Why Sola Scriptura Honestly Scares Me

http://www.patheos.com ^ | July 22, 2013 | Ryan Adams

[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.”

[BipolarBob]

Above all, he cites the authoritative tradition of the Church of Rome

If this is actually correct (and who knows for certain?), then Irenaeus was erroneous. All the more reason to stick to the Word of God rather than man.

[Gamecock]

Because it disrupts the Roman Catholic meme.

[Gamecock]

by oral and practical tradition in the churches which the Apostles founded

And why should we believe that THAT wasn't distorted over time? We know that they so called fathers didn't agree on everything? Who is correct?

Tis why we rely on Scripture.

[don-o]

We do know of a Jewish carpenter....

Please cite Scripture for that.

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?

Acknowledge? You mean imagine, don't you? There was nothing to read for several years and there was confusion on what to read once purported documents began to appear. "The Gospel of Thomas" sounds pretty interesting. The Apostle who actually touched the Risen Lord? Wouldn't he have some valuable things to relate?

[Mrs. Don-o]

"His Church and the RCC are two completely different things"

Not "completely" different things. The word "Church" can be and is correctly used in senses which include both RCC's and many people who would never even have heard the term "Roman Catholic."

We say the Church founded by Jesus Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church. Which means that elements of truth and sanctification exist also outside of the visible limits of Roman Catholicism (LINK)

It's worth looking into, if you're actually interested in what the Catholic Church teaches.

[BipolarBob]

Who said a carpenter was poor?

My exhaustive work on the minimum wage on carpenters on in that period says so. So you propose that Joseph and Mary were well to do folks? 1 percenters? Did Joseph land a big fat government contract job for making crosses to crucify criminals? Why would anyone think Joseph to be a man of means? Jesus had humble beginnings here on earth. No life of leisure for Him.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Oops, I meant to say "Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Rome. Alexandria was big.

[GeronL]

They paid taxes, they traveled to Jerusalem at least once. They didn’t live in a cave or a dirt/mud hovel. Joseph had a skill that was probably in demand.

I never said they were wealthy.

[BipolarBob]

We do know of a Jewish carpenter.... Please cite Scripture for that.

Luke 4:16 it's in the Bible if you read it. Do I need to give a reference that He could write as well?

[don-o]

If you had been converted on the Day of Pentecost, how would you have learned about your new faith?

[don-o]

Where does that say that Jesus was a carpenter? If you are going to insist “like father, like son” then you are getting into tradition and cultural norms.

[BipolarBob]

Where does that say that Jesus was a carpenter?

It was the cultural norm for the eldest son to follow in His fathers footsteps. I would say most Biblical scholars believed that Jesus worked in Josephs shop to help out. But if you disagree, what occupation do you think He had and why?

[Gamecock]

***Please cite Scripture for that.**

You have got to be kidding.

Luke 4:16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read,

**You mean imagine, don't you?**

No. I don't. Jesus expected some to read:

Matthew 19:4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’

Matthew 12:3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry?

Matthew 12:5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent?

Matthew 21:16 “Do you hear what these children are saying?” they asked him. “Yes,” replied Jesus, “have you never read, “‘From the lips of children and infants you, Lord, have called forth your praise’?”

Matthew 24:15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— (I guess there were no readers, according to your argument)

Acts 15:21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

Acts 15:31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. (What people read it? They were illiterate, were they not? </sarc>

2 Corinthians 3:2 You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone.

[Mrs. Don-o]

But the Word of God as existing in the ancient manuscripts, was not all bound up as one Book, nor did it have a Table of Contents or an Index. There was no internal indication of who wrote the most important ones. The Gospels (and Acts) are anonymous, in that none of them name an author, and likewise the five books of the Torah.

How do we know, or think we know, that Moses was the author of the Torah and Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the authors of their respective Gospels. None of them are actually signed, nor do they name an author.

You have no (internal) Binblical definition of what the Bible IS. Whuich bnooks. Which authors. Nowhere in the actual manuscripts is there a 66-book or 73-book or 83-book list of what's IN the Bible.

We know only through Oral Tradition, that is, what has come down to us as commentary, scribal notes or interpretation, later of course written down itself.

That's what Irenaeus cited. That's how he refuted the Gnostics, who were pushing their own, spurious set of Scriptures.

Aren't you glad Irenaeus did that? Otherwise you might have been raised a Gnostic!

[Mrs. Don-o]

You wouldn’t even know what Scripture IS without these guys.

[WVKayaker]

If you had been converted on the Day of Pentecost, how would you have learned about your new faith?

What does that question have to do with the thread's theme?

There were lots of people in the Upper Room. We see in Acts 1 a number of 120. We do not know the number in that upper room on the day of Pentecost. But, Peter preached to the Jews that were present. That was Peter's ministry, to the JEWS. Paul, the oft overlooked (by RC's) writer of most of the New Testament, was the ministers to the world at large. If anyone holds the role of the earthly head of the new church, it would be Paul.

You can keep posting all of your catechism teachings, but It does not agree with Scripture on the basic tenets of Christianity. Only the Word of God, as led by His Holy Spirit, illuminates our hearts to believe!

Acts 2" 17 “‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20 The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
21 And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.’

[gitmo]

I’ve never known believers who follow this model of scripture interpretation. I doubt this writer was really in a Bible based community of believers.

[Gamecock]

You underestimate what God can do. He just happened to use them, like he used others throughout Scripture.

No kudos to the Roman Catholics on this one.

[don-o]

Post 244 begins:

(Gamecock):We do know of a Jewish carpenter....

(don-o): Please cite Scripture for that.

--------------------------------

Let me elaborate. Please cite Scripture that affirms that Jesus was a carpenter.

[don-o]

What does that question have to do with the thread's theme?

It has to do with question I asked in post 210. A few have kind of engaged in discussion of THAT question.

For you consideration, here is my question:

The question this raises is this: What was the means by which (corr typo) the early church (for at least a couple hundred years) was kept free from error? How was anyone to know to not consult, say, The Gospel of Thomas?