Church from Bible, Bible from Church?

by Big Dog 9 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Big Dog

  After leaving the Borg and through research convincing myself that the WBTS did not have the "truth" I began to read a wide variety of religous materials and tried to delve into as many faiths as possible. I was curious what others believed and after growing up in such an insular faith I found it fascinating to learn about all the different philosophies and beliefs.

  One particular issue I found especially interesting, and that was the issue of Sola Scriptura, " Simply stated, the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura ("Scripture alone") teaches that every teaching in Christian theology (everything pertaining to "faith and practice") must be able to be derived from Scripture alone. This is expressed by the Reformation slogan Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum ("What is not biblical is not theological," cf. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, Richard A. Muller, Baker, 1985). " I had never even thought of that before, and why would I now that I think about it, as the JW's were heavy fundamentalists to say the least. And when I would read Catholic literature I was really confused with all this talk of tradition, which of course to my JW trained mind was totally worthless. I had a chance to talk with a Jesuit Priest (and if any of you ever get the chance, take it, they are some of the most educated people on the planet and fabulous debaters) and he walked me through the basic concepts and boiled it down to the idea that I was taught the church was a product of the bible whereas he believed the bible was a product of the church.

  I am just curious for those that put any credence on the bible and believe in God, what are your thoughts on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? On the forum there seem to be some pretty impressive biblical/religious scholars and I would love to hear some of their thoughts on the matter.
• 

  the_classicist

  The Church came before the bible. The bible was not composed, but compiled by the church around the 3rd or 4th century. At a synod in 382 AD, Pope Gelasius set out a canon and there was the Canon of Pope Innocent I in 405 AD, both of which are suppposed to be identical to the canon officially promulgated by the counter-reformationist Council of Trent.
• 

  Narkissos

  Well put.

  Sola scriptura is often described as the Achilles' heel of Protestantism. The doctrine came up because Renaissance and Humanism gave to a wider community (through the printing technique) immediate access to the early texts, translated from the original languages into current vernacular languages, instead of the previous mediations by Latin Church liturgy and teaching. It gave people the illusion of an immediate access to the absolute origin (=> truth) -- and that was a considerable weapon in the power struggles of the 16th century.

  Perhaps it is safer to speak of interaction between scriptures and communities (in the broadest sense of both terms), at every step of religious evolution, as far as we can look back; religious communities are informed by scriptures from previous communities, and in turn respond to them by developing and altering the scripture corpus, influencing further communities, and so on. Sounds like a chicken-and-egg relationship to me.
• 

  Big Dog

  The Jesuit's arguement did make a certain amount of sense, he pointed out the early christians were not like the JW's of today, or for that matter the Gideons, leaving a Bible in every hotel. I does sort of stand to reason that a lot of information was passed on orally, and that practices were instituted without being written down. It just seems there is so much emphasis placed on finding a scripture in the bible to support this or that, it did sort of make me wonder what the heck people did before bibles were mass produced, or for that matter before there even was a bible in the form we know it today.
• 

  the_classicist

  It just seems there is so much emphasis placed on finding a scripture in the bible to support this or that, it did sort of make me wonder what the heck people did before bibles were mass produced, or for that matter before there even was a bible in the form we know it today.

  Well, they definitely didn't carry a bunch of scrolls around as some JW pictures show. They would've simply memorized large parts of the bible, which also lead to paraphrasing when writing letters. Early bishops used to have to memorize the entire book of the Psalms.
• 

  Jaypeeto

  Good answers, folks! Yes, the church decided upon the canon of the New Testament. By the way, and I don't have a bible with me, but the NT bears witness to the Oral tradition of the Church too, not everything true was "written down" in scripture. Paul tells (Timothy I think) to pay attention to whatever you received from us, whether orally or in writing...I wish I knew what verse that was. Love, Jaypeeto
• 

  Jaypeeto

  Actually, the scripture about Oral teaching is , I believe, 2nd Thessalonians 2:15. Sorry for any confusion. Best, Jaypeeto
• 

  Leolaia

  I appreciate very much your post which makes some of the same points that I have been trying to make in some recent threads. It is curious that the Society rejects such things as the Trinity and creeds, which they say was decided by the Catholic Church centuries after the time of the apostles, and yet they unquestioningly accept one teaching that most definitely was settled through centuries of church debate: the canon of the Bible. Another important point is that the Protestant notion of "scripture" lacks all the nuance of the older concept in the church: that there may be "scripture" that is "inspired" which is not "canonical" (e.g. authoritative). The decisions made by the church and later in Protestantism also differ considerably from that in early Christianity, which accepted as scripture or as inspired numerous books that did not end up in the 66-book canon. The Bible today is usually read as if it was always a single-volume book and read out of the original literary context in which the individual books in the Bible (biblia "library") were written and used.
• 

  Qcmbr

  I think we need new scriptures...:)

  Seriously though isn't it just so odd that we hold so tenaciously to faiths that are built upon interpretations of the bible that are so wacky and plainly wrong. I remember in my preaching days that I found people who believed just as strongly as me in their own interpretation of the bible and quite often I felt like taking one and whupping them in the mush. Of course the feeling was normally mutual. Clearly the bible alone is no more a basis for religion than a rice pudding is for a house.

  Funnily enough I was talking to some JWs in my house and I sat and said to them..'Why do you believe you are right and have any authority to teach me?'

  One said that 'The bible is our authority..' I just kinda gave up and put my bible away.
• 

  barry

  From what Ive learnt most of the canon was there by the second century but Hebrews to Revelation were not accepted until later Revelation being the last to be accepted in the eastern churches because they beleived Revelation was not written by John. In 371ad was the first time we have all the books listed as the canon by Pope Damasis. I beleive the catholic position is correct that the bible is a product of the church but I also beleive the church must agree with scripture or otherwise there are inconsistancies in youre beleif system.

  What I found as very interesting is the fact that in the early church the baptisimal formula varied from different areas and was slightly different in wording but was allways trinitarian which later developed into the creeds. Vincent of lerins in the 5th centry talked about this and said christian doctrine is developed just as a child grows into a man. The modern champion of the developement of doctrine is John Henry Newman who wrote an essay on the developement of christian doctrine in 1845