Scripture and Tradition

Although we often hear of the reformers eschewing tradition, it was only the radical reformers (e.g. Anabaptists) who did so completely.  The magisterial reformers, such as Luther and Calvin, held firmly to the tradition of the patristics.

However, their humanist tendencies to "return back to the sources" and to include the laity into the priesthood of all believers led to a commitment that each individual could interpret the Scripture for himself/herself.  But this, too, was not consistently followed, as Luther prohibited those students who did not have a mastery over Greek and Latin to read the Bible for themselves (such students had to settle with Luther's own pen in the Lesser Catechism).

Many contemporary protestants seem to have taken the radical reformed line regarding the interpretation of Scripture, and I think that this has made doctrinal unity virtually impossible to uphold.  The magisterial reformers were keen on maintaining doctrinal unity with the patristics (up to Augustine) even if there would no longer be any historical continuity given the break from the visible Roman church.  But the dispute between Zwingli and Luther over the sacrament of the Eucharist is well known, and both parties appealed to Scripture ("this is my body") to support their own position.  If Scripture is its own interpreter, what can adjudicate such disputes?

Consider even the current situation in which a whole host of Bible-lovin' Christians reject the orthodox conception of the Trinity.  They are using the same text as Trinitarians, so the Trinitarian has nothing more to use that can convince the non-Trinitarian if all that can be used is the Bible (a la Sola Scriptura).  The same goes for those who do not think Jesus is divine.  As with most heresies, the heretics often appealed to the Scripture to defend their position.

At the same time, I hear many protestants who claim that every Christian must accept the orthodox doctrine of the trinity and the high christology espoused in the Chalcedonian Definition.  But unless one takes seriously the authority of creeds and councils, why can't a protestant reject these definitions and pronouncements, especially if they believe it is not taught in Scripture or is not the best explanation of the Scriptural data?  That is, it is consistent within a protestant's belief-system to reject such claims.  If so, then I believe that "mere Christianity" as grounded in doctrinal unity alone to be virtually impossible from a Sola Scritpura framework given the difficulty of understanding the Biblical text and the ongoing division and disagreement over various beliefs and practices that purport to be grounded in Scripture.

(This is leaving out all the problems I have with the notion of Sola Scriptura, which I will address at some later point).