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.”
**That does not address the question I asked.**
I suppose your definition of firmly established is different than mine.
I am making the claim that it was established at a much earlier date than anything Rome takes credit for.
Rome did nothing but put it’s stamp on what was already in practice throughout Christendom.
Marianism is the most damning of their non scriptural, even anti scriptural beliefs. Then to condemn people who read and love the bible. If they would do the same, they would see just how many things the RCC believes that are the opposite of what the bible says. Calling the pope Holy Father, calling Mary the Queen of heaven, making a new priesthood when Jesus made all believers kings and priests, redefining the word saint etc etc etc.
What are your dates and evidence? Is there anything beyond, “because I say so?”
And that leaves the question of what is authoritative in the absence of Holy Scripture? You will agree that there was a time that the Church had no New Testament?
How reasonable is it to think that a largely illiterate culture would be expected to rely solely on writing; whenever that writing got written.
The culture was not as illiterate as Roman Catholics claim. Granted there was no universal literacy, but the were not barbarians.
The Catholic Church does not teach that Scripture is "a handmaiden to Tradition," as you said. If that's what you heard from Catholics, then either they did not express the doctrine on Scripture adequately, or you did not understand it adequately. (Or both. That's always that.)
We teach the Sacred Scripture (Catechism, 104) "... as what it really is, the word of God".
That's a clickable link to the Catechism, and worth reading in context.
Nobody is going to seriously say the "Word of God" is a "handmaid" to something else.
After all, Scripture is the major part of what was handed down to us from the Apostles.
Well stated, BiPo. That's just what I'm saying.
OK, let me repharse that, Roman Catholics here on FR certainly act as if Scripture is the handmaiden to tradition.
Tradition is almost always trotted out over Scripture, as if y’all would catch spiritual cooties if you used Scripture as your primary source for debate.
Then why, when it comes to discussing the origin of Scripture do FRoman Catholics always credit the Rome, and leave God in the attic, like He was a crazed uncle?
His Church and the RCC are two completely different things. He took care of Scripture to show us the difference in the two.
Jesus was literate, was He not? He was the poor son of a carpenter. The NT writers were literate. A big jump to say largely illiterate.
If the written record was to be the authoritative standard, why wouldn’t Jesus have had a scribe creating it as He walked the earth?
It's the consensus of historians who study such. Facts can be inconvenient, can't they?
Let me properly phrase the response here...
It's the consensus of Roman Catholic historians who study such. Roman Catholic presumptions Facts can be inconvenient preposterous, can't they?
*****
While Jesus very likely spoke Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, Aramaic was likely the language Jesus spoke the most. The Gospels record Jesus speaking numerous Aramaic words: talitha koum (Mark 5:41); ephphatha (Mark 7:34); eloi eloi lama sabachthani (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34); abba (Mark 14:36). Historians, archaeologists, and cultural anthropologists are almost universally agreed that Aramaic was the common or colloquial language in Israel during Jesus’ time. Aramaic was very similar to Hebrew, but with many words and phrases that were borrowed from other languages and cultures, especially Babylonian.
Hebrew was spoken primarily by the scribes, teachers of the law, Pharisees, and Sadducees, the “religious elite.” Hebrew was likely often read in the synagogues, so most people were probably able to speak and understand some Hebrew. Since Greek was the language of the Romans, who had power over Israel during Jesus’ time, Greek was the language of the political class and anyone who wanted to do business with the Romans. Greek was the universal language at that time, so, the ability to speak Greek was a highly desirable skill. Some, however, refused to speak Greek out of resentment toward their Roman oppressors. When Jesus spoke with Pontius Pilate, it is possible that He spoke to him in Greek, although Pilate, as the governor, likely would have been able to speak Aramaic as well.
Jesus, as God incarnated in human form, could have spoken any language He chose. In His humanity, Jesus likely limited Himself to the languages common to His culture: Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Jesus likely spoke whichever of the three languages was most appropriate to the audience He was addressing.
Read more: Got Questions?
But not the only source, since Scripture itself came from the Oral or one could say the "preach-and-practice" Tradition of the Apostles (which is to say, what they preached, they way they prayed, and the way they practiced the Faith). This came years and years before the canonical NT was written down, and even before there was a "canonical" OT.
I add that because the Rabbis didn't even settle on a canon of OT Scripture until synagogue-Judaism regrouped after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. When the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed is kinda sketchy: true, some scholars think it was all pretty much cut-and-dried by the 1st century BC (all but the Ketuvim) while others say it wasn't flat-out established until the 2nd century AD or even later.
The Masoretic text established by the rabbis in the medieval period (that's a l-o-o-o-o-n-g time later) had been widely assumed to be the faithful witness to the Hebrew Bible of the 1st century, but that's been seriously undermined by the Dead Sea Scrolls, where the Hebrew sources for --- I think it was First and Second Samuel? --- turned out to be older and more accurately rendered in the LXX than the Masoretic. These scrolls are the very oldest copies of Biblical text found to date.
I hope this isn't just a pedantic detour. I mention it because ultimately, you have to go with *either* the medieval Rabbis *or* the early Christian Synods and Councils to get a canon of Scripture.
The Synods' and Councils' lists are based on what the Church was actually using liturgically. They were listing liturgical books. I don't see any way to get around that. Liturgy existed before Canon.
Did you even read the discussion that I initiated in post 210? I ask because I am interested in the written word; not what languages were spoken.
Rome? I think we credit the ancient liturgical Churches, especially Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, and Rome. And especially the Synods of Carthage and Hippo.
I'm just reading Irenaeus of Lyons now (no, I don't read Latin or Greek, I got cheap American paperbacks like everybody else!!) and he was having a big tussle with the Gnostics, who had their own big stack of what they'd call "Scriptures". How did he refute the Gnostics, when (~170 AD) the Synods of Hippo and Carthage were still 100's of years in the future?
He contrasts the Gnostic "Scriptures" with the teachings of the Apostles, as preserved not only in sacred writings but by oral and practical tradition in the churches which the Apostles founded. What they preached and did in practice. Irenaeus himself was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, who was a disciple of Our Lord. He had the benefit of very extensive oral transmission by holy men of whom he was disciple and successor.
Above all, he cites the authoritative tradition of the Church of Rome, handed down from Peter and Paul through an unbroken succession of bishops.
When I say "Yay, Irenaeus! School them Gnostics!" I'm not "leaving God in the attic as if He were a crazed uncle." I'm thanking God for guiding Irenaeus and thus guiding the Church.
They certainly can. Was Jesus the son of a poor carpenter literate or not? Did He read and write?
In reality there is a lot of discussion on the issue.
We do know of a Jewish carpenter that could read. We know that there were people in Jewish Temples who could read. Why is it a stretch to acknowledge that there were thousands of copies of various books that what we now call the NT being read in various Christian assemblies before Rome consolidated it’s power?
Who said a carpenter was poor?
I have kept up with the entire thread, as well as the many other Roman Catholic postings which attempt to usurp the role of God, through His Holy Spirit. The common thread is that your group PRESUMEStraditions of the group, which are not based within the Scriptural evidence we have in our Bibles.
I had the opportunity (as a young man) to get formal training in the Bible. I learned Greek, Hebrew, and studied the Word of God guided by the Holy spirit. I do not accept the presumptions of a group that insists it holds the keys to Heaven's Gate. Only Christ can offer that open door, and your group does nothing to advance their theory except to say "that's what we are taught in our Catechism". There are committed Muslims who are taught to murder Christians (and there non-Muslims) because they don't hold to Mohammed's scheme. The RC group did the same many years ago. I suspect they would try it again if they thought they could get away with it!!!
I will close with the best authority I can quote:
John 3; ...12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.[e] 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God. ...
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.