On the Need for Authority

One thing that always strikes me about protestants is that they claim to believe in Sola Scriptura.  They say that the Bible is the sole source of revelation.

Unfortunately, that presents problems.  First, it is all roughly two thousand years old or older.  Things were written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, about events that happened in a culture that is vastly different than our culture today.  To even begin to study the Bible in a true "Sola Scriptura" fashion, you need to know biblical Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.  You also need a vast understanding of the ancient Near East culture, history, geography, etc.  Thus, to even BEGIN to rely solely upon Scripture, you need vast amounts of contextual information for the words to even make sense.

Why do you need to know all of this?  Translation is, to some degree, always interpreting from the source language to the target language.  To eliminate bias from translators, one must go to the source language.  Then, a mere mechanical translation sometimes makes little sense to the reader.  How long is a cubit?  How much is a shekel worth?  How can you stuff a camel through the eye of a needle?  As much as is possible, any student of Scripture needs to be aware of these things.  Many translations, despite attempting to be unbiased, still do not immediately make sense without the context, anyway.  Furthermore, one has to consider the type of literature that the passage comes from.  It could be poetry, history, proverbial, legal; it could be a letter, or apocalyptic literature.  There is thought that certain books of the Old Testament are fables, stories used to illustrate certain eternal truths.

All of this effort is simply to get the literal meaning of Scripture.  Above and beyond that are the many varied spiritual interpretations, foreshadowing, typography, cross references, numerology, etc.

Ultimately, if you say that scripture alone is the sole source of revelation, you are spending an awful lot of time and effort reinventing the wheel.  You will also get things wrong, so it'll likely be a lopsided, inefficient wheel at that.

Let's get down to the brass tacks.  People disagree on everything even when it is specific.  When something is vague or open to interpretation, multiply that by a thousand.

We even see disagreement on doctrine among the early Christian peoples.  In Acts 15, the so-called Judaisers were insisting that Pagan converts follow the Judaic law in its entirety.  Others disagreed.  It was such a serious disagreement that it threatened in the Church's infancy to split the Church even then.

How did they handle the dispute?  Did they say to each other, "You know, this doesn't really matter.  Can we just agree to disagree, as long as we follow Christ?"  No, they did not.  Instead, here's what DID happen.  The apostles and presbyters assembled together from the whole Church, discussed the matter, prayed, and came to a definitive decision.  Note that the Holy Spirit worked through this seemingly prosaic and human form of resolution (Acts 15:28).  All were to abide by the decision.  The Judaisers did not go off and start their own splinter group, but submitted to the authority of this council.

This event provided the prototype for all further disputes within the Church, whether they be moral or theological.  The fruits were greater understanding of God's Revelation and a chance to practice humility and compassion.  The greatest fruit, however, was that a signpost was planted, guiding men on the narrow and difficult road, and helping them avoid the wide and easy road to perdition.  Each new council, each new proclamation, guides the weary traveller higher up, borne by the strength of the Lord, so that he might avoid pitfalls on his journey.  In a very practical way, these decisions make straight the paths of the Lord so that we might run swiftly into His loving arms as a good and faithful servant.