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.”
The premise not withstanding, this writing style just annoys me with too many unnecessary words and phrases for my liking. I found it difficult to focus on what the author was communicating.
>So this understanding of scripture and church does not preclude doctrinal development?
What the Catholic Church said at the last council is final and infallible until the next council, no matter what Scripture says.
I went and got a few Scriptures to prove Sola Scriptura. After reading all the others posted here, how can there be the least doubt? Deniers are like the Pharisees.
I don’t blame you for denying your pope’s, I’d run from those sinful men too....!
But what of the Traditions of God? When the Apostles were sent forth, they didn't have Bibles with them. The only Scripture they brought was the Old Testament. The New Testament was the word of their testimony... the Tradition born out of the Lamb of God Himself.
Revelation 22
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
How many books are there in the Bible? It's an important question to answer your challenge because Revelation is but one in a library of books. And, by the way, there is no way Revelation could stand on its own. It is a summary of the history of salvation completely impenetrable without the rest of Scripture and Tradition.
RE: This guy has no understanding of Sola Scriptura.
He is describing solo scriptura.
_______________________________________
Many Roman Catholic energies more often than not are aimed at the Anabaptist error that we call Solo Scriptura.
Here the person affirms that all he needs is himself and his Bible. The wisdom of the church in history, the community of believers, studying scripture humbly together, are all deemed irrelevant to understanding the things of God. Solo scriptura is reprehensible and ignorant and a-historical.
But many Roman Catholics continue to erect this strawman and then call it Sola Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura, like the Scriptures themselves, recognizes that God has gifted the church with teachers and pastors.
It recognizes that the church has progressed and reached consensus on critical issues in and through the ancient ecumenical creeds.
It affirms with vigor that we are all standing on the shoulders of giants.
But it also affirms that even these giants have feet of clay (yes, Popes and Saints included ).
And there is where the Bible does in the end teach sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is a biblical doctrine not because the Bible says so. That would be a tautology- the kind of argument we find in that collection of lies the Book of Mormon.
Instead the Bible is our alone final authority because it alone is the Word of God. It has been attested, authenticated, by God Himself. Miracles serve as the divine imprimatur, the proof that this is a message of God. This is how Nicodemus reasoned when he said, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him” (John 3:2). This is also how Jesus Himself reasoned when He first forgave the sins of the paralytic lowered through the roof. In response to the unspoken charge that He had blasphemed, Jesus told the man, “Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house” (Matthew 9:1-8).
Here’s the other thing that might surprise the Catholic.... I would be quite content to add as a second infallible and inerrant authority the ancient creeds of the church under the following conditions.
1) First, those who gathered to formulate these creeds would need to have their message authenticated by miraculous works. Let them raise men from the dead like Christ and His apostles and prophets did.
2) Second, we must add those creeds to our Bibles. If both sources are equally authoritative, why do we separate them?
3) In like manner, I’d be content to add as a second infallible and inerrant authority the statements of the Pope when He speaks ex cathedra.
First, however, let him raise men from the dead. Second, let us add his words, assuming he would even tell us what they were, to our canon.
But wait, there’s more. I want an authoritative list, in both instances of what these messages are.
I want the Roman Catholic to show me a list of infallible papal or consiliar statements.
Finally, when we talk about the problem of interpretation we run headlong into the problem of the infinite regress.
That is, those who are less strident in their views on tradition, who deny that tradition carries additional content to the Scripture, instead argue that church tradition gives an infallible and inerrant interpretation of Scripture.
Okay. Where then can we find an infallible and inerrant interpretation of the interpretation?
Assuming we could succeed there, of course, we would need an inerrant interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation. Ad nauseum.
But let’s stop here.
I believe that Scripture is God’s word and it is perspicuous, understandable. It says what it means and means what it says.
It is attested by the miraculous power of God. And it is all these things, alone. It alone, all by itself, equips us for every good work.
I get suspicious of anyone who tells me that MORE is required to understand, or MORE is required to obey.
Salvation is not found in sola scriptura, not is it found in anything out side of scripture. Salvation is found in the person, Jesus Christ. When one is born again, they become members of his church. Walking the aisle, being confirmed, signing a card or joining a church are ALL man made rituals!
Acts 4:12 "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."
Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
John 20:31 "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."
It is sad you are convinced your salvation is in your church membership and your eucharist, because, according to the Bible, you are sorely mistaken!
Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people
Jude
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!
Gal 1:8
I am NOT by any means a perfect nor near perfect Christian but my ability to read is fairly certain.
You might want to go back to Scripture on that... Interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private revelation (2 Peter 1:20). Left to our own devices, we distort Scripture in our lack of understanding to our own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).
More on the problems with Sola Scriptura from a previous discussion. We tend to do this a lot around here...
Why is that first part of the sentence so little explained?
One presumes these "great teachers" were all in agreement on everything. Newsflash...they weren't.
The final authority is God. No man or group of men can get there, only make arguments. And all the premises of those arguments must come from Scripture. And that brings you right back.
WHICH Scriptures? The only written Scripture at the time of Acts was the Old Testament. They were studying what the Church practices today... the New Testament was concealed in the Old and the Old Testament has been revealed by the New. They searched the Old Testament to find the truth of the testimony brought by the Apostles. The Apostles brought their own experience and their teaching authority in building Christ's Church, not Bibles to be memorized.
“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ “
When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
Acts 2 37-38
Private interpretation is gnosticism.
But my post 53 and you will see that your argument for more than Scripture must come right back to Scripture or error.
Do you deny God's authority to grant authority to whom He chooses?
Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
uhhh...thought that was an official teaching of the RCC. that means you gotta believe it.
“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ “
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.