Why Sola Scriptura Honestly Scares Me

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.”

God through the Holy Spirit is the soul author that moved and inspired man to write the scriptures.
For the Bible it's self tells that :

2 Peter 1:20:20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

In other words nothing in the Bible that was written was the imagination or contrived by man.
The soul authority of scripture is from God through the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is our teacher.

However I would go on to say that anyone who was " Born Again " and or Protestant and left the faith is considered " Apostate " .
Salvation through grace by faith only.... not by works.
Of course what James said about " faith without works is dead " is a whole another debate.
Simply put, he was not talking about saving faith, but daily practical faith, it has nothing to do with your eternal salvation.
Your " eternal salvation " was bought and paid for by the blood of Jesus and accepted by faith only.

Is there much more depth in the Bible that I don’t understand? Yes. Would I like to? Yes. Do I need to? Bu>No.

Fascinating. So the Bible is the ultimate authority but you don't need to understand it fully? 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?

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 Theology Degrees to impress people that they are somebody who knows the bible who don't have the Holy Spirit within them.

Take this warning now, don't follow the ways of man, or the paths of man.... the Bible Sola Scripture is your safe haven.

The problem with your citations is that none of them actually explain the "how" of becoming born again. The discussion with Nicodemus comes the closest when Jesus says we are to be born of "water and spirit". I really need to go to bed... I offer this previous discussion for more on the subject. We tend to plow the same ground over and over around here...

The God of Grace gives us hope, The Gospel of Jesus Christ, Good News....
Those who want power and to control people are those who have a bad agenda in mind and imprison people and their souls by fear, and intimidation.
After the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ coming to God now in his presents of Grace should not be a fearful thing, it was his love and grace that saved us.

On what authority does the church make stuff up?

Galatians 1
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

But let’s say that I say it is a metaphor and you say it means there is a literal transubstantiation. On what basis can you say I’m wrong?

I would point you back to the words of Christ, St Paul (1 Cor 11), and the many popes and doctors of the Church. The Church was given authority by Christ and the Church has held the truth of transubstantiation from the beginning (though the word took a while to define).

I would only say that neither you nor any other human being can prove it, and what difference does it make?

Is that you, Hilary? Just kidding. Getting punch-drunk from fatigue.

The question of authority is essential because without it we have no unity. We are mean to be one in faith (John 17:21). Please read the following prior posts on the subject of authority... it is important and makes all the difference.

On the Authority of the Church
More on the Authority of the Church
Even more on the Authority of the Church

QUOTE: Even the demons believe... and they tremble in terror (James 2:19).

Did you misquote that intentionally? In it's entirety "19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." I believe and stated much more that simple mono-theism. In any case, demons can't be saved, only humans.

QUOTE: "Yet, not everyone who says to Christ, "Lord, Lord" will enter the Kingdom of God (Matt 7:21). Rather, only those who DO the will of God the Father. "

TRUE!! and to clarify,

John 6:28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” 29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

The verses you quoted do not support your assertion that Jesus commanded us to confess our sins, but I do agree that we are to confess them one to another, for we are all priests!

Regarding your sole proof text for the transubstantiation, we will have to agree to disagree on that point, and we will not convince one another otherwise, I am sure.

Finally, I am not a protestant, I am a follower of The Way, a Christian. If anything, call me an anabaptist. Since they preceded Luther's act, and were killed by the RCC for their beliefs regarding the scriptural prescription for baptism, communion and salvation, they are not offshoots of the RCC.

The Church and Apostles were given specific authorities, many cited in this thread.

Plenary and arbitrary authority is only ascribed to any human or institution and claimed by Satan, as demonstrated (pun!) in the Gospels:

Matthew 16:23
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Mark 8:33
But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

If Sola Scripture it's frightening, terrifying, horrible, then please explain why many Protestants throughout many centuries were martyred, burned to the stake, killed for their faith and for trying to bring the " Scriptures " to the people ?
It seems ? those who want to keep the truth of God's word from the masses, the people, and to keep their control over the people, and their power grab should be those whom you should fear.
You want a good example of this ? take a look at what is happening in some of the middle east countries who are Muslim.

QUOTE: "The problem with your citations is that none of them actually explain the "how" of becoming born again."

John 1:12-13 is as plain as day!

12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

1. Believed in his name
2. given the right to become children of God (children are born)
3. born of God. (Since you have been born once, this is being born again!)

John 3:5-6 explains we must be "born of the spirit", and John 3:14-16 explains how that is achieved, belief in Jesus.

Jon 3:15 is as plain as it can be: "that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him."

QUOTE: "I would point you back to the words of Christ, St Paul (1 Cor 11)"

I looked up the words of Paul, and they were:

1 Cor 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

These verses don't seem to suggest transubstantiation, rather, they suggest a memorial, a way to remind ourselves and proclaim the great sacrifice made for our salvation. It does not seem to suggest failing to take the supper or to believe in transubstantiation leads to damnation.

Jesus was reminding the Pharisees that in so doing by their traditions of man, that they were in fact laying aside the commandments of God, to honor thy father and mother.

He said in verse 9 in that setting while talking to them "
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. "

So Jesus was not talking about how everyday people were not keeping God's commandment, but how the religious leaders were hypocrites in not keeping God's commandments by holding into their own man made " traditions " .

In other words, they were in fact rejecting God's word and doing what they wanted to do and force others to hold to it even if it was not commanded by God to do so.

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.