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.”
“They are obstinate.”
Yes, and it is more than that. Take note of what they let slip now and then. Many of them are not well educated and certainly not well catechized. Many of them can barely make an argument, don’t read many books, and don’t know the Bible as well as they think they do. Some of them are filled with hatred toward truth (anti-Catholicism is a mental illness it seems). And a few of them are more than willing to OUTRIGHT lie if they believe it will advance their sectarian views. They occupy the same planet but live in a much different world than we do. They also, even after thousands of threads about sola scriptura, still cannot produce even one verse from scripture that actually supports it.
You belive in Scripture, correct?
Then why don't you believe this?
John 21: (We'll be using the KJV today to keep things on even footing): "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."
The Bible Itself declares that it doesn't contain everything.
You belive in Scripture, correct?
Then why don't you believe this?
John 21: (We'll be using the KJV today to keep things on even footing): "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."
The Bible Itself declares that it doesn't contain everything.
The Good Thief had a Baptism of Desire.
Not all people have that. Or ask for it like he did.
He also had been chosen to hang next to Christ during the crucifixion. A special honor. He also recognized Jesus had committed no crime.
Throughout the gospels those that are blessed to recognize the divinity of the Lord despite his human form were rewarded.
“If you can come up with a good Biblical reference for that assertion, we could have a nice debate”
Ignorance is no excuse. Go down to the local library or better yet do a Google search about the history of Christianity and come back and tell me Catholics didn’t compile the Bible and canonize the Bible. Go along now and do you homework.
“Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic.”
So what did the churches use for their New Testament before 400 AD, when local councils discussed the issue, or the 1500s, when the Roman Catholic church finally issued its authoritative list? There was no binding canon for Catholics prior to the Council of Trent, so what did they use?
There is a difference between everything and everything essential.
Again, I'll reference Polycarp, student of Paul, who wrote a letter to the Philippians. In that letter he states that Paul "wrote a letter unto you, into the which if ye look diligently, ye shall be able to be builded up unto the faith given to you,"
Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle Paul. He says that just one letter of Paul is sufficient to build up the faith. Imagine what all of the letters of the new testament make possible?
“The Bible Itself declares that it doesn’t contain everything.”
1. We know EVERYTHING God chose to put in inspired Scriptue. Everything. If there is ANY major doctrine or teaching NECESSARY for salvation, Christian maturity, of Church governance, please post it here.
2. To say that Christ spoke and did other things, but we have no written record, does not further your argument in any way. It will remain an argument from silence. It will remain something God the Father, through the Holy Spirit, chose not to include in Scripture.
3. Of course the Bible “doesn’t include everything.” That isn’t the point or meaning of SolA Scriptura. Why would you think “everything” is necessary for salvation, maturity or governance?
The question was not about what all people have or want, but about what is possible.
Your response in 155 was well thought, balanced, polite, and powerful. Well done!!!
Instead of getting all smug and condescending, you should understand what I was referring to , as I quoted in the line above the challenge in post 152. I will re-post it here as a courtesy, and underline you false assertion:
from Post 152 above:
---------------------------------------------------
QUOTE: "The Catholic Church, started by Christ himself, has the teaching authority for the Bible"
If you can come up with a good Biblical reference for that assertion, we could have a nice debate. For I would counter with this... ----------------------------------------------------
Your condescending statement "Go along now and do you homework." would be well received by yourself. Instead, I would say to you "Go along now and ask your Priest what to believe."
...
Why are you twisting the meaning of what John wrote? He was talking about the many, many things Jesus did while He was with them. John did not say there was a separate revelation outside God's Word.
Amen!
Yes, I'm with you on that.
“...and tell me Catholics didn’t compile the Bible and canonize the Bible. Go along now and do you homework.”
You are wrong, of course.
The assumption is that nothing happened after that. When the Reformation set the Scriptures free, it also set in motion an examination that resulted in a Canon minus the erroneous books Romanism had included.
John 17:14-19 (KJV)
14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
There is only one Truth. It is not found in religion, no matter how cute their costumes, or elaborate their ceremonies, or how long its prowled the Earth. Consider carefully what spirit motivates those that continue to belittle personal Bible study, and hold God’s Word, and the Holy Spirit its author and guide, in such low regard.
You cannot love Jesus and despise his Word. They are one and the same and cannot be separated. No Word, no Jesus, but if you KNOW the Word, you KNOW Jesus.
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. John 6:63
2 Timothy 3:12-17 (KJV)
12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, 1 Peter 2:2
For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. For, “All people are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord endures forever.” And this is the word that was preached to you. 1 Peter 1:23-25
The Bible Itself declares that it doesn't contain everything.
This is true, but it doesn't give license to add any new revelations such as we see develop regarding Mary, indulgences, 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.