You see, any religious denomination is basically a series of dominos. Knocking one down generally entails several others getting knocked down.
For the purposes of making a point, I exempt Mormons from and include Catholics in this discussion. Mormonism in effect is a completely different religion while Catholicism is, whether anybody likes it or not, one choice among many when it comes to Christianity.
As a former evangelical, getting my head around certain Catholic doctrines and dogmas was a mixed bag. In some cases it was absurdly easy. In other cases, it was a tremendous pain in the neck.
But of all evangelical dogmas (and yes, that's what they are; the evangelicals can use whichever terms they like but they're no less binding than any Catholic dogma), the first and oddly enough easiest domino to fall was Sola Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura. The belief that the Bible is a complete revelation to man and is the first, last and only religious authority anybody needs for 99% of their spiritual needs and, beyond that, is the ONLY inerrant authority men have access to.
And like any good evangelical, I not only believed that but, God forgive me, taught it for years. Years. But even at my zenith as a fire-breathing evangelical, even I had to acknowledge that the Sola Scriptura doctrine was severely flawed.
For one thing, the Bible makes no such claim of being the only authority upon which man needs to rely for inspired spiritual guidance. This is a bigger problem than one may think. A doctrine that explosive would surely be codified in writing somewhere prior to the 1500's, right? But it isn't. It's nowhere to be found in the historical record.
That's a major logical flaw right there.
But another problem is that while the Bible is most assuredly God's inspired word, it is not a book of doctrines. In particular the New Testament is a series of stories, recollections, admonishments and other things. But a collection of doctrines, beliefs, dogmas and other things? Entirely absent.
This raises the question of, IF God intended the Bible to man's sole spiritual authority, why such omissions were permitted. That presented a serious interpretive challenge, to be sure, and it's one I carefully avoided whenever possible.
When I began studying Anglicanism, I recognized the doctrine of Sola Scripture as irreparably flawed. Perhaps I'll deal with the Anglican belief of Scripture, Tradition, Reason some other time but, in the short term, depending upon tradition to speak where the Bible was silent appealed to the armchair historian in me. The historicity of a certain practice doesn't guarantee that practice's validity, of course. It does, however, strongly suggest the practice is trustworthy.
So, whether it was appropriate or not, that was the death knell of my belief in Sola Scriptura. It really was that easy. Tradition is a reliable guide to religious custom and belief. Fine and dandy, thank you Church of England!
However, the Roman Church is the fullness of Christianity. And because of that, light's been shed on other limitations of and flaws with Sola Scriptura that had not occurred to me previously.
Sola Scriptura necessarily eschews tradition as a guide for religious custom. The Bible is ALL you need so the Bible is ALL you'll get. However, this presents a two-fold problem.
First, divorced from tradition and history, Sola Scriptura leaves interpretation of the Bible to the individual of the current moment. First, that approach subjects the Bible to the individual interpretation of millions of laypeople. And given that those individuals are products of their time, it effectively enslaves Christianity to the present culture.
Understand, the Bible must be read. And then it must be interpreted. On that much, Catholics and other churches agree. Where we differ is who should be doing the interpreting.
I cite as an example Matthew 16, where St. Peter confesses Our Lord as Messiah and Our Lord in turn renames him Peter and says upon this rock He will build His church. The Catholic interpretation of that passage is famous. It's what permits the papacy. Even poorly catechized Catholics will tell you that much.
On the evangelical side, things are nowhere near as cut and dried. Ask twenty different evangelicals what that passage means, you'll get twenty different answers. Or ten evangelicals. Or two. There is no unity there. None whatsoever.
Given the number of times the Bible calls for unity, does it really follow that the Lord would not institute an authority to interpret and teach His Word?
The second problem is logical in nature. Evangelicals believe in Sola Scriptura. They believe the Bible is the only inerrant authority. Fine. Track that out then.
How do you know what you're holding in your hands is God's Word?
Now, I can answer that rather easily. The Church first compiled the Bible and has been the custodian thereof for millennia. Holy men of God considered which books are canon and which ones are not, and pruned accordingly. Hence apocryphal books such as the "Gospel" of Thomas, the "Gospel" of Peter and others were left out while 1 Peter, 2 Peter, the four canonical Gospels and all the other books were accepted.
Why, one might suspect Providence was the guide in this.
But evangelicals can't make that argument. Not logically anyway. They eschew tradition. The Bible is their only authority. And as I've said, the Bible not only makes no claim to being the SOLE authority. In fact, I think it's the slim minority of passages that even claim to be God's Word. Recognizing those writings as God's Word requires interpretation and no small measure of Providence. Tradition says that the Church recognized these books as canon and that's that.
This is a Catholic's home turf. But, by definition, it's entirely foreign to evangelicals. They can't depend upon tradition as their guide. That's their rule; not mine.
So how do the evangelicals know the Bible is God's Word?
No comments:
Post a Comment