Response to FightingVaticant (part 8) - revisiting authority and Sola Scriptura
Think about this, and this is something i truly believe: If there was not Catholic Church, no Pope, no bishop, all of our doctrines never existed, you never heard of the Church, their was no Church, and you read some of the Verses we have been discussing, i almost promise you would see them in a different light. To hear "This is my Body," and know that even if Jesus was speaking figuratively, in Aramaic that would simply mean "to insult, to beat up", to see how the Disciples left them and he let them go, to hear him say "Peter, you are Rock", you would wonder who is the Rock, and where is he. The church has rubbed alot of people the wrong way... not really the church but the people in the Church. I just wonder if we don't like authority, and we don't like hard truths sometimes, like contraception, or abortion, and when it just gets tough.
Like you told me, you think that Jesus would speak to his Discples in Greek, but you are not sure... What if he didn't? You have that gray area their, and you can only wonder and interpertat that yourself, 2000 years after the fact, but there is a Depoist of Faith that has been going on since then, and where the same truth has been passed down of Jesus, of his life, of who he is, which explains who we are, not just in a book, but by community, more then anything. We know just by looking at ourselves Our God is a God of Relationship, of interaction, through a very physcial way through the Bible. Always actions were preformed, from the Old to the New, matter played a part and people played a part together to discover the truth, and for me it is hard to believe that God would halt traditions(i know you said not all tradtions are bad, but understand what i am coming from), would stop having leaders led his people, from Moses, to Abraham, David...People who said what God said, leaders of his People. And truly if the old is a shadow of the new, then why would things be so differnt now?
This will be my final response to your initial letter. Hopefully I can start tackling some of the other responses that you have had to my previous response, for instance on covenants and stuff like that.
I believe I understand what you are saying in regards to the historical process of the existence of the Church. Certainly I am not saying that the Church’s existence should ever be compromised nor should it not exist. Where we differ is what we believe the Church is. I say that it is people who comprise the Church whereas it seems that you want to say that it is an institution that can exist apart from people. When you say, “…not really the Church, but the people in the Church…” the implication is that people are not the Church. But for whom did Christ die? Was it for people or an institution? I say people. I say that Christ died for the sins of His elect people from every tribe, race, nation and tongue so that together and in all ages, they are the Church. If I understand your position correctly, the Church did not begin to exist until after Christ’s death and resurrection.
You keep raising the “authority” issue. The problem is not authority but who is in authority. Whereas you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the infallible authority, I say that it is God alone. And since the Bible is God’s sole preserved revelation that we have and that He purposefully and willfully spoke so that the scriptures are God-breathed, they alone are speak with God’s infallible authority. And hence, I say that the Scriptures alone are the final authority for matters of faith and doctrines. Again, note that I am not saying the “only” but the “final”. That being said, let me say that I do not deny the community of the Church that has existed for the ages. I do recognize that there have been and are many great and godly men whom the Holy Spirit has gracious led into great truths. However, these men are not infallible. Though they are capable of speaking the truth and putting it into ways that can be understood, etc…, that does not mean that these men or their interpretations take the place of the Word of God. The word of God is still the final authority. It is possible, no matter how much study to misunderstand. I look to early Fathers like Augustine, Athanasius to name a few. I read the works of Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, R.C. Sproul, James R. White, etc…but I never attribute what they say as the final authority. At best, they have a derivative authority and they only speak authoratively so long as what they say is in line with God’s word and His authority. They do not, and neither do I, speak on my own nor do I have the right to the authority that God does.
Hence, Sola Scriptura does not mean that we read the Scriptures without a context. I believe it was Calvin who continued to argue that the Bible is a book of the Church. It is for the Church. It is not a book that can be interpreted any way. I have not read the section of the Institutes dealing with the Church yet, but I have heard from several authors commenting on it that Calvin held that no Christian had the right to exist apart from the Church. They often quote Calvin as saying, “He cannot have God as his Father who does not have the Church as his mother.” I’m not sure, but I think Calvin was also quoting an early father when he said and agreed with that statement.
The point is, Sola scriptura does not mean that each person is an authority unto themselves making the Bible to say whatever they want it to say. Sola Scriptura is a sole submission to God through His word, not the Church. Those who are familiar with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura understand that the Bible was a book inspired by God with intention and so its meaning must be sought out in the Scriptures. For instance, we cannot take a particular verse or words out of context and then say, “well, that’s what I think it says…” For instance, the Mormons will quote John 10:34 as “proof” that men may become “gods”. But when one looks at the context of the quote and the context of the Psalm in which Jesus was speaking of, we discover that the Mormon interpretation is not according to true sense in which Jesus spoke those words. Sola Scriptura simply tries to remain faithful to the text and not add to God’s written word nor subtract from it. Jesus spoke in Mark 7 about how certain “traditions” can take away from God’s word. Now, I know that Catholic get ragged on for “traditions” but Protestants have developed their own little “traditions” as well. We must be faithful the text. This is why I am learning the Biblical languages as best as I can and trying to understand grammar and syntax better so that I can know who a present tense participle function over an imperfect tense and why those little things can make huge differences when it comes to doctrines in the Bible.
As one committed to Sola Scriptura I have to say that I am not committed to a book per se. I am committed to the word of God. It just so happens that the word of God is preserved for us in written format. You asked me to consider what history would have been like, what the present would have been like had there been no “Catholic Church” …well I ask you to consider what history would have been like had God’s word never been preserved in written format. That would have been an authorative mess!!! Instead of having faith in God through what He Himself says, we would have to have faith in the one who tells us what God’s word says. The Scriptures is where we find the words of God. The Scriptures is where we find the words of Jesus. History has never identified any words that Jesus spoke which are not recorded in the Bible!!!
So I hope it is clear that Sola Scriptura is a doctrine in which any person may interpret the Scriptures in isolation. The Scriptures are supposed to be interpreted within the context of the Church because the Scriptures are God’s word to the Church. The Scriptures are a book of the Church in the sense that God wrote it through the hands of members of the Church (apostles and prophets or those closely associated with them). But the Church did not create or authorize the Scriptures in any way. God did that when He spoke. God preserved His word by having it written down and He even prototyped that His people were to be governed by a written text when He Himself wrote the commandments with His own “finger”.
Like you told me, you think that Jesus would speak to his Discples in Greek, but you are not sure... What if he didn't? You have that gray area their, and you can only wonder and interpertat that yourself, 2000 years after the fact, but there is a Depoist of Faith that has been going on since then, and where the same truth has been passed down of Jesus, of his life, of who he is, which explains who we are, not just in a book, but by community, more then anything. We know just by looking at ourselves Our God is a God of Relationship, of interaction, through a very physcial way through the Bible. Always actions were preformed, from the Old to the New, matter played a part and people played a part together to discover the truth, and for me it is hard to believe that God would halt traditions(i know you said not all tradtions are bad, but understand what i am coming from), would stop having leaders led his people, from Moses, to Abraham, David...People who said what God said, leaders of his People. And truly if the old is a shadow of the new, then why would things be so differnt now?
This will be my final response to your initial letter. Hopefully I can start tackling some of the other responses that you have had to my previous response, for instance on covenants and stuff like that.
I believe I understand what you are saying in regards to the historical process of the existence of the Church. Certainly I am not saying that the Church’s existence should ever be compromised nor should it not exist. Where we differ is what we believe the Church is. I say that it is people who comprise the Church whereas it seems that you want to say that it is an institution that can exist apart from people. When you say, “…not really the Church, but the people in the Church…” the implication is that people are not the Church. But for whom did Christ die? Was it for people or an institution? I say people. I say that Christ died for the sins of His elect people from every tribe, race, nation and tongue so that together and in all ages, they are the Church. If I understand your position correctly, the Church did not begin to exist until after Christ’s death and resurrection.
You keep raising the “authority” issue. The problem is not authority but who is in authority. Whereas you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the infallible authority, I say that it is God alone. And since the Bible is God’s sole preserved revelation that we have and that He purposefully and willfully spoke so that the scriptures are God-breathed, they alone are speak with God’s infallible authority. And hence, I say that the Scriptures alone are the final authority for matters of faith and doctrines. Again, note that I am not saying the “only” but the “final”. That being said, let me say that I do not deny the community of the Church that has existed for the ages. I do recognize that there have been and are many great and godly men whom the Holy Spirit has gracious led into great truths. However, these men are not infallible. Though they are capable of speaking the truth and putting it into ways that can be understood, etc…, that does not mean that these men or their interpretations take the place of the Word of God. The word of God is still the final authority. It is possible, no matter how much study to misunderstand. I look to early Fathers like Augustine, Athanasius to name a few. I read the works of Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, R.C. Sproul, James R. White, etc…but I never attribute what they say as the final authority. At best, they have a derivative authority and they only speak authoratively so long as what they say is in line with God’s word and His authority. They do not, and neither do I, speak on my own nor do I have the right to the authority that God does.
Hence, Sola Scriptura does not mean that we read the Scriptures without a context. I believe it was Calvin who continued to argue that the Bible is a book of the Church. It is for the Church. It is not a book that can be interpreted any way. I have not read the section of the Institutes dealing with the Church yet, but I have heard from several authors commenting on it that Calvin held that no Christian had the right to exist apart from the Church. They often quote Calvin as saying, “He cannot have God as his Father who does not have the Church as his mother.” I’m not sure, but I think Calvin was also quoting an early father when he said and agreed with that statement.
The point is, Sola scriptura does not mean that each person is an authority unto themselves making the Bible to say whatever they want it to say. Sola Scriptura is a sole submission to God through His word, not the Church. Those who are familiar with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura understand that the Bible was a book inspired by God with intention and so its meaning must be sought out in the Scriptures. For instance, we cannot take a particular verse or words out of context and then say, “well, that’s what I think it says…” For instance, the Mormons will quote John 10:34 as “proof” that men may become “gods”. But when one looks at the context of the quote and the context of the Psalm in which Jesus was speaking of, we discover that the Mormon interpretation is not according to true sense in which Jesus spoke those words. Sola Scriptura simply tries to remain faithful to the text and not add to God’s written word nor subtract from it. Jesus spoke in Mark 7 about how certain “traditions” can take away from God’s word. Now, I know that Catholic get ragged on for “traditions” but Protestants have developed their own little “traditions” as well. We must be faithful the text. This is why I am learning the Biblical languages as best as I can and trying to understand grammar and syntax better so that I can know who a present tense participle function over an imperfect tense and why those little things can make huge differences when it comes to doctrines in the Bible.
As one committed to Sola Scriptura I have to say that I am not committed to a book per se. I am committed to the word of God. It just so happens that the word of God is preserved for us in written format. You asked me to consider what history would have been like, what the present would have been like had there been no “Catholic Church” …well I ask you to consider what history would have been like had God’s word never been preserved in written format. That would have been an authorative mess!!! Instead of having faith in God through what He Himself says, we would have to have faith in the one who tells us what God’s word says. The Scriptures is where we find the words of God. The Scriptures is where we find the words of Jesus. History has never identified any words that Jesus spoke which are not recorded in the Bible!!!
So I hope it is clear that Sola Scriptura is a doctrine in which any person may interpret the Scriptures in isolation. The Scriptures are supposed to be interpreted within the context of the Church because the Scriptures are God’s word to the Church. The Scriptures are a book of the Church in the sense that God wrote it through the hands of members of the Church (apostles and prophets or those closely associated with them). But the Church did not create or authorize the Scriptures in any way. God did that when He spoke. God preserved His word by having it written down and He even prototyped that His people were to be governed by a written text when He Himself wrote the commandments with His own “finger”.
posted by prchdaword at 5:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home