October 12, 2004
The Bible Alone? Which Bible?
I’m curious about something that protestants obviously uphold. My understanding of Sola Scriptura is that the Bible is all we need to understand salvation and become “saved.” From a logical perspective, how does this work?
For example, three-fourths of the world population is illiterate. How can they become saved? They must, I assume, ultimately trust another person’s interpretation or version of Scripture verbally. They cannot verify whether they are being told the truth. Does God hold them responsible for believing someone who is incorrect?
In California there’s an extremely popular protestant minister who insists that if you’re good, God will reward you with material riches. Of course this is absurd and completely anti-Biblical, but suppose this guy convinces others of his beliefs? Not everyone has the mental acuity to analyze Biblical passages, even if they are literate. Where is the line drawn?
To take this further, all protestants must trust completely in St. Jerome. Why? He translated the Latin Vulgate Bible, which is what most translations are based upon (some are apparently based upon English versions, which takes them even further from the source material). Most of the original writings of Scripture have been lost and there are numerous discrepancies even in the oldest texts. After Jerome, King James had his minions translate the Bible into English and from there it has been translated numerous times. What happens when the translators make a mistake?
What I’m getting to is this: If you can believe that the Bible you have was kept infallible or “protected” by God so that you could have the truth, then why couldn’t God have done the same with the Church? Is it a further reach to suggest that God protects his Church from error? I don’t believe it is. Furthermore, this provides a trustworthy opportunity for the illiterate to learn infallibly about God, whereas the written Word does not.
Don’t misunderstand: I believe the Bible is infallible, but I believe this because the Church has told me, not because I’ve gone back and analyzed the evidence. I’ve read some of the works that were not deemed canonical and, frankly, I have to trust in the Church to know the difference (some are easy, obviously). Ultimately, this is why God gives us a living institution: to protect Truth. And He does it infallibly for “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
God bless,
Jay
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Jay,
You said " Don't misunderstand I believe the bible is Infallible" Great we agree on something.
Praise the Lord !!!
"You believe because the church has told you ", I believe because I studied it for myself. Isn't the important thing, that we both believe ?
We have also agreed that it's a no brainer that oral transmission of God's Word is one of the primary mediums used to proclaim the Gospel.
However oral transmission of the Gospel is backed up by the written word. It is there as a check so that oral transmission can be verified as true or false. God the Fahter instructed Moses and others to write it down. It was TOO IMPORTANT to trust to memory or to being passed from person to person. History has shown that when you rely on oral transmission alone fables & errors creep in and there is no way to determine what was originally instructed.
It is only logical that writing things down is the more reliable method to guard against error. God must agree too because HE instructed Moses to write things down.. Jesus must have agreed too because He replied to Satan when tempted " It is written" Jesus also quoted from the OT which was written down.
Jesus did create a church (Called out ones).
But, did He intend it to become this Grand Institution that rivals even the Scribes and Pharasees (The Magisteium) of that day.. I have my doubts.
The word infallible is not used in Matthew 16:18-19) It is not implied and it is not inferred. In my opinion ( And I know it does not count for much in your eyes)the RCC Misintepreted the Gates Of hell statement TO MEAN infallability.
There have been popes that have declared something only to have a latter Pope come and reverse their declaration. Men are fallable.
God's word is not as you have admitted, the bible is infallible. I put my faith in Jesus and the written word He left for me. Not in a church Institution or a group of men claiming apostolic succession. The church is not just the RCC. It is made up of ALL believers in Jesus Catholic - Protestant and Messianic Jews. Catholic in its original sense ( Universal) All called out ones for Christ.
What right does the Pope or anyone else for that matter have to say I am not part of Christ's Church and part of His Body ? Christ is the head of the church and I follow Him to the best of my ability.
Your Brother in Christ,
Clem
Posted by: Clem at October 12, 2004 03:20 PMJay,
A bit of caution might be in order lumping all Protestants together into the group you are “conversing” with by means of your note/questions re: sola scriptura. Not every Protestant, nor indeed Protestant theologian, carries the slogan around as a bat to beat up Catholics with.
Remember too, that “sola scriptura” emerged as a slogan (yes!) during a difficult time of the Church – as you know! Thus, much of the nuance behind “sola scriptura” as such, carries the recollection at least, of that difficult and dangerous time for both the protesters and the Church against which they were protesting.
At its best, an articulation of sola scriptura carries neither an attitude in direct/hostile opposition to the Catholic Church, nor a crass equivalency between salvation and “sola scriptura” as you seem to indicate in your note above.
Follow the link below to what I consider to be the best articulation of “sola scriptura” out there. It is part of a document entitle “A Declaration of Faith” (1977), and is a PCUSA document—in but one which has never been officially embraced by the denomination into its Book of Confessions. The document was composed by a committee (very Presbyterian!!!) of seven men (if I recall accurately). A principle contributor to this document was Shirley C. Guthrie (a guy!) – a former student of Karl Barth’s and now Professor Emeritus of Christian Theology @ Columbia Theological Seminary. His hand was chiefly involved with the section of the Declaration that I’ve linked below (Chapt. 6; The Word of God), and Chapter 10 – Hope in God.
You’ll note too that the phrase “sola scriptura” is not even used in the Declaration. Anyhow, the section dealing principally with the idea of sola scriptura is Chpt 6.3. The idea expressed there is that the OT and NT are “necessary, sufficient, and reliable” NOT for salvation, but rather “as witnesses to Jesus Christ, the living Word.” It is not by any means a Catholic articulation of divine revelation, but neither is it anti-Catholic.
Here is the link:
http://www.creeds.net/reformed/PCUSA1985/1985-6.htm
Oh, and please offer prayer for Shirley Guthrie as he lies at home in his 4th week of hospice care, dying of cancer. He is my friend, and still my teacher.
Blessings.
