Sola Scriptura? [OPEN]

[SallyNow]

I have a question about Sola Scriptura.

Yes, I know it's scripture alone. But which version? The earliest copies are not in English, but in the ancient languages.

Why do so many who purport to be Sola Scriptura so often use the KJV, a translation that is known to be politically motivated? It's also full of antique English that very few people understand fully today.

Why discount tradition to the point of relying on translations only? Yet, I also hear some Sola Scriptura folks who will then rely on the history of their denomination or church or society to dictate the context of a passage.

What about context? The Bible was not written with the cultural context built in. Reading the Gospels, one must know the historical context of the time, or they may misunderstand some of the meanings. For instance, Mary and Martha being able to learn at the feet of Jesus was a huge leap forward in the position of women in society in regards to education. But if one reads it from the point of view of, say, a Victorian reader, it would seem that they learning like small children, being at his feet.

I've made this open. Respectful answers are welcomed, but please be kind to each other. I don't want to create strife, I just really would like to understand in a non-threatening enviroment, and WWMC seems like a good place to ask the question.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

First: a piece I posted some time ago
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5880136

My two cents on Sola Scriptura...

...and worth every penny!


The great Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura has, in the modern era (and especially the 19th and 20th centuries) been misappropriated, misinterpreted and misused, often to the detriment of the Church.

To the Reformers, Sola Scriptura meant that the Bible contains all of the revealed knowledge necessary for salvation. No other source is needed. In the modern age, the truth of Scripture has sometimes been reduced to its facticity in matters of science, history and geography. This seems to me patently absurd and a misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura.

To the Reformers, Sola Scriptura meant that the Bible was the only proper source and norm for doctrine. This meant that the church should hold no doctrine that was not derived from Scripture. Nor should it accept any doctrine that is contrary to Scripture. In a practical sense, this gave the Reformers a way out from under the thumb of the Pope. In the modern age, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy has made the book a kind of “paper Pope” -- a final authority beyond which there is no appeal, a “God in the box.”

The Reformers told us that “Scripture interprets Scripture.” I understand this to mean that the Bible, taken as a whole, provides a great and cohesive narrative of salvation history that begins in Eden and ends in Paradise. The two great foci of the narrative are the Exodus in the OT and the Christ event in the NT. No verse of Scripture is to be taken out of either its immediate context (the book within which it is written) or the larger context of the entire biblical narrative. Proof-texting is not an acceptable use of Scripture. In the modern age, this idea of Scripture interpreting itself has sometimes been taken to mean that no outside source is admissible in our understanding of Scripture (e.g. Plato’s Laws not only is unnecessary for our understanding of Romans, but should not be used). This, it seems to me, is an unnecessary limit placed upon the exegete. The Bible should be read with every tool available for understanding its meaning.

”Scripture interprets Scripture” is also sometimes used, implicitly if not explicitly, to mean that obscure passages of the Bible must be illuminated by other passages. So, for example, Psalm 90:4, which speaks of “a thousand years” being like “yesterday passed” in the Lord’s sight is used to concoct time lines from the apocalyptic visions of Daniel and Revelation. This is, I think, a form of proof-texting and a misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura. The Reformers taught that the Bible is perspicuous, that is, its meaning is clear to a careful and reasonable reader. I take this to mean that the Bible is not written in a secret code so that a reader of Daniel is unable to understand his meaning without a verse from the Psalms. It certainly does not mean that every twentieth letter of the Hebrew text can be taken to spell out a secret message about the holocaust.

Sola Scriptura does not mean that the Bible is without error or contradiction, only that it is the font and final arbiter of doctrine. In the Scriptures we have a wonderful and richly diverse literature testifying to the salvific work of God in the world and in human history. The principle of Sola Scriptura, rightly applied, gives us a fuller appreciation and understanding of the Bible. Misused, as it too often is, this same principle makes a tyrant of the text and leads the people of God into foolish error.

In short, I accept the principle of Sola Scriptura, but not in the sense that it is often misapplied.

Concerning the question of "which version?" I think most Sola Scriptura-ists would agree that the original manuscripts are authoritative. They may disagree with which manuscript tradition best represents the originals, but they'd all agree that it is the originals.

(Some of the KJVonly crowd might think that the Authorized Version somehow represents the best and truest Bible of them all, but they are a minority and their reasoning is specious).

I think a more important question is "which canon is authoritative?" Most protestants use a 66 book canon and exclude the deuterocanonical books. Still, there is a bit of awkwardness about Jude's use of clearly apocryphal writings like First Enoch.

And yes, I agree with you completely that the Scriptures are best understood in their original context. If we fail to understand the authors' original intent, we have failed to understand the Bible at all.

 

[Adammi]

I have a question about Sola Scriptura.

Yes, I know it's scripture alone. But which version? The earliest copies are not in English, but in the ancient languages.

Why do so many who purport to be Sola Scriptura so often use the KJV, a translation that is known to be politically motivated? It's also full of antique English that very few people understand fully today.

Why discount tradition to the point of relying on translations only? Yet, I also hear some Sola Scriptura folks who will then rely on the history of their denomination or church or society to dictate the context of a passage.

What about context? The Bible was not written with the cultural context built in. Reading the Gospels, one must know the historical context of the time, or they may misunderstand some of the meanings. For instance, Mary and Martha being able to learn at the feet of Jesus was a huge leap forward in the position of women in society in regards to education. But if one reads it from the point of view of, say, a Victorian reader, it would seem that they learning like small children, being at his feet.

I've made this open. Respectful answers are welcomed, but please be kind to each other. I don't want to create strife, I just really would like to understand in a non-threatening enviroment, and WWMC seems like a good place to ask the question.

I doubt many in WWMC accept Sola Scriptura so I doubt too many of us have good answers to your questions. lol Perhaps, it is the absence of good answers to your questions that makes us non-believers in it.

(Also note, that we probably aren't for most part against for the same reason conservative Catholics are lol)

 

[DailyBlessings]

I've been ridiculed by supposed literalists for referring to the original Greek of various passages- it's a puzzle to me, too. Christians just make poor radicals, I think. Hypocrisy lies too close to our hearts. At least in Islam, actual respect is shown to the document that is held to be infallible. It is carefully if ever copied, never translated out of it's original language, studied constantly. I really feel that the Jesus movement would be better off if the same respect were shown to the New Testament.

 

[SallyNow]

I doubt many in WWMC accept Sola Scriptura so I doubt too many of us have good answers to your questions. lol Perhaps, it is the absence of good answers to your questions that makes us non-believers in it.

(Also note, that we probably aren't for most part against for the same reason conservative Catholics are lol)

I've been part of WWMC for a couple of years now. I'm a Christian. But I wasn't raised with Sola Scriptura.

I'm asking my question here because it's a safe place for people to answer, and to ask further questions.

 

[Loki]

Just so you know, you don't have to include open tags on threads here anymore.

 

[SallyNow]

Just so you know, you don't have to include open tags on threads here anymore.

Oh, I know they aren't required, but some people are still a little weary to post in Faith Group forums that are not their own

 

[Crazy Liz]

I've been ridiculed by supposed literalists for referring to the original Greek of various passages- it's a puzzle to me, too. Christians just make poor radicals, I think. Hypocrisy lies too close to our hearts. At least in Islam, actual respect is shown to the document that is held to be infallible. It is carefully if ever copied, never translated out of it's original language, studied constantly. I really feel that the Jesus movement would be better off if the same respect were shown to the New Testament.

I'm taking a class from an Islamic Studies professor who was trying to compare the way Muslims think of the Quran and the way Christians think of the Bible. She said, "Christians say, 'The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.' Muslims would say something closer to 'The Word became book....'" IOW, Muslims believe the Koran was dictated by God, and is God's ultimate revelation to humanity, just as Christians believe Jesus (not the Bible) is God's ultimate revelation to humanity.

I think to treat the Bible the way Muslims treat the Quran would be tantamount to bibliolatry.

 

[Loki]

Oh, I know they aren't required, but some people are still a little weary to post in Faith Group forums that are not their own

But if only one's tagged, it makes it look like the rest are closed

 

[SallyNow]

But if only one's tagged, it makes it look like the rest are closed

I was thinking the WWMC title of the forum would negate that, but perhaps you are right.

But doesn't anyone else have anything to say on the topic at hand?

 

[DailyBlessings]

I'm taking a class from an Islamic Studies professor who was trying to compare the way Muslims think of the Quran and the way Christians think of the Bible. She said, "Christians say, 'The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.' Muslims would say something closer to 'The Word became book....'" IOW, Muslims believe the Koran was dictated by God, and is God's ultimate revelation to humanity, just as Christians believe Jesus (not the Bible) is God's ultimate revelation to humanity.

I think to treat the Bible the way Muslims treat the Quran would be tantamount to bibliolatry.

I don't really think we ought to be worshiping the book- it rankles in my ears whenever anyone refers to the Word but means the ink and pages of their local KJV. I'm just saying that if we are to be Bibliolaters, and some of us clearly are, we'd do well to at least respect the book we are idolizing. The gospels are wonderful texts, possibly the most important texts ever written, and they could change the world for the better if anyone let them. But as near as I can tell, the reverence given the Bible seldom goes beyond propietary floor scraping. A Christianity genuinely built on Scripture would look very different than the one I find around me each day.

 

[DeaconDean]

Just so you know, you don't have to include open tags on threads here anymore.

The only reason I decided to post here is because of the [open] tags. If it wasn't for that, out nothing but pure respect for your area, I wouldn't post here at all.

So it is good that sometimes there are [open] tags.

I have a question about Sola Scriptura.

Yes, I know it's scripture alone. But which version? The earliest copies are not in English, but in the ancient languages.

Why do so many who purport to be Sola Scriptura so often use the KJV, a translation that is known to be politically motivated? It's also full of antique English that very few people understand fully today.

Why discount tradition to the point of relying on translations only? Yet, I also hear some Sola Scriptura folks who will then rely on the history of their denomination or church or society to dictate the context of a passage.

What about context? The Bible was not written with the cultural context built in. Reading the Gospels, one must know the historical context of the time, or they may misunderstand some of the meanings. For instance, Mary and Martha being able to learn at the feet of Jesus was a huge leap forward in the position of women in society in regards to education. But if one reads it from the point of view of, say, a Victorian reader, it would seem that they learning like small children, being at his feet.

I've made this open. Respectful answers are welcomed, but please be kind to each other. I don't want to create strife, I just really would like to understand in a non-threatening enviroment, and WWMC seems like a good place to ask the question.

Let me just say this. The biggest reason most cling to the KJV is because that is the version they were raised up on. And then there is the resoning that the KJV has served the church well for over 400 years, and provided the good Lord tarries, it'll serve the church for another 400 years.

One of the reasons most are moving away from the KJV is because of the language. I mean really, how many of us speak in the "Olde Kings English?" There was a time when Shaksphere was taught in school. In the odd numbered years, schools taught English Literature. And I still remember having to do plays, and read the works of Shakesphere. So at one point in time, the "Olde Kings English" wasn't really hard to understand. But that time has just about passed.

Now being a Fundamental Baptist, I still cling to the KJV but mainly because, as I said before, that is the version I was raised up in church on, and its the version I'm most comfortable with. I can understand it, I can read it, so its really no big deal for me.

But before I get jumped on for being a Fundamental Baptist who uses the KJV, I will readily admit that the KJV does have its weaknesses. But you show me a version of the Bible that isn't weak in some area. The RSV, ASV, NSRV, NASV, NIV, etc., all have their weaknesses.

The truth of the matter here is, we do not have God's word anymore. The original autographs that the Apostles themselves wrote under the influence of the Holy Spirit, (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16 - qeopneustoV - "God-Breathed) do not exist anymore. They are gone, lost in time to antiquity.

But, in the copies that have been found, for example the P-46 (Paprus 46) which dates back to around AD 125-175, are very close to the originals. Not perfect mind you, but so very close.

That is where studying in the Greek does have its advantages. If you study the Greek, as I have, you have the opportunity to interpret the Word for yourselves and see for yourselves, what the original writers intents were without the interpreter's translation coming into play.

Studying in the Greek does have a major advantage over the English.

If you will bear with me a minute, let me show you an example.

To me, in the KJV, one of the most beatifull passages is still John 3:16. In the KJV, it reads:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

But in the Greek, it reads entirely different, the same, but different. Here is what the Greek looks like:

"outwV gar hgaphsen o qeoV ton kosmon, wste ton uion ton monogenh edwken, ina paV o pisteuwn eiV auton mh apolhtai all ech zwhn aiwnion."

Translated literally:

"For so loved God the kosmos, so as the Son of Him, only begotten, he gave, that everyone believing into him not may perish, but have everlasting life." (actually, if it was translated fully, it would read "the only begotten One of Him")

Beatifully put none the less.

Take 2 Tim. 3:16 in the Greek:

"pasa grafh qeopneustoV kai wfelimoV proV didaskalian, proV elegmon, proV epanorqwsin, proV paideian thn en dikaiosunh,"
Translated literally:

"Every scripture (is) God Breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

The King James version translated it as:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

The only difference is in that one word. But the meaning is the same either way. but the Greek carries a much deeper and fuller meaning.

Anything can be inspired. I was inspired by debates here on the forums to undertake on myself, a year long research into the "Law." but only one thing can be "God breathed." And that was the original autograpghs that the Prophets and Apostles themselves wrote.

I can give you bad advice. Your Pastor can give you bad advice. And yes, even the Pope can give you bad advice, but we can rest assured that God's word, the Bible, is genuinally "inspired" or God-breathed, in all that it teaches, we can trust it, rely on it, depend on it fully, for it will never lead us astray.

That is why we stand by the principle of "Sola Scriptura" or Scripture alone.

Now as I said before, each version of the Bible as we have it today, will have its own weaknesses. We simply don't have God's own words anymore. If you chose to use the RSV, fine, God bless you. It has probably served you well, and it will continue to serve you well. And that is the feeling I have for my King James version. But I have benfited grandly from being able to study in the Greek, and I urge you all to do the same.

Simply put, its the version I grew up in church hearing preached. Its the version I study in. And its the version I feel most comfortable using.

God Bless

Till all are one.

(P.S., Thank you for your hospitality and letting me say this. I will now respectfully bow out)

 

[Loki]

The only reason I decided to post here is because of the [open] tags. If it wasn't for that, out nothing but pure respect for your area, I wouldn't post here at all.

So it is good that sometimes there are [open] tags.

WWMC welcomes everyone to post as long as they play nice. Says so in our FSG

 

[DeaconDean]

WWMC welcomes everyone to post as long as they play nice. Says so in our FSG

That is very gracious, but as I said, I do not out of shear respect. And partially because I'm not "liberal." As a matter of fact, I've been a member here going on 4 years and including this post, this only the second post I've ever made here. The first one being my previous post.

But thanks anyway.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Loki]

As you wish, though we have many people who self-describe as not liberal. The [open] tag is a remnant from when WWMC was a CO forum. It had a lot of people who couldn't wear a Christian icon, and the [open] tag allowed them to post in those threads via the software.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Let me just say this. The biggest reason most cling to the KJV is because that is the version they were raised up on. And then there is the resoning that the KJV has served the church well for over 400 years, and provided the good Lord tarries, it'll serve the church for another 400 years.

Thank you for your post, DeaconDean. I enjoyed the whole thing, but would like to comment on just this part.

Being more of a postmodern, what I see in this paragraph is a whole lot of culture that has become attached to scripture in your community. That's not a bad thing. Without culture, literature, and even words themselves, are meaningless. You have an attachment to the KJV, which has a lot to do with may associations - the history of English-speaking protestant churches and the CoE, the beauty of the language when read aloud, especially within sacred contexts, the good feelings you have toward the people who read the KJV in your childhood, etc. Your love for the KJV can never entirely be separated from these things. And these things are all good, and provided by God, so I am not devaluing them in any way.

In the history of the church, we see similar attachments forming the basis for theological arguments about the Septuagint vs. the Hebrew texts of the OT, the Latin Vulgate vs. other Latin and vernacular translations, etc. I personally carry a small NKJV in my purse rather than another version because in case I have to make a hospital visit, I have a version that preserves the pleasing and familiar sound and cadence of the KJV for those who find that comforting, while updating a few of the archaic words so younger people can also understand it.

Whether we have this attachment to one particular translation or not, Christians do treasure the Bible for the same wide variety of reasons. The problem with sola scriptura that is easily recognized by postmoderns but not so easily recognized by moderns is that our own culture's use and interpretation of the text are part of its meaning for us. Those who claim sola scriptura as an important theological principle are often blind to the fact that a lot of their interpretation comes from culture, which cannot be completely separated from the text itself, and should not be. The closest we can come to an objective reading is an intersubjective reading, in which we are aware of different ways the same text has been used and interpreted in different settings and cultures. When I see someone post, "This is what the text CLEARLY says..." they only show their inability to engage in this intersubjective dialogue.

 

[DeanM]

That is very gracious, but as I said, I do not out of shear respect. And partially because I'm not "liberal." As a matter of fact, I've been a member here going on 4 years and including this post, this only the second post I've ever made here. The first one being my previous post.

But thanks anyway.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Hiyas, other Dean!!!!

Good to see you here!

You're indeed most welcome here~

Dean

 

[Crazy Liz]

I just realized I've been confusing the two Deans for a long time.

 

[Rochir]

IYes, I know it's scripture alone. But which version? The earliest copies are not in English, but in the ancient languages.

PLUS, what went into Scripture was decided by men, not by God! The bible is a man-made book of wisdoms and teachings inspired by what each of us perceives as God. It ruthlessly deleted anything which threatened ecclesial authority at its time ...

My personal take!

 

[Tube Socks Dude]

When I see someone post, "This is what the text CLEARLY says..." they only show their inability to engage in this intersubjective dialogue.

I may be mistaken, but when postmoderns engage in intersubjective dialoguge, aren't they thinking relationally and transpersonally while conservative bilical literalists filter intersubjectivity through the lens of dominance and submission? Doesn't one group view intersubjectivity in terms of integration while the other views it in terms of subordination? If this is indeed the case, I don't see how there can be any truly meaningful dialogue because both parties are talking past each other.