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.”
THIS!
Arrogance is no excuse. It is hubris in the extreme to think that God did not have a hand in directing the right men to write, hold and save the works revealed by Him. You attribute to the Catholic Church that which rightfully belongs to God. You elevate man/denomination to a level beyond his pay grade. Give God the Glory. Do a Bible search and see if He doesn't deserve it more.
Regarding changing the Bible...one can make the case that the RCC has been the one to change the Bible by including the Apocrypha as official scripture.
The Jews didn't recognize it...Christ didn't recognize it, Jerome didn't think it was "official" as didn't a number of the ECFs.
After Christ and the apostles you're on shaky ground. Not all of the "doctors of the church" were in agreement on what they wrote about. In fact, some of the things they wrote fly against the written Word.
Now... I'll ask again: What did Christ serve the Apostles at the Last Supper? Was it His Body and Blood or bread and wine?
Luke 22:14-20
14When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table.
15And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.
16For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”
17After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you.
18For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23-27
23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
The bread and wine are symbols of His body and blood.
“The Catholic Church, started by Christ himself, has the teaching authority for the Bible”
The people that wrote the Bible are the “teaching authority”.
All Catholics. Not Jimmy Swaggart and his ilk.
“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”
So all those mean old Christians that existed for the first
1,500 years after the Bible was written were all wrong, were living a false doctrine, and as such are in hell.
You know that means all your ancestors, unless they were Buddists. If they busted hell wide open for preaching and believing in a false doctrine, and for perverting the Word of God, how in the world did anyone manage to survive? Inquiring minds want to know.
“So all those mean old Christians that existed for the first
1,500 years after the Bible was written were all wrong, were living a false doctrine, and as such are in hell.”
No. God makes the Gospel clear. Always has.
Actually, in a larger sense, it is there in principal.
II Tim 3:15 - “...the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” However, churches are essential—they have had centuries to make and correct their mistakes. Unfortunately, some churches, although they may have Christians in them, are not run by Christians.
Well unless you have buddists in your background your ancestors were CATHOLIC!
“The evil one cannot comprehend the joy we receive from the spiritual life; for this reason he is jealous of us, he envies us and sets traps for us, and we become grieved and fall. Therefore we must struggle. Because without struggles we do not obtain virtues.” -Elder leronymos of Aegina
“Well unless you have buddists in your background your ancestors were CATHOLIC!”
Have you ever read about world religions? It turns out there are more than two!
“However, churches are essential—they have had centuries to make and correct their mistakes. Unfortunately, some churches, although they may have Christians in them, are not run by Christians.”
Sure, God has gifted teachers to His gatherings. Some churches have failed to correct their errors.
As they were moved by the Holy Spirit, I agree. However, even those authors fell into error occasionally (Galatians 2), so not everything they taught was authoritative. In either case, since those people are dead, what they wrote is the sole authority, hence "Sola Scriptura"
QUOTE: "All Catholics"
Are you suggesting Moses, Ezekiel, Luke and Jude are Catholics? Or are you asserting that All Catholics have teaching authority, and that "Jimmy Swaggart and his ilk" do not because they are not Catholic?
You are in error on both of those counts, but perhaps there is another meaning I missed?
And the whole point of Sola Scriptura is that the Saint of God, who studies the scripture, can easily identify the errors of the Swaggerts, Hinn's, and Popes of the world.
“Have you ever read about world religions? It turns out there are more than two”
There was only one type of Christian in the world before Luther came along. Catholic.
The Magisterium of the Catholic Church
Defined as “the Church’s divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of religion”. In other words, Our Lord gave His Church the authority to teach the faithful about what is expected of them, and that is what the Church has done consistently from the start.
The Magisterium of Catholic Church teaches the faithful in two ways;
1) Solemn Magisterium: is Church teaching which is used only rarely by formal and authentic definitions of councils or Popes. This includes dogmatic definitions by councils or Popes teaching “ex cathedra”
2) Ordinary Magisterium: this second form of Church teaching is continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers and theologians, in the decisions of the Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense of the Faithful, and various historical documents, in which the faith is declared.
(Definitions from A Catholic Dictionary, 1951)
It is my observation that VERY FEW PEOPLE read the Bible. I could tell that the author of this article hasn’t. But yet he has an opinion based on what? His own understanding? tradition? What others have told him that tickles his ears?
Reading the Bible requires a thinking cap and it is MUCH EASIER to let others do you thinking for you. My evidence is the growth of liberalism and even here on FR, many think the answer to problems is the govt.
Regarding tradition. I trust no man and no man made institution. And yes, protestant and Catholic are MAN MADE institutions. And neither did Jesus, because he knew their hearts, He knows the nature of man. God knows the nature of man.
Sola Scripture does not mean this it is the only source. IT means that you test everything with it. It is the touch stone if anyone knows what that is anymore.
“You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my CHURCH, and the gates of hell will not overcome it”. ~ Matthew 16:18
“I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
~ Matthew 28:20
On reflection there is danger in tradition as well as leaning on your own understanding. Tradition many times begins with leaning on your own understanding. Iron sharpens iron, that is why we are here on FR. But the touch stone is still Gods Word.
Just yesterday, I asked my barber what he was reading in the Bible. He asked me if I had ever heard of the stone of destiny. I said yes, maybe in a movie? He tells me he was at a meeting the other day where others more knowledgeable than him told him about it. It was in the Bible! Where I asked? He showed me some printouts from the internet that did reference something in the Bible.
I let those here who have an inquiring minds do their own research.
Turns out there is a lot of tradition regarding the stone of destiny and yes it is in there. Surprising rocks are in the Bible.
Protestants and Catholics BOTH have relics and traditions and they are useful and dangerous. Why focus on the rock instead of God? Because God requires a thinking cap, I can put the rock in my pocket and go on down the road.
“You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my CHURCH, and the gates of hell will not overcome it”. ~ Matthew 16:18
“I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
~ Matthew 28:20
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.