Thanks for writing back. You stated: “Of course, the same can be true for Protestants who either have had specific doctrines confirmed in this way, or have simply studied the Bible in more depth than I have.”

To be more specific, where I think this differed for me as compared to what Protestants tried to offer me is the following:

living magisterium: I think this served to unify a whole group of doctrines as one whole better than scripture and its protestant interpreters could. The fact is, I kept finding protestants who were saying that scripture definitively allowed for certain things that Catholics would call sin. Furthermore, all the protestant groups disagreed with each other on what I would call behaviors that are necessary for avoiding Hell (though they may not be “necessary for salvation” in the faith sense). Some of these disagreements seemed to be related to changing societal standards intersecting with static scripture. What I began to realize is that a living magisterium is necessary in order to respond to a changing cultural vocabulary — the absence of this is a confusion that I felt sure God would never speak to me through.

Infallible magisterium: Furthermore, I kept finding protestant groups that today said something was OK but that 50 or 100 years ago definitively called that thing a sin. How could I make an act of _Faith_ in an interpretation offered by such a group? And if I just said: well, choosing behaviors that aren’t sinful isn’t an important part of being a Chrisitan, then I would just be begging the question.

So I made my act of faith in the Catholic Church’s pathway to God. This hasn’t answered all my questions, because much of the Church’s teaching has only been in the area of the fallible magisterium, and has changed over time and may change again in the future. But I have found many teachings on moral issues that seem to be part of the infallible magisterium according to a reasonable definition of the phrase. And these teachings have helped me overcome the confusion that in my earlier days I knew could not be the voice of God.

Sincerely,

K. Doran

K – I do have respect for stories like yours, as this is, to my mind, what the story of a mostly rational individual coming to Christianity would typically look like (depending on the details of what you take an “act of faith” to be). As such, I can’t write off this sort of direction. But (1) and (6) are both very important to the rationality of the process. You have to first accept the hypothesis as likely, and then attain firm confidence (but, I think, probably not certainty) as a result of its being confirmed both by religious experience and by its ability to make sense of your life. I certainly cannot rule out the possibility that some people may very rationally believe in the infallible magisterium on these grounds, and, depending on the strength of the confirmation, those people may have rational confidence on theological/interpretive matters where I am in doubt. Of course, the same can be true for Protestants who either have had specific doctrines confirmed in this way, or have simply studied the Bible in more depth than I have.

You stated: “Let me state my position a little more carefully. I claim that (1) the infallible magisterium cannot solve the problem of “a multitude of voices, all claiming truth,” because the problem with so many voices is determining which voice to listen to and we still have to identify the magisterium; and (2) were I to accept the doctrine of an infallible magisterium and attempt, as best I can, to identify it on the basis of the criteria offered in this post (doctrinal and organizational continuity), this would be unlikely to improve my rational confidence in the fundamental truths of Christianity, due to the role those fundamental truths would play in my attempted identification.”

Not being a philosopher, I can’t really participate in your interesting discussion with Tim on it own terms. But I wanted to mention that when I believed in the infallibility of the Catholic Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome, I was forced to concede that the sacrament of confession was a real sacrament — and that I had committed mortal sins which needed to be confessed. This completely changed my life (for the better, I assure you). I see what happened to me as taking the following pathway:

(1) Accumulating lots of evidence that the Catholic Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome was the most likely to be the true Church of Christ.

(2) Making an act of faith that that Church was the true Church of Christ.

(3) Discovering that this implied I would have to accept certain things as true that I had never really wanted to accept.

(4) Taking a deep breath.

(5) Living as if those things in step (3) really were true.

(6) Becoming really really happy; seeing connections between concepts that I had never noticed before; realizing ex post that the truth of (3) was clear all along; feeling really grateful to God that he allowed me to make the act of faith in step (2).

I don’t know if this real-world example helps you at all, but I thought I would mention it. In particular, I feel that (3) is more likely to occur with a living magisterium than with confessional reformed ecclesiology.

Also, regarding your statement about the EOC having more clear organizational continuity — you should read Dom John Chapman’s work on the development of the five patriarchates. I think a good case can be made that the primacy of Rome is clearer in Christian history than the various levels of hierarchy ascribed to by the EOC. There are, sadly, many intricate tales that have been woven by EOC and Anglicans about the supposed avarice for power in the history of the papacy during its first 700 years — and about supposed resistance to this power by universally acclaimed orthodox fathers such as Augustine. I would be happy to talk with you more about the details if you are interested.

Sincerely,

K. Doran

This has been a very interesting discussion, but I’m afraid that it will have to end here for now, as I am going to be out of town and away from computers for the next week. I’m sure we will have the opportunity to take up this or related topics again at a later date.

I’ve been thinking for a while on how best to respond and I’m not sure I have come up with it yet. I would like to take issue with the claim that the bible has no serious competition, but I’m afraid that will spin us off into a discussion about canonicity.

Here’s the underlying principle that I hold to in this regard: certainty cannot rest on uncertainty. We cannot say “I’m sure because I suppose so” (to quote Newman). And I think you’re saying the same thing, i.e. that the certainty of the infallible magisterium, if it exists, would rest on the uncertainty of one’s investigation.

Historical criticism and modern scholarship would add the same sort of doubt to the Scriptures that one might have of the Catholic magisterium. So consider that I gathered a group of historians and brought them to you and said, “Look, they unanimously agree that the Catholic magisterium is true and is the only rational choice for the Christian to submit to. So now do you believe?” You respond – “Hold on just a minute, all of these historians are Catholic!” So it seems that the testimony of those who presuppose the truth of the item under investigation wouldn’t be enough to make a convincing case right?

If you agree with that, then it seems only fair that in the question of the canonicity and validity of the Scriptures, we shouldn’t only rely on those who presuppose its truth…. namely, Christians. So if we were to take the consensus of secular scholars on the Bible or even a “fair” mix of secular and Christian scholars, say- the Jesus Seminar, then suddenly we have far less confidence in the Scriptures. Modern scholars would discount much of what you and I hold to be biblical and true.

But is our certainty of the scriptures restrained by this wild uncertainty of the skeptics? It is not, and I think we both agree there. Our certainty on the Scriptures is not reducible to the uncertainty of skepticism because of faith. The magisterium is not much different.

It is for this reason that I think if such an infallible magisterium existed, it would be a powerful aid in knowing the truth of Christianity.

It seems to me, as you say, that the Bible has no serious competitors. For instance, it is validated by historically well-attested miracles. However, I DO think that the same kind of problems plague the disputed books, especially the dueterocanon and Revelation, and this injects a degree of uncertainty. However, enough of the canon (especially the gospels and the OT protocanon) is well-established in this way to give us confidence in the basic truths of Christianity. Other books, like 1 Peter, have strong historical claim to have been written by direct historical associates of Jesus, and Peter validates Paul, and so forth. (But what to do about Jude, who seems to validate 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses?) Ultimately, however, it is the testimony of the Church, confirmed by personal religious experience, that leads me to accept the full canon. (I take the question of the deuterocanon quite seriously, but that’s another debate.) Every group that makes a credible claim to be the Church (or part of the Church) taught about in the Gospels agrees on the basic outlines of the canon – the disputes are ‘around the edges,’ as it were.

Personally, I think that, if apostolic succession is accepted, so that organizational continuity becomes a factor, then the EOC has the strongest claim, followed by the RCC, but, as I mentioned before, there are a number of groups that I know fairly little about – the Copts, Armenians, Assyrians, etc. – whose claims cannot be completely dismissed. Even the Anglican Communion may be a contender.

How is the same not true for Scripture since there are many books claiming to be, or could potentially be, Scripture? (And I realize that you might say that the Scriptures are for the most part standing alone – but I’d say the same for the Catholic Church. Only Eastern Orthodoxy has a competing magisterium that seems plausible to me).

JJS,

A thing is perspicuous in relation to its particular message but not to the implications or even logical conclusions of that message. Further, we do not deny all perspicuity of the Scripture. e.g. It is the perspicuous message of the Bible that God is the Creator of all that exists. But that still leaves a lot to be debated concerning Creation. It is perspicuous that salvation is by grace alone but that still leaves a lot to be debated.

On Vatican II, the general complaint against it is not that it was perspicuous and people misunderstood it but that it was too vague and open for misinterpretation. So that’s not really a good example because its an anomaly in the history of the Catholic magisterial voice. Was Nicaea perspicuous? Mostly.. It needed some help from Constantinople, but as you said, a living magisterium is always there to add clarification as needed. In the same way, the living magisterium is, even today, continuing to clarify and expound on the documents of Vatican II. Another issue with the Vatican II misunderstandings is the modern prevalence of relativistic philosophy and skepticism which makes even the most perspicuous message open to as many interpretations as interpreters. The Protestants, on the other hand, have disagreed with each other from the very outset on some of the basics of salvation and of the Christian life. Compare the Eucharistic theology of Zwingli, Calvin, and Luther.

People disagreeing on a thing does not prove its lack of intrinsic perspicuity, but it does constitute evidence against such perspicuity.

The second part of our problem with the perspicuity claim is its implication that the Scriptures are perspicuous on what is required for salvation. But this presupposes that the Salvation process is reducible to much less than what Christianity has always taught it to encompass. How can the salvation process not include the very life of corporate worship within the Church? Yet the Scriptures are far from perspicuous there. Yes, the Eucharistic celebration is mentioned, but that’s about as far as it goes. A reminder: I am not making an argument that such a thing exists, but that an living infallible magisterium would add clarity to the message of salvation.

I remember on a plane to Japan talking to a retired PCA pastor who told me that he didn’t think you could call Billy Graham’s soteriology the “true gospel.” So it would seem that only a tiny fraction of Christianity has ever even discovered the “perspicuous” message of salvation. This is what I’m talking about when I talk about the divisions and disagreements testifying against the perspicuous message of the Bible. If the message of Scripture is perspicuous at all, then it must perspicuously point to catholic truth. Otherwise, we cannot admit of perspicuity.

So I agree with you that it’s not a sound argument to say that if people disagree then a thing can’t be perspicuous. I only pointed out the fact of wide disagreement there to show that if there is so much disagreement on a simple thing, then we can expect much more on the complex things. It is strong evidence against but not an absolute refutation of the Protestant doctrine of Perspicuity.

Many Protestants deny the clear Biblical teaching that baptism is required for salvation. So already, on the most fundamental aspect of the salvation process, we disagree.

Your position, and that of other Catholics I know, seems to be that the Bible cannot be perspicuous since so many Protestants disagree over its meaning in certain key areas. If I’m understanding you rightly, then what do you make of the fact that plenty of Catholics disagree over what Vatican II teaches? I’ve heard men like Scott Hahn say that some Catholic priests teach that “Catholic Dogma X” is no longer binding since Vatican II repealed or reformulated it.

So if disagreement over a document necessarily demonstrates the document’s lack of perspecuity, then what good is a Magisterium if it can’t produce teachings any clearer than Scripture? And if your answer is, “A Magisterium is better because it’s living and you can ask it questions and get from it answers,” my next question will be, “But what if people still fail to understand? Loads of people misunderstood Jesus and Paul when they were alive and on earth, too.”

Here’s a simplified argument. Suppose you said that I should identify the infallible magisterium by looking for the institution whose teaching was continuous with that of the apostles. This would presuppose that I already knew what the apostles taught. My confidence that I had correctly identified the magisterium would be only as great as my initial confidence, before I identified it, in my knowledge of the apostles’ teaching, and so, no matter what the magisterium taught, it wouldn’t increase my confidence in my understanding of apostolic teaching – after all, if my understanding of the apostolic teaching is wrong, then the ‘magisterium’ I’m listening to is probably not the infallible one.

Now, in fact, the RCC position is a little stronger than this for two reasons. First, doctrinal continuity is not the only criterion (there is the criterion of historical/organizational continuity, for instance). Second, there may be some doctrines which turn out not to be relevant to my identification of the magisterium. For instance, suppose I have great confidence that the apostles taught the Chalcedonian Christology and the doctrine of purgatory. As far as I know, every church that believes these two things accepts Rome’s claims of primacy. So this would be enough to identify the magisterium, and Rome’s teachings on other matters about which I had previously been in doubt might improve my rational confidence with regard to those matters.

So my denial that “an infallible magisterium can ultimately do anything to improve our rational confidence” is a bit hyperbolic. Let me state my position a little more carefully. I claim that (1) the infallible magisterium cannot solve the problem of “a multitude of voices, all claiming truth,” because the problem with so many voices is determining which voice to listen to and we still have to identify the magisterium; and (2) were I to accept the doctrine of an infallible magisterium and attempt, as best I can, to identify it on the basis of the criteria offered in this post (doctrinal and organizational continuity), this would be unlikely to improve my rational confidence in the fundamental truths of Christianity, due to the role those fundamental truths would play in my attempted identification.