.jpg)
Sola scriptura - n - The assertion that the Bible as God's written word is self-authenticating, clear to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the only source of Christian doctrine.
I take exception to this idea, which was put forward by Martin Luther as a keystone of the Protestant Reformation. Here's why.
In the 4th Century, most Christians, based on a close reading of the New Testament, accepted that Jesus Christ was God. An Alexandrian priest named Arius closely read those very same scriptures and concluded that Jesus was created by God, and was therefore not consubstantial, coeternal, and coequal with God. Other close readers of the NT, the Monophysites, concluded that Christ had only a single divine nature. A 5th Century bishop of Constantinople, another careful student of scripture named Nestorius, asserted that Jesus had two separate and distinct natures, divine and human, on the grounds that a human woman could not give birth to God (he also refused to believe that "a squalling infant was God"). These last two doctines called into question the validity of Christ's death as atonement for mankind's sins.
It would seem that scripture alone is not sufficient to arrive at truth. The seven generally recognized Ecumenical Councils were convened to resolve these and similar questions (plus some less provocative issues, such as when Easter should be celebrated).
There's a larger point, viz., that Christianity is the only religion in which reason is an integral component. I don't believe that was accidental. Christians have nothing to fear from truth. The application of rational thought to the historical record leaves our religion as sound today as it was in the 1st Century.
Today's less provocative exquisite entry is Reverie by English painter John William Godward, who specialized in women in Classical costume. I don't have a date for this work, but an educated guess would be 1910-1925.
3 comments:
Interesting. However, consider why Martin Luther would have asserted such a thing. Consider the corruption of the Church when it becomes the sole interpreter of the Scriptures. Especially when the masses are largely illiterate. Even for the non-clergy literate, dissenting views on the interpretation of the Scriptures brought excommunication from the clergy. If I recall correctly, Martin Luther was also against men granting forgiveness for sin, asserting only God could grant such forgiveness.
I'm not much of theologian, and certainly far from expert (or necessarily well informed) on this subject, but based on what I think I know, the sola scriptura concept from Martin Luther seems to make more sense when considered as part of the whole of his theses. Maybe I'm wrong though.
Thanks for your thoughtful and thought-provoking comments. We're probably more in agreement than you think. I was not implying that scriptural knowledge should take a back seat to philosophical
reasoning; I was only pointing out that even sincere students of the scriptures may produce erroneous interpretations, i.e., heresies. The only way to refute such errors is by reasoned argument. I'll also point out that these errors may call fundamental Christian doctrines into question. For
instance, if the Monophysites are right, the suffering and death of Christ were no more than performance art.
You're right about Luther; the sacrament of Penance is what got him started, and I'm forced to agree that he was right. (I am unable to return to the Catholic church for that and other reasons. I'm considering the Lutheran Missouri Synod.)
There is indeed danger in having a central authority interpret scripture (sort of like the Federal government interpreting the Constitution), but there's also danger in having the masses do their own interpretation. I don't have a definitive solution to the problem. The conciliar approach may be best, but I'm mindful of the old adage that a camel is a horse designed by a commitee.
By the way, if you've spent much time on the CARM site, you're probably more of a theologian than you suspect.
Indeed, philosophical reasoning is largely paramount to the atrocity that has become religion. However, it has only come about by good people with good intentions trying to interpret what God says in the scriptures. My favorite example from the OT is the definition of work in response to the commandment about not working on the sabbath. People wanted so badly to be in conformance to that commandment they actually came up with strict guidelines for defining work (ie how many steps you can take on a journey, whether or not you can help your cow out of a mudpit, etc). All of this coming from reasoning about the meaning of scriptures. (I say this in agreement with your position). This, I think, is one reason why the sola scritpura concept was pressed forward. That scripture stands on it's own and can be verified by itself - outside of the very human (and just as often mistaken - regardless of intent) interpretation thereof. Yet without the very reason we use to interpret God's messages and will, we would be much less than what we are, and only better than talking monkeys [which may not be far off anyway].
Post a Comment