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.”
From the article:
“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.”
I stopped reading upon seeing the words that followed “that is to say” in the second full paragraph, knowing that it would only get more preposterously false thereafter. The author’s proposition is akin to the WWII propaganda that depicted all Japanese soldiers and sailors with buckteeth and thick eyeglasses. Such may have worked to some extent 70 years ago, but ...
His assumption that doctrine is based on just a few scriptures to fit what the protestant church wants is just flat out with out support. The doctrine’s of the church have been carefully thought out and the scriptures meticulously studied by men of faith as they were lead by the Holy Spirit and the Bible. The doctrines that have been established are based solidly on scripture and have stood the test of time and attack.
To embrace a system of religion that clearly goes against Gods commandments, minimizes the work that Jesus did on the cross, that elevates a human as a co-redeemer, and says that what Jesus accomplished by his death and resurrection was not enough to pay for your sins, that you must suffer in “purgatory for awhile to finish paying for your sins” is nothing less than mans idea of what is needed to have our sins forgiven and be acceptable to God as perfect. The gate is wide, and the road is easy that leads to death, and many there are that find it.
The only way to be forgiven of all your sins is only through the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ alone. Nothing else will do. The bible makes this perfectly clear to anyone that reads it.
Probably because the context of Mark 7 is so greatly ignored. The Pharisees came to Jesus with a challenge of ritual... the washing of hands. This is a tradition of the elders (Mark 7:5) and it is these types of commandments He is referring to. The Pharisees put aside God;s commands (meant for the rapprochement of Israel) in favor of such ritualistic behavior.
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.
On this I have no problem. It's when we go beyond what the Apostles taught and left to us in their writings we start to go off the track.
The point I was making is that we are capable of searching the Scriptures to find their meanings as did the Bereans as noted in Acts. We should all be doing this. The Holy Spirit will be our Helper in this.
>”teaching them to observe all that I commanded you”
Is there something Christ commanded besides what is in Scripture and from what authority?
Acts 16:29-31 "The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”
What an excellent summation of the Catholic Church's development. You left out one part, though... Christ gave the Deposit of Faith directly to His Apostles and that has been faithfully transmitted through the centuries. This is the Tradition (big "T") which illuminates Scripture. Just as Christ explained the Scripture which spoke of Him on the road to Emmaus so the Church has been given the commission to illuminate the Scriptures to those who have come since. (1 Tim 3:15).
>”Revelation... impenetrable without the rest of Scripture and Tradition.”
Give me one of the latter that I can depend on.
Purgatory
But we don't know all that they said. St Paul references one of his letters as being authoritative in 1 Cor 5:9-11... but we don't have that letter. In 1 Thess 3:10, St Paul says that he wants to be with them face to face because his letter is not enough for their instruction. Rarely did St Paul appeal to Scripture in his writings... he primarily told the reader to be true to the traditions he brought with him (Phil 4:9).
The Bible is the story of our fall and redemption. It isn't a Catechism of all things and a complete instruction manual for life. In Acts 15, we see that the Apostles had to define doctrine based on their understanding of Scripture... not based on established Scripture but in accordance with their commission to the world and authority given by Christ.
Not all was written, only that which was necessary for understanding salvation. The very fact that the Bible Itself tells you It isn't all-inclusive should punch a deciding blow in Sola Scriptura (John 20:30 & John 21:25).
"...the RC Church has been given itself the commission to illuminate, replace, contradict, supplement and supersede the Scriptures to those who have come since based on their Tradition (big T).
That's a lot closer to the truth, eh?
Why don't we simply stick with what is in Scripture... what did Christ serve the Apostles at the Last Supper? Was it His Body and Blood or bread and wine?
what is it about the pope that you think I must believe?
Yes, we have a pope. He is the leader of the Roman Catholic Church and The Eucharist is the center of our faith. Why is this so difficult?
Perhaps we would all understand each other better if we kept our eyes on Christ.
What does the word “believe” mean to you?
I recommend you read The Lamb's Supper by Dr Scott Hahn for a great example.
What about it?
Harry Potter must have been really terrifying.
Since those are your edits, I would say it's a lot closer to your perception than the truth.
Nobody claimed it was.
But the Bible alone is sufficient to explain the path to salvation, in that it points us to Jesus, and CLEARLY explains that "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. Eph 2:8-9
Salvation is not gained through your church membership, rather, you become a member of Christ's church when you are born again!
31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized.
Note all baptized.
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.