Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jkeys@orion.oac.uci.edu (Jerry Keys) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Sola Scriptura Message-ID: Date: 5 Jun 90 04:25:22 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of California, Irvine Lines: 85 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu The discussion of Catholic tradition and scripture, contrasted with the typical Protestant view of sola scriptura has been interesting, and I too feel "out of place" as our moderator said in his posting. It seems to me that Catholics and conservative Protestants struggle to attain certainty in all aspects of their spiritual, moral and psychological lives. For the Catholic the high status given to tradition provides a gradually increasing (more comprehensive) set of authoritative, unbreachable rules which progressively eliminate the need to decide what course of action to take in one's life--the individual's life becomes more prescribed, and hence the individual gains greater "clarity" and "certainty" about what he or she must do. The conservative Protestants seem to also strive for certainty by eliminating perceived sources of error (eg. Catholic tradition), "returning to the scriptures" as the only source of guidance and then insisting on a rigid interpretation of the scriptures that likewise prescribes as much as possible in life thereby providing the clarity and certainty. If the scriptures were so definitive about the issues (in this case the authority of tradition), then why can each side point to scripture and say "see, this is why I'm right...", and both sides claim that the other has misinterpreted or taken scripture out of context? I believe that each side honestly believes their point of view to be closer to the "truth" than the others (ie. I don't think that each side is playing a game). Both take positions that indicate they *know* what God wants from us, both generally and specifically -- but how do they know? Is one side being deceived and not the other? And how does each side know they aren't the ones being deceived? I'm convinced that Scripture is the word of God. At the same time I think that our understanding of it, and of what God wants us to know is part of a dynamic process, and will remain so as long as we are mortals. I don't believe that any individual or group can claim to have a *clear* understanding of all God wants us to know. Perhaps even the most peculiar mystic, babbling seemingly heretical statements may be sensitive to truths God wants us to know, but we have difficulty seeing because of our institutionalized faith. Sure, there can be, and are, some issues that we can be more clear about than others, but it seems to me that when we compile an ever growing set of prescriptions (be it based on scripture with authoritative traditions or based only on rigid interpretations of scripture) we are effectively creating a box that we put ourselves into (and allow the "authorities" to put us into). And the more structure there is to the box, the more static and rigid it becomes; and the more static and rigid our relationship becomes to the "truths" supposedly represented by the box. Is truth the same as law? To me it seems that the expression of, or practice of "authority from tradition", or the authority of the "only correct interpretation", tends to be more law than truth -- ie. coercion to live by the "truth" as understood by those in authority. If the "truths" illuminated by tradition or by a certain set of interpretations are indeed true then there should be no fear in allowing them to be tested by those who feel a need to test them -- if the traditions are "true" and the testers evaluate honestly, then the same conclusions should be arrived at. A tradition or interpretation is not sacred, and while I would argue that they are necessary in our spiritual journey they are only human symbols for something truly sacred: the relationship between God and humankind. We have been set free from the law, and I don't mean in a sense of spiritual anarchy, but more like spiritual responsibility. I don't believe there is actual individual responsibility if all behavior is completely prescribed. Sure, there is the responsibility to obey, but I don't think God is telling us that we *MUST* be like "such-and-such list", but that if we love Him, each other and all his creation then we will be as He wants us to be -- we will be truly alive and experiencing life to the fullest, as He originally intended for us (yes, only one Man has been this way -- I'm not trying to make a doctrinal point, only an illustration about the issue of behavior following the heart of a man, versus forcing a man's behavior to conform to certain criteria in order to affect his heart). Jerry Keys UC Irvine jkeys@orion.oac.uci.edu or, jkeys@vmsd.oac.uci.edu (I prefer to receive mail here) [There are certainly Catholics and conservative Protestants who deal with Tradition or Scripture legalistically, but to be fair, not all do. --clh]