Protestants and Bible-only Christians who hold to the principle of "sola scriptura" want to claim by virtue of this principle that the Bible is the final authority for what they view to be orthodox doctrine. When they affirm and assert a particular theological viewpoint as true, they believe they have the support of the Bible to back up their claims. They may cite a passage or more from the Bible that they believe gives them warrant to believe and propose their views as true. To them, the Bible seems to clearly support their views on any number of given doctrines. For someone to suggest otherwise, to them, seems as if that person is directly contradicting the teaching of God's Word, the Bible.
But is this necessarily so?
Is it true that if someone disagrees with another's biblical interpretation--one who holds this protestant view of authority (sola scriptura), that his view is necessarily in contradiction to the Word of God? Could it be true that the view of the first individual is the one not really accurate to the Word of God even though he is convinced it is? Is it not possible that the individual could be wrong in his private interpretation of Scripture? Is it possible that he may even be too closely associating his private interpretation with the Word of God itself, thereby confusing authorities? In other words, could it be true that the person who thinks he is relying on the authority of the Word of God is really relying on the "authority" of his own private interpretation of that Word: thereby confusing authorities by placing his own interpretation on the same level as the Word of God?
Furthermore, wouldn't someone have to have something near (if not) divine certainty that his interpretation of the Bible is accurate before he would accuse another of contradicting God's Word versus contradicting merely his own interpretation of God's Word? (How would a protestant go about finding this certainty?)
There is the subjective sense of certainty versus objective certainty to be considered here. How does the individual know for certain, or with what level of certainty does the individual protestant know that his interpretation of the Biblical text(s) is accurate, or that his compilation of biblical texts toward the support of a particular doctrine is appropriate? When a protestant assumes certain doctrines as part of historic and orthodox Christianity, how does he know that it is anything more than his private opinion? And if it is merely his private opinion of the text of Scripture, does his private opinion weigh in any heavier than anyone else's? If so, why? If not, then can he justifiably judge as false someone else's interpretation of the same text(s)--including that of the Catholic?
This brings up the question: Is there any way for the individual to KNOW what God has revealed in Scripture on any other basis than the "authority" of his own individual opinion? As we all well know, there are nearly as many opinions about what any given text of Scripture means as there are people who claim to care. How does one sift through all this and come to a point of certain faith in the truth God has revealed? If there is nothing more authoritative than one's own interpretation of the biblical text, is he in any better position (with respect to knowing truth) than those he accuses of being in error or holding to fallacious interpretations of Scripture?
One might respond that he trusts God to guide those who are filled with His Holy Spirit to an accurate understanding of His Word. And this is true as far as it goes. But who wants to make the bold claim that he personally has the guidance of the Holy Spirit and those who he agrees are fellow Christians but who have differing interpretations on significant doctrines, don't? Does the Holy Spirit guide different people to conclusions which contradict one another? Isn't He the Spirit of truth? Isn't the truth one (internally consistent)?
In subsequent posts, we plan to take up these questions in more depth and to show how the Catholic Faith provides credible answers which satisfy the problems protestants face in these regards...
In the meantime, how would you answer these questions?
Test.
ReplyDeleteTest Successful. :-)
DeleteThe question about the solid basis for deciding doctrines should not be glibly glossed over. As is often noted, many cultists claim Christ alone as their authority.... [Yet, they proclaim different doctrines than others who claim Christ.]
ReplyDeleteThis is NO attempt to amass the best argument on "how to know" ultimate earthly authority. Indeed, short of offering Keith Mathison's Sola [not Solo] Scriptura as the positive final answer, I would proffer that the issue - while KEY - does not practically separate us so much as it would at first seem....
We're still Christians who share much of Orthodoxy, praise our God!
(Now, to my claim that this question of authority has NOT resulted in much practical difference....) For instance, if as a RC I seek solid answers to such simple questions as "may a man have reasonably long hair?" or "should I have daily family devotions," I can consult my local priest, but I WILL NOT secure a uniform answer from the RC Church. As far as I understand, the Pope and his Council have not spoken authoritatively on such matters. Nor on MANY, many others.
It may seem as if there are many things the [RC] Church has dogmatically spoken to...but when I have looked into them, relatively few are authoritative pronouncements.
Yes, the key prongs of the Reformation have been addressed.... And - Yes - many doctrines on which we agree...the virgin birth, the trinity, original sin.
But there are - shall I suggest? - thousands of issues on which we BOTH flail around, without solid answers.... Perhaps in another 2,000 years we'll have covered more ground.
Frankly, I'm glad the [RC] Church has not pronounced on these issues...as too that was one of Warfield's praises of the Westminster Confession (IHO, it doesn't say TOO much, binding the believer's conscience). However, do then the doctrines on which they HAVE pronounced make a difference?
Well, it's hard to deny that there are significant differences between the doctrines of the Reformers and the RC Church. Or is it? - every few years, there are some members of either tradition who try to make a case for minimizing any differences between, say, Luther and his opponents. So, to some in BOTH traditions....
Again, please don't take the above as an attempt to bring a positive argument for a Protestant position.
It's merely a way of asking "Has this matter of Authority been as practically Significant as the Principle might suggest?" The matter of its TRUTH-value still remains....
Barry, thanks for your thoughtful comment! I'll be pondering it and hope to offer some thoughts in reply as soon as I can. In the meantime, do you have any thoughts you would want to share about the principle itself? Blessings!
ReplyDeleteBarry, thanks for your offering. I think you are right that this is an important subject which ultimately cannot be glibly glossed over. There are a couple things you articulated for which I require further explanation.
ReplyDelete1. We're still Christians who share much of Orthodoxy, praise our God! And…
2.[T]his question of authority has NOT resulted in much practical difference.
Going in reverse, I am not sure what is meant by 'practical'. I can think of many practical differences that are of the greatest import, the first of which is Holy Mass, in which the priest, by a miracle of God, turns both bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. The worship of God is wholly different between Protestant and Catholics because of this distinction.
We could go into several more practical differences, such as the Sacrament of Confession, obligation to attend Mass every Sunday and on Days of Holy Obligation, the proscription of contraception, to name a few.
Regarding 1., I am not sure what you believe Orthodoxy is, or of what it consists. How can we agree that we share much of Orthodoxy? I take it that you are a Reformed Christian*. You believe that God has commanded Christians to baptize their infants; if you did not believe God has positively commanded this practice, I take it you would not do it, given the importance of baptism in Reformed thought. Many other Christians, say Baptists, believe that God has made no such commandment, and the Reformed, Episcopalian, Catholic and other claimants to the name “Christian” have erred grievously and claim that God has spoken when He has in fact not spoken… in fact, since God only commands believer baptism (if He commands it at all… it is not required after all, they say), it is an act of disobedience to baptize infants since they cannot believe.
So my question is this: is Baptism and the practice of this ritual (infant and believer vs. only believer), a matter of orthodoxy?
*Forgive me if I am wrong, but I am just guessing given your kind of argument and initial offering of Mathison’s book as the best explanation of the authority issue.
Hi Barry, I think Brian Cross at Called to Communion, in his post, "The 'Catholics are Divided Too' Objection", helps to address at least some of the concerns you listed above. Please take a look at it as I think he has ably contributed to this area of discussion. He and a fellow contributor of his, Neal Judisch, also offer a response to Mathison's sola vs. solo scripture, showing where they believe it breaks down. I would agree with their conclusions. Please let me know what you think. Here are the links: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/11/the-catholics-are-divided-too-objection/ and http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/.
ReplyDelete