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.”
So this understanding of scripture and church does not preclude doctrinal development?
Pax et bonum!
His argument is self contradictory. He decides what authority controls by using his own opinion that individual opinions are not authoritative.
Easy to lose sight of what that doctrine actually means. Sola Scriptura does beg a question: what, outside of Scripture, is needed for the salvation of a soul? That begs another question: if something else is needed, upon what is it based? There are arguments against the doctrine, but this piece isn’t a good one. Can a non-believer, stranded alone, with only a Bible to go on, or even just part of one, be saved? Food for thought.
All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. The only real question is: whose interpretation? People with differing interpretations of Scripture cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve their differences. In order for the Scripture to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone. According to “solo” Scriptura, that someone is each individual, so ultimately, there are as many final authorities as there are human interpreters.
Does this question presume that the Church is outside of scripture?
Can a non-believer, stranded alone, with only a Bible to go on, or even just part of one, be saved? Food for thought.
Sure. Even a non-believer without the scriptures can be saved. God is loving and merciful.
Tradition should not supersede the Bible. If something in history caused the church to misapply Scripture, it is irrelevant how long practice might have been in place, it should be corrected, if it goes against what the Bible says.
Having said that, I think the principle of Sola Scriptura is often misapplied with many Protestants, because there can be a tendency to refuse to take context into account. I’ve had conversations with Christians, when you try to explain what was happening in the church during the period Scripture was written, they refuse to pay attention and just rely upon the literal writing without context.
Never understood how folks think God’s word isn’t sufficient enough and then to a sinner like the pope to look for salvation....!
Sola papa over God’s word...!
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Being Catholic isn’t about the pope, it’s about the Eucharist.
You need not believe in the real presence but Catholics do... regardless of who happens to be pope.
RE: 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.
Bluntly put, this is NOT a good argument.
The word “Trinity” is not found in scripture either, and yet it is clearly revealed in scripture to be a truth.
It is very similar to the Muslim declaration fallacy which demands that Christ state “I am God” in the New Testament to prove His divinity. We do not need a term to be present in order to demonstrate its definition.
St. Paul said to Timothy:
“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” [2 Timothy 3:16-17]
Just before this passage, Paul had told Timothy that “from childhood you have known the sacred writings” (referring to the education by his mother and grandmother; 2 Tim 1:5), and states that the scripture is “able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 3:15). As Paul explains to his spiritual son, the education and teaching of salvation is inherently found in the scriptures, he did not cite any other source.
In addition, it is worth noting that the phrase translated as “inspired by God” is actually a single Greek word which means — “God-breathed.”
In other words, the scripture is literally breathed out by God, and is the word of the Lord speaking to the churches even today. This special title is given to no other authority in all of holy writ except scripture itself.
Many will interject here with, “But didn’t tradition and customs have some role in the apostolic church?”
Yes, but it is never placed on so high a level as scripture, nor could it.
For example, many quote Paul’s reference to a Jewish tradition regarding the names of Pharaoh’s magicians (2 Tim 3:8), but this is no different than a Christian referring to the belief that Paul was beheaded or Peter was crucified upside down.
A person can live and die and not lose salvation if they do not know the names of Pharaoh’s magicians or what became of Paul after Acts 28, and therefore the knowledge itself is not paramount. Also note that one does NOT lose the meaning of the stories in Exodus or Acts if a person does not know either fact. This information is therefore not complimentary with scripture, but secondary.
Likewise, we see again contradictions between “unwritten traditions” of the various “apostolic” churches.
Roman Catholics will claim Purgatory, papal infallibility/supremacy, and various other dogmas as unwritten tradition, whereas most non-Roman Catholic churches deny all of them. Some (though not all) Eastern Orthodox will support Aerial Toll Houses as unwritten tradition while this belief cannot be found in other “apostolic” churches.
Yet the majority of apostolic churches believe a good portion of their traditions, dogma or not, to have come from the apostolic period, even if nothing is recorded of them until hundreds of years after the time of Acts (example: the bodily assumption of Mary).
Whereas we have an infallible source of written authority within sacred scripture, there is no infallible source of unwritten authority in any church. It is always simply circularly assumed that the individual church’s unwritten traditions are infallibly true.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/scripture-and-tradition
The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ’s Church. Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the “canon of Tradition” by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).
Sola Scriptura Or Sola Papa?
by Chuck Durham
via Biblical Insights, Vol. 7, No. 9, Sept. 2007.
Pope Benedict XVI released a Vatican document on July 10, 2007 that reasserted the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church as providing the only true path to salvation. The document claims that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church on earth having “the fullness of the means of salvation.” All other churches (excepting the Greek Orthodox Church) “cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense” because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ’s original apostles (Bryan-College Station Eagle, July 11, 2007).
It is the age-old question that so many people have asked: “Which church of all the churches is the right one? They all claim to follow the Bible, so how do we know which is right?” Good question. And it deserves a forthright answer. But it all depends upon the foundation on which we build.
The Bible is that foundation — the only foundation. The Bible claims to be the sole authoritative means by which we can rightly hear the One True Authority — God. The Roman Catholic Church claims that both 1)the Bible and 2)the apostolic succession of the Roman Pope (who alone may rightly interpret the Bible and speak law for the faithful on earth today) are authoritative. It is a battle as old as the Reformation.
The early Protestants called it “Sola Scriptura.” Only Scripture. Martin Luther told secular and Church officials at the Diet of Worms: “Unless I am convinced by scripture and plain reason — I cannot accept the authority of popes and councils because they have contradicted each other — my conscience is captive to the Word of God.”
Luther was right about popes and councils contradicting each other. They did — often — as history records. Not only did they contradict their teaching, accepting at times what had been condemned as heresy at others — they had, on occasions, as may as three men claiming to be the Pope at the same time. Who rightfully had “apostolic succession?” Who determined it? The answer comes: the Roman Catholic Church. Does this should like circular reasoning? Carefully study the history of the Roman Catholic Church and its claim to “apostolic succession” and it is as appalling as it is ludicrous. Time and again it was based upon political expediency, avarice, power hunger and every manipulation to which man is capable of descending.
What the Roman Catholic Church really wants is to be the sole interpreter of Scripture. The Pope alone can tell us what it means (and add to it when he wants). If their basis for being the “one, true church” lies in their ability to trace their lineage back to the apostles, don’t bet the farm on it! Why? Because the Scriptures never — ever — command, necessarily infer, or by apostolic example illustrate a “succession” to the original apostles.
Open the New Testament and read it from cover to cover. Where does any verse of Scripture claim apostolic succession? What the Scriptures claim is that the Scriptures alone hold the “fullness of the means of salvation” because they teach the truth regarding Jesus (Romans 1:16; II Timothy 3:16,17; II Peter 1:19-21; 3:15,16). Popes and councils over the centuries have originated doctrines foreign to the pages of the New Testament. And the early Protestants saw it. They could read. They could understand the Scriptures — and they didn’t need Popes and councils to tell them so. The threw out vestments; sacraments; instrumental music; they gave both elements of the Lord’s Supper to the people; priests married and monasticism was scrapped; fast days and masses for the dead were abandoned; relics and images were smashed. Some read further and discovered that only adult believers were baptized and so they ceased baptizing infants. Others saw only congregations as being the organization of the church.
Sola Scriptura
If you can’t find it in the Bible, then it’s not from God and must be discarded as a manmade invention. And if we accept this as our guiding authority in service to God — the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church will find themselves on the wrong side of the debate.
Do your homework
There are more than 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament; thousands more translations in early tongues; a text that is nearly 100% certain in light of all variant readings (Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, p. 365). I’ll bank everything on Sola Scriptura. It never mentions a “pope.” It despises the very idea that “one man” would set himself up over the Lord’s church.
I believe that there is “only one true church” on earth (Ephesians 1:22,23; 4:4). And that church’s distinguishing features can only be determined by matching its practices with the New Testament. That’s the only way to know which church is the true church today.
If he actually studied his scriptures, he would know ALL believers are Saints (Romans 1:7, 1 Cor 1:2), and we are not to call any religious leader "father" (Matthew 23:9).
The Bereans of Acts 17:11 were commended for searching the scriptures to determine is the things taught to them by the apostles were true, and as Paul told Timothy in 2 Tim 3:16 -17 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of Goda may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Granted, we have all learned at the feet of others, but it is up to us as individuals to determine if what we have been taught is scripturally true.
I am convinced that what the author is scared of is learning the truth that much of what he has been taught is merely the traditions of men, exactly what Jesus condemned the Pharisees for! See Matthew 15:6-9
"6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8“ ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’”
I agree and I don't believe that it does. Tradition does not supersede. It acts in concert, in harmony, with the Bible. The Deposit of the Faith which contains all of Divine Revelation is both Scripture and Tradition. It's a false dichotomy to separate the two according to the dictates of individual preference which is what sola scriptura does.
And there will be those who'll lob some verses, and I'll lob back, etc. ad nauseaum. The point is, that what was said, and what was done are just as important as what was written. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi: How we pray is how we believe. That counts for something.
Yeah, that someone who has his soul on the line. Go join the kool-aid line if you want, the main crux of the Scriptures are obvious to those who thirst for knowledge. God even promised help in this area (if you know where to look in the Bible that is).
This guy has no understanding of Sola Scriptura.
He is describing solo scriptura.
Stopped reading after the first few sentences, no reason to even try to disagree with him.
/s
Where is “Scripture only” found? In Scripture of course, not some extra-Scriptural doctrine, as the author claims, which would be self-contradictory.
Mark 7:8
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Revelation 22
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Examples abound of those who went beyond Scripture and paid the price, Moses, Saul etc.
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.