I felt it was about time for a controversial question. Occasionally one will come across an otherwise well-thought out post which insists that “the Bible alone” is, or should be, the basis for – well, pretty much everything genuinely Christian, but especially doctrine and ethics. It has a reasonable pedigree in the Reformation. But does it make sense?
The problem comes with the word Bible. “Bible” turns scriptures into Scripture, library into book. It takes a diverse collection and insists that they be read together, privileging the relationship between these books as a closed circle of intertexuality. “Bible” implies the discerning, collecting and reading decisions taken by a community that recognises the story and doctrine of the God they worship, teach about, and serve in these very writings they collect into this special relationship with one another.
“Bible” as a word, then, implies Church as part of its meaning, whether that is understood sociologically, doctrinally or semantically. So I come back to the question of the title: is “the Bible alone” an oxymoron?
What say you?
{ 15 comments }
Very few of the people who say ‘Bible alone’ actually mean that. How could they live in 2010 without doing some things that the Bible didn’t have a ‘word’ for? They are like people who feel all health care should be free at the point of delivery and then buy paracetemol. Not sure it’s totally oxymoronic but it is lazy.
Given dozens of books whose original meanings were a function of language games spread across multiple cultures, times and places, whose content either does not engage contrasting material elsewhere or does so on the basis of its own time and place rather than that of the material it is engaging, some external system is necessary to integrate the material. So yes, sola scriptura is an impossibility of language given the nature of the documents in question.
“sola scriptura” or “Bible alone” is an impossibility. Even if you are fluent in the original languages, you are not in the same social context. Scripture therefore has to be interpreted. Interpreted linguistically, culturally, historically, spiritually.
I find it ironic that Luther and Calvin who both started off by saying that Scripture should be available to the people in their own language so that everyone could access it then decided that this was far too dangerous (you might join those dreadful anabaptists!) and it had to be interpreted correctly.
How do you interpret scripture ‘correctly’? Or does ‘correctly’ simply mean ‘my way’?
Doug,
“Bible-alone” has at least three problems that immediately come to mind:
1.) The Bible is a product of tradition: specifically in its canon(s), but also translation. It’s clear that the text can’t be divorced from the tradition that brought us the text.
2.) The Bible is (like all texts) interpreted using a variety of hermeneutic tools. Often, “Bible-alone” means “Bible-only (according to what I think John Calvin said)”, “Bible-only (as my denomination defines it)”, or worst of all “Bible-alone (according to whatever my cleric says).”
3.) Being a “Bible-alone” believer means that you are not a “tradition-accepting believer” (in spite of the inherent contradiction in that) nor a “reason-using believer”! It’s a way of circumventing critical thought or subsequent insight such as modern-day science.
Being “Bible-alone” is contradictory and it wouldn’t be desirable even if it was possible.
-JAK
I’d prefer, though might still have issue with, if Reformed theologians ceased discussing “sola scriptura” (which we all seem to agree is an impossibility for the reasons stated in the OP and comments above), but had a discussion about “primoris Scriptures”. I would argue that the primacy of Scriptures (especially the writings of the Apostles) was intended even in Hooker’s own “three-legged stool”.
We also have the issue of what writings since A.D. 100 ought we to use that have not been canonized? Has the Spirit said nothing since the first Apostles, or are those the only ones of “holy” import?
Great oxymoron, is that original, or is it prior? One of those things that’s obvious once you’ve thought about it!
I suppose that the way to escape the circularity would be to say that the canonization of texts was part of the original inspiration, and therefore is as much part of God’s word as their contents. If you believe that the text was divinely inspired, that is.
I’m not sure it necessarily means the negative things it seems to mean. I think it typically means that the source data for Christian theology is exegesis. Exegesis is itself done in light of the needs of the local and catholic church, and more importantly, exegesis is done to texts accepted by the Christian community. So “Bible Alone” at least in my baptist tradition just means that practices and beliefs of the church can be judged by the content of the Bible with the rest of church tradition in mind, as well for the sake of current needs. So, for instance, when the particular practice arises of using sociological studies to determine that churches need to be like giant YMCA clubs with free car washes and multimillion dollar buildings if they want to grow, perhaps going to the world of the text would be appropriate to discover the means and motivations for church growth.
This is probably something I should write an entire essay about and not a blog comment, but I think Bible Alone, properly qualified is a wonderfully helpful doctrine/practice.
RCs are doing an interesting ad campaign in the US – you can find the ads and much else at the Catholics Come Home website. One of their talking points:
“Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we compiled the Bible.”
It’s hard for an evangelical to hear that and not fill it out with, “and we reserve the right to say what it means.” It is in that context that sola Scriptura continues to be a useful slogan.
My main issue with Bible alone is the individual contents of the Bible were determined by committees of people who’s opinions on other matters would not be considered final. Do we ask our selves “what would the early church fathers or early rabbis have to say about this?” The cannon of the Bible is only as inspired as the people who choose it. When you think about the variation between Christian sects on cannon, I think you have to be cautious about appealing to Ruth or Revelations as a final authority. How many would feel a text from Tobit is authoritative? Many Catholics would, does that mean that don’t have an accurate guide for Gods will?
Since the Canon itself is a product of Tradition, it would seem that sola scriptura also rests on a foundation of Tradition. Luther had an obvious respect for the Church Fathers; what he didn’t respect was the “tradition of men” that had overtaken the Roman church. I don’t think Luther would have ever said that the Bible was open to individual interpretation, as we see today in much of evangelicalism. Sola scriptura needs to be understood in context.
I like what is be advertised in the US re Scripture but with a caveat `it seems right to us and the Holy Spirit` (Acts 14:28). That should be the end of the matter via sola scriptura it is a stupid argument if Tradition, the Church and the Holy Spirit are not seen in alliance, but then again Protestantism is a stupid full stop. There that may produce a few replies
I’ve had a post simmering for weeks now about preaching the Bible vs. preaching the Gospel. The Bible is insufficient for life and faith without repackaging in the Gospel.
I look forward to the post being fully cooked!
Salaam wa alaikum,
I am always surprised that this question (which has been answered) is still a question to Christians. It has been answered and then some. The “Bible” and any assortment of books which one calls a bible or testament or scripture…..is second hand information or as it is known in Islamic circles HADITH. In other words, the gospels/books/scriptures are ALL a set of recorded MEMORIES of those who may or may not have been with, witnessed or knew someone who was sith or witnessed the lives of prophets throughout the ages.
None of it is the actual words spoken by any of these prophets whether or not the understanding of such is that what they ‘spoke’ was divinely revealed and/or REGULATED.
I do believe that the discussion of the origin of biblical texts is much more profound in our day and age in light of the presence of the Quran and Islam in everyday modern cultural exchanges. No doubt it was present before in other historical contexts but probably didn’t enjoy the TERRORISM label it does now and hence it served a mighty purpose for scholars of yore who hoped to compare and recognize what text they had and which text they didn’t have.
Hadith Only muslims are the same as what you are describing here i.e. people who take the second hand information contained in ALL Christian libraries as VERBATIM accounts. Yes, there are muslims who ignore the Quran and instead argue over gospels the way you folks do.
Here’s the problem though….Christians don’t have a QURAN or anything like a QURAN.
You all need to get a Quran and no doubt you will all be much better muslims if you so choose to accept that the Quran is an ACTUAL revealed text that exists in its original (or most close to it) form….and THEN compare and analyse the “bible” for what it really is and that is a collection of HADITH. No more and no less.
Peace
If you’re going to start with a greeting of peace, you really should make sure your words live up to it.
And praise God for that and that he gave us brains and a Bible instead.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 3 trackbacks }