The Lambeth Bible, England 1140
Sola Scriptura is one of the two major Sola doctrines of Reformed
theology. It is defined as the "teaching that the Scriptures contain all
that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God" and that
"the Old and New Testaments are the final authority in all that they
address" (CARM). The problems with Sola Scriptura vary.
*If the
Bible is the final or sole authority, then why did it take the Church to
formalize a set Canon of Scriptures, since the Bible is silent on such a
thing? The statement that the Canon is made simply by Christ and the
Apostles quoting from books is a fallible one, because some that they do
not quote directly from with "It is written" are Esther, Song of Songs,
and Ecclesiastes. Yet some apocryphal books are mentioned or quoted:
the Book of Enoch (Jude 14-15), the Assumption of Moses (Jude 9), and
the Epistle to the Laodiceans (Colossians 4:16).
*Sola Scriptura
is very different among different churches. For Lutherans, Sola
Scriptura is radically different from what it is to Baptists. For
Baptists, it is a bit different from what it is to Pentecostals. For
Pentecostals, it is very different from what it is to Methodists. On top
of that, Sola Scriptura can be used both by conservative and liberal
churches, each claiming they go by what the Bible literally says. In my
conversations with Fundamentalists, the have told me there is no such
thing as a true or infallible Church, but only what the Bible says and
does not say; hence, the status of a person or church being doctrinally
sound depends on their interpretation of the Bible. So, can a church go
from doctrinally sound to unsound or vice versa? Apparently so; many
churches become 'pro-choice' while many other become pro-life; others go
from low church liturgy to high church liturgy. There are over 33,000
denominations claiming they interpret the Bible infallibly and cling to
Sola Scriptura. I ask many, which is the true biblical church? Not one
has answered me this; one answered, "I personally think..."
Unfortunately, when we explain that we disagree with Sola Scriptura,
many get the assumption that we hate the Bible and do not believe that
the Bible has everything we need for edification in the faith. The
reason we disagree with Sola Scriptura is because it is an attempt to
interpret the Bible for oneself independent of the authority of the
Church; it is because this doctrine allows for one to interpret what
they say is or is not in the Bible instead of what necessarily is or is
not in the Bible.
*I have talked with Fundamentalists who say,
"Sola Scriptura is what Jesus and the apostles taught." Really?! They
back this up with the fact that they quote from books in the Bible with
authority, saying, "It is written." They ignore how many times Christ
spoke in parables, things which were not written in the Old Testament
books. Quoting from the Bible is useful, since the Bible is an extremely
sourceful and reliable book -- and is inspired or 'breathed by God'
[theopneustos] (2 Timothy 3:16) -- but that does not mean the Bible
alone (Sola Scriptura) is authoritative. They completely ignore that the
Bible itself does not give itself sole authority, yet it says that the
Church is the 'pillar and foundation of truth' (1 Timothy 3:15). Our
Lord told His Apostles that one should "tell the Church" and "if he
refuses to listen even to the Church, then treat him as you would a
Gentile or tax collector" (Matthew 18:17). This verse indicates the
authority of the Church as given by Christ Himself, who is the husband
of the Church (Ephesians 5:23) and has founded His Church upon the
Apostles (Ephesians 2:20). The foundation of the Church upon the
Apostles means that this power is transfered from the Apostles to their
successors: priests, bishops and popes. They have the power of 'binding
and loosing' (Matthew 18:18), meaning they have the power of
excommunication and absolution, but also of interpreting Scriptures
according to the authority of the Church. Jesus told the disciples and
Apostles everything that the Old Testament that spoke about Jesus, then
this was transfered through oral tradition from the Apostles to the
other Christians: e.g. Saint Philip was ordained as a deacon of
Jerusalem by the Apostles (Acts 6:5-7), they taught Philip the word of
God [orally], who taught it orally to the Ethiopian eunuch and he
interpreted Isaiah 53 for him (Acts 8:26-35). This expresses the
authority of the early Church in the apostles, presbyters, bishops and
evangelists; this power is transfered from them to today's clergy;
something called Apostolic Succession [see more later].
*If there
was not an official Canon of Scriptures until the late 4th century,
then how could the Church go by the Bible alone? The books now called
divinely inspired are authentic books: the Holy Spirit has guided the
Church since the beginning to determine this, yet the Church highly
relied on Apostolic Tradition [see more later]. We are told to hold fast
to the traditions we were taught "either by oral statement or by a
letter" (2 Thessalonians 2:15). One may use many Scripture verses [as I
do], but as long as one's interpretation does not contradict that of the
Church.
*It is said, "In them [letters] there are some things
hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort as they do the
other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:16). That is a major reason why the Church
-- buided by the Holy Spirit and Apostolic Tradition -- is necessary
for interpretation. In Haydock's Commentary, George Leo Haydock speaks
on 2 Timothy 3:16: "As to the first, does this follow; the Scriptures
must be read by Timothy, a priest, a bishop, a man of God, a minister of
the gospel, whose office it is to instruct and convert others,
therefore they are proper to be read and expounded by every ignorant man
or woman? Does not St. Paul say elsewhere, (2 Corinthians 2:17) that
many adulterate and corrupt the word of God...But if we would have the
whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with
those Scriptures which Timothy knew from his infancy, (that is, with the
Old Testament alone) nor yet with the New Testament, without taking
along with it the traditions of the apostles and the interpretation of
the Church, to which the apostles delivered both the book and the true
meaning of it (Challoner)." By the time that the Second Epistle to Saint
Timothy was written, the Church used only the Old Testament, which
prophesied about Our Lord. How do we even know the New Testament is
divinely inspired? We know because the Church, as moved by the Spirit,
has declared such.
The Catechism greatly explains the
relationship between Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition: "Sacred
Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and
communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the
same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one
thing, and move towards the same goal." Each of them makes present and
fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain
with his own 'always, to the close of the age'" (#80).
No comments:
Post a Comment