Posted on 07/10/2014 8:05:46 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Being raised in a Protestant home, the Scriptures were (and in many ways still are) the end-all-be-all of the faith for me. However, there is a reason I am no longer a Protestant. This reason has many branches but all points back to one thing, context. Given the necessity of context, I find the whole idea of “Scripture Alone” horrifying.
What it is:
Sola Scriptura is the idea that Christianity ought to be based off of “Scripture Alone” (which is the English translation of “Sola Scriptura”), that is to say, it should be without ritual, or the teaching authority of anyone. And that each of us is obligated to read the Scriptures and form ourselves through them, on our own.
It Can’t Really Exist:
Many of the things we are afraid of do not exist. Zombies, Armageddon cults (the kind who bring on the end of the world via some long-forgotten Egyptian deity), Cthulhu, and so on, are all prime examples of thing which are scary, but don’t really exist.
This is how I feel about Sola Scriptura. It’s frightening, but in reality it doesn’t exist.
It would seem a little ridiculous to say that it doesn’t exist; being that it’s the staple doctrine of nearly all Protestants. However, that’s just the point… it’s a doctrine. It’s already going against itself, erasing itself from the realm of possibility by its own action. A doctrine (not scripture) which proclaims that all doctrine are to be rejected is ludicrous (A harkening back to the, now terribly clichéd, argument against relativism). It simply isn’t possible to have Scripture alone, since you didn’t receive Scripture alone. Instead, all of us were taught about Scripture by someone else. It didn’t just fall out of the sky and land on us. And even if it did, it’s still given to us by someone, the authors who had lives, cultures, rituals, and all number of things which provide a context for the Scriptures. And context means that Scripture is by no means “alone.”
Anyways, there’s a serious problem which arises from the relentlessly individualistic model of Biblical interpretation. Whenever anyone begins their own interpretation of anything, without direction, they form a sort of autobiography in their interpretation. Interpretation of this sort reflects nothing but oneself.
This is a main idea of that certain Frenchman (philosopher Jacques Derrida), that whenever one interprets a text without context, one is simply painting a self-portrait with the colors of the text they are interpreting. This is because pure ideas do not simply pass from one person to another, instead they must pass through the filtration of language, which is passed further through the schema of one’s consciousness which allows one to make sense of things. This schema is built, in part, by the social, historical, political, etc, context in which we live, making it impossible to avoid unless we allow our understanding to be mapped by another context. If this contextual misreading and subsequent autobiography is turned upon the Scriptures, then I can think of no more grievous blasphemy than to make the Scriptures, which are supposed to be the image and fulfillment, the Word of God, into nothing more than an autobiography.
To deform God into an image of yourself is idolatry itself; a golden calf of proudly defended misinterpretation.
It Isn’t Biblical:
Nowhere in the Bible will you find any discussion of the Bible or how to interpret the Bible. Both the New and Old Testament will make reference to “the Scriptures,” but this does not refer to the Bible as a whole, only the Old Testament.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 makes it clear that there is a decisively important element of tradition and that much was taught by word of mouth. The separation between what has been taught by word of mouth and what has been relayed by the epistles (which are letters by bishops/Apostles) means that not everything which was important to know was recorded in the epistles.
Furthermore, the New Testament makes it clear that the Apostles (and in the First Letter to Timothy, bishops) are the bearers of the teaching of Christ, and that it is their duty to protect those teachings, and to instruct those of the faith in these teachings. Also made abundantly clear is the fact that anyone’s interpretation of the teachings of Christ is not as good as anyone else’s, were this true, there would have been no need for Paul’s letters, or really any of the New Testament aside from the Gospels.
What About History(?):
As I’ve already mentioned, the concept of Scripture Alone rejects a basic fact of the Scriptures; that they were written by men. While I do believe that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and kept free of error by the Holy Spirit, it doesn’t change the fact that people wrote these books, and as such, they are full of context (historical situation, cultural practices, societal expectations, and (perhaps most importantly) language and idiom). Without knowledge of the history and culture of the human authors of the Scriptures, one can have no hope of understanding what they are trying to communicate.
This is not even to mention the fact that the Bible itself (especially the New Testament) is a book with a lot of historical movement. The early Church (in the time of the Apostles) did not have the books of the New Testament (mostly since they were still being written), and it wasn’t until many generations later that these books were codified and the canon was created. The Church spent the bulk of its early life without these New Testament scriptures, thus, Sola Scriptura is historically speaking a fairly new idea (it’s hard to preach “Scripture Alone” when you don’t yet have Scriptures…).
What’s more is that this ideal of “Scripture Alone” rejects the whole of Christianity which has come before the individual Christian. It rejects the history of the Church and the great teachers of the faith (and when it doesn’t, it doesn’t uphold its own values.)
Pride:
All of this culminates in my reason for rejecting Sola Scriptura (and thus Protestantism); pride.
I am perhaps one of the worst offenders when it comes to this particular sin, so I place no judgment on those who fall into it; however this doesn’t mean that even I, the worst among the prideful, should sit by and allow my pride to become dogma. Rather, we should always struggle against our sins.
The pride of Sola Scriptura, if it is even possible, is in its rejection of those who have taught us: our parents, our preachers/priests/teachers, the history of the Church (the saints, the councils, the Fathers), and through this, even the Apostles, those who learned everything directly from the mouth of Christ himself; in favor of a vain autobiography of self-interpretation. A self-portrait painted with the colors of the Gospel.
This is obvious the worst case scenario of the doctrine, but this is the result of it’s actually being followed. Even the most well-meaning person who takes the “Scripture Alone” seriously will be nothing more than an arm chair theologian, someone who is completely ignorant of the period and context of the texts written and so instead is forced to put their own context and period in as a stand in. Thus the self-portrait appears again, even when the believer is well-meaning and pious in their practice. In this, Scripture Alone is again found impossible, as it’s no longer “Scripture Alone,” but rather it is “Scripture and Me.”
This is why Sola Scriptura frightens me. I am full of sin: failings and misgivings and bias. As such I much prefer “Scripture and Tradition,” to “Scripture and Me.”
“Does this question presume that the Church is outside of scripture?”
I don’t see how the church could be outside of something that specifically references it. Of course this opens another entire world of controversy.
You talk about a straw man! The scriptures say that you can’t have your own personal interpretation of scriptures.
Sola scriptura isn’t about individuals reading the scripture locked away from others’ thought processes. It is about putting primacy on scripture and not using the philosophical writings of venerated individuals as authoritative texts.
The premise of the article is wrong.
“If he actually studied his scriptures, he would know ALL believers are Saints”
And if you actually studied the history of Christianity you you wouls know that Christ STARTED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, not the Good Will Assemblies of God Hickory Holler Church down on the corner.
The Catholic Church, started by Christ himself, has the teaching authority for the Bible, a document that would not exist if not for the Catholic Church.
“So your scared to death by some Protestant who is moved and taught by the Holy Spirit of the scriptures”
PROTESTism is a false religion. The “Holy Spirit” moves no one in a false religion.
It seem we are forgetting a few scriptures in this discussion. We don’t have the Scripture alone - we have a “helper” as well. How about John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” That just wasn’t for the disciples but for us today as well. How else could we understand the Word of God.
And II Peter 1:2-4, “Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.”
I know there’s others that indicate the same thing but these are off the top of my head.
“Don’t be surprised that the anti-Christ sends so called “ Teachers “ out into the world as well taught teachers of all things in the bible who have “ Authority “
And they were all wrong for the first 1,500 years after Christ died. It took some heretic German monk to really figure out the way to salvation; one that even had the audacity to try and change the Word of God so the Bible would say what he wanted it to say, not the inspired Word of God, canonized for over a thousand years before the heretic Luther was born.
“take a look at what is happening in some of the middle east countries who are Muslim”
You mean all those CATHOLICS being killed because they are not Muslim?
You Replied:" It’s sad that you gleaned that from my post, because I said no such thing."
My apologies, I was presuming you were arguing from the RCC Tradition perspective.
I posted that response to you, assuming you were RCC, and as such would hold all "papal bulls" as authoritative, to wit:
Pope Eugene IV, 1441, the Bull Cantate Domino reads as follows: “The most Holy Roman Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her..."
source
For more on RCC teaching regarding this: more
“You talk about a straw man! The scriptures say that you can’t have your own personal interpretation of scriptures.”
No. It says that Scripture is inspired by God and goes on to say no PROPHECY came from private interpretation.
“Above all, you do well if you recognize this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination,”
“And if you actually studied the history of Christianity you you wouls know that Christ STARTED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, not the Good Will Assemblies of God Hickory Holler Church down on the corner.”
I notice that using all caps doesn’t make something true. Thanks for demonstrating!
EXACTLY! I hold that SCRIPTURE is the sole source of authority, you hold that it is "history" "Tradition" and "the teachings of the RCC" are.
QUOTE: "The Catholic Church, started by Christ himself, has the teaching authority for the Bible"
If you can come up with a good Biblical reference for that assertion, we could have a nice debate. For I would counter with this:
2 Timothy 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
and
2 Timothy 3:15-17 " 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
And finally
John 20:31 "But these are written that you may believeb that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
Translation: Genesis 1-11 is mythology.
Matthew 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
As Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles clearly explained in
Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
But we don't know all that they said.
And neither do the "early church fathers". And as inconsistent as they were on things, I wouldn't hang my hat on their positions either.
St Paul references one of his letters as being authoritative in 1 Cor 5:9-11... but we don't have that letter.
True we don't. That tells us God did not intend for us to have it. We also don't have the very first sermons/lessons Paul taught a lot of the churches he founded either...but we know he founded them due to the written record we have.
We do have however,
Jn 20:30-31 "Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
Jn 21:24-25, "24This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. 25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."
In 1 Thess 3:10, St Paul says that he wants to be with them face to face because his letter is not enough for their instruction.
And he wrote them another letter as well.
Rarely did St Paul appeal to Scripture in his writings...
Recommend you re-read Romans.
he primarily told the reader to be true to the traditions he brought with him (Phil 4:9).
Actually in Phil 4:9 he said, "the things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things; and the God of peace shall be with you."
What were those things? Read the letters Paul has written.
The Bible is the story of our fall and redemption. It isn't a Catechism of all things and a complete instruction manual for life.
It doesn't tell you to brush your teeth or when to go to bed, but it does tell us how to conduct our lives according to Christ. It does tell us how to have a relationship with Christ and how to go to Heaven.
In Acts 15, we see that the Apostles had to define doctrine based on their understanding of Scripture... not based on established Scripture but in accordance with their commission to the world and authority given by Christ.
Yes...they were correcting a false "tradition" that was being taught by some. And it was the judgment of James, with an appeal to Scripture, that was followed. Also interesting that the Council did note in Acts 15:11 that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus...
>Not all was written, only that which was necessary for understanding salvation. <
The very fact that the Bible Itself tells you It isn't all-inclusive should punch a deciding blow in Sola Scriptura (John 20:30 & John 21:25).
Interestinlgy when Jesus was being tested by the Devil He appealed to Scripture (sola scriptura) three times by saying, "it is written."
If Jesus referred to the Scripture in this ordeal, I think that's a pretty good role model we should copy.
You will also note as you read the Gospels that Jesus trashed man-made tradition.
Let's be clear on something as we end.
Was the Word spread by preaching? Yes.
Did the apostles write letters for instruction and teaching? Yes.
Do we spread the Word through preaching and the written Word today? Yes. But we do not go beyond the written text as given to us in the Bible.
Do we have a record of each and every sermon/lesson that was taught by Christ or the disciples or from other believers as well? No. The Bible is clear on that.
Do we have in the Bible what we need to know about how to get to Heaven and conduct our lives? Yes.
1 Jn 5:13 "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life."
That I would agree with. Let's just don't add anything to what the Bible has said about Him and we'll be fine.
“Can a non-believer, stranded alone, with only a Bible to go on, or even just part of one, be saved?”
Yes, in fact, they wouldn’t even necessarily need a Bible. God can save them all by Himself. He did it for the thief on the cross.
“In like manner, I’d be content to add as a second infallible and inerrant authority the statements of the Pope when He speaks ex cathedra.
First, however, let him raise men from the dead.”
^This
I’ve always felt that you cannot presume to claim the authority of an apostle if you cannot demonstrate the gifts of an apostle.
Lets also agree not to misrepresent another’s faith based on misunderstanding and agenda.
The pope is not the center of the RCC the Eucharist is.
“Did it ever occur to you that the Church has studied It for nearly 2000 years and has discovered many of the answers you admit you don’t have?”
Yup. It probably will surprise you that I have read more than my share of official Catholic doctrine on various subjects. I often find much wisdom there. But then I read Pope Francis on how governments should act . . . there’s not a whole lot of that wisdom stuff going on there. I’m sure he thought about it and studied it a lot. He just got it obviously wrong.
Fact is, we are all sinners and fallible people. We are so blessed to have intact and accurate scripture to go back to. It keeps knocking the whole church back on course despite our many deviations over the centuries.
That wise folks have been studying the Bible for 2,000 years and have devised answers doesn’t change my answer you quoted above at all. The gospel itself is simple and clear. I would love to go to Seminary and understand, say, some of the more opaque passages in Daniel better. But do I need that to be a follower of Jesus?
In the end, human answers are answers devised by humans. In many branches of the mainstream churches, 2,000 years of study has resulted in oddities such as liberation theology, denial of the divinity of Christ, indulgences, a metaphorical (instead of real) resurrection, social justice theory, and many other heresies. And it has also resulted in brilliant work like N.T.Wright’s, which combines history and theology and interprets the New Testament through the lens of Second Temple Judaism.
Ultimately, there is no choice but for each person to sort through the variety of answers within every denomination and answer them for himself. Would I like to get ‘em all right? Sure. But fortunately for me, if I get some of ‘em wrong, it doesn’t matter so long as I get the Gospel right.
Or to put it in Paul’s words, there are ‘disputable’ matters and then there are clear matters. I’m not going to lose much sleep over or spend much time arguing about the disputable matters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.