My Dissasembling Protestantism: Sola Scriptura

Some people have wondered why I would be interested in learning more about the Orthodox Church.  I guess there would be many reasons for that, most of which I don’t have a coherant response to yet, but a major one is a Protestant Big Boy.  And so here’s where I get thrown out of the camp and dragged to the stake, but it seems silly not to be honest only for the sake of group think.  Fact is, I’m fed up with Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura is Latin for “Scripture alone.”  Essentially, it means,

the assertion that the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter (”Scripture interprets Scripture”), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.

First Question: Does the Bible say that it is the final authority of Christian doctrine? 

Second Question: Is the Bible clear to the rational reader? 

My problem is that every little group says they are following the Bible alone—and that it’s meaning is clear (meaning, anyone with a rational mind will come to see that the group’s interpretation is the only correct way of seeing things). 

Growing up, we described ourselves as a non-denominational church that simply followed the Bible.  But when I left home, I learned that every other non-denominational church said the same thing, as well as all the demoninations.   We all claimed we were teaching the clear plain truths of Scripture, so why, then, did we have so many different interpretations?

Complimentarians and Egalitarians both find their position from Scripture.  The Armenian and Calvinist positions both claim they are found in the clear teaching of the Bible.  Charismatic and non-Charismatic both base their stance on the Scriptures.  The Church of Christ claims it best reflects God’s desire for the way “church” ought to be, but then again, so does the Baptist and the Pentacostal, and all three of them point to the Bible for “proof” that they are right. 

I’ve used the Bible as my source for many positions myself.  I saw clearly in it’s pages that I was to believe one thing, only later to completely change, based on what I saw in it’s pages, to a completely different position.  At no time was I disobeying what I saw in the Bible, though I went from one position to another.   

Some want to throw up their hands and say, “Fine, it’s all about Jesus,” but thereagain, we must go to the Bible to define what we mean by Jesus.  And using the very same book, there are all sorts of different views on who Jesus is.

Isn’t this why we have the Creeds?  But if the Bible is so clear, why do we need Creeds to help define what we mean by calling ourselves Christians?  Is it perhaps that it’s not so clear, hence the need to write down the essentials of the faith?

Was the Bible ever supposed to be clear?  That’s what I’m wondering.   

Further Thought (if you haven’t already shaken the dust from your feet in departure): An article called, “The Bible and the Church,” that I recently read that spawned the impetus for this post, though it by no means produced any of these thoughts–they’ve been in my head for some time now.  This quote by Franky Schaeffer on the Bible is also something not to be missed, and another article on Sola Scriptura in the Early Church (Roman Catholic) with quotes from the Church Fathers on interpreting Scripture apart from the Church teachings/tradition, and another one here.