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.”
How does one become born again?
Exactly
I’m actually trying to carry on a conversation. Do you care or would you rather score cheap points?
Who is Dr Scott Hahn that I should believe him?
Recommending a book instead of answering the question is a copout.
I listened to Paul’s letter to the Galatians three times today while performing manual labor. I wasn’t alone, as the Holy Spirit was using one of my beloved brothers in the cloud of witnesses to communicate His Truth to me.
Glorious!
>”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?”
I’ll ask again, on what premises besides Scripture do you base your opinion?
No. It's a recognition that what took a book to explain isn't going to be summarized terribly well here. If you insist, I will try (but it won't be anywhere near a complete argument)...
The Mass is the joining of Heaven and Earth. In the Mass, we participate in Christ's sacrifice on the Cross imaged in Revelation as the Lamb slain. There is a Heavenly reality to the Earthly liturgy. This reality is expressed in Revelation but understanding it requires an understanding of Tradition (big T)--especially the Liturgy of the Mass.
I doubt you would believe what i said I believed concerning the definition of believe is.
However, I think, as a matter of discourse in the English language, we can agree that words mean things, and that there a standard definitions to words that we all should accept, or we play semantics instead of debating doctrine. So, I will go with Websters definition:
to accept or regard (something) as true
Thus, I regard it as true, factual, and veracious that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life, was crucified for our sins, was dead and buried, and physically raised by God to life on the 3rd day. Furthermore, I freely confess Jesus is LORD. (all caps intentional).
Furthermore, I fully accept Jesus' words that my belief ALONE is sufficient for my salvation.
John 3:14-16 " 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.” 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
You’ve been using every trick to say nothing.
I stand on the foundation laid by Christ and built through His Apostles, Martyrs, Saints and Doctors of the Church.
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?
>”The Mass is the joining of Heaven and Earth. In the Mass, we participate in Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross imaged in Revelation as the Lamb slain. There is a Heavenly reality to the Earthly liturgy. This reality is expressed in Revelation but understanding it requires an understanding of Tradition (big T)—especially the Liturgy of the Mass.”
And IF I told you that these assertions are wrong, to what authority would you appeal? (Besides Dr Hahn’s opinion, that is)
Are there truths outside the Bible? Yes. Are some of them important truths passed on by wise men who knew the Lord or his Apostles? Yes. Are there truths outside the Bible necessary for salvation. No. Who Jesus is, what he did, what he accomplished on the cross, that he was resurrected and rose from the dead and ascended into heaven are pretty much laid out in black and white. As a result, our sins are forgiven and we are new men in Chirst. That is the gospel. The rest is backstory. Magnificent backstory. But backstory nevertheless.
Is there much more depth in the Bible that I don’t understand? Yes. Would I like to? Yes. Do I need to? No.
The important stuff is really really simple AND unambiguous.
My honest prayer is that you are genuinely seeking the answer to that question!!!
Jesus told Niccodemus in John 3:3 "...you must be born again". He went on the explain what I quoted above in John 3:14-16
" 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,
15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Titus 3:5 elaborates he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,
John 1:12-13 further explains 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
true
BOO!
(I’m a Calvinist.)
Even the demons believe... and they tremble in terror (James 2:19).
Furthermore, I freely confess Jesus is LORD.
Yet, not everyone who says to Christ, "Lord, Lord" will enter the Kingdom of God (Matt 7:21). Rather, only those who DO the will of God the Father.
Protestants decry the DOING part of salvation but it is essential. It's not that we are earning our salvation but that we are preparing for it. Believe is an action word. Your description is passive. If I believe that hard work will pay off in my business, that is good. It's even better if I roll up my sleeves and actually DO the hard work. If you believe in Christ as Lord, then you will do all that He has commanded. He commanded us to be baptized (Matt 28:19), confess our sins (John 20 & Acts 19:18), eat His flesh (John 6:56), fast, pray and give alms (Matt 6).
I offer this previous post for more of a discussion on the "work" we are called to. It's getting late and I should be going to bed soon.
No doubt, we are commanded to be baptized after we believe!
Also note "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" comes first and is independently sufficient. See also the scriptures listed in posts 66 & 93
Really? Looking back at our conversation, I'm doing most of the talking. You're throwing out one-word posts and calling that an argument.
>”I stand on the foundation laid by Christ and built through His Apostles, Martyrs, Saints and Doctors of the Church.”
That’s rather general. But let’s say that I say it is a metaphor and you say it means there is a literal transubstantiation. On what basis can you say I’m wrong? I would only say that neither you nor any other human being can prove it, and what difference does it make?
I should accept your authority over the authority given the Church? Perhaps you would like to make an argument for your cause besides just asserting I am incorrect...?
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.