Raised as a moderate evangelical with various shades of Baptist theology, we were taught that the Bible is the supreme ruler/basis of everything regarding faith and morals.
Little did we know that we were being trained to be adherents of Sola Scriptura. For those who are not familiar with this doctrine, I would consider this the "mother" of all Protestant doctrines. This doctrine teaches that everything necessary to salvation can be found in the Bible alone. Scripture is "clear", and in case of contradicting passages, Scripture should be able to explain Scripture.
I was trained for this since Sunday school days. I clung to it so much that if this doctrine be destroyed, I'll be destroyed with it too. Big deal? Of course! It's the Bible. This is the living Word of God, the inerrant, infallible collection of books that is so important to my faith.
But I noticed that there are different interpretations of the Bible within the Protestant tradition. Which one is the "correct" one? Their explanation of "difference only exists in the non-essentials" is found to be untrue (e.g. Trinity - some Protestants do not adhere to the Trinitarian theology; soteriology - some Protestants do not adhere to Sola Fide; And these are essential doctrines to start with).
Some practical questions I need to raise though:
1.) In the early times, when illiteracy is prevalent, how was the Christian faith transmitted? Was it through Bible alone? If yes, cite your sources. Also, consider the present times. We still have illiterates here living among us. How can they attain salvation if they cannot read the Bible? How would this affect Sola Scriptura's teaching that the Scriptures are "clear" and can be understood easily?
2.) Remember Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:30-40?
"30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him."
Even the Eunuch admitted that he needs someone to interpret the book of Isaiah that he was reading. Now, why wasn't he able to instinctively interpret Isaiah using other passages of the Bible if truly Scripture can explain Scripture?
3.) When was the canon of the Bible determined? Who determined the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, on what authority are they deriving this determination from?
===============================================================================================
On a different note, I noticed that most Protestant Christians avoid these kinds of questions about the Bible.
I remember one time I asked someone, out of love for the Bible and the search for truth, about who determined the Bible, why does it contain 66 books, etc., I was dismissed in the end because I was asking too much, and too much intellectualism would dull your soul.
Most Christians do not care about doctrine, history and logic anymore. Anti-intellectualism is at its peak.
If the Bible is supposedly your most prized spiritual possession, why are you not asking it's history? It's your duty to know how it came to be.
Your whole life depends on it.
Your eternity depends on it.
In closing, I leave you 1Timothy 4:16 (NIV)
"Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers."
---- wait , did I just read "hearers" instead of "readers"?
