February 21, 2008 3:18 PM
Evangelical to Catholic #19 - Sola Scriptura
[Note: this is part of a continuing series chronicling my journey from evangelicalism to Catholicism. This series is not meant to cause division, but to reveal division already there - and to spark honest discussion. As an evangelical I've heard and continue to hear lots of criticism of the Catholic church but little self-examination on the Protestant side. So if my comments seem more directed towards questioning nonCatholic believers, that is why. Please, if you are new to this discussion, realize that a lot of ground has already been covered in the comments and read through those on previous entries before rehashing old news. I am receiving a lot of feedback that this has been an eye-opening and thought-provoking series for many believers on either side. If that is the case, then I consider my call as a writer fulfilled. I can only hope that each of us is examining his/her conscience for areas of stubbornness, presumption and pride.]
Sola scriptura?
Some time ago I had an epiphany about Sola Scriptura.
It was really very simple and very childlike - in an Emperor's New Clothes sort of way - as though I stepped outside the culture of arguing whether the New Clothes were made of satin or silk and realized that we were talking about didn't exist at all.
I simply realized that Sola Scriptura was an impossible philosophical construct. Impossible because whenever one approaches the scripture, it is no longer the scripture alone, but the scripture filtered through the human mind.
Though I say the revelation was simple, the underpinnings - epistemology and the philosophy of the mind - are more complex. (My degree - via George Mason University and San Francisco State is in philosophy.) But I'm not as inclined to pin my faith on complexities as on the simple and childlike. Didn't God say He had chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27)?
What I mean is that any human mind brings with it wherever it goes whatever it contains - via education and experience. If you began a relationship with God without direction from any other person (which Tripp and I did, actually), in approaching the Scripture you would have only your very own experience and education with which to apprehend it.
Now if someone else came along who had the same tabula rosa first encounter with scripture, chances are they might have a slightly different take on some specific scriptures.
Which is why millions of people who claim to believe in Sola Scriptura are split into thousands upon thousands of denominations. Leaders - persuasive people, dominating people - rise to the top and followers find the denomination or non-denomination (kind of thought-provoking word, isn't it?) that happens to dovetail with their own basic inclinations in regard to interpreting scripture.
Those followers within the denomination who never find anything to disagree with may rise to the top and continue leadership. There will always be those.
Those followers who find something with which they disagree - perhaps because of further experience and growing in their walk with the Lord, perhaps because of confusion - will drift away to another denomination which they think fits them better.
However, those followers who disagree who happen to be persuasive and dominant enough may leave the church they find "imperfect" biblically to start their own "perfect" expression of Sola Scriptura - much as a rebellious child breaks completely with his family.
From The Church: Why Bother? by Tim Stafford, printed in Christianity Today (evangelical) January 6, 2005:
A man is rescued after 20 years on a desert island. His rescuer is astonished to find that the castaway has built several imposing structures."Wow!" the rescuer says. "What's that beautiful stone building overlooking the bay?"
"That is my home," the castaway says.
"And what about that building over there, with the spires?"
"That," the castaway says, "is my church."
"But wait!" the rescuer says. "That building over there, with the bell tower. What is that?"
"That is the church I used to belong to."
The joke expresses a certain spirit of U.S. church life. We build 'em, and we quit 'em. Somebody will leave a church even if he is the only member.
It's funny, but not funny at all. And I'm sure it grieves our Heavenly Father, who through Jesus Christ and the Apostles left us a church.
It is that authority which has been passed down through the ages which keeps the Roman Catholic Church from splintering into a million pieces as over time there has been a consensus of interpretation of Scripture. While I may have prided myself on my intellect at a younger age, as I grow older I appreciate the collective wisdom of my elders - including especially now in regard to religious questions, the wisdom of the early church fathers who knelt with the apostles themselves.
I no longer understand how evangelicals can rail against the authority of the historical church while demanding within individual denominations or even local congregations that the lower echelon "submit to authority." I have seen that heavy-handed domination wielded without mercy by men who've become petty tyrants. And I've seen even the nicest and most well-intentioned pastors - who would argue against priests as intermediaries - assume that they know more than those "below" them on the individual church's hierarchical structure.
As I continue to reflect on my evangelical experience, which I credit with bringing me so close to Jesus that I could never be content to follow man, I am seeing that many things evangelicals accuse the Roman Catholic Church of are found in some distorted way within the denominational - and non-denominational (again, that funny word) - churches.
I will be sharing more parallels I've noticed soon. There's always so much more going on than I can possibly write about. I invite your thoughts and ideas.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For a less experiential and more theological discussion see Sola Scriptura.
Posted in Catholicism, My life | Permalink
Comments
The whole notion of Sola Scriptura is a joke. If you are going to contend to believe something it MUST be written in the Bible then, by default, that 'rule' must also be there. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that it is the sole rule of faith so the argument is based on nothing (or perhaps sand).
I've never understood how to jive that with the fact that there was a time when there was NO Bible. Jesus didn't go to heaven then poof the book appeared. Peter, Paul, and the rest of the disciples had no book to refer to once Christ left. Sola Scriptura would assert that they too must have been in error in their teachings. Hogwash!
Posted by: Regina | February 21, 2008 8:35 PM
"It is that authority which has been passed down through the ages which keeps the Roman Catholic Church from splintering into a million pieces as over time..."
I always appreciate reading your thoughts. It is a part of my daily life. You have given me so much to think about over the years. I must point out that even though the Catholic church hasn't split into millions of pieces there have been thousands who have left the church for another faith or denomination and there are dozens of different styles of Catholic churches (which is in essense the same thing as different Evangelical churches.) Spirit-filled Catholics, Independent Old Catholic, Orthodox, Orthodox Eastern, etc.
Posted by: Kristin | February 22, 2008 7:11 AM
I feel compelled to point out that none of those groups are a part of the Roman Catholic Church, which is headed by the bishop of Rome (the Pope). Independent Old Catholics, in particular, do not believe the same things that Catholic do and divorced themselves from the Church. The succession of their bishops, to my knowledge, is invalid as well.
The different styles of the Mass or particular parish do not mean they are different denominations. We all adhere to the same Creeds, the same Catechism, and the same Magisterium, no matter if guitars or organs, Spanish, English, or Latin, are used during Mass.
Eastern Orthodox members have valid orders (their bishops are real bishops, successors to the Apostles) but they are not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church (hopefully, that will change, it's looking promising!)
Posted by: Milehimama | February 22, 2008 10:04 AM
Not that it really bears upon the discussion at hand, but the first time I heard that joke was back in the late 90s and it involved a Jewish man on the island. (my roommate told it to me when we lived in a town of 1 sq mile with 9 synagogues to explain why there were so many - not that she originated the joke by any means) Man is sinful self-centered, and self-righteous whether Evangelical, Catholic, or Jewish.
However, regarding Regina's comment:
"I've never understood how to jive that with the fact that there was a time when there was NO Bible. Jesus didn't go to heaven then poof the book appeared. Peter, Paul, and the rest of the disciples had no book to refer to once Christ left. Sola Scriptura would assert that they too must have been in error in their teachings. Hogwash!"
Since the time of Moses there has been a written, inspired word of God.
It just seems like a very post-modern view of scripture to assert that there is no "sola scriptura" because we aren't a tabula rasa. Of course man twists and mangles scripture with his own experience, that's why we've been given the holy spirit to help us properly interpret them.
Unfortunately, I'm no scholar nor am I a competent theologian. (nor did I have a couple of minutes of silence to figure out my thoughts...) I look forward to reading more of your journey, even though I don't agree with you, because it has been helping me to think through my own faith.
Posted by: gwen | February 22, 2008 11:11 AM
Of course man twists and mangles scripture with his own experience, that's why we've been given the holy spirit to help us properly interpret them.
Gwen, which interpretations within Protestantism's many denominations are the proper interpretations?
For instance, baptism. Which is the proper interpretation?
Posted by: Kim | February 22, 2008 1:42 PM
Yes, Gwen thank you for clarifying. I suppose I just assumed people would understand I was speaking about the Bible as whole and not splitting up the Testaments--especially since most Protestants I know don't even really like to talk about/consider the Old Testament as being important (hence carrying around their cute little NT books in their pockets, and the NT certainly didn't appear the moment Christ left). As for the holy spirit helping us 'properly' interpret scripture, which view is proper? Is it correct to assert that the sin of Onan is one of contraception or is it correct to assert that he was killed because he did not go along with the custom of the time? A non-denominational friend said the latter was the reason but when I asked why He wouldn't do the same to Jacob when he stole Esau's blessing she had no answer. Which would be correct since the 'holy spirit' (in your presumption) guided both ideas (I would assert only one had such guidance, but I am a biased Catholic)
According to the theory that we can all interpret as we see fit there is NO truly right answer; therefore, I don't see how those with such a belief can then say ANY (regardless of denomination) belief in terms of scripture is incorrect.
Posted by: Regina | February 22, 2008 5:46 PM
