Church theologians claim that the
condemned Pope was merely misunderstood.
Many of the proponents of the one nature belief admitted that the Church had unanimously taught of two natures prior to the controversy.
However, from looking at the historical documents, we can certainly see the struggle that the dividing church had in the 4th - 7th centuries. At least since the second century, there has never been at any time a clear agreement over any of the confusion about God's nature decided on in the Ecumenical Councils. God's nature was a matter of poor understanding from the time of Marcion to the time of the East/West split, and it was not addressed prior to Marcion. Therefore, to affirm the Trinity because it was accepted at Nicaea would be a mistake.
Arius claimed that Jesus was a lesser god, and some Protestants appear to claim that Jesus was lesser but was still (the) God. Are they tending toward Nestorianism? I don't claim to know, but it appears so. The Catholic Church condemned such a view, but in the interest of sola scriptura we have to recognize that the refusal to acknowledge infant baptism was also condemned.
During the period wherein God's relationship to Jesus was debated, various teachings that are contrary to what most Protestant groups teach were explicitly affirmed, and in some cases the opponents of those views were anathematized and recognized as heretics. Therefore, it would seem that no honest Protestant can rely upon the decisions made at any of the Ecumenical Councils; to do so is simply to depend on tradition for the sake of not having to question certain "sacred cow" doctrines.
Now, should we question only "Catholic" doctrines? By no means! The honest Protestant must question everything that (s)he is handed as tradition. Luther questioned, but people following Luther established Luther's own traditions as standards. Calvin questioned, but people failed to question Calvin. If we wish to adhere to a principle close to sola scriptura, then we must call into question not only the teachings of the Catholic Church from Nicaea onward but also the creeds and dogma handed to us verbally and in writing by whatever Protestant movement we consider ourselves to be part of.
In fact, it is even more necessary to question the doctrines of the group to which we belong. Why so? Because it is unlikely that you will expect another group's teachings to go without question. Protestants often question modern Catholicism -- perhaps too severely, but do they question themselves? Do Presbyterians, or Baptists, or members of the Churches of Christ, or Methodists frequently question their own traditions? No. Instead, Protestants are simply taught that Catholics (etc.) are wrong, but fortunately they have the right doctrines. The honest Protestant must question them all.
Protestantism is not defined by rabid opposition to the Pope; instead, the Protestant is the one who seeks to apply the principle of sola scriptura. What is this principle?
Since Martin Luther was the one who most clearly defined that expression originally, let us first quote Luther, keeping in mind that Luther himself was only human.
"O that God should desire that my interpretation and that of all teachers should disappear, and each Christian should come straight to the Scripture alone [sola scriptura] and to the pure Word of God!... Go on to the bible itself, dear Christians, and let my expositions and those of all scholars be no more that a tool with which to build aright, so that we can understand, taste, and abide in the simple and pure Word of God; for God dwells alone in Zion." (Luther, 1522)
Later, he and his companions described this by saying:
"We desire to follow Scripture alone as the rule of faith and religion,
without mixing it with any other thing which might be devised by the
opinion of men, apart from the Word of God, and without wishing to accept
for our spiritual government any other doctrine than what is conveyed to
us by the same Word without addition or dimunition, according to the
command of our Lord." (Luther, et. al., 1536)
We see that Luther's intent was to set up the Bible as the supreme standard. All opinions, even his own, must be subjected to that standard when determining what God might desire. Does this mean the Bible tells us everything there is to know? Certainly not. The Bible does not explain quantum physics, for example -- nor was it intended to. However, the Bible (beginning most importantly with the Torah) explains everything necessary for you and I to live lives that are pleasing to God. There's a lot more in the Bible as well, but the principle that Luther applied was intended to these elements of "spiritual government," and not the minutiae of life. But then again, nothing else is truly important, apart from the spiritual well-being of humanity.
Karl Marx, certainly not intending to support Martin Luther's notions
about the Bible, wrote something highly relevant in a letter:
"...the advantage of the new movement is that we do not want to anticipate
the world dogmatically, but only to discover the new by way of the criticism
of the old world. Until now, philosophers kept the solution of all mysteries
inside their desks, and the stupid uneducated world merely had to open its
mouth and the fried dove of absolute knowledge would fly in.
"Philosophy is now secular, for which the best proof is that philosophical consciousness itself feels the pain of the struggle not merely externally, but also internally. It is not our task to construct the future and to deal with everything once and for all, but it is clear what we have to do at present -- I am thinking of the merciless criticism of everything that exists -- merciless criticism in the sense that it is not afraid of its findings, and just as little afraid of conflict with the existing powers...." (Marx, 1843)
Both Marx and Luther were explaining a principle of not merely accepting what human opinions are fed to you. Instead, they agreed, people ought to criticize tradition without mercy, seeking only to learn what might be true. Luther's proposition was that the standard to which opinions must be compared is the Bible.
People in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions have objected strongly to
the sola scriptura (SS) principle since Luther first proposed it. After
all, if properly practiced, SS removes any authority from "the Church" as
an organizational entity. These objections have come from several angles.
John Whiteford objects to what he labels this fallacy:
"The Bible was intended to be the last word on faith, piety, and worship."
(Sola Scriptura: In the Vanity of their Minds, 1999)
His attack on SS at this point is based on an understanding of 2 Tim 3:15f., which he believes to be about the Bible. Many Protestants use this passage to support SS, but in fact, Whiteford is correct in pointing out that this particular passage says nothing about sola scriptura. I'll go even further: the Bible itself says nothing about SS.
On the other hand, the Bible itself says nothing about a "Bible" as we now know it -- either in Protestant or Catholic form. The Bible never indicates that the canon would be closed. Naturally, Whiteford attributes the Bible to the Church (and by the Church, he means his own tradition): "When the Church officially canonized the books of Scripture...," he says, but we have seen that "the Church" only canonized the Bible in reaction to Protestantism; the Orthodox movement had already split from Catholicism when this happened. To avoid this problem, they point back to non-ecumenical discussions of the Bible during a time when its contents were disputed, calling those statements authoritative!
Knowing that the opinions of persons in the midst of debate are clearly not the inspired sayings of God, to what do we go for guidance? Do we assume that Luther's treatment was accurate, or wouldn't that be just as arbitrary? In the final assessment, GOD is the final arbiter, and all opinion/tradition attempts to bring us closer to God. If tradition agrees with the Bible, we can use the Bible as being "closest" to God. But how can any of us know what's in it? There are some principles that we can follow:
These principles point to a means of viewing tradition. We should not blindly reject whatever someone said, simply because he belonged to a different group than we do. Instead, we ought to assemble these opinions when trying to learn about a subject. That way, we may say, "Many people believe this," or "others thought this." Their explanations will then assist us in our personal searches for truth.
Do we need 2 Tim 3 in order to teach us this? No. However, the Bible does teach Christians to test even the supposed prophets of their age (1 Thess 5), and Paul himself was greatful that the Bereans verified what he told them about Jesus' explanation of the Torah (Acts 17:11). Notice that Luke did not write, "The Bereans should not have questioned Paul, because he got his teachings from Jesus." Paul was happy that they questioned even inspired tradition; otherwise, they would not have developed genuine convictions. They would not have learned anything by asking for Marx's "fried dove."
Whiteford's objections continue:
"For instance, why do Protestants write so many books on doctrine
and the Christian life in general, if indeed all that is
necessary is the Bible?"
Do you see that Whiteford confuses what is necessary with what might be useful? EVERY opinion about Biblical teaching can be useful to us. For example, how should a particular passage be understood? Sometimes, there are several opinions. One or none of those opinions might be right, but it is helpful to us to listen to those opinions as we form our own. The Bible contains what is necessary for Christian life, but not every nuance of every saying in the Bible can be understood without study. More clearly, you can be "saved" by reading just about any version or translation --and perhaps without one, but if you want to know exactly what Jesus meant by a certain saying, you need to study. The opinions of past Bible students can assist you in your study. But should we go to one person or group every time, assuming that said person will tell us exactly what Jesus meant? No, that's not honest scholarship; that's asking for the fried dove.
Whiteford interprets 2 Thess 2:15 as supporting his notion of tradition. The verse reads, "Then after all, brothers, stand and hold on to the traditions that you were taught, whether through a spoken message or through our letter." But when Paul wrote "traditions," he meant one thing specifically: that the readers should hold on to the teachings about Jesus from his inspired envoys (whether written or oral), rather than returning to Judaism. He did NOT say that they should accept the uninspired sayings of people who had no connection with Jesus apart from hearsay. After all, the Catholics and the Orthodox both claim to be following traditions,yet their traditions differ. They get around this by claiming that "the other group" isn't really following the correct tradition. See what happens when we follow uninspired interpretations?
This happens also in Protestantism, where Protestants don't realize it. Instead, they equate their traditions with the Bible. After all, "MY group follows only the Bible." This error is even MORE dangerous than being traditionalist, because many Protestants follow traditions blindly without realizing it.
Whiteford seems to take the highest objection on this point:
"What they were actually arguing, however, was that when the
teachings of the Holy fathers conflict with their private
opinions on the Scriptures, their private opinions were to be
considered more authoritative than the Fathers of the Church."
Consider this, though. We realize that no amount of opinion establishes a fact. If I told you that someone said, that someone else said, that someone else said ... that I was right, none of those opinions make me right. Only if I could demonstrate conclusively that my opinion matched that of the inspired apostles and prophets could I prove myself right. Yet there is a gap, historically, between the opinions of the second century gentiles and the authoritative writings of Jesus' original followers. Furthermore, very few of "today's issues" are directly addressed in those early writings. Historically, there may be a gap of up to 300 years between the Bible and some other guy who wrote his opinion about something. In short, the expositions of the so-called "fathers" cannot be traced back to anyone Biblical -- unless we accept their own testimony or testimony of their supporters. Even the so-called "heretics" of the day often claimed that their teachings could be traced back to the apostles. How do we know who is right? We have to compare ALL the opinion to a standard: the Bible.
Now, when we choose to reject the opinion of someone like Augustine, are we considering our opinions to be "more authoritative" than Augustine's? No, but we ARE considering Augustine to be wrong. He was a fallable human being, after all. Might we be wrong? Yes, for we too are fallable. But none of us is accountable to God for Augustine's opinions; we are accountable for following our own convictions. If we were to believe that someone like Athanasius was wrong, it would be foolish for us to follow his opinion -- knowingly doing wrong! Where your opinion conflicts with mine, remember that my opinion won't mean anything to you at God's throne. Always do what you know to be right.
Whiteford is an intelligent author, and we must take him seriously.
In fact, in some places he points to what are grave errors in the
typical Protestant approaches to the Bible. He lists these approaches as:
The first of these comprises a major mistake among Protestants. It stands as the equivalent of, "Go with your first instinct," or "whatever it seems to say MUST be right." Such a view eliminates all possibility of learning.
All of the first three approaches (above) can be disproven simply by observing that there are many honest scholars, all using the same sources and seeking the same guidance, and yet there is disagreement. NOTHING is clear when millions of people disagree. If the holy Spirit does provide guidance to us, that doesn't mean we learn everything right the first time. Finally, it is unclear what is clear. Groups even disagree as to what the Bible teaches about salvation.
The fourth approach is essentially to apply scientific methods to the Bible, assuming that these methods will always yield a correct solution. The supporters of this view often assert also that the Bible explains scientific matters in detail. The problem with this view is simple: the Bible is not a science text.
The Bible needs to be examined as we would examine any set of books. Each writing must make sense in its immediate social context. Each writing was intended first and foremost for its audience. We must recognize that any interpretations that we place on a passage are simply opinions. People are uneasy about the concept of opinion, but they shouldn't be. They SHOULD BE uneasy about pretending that opinions are facts. There's nothing wrong with honestly determining that someone else's opinion (the Pope's?) is right, but that opinion is still just an opinion, and our determination doesn't make it right or wrong.
There is truth, but we must be careful not to assume that we know it. The truth and our own perceptions of that truth are different things.
Both Traditionalists and Protestants tend to want the Fried Dove: they want to be able to simply say, "Here's the truth. I need look no further." Protestants typically follow the traditions of their own religious groups, each pointing to the Bible, saying, "I follow the Bible." After all, following the Bible is the same as following God, and they feel more secure following God then following human tradition. Traditionalists explain that what their own teachers teach can be somehow traced back to what Jesus taught. Therefore, their tradition makes them feel secure that the truth has already been discovered.
The reality is much harder, because it requires individual lifelong attention. We don't know everything now, and we won't know it all until we see God. If we want merely salvation, and if we want to remain babies -- learning nothing all our lives but the minimum necessary for salvation -- then we don't need to do any work at all. Read the Bible through once -- even select books will suffice -- and do what it says. Jesus indicated that Love summed up the whole duty of humanity, and that is that. Anyone who reads the NT will realize the importance of Love. But if you want to mature, to learn more, to become stronger in your Trust and Love, then you must learn. That's where the lifelong commitment to learning comes in.
The Honest Protestant must assume tentatively that what he knows now is true, but at the same time he must realize that it might not be. He must study the Bible -- and opinions about the Bible, and the culture of the Bible -- always challenging himself with something new. When teaching others, he must not pretend to be a prophet, or the keeper of the faith of the fathers. Instead, we must form personal convictions, adhering to them like glue but teaching them as the opinions that they are. Even more hard is this: we must allow others to follow their own convictions, not compelling them to act as though they believed what we believe. The core of sola scriptura is the freedom to think and learn, and we must allow everyone else to learn differently.
Question everything and learn.