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.”
And Jesus told the religious leaders that they thought that they would find eternal life in them, the scriptures, but he told them that if they were to search the scriptures that they testify of him, and that they would find eternal life in him.
What God says in the Bible ought to scare the Bejesus out of you—or hopefully, scare the Jesus into you. The alternative of eternal damnation is certainly not very attractive.
Or convince God to say Yes.
Writer is CORRECT.
Of course God can do that and He DOES do that, however, where do we find God granting authority to anyone to grant the SAME authority to other people? The ONLY Apostolic succession we know of is the succession of the message and not the OFFICE of Apostle, and certainly not the same authority Jesus personally gave to the Apostles.
Well said!
......Yet Jesus IS the BREAD of LIFE, John 6.
I agree with you, NKP. Context is very important.
What does the following sentence mean?
“John is gay.”
In 2014, most people say it means a person is a homosexual. But what if I say the sentence was written in 1914? Then it means John is happy. Same three words, 100 years apart, two totally different meanings.
Very few Catholics or other Christians know that the “magic potions” condemned in Revelation 9:21 are ancient contraceptive/abortifacient drugs. They think ancient forms of alcohol or marijuana are only being condemned because they’re reading the words from a 21st century context and not a first or second century context.
By all means, everyone read their Bibles. But its interpretation can be MUCH more difficult than people can imagine. I’ll never cut myself off from its interpretation by the Holy Spirit speaking through the Catholic Church.
Quote-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?
All that study of His Word(that did become flesh and dwelt among us) in 2,000 years, and counterfeits like december 25 and easter sunday are what the mother and her daughters stick with for important worship days?
My goodness, I chuckle at all of this hand wringing about the bible.
Its about the message, folks. And the message is pretty consistent among the different translations.
Bible study is fine. The context is interesting. But you do not need even the slightest context to understand the message of peace and love.
So go on worrying about all of this other stuff. I will worry about loving my neighbor.
In short, you are making this way too hard. Its easy.
This has got to be one of the most silliest arguments I have ever read. Even Peter referred to Paul's writings as scripture. As far as the Bible never discussing the Bible or interpreting the Bible, I would refer one to Psalms 119.
Psa 119:18 Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law.
Psa 119:19 I am a sojourner on the earth; hide not your commandments from me!
Psa 119:20 My soul is consumed with longing for your rules at all times.
Psa 119:21 You rebuke the insolent, accursed ones, who wander from your commandments.
Psa 119:22 Take away from me scorn and contempt, for I have kept your testimonies.
Psa 119:23 Even though princes sit plotting against me, your servant will meditate on your statutes.
Psa 119:24 Your testimonies are my delight; they are my counselors.
...
Psa 119:33 He. Teach me, O LORD, the way of your statutes; and I will keep it to the end.
Psa 119:34 Give me understanding, that I may keep your law and observe it with my whole heart.
Psa 119:35 Lead me in the path of your commandments, for I delight in it.
Psa 119:36 Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!
Psa 119:37 Turn my eyes from looking at worthless things; and give me life in your ways.
Psa 119:38 Confirm to your servant your promise, that you may be feared.
Psa 119:39 Turn away the reproach that I dread, for your rules are good.
Psa 119:40 Behold, I long for your precepts; in your righteousness give me life!
ect....
Only people who do not believe in Gods word or those who do not want to obey Gods word could make such a statement.
Mark 13
30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
Satan would love it if Jesus could be proved wrong, but it has been nearly 2000 years and it has not happened.
The religionists do not want people reading the scripture themselves because it takes away their pomp and wealth which is glory to them.
Methinks this guy doesn’t know his jots from his tittles.
“It is sad you are convinced your salvation is in your church membership”
It’s sad that you gleaned that from my post, because I said no such thing.
Honestly. I will never understand the constant back and forth with these sola scriptura folks. What could possibly be said that hasn’t already been said. They are obstinate.
Here’s a Bible reference: “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.”
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.