Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority

Nov 4th, 2009 | By Bryan Cross | Category: Featured Articles

According to Keith Mathison, over the last one hundred and fifty years Evangelicalism has replaced sola scriptura, according to which Scripture is the only infallible ecclesial authority, with solo scriptura, the notion that Scripture is the only ecclesial authority. The direct implication of solo scriptura is that each person is his own ultimate interpretive authority.

Christus Pantocrator in the apsis of the cathedral of Cefalù

Solo scriptura is, according to Mathison, an unbiblical position; proponents of sola scriptura should uphold the claim that Scripture is the only infallible authority, but should repudiate any position according to which individual Christians are the ultimate arbiters of Scriptural truth. In this article we argue that there is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura with respect to the holder of ultimate interpretive authority, and that a return to apostolic succession is the only way to avoid the untoward consequences to which both solo scriptura and sola scriptura lead.

Contents:

I. Introduction
II. Description of Solo Scriptura and What is Wrong with It, According to Mathison
III. Mathison on Sola Scriptura, and How It Differs from Solo Scriptura
IV. Why There Is No Principled Difference Between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura

A. Direct and Indirect Ultimate Interpretive Authority
B. The Contradiction Internal to the Sola Scriptura Position
C. The Delusion of Derivative Authority

V. Objections and Replies

A. Tu Quoque: “The Catholic Position Does Not Avoid Solo Scriptura
B. Sola Ecclesia: The Church is Autonomous, a Law unto Itself, and Unaccountable

VI. Implications

I. Introduction

Sola scriptura is arguably the most foundational point of disagreement underlying the nearly five-hundred year rift between Catholic and Protestant Christians.  The Catholic Encyclopedia identifies sola scriptura, alongside sola fide and the ministerial priesthood of all believers, as one of the three fundamental principles of Protestantism; and nineteenth century Church historian Philip Schaff, in agreement with many Protestant thinkers, describes sola scriptura as the “formal principle” of Protestant theology.¹ The doctrine may be viewed as a “dangerous idea” by some, or as an exhilarating and liberating one by others.² But there can be little doubt that sola scriptura is an essential component of historic Protestant theology, and that it is crucial to the justifiability of the sixteenth-century schism and the perpetuation of this schism today.

Catholic critics of sola scriptura have argued that sola scriptura is essentially a denial of ecclesial authority, and hence that sola scriptura necessarily leads to a fragmentation in which each person interprets Scripture as seems right in his own eyes. In this way, they argue, sola scriptura is largely responsible not only for the separation of Protestants from the Catholic Church, but also for the vast number of schisms between Protestants. But a relatively recent book has given Protestants a way of replying to these criticisms, by seeking to accommodate the Catholic critics’ legitimate concerns while simultaneously repudiating their vision of the relation between Scripture and Tradition. That book is titled The Shape of Sola Scriptura, by Keith A. Mathison, the associate editor of Tabletalk.

In his book, Mathison distinguishes between sola scriptura, which he claims to have been the belief of the early confessional Protestants, and what he calls solo scriptura, which Mathison believes is a deviation of the last one hundred and fifty years from the belief and teaching of the early confessional Protestants. As a result of Mathison’s book, in our experience, Protestants now more commonly respond to Catholic arguments against sola scriptura by claiming that these are arguments against solo scriptura, not against sola scriptura. In other words, the common Protestant response to the Catholic critique of sola scriptura is that the Catholic argument aimed at sola scriptura criticizes a straw man, critiquing solo scriptura instead of sola scriptura.

We understand and appreciate the prima facie significance of the distinction Mathison wishes to draw between solo and sola scriptura.  However, as we shall argue below, there is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura with respect to the locus of “ultimate interpretive authority:” sola scriptura, no less than solo scriptura, entails that the individual Christian is the ultimate arbiter of the right interpretation of Scripture. This implies that what Mathison calls ‘solo scriptura‘ is in fact a more clearly distilled manifestation over time of the true nature of sola scriptura. Moreover, we shall show that the only way to avoid the solo/sola position (and the unbiblical consequences to which it leads) is by way of apostolic succession.

The overall structure of our article is as follows. In the second section we present an overview of Mathison’s account of solo scriptura, explaining exactly what he believes to be wrong with solo scriptura. In the third section we present Mathison’s explanation of sola scriptura, and describe the putative contrast between solo scriptura and sola scriptura. In section four we show why there is no principled distinction between sola scriptura and solo scriptura. In section five we consider some objections to our argument, and show why they do not refute our argument. Finally, in section six we lay out a few noteworthy implications of our argument, including the implication that all the criticisms Mathison levels at solo scriptura apply equally to sola scriptura.

II. Description of Solo Scriptura and What Is Wrong with It, According to Mathison

In his book and his related article, Keith Mathison criticizes the position he calls ‘solo scriptura,‘ namely, the position that “Scripture [is] not merely the only infallible authority but that it [is] the only authority altogether.”³ He describes the solo scriptura position as rejecting altogether even “the true but subordinate authority of the church and the regula fidei“ (i.e., the “rule of faith”).⁴ Mathison admirably demonstrates various significant problems with solo scriptura, including a hermeneutical problem, a set of historical problems, and a Scriptural problem. Because we agree substantially with Mathison’s critique of solo scriptura, we shall present his criticisms with scant commentary before turning our attention to his account of sola scriptura.

Hermeneutical Problem with Solo Scriptura

Mathison begins his criticism of solo scriptura by pointing his readers to the widespread “hermeneutical chaos and anarchy” caused by the existence of conflicting interpretations of Scripture. Why is this “hermeneuetical chaos” a problem? One primary reason, according to Mathison, is that the divisions and disagreements between Christians undermine the credibility of Christians and the gospel. He writes:

One of the most obvious facts facing any intelligent person who has been a Christian for more than a few days is the reality of multitudes of conflicting interpretations of Scripture. . . .

Is there any way to ever resolve the hermeneutical chaos and anarchy that exists within the Protestant church largely as a result of its adoption of radical individualism? Most Protestants do not seem to have taken this question seriously enough if they have considered it at all. If we proclaim to the unbelieving world that we have the one true and final revelation from God, why should they listen to us if we cannot agree about what that revelation actually says? Jesus prayed for the disciples that they would be one (John 17:21a). And why did He pray for this unity? He tells us the reason, “that the world may believe that You sent me” (17:21b). The world is supposed to be hearing the Church preach the gospel of Christ, but the world is instead hearing an endless cacophony of conflicting and contradictory assertions by those who claim to be the Church of Christ. This is the heart of the hermeneutical problem we face in the Church today.⁵

The fact of so many different conflicting interpretations dims the light of the gospel to the world.⁶ This “cacophony of conflicting and contradictory assertions” leaves even the Christian bewildered and uncertain, groping about to find the way, the truth and the life of Christ and His gospel. Mathison writes:

Almost every Christian who has wrestled with theological questions has encountered the problem of competing interpretations of Scripture. . . . Each man will claim that the other is in error, but by what ultimate authority do they typically make such a judgment? Each man will claim that he bases his judgment on the authority of the Bible, but since each man’s interpretation is mutually exclusive of the other’s, both interpretations cannot be correct. How then do we discern which interpretation is correct?⁷

The cause of this hermeneutical chaos, according to Mathison, is solo scriptura. Solo scriptura creates this hermeneutical chaos because it leaves no interpretive authority by which interpretive disputes may be definitively resolved. He writes:

The typical modern Evangelical solution to this problem is to tell the inquirer to examine the arguments on both sides and decide which of them is closest to the teaching of Scripture. He is told that this is what sola scriptura means-–to individually evaluate all doctrines according to the only authority, the Scripture. Yet in reality, all that occurs is that one Christian measures the scriptural interpretations of other Christians against the standard of his own scriptural interpretation. Rather than placing the final authority in Scripture as it intends to do, this concept of Scripture places the final authority in the reason and judgment of each individual believer. The result is the relativism, subjectivism, and theological chaos that we see in modern Evangelicalism today.⁸

According to Mathison, then, when each person is deciding for himself what is the correct interpretation of Scripture, Scripture is no longer functioning as the final authority. Rather, each individual’s own reason and judgment becomes, as it were, the highest authority, supplanting in effect Scripture’s unique and rightful place. Can we avoid this result simply by letting Scripture interpret itself? According to Mathison, the answer is no:

All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. The only real question is: whose interpretation? People with differing interpretations of Scripture cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve their differences. In order for the Scripture to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone. According to “solo” Scriptura, that someone is each individual, so ultimately, there are as many final authorities as there are human interpreters.⁹

This is a fundamental insight. All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. But, according to Mathison, adherents of solo scriptura have not realized that all appeals to Scripture are in fact appeals to interpretations of Scripture. Because they fail to appreciate this fact, Mathison charges that:

Ultimately the interpretation of Scripture becomes individualistic with no possibility for the resolution of differences. This occurs because adherents of solo scriptura rip the Scripture out of its ecclesiastical and traditional hermeneutical context, leaving it in a relativistic vacuum. The problem is that there are differing interpretations of Scripture, and Christians are told that these can be resolved by a simple appeal to Scripture. . . . The problem that adherents of solo scriptura haven’t noticed is that any appeal to Scripture is an appeal to an interpretation of Scripture. The only question is: whose interpretation? When we are faced with conflicting interpretations of Scripture, we cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve our difference of opinion as if it were a Ouija board. In order for Scripture to serve as an authority at all, it must be read, exegeted, and interpreted by somebody.¹⁰

Because Scripture must be interpreted, and because Scripture cannot interpret itself by itself, it follows that some person or persons must interpret Scripture if Scripture is to function as an authority. Otherwise, irreconcilable hermeneutical disputes can only end in division, as each faction has no recourse but to separate. And these divisions are contrary to the will of Christ who prays in John 17 that all His followers would be one, so that the world would see that the Father sent the Son. These divisions are also contrary to the command of the Apostle Paul, who exhorts us that there be no divisions among us.¹¹ According to Mathison, the false assumption among advocates of solo scriptura is that the individual Christian can somehow bypass the interpretive process, resolving these hermeneutical disputes by a “simple appeal to Scripture.” But that does not resolve the dispute, as Mathison rightly notes, precisely because each disagreeing party is in actuality appealing to his own interpretation of Scripture. And hermeneutical disputes cannot be resolved so long as the disputing parties deny that hermeneutics is involved. So the necessity of interpretation leads us to the obvious question: “Whose interpretation should be given the final say?”

To this question Mathison responds forthrightly, “the Church.”  And naturally, our dispute with Mathison on this point does not center upon his answer (“the Church”), so much as the referent he assigns to that term, and the basis for its being the referent of that term, as we shall discuss below. First, however, we explain why Mathison contends that solo scriptura is not only false, inasmuch as it fails to align with the Biblical pattern and example, but is also pernicious.

According to Mathison, when Christians do not follow the authoritative guidance of the Church in their interpretation of Scripture, not only do they fall into various kinds of errors, but Scripture itself, as he shows by various examples, necessarily ceases to function as their authority. In one example, he refers to Reformed theologian Robert Reymond’s call for “an abandonment of the Nicene Trinitarian concept in favor of a different Trinitarian concept,” referring to Reymond’s rejection of the Nicene Creed’s teaching that Christ is eternally begotten.¹² According to Mathison, this shows that for proponents of solo scriptura the Nicene Creed has no real authority.¹³

Mathison also refers to Edward Fudge, who defends annihilationism, as another example of someone operating according to solo scriptura. Fudge claims that Scripture “is the only unquestionable or binding source of doctrine on this or any subject.”¹⁴ The fact that annihilationism is heterodox does not deter him; he believes that his own interpretation of Scripture is correct on this matter, and that here the Church has been wrong. In addition to these examples, Mathison identifies Ed Stevens, who defends hyperpreterism, as another proponent of solo scriptura. Mathison quotes Stevens as writing:

Even if the creeds were to clearly and definitively stand against the preterist view (which they don’t), it would not be an overwhelming problem since they have no real authority anyway. They are no more authoritative than our best opinions today, but they are valued because of their antiquity. . . . We must not take the creeds any more seriously than we do the writings and opinions of men like Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, the Westminster Assembly, Campbell, Rushdoony, or C.S. Lewis.¹⁵

Referring to this quotation, Mathison writes:

Here we see the clear rejection of scripturally based structures of authority. The authority of those who rule in the Church is rejected by placing the decisions of an ecumenical council of ministers on the same level as the words of any individual. This is certainly the democratic way of doing things, and it is as American as apple pie, but it is not Christian. . . . If this doctrine of solo scriptura and all that it entails is true, then the Church has no more right or authority to declare Arianism a heresy than Cornelius Van Til would have to authoritatively declare classical apologetics a heresy. Orthodoxy and heresy would necessarily be an individualistic and subjective determination.¹⁶

The fundamental problem in each of these three examples, according to Mathison, is that the individual is failing to recognize the secondary authority of the Church and of the creeds. The result of making the individual the final interpretive authority, and not recognizing the interpretive authority of the Church, argues Mathison, is that the authority of Scripture is destroyed:

The adherents of solo scriptura dismiss all of this claiming that the reason and conscience of the individual believer is the supreme interpreter. Yet this results in nothing more than hermeneutical solipsism. It renders the universal and objective truth of Scripture virtually useless because instead of the Church proclaiming with one voice to the world what the Scripture teaches, every individual interprets Scripture as seems right in his own eyes. The unbelieving world is left hearing a cacophony of conflicting voices rather than the Word of the living God.¹⁷

Mathison’s point is that when individuals take Scripture out of its ecclesial context, and treat themselves as the ultimate or highest interpretive authorities, the practical authority of Scripture is effectively destroyed. Scripture can function as an objective authority only when interpreted in and by the Church.¹⁸

When each individual acts as his own ultimate interpretive authority, the result, argues Mathison, is a kind of de facto relativism. One person thinks a passage means one thing; another person claims that the same passage means something else. But without a divinely established interpretive authority to adjudicate the dispute, the practical result is that the meaning of Scripture is reduced to “what it means to me.” There is no one with interpretive authority to say, “That’s not what it means.” Rather, without interpretive authority the objector’s disagreement with another’s interpretation amounts to, “That’s not what it means to me.” To this the first person understandably replies, “I understand that that’s not what it means to you, but that’s what it means to me.” And this situation is a form of practical relativism. In this way, argues Mathison, solo scriptura “destroys” the authority of Scripture.¹⁹

Historical Problems with Solo Scriptura

According to Mathison, not only is there a hermeneutical problem with solo scriptura, there are also historical problems. The primary historical problem is that solo scriptura was not the position of the early Church or the medieval Church.²⁰ The early Christians, not only layman but even presbyters and bishops, did not resolve theological disputes by taking to themselves ultimate interpretive authority.²¹ The historical position, according to Mathison, is for a synod of bishops to address the matter with an authoritative decision. On this point Mathison quotes John Calvin, who wrote:

We indeed willingly concede, if any discussion arises over doctrine, that the best and surest remedy is for a synod of true bishops to be convened, where the doctrine at issue may be examined.²²

Mathison defends this position by pointing out that the Apostles provide an example of meeting in council (Acts 15:6-29) to resolve a question or dispute.

Another historical problem entailed by solo scriptura, according to Mathison, is that if the Church had no authority, then we would not have any certainty regarding the canon of Scripture.²³ According to Mathison, solo scriptura thus leads to a “fundamental self-contradiction” in the solo scriptura position.²⁴ The contradiction is that proponents of solo scriptura appeal to Scripture as their only authority, yet without the authority of the Church they would not know with certainty which books belong to the canon of Scripture. In this way, argues Mathison, supporters of solo scriptura could not adequately respond to a modern-day Marcion who challenged the canon of Scripture, because they could not appeal to any authority to establish or confirm the canon.²⁵

A third historical problem is the multiplication of schisms, which Mathison largely attributes to solo scriptura. He writes:

The Christian Church today is split into literally tens of thousands of denominations with hundreds of new divisions arising daily. Much of the responsibility for this divisiveness rests with the doctrine of solo scriptura. When each individual’s conscience becomes the final authority for that individual, differences of opinion will occur. When men feel strongly enough about their individual interpretations, they separate from those they believe to be in error. In the world today, we have millions of believers and churches convinced of thousands of mutually contradictory doctrines, and all of them claim to base their beliefs on the authority of Scripture alone.

Not only has solo scriptura contributed heavily to this division and sectarianism, it can offer no possible solution. Solo scriptura is the ecclesiastical equivalent of a nation with a constitution but no court of law to interpret that constitution. Both can lead to chaos. . . . But using Scripture alone, it cannot tell us what “Scripture” is or what it means. It simply cannot resolve differences of interpretation, and the result is more and more division and schism. The resolution of theological differences requires the possibility of authoritatively defining the propositional doctrinal content of Christianity, and it requires the possibility of an authoritative ecclesiastical “Supreme Court.” Since neither of those possibilities are allowed within the framework of solo scriptura, there can be no possibility of resolution.²⁶

As Catholics, we do not believe that Christ’s Church is split, because we believe that unity is one of the four essential marks of the Church specified by the Nicene Creed, and that since Christ cannot be divided, therefore Christ’s Body, the Church, cannot be divided. Any persistent schism therefore involves schism from the Church. ²⁷ But, we do agree with Mathison that non-Catholic Christians are split into thousands of denominations, and that these divisions are primarily the result of each individual treating himself as his own final interpretive authority.

A fourth historical problem resulting from solo scriptura, according to Mathison, is that it destroys the historic Christian faith by denying the ecclesial authority by which certain doctrines were definitively determined at particular times in the history of the Church to be orthodox and essential, and other doctrines definitively determined to be heretical. By rejecting the authority of the Church, solo scriptura reduces the authority of the ecumenical councils and creeds to that of the opinion of any individual Christian, and thus eliminates the possibility of an objective Christianity handed down to us through history.²⁸

In that respect, rejecting the authority of the Church, according to Mathison, has devastating consequences for Christianity, because it eliminates the creeds, and thereby eliminates the historic Christian faith as an objective reality.

If the ecumenical creeds have no real authority, then it cannot be of any major consequence if a person decides to reject some or all of the doctrines of these creeds-–including the Trinity and the deity of Christ. If the individual judges the Trinity to be an unbiblical doctrine, then for him it is false. No other authority exists to correct him outside of his own interpretation of Scripture. This is precisely why solo scriptura inevitably results in radical relativism and subjectivity. Each man decides for himself what the essential doctrines of Christianity are, each man creates his own creed from scratch, and concepts such as orthodoxy and heresy become completely obsolete. The concept of Christianity itself becomes obsolete because it no longer has any meaningful objective definition. Since solo scriptura has no means by which Scripture’s propositional doctrinal content may be authoritatively defined (such definition necessarily entails the unacceptable creation of an authoritative ecumenical creed), its propositional content can only be subjectively defined by each individual. One individual may consider the Trinity essential, another may consider it a pagan idea imported into Christianity. Without an authoritatively defined statement of Christianity’s propositional doctrinal content, neither individual can definitively and finally be declared wrong. Solo scriptura destroys this possibility, and thereby destroys the possibility of Christianity being a meaningful concept. Instead, by reducing Christianity to relativism and subjectivity, it reduces Christianity to irrationalism and ultimately nonsense.²⁹

Here again, Mathison is quite right. Denying the authority of the Church, by treating oneself as having greater interpretive authority than the Church, destroys the Christian faith for the very reasons Mathison so aptly explains. The content of the deposit of faith then becomes like a silver dollar hidden among a sea of silver dollars; there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the myriad of contending theological opinions. This is not the situation that Christ the Good Shepherd would have handed on to His sheep. But the problem here is not merely that the deposit of faith becomes murky and inscrutable. According to Mathison,

Solo scriptura results in the autonomy of the individual believer who becomes a law unto himself. Scripture is interpreted according to the conscience and reason of the individual. Everything is evaluated according to the final standard of the individual’s opinion of what is and is not scriptural. The individual, not Scripture, is the real final authority according to solo scriptura. This is rebellious autonomy, and it is a usurpation of the prerogatives of God.

Adherents of solo scriptura have not understood that “Scripture alone” doesn’t mean “me alone.” The Bible nowhere gives any hint of wanting every individual believer to decide for himself and by himself what is and is not the true meaning of Scripture.³⁰

By rejecting the interpretive authority of the Church, the individual makes himself autonomous. He might not think of himself as being autonomous or rebellious; he most likely thinks of himself as following God, by following [his own interpretation of] God’s Word as contained in Sacred Scripture. But by disregarding the divinely established interpretive authority of the Church, the individual usurps to himself an authority that Christ entrusted to the Church. This is why, according to Mathison, taking final interpretive authority to oneself makes the individual guilty of “rebellious autonomy.”³¹

Solo Scriptura is Unbiblical

Mathison argues that the solo scriptura position is unbiblical. He writes:

The Bible itself simply does not teach “solo” Scriptura. Christ established his church with a structure of authority and gives to his church those who are specially appointed to the ministry of the word (Acts 6:2-4). When disputes arose, the apostles did not instruct each individual believer to go home and decide by himself and for himself who was right. They met in a council (Acts 15:6-29).³²

Scripture itself indicates that the Scriptures are the possession of the Church and that the interpretation of the Scriptures belongs to the Church as a whole, as a community. In particular it has been entrusted to specially gifted men. … The fundamental point is that Christ established His Church with a structure of authority that is to be obeyed (Heb. 13:7). … The modern Evangelical doctrine of Scripture essentially destroys the real authority of ministers of the Word and the Church as a whole.³³

According to Mathison, Scripture itself teaches that Scripture belongs to the Church and is to be interpreted in and by the Church. Importantly, he is not here speaking of an invisible Church. He is saying that Scripture teaches that Christ founded a visible Church, with a visible authority structure composed of ordained men entrusted with the responsibility of expositing and interpreting the Scriptures. Scripture itself, according to Mathison, teaches that these men are to be obeyed.³⁴ Because solo scriptura denies the interpretive authority of the Church, claims Mathison, therefore solo scriptura is contrary to Scripture.

III. Mathison on Sola Scriptura, and How It Differs from Solo Scriptura

In contrast to the ‘solo scriptura‘ position, Mathison defends what he calls ‘sola scriptura,’ namely, the position that “Scripture [is] the sole source of revelation; that it [is] the final authoritative norm of doctrine and practice; that it [is] to be interpreted in and by the church, and that it [is] to be interpreted according to the regula fidei.”³⁵ Notice that for Mathison these four claims together constitute sola scriptura. Mathison is emphatic that sola scriptura is not the notion that Scripture is the only ecclesial authority. In this respect sola scriptura differs from solo scriptura. He writes:

It is important to notice that sola scriptura, properly understood, is not a claim that Scripture is the only authority altogether. … There are other real authorities which are subordinate and derivative in nature. Scripture, however, is the only inspired and inherently infallible norm, and therefore Scripture is the only final authoritative norm.³⁶

As mentioned above, he approvingly quotes Calvin proposing that doctrinal disputes be resolved by recourse to synods and councils.³⁷ And Mathison defends this position by pointing out that the Apostles provide an example of meeting in council (Acts 15:6-29) to resolve a question.

According to Mathison, Scripture must be interpreted in and by the Church:

Scripture does not exist in a vacuum. It was and is given to the Church within the doctrinal context of the apostolic gospel. Scripture alone is the only final standard, but it is a final standard that must be utilized, interpreted, and preached by the Church within its Christian context. If Scripture is not interpreted correctly within its proper context, it ceases to function properly as a standard.³⁸

It is therefore to the Church that we must turn for the true interpretation of the Scripture, for it is in the Church that the gospel is found. … Although individuals can and must read and study Scripture in order that their conscience may ultimately be bound by the Word of God, final ecclesiastical authority does not and cannot rest in the judgment of each individual member of the Church. … Individual private judgment, however, does not replace the corporate judgment of the covenant community. The creeds of the Church are the authoritative confessions of the communion of saints as the covenantal body of Christ. Excommunication is an authoritative judgment of the communion of saints as the covenantal body of Christ.³⁹

But sola scriptura does not mean only that Scripture must be interpreted in and by the Church. According to Mathison sola scriptura also means that Scripture is the final authoritative standard. He writes:

Scripture alone, therefore, can function as the “canon,” the rule, the final authoritative standard of truth against which all else is measured. Yes, it is the Church which does the measuring, and yes the rule of faith provides the basic parameters of measurement, but it is the Scripture and Scripture alone that is the standard norm.⁴⁰

An essential aspect of sola scriptura is that it affirms the infallibility of Scripture, and denies the infallibility of the Church. For this reason, according to Mathison, the Church, being fallible, is corrected by Scripture and subordinate to Scripture. He writes:

Because of the Church’s propensity to wander from the true path, she needs a standard of truth that remains constant and sure, and that standard cannot be herself. It can only be the inspired and infallible Scripture.⁴¹

For Mathison, then, sola scriptura ascribes the highest ecclesial authority to Scripture, and ascribes subordinate ecclesial authority to the Church and the creeds. The individual believer is to be subject both to the primary authority of Scripture and to the secondary authority of the Church and creeds. The primacy of the Scripture’s authority, according to Mathison, does not nullify the genuine secondary authority of the Church.⁴²

But this does raise a difficult question. If the Church has higher interpretive authority than does the individual, what is the individual to do when he or she disagrees with the Church’s decision regarding what Scripture teaches? In other words, what is the relationship between private judgment and the Church’s interpretive authority? Mathison answers this question by appealing to Francis Turretin.

As Turretin explains, although the corporate doctrinal judgment of the Church is not infallible and does not have an authority equal to that of Scripture, it does have true authority over those who are members of the visible communion of the Church. What then is the relationship between private judgment and this corporate judgment? What is an individual Christian to do if he believes the corporate judgment found in the creeds and confessions to be in error? Turretin explains,

“Hence if they think they observe anything in them worthy of correction, they ought to undertake nothing rashly or disorderly and unseasonably, so as to violently rend the body of their mother (which schismatics do), but to refer the difficulties they feel to their church and either to prefer her public opinion to their own private judgment or to secede from her communion, if the conscience cannot acquiesce in her judgment. Thus they cannot bind in the inner court of conscience, except inasmuch as they are found to agree with the word of God (which alone has the power to bind the conscience).”⁴³

According to Turretin, the individual Christian should submit to the Church’s teaching and interpretation, except when his conscience, ultimately informed by his own interpretation of Scripture, cannot accept what the Church says. Mathison adds,

There is a difference then between the external ecclesiastical court and the internal court of conscience. The inward court of the individual conscience cannot be bound by anything other than the Word of God, but the Church does have doctrinal authority in the external ecclesiastical court. This authority is given to preserve unity in the Church’s faith and to reject the errors of heretics.⁴⁴

Mathison maintains that the only authority that can bind the conscience is the Word of God. So when the Church teaches something that is incompatible with one’s conscience, as informed by one’s own interpretation of Scripture, one should reject the Church’s teaching and follow  one’s own conscience. We can summarize Mathison’s explanation of the distinction between solo scriptura and sola scriptura as follows. Whereas solo scriptura rejects the interpretive authority of the Church and the derivative authority of the creeds, sola scriptura affirms the interpretive authority of the Church and the derivative authority of the creeds, except when they teach something contrary to one’s conscience, as informed by one’s own interpretation of Scripture.

IV. Why There Is No Principled Difference Between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura

A. Direct and Indirect Ultimate Interpretive Authority

What makes the solo scriptura position problematic, according to Mathison, is not its high view of Scripture, but its presumption that the individual has higher interpretive authority than does the Church. Solo scriptura treats the individual as having the ultimate or final interpretive authority regarding whatever matters he or she considers to be theologically essential or important. That is precisely why solo scriptura leads to the situations Mathison describes in his book. Robert Reymond can reject one line of the Creed because he sees himself as having at least equal interpretive and magisterial (i.e. teaching) authority to the bishops who gathered at Nicea in AD 325 to formulate the Creed. If Reymond believed that those bishops had greater interpretive and magisterial authority than himself, he would treat the Creed as a corrective to his own interpretation and position, in whatever areas his interpretation and position were at odds with that of the Creed.

But there are two ways to make oneself one’s own ultimate interpretive and magisterial authority. One is a direct way and the other is an indirect way. The direct way is to subject all theological questions directly to the final verdict of one’s own interpretation of Scripture. That is the solo scriptura position. Because it is direct, the nature of the position is quite transparent; we can see clearly in such a case that the individual is acting as his own ultimate interpretive authority.

The indirect way of making oneself one’s own ultimate interpretive and magisterial authority is more complicated and subtle. In this case the individual, based upon his own interpretation of Scripture, either establishes or chooses an ecclesial community that conforms to his own interpretation in matters he considers to be essential or important. Then, he ‘submits’ to this institution so long as it continues to speak and act in accordance with his own interpretation of Scripture. If it deviates from his own interpretation of Scripture in matters he deems important, he repeats the process of either establishing or choosing an institution or congregation that conforms to his own interpretation in matters he considers to be essential or important.

In both the direct and indirect ways, the individual is acting as his own ultimate interpretive and magisterial authority. But his doing so is more difficult to see in the indirect case because he appears to be submitting to the interpretive authority of a body of persons other than himself. Yet, because he has established or selected this body of persons on the basis of their conformity to his own interpretation of Scripture, and because he ‘submits’ to them only so long as they agree with his interpretation on matters he considers to be essential or important, therefore in actuality his ‘submission’ to this body is in fact ‘submission’ to himself. To submit to others only when one agrees with them, is to submit to oneself. But submission to oneself is an oxymoron, because it is indistinguishable from not submitting at all, from doing whatever one wants. Yet because this indirect way of being one’s own ultimate interpretive and magisterial authority maintains the appearance of being in submission to another body of persons, it allows those who practice it to believe falsely that they are genuinely submitting to another body of persons, and not acting as their own ultimate interpretive and magisterial authority. Accumulating for themselves this body of persons to whom they ‘submit’ allows them to remain under a delusion that they are submitting to the Church.⁴⁵

Solo scriptura is the direct way of acting as one’s own ultimate interpretive and magisterial authority. But as we show below, the indirect way of acting as one’s own ultimate interpretive and magisterial authority is precisely the methodology entailed by sola scriptura. Here’s why. In Mathison’s account of sola scriptura, Scripture must be interpreted “in and by the church.” He even says that we must turn to the Church for the true interpretation of Scripture, “for it is in the Church that the gospel is found.”⁴⁶ Notice that Mathison claims that it is in the Church that the gospel is found.

But how does he determine what is the Church? Being Reformed, he defines ‘Church’ as wherever the gospel is found, because the early Protestants defined the marks of the Church as including “the gospel,” where the gospel was determined by their own private interpretation of Scripture. So he claims that is in the Church that the gospel is found, but he defines the Church in terms of the gospel. This is what we call a tautology. It is a form of circular reasoning that allows anyone to claim to be the Church and have the gospel. One can read the Bible and formulate one’s own understanding of the gospel, then make this “gospel” a necessary mark of the Church, and then say that it is in the Church that the gospel is found. Because one has defined the Church in terms of the gospel [as arrived at by one's own interpretation of Scripture], telling us that the gospel is found “in the Church” tells us nothing other than “people who share my own interpretation of Scripture about what is the gospel are referred to by me as ‘the Church.’” This kind of circular reasoning allows falsehood to remain hidden.

The Catholic position does not suffer from this circularity, because ‘Church’ is not defined in terms of “gospel,” but in terms of apostolic succession, involving an unbroken line of authorizations extending down from the Apostles. Just as Christ authorized and sent the Apostles to preach and teach in His Name, and govern His Church, so the Apostles, by the laying on of their hands, appointed bishops as their successors, and by this mystery handed on to them the divine authority to preach and teach and govern the Church. And these men also, in the same way authorized other men to succeed them to preach and teach the gospel and govern Christ’s Church. Only those having the succession from the Apostles are divinely authorized to preach and teach and govern Christ’s Church. For that reason, the Church is defined not by the gospel (as determined by one’s own interpretation of Scripture). Rather, the content of the gospel is specified by the Church, and the Church is located by the succession from the Apostles. This is why apostolicity is one of the four marks of the Church taught in the Creed: “we believe one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.” But given Mathison’s account, what counts as ‘church’ is always and ultimately up to each individual to decide on the basis of his or her own determination of the gospel, on the basis of his or her own interpretation of Scripture. So on Mathison’s account, no one has any more authority than anyone else to say definitively what is the Church and where is the Church, and what is her doctrine and what is not her doctrine.

That can be seen in the very events of the Protestant Reformation. The first Protestants did not submit their interpretations of Scripture to the judgment of the Catholic Church in which they had each been baptized and raised. Rather, the first Protestants appealed to their own interpretation of Scripture to judge the Church to be apostate, and thus justify separating from her. They did this by redefining the marks of the Church. The first generation of Protestants, without any authorization from their bishops, appealed to their own interpretation of Scripture to determine three (or two) new “marks of the Church,” beyond the four marks given twelve hundred years earlier in the Nicene Creed. These new marks consisted of: (1) the preaching of the gospel (or ‘sound doctrine’), where what counts as ‘gospel’ and ‘sound doctrine’ was determined according to their own interpretation of Scripture, (2) the proper administration of the sacraments, where what counts as a sacrament and what is its proper administration were determined again by their own interpretation of Scripture, and (3) the right exercise of church discipline, again, as determined by their own interpretation of Scripture.⁴⁷ By these new marks derived from their own interpretation of Scripture, they determined that the Catholic Church governed by the successor of the Apostle Peter had become apostate, and thus that the Catholic bishops under whose authority they lived, had no ecclesial authority, and that they themselves [i.e. these first Protestants] were the continuation of the Church.

In this way they could seem to affirm devoutly the prohibition against spurning the authority of the Church, as Calvin did when he wrote:

However it may be, where the preaching of the gospel is reverently heard and the sacraments are not neglected, there for the time being no deceitful or ambiguous form of the church is seen; and no one is permitted to spurn its authority, flout its warnings, resist its counsels, or make light of its chastisements — much less to desert it and break its unity. For the Lord esteems the communion of his church so highly that he counts as a traitor and apostate from Christianity anyone who arrogantly leaves any Christian society, provided it cherishes the true meaning of Word and sacraments.⁴⁸

How did Calvin, who was baptized in the Catholic Church as an infant, and yet lived the last thirty or so years of his life in separation from the Catholic Church, avoid believing that he was spurning the authority of the Church? Simply by redefining the Church as “wherever the preaching of the gospel [as determined by Calvin's own interpretation of Scripture] is heard and the sacraments [as determined by Calvin's own interpretation of Scripture] are not neglected.”

The early Protestants appealed to their own interpretation of Scripture to make sola fide the sine qua non of the gospel, and appealed to their own interpretation of Scripture to make “the gospel” a new mark of the Church. In thus stipulating that sola fide was a now a mark of the Church, based on their own interpretation of Scripture and without any authorization from their bishops, the Reformers ‘avoided rebelling’ against their Catholic bishops simply by redefining ‘Church’ to match their own interpretation of Scripture, so that, by this redefinition of the ‘Church,’ their Catholic bishops were no longer even members of the Church. In doing so, these first Protestants placed their own interpretive authority above that of their bishops. For this reason, the assumption that final interpretive and teaching authority belongs to oneself is intrinsic to Protestantism, because to subordinate the individual’s interpretive and teaching authority to that of the Church would undermine the act by which the first Protestants separated from the Catholic Church in the sixteenth century, and thus undermine the very legitimacy of Protestantism as such.

Our point here is not to show which side was right and which side was wrong in the sixteenth century schism. Our point is to show that implicit within the claim by proponents of sola scriptura to be submitting to the Church, is always a prior judgment concerning which body of persons count as the Church, and a theological assumption about how that judgment is to be made. Mathison cannot say, “All Christians should submit to the Church’s determination of the marks of the Church,” because such a claim would beg the question, i.e. presume the very thing in question, by presuming the identity of the Church in determining the identity of the Church. At most he can say that all Christians should accept the three Protestant marks of the Church, on the ground that according to his [Mathison's] own interpretation of Scripture, these three are the marks of the Church. Mathison’s position does not allow the Church to have the definitive and authoritative interpretation and teaching of Scripture regarding the marks of the Church. Mathison’s position entails that the authoritative determination of the marks of the Church ultimately and perpetually rests with the individual.

No Middle Ground: Solo Scriptura or Apostolic Succession

This implication follows from Protestantism’s rejection of apostolic succession. Without apostolic succession, there is within Protestantism no group of persons already having divine authorization to provide the definitive decision regarding matters of doctrine and interpretation, including the marks of the Church. By granting a position in which each individual has the highest interpretive authority in determining the marks of the Church, Mathison leaves himself without a principled distinction between solo scriptura and sola scriptura, and thus his position is likewise open to the individualism and fragmentation that he rightly recognizes result from solo scriptura. Hence for this reason as well, sola scriptura reduces to solo scriptura.

The same point applies to determining which tradition is authoritative. Protestant theologian R. Scott Clark, in his book Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry, claims that Christians should read Scripture through the eyes of the Reformed and Presbyterian standards, such as the Westminster Confession of Faith.⁴⁹ The only available basis by which he can argue for this is that the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) matches his own interpretation of Scripture, and that of those who share his interpretation. Clark has no a priori ecclesial authority to which all Christians should submit. Nor can the individual Christian use the WCF as the standard by which to evaluate the WCF. Nor can he use the WCF in order to evaluate the other Protestant confessions, without begging the question. Thus, if one denies apostolic succession, then in order to determine whether Scripture should be interpreted according to the doctrinal framework specified by the WCF, the individual Christian must evaluate the WCF by comparing it to his own interpretation of Scripture. For this reason, without apostolic succession, the secondary ‘authority’ of a tradition or ‘standard’ by which to interpret Scripture ultimately remains subordinate to the judgment of the individual, and thus retains only the illusory appearance of authority, not any actual authority.⁵⁰

For the proponent of sola scriptura, if his interpretation of Scripture changes concerning what doctrines or practices constitute ‘sound doctrine,’ or if the body of persons presently satisfying his determination of what counts as ‘Church’ makes a decision that is contrary to his own determination from Scripture of what is essential or important, then there is no reason for him to submit to them. By that very fact (i.e. change of this sort) they no longer satisfy his criteria for what is essential to the Church, just as the Catholic bishops were simply defined out of authority by the first Protestants. When that happens, the proponent of sola scriptura then establishes or chooses another body of persons that matches his current interpretation of Scripture, and ‘submits’ to them, until he and this new body of persons sufficiently diverge in their determination of what counts as ‘sound doctrine,’ proper administration of the sacraments, and right discipline. So the reason why there is no principled difference between solo scriptura and sola scriptura is that in both cases the individual is his own ultimate interpretive and magisterial authority: solo scriptura in a direct way, sola scriptura in an indirect way.

We can see then that there is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura because given sola scriptura and the denial of apostolic succession, and thus given the equality in interpretive authority between the individual and the Magisterium, no Church council or promulgation of a dogma can bind the conscience of any individual. For any line in any creed or Church pronouncement, the individual may stand in judgment over it, just as the early Protestants stood in judgment of the decrees and canons of the Council of Trent (and other earlier ecumenical councils), based on their own interpretation of Scripture. As we saw above, Calvin seems to recognize the authority of Church councils, as when he wrote:

We indeed willingly concede, if any discussion arises over doctrine, that the best and surest remedy is for a synod of true bishops to be convened, where the doctrine at issue may be examined.⁵¹

But notice the term ‘true bishops.’ Without apostolic succession, what counts as a “true bishop” can only be “one who agrees with my interpretation of Scripture.” In other words, Calvin’s statement amounts to being willing to submit to a synod composed of bishops who agree with his own interpretation of Scripture. And there is no principled difference between this and solo scriptura; the former is solo scriptura masking itself from itself. ‘Submitting’ only to those with whom I agree, is merely a species of “submitting only when I agree,” which is itself an indirect form of “submitting only to me,” which is submitting only in semblance.

Calvin and the early Protestants rejected the decree of the Council of Trent regarding sola fide. They did so based on their prior determination, according to their own interpretation of Scripture, that sola fide was a mark of the Church. Because the Council of Trent denied justification by faith alone,⁵² the Council had not satisfied one of the Protestants’ own stipulated marks, and was therefore ipso facto not constituted of “true bishops,” and was ipso facto an invalid council.⁵³

Since apart from apostolic succession the determination of ‘the gospel’ and ‘sound doctrine’ rests ultimately and irrevocably on the individual’s own interpretation of Scripture in order to identify the Church, it follows that any particular line of any creed or Church decree becomes ‘authoritative’ only if the individual approves it as being sufficiently in agreement with his own interpretation of Scripture. If he judges it to be sufficiently contrary to his own interpretation of Scripture, and of sufficient import, then it ipso facto has no ‘authority’ over him. His disagreement with “the Church’s” interpretation of Scripture does not make his position heretical. It may very well be (according to his line of thought) that ‘the Church’ is heretical, and his own position is orthodox (and hence that he himself is the continuation of the actual Church, the rest being heretics). We may never know for sure this side of heaven. Thus ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘heresy’ are relativized by the rejection of apostolic succession. Because sola scriptura rejects apostolic succession no less than does solo scriptura, and because the rejection of apostolic succession entails the relativization of heresy and orthodoxy, there is also for this reason no principled difference between solo scriptura and sola scriptura.

That is because given sola scriptura and a denial of apostolic succession, the individual has final interpretive and teaching authority in determining what is the ‘gospel’ and what is ‘sound doctrine,’ in order to determine who and what is the Church. If, however, apostolic succession is true, and the Church has final interpretive and teaching authority in determining what counts as the ‘gospel’ and ‘sound doctrine,’ then the first Protestants were not justified in separating from the Catholic Church. They could attempt to justify separating from the Catholic Church only by appealing to their own interpretation of Scripture regarding the marks, and thus only by rejecting apostolic succession and presuming that they themselves had equal or greater interpretive authority than did those Catholic bishops under whose authority they had been placed at their baptism. For this reason sola scriptura can never grant final interpretive authority to the Church, without refuting itself. So even though sola scriptura creates the appearance of submitting to Church authority, with regard to ultimate interpretive authority there is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura. In both solo scriptura and sola scriptura, the individual is and remains his own final interpretive and teaching authority.

In sum, Mathison thinks he is defending a position that is fundamentally distinct from solo scriptura, but in fact it is in essence the same position, only hidden within a personally selected practice and a personally selected people such that its true essence is concealed. This can be seen in Mathison’s description of sola scriptura. On the one hand, he rejects the notion that the individual has final interpretive and teaching authority; according to Mathison the idea that each individual has final interpretive and teaching authority is precisely what is wrong with the solo scriptura position. On the other hand, Mathison grants that each individual may appeal to Scripture to correct the Church, disobey the Church and leave the Church, so long as he is following his conscience.⁵⁴ According to Mathison, the individual’s conscience is bound only by his own interpretation of Scripture. That notion reduces every other so-called ecclesial authority (e.g. creed, confession, magisterium) to mere advice. Here’s why.  Without apostolic succession no one’s teaching and interpretation is divinely authorized, and therefore one’s conscience is not bound by any interpretive or teaching authority other than that of one’s self. And that is exactly the essence of solo scriptura. In order for the individual to stand in judgment of the interpretation of the Church, he must have equal or greater interpretive and teaching authority than does the Church. Otherwise, if the Church’s interpretation differed from that of the individual, the Church’s teaching and interpretation would serve as the standard to which the individual should make his own interpretation conform.⁵⁵

The Argument

1. According to solo scriptura, Scripture is the only ecclesial authority. [def]

2. If solo scriptura is true, then each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential. [1]

3. According to sola scriptura, Scripture is the only infallible ecclesial authority. [def]

4. If sola scriptura entails that each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential, then in this respect there is no principled difference between solo scriptura and sola scriptura.

5. If apostolic succession is false, then no one’s determination of the marks of the Church is any more authoritative than anyone else’s.

6. If no one’s determination of the marks of the Church is any more authoritative than anyone else’s, then each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential.

7. If apostolic succession is false, then each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential. [(5),(6)]

8. The doctrine of apostolic succession is false. [A]

9. If sola scriptura is true, then each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential. [(7),(8)]

10. There is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura. [(4),(9)]

B. The Contradiction Internal to the Sola Scriptura Position

Mathison’s account of the sola scriptura position contains an internal contradiction. On the one hand, he claims that all appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture:

All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. The only real question is: whose interpretation? People with differing interpretations of Scripture cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve their differences. In order for the Scripture to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone.⁵⁶

On the other hand, he claims that Scripture is the final authority:

Of significant importance to the doctrine of sola scriptura is the insistence that Scripture is the one final and authoritative norm of doctrine and practice.⁵⁷

Each of these newer concepts of tradition [Catholic and Evangelical] confuses the locus of final authority, ultimately placing it in either the mind of the Church or the mind of the individual. This always results in autonomy and rebellion against the authority of God and His Word.⁵⁸

But, if all appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture, then it follows necessarily that either someone’s interpretation of Scripture is the final and authoritative norm of doctrine and practice, or Scripture itself cannot be the final and authoritative norm of doctrine and practice. The latter option is not open to Mathison as a Protestant, because to deny that Scripture is the final and authoritative norm of doctrine and practice is to deny sola scriptura, the very foundation of Protestantism. But neither is the former option open to Mathison, because without apostolic succession, Protestantism has no sacramental basis for anyone’s interpretation being the final and authoritative norm of doctrine and practice. Mathison’s position thus creates a dilemma for himself that cannot be resolved without ceasing to be Protestant.

There is no middle position between the Church having final interpretive authority and the individual having final interpretive authority. Mathison recognizes that all appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture, and denies that the individual has final interpretive authority. But at the same time, as a Protestant, Mathison maintains that the individual can appeal to his or her own interpretation of Scripture to hold the Church accountable to Scripture, even to walk away from the Church (and thus treat himself as the continuation of the Church), otherwise Mathison would undermine the very basis for Protestants separating from the Catholic Church in the sixteenth century. So Mathison’s position essentially reduces to this: the Church has final interpretive authority, except when the Church’s interpretation disagrees with the individual’s interpretation. But that exception belies the charade, because “when I submit (so long as I agree), the one to whom I submit is me.” For this reason, in sola scriptura it is the individual who ultimately has and always retains final interpretive authority. Sola scriptura is a more sophisticated version of solo scriptura, but this added sophistication makes the position more deceptive, by allowing the individual to believe that he is not one of those me-and-my-Bible individualists.

C. The Delusion of Derivative Authority

Mathison claims that the creeds, the tradition, the ecumenical councils, and the fathers are authentic secondary authorities having derivative authority. Recognition of their genuine, though secondary authority, is one of the primary ways in which Mathison seeks to distinguish sola scriptura from solo scriptura. What does he mean by “secondary” and “derived”? He writes:

[T]he traditions, the fathers, and the Church are all inherently fallible standards. What this means is that these fallible traditions, these fallible fathers, and this fallible Church must be measured against the one infallible perfect standard.⁵⁹

And he writes that the Church’s authority:

consists in the fact that the Church has been entrusted with the Scriptures (Rom 3:2); in the fact that she is the proclaimer and defender of Scripture (1 Tim 3:15); and in the fact that she must make doctrinal judgments for the sake of the communion (Acts 15:6-35). These judgments usually find their public expression in the creeds and confessions of the Church. But these authoritative judgments are not to be confused with the final authority of Scripture. Their authority derives from and depends upon their conformity with the inherently authoritative Word of God.”⁶⁰

We showed above how Mathison argued that the proponents of solo scriptura do not recognize the secondary (or derived) authority of the Church and of the creeds. But here we want to show that Mathison’s own position is essentially equivalent to the denial of secondary authority. Mathison claims here that the authority of the creeds and other judgments of the Church “derives from and depends upon their conformity with the inherently authoritative Word of God.” But recall that according to Mathison, all appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture.⁶¹ Therefore, the notion that the authority of the creeds and other judgments of the Church “derives from and depends upon their conformity with the inherently authoritative Word of God” entails that the authority of creeds and other judgments of the Church depends upon their sufficient conformity to the individual’s interpretation of Scripture. In other words, Mathison’s position entails that the creeds and other judgments of the Church are ‘authoritative’ only insofar as they agree with the individual’s interpretation of Scripture. But that conception of derivative authority is no different from that of Reymond, Fudge or Stevens, the very exemplars of solo scriptura that Mathison rejects.

The only relevant difference between Mathison’s position on the one hand, and that of Reymond, Fudge and Stevens on the other hand, is a merely accidental difference. According to Mathison’s interpretation of Scripture, the traditional positions of the Church on the eternal generation of the Son, annihilationism, and hyperpreterism, happen to be correct, meaning, they conform to Mathison’s own interpretation of Scripture. According to the Reymond, Fudge and Stevens’ interpretations of Scripture, respectively, the traditional positions of the Church are incorrect. Mathison himself rejects the teachings of the Council of Trent, because they do not conform to his interpretation of Scripture. So Mathison’s criticism’s of Reymond, Fudge and Stevens amount to “you are not conforming to my interpretation of Scripture.” And the proper response from Reymond, Fudge, and Stevens is, “So what? You have no more authority than do we, that we should conform our interpretations to yours. Moreover, you too pick and choose among the councils, according to your own interpretation of Scripture. So there is no principled difference between your practice and ours.”⁶²

Mathison addresses the heart of the issue when explaining how solo scriptura undermines ecclesial authority by treating the individual as having final interpretive authority. He writes:

Solo scriptura also undermines the legitimate ecclesiastical authority established by Christ. It negates the duty to submit to those who rule over you, because it removes the possibility of an authoritative teaching office in the Church. To place any kind of real hermeneutical authority in an elder or teacher undermines the doctrine of solo scriptura. Those adherents of solo scriptura who do have pastors and teachers to whom they look for leadership do so under the stipulation that the individual is to evaluate the leader’s teaching by Scripture first. What this means in practice is that the individual is to measure his teacher’s interpretation of Scripture against his own interpretation of Scripture. The playing field is leveled when neither the ecumenical creeds nor the Church has any more authority than the individual believer, but Christ did not establish a level playing field. He did not establish a democracy. He established a Church in which men and women are given different gifts, some of which involve a special gift of teaching and leading. These elders have responsibility for the flock and a certain authority over it. Scripture would not call us to submit to those who had no real authority over us (Heb 13:17; Acts 20:28).⁶³

Here Mathison is arguing that solo scriptura undermines legitimate ecclesial authority established by Christ. It does so by denying the “authoritative teaching office” in the Church, and the “hermeneutical authority” of those holding that office. How does it do that? Mathison is explicit: “the individual measures his teacher’s interpretation of Scripture against his own interpretation of Scripture.” For Mathison, God did not establish the Church as a democracy; rather, He gave specific gifts to men to teach and govern His Church.

The problem, however, is that the very basis for the existence of Protestantism as such, the very basis for the separating of Protestants from the Catholic Church, is this very act. The individual measured his teacher’s interpretation of Scripture against his own interpretation of Scripture, and in doing so performatively denied the authority of the teaching office of the Catholic Church. Mathison wants to affirm genuine ecclesial authority as a secondary authority to which individuals should submit, but his position is contravened in two ways. First, the existence of Protestantism as such is based on the legitimacy of the individual rejecting the established ecclesial authority on the basis of his own interpretation.⁶⁴ So Mathison is trying to propose a system incompatible with Protestantism’s historic foundation, and thus intrinsically incompatible with Protestantism as such.

Second, given Mathison’s denial of apostolic succession, he cannot make a principled appeal to any ecclesial authority as that to which every individual ought to submit. Nothing can give what it does not have. But Mathison’s foundational starting point does not include apostolic succession, and hence de facto it begins with each individual as his own highest interpretive and teaching authority. Therefore no qualitatively greater ecclesial authority than the teaching and interpretive authority derived from the “permission of those who sufficiently agree with me” is available to Mathison. Every secondary authority, given Mathison’s starting point, can be nothing more than a permission extended from the individual to the ‘secondary authority’ to function as an authority for the individual at that present time.

Mathison is right about the implications of denying creedal authority. He writes:

The modern Evangelical denial of creedal authority necessarily results in the impossibility of authoritatively and objectively defining the propositional content of Scripture. The very act of authoritatively defining the propositional doctrinal content of Scripture would be the creation of a creed — that which is deemed unacceptable within the framework of solo scriptura. This leaves the responsibility for defining Scripture’s doctrinal content to each individual. In other words, the modern Evangelical denial of genuine creedal authority reduces the doctrinal content of Christianity to mere subjectivism.⁶⁵

The modern Evangelical church must come to the realization that if the ecumenical creeds have no authority, then there are no essential or necessary doctrines of the Christian faith. There would be only subjective individual opinions of what the “essential truths” of the Christian faith are.⁶⁶

He is correct that solo scriptura undermines the possibility of authoritatively defining the propositional doctrinal content of Scripture. He is correct that undermining the authority of the creeds practically entails that “there are no essential or necessary doctrines of the Christian faith.” But Mathison’s position does exactly the same thing, because by denying apostolic succession, he undermines the possibility of a creed having any more authority than anyone’s subjective opinion. Apart from apostolic succession, the only ultimate basis for a creed’s ‘authority’ is (1) it agrees with one’s own interpretation of Scripture and/or (2) it was formulated by persons who sufficiently shared one’s own interpretation of Scripture. But both of those reasons reduce to “when I submit (so long as I agree), the one to whom I submit is me,” the very essence of the solo scriptura position Mathison rightly rejects.

How does Mathison attempt to defend his position from this sort of critique? He claims that the authority of the ecumenical creeds follows from the perspicuity of Scripture.

It is interesting to observe that the authority of these ecumenical creeds necessarily follows from one of the fundamental qualities of Scripture itself — its perspicuity. Scripture itself indicates it’s [sic] essential perspicuity or clarity on basic and essential matters.⁶⁷

If we confess the perspicuity of Scripture, then a confession of the ecumenical creeds inevitably follows. The ecumenical creeds are simply the written form of the confession of the faith of the universal Church. They are a confession of what the Church as a whole has read in the Scriptures.⁶⁸

[A] denial of this consensus of faith is not only a denial of the perspicuity of Scripture, it is in effect a denial of Scripture itself. Why? If the essential teachings of Scripture are clear (perspicuous); if the Holy Spirit has been promised to guide the Church into the knowledge of the truth of Scripture; if the entire Church for thousands of years confesses to being taught by the Spirit the same essential truths in Scripture, then it follows that those truths are what Scripture says.⁶⁹

This only compounds the problems with Mathison’s position. If the authority of the ecumenical creeds only followed from the perspicuity of Scripture, there would be no need for the creeds in the first place, since the creeds would have restated only what was already plainly explicit in Scripture. This would entail that all those who opposed the creeds were blind, deaf, and stupid. But history does not support that notion. The Arians, for example, were not unintelligent. They argued from the Scriptures that Christ was the first of God’s creation, a lesser deity, and the  highest of all created things. The Macedonians and Nestorians and Sabellians, etc. all argued from Scripture for their respective heresies. Resolving these disputes was precisely the primary purpose of the ecumenical councils. So the purpose of the ecumenical councils shows that Scripture alone was not sufficient to resolve the theological disputes. And this shows that the ecumenical creeds are neither restatements of Scripture (which would simply leave the dispute unresolved) nor are they limited to statements simply and obviously deducible from Scripture by all persons of at least ordinary intelligence. The ecumenical creeds address doctrinal questions not clearly and explicitly stated in Scripture. Hence the authority of the ecumenical creeds cannot come from the perspicuity of Scripture. Mathison’s position is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He wants the creeds and the Church to have secondary authority so as to avoid solo scriptura, but his rejection of apostolic succession leaves any secondary authority with no possible basis except agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture.⁷⁰

His position also faces similar problem consisting of the following dilemma. He claims that it is “to the Church that we must turn for the true interpretation of the Scripture, for it is in the Church that the gospel is found.”⁷¹ But at the same time he claims that “Because of the Church’s propensity to wander from the true path, she needs a standard of truth that remains constant and sure, and that standard cannot be herself. It can only be the inspired and infallible Scripture.”⁷² So, since for Mathison all appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture, then when, as Mathison claims, the Church wanders from the true path, whose interpretation of Scripture will correct her? If it is the individual’s, then it is false that we must turn to the Church for the true interpretation of Scripture. The individual has no more reason to believe a priori that the Church’s present interpretation of Scripture is correct than he has to believe that the Church now stands in dire need of correction from his own lips on the basis of his own personal interpretation of Scripture. On the other hand, if it does not belong to the individual to correct the Church when she “wanders from the true path,” then it can belong to none other than the Church to correct herself when she wanders from the true path.” So the errant Church is then supposed to be corrected by her own erronious interpretation of Scripture. Not only does that seem implausible, if Protestants truly believed that to be the case, they would simply have remained in the Catholic Church, waiting for the ‘erring’ Church to be corrected back to the truth on the basis of her own erroneous interpretation of Scripture. But Protestants did not remain in the Catholic Church; and this indicates that Protestants did not and do not in fact believe that Scripture corrects the Church when she “wanders from the true path.” The problematic assumption in Mathison’s position entailing this dilemma is his notion that the Church “wanders from the true path,” something he has to hold in order to justify being a Protestant.⁷³

V. Objections and Replies

A. Tu Quoque: “The Catholic Position Does not Avoid Solo Scriptura“

One objection to our argument that there is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura is that the Catholic position likewise ultimately reduces to solo scriptura. This is so, according to the objection, because the individual who becomes Catholic must start in the same epistemic position as the person who becomes Protestant. In choosing to become Catholic, he has simply chosen the denomination that best conforms to his own interpretation of Scripture. He places himself under the authority of the Catholic bishops in the same way that a Lutheran places himself under the authority of a Lutheran pastor, that a Baptist places himself under the authority of a Baptist pastor, or that a Presbyterian places himself under a Presbyterian pastor. Hence if the person who becomes Protestant retains final interpretive authority, then so does the person who becomes Catholic.

The objection is understandable, but it can be made only by those who do not see the principled difference between the discovery of the Catholic Church, and joining a Protestant denomination or congregation. Of course a person during the process of becoming Catholic is not under the authority of the Church. At that stage, he or she is like the Protestant in that respect. But the Catholic finds something principally different, and properly finds it by way of qualitatively different criteria. The Protestant is seeking a group of persons who believe, teach and practice what his interpretation of Scripture indicates was the belief, teaching and practice of the Apostles. He retains his final interpretive authority so long as he remains Protestant. No Protestant denomination has the authority to bind his conscience, because [in his mind] the Church must always remains subject to Scripture, which really means that the Church must always remains subject to [his interpretation of] Scripture, or at least that he is not ultimately subject to anyone’s interpretation but his own.

The person becoming Catholic, by contrast, is seeking out the Church that Christ founded. He does this not by finding that group of persons who share his interpretation of Scripture. Rather, he locates in history those whom the Apostles appointed and authorized, observes what they say and do viz-a-viz the transmission of teaching and interpretive authority, traces that line of successive authorizations down through history to the present day to a living Magisterium, and then submits to what this present-day Magisterium is teaching. By finding the Magisterium, he finds something that has the divine authority to bind the conscience.

Here we should say something about what it means to bind the conscience. It is of the very nature of law to bind the conscience. Law does not coerce the will, but law binds the conscience precisely insofar as reason grasps it as the standard or rule to which our beliefs, words and actions ought to conform. God’s law, written on our hearts in the form of the natural law, informs the conscience of every man. Once one knows the law, then one knows acting against the law to be unlawful. Likewise, once one knows the Church’s magisterial authority, and her divinely revealed laws and dogmas concerning faith and morals, then one’s conscience is bound to believe and obey them. One knows that to disbelieve the Church’s dogmas is heresy and sinful, because one knows that what the Church has definitively determined, the Holy Spirit has ipso facto spoken. When the Church, with the authority she has received from Christ through the Apostles, definitively declares dogma, she ipso facto binds the conscience insofar as the hearer knows both the content of these dogmas and the divine authority by which they have been determined.

So for the person becoming Catholic, when he recognizes the authority of the Magisterium, he recognizes that his beliefs and interpretation of Scripture must conform to the authoritative teachings of the Church’s Magisterium. “When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement that a teaching is found in Revelation,” he assents to it by an act of faith, believing this pronouncement to be the teaching of Christ, on account of the divine authority given to the Magisterium through apostolic succession to teach in Christ’s name and with His authority.⁷⁴ In this way, his faith in Christ is expressed as an act of faith in the infallible pronouncement of the Church’s Magisterium. In those teachings which are not infallible, he also, as an act of faith in Christ, gives religious submission of intellect and will, even while recognizing the fallibility of those teaching.⁷⁵

The Protestant, by contrast, in joining a Protestant community does not find the Magisterium. That is because he does not find something that can bind his conscience regarding the canon of Scripture, the interpretation of Scripture, and the identity of orthodoxy and heresy. This is why in his Protestant community he perpetually retains final interpretive authority, because no decision of that community has the authority to bind his conscience. This is why Mathison, drawing from Turretin, claims that “the individual conscience cannot be bound by anything other than the Word of God.”⁷⁶ And since, for Mathison, “All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture,”⁷⁷ it follows that the individual conscience cannot be bound by anything other than his own interpretation of Scripture.

Here we see precisely why the tu quoque fails against the Catholic. The person who becomes Catholic finds something that binds his conscience viz-a-viz the canon of Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture; he finds the Magisterium that the incarnate Christ established and authorized. By contrast, the person who becomes Protestant, finds nothing outside himself that binds his conscience viz-a-viz the canon of Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture. For this reason, until a person finds the Magisterium, he remains his own final interpretive authority, because he knows of nothing that can bind his conscience regarding the interpretation of Scripture. But when a person finds the Magisterium, and recognizes it for what it is, he immediately ceases to be his own final interpretive authority. He recognizes that his interpretation of Scripture ought to be conformed to the teaching and interpretation of the Magisterium, and that to reject the teaching of the Magisterium would be to reject Christ, just as Jesus said to the Apostles:

The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me. (Luke 10:16)

The Protestant epistemological stance, by contrast, is exemplified in the words of Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms:

Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason — I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other — my conscience is captive to the Word of God.⁷⁸

Luther’s statement captures the very essence of Protestant religious epistemology. All Protestants who followed Luther’s example took this very same stance, subjecting the Church’s teaching, councils, and interpretive tradition to the standard of their own interpretation of Scripture, picking and choosing from them as though they were mere advice. Since according to Mathison “all appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture,” Luther’s claim that his conscience was “captive to the Word of God” means in actuality that his conscience was ultimately bound by his own interpretation of Scripture. That very claim, namely, that our conscience is bound ultimately by our own interpretation of Scripture, is contrary to the perpetual teaching of the Church, because that claim denies that Christ established a perpetual teaching authority in His Church, a magisterial authority through which the Holy Spirit works to determine definitively matters of faith and morals, and to which all Christians are to be subject. If the Church has the authority from Christ to give the definitive decision regarding some question of faith or morals, then she has the authority to bind the conscience ultimately regarding such matters. If the Church did not have the authority to bind the conscience, she could do nothing more than offer advice, because in that case no decision she made regarding faith or morals would be definitive.

The follow-up objection to our argument takes the form of a dilemma. The dilemma runs like this. Either the individual needs the guidance of an interpretive authority when interpreting Scripture, or not. If the individual needs the guidance of an interpretive authority when interpreting Scripture, then he will need the guidance of another interpretive authority when interpreting the first interpretive authority. And he will need the guidance of third interpretive authority when interpreting the second interpretive authority. That would lead to an infinite regress. But there cannot be an infinite regress, hence the individual does not need the guidance of an interpretive authority when interpreting Scripture.

The problem with this dilemma is that it ignores the qualitative ontological distinction between persons and books, and so it falsely assumes that if a book needs an authoritative interpreter in order to function as an ecclesial authority, so must a living person. A book contains a monologue with respect to the reader. An author can often anticipate the thoughts and questions that might arise in the mind of the reader. But a book cannot hear the reader’s questions here and now, and answer them. A living person, however, can do so. A living person can engage in genuine dialogue with the reader, whereas a book cannot. Fr. Kimel talks about that here when he quotes Chesterton as saying that though we can put a living person in the dock, we cannot put a book in the dock. In this respect, a person can do what a book cannot; a person can correct global misunderstandings and answer comprehensive interpretive questions. A book by its very nature has a limited intrinsic potency for interpretive self-clarification; a person, on the other hand, by his very nature has, in principle, an unlimited intrinsic potency with respect to interpretive self-clarification. This unlimited potency with respect to interpretive self-clarification ensures that the hermeneutical spiral may reach its end. A book cannot speak more about itself than it does at the moment at which it is completed. A person, by contrast, remains perpetually capable of clarifying further any of his previous speech-acts.

This objection can also take the following form. Even if the Church possesses final interpretive authority, yet because the individual must nevertheless interpret the Church’s dogmatic pronouncements, therefore, the individual must be the final interpretive authority of the Church’s dogmatic pronouncements. This objection conflates two senses of the term ‘final.’ ‘Final’ can mean the terminus of a movement or of a series of movements, as an airplane has a final destination, the terminus of a series of flights for the day. ‘Final’ can also mean the terminus in an order or hierarchy, as the Commander in Chief is for the military.⁷⁹ In a communication, the individual receiving that communication is, by definition, the terminus of the movement whereby knowledge is transmitted. He is, in that sense, the final interpreter. But he is not thereby the final interpretive authority in the sense of a terminus in an order or hierarchy. He may be the terminus of the motion of the communication, while remaining subordinate in the order of interpretive authority. The exercise of interpretive authority by the Magisterium, say, at an ecumenical council, does not prevent believers from interpreting Scripture or any other communication. Nor does it withhold from them the skill by which to interpret Sacred Scripture. On the contrary, the exercise of this teaching and interpretive authority provides a supernatural light by which the believer ought to interpret Scripture. We ignore or disregard that interpretive authority at our peril, because it is God-given authority, for our good.⁸⁰

A related objection takes the following form. Civil government leaders have genuine authority, yet they are neither infallible nor can they bind the conscience nor do they require some kind of analog to apostolic succession. Therefore neither infallibility nor the power to bind the conscience nor apostolic succession is necessary for genuine Magisterial authority in the Church. In response, it is true that civil government leaders have genuine civil authority, which they have received from God. And it is true that they are not infallible. But it is not true that they cannot bind the conscience. Civil laws bind the conscience in that we are obligated to obey them, so long as they do not conflict with a higher law, whether that be the natural law, or the law of God as revealed through the Church. Hence the nature of genuine civil authority does not show that the Magisterium cannot bind the conscience of the faithful.

In addition, the nature of the Church’s Magisterial authority is not rightly determined by determining what nature of authority is sufficient for civil government. Such a method would presuppose both that the Church is equivalent in nature to a civil society and that there is no existing ecclesial authority that provides the definitive answer to questions about the nature of the Church’s authority. Hence the fallibility of civil authority does not show that the Church’s Magisterial authority is always likewise fallible. Most importantly, Magisterial authority differs from civil authority in that the Magisterium of the Church provides the authoritative interpretation both of natural law and divine law supernaturally-revealed. For this reason, while the civil authority cannot bind the conscience with respect to natural and divine law, the Magisterium of the Church does bind the conscience with respect to natural and divine law. Those who know this can never, in good conscience, oppose the definitive teaching of the Magisterium in matters of faith and morals, by claiming that they must obey God rather than men. The definitive teaching of the Magisterium is the voice of God to the Catholic, just as conscience is the voice of God to the pagan. This is why the Catholic must seek to conform his conscience according to the definitive teaching of the Church in matters of faith and morals, because the Church’s Magisterium is a higher authority than his conscience (i.e. than reason alone).

Regarding whether civil authorities acquire their authority through some kind of analog to apostolic succession, the answer is both yes and no, though in different respects. The rightful ruler in a civil society is the one who has been selected according to the process specified by the law. A usurper, no matter how popular, is not the rightful ruler. In this respect, the way in which a civil authority acquires his civil authority is similar to the way a person holding ecclesial authority acquires that ecclesial authority, because an ecclesial authority rightly acquires such authority by a process already laid down in Church law and tradition. And we know that the civil authority has been given his authority by God’s providence, as Jesus indicates in John 19:11 in speaking to Pilate. And St. Paul teaches the same in Romans 13:1.

Magisterial authority in the Church, however, cannot be acquired only through providence. If there were no essential difference between these two authorities, the Church would be nothing more than a civil society, and this would contradict Christ’s statement, “My kingdom is not of this world.” (John 18:36). When Jesus says that His Kingdom is not of this world, He is not saying that His Kingdom is located in some other world; He is saying that His Kingdom, which is in this world, does not have its authority from the world, i.e. from the natural order. What makes the Church a supernatural society, and not merely a natural society, is precisely that the authority by which she is governed is a supernatural authority. That supernatural authority is Christ’s own authority. His authority is supernatural because He is God. And He gave His supernatural authority sacramentally to His Apostles, and they in turn handed it on to their successors.⁸¹ For this reason, without apostolic succession, the Church would be a natural society providentially governed by God, another nation among the nations. Only by apostolic succession is she a divine society that does not compete with natural societies, because grace builds on nature. In short, civil authorities acquire their natural civic authority by God’s providence through lawful processes. Since the Church is a supernatural society, ecclesial authorities cannot acquire their authority naturally under providential guidance. Ecclesial authority is not natural authority, but supernatural authority, and therefore requires succession from a supernatural source.

B. Sola Ecclesia: The Church Is Autonomous, a Law unto Itself, and Unaccountable

A second type of objection follows directly from the preceding paragraph. According to this objection, if the Church’s Magisterium has final interpretive authority, then the Church is placing itself above Scripture, making itself autonomous, and entirely unaccountable. Mathison himself makes this sort of objection against the Catholic Church. Recall that for Mathison the problem with solo scriptura is that it “results in the autonomy of the individual believer.”⁸² He claims that Catholic doctrine makes the Church similarly autonomous. He writes:

The fundamental problem with “solo” Scriptura is that it results in autonomy. It results in final authority being placed somewhere other than the Word of God. It shares this problem with the Roman Catholic doctrine. The only difference is that the Roman Catholic doctrine places final authority in the church while “solo” Scriptura places final authority in each individual believer. Every doctrine and practice is measured against a final standard, and that final standard is the individual’s personal judgment of what is and is not biblical.⁸³

One difficulty for Mathison is that if, as he argues, “the church” has greater interpretive authority than the individual, then Mathison cannot avoid the result that “the church” must likewise be ‘final’ in the sense he thinks is objectionable. In that case it follows that his own interpreters must also be subject to the charges of “autonomy” and to a Reformed version of “sola ecclesia.”  Mathison’s objection to the Catholic Church’s position is that in relation to Scripture the Catholic Church is hermeneutically equivalent to a large subjective individual composed of many individuals — a collective version of the individual proponent of solo scriptura — and that the Catholic Church therefore falls victim to the same problem of individualism found in solo scriptura, except that it does so in a large scale, institutional way. So if he thinks all this follows against the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church (as opposed to Scripture) has, or makes itself out to have,  final interpretive authority, then, if it follows that in his own sola scriptura position “the church” is also the final interpretive authority, then his position must also face the same problems that he attributes to the Catholic position.

Mathison clarifies this somewhat by claiming that what makes the Catholic Magisterium autonomous viz-a-viz Scripture is the notion that the Magisterium is infallible under certain conditions. He writes:

Finally, we must always be mindful that claims to infallibility by the Church or any member of the Church inevitably lead to autonomy on the part of the one or ones claiming such infallibility. Even such qualified infallibility as that which is claimed by Rome has led to virtual autonomy. The Roman church has become a law unto herself. Against what higher standard can an infallible Church be measured? None. The only standard against which Rome allows herself to be measured is Rome.⁸⁴

Mathison thinks that if the Church claims to be guided infallibly in her definitive formulations of dogma, this makes her a “law unto herself,” not subject to a higher standard. And that result, thinks Mathison, is precisely the mistake of solo scriptura; it makes final authority rest some place other than the Word of God.

Let’s consider this objection carefully. Mathison claims that “the only difference [between Catholic doctrine and the 'solo scriptura' position] is that the Roman Catholic doctrine places final authority in the Church while solo Scriptura places final authority in each individual believer.” Notice that he does not specify what he means by ‘final authority.’ The term can refer to two different types of authority. It can refer to the authority of the deposit of faith entrusted by Christ to the Apostles, or it can refer to teaching and interpretive authority with respect to that deposit of faith. Mathison seems to conflate the two types, or fail to distinguish between them, as though having final interpretive authority with respect to Scripture is to be equal in authority to the deposit of faith.

There is a difference, however, between the authority of the deposit of faith, and interpretive authority. We can see this difference already in Tertullian, who writes:

Our appeal [in debating with the heretics], therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough. For a resort to the Scriptures would but result in placing both parties on equal footing, whereas the natural order of procedure requires one question to be asked first, which is the only one now that should be discussed: “With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong? From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule by which men become Christians? For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions.⁸⁵

Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, ‘as many as walk according to the rule,’ which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, ‘Who are you?’”⁸⁶

Before debating the interpretation of Scripture, says Tertullian, we must first discover who has teaching and interpretive authority with respect to the deposit of faith. To do this, we locate those to whom the deposit of faith was entrusted, as handed down from the Apostles. Tertullian was writing about one hundred years after the death of the last Apostle. So the method he indicates for locating interpretive authority was not limited only to the generation after the Apostles. Tertullian indicates here a relation between interpretive authority and apostolic succession. In each generation, those persons having interpretive authority viz-a-viz the Scriptures are those to whom the deposit of faith was entrusted in the previous generation, all the way back to the Apostles themselves.

In this way Tertullian provides a clear example of the Catholic understanding of interpretive authority, and the basis for it in apostolic succession. Regarding the interpretive authority of the Church viz-a-viz the individual, the Council of Trent stated the following:

Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers.⁸⁷

And the First Vatican Council reaffirmed this, saying:

Now since the decree on the interpretation of Holy Scripture, profitably made by the Council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of Christian doctrine, that meaning of Holy Scripture must be held to be the true one, which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of Holy Scripture. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.⁸⁸

In the Catholic understanding, the individual’s own interpretation of Scripture does not have equal or greater authority than does that of the Magisterium. One of the primary tasks of the Magisterium is to give the authoritative interpretation of the deposit of faith.

The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.⁸⁹

The pronouncements of the teaching and interpretative authority of the Church do not hold the same intrinsic authority as the deposit of faith, just as the Apostles were not equal in authority to Christ Himself. Christ has greater authority than did the Apostles, but that does not entail that when the Apostles were preaching and teaching they had no authority, or that they only had authority when what they were saying was divinely inspired. Having interpretive authority does not entail that the interpreter has the same or more authority than what is being interpreted. Jesus told them, “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me.” (Luke 10:16) When the Apostles testified that Jesus is the Christ, they did not take away from Christ’s authority; they spoke with His authority, by His authorization. But if interpretive authority were ipso facto equivalent in authority to that which it had been given the authority to interpret, then since the Apostles had the authority to speak in Christ’s name and interpret and explain what He had said, it would follow that the Apostles and Christ had equal authority. The Apostles and Christ, however, do not have equal authority. Therefore, interpretive authority is not ipso facto equivalent in authority to that which it has been given the authority to interpret. An authorized witness can give an authoritative testimony concerning an authority greater than himself; otherwise no one could have come to believe in the divinity of Jesus through the authority of the Apostles’ testimony. That is why, according to Catholic doctrine, the Magisterium “is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant.”

Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.⁹⁰

Protestants sometimes mistakenly think that the Catholic position is sola ecclesia, but that is inaccurate. There is a three-fold arrangement of ecclesial authority consisting of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and Magisterium, each according to its own mode:

It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.⁹¹

In Catholic theology Scripture is something known and properly understood only within the bosom of the Church, and only as explicated by the Magisterium of the Church. Of course this does not preclude private study of Scripture; that is encouraged.⁹² But in the Catholic Church Sacred Scripture is something properly known and understood through the Magisterium’s teaching authority guided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit operates through the Magisterium to cast a supernatural light upon Scripture, so that it may be understood according to the same Spirit by Whom it was inspired.

So, in sum, the authority of Scripture is the authority of the deposit of faith. The authority of the Magisterium, on the other hand, is interpretive authority with respect to the deposit of faith. These are two different types or modes of authority. They do not compete with each other, but complement each other, and are mutually dependent. The Magisterium cannot exist as an interpretive authority, without the sacred deposit of the Word of God. Similarly, the Sacred Scriptures cannot provide their own authentic and authoritative interpretation to the Church, and so require the Magisterium in order to fulfill their purpose in the Church.

Mathison indicates that it is not teaching and interpretive authority per se, that (in his view) entails Magisterial autonomy. It is primarily the doctrine of Magisterial infallibility.⁹³ There are at least two principled reasons why a Protestant might object to the doctrine that the Magisterium is infallible. First, one might believe that if any doctrinal pronouncements by the Magisterium are infallible, then such pronouncements are equivalent in authority to Scripture. Second, he might think that if any doctrinal pronouncements by the Magisterium are infallible, then there is no court of appeals for such doctrines.

Consider the first reason. If two statements are true, this does not entail that they are equally authoritative. Authority is not reducible to truth. The statement “I exist” is no less true than Christ’s statement, “I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” (John 14:6) Both statements are equally true, but the latter has greater authority because it was spoken by God Himself. Since infallibility means protected from error, therefore it only means that the result is true. It does not, in itself, determine the degree of authority the statement has. Authority in this sense is that to which submission and obedience is due from those entrusted to it. Reducing authority to truth conceptually eliminates authority. That is because such a reduction would imply that we need only submit to authority when the authority speaks what we already believe, or can independently verify, to be the truth.  Hence, the result would eliminate authority, because “When I submit (so long as I agree), the one to whom I submit is me.”

So the true interpretation of Scripture is not authoritative because the interpretation is true, but this interpretation can be known to be true because it has been divinely authorized. An authoritative interpretation of Scripture is authoritative not because it is true (though it is true), but because of the authority given by Christ to the Magisterium to which is due submission of mind and will regarding the authentic interpretation of Scripture. For this reason the infallibility of a doctrinal pronouncement by the Magisterium does not make that doctrinal pronouncement as authoritative or more authoritative than Scripture itself.

The other objection to Magisterial infallibility is that it removes the possibility of a court of appeals for such doctrines. More specifically, given this doctrine of infallibility, the Scripture cannot be the “final court of appeal” if the Magisterium has already definitively and infallibly ruled on some matter of faith or morals, and there is no court of appeal beyond the Magisterium. In reply, recall that for Mathison,

All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. The only real question is: whose interpretation?⁹⁴

There are a few things we can say here. First, if all appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture, then Scripture alone cannot function as the “final court of appeals.” So Mathison’s requirement that Scripture be the final court of appeal is incompatible with his claim that all appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretation of Scripture.

Second, if the Church’s definitive rulings are infallible, then there is no reason to challenge them by appealling to some higher authority. It makes no sense to appeal an infallible decision. So Mathison’s autonomy charge against the Catholic doctrine of Magisterial infallibility only applies if the Catholic doctrine of Magisterial infallibility is false. Hence in that respect Mathison’s charge begs the question (i.e. presumes precisely what is in question). Wishing to appeal an infallible ruling begs the question, by presuming that the infallible ruling is fallible. The problem in that case is not that the Magisterium has a charism of infallibility, but that the person requiring an additional court of appeals has not recognized that the Magisterium has this charism.

Third, when Mathison claims that the Church’s Magisterium needs to be accountable, he only pushes back the question. Accountable to whom? It cannot be Scripture itself, for the reason shown above, that Scripture needs to be interpreted. So it must be some other person or persons. Designate those to whom the Magisterium is accountable as x. Now, to whom are x accountable? Designate those to whom x are accountable as y. Now to whom are y accountable? We can keep asking this question. Either there is an infinite regress, or there is a final interpretive authority. But an infinite regress of accountability is absurd. So if there is to be accountability with respect to doctrinal and interpretive judgments, there must be a highest or final interpretive authority. Therefore the request for the Magisterium to be accountable to some other body is a denial that the Magisterium is the Magisterium, and a presumption that there is another Magisterium having final interpretive authority.

But the person who wants the Magisterium to be accountable to some other body, can only be satisfied if that body is either himself or those whom he approves. Otherwise his dissatisfaction with the lack of accountability would necessarily remain, for any body which has final interpretive authority. Hence the person who demands that the Magisterium be accountable to some other body is in actuality demanding that the Magisterium be accountable (directly or indirectly) to himself. And that is another way of showing that the demand is in essence an implicit arrogation to oneself of Magisterial authority. It is an expression of the maxim: “When I submit (so long as I agree), the one to whom I submit is me.”⁹⁵

VI. Implications

The Objections to Solo are Objections to Sola

In this paper we have argued that apart from apostolic succession, there is no principled difference between solo scriptura and sola scriptura. If our argument is sound, it follows that the criticisms Mathison raises against solo scriptura apply no less to sola scriptura. If “hermeneutical chaos and anarchy” result from solo scriptura, then they likewise result from sola scriptura. If solo scriptura leads to the “multiplication of schisms,” so does sola scriptura. If solo scriptura entails that the creeds have no “real authority,” then sola scriptura likewise entails that the creeds have no real authority. If the necessary result of solo scriptura is a practical relativism concerning the content of Scripture, then this too is the necessary result of sola scriptura. If solo scriptura “destroys” the authority of Scripture “by making the meaning of Scripture dependent upon the judgment of each individual,” then so does sola scriptura. Given the soundness of our argument, it follows that the claim by various Catholics that sola scriptura is the source of Protestant fragmentation and division in which each person interprets Scripture as seems right in his own eyes, is not a criticism of a straw man, but is in fact quite accurate.

Concerning solo scriptura, Mathison writes,

By denying the authority of the corporate judgment of the Church, solo scriptura has exalted the individual judgment of the individual to the place of final authority. It is the individual who decides what Scripture means. It is the individual who judges between doctrines on the basis of his individual interpretation of Scripture. It is the individual who is sovereign.”⁹⁶

In light of our argument that there is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura, Mathison’s criticism of solo scriptura turns out to be a criticism of sola scriptura. So long as the individual retains final interpretive authority, it is the “the individual who is sovereign.” Yet as we have shown, in sola scriptura, the individual retains final interpretive authority. Hence it follows that in sola scriptura, it is the individual who is sovereign.

Solo Scriptura is the Fuller Manifestation and Outworking of Sola Scriptura

Moreover, our argument helps explain the rise over the last one hundred and fifty years of the explicit embrace of a solo scriptura approach within Protestantism. Philosophies and theologies more fully manifest their nature over time. If there is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura, then we would expect the sola scriptura doctrine taught by the early Protestant to come to manifest its true nature over time as outright solo scriptura. Sola scriptura could temporarily conceal its true nature, as Protestantism lived on the inertial remnants of Catholic conceptions of sacramental authority. Sacramental magisterial authority is supernatural in origin, as we explained above, because the Church is a divine institution. The denial of sacramental magisterial authority closes a person off to the Church as supernatural, leaving only the possibility of democratic (bottom-up) man-made authority under providential guidance. As Protestants have come to understand more clearly the democratic nature of Protestant ecclesial authority, they have come to see that as Protestants, they themselves as individuals, hold final interpretive authority, and have come to live as such. This explains the widespread solo scriptura phenomenon within Protestantism that Mathison decries. Louis Bouyer concurs, saying:

The main difficulty Protestants have with the Catholic Church (and with the separated Eastern church as well) is on the subject of authority, and more particularly the teaching authority she claims. The opposition of those Protestants who are closest to the spirit of primitive Protestantism rests, as we have said, on the fear that whatever is conceded to the authority of the Church detracts correspondingly from the authority of the Word of God in the Bible. The opposition of those who adhere to doctrinal liberalism, however, while equally strong, has a different object, quite the reverse of the other. They object to the authority of the Church not for replacing another authority held to be divine and, as such, claiming man’s exclusive and undivided submission. They object to it simply because it is authority and therefore something inimical to the individual religious conscience.

This being the case, we may be tempted to believe that Protestantism, in the course of its development, has passed from one extreme to the other. That is to a certain extent, but not absolutely, true. The Protestantism which rejects the authority of the Church because it rejects all authority has come out of the Protestantism which rejected the authority of the Church because of the fear it wronged that other authority, held to be sovereign, of the Scriptures. If it was possible for the first to come from the second, it must somehow have been contained therein.⁹⁷

Bouyer presents two stances within Protestantism toward Magisterial authority. One of them, which he refers to as those closest to early Protestantism, fears that Magisterial authority detracts from the authority of Scripture, as though the two are the same sort of authority, and hence must be in competition with each other. Liberal Protestantism, by contrast, likewise objects to Magisterial authority, not for fear that it might detract from the authority of Scripture, but simply because it rejects authority. We might be tempted, claims Bouyer, to think that liberal Protestantism’s attitude toward authority is the opposite extreme of early Protestantism’s notion of authority. But according to Bouyer, that would be inaccurate. The liberal rejection of authority came out of the earlier Protestant conception of authority, precisely because it was somehow contained within it.

Recovering Apostolic Succession is the only way to avoid Solo

How then can Protestants avoid solo scriptura? Only by recovering apostolic succession. Solo scriptura logically follows the denial of apostolic succession. Either ecclesial authority has its basis in agreement or approval as determined by the individual’s own interpretation of Scripture, or ecclesial authority has its basis in Christ’s authorization and appointment. Wherever ecclesial authority has its basis in the individual’s agreement with that authority’s interpretation, there in essence is solo scriptura. And there in essence is the fulfillment of St. Paul’s prophecy:

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires (2 Timothy 4:3.)

Only where ecclesial authority has its basis in Christ’s authorization and commission is the individual’s interpretation ultimately subject to that of the Church. Mathison’s positive intention to read and understand Scripture in the Church has genuine implications only if ‘Church’ is not defined as those who interpret Scripture like he does regarding the marks of the Church.⁹⁸ But authorization and appointment by the incarnate Christ can be found only in those having the succession of authorizations extending back through the Apostles to Christ Himself. Without apostolic succession, the individual has no less interpretive authority than does the Church. For this reason, only by recovering apostolic succession can Protestants overcome solo scriptura and all its destructive effects. May Christ the Good Shepherd bring us all into the one flock with one shepherd. (John 10:16).

By Bryan Cross and Neal Judisch

1. See the Catholic Encyclopedia entry ‘Protestantism.’ See also Philip Schaff, The Principle of Protestantism (Wipf & Stock, 2004). [↩]
2. Cf. Alister McGrath, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea (HarperOne, 2007). [↩]
3. “Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes,” pp. 25-29, 16 Modern Reformation Mar./Apr. 2007. Cf. The Shape of Sola Scriptura, pp. 237-253 (Canon Press, 2001) [hereinafter Shape]. [↩]
4. “Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes.” [↩]
5. Shape, pp. 274-275. [↩]
6. In his letter of March 10, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI said something quite similar. He wrote:

   Leading men and women to God, to the God who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith – ecumenism – is part of the supreme priority.

   Readers are also encouraged to examine the exposition of this theme in Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, Ut Unum Sint. [↩]

7. Shape, pp. 239-240. [↩]
8. Shape, p. 240. On the following page Mathison writes, “Unless one can escape the effects of sin, ignorance, and all previous learning, one cannot read the Scriptures without some bias and blind spots.” Here he is decrying what he describes as the “naïve belief in the ability to escape one’s own noetic and spiritual limitations” that undergirds the solo scriptura orientation. Shape, p. 241. [↩]
9. “Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes,” pp. 25-29. Note that we, as well as Mathison, nevertheless accept that scriptura scripturae interpres (Scripture interprets Scripture), in the sense that the whole and each of the parts of Scripture function in such a way as to illuminate the meaning of one another. Dei Verbum, one of the documents of Vatican II, teaches:

   Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God.  Dei Verbum, 12.

   [↩]

10. Shape, p. 246. We do not agree with Mathison that solo scriptura necessarily entails relativism. The person holding solo scriptura may believe firmly that his own interpretation is objectively true, and that everyone who disagrees with his interpretation is wrong. But we agree with Mathison that there is some truth to the connection between solo scriptura and relativism. That is because it is difficult in our present fluid culture to sustain the notion that anyone who disagrees with one’s own interpretation is wrong. The continual encounter with those of obvious intelligence and sincerity revering the very same book, and yet interpreting it differently from oneself, makes some form of relativism attractive without a principled basis for believing that one’s own interpretation is the authorized interpretation. So in this way, solo scriptura lends itself to a ‘practical relativism,’ which easily slides into an unqualified relativism. [↩]
11. 1 Corinthians 1:10. Someone might object that divisions are good, since St. Paul says, “For there must also be factions among you, in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you.” (1 Cor. 11:19.) But St. Paul is not there praising division among Christians. He is teaching that division always entails schism from, not schism within. [↩]
12. Shape, p. 241. [↩]
13. Reymond, for his part, will respond that the Nicene Creed does have “real authority,” but that the authority it possesses is derivative and contingent upon its fidelity to Scripture; and since in his estimation it fails to conform to Scripture on this point of Trinitarian doctrine, he wishes to see it rectified “in light of the Biblical teaching.” The confluence between Mathison’s and Reymond’s orientations in this instance is quite striking. Striking, too, is the appearance that for Mathison the “real authority” of the Nicene Creed entails its irreformability: for Mathison does not criticize the theological or exegetical argumentation upon which Reymond relies to justify his repudiation of the “Nicene Trinitarian Concept,” but contents himself merely to point out Reymond’s departure from it, leaving us to conclude that his departure from the Nicene Creed is ipso facto a mistake.  Yet if the “real authority” of Nicaea entails the irreformability of its Creed — as it certainly appears to here for Mathison, at least “in practice” — then it can be no argument against the “infallibility” of Nicaea or any other Council that the dogmatic decrees promulgated in them are likewise “irreformable.” Why, then, are we meant to believe that the irreformability of (infallible) Catholic dogma is objectionable, whereas the irreformability of the “real but subservient authority” of the Councils Protestants accept fails to infringe upon the ultimate authority of Scripture?   [↩]
14. Quoted in Shape, p. 242. [↩]
15. Shape, p. 243. [↩]
16. Shape, pp. 243-244. [↩]
17. Shape, p. 246. [↩]
18. He writes:

    The doctrine of solo scriptura, despite its claims to uniquely preserve the authority of the Word of God, destroys that authority by making the meaning of Scripture dependent upon the judgment of each individual. Rather than the Word of God being the one final court of appeal, the court of appeal becomes the multiplied minds of each believer. One is persuaded that Calvinism is more biblical. The other is persuaded that dispensationalism is more biblical. And by what standard does each decide? The standard is each individual’s opinion of what is biblical. The standard is necessarily individualistic, and therefore the standard is necessarily relativistic. Shape, pp. 246-247.

    [↩]

19. Someone might claim that “the science of exegesis” will overcome this problem. But the evidence does not support that claim. Protestant theologians in many different traditions have been using exegetical methods to support their particular interpretations of Scripture for almost five hundred years. And yet there has been little to no convergence of these various traditions and denominations. Instead new theological positions and traditions have arisen, positions such as dispensationalism, Pentecostalism, open theism, federal vision, etc., each defending itself by the very exegetical methods that are supposed to bring and preserve all Christians in unity. The continued diversification and variegation within Protestantism indicates that exegesis is not capable of establishing or preserving unity among Christians who believe in the inspiration and authority of Scripture. Exegesis has shown itself to be used more within a tradition to support the theological position held by those in that tradition. So the appeal to exegesis only pushes back the question: Whose exegesis? Lutheran exegesis? Calvinist exegesis? Methodist, Anglican, Baptist, Pentecostal, (etc.)? And we have to ask ourselves how much more time would be necessary to falsify the claim that exegesis is capable of unifying all Christians. [↩]
20. Mathison writes, “It should go without saying that solo scriptura was not the doctrine of the early Church or of the medieval Church. However, most proponents of solo scriptura would not be bothered in the least by this fact because they are not concerned to maintain any continuity with the teaching of the early Church.” Shape, p. 247. [↩]
21. The first recorded use of the term ‘layman’ in the early Church Fathers is found in St. Clement’s epistle to the Church at Corinth, written around AD 96. [↩]
22. Quoted in “Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes.” [↩]
23. “Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes.” [↩]
24. Shape, pp. 248-249. [↩]
25. “Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes.” [↩]
26. Shape, pp. 250-251. [↩]
27. In 1 Corinthians 1:13 St. Paul asks, “Is Christ divided?” The obvious answer is “no.” And that answer must remain the same forever. [↩]
28. Mathison writes:

    The doctrine of solo scriptura also reduces the essential doctrines of the Christian faith to no more than opinion by denying any real authority to the ecumenical creeds of the Church. We must note that if the ecumenical creeds are no more authoritative than the opinions of any individual Christian, as adherents of solo scriptura must say if they are to remain consistent, then the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity and the Chalcedonian doctrine of Christ are no more authoritative than the doctrinal ideas of any opinionated Christian. The doctrine of the Trinity and deity of Christ become as open to debate as the doctrine of exclusive psalmody in worship.

    It is extremely important to understand the importance of this point. If the adherents of solo scriptura are correct, then there are no real objective doctrinal boundaries within Christianity. Each individual Christian is responsible to search the Scripture (even though he can’t be told with any certainty what books constitute Scripture) and judge for himself and by himself what is and is not scriptural doctrine. In other words, each individual is responsible for establishing his or her own doctrinal boundaries-–his or her own creed. Shape, p. 249.

    [↩]

29. Shape, p. 250. [↩]
30. Shape, p. 252. [↩]
31. Shape, p. 252. [↩]
32. “Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes,” pp. 25-29. [↩]
33. Shape, p. 245. [↩]
34. Mathison’s claim here is very much in agreement with that of the Catholic Church. The Catholic understanding of the relation between Scripture and the Church treats Scripture as a treasure entrusted by Christ to the Church, properly known and understood only within the bosom of the Church as explicated by her divinely appointed shepherds. Catholics come to Scripture through the guidance of Holy mother Church. [↩]
35. Shape, p. 256. [↩]
36. Shape, p. 260. [↩]
37. “We indeed willingly concede, if any discussion arises over doctrine, that the best and surest remedy is for a synod of true bishops to be convened, where the doctrine at issue may be examined.” As quoted in “Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes.” [↩]
38. Shape, p. 259. [↩]
39. Shape, p. 270-271. [↩]
40. Shape, p. 262. [↩]
41. Shape, p. 264. [↩]

42. To assert that the Bible is the sole infallible authority, and that the Bible is the final and supreme norm, in no way rules out the necessity or reality of other secondary and penultimate authorities. The Church is one such subordinate authority recognized by the early Church and by the Reformers. The Church was established by Jesus Christ Himself and given authority by Him. Jesus gives the Church an authority of “binding and loosing” that is not given to every member of the Church as individuals. . . . It is only within the Church that we find Scripture interpreted rightly, and it is only within the Church that we find the gospel. Shape, pp. 267-268.

    [↩]

43. Shape, p. 272. [↩]
44. Shape, p. 273. [↩]
45. Cf. 2 Timothy 4:3. [↩]
46. “It is therefore to the Church that we must turn for the true interpretation of the Scripture, for it is in the Church that the gospel is found.” Shape, p. 270. [↩]
47. Cf. the Confession of the English Congregation at Geneva (AD 1556), the French Confession of Faith (AD 1559), articles 26-28; the Scottish Confession of Faith (AD 1560), chapters 16 and 18, the Belgic Confession of Faith (1561), articles 27-29, and the Second Helvetic Confession (AD 1566), chapter 17. [↩]
48. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV.i.10 [hereinafter Institutes]. [↩]
49. Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry, p. 12. [↩]
50. Once again: “When I submit (so long as I agree), the one to whom I submit is me.” [↩]
51. Institutes, as quoted by Mathison in “Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes.” [↩]
52. Cf. Session 6, Canon 9. [↩]
53. We see here again the relevance of the statement, “When I submit (only when I agree), the one to whom I submit is me.” [↩]
54. Shape, pp. 272-273. [↩]
55. Kevin Vanhoozer writes:

    While God’s word is infallible, human interpretations are not. God is in heaven; we are on earth. Situated between heaven and earth, we lack the knowledge of angels. What, then, are our options? (1) Hermeneutical relativism: embrace the interpreter within you and live as they did in the period of the Judges where everyone did what was right in their own eyes (so long as you don’t hurt anyone, presumably!); (2) take the road to Rome and the safety of numbers; (3) join an independent church, where right reading is a function of one’s local interpretive community. None of these options inspires confidence. I propose a fourth possibility: that we set out like pilgrims on the way indicated by our book; that we employ whatever hermeneutical tools available that help us to follow its sense; that we pray for the illumination of the Spirit and for the humility to acknowledge our missteps; and that we consult other pilgrims that have gone before us as well as Christians in other parts of today’s world. “Lost in Interpretation? Truth, Scripture, and Hermeneutics,” JETS 48/1 (March 2005) p. 92.

    Vanhoozer’s option (1) is a description of solo scriptura. His option (2) is Catholicism. His option (3) is a description of sola scriptura, where “independent church” replaces denomination. His option (4) is not a fourth theoretical option, but a proposal to search for a way out of the hermeneutical mess. Of course we agree that (1) and (3) are false, for reasons we have explained in this article. And we believe that Vanhoozer’s option (4) leads inevitably to option (2). [↩]

56. “Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes,” pp. 25-29. [↩]
57. Shape, p. 260. [↩]
58. Shape, p. 276. [↩]
59. Shape, p. 261. [↩]
60. Shape, p. 270. [↩]
61. “Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes.” [↩]
62. John Calvin similarly says:

    In this way, we willingly embrace and reverence as holy the early councils, such as those of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus I, Chalcedon, and the like, which were concerned with refuting errors – in so far as they relate to the teachings of faith. For they contain nothing but the pure and genuine exposition of Scripture, which the holy fathers applied with spiritual prudence to crush the enemies of religion who had then arisen. Institutes, IV.9.8.

    The reason Calvin accepts the first four ecumenical councils, but not the following councils, is because the first four, but not the later ones, sufficiently agree with his interpretation of Scripture. This shows again the same problem described above: “when I submit (so long as I agree), the one to whom I submit is me.” In other words, Calvin does not in fact recognize the authority of the first four councils. Rather, he merely ascribes authority to them on the ground that these four councils agree with his own interpretation. [↩]

63. Shape, pp. 251-252. [↩]
64. In June of 1520 Pope Leo issued the papal bull titled Exsurge Domine in which he warned Luther that he faced excommunication from the Church unless he recanted 41 sentences contained in his writings. Luther responded by publicly burning a copy of this Church document in December of that year. As a result, on January 3, 1521, he was excommunicated. In the Spring of that year, Luther appeared before the Diet of Worms. He was asked by Johann Eck, an official of the Archbishop of Trier, whether he rejected any part of his writings. At first he said, “If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire.” Eck replied, “Martin, …Your plea to be heard from the Scripture is the one always made by heretics. You do nothing be renew the errors of Wyclif and Hus. . . . Martin, how can you assume that you are the only one to understand the sense of Scripture? Would you put your judgment above that of so many famous men and claim that you know more than they all? You have no right to call into question the most holy orthodox faith, instituted by Christ the perfect lawgiver, proclaimed throughout the world by the apostles, sealed by the red blood of the martyrs, confirmed by the sacred councils, defined by the Church in which all our fathers believed until death and gave to us as an inheritance, and which now we are forbidden by the pope and the emperor to [debate] lest there be no end of debate. I ask you, Martin — . . . do you or do you not repudiate your books and the errors which they contain?” Luther replied, ” . . . Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason — I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other — my conscience is captive to the Word of God.” Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, pp. 143-144 (Mentor, 1950). [↩]
65. Shape, p. 278. [↩]
66. Shape, p. 278. [↩]
67. Shape, p. 279. [↩]
68. Shape, p. 279. [↩]
69. Shape, p. 280. [↩]
70. This same problem faces Kevin Vanhoozer’s attempt to distinguish between magisterial authority and ministerial authority. See his The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-linguistic Approach to Christian Theology (Westminster John Knox, 2005). [↩]
71. Shape, p. 270. [↩]
72. Shape, p. 264. [↩]
73. See our previous article, “Ecclesial Deism.” [↩]
74. Donum Veritatis, 23. [↩]

75. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. Lumen Gentium, 25.

    When the Magisterium, not intending to act “definitively”, teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect. Donum Veritatis, 23.

    [↩]

76. Shape, p. 273. [↩]
77. “Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes.” [↩]
78. Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, pp. 143-144. [↩]
79. Of course the Commander in Chief is under the authority of God, but here we are speaking of ‘final’ only in a certain respect, i.e., within the human society. [↩]
80. Hebrews 13:17. [↩]
81. Christ did this when He instituted the Eucharist, and when He breathed on them and gave them the authority to forgive sins. Cf. Luke 22:19 and John 20:22-23. [↩]
82. Shape, p. 239. [↩]
83. “Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes.” [↩]
84. Shape, p. 264. [↩]
85. Tertullian, On Prescription Against the Heretics, ch. 19. [↩]
86. Ibid., 37. [↩]
87. Council of Trent, Session IV. [↩]
88. First Vatican Council, Session 3, ch. 2, paras. 8-9. [↩]
89. Dei Verbum, 10. [↩]
90. Dei Verbum, 10. [↩]
91. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 95. [↩]
92. Cindy Wooden, “Pope encourages Christians to read Bible,” Catholic News Service (Nov. 14, 2007). [↩]
93. See Lumen Gentium, 25. [↩]
94. “Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes.” [↩]
95. This does not mean that an infallible doctrine cannot be further developed (i.e. unpacked, unfolded, unveiled, etc.) Anything taught by the Magisterium can be further developed. This is how the Nicene Creed went from the form it had in AD 325 to the form it acquired in AD 381. But development never contradicts what has already been given. If it could, then over the last 2000 years, nothing at all would have been definitively established; the Arians might still turn out to have been right. And in that case, there would have been no point in holding any councils. [↩]
96. Shape, p. 276. [↩]
97. The Word, Church and Sacraments: In Protestantism and Catholicism, pp. 37-38 (Ignatius Press, 2004). [↩]
98. See Scott Hahn’s article titled “The Authority of Mystery: The Biblical Theology of Benedict XVI” in 2 Letter & Spirit, pp. 97-149 (2006). [↩]

Tags: Sola Scriptura

1,220 comments
Leave a comment »

1. Jeremy Tate November 4th, 2009 12:41 pm :

   Dear Bryan,

   Excellent article. Some of my closest reformed friends have taken up Mattison’s argument which you describe in rejecting solo scriptura in favor of sola scriptura. I think you are right in pointing out that ultimately there is no difference between the two. What I had not seen before reading your article was how somebody indirectly makes themselves their own interpretive authority.
   Here’s what I found interesting in light of a class I recently dropped at RTS (partially over this issue). I think my Professor might have realized the strength of the Catholic argument on this huge point, so he was very careful to say that the issue is not interpretation, but rather, making things up which are nowhere even hinted at in Scripture (he then discussed the Assumption of Mary, Immaculate Conception, ect…ironically all doctrines which were formally defined long after the Reformation – so even if they were wrong I’m not sure how they would justify the reformation). Have you seen this approach, which my Professor took before? How would you respond to it?

2. Bill Cobbett November 4th, 2009 2:32 pm :

   Jeremy,

   Isn’t the Catholic critique of sola scriptura just as powerful as the case made above against Mattison’s argument? The Catholic position does not abide by sola scriptura therefore your professor has still begged the question. He operates from a sola scriptura paradigm (which cannot be found in Scripture) and then hammers the Catholics for not operating from sola scriptura. But sola scriptura is the novelty, and therefore doesn’t it have to be justified appropriately before one can reasonably appeal to that principle to critique that which has always existed?

   Best,
   Bill

3. JJS November 4th, 2009 6:52 pm :

   Our point is to show that implicit within the claim by proponents of sola scriptura to be submitting to the Church, is always a prior judgment concerning which body of persons count as the Church, and a theological assumption about how that judgment is to be made.

   I know this has come up before and will do so again, but how is it that the Catholic is not doing the exact same thing (albeit in a different way)? Bryan, you have made a “prior judgment concerning which body of persons count as the church,” haven’t you? Your own interpretation of history and Scripture tells you that it is apostolic succession that locates the church, while Mathison’s tells him it’s the gospel that locates it. But in both cases, private judgment is being followed in order to locate where exactly Christ’s church is.

4. Tim A. Troutman November 4th, 2009 8:34 pm :

   JJS > Section V above deals with that argument. Also Dr. Liccione on “Bad Arguments Against the Magisterium Part 2″ would be good supplemental reading.

5. Bryan Cross November 4th, 2009 9:12 pm :

   Hello Jeremy,

   I’m glad you appreciated our article. You asked me how I would respond. I would call into question his working assumption that if a doctrine is not explicitly stated in Scripture, then Christians do not need to believe it. I might write a post up on the subject of Scripture and Tradition, but in the mean time, I recommend listening to the first lecture in this lecture series by Prof. Feingold. Then I would recommend reading Newman’s An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, if you have not already done so. The fact of development should lead us to be very cautious about inferring from apparent early silence about a doctrine to the conclusion that the doctrine is a heretical accretion.

   In the peace of Christ,

   - Bryan

6. JJS November 4th, 2009 9:47 pm :

   Tim,

   You’re right, I posted my comment before I had finished the article (and I am doing it again right now, only now I’m closer to the end).

   The Protestant is seeking a group of persons who believe, teach and practice what his interpretation of Scripture indicates was the belief, teaching and practice of the Apostles….

   The person becoming Catholic, by contrast, is seeking out the Church that Christ founded. He does this not by finding that group of persons who share his interpretation of Scripture. Rather, he locates in history those whom the Apostles appointed and authorized, observes what they say and do viz-a-viz the transmission of teaching and interpretive authority, traces that line of successive authorizations down through history to the present day to a living Magisterium, and then submits to what this present-day Magisterium is teaching.

   I still don’t see the difference. The Catholic convert studies the Scripture and the fathers and concludes that the church Christ founded looks like what the Catholic Catechism says it is, while the Protestant does the same and concludes the church looks like what the Heidelberg Catechism says it is.

   It sounds like the position being advocated is that as long as one uses his private judgment to come to the right position, it’s OK. If you step outside your tradition for a moment and consider this, can you see how it looks to the rest of us?

7. Jared Brattoli November 4th, 2009 10:33 pm :

   Very well thought out and structured article. I love it. Just what I’ve been waiting for.

8. Andrew McCallum November 4th, 2009 11:13 pm :

   Bryan,

   There are a number of ways to address your points. One of them is to point out that we don’t believe that apostolic succession is false. Now if you are just assuming the RCC understanding of apostolic succession that’s a different story. But if we assume Rome’s understanding of apostolic succession then we don’t need to talk about sola scriptura at all, do we? If the only thing that matters concerning ecclesiastic validity is for there to be literal succession from the bishops of the 1st century to now then Rome is right about everything, end of story. In short to assume the RCC definition of apostolic succession is to define away Protestantism.

   But let me give you another way of looking at the issue. At the origins of Christianity we find writings of men who assumed the infallibility of the Scriptures. We have talked about Clement on a number of occasions here. He speaks with great authority by pounding home verse after verse from the Bible. He assuredly believed what the Apostles and Prophets had before him that the Scriptures were the infallible Word of God because they were inspired and thus these could be used as an ultimate standard. The question before us is then whether or not the ECF’s believed that there was anything else that rose to the level of the Scriptures. If they did not,then we are left with Scripture alone (unless you want to suggest another possibility?). If they did, then they did not believe in Scripture alone, they believed in Scripture plus this something else. But note this – if they did believe that only Scripture alone could provide this ultimate authority, this fact does not undermine the Church’s ability to rule or act authoritatively. The Church could still act as a Church whether shew was using either a standard of 1) only Scripture or 2) Scripture + whatever tradition might be around at the time.

   Now of course as a Protestant my position is that the Scriptures are superior to the words of the bishops (as Augustine held), but I think we have been through that before. The point I want to really bring home is that the Church would not have fallen apart if she had always viewed tradition as a secondary authority to the Scriptures. Play this thought game for me, Bryan. Assume for the moment that Clement and his contemporaries believed that only Scripture could be the final bar of authority. Now given this belief of the Early Church, what would have stopped the Church from acting authoritatively as that authority was laid out by Christ and the Apostles?

9. David Pell November 4th, 2009 11:40 pm :

   The point I want to really bring home is that the Church would not have fallen apart if she had always viewed tradition as a secondary authority to the Scriptures.

   The history of Protestantism until now shows this statement to be patently false.

10. Teri November 4th, 2009 11:43 pm :

    Bryan and Neil,

    Excellent article! Of course, I will have to read it several times to absorb it completely. Professor Feingold is an amazing gift to the Church. As a Jewish Convert to the Catholic Church, his insights are phenomenal. I believe you suggested his lecture series, Bryan. All of his lectures give new meaning to our common faith.

    May Our Lord bless your work and give you His peace,
    Teri

11. Bryan Cross November 4th, 2009 11:49 pm :

    Andrew,

    The comment box is intended for use only by those who have read the article. The article is long, I understand, but if you wish to comment, please read the article first.

    Also, comments should stay on-topic, that means, directly interacting with the argument in this article. Comments that don’t interact with the article, but strike off on a different topic, will not be approved.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

12. Sean November 5th, 2009 12:06 am :

    Andrew,

    Its not as if the Catholic definition of apostolic succession was just invented yesterday and we are backing into something here. This is creedal Christianity.

    “For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: — Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of “mountain men,” or Cutzupits, by which they were known.”
    Augustine, To Generosus, Epistle 53:2 (A.D. 400)

    Augustine, here, describes what Apostolic Succession means. Its pretty clear which definition is a later invention intended to back into a presupposition.

    “In like manner as if there take place an ordination of clergy in order to form a congregation of people, although the congregation of people follow not, yet there remains in the ordained persons the Sacrament of Ordination; and if, for any fault, any be removed from his office, he will not be without the Sacrament of the Lord once for all set upon him, albeit continuing unto condemnation.”
    Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, 24:32 (A.D. 401).

    The second part of your comment is an attempt to pit scripture against the church. This is not the Catholic position.

    Scripture must be interpreted by the Church. Bryan’s paper addresses the question of how one defines church and specifically addresses Mathison’s error in not identifying the church by apostolic succession.

13. Bryan Cross November 5th, 2009 12:16 am :

    Jason,

    Both the person becoming Protestant, and the person becoming Catholic, are using their own judgment. That’s not where the difference is located. And you are correct that the Catholic convert might study Scripture and the Fathers. And the Protestant convert might study Scripture and the Fathers. That too is not where the difference is located. The difference is that while the person becoming Protestant bases his determination of the nature and location of the Church fundamentally on agreement with his own interpretation of Scripture (not on what those having the succession from the Apostles say is the nature and location of the Church), the person becoming Catholic bases his determination of the nature and location of the Church fundamentally on what those having the succession from the Apostles say is the nature and location of the Church.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

14. mateo November 5th, 2009 1:49 am :

    Congratulations to Bryan Cross and Neal Judisch for a great article.

    So long as the individual retains final interpretive authority, it is the “the individual who is sovereign. … As Protestants have come to understand more clearly the democratic nature of Protestant ecclesial authority, they have come to see that as Protestants, they themselves as individuals, hold final interpretive authority, and have come to live as such.

    To me, the “democratic nature of Protestant eccelesial authority” and the belief that it is “the individual who is sovereign” is reflected most glaringly in the Protestant practice of church shopping. The practice of church shopping indicates two things, that the individual believes that he has the right to church shop until he finds a church that agrees with his own private interpretation of scriptures, and that the Protestant churches have the right organize themselves via democratic principles. I am astounded that so many “bible believers” can practice church shopping without being bothered by the practice. Where in the Bible did the Old Testament prophets teach synagogue shopping or the Apostles teach church shopping?

    Even worse than church shopping is the idea that a bible believer has the authority to found a new church that teaches novel doctrines. The new non-denominational church in town spun off from the Vineyard Church that spun off from the Calvary Chapel Church, that spun off from the … Sheesh! Do Protestants really have the freedom to go church shopping and found new sects that teach novel doctrines? The answer to that question depends on the answer that one gives to “the Question of Interpretive Authority.”

    Mathison grants that each individual may appeal to Scripture to correct the Church, disobey the Church and leave the Church, so long as he is following his conscience.

    I find it surprising that this particular Protestant doctrine doesn’t have a name by which it is commonly known, such as the Doctrine of the Primacy of Conscience, or the Doctrine of the Primacy of the Believer. The closest thing that I can think of that expresses this doctrine is what some Protestant sects call “Bible Freedom”.

    Without apostolic succession, there is within Protestantism no group of persons already having divine authorization to provide the definitive decision regarding matters of doctrine and interpretation …

    The Jehovah Witnesses and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are sects that take issue with their Protestant brethren over the doctrine of “Bible Freedom”. Both Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons teach that the believer must submit to the men that hold the authority of a teaching office within their respective churches:

    Hence, besides individually possessing God’s Word, we need a theocratic organization. Yes, besides having God’s spirit of illumination, a Christian needs Jehovah’s theocratic organization in order to understand the Bible. (Watchtower; June 15, 1951; p. 375)

    As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be led by living prophets—inspired men called to speak for the Lord, as did Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, Nephi, Mormon, and other prophets of the scriptures. We sustain the President of the Church as prophet, seer, and revelator—the only person on the earth who receives revelation to guide the entire Church. Prophets – The Church of the Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints

    The Jehovah Witnesses and the Mormons may claim that certain men are vested with the authority of a teaching office within their respective churches – what they can’t claim is that doctrine that their churches officially teach has always been the same. A church hierarchy that can change the doctrine of the church cannot also be a source of infallible truth.

    … “when I submit (so long as I agree), the one to whom I submit is me.” For this reason, in sola scriptura it is the individual who ultimately has and always retains final interpretive authority.

    … that our conscience is bound ultimately by our own interpretation of Scripture, is contrary to the perpetual teaching of the Church, because that claim denies that Christ established a perpetual teaching authority in His Church …the Catholic must seek to conform his conscience according to the definitive teaching of the Church in matters of faith and morals, because the Church’s Magisterium is a higher authority than his conscience (i.e. than reason alone).

    The Catholic Church has never taught a doctrine of the Primacy of Conscience, but has, instead, taught the doctrine of the Primacy of Peter. Who among those that adhere to the doctrine of the Primacy of Conscience believe that all men and women are born with perfectly formed consciences? The man born with a conscience that is perfectly formed does not need scripture to form it, and the man that does not have a perfectly formed conscience could not depend on his conscience to infallibly guide him in his interpretation of scriptures.

    If the authority of the ecumenical creeds only followed from the perspicuity of Scripture, there would be no need for the creeds in the first place, since the creeds would have restated only what was already plainly explicit in Scripture. This would entail that all those who opposed the creeds were blind, deaf, and stupid …

    Very good point. The creeds are summaries of the doctrines believed by the Church. I always wonder how Protestants can seriously claim to believe in the perspicuity of scriptures and then reconcile that belief with the reality that outside of their particular Protestant sect there are thousands upon thousands of Protestant sects that that teaching contradictory church doctrine.

    Do most Protestants think that the Protestants belonging to the other sects that preach contradictory doctrine are “blind, deaf, and stupid”? I doubt it, since most Protestants also believe that there is nothing wrong with church shopping. What sane person would look for the truth in a church that is comprised of the blind, deaf and stupid? Nor do I believe that Protestants think that the other Protestants that preach contradictory doctrine are doing so because they actually know the truth and are maliciously teaching heresy. I suppose one way to reconcile these two beliefs is to become hostile the concept of doctrine, which is a stance that is not uncommon among the members of Protestant “bible churches”.

    I also find it hard to accept Mathison’s thesis that Protestants are oblivious to the “the hermeneutical chaos and anarchy that exists within the Protestant church” for the reason that he gives: “Most Protestants do not seem to have taken this question seriously enough if they have considered it at all.”

    I believe that most Protestants are, in fact, not oblivious to the reality that there are thousands of other Protestant sects that teach contradictory church doctrine. But what, exactly, is the source of the “hermeneutical chaos and anarchy” within Protestantism if it is not a misplaced belief in sola sciptura, not a misplaced belief in the perspicuity of scriptures, not a belief that Protestants that disagree with them are “blind, deaf, and stupid”, and not a belief that other Protestants know the truth and are maliciously spreading heresy? From whence does the scandal of Protestant division spring?

    Mathison is most certainly correct, the scandal of Protestant division is a scandal to the unbelieving world that hinders the spread of the gospel: “If we proclaim to the unbelieving world that we have the one true and final revelation from God, why should they listen to us if we cannot agree about what that revelation actually says?”

    May Christ the Good Shepherd bring us all into the one flock with one shepherd. (John 10:16).

    Amen!

15. JJS November 5th, 2009 3:40 am :

    Bryan,

    The difference is that while the person becoming Protestant bases his determination of the nature and location of the Church fundamentally on agreement with his own interpretation of Scripture (not on what those having the succession from the Apostles say is the nature and location of the Church), the person becoming Catholic bases his determination of the nature and location of the Church fundamentally on what those having the succession from the Apostles say is the nature and location of the Church.

    I understand that, but is it not true that the Catholic’s “basing his determination of the nature and location of the Church fundamentally on what those having the succession from the Apostles say is the nature and location of the Church” itself a result of that Catholic’s own private determination of whose judgment is most trustworthy?

    In other words, this is how it sounds to someone who doesn’t share your assumptions: “The problem with Protestantism is not its use of private judgment (since all decisions involve this). Rather the problem with Protestantism is that it understands church authority as being derivative rather than rooted in an infallible Magisterium. How Protestant of those Protestants!”

    Your claim seems self-serving. You admit that before you became a Catholic, you were not under the Church’s authority. But then somehow, through lots of study I’m sure, you came to believe (before coming under the jurisdiction of Rome) that the best way to locate the church Jesus founded was to consult the successors of the apostles (whom you somehow, through lots of study I’m sure, came to believe were the God-ordained and infallible leaders of the church for endless generations).

    Forgive me for being overly dense, but I still fail to see how this is different from that for which you fault us Protestants. What is the difference between using my decision-making power to conclude that the Bible is the only infallible authority, and using my decision-making power to conclude that it isn’t?

16. Devin Rose November 5th, 2009 8:45 am :

    Thank you for this excellent article. I found it really helpful. I have some questions about the answers to the objections part which I hope to ask if I get some time later, but I had an insight I wanted to share which I hope is relevant to this part:

    “The objection is understandable, but it can be made only by those who do not see the principled difference between the discovery of the Catholic Church, and joining a Protestant denomination or congregation….But the Catholic finds something principally different, and properly finds it by way of qualitatively different criteria.”

    For myself, a convert from Evangelical Protestantism to Catholicism, the word “discovery” exactly describes my experience, and I would draw an analogy of this experience to when I found Christ a year or so before becoming Catholic. When I “discovered” Christ as an atheist, all of a sudden my entire life’s paradigm shifted: I realized that there was One who created me and loved me and that I wanted to love Him in return. It was no longer a question of following what I had previously thought to be true but to re-orient myself to the One who could not lie. I wanted to know who Jesus was, what he taught, his truth and then live that truth by his grace.

    This is not a perfect analogy, but as a Protestant when I continued looking ever deeper for Christ’s truth in the Faith and in morals, I read the Bible daily, prayed all the time, had Bible studies, listened to pastors preach at church and on tapes: I was always trying to discern whether one interpretation of the Scriptures or system of interpreting them made more sense than others so that I could have an accurate understanding of God’s truth which is found in them. I only got so far before realizing that, unless God has divinely protected “some Church” from error could I ever hope to have a correct Faith and not believe and follow falsehoods. No Protestant Community I had heard of even claimed to have this fullness of the truth. It seems that the Mormons claimed it and the Catholics and Orthodox did. The Mormons were not credible in my eyes.

    So I began researching into the history of the Faith. How credible was the Catholic Church’s claim to being the Church Christ founded and protected from error? I don’t want to go too far off topic here, but I “discovered” the Catholic Church was this Church and knew that I could trust her as I would trust Christ because Jesus preserved his Bride from error. This discovery was a paradigm shift from Protestantism, where it was very much “do you best to find the denomination and local church that seems to most closely match what I currently believed to be the right interpretation of the Bible.”

    I hope that this is not off-topic. Thanks and God bless!

17. Bryan Cross November 5th, 2009 10:08 am :

    Jason,

    I’ll respond to your comments paragraph by paragraph, if you don’t mind.

    I understand that, but is it not true that the Catholic’s “basing his determination of the nature and location of the Church fundamentally on what those having the succession from the Apostles say is the nature and location of the Church” itself a result of that Catholic’s own private determination of whose judgment is most trustworthy?

    In the case of the person becoming Catholic, the judgment regarding who is most trustworthy follows from the discovery of a living divinely authorized teaching office having the divine authority to bind the conscience. In the case of the person becoming Protestant, the judgment regarding who is most trustworthy does not follow from the discovery of this divinely authorized teaching office; it follows from one’s interpretation of Scripture, to determine who is teaching most closely in accordance with one’s interpretation.

    In other words, this is how it sounds to someone who doesn’t share your assumptions: “The problem with Protestantism is not its use of private judgment (since all decisions involve this). Rather the problem with Protestantism is that it understands church authority as being derivative rather than rooted in an infallible Magisterium. How Protestant of those Protestants!”

    The problem with understanding church authority as being derivative (rather than being based on apostolic succession) is not that it is Protestant. That would just be putting a label on the practice, not pointing to an actual problem. The problem is that there is a contradiction internal to the sola scriptura position. It claims to be different in a principled way from solo scriptura, but because it understands church authority as being derivative, there is ultimately [as we showed in the article] no principled difference between solo scriptura and sola scriptura.

    Your claim seems self-serving. You admit that before you became a Catholic, you were not under the Church’s authority. But then somehow, through lots of study I’m sure, you came to believe (before coming under the jurisdiction of Rome) that the best way to locate the church Jesus founded was to consult the successors of the apostles (whom you somehow, through lots of study I’m sure, came to believe were the God-ordained and infallible leaders of the church for endless generations).

    Correct.

    Forgive me for being overly dense, but I still fail to see how this is different from that for which you fault us Protestants. What is the difference between using my decision-making power to conclude that the Bible is the only infallible authority, and using my decision-making power to conclude that it isn’t?

    The difference is not in the initial use of one’s decision-making power. The difference lies in whether or not one discovers the living teaching authority appointed and authorized by the incarnate Christ. Because the Protestant convert does not discover this, he retains ultimate interpretive authority (and hence this creates the contradiction in his claim to reject solo scriptura). But the Catholic convert does discover this, and so does not retain ultimate interpretive authority. This is why, as we argued in the article, the only way to avoid solo scriptura is by discovering apostolic succession.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

18. Tim Troutman November 5th, 2009 10:19 am :

    What is the difference between using my decision-making power to conclude that the Bible is the only infallible authority, and using my decision-making power to conclude that it isn’t?

    There is no difference in the process, but in the result. What is the difference in me concluding that Jesus is the Messiah and that He isn’t? Well, nothing (in the process) and everything (in result).

    There is a qualitative difference in what happens when you submit to the Catholic Church and when you join a denomination just as there is a qualitative difference when you submit to Christ and when you submit to the President of the United States.

    This is exemplified when we start talking about the Church being infallible. That’s scares the hell out of men because it means that we have to obey her even if we think we know Scripture better than her.

19. K. Doran November 5th, 2009 10:21 am :

    Hi JJS,

    You asked: “What is the difference between using my decision-making power to conclude that the Bible is the only infallible authority, and using my decision-making power to conclude that it isn’t?”

    I see one difference (there are many others) in our use of private judgment as the following. If you read the bible carefully, and concluded that your denomination’s belief about (say) Matthew 16 was sufficiently likely to be wrong, and your denomination refused to change it’s interpretation and tried to make you agree publicly that it’s interpretation was at least concurrently acceptable, you would leave your denomination for another one. And your denomination couldn’t really complain, because they have never claimed to have an infallible interpretation of Matthew 16 or of any other bible verse.

    But if I use my private judgment to conclude that the Catholic church is likely wrong about Matthew 16 based on non-magisterial data, I won’t leave the Catholic Church. Because I include the magisterial data as of sufficient weight to override my own best interpretations of scripture. Thus, when Augustine developed different views of the verses in Matthew over time, he didn’t feel so sure of these new views that he could either leave the Catholic Church or demand that the Church’s various traditional interpretations of these verses needed to change. Rather, he required of himself and others to stay in the Catholic Church, and recognized that his new interpretation should not ipso facto replace the traditional ones in Church teaching.

    Thus, we simply don’t use our private judgment to church shop in the same way that protestants do. We of course use private judgment to: (a) determine that apostolic succession is necessary for the true church, and (b) identify the church with the best claims to apostolic succession. But once we apply our private judgment to (a) and (b), we turn off the private judgment and accept magisterially-taught doctrines whether we have sufficient non-magisterial proof or not.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but you would not accept a protestant doctrine without a plain proof from scripture, and if your best private interpretation of scripture changed with sufficient certainty, then you would not accept any magisterial teaching as capable of overturning that certainty? In other words, you wouldn’t do what we do: accept magisterial teachings whether or not we think the non-magisterial evidence points against them?

    Sincerely,

    K. Doran

    p.s. I have always found the non-magisterial evidence to be quite consistent with Catholic magisterial teaching. But to the extent that I don’t initially see the evidence perfectly in line, I still accept the magisterial teaching. The correlation between evidence and teaching doesn’t eviscerate the obedience.

20. Jared Brattoli November 5th, 2009 11:57 am :

    Very Good point by K. Doran! :)

    I would like to add that when it comes to using our private interpretation (which is unavoidable for everyone), as K. Doran points out, the Catholic spirit is to withhold final judgement from ourselves and leave it for those given the responsibility and authority to make those final judgements, and that the spirit and mind of the church collectively, while being ordered properly, is the true spirit and mind of Christ. By holding final judgement to ourselves, we withhold from ourselves the promise Christ made that he will send the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth. There must be some kind of final, infallable judgement on doctrine if the Scriptures and Apostolic tradition will have any meaning or use to us, to the effect that it will unite us as one body. Since final judgement is not to be assumed by any individual who so chooses, then it must be assumed by someone, or else we have the effects of solo scriptura, which are contrary to the will of Christ. Whatever the final judgement is it must be infallable, or else we inevitably have the effects of solo scriptura, which are contrary to the will of Christ. If the final judgement on doctrine is to be infallable, that infallable body must be easily identified and recognized, or else we have the effects of solo scriptura, etc. Apostolic succession is that thing which is easily identified and recognized–it is the one thing that is perspicious. It is as easy as using our private judgement to determine the color of the sky–every one uses there own private judgement, but the color of the sky is so perspicious and apparent that those who use their private judgement to recognize it need not be blamed for using private judgement, while those who would deny that the sky is blue can be blamed for using private judgement, for they oppose what is so perspicuous and apparent. This isn’t the best analogy, but it is the quickest analogy my limited mind can think of at the moment. No protestant denomination can say they have authorization to make such final judgements, because no member of any protestant denomination has been given (i.e. ordained) authority to do so by a prior valid authority, and this is easily recognizable. If authority is to be derived, it cannot be derived privately; it cannot be privately assumed without order (this is protestantism).

    One may object that Apostolic succesion is not easily identified and recognized, but I would only point out that at the very least we can easily identify and recognize what/who does not have that necessary kind of authority, i.e. protestantism.

    For the first 1500 years of the Church’s existence it has held reletively few divisions, and there is no reason the true Chruch of Christ cannot be recognized today by those seperated from her, despite our private scruples with her doctrine.

21. Andrew Preslar November 5th, 2009 2:31 pm :

    Matt Yonke has made some brief and lucid comments about the relationship of authority and private judgment in the act of conversion. See Podcast #8, beginning around the 30:00 minute mark.

22. Keith Mathison November 5th, 2009 2:34 pm :

    Hi Bryan,

    I just ran across this critique of my book. I’ve only had time to skim it so far, but I do plan to read it carefully. I appreciate you taking the time to try present my argument fairly, even while disagreeing with it. That doesn’t always happen in such discussions. Do you mind if I interact with your paper here in the comments section of the site?

    I don’t have anything substantive to say in response to the paper itself yet since I haven’t read it all the way through, but in the meantime, may I ask about something you wrote in response to Jason in comment #13? You wrote:

    “Both the person becoming Protestant, and the person becoming Catholic, are using their own judgment. That’s not where the difference is located. And you are correct that the Catholic convert might study Scripture and the Fathers. And the Protestant convert might study Scripture and the Fathers. That too is not where the difference is located. The difference is that while the person becoming Protestant bases his determination of the nature and location of the Church fundamentally on agreement with his own interpretation of Scripture (not on what those having the succession from the Apostles say is the nature and location of the Church), the person becoming Catholic bases his determination of the nature and location of the Church fundamentally on what those having the succession from the Apostles say is the nature and location of the Church.”

    This looks to me like you are saying:

    The person becoming Protestant determines the nature and location of the Church by examining Scripture and/or history.

    The person becoming Catholic determines the nature and location of the Church by asking the Roman magisterium (those having succession).

    To those of us who aren’t Roman Catholic, it seems that to ask Rome if Rome is the Church begs the question since the very point to be determined is whether Rome is the Church.

    Even if this were not the case, by what criteria would the person determine that the best way of determining the nature and location of the church is to ask the Roman magisterium? Does he ask the Roman magisterium if asking the Roman magisterium is the best way, or does he determine (discover) that the Roman magisterium is the best way to determine the location and nature of the church by examining Scripture and history?

    I’m not sure whether your response gets to the heart of Jason’s question since the person in question will have to base his evaluation of the magisterium’s claims either on some other criterion or combination of criteria (Scripture, history, reason, etc.) or else make a fideistic leap of faith and accept the magisterium’s claims because they are the magisterium’s claims.

    I look forward to going through your paper and hope you don’t mind my following up on it here.

    Keith

23. Bryan Cross November 5th, 2009 3:23 pm :

    Hello Keith,

    I’m glad you commented here, and yes, you’re welcome to comment here about the article. I tried to look up your email address yesterday, to send you a heads-up on our article, but I couldn’t find your email address through the Ligonier site. So, I’m glad you came across our article.

    In regard to your question, you put it this way:

    The person becoming Protestant determines the nature and location of the Church by examining Scripture and/or history.

    The person becoming Catholic determines the nature and location of the Church by asking the Roman magisterium (those having succession).

    To those of us who aren’t Roman Catholic, it seems that to ask Rome if Rome is the Church begs the question since the very point to be determined is whether Rome is the Church.

    If I had been making an argument, and my premise was “The Catholic Church claims to be the Church Christ founded”, and then concluded, “Therefore, the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded” that would be question-begging. In other words, if I was here (in this thread) arguing that we should all be Catholics and not Protestants, and using as my reason “that Rome says so”, I would indeed be begging the question. But, in my comments (in the combox here) I haven’t been arguing that the Catholic Church is the true Church that Christ founded (even though I believe that it is). Rather I have been pointing out that there is principled epistemic difference between the person who becomes Catholic, and the person who becomes Protestant. The person becoming Catholic discovers (from his study of all these things) that Christ instituted apostolic succession. The Protestant does not. That discovery changes the epistemic condition of the Catholic viz-a-viz the Protestant, regarding the retention of ultimate interpretive authority by the individual. And so my point has been that the Catholic is not subject to the tu quoque objection in response to our argument that there is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura with respect to the holder of ultimate interpretive authority.

    Even if this were not the case, by what criteria would the person determine that the best way of determining the nature and location of the church is to ask the Roman magisterium? Does he ask the Roman magisterium if asking the Roman magisterium is the best way, or does he determine (discover) that the Roman magisterium is the best way to determine the location and nature of the church by examining Scripture and history?

    This will involve an investigation into early Church history, to determine whether the early Church practiced apostolic succession, and how the early Church understand the role of Peter and his successors. If such things are found, then we can either believe that those were corruptions or, that they were manifestations of the Spirit-protected unfolding of the deposit of faith entrusted by the Apostles to the Church.

    I’m not sure whether your response gets to the heart of Jason’s question since the person in question will have to base his evaluation of the magisterium’s claims either on some other criterion or combination of criteria (Scripture, history, reason, etc.) or else make a fideistic leap of faith and accept the magisterium’s claims because they are the magisterium’s claims.

    It would most definitely not be the latter, i.e. the fideistic option. But, the false dilemma is that we have to choose between being governed ultimately by our own interpretation of Scripture and leaping blindly into the dark. The other possibility is that we can, through an investigation of early Church history, discover the Church’s understanding and practice of apostolic succession, and all its implications. Once we discover that magisterial authority, and trace the lines of succession, then that changes our epistemic position viz-a-viz the interpretation of Scripture.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

24. JJS November 5th, 2009 4:20 pm :

    Bryan et al,

    Thanks for your responses. So am I right in understanding you to be saying that there is no difference between the Catholic’s and Protestant’s process of arriving at their respective destinations, but once we’ve each landed, THEN the difference kicks in (the Protestant retains, while the Catholic surrenders, ultimate interpretive authority)?

    Because if so, my question now becomes, “If the Catholic’s ‘discovery’ that he is supposed to listen to the Magisterium is no less a result of his private study than the Protestant’s discovery that, as messy as it may be, Scripture is our only infallible authority, then how exactly does this furnish the Catholic with bragging rights against the Protestant?”

    I mean, if the initial discovery was made through private judgment, and then (and only then) is private judgment set aside, that seems problematic, not unlike the guy who favors free markets, but only after the government gives everyone a house and farm, with six acres and ten cows to begin to make their living.

25. Chris Donato November 5th, 2009 4:37 pm :

    So then, Bryan, if one does indeed investigate early Church history and comes to different conclusions than what you’ve come to, then that person is somehow epistemically deficient? What other options are there (to view the other’s Protestant or Orthodox or [fill in the blank] choice) for the one who consciously chooses to become Roman Catholic? You’ve “arrived,” in a manner of speaking.

    Well, good for you.

26. Tim A. Troutman November 5th, 2009 5:05 pm :

    JJS, if I may step in. My response to you earlier may have muddied the waters a bit. Bryan is answering you from a different angle so I don’t want the two angles to add confusion.

    When we say “private judgment” it has a negative overtone, but on the other hand, “reason” has a positive overtone. What is the difference? In most practical applications – there is none. Did I submit to the authority of the Catholic Church by reason (private judgment)? Yes I did. How about the young man who grew up Pentecostal, searched the Scriptures and studied great theologians and came to the conclusion that conservative Presbyterianism most faithfully represented biblical truth? He also used reason (private judgment). In this specific respect, there is no difference (in that we both used reason to decide which was best).

    But what evidence did we evaluate? Was it the same? Some of it was, but not all of it. We both used Scriptures, reason, theologians, (possibly) Church fathers. But the Catholic also uses the evidence of material succession to determine the true Church. So at least on that point we differ.

    Additionally, my submission to the Catholic Church involves an act of faith that her teaching authority is divinely protected from error. The young man selecting the Presbyterian church makes no such act of faith. He believes that she is capable of teaching error and when she does, then he will leave.

    So there is a difference in the ‘selection’ process, but not one that excludes reason or private judgment from either side. As far as using reason to make a decision, we are both in the same boat.

    Compare it to a man who wanted to discover the teaching authority of America and judged by reason that a particular group of the constitution party was the rightful government of America because they most faithfully reflected the founding fathers’ intentions for the government (in his judgment). Another man decides that Obama, the legislators, and duly elected judges were the rightful authorities. Was there a principled difference in the way these two men chose their authority? Is there any principled difference in their selections? They both used private judgment yes, but one used his private judgment correctly and the other used it incorrectly. The former may say to the latter “Well you also used private judgment to submit to your government.” He would be right that they both used private judgment, but wrong about thinking they were in the same boat. The latter’s position does not reduce to solo-constitutiono because he evaluated a tangible, objective, piece of evidence that is not contingent upon his private interpretation of the constitution. The former’s position is reducible to solo-constitutiono because it is entirely based on his private interpretation.

27. Faramir November 5th, 2009 5:07 pm :

    I am currently in RCIA in part because I started asking questions about sola scriptura. One of my family members, who is a Protestant minister, gave me a copy of Mathison’s book and it was definitely a challenge to the arguments against sola scriptura I had been considering. I had assumed that sola scriptura = solo scriptura and was intrigued by Mathison’s difference – I wondered if this might be a way to answer my worries without having to go “all the way” to Rome.

    Everything sounded fine with Mathison’s argument that Scripture should be interpreted by the Church using the regula fidei, but my question then became, “Where is the Church?” I was really hoping Mathison would give some set of objective criteria by which I could determine what is the true Church with the authority to interpret the Scripture. I was hoping to read, “The true Church is the church that teaches doctrines x, y, and z” or even “The true Church is the Presbyterian Church in America”. That would give me something solid and objective to investigate. Instead Mathison identifies the Church in a very vague and subjective way, and I recall it being very disappointing and anti-climactic when I read it.

    I enjoyed this article very much because it clearly articulates the vague feeling of uneasiness that I had with Mathison’s argument. It states and develops as a logical argument what I felt as sort of a vague feeling of not quite being convinced. As much as I wanted it to be correct and to give me a “way out”, his vague identification of the Church left me disappointed. I also suspected that Mathison’s definition of sola scriptura was attempting to walk a fine line between solo scriptura on the one hand and full-fledged church authority on the other, and I wasn’t fully convinced that his position avoided falling into one side or the other.

    I’m very glad that Dr. Mathison is interacting in the comments on this site and look forward to following the dialogue.

    Bryan, I notice that this article did not deal with the sections of Mathison’s book dealing with church history and the allegations of erroneous and contradictory pronouncements that Mathison rasises. Nor do you interact with his distinction of Tradition 0/I/II/III. These may be topics for future articles, but I am your curious what your thoughts are regarding Mathison’s claim that the Catholic Church has shifted from Tradition I (sola scriptura) to Tradition II (scripture + tradition) and Tradition III (magisterium).

28. Tim Troutman November 5th, 2009 5:28 pm :

    Chris – JJS is not arguing that the Catholic Church is not, in fact, in material succession from the apostles. He’s arguing that (or asking why not) the Catholic Church is in the same epistemic boat. Bryan showed him why this is not the case.

    Person a: “Whoever I privately decide is the heir to the throne of England is the true heir.”
    Person b: “Whoever is the first to touch the throne after the king dies is the true heir.”

    They are not in the same epistemic boat. Person b’s criteria does not rely on private judgment like person a’s does. Person b is wrong, but he is not in the same boat as person a. The issue immediately at hand is not whether or not the Catholic Church actually has material apostolic succession nor whether material apostolic succession is a valid indication of the true Church, but whether or not we are in the same epistemic boat as Protestants. We have sufficiently shown that we are not.

29. JJS November 5th, 2009 5:35 pm :

    Tim,

    Compare it to a man who wanted to discover the teaching authority of America and judged by reason that a particular group of the constitution party was the rightful government of America because they most faithfully reflected the founding fathers’ intentions for the government (in his judgment). Another man decides that Obama, the legislators, and duly elected judges were the rightful authorities. Was there a principled difference in the way these two men chose their authority? Is there any principled difference in their selections? They both used private judgment yes, but one used his private judgment correctly and the other used it incorrectly.

    Well, sure, but what if the whole issue at stake centered around whether the way we choose leaders itself is legitimate or not? And furthermore, what if some Americans believed that the whole legitimacy and authority of our government rested in the passing on of some invisible gift to the president, and NOT in merely electing someone? And what’s more, what if our country were really, really old (like 2000 years), and our entire existence hinged upon there never being a break in that link (a claim that millions of us thought was fanciful and romantic)?

    You see, that’s my problem with Bryan’s language of “discovery” on the part of the Catholic of the Magisterium, it seems to assume that it is true, and that I have just failed to discover it.

    Returning to your illustration, any American today would (and should) be laughed at for denying that the government we really have is the legitimate one. But in the case of the church, you have millions of people who question whether or not Rome was ever intended to be (by God) or thought to be (by the early fathers) what she claims to be today. And it’s not just Protestants, either.

    So like I said before, THE main issue, namely apostolic succession, is precisely the issue that the Catholic must embrace as a result of his private judgment. And that’s why I don’t see why you claim bragging rights.

30. Chris Donato November 5th, 2009 5:58 pm :

    I don’t get it.

    You are, Tim, not unlike the rest of us, born into this fragmented world—which includes, obviously, deeply divided religious institutions. And, like the rest of us, you are forced to choose which you’d like to belong to. This is your heretical imperative. You cannot escape it. We are in epistemic communion. And I am the fellow touching your shoulder. Take your head out of the sand.

31. rfwhite November 5th, 2009 6:06 pm :

    Bryan, glad to see you finished this piece. I look forward to reading it.

32. Bryan Cross November 5th, 2009 6:08 pm :

    Jason,

    So am I right in understanding you to be saying that there is no difference between the Catholic’s and Protestant’s process of arriving at their respective destinations, but once we’ve each landed, THEN the difference kicks in (the Protestant retains, while the Catholic surrenders, ultimate interpretive authority)?

    No, that’s not what I’m saying. If the process were absolutely identical, the destination would be identical. The process is the same in one respect, but differs in another respect. The process is the same in this respect: both persons use their own power of reason, and hence their private judgment, in the investigation of the data available to them. If the convert to Protestantism encounters evidence of apostolic succession in the early Church Fathers, he discounts it as an accretion, primarily because he doesn’t see it in Scripture. When the convert to Catholicism encounters evidence of apostolic succession, he treats it as evidence of what the Apostles handed down to the early bishops. So at that point, the respective processes diverge. I’m generalizing a bit, to make the point, but the Protestant is using his assumption that if it is not taught clearly in Scripture, it isn’t part of the deposit of faith, and therefore when it is found in early Church history it must be an accretion. His presupposition regarding that form of sola scriptura forces him to adopt a stance of ecclesial deism when he encounters patristic data supporting apostolic succession. The convert to Catholicism is not bringing that assumption to the investigation. He doesn’t assume that apostolic succession in the Fathers is an accretion.

    Because if so, my question now becomes, “If the Catholic’s ‘discovery’ that he is supposed to listen to the Magisterium is no less a result of his private study than the Protestant’s discovery that, as messy as it may be, Scripture is our only infallible authority, then how exactly does this furnish the Catholic with bragging rights against the Protestant?” I mean, if the initial discovery was made through private judgment, and then (and only then) is private judgment set aside, that seems problematic, not unlike the guy who favors free markets, but only after the government gives everyone a house and farm, with six acres and ten cows to begin to make their living.

    We necessarily make use of private judgment in the discovery of divine authority. But once we discover that divine authority, we subordinate our own judgments to it. That’s true for Protestants and Catholics alike. The fundamental point of difference between Catholics and Protestants is that the Catholic believes he has found living divine authority in those having the succession from the Apostles, and a Sacred Tradition from the Apostles and a written form of the Word of God as the Bible, while the Protestant would not claim to have found the first two, but only the latter.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

33. Andrew Preslar November 5th, 2009 6:21 pm :

    I think that Neal and Bryan’s paper demonstrates one of the important differences between (1) being Catholic and being Protestant. Some of the discussion here is pointing to the differences between (2) becoming Catholic or remaining Protestant, or between (3) an unchurched person choosing between the Catholic Church and one among the various Protestant denominations.

    Everyone seems to appreciate the difference between (1) and the other two. I suggest that there is an important difference between (2) and (3). I tried to write out what that might be, but it got all long and autobiographical, so I’ll save it for later. The second dilemma involves a much greater degree of continuity, pre- and post- conversion, and this includes the general and “irreformable” relation of all forms of Protestantism to Catholicism, than does (3).

34. JJS November 5th, 2009 6:23 pm :

    Bryan,

    Thanks for the interaction, it is helpful.

    We necessarily make use of private judgment in the discovery of divine authority. But once we discover that divine authority, we subordinate our own judgments to it. That’s true for Protestants and Catholics alike. The fundamental point of difference between Catholics and Protestants is that the Catholic believes he has found living divine authority in those having the succession from the Apostles, and a Sacred Tradition from the Apostles and a written form of the Word of God as the Bible, while the Protestant would not claim to have found the first two, but only the latter.

    But all that says is that the fundamental difference between a Catholic and a Protestant is that the former believes Catholic theology, while the latter doesn’t. I mean, if we’re both using our deliberative faculties, but you come to believe in the Magisterium and I do not, then I still fail to see why you get to slap yourself on the back.

    If we both went to Baskin Robbins and surveyed their 31 flavors, and I chose vanilla (hey, I’m Presbyterian, remember?) and you chose Rocky Road (no hidden meaning there), we can debate the merits (ahem) of our respective choices, but I don’t see how either of us is more a company man while the latter is maverick.

    Now of course, if you vow from that moment on to eat Rocky Road forever, even if they tinker with the recipe in a way that makes you a bit uncomfortable, and I make no such vow, THEN you can say that you’re a more submissive guy and I’m more of a rogue.

    Now swinging back to the point under discussion, I completely agree with you that you are more submitted to your church than I am to mine. But it’s not like we both “discovered the Church’s divine authority” but I alone rejected it. No, you believe you discovered it by means of your own personal study, while my own personal study yielded a different conclusion. So the difference between you (a Catholic) and me (a Protestant) is that you adhere to Catholic theology, while I do not. And likewise, the difference between me (a Presbyterian) and James White (a Baptist) is that I adhere to Presbyterian theology while he does not.

    Yes, James White and I each reached our conclusions through private judgment, but so did you.

35. Taylor Marshall November 5th, 2009 6:24 pm :

    Great article. I hope this one makes the rounds.

    One of the frustrating things about this so-called distinction between sola scriptura and solo scriptura is that “solo scriptura” is an impossibility in Latin? Does Mathison have a way of justifying the ungrammatical rendering of “solo scriptura”?

    How can SOLO scriptura have any grammatical meaning?

    This seems akin to other mistakes that I see here and there by well-meaning Calvinists writing wanna-be Latin such as “sola Christus” or “post tenebrus lux”.

36. Bryan Cross November 5th, 2009 6:24 pm :

    Chris,

    I don’t think the “you’ve arrived; good for you” sort of thing is helpful for resolving the disagreement. We [both sides] cannot pretend that we don’t think we have discovered something that the other side doesn’t see or get. Protestants generally think they’ve discovered that we’re justified by faith alone, and that Catholics for some reason don’t see the truth of what they [Protestants] see. So, let’s just be open with each other and move past the offense of the other person claiming to know something (or have something) that we don’t. The more helpful/constructive response to what I’ve said in these combox comments, in my opinion, is to dig into the evidence together — in this case the evidence regarding apostolic succession. “Here, Bryan, is why I think you are wrong about the Fathers on apostolic succession.” etc. Perhaps it can’t be done in a combox. Maybe we need another article just dealing with patristic evidence related to apostolic succession, where we can sort through that evidence carefully. But I think that’s the more constructive way to move forward, and I hope you agree on that point.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

37. Matthew Anderson November 5th, 2009 6:30 pm :

    Bryan and Neal,

    Once one has submitted to the Roman Catholic Church, let’s say, and been sacramentally received, are there any significant epistemological or hermeneutical difficulties left for the individual within that tradition? If so, what might they be? For example, are there any significant interpretive decisions that need to be made about church teachings? Or, is everything absolutely clear? I can’t imagine the answer to that question is yes (but it could be), but I think it might be interesting to explore some of the epistemological and hermeneutical questions that remain for the intellectually sensitive Roman Catholic even after there has been a formal submission to the church.

    Matthew Anderson

38. JJS November 5th, 2009 6:45 pm :

    Taylor,

    Latinus Calvinisticum es superiorum ad Latinus Catholicus. Implorum, no continua braggadorium, it’s very unbecomingum.

    See? Latin’s easy, a piecem tortam.

39. Tim A. Troutman November 5th, 2009 6:46 pm :

    Chris, do any two positions on any subject vary in epistemology? The scientist and the witch doctor evaluate the cause of a man’s illness. The scientist relies on private judgment to decide whether or not to trust the scientific method and likewise, the witch doctor relies on his private judgment to decide whether or not to trust the ‘spirits’ and the omens. Are they in the same epistemological boat just because they’re both born into a world with a lot of unknowns and rely on private judgment? This is skepticism.

    It is possible, even with private judgment involved, for two positions to be on uneven epistemological ground.

40. Tim A. Troutman November 5th, 2009 6:55 pm :

    JJS,

    But all that says is that the fundamental difference between a Catholic and a Protestant is that the former believes Catholic theology, while the latter doesn’t.

    See #38 – we might claim that the fundamental difference between the scientist and the witch doctor is that the former uses the scientific method without begging the question. The scientific method is both what makes him a scientist and what proves that he is more objective than the witch doctor. The Catholic method for determining the Church is both what makes a man a Catholic and what makes the Catholic choice more objective than the Protestant choice.

    The Catholic method may be wrong. And we may be wrong in our estimation of it. But that’s not what we’re talking about yet. We’re just refuting the “tu quoque” idea. It seems to be the only objection raised so far.

    Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that we were able to convince you that there was an epistemological difference but you decided, even still – the Catholics either A) Can’t prove they have material succession or B) Material Succession is not proof of authority at all or more likely C) All of the above. Even given that, you would still be left in the same boat – sola scriptura is reducible to solo scriptura unless you or someone else has an unmentioned objection.

41. K. Doran November 5th, 2009 8:24 pm :

    Hey Chris,

    I’m glad you’re posting again! It would be a lot of fun to look at the evidence for apostolic succession and petrine ministry together. Send me an email if you’re interested!

    sincerely,

    K. Doran

42. Chris Donato November 5th, 2009 8:30 pm :

    Bryan (#36) — of course not, but neither are some of the implications of what you’ve written (to resolving disagreement). Regarding the way forward, you’re not going to find much disagreement from me about apostolic succession, at least in principle. It’s how that principle has developed via Roma that’s the rub.

    Also, I hope you and others realize my tone is light when I take jabs. I know I’m a smart ass, but I don’t intend to be a jerk.

    Finally, Tim (#39): You’ve hit it on the head — This is skepticism. Welcome to the real world.

43. Matt Yonke November 5th, 2009 9:14 pm :

    I think there’s an approach to this from a slightly different angle that might help to clarify the “distinction without difference” problem a lot of our Protestant readers seem to have.

    That approach would start with the understanding of the Church as the Body of Christ. When the Body of Christ was on earth incarnate and fully present, how did He demand allegiance and how was that allegiance given? Jesus told people, give up everything and come follow me. He didn’t lay out a ten point plan, He didn’t tell the disciples what was going on and ask if they could think about it, see if it jived with their worldview and come back tomorrow to tell Him if they could get on board. He required them to believe a lot of weird stuff and follow Him.

    It seems to me that the Protestant approach to accepting the Christian faith and choosing a Church is akin to a prospective disciple who said to Jesus, “Alright, give me a list of propositions, I’ll see if they check out with my understanding of Scripture and get back to you.”

    The response of the Catholic is to realize that the Mystical Body of Christ on earth, the Catholic Church, has the words of eternal life, so we drop our nets and follow.

    Now, we certainly try to make sense out of some of the baffling things Jesus said, but we don’t follow because the propositions check out.

    Put another way, we don’t follow a list of propositions, we follow a source of propositions. The Church to us is not the ecclesial body most in line with the truth as we understand it, but the body that gives us the truth that we accept because we trust the source.

    I would also submit that the way we Catholics got to believing this truth was not a simple measuring of Catholic doctrine against reason and Scripture. There is a deeper act of faith involved that makes it truly different than the Protestant embracing one system of doctrine or another. Particularly because the Protestant could switch systems of doctrine tomorrow without undergoing a radical change to the basis of his faith.

    A way to sum this up might be to look at the reason C.S. Lewis eventually gave for not becoming Catholic before he got to Heaven ;) That was, not that he didn’t believe anything the Catholic Church taught now, but that he couldn’t commit himself to believing what the Catholic Church might teach tomorrow.

44. Jonathan Brumley November 5th, 2009 11:36 pm :

    Hi Bryan,

    Thank you for another thought provoking article.

    You said:

    “Maybe we need another article just dealing with patristic evidence related to apostolic succession, where we can sort through that evidence carefully.”

    I am looking forward to that article. I am very skeptical that divine authority was somehow passed down 2000 years through a succession of men who ordained each other – possibly sometimes for ill reasons. I would like to see what evidence you have that God has protected the Church in this way.

45. Tom Brown November 6th, 2009 2:11 am :

    Dear Pastor Stellman,

    With the risk that further discussion of the “distinction without a difference” problem detracts from Neal’s and Bryan’s primary arguments in mind, I will take a stab:

    “But all that says is that the fundamental difference between a Catholic and a Protestant is that the former believes Catholic theology, while the latter doesn’t.”

    This misses Bryan’s point about discerning (with private judgment, yes, of course) divine revelation and divine authority. The Catholic is not Catholic because he “believes Catholic theology.” The Catholic is Catholic because he believes it is the visible Church vested with the authority of Christ and graced with divine revelation and preserved from error. He believes Catholic theology because he is Catholic.

    “I mean, if we’re both using our deliberative faculties, but you come to believe in the Magisterium and I do not, then I still fail to see why you get to slap yourself on the back.”

    I think we try hard on Called to Communion to avoid back-slapping. In a discussion of the body of divine revelation and the location of divine authority, this site exists to discuss/debate/wrestle with our reaching different conclusions following the efforts of our respective deliberative faculties. With [all of] our prayers, and God’s grace, this is not a lost cause. But I hope you can see the difference Bryan has been making between reaching the conclusion that Catholic theology is right, and reaching the conclusion that Catholic authority is authoritative.

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

46. Bryan Cross November 6th, 2009 2:45 am :

    Jason,

    I wrote:

    The fundamental point of difference between Catholics and Protestants is that the Catholic believes he has found living divine authority in those having the succession from the Apostles, and a Sacred Tradition from the Apostles and a written form of the Word of God as the Bible, while the Protestant would not claim to have found the first two, but only the latter.

    You replied:

    But all that says is that the fundamental difference between a Catholic and a Protestant is that the former believes Catholic theology, while the latter doesn’t.

    No, that’s not all it says. Your redescription of what I said reductively eliminates some of the relevant content of what I said. I’m not simply saying that the Protestant believes Protestant theology, and the Catholic believes Catholic theology. The person becoming Catholic does not just come to believe a theology; he discovers a living divinely-appointed authority, and that discovery then shapes his theology. The person becoming Protestant does not discover such a thing, and so remains his own ultimate interpretive authority in shaping his theology. This difference has nothing to do with back-slapping; it is simply the reason why the Catholic is not subject to the tu quoque objection, in response to our argument that there is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura with respect to the holder of ultimate interpretive authority.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

47. JJS November 6th, 2009 4:02 am :

    Tom,

    You can just call me “Jason.”

    The Catholic is not Catholic because he “believes Catholic theology.” The Catholic is Catholic because he believes it is the visible Church vested with the authority of Christ and graced with divine revelation and preserved from error. He believes Catholic theology because he is Catholic.

    I think I need to just give up, because we’ve been talking about this for over a year and I still can’t see your point.

    You say that “The Catholic is Catholic [not because he believes Catholic theology, but] because he believes it is the visible Church vested with the authority of Christ and graced with divine revelation and preserved from error.” But isn’t the belief that “the visible Church is vested with the authority of Christ and graced with divine revelation and preserved from error” itself Catholic theology? Isn’t that the WHOLE ISSUE that we disagree on?

    So when you say that “the Catholic believes Catholic theology because he is a Catholic,” I scratch my head in bewilderment. As Bryan has repeatedly said, the convert to Rome doesn’t surrender private interpretive judgment until he has joined the church, but uses it in order to “discover a living divinely-appointed authority, and that discovery then shapes his theology.” So at the most crucial stage in the game, namely, when you are reading the Scriptures and the fathers about apostolic succession and weighing all the evidence against the Protestantism that you are now beginning to doubt, you are admittedly not yet submitted to Rome, but are still in the deliberative, investigative stage. Now regardless of which road you take (to Rome or Geneva), the decision you make is NOT made out of deference to a Magisterium, since you’re not yet convinced of its authority. Sure, once you are, you bow to it. But first you must make that determination, that “discovery.” So my question is, what constitutes it a “discovery” (which is good) rather than a something you reject? It can’t be the case that you come to believe that the Magisterium is the Magisterium because it says it is (else I’ve got a bridge to sell you). And it has already been stated that it’s not a leap into the dark. So the only other option that I can see is that you came to believe that the Magisterium demands your submission because you weighed the evidence and found it satisfactory and in accord with your private interpretation of the facts as you understand them.

    So putting aside the differences between us once we’ve chosen our road (since I’ve admitted that you’re way more submitted to your church than I am to mine), I see no difference between the way we each come to make our respective decisions.

    Please tell me what I’m missing, because it seems that you are every bit as subject to the tu quoque objection as we are.

48. Keith Mathison November 6th, 2009 8:32 am :

    I’m still working my way through the main article, but had to comment on one thing in the comments thread:

    Taylor,

    You wrote (#35): “One of the frustrating things about this so-called distinction between sola scriptura and solo scriptura is that “solo scriptura” is an impossibility in Latin? Does Mathison have a way of justifying the ungrammatical rendering of “solo scriptura”? How can SOLO scriptura have any grammatical meaning? This seems akin to other mistakes that I see here and there by well-meaning Calvinists writing wanna-be Latin such as “sola Christus” or “post tenebrus lux”.

    Three quick points:

    1. I didn’t come up with this term. Doug Jones coined it.
    2. Jones knows (and I know) that it’s not grammatically correct. It was a tongue in cheek idea he had.
    3. At least it’s not as dull as Heiko Oberman’s terms – Tradition I, Tradition II, and Tradition III. :-)

    Back to the paper…

    Keith

49. Bryan Cross November 6th, 2009 9:52 am :

    Jason,

    The tu quoque we address in our article is not “You too used private judgment to come to your position”. That’s not the point in question, because no one denies it. The tu quoque is “You too retain ultimate interpretive authority.” That’s the objection, I think, that in our article we have shown to be false.

    You might have in mind another tu quoque, namely, “you too are an ecclesial consumerist.” That’s the impression I’m getting from your following statement:

    So the only other option that I can see is that you came to believe that the Magisterium demands your submission because you weighed the evidence and found it satisfactory and in accord with your private interpretation of the facts as you understand them.

    If that’s the tu quoque you have in mind, then perhaps that explains why we’re talking past each other.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

50. Trevor Britton November 6th, 2009 10:00 am :

    Hi, this is my first post here. I have really enjoyed reading the articles here at Called to Communion.

    I have been reading the tu quoque discussion and been trying to make sure I understand it clearly. It seems to me that the important point is what type of decision is being made after the investigation, not how it is made. Both sides use their reason, etc., but the person who becomes Catholic discovers an authority and so submits to it. The person who decides on a specific protestant tradition discovers a tradition that agrees with or convinces them of its doctrine (not its authority). Tu toque would apply if the person becoming Catholic was also discovering a tradition and only being convinced of its doctrinal correctness and not its authority. Is that the correct distinction?

51. Matthew Anderson November 6th, 2009 10:10 am :

    Jason,

    I’m actually an evangelical Anglican, but my sense is that a Catholic could respond to you by saying that the process by which we come to our decisions between Catholicism or Protestantism is much the same, but the end result is different. So, yes, both sides weigh evidence, consider arguments, make individual judgements, etc., but the Catholic position entails additional epistemological security once the decision has been made to become Catholic. I think I would grant that.

    But, I would add that claims to epistemological security are not a guarantee of truth. The Church of Latter Day Saints and many other institutions and religious traditions through the ages have offered a greater sense of epistemological security to their followers, and we all know this doesn’t mean that what they teach is true. As far as I can tell, the Roman Catholic tradition does offer a greater measure of epistemological security than the Protestant tradition, but that doesn’t guarantee it to be true. Obvious, but I wanted to point it out.

    Knowledgeable Protestants or Orthodox Christians find that whatever epistemological security is offered through the papacy and Catholic magisterium, and however appealing it may be, it is on offer at too high a cost. I might say that to take refuge in this security would be theologically speaking a “Pyhrric victory,” in that it would require me to accept doctrines that appear clearly unbiblical (e.g. the perpetual sinlessness of Mary), doctrines that feel theologically dangerous (e.g. eucharistic adoration of the transubstantiated host), or doctrines that appear to contradict historical facts (e.g. the infallibility and exclusive supremacy of the Pope). Of course, my Catholic friends assure me that all of these kinds of questions can be answered. But I’ve too often found that what is driving the answers they provide is not objective historical research or cogent theological explanation, but the very thing under discussion: the desire for increased epistemological security.

    Perhaps one day God will grant me to see the truth they claim to have found. Or perhaps one day I will more fully supplement my theology with the aspects of catholic ecclesiology found in Orthodoxy or even Anglo-Catholicism. In the meantime, I’ve found the safest place to rest is what I believe is the most certain and non-negotiable core of the Christian tradition, the holy Scriptures. If they fail the church, no amount of ecclesiological scaffolding can save her, in my view.

    Lord have mercy.

52. Sean November 6th, 2009 10:33 am :

    Tu toque would apply if the person becoming Catholic was also discovering a tradition and only being convinced of its doctrinal correctness and not its authority. Is that the correct distinction?

    That is a good distinction. Its been discussed before that somebody becoming Catholic because they agree with Catholic doctrines X, Y and Z but do not submit to the authority of the Church would be becoming Catholic for the wrong reasons.

53. K. Doran November 6th, 2009 10:51 am :

    Hi Matthew,

    You said: “doctrines that appear to contradict historical facts (e.g. the infallibility and exclusive supremacy of the Pope). Of course, my Catholic friends assure me that all of these kinds of questions can be answered. But I’ve too often found that what is driving the answers they provide is not objective historical research or cogent theological explanation, but the very thing under discussion: the desire for increased epistemological security.”

    I think one thing that can help you here is to realize that the most important first step in analyzing historical data relating to a particular doctrine (such as the petrine ministry) is to look at the general relationship in the data. There will always be outliers from this general relationship because of many reasons: the insufficiency of language, the indeterminacy of intentions, large gaps in the historical record, corruptions in the historical record, etc. When the data is particularly solid (as it is for some of the counter-examples against Mormon beliefs, as I understand it) then it is good to place considerable weight on supposed contradictions of a doctrine. But when the data that makes up a supposed contradiction of the petrine doctrines is sparse, ambiguous, and interpretable in many different ways, then a reasonable person will interpret that data in light of the general relationship found in all of the data. To rely on outliers for your historical defense of doctrine is to court falsehood.

    A great example is non-papal anglo-catholic historians arguing in favor of (and indeed, perhaps basing their entire early defense of) their ecclesiology by relying on Cyprian’s theologically-incorrect temper tantrum in favor of re-baptism of those baptized by heretics. This episode is an outlier relative to the pattern of other writers from the first 350 years of Christianity, and furthermore to interpret Cyprian’s actions here without reference to his pro-papal comments elsewhere makes it even more of an outlier. Thus, it makes more sense to interpret his actions in light of his own pro-papal comments elsewhere, and in light of the general tilt of the other papal data of the first 350 years. When one does, it is certainly no contradiction of the Catholic claim that there was some form of petrine ministry in the early Church. We are certainly not obliged by the limited data to interpret the Cyprianic evidence in a manner that contradicts the Catholic claim. There is indeed so little data that the data isn’t capable of obliging us to interpret it one way or another! This makes me unsympathetic to the claim that outliers such as Cyprian’s temper tantrum can only be surmounted by ignoring the “clear” evidence that they provide against papal claims. They don’t provide clear evidence for or against any doctrine at all — to the extent that they provide any evidence, it is through interpreting them in light of the other data, which makes them weak evidence in favor of Catholic claims, not strong evidence against them.

    Do you see what I am getting at? You said: “Lord have mercy.” You sound sad and dejected about the prospects of more certainty.

    But maybe one way He will have mercy on you is for you to see that the supposed contradictions of the petrine ministry in early Christianity have been advanced without reference to the usual requirements of data analysis: careful recognition of the general relationship, humility towards the epistemic usefulness of outliers, humility towards areas of the data where the observations are sparse and hence the models that can be rejected are few, etc. If any of this is helpful, just send me an email and we can talk about the things that make you feel that the Catholic Church is an impossibility for you: KBDh02@yahoo.com

    Sincerely,

    K. Doran

    p.s Sorry CTCers for not directing people back more closely to the topic at hand. I will do my best to let the discussion continue without my interruptions now!

54. Bryan Cross November 6th, 2009 10:55 am :

    Matthew,

    Welcome to Called to Communion.

    As far as I can tell, the Roman Catholic tradition does offer a greater measure of epistemological security than the Protestant tradition, but that doesn’t guarantee it to be true.

    If there is no guarantee of truth, then there is no “epistemological security.” You also wrote:

    I might say that to take refuge in this security would be theologically speaking a “Pyhrric victory,” in that it would require me to accept doctrines that appear clearly unbiblical (e.g. the perpetual sinlessness of Mary), doctrines that feel theologically dangerous (e.g. eucharistic adoration of the transubstantiated host), or doctrines that appear to contradict historical facts (e.g. the infallibility and exclusive supremacy of the Pope). Of course, my Catholic friends assure me that all of these kinds of questions can be answered. But I’ve too often found that what is driving the answers they provide is not objective historical research or cogent theological explanation, but the very thing under discussion: the desire for increased epistemological security.

    Your claim here amounts to one long ad hominem. I have addressed that in more detail here. As for whether those uniquely Catholic doctrines are “unbiblical,” we’ll have to save that for another thread, because it would take us down multiple rabbit trails to address them here. But, we will be discussing each of these subjects, in due time.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

55. David November 6th, 2009 11:13 am :

    Taylor,

    We could all try nuda scriptura!

    Dr. Mathison, glad you’re in the mix here; Bryan, thanks for the article – you had mentioned a few months ago hat this was forthcoming and I am grateful for your work on the subject.

    It seems to me that lurking beneath the surface of the assertions against (a properly understood)sola scriptura is a form of the Augustinian Totus Christus – from which some might derive a doctrine of ecclesial infallibility (which for the ultramontanists becomes in the long run Papal infallibility), the attributes the Head being transferred to the Body, or at least to the ‘successors’ of the Apostles founding the Body. The ‘proposed discovery’ of an ‘authority’ suggests in fact an ‘infallible’ authority on these issues. But does Christ promise an infallible Church? Or is it more a case of a fallible Church given grace to recognize the words of the Apostles in written form as infallible and thus possessing the authority to be the regulators of what is claimed to be ‘traditioned’ to us from the apostles?

    It is the notion of apostolic succession and the nature of infallible authority supposedly passed to these successors to the Apostles which is the central issue. Answer that question in one or the other, and everything else tends to line up for debate in a different context (i.e., between RCC and EO on various spheres and nature of apostolic succession, Marian Dogmas, etc).

    Perhaps we might wish to consider the idea of a fallible community capable of infallible pronouncements. Simply because any mom can make an infallible statement regarding her child does not mean the mom is infallible on all matters concerning her child – or her husband. One might say that Mom made an infallible judgment on what constitutes Scripture – a judgment ratified by Council but made in practice by all the Church – and that this infallible reception of infallible and inspired words recognizes these words as the ultimate and infallible authoritative standard to resolve disputes as they arise for it is the sole source of infallible revelation. This does not do away with ‘lower courts’, and it places Scripture within Tradition as opposed to it coming alongside Tradition, pitting one against the other. It would also guard against the imposition of Dogmas not found in Scripture (and I note dogmas as opposed to traditions, various pietistic practices and beliefs, etc).

    Now obviously this gets into the question of which Council affirms what and when, and one suspects that this discussion will go on for some time…but it is a good discussion.

56. Teri November 6th, 2009 11:14 am :

    From a female prospective – believing that my Bridegroom, who says He is The KING of Kings and LORD of Lords, would leave me with a book of His instructions but no one to explain them to me correctly is absurd. That is not love, much less agape love.

    A Kingdom presupposes a King and He did not abdicate His throne, nor did He leave His Bride unprotected until His promised return. How cruel of a Bridegroom who would have His beloved Bride searching door to door for someone to explain truthfully His words to prepare her for His return.

    Maybe I’m being a simple minded and terribly “female romantic”, but if my King did not leave anyone to look out for me until His return, then He doesn’t love me. If He told me that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church, which is His Bride, then I have faith in HIM for all things.

    In the peace of Christ,
    Teri

57. Matthew Anderson November 6th, 2009 11:43 am :

    Bryan,

    To be fair, my paragraph that you cite above does not amount to one long ad hominem. If I grant there is an ad hominem in the paragraph, it is the second part of it. I will take your thoughts seriously about that, but the first part of the paragraph involves my conviction that each of those three doctrines is significantly problematic for different reasons, and this can be clearly distinguished from ad hominem argumentation. And I can say that I’ve not been convinced by the Catholic responses that I’ve heard to these matters and others like them.

    By the way, do you feel it is necessary to argue that all Catholic doctrines are in any significant sense “biblical”? Wouldn’t it be a legitimate Catholic approach simply to say that not all doctrines of the Catholic Church are found in Scripture? I’m not saying that every Catholic has to take that approach, but wouldn’t it be acceptable to hold that position?

    Matthew

58. T Ciatoris November 6th, 2009 11:50 am :

    Dear Bryan,

    I wonder if I might try slightly recasting Matthew’s argument (“As far as I can tell, the Roman Catholic tradition does offer a greater measure of epistemological security than the Protestant tradition, but that doesn’t guarantee it to be true”). When he refers to “epistemological security”, I take him to mean “subjective certainty or epistemological confidence.” If I’m right about this, then he is making the same point as you made at Principium Unitatis: certainty and truth are not the same thing, so a reduction of desire for truth to desire for certainty is not a legitimate move to make. (Thanks for the link, by the way. I’d had the same fundamental objection to McKnight’s article.) As you say, the status of the doctrines Matthew finds untenable should be addressed elsewhere. But his point is a good one, IF the Catholic’s alleged desire for truth is in fact a desire for certainty. A person who finds doctrines X, Y, and Z untenable (for whatever reason) should not acquiesce to them out of a mere desire for certainty that he believes can be fulfilled through the Magisterium. If, however, submission to the Magisterium comes about through a search for TRUTH and not merely because it seems to offer more subjective certitude than anything else on the market, then he MUST accept doctrines X, Y, and Z.

    To return to more central points in the article, I’d like to echo the pleas of several comments for a clarification from those who wish to disagree with Bryan and Neal’s article. First, the article claims that there is no principled difference between *sola scriptura* and *solo scriptura*, and I’ve yet to see anybody challenge that. Would anybody like to? Second, the arguments about the tu quoque objection have proceeded as though the objection addressed by Bryan and Neal had been, “You Catholics also are inescapably bound to private judgment.” I don’t think that’s the point. Of course Catholics are bound to private judgment (though the content of a Catholic’s private judgment vis-a-vis the relationship between Scripture, Tradition, Church, and one’s personal reasoning on a given doctrine will differ from the content of a Protestant’s personal judgment about these). But, unless I’m mistaken, Bryan and Neal simply rebut the objection, “There is no principled difference between Catholic epistemology and solo scriptura.” I haven’t seen anybody challenge that directly.

    in Christ,

    TC

59. Matthew Anderson November 6th, 2009 11:54 am :

    K. Doran,

    Thanks for your comments. If I agreed that the evidence against the *Roman Catholic* doctrine of the papacy is as insignificant as you say, then of course it would be insignificant. My reading of early church literature has not led me to such a conclusion. But, I would be interested in hearing more of your thoughts about it, and will email you.

    Matthew

60. Chris Donato November 6th, 2009 1:06 pm :

    Not wanting to bog down this great article and its thread with sidetrails (in anticipation of Keith’s engagement), I’ve attempted to say something relevant with respect to epistemological certainty (security) over here.

    Thanks.

61. Neal Judisch November 6th, 2009 1:18 pm :

    Hello, all.

    It’s gratifying to see the discussion this article has sparked. I’m unfortunately pretty busy just now and likely won’t being playing any very large role in this thread, but I wanted to respond to some of the remarks that have been lodged so far, especially those that have been voiced by more than one participant.

    It seems the main issue so far has centered on the question whether there is parity between Catholics and Protestants along one or more of the points at which Bryan and I have criticized Protestantism. One form of the question concerns whether Catholics and Protestants as such are in the same ‘epistemic situation’, whether they’re (to use Chris’ memorable phrase) in ‘epistemic communion’. Another form takes up the question whether Catholic converts, in coming to accept the claims of the Catholic Church on the basis of their own reasoning, studies, or whatever (as of course they must), have done pretty much the same thing that any Protestant who’s moved from (say) mainline evangelicalism into a confessionally Reformed communion has done. And if so, it’s a nice and pressing question whether this implies that an affirmative answer to the first question should be given, i.e. that the current (post-conversional) ‘epistemic situations’ of Catholic and Protestant are equivalent.

    Take the second one first. To put my cards on the table, I must say that this rejoinder is exactly the one I’d use (and, in fact, did for a time use) if I were a Protestant. Sounds pretty good, pretty damning. I don’t (no longer do) find it very persuasive, but I still find myself dissatisfied by my attempts to articulate why precisely I don’t think parity holds here. But maybe someone here can help me get clearer about this. So let me try to do it indirectly, less by argument and more by way of hopefully suggestive analogy.

    Suppose you’re a presuppositionalist, and are extolling the superiority of what we can call ‘the Christian worldview’ over alternative, non-Christian worldviews. And suppose that among the reasons you find the Christian one superior and much more epistemically satisfying is that you’re not (as a presuppositionalist Christian) in the unenviable position of having to think ‘autonomously’, having to be an epistemic egoist, etc., but are now able to think in some sense “according to” the Scriptures. You’re now under an epistemic authority (a legitimate one) whereas before you weren’t. And you’re no longer saddled with systems of thought (‘worldviews’) that contain internal contradictions or evidently irresolvable tensions, and which inevitably rely upon bits and pieces of the Christian worldview that have to be borrowed from it so as to prop up the internally unstable non-Christian ones.

    We can imagine a critic of presuppositionalism arguing like this.

    Compare the ‘epistemic situations’ of two persons, Bertie and Clive. Both of them are atheists, but they decide to make a study of Scripture, historical theology, etc., and both of them (let’s add) make a reasonably thorough study of folks like Schaffer and Van Til and Bahnsen and Frame and whoever else you’d like to name. At the end of the process Bertie remains unconvinced and doesn’t convert. Clive, however, is impressed by the extent to which his previous ‘worldview’ has coming crashing down about his ears, aghast at the previously unseen or unacknowledged tensions and contradictions within his system, and has decided that Christianity does in fact deliver a uniquely coherent and satisfying worldview against which the gates of hell won’t prevail. The Spirit does His work, Clive is baptized, and spends the better part of his life as a committed and (let’s add) confessionally Reformed/presuppositionalist Christian.

    But here’s what the critic says. “It’s clear that Bertie and Clive are in the same ‘epistemic situation’ still, because Clive had to use his ‘autonomous’ reason in an effort to figure out whether he should accept Christianity, and he had to do this to the same extent that Bertie did. Bertie comes down on one side of the question, Clive the other. But that hardly implies that there is any difference between Bertie and Clive’s current ‘epistemic situations’, for despite their differences in judgment they both necessarily deployed their autonomous reasoning capacities in the act of judgment itself. So the claim that Clive is now under an epistemic authority and Bertie is not is not defensible. Clive and Bertie are autonomous thinkers to the same degree, and if Clive protests to the contrary he’d better get his head out of the sand.”

    I’ll leave the presuppositionalists (or others) to explain why the critic’s criticism misfires. My guess is that it misfires because it fails to understand that Clive, but not Bertie, hasn’t simply come to a conclusion that has left him constitutionally unaffected (epistemically speaking), but has actually undergone something like an ‘epistemic restructuring’ or ‘reconfirguring’ (in some sense), which entails a significant change in his doxastic practices. But however that may be, the point is that the presuppositionalist’s dissatisfaction with this analysis of Clive’s epistemic situation (vis-à-vis Bertie’s) is, I think, the Catholic’s dissatisfaction with the analysis that his epistemic situation is no different from that of sola (or solo) proponents. Not so, I think.

    Let’s extend (just quickly) the presuppositionalist analogy.

    It’s worth noting that the article we’ve written is taken up primarily with a presentation of Mathison’s fine refutation of solo scriptura, and an explanation as to why we agree that solo is not biblical, historically and practically problematic, etc. This constitutes (should I even say it in this context?) ‘common ground’ between us and Reformed folks like Mathison. What concerns us is that Mathison’s position (which was the position I previously held) looks to contain a number of internal tensions and conflicts, which are difficult satisfactorily to resolve given the confessional tools at his disposal and the constraints imposed on his theorizing by the pertinent Reformed commitments he must uphold. We find instead that sola scriptura evidently stepwise-reduces to solo scriptura, and that the problems with solo may be directed with apparently equal force against sola. We find that a good number of the arguments aimed at distinguishing solo from sola, and which aim at justifying the conclusion that Catholicism amounts to its own version of solo scriptura (‘sola ecclesia’), either do not work or contain suppressed premises that, after some consideration, we find ourselves unable to discover. We notice that a number of these tensions disappear if we drop sola scriptura in either of its permutations and adopt a position that would justifiably allow us to treat external interpretive authority as de facto irreformable and infallible, rather than insisting that they really aren’t either of these things, but either (a) going ahead and treating them as if they were, or (b) refusing so to treat them, and finding ourselves stuck (de facto) with solo scriptura. (The adopted position in question treats the authority as irreformable and infallible de jure.) We notice, in other words, that a pretty nice presuppositionalist-style case can be made against sola scriptura, and can lead a person to consider afresh the Catholic alternative.

    (Before anyone says it: no, the ‘alternative’ isn’t “tension-free,” and no, not everything becomes automatically clear and so forth, not in my experience at any rate.)

    Last remark before I have to go away. It might be worthwhile to consider the notion of authority more closely, specifically as it relates to the question of individual autonomy, the conditions under which it is justified, and what’s entailed by submission to an authority. Has anyone read Joseph Raz’s influential book, The Morality of Freedom (Oxford 1986)? It’s a ‘modern classic’ in political philosophy, and it contains a defense of the authority of the state which is supposed to reconcile political authority with individual autonomy under the strictures imposed by a modern liberal perspective. (This entails among other things that state authority derives, bottom up, from the authority of the autonomous [consenting] self, because the authority of self-over-self is really [according to modern liberalism] the only non-derivative authority. Both Catholics and Reformed will reject that presupposition, but there’s lots of other stuff he says that doesn’t rest upon it.)

    Bypassing questions about the conditions under which the individual is justified in submitting to authority, there are a couple of features of authoritative directives that are worth thinking about. The first is ‘content-independence’. And what this condition says is roughly that an authoritative directive is one that gives the subject a reason to follow the directive, which is such that there is no direct connection between the reason and the action for which it is a reason. In other words, within certain limits, the authority’s authority doesn’t depend on the content of the directives issued by the authority, and that the subject has reason (second-order reasons) to obey the directive irrespective of its content. (This is necessary but not sufficient for a directive to be authoritative, because things like threats, advice of experts, etc. may also satisfy this condition at times, but ‘experts’ are not ipso facto authorities.) The second interesting thesis for our purposes is the ‘preemption thesis’. What this one says, roughly, is that the fact that an authority requires performance of an action is reason for its performance that replaces (preempts, trumps) whatever other reasons the subject may have to perform it. It does not simply add another, additional reason to the set of reasons subjects may already possess to do something, but (as it were) ‘replaces’ those reasons in the sense that it becomes the reason for which the submitting subject acts.

    It’s interesting to apply these to questions about religious and epistemic authority. I won’t try to do this here since I don’t have the time, but here’s some fodder for discussion anyway: one might think that the Catholic’s epistemic situation entails that what the Church tells him to believe or do ‘preempts’ his other reasons for believing and doing those things. And it might be that the Catholic’s epistemic situation entails that what the Church tells him to believe or do provides him with reason to believe and do these things irrespective of the content of the directives or dogmas promulgated by the Catholic Church. And it may be that these things do not hold in the case of the Protestant’s epistemic situation. From this latter perspective, to the extent the Church (denomination, communion) has (apostolic) authority, it is because (and only because) of the content of the Church’s directives and dogmas – in particular, it’s exclusively about whether the Church’s teachings and decrees faithfully reflect those of the apostles’ (e.g.). Moreover, it might be that the Church couldn’t give reasons to believe or do something in a preemptive way, on Protestantism, since the Protestant’s submission to authority is going to depend at least in part upon whether he agrees that the authority in question deserves to be considered ‘the Church’, a question that cannot be answered without reference to the individual’s (Biblical-)interpretive stance. (Note well: this isn’t to say that a Protestant cannot accept something “just because” the WCF says so; I think he can. But in this case it will likely be because, in so many other and perhaps more central areas, the WCF says things he finds to be uniquely in conformity with Scripture. In this case, plausibly, the WCF and the divines who wrote it are being viewed as legitimate and trustworthy experts; but expertise isn’t the same as authority in the sense defined, as noted above.) We may then want to try to tighten up our discussion of authority by considering conditions/theses along these lines, and then move to a comparative analysis of religious and epistemic authority from the Protestant and Catholic perspectives.

    Again, just some fodder for discussion. Thanks for letting me think aloud a bit. I’ll return at some point to see what you’ve made of all this, but (again) I can’t promise a lot of prolonged interaction just now.

    Much love and so forth,

    Neal

62. Bryan Cross November 6th, 2009 2:26 pm :

    Matthew,

    What I find methodologically unhelpful [with respect to ecumenical efforts] is the mere assertion [without substantiation] that Catholic doctrines are “unbiblical,” and then the dismissal of arguments explaining in what way these doctrines are biblical, as merely a rationalization aimed at obtaining “epistemological security.” That methodology, in my opinion, is not charitable. It assumes that one’s interlocutor loves something else [i.e certainty] more than he or she loves truth.

    And I can say that I’ve not been convinced by the Catholic responses that I’ve heard to these matters and others like them.

    What we need to be doing [in ecumenical dialogue] is not substituting self-referring statements for presentations of arguments, evidence, objections, etc. Many people found Jesus’ claims unconvincing. But their remaining unconvinced by Jesus’ statements tells us nothing (positively or negatively) about whether what Jesus said was true. The focus of ecumenical dialogue, if it is to advance, must be on that which is external to us, i.e. the truth of claims, the cogency of arguments, the coherence of positions, etc., not on our own internal state.

    By the way, do you feel it is necessary to argue that all Catholic doctrines are in any significant sense “biblical”? Wouldn’t it be a legitimate Catholic approach simply to say that not all doctrines of the Catholic Church are found in Scripture? I’m not saying that every Catholic has to take that approach, but wouldn’t it be acceptable to hold that position?

    First, just to be clear, my decisions and positions are not primarily the result of feelings, nor do I think they should be. Advancing in ecumenical dialogue would be impossible if we each followed our feelings, because rational discourse requires the use of reason. Second, there is an ambiguity in the term ‘unbiblical,’ for which reason, in my opinion, the term should be avoided. The term can mean “not stated in the Bible” or it can mean “contrary to what is stated in the Bible.” If we wish to mean only that some doctrine is not stated in Scripture (or not stated clearly in Scripture), then we should use the term ‘extra-biblical.’ Otherwise, we’re implying by connotation that the other person is contradicting Scripture. You are correct that a Catholic may believe that some Catholic doctrines are not taught explicitly in Scripture.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

63. JJS November 6th, 2009 2:50 pm :

    Tu toque [sic] would apply if the person becoming Catholic was also discovering a tradition and only being convinced of its doctrinal correctness and not its authority. Is that the correct distinction?

    Yes, I think that is a correct distinction, but what I can’t get past is the fact that what makes Catholic authority actually authoritative is a set of ecclesiological tenets, and if one does not share them, he will look at the so-called authority of the Magisterium and reject it. In other words, without a proper doctrine of the church, one cannot even recognize the Magisterium’s authority in the first place.

    And as I’ve been saying all along, if the initial “swallowing of the red [Catholic] pill” is due to the same kind of deliberative and investigative process as the “swallowing of the blue [Protestant] one,” then what’s the big deal? I mean, what if I joined a cult of people who believe their leader is not the vicar of Jesus, but Jesus himself, and I vow allegiance to him and will not refuse a single command he gives me? Could I not then look at Catholics and Protestants as being kind of the same, since they both are only partially submissive to their respective leaders?

64. Tim A. Troutman November 6th, 2009 3:20 pm :

    Jason,
    

    what I can’t get past is the fact that what makes Catholic authority actually authoritative is a set of ecclesiological tenets, and if one does not share them, he will look at the so-called authority of the Magisterium and reject it.

    And if one is an atheist, he will reject Christ’s authority because his world view does not allow for divine authority at all (much less in a man). So the atheist has to adopt a Christian world view before he can accept Christ’s authority. A Protestant must accept a Catholic ecclesiology before he can submit to the Church. It’s just the nature of the game.

65. Jared Brattoli November 6th, 2009 5:26 pm :

    Maybe this aspect can add to the discussion…Would spiritual orientation/direction influence which epistemology a person carries? A strong part of me feels that the distinction over epistemologies is not enough because, for me, it wasn’t merely my intellectual recognition of the Catholic epistemology which made me discover the Catholic Church as being what she says she is.

    Consider…

    In order to discover which kind of ecclesiology is necessary for the Church, it is first necessary to discover the nature of authority which Christ invested into his Church before he went away for a little while. But, before it is even possible to fully comprehend the nature of that authority, one must truly and intimately comprehend the nature of the spirit of Christ–that is, what is the character of the servent of God within the body of Christ and community of the kingdom God, who participates in the building of that kingdom for the glory of God. In other words, before one can understand the nature of the authority of the Church, one must first understand what it is to submit as a servent to authority as Christ did–not merely intillectually, but spiritually and existentially. Besides the clear epistemic difference between the Catholic and Protestant positions, a deeper issue lies close at hand, and that is the spiritual virtue which accompanies the different empistemology of the Catholic and Protestant. In my own experience, and the experiences of many Catholic converts, the most significant aspect of our conversions was not so much the epistemology by which we arrived at our private conclusions, as important as that is, but primarily the virtue of Christ which we have grown to understand and experience as we moved along in our persuit of Christ and our knowldge of Him–which helped us grasp that empistemology. For my own part, I found the Catholic Church more favorable and necessary for my continuing spiritual developement because as I was growing more intimate with Christ I began to see why such and such teachings were necessary, not only for my spiritual health, but the health of the whole Church. My mindset evolved from a centerdness on my own spiritual welfare to that of the body, and only then did I discover that I was not an individual in relationship to Christ, but a small part of something much larger than myself–a very small part. I for the first time entered out of myself and into Christ, at least in a deeper way. And since that time I have learned that Christ is experienced and known in the Catholic Church in ways that are for the most part near impossible in any other communal context, i.e. Protestantism–I, at least, was not able to find it there; it was way off radar. As I entered the Catholic communion I was for the first time submitting to Christ in the most complete way(at least more complete than it was previously), and the peace and joy which accompanied that decision assured me that I was. I went from being my own authority as an individaul existing among other individuals in what was so called “church”, to a servant devoutly submitted to the authority of Christ which I could only truly find within the bosom of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

    I think there is more which can be said concerning this particular point, but I think I have explained myslef decently.

    In Christ,
    Jared B

66. Nathan November 6th, 2009 7:54 pm :

    Jason,

    Is there a principled difference between rejecting the apostolic message (and consequently Christ himself) on the basis of (an interpretation of) scripture and a rejection of apostolic succession on the same basis? In other words, what’s the difference between my arguing against Paul or Peter vs. arguing against Timothy, Titus, Linus, Ignatius, et. al.?

67. Tom Brown November 6th, 2009 9:07 pm :

    Dear Jason (the honorfic was always meant with respect, by the way),

    I think Matthew’s response generally aligned with what I want to communicate. Please don’t give up, and thank you for this discussion. I benefit, and I think it helps ‘place’ where a helpful Reformed-Catholic discussion should occur.

    I admit that I was using “Catholic theology” in a narrow sense—not in the fullest sense of the “study of God.” Could you take my comments above with “Catholic theology” meaning something like: “non-ecclesial doctrines”? So the Catholic believes Catholic Trinitarian doctrine, or understands the descendit clause in a Catholic way, in accordance with the ecclesial authority he [privately] concluded to be governing him.

    I think I agree with you about the hypothetical inquirer using private judgment to weigh evidence [Scripture, the Fathers, history] and reaching a conclusion. He does not choose Catholicism out of deferrence to the Magesterium, for the reason you implied. I think your articulation seems fine, that this person, after weighing the evidence, “found [Catholic authority] satisfactory and in accord with [his] private interpretation of the facts as [he] understand[s] them.”

    The difference is this: the Catholic decides [via private judgment] which authority governs him [choosing magisterium, tradition, and text], and then accedes to non-ecclesial teachings on faith and morals in submission to that authority; the Protestant decides [via private judgment] which authority governs him [choosing text over magisterium], and then decides [via private judgment] which beliefs of faith and morals are true, and then decides [via private judgment] which denomination is most in line with his own conclusions.

    I would profit from hearing from you what (if anything) is disagreeable about this perspective. I don’t think you give up that much, or maybe even anything, by this formula. And if we could agree here, we would know how to proceed with the discussion about our disagreements: we would discuss the evidence and rationale yielding conclusions of governing authority.

    (I hope this moves the ball down the field. If I lost a down and gained no yardage, I regret it.)

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

68. JJS November 7th, 2009 3:59 am :

    Nathan,

    Is there a principled difference between rejecting the apostolic message (and consequently Christ himself) on the basis of (an interpretation of) scripture and a rejection of apostolic succession on the same basis? In other words, what’s the difference between my arguing against Paul or Peter vs. arguing against Timothy, Titus, Linus, Ignatius, et. al.?

    Well, I can’t imagine a scenario in which a Protestant would “reject the apostolic message (and consequently Christ himself)” on the basis of Scripture. That just doesn’t compute. Now on your clarifying question, I would want to as you whether Linus or Ignatius ever claimed to speak under the inspiration of the Spirit. As far as I know, Catholics make a “principled,” qualitative distinction between inspired Scripture and non-inspired writings. So to answer your question, a Protestant would never knowingly disobey Scripture, but if he felt that someone’s extra-biblical teaching (which we all admit is non-inspired) was contrary to Scripture, he could not in good conscience obey it. And as far as I know, Rome teaches that one’s conscience should not be violated. So speaking for myself, I could not bow down to a statue or speak of Mary as co-Mediatrix without sinning in the process.

69. JJS November 7th, 2009 4:09 am :

    Tom,

    The difference is this: the Catholic decides [via private judgment] which authority governs him [choosing magisterium, tradition, and text], and then accedes to non-ecclesial teachings on faith and morals in submission to that authority; the Protestant decides [via private judgment] which authority governs him [choosing text over magisterium], and then decides [via private judgment] which beliefs of faith and morals are true, and then decides [via private judgment] which denomination is most in line with his own conclusions.

    I would profit from hearing from you what (if anything) is disagreeable about this perspective.

    Yeah, I don’t see any problem with this. I would want to stress, however, that a Reformed and confessional Protestant minister like myself does not take something like “going rogue” lightly. They used to say back in the ‘30s that the difference between fundamentalists and Reformed folks was that the former left their mainline denominations rejoicing, while the latter left weeping.

    So no, I don’t disagree in general with Bryan’s points on the tensions within our position (as taught by Mathison). What was said about governments can be said about our ecclesiology: “Presbyterianism is the worst kind of church government out there, except for all the other kinds.”

    My only point in all of this has been that you guys lose all bragging rights (for lack of a better term) when you concede that at the most crucial moment—deciding that Rome’s Magisterial authority is in fact Christ’s authority—you are relying on private judgment every bit as much as I was when I finally embraced TULIP.

70. Matthew Anderson November 7th, 2009 6:12 am :

    Given the various critiques of sola scriptura offered here at CTC, it would be helpful for someone to outline a Catholic perspective on the authority of Scripture in relation to tradition as well as the nature of tradition itself. Is tradition an actual parallel stream of information flowing from the apostles? Is it simply the right interpretation of Scripture? What is it, where does one find it, and how does one defines its parameters? What should a Catholic expect Scripture supply to the Catholic faith? What should a Catholic expect tradition to supply? Should a Catholic necessarily expect a doctrine to be evidenced in Scripture or tradition, or is it appropriate to believe a doctrine that isn’t clearly found in either? Are there a variety of perspectives on these questions, and if so, does that really matter?

    I know those are several questions, each requiring extensive discussion. However, given the focus on the sufficiency/insufficiency of Scripture here, I think it will be important at some point to provide some answers to such questions.

71. Devin Rose November 7th, 2009 9:35 am :

    Jason (and I think Matthew A. from up above),

    I don’t know if anyone on CTC responded about the statement that “we Catholics could still be wrong/not guaranteed to have discovered the truth,” but I don’t see why we as Catholics cannot concede this point. Yes, I think I have found the fullness of the truth in the Catholic Church, but I could certainly be wrong. (If the CTC guys need to correct me here, I’m all ears.)

    Jason wrote that “My only point in all of this has been that you guys lose all bragging rights (for lack of a better term) when you concede that at the most crucial moment—deciding that Rome’s Magisterial authority is in fact Christ’s authority—you are relying on private judgment every bit as much as I was when I finally embraced TULIP.”

    I agree that we lose all bragging rights, and I know you used that phrase loosely, for the simple truth that we never had any bragging rights. If we as Catholics have found what is in actuality the fullness of the truth, then it is not because of our own greatness and brilliance, though certainly effort on our part was involved in seeking God’s truth, but instead by God’s grace that we have discovered it. If we have actually discovered something false because the Catholic Church’s claims are not true, then we failed in some way to listen to our Lord who was surely not wanting us to fall into error. This seems obvious to me, but perhaps it seems like we are claiming that we are better because we discovered the Catholic Church.

    We can only brag on God who has been merciful and gracious to us.

72. Bryan Cross November 7th, 2009 10:40 am :

    Jason, (re: #63)

    but what I can’t get past is the fact that what makes Catholic authority actually authoritative is a set of ecclesiological tenets,

    What makes the successors of the Apostles actually authoritative is their having received this authority from the Apostle; no set of tenets makes the successors of the Apostles actually authoritative. I’m distinguishing between having authority, and recognizing that a person has authority. Even what allows a person to recognize the authority of the successors of the Apostles is not a “set of tenets,” but evidence in the Fathers that these successors were given authority by the Apostles, and that they understood themselves as having received such authority from the Apostles, and as handing down such authority to those succeeding them. That’s not a “set of tenets;” that’s evidence discoverable within the record of history.

    and if one does not share them, he will look at the so-called authority of the Magisterium and reject it. In other words, without a proper doctrine of the church, one cannot even recognize the Magisterium’s authority in the first place.

    The situation here is not some form of presuppositionalism, where we get out of it only what we bring to it. That’s the worry I hear you raising, if I’m understanding you correctly. The evidence of Church history shows that apostolic succession was the practice of the early Church, wherever the Church spread throughout the world. But if one brings ecclesial deism to the study of Church history, then everything one finds in the early Church Fathers will be subject to doubt (as to its orthodoxy) until verified by one’s own interpretation of Scripture, including this practice of apostolic succession. In that respect, ecclesial deism is a kind of hermeneutic of suspicion that strips away the evidential value of the teaching and practice of the Church Fathers, except, by arbitrary exemption, the authority of Scripture itself. And if the only thing a person believes he can truly trust is Scripture, and he doesn’t find apostolic succession in Scripture, then necessarily he will remain his own ultimate interpretive authority, and hence become or remain Protestant. But if he does not bring ecclesial deism to the evidence, then when he reads St. Ignatius of Antioch, for example, he’s going to see that he had better be figuring out where is the bishop to whom he needs to be subject, and what the bishops are teaching regarding Christ and the gospel.

    The Protestant approach is to locate the Church by figuring out the gospel from Scripture, and then finding those who hold this gospel. The Catholic approach is to locate the gospel by finding the Church, and then listening to what she says is the gospel. There is a principled difference right there.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

73. Bryan Cross November 7th, 2009 10:51 am :

    Faramir (re: #27),

    Welcome to CTC. In our article we didn’t deal with the question of Tradition, because we didn’t need to do so in order to make our argument. We have some beliefs about this issue, and about Mathison’s treatment of it, but addressing them here would take us off-topic. Look for this topic in a future post/article.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

74. Bryan Cross November 7th, 2009 11:13 am :

    Jason, (re: #29)

    You see, that’s my problem with Bryan’s language of “discovery” on the part of the Catholic of the Magisterium, it seems to assume that it is true, and that I have just failed to discover it.

    But that’s exactly what the Catholic is claiming, namely, that he has discovered something (i.e. apostolic succession) that the Protestant (as Protestant) has not discovered. That shouldn’t be any more offensive than a scientist announcing he has discovered a new species of bird. Having a “problem” with the very language of discovery would presuppose that it is impossible for anyone to discover something you haven’t yet discovered. I don’t think you want to put yourself in that kind of epistemic position. (When my wife says, “What was that noise?” and I say, “I didn’t hear anything.” she rightly responds, “Just because you didn’t hear anything doesn’t mean I didn’t hear something.” Sometimes I’ll just bite the bullet, to get a rise out of her: “No, if I didn’t hear it, there was no sound.”)

    So like I said before, THE main issue, namely apostolic succession, is precisely the issue that the Catholic must embrace as a result of his private judgment. And that’s why I don’t see why you claim bragging rights.

    No one is claiming bragging rights. Claiming to have discovered the Church Christ founded does not translate into ‘bragging rights.” When Andrew went and got Peter, and said, “We have found the Messiah” (John 1:41), Peter didn’t say “I have a problem with your language of discovery; you used your private judgment, so you don’t get bragging rights.” Instead, they both went to Jesus. So here also, I think that if one party claims to have discovered something, the right response is, “Ok, show me, or let’s look at it together.” As I said earlier, it seems to me that what is needed, given the discussion here, is another thread(s) focusing on the patristic evidence regarding apostolic succession.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

75. Matthew Anderson November 7th, 2009 11:31 am :

    One thing I’ve noticed in the original paper and the various posts is that the Catholic position (represented here by Bryan and others) is more often emphasizing the concept of apostolic succession (which is not a exclusively Roman Catholic doctrine) rather than other more distinctive Catholic ecclesiological beliefs (i.e. the Papacy). Why is this? Am I imagining this? But, my understanding is that when the Catholic position is reduced to its essentials, even apostolic succession is inadequate outside of the claims of the papacy.

    Are the various Catholic posters here granting that apostolic succession is valid and ecclesiologically adequate outside of the papacy? Or, is this a two-step argument where first one is supposed to accept apostolic succession, and then find that only the papacy can really guarantee this as well?

76. Bryan Cross November 7th, 2009 12:50 pm :

    Matthew (re: #75),

    Yes, apostolic succession is “valid” apart from the papacy. That is, from a Catholic point of view, apostolic authority can be (and is) handed down from those bishops (not presently in communion with the Pope) to those whom they ordain as successors. This is why, from the Catholic point of view, apostolic succession is retained in the Orthodox Churches, for example. And this is why ordinations among the Donatists in the fourth century were valid. But Protestants in the 16th century explicitly denied and departed from the practice of apostolic succession. This is precisely why, from a Catholic point of view, you see the difference in approach in questions 4 and 5 of the Responsa ad quaestiones. As for whether apostolic succession is “ecclesiologically adequate” outside the papacy, in order to answer that question we’d need to know exactly what you mean by “ecclesiologically adequate.” Can there be a valid Eucharist if there is apostolic succession but not full communion with the Pope? Yes. But apostolic succession apart from full communion with the universal Church, nevertheless deprives a particular Church of the fullness of communion and life of the universal Church, as explained in Communionis notio. To separate from the Church Christ founded is, in some respect, to cut oneself off from the Holy Spirit who is the soul of the Church, and from its ongoing life and growth.

    Since our article is directed toward a conversation with Protestants, among whom apostolic succession is rejected, there is no need in this article (in order to make our argument) to include an argument for the necessity of full communion with the successor of St. Peter.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

77. Matthew Anderson November 7th, 2009 1:30 pm :

    Bryan,

    Thanks for your response. I am aware that the Catholic church recognizes the validity of Eastern Orthodox orders. This in itself poses several interesting questions, but those aside…

    Of course, your paper is in dialogue with Protestantism, but is also about questions of theological epistemology more broadly. You’ve framed the discussion primarily as if it is between apostolic succession and sola scriptura, and I guess I’m not convinced that is an adequate representation of the Roman Catholic position. It feels to me that this particular formulation obfuscates what is actually the central claim of Roman Catholic theological epistemology, the papacy.

78. Tom Brown November 7th, 2009 1:42 pm :

    Dear Jason,

    Yeah, I don’t see any problem with this. I would want to stress, however, that a Reformed and confessional Protestant minister like myself does not take something like “going rogue” lightly.

    Our having reached some common understanding on this matter is wonderful news to me. And you are right to make that qualification: when the Protestant uses private judgment, his judgment gives due weight to the consensus of those around him and those that preceded him, gives due weight to the cost of schism, etc.

    My only point in all of this has been that you guys lose all bragging rights (for lack of a better term) when you concede that at the most crucial moment—deciding that Rome’s Magisterial authority is in fact Christ’s authority—you are relying on private judgment every bit as much as I was when I finally embraced TULIP.

    I agree that the Catholic has no bragging rights for having done other than used private judgment to conclude that the Catholic Church has been vested with Christ’s authority. I hope I haven’t bragged. He should, however, be able to love and admire this facet which he holds to be true, just as we can all love and admire Scripture for its divine inspiration and perfection.

    All this marvelous agreement to say that the point of discussion between us should be whether the Catholic or Reformed claim of spiritual authority is true.

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

79. Randy November 7th, 2009 1:47 pm :

    Great article.

    “All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture”. This is a stunning admission. I found this to be the biggest hurdle in becoming Catholic. Once I thought through the implications of this Sola Scriptura was dead.

    I did want to object to the dismissal of a community of like-minded people. I do think people benefit greatly from interpreting scripture as a community. I know I have. Even as Catholics we are called to do that. I know such a community is not going to question your entire exegetical framework. But they can correct a lot of errors.

    I can see your point but it seems made to strong. Such a community is not useless. It is, I think, in a different philosophical category that we are talking about. It is more along the line of best practices rather than core principles. Something like always reading scripture in context. A good thing to do but it does not really belong in this conversation.

    Maybe it is a subtle distinction but I don’t really believe there is no difference between what he calls Sola and Solo. Sola is better and evangelicals know it. But it does not have a better foundation. It does more to make up for it’s flaws. Still it does not do enough. This is proved because there are different truths arrived at.

80. Tim A. Troutman November 7th, 2009 2:00 pm :

    Matthew, do you agree that there is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura? If not, why not?

    The papacy is a separate issue. If you think that the papacy is involved in the fact that there is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura, then please explain how.

81. Bryan Cross November 7th, 2009 2:02 pm :

    Matthew,

    We call this the “stinking fish fallacy”, where the objector says, “I smell a stinking fish here,” but does not explain what it is, or how it refutes the argument. So the objector discredits the argument by suggestion, without refuting the argument. To avoid that sophistic fallacy, the one raising the objection to the argument must identity the error, and show how the error makes the argument unsound. In other words, show that because of the [alleged] error, either the conclusion does not follow from the premises, or one of the premises is not true.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

82. Tim A. Troutman November 7th, 2009 2:04 pm :

    Matthew – Also, to see where the Catholic Church is coming from on the issue of Scripture and its relation to Sacred Tradition, see Dei Verbum.

83. Matthew Anderson November 7th, 2009 3:46 pm :

    Well, I think did explain what I though the “stinking fish” is, but generally it is that broad appeals to “apostolic succession” or even a “magisterium” do not get to the heart of Roman Catholic theological epistemology. And so this makes, in my view, the comparison between sola scriptura and “apostolic succession” somewhat misleading. The evidence for this can be found in the First Vatican Council, but the fact is, that according to Roman Catholicism, even a council of bishops in apostolic succession will need to have papal approval for its decrees. So, what validates epistemologically the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church is not apostolic succession broadly defined, nor even an ecumenical council, but papal approval. Do you disagree with that?

84. Matthew Anderson November 7th, 2009 4:19 pm :

    Do I believe that there is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura? I think in principle I could agree to that.

    Let me suggest a few qualifications, however.

    1) Most importantly, I’m not convinced that sola/solo scriptura is unviable.

    2) Even if in principle they are the same, in practice they can be different. Sola scriptura would presumably be drawing on the wisdom and experience of the church in its interpretation, whereas solo scriptura may be completely ignorant and indifferent to the practice of the church. So, even if in principle they are identical, I think the difference in practice could be consequential.

    3) I think there may be aspects of Protestant theological epistemology for which are affirmed but difficult to comprehensively account for. Take the canon of Scripture, for example, a favorite for Roman Catholics in this discussion. People who have read this history of this process know that early church father were appealing to certain aspects of the NT as scripture long before a council or Pope gave any official canonical list. The process by which the church discovered these books is not exactly clear, but involves a lengthy process of deliberation. I think a Protestant could hold to the conclusions that were arrived at on the NT, for example, even though the precise method by which this was decided is unclear.

85. Tim A. Troutman November 7th, 2009 5:00 pm :

    Matthew –

    1) Most importantly, I’m not convinced that sola/solo scriptura is unviable.

    Solo Scriptura is unviable for the reasons that Mathison gave (see the first part of this article). If you disagree with Mathison then why?

    2) Even if in principle they are the same, in practice they can be different.

    I agree that there is a practical difference between Reformed and many other denominations on the subject of Church authority. The point of this article isn’t to try and paint the Reformed as if there is no difference whatsoever between their approach to ecclesial authority and the ‘me & Jesus’ evangelical. But this article does show that without a principle of distinction between solo and sola, their position amounts to the same thing. As you said above, it might still be a viable position, but we agree with Mathison that it is not.

    3. We’ll talk about the canon in our next major article. Please try to keep the discussion as focused as possible. There are a *lot* of issues to discuss, but right now, we’re talking about whether or not there is a distinction between sola and solo scriptura and if not, whether or not solo scriptura is a viable option for a Christian.

86. Matthew Anderson November 7th, 2009 6:14 pm :

    Tim,

    I will be interested to see Mathison’s own reaction to the article. But I do think I disagree that solo/sola scriptura is as *necessarily* bleak as he seems to paint it. For example, it appears that he paints solo/sola scriptura as producing hermeneutical chaos, endless division and schism, etc. The fact that the Protestant tradition is suffering from this, may not mean that it *has* to. It might mean that there has been sinful and ignorant disregard for the unity of the church that needs to be repented of. It might mean that many old shibboleths need to be laid down, and a more simple “catholic” core of Christianity is affirmed. That is the direction I would like to see the Protestant tradition move in. But, my point is that there could be other causes for the divisions in Protestantism than solo/sola scriptura, and there could be fresh solutions to some of these issues as well. That is not a full answer to your question, but it gives you an idea.

    Briefly on the question of whether sola scriptura is historical or ancient, I would argue that there were competing, mixed theological epistemologies in the early church. Anyone who thinks that these men were arguing like modern evangelicals is going to get a shock. But so will anyone who thinks they were arguing like modern Roman Catholic apologists. I think a case can be made from the early church writings that Scripture was functionally the supreme authority in the church.

87. Bryan Cross November 7th, 2009 8:14 pm :

    Matthew, (re: #83)

    Papal authority is based on apostolic succession, in this case from the Apostle Peter, in that See in which he handed down the keys. So there is no way to understand papal authority apart from apostolic succession. The reason why there is no need to go into the details of papal authority in order to make the argument we made in this article, is that the Orthodox could make the very same argument we presented in this article. So if the Orthodox could make the very same argument, then the argument doesn’t depend on papal authority.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

88. Matt Yonke November 7th, 2009 8:51 pm :

    Matthew A.,

    In #86 you allege that there is a case to be made that the ECF’s regarded Scripture as the supreme authority in the Church.

    You could certainly find quite a number of quotes from the ECF’s that speak in glowing terms, and rightfully so. But I’d refer you to my article on Hermeneutics and the Authority of Scripture.

    In that article, I compare several of those quotes from the ECF’s with quotes using equally high language to express faith in doctrines that are not explicitly taught in Sacred Scripture.

    Whatever the view of the ECF’s was on the authority of Scripture, it was certainly not the Westminster Confession of Faith’s view that Christian doctrine must be taught explicitly or follow from good and necessary consequence from Sacred Scriptures.

    Good job, by the way, keeping up with such a multitude of interlocutors ;)

89. Paige Britton November 7th, 2009 11:58 pm :

    Bryan,
    Thank you for this article – you are informative and challenging as always!

    Here is a small question, for either you or Tim, which I ask out of genuine curiosity. Tim wrote in #64,
    “And if one is an atheist, he will reject Christ’s authority because his world view does not allow for divine authority at all (much less in a man). So the atheist has to adopt a Christian world view before he can accept Christ’s authority. A Protestant must accept a Catholic ecclesiology before he can submit to the Church. It’s just the nature of the game.”

    …You know that no Reformed person would award “bragging rights” to the converted atheist over his atheist friends who have not embraced Christ’s authority, because we’d understand that his conversion means that the Holy Spirit has overcome the noetic effects of sin, an epistemic change that the former atheist had no control over. On the other hand, a Protestant might be tempted to boast when she moves from a non-denominational church into the PCA, because she has done the reasoning and weighing and has decided that Presbyterians have the right stuff. There’d be no assumption of a divine overcoming of the noetic effects of evangelicalism there.

    What’s the Catholic p.o.v. re. entering the Catholic fold from the Protestant camp? Is it truly considered a matter of reasoned choice? Or is it more akin to conversion – does the Spirit need to overcome the noetic effects of Protestantism? Just following the above discussion, this almost seems like what needs to happen.

    Thanks!
    pb

90. Tim A. Troutman November 8th, 2009 1:58 am :

    Paige, An act of faith in the Church (submission) is an act of faith in Christ. In that regard, I’d affirm that grace from the Holy Spirit is necessary to become Catholic.

    But I really don’t like the term “bragging rights” in any capacity within this discussion. No Catholic should ever think for a second that he has earned any right to brag about personal achievements. Coming into the Church, for some, is a largely intellectual journey where they have weighed and wrestled with various propositions. Yet for others that I meet, it is something far less intellectual. Some of the people I know who have become Catholic are dumb as bricks to be honest with you. It isn’t about intelligence as if all the smart people become Catholic and all the dumb ones stay Protestant. But even if that were the case, it wouldn’t grant us bragging rights.

91. JJS November 8th, 2009 4:27 am :

    Tim,

    I will cop to introducing the term “bragging rights,” for which I apologize if you take it as my misconstruing you or your attitude. The reason I used it was that the underlying position of the featured article seems to be that Protestants are individualists while Catholics are not. My point in saying that I am denying you bragging rights is simply that we both, at the most critical point in our respective investigations, use the exact same private judgment to come to our conclusions. But I never intended to imply that you guys are bragging. Hope that clears things up a bit.

    Cheers….

92. Richard November 8th, 2009 8:46 am :

    I’m looking forward to reading this article.

93. Tim A. Troutman November 8th, 2009 12:50 pm :

    Jason, no worries. I hadn’t mentioned the phrase before now because I got where you were coming from. It keeps getting re-used and I just wanted to make sure no one was getting the wrong idea.

    Also, to reiterate, the problem with the Protestant position isn’t that they use reason. We readily admit to using reason also. I’ve tried to show a few examples demonstrating that two positions, both using reason, can be an uneven epistemic ground. I.e. one is more objective and can be known more certainly than the other because it is based on something more objective. I haven’t seen any response to my analogies or arguments. I think I have rubbed Donato the wrong way and maybe you too.

    Let me just explain that I’m not comparing Protestants to witch doctors, I’m just showing that it is conceivable that two positions, both relying on reason, could have varying levels of subjectivity involved. The mere fact that both positions start with a man’s reason does not automatically put the two positions in the same epistemic boat which is what you’re claiming in response to this article.

    So if you grant that it is possible for any two positions to differ in regards to objectivity, then we would turn our focus to the question of whether the Catholic position (identifying the Church based on private judgment of historical material apostolic succession) is more objective than the Protestant position (identifying the Church based on private judgment of Scripture).

94. Richard November 8th, 2009 1:05 pm :

    Dear Keith,

    Having read the article I find it making points that I have seen but been unable to articulate clearly for a few months now. May I ask that in your response you interact with Bryan’s point regarding who decides whether the Church’s reading of the text is correct rather than simply dealing with the epistemic argument he articulates to deal with potential objections? The reason I ask is that my solution to the problem of “Whose interpretation is authoritative?” has been to move in a more liberal Protestant direction rather than a Catholic one. It strikes me that, asuming Bryan has articulated your position correctly, your position argues that I should submit to the teaching of a Church that may make mistakes in how it interprets the biblical text and that I really have no way of determining which Church is the correct one because as soon as I test what each Church teaches against Scripture I am interpreting Scripture instead of accepting the Church’s interpretation of it and still I am not sure which Church’s interpretation I should be accepting (Presbyterian, Reformed, Anglican, Orthodox, Catholic…). There may well be problems with Bryan’s proposed solution but pointing those problems out doesn’t demonstrate the validity of your position and I think this is one of the issues we face today – if Bryan’s statement of the problem is correct then to my mind either we accept the Catholic solution or we slide into a radical skepticism about a real meaning in the text.

    I hope that makes sense. :-)

95. K. Doran November 8th, 2009 5:12 pm :

    Dear Richard,

    You said: “if Bryan’s statement of the problem is correct then to my mind either we accept the Catholic solution or we slide into a radical skepticism about a real meaning in the text. I hope that makes sense.”

    It made sense to John Henry Newman :-) It makes sense to me too.

    Sincerely,

    K. Doran

96. Nicholas T. Batzig November 8th, 2009 5:35 pm :

    Bryan,

    In a typical Roman Catholic fashion you fall back on apostolic succession in the comment sections of this post. I would be interested in knowing who the apostolic successor of Peter from the time of his death until Gregory? Even your own ecclesiatical community cannot answer that question, leaving a five century hole in your system. Furthermore, where was the center of Rome and who was the Pope during the Avignon period? Did the Pope have the authority, as the apostolic successor of Peter, or did the counsel that chose which of the three Popes would be Pope? Furthermore, have you read what Ireneaus meant by “apostolic succession?” Seems to me that this would be important since your entire argument hinges on the veracity of it. Did Irenaues mention the church of Rome in his exposition? The absence of support for Roman Catholic adaptation of such dogma actually makes Rome look like a usurper. How could you believe that you have unity in dogma in Rome when transubstantiation was not even formulated or articulated until Radbertus Paschasius in the 9th Century. It was not official Roman Catholic dogma until the Fourth Lateran Counsel. In fact, prior to this counsel variations of explanation of the significance of the Eucharist were held and tolerated in the church of Rome. What about Limbo. It is dogma for so many centuries and then all of a sudden the Pope waves his magic wand and it disappears. Explain that one to your readers. How could Jesus say, “Not one jot or tittle will pass away,” but the Pope can add or remove them at will?

    How can you be so arrogant as to attack Protestantism when you system is a fraudulent version of ecclesiastical unity. It is, in reality, a deceitful institution of equivocation and human authority. The Reformers understood the abuses and have marked them sufficiently in their writings, but, as is true for so many in this world, it is far easier to adhere to human religion than to Christ.

97. herbert November 8th, 2009 6:14 pm :

    It seems that much of this conversation has been focused upon that which precedes one’s submission to the Church. As the article reasons, once a person recognizes/discovers the Authority of the Magisterium, she is then subsequently bound to allow the Church to play a definitive role in the binding of her conscience.

    I am seeing a problem, though. It seems that in this case, continual “rediscovery” of the Magisterium’s authority is necessary in the faith life of the believer in order for this argument to stand. The believer, even after submitting to the Magisterium, can always dissociate himself from the Catholic Church- and believe herself to be thoroughly justified in doing so. In that case, rather than her “discovery” having opened her eyes to Catholic authority, the opposite takes place. She “discovers” as Luther did, that she isn’t bound after all…

98. Bryan Cross November 8th, 2009 9:37 pm :

    Nicholas,

    Welcome to CTC. You ask a lot of questions, many of which seem to be rhetorical questions, though perhaps you are asking them sincerely. Although I would be glad to answer your questions, this combox is for discussion of the article above; it is not a Catholic-Protestant free-for-all. Also, let me suggest that you first read the “Posting Guidelines” under the ‘About’ tab above. If you’re not familiar with CTC, we believe strongly that ecumenical dialogue cannot be productive unless conducted very carefully and charitably, and in a focused way. Throwing everything but the kitchen sink at each other, is not productive; it wouldn’t persuade anyone or get us one step closer to agreement. So, we have to discipline ourselves, restrain ourselves, and just roll up our sleeves and consider together the points that separate us, one at a time. And this combox is devoted exclusively to the argument we raised in the article above. So, feel free to raise objections here to the article, but in this combox we’re not going into the subjects of “transubstantiation”, Limbo, etc.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

99. Tom Brown November 8th, 2009 9:41 pm :

    Dear Herbert,

    A Catholic does not spend each moment or each day trying to determine if she still believes that the Catholic Church has authority, any more than a Protestant would spend time trying to determine if he still believes that the Bible has authority. Why do you believe that a process of “continual ‘rediscovery’” must be occurring?

    The Catholic can always dissociate herself from the Catholic Church, but she would only believe she were justified in doing so if she concluded that the Catholic Church has no authority over her (as she had once believed). She cannot believe both that the Catholic Church has authority over her in matters of faith and morals, and that the Catholic Church is wrong in a matter of faith or morals. So she cannot rationally leave over, say, a dispute on the Trinity or indulgences, but only over a dispute regarding the Church’s own authority claims.

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom

100. Bryan Cross November 8th, 2009 9:46 pm :

     Herbert,

     At the end of Matt’s comment #43, he wrote:

     A way to sum this up might be to look at the reason C.S. Lewis eventually gave for not becoming Catholic before he got to Heaven ;) That was, not that he didn’t believe anything the Catholic Church taught now, but that he couldn’t commit himself to believing what the Catholic Church might teach tomorrow.

     Lewis understood what it would mean. Once the Apostles discovered Christ’s authority, they did not need to “rediscover” Christ’s authority; they simply needed to remember it. Likewise, once a person discovers that the successors of the Apostles have authority from Christ to govern the Church and preach and teach in His Name (i.e. as His authorized representatives), then so long as one remembers this, one cannot “dissociate” from them without violating one’s conscience.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

101. Paige Britton November 8th, 2009 10:34 pm :

     Thanks, Tim, for your reply in #90.
     For the record, I used “bragging rights” in a tongue-in-cheek way (as I think Jason does, too), so as to distinguish the monergistic work of the Holy Spirit from either the synergistic work of our cooperation, or the monergistic work of our solitary action. (If I said all that, see, I’d sound like an egghead. :)

102. herbert November 9th, 2009 8:03 am :

     Bryan and Tom- Thanks to both of you for your replies. And though Bryan may recall me… Tom, for the record, I joined the Catholic Church on Easter Vigil 2008. So I speak as a Catholic in full communion. So, though I am bound by Church teaching, and can’t imagine this changing, I am curious about this idea of “discovery” of the Magisterium. I certainly experienced such a discovery. I can still remember when my sponsor suggested that Christ actually founded the Roman Catholic Church. For me this was a “discovery” indeed. However, I know that people don’t make decisions based solely upon principle. So what I’m trying to get at is this:

     1. It seems to me that just as a “born-again evangelical” may commit apostasy on any day of the week, and NOT feel as though he’s violated his conscience in doing so (depending on the change that’s taken place in his perspective, i.e. he’s become agnostic, he’s become Mormon, etc.), similarly, why might a Catholic not come to believe that his having understood the Catholic Church as retaining Divine Authority was based upon flawed thinking?

     2. And I don’t quite understand Lewis’s argument. Why wouldn’t this same reasoning apply to his identification with the C of E? Was he implying that when it came to submission to church authority, he could just “take it or leave it”? Like so many others who SEEM to hold the Church in high regard, did his thinking boil down to solo Scriptura, as well?

     thanks.

103. Nicholas T. Batzig November 9th, 2009 8:42 am :

     Bryan,

     I certainly should have read the guidelines. Sorry about that!

     Since you say at the outset of the post, “a return to apostolic succession is the only way to avoid the untoward consequences to which both solo scriptura and sola scriptura lead,” would it be fair for me to ask the first series of related questions concerning the nature and origin of the doctrine of apostolic succession? If so, can you answer the first? Who were the apostolic successors of Peter from Peter until Gregory?

104. retro satana November 9th, 2009 8:48 am :

     I’d love for one of you guys to read Erik Wait’s Presuppositional Defense of Sola Scriptura, which is a direct response to “Not By Scripture Alone” by Sungenis. Perhaps, you could even do a review on the website, refuting it as necessary. Here’s the link: http://www.erikwait.com/index.cgi?location_id=2&subject_id=6.
     Blessings!

105. Tim Troutman November 9th, 2009 9:47 am :

     Nicholas, Irenaeus lists the successors of Peter from Peter until his day (the second century). Church historian Eusebius continues tracking them until the fourth century. If you want a complete list check out the Liber Pontificalis (or any Catholic Bible will have them).

106. Keith Mathison November 9th, 2009 10:14 am :

     I asked earlier if it would be okay to respond to this article in the comment box. I’m not sure now that this will work. I think that what I will try to do is write a single response, post it somewhere (perhaps at Ligonier’s website), send you the link, and let you respond in whatever way you deem best. If you post a new article in response, then I can jump in the comments to carry on the discussion if necessary. Sound okay?

     I’ve made it up to Section IV.B of the paper, so I’m making progress. I do want to ask one more follow up question, which may be answered in the section of the paper I haven’t reached yet. But I want to make sure I have this clear, so that in my response, I don’t end up shadow boxing.

     If I follow what has been said in response to the concerns of several folks here, you grant that you as well as we use our private judgment and reason to determine which communion we should submit to through the study of Scripture, church history, the Fathers, etc. Correct, so far?

     The epistemic difference, then, according to you, would be that since you’ve discovered apostolic succession, you are submitting to a church with final interpretive authority, but we are only submitting to a church with derivative authority, which then means that we retain the right to disagree with (or leave) that church if it teaches or does something contrary to our individual interpretation of Scripture – which itself is practically solo scriptura? Am I understanding you correctly?

     There are two phases, then, in your understanding: the determination phase and the submission phase. Is that right?

     It seems to me that the issue of infallibility is an important factor in the discussion (in addition to the obvious importance of clarifying what we mean by “church”). If Communion A claims some type of infallibility and Communion B does not, then one will be placed in a different condition depending on which communion he or she submits to. If someone submits to Communion A and truly believes the claims of Communion A, then that will make some type of difference. Correct?

     A major question, then becomes how to adjudicate between the claims of Communion A and B (not to mention C,D, and F and so forth), and does the way we do this imply solo scriptura? What I found, and still find a bit confusing, Bryan, is your comment in post 13, where you said: “the person becoming Catholic bases his determination of the nature and location of the Church fundamentally on what those having the succession from the Apostles say is the nature and location of the Church.”

     In order to base your determination on “what those having the succession from the Apostles” say, you have to know who “those having succession from the Apostles” are. How do you already know this in the determination phase – prior to submission? This is where the argument appears circular to me.

     Perhaps, I can illustrate it in this way:

     You based your determination of the nature and location of the church on what those having the succession from the Apostles say, and submitted to Rome.

     Frank Schaeffer based his determination of the nature and location of the church on what those having the succession from the Apostles say, and submitted to the Orthodox Church.

     Which one of you submitted to the one true church Christ established, and what criteria do you use to determine the answer to that question?

     I’m hoping your answer to this will help me get a clearer understanding of exactly what you see as the epistemic difference submission to Rome makes.

     Thanks again.

     Keith

     P.S. Richard, I did see post #94 and will attempt to answer the question in my response.

107. retro satana November 9th, 2009 10:49 am :

     Bryan Cross,
     I was skimming through your exchange with user “JJS”, and I admit I understand where he is coming from. I have a question based on something you said. if you’ve already answered it, forgive me. I might have missed a few posts.

     If the difference with a Roman using private judgment prior to converting is that he judged where the Church was, and then faithfully submitted to her teaching, how did he judge which Church was the true church? He cannot use Scripture, because according to your view, apart from the Magisterium we cannot know which books are inspired. At this point, the Christian scriptures may or may not be reliable, so he cannot appeal to them to find the true church. If he cannot appeal to the Scriptures, then how does he know there is such a thing as a “church”, let alone a “true” one? If he has to search, study, etc to determine the Magisterium is the ultimate authority, then whatever he appeals to will be the ultimate authority, not the Magisterium. How exactly does one judge the Magisterium to be the one true church, without running into a self-defeating, circular mess?
     Thanks, be blessed!

108. Paige Britton November 9th, 2009 11:25 am :

     I notice that Bryan & Neal’s article, as well as much of this discussion, seems to be considering only two interpretive options: 1) the infallible and authorized interpretation of the Magisterium, and 2) the absolute interpretive uncertainty presented by solo/sola Scriptura (i.e., it’s all individualized, so there is no ultimate interpretive authority to appeal to).

     I don’t know from what perspective Keith Mathison is writing, so I don’t know if he addresses this idea, but there is a third option that Reformed people work with – the idea that we may know sufficiently, but not exhaustively, the meaning of the biblical texts, especially through study & discussions with others. This still leaves unanswered the claims about apostolic succession, and it will not satisfy those who hope for absolute interpretive certainty. But it is for many of us a livable epistemic condition. Was this not mentioned because Mathison’s own premise is that “sola Scriptura” is a means of interpretive certainty?

109. Tim A. Troutman November 9th, 2009 12:28 pm :

     Retro – I get where you’re coming from and where JJS is coming from. The tu quoque argument is reasonable and demands a good answer. I feel like I’ve given a good answer for it (as has Bryan) above but I haven’t had any response to what I’ve written. The issue is not the use of private judgment (reason) but whether or not the individual’s reason is used correctly and whether it is based on something objective. As I’ve shown in examples above, two people may both use private reason and yet not be in the same epistemic boat. If we deny that, then it seems to me that we are left with skepticism.

     Paige – I’m not sure I’m getting your precise objection. Can you be more specific about what argument you disagree with from the article? It seems like you’re dismissing the conclusions of the article wholesale but without a specified reason. Maybe I’m missing it. Can you be more specific?

110. mateo November 9th, 2009 3:31 pm :

     Tom Brown:
     

     … the Protestant decides [via private judgment] which authority governs him [choosing text over magisterium], and then decides [via private judgment] which beliefs of faith and morals are true, and then decides [via private judgment] which denomination is most in line with his own conclusions.

     Which is exactly what a Protestant does when he goes church shopping. But the market that the Protestant shops in contains thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations that teach anything and everything because of sola scriptura / solo scriptura.

     Is there any real submission to a higher temporal authority if I believe that I can church shop until I find a church that agrees with me? The main article argues that doing that is really a subtle form of delusion:
     

     The indirect way of making oneself one’s own ultimate interpretive and magisterial authority is more complicated and subtle. In this case the individual, based upon his own interpretation of Scripture, either establishes or chooses an ecclesial community that conforms to his own interpretation in matters he considers to be essential or important. Then, he ’submits’ to this institution so long as it continues to speak and act in accordance with his own interpretation of Scripture. … Accumulating for themselves this body of persons to whom they ’submit’ allows them to remain under a delusion that they are submitting to the Church.

     As long as one believes he has the right to church shop, he will always be making himself the ultimate arbiter of scriptural truth.
     

     Either ecclesial authority has its basis in agreement or approval as determined by the individual’s own interpretation of Scripture, or ecclesial authority has its basis in Christ’s authorization and appointment.

     Nathan: And as far as I know, Rome teaches that one’s conscience should not be violated.

     The Catholic Church does indeed teach that one must follow one’s conscience. But the Catholic Church does not teach a doctrine of the Primacy of Conscience – that is the foundational Protestant doctrine that makes the individual the ultimate arbiter of scriptural truths.

     From a Catholic point of view, since the Catholic Church cannot teach error in matters of faith or morals, the person that states that his conscience disagrees with the moral teaching of the Catholic Church is merely making a statement that his conscience in need of formation. See Catechism of the Catholic Church §1776 – 1802 .

     Matthew Anderson: You’ve framed the discussion primarily as if it is between apostolic succession and sola scriptura, and I guess I’m not convinced that is an adequate representation of the Roman Catholic position. It feels to me that this particular formulation obfuscates what is actually the central claim of Roman Catholic theological epistemology, the papacy.

     When it comes to the question of the ultimate temporal authority, the Catholic Church teaches a doctrine of the Primacy of Peter, and not a doctrine of the Primacy of Conscience. When the Eastern Orthodox speak about the ultimate temporal authority in matters of dogma, they claim that the dogmas promulgated by valid Ecumenical Councils speak as the ultimate temporal authority for the Church … BUT … the dogmas promulgated by an Ecumenical Councils are not valid unless they are “approved” by the “whole church”. The EO, with their novel “whole church approval” doctrine, are actually claiming an implicit doctrine of the Primacy of the Laity, since the laity are supposedly the final and ultimate temporal authority that “approves” the dogmas solemnly defined and promulgated by the Bishops at an Ecumenical Council.

     I don’t think that anyone here is trying to obfuscate the doctrine of Petrine Primacy. Since both Catholics and Orthodox recognize that there have been Ecumenical Councils that are not recognized as valid, there must be some way of making that determination. The different ways that Protestants, Orthodox and Catholics determine the validity of Ecumenical Councils is a topic for another thread, which would, of course, would involve the doctrine of the Petrine Primacy.

     One issue that this article addresses is whether the dogmas defined at an Ecumenical Council are binding on Christians, or are they merely opinions of men that I can ignore, because I am the ultimate temporal authority in determining matters of faith and morals.

     Mathew, how do you respond to the members of Protestant sects that deny the dogmas of the Trinity defined by the Ecumenical Councils? The Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, Church of God Abrahamic Faith, Jehovah Witnesses, etc. all believe they are being “scriptural” when they deny the Trinity.

111. Bryan Cross November 9th, 2009 8:01 pm :

     Keith,

     If you post a new article in response, then I can jump in the comments to carry on the discussion if necessary. Sound okay?

     That’s fine with me.

     If I follow what has been said in response to the concerns of several folks here, you grant that you as well as we use our private judgment and reason to determine which communion we should submit to through the study of Scripture, church history, the Fathers, etc. Correct, so far?

     Yes.

     The epistemic difference, then, according to you, would be that since you’ve discovered apostolic succession, you are submitting to a church with final interpretive authority, but we are only submitting to a church with derivative authority, which then means that we retain the right to disagree with (or leave) that church if it teaches or does something contrary to our individual interpretation of Scripture – which itself is practically solo scriptura? Am I understanding you correctly?

     Yes.

     There are two phases, then, in your understanding: the determination phase and the submission phase. Is that right?

     There is a searching phase, a discovery, and then submission (or resistance).

     If Communion A claims some type of infallibility and Communion B does not, then one will be placed in a different condition depending on which communion he or she submits to. If someone submits to Communion A and truly believes the claims of Communion A, then that will make some type of difference. Correct?

     Correct.

     A major question, then becomes how to adjudicate between the claims of Communion A and B (not to mention C,D, and F and so forth), and does the way we do this imply solo scriptura? What I found, and still find a bit confusing, Bryan, is your comment in post 13, where you said: “the person becoming Catholic bases his determination of the nature and location of the Church fundamentally on what those having the succession from the Apostles say is the nature and location of the Church.”

     In order to base your determination on “what those having the succession from the Apostles” say, you have to know who “those having succession from the Apostles” are. How do you already know this in the determination phase – prior to submission? This is where the argument appears circular to me.

     One can find who those having the succession are, without already being in submission. We can do this by reading St. Clement, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, and Eusebius. In other words, you don’t need to start the inquiry phase by determining *immediately* who presently holds authority from the Apostles. Rather, we can start this by going back to the Apostles, and then moving forward through the timeline, continually tracing the passing on of Church authority through St. Clement and through the other bishops down to the Council of Nicea and so on. Every time there is a schism, we have to determine which is the Church, and which is the “schism from” the Church, and then we keep tracing forward this handing on of authority, until we reach the present day.

     You based your determination of the nature and location of the church on what those having the succession from the Apostles say, and submitted to Rome.

     Frank Schaeffer based his determination of the nature and location of the church on what those having the succession from the Apostles say, and submitted to the Orthodox Church.

     Which one of you submitted to the one true church Christ established, and what criteria do you use to determine the answer to that question?

     Frank submitted to a bishop who has apostolic succession, but is presently in schism from the Church Christ founded. The criterion we use is the principle of unity of the first thousand years of the Church, before the Greek schism. (I briefly discussed here the notion of schism.) We find in the Fathers that the successor of St. Peter holds this role, as the one to whom Christ gave the keys, and made to be the rock upon which He would build the Church. I could write a couple articles just on that subject alone, so it won’t fit into a combox. If you’re interested, read Studies on the Early Papacy, by Chapman, Documents Illustrating Papal Authority: AD 96 – 454, by Giles, and The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451, by Fortescue. We will be covering this subject in the future, Lord willing. Our purpose in the present article, is much more focused, simply to show that without apostolic succession, there is no principled difference between sola and solo.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

112. retro satana November 9th, 2009 9:01 pm :

     Troutman (and Bryan, too),
     thanks for the response. I completely agree that we can both use private reason (what else could we use? – whether it is logically sound or not), and not be in the same epistemic boat. But the reason we’re not in the same boat is because our fundamental presupposition is different. I presuppose scripture, you presuppose the Magisterium. My question is, how does a non-catholic go about changing his presupposition to the Magisterium w/o first having to presuppose Scripture? I presuppose the claims of Scripture because of Scripture, I believe Jesus is Lord because of Scripture. But where can the non-catholic start to find the true Church?

     According to Rome, our epistemology is faulty and unreasonable outside of her walls, because we’re not trusting in the true church. So, any appeal I make to Scripture, to history, to Christ, to anything, is ultimately uncertain, since I’m using my own private criteria rather than Rome’s. Therefore, how can any conclusion I make (i.e. “Rome is true Church”, or “apostolic succession is real,”) be certain? If I start with a false premise, the conclusions will also be false, inconsistent, or uncertain. It sounds like you’re saying: “The protestant presupposes Scripture by his own private judgment and concludes that Scripture is the ultimate source for truth. The Roman presupposes scripture by his own private judgment and concludes that the Magisterium is the ultimate source for truth, thus proving his presupposition of scripture to be false.” But if the latter is true, then the Roman had no real reason to presuppose Scripture, therefore not giving him any certainty that his conclusions FROM Scripture are true. This is where the RC logic gets confusing. It would make more sense if you were being circular: “I presuppose the Magisterium because of the Magisterium.” But I haven’t heard you guys affirm this. You presuppose the Magisterium, by appealing to Scripture and supposed “facts” of history. Scripture or history then become the ultimate authorities, not the Magisterium. But by what standard can I even trust history? When I read RC, EO, or Reformed literature I get 3 different views of history. I wasn’t there. How can I possibly know exactly what happened and what went down for certain? Whose history do I trust and by what criteria?

     When it comes to epistemological ultimate authority, you have to have ONE final authority, not multiple. It seems to me the only choices are Sola Scriptura, Sola Ecclesia or Sola Historia. You deny the first two, so I’m just trying to figure out how this works out. Thanks for your time!
     Grace and Peace!

113. Paige Britton November 9th, 2009 9:02 pm :

     Hey, Tim (re. #109),
     Thanks for trying to understand. I am not casting judgment on the arguments in the article at all. I was merely pointing out that there seem to be two interpretive options under discussion, leaving the impression that there are only two interpretive options or expectations among Christians:

     a) the Catholic view, in which the Magisterium provides infallible authoritative interpretation;
     and b) the Protestant view as described by Mathison, which devolves into a nonsensical mess because there is no infallible earthly authority to appeal to for interpretation.

     The first, if it is true, would be livable. The second would be unlivable, and Richard’s post (#94) characterizes how crazy-making it would be never to be able to adjudicate between competing interpretations, because there is no ultimate infallible interpretive authority to appeal to.

     In light of this observation, I have an informational question. I have not read Mathison’s book, so I am curious to find out this: Does he present his positive argument for “sola Scriptura” as a way for people to achieve certainty about interpretations, as the Magisterium offers Catholic believers interpretive certainty? In other words, does Mathison lead one to EXPECT interpretive certainty, as the Magisterium’s claims lead one to EXPECT interpretive certainty?

     Or does he speak more reticently about what Protestants may expect with regards to certainty? The “third interpretive option” that I did not see mentioned in the article is the understanding that Reformed folks work with, that we may expect to know “sufficiently but not exhaustively,” which is a phrase from the Westminster Confession. This is not the absolute knowledge of Magisterial certainty, but it is also not the quicksand of absolute uncertainty. (I won’t try to unpack what is more or less “certain” in this view — I’m just mentioning that it exists.)

     The reason I bring this up is simply that it has been found by many thoughtful people to be a livable perspective, and is a real third option to Magisterial certainty and crazy-making Protestant uncertainty about interpretations. Whether it is RIGHT or not is not my point — I am just wondering whether Mathison goes here, and it was overlooked — or whether he really does make claims about expecting interpretive certainty that leave one groping for an authority behind them; in which case my “third option” would be extraneous to a response to his book.

     Does this make sense? I’m just trying to find out something I don’t know yet, not dismissing anybody’s arguments.

     pax!
     pb

114. David November 9th, 2009 11:46 pm :

     Bryan,

     With reference to your responses to Keith Mathison, you seem to suggest that the crucial issue is not even Apostolic succession per se, but the Universal Fatherhood of the Bishop of Rome. Right? In other words, without affirming not simply primacy of honor but primacy of rule by the Roman Pontiff, the Orthodox Churches cannot be anything but in schism with the one true Church? Right? Have you read Meyerndorff’s work on Roman Primacy?

     David

115. Tim A. Troutman November 10th, 2009 12:10 am :

     Retro:

     You said:

     I presuppose scripture, you presuppose the Magisterium.

     But this rests on another presupposition, namely that all viewpoints start with a presupposition (i.e. presuppositionalism). I don’t believe that, but that is a long discussion and we can’t do that here. The short of it is that I do not presuppose the magisterium.

     So, any appeal I make to Scripture, to history, to Christ, to anything, is ultimately uncertain, since I’m using my own private criteria rather than Rome’s.

     Rome doesn’t think of you that way regardless of what you may have heard from some apologists.

     When I read RC, EO, or Reformed literature I get 3 different views of history. I wasn’t there. How can I possibly know exactly what happened and what went down for certain? Whose history do I trust and by what criteria?

     This is a difficulty not unique to Christianity. Talk to a southerner and to a yankee and you’ll get a different view of the Civil War. We have to approach history as objectively as we can; it’s not always easy to sort through the mess and psychology of conflicts of interest among historians.

     As for Church history, if there is a visible Church, the best one to ask about her history would be herself. She knows it better than anyone else. There’s a multiplicity of ways to approach the question(s) facing the Christian. What is the history of the Church? Ask the visible Church. Is there a visible Church? History tells us that there is. :-) Sometimes it’s just easier to wear a WWJD bracelet and listen to contemporary music on the radio. I know its messy but we Christians dont have anyone but ourselves to blame for it!

     When it comes to epistemological ultimate authority, you have to have ONE final authority, not multiple. It seems to me the only choices are Sola Scriptura, Sola Ecclesia or Sola Historia. You deny the first two, so I’m just trying to figure out how this works out. Thanks for your time!

     I can see where you’re coming from. There is definitely a sense in which all things terminate (or begin) somewhere. A thing cannot ultimately spring from multiple sources. But taking this truth to an extreme would be like taking “act precedes potency” to the extreme. Act ultimately does precede potency – but practically, as we interact with the world we see that a thing must be potential before it can be actualized. Enough with the philosophy – most of which I barely understand. So here’s the deal… before my wife kills me for taking too long on this blog. If it is true that we must have one and absolutely one source for epistemological certainty, then if we choose sola scriptura, that excludes God Himself from being our source of certainty. So do we trust the Scripture as the final authority even above God? Of course that doesn’t make sense. Eck.. gotta go. Wanted to write more but wife is impatient. Hope you can follow out my train of thought. Otherwise I’ll be back tomorrow to help clean it up.

116. Nathan November 10th, 2009 12:32 am :

     Tim (115), I think it would be fair to characterize what you’re saying about ultimate causes in terms of incarnation. If Christ himself is the first apostle (Hebrews 3:1), and his message was spread by his chosen apostles before any authoritative New Testament writings existed, authority must be rooted in incarnation and apostleship, and only secondarily in scripture, which always points to the source, namely the incarnate Word. At any rate, this is the direction my thinking is being pushed of late.

117. Bryan Cross November 10th, 2009 1:15 am :

     David,

     It is not so much primacy of honor or universal jurisdiction that is crucial to see, but the charism of truth and the principle of unity — that See with which one must be in full communion in order not to be in schism from Christ’s Church. I’d be glad to discuss Meyendorff’s book, but that would take us away from the argument in our article. We’re going to address the primacy of Peter in a future article. Our argument in this present article does not depend on universal papal jurisdiction. Our argument is only that without apostolic succession there is no principled difference between sola and solo, because without apostolic succession each individual retains ultimate interpretive authority.

     If you asked anyone in the first eight hundred years of the Church, “Where is the Catholic Church?” everyone knew the answer. It wasn’t a difficult question. It has become a difficult question today because we’ve forgotten to ask the question, and forgotten the criteria by which those in the first millennium knew the answer to the question: one, holy, catholic and apostolic. Only the Catholic Church today bears all four marks. The Orthodox Churches are not hierarchically one. Nor are they catholic; they are each national and ethnic. When they separate from each other, that is not a schism from the universal Church that Christ founded, because none of them is the principle of unity of the Church. None of them is by divine establishment the necessary continuation of the Church whenever there is schism. That is why when one of them separates from the others, there is no principled answer to the question: “Which one is the continuation of the Church?” That principled basis for measuring schism can be found only in the unique authority and unitive role of St. Peter, on account of the keys of the Kingdom, which Christ give particularly to him.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

118. Andrew McCallum November 10th, 2009 1:24 am :

     One can find who those having the succession are, without already being in submission. We can do this by reading St. Clement, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, and Eusebius. In other words, you don’t need to start the inquiry phase by determining *immediately* who presently holds authority from the Apostles. Rather, we can start this by going back to the Apostles, and then moving forward through the timeline, continually tracing the passing on of Church authority through St. Clement and through the other bishops down to the Council of Nicea and so on.

     OK Bryan, so you are saying that all we have to do is look to the material succession of the current bishops and this will tell us where the true Church is. Correct? So there should be no debate about whether the bishops of the Renaissance/Reformation or during the present era were and are faithful to the teachings of Clement, Ignatius, etc. Any such discussion is of no value because formal succession has already decided the matter. Is that correct?

119. retro satana November 10th, 2009 9:04 am :

     Tim,
     I understand you weren’t able to continue your post, I’m married as well. :) But I hope you can return and help me out a little bit more. Of course, I don’t want to stray too much from the topic at hand, but I’d love for you to briefly explain how/why you deny presuppositionalism. My mind starts jumping to conclusions as to what you believe about our epistemological foundations (blank slate?) but I’d rather wait to hear your explanation before making an assumption. Also, does Rome have an official position on this?

     If Rome doesn’t think my appeal to Scripture apart from her authority is arbitrary and uncertain, then why do so many apologists and lay-persons harp on us for not having a standard to decide what the Canon should be? We just like to cherry-pick which books line up with our private interpretations, remember? :) All joking aside, if Rome is indeed the True Church, and her claims of infallibly interpreting the deposit of faith is true, how is it NOT an arbitrary/uncertain position for protestants to put faith in ANY piece of scripture?

     I know the issue of history is not unique to church history, but you may have missed my point. Certainty of historical data is limited, apart from divine revelation (whether in Scripture or any other form of revelation). A good historian will try to report all accounts of an event, all viewpoints, and be as objective as possible, but we know that there is always room for error. Two people can see/experience the same event and walk away with two totally different accounts of it. What if a historian reports his interpretation of an event rather than the “cold hard facts”? There are always very limited amounts of certainty when reading the books of history. So, telling a non-Catholic to find the true church by studying history doesn’t help him much. I could easily see someone getting overwhelmed by the amount of data he must process and weigh against each other that he simply becomes skeptical about the whole thing, or just jumps into one he prefers most, having blind faith that his pick is right!

     It should be stressed that we all presuppose the existence of the Triune God. We all believe that whatever source(s) of revelation we adhere to come from him, as the F has given the S ALL authority, even scriptural authority and papal authority. That’s a given, so it shouldn’t even be an issue. What we mean when we’re talking about Sola Scriptura vs. Magisterium is what source of revelation is the ultimate authority for our objective use on earth in this current stage of redemptive history.

120. Tim Troutman November 10th, 2009 10:30 am :

     Nathan – thanks for helping tie that together!

     Retro – so a follow up with a little help from Nathan. If we can demand a singular source for epistemic certainty by posing a dilemma between Scripture and the Church, then why not between the Scripture and Jesus? Which is your ultimate source, the Bible or Jesus? Clearly that’s a false dichotomy. It is possible that the dichotomy between the Bible and Tradition is also false.

     Suppose for a minute that the two actually agree. Sometimes it is hard to convince someone that they do because there are apparent contradictions. But it is hard to convince an atheist that the Scriptures do not contradict themselves. I say all this to establish the possibility that Tradition and Scriptures are, together, the Word of God and both infallible. That is certainly a logical possibility.

     How do we determine whether it’s true? Well, one way of making decisions like this is to eliminate alternatives. This article demonstrates why the most convincing alternative (sola scriptura) is reducible to solo scriptura and per Mathison’s own arguments above, it is not a viable option for Christians.

121. Keith Mathison November 10th, 2009 11:28 am :

     One more follow-up. In the original paper you wrote:

     “So for the person becoming Catholic, when he recognizes the authority of the Magisterium, he recognizes that his beliefs and interpretation of Scripture must conform to the authoritative teachings of the Church’s Magisterium. “When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement that a teaching is found in Revelation,” he assents to it by an act of faith, believing this pronouncement to be the teaching of Christ, on account of the divine authority given to the Magisterium through apostolic succession to teach in Christ’s name and with His authority.74 In this way, his faith in Christ is expressed as an act of faith in the infallible pronouncement of the Church’s Magisterium. In those teachings which are not infallible, he also, as an act of faith in Christ, gives religious submission of intellect and will, even while recognizing the fallibility of those teaching.”

     I want to make sure I clearly understand the final sentence. From your Roman Catholic perspective:

     1. Does the insertion of the category “teachings which are not infallible” under the purview of a Magisterium whose pronouncements are, in your words, “the teaching of Christ” have any effects on the question at hand regarding the epistemological advantage provided by Roman Catholicism?

     2. From your perspective, why is it that you are able to submit truly to “teachings which are not infallible” but Protestants are not able to submit truly to teachings which are not infallible?

     3. Does the Magisterium teach you infallibly or fallibly which of her teachings are infallible and which are not infallible?

     Thanks,

     Keith

122. Tim A. Troutman November 10th, 2009 12:01 pm :

     Paige – #113

     I think that the tu quoque objection has thrown this conversation off course a bit. The issue is not about absolute certainty as if the Catholic position claims that it puts us in a sort of absolute certainty about all things faith related whereas Protestants are just fumbling around hopelessly in the dark because of their dependence on private interpretation. That’s not what we mean at all.

     In fact, what we see in some Protestant branches, such as the Reformed, is an incredible fidelity to the gospel of Christ especially where moral teachings are concerned. There doesn’t seem to be a lack of certainty on what the Scripture teaches.

     But what we’re concerned with is whether or not there is a principled difference between sola and solo scriptura. As the article shows, if Mathison is right, and all appeals to scripture are really appeals to one’s private interpretation, and if Calvin and the WCF are right that the Church is defined by those who rightly preach the Scriptures, then an appeal to Church authority is an appeal Scripture and thus to one’s private interpretation thereof and thus to solo scriptura. There is no principled difference between sola and solo scriptura. But if Church is not defined by one’s private interpretation of Scripture, but instead is defined by those whom Christ authorized as Church and their successors by material apostolic succession, then we have an objective touch point that does not rely on private interpretation. This position is not reducible to solo scriptura.

     Now again this does not mean that Catholics are absolutely certain about faith whereas Protestants are in the dark. Does this make sense?

123. Bryan Cross November 10th, 2009 12:17 pm :

     Keith,

     1. Does the insertion of the category “teachings which are not infallible” under the purview of a Magisterium whose pronouncements are, in your words, “the teaching of Christ” have any effects on the question at hand regarding the epistemological advantage provided by Roman Catholicism?

     No it does not. Notice the three-fold categorization in the Profession of Faith:

     With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.

     I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.

     Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.

     That third category of Magisterial teachings are not taught infallibly. That doesn’t mean, of course, that they are false. It means that they are not guaranteed to be protected from error by the Holy Spirit. But they could all be true. These [in this third category] we [Catholics] are required to adhere to with “religious submission of mind and intellect” on account of the authority by which they are given. The ground of their authority is not “agreement with my own interpretation of Scripture”; rather, the ground of their authority is apostolic succession, had by those in communion with the one to whom Christ gave the keys, and upon whom He promised to build His Church.

     2. From your perspective, why is it that you are able to submit truly to “teachings which are not infallible” but Protestants are not able to submit truly to teachings which are not infallible?

     Because of the difference in the ground of the authority. The ground of Protestant ecclesial authority is not apostolic succession, but is ultimately agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture, as we explained in the article. This is why no Protestant pastor has the authority to bind the conscience. The ground of Catholic ecclesial authority, by contrast, is apostolic succession; and this authority can bind the conscience.

     3. Does the Magisterium teach you infallibly or fallibly which of her teachings are infallible and which are not infallible?

     The criteria by which to distinguish fallible from infallible Magisterial teaching, were given infallibly in the first Vatican Council (Session 4, Chapter 4).

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

124. Tim A. Troutman November 10th, 2009 12:30 pm :

     Retro:

     I’d love for you to briefly explain how/why you deny presuppositionalism. My mind starts jumping to conclusions as to what you believe about our epistemological foundations (blank slate?) but I’d rather wait to hear your explanation before making an assumption. Also, does Rome have an official position on this?

     As far as I know, Rome does not have an official position on this, but I could be wrong. I’m going to email you a reply about this one so we don’t get off on a rabbit trail.. This one could be long!

     If Rome doesn’t think my appeal to Scripture apart from her authority is arbitrary and uncertain, then why do so many apologists and lay-persons harp on us for not having a standard to decide what the Canon should be?

     Our next lead article will be out in a few weeks and will be on the issue of the canon. I think it will be helpful to get into this more deeply at that point. Briefly, the problem is with a lack of consistency in epistemology. It is inconsistent to trust the Scriptures with absolutely certainty but only trust the Church, who gave us those scriptures, conditionally (upon our interpretation of the Scriptures she gave us.) If the Church is incapable of acting infallibly, then the canon cannot be infallible. I can think of a lot of objections to all this, but can only say for now that we will address those when we address the canon and then a few articles later with Church infallibility.

     So, telling a non-Catholic to find the true church by studying history doesn’t help him much.

     I gotcha. It’s not always black and white. Depending on the historical source, you get a different understanding of what really happened. I can appreciate that. It’s a process for us all.

125. JJS November 10th, 2009 1:44 pm :

     Tim,

     Sorry for vanishing for a couple days, I’ve traveled to Annapolis.

     Also, to reiterate, the problem with the Protestant position isn’t that they use reason. We readily admit to using reason also. I’ve tried to show a few examples demonstrating that two positions, both using reason, can be an uneven epistemic ground. I.e. one is more objective and can be known more certainly than the other because it is based on something more objective. I haven’t seen any response to my analogies or arguments. I think I have rubbed Donato the wrong way and maybe you too.

     OK, I understand that your position is that, reason aside, the basis for your view is more objective than the basis for mine. Let’s take this a step further, then: As you may remember from when you were a PCA guy, the insistence that there has been an unbroken succession of bishops from the apostles to the college of bishops today (and from Peter to BXVI) sounds to non-Catholics like a fairy tale. If I wanted to “objectively” investigate such a claim, I wouldn’t even know where to start. A Catholic author will insist on it while a Protestant one will deny it.

     So how is apostolic succession more sure footing than rolling up my sleeves and studying Scripture? Now if I granted it, I would agree it’s way more objective, but I’m asking how I can objectively know if it’s even true in the first place.

126. Andrew McCallum November 10th, 2009 2:23 pm :

     Tim Troutman from #93:

     So if you grant that it is possible for any two positions to differ in regards to objectivity, then we would turn our focus to the question of whether the Catholic position (identifying the Church based on private judgment of historical material apostolic succession) is more objective than the Protestant position (identifying the Church based on private judgment of Scripture).

     Tim,

     It seems to me that “historical material apostolic succession” is absolutely objective and something that we Protestants can’t possibly argue with. Yes, the current RCC bishops can trace their line to those bishops of the 1st century. But how does “private judgment” play a part here? You are not judging anything, are you? You are just noting that current bishops can trace their lines to previous generations of bishops. Is it maybe more accurate to say that Church tradition is what you are assessing and that and your private interpretation of Church tradition is that material succession is the all abiding principle by which the validity of the Church should be identified?

     Protestants and Catholics recognize/discover material succession, but it seems that the Catholic makes more of this discovery than does the Protestant. Perhaps to the Catholic mind there is a necessary logical connection between material succession and faithful material succession? For some reason that is unclear to us, it is inconceivable to the Catholic mind that there could be un-faithful material succession.

127. Tim A. Troutman November 10th, 2009 2:57 pm :

     Jason,

     As you may remember from when you were a PCA guy, the insistence that there has been an unbroken succession of bishops from the apostles to the college of bishops today (and from Peter to BXVI) sounds to non-Catholics like a fairy tale.

     Yes I distinctly remember the first time I heard of Apostolic Succession, especially regarding the See of St. Peter. I thought it was, in a word, retarded. But it’s hard for me to identify with you exactly and that’s because I didn’t so much reject AS on account of me believing that there was a break somewhere, but because I just didn’t think it mattered if there was or wasn’t.

     You bring up a completely legitimate question though; it was one that I had not considered because I hadn’t arrived a place theologically where I thought it mattered. It seems to me, from this reply, that you do think it matters whether or not the Catholic bishops are literally in succession from the apostles. Granted, when I came to believe that they were, and that it mattered, for me it was something like a fairy tale – a fairy tale come true. Maybe this doesn’t help my case with you. :-) At any rate, I don’t want it to seem like I’m dismissing this legitimate question, but we, or specifically I ,will be addressing this topic in detail in the lead article after next on Holy Orders and Apostolic Succession.

     So here’s where I think we are now. You agree that given material apostolic succession, the Catholic position would be more objective and not reducible to solo scriptura in the same way that the Protestant position is, but this is entirely dependent upon AS actually being knowable.

     So even if a Catholic could claim that he knows AS to be true with a reasonable but not absolute certainty, the Protestant could say “Well I can know my interpretation of Scripture to be accurate with the same degree of certainty. No, I don’t have absolute certainty without the possibility of error, but I do have certainty beyond reasonable doubt that I understand the fundamentals of the gospel.” Therefore, the Catholic position really isn’t better than the Protestant position. Is that an accurate representation of what you’re getting at?

128. Andi November 10th, 2009 2:59 pm :

     Could someone with more knowledge about these things than me, Protestant or Catholic, comment on Mathison’s interpretation of 1 Tim 3:15: his assertion that “[I]f I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth” means that, in Mathison’s words “she [the church] is the proclaimer and defender of Scripture.” Is that a common interpretation of that passage? And, if so, how does the interpretation follow from the verse?

129. Richard November 10th, 2009 3:56 pm :

     Re # 106 – Thanks Keith, I’ll look forward to it.

130. Tim A. Troutman November 10th, 2009 3:56 pm :

     Andrew (126) -

     Let me make sure I’m understanding you. I think you are agreeing that there is no principled distinction between sola and solo scriptura but that the Catholic position is no better not on account of its lack of objective criteria (material apostolic succession) but on account of its criteria being subjectively judged to be the correct way of determining Church authority. Put another way, yes AS can be affirmed objectively, but one must judge subjectively that it is the correct method of determining the true Church much in the same way that one must subjectively judge that the Church is rightfully determined by one’s private interpretation of Scripture. Is this an accurate representation of your argument?

131. Bryan Cross November 10th, 2009 4:53 pm :

     Matthew (re: #84),

     Even if in principle they [sola and solo] are the same, in practice they can be different. Sola scriptura would presumably be drawing on the wisdom and experience of the church in its interpretation, whereas solo scriptura may be completely ignorant and indifferent to the practice of the church. So, even if in principle they are identical, I think the difference in practice could be consequential.

     See section IV of the article. That’s where we respond to the claim that sola scriptura allows one to appeal to “the church.”

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

132. Bryan Cross November 10th, 2009 6:11 pm :

     Retro (re: #107)

     If he cannot appeal to the Scriptures, then how does he know there is such a thing as a “church”, let alone a “true” one?

     His faith could come by hearing, more specifically, by hearing the preaching of someone speaking for the Church, or by hearing the witness of someone belonging to the Church.

     If he has to search, study, etc to determine the Magisterium is the ultimate authority, then whatever he appeals to will be the ultimate authority, not the Magisterium.

     That conclusion does not follow, because a lesser authority can testify to a higher authority. We explain this in more detail in section IV.B. of our article, in the paragraph beginning “The pronouncements of the teaching and interpretative authority ….”

     How exactly does one judge the Magisterium to be the one true church, without running into a self-defeating, circular mess?

     I don’t think I claimed that the Magisterium is the one true Church. The Catholic understanding is that the Magisterium is the teaching office of the one Church that Christ founded. As I said in #111, we can locate the Church by tracing the Church forward through time, from Christ the Head, through the Apostles, to their successors, and so on, to the Ecumenical Councils. In the Creed we find the four marks of the Church: one, holy, catholic and apostolic. None of the sects dared call themselves the Catholic Church. As St. Augustine tells us in his Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental:

     For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom… there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.”

     The alternative is to determine for oneself (by some inward self-attestation one could justify by attributing Mormon-style to the inward work of the Holy Spirit) what is the canon of Scripture, and then by one’s own interpretation of the books within that canon of Scripture (either on one’s own or as guided by expositors that one deems to be trustworthy by unspecified criteria, or again by brute Montanist appeal to the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit) determine what are the marks of the Church, and then by means of those marks locate in the world those persons (and/or institutions) bearing those marks, and enter into communion with them. The result is as many institutions/denominations/sects as we see today.

     As I said in #72, either we can locate the Church by figuring out the gospel from Scripture, and then finding those who hold this gospel, or we can locate the gospel by finding the Church coming down from Christ through history, and then listening to what she says is the gospel. Those are two fundamentally different ways, and the difference between those two ways plays a large part in the present division between Protestants on the one hand, and Catholics and Orthodox on the other hand.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

133. K. Doran November 10th, 2009 8:03 pm :

     Amen to Bryan’s comment #132.

134. Bryan Cross November 10th, 2009 9:52 pm :

     Andrew M, (re: #118)

     so you are saying that all we have to do is look to the material succession of the current bishops and this will tell us where the true Church is. Correct? So there should be no debate about whether the bishops of the Renaissance/Reformation or during the present era were and are faithful to the teachings of Clement, Ignatius, etc. Any such discussion is of no value because formal succession has already decided the matter. Is that correct?

     So far as I know, nothing about Catholic doctrine, apostolic succession or the Catholic Church entails that “there should be no debate about” x. The charism of infallibility applies to the bishops as a whole, not to individual bishops, the successor of St. Peter excepted. This is why throughout the history of the Church, the Church has had to deal with heretical bishops. But the Church as a whole has never taught a heresy, nor has she ever reversed a dogma, nor does she have the authority to do so. What the Fathers believed and taught (again, not what was unique to a few, but what was taught by the consensus of the Fathers), this the Church has always continued to believe and teach, and still believes and teaches to this day, with the benefit of further development of understanding according to the promise of Christ that the Holy Spirit would continue to guide the Church into all truth. This development is due to the Church being a living organism, because living organisms grow not only in size but organically. This growth takes place also in the Church’s understanding of the faith. For that reason, in the beliefs of the heretical bishops we find sprinkled throughout the history of the Church we may surely find departure from the deposit of faith entrusted to the Church by the Apostles. But in the teaching of the Church in her ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium, there is no departure from the faith of the Fathers; there is rather a continual unfolding of that faith in its deeper fullness, as the living Body of Christ that is the Church continues to develop in her understanding of the deposit of faith once entrusted to the saints.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

135. retro satana November 10th, 2009 9:58 pm :

     Bryan,
     Lesser authorities can testify to higher authorities, but the question is what validates the lesser authorities? The higher authority does. You can’t get away from the circularity, which is why I don’t understand how you guys can deny presuppositionalism. You say we find the Church by following history from Christ through the apostles, but this only begs the question more because the Magisterium is the one that tells me who Christ is, what he taught, which church he founded, and which version of history is true. If the Magisterium is the determining and interpreting guide to all of God’s revelation, both written and oral, then it has to be the highest authority (with the exception of the Godhead, of course). How else do you not subject yourself to an infinite regress of appeals? I’ll anxiously await Tim’s email on presuppositionalism before I continue more on that subject. But for future reference, I’d love for you to read this presuppositional refutation of Sungenis’ Not By Scripture Alone, perhaps even reviewing it on your site: http://www.erikwait.com/index.cgi?location_id=2&subject_id=6.
     Be blessed!
     p.s. I understand the Magisterium is only one part of the Church in RCC, my apologies for misspeaking. My intended point still stands: How does one judge the Magisterium to be the final source of doctrine and faith w/o running into a circular mess? I believe you are presupposing the Magisterium, the inconsistency is that you deny it.

136. Bryan Cross November 10th, 2009 10:30 pm :

     Retro,

     Allow me to intersperse my comments.

     Lesser authorities can testify to higher authorities, but the question is what validates the lesser authorities? The higher authority does.

     If by ‘validates’ you mean “gives authority to”, then I do not disagree. But if by “validates” you mean “shows us directly the authority had by the lesser authorities,” then you have not shown that higher authorities must ‘validate’ lesser authorities in that sense. Keep in mind the distinction between the order of authority (the hierarchy of authority in the ontological sense) and the order of knowing (in this case the order through which we come to know the higher authority). The two orders (ontological and epistemological) are not necessarily the same; generally they are the inverse of each other.

     You can’t get away from the circularity, which is why I don’t understand how you guys can deny presuppositionalism.

     You have merely asserted (but not demonstrated) that we “can’t get away from circularity”. If you wish to see the post I wrote arguing against presuppositionalism, you can go here. I hope you understand that this present thread is not intended for the discussion of presuppositionalism. But, feel free to discuss presuppositionalism on that thread.

     You say we find the Church by following history from Christ through the apostles, but this only begs the question more because the Magisterium is the one that tells me who Christ is, what he taught, which church he founded, and which version of history is true.

     How, exactly, does it beg the question to locate the Church by tracing it forward from its beginning?

     If the Magisterium is the determining and interpreting guide to all of God’s revelation, both written and oral, then it has to be the highest authority (with the exception of the Godhead, of course).

     It does not have to be the highest authority per se; but it has to be the highest interpretive authority. Just because the Apostles had the authority from Christ to preach and teach in His Name, this does not entail that they were as high or higher in authority than Christ. They had the highest interpretive authority of anyone on earth, but of course Christ had a higher absolute authority than did the Apostles.

     How else do you not subject yourself to an infinite regress of appeals?

     You have not shown that the Catholic position is subject to an infinite regress. In our article we do have a section on how we avoid the infinite regress. If you haven’t read the article, that might answer your question.

     I’ll anxiously await Tim’s email on presuppositionalism before I continue more on that subject. But for future reference, I’d love for you to read this presuppositional refutation of Sungenis’ Not By Scripture Alone, perhaps even reviewing it on your site:

     See my link cited above for my post explaining what’s wrong with presuppositionalism.

     My intended point still stands: How does one judge the Magisterium to be the final source of doctrine and faith w/o running into a circular mess?

     By starting with the evidence from history, and locating the Church at its inception, and then tracing it forward and determining (from the record of history) where its authority was located.

     I believe you are presupposing the Magisterium, the inconsistency is that you deny it.

     How am I presupposing the Magisterium?

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

137. Paige Britton November 10th, 2009 10:38 pm :

     Tim — #122
     Thanks for taking time to respond to my thoughts. I do realize that individual Catholics are not “absolutely certain about faith whereas Protestants are in the dark,” as you put it. But I also see that Catholics have what Protestants do not – an earthly infallible authority to go to for interpretation. Many Protestants do behave and speak as if we have access to the same sort of absolute interpretive certainty apart from a Magisterium; and it seems to me that whether they are operating under “solo” or “sola” Scriptura, those who mistakenly believe that this is their epistemic situation are indeed headed for “hermeneutical chaos & anarchy.”

     On the other hand, thoughtful Protestants who are aware that they are operating without an earthly Magisterium may be quite certain of their beliefs, as you note – but their certainty is SUFFICIENT and RELIABLE, not absolute; and they realize that, for this reason, their sources of certainty, including their interpretations of Scripture, must be subject to checks and balances (e.g., the text of Scripture, the fruitful labor of past scholars and councils, and one another). In the best cases, there’s humility as well as conviction, and careful weighing, evaluating, and discussion with others past and present. This is a picture that is missing from the article above, leaving the impression that all is either submission to the Magisterium, or epistemic and hermeneutical chaos. I just thought to ask whether an evaluation of Mathison’s presentation had noted and taken into account any claims he might have made regarding the degree of certainty that he was describing. I understand that the main question is about Apostolic Succession and the authority to which we are submitted, but I regretted that a fuller picture of the way Protestants deal with the epistemic situation they’ve accepted didn’t emerge in the article.

138. Andrew McCallum November 11th, 2009 1:12 am :

     Let me make sure I’m understanding you. I think you are agreeing that there is no principled distinction between sola and solo scriptura….

     Tim,

     In Section IV of the article Bryan/Sean speak of sola scriptura from the standpoint of the individual. And I agree that if we are only looking at the individual there is no difference between the person who makes a theological judgment based on his own private interpretation of Scripture and the person who comes to the same decision but filters it through his choice of a church that agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. And while we see both of these phenomena in even Reformed churches I think I’m being fair in saying that most of the folks who join the Reformed Churches are not doing either of these things. I’ve done a fair amount of interviewing of people coming into our church and I really do think it’s accurate to say that they are trusting in the ecclesiastical community to determine statements of faith that they should submit to. And we try to educate them that this community is not just comprised of our congregation but also the extended system of congregations in the Presbytery, and further the whole PCA including our sister denominations, and further all the Reformed Churches today and extending back to the Reformation, and further all of the Church of Christ extending back to the Apostles and Prophets. Of course I know you will take issue with the last sentence but the idea here is that we look to the extended ecclesiastical community to make judgments concerning the faith. And sure, there are plenty of theological cowboys even in Reformed communities doing their own thing but that’s not in line with a Reformed understanding of sola scriptura. And I would agree that it’s much more likely that someone in a Reformed than a Catholic congregation would run around trying to find a congregation that fits into their understanding of Scripture. But this is not the norm for us.

     So, my point here is that it is this ecclesiastical community to which sola scriptura applies. I believe that Keith Mathieson says something like this in his book. And that’s why I think it is difficult to compare Jones’ concept of 1) solo scriptura which is properly applied to the individual with 2) sola scriptura which is primarily applied to the ecclesiastical community existing today and in history. This does not mean that there are no implications of sola scriptura for the individual but this is another topic I think. Fundamentally sola scriptura applies to the ecclesiastical community. It is the principle that stipulates that as the Church dwells upon the truths passed down from the Prophets and Apostles that her final rule of authority for determining what they said is (or should be) the Scriptures.

     ….but that the Catholic position is no better not on account of its lack of objective criteria (material apostolic succession) but on account of its criteria being subjectively judged to be the correct way of determining Church authority. Put another way, yes AS can be affirmed objectively, but one must judge subjectively that it is the correct method of determining the true Church much in the same way that one must subjectively judge that the Church is rightfully determined by one’s private interpretation of Scripture….

     I’m glad to hear you saying that it is not just enough to claim material succession as proof of the fidelity of the RCC. If I understand you correctly you are also saying that there is a subjective evaluation that this is THE correct method of determining the fidelity of the RCC. And there is also a subjectively as we Reformed judge our ecclesiastical communities. Where I think our differences lie in general is not that Protestants are judging by our own interpretation of Scripture while Catholics are judging the correct method for determining the Church. To me it seems we are both making the same sort of subjective judgments and these focus on our respective ecclesial communities. But we have different expectations of how our respective communities will make their judgments. You assume that your ecclesiastical community will judge using tradition (which of course includes Scripture) as it’s final bar of authority while we expect that our ecclesiastical community will judge using the Scripture as it’s final bar of authority. To me this where the difference over sola scriptura lies.

139. herbert November 11th, 2009 7:36 am :

     Bryan, you said (in post #100) that CS Lewis understood what submission to the Magisterium would entail based upon the alleged quote cited by Matt. However, I have a hard time believing that CS Lewis really said that. The statement is illogical, is it not? A Catholic doesn’t submit to the Church with the fear that one day She will go astray. A Catholic submits to the Church precisely because he believes that She WON’T go astray. Lewis, then, would be unjustified in his fear of being taught incorrectly had he really understood the essence of what it means to become Catholic. How could one fear being led astray by the very Church Christ founded and to which He granted indefectibility?

     And I’m still curious, how does the presentation of the argument in this article NOT demand some sort of perpetual “rediscovery” of Magisterial authority? Doesn’t the possibility exist of a person legitimately discovering the Magisterium and then subsequently determining that his previous ascription of divine authority to the Church was ill-founded?

     Let me provide a brief hypothetical: A man discovers the Magisterium and becomes Catholic. His wife’s doctors then announce that any future pregnancy would be life-threatening. He’s not comfortable with NFP or any non-surgical means of BC. He then determines that despite Church teaching, he’s getting a vasectomy. He realizes that, though he thought he was truly Catholic, he’s not really Catholic afterall- because when push came to shove, he placed his determination above that of the Church.

     It seems like this is a legitimate challenge to the reasoning presented in the article. But if I’m just confused and am detracting from this thread, maybe somebody wouldn’t mind emailing me privately at wrongford@gmail.com

140. retro satana November 11th, 2009 9:02 am :

     Bryan,
     Thanks for the response! I understand this thread is not about presuppositionalism, and I want to respect your wishes to not stray away from the topic. It confuses me when you speak of finding the Church by “starting with the evidence from history” as if there are objective history books that accurately interpret the events that took place. As I tried to express earlier, there are as many different “histories” as there are historians! Which one do I trust? If you say, “the Bible is an objective history book that accurately interprets the events” then I’d certainly agree. But then you’d be presupposing the authority of Scripture as a first principle in order to begin your search for your perception of what/where the Church should be, which puts you back on the same epistemic plane as the protestant, yadda yadda yadda. Ha! I’ll read your link and perhaps continue the discussion over there. Until next time, grace and peace!

141. Tim A. Troutman November 11th, 2009 11:01 am :

     Andrew:

     I think I’m being fair in saying that most of the folks who join the Reformed Churches are not doing either of these things.

     The question is how they came to join the Reformed church in the first place. Your answer “they trusted the church” (basically) is self referential and doesn’t solve the problem. How do we know that the Reformed churches are truly the Church or part of it?

     If I understand you correctly you are also saying that there is a subjective evaluation that this is THE correct method of determining the fidelity of the RCC.

     I was asking if that was your argument. Somewhere along the line in every decision we make, something is subjective. But that doesn’t make the decision as a whole subjective.

142. JJS November 11th, 2009 2:10 pm :

     Tim,

     So here’s where I think we are now. You agree that given material apostolic succession, the Catholic position would be more objective and not reducible to solo scriptura in the same way that the Protestant position is, but this is entirely dependent upon AS actually being knowable.

     I think that given the weight that the Catholic places on AS (which is much more than that placed on it by the Protestant who may grant that AS is historically factual), yes, his position hinges on something more objective than one’s private interpretation of Scripture.

     So even if a Catholic could claim that he knows AS to be true with a reasonable but not absolute certainty, the Protestant could say “Well I can know my interpretation of Scripture to be accurate with the same degree of certainty. No, I don’t have absolute certainty without the possibility of error, but I do have certainty beyond reasonable doubt that I understand the fundamentals of the gospel.” Therefore, the Catholic position really isn’t better than the Protestant position. Is that an accurate representation of what you’re getting at?

     There are two issues involved here (and this is where Andrew’s and my comments sort of dovetail). The first issue is, “Is apostolic succession actually true?” Andrew seems to grant it, I am not so sure. But either way, there is also the second question: “If apostolic succession is true, what does this mean as far as church authority is concerned?” I mean, if Caiaphas could trace his succession back to Aaron, did that mean he was infallible? Of course not. So is it possible that something like apostolic succession was appealed to initially as a kind of historical convenience (since the early fathers lives not too long after the apostles), but was never intended to become what it has now become?

     Another way of asking this is, Why did so many bishops at Vatican I (historians no less) argue against papal infallibility? If the early fathers made the leap from apostolic succession to the absolute interpretive authority of the Magisterium and pope, then why the need to urge the Church to NOT proclaim papal infallibility as a dogma at Vatican I? It seems like those who argued against it did so precisely because they did NOT place the same weight on the historical fact of apostolic succession as you are placing on it.

143. Bryan Cross November 11th, 2009 2:38 pm :

     Herbert,

     A Catholic doesn’t submit to the Church with the fear that one day She will go astray. A Catholic submits to the Church precisely because he believes that She WON’T go astray. Lewis, then, would be unjustified in his fear of being taught incorrectly had he really understood the essence of what it means to become Catholic. How could one fear being led astray by the very Church Christ founded and to which He granted indefectibility?

     Of course. The point is that Lewis grasped the stakes. He didn’t fear “being led astray by the true Church”. His a priori concern was the potential negative consequences of wrongly identifying the Catholic Church as the Church Christ founded. There is a unique relinquishing of the reigns, when becomes Catholic. Those are reigns that one retains as a Protestant. That’s the point of our article.

     how does the presentation of the argument in this article NOT demand some sort of perpetual “rediscovery” of Magisterial authority? Doesn’t the possibility exist of a person legitimately discovering the Magisterium and then subsequently determining that his previous ascription of divine authority to the Church was ill-founded?

     As I pointed out earlier, once you know something to be true, you don’t need to relearn it, unless you forget it. For example, once a person knows that Christ is the Son of God, then apart from amnesia of some sort, one can come to disbelieve that only by culpably suppressing what one already knows to be true. And the same is true regarding discovering that the Apostles handed on authority to their successors, as a perpetual means of handing down ecclesial authority to each succeeding generation.

     Let me provide a brief hypothetical: A man discovers the Magisterium and becomes Catholic. His wife’s doctors then announce that any future pregnancy would be life-threatening. He’s not comfortable with NFP or any non-surgical means of BC. He then determines that despite Church teaching, he’s getting a vasectomy. He realizes that, though he thought he was truly Catholic, he’s not really Catholic afterall- because when push came to shove, he placed his determination above that of the Church

     The same kind of example could be constructed by replacing the word “Magisterium” with “Apostles” or even with “Christ”. In all three cases, the man either has not yet understood what divine authority means or that he is dealing with divine authority, or he is culpably suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, by knowingly rejecting divine authority. “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16)

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

144. Bryan Cross November 11th, 2009 2:53 pm :

     Retro,

     It confuses me when you speak of finding the Church by “starting with the evidence from history” as if there are objective history books that accurately interpret the events that took place. As I tried to express earlier, there are as many different “histories” as there are historians! Which one do I trust? If you say, “the Bible is an objective history book that accurately interprets the events” then I’d certainly agree. But then you’d be presupposing the authority of Scripture as a first principle in order to begin your search for your perception of what/where the Church should be, which puts you back on the same epistemic plane as the protestant

     The unjustified assumption is that if a judgment involves a subject (and in that sense is subjective), then that judgment cannot also be objective, or we cannot know whether the claim made in that judgment is objectively true. Of course history books are written from a certain point of view. But that does not mean that we cannot determine what objectively happened in history. The subjective should not be construed as obscuring or hiding the objective, but as that by which we attain the objective, whether it be our own observations or the observations of others, eyewitnesses and those who hand on their accounts.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

145. Tim A. Troutman November 11th, 2009 3:40 pm :

     Jason,

     “If apostolic succession is true, what does this mean as far as church authority is concerned?” I mean, if Caiaphas could trace his succession back to Aaron, did that mean he was infallible? Of course not.

     I agree both that succession is not, in itself, a guarantee of a successor’s infallibility in regard to the mission or vocation of the person from which he is in succession, and that consequently Caiaphas was not infallible. This is not an accurate model of how we view Church infallibility, as you know, but I assume you were simplifying it for the sake of brevity and your point still stands – a valid succession of the leaders of Israel as a whole, would not, de facto, make them infallible. But it would (and it did) make them the rightful leaders of Israel. Jesus commanded the people to do what they taught precisely because they sat in the seat of Moses.

     So I think we need to separate the two issues (rightful authority / infallible authority ) in some way. Ultimately, to prove our rebuttal, we need to show infallible authority but there is some distinction of these (albeit) related issues. The thing that makes the Catholic Church the rightful authority of a Christian is not the same thing, per se, that makes her infallible although they have the same source (Christ). Apostolic Succession, if true, makes the CC the rightful authority. As for infallibility, there is a long argument to make here, and it would exceed the scope of this combox. We have an upcoming paper on Church Infallibility but it will be some time before that. We will also show, in the paper on A.S. that even without infallibility, the Church – specifically the Catholic Church, as per above, is the rightful authority over a Christian. The point here is to separate the two. An authority can be rightful without being infallible. I know you agree with this because this is what you believe regarding your church. But the point of this article is that you (generally speaking) have decided your church is ‘rightful’ based on a private interpretation of Scripture (solo scriptura) whereas the Catholics have decided their church is correct based on the more objective criteria of A.S. arguing that only the specific visible Church that Christ founded is rightfully authoritative and not, for example, the one founded by J. Gresham Machen even if the one Machen founded more closely resembles our private interpretation of Scripture.

     So the Church is Visible per our earlier article. Denying God’s providential guidance of the Church is Ecclesial Deism per the following article. The Catholic Hermeneutical approach avoids pitfalls caused by solo scriptura per Matt’s article before this one. There is no distinction between sola/solo scriptura per this article. In the future we will demonstrate the critical nature of the canon, followed by a demonstration that A.S. is not only historically provable, but is the theologically sound method for determining the Church. Later we will demonstrate that Church infallibility is a divine gift given by Christ to His Church.

     I realize I’m leaving several of these key points unproven in this comment. Of course, these are complex issues. I hope you’ll be able to step back, and humor the absurd idea for a moment, that all of the things in our subsequent articles mentioned above can actually be reasonably demonstrated. (I assume you have no major objections to the prior articles, particularly the first two mentioned, or else I would expect you to raise the objection there. The argument here is built on premises laid out in those articles. )

     So with all this craziness in mind, and I realize I’m asking a lot of you, let us return to the issue at hand. Sola scriptura is no different, in principle, to solo scriptura. When I submit so long as I agree…

     Now whether my unproven claims above are correct or not, the only objection that anyone has raised to this article is the ‘tu quoque’ argument. But tu quoque is being used fallaciously. That is, even if it’s true that Catholics are in the same epistemic boat, sola scriptura remains solo scriptura unless there is a valid objection that hasn’t been raised yet. Right now, the objections are merely pointing the finger back, but haven’t shown why it’s not true to begin with. Now one Protestant guest above is convinced by the argument and grants that there is no principled distinction albeit a practical difference in how some Protestants approach Church authority (with which everyone at CTC would agree). But he doesn’t see this as a problem. I think you, on the other hand, would see the non distinction between sola and solo as a serious problem if it’s true.

     But if our defenses of the tu quoque argument are correct, which again will take some time to demonstrate, then not only does it show sola scriptura to be the same as solo scriptura (which has already been demonstrated without refutation) but will show that the Catholic position is not subject to the same criticism and is therefore objectively more likely to be the true Church.

     So is it possible that something like apostolic succession was appealed to initially as a kind of historical convenience (since the early fathers lives not too long after the apostles), but was never intended to become what it has now become?

     This is a complicated question. Prima facie, absolutely it is possible. I think that you will agree with me that the American government has become something the fathers didn’t intend. It’s possible that something like that happened with the Church. It’s also possible, prima facie, that God intended the Church to become exactly what she has become. This is an important possibility to wrestle with, and to be honest, I don’t think Protestants entertain that question very seriously. I know I didn’t. But what if God wanted His Church to be exactly like the Catholic Church is now? What sorts of things in history would we expect to see leading up to it? Well… exactly the sorts of things that we did see.

     But again to return to the crux of this post; the Protestant ecclesiological method reasons from Scripture that, based on the biblical evidence, God would want the Church to look like x and then either joins a church that looks like x or starts one. But the Catholic ecclesiological method reasons that God, while He walked among us, started a Church, here it is and so this is apparently what He wants it to look like and I will conform. It’s not what I would have designed as far as a Church goes… but then again, I don’t think I would have made mosquitos, and I think if I ordered the solar system, like C.S. Lewis, I’d put the planets in ascending order of size.

     Another way of asking this is, Why did so many bishops at Vatican I (historians no less) argue against papal infallibility?

     The issue of papal infallibility is stretching this already complicated thread but a quick correction. Only two bishops out of 435 voted against papal infallibility in the final vote. I think Madrid’s book “Pope Fiction” deals with some common misconceptions and historical embellishments and I think his book includes Vatican I issues.

146. Matthew Anderson November 11th, 2009 5:08 pm :

     Bryan and Tim,

     Do you think any Christian tradition outside of the Roman Catholic Church has a viable ecclesiology in relationship to these questions of authority and interpretation? For example, would you say that the Eastern Orthodox tradition, or even the Anglo-Catholic tradition, or any of the more “catholic” traditions (Coptic, Syrian Orthodox, etc.) have a viable ecclesiology? If so, what are the necessary ingredients in your mind to a tradition having a viable ecclesiology with the ability to bind a person’s conscience? Is it really just apostolic succession?

     Matthew Anderson

147. Bryan Cross November 11th, 2009 5:31 pm :

     Matthew,

     We aren’t asking (or arguing) anything about “viability,” which, strictly speaking, means capable of living. If you mean ‘capable of surviving,’ then quite possibly there are ‘ecclesiologies’ that could characterize sects or institutions capable of surviving for many years. The ‘Church’ that the heretic Marcion started in the second century (with its own bishops, priests, and deacons) lasted hundreds of years, until the early middle ages. We [here at CTC] are talking about the Church that Christ founded, i.e. the original Church founded by Christ, to which He refers in Matthew 16 and Matthew 18. If an organization or institution has the ability to survive for some length of time, this does not mean that it has any authority, of that it can bind the conscience. The only institution having the divine authority to bind the conscience is the one Church that Christ founded (since He founded only one Church, the one mentioned in Matthew 16, and 18). And the four marks of that Church are: one, holy, catholic and apostolic. Only the Catholic Church can claim all four marks, for the reasons I explained in #117.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

148. Tim A. Troutman November 11th, 2009 5:55 pm :

     Matthew,

     (Bryan correct me if you disagree) – What Bryan is saying is not that no other community has any authority at all except the Catholic Church but that the final binding authority for a Christian is the Catholic Church in communion with the See of Peter. The Orthodox Churches, and all Churches that retain valid Holy Orders, have apostolic authority (although not the fullness of apostolic authority since they lack the authority of the office of St. Peter). They, as apostolic heirs, have the authority to “bind and loose.”

     Other ecclesial communities do also have some authority over their members, but not apostolic authority. For example, I can’t imagine that a PCA member, bound to his presbytery, whose conscience does not know otherwise, is free to disobey his church elders without fault. Suppose he wanted to open a brewery but first decided to ask the elders of his church. They decide no, this is not in keeping with our standards and it would give occasion for scandal. I think he would be in sin for disobeying them.

     But if that same man, having come to the conviction that the Catholic Church is the true Church, has bound his conscience to the fullness of the apostolic Church carrying with her the mediated authority of Christ, then he is no longer subject to the authority of his ecclesial community which he now leaves in favor of submitting to the Roman Pontiff. Many people are ‘excommunicated’ by their former communions when they become Catholic, but these excommunications would carry no weight since a non-apostolic community does not have the authority to excommunicate any one from the Catholic Church.

149. Bryan Cross November 11th, 2009 7:19 pm :

     Tim & Matthew,

     The state is a natural society; the Church is a supernatural society. Authority in the natural order is divinely established, as the New Testament teaches. For this reason, kings, princes, presidents and mayors are to be obeyed, unless they command us to violate the natural law, or to violate the divine law revealed in the supernatural society, i.e. the Church. Voluntary civic societies also can have internal laws, and hence dutifully appointed leaders. Anyone who wishes to participate in such societies must be subject to these leaders and laws. This is true of sporting leagues, philanthropic organizations, educational organizations, etc. But the authority had by the leaders and laws of voluntary civic societies is still natural authority, i.e. on the natural order. It is divine only in the providential sense, not in the supernatural sense. It remains at the level of nature, in the ‘grace vs. nature’ sense of nature. Hierarchy and authority are natural to human society, whether that society be the immediate society into which we are born (i.e. the family), the larger society into which we are born (e.g. USA), or voluntary societies which we form or enter (e.g. Rotary Club).

     The Church is a supernatural society because it was founded by God directly, not merely providentially, but through the miracle of the hypostatic union, God becoming man. The authority of the Church is Christ’s own authority, given to the Apostles, and passed on to their successors to this present day. This is a supernatural authority, not a natural authority. This is not a bottom-up authority of the natural order, from mere men to mere men. This is from-heaven-to-earth authority, from God to men, and for this reason this authority is supernatural. This supernatural authority, once one knows it to be such, binds the conscience in an unqualified sense, just as once one knows who Christ is, then His words bind our conscience in an unqualified way.

     This divine authority is found only in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that Christ founded, i.e. this supernatural society. Those persons having apostolic succession, but in schism, retain the sacramental capacity to consecrate the Eucharist, remit sins, and ordain bishops and priests. But they have no divine teaching authority, i.e. no supernatural authority to bind the conscience of anyone in an unqualified way. Otherwise, their disagreement with the Church [from which they are in schism] would entail that God is contradicting Himself, because men with divine authority would be contradicting other men with divine authority. But God can never contradict Himself. Therefore, no one in schism has supernatural teaching authority.

     However, sects in schism from the Church (whether or not they retain apostolic succession) can maintain natural authority, just as the leaders and laws of voluntary civic societies have natural authority over those who wish to be members of such societies. This sort of authority, however, can never bind the conscience in an unqualified way, but it can bind the conscience regarding what one must do if one wishes to participate in that sect or civic society. Persons who do not know of the supernatural authority Christ has established, or believe this sect to be possessing it, are bound by their misinformed conscience.

     Whenever supernatural authority is in conflict with natural authority, we must always give way to supernatural authority. “We must obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29) So if, for example, one is a Mormon, and one discovers that Christ’s authority has been handed down through apostolic succession to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, then one need not get permission from one’s Mormon authority to leave the Mormons. The Mormon authority is a merely natural authority, not a supernatural authority. And Christ calls all men to enter His Church and submit to the supernatural authority He has established there. Hence no natural society, whether family or state or voluntary civic society or religious sect, can bind the conscience of any man to prevent him from seeking to enter the Catholic Church.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

150. Paige Britton November 11th, 2009 9:38 pm :

     Hey, Jason —
     I think I am the “Protestant guest” that Tim is referring to in his note to you (#145), so if you think I have gone off the deep end email me and we’ll make sure we’re on the same page with the sola scriptura stuff.

     Tim –
     um, you guessed wrong — I’m a female “Paige”! :) (No offense taken — I think it’s funny. ;)

151. Andrew McCallum November 11th, 2009 10:01 pm :

     Tim,

     I think we have to decide whether the Reformed churches are part of the Church Christ established the same way we would decide whether the RCC is part of the Church that Christ established. At a minimum I hope that we would want to determine if the four historical marks of the Church are present. And if they are not, do we still decide that yes, the ecclesiastical entity under consideration is part of the Church based solely on material succession? This is not a hypothetical question either at the point of the Reformation or today. But I think I am asking you something that strikes at the heart of the Catholic way of thinking. For the RC there is no such thing as un-faithful material succession. There cannot be. The simple fact of material succession guarantees fidelity, correct? But this is something that we Protestants cannot get our minds around.

     Jason – When I “grant” apostolic succession I am granting that there is evidence that the current bishops of the RCC can trace their lineage to the 1st century. I would also grant that the Jewish high priest Ananias and his fellow priests could trace their lineage back to Aaron. But as you point out, the real question is what do we make of these facts?

152. Paige Britton November 11th, 2009 10:43 pm :

     Tim — Oops, I am an idiot, now I think you were referring to Andrew. never mind!! :)

153. Tim A. Troutman November 12th, 2009 1:14 am :

     Andrew>

     I think we have to decide whether the Reformed churches are part of the Church Christ established the same way we would decide whether the RCC is part of the Church that Christ established.

     I agree that we need to use the same criteria for both.

     For the RC there is no such thing as un-faithful material succession. There cannot be. The simple fact of material succession guarantees fidelity, correct? But this is something that we Protestants cannot get our minds around.

     If you could wrap your mind around that, something would be wrong with your mind! We don’t believe that every bishop or priest with valid orders is faithful to Christ. Not even every pope is faithful in all respects.

154. Teri November 12th, 2009 9:34 am :

     Tim and Bryan,

     I gave Patrick (Madrid) the link to this great article and the conversation that follows. I had wondered if Pat had read Dr. Matthison’s book since he (Matthison) quotes him in several places throughout his book, “The Shape of Sola Scriptura”. He (Pat) gave me a comment that I could post here:

     Of all the recent Protestant books on SS, Matthison’s is by far the most substantial and well-reasoned.
     I still think he gets the issue wrong, but I do respect his scholarship on this subject.

     I just think this gives a lot of credibility to the conversation here at Called To Communion.
     To dialogue on this book in particular is crucial to understanding what still divides us.

     Keep up the excellent work. It’s not an easy task to discuss a volatile subject with charity. But those who represent the Body of Christ can do no less than he would if they are truly part of His Body.

     In the peace of Christ,
     Teri

155. rfwhite November 12th, 2009 5:04 pm :

     Bryan Cross and Neal Judisch: how would you describe the principled differences between the outworking of Mathison’s sola scripture position and the formation of consensus at an ecumenical council?

156. Andrew McCallum November 13th, 2009 12:00 am :

     We don’t believe that every bishop or priest with valid orders is faithful to Christ

     Tim – In #151, I was referring to the whole Church and thus all the bishops, not just one or some. It seems that the Catholic wants to draw a logical connection between material succession of the bishops collectively and the fidelity of all of the bishops collectively. We see the formal connection between current bishops to the early centuries of the Church, but we don’t see there is anything necessarily to be drawn from this in terms of fidelity of the bishops as a whole. Now I understand that after one becomes a Catholic he accepts the indefectability of the RCC as part of the larger corpus of Catholic teaching, but I don’t see how one comes to such a conclusion as he looks at the Church from the outside.

157. Tim A. Troutman November 13th, 2009 1:17 am :

     Andrew, Church infallibility is hard issue. I’ve got a very dear friend, the most well-read Presbyterian I know. He was on the verge of converting to the Catholic Church, just a day away from entering RCIA, and he told me that this was his main issue. He did not enter RCIA for reasons unknown to me but anyway, I appreciate the difficulty of the issue for non-Catholics.

     It seems that the Catholic wants to draw a logical connection between material succession of the bishops collectively and the fidelity of all of the bishops collectively.

     Jason implied the same thing above. In 145, I explained why that is not the case. Although the issues are related and the final source is the same, we do well to draw some distinction between what, per se, makes the Catholic Church infallible, and what, per se, makes her authoritative. I said it about as well as I can in the comment above. Much remains to be demonstrated, specifically the infallibility of the Church, but suffice it to say that I agree with you and Jason that material succession does not logically necessitate infallibility.

158. Lucien Syme November 13th, 2009 12:40 pm :

     I hate to keep sounding like a brown-noser here but this article was very profound, clear and well worth the three days it took to get through it; and this apostolate is simply amazing.

     Apostolic succession is the key to everything that has been passed on to us as Christians. If the Holy Spirit is not being passed on by “the laying on of hands”, as properly understood in ordination with reference to the Magisterium, then we are truly just following the precepts and doctrines of men. The Bible itself would have no real meaning if the Church that declared the books inspired, were not inspired herself.

     We should encourage our Protestant brothers and sisters to read this book by Keith Mathison; I have the feeling this might start many of them down the path towards Rome. The distinction he attempts to make, as presented in this article, between Sola and Solo Scriptura will not satisfy the intellect for too long. And his clear exposition of how Solo Scriptura is wrecking Christianity would make the profound point that their own personal interpretation of Scripture is not infallible; most people tend to think it is and never consider the alternative.

159. K. Doran November 13th, 2009 4:29 pm :

     Hey CTCers,

     While we’re mentioning infallibility/irreformability:

     What would be a good resource that would explain the interplay throughout the Church’s history between various claims of irreformability made by Popes, councils, etc. and queries in favor of reformability by exponents of various heresies (usually within the Church, at least marginally)? What I’m imagining would be a book that explains why very short and very early statements of divine authority (“Let each obey the Bishop as Jesus Christ obeyed the Father” 107 A.D.) were gradually insufficient over time, such that later statements asserted explicitly that no one can change such-and-such a decision ever again. Since much of this development seems to me to have occurred in the first millennium, even in the first 350 years, it would be good to have a resource or resources that start then and continue through Vatican I and beyond. Does anyone know of some? In particular, I am hoping that the book or books would connect this development with the stresses the Church experienced in responding to violent and persistent heresies — or instead show that this connection was not relevant (as I am guessing it was).

     Sincerely,

     K. Doran

160. Bryan Cross November 13th, 2009 8:11 pm :

     rfwhite,

     how would you describe the principled differences between the outworking of Mathison’s sola scripture position and the formation of consensus at an ecumenical council?

     The outworking of the sola scriptura position, as we explain in the article, is that there are as many (or more) different ecclesial institutions as there are general interpretations of Scripture. That is because given sola scriptura, what counts as the Church and its marks rests ultimately on the individual’s interpretation of Scripture. One accepts the teaching / interpretation / discipline only of those persons who generally share one’s own interpretation of Scripture, particularly regarding what one considers to be essential or important regarding the Christian faith. If one believes that one’s denomination has not sufficiently preserved what one (based on one’s own interpretation) believes to be essential or important, then one leaves and joins or forms a new denomination. In that respect, under sola scriptura the highest authority of one’s denomination cannot bind one’s conscience, nor is the decision of the highest authority [e.g. the general assembly] of one’s denomination authoritative for all Christians. No excommunication is excommunication from the Church, only from a branch of the Church.

     On the other hand, the outworking of the consensus forming process that takes place among the bishops in an ecumenical council is a decision of some sort. If this decision has to do with faith and morals, and this decision is definitive, then it is binding on the whole Church, whether recognized as such by individual Christians or not. If one knows that these bishops are the successors of the Apostles and in communion with the successor of St. Peter, and thus that they are the rightful leaders of the Church, then one cannot justifiably reject their decisions in ecumenical council. To do so is formal heresy. One cannot (in good conscience) appeal to one’s own interpretation; one’s conscience is bound, because their decision is the authoritative standard for one’s interpretation. If one is excommunicated by the successors of the Apostles, one is excommunicated not from a branch of the Church, but from the Church simpliciter. To separate from them is to be in schism from the Church.

     I do not know whether that answers your question or not, but perhaps it helps clarify the difference between the two positions.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

161. Paige Britton November 13th, 2009 9:42 pm :

     In scanning the footnotes I came upon n.55, in which the authors quote Kevin Vanhoozer. He observes three possible Protestant responses (and he proposes a fourth) to the problem we face re. interpretation, since “God’s word is infallible, [but] human interpretations are not.” The four responses are:

     1) hermeneutical relativism (which Bryan and Neal identify as solo scriptura);
     2) Head to Rome, for safety in numbers;
     3) determine a “right reading” according to a local interpretive community (which Bryan and Neal identify as sola scriptura);
     4) careful study with attention to others past and present, praying for the Spirit’s illumination and humility (which is what I was suggesting above, re. a “thoughtful” Protestant expectation of sufficient & reliable, though not infallible, interpretation).

     So my impression that the article failed to mention the approach of thoughtful Protestants was incorrect – although I see that Bryan and Neal would like to think that Protestants who take the fourth path will inevitably end up on the road to Rome. (How close is Vanhoozer?)

162. Andrew McCallum November 13th, 2009 11:51 pm :

     Much remains to be demonstrated, specifically the infallibility of the Church, but suffice it to say that I agree with you and Jason that material succession does not logically necessitate infallibility.

     Tim,

     You did state this very nicely to Jason and I missed it so sorry to make you repeat it. But I’m glad to hear you say this. I will be interested to see how you demonstrate infallibility without reference to material succession.

     And I’m still hoping that Dr. Mathieson will pop in again. This would be interesting to get the perspective of the author of the article that was under investigation here.

     Cheers for now….

163. mateo November 14th, 2009 4:26 pm :

     Paige Britton : … the authors quote Kevin Vanhoozer. He observes three possible Protestant responses (and he proposes a fourth) to the problem we face re. interpretation, since “God’s word is infallible, [but] human interpretations are not.”

     1)
     2)
     3)
     4) careful study with attention to others past and present, praying for the Spirit’s illumination and humility (which is what I was suggesting above, re. a “thoughtful” Protestant expectation of sufficient & reliable, though not infallible, interpretation).

     Re: option 4. Among the thousands upon thousands of Protestants sects that now exist on the face of the earth, wouldn’t the active members of most of these sects think that they meet the criteria of option 4? Where are the sincere Protestants that don’t think that they are guided by the “Spirit’s illumination”?

     In spite of the sincerity with which Protestants accept the doctrines taught by the innumerable sects, it is also an undeniable fact that there is “widespread ‘hermeneutical chaos and anarchy’ caused by the existence of conflicting interpretations of Scripture.”

     My question is this, why would Jesus found a Church and then leave us with no way of knowing with certainty what he actually taught?

     Paige, how would you answer Terri’s post # 56?

164. Richard November 15th, 2009 7:46 am :

     Paige, do you believe that there is a true meaning in the text and if so how do I know which it is?

165. lojahw November 15th, 2009 11:58 pm :

     The conclusion that apostolic succession itself guarantees correct interpretation of Scripture is refuted by the experience of the fourth century church, in which Jerome’s famous quotation bears witness to the vast number of priests and bishops throughout the empire who embraced the Arian heresy. Apostolic succession by itself does not avert false teaching according to the irrefutable evidence of Church history.

     Since most people seem to be ignorant of how the Council of Nicea resolved the problem, the following quotes, preserved in Theodoret’s Church History, should be instructive:

     From Constantine’s opening address to the Council: “For the gospels, the writings, and the oracles of the ancient prophets, clearly teach us what we ought to believe concerning the divine nature. Let, then, all contentious disputation be discarded; and let us seek in the divinely-inspired word the solution of the questions at issue.” (Church History 1.6).

     “The bishops, having detected their deceitfulness in this matter [the Arian heresy], collected from Scripture those passages which say of Christ that He is the glory, the fountain, the stream, and the express image of the person … likewise, ‘ I and the Father are one.’ They then, with still greater clearness, briefly declared that the Son is of one substance with the Father; for this, indeed, is the signification of the passages which have been quoted.” (Church History 1.7)

     And … “And since no passage of the inspired Scripture uses the terms ‘out of the non-existent,’ or that ‘there was a time when He was not,’ nor indeed any of the other phrases of the same class, it did not appear reasonable to assert or to teach such things.” (ibid. 1.11)

     The solution to heresy is not an infallible interpretive Church office, but rather, in the Apostle Peter’s words, interpreters who do not distort Scripture because they untaught and unstable. It is really as simple as “it is written, it is not written” – does it agree with Scripture or does it not? All truly stable and trained Christians should have no issues with the regula fidei declared by the Council of Nicea.

     Blessings.

166. Bryan Cross November 16th, 2009 12:59 am :

     lojahw,

     The conclusion that apostolic succession itself guarantees correct interpretation of Scripture

     The Catholic position is not that apostolic succession, simpliciter, guarantees correct interpretation of Scripture. Individual bishops, though having Holy Orders in succession from the Apostles, may fall into heresy, as history shows. So the fact that many fourth-century bishops were Arians is fully compatible with the Catholic understanding of apostolic succession. But the successor of St. Peter, who retains the keys of the Kingdom, necessarily remains the rock upon which the Church rests, and bears Christ’s infallible prayer that his faith would fail not, and bears Christ’s infallible promise that the gates of hell will not prevail over it while resting on that rock which is Peter. So long as the bishops are in full communion with the successor of St. Peter, they (as a group with the pope) are protected from error in any definitive teaching on faith and morals. What does St. Jerome say to that?

     “Simon Peter, son of John, of the province of Galilee, of the village of Bethsaida, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, ….”

     “Christ is not alone in being the Rock, for He granted to the Apostle Peter that he should be called ‘Rock’.”

     “For what has Paul to do with Aristotle? Or Peter to do with Plato? For as the latter (Plato) was prince of philosophers, so was the former (Peter) prince of Apostles: on him the Lord’s Church was firmly founded, and neither rushing flood nor storm can shake it.”

     “Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord…. I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. The wide space of sea and land that lies between us cannot deter me from searching for “the pearl of great price”… Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord.”

     “The church [here, i.e. Syria] is rent into three factions, and each of these is eager to seize me for its own. …. I meantime keep crying: “He who clings to the chair of Peter is accepted by me… Therefore I implore your blessedness, by our Lord’s cross and passion, ….. to give an apostolic decision. Only tell me by letter with whom I am to communicate in Syria.”

     “The Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism.”

     St. Jerome clearly did not think that merely looking at Scripture was sufficient to resolve interpretive disputes. He himself looked to the authority held by the successor of St. Peter.

     The solution to heresy is not an infallible interpretive Church office, but rather, in the Apostle Peter’s words, interpreters who do not distort Scripture because they untaught and unstable. It is really as simple as “it is written, it is not written” – does it agree with Scripture or does it not?

     Where is it written in Scripture that the solution to heresy is not an infallible interpretive office, or that the deposit of faith is limited to what is written? The fact is, it isn’t. So your prescription fails its own test. If you want to appeal to the method of the ecumenical council as binding on us, then it seems that you need also to accept the definitive decisions of the ecumenical councils [on matters of faith and morals] as binding. In the Catholic understanding, the definitive decisions of ecumenical councils on matters of faith and morals are definitive and irreversible. Otherwise, an ecumenical council would merely be a survey of the present mood in the Church, and couldn’t be the means by which the Holy Spirit resolved once and for all a doctrinal dispute. (cf. Acts 15:28 “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”) If the Holy Spirit was not operative in the council’s decisions, then the particular debate in question could simply be raised again at the next ecumenical council, perpetually. But if the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church into all truth, then the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church when she in ecumenical council makes a definitive determination of a doctrine of faith or morals for the whole Church. And then such decisions cannot be reversed, because they are of God, who is Truth, and who does not change. Infallibility is what preserves doctrine. The Catholic Church has no authority to reverse or nullify any of her dogmas. But I wouldn’t bet a dime on any particular Protestant denomination retaining its doctrines two hundred years from now. Without infallibility, every single doctrine always remains up for abrogation.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

167. herbert November 16th, 2009 11:29 am :

     Paige, re #163. It seems to me that there’s plenty of disagreement among Catholics, too. It’s just that we disagree with each other and work things out WHILE IN COMMUNION with one another because we value unity more than we value what our current understanding of a doctrine may be…

     There will always be a certain degree of disagreement/misunderstanding. There’s a natural tension there through which the Holy Spirit may work. Becoming Catholic doesn’t make that go away, as you well know. However, the unity to which we’re called allows us to put aside our differences and come to the Altar of God, hopefully awaiting the completion of the work the Son is doing through His Church. just 2 cents.

168. lojahw November 16th, 2009 11:29 am :

     Bryan, Thank you for your kind reply. A couple of observations and questions:

     1. The Council of Nicea unquestionably demonstrated the use of the practice now called Sola Scriptura.

     2. The successor of St. Peter was not present nor did he contribute to the findings of the council.

     Questions:

     1. Was the process followed by the Council of Nicea an exemplar or an anomaly for the Church on the “faith which was once for all delivered to the saints”? Please explain.

     2. How do you respond to Augustine’s teaching on the infallibility of Scripture and the fallibility of *all* bishops and ecumenical councils?

     “But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted … either by the discourse of someone who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 2.3.4)*

     *To preclude the obvious question about Augustine’s inclusion of the deuteros in the canon, please note that he did not exclude himself from refutation and correction. The deuteros fail to meet his own criteria: “we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true.” Yet the book of Judith identifies Nebuchadnezzar as the king of the Assyrians, ruling from Nineveh. And who does not question Sirach’s assertion: “better is a man’s wickedness than a woman’s goodness” (42:14)? Indeed, Augustine and the Council of Trent erred. By Jesus’ definition, “Thy Word is Truth” – there is no place for error in God’s Word.

     Blessings,
     Lover of Jesus and His Word (lojahw)

169. TurretinFan November 16th, 2009 12:50 pm :

     Answer Bryan Cross’ comments at #166, Pastor King has responded (Link to Pastor King’s Response)

170. Teri November 16th, 2009 1:06 pm :

     I live in an area of the country where there are many sincere and godly people living their faith out with the principle of Sola Scriptura, but it is no different than Solo Scriptura. Yesterday, in a large chain bookstore, I counted more than six long rows of book and Bibles for “Christians” only.

     From Joel Osteen’s latest bestseller to “Bishop” T.D. Jakes and Joyce Myers…everyone and his brother has a book or a study to help you understand what God’s word wants you to know. This doesn’t include the dizzying array of “Bibles” to help you understand God’s word according to the author of the commentary.

     Which would be considered Sola Scriptura and not Solo Scriptura? Is the Lutheran Study Bible (ESV edition) the Sola Scriptura since Martin Luther had first claim on it? What about the ESV Bible with commentary by the best Reformed scholars today? Is that Sola Scriptura?
     Is Solo Scriptura more when it’s has one man’s name on it such as the Macarthur, Charles Stanley, Scofield, or Ryrie?
     What about the The Spirit Filled Bible for Charismatics?

     Does anyone think that the Bible, that is supposed to be clear to understand by even the most simple man, has built a huge industry around the fact that it is NOT clear – speaks to this issue of Sola Scriptura?

     If you ask most of the people in the area in which I live their opinion, they will tell you without hesitation that the ONLY Bible that is Sola Scriptura is The King James Bible…and it was authorized by God. Those people think Luther found it hidden by the “evil” Catholics and he took it and had it printed by permission of the wonderful King James and as Forest Gump would say: That’s all I have to say about that.

     I truly believe that the truth was spoken by St. Peter to Our Lord when he stated, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have believed and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God”. This was in John 6.
     As Taylor Marshall states in The Crucified Rabbi, “Despite the subsequent failures of Peter and the Popes after him, the papacy has successfully protected this misunderstood doctrine for two thousand years.”

     In the peace of Christ,
     Teri

171. Bryan Cross November 16th, 2009 2:40 pm :

     lojahw,

     Sola scriptura is a theological position denying that the Magisterium has the highest interpretive authority. (Our article argues that there is no principled difference between solo and sola, because according to sola scriptura the individual retains the highest interpretive authority.) So the Council of Nicea shows us their use of Scripture, but it does not demonstrate that they held sola scriptura; their very action, in definitively resolving the Arian dispute for the whole Church, by establishing what is the orthodox interpretation of Scripture viz-a-viz the deity of Christ, is incompatible with sola scriptura.

     The successor of St. Peter was not present nor did he contribute to the findings of the council.

     His legates were present, and he ratified it. That is true for all the first seven ecumenical councils.

     Was the process followed by the Council of Nicea an exemplar or an anomaly for the Church on the “faith which was once for all delivered to the saints”?

     In order to answer that question adequately, I would need to know what all you have packed into the word ‘process’. But, speaking generally, while some things pertaining to the council were accidental (i.e. not essential), the process of the council was not an anomaly, but an exemplar.

     Regarding the quotation of St. Augustine, we affirm it. We only understand that by ‘correct’ St. Augustine meant not ‘contradict’ or ‘refute’ but ‘develop’ i.e. ‘perfect’, just as Constantinople in 381 perfected the Creed that had been determined at Nicea in 325.

     The deuteros fail to meet his own criteria: “we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true.” Yet the book of Judith identifies Nebuchadnezzar as the king of the Assyrians, ruling from Nineveh. And who does not question Sirach’s assertion: “better is a man’s wickedness than a woman’s goodness” (42:14)? Indeed, Augustine and the Council of Trent erred. By Jesus’ definition, “Thy Word is Truth” – there is no place for error in God’s Word.

     St. Augustine’s statement “we can hold no matter of doubt …” is not a description but a prescription. He is not stating that everything in the Bible is self-evident, or verifiable by human reason. That would be rationalism. If you think St. Augustine is talking about description [there cannot be any verse in the Bible that people doubt or cannot verify to be true], then the problem is that there are many verses in the Protestant Bible that many people doubt and do not find self-evident or verifiable. So the criterion would leave the Protestant Bible torn to shreds, and hence it obviously cannot be descriptive. So he is making a prescriptive statement. As for defending the Apocrypha, that would take us off-topic, so let’s save that discussion for a post on the Apocrypha.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

172. K. Doran November 16th, 2009 3:46 pm :

     TurretinFan,

     You cited Pastor King’s response to Bryan’s claims about Jerome.

     Ah yes, the protestant approach to Jerome’s papal views. It goes, roughly: “I can’t believe that Jerome was a (gasp) papist, but I can believe that this saintly man was sectarian and uncatholic. I’ll believe the latter about a saint so that I can avoid having to confront the former.”

     I recommend Chapman’s work on Jerome. Jerome was not a protestant, and I think only God knows when this tired Protestant error will finally die:

     http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num53.htm

     Chapman goes through all the usual objections. You’ve been subjected to lies, TurretinFan. Even at the end of his life, when he was (I believe) living far from Rome in the holy land, Jerome stayed true to Rome’s authority, wiriting to Demetrias at nearly age 70:

     “I had nearly left out what is most important. When you were a child, and Bishop Anastasius of holy memory ruled the Roman Church, a fierce storm of (Origenist) heretics from the East tried to sully and destroy the simplicity of faith which was praised by the mouth of the Apostle. But that man of richest poverty and Apostolic solicitude straightway smote the noxious head and stopped the mouth of the hissing hydra. And because I am afraid, nay, I have heard the rumor, that these poisonous shoots are still alive and vigorous in some, I feel that I ought with the deepest affection to give you this advice, to hold the faith of holy Innocent, who is the successor and son of that man, and of the Apostolic See, and not to receive any foreign doctrine, however prudent and clever you may think yourself to be.” (Ep 130 [al 8], 992[1120])

     He stayed loyal in spite of regular Roman claims to doctrinal supremacy over the whole Church. Either he agreed with these claims or he was a coward, a kiss-up, and a liar. You decide. I believe he was a Saint. A bad tempered one, sometimes. . . but not a coward, a kiss-up, and a liar. Check out the Chapman link.

     Sincerely,

     K. Doran

173. TurretinFan November 16th, 2009 4:08 pm :

     K. Doran,

     Your rough paraphrase isn’t remotely close to the approach outlined in the article from Pastor King that I linked. I wonder whether you didn’t read it, or whether you read it and then decided not to represent it accurately?

     You note “Jerome was not a protestant, and I think only God knows when this tired Protestant error will finally die,” but Pastor King doesn’t claim Jerome was a Protestant. Your remarks sound like stock replies that are given out in anticipation of what you imagine are the usual objections. Perhaps you should either read or more carefully read Pastor King’s article.

     You assert, “You’ve been subjected to lies, ” which may well be true, but not lies from Pastor King.

     -TurretinFan

174. K. Doran November 16th, 2009 4:58 pm :

     I’ll quote him exactly then:
     “With a true sectarian spirit, Jerome writes off all three of these rival bishops as being of “Antichrist.” Jerome makes the same youthful mistake of judgment that any of us are liable to make.”

     In any event, I recommend that you apply the principle of maximum likelihood to your analysis of Jerome’s views. Here’s how it works.

     First, you write down two models:

     Model A: Jerome was a papist in fourth century garb. He viewed Rome as the center of communion, and managed his own choice of who to be in communion with based on what the Bishop of Rome declared. His belief in this bishop’s authority was based on the chair that this bishop occupied, not merely on the personal relationship that he had with a particular occupant of that chair. This was a mature belief that he maintained throughout his life.

     Model B: Jerome really liked his old pastor from Rome, even when he lived far away. But he in no way believed that it was necessary to be in communion with the occupants of that chair, or that he who “does not gather with you scatters” in general. He just trusted his good ol’ pastor. This trust was partially based on his youth — he grew up later!

     The second step is to look at the data. Why don’t you read the Chapman link, which contains much more data, and much better context, then the link that you offered?

     The third step is to see which model would be more likely to produce the data that is actually there. The fact is, a person who believes Model A is simply much more likely to say: “As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord” than a person who believes model B.

     The rest of the evidence from his life is even more damning to Model B. Why did he continue to preach the same doctrine to Demetrias (see my post #172 above) at the end of his life if his earlier letters were a result of youth? Why did he continue to preach the same doctrine when a new Bishop was the Pope of Rome (again, see the letter in post #172 above), if the only reason he preached it before was because the old Bishop of Rome was his friend and mentor?

     Do you see how to apply the principle of Maximum Likelihood to your data? It simplifies things tremendously. Model A is more likely to produce the data that we actually see. Model B would have rather produced the following data: when Jerome was young, he would say: “Dear Damasus: I need advice about where to receive the Eucharist. I know that I need to find a new pastor now, but I just wanted to ask you some advice, in case you know anything about the situation over here.” When Jerome was old, he would say: “What’s the new Bishop of Rome to me? I’m in the holy land, I don’t know what’s going on over there — Demetrias, just listen to my advice, and you’ll be fine. The old Bishop was a good man and I knew him personally, but the new one certainly doesn’t have a special protection against error just because the old one was a good man!”

     In general, the model that is more likely to produce the data that we do see, is itself more likely to be the truth. This is true in science and statistics, and its true in patristics too.

     Sincerely,

     K. Doran

175. Sean Patrick November 16th, 2009 5:03 pm :

     TurretinFan,

     I read Pastor King’s blog entry. I wonder why Pastor King starts off by calling another man arrogant and/or ignorant? Does Pastor King know Bryan? Such talk does nothing to serve his argument nor does it help the conversation.

     At any rate, I do not follow the point of Pastor King’s argument. Is he arguing that Jerome was a Presbyterian or something? Is Pastor King out of communion with the successor to Peter because he thinks that Jerome was out of communion with the successor to Peter and thus he is justified in being out of communion with the Pope? Pastor King does not see the Catholic Church in the writings of Jerome even though Jerome expressly writes about being in communion with Peter’s successor. Fair enough, but I cannot see what other church Pastor King sees in the writings of Jerome. The PCA? The RCA? The PCUSA maybe? Or maybe the CREC?

     “And to Timothy he says: ‘Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.’… For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number chosen by themselves and set in a more exalted position, just as an army elects a general, or as deacons appoint one of themselves whom they know to be diligent and call him archdeacon. For what function excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter? Jerome, To Evangelus, Epistle 146:1 (ante A.D. 420).

     What bishop ordained Pastor King?

     Pastor King ends by saying that Catholic claims cannot be taken seriously from a historical or theological perspective. His statement is unfortunate because genuine dialog would entail that all sides take the positions of others seriously.

176. lojahw November 16th, 2009 5:59 pm :

     BTW – you say that you affirm Augustine’s statement that *all” bishops and councils are liable to be refuted and corrected? He did not exempt the bishop of Rome.

     Blessings.

177. TurretinFan November 16th, 2009 6:00 pm :

     K. Doran,

     You wrote: “The fact is, a person who believes Model A is simply much more likely to say: “As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord” than a person who believes model B.”

     I don’t see how you conclude that, which is not surprising since you don’t present much by way of reasons for this conclusion. Let’s consider:

     1) Communicating exclusively with the bishop of Rome isn’t something that papists (adherents to the papacy, no indignity intended by the term) generally do. In fact, if communicating primarily or exclusively with the bishop of Rome is a good indicator of someone being a papist, then even if one gains Jerome as a papist, one may have to be prepared to lose most of the other church fathers.

     2) Flattering one’s mentor by gilding the lily is something that’s fairly normal, particularly for a rhetorically skilled man like Jerome (check out the content of his letters here: link – example from Letter 7: “Those whom mutual affection has joined together, a written page ought not to sunder. I must not, therefore, distribute my words some to one and some to another. For so strong is the love that binds you together that affection unites all three of you in a bond no less close than that which naturally connects two of your number. Indeed, if the conditions of writing would only admit of it, I should amalgamate your names and express them under a single symbol. “).

     I think that model B actually works better than A to explain that data, because the letter better shows a protege speaking good things about his mentor than “Joe Papist” identifying his rule of interpretive authority.

     You claim “The rest of the evidence from his life is even more damning to Model B.” Well, the “model B” is an explanation for what Jerome says as a relatively young man to his mentor. We expect Jerome to change and his audience to change over time, and we would consequently expect to have to use something of a different model later in life as he continues correspondence with the city that he still seems to view as home despite his Palestinian residence.

     But frankly, even if we were left choosing between the flat model you give as option B and the model A being that Jerome was a papist, I think we find Jerome speaking rather unexpectedly. He writes (toward the end of his life, in the last quotation from Jerome that Chapman gives: “I had nearly left out what is most important. When you were a child, and Bishop Anastasius of holy memory ruled the Roman Church … ” did you read that? He says not “the Catholic Church” but “the Roman Church.” Doesn’t that strike you as just the least bit odd for someone who viewed the bishop of Rome as the head of the universal church?

     While Jerome may have been kind to the bishops of Rome that he personally knew, he was not quite so fond at least one other, in a portion of less convenient evidence that Chapman appears to have omitted:

     Jerome (347-420): Liberius was ordained the 34th bishop of the Roman church, and when he was driven into exile for the faith, all the clergy took an oath that they would not recognize any other bishop. But when Felix was put in his place by the Arians, a great many foreswore themselves; but at the end of the year they were banished, and Felix too; for Liberius, giving in to the irksomeness of exile and subscribing to the heretical and false doctrine, made a triumphal entry into Rome. E. Giles, ed., Documents Illustrating Papal Authority: A.D. 96-454 (Westport: Hyperion Press, reprinted 1982), p. 151.

     Latin text: LIBERIUS XXXIV Romanae Ecclesiae ordinatur episcopus, quo in exsilium ob fidem truso, omnes clerici juraverunt, ut nullum alium susciperent. Verum cum Felix ab Arianis fuisset in sacerdotium substitutus, plurimi pejeraverunt, et post annum cum Felice ejecti sunt: quia Liberius taedio victus exsilii, et in haereticam pravitatem subscribens, Romam quasi victor intraverat. S. Hieronymi Chronicon, Ad Ann. 352, PL 27:684-685.

     (thanks to Pastor King for providing this quotation)

     Notice as well the “Roman Church” distinction provided even in this example. That’s how he thought about the Roman church, as a part (and perhaps a very important part) of the Catholic church, but not as the Catholic church itself. Its clerics, even its bishop, could err on matters of doctrine and did in the instance of Liberius.

     With all due respect, Jerome was not a papist.

     -TurretinFan

178. Bryan Cross November 16th, 2009 6:16 pm :

     lojahw,

     St. Augustine does not state any exception here, but we need to be careful to avoid the argument from silence. His ‘all’ may not have been intended to include the successor of St. Peter.

     That being said, let’s keep the discussion on-topic, particularly, on the article.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

179. Keith W. Thompson November 16th, 2009 6:22 pm :

     Bryan,

     This is an attempt to boil down the whole matter, so please correct me if I am wrong in my assessment of the issue at hand.
     It seems that Rome claims to have “infallible interpretive authority” of Scripture based upon Rome’s understanding of Apostolic Succession and as a result, all interpretations outside of the Magesterium are therefore “illegitimate” and therefore not binding on anyone. Reformed councils claim authority via true succession of “Apostolic teaching” and also claim that all churches and councils are subject to error and have erred, and therefore they are only binding upon individuals who consensually submit to Reformed dogmas.
     I think that the issue is not epistemic at all, but rather dealing with the scope of authority. If Rome is right, her councils are binding on everyone both inside and outside of the Church. If the Reformed position is correct, then Reformed dogmas and confessions are only binding on those who are members in Reformed churches.
     The issue then, is which is correct. Since this is an epistemic debate, at this point, I must point out that every individual must examine the evidence and the truth claims of both camps and make a conscientious individual choice of which to follow. One cannot have infallible knowledge that either position is true without presupposing that it is so. So it seems that on the epistemic level, both positions are equally reliant upon the SOLO position which you have attempted to pin on protestants. But your reasoning seems to place you in the same camp. How can you know that Rome possesses the authority which she claims to possess without making an individual decision based upon your own private interpretation of Scripture (& Church history, etc.)?

     Sincerely,
     Keith WT

180. TurretinFan November 16th, 2009 6:30 pm :

     Sean Patrick:

     As for the charges of ignorance and arrogance, my understanding is that they were not intended specifically for Mr. Cross.

     “Is he arguing that Jerome was a Presbyterian or something?” No. That’s not his argument.

     “Is Pastor King out of communion with the successor to Peter because he thinks that Jerome was out of communion with the successor to Peter and thus he is justified in being out of communion with the Pope?” No. Pastor King is not attempting to justify behavior based on Jerome, he’s criticizing inaccurate historical depictions of Jerome. As with Jerome, with Pastor King, “There is no argument that is so forcible, as a passage from the Holy Scriptures.” (Jerome, Commentary on the Prophet Zacharias)

     “Pastor King does not see the Catholic Church in the writings of Jerome even though Jerome expressly writes about being in communion with Peter’s successor.” Pastor King doesn’t read modern Roman Catholic views into Jerome from Jerome saying nice things about his contemporaries who were bishops at Rome.

     “Fair enough, but I cannot see what other church Pastor King sees in the writings of Jerome. The PCA? The RCA? The PCUSA maybe? Or maybe the CREC?” Uh … that would be just a different anachronism.

     “What bishop ordained Pastor King?” Presbyterian ecclesiology differs somewhat from that of Jerome’s church: Roman ecclesiology today differs too. There was no “college of cardinals” to select the bishops of Rome in Jerome’s day.

     “Pastor King ends by saying that Catholic claims cannot be taken seriously from a historical or theological perspective. His statement is unfortunate because genuine dialog would entail that all sides take the positions of others seriously.” I don’t think Pastor King meant we should just laugh, but rather that there isn’t much merit in the anachronistic claims he’s debunked.

     - TurretinFan

181. Sean Patrick November 16th, 2009 6:36 pm :

     TFan.

     This thread is not about Jerome and whether or not he was a Catholic. The article is about Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura and interpretive authority.

     Maybe one day we’ll have an article about Jerome’s eccliesiology. In the meantime, the link that K Doran posted actually includes much related to the argument Pastor King is making (and similar ones). I must say that for all the ink spilled by Reformed bloggers about how Jerome was not a Catholic there is very little written by Reformed bloggers in regards to which church Jerome actually belonged.

     Further, I’d be interested in your thoughts on the actual article we have presented.

182. TurretinFan November 16th, 2009 6:55 pm :

     Sean Patrick wrote: “This thread is not about Jerome and whether or not he was a Catholic.” Understood. While one imagines that Jerome’s testimony on the papacy might seem to be relevant to a discussion of interpretive authority, where some folks are setting forth a scheme centering around the papacy, if that is ruled out of bounds by the folks running the show here, I’ll certainly play by the rules you’ve set.

     Much of the article, as such, is directed at arguments that are presented as though specific to Mr. Mathison and his presentation. I understand Mr. Matthison plans a response. Some of the arguments attributed to Mr. Matthison (I don’t render a judgment as to whether or not such attribution is accurate) are arguments I’d never use to defend the Scriptural doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

     Obviously, Matthison is correct to note that some “Protestants” act as though the church does not have a role in the interpretation of Scripture, and such a view is mistaken. That said, private judgment is simply an inescapable reality of human existence. To suggest that the church is the “ultimate” interpreter of Scripture seems to be somewhat askew – though perhaps that’s not quite what Matthison meant.

     -TurretinFan

183. K. Doran November 16th, 2009 7:40 pm :

     Well, TeurretinFan, I encourage you to try a little harder to apply the principle of maximum likelihood to your analysis of a writer’s motivations. No one can do this thinking for you. Not me, not the CTCers, not your pastor. Try the principle out on passages written by your friends for which you can clarify the writer’s meaning with a question that you ask later. You will find that it works well. Then think about how likely various early Christians would have been to offer — not general praise — but specific statements of rights and duties to the bishop of Rome. Think about how likely they were to demand specific requirements for the succession of bishops, and to demand of all Christians that they must meet under the auspices of such a bishop, with no exception. Think about it with the principle of maximum likelihood in mind. . . compare the model of (1) obedience to bishops, apostolic succession necessary for a bishop, and the center of communion as the roman bishop, with (2) the model of none of these things being necessary. Then think about what would be more likely to produce the data that you see. Don’t think about what could merely “explain” the data. This kind of thought will always produce a dozen different “explanations,” relying on assumptions, conjectures, hidden variables, naivete, youth, ignorance, etc. Rather, think about what best explains the data — what would most likely produce the data that you see. Your pastor’s explanation of Jerome’s youth is falsified by his continuance in the same doctrine at the end of his life, when he was in the Holy land, permanently far from Rome. This is the kind of thinking you need to do to see past the lies that centuries of anti-Catholic hatred have produced. Your pastor is not a liar. Neither are you. But some people lied in the past, and the lies have been passed down the generations. You need to have a sound analytical method to see through them. I recommend maximum likelihood.

     Sincerely,

     K. Doran

     p.s. I also recommend reading what the Popes of the fourth and fifth centuries said about their duties; then read about who was in communion with them in spite of their making these claims. . . then think about how people like Saint Jerome responded when someone claimed a doctrine that was false. . . far from passively accepting it, he was always ready to call a spade something worse . . . as were other great saints of that era in communion with the bishops of Rome!
     p.p.s. I will say no more, in deference to the topic of the thread.

184. TurretinFan November 16th, 2009 7:48 pm :

     Nor will I respond, in deference to the topic of the thread, however tempting it may be.

185. Bryan Cross November 16th, 2009 8:22 pm :

     Hello Keith T,

     Welcome to CTC. Interpretations that are contrary to what has already been definitively declared by the Magisterium are ‘illegitimate’ and are not binding on anyone. But that does not mean that we may not hold differing interpretations on matters regarding which the Tradition or Magisterium have remained silent.

     Reformed councils claim authority via true succession of “Apostolic teaching” and also claim that all churches and councils are subject to error and have erred, and therefore they are only binding upon individuals who consensually submit to Reformed dogmas.

     In other words, it is only ‘binding’ on you if you agree with it. As we pointed out in the article, whatever is only binding if you agree with it, is not a genuine authority.

     One cannot have infallible knowledge that either position is true without presupposing that it is so.

     Infallibility is rightly predicated of things capable of operation, e.g. persons capable of avoiding error in some operation. Knowledge is not capable of operation, so it is not rightly described as infallible. So the properly formed claim would be:

     One cannot know that either position is true without presupposing that it is so.

     But that claim is not true. We can come to know that Christ is the Son of God without presupposing that Christ is the Son of God. Christ’s being the Son of God is the best explanation of all the evidence, even though it is something no one can come to see without the operation of the Holy Spirit. Faith is a gift of God, but that doesn’t make fideism true. Faith is not irrational; it is supra-rational. That’s why everything falls into place rationally when one acquires faith. Faith perfects reason. So likewise, one cannot come to know the truth of the other items of the Creed [excepting God's having created the world, and our facing final judgment] without the aid of the Holy Spirit. But that doesn’t mean that one must presuppose the other contents of the Creed in order to know them. When we see their truth, we see how it perfectly explains all the data. Faith here too perfects reason. Grace builds on nature. Presupposing a truth would not perfect reason; it would be merely hypothetical reasoning. But reason is aimed at the truth about reality; reason is not content with merely hypothetical truths. So presupposing x as a foundation would not allow us to know the truth of anything we would build on the presupposition of x. Everything epistemically built on a mere hypothetical remains merely hypothetical. But faith is not hypothetical. We believe the faith to be true, on the authority of God who cannot lie, who speaks to us through His Word as explicated to us by His duly-appointed shepherds.

     We do not have to be infallible in order to come to know that Christ is infallible. We can know by reason alone that God exists and is infallible. So, if by the help of the Spirit we are granted to know that Jesus is the Son of God, we can know by deduction that Jesus is infallible. This shows that we can come to know that something is infallible, even though we are ourselves are not infallible. So likewise, we do not have to be infallible in order to come to know that that the Church is infallible under specified conditions. By external and historical evidence we can come to identity the Church. From this Church we learn who Jesus is, what He taught, which books are sacred and inspired, which interpretations are authentic, and how we are to be saved.

     We understand that just as those who lived in the time after Jesus believed in Him through trusting the preaching and teaching of the Apostles, so those who came after the Apostles rightly understand their [i.e. the Apostles'] teaching and preaching through those whom the Apostles appointed to succeed them. In this way, faith in Christ includes faith in the Church as His appointed means through which we truly come to know Him. Jesus speaks of this in John 17:20, when He speaks of those who will come to believe in Him through the Apostles’ word. This is why no one can have God as His Father who does not have the Church as his mother. Through this same Church through which we learn of Christ, we learn the nature of the Church. The same one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that authoritatively declared the deity of Christ at Nicea in 325 also later declared the Church to be divinely protected from error under certain conditions. We don’t need to be infallible to know that, but we do need faith to trust Christ through trusting His Church, the same Church by which we know all that we know by faith about Christ.

     So it seems that on the epistemic level, both positions are equally reliant upon the SOLO position which you have attempted to pin on protestants. But your reasoning seems to place you in the same camp. How can you know that Rome possesses the authority which she claims to possess without making an individual decision based upon your own private interpretation of Scripture (& Church history, etc.)?

     Solo scriptura is the notion that each person has and retains ultimate interpretive authority. But, as explained earlier in the comments, the Catholic position is not the solo scriptura position, because when a person discovers the Church and her Magisterium, he recognizes that he no longer retains ultimate interpretive authority. The initial necessity of the use of one’s own reason and judgment in the discovery of a higher interpretive authority than oneself, does not entail that one must therefore always retain highest interpretive authority. That was true during the time of the Apostles (after Christ’s ascension) and it remains true to this day.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

186. Neal Judisch November 16th, 2009 10:45 pm :

     Hi, T-fan.

     Mathison does mean to say that the Church is the ultimate interpretive authority, though he takes pains to distinguish this claim from the idea that “the Church” possesses an authority that is equal to Scripture on the one hand, or that, on the other, “the Church’s” authority derives by some means other than or additional to interpretive fidelity (approximating truth on the essentials) to Scripture. (He also provides an escape clause, citing Turretin, which specifies that Christians whose consciences disallow them to agree with whatever “the Church” might say on some particular theological topic are able licitly to detract from “the Church” and to remove themselves from it.)

     We appreciate the fact that not all (Reformed) Protestants will agree with everything Mathison says, straight down the line. At the same time, we find that Mathison’s work is very frequently cited by Protestants (like you) who wish to distance themselves from solo-scriptura-private-judgment-individualism. And, for my part (and I believe I can speak for Bryan here as well), I think that Mathison probably offers the most sophisticated and nuanced version of sola scriptura currently on the market. Putting to one side its eloquence and intrinsic interest, that’s pretty much why we decided it would be best to focus on Mathison’s development and defense of sola scriptura.

     From your remarks, it sounds as though you haven’t read through Mathison’s book just yet. I encourage you to do so. It’s a good and lucid read. In the meantime, if you’d like to register your own (or any other similarly developed) view of sola scriptura, here or elsewhere, we’d be very interested to have a listen.

     All best,

     Neal

     PS: Your remarks about the inescapability of ‘private judgment’ are important and apposite, but I don’t think they appropriately engage with Mathison’s thesis or with our particular disagreement with Mathison’s version of sola scriptura. You’re definitely right to note that we all have to excercise ‘private judgment’ at some level; but I think you’re failing to distinguish as between first-order judgments (concerning specific theological doctrines) and second-order judgments (concerning the question who does or might have authority to answer definitively first-order doctrinal questions). Mathison sees the distinction, and argues that we ought not lodge final interpretive authority in ourselves, but that we should look instead to ‘the Church’/regula fidei/true bishops, etc. We quite agree with this; that is the starting point for our discussion with Mathison. Hope that helps to clarify things a bit, at least with respect to our aims in this particular article and thread.

187. Tim A. Troutman November 16th, 2009 10:55 pm :

     This thread has really gotten off course. I want to make a quick observation. After 184 comments, no one has refuted, or attempted to refute, the arguments laid out in this article. Saying “yea but you too,” even if valid, is not a refutation.

188. Neal Judisch November 16th, 2009 11:24 pm :

     “yea, but you too.”

     I notice, as well, that no one has taken up the “suggestive analogy” I offered above, concerning what a presuppositionalist might say to some critic who alleges that C.V.T. is quite as autonomous a thinker as Bertrand Russell, since they’ve both got to use their brains to figure out whether they should accept Christianity in the first place. I note, too, with some disappointment, that no one has engaged or questioned or discussed the conditions on authority (content independence and preemption) that I previously suggested really ought to be discussed if we want to get a clearer grasp on the notions of epistemic authority and autonomy — “philosophical” topics, to be sure, but “philosophical topics” that in fact guide, influence, and even determine “theological stances” on the topic at issue in this thread. These conditions seem to me pretty plausible, plausibly satisfiable on Catholicism, and plausibly not satisfiable on Reformed Protestantism.

     So it seems to me. I’m open to correction. There’s a paucity of developed work on epistemic authority and epistemic autonomy. But I think that’s where this debate has really got to focus. I’d love it if someone would pipe up and say something about this.

     Neal

189. lojahw November 17th, 2009 1:14 am :

     Well, Tim, it is problematic when, as Keith observed, there is an epistemic gulf between the positions represented. If, as Bryan, claims, that Rome’s interpretation is the only correct one, then all arguments for opposing interpretations are dismissed – a priori – simply because they do not agree with Rome. What can be said?

     Augustine wrote that Scripture is in an absolutely superior position to the writings of *all* bishops and church councils. I agree with him, but Bryan says that I have no way of knowing that “all” really means all. And why does he say that? Because he’s already made up his mind that it cannot mean all because he “infallibly knows” that the office of Peter’s successor is a granted a supernatural and perpetual exception. Wow! And which words of Jesus definitively teach that?

     If, on the other hand, Scripture is in such an absolutely superior position to all other authorities as Augustine said, the implication is that no human can say it better than God already has. And if the human interpreter introduces ideas that *demand* more than a customary reading of the text supports – he’s distorting it. Jesus never promised that none of Peter’s successors’ faith would fail. That’s demanding more than the text reasonably supports. The truth is that God doesn’t need an infallible interpreter, he just needs a competent interpreter, like the Bereans in Acts 17. Wow! What a concept!

     The problem that I have with both Bryan’s and Gary’s positions is that they imagine that competent interpreters cannot rightly understand what Scripture says. Why? because they pay too much attention to the many ways the untaught and unstable distort it. On the other hand, they posit the necessity of infallibly interpreting even the ambiguities God left in His Word to keep us humble. It is the height of arrogance to claim anyone can infallibly interpret what God has made ambiguous. If you don’t think so, just ask Job!

     Blessings.

190. Bryan Cross November 17th, 2009 2:55 am :

     lojahw,

     I agree that there is an epistemic gulf, and what we need to do to resolve it is find common ground. Let me address a few of your concerns. You wrote:

     If, as Bryan, claims, that Rome’s interpretation is the only correct one, then all arguments for opposing interpretations are dismissed – a priori – simply because they do not agree with Rome. What can be said?

     Other interpretations are not dismissed a priori. Rather, the difference between us is not fundamentally and primarily at the level of interpretation (i.e. who has the correct interpretation?) but at the level of interpretive authority. So because that is the fundamental point of disagreement, that is where we need to determine whether Christ established teaching/interpretive authority in His Church, and how we determine who holds it.

     Then you wrote:

     Augustine wrote that Scripture is in an absolutely superior position to the writings of *all* bishops and church councils. I agree with him, but Bryan says that I have no way of knowing that “all” really means all. And why does he say that? Because he’s already made up his mind that it cannot mean all because he “infallibly knows” that the office of Peter’s successor is a granted a supernatural and perpetual exception. Wow! And which words of Jesus definitively teach that?

     That misrepresents my words and my position. In #176 you wrote:

     you say that you affirm Augustine’s statement that *all” bishops and councils are liable to be refuted and corrected? He did not exempt the bishop of Rome.

     In #178 I replied:

     St. Augustine does not state any exception here, but we need to be careful to avoid the argument from silence. His ‘all’ may not have been intended to include the successor of St. Peter.

     Now in #189 you claim that I said that we have no way of knowing whether for St. Augustine Scripture is in an absolutely superior position to the writings of *all* bishops and church councils. Of course I never said anything of that sort. The question you asked me was not about the superiority of Scripture, but about whether all bishops are liable to be corrected. Do you see how you took my answer to your question and twisted it to make it say something I did not at all say?

     Then you proceed to try to read my mind:

     And why does he say that? Because he’s already made up his mind that it cannot mean all because he “infallibly knows” that the office of Peter’s successor is a granted a supernatural and perpetual exception.

     That’s not true. We need to be careful when interpreting the ‘all’ in “that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon” first because it does not say “all bishops”, but “all the letters of bishops”, and second because there is much other evidence in the Fathers indicating that the office of St. Peter is given the charism of truth and divinely protected from error. Even St. Augustine himself says:

     You know what the Catholic Church is, and what that is that is cut off from the Vine; if there are any among you cautious, let them come; let them find life in the Root. Come, brethren, if you wish to be engrafted in the Vine: a grief it is when we see you lying thus cut off. Number the Bishops even from the very seat of Peter: and see every succession in that line of Fathers: that is the Rock against which the proud Gates of Hell prevail not.”

     Therefore, in our interpretation of St. Augustine we should not force him to be saying something contrary to the position of the other Fathers, or to himself. That is the principle of hermeneutical charity.

     Then you wrote:

     If, on the other hand, Scripture is in such an absolutely superior position to all other authorities as Augustine said, the implication is that no human can say it better than God already has.

     That would imply that the Bible should never have been translated into any other language, and that every sermon should consist only of the reading of Scripture in its original language. Is that what takes place in your Sunday morning services?

     And if the human interpreter introduces ideas that *demand* more than a customary reading of the text supports – he’s distorting it.

     Who made you the Magisterium to set the rules for what counts as properly interpreting Scripture and what counts as distorting it? By setting the rules for what counts as properly interpreting Scripture, you are arrogating to yourself Magisterial authority, and begging the question about who has it. (In my opinion you have no Magisterial authority, because you do not have Holy Orders.)

     The truth is that God doesn’t need an infallible interpreter, he just needs a competent interpreter, like the Bereans in Acts 17.

     The question is not what God needs. The question is what Christ did when He established His Church. That’s because if Christ established an interpretive authority in His Church, then He believes that the Church needs it. And His belief about what His Church needs is what matters.

     Of course God doesn’t need an infallible interpreter; God needs nothing at all. But God knew that His Church would need to be protected from error when she made definitive decisions pertaining to the various doctrinal challenges that have arisen during the history of the Church; otherwise each man would be left to do what is ‘right in his own eyes’, according to his own interpretation of Scripture, according to his own determination of the canon of Scripture.

     The problem that I have with both Bryan’s and Gary’s positions is that they imagine that competent interpreters cannot rightly understand what Scripture says. Why? because they pay too much attention to the many ways the untaught and unstable distort it.

     Would you set yourself up to be the determiner for the whole Church of the necessary and sufficient conditions for competence in the interpretation of Scripture? If so, that raises a dilemma. What would you do when those you have deemed to be competent in the interpretation of Scripture disagree with each other, or with you? Would you then deselect from the class of competent interpreters all those who disagree with your interpretation? If so, at that point how have you not just pulled the pope out of his papal chair and taken his seat? But if you would submit to them, even when you disagree with them, then why not submit to the divinely appointed successors of the Apostles?

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

191. Tim A. Troutman November 17th, 2009 10:43 am :

     Lojahw, even if what you said is true, the article still stands. As I mentioned, no one has attempted to show why sola and solo are distinct in principle. When a truth seeker’s position is refuted, he will either defend it or change his position. No one here has done either of them. The separate question of whether the Catholic position is, in fact, any better has already been dealt with at length in this thread and no one has challenged any of our defenses. Instead, since (apparently) no one knows how to deal with the arguments presented here, they bring up other issues like what Augustine believed or what Jerome believed.

192. Keith W. Thompson November 17th, 2009 12:20 pm :

     Bryan,

     I could interact with much more of your response, but I will attempt to keep things boiled down and simple:

     You wrote (#185):
     Solo scriptura is the notion that each person has and retains ultimate interpretive authority. But, as explained earlier in the comments, the Catholic position is not the solo scriptura position, because when a person discovers the Church and her Magisterium, he recognizes that he no longer retains ultimate interpretive authority. The initial necessity of the use of one’s own reason and judgment in the discovery of a higher interpretive authority than oneself, does not entail that one must therefore always retain highest interpretive authority. That was true during the time of the Apostles (after Christ’s ascension) and it remains true to this day.
     My Response:
     Solo scriptura is the notion that each person has and retains ultimate interpretive authority. But, … the REFORMED POSITION is not the solo scriptura position, because when a person discovers the REFORMED CHURCH & CONFESSIONS, he recognizes that he no longer retains ultimate interpretive authority. The initial necessity of the use of one’s own reason and judgment in the discovery of a higher interpretive authority than oneself, does not entail that one must therefore always retain highest interpretive authority. That was true during the time of the Apostles (after Christ’s ascension) and it remains true to this day.
     What am I missing?
     If using one’s autonomous and non-authoritative reason (perfected by faith) to interpret Scripture in order to “arrive at Rome” is somehow NOT the SOLO position your are sticking on us; why then, when Reformed believers use autonomous and non-authoritative reason (perfected by faith) to interpret Scripture in order to “arrive at Geneva,” this suddenly IS the SOLO position?

     This seems to me to be way too simple for all of the Catholics in here to be getting tripped up on, so I am assuming that I am missing something key… Please, what is the difference?

     Confused,
     Keith WT
     p.s. – How do I upload a cool little picture like you have? ;)

193. TurretinFan November 17th, 2009 12:45 pm :

     Neal:

     You mention, seemingly as an aside: “(He also provides an escape clause, citing Turretin, which specifies that Christians whose consciences disallow them to agree with whatever “the Church” might say on some particular theological topic are able licitly to detract from “the Church” and to remove themselves from it.)”

     But the article cites Matthison repeatedly saying things like: “The adherents of solo scriptura dismiss all of this claiming that the reason and conscience of the individual believer is the supreme interpreter.” and “When each individual’s conscience becomes the final authority for that individual, differences of opinion will occur. When men feel strongly enough about their individual interpretations, they separate from those they believe to be in error. In the world today, we have millions of believers and churches convinced of thousands of mutually contradictory doctrines, and all of them claim to base their beliefs on the authority of Scripture alone.” and “Solo scriptura results in the autonomy of the individual believer who becomes a law unto himself. Scripture is interpreted according to the conscience and reason of the individual. Everything is evaluated according to the final standard of the individual’s opinion of what is and is not scriptural. The individual, not Scripture, is the real final authority according to solo scriptura. This is rebellious autonomy, and it is a usurpation of the prerogatives of God.”

     But then there is the part that you mentioned, where Matthison acknowledges: As Turretin explains, although the corporate doctrinal judgment of the Church is not infallible and does not have an authority equal to that of Scripture, it does have true authority over those who are members of the visible communion of the Church. What then is the relationship between private judgment and this corporate judgment? What is an individual Christian to do if he believes the corporate judgment found in the creeds and confessions to be in error? Turretin explains,

     “Hence if they think they observe anything in them worthy of correction, they ought to undertake nothing rashly or disorderly and unseasonably, so as to violently rend the body of their mother (which schismatics do), but to refer the difficulties they feel to their church and either to prefer her public opinion to their own private judgment or to secede from her communion, if the conscience cannot acquiesce in her judgment. Thus they cannot bind in the inner court of conscience, except inasmuch as they are found to agree with the word of God (which alone has the power to bind the conscience).”

     I don’t see how that doesn’t undo the previous critical comments that Matthison made.

     The problem (from where I stand) with Solo Scriptura is that it leaves no role for the church, not that it permits the exercise of conscience.

     Another, lesser, issue that I would have with Matthison’s approach is with his comment: “It renders the universal and objective truth of Scripture virtually useless because instead of the Church proclaiming with one voice to the world what the Scripture teaches, every individual interprets Scripture as seems right in his own eyes.” That kind of comment doesn’t seem to be consistent with a Reformed view of Sola Scriptura whether or not it could be made consistent with Matthison’s own private (ha!) view of the subject.

     -TurretinFan

194. Sean Patrick November 17th, 2009 1:14 pm :

     T Fan,

     Thanks for your thoughts on Matthison. We all agree that not every Reformed person agrees with Matthison but appreciate you outlining how you disagree with him. Hopefully he does come back and offer a response to the article.

     You said,

     “It renders the universal and objective truth of Scripture virtually useless because instead of the Church proclaiming with one voice to the world what the Scripture teaches, every individual interprets Scripture as seems right in his own eyes.” That kind of comment doesn’t seem to be consistent with a Reformed view of Sola Scriptura whether or not it could be made consistent with Matthison’s own private (ha!) view of the subject.

     I would say that Matthison’s comment here is just an observation and not an attempt to say what the Reformed view of Sola Scriptura would say. The fact is that there is an infinite number of voices about what scripture proclaims is simply an observation of a truth. Matthison argues that to avoid this and to have Christians speak with one voice to the world we must let the church interpret the scriptures and not each and every individual in a ‘me, my bible and Jesus’ way. The problem, as Bryan outlines, is that Matthison’s definition of ‘church’ makes his distinction a non-distinction.

195. Bryan Cross November 17th, 2009 1:36 pm :

     Keith T,

     You wrote:

     the REFORMED POSITION is not the solo scriptura position, because when a person discovers the REFORMED CHURCH & CONFESSIONS, he recognizes that he no longer retains ultimate interpretive authority…. If using one’s autonomous and non-authoritative reason (perfected by faith) to interpret Scripture in order to “arrive at Rome” is somehow NOT the SOLO position your are sticking on us; why then, when Reformed believers use autonomous and non-authoritative reason (perfected by faith) to interpret Scripture in order to “arrive at Geneva,” this suddenly IS the SOLO position? … What am I missing?

     (I slightly re-ordered your objection, to improve it.) That’s exactly the right question and objection. In other words, you are asking for the principled difference between the Catholic position, and sola scriptura. That’s the other way of posing the tu quoque objection we addressed in section V.A. in the article. And we also addressed this objection earlier in the comments (which, given their current length, is understandable if you didn’t read them).

     The principled difference is that the reason why someone would claim that “the Reformed Church” (if such an entity is more than a mental construct) is the Church Christ founded, is ultimately on the ground that Reformed doctrine agrees with his own interpretation of Scripture, according to his own determination of the canon of Scripture. There is no other reason to pick “the Reformed Church” as the true Church, over “the Lutheran Church” or “the Baptist Church” or “the Anglican Church” or “the Methodist Church” or “the Pentecostal Church” or the “Seventh Day Adventist Church”, or the “Catholic Church.” It is a decision ultimately based on form, i.e. doctrine, as determined by one’s own interpretation of Scripture, according to one’s own determination of which books belong to the canon.

     By contrast, the reason why Catholics claim that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded, is not fundamentally on the ground of agreement of form (i.e. not based on one’s interpretation of Scripture, or agreement with one’s interpretation of Scripture), but based on tracing magisterial authority from the Apostles, through the bishops whom they ordained to succeed them, and through the bishops whom those bishops ordained to succeed them, and so on, down to the present day, noting along the way what these bishops said about the basis for ecclesial authority, what they said about the essential marks of the Church (i.e. one, holy, catholic and apostolic), what they said and did in identifying where the true Church continued in the event of schism. We do then (subsequently) find perfect agreement of form (between the teaching of Scripture as informed by the Church, and the doctrine of the Church), but our basis or ground for picking out the Catholic Church as the true Church is not agreement between our interpretation of Scripture and the doctrine of the Catholic Church, but on possession of magisterial authority from Christ, through the Apostles whom He authorized, and their authorized successors, down to the present day.

     And that is why the Catholic who discovers the Magisterium as the divinely authorized authority cannot remain the ultimate interpretive authority of Scripture or the ultimate determiner of the canon of Scripture. He has encountered living persons having divine authority that he does not have. The Reformed person (or any Protestant), by contrast, necessarily remains the ultimate interpretive authority because the basis or ground by which this group of persons (i.e. various communities of persons sharing Reformed beliefs) counts as the true Church for him is not apostolic succession, but precisely the agreement between the doctrine believed and taught by these persons and his interpretation of Scripture.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

196. TurretinFan November 17th, 2009 1:45 pm :

     Troutman wrote: “Instead, since (apparently) no one knows how to deal with the arguments presented here, they bring up other issues like what Augustine believed or what Jerome believed.”

     a) Isn’t Matthison preparing a response?

     b) Is the historical practice of Christianity irrelevant to the question of interpretive authority?

     -TurretinFan

197. Neal Judisch November 17th, 2009 2:09 pm :

     Hi again, T-fan.

     Thanks for the response. You say: “I don’t see how that [the Turretin quote and the position it represents] doesn’t undo the previous critical comments that Matthison made.” I agree with you that there is a tension in his position here. Mathison would want to agree with you that there must be *a* role (an eliminable interpretive role) for the Church, and so far as I can tell he tries to work out how that role should be understood in a way that (a) clearly avoids the problems with solo scriptura and (b) upholds the (best of the) Reformed tradition. It sounds like you’ll disagree with Mathison on some of the details, and perhaps also disagree that Mathison is accurately representing the Reformed tradition. (Actually, I don’t think the Reformed tradition is monolithic on this point. So disagreement’s to be expected.)

     Perhaps your own view will have an easier time accommodating the point that an individual’s conscience can’t be bound by anything other than the Word of God, but in the absence of an articulated proposal it’s a little hard to say. At most, I can say that I agree with you that Mathison doesn’t obviously dispel the apparent tension, but I also sympathize with Mathison’s motivations for trying to hold all of these things together.

     Best,

     Neal

198. Sean Patrick November 17th, 2009 3:07 pm :

     b) Is the historical practice of Christianity irrelevant to the question of interpretive authority?

     Of course not. Church history is relevant in this discussion. But there is a proper way to do church history. Hopefully we’ll have time down the road to really open up a broad sweeping study of church fathers on this issue. I can attest that as a Reformed Presbyterian who started reading the Church Fathers I wasn’t drawn closer to Geneva.

     On the very question of interpretive authority both fathers we have discussed in this thread, Jerome and Augustine, never divorced interpretation from the church.

     “My resolution is, to read the ancients, to try everything, to hold fast what is good, and not to recede from the faith of the Catholic Church.”
     Jerome, To Minervius & Alexander, Epistle 119 (A.D. 406).

     “But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the Church.”
     Augustine, On the Trinity, 4,6:10 (A.D. 416).

     One thing I have noticed is that often patristic quotes supporting the material sufficiency of scripture are propped up in support of sola scriptura. However material sufficiency of scripture is not sola scriptura. This article is helpful in describing in what sense we do affirm the material sufficiency of scripture but reject, as did Augustine and Jerome, SOLA (or O) Scriptura.

199. Keith W. Thompson November 17th, 2009 3:23 pm :

     Bryan responding to 195),

     Ok, I think I got it (finally). If I understand you correctly, Reformed believers rely on their own private interpretation of the infallible Word of God (and their fundamental belief in the perspicuity of Scripture) to guide them to a “true church,” which you are calling Solo Scriptura. Roman Catholics rely on their own private interpretation of fallible human history of the visible church to guide them to a “true church,” which has not been yet been given a pejorative name on par with Solo Scriptura, how about “Solo Church Historia…” (I don’t know Latin, so feel free to tinker with that name.)

     So we both rely on private interpretation to lead us to an authority outside and above our individual self, and the difference is in what we are interpreting. If that is the gist of it, then I totally agree with you on that point. I am guilty as charged with THIS brand of Solo Scriptura, but I still do not see how that is somehow contrary to Sola Scriptura, and I still have qualms about whether or not this “necessarily” means that I somehow remain the ultimate interpretive authority of Scripture, especially since I confess the opposite… but I suppose that we can take that up at a different time.

     I much prefer Solo Scriptura to Solo Church Historia, and it is strange to me that you don’t.

     In Him,
     Keith W.T.

200. Keith W. Thompson November 17th, 2009 3:33 pm :

     I was also thinking about the source of authority. It seems that the source of church authority for Reformed believers is that Scripture gives rightful authority to ordained elders. It also seems that the source of authority for Rome is a claim of an inherited authority from the Apostles. I think it strange that since the Apostles themselves were not infallible except when writing Scripture under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that the elders (presbuteros) who succeeded them somehow have a greater authority… unless it can be somehow substantiated that the Holy Spirit inspires Rome (in certain circumstances) to issue certain infallible dogmas. (Which if this is the case, why does not Rome canonize the creeds and confessions?) I’m sure my understanding of Roman practice in this area is woefully uninformed, but who better to ask for information than an informed Catholic? ;)
     I’m enjoying this thread, and learning a lot.

     In Him,
     Keith WT

201. lojahw November 17th, 2009 3:44 pm :

     Thank you, Bryan, for your thoughtful responses.

     As stated elsewhere, what Augustine or Jerome or any other early church father said about the interpretive authority in the Church doesn’t prove anything. I was just agreeing with two points Augustine made: 1) the superiority of Scripture to all other authorities; and 2) the observation that the writings of *all* later bishops are liable to refutation and the decisions of all church councils are liable to correction. The point is that the assumptions underlying Sola Scriptura were voiced more than 1000 years before the Reformation. Likewise, the quotations I gave from the Council of Nicea demonstrate that the practice of careful reliance on the authority of Scripture both to affirm doctrine as well as to deny heresy doctrine has excellent historical precedence.

     Your claim is that the successor of Peter has the charism of infallibility is refuted by empirical evidence. Peter’s successors have been inconsistent. Truth is not inconsistent with itself.

     The Fourth Ecumenical Council praised Pope Leo I thus: “Peter has spoken thus through Leo.” This same Pope taught:

     “For the entire human race there was but one remedy … that one of the sons of Adam should be born free and innocent of original transgression, to prevail for the rest both by His example and His merits. Still further, because this was not permitted by natural generation, and because there could be no offspring from our faulty stock without seed… is it not Thou who art alone?’” (Sermon 28.3)

     But Pope Pius IX contradicted Pope Leo I by declaring that Jesus was not “alone” born free and innocent of original transgression – that his mother, Mary, was likewise sinless from conception. Either Pope Leo I handed down an incorrect interpretation that wasn’t corrected for 1500 years, or Pope Pius IX taught error. Which is it? Jesus cannot “alone” be sinless if Mary also was “free and innocent of original transgression.”

     Likewise, self-governance of each locality (and later, each province) was clearly taught by the Apostle Paul, by Clement of Rome, by Ignatius of Antioch (to Polycarp of Smyrna, whose bishop is Christ!), by the Didache [Teaching of the Twelve Apostles], by the Apostolic Traditions of Hippolytus, and by the first four Ecumenical Councils. The decisions and canons of all four Ecumenical Councils were accepted by the current bishop of Rome in their times. Yet, almost 1000 years after the First Ecumenical Council declared the territorial limits of bishops within their respective provinces, Pope Boniface VIII, wrote:

     “We declare, say, define and pronounce, that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam).

     The Roman Pontiff cannot both be limited to a province and demand the subjection of every human creature. Which interpretation is correct? And which Scripture was Pope Boniface infallibly interpreting?

     Actually, the truth is that RC’s don’t even agree among themselves how many and which “infallible” teachings the Popes have made. But if God set up such an office: 1) why has it been inconsistent; 2) why has it been used so infrequently; 3) and which Scriptures did these “infallible interpretations” cover?

     If this office is so important, why after 2000 years has it been exercised only a few times? RC’s make a big issue about how Protestants know what the canon of Scripture is, but they cannot even tell us which Scriptures have the benefit of infallible interpretations! Furthermore, with such a miniscule portion of Scripture covered, it would seem that either a) the office is irrelevant to the life of the Church; or b) the office has severely neglected its duty.

     Your proposal, Solo Papa, doesn’t make sense. It, like the abuses of Sola Scriptura, boils down to Solo Sua (God’s Word is secondary, self is primary).

     Blessings.

202. Bryan Cross November 17th, 2009 4:37 pm :

     Keith T,

     You wrote:

     I much prefer Solo Scriptura to Solo Church Historia, and it is strange to me that you don’t.

     Your last line is quite telling, especially the word ‘prefer’. For the Catholic, personal preference has nothing to do with determining the identity and nature of the Church. The question is an historical investigation, and our preferences had better stay out of the investigation, lest we simply ‘find’ what we want to find. That’s not the way a truth-seeker seeks. He wants the truth, even if it is contrary to his ‘preferences’. But when personal preference is the fundamental driving principle, we find the source of today’s ecclesial consumerism and the massive quest for the itching of one’s ears.

     So we both rely on private interpretation to lead us to an authority outside and above our individual self, and the difference is in what we are interpreting.

     That is not an accurate redescription of what I said. The principled difference is not that the Protestant is interpreting one book, and the Catholic is interpreting another. The Protestant approach starts from [Protestant] Scripture, determines what seems to oneself to be the gospel, and then designates as ‘Church’ those who believe and teach according to one’s interpretation of Scripture. The Catholic approach is to locate an entity (i.e. the Church) in the first century, then trace that entity forward to the present day, and then listening to what she says is the gospel. Both involve the initial use of private judgment, but one picks out persons as leaders of the Church on the ground of agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture, while the other picks out persons as leaders of the Church by tracing the handing down of authority from the Apostles to the present day, and from these authorized persons learning the gospel. That difference entails that the Protestant (as Protestant) retains ultimate interpretive authority, and explains why the Catholic (as Catholic) does not retain ultimate interpretive authority.

     I am guilty as charged with THIS brand of Solo Scriptura, but I still do not see how that is somehow contrary to Sola Scriptura

     Then read the first two sections of our article, in which we present Keith Mathison’s arguments against solo scriptura.

     It seems that the source of church authority for Reformed believers is that Scripture gives rightful authority to ordained elders. It also seems that the source of authority for Rome is a claim of an inherited authority from the Apostles.

     There is a difference between the authority that comes from knowing a subject well (e.g. the authority of an expert) and the authority that comes from being authorized to represent someone and speak on his behalf. Books can give the former type of authority, but they can’t give the latter type of authority. Without apostolic succession then, Protestantism is left only with the kind of authority had by an expert, and this is why Protestantism cannot bind the conscience regarding the deposit of faith. But because the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has its authority by way of apostolic succession, it is not limited to academic-type authority, but holds the authority to speak and teach on Christ’s behalf, as His authorized representatives. Even heretics could claim to have academic-type authority or expertise, but only the Church has the authority of the keys, the authority to open and close the gate of the Kingdom of Heaven to any man, and to declare definitively as Christ’s authorized representative what is the truth concerning Christ and His gospel.

     I think it strange that since the Apostles themselves were not infallible except when writing Scripture under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that the elders (presbuteros) who succeeded them somehow have a greater authority

     That would be strange. But that’s not what Catholics believe. We believe that the Apostles when speaking all together with one voice, were protected from error by the Holy Spirit. We see this in Acts 15 “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” This proto-ecumenical council indicates the Apostles’ belief that the Holy Spirit was guiding them in their decisions on behalf of the whole Church. And the bishops in ecumenical council later on retained that same belief about the operation of the Holy Spirit in protecting the bishops from error when in ecumenical council and teaching definitively on matters of faith or morals, for the whole Church.

     (Which if this is the case, why does not Rome canonize the creeds and confessions?)

     There is a difference between being divinely inspired, and being inerrant. The Scriptures are divinely inspired and inerrant. The dogmas declared in ecumenical council are inerrant, but not divinely inspired. Hence, the dogmas cannot be ‘canonized’ because they are not Scripture.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

203. Nathan November 17th, 2009 5:20 pm :

     Keith T.,

     The Nicene Creed (and the canons of the Ecumenical Councils) are canonized, that is they are a part of canon law. I think this is why Bryan distinguishes between inspiration and infalliblity, because scriptures and councils are all together canons of the Church and unalterable, yet there is a distinction between them.

204. Bryan Cross November 17th, 2009 5:30 pm :

     lojahw,

     As I pointed out earlier, the use of Scripture by the Council of Nicea is perfectly consistent with the Catholic understanding of the interdependence and interrelation of Scripture and the Magisterium. Nothing about the Council’s use of Scripture indicates either that the individual retains ultimate interpretive authority or that the definitive decisions of the Church’s Magisterium are not protected from error by the Holy Spirit. The “assumptions” underlying sola scriptura were voiced by heretics, but not by the Church Fathers. That is because the Church Fathers never believed that the individual retained ultimate interpretive authority, or that the individual armed with his own personal Bible could stand in judgment upon the definitive decision of an ecumenical council regarding matters of faith or morals.

     You wrote:

     Your claim is that the successor of Peter has the charism of infallibility is refuted by empirical evidence. Peter’s successors have been inconsistent. Truth is not inconsistent with itself.

     The Fourth Ecumenical Council praised Pope Leo I thus: “Peter has spoken thus through Leo.” This same Pope taught:

     “For the entire human race there was but one remedy … that one of the sons of Adam should be born free and innocent of original transgression, to prevail for the rest both by His example and His merits. Still further, because this was not permitted by natural generation, and because there could be no offspring from our faulty stock without seed… is it not Thou who art alone?’” (Sermon 28.3)

     But Pope Pius IX contradicted Pope Leo I by declaring that Jesus was not “alone” born free and innocent of original transgression – that his mother, Mary, was likewise sinless from conception. Either Pope Leo I handed down an incorrect interpretation that wasn’t corrected for 1500 years, or Pope Pius IX taught error. Which is it? Jesus cannot “alone” be sinless if Mary also was “free and innocent of original transgression.”

     You’ve created a contradiction where there is none. And this shows why you need the Magisterium in order properly to understand both Scripture and the teachings of the Church. Mary is not one of the “sons of Adam.” So what Pope Leo says does not pertain to her. Pope Leo was surely not unaware of what earlier Church Fathers had written:

     He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption. (Hyppolytus, A.D. 235)

     You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Ephraim the Syrian, A. D. 361)

     Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin. (St. Ambrose of Milan, A.D. 387)

     He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor. (St. Gregory Nazianzen, A.D. 390)

     We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin. (St. Augustine, A.D. 415)

     These help us be careful not to read into Pope Leo’s statement what he does not say.

     You then wrote:

     Likewise, self-governance of each locality (and later, each province) was clearly taught by the Apostle Paul, by Clement of Rome, by Ignatius of Antioch (to Polycarp of Smyrna, whose bishop is Christ!), by the Didache [Teaching of the Twelve Apostles], by the Apostolic Traditions of Hippolytus, and by the first four Ecumenical Councils. The decisions and canons of all four Ecumenical Councils were accepted by the current bishop of Rome in their times. Yet, almost 1000 years after the First Ecumenical Council declared the territorial limits of bishops within their respective provinces, Pope Boniface VIII, wrote:

     “We declare, say, define and pronounce, that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam).

     The Roman Pontiff cannot both be limited to a province and demand the subjection of every human creature. Which interpretation is correct?

     Your mistaken assumption here is that the authority of the Apostolic See was always and only limited to the diocese of Rome. Self-governance of each diocese is fully compatible with subordination to the authority of the successor of St. Peter holding the keys of the Kingdom, on the long-standing Catholic principle of subsidiarity. This is indicated even in St. Clement’s rebuke of the Church at Corinth — as explained very well in this lecture: “St. Clement of Rome: First Known Exercise of Papal Primacy.”

     You then wrote:

     Actually, the truth is that RC’s don’t even agree among themselves how many and which “infallible” teachings the Popes have made.

     I agree that some Catholics don’t fully understand Catholic theology. But the ignorance of some Catholics about Catholic theology does not falsify Catholic theology or demonstrate that the Catholic Church and/or her Magisterium does not know which doctrines are de fide. There are set, objective criteria for distinguishing the dogmas taught infallibly from those matters that are not infallibly taught.

     But if God set up such an office: 1) why has it been inconsistent; 2) why has it been used so infrequently; 3) and which Scriptures did these “infallible interpretations” cover?

     It has not been inconsistent; it has been consistent over 2000 years. It has been in use since the first century. As for your third question, see below.

     If this office is so important, why after 2000 years has it been exercised only a few times?

     It has been exercised many, many times. Your notion that it has only been exercised a few times is incorrect.

     RC’s make a big issue about how Protestants know what the canon of Scripture is, but they cannot even tell us which Scriptures have the benefit of infallible interpretations!

     The Magisterium’s infallible teachings generally do not explicitly specify a particular interpretation of Scripture; they provide the doctrinal framework within which Scripture may be properly interpreted (e.g. the deity of Christ, the Three Persons of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, etc.)

     Furthermore, with such a miniscule portion of Scripture covered, it would seem that either a) the office is irrelevant to the life of the Church; or b) the office has severely neglected its duty.

     See above. You’ve misunderstand the manner in which the Magisterium infallibly guides the Church’s interpretation and understanding of Scripture. It does not do so, generally, by pointing to a particular verse and stipulating explicitly how that verse must be interpreted.

     Your proposal, Solo Papa, doesn’t make sense. It, like the abuses of Sola Scriptura, boils down to Solo Sua (God’s Word is secondary, self is primary).

     Given your gross misunderstanding of it, no wonder you think it doesn’t make sense. If I thought it was what you think it is, I would say the same as you. Before you criticize something (especially with such vehemence and confidence) it would be prudent first to seek to understand it.

     All these things are things you can learn on your own by reading the Catechism or other basic books explaining the teaching and theology of the Catholic Church. The purpose of CTC is not to discuss such things; we’re not Catholic Answers, and we have no intention of being such. The purpose of this combox is to discuss our article. So, let’s keep the discussion on-topic. If you have questions about other things pertaining to Catholicism, there are many other online resources and books explaining the answers to such questions.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

205. lojahw November 17th, 2009 6:36 pm :

     Bryan, Re: your ECF quotes about Mary, as everyone on this thread has agreed: they don’t prove anything because none of them had the charism of infallibility.

     Re: Leo I’s teaching on Mary:
     For the earth of human flesh, which in the first transgressor, was cursed, in this Offspring of the Blessed Virgin only produced a seed that was blessed and free from the fault of its stock. And each one is a partaker of this spiritual origin in regeneration; and to every one when he is re-born, the water of baptism is like the Virgin’s womb; for the same Holy Spirit fills the font, Who filled the Virgin, that the sin, which that sacred conception overthrew, may be taken away by this mystical washing. (Sermon 24.3)

     Here Leo explains that the curse of “the earth of human flesh” was overthrown through “that sacred conception.” Mary, like the rest of humanity, was not cleansed of original sin apart from Christ’s sacred conception.

     I maintain the inconsistency.

     You wrote: “Self-governance of each diocese is fully compatible with subordination to the authority of the successor of St. Peter holding the keys of the Kingdom, on the long-standing Catholic principle of subsidiarity.”

     The canons of the first Four Ecumenical Councils beg to differ. There is no “subordination to the authority of the successor of St. Peter” in the following:

     Council of Nicea, Canon 6: Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like
     is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other
     provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be
     universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent
     of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not
     to be a bishop.

     The “like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also” indicates provincial authority. It is the Metropolitan in each See that has subsidiary authority, not Rome. There is not one hint of subsidiary authority to Rome of the provinces listed. [Your explanation seems to stem from Rome’s one-time confusion of the canons from Sardica, which was in Rome’s jurisdiction, with those of Nicea. History tells us that Rome’s mix-up of their records was resolved when an authentic copy of the canons of Nicea was produced.]

     Similarly, the Second Ecumenical Council decreed: “If the letter of the canon about dioceses is kept, it is clear that the provincial synod will manage affairs in each province, as was decreed at Nicaea” (Canon 2).

     I’ve noticed that RCs like to “read into” texts lots of things that the rest of us don’t see there, particularly when it supports their partisan interpretations.

     Blessings.

206. Andrew McCallum November 17th, 2009 7:12 pm :

     I note, too, with some disappointment, that no one has engaged or questioned or discussed the conditions on authority (content independence and preemption) that I previously suggested really ought to be discussed if we want to get a clearer grasp on the notions of epistemic authority and autonomy….

     Neal – I assume you are speaking of statements that you make in post #61 such as:

     We find that a good number of the arguments aimed at distinguishing solo from sola, and which aim at justifying the conclusion that Catholicism amounts to its own version of solo scriptura (‘sola ecclesia’), either do not work or contain suppressed premises that, after some consideration, we find ourselves unable to discover. We notice that a number of these tensions disappear if we drop sola scriptura in either of its permutations and adopt a position that would justifiably allow us to treat external interpretive authority as de facto irreformable and infallible,….

     From what I can see in your and Bryan’s article you are attempting to determine whether or not sola and solo scriptura can be collapsed together as effectively coming down to the same sort of authoritative decision. And as I said to Tim, yes they certainly can given the assumption that we are focusing on the epistemic questions of judgments of the individual. And your whole article from what I see speaks from this standpoint. But now here you are raising a different issue when you direct your epistemic sights on the object of authority rather than the subjective assessment made by the individual on that authority. And it is just this question that I brought up earlier but nobody commented back to me as if they understood my point. So I am glad to see you bringing this up particularly since historically the focus of the concept of sola scriptura is this matter of the epistemological authority of the ecclesiastical entity under investigation rather than the question of our subjective judgment of this entity.

     But since you have brought it up I think I can feel comfortable asking obvious question: What tensions appear (and/or disappear) if we assume the external internal authority to be potentially fallible? And then as a matter of practical historical application, what if after a study of (for example) the Sub-apostolics we conclude that at this point in time there was no conception of an infallible interpretive tradition outside of the Scriptures. If we were to come to this conclusion would we be forced philosophically to bring into question their ability to judge the ecclesiastical matters that we find recorded in their writings?

     I have not really wrapped my mind around your presuppositional analogy. I can go back if you think I should and think about it a little more.

207. Neal Judisch November 17th, 2009 8:13 pm :

     Hi, Andrew.

     Thanks for responding. Actually, the thing I was talking about, when I mentioned that nobody has “engaged” a particular point I made, was the conditions on authority I borrowed from Joseph Raz and suggested should be applied or at least could be applied, so as to tighten up the discussion. I wasn’t referencing the summary of the argument or line of thought that you subsequently quote from me.

     Unfortunately, I don’t think I understand what you mean when you say that “here I am, raising a different issue” or changing the subject by talking about the nature of epistemic authority, and arguing that the magisterium/Church constitutes an epistemic authority in a way that the Church does not on Reformed Protestantism. It seemed to me that that was precisely the issue people were most interested in raising in the thread, or at least was intrinsically connected to it. As to your follow up questions, I’m not sure what you mean by an “external internal authority.” I think the tensions that appear under the fallibilist assumption (if I understand you here) are quite close to or are identical with the problems we discuss with reference to Mathison; and as for the historical questions you raise, if you’re wanting to get into a sophisticated debate on the patristics, you’ll have to find a different discussion partner than me.

     Last, the presuppositionalist analogy I thought was totally straightforward: the idea is just that both of those guys are using their own autonomous reason along the way, but the presuppositionalist would not thereby infer that presuppositionalists are therefore all autonomous thinkers, just as much as any atheist. Mutatis mutandis in the Catholic/Protestant case. The analogy was directed at the first set of recurrent criticisms: “you Catholics use private judgment/are solo scriptura individualists just as much as we are,” etc.

     Best,

     Neal

208. Andrew McCallum November 17th, 2009 10:57 pm :

     Hello again Neal,

     Whoops – “external internal authority” should have been “external interpretive authority,” which was phrase that you used.

     There are two possible discussions we could be having when we speak of sola scriptura. We could be talking about A) the standard that the individual uses to judge theological matters, or we could be speaking of B) the standard by which ecclesiastic entities use when they render judgments. It seems to me that in your article that you are speaking of A, but not B. Take for example IV.A. of your article where you discuss the lack of principled difference between sola and solo. In the second paragraph you say:

     But there are two ways to make oneself one’s own ultimate interpretive and magisterial authority. One is a direct way and the other is an indirect way. The direct way is to subject all theological questions directly to the final verdict of one’s own interpretation of Scripture. That is the solo scriptura position. Because it is direct, the nature of the position is quite transparent; we can see clearly in such a case that the individual is acting as his own ultimate interpretive authority.

     The discussion goes on in this vein. You are talking about two different possibilities but they are both within the context of A. From what I can see you do not specifically address B in the article. But then in #61 you (rightfully and properly) raise the issue of the “external interpretive authority” which is at least the start of discussion B in my scheme. That’s great, it’s just what I wanted to discuss! The question is then obviously whether this “external interpretive authority” is using an infallible standard which is confined to Scripture alone or whether the infallible standard extends to something beyond (but of course including) Scripture. This is the B question and the one that Protestants are generally speaking to when we speak of sola scriptura. Too often our Catholic friends are speaking to A when we are speaking to B, so the conversation does not travel too far.

     And no, I did not want to get into a detailed discussion of patristic epistemology. I just wanted to make the simple point that if there was no evident infallible standard beyond Scripture during the early few centuries of the Church, then the ECF’s at this point were acting with proper authority but without any infallible tools beyond the Scriptures. Now maybe an infallible tradition later developed (very problematic to my mind but conceptually possible), but I think it’s fair to note that before this time, assuming there was no such extra-biblical infallible standard we can point to, there should be no reason to posit such an infallible standard as a philosophical necessity.

     On your presuppositionalist analogy, you are utilizing an example that is meant to further demonstrate that sola and solo collapse together. So maybe this is not having any resonance with me because I already agree with you. But I would qualify my agreement by saying that you were utilizing this example in an A rather than a B context.

209. Paige Britton November 17th, 2009 11:26 pm :

     Richard (#164) & Mateo (#163) asked me some questions a while back, and I haven’t been around to answer them. These came up because I quoted Bryan and Neal’s footnote (n.55) re. Kevin Vanhoozer (who was describing different interpretive approaches that Protestants take since we believe we have an infallible Word but fallible interpreters). I’ll try to respond briefly here. (I’m answering out of courtesy, but I apologize for taking the space, as I know you guys want to move on to more challenging things.)

     Mateo (#163) wrote: “My question is this, why would Jesus found a Church and then leave us with no way of knowing with certainty what he actually taught?” – which is the big question behind your other questions. I would respond by observing that those in a “thoughtful” Protestant category, whom I believe Vanhoozer was describing in his approach #4 (see my post #161), have accepted that this is close to the case, whether or not they can answer WHY. (Though I should qualify this a little – in this position, it is ABSOLUTE certainty of interpretation that is beyond us. But on this view, SUFFICIENT certainty is already enough to die for, and live for.)

     If such Protestants are right, and there is no Magisterium with infallibility and authority in interpretation, then they are correct to aim for / expect interpretation that is “sufficient and reliable,” not infallible. Having accepted a certain epistemic situation as God’s will, they make use of what they have been given – biblical texts, intellect, past and present thinkers, and dependence on the Holy Spirit (which may be the key to the humility they need to avoid getting stuck in intellectual pride). I am not here arguing that all this is RIGHT – only pointing out that some Protestants have found this a livable approach in the absence of a Magisterium, and all is not epistemic chaos.

     Certainly plenty of sincere Protestants think they are guided by the Spirit’s illumination. Where I see a difference, and where I think Vanhoozer sees a difference, is between Protestants who insist they have THE right answers across the board (via Spirit or study or whatever) and Protestants whose convictions are strong and hard-won, but who don’t make the mistake of insisting they have a “magisterium” of any shape or size that precludes their ever being wrong.

     And I agree with you, Mateo, that there is widespread hermeneutical chaos and anarchy in Protestantism. But I think a lot of it has to do with the mistake of thinking we can know infallibly. I also think it is possible for Protestants to have differences of opinion about certain matters of praxis and exegesis while still sharing communion at a basic level.

     Mateo also asks how I would respond to Terry’s post (#56): (to paraphrase:)“Would the Bridegroom leave his “bride” w/o a protector to guide her into all truth?” I would gently say that if the Lord did not leave a Magisterium arrangement, then his perfect and loving will is that we expect sufficient, not infallible, understanding. I only mean to point out that some Protestants seem to get this idea, and others seem to miss it. (And the ones who “get it” seemed not to have appeared in the article above, till I noticed them in that footnote.)

     Richard — you ask whether I think there is A true meaning in the text and how to find it. Yes, I believe God intended to communicate to his Church, and used human words to do so. The meaning of the text is HIS meaning. Did he leave us with a Magisterium to help us infallibly know the correct interpretation, or not? If so, then listen to it. If not, then this is his loving will for us: expect to be able to know sufficiently, enough to live for him, and don’t get hung up aiming for infallibility of interpretation. Work hard to understand, stay humble, keep learning.

210. lojahw November 17th, 2009 11:46 pm :

     BTW, Bryan,

     You misinterpreted the quote from Pope Leo I’s Sermon 28.3: “born free and innocent of original transgression. … because this was not permitted by natural generation … is it not Thou alone?” means that a human being conceived by “natural generation” could NOT be “born free and innocent of original transgression.” Only Christ qualified because He was the only human born without natural generation – without a human father. This explanation of Christ’s sinlessness has often been used throughout Church history.

     Regarding salvation:
     Consider Pope Damasus’ teaching on salvation (following a series of anathemas for those who disagreed with his points):

     “This is the salvation of the Christians, that believing in the Trinity, that is in the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and being baptized into the same one Godhead and power and divinity and substance, in Him we may trust.”

     And, in contrast, Boniface VIII: “We declare, say, define and pronounce, that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Bull Unam Sanctam).

     Even without appealing to the obvious disconnect between Boniface’s “infallible declaration” on salvation and what Scripture teaches about it, I submit that the above two statements are inconsistent, especially from a RC viewpoint since “This is … ” carries such literal weight in your interpretations!

     Your speculative beliefs about your infallible teaching office are refuted by the inconsistencies of their teaching. Your arguments are really no more than special pleading.

     You have failed to prove your assertion that the successors of Peter are infallible.

     Blessings.

211. lojahw November 17th, 2009 11:59 pm :

     Paige said:

     “you ask whether I think there is A true meaning in the text and how to find it. Yes, I believe God intended to communicate to his Church, and used human words to do so. The meaning of the text is HIS meaning. Did he leave us with a Magisterium to help us infallibly know the correct interpretation, or not? … If not, then this is his loving will for us: expect to be able to know sufficiently, enough to live for him, and don’t get hung up aiming for infallibility of interpretation. Work hard to understand, stay humble, keep learning.”

     [Note: I excised the "If so..." answer because I believe it has been empirically refuted.]

     A hearty AMEN!

212. Bryan Cross November 18th, 2009 12:46 am :

     lojahw,

     Here Leo explains that the curse of “the earth of human flesh” was overthrown through “that sacred conception.” Mary, like the rest of humanity, was not cleansed of original sin apart from Christ’s sacred conception

     Correct. That’s fully consistent with the Catholic understanding of the Immaculate Conception.

     I maintain the inconsistency.

     You are free to maintain any inconsistency you want. But you have not demonstrated any inconsistency. You seem to want to try to find an inconsistency, just as certain atheists seem to want to try find reasons not to believe in God, and certain critics want to find contradictions in Scripture. You don’t seem to be a charitable interpreter of the Church’s history and documents.

     The sixth canon of Nicea does not deny the universal authority of the Apostolic See. It is not addressing that question. It is addressing local ecclesial government by province. If you understand subsidiarity, you understand that there is no either/or with respect to local and universal government. The canons of the Council of Nicea became authoritative over the whole Church only at the moment they were approved by the Apostolic See. In that way the authority of the canons presupposes the universal authority of the Apostolic See.

     I’ve noticed that RCs like to “read into” texts lots of things that the rest of us don’t see there, particularly when it supports their partisan interpretations.

     Without the fuller context, I’m sure it appears that way. But when we bring in the fuller context, the apparent discrepancy dissolves.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

213. Bryan Cross November 18th, 2009 1:16 am :

     lojahw,

     You misinterpreted the quote from Pope Leo I’s Sermon 28.3: “born free and innocent of original transgression. … because this was not permitted by natural generation … is it not Thou alone?” means that a human being conceived by “natural generation” could NOT be “born free and innocent of original transgression.” Only Christ qualified because He was the only human born without natural generation – without a human father. This explanation of Christ’s sinlessness has often been used throughout Church history.

     The “not permitted by natural generation” does not mean that it is impossible with God, but that it was the default in the fallen condition. Pope Leo isn’t saying that it is impossible for God to bring a sin-free human being into the world through natural generation between a fallen man and a fallen woman. He is speaking of the natural condition of man in his fallen state, how procreation in the fallen condition does not allow the passing on of sanctifying grace to the offspring. But that ordinary limitation does not preclude God from bestowing sanctifying grace on a naturally conceived human being at the moment of conception. He is not speaking about Mary’s conception (or ruling out her immaculate conception); he is speaking about the ordinary condition of natural generation in the fallen condition, a condition that is not beyond the power of God to overcome.

     Regarding salvation:
     Consider Pope Damasus’ teaching on salvation (following a series of anathemas for those who disagreed with his points):

     “This is the salvation of the Christians, that believing in the Trinity, that is in the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and being baptized into the same one Godhead and power and divinity and substance, in Him we may trust.”

     And, in contrast, Boniface VIII: “We declare, say, define and pronounce, that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Bull Unam Sanctam).

     Even without appealing to the obvious disconnect between Boniface’s “infallible declaration” on salvation and what Scripture teaches about it, I submit that the above two statements are inconsistent, especially from a RC viewpoint since “This is … ” carries such literal weight in your interpretations!

     The two statements are fully compatible. Pope Damasus isn’t denying the necessity of the other parts of the Creed. He is not saying that believing in the Church, and resurrection of the body, etc. is all now optional. So you are misunderstanding Pope Damasus’s statement, by [falsely] assuming that he means that this statement is the exhaustive extent of the articles of faith. But if he had meant it that way, he would have been a heretic for denying the necessity of the other parts of the Creed. So, again the principle of charity demands that we do not unnecessarily make someone out to be an idiot or a heretic. The necessity of belief in the Church, as specified in the Creed, is more fully specified by Pope Boniface. By more fully explaining the doctrine of the Church, Pope Boniface is not contradicting the more concise earlier statements about the Church in the Creed, nor is he contradicting the statement by Pope Damasus.

     Your speculative beliefs about your infallible teaching office are refuted by the inconsistencies of their teaching. Your arguments are really no more than special pleading.

     You have not yet shown one teaching to be inconsistent, or one of our arguments to commit the fallacy of special pleading. If you disagree, please show the inconsistency, or point out the special pleading.

     You have failed to prove your assertion that the successors of Peter are infallible.

     Before accusing someone of failing to do something, it is best first to confirm that he or she is trying to do it. Our purpose in writing this article and responding to your comments in this combox discussion has not been to prove that the successors of Peter are infallible, notwithstanding your obvious attempts to turn the discussion into a debate about such subjects.

     I hope at this point we can turn our attention back to the article.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

214. lojahw November 18th, 2009 10:42 am :

     Bryan,

     This thread has been focused on pathologies of Sola Scriptura, asserting that the abuses seen among Protestants leads one to conclude that there is no principled difference between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura, where the individual is the de facto final interpreter of truth.

     What this thread has not explored is how the individual functions under Sola Papa, i.e., under the Roman Catholic infallible teaching office. I submit that there is no principled difference between people regardless of whether they are RC or Protestant: each individual is the de facto final interpreter of whatever source of truth they encounter. Each person filters what they read or hear into his or her own understanding. The main difference between RCs and those who actually practice Sola Scriptura (I’ll grant that many do not), is that RCs put an additional unique filter between themselves and God’s Word. Both Protestants and RCs are taught by pastors trained in God’s Word, but RCs also add an “infallible interpreter” between the individual and God’s Word. However, ultimately, the individual RC functions as the de facto final interpreter of the interpreter of truth.

     The manifestations of Protestant abuses and misunderstandings of Scripture are quite visible, as all recognize in the splintered condition of Protestant Churches. However, just because RCs stick together organizationally does not mean that they do not function interpretively the same way that Protestants do. Each RC must still decide for themselves what the teaching of the Pope means.

     As you and any honest RC acknowledge, RCs are all over the map in their understanding of the Magisterium and what it has taught or not taught, infallibly or otherwise (cf. CCC 892). I submit that RC’s, with respect to the teaching of the Magisterium, must each decide: 1) what does it mean? and 2) what am I going to do about it? In conversations I’ve had with RCs, Pope Boniface’s Unam Sanctam is interpreted in many different ways. Secondly, RCs respond in different ways to Boniface’s declaration: e.g., 1) they argue that it was not an “ex cathedra” teaching and therefore can be ignored; 2) they argue that it was superceded by Vatican II which affirms the salvation of Christians not in communion with the RCC [Unitatis Redintegratio 1: “it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body”]; 3) they believe that it is an “ex cathedra” teaching and therefore anyone who is not a member of the visible RCC is damned to hell; 4) they believe that as a good RC they must accept it but they live as if it weren’t true; 5) they express verbal dissent in the RCC and live with the tension between their conscience and what they’ve been told; 6) they cannot reconcile Boniface’s teaching with God’s Word and they leave the RCC. There are of course other responses and the pattern. The same can be said for the papal teaching on contraception and any number of other subjects.

     One should not mistake organizational unity for spiritual unity. RCs have as widely diverse beliefs as Protestants – they just don’t show it as visibly as Protestants do. Protestants value visible unity at a local assembly level, understanding that the members of the body are many and diverse, but are all connected to the same head (Christ). The branches of the vine are distinct, yet all are connected to and nourished by the true vine.

     So the real question is whether or not the Magisterium of the RCC is infallible – and that is a question that each person must ultimately decide for themselves. For me, the cognitive dissonance between the teaching of the Magisterium and the clear teaching of Scripture is too great.

     Peace.

215. lojahw November 18th, 2009 11:40 am :

     Bryan,

     Re: special pleading – you appeal to the ECFs to support your viewpoint but you dismiss all references to the ECFs that do not support your viewpoint.

     Re: inconsistencies – IN THIS OFFSPRING of the Blessed Virgin ONLY produced a seed that was blessed and free from the fault of its stock. The referent of “only” is “this offspring of the Blessed Virgin.” Only in this offspring (Christ) was there a seed that was blessed and free from the fault of its stock. The referent of “stock” is Mary. Mary indeed was NOT blessed and free from fault; it was her faulty stock referred to which produced the “only seed that was blessed and free from the fault of its stock.”

     Peace.

216. Shawn Miller November 18th, 2009 12:57 pm :

     This thread has been most helpful, thank you.

     As a theologically trained (modestly) Protestant whose certainly considering the claims of the Catholic Church, and admittedly come to seen those very marks of the Creed in her, I would like to offer an affirmation. My subjective experience definitely attests, to my satisfaction at least, the distinction between asking the question “where is that church that teaches what I already know to be true from the scriptures?” to “where is the Church which would trump my pre-conceived doctrinal conclusions?” It is the same question which Joseph Smith asked—though I couldn’t tolerate the answer being “there is none. Christianity is forsaken.” When either question is the subject of one’s prayers for an extended period, the felt difference is remarkable.

     I remember, as a bible-college student, picking up those very readable “5 views on. . .” The type of text which would present an issue, such as Eschatology or Baptism ect., and hear arguments from the leading schools of thought. This, of course, is all fine and good. Yet, I would pick them up so casually, wondering “which am I?” I never lost sight of the fact that I was ultimately my own theological authority.

     My current dilemma is so difficult precisely because of the recognition that I would be surrendering a right to interpretive authority (aside from ecclesial authority). In this way catholics, it seems, are married to the Church. One’s membership is not really revocable, only corruptible (as the married man has no power to nullify his marriage). I could not rightfully, at a point in the future, for whatever doctrinal outrage, leave and set up shop down the block. This is, for me, another way to frame the difference contra the repeated allegation that I am reading.

     Cheers,

217. Keith W. Thompson November 18th, 2009 2:56 pm :

     Bryan,

     In our continuing dialogue:
     KEITH: I much prefer Solo Scriptura to Solo Church Historia…
     BRYAN: Your last line is quite telling, especially the word ‘prefer’. For the Catholic, personal preference has nothing to do with determining the identity and nature of the Church.

     I guess that I didn’t make it clear that I was using the word “prefer” quite intentionally. I have been trying to point out that you are EQUALLY as guilty of beginning your epistemological search for salvation with an individualistic “preference” as we protestants are. (..along with every other human being from every other religion on the face of the earth.) So, for you to identify the point in our epistemology where “private judgment” is used and then say that every epistemic conclusion based upon that is somehow tainted is calling the kettle black. (Also, the doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture addresses this supposed “Protestant problem” at length. I would recommend reading that section in Herman Bavink or Louis Berkhof for a reasonable defense of it.)

     I suppose I am utterly confused how you can say that for Catholics, “…personal preference has nothing to do with determining the identity and nature of the Church,” while in the next breath you state, “The Catholic approach is to locate an entity (i.e. the Church) in the first century, then trace that entity forward to the present day, and then listening to what she says is the gospel. Both involve the initial use of private judgment…” ??? Is “personal preference” and “private judgment” somehow different? Are you somehow able to use “private judgment” in a way that does not rely on “personal preference?” Are you saying that Catholics have the ability to read human history without any preexisting bias? Are you implying that Roman Catholic historians were free from personal bias when they wrote the history of the church?

     Epistemologically, you and I are in the same boat, (floating down different rivers) but again, I prefer to start with the Word of God, which has the power of God to give life than to start with fallible human history written by fallible men which does not have the power to give life, but most certainly has the power to both lie and deceive. I prefer Solo Scriptura to Solo Church Historia. I prefer my boat and I prefer my river.

     As to whether or not Apostolic Succession is the exclusive means by which true ecclesiastical authority has been given is a different matter. That is not the thesis of your paper above so I have not gone there yet, but it seems that the thread is rapidly degenerating into a discussion of the validity of Rome’s brand of successionism. This is the same problem that we faced in the previous thread in which I conversed with you, and I think that it is the heart of the matter. One of the inherent weaknesses I see in your article, is that it does not sufficiently address this issue which is THE issue between Reformed catholics and Roman Catholics in desperate need of reformation. (Hey, I never claimed to be unbiased!) It seems to me that you presuppose that true succession necessitates true teaching. This was never the case in the OT & I don’t see why I should believe that it is the case now.

     Throughout biblical history, God’s truth was constantly being perverted by his “authorized” priesthood, but God always retained a remnant of true prophets who called for reform in the land. Why should we think that God decided to grant an “infallible button” to the Roman Catholic Church when He never did this in the visible church of the Old Testament? It seems inconsistent. The “TRUE” church in the OT was the remnant faithful to the TEACHING irrespective of their Levitical “true authority based on succession.” Why does legitimate succession of office in the New Covenant somehow change the fact that mankind (including Popes and bishops) is depraved and susceptible to error and the perversion of the truth?

     Hoping to learn,
     Keith WT

218. Tom Riello November 18th, 2009 3:29 pm :

     Shawn,

     The way you put the questions about finding the Church was excellent. Be assured of my prayers as you navigate the waters.

     Keith,

     When you say that, contra, Catholics, you prefer to start with the Word of God, you assume so much in that statement. For starters, how do you know what the Word of God is? Is it possible to know the Word of God apart from the community to which and through which it was given (e.g. Israel and the Church)?

     That being said, I am genuinely surprised that many of the rebuttals to the Catholic position have been “you use personal judgment, therefore, you are no different than the Protestant” etc… Why is it surprising that Catholics use personal judgment? Part 3 Articles 3, 4, and 6 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church make it very clear about the personal responsibility that we have to make a morally informed choice.

219. Ken Temple November 18th, 2009 3:32 pm :

     One sentence from the Louis Bouyer quote:

     If it was possible for the first to come from the second, it must somehow have been contained therein.

     “somehow” SolO was “contained therein” (in SolA) is a massive assumption. The assumption is that the first (SolO Scritpura) came from the second (SolA Scriptura) as a necessary consequence or causal relationship. We could say the same thing, that somehow SolA came from the RCC. The RCC caused SolA Scriptura in a reactionary way from:
     1. the failure to preach the gospel and teach the Scriptures properly
     2. the harsh treatment of heretics and schismatics (Nestorians, Monophysites, Wycliff, Lollards, Jan Huss) all through history, from the principle of the marriage of the church and state of Emperor Theodosius in 380 AD to Justinian in 530s-550s AD to the Crusades and Inquisitions to the Reformation. Without the political freedoms of separation of church and state of the Germans (Fredrick the Wise) and the German Princes agreed to the Augsburg confession, the RCC would have burned Luther at the stake. The proliferation of SolO type churches was made possible more by the political freedoms of separation of church and state ( Magna Carta – US Constitution, Declaration of Independence, etc.) .

220. wilkins November 18th, 2009 3:43 pm :

     Keith T,

     have you read section V of this article? have you read the Liccione recommendation from comment 4? i’m not trying to be combative, just genuinely curious.

221. Bryan Cross November 18th, 2009 3:56 pm :

     lojahw,

     You wrote:

     I submit that there is no principled difference between people regardless of whether they are RC or Protestant: each individual is the de facto final interpreter of whatever source of truth they encounter. Each person filters what they read or hear into his or her own understanding. The main difference between RCs and those who actually practice Sola Scriptura (I’ll grant that many do not), is that RCs put an additional unique filter between themselves and God’s Word. Both Protestants and RCs are taught by pastors trained in God’s Word, but RCs also add an “infallible interpreter” between the individual and God’s Word. However, ultimately, the individual RC functions as the de facto final interpreter of the interpreter of truth.

     We addressed this objection in section V.A. in our article, in which we pointed out the distinction (that you are here glossing) between the two senses of final. See the paragraph that begins “This objection can also take the following form.”

     RCs are all over the map in their understanding of the Magisterium

     There is undoubtedly a deficiency among many Catholic lay-persons in understanding the Catholic faith. That is the result of poor catechesis. But that does not entail that in Catholicism the individual retains ultimate interpretive authority. The Catholic who is relatively ignorant of the Catholic faith does not thereby become his own ultimate interpretive authority. So the point that “many Catholics do not understand the Catholic faith” does nor refute our argument or show that the Catholic position is equivalent to solo scriptura.

     RCs have as widely diverse beliefs as Protestants – they just don’t show it as visibly as Protestants do.

     The principled difference is that there is in the Catholic Church one definite faith, defined by the Magisterium. Any Catholic who deviates from it is ipso facto heterodox. But in Protestantism, there is no Magisterium to set the standard for what is orthodox and what is heterodox. So the “diversity” of theological doctrines among Protestants is not deviation from an established and defined orthoxody, whereas the “diversity” of doctrinal beliefs among Catholics is deviation from an established and defined orthodoxy, excepting those beliefs concerning which there has been no teaching given by the Magisterium, in which matters we have freedom. The reason Catholics can affirm the saying, “In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity” is because in virtue of the Magisterium we have a principled distinction between essentials and non-essentials. But in Protestantism there is no principled distinction or ground for a principled distinction between essentials and non-essentials.

     Re: special pleading – you appeal to the ECFs to support your viewpoint but you dismiss all references to the ECFs that do not support your viewpoint.

     I have not dismissed any quotation from the ECFs. I have explained how a Catholic understands the ECF quotations to which you have have referred.

     Re: inconsistencies – IN THIS OFFSPRING of the Blessed Virgin ONLY produced a seed that was blessed and free from the fault of its stock. The referent of “only” is “this offspring of the Blessed Virgin.” Only in this offspring (Christ) was there a seed that was blessed and free from the fault of its stock. The referent of “stock” is Mary. Mary indeed was NOT blessed and free from fault; it was her faulty stock referred to which produced the “only seed that was blessed and free from the fault of its stock.”

     Here again is the quotation from Pope St. Leo I:

     In this nativity also, Isaiah’s saying is fulfilled, “let the earth produce and bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together (Isaiah 45:8) .” For the earth of human flesh, which in the first transgressor, was cursed, in this Offspring of the Blessed Virgin only produced a seed that was blessed and free from the fault of its stock. (Sermon 24.3)

     The word ‘only’ there is an adverb modifying the word ‘produced’. It doesn’t mean that only Christ was sinless. Pope St. Leo is saying that in Christ’s conception, the earth composing human flesh only produced a blessed seed, i.e. did not also produce a corrupt seed. So there is no inconsistency between what Pope St. Leo I says here, and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

222. mateo November 18th, 2009 4:26 pm :

     Paige Britton: Mateo (#163) wrote: “My question is this, why would Jesus found a Church and then leave us with no way of knowing with certainty what he actually taught?” – which is the big question behind your other questions. I would respond by observing that those in a “thoughtful” Protestant category, whom I believe Vanhoozer was describing in his approach #4 (see my post #161), have accepted that this is close to the case, whether or not they can answer WHY. … If such Protestants are right, and there is no Magisterium with infallibility and authority in interpretation, then they are correct to aim for / expect interpretation that is “sufficient and reliable,” not infallible.

     If one cannot know with certainty what Jesus actually taught, one can never know with certainty that their beliefs are either “sufficient” or “reliable”!

     I once encountered a Baptist man that argued along the lines that you are advancing. Basically he said this: We are saved by faith alone, but no one can know with certainty what we are supposed to believe. To be saved, we need to have sincere faith in things that may or may not be true.

223. Bryan Cross November 18th, 2009 4:48 pm :

     Keith T,

     You wrote:

     Is “personal preference” and “private judgment” somehow different?

     And here, perhaps, we’re starting to get to the heart of the divide. Yes, personal preference and private judgment are not the same thing. Personal preference is what people use when they are standing at the ice cream counter at Baskin Robbins, trying to make a decision about which flavor to order. Are they also using private judgment? Yes. They are using both. Contrast that with the accident reconstruction project of Flight 1549. That task is also accomplished by private judgment, but not governed by personal preference. It is not that we can go about reconstructing an accident any way we might happen to feel or prefer. There is a way to go about it that leads to the truth about what happened, and that way is what it is, regardless of our preferences for other ways.

     Are you saying that Catholics have the ability to read human history without any preexisting bias?

     Humans are able to discover the truth about what happened in the past. We can trace the Church through history, from the time of the Apostles to the present.

     I prefer to start with the Word of God, which has the power of God to give life than to start with fallible human history written by fallible men which does not have the power to give life, but most certainly has the power to both lie and deceive.

     How do you know that [it, i.e. the Protestant Bible] is “the Word of God”? You are implicitly relying on the Church, in order even to know that there is a Word of God written, and which books belong to it. Otherwise, your starting point would be entirely arbitrary and fideistic. Preference should not even be in our discussion, if truth is what we are trying to find. If we are after the truth, and not seeking our own preferences, then the question is: Which method leads us to the Church Christ founded, and how did the early Christians understand how the Church was to be discovered. The one method in question here is picking up a Protestant Bible, coming up with one’s own interpretation of what it says about ‘the gospel’, finding those persons who believe and teach that gospel, and designating them as “the Church”. The other method is locating that entity bearing the name Church (or ‘Catholic Church’ according to St. Ignatius of Antioch) in the first century, and then tracing it forward through history to the present day.

     One of the inherent weaknesses I see in your article, is that it does not sufficiently address this issue which is THE issue between Reformed catholics and Roman Catholics in desperate need of reformation. (Hey, I never claimed to be unbiased!) It seems to me that you presuppose that true succession necessitates true teaching. This was never the case in the OT & I don’t see why I should believe that it is the case now.

     I think the reason you “don’t see why” you should believe divine protection accompanies apostolic succession is because you ‘start’ with [Protestant] Scripture, and hence try to understand what qualities and properties the Church has (and even who or what the Church is) from your interpretation of [Protestant] Scripture, instead of from the Church herself. If you located the Church first, and then sought to understand from her what is the truth about Christ, the truth about the canon of Scripture, the truth about the nature of the Church, etc., then you would understand why divine protection accompanies apostolic succession. The assumption you are starting with is that Scripture can properly be understand and interpreted entirely apart from the covenant people to whom it was written and in which it was written. What if that assumption is false?

     Why should we think that God decided to grant an “infallible button” to the Roman Catholic Church when He never did this in the visible church of the Old Testament? It seems inconsistent.

     That would make every significant difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant into an “inconsistency.” There was no “visible Church” in the Old Testament; the Church was born on Pentecost. That’s why Jesus preached that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand. He was inaugurating the Kingdom, something not present in the Old Covenant. The New Covenant is far better than the Old Covenant. Baptism now saves, as Peter tells us, but circumcision did not. The passover lamb of the Old Covenant did not give eternal life. But the Eucharist under the New Covenant gives eternal life (John 6:54-58) In every way the promises of the New Covenant are better. So you shouldn’t be surprised that what Christ inaugurated, and to which He gave the keys to Peter, would be far greater and indefectible compared to what we find in the Old Covenant. With a mere sola scriptura approach that’s much more difficult to know, because you don’t have the benefit of what the Church herself has definitively taught about herself through the ages.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

224. Keith W. Thompson November 18th, 2009 4:51 pm :

     Wilkins,

     I appreciate your gentle manner of asking your question. Yes, I have read section V. of the above article. (I just finished rereading it to be sure I didn’t forget something.)

     The problem I still have, is that the contrast being stated throughout the article is a good comparison between mainline evangelicalism and Roman Catholic church authority. However, this contrast is not by any means a faithful engagement of Reformed churches. My church and most other Reformed churches hold to a high view of church authority and submission to the teaching of that authority. In many cases, when the above authors criticize “protestants” for their lack of any church authority, I stand up and applaud… but then I find that they are criticizing Reformed churches and I sit down and scratch my head. Their critiques are similar to my own critiques of most protestant churches. I myself have preached sermons on numerous occasions strongly criticizing the lack of submission to rightful church authority in matters of doctrine, faith, and life which is prevalent in mainline evangelicalism (i.e. the Billy Graham movement).

     I suppose that ultimately, the above authors, in my humble opinion, have no idea what Reformed churches teach concerning church authority, and they lump us into the “protestant” chunk of churches without really thinking about the difference between a Reformed church and a non-reformed church.

     Point in case: In section V. above, the author(s) state, “The Protestant, by contrast, in joining a Protestant community does not find the Magisterium. That is because he does not find something that can bind his conscience regarding the canon of Scripture, the interpretation of Scripture, and the identity of orthodoxy and heresy. This is why in his Protestant community he perpetually retains final interpretive authority, because no decision of that community has the authority to bind his conscience.”

     I will take it line by line to illustrate my point:

     1. The Protestant, by contrast, in joining a Protestant community does not find the Magisterium.

     This is true. In a Reformed church, a believer does not find “the Magisterium,” but that does not imply a vacuum of all authority. Our structure of authority simply goes by a different name. In an evangelical church, they find nothing resembling authoritative teaching whatsoever.

     2. That is because he does not find something that can bind his conscience regarding the canon of Scripture, the interpretation of Scripture, and the identity of orthodoxy and heresy.

     This is true of mainline evangelical churches, but completely false of Reformed churches. Our confessions are authoritatively binding upon the conscience in regards to each and every one of these matters, and I have witnessed numerous examples of certain individuals who have come under church discipline for failing to submit to rightful church authority in these areas.

     3. This is why in his Protestant community he perpetually retains final interpretive authority, because no decision of that community has the authority to bind his conscience.”

     This is pragmatically true of mainline evangelicalism again, but not so with Reformed churches. The individual does not possess final interpretive authority. I can understand why a Catholic would say that a Reformed session, or synod, or elder board etc. does not “have” the authority to bind the conscience of believers, but obviously we disagree. Authority comes from God himself and to state this is to presuppose that God himself instituted the mechanism of Apostolic Succession as the means by which every elder (bishop) of the church would be ordained. But this presupposes the conclusion rather than arguing for it.

     I suppose that ultimately, I would like to see the moderators interact with actual Reformed positions on church authority rather than simply building argument after argument aimed at mainline evangelicals and then inserting the word “protestant” (which includes Reformed churches) in front of the target.

     Hopefully this explains some of my angst.

     In Him,
     Keith WT

225. wilkins November 18th, 2009 5:04 pm :

     lojahw,

     seriously, when i read your explanations of what Catholicism is and what it teaches and what its texts mean, and so on, i’m reminded of Valentine Cunningham’s criticism of postmodernist literary critics who push and shove and force their way through Western literature determined to make their arguments and cut certain people (and ideas) down to size even if it means reading poorly and arguing without tact.

     i look back at Mathison’s interaction here, for example, and compare his careful comments with some of the other comments here, and really the difference in approach is remarkable. Mathison’s comments exhibit a lot of what Cunningham calls ‘tact’: Mathison does not present himself as an expert on Catholicism—does not attempt to dismiss specific Catholic positions by a general appeal to “clear teachings of Scripture.” Where he is confused about something, Mathison assumes he has either misunderstood or needs additional information. He says so, then asks for additional information. His confusion isn’t used as an opportunity to attack people or ideas, nor does he use his confusion as a platform for lecturing Catholics about what Catholicism teaches.

     You may not intend this, but your interaction comes off as hostile. For example, your explanation for why Bryan is ‘special pleading’ reads like an additional accusation and not an explanation: i haven’t seen Bryan dismiss any ECF or ECF reference. i don’t recall Bryan dismissing anything, in fact. When he points out an error, he also provides a very clear reason for the error (eg, “…by [falsely] assuming that statement is the exhaustive extent…”). Your response doesn’t address Bryan’s very clear evaluation of your interpretation but foists on us, instead, another accusation.

     …which only keeps us all distracted from the article that we’re supposed to be charitably discussing together. About that article, section V addresses your comment 214, paragraph 4. Have you read section V of this article? How has it failed to answer your objection?

     sincerely,
     wilkins

226. Neal Judisch November 18th, 2009 5:19 pm :

     Andrew,

     Thanks. I have to be brief here, and in fact won’t be very active in the combox this week. But just briefly: I see the distinction between the A question and the B question, and would just note that we were discussing both of them in the article because Mathison was discussing both of them in his book and, in our article, we’re discussing the position in Mathison’s book. I don’t think these issues are being confused, exactly, and I don’t think it’s very hard to tell who is talking about what when. Sorry if I gave the impression of confusion; in any case, it seems to me that we (collectively) have been discussing both of these issues at various points throughout this thread, and that it’s reasonably clear in context which of the two topics are being treated.

     As to the presuppositionalist analogy: maybe it’s best to just forget it. It was supposed to be illuminating or suggestive, but I think I must have just been unclear about it. It was not at all supposed to argue once more, or in another way, that sola collapses to solo. It was supposed to respond to the allegation, made by some Protestants, that because Catholic converts have to use their own judgment when they decide to be Catholics, therefore, after they become Catholics, they are quite as reliant on private judgment as they were when they were Protestants. That’s the charge I was responding to. It’s not an attempt to show that sola reduces to solo; it was an attempt to respond to some of the concrete ‘tu quoque’ remarks that some of our Protestant friends were offering in the early days of this thread. Again, if you’re not seeing how it connects or how it provides a parallel (and similarly deficient) argument to the one that some of our Protestant friends were giving, then we should probably just drop it.

     Now: got to take my mischievous middle daughter to ballet.

227. Bryan Cross November 18th, 2009 5:35 pm :

     Keith T,

     You wrote:

     My church and most other Reformed churches hold to a high view of church authority and submission to the teaching of that authority.

     In section IV.A. of the article, we argue that there is no principled distinction between this “high view of church authority” (sola scriptura in the Reformed sense) and the evangelical position, because the former is merely an indirect form of the latter. If you find our argument (in that section of our article) faulty, where, exactly, do you think it goes wrong?

     This is true of mainline evangelical churches, but completely false of Reformed churches. Our confessions are authoritatively binding upon the conscience in regards to each and every one of these matters,

     On this point you seem to be in disagreement with Mathison, who claims that only the Word of God can bind the conscience. On what grounds or basis is a Reformed confession “binding upon the conscience” of anyone? Why are Protestants bound in conscience to Protestant confessions when Protestantism itself presupposes that Luther was not bound in conscience to the teaching of the Catholic Church?

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

228. wilkins November 18th, 2009 5:37 pm :

     Keith, 224.

     i have to read this stuff many times for the same reason, except that i always find i’ve forgotten something, lol. i write ‘lol’ but what i mean to say is something like, ‘dangit’. anyway, that’s a very good explanation, helps me very much understand where you’re coming from. tied up at just this moment – hope i can catch up with you more later tonight.

     peace,
     w

229. Keith W. Thompson November 18th, 2009 6:31 pm :

     Tom,

     You wrote,

     When you say that, contra, Catholics, you prefer to start with the Word of God, you assume so much in that statement. For starters, how do you know what the Word of God is? Is it possible to know the Word of God apart from the community to which and through which it was given (e.g. Israel and the Church)?

     Yes Tom, that is exactly what I am saying.

     “The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

     We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture, and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, (which is to give all glory to God) , the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts.”
     ~Westminster Confession of Faith 1.4; 1.5.

     Why is it surprising that Catholics use personal judgment?

     It is not surprising at all. We’ve known it all along.

     The reason we responding this way is because you (collectively) seem to be criticizing us for exercising personal judgment. We see you doing the same thing, so we are confused as to your semantics here. If it is not a bad thing when you do it, why is it so bad when we do? Bryan recently posted a reply to me stating that there is a difference between “personal preference” and “private judgment.” I see his point, and realize that I need to work harder to overcome the semantic difficulties. Largely, both sides have been talking past each other because we both fail to fully understand the other side’s point.

     In Him,
     Keith WT

230. lojahw November 18th, 2009 7:22 pm :

     Keith, I would beg to differ on the question of the beliefs and practices of mainline evangelical churches. The ones I’m familiar with are typically elder ruled [Baptists call them deacons, but their function is the same as elders] and members are required to sign doctrinal statements. Also, the doctrinal statements I’ve seen from Baptists, EV Free, Bible Churches, Reformed, Anglican, etc. all are in agreement on the essentials as defined by the Council of Nicea. The differences usually relate to things like the significance and mode of baptism, which was not mentioned in the original creed, and continues to be debated. Having said that, I’ve never seen a Protestant church that did not practice baptism – it was, after all, commanded by Christ.

     Peace.

231. Neal Judisch November 18th, 2009 7:24 pm :

     Keith,

     Not to “gang up,” on you, but just to reiterate Bryan’s second remark, it does seem that you are in conflict with Mathison and the other Reformed folks here. Note, too, that Mathison’s work (as I’m sure you know) is very often referenced by smart and respected Reformed thinkers, as providing a great touchstone for what historical Reformed theology says about sola scriptura. (As I mentioned above, I don’t think the Reformed tradition is monolithic here, but I think Mathison can make the case that he is faithfully representing Reformed thought as well as any other, perhaps better than some.) Finally, it is noteworthy that Mathison, and Mathison’s many Reformed supporters, have complained about precisely the same thing that you do: namely, that critics of Reformed theology misfire, since they assume what’s believed and taught is solo scriptura as opposed to sola scriptura. He then presents himself as providing the corrective, and giving critics and reformed Protestants alike the historic Reformed view, with all its nuances. So we engage Mathison, since we want to deal with the best stuff here. And when we engage with Mathison’s presentation, we are then accused (by you) of engaging with mainline evangelicalism as opposed to “really real” Reformed theology! (On the other hand, just to add another possibility to the mix, Turretin fan accuses Mathison of failing to represent “really real” Reformed theology for precisely the opposite reason from yours: he’s putting *too* much authority in the hands of men, and not securing *enough* room for liberty of conscience, according to T-Fan.)

     I think that Reformed theology is perhaps a bit of a moving target, and that this is to be expected given that it isn’t a monolithic movement. So that’s not a criticism of Reformed theology. But here’s what I’ll ask you. Given the amount of disagreement among you, Turretin fan, and Keith Mathison — all of whom are claiming to represent really real Reformed theology, and who are suggesting that their Catholic critics aren’t “getting” Reformed theology but are criticizing evangelicalism instead — I might ask you to consider the possibility that we’re at least *trying* to engage with real Reformed theology, but that, since Reformed Christians differ so much about what Reformed theology really is, it will inevitably appear to some of them that we’re talking about some other view instead. So when we try to respect Mathison by engaging “real Reformed theology” as understood by him, it isn’t necessarily the case that we’re ignoring Reformed theology and thinking about something else, even if you’re right that Mathison’s just wrong about what Reformed theology is.

     At the same time, to lay my cards on the table from what I’ve read, I don’t think your claim — that it is merely ‘evangelical’ but not ‘Reformed’ to hold that presbyters and confessions do not have power to bind the conscience, but that only God’s Word itself has such power — will find much historical support, or contemporary support from Reformed folks either. What you can find support for is the claim that the local session and the presbytery, etc., do possess genuine authority regarding disciplinary matters and so forth; but there is a distinction between allowing that, and claiming that such persons have a divinely bestowed authority directly to bind the consciences of the Christian Faithful. (Only *my* Church gets to do *that*. :-)) I’d encourage you to take a look at Mathison’s book, or the references in which we discuss the distinction as he lays it out.

     Best,

     Neal

232. Paige Britton November 18th, 2009 8:12 pm :

     Keith,
     I have sensed a difference in these discussions — and in experience — between the authority that is claimed by the Magisterium, and the authority that is claimed by, for example, the elders of my (PCA) church. If we drew a Venn diagram of the two, there would be some overlap, but when it comes down to specific interpretations of Scripture, it seems that the Magisterium trumps everything from our Session to the GA. This is not to say that the PCA doesn’t have standards of orthodoxy, but that there is much less control over the people in the pew in terms of biblical interpretation in our system. As a member, I am conscience-bound to submit to my elders because of the vow I have taken; as a sometimes-teacher, I am also conscience-bound to convey to others only what is in keeping with our doctrinal standards. But unlike the elders, I may harbor private reservations about something like infant baptism; and other laypeople may enjoy membership without knowing or accepting anything more theological than the Apostle’s Creed. The binding of the conscience in this area only goes so far in the Reformed system, whatever its permutation; it goes very, very deep in the Catholic.

     p.s. — I liked your metaphor about the epistemological boat, but how can two people be in the same boat going down two different rivers? Is that like, “you can’t step in the same river twice?” :)

233. Paige Britton November 18th, 2009 8:34 pm :

     Mateo,
     Well, you’re right, that would be unlivable, wouldn’t it! And what a woefully silly impression you received about Protestant epistemology. But look, all I’m saying is that IF there were no Magisterium to lean on, God would still be good, and what he would give us as far as certainty goes would be reasonable enough to live on. Don’t you think this is a reasonable expectation? (I’m even downplaying it a bit, because I actually think it’s QUITE livable, not just some mediocre existence.) I don’t know with 100% certainty that I can trust my husband in all things, but the certainty I have is quite enough to make for an excellent marriage. Human language, especially translated and received at a distance of several thousand years, isn’t going to communicate to me today 100% effectively. There are things I can do, though, to increase its communicative effectiveness, and some things will come across more clearly than others. It’s not like we’re shut up to only two options, a Magisterium on the one hand or dizzying doubt about meaning on the other. (But of course, I did say IF; so I could be completely wrong…) :)

234. Tap November 18th, 2009 9:23 pm :

     You mean to tell me lojahw and Ken Temple aren’t the same guy?

235. Tom Riello November 19th, 2009 12:38 am :

     Keith,

     And there lies the difference. At the end of the day you do not sense this indebtedness to the Church for Scripture and Scripture’s organic relationship to the Church. A Catholic, however, recognizes, with our brothers and sisters of antiquity, that Scripture comes forth from the heart of the Church and the Church is the guardian of the Sacred text.

236. Andrew McCallum November 19th, 2009 1:07 am :

     and would just note that we were discussing both of them in the article because Mathison was discussing both of them in his book and, in our article, we’re discussing the position in Mathison’s book.

     Yes, Mathison does hit the B issue hard. But I don’t see it in your article. At least, it does not seem to be mentioned in the discussion in IV.A when you are looking at individual interpretive authority in in its sola and solo scriptura manifestations. Perhaps when and if you have some time you could point it out in this or another thread.

     Yes, ballet, that’s good for girls. I have all boys so no ballet for us (I am quite sure they will never ask to be involved in ballet which is just fine with me).

     Cheers….

237. Neal Judisch November 19th, 2009 9:42 am :

     Hey, Andrew,

     Sorry you don’t quite see it. You mention above that when “external interpretive authorities” are brought in, then we’re discussing B (means by which ecclesial authorities determine interpretive questions) as opposed to A (how individuals do the same). I don’t think there is any real reason to use the language this way, since of course the ‘ecclesial authorities’ in question might not be relying upon any ‘external interpretive authorities’ at all, and the individual may of course rely upon a collective of people he considers to have expert status, etc. So it might be that you’re seeing the phrase “external interpretive authority” as a flag for some important shift in specific topic or something, whereas I don’t think it’s intended that way.

     Anyway, thanks for your remarks. I’m not sure I’ve understood precisely what your criticism of our main argument (sola reduces to solo) is, but I appreciate the interaction.

     Neal

     PS: I’ll definitely be non-comboxy today: got to teach ancient/medieval in the morning, then have advising hours, then will be teaching my grad seminar in the evening. After that, I intend to do nothing but go home, build a fire, eat yummy food, and watch the Office.

238. TurretinFan November 19th, 2009 10:22 am :

     I noted this:
     

     On the other hand, just to add another possibility to the mix, Turretin fan accuses Mathison of failing to represent “really real” Reformed theology for precisely the opposite reason from yours: he’s putting *too* much authority in the hands of men, and not securing *enough* room for liberty of conscience, according to T-Fan.

     My basis for thinking that Matthison is presenting something different from the Reformed position was especially Matthison’s comment:
     

     It renders the universal and objective truth of Scripture virtually useless because instead of the Church proclaiming with one voice to the world what the Scripture teaches, every individual interprets Scripture as seems right in his own eyes.

     This is more or less the Roman Catholic (and majority contemporary Eastern Orthodox) criticism, not the Reformed view. It is telling that Matthison states of this section of his own book:
     

     In one sense this section has already been covered by virtually every published Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox critique of what they term sola scriptura. These published critiques tend to focus only upon Tradition 0 or solo scriptura.

     (footnote 21, p. 244)
     One reason that this section of Matthison’s work is devoid of citation to Reformed authors is that he’s presenting what amounts to a Roman Catholic critique rather than presenting the Reformed position. Instead, his one citation in the section is to Bruce Metzger’s work on the recognition of the canon (which Matthison characterizes as “the canonization of the New Testament”).

     Yes, Mathison got a nice dust jacket blurb from R.C. Sproul, and that is to his credit. But at least in the section from pages 244-53, Matthison has gone rogue, representing essentially the Roman Catholic position, as he essentially has conceded.

     It is also telling that Matthison explicitly targets Reformed systematician Robert Reymond at page 241 of the book. Ironically, Matthison essentially accuses Reymond of being a Trinitarian heretic, despite the fact that “the church” (at least as it is viewed in Reformed circles, something I’m not sure Matthison accepts) has not found Reymond to be heretical.

     Matthison has accepted too many of the false accusations of Roman Catholic critics (indulge me in simply stating this for the moment, rather than trying to prove it). As a result, the position he presents is not the classical Reformed position, which is why he is unable to cite Reformed authors that agree with him.

     That doesn’t mean Matthison’s book is worthless, of course. Much of Matthison’s book may present the necessary and important criticisms of positions other than sola scriptura. After all, sola scriptura is a negative doctrine that rejects other ultimate authorities than Scripture.

     But that may not persuade you that Matthison’s Chapter 8 is off the Reformed reservation.

     Consider this:
     

     The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.
     We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

     (WCF1:4-5)
     Matthison’s view of the canon, expressed in Chapter 8 of his book, appears to be at odds with these sections of the Westminster Standards.

     Furthemore:
     

     The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

     (WCF1:10)
     Matthison’s view of councils and the Early Church Fathers appears to be at odds with this section of the Westminster Standards.

     Of course, the Savoy Declaration and the London Baptist Confession say essentially the same thing. I could, if required, show the same or similar expressions from the other Reformed confessions and creeds, such as the 39 Articles and the like.

     -TurretinFan

     P.S. I would take issue with the claim “I think that Reformed theology is perhaps a bit of a moving target, and that this is to be expected given that it isn’t a monolithic movement.” The vast bulk of what would be viewed as the “Reformed Community” in the English speaking world holds to the 39 articles, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the London Baptist Confession of Faith, or the Three Forms of Unity. All of those express essentially the same view of sola scriptura, though they don’t say what Matthison says in chapter 8 of his book.

239. Neal Judisch November 19th, 2009 10:55 am :

     Hey, T-Fan.

     Cool. We should’ve got you to write an addendum to the article! (I.e., I think that removing what Mathison says and calling it nonReformed really does make the position [sola scriptura] more vulnerable to attack — indulge me just to register that conviction for the moment.)

     I know that Sproul Sr. endorses the book, and it isn’t surprising that he should do so. But I hope you don’t think I’m equating Sproul Sr.’s judgments (still less his dustjacket blurbs) with “what Reformed theology says.” I know better ‘an dat. But I don’t at all think that the warm reception Mathison’s book has received is limited to a brief sentence from R.C. Sproul. And, what you regard as “telling” (viz., Mathison’s point that a number of the Catholics’ criticisms he agrees with are “really directed” at solo evangelicalism as opposed to sola Reformed theology, under the mistaken impression that the latter just is the former), is sort of what I was trying to point out. Very frequently, in my experience, one of the first impulses of the Protestant we’re critiquing is to say, “You have not understood real Reformed theology, but are mistaking some strawman for it.” What is curious, and what makes discussion a little hard, is that when two or more Reformed guys are in the discussion at the same time, they will both register the “you don’t understand Reformed theology” charge, not only toward us, but toward each other. (This doesn’t, of course, mean there’s no such thing as Reformed theology, but it does mean it’s pretty hard to host a discussion with a plurality of Reformed folks all at once!)

     For my part, I’d be really very interested to see what Mathison (or other Protestant readers) have to say about your assessment of this aspect of his thesis, that it is not really Reformed, and that this can be demonstrated succinctly by recourse to the forms of unity/confessions you’ve cited. One thing I’d say on his behalf is this: I think you’re misreading his footnote, the one that notes that Catholic apologists have presented arguments quite similar to the ones he lays out in the section of interest. He is not “in effect conceding” that he’s gone Roman Catholic (or Reformed ‘rogue’) here. He’s in fact alleging that Roman Catholic critics of sola scriptura aren’t understanding what sola scriptura “really says,” are not really understanding “the Reformed position.” They’re attacking solo scriptura, an unbiblical ahistorical evangelical view instead, and mistakingly thinking that Reformed people hold that view. So, when Mathison endorses their criticisms, he is just finding a common enemy with them: he’s saying they’re right about evangelicals, but wrong to saddle Reformed folks with the evangelical (solo) view. In your view, on the other hand, Mathison is wrong about this and has in fact gone Catholic: he’s wrong about sola scriptura, and the Catholics are right — at least about its content, if not its truth value. But this is, again, what I was talking about, when I mentioned that it is hard for Catholics not to be charged with “failing to understand real Reformed theology.” If I understand real Reformed theology a la T-fan, Mathison will saddle me (has saddled Catholics) with the “you don’t get Reformed theology” charge. If I understand it a la Mathison, on the other hand, T-fan will saddle me with that charge. That’s the thing I was mentioning to K. above.

     All best,

     Neal

240. TurretinFan November 19th, 2009 11:22 am :

     Neal wrote:
     

     What is curious, and what makes discussion a little hard, is that when two or more Reformed guys are in the discussion at the same time, they will both register the “you don’t understand Reformed theology” charge, not only toward us, but toward each other.

     We know the feeling – we get it when Roman Catholics argue with each other over whether the RC position is that Scriptural is materially sufficient or not.

     I note your comment: “I think that removing what Mathison says and calling it nonReformed really does make the position [sola scriptura] more vulnerable to attack” and without debating that (simply to avoid that tangent, not because I agree with you), I want to clarify that viewing Matthison’s analysis as non-Reformed does not mean the following:

     1) It does not mean saying that the church has no authority in doctrinal matters.

     2) It does not mean saying that truth is subjective.

     3) It does not mean buying into relativism.

     4) It does not mean viewing things like the Westminster Confession of Faith as essentiallythe same as any one of my blog posts.

     5) In short, it does not mean buying into the solo scriptura that is so widespread in “Protestant” circles.

     To his credit, Matthison has correctly identified that the Roman Catholic criticisms he outlines are not proper criticisms of the Reformed position, but he has not correctly identified the reasons. One might say it is as though he has attacked the minor premise of the RC argument rather than the major premise.

241. Ken Temple November 19th, 2009 11:30 am :

     Tap wrote:

     You mean to tell me lojahw and Ken Temple aren’t the same guy?

     No, we are not the same person.

242. Keith W. Thompson November 19th, 2009 12:29 pm :

     Bryan,

     You wrote in IV. A.:

     The Protestant, by contrast, in joining a Protestant community does not find the Magisterium. That is because he does not find something that can bind his conscience regarding the canon of Scripture, the interpretation of Scripture, and the identity of orthodoxy and heresy. This is why in his Protestant community he perpetually retains final interpretive authority, because no decision of that community has the authority to bind his conscience.

     I disagree with this line of reasoning. First, I grant that he does not find “the Magisterium,” which presides over Scripture. However, he does find a wealth of rich teaching about Scripture which is itself authoritative. Our confessions are binding upon their conscience in so far as they proclaim the truth contained in God’s Word. If a person came in to a Reformed community the confession of faith to which that church subscribes is authoritatively binding upon him (or her) “….regarding the canon of Scripture, the interpretation of Scripture, and the identity of orthodoxy and heresy.”

     To say that “no decision of that community has the authority to bind his conscience” is not accurate. If, for example, someone came to our church and became a member and then started teaching that he or she believed that Jesus was fully man, but not God incarnate, based upon his or her private interpretation of Scripture, we would point to the confession which authoritatively teaches that this is false and he or she would be bound to submit to the authoritative teaching “of Scripture” which is taught in the confession.

     So, to answer your point that I was disagreeing with Mattheson when he states that “the individual conscience cannot be bound by anything other than the Word of God,” I would say that I should have qualified my statement in that I agree with Mattheson here. When I say that the confessions are binding, I am assuming that the confessions themselves are working within the framework of Sola Scriptura and that they are not creating doctrines which are not found in Scripture. I would reference the Westminster Confession 1.6 at this point:

     The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

     You go on in section IV. A:

     And since, for Mathison, “All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture,”77 it follows that the individual conscience cannot be bound by anything other than his own interpretation of Scripture.

     This again is false. The interpretation of Scripture which has been set forth in the confessions and also the interpretations of ordained elders are more binding than the interpretation of each and every individual in the congregation. This is why elders in Reformed churches exercise such caution so as to NOT bind the conscience of individuals in the congregation on points of interpretation which are inconsequential or, in some cases, weaker brother issues. It is a great responsibility to be ordained and to be given the charge to interpret and disseminate of the Word of God without adding to it.
     There are some cases where I think that one church or another goes too far in this respect. For example, some churches practice exclusive Psalmnidy because the elders are convinced that the songs, hymns, and spiritual songs contained in Holy Scripture are fully sufficient and more perfect than any hymn written apart from direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Now, I like singing the Psalms, but I also like singing Amazing Grace. I do not think that singing uninspired hymns in the context of corporate worship are sinful, but if I were a member of a church that taught this, I would have to submit to the authority of the elders on this matter. Further, if I taught contrary to the elders according to my interpretation of Scripture, I would be teaching against the authorized and ordained officers of the church, and doing so, EVEN IF MY INTERPRETATION IS CORRECT, would be sinful, as I am failing to submit myself to their rightful authority over me.

     By contrast, the person who becomes Protestant, finds nothing outside himself that binds his conscience viz-a-viz the canon of Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture.

     Further, regarding the canon, the confessions give a list of canonical books. (e.g. WCF 1.2) If I were to assert that the book of Tobit ought to be included in the canon or if I asserted that James ought not to be included (shame on Luther!) I would be asserting my personal private judgment over and above the established orthodox teaching of the Reformed church, and would be in sin.

     Speaking of Luther, you quoted the famous phrase which may or may not have been uttered by him at Worms:

     Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason — I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other — my conscience is captive to the Word of God.

     Unfortunately, a great many protestants have adopted this line themselves in order to assert their autonomy over and against the church in matters such as the legality of divorce, for example. They use it to assert Solo Scriptura. However, Luther’s situation was different in that the places where his interpretation of Scripture differed from the Magesterium (of that time period) were of fundamental and primary importance to the essence of the gospel itself. If you recall, Luther DID recant a portion of his writings and confess that he wrote them in sin and insubordination to the Church. But he could not recant Sola Fide because he saw it so clearly taught in Scripture that he was forced to submit to either Scripture or to the church, but he cold not submit to both.
     Now, I know this situation is still riddled with problems. I think that Luther was sinning when he refused to recant because he was refusing to submit to the authority of the church. But unfortunately, he was placed in a situation where he had to sin against the Church or sin against the inspired Word of God… he had to make a choice, and he utterly agonized over that decision.
     I know you see that situation differently for a number of reasons, one of which is that Luther’s interpretation of Scripture is opposed to your personal private interpretation of Scripture ;-), but I suppose what it comes down to is whether or not the Church’s declaration that she has true divine authority from God based upon Apostolic Succession is actually true. If it is, then Luther and all subsequent protestants remain outside the fold of the True Church of Christ. If it is not, and if Rome overstepped her charge by Christ when she proclaimed that she never errors (in some circumstance) and if Rome oversteps her charge when asserting doctrines which are “added to” Scripture and not contained within Scripture, then the truth of the matter could very well be, as I believe it to be, that the Roman church wrongly assigned herself the authority which belongs to Christ alone and has done great damage to Christ’s True Church as a result.

     As to whether or not we have a high view of church authority, I would offer you this quote:

     “[L]et us learn from her (the visible church) single title of Mother, how useful, nay, how necessary the knowledge of her is, since there is no other means of entering into life unless she conceive us in the womb and give us birth, unless she nourish us at her breasts, and, in short, keep us under her charge and government, until, divested of mortal flesh, we become like the angels (Matth. Xxii. 30). …Moreover, beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for, as Isaiah and Joel testify (Isa. Xxxvii. 32; Joel ii. 32). …[B]y these words the paternal favor of God and the special evidence of spiritual life are confined to his spiritual people, and hence the abandonment of the Church is always fatal.”
     ~Calvin, Institutes 4.1.4.

     Obviously, there is much more contained in section IV. A that I could interact with, but I think that this is a god starting point. Much of what follows in your argument remains dependent upon what I am trying to show you is a false representation of our view of church authority. I look forward to your reply.

     In Him,
     Keith WT

243. lojahw November 19th, 2009 1:37 pm :

     Please accept my apologies for jumping into CTC like a bull in a china shop. In hindsight, I realize that I neglected to address an area of the article that might be more useful than the one I latched onto (the question of whether apostolic succession actually solves the problem posed by the authors). Specifically, I think that my fairly broad Protestant experience might offer a perspective that is missing in both the article and in the posts here on the relationship between Sola Scriptura and the fragmentation of Protestants in general and the mobility of Protestants between Churches.

     By way of background, I grew up in the Episcopal Church (which practices apostolic succession). It was my vow at confirmation to “follow Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior” that led me to leave that Church in the early 70’s because of the widespread apostasy I encountered in every Episcopal church I attended. Although the Episcopal Church formally ascribed to the orthodox 39 Articles of Religion crafted in the 16th century, its priests and bishops were increasingly ignoring them – a trend that continued to deepen until the present situation in which whole parishes and dioceses have left the Episcopal Church and organized a new province within Anglicanism, the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). The ACNA, in a nutshell, is committed to the Scripture as the ultimate authority in all matters of faith and practice, the historic sacramental heritage of the Church, and the celebration of the power of God’s Spirit at work in the Church and in the world. It is this Church which has drawn me back to Anglicanism after many years in other Protestant settings. I might add that I my perspective on evangelicalism is largely shaped by such Anglicans as John Scott and J. I. Packer and my experience over the years with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship.

     After I left the Episcopal Church, I visited MANY different churches, including Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Disciples of Christ, Church of Christ, and even the Unitarian and the Reorganized Church of Latter-Day Saints. Over the years I also spent significant time in a Disciples of Christ church, some independent Bible Churches, a “charismatic-light” Bible Church, and the Evangelical Free Church.

     With that background, let me say that my observation of the fragmentation of Protestants is mostly driven by social and cultural issues, rather than doctrinal. As I indicated previously, the doctrinal statements of the various Protestant Churches are substantially identical. My observation of Protestants who switch churches is that it is seldom for doctrinal reasons (except in cases like mine). Some churches adopt particular social agendas which make some of their members uncomfortable (like the gay agenda). By and large, any doctrinal issues are due to the same failing observed in the RCC: poor catechesis (of both pastors and members). The fault is not with Sola Scriptura, but with faulty people.

     Sola Scriptura simply declares the Bible itself to be the regula fidei. All doctrines and practice must be consistent with God’s Word, recognized as such by the Church from the beginning. The proposed alternative, apostolic succession, assumes that the Bible is inadequate as the regula fidei and must be supplemented with a specific body of interpretation that took centuries to develop and guarded solely by the successors of St. Peter. It just seems to me that the “faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” as recorded in the Bible, from which the Council of Nicea directly derived its Creed, was sufficient before the body of interpretation by the Magisterium (which I call Sola Papa) was amassed over the centuries.

     In practical terms, both Sola Scriptura and Sola Papa acknowledge the authority of ordained presbyteroi / episcopoi who have been trained to interpret God’s Word. From my perspective, the article would be more valuable if it had done more to comparatively evaluate the different models of interpretive authority: local vs. hierarchical and/or synodal, and fallibility vs. infallibility. As one who subscribes to Sola Scriptura, I believe the Bible is God’s infallible Word and all interpretations are, as Augustine said, liable to refutation and/or correction.

     Blessings.

244. TurretinFan November 19th, 2009 1:39 pm :

     Just so you know that this is not just what TurretinFan is saying.

     Paul E. G. Cook provided the following comments (among others) on Mathison’s book:
     

     To deny the individual Christian the right to read and interpret Scripture for himself, and to bring the judgments of ‘the church’ to that bar, is to elevate the teachers of the church into a theological elite whose conclusions are not to be questioned by the ordinary church member. The individual believer can read and understand Scripture for himself because the Scriptures are perspicuous as far as the main body of truth is concerned; and the Spirit within a believer bears witness to that truth ― the testimonium internum. The Scriptures encourage him to honour preachers and teachers within the Church who are called and gifted of God, but not to give them so much honour that their teaching cannot be questioned by the individual Christian in the light of Scripture.

     This reviewer regards the analysis of Oberman, developed by McGrath, and popularly presented by Mathison, as a subtle departure from the historic doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Its subtlety makes it all the more dangerous. A better title for this book would be ‘A Reshaping of Sola Scriptura’

     As printed in, The Banner of Truth, Issue 490, July 2004, p. 26.

245. Bryan Cross November 19th, 2009 2:06 pm :

     Keith T (re; #242),

     You wrote:

     However, he does find a wealth of rich teaching about Scripture which is itself authoritative. Our confessions are binding upon their conscience in so far as they proclaim the truth contained in God’s Word.

     As someone who went through seminary training in the PCA, took a class devoted entirely to the WCF, and prepared for ordination, I can tell you that candidates for ordination in the PCA all are required to present their list of exceptions they take to the WCF. But if you were correct that all of us are bound in conscience to believe all that is in the Reformed confessions, then no one could take an exception to the WCF, without violating his conscience. But then a very large percentage of candidates for ordination in the PCA would be violating their conscience by taking exceptions to the WCF. So if PCA pastors can take exceptions to the WCF without violating their conscience, why can’t laypeople do so?

     You seem to be saying that the Reformed confessions are binding on the conscience because they are true. But a truth is not binding on one’s conscience until it is, in some way, known to be true by that person. A proposition that, for all I know may be true or may be false, is not binding on my conscience. By knowing the proposition without knowing its truth-value, I’m not thereby bound to believe it to be true, or to believe it to be false. So, if a person does not believe some of the statements in the Reformed confessions to be true, and his not believing that they are true is not the result of culpable doubt or rejection of what he knows to be true, but rather is the result of study in which he concludes that those who composed the Reformed confessions misinterpreted Scripture, he is not bound nevertheless to believe these statements in the Reformed confessions to be true. In other words, he is not bound by any part of the confessions unless he believes that part to be true.

     If, for example, someone came to our church and became a member and then started teaching that he or she believed that Jesus was fully man, but not God incarnate, based upon his or her private interpretation of Scripture, we would point to the confession which authoritatively teaches that this is false and he or she would be bound to submit to the authoritative teaching “of Scripture” which is taught in the confession.

     The person would only be conditionally bound. That is, he or she would be bound to submit to your denomination’s doctrine if he wished to remain in your denomination. He would not be bound to remain in your denomination or to submit to its leaders. Your denomination does not claim to be the Church Christ founded as necessary for salvation for all men, having the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and capable of forgiving men’s sins and retaining men’s sins. To leave your denomination is not ipso facto to leave the Church. But to leave the Catholic Church is to leave the one and only Church Christ founded. There is no other Church. Excommunication from the Catholic Church is excommunication from the Church, period, not from one denomination or a branch of the Church.

     Neal and I wrote: And since, for Mathison, “All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture,” it follows that the individual conscience cannot be bound by anything other than his own interpretation of Scripture.

     You replied: This again is false. The interpretation of Scripture which has been set forth in the confessions and also the interpretations of ordained elders are more binding than the interpretation of each and every individual in the congregation.

     Why? If the first Protestants could reject the decision of all the bishops in ecumenical council (i.e. the Council of Trent), then why can’t a Protestant reject a decision of all the “ordained Protestant elders” if he decides that they are contrary to his interpretation of Scripture?

     This is why elders in Reformed churches exercise such caution so as to NOT bind the conscience of individuals in the congregation on points of interpretation which are inconsequential or, in some cases, weaker brother issues. It is a great responsibility to be ordained and to be given the charge to interpret and disseminate of the Word of God without adding to it.

     So the individual reserves the right to determine whether the elders’ interpretation contained in a Reformed confession “adds” to or detracts from the Word of God? If so, then if he judges that their interpretation adds to or detracts from the true interpretation of Scripture, he is free to reject their interpretation.

     Further, if I taught contrary to the elders according to my interpretation of Scripture, I would be teaching against the authorized and ordained officers of the church, and doing so, EVEN IF MY INTERPRETATION IS CORRECT, would be sinful, as I am failing to submit myself to their rightful authority over me.

     What is it that makes their authority “rightful” and the authority of the Council of Trent wrongful if not that you agree with the former’s interpretation of Scripture and reject the latter’s interpretation of Scripture?

     Further, regarding the canon, the confessions give a list of canonical books. (e.g. WCF 1.2) If I were to assert that the book of Tobit ought to be included in the canon or if I asserted that James ought not to be included (shame on Luther!) I would be asserting my personal private judgment over and above the established orthodox teaching of the Reformed church, and would be in sin.

     Again, what makes the “Reformed church” “orthodox” and the Catholic Church “unorthodox” except that you agree with the interpretation of the former and reject the interpretation of the latter?

     However, Luther’s situation was different in that the places where his interpretation of Scripture differed from the Magesterium (of that time period) were of fundamental and primary importance to the essence of the gospel itself. If you recall, Luther DID recant a portion of his writings and confess that he wrote them in sin and insubordination to the Church. But he could not recant Sola Fide because he saw it so clearly taught in Scripture that he was forced to submit to either Scripture or to the church, but he cold not submit to both.

     So here’s the great but ‘fatal’ exception. All your Reformed confessions are binding, unless anyone’s own individual interpretation of Scripture deems them to be inaccurate in matters of fundamental and primary importance pertaining to the gospel itself. (Where you get this exception clause, and what is its basis, you do not say.) Fair enough. That’s pretty much the point of our article. You are bound to submit, unless you think the authority is wrong in its interpretation of Scripture in matters that you deem to be of fundamental importance, and pertain to the gospel. But if you sufficiently agree with your denomination’s interpretation of Scripture regarding ‘the gospel’, then you are bound to submit to your denomination. In short, when you agree on what you deem to be the important stuff, then you bound to submit on what you deem to be the unimportant stuff. And when you disagree on what you deem to be the important stuff, then you aren’t bound to submit at all. But that suffers from the maxim: When I submit (only when I agree), the one to whom I submit it me.

     But unfortunately, he [Luther] was placed in a situation where he had to sin against the Church or sin against the inspired Word of God… he had to make a choice, and he utterly agonized over that decision.

     You cast it as though he’s either sinning against the Church, or sinning against Scripture. You leave out the possibility that he was interpreting Scripture, and hence misinterpreting Scripture. That’s a very significant omission. That he agonized over his decision is nice, but the question is whether what he did was right or wrong.

     I know you see that situation differently for a number of reasons, one of which is that Luther’s interpretation of Scripture is opposed to your personal private interpretation of Scripture ;-), but I suppose what it comes down to is whether or not the Church’s declaration that she has true divine authority from God based upon Apostolic Succession is actually true.

     Agreed.

     If it is, then Luther and all subsequent protestants remain outside the fold of the True Church of Christ. If it is not, and if Rome overstepped her charge by Christ when she proclaimed that she never errors (in some circumstance) and if Rome oversteps her charge when asserting doctrines which are “added to” Scripture and not contained within Scripture, then the truth of the matter could very well be, as I believe it to be, that the Roman church wrongly assigned herself the authority which belongs to Christ alone and has done great damage to Christ’s True Church as a result.

     Agreed.

     “[L]et us learn from her (the visible church) single title of Mother, how useful, nay, how necessary the knowledge of her is, since there is no other means of entering into life unless she conceive us in the womb and give us birth, unless she nourish us at her breasts, and, in short, keep us under her charge and government, until, divested of mortal flesh, we become like the angels (Matth. Xxii. 30). …Moreover, beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for, as Isaiah and Joel testify (Isa. Xxxvii. 32; Joel ii. 32). …[B]y these words the paternal favor of God and the special evidence of spiritual life are confined to his spiritual people, and hence the abandonment of the Church is always fatal.” ~Calvin, Institutes 4.1.4.

     It is a great quotation. The problem is that in this quotation ‘visible church’ just means ‘those who agree with my interpretation of Scripture regarding what is important and fundamentally pertains to the gospel.’ Once again, “When I submit (so long as I agree), the one to whom I submit is me.” As I wrote elsewhere:

     “Unity is achieved not when we all make ‘Church’ in our own image (i.e. in the image of our own interpretation), but when we all conform to her image. Unity as one of the four marks of the Church (“one, holy, catholic and apostolic”) and as the most intimate expression of the desire of our Savior’s sacred heart revealed in St. John 17, requires being incorporated into something greater than a structure made in our own image, or the image of our own interpretation.”

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

246. Tim Troutman November 19th, 2009 2:36 pm :

     Lojah – I love the bull in the china shop analogy. Great imagery. It doesn’t work here though because it implies that something was left broken.

     Is there a reason why you disagree with the major premise of the article? Particularly, why do you think there is a principled difference between solo and sola scriptura and what is it? (Your answer shouldn’t refer to the Catholic Church… )

247. lojahw November 19th, 2009 2:59 pm :

     Bryan wrote: “Your denomination does not claim to be the Church Christ founded as necessary for salvation for all men, having the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and capable of forgiving men’s sins and retaining men’s sins.”

     Bryan, the above claim as taught by your Church has never been accepted by the whole Body of Christ, starting with the East long before the Protestant Reformation.

     In the words of Ignatius of Antioch: “Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Smyrnans, 8; and quoted by your catechism: CCC 830).

     Jesus said, “For where two or three have gathered together in my name, there am I in their midst.” (Matt. 18:20)

     Vatican II recognizes all baptized Christians as members of Christ’s Body (UR 1).

     Ergo, the Church of Jesus Christ, which He heads, is comprised of all members of His Body, and every branch that is connected to Him, the true vine. Can any member of the Body be lacking what is essential as long as it is connected to the Head?

     Even if you do not recognize those who have not retained a formal apostolic succession, don’t forget the EO and the Anglican Communion have. There is no command of Christ that requires a specific form of ordination for His words in John 20:23 to be effective. Certainly, Paul expected the rights and privileges of presbyteroi / episcopoi to be passed on according to his instructions: “And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.”

     Blessings.

248. lojahw November 19th, 2009 3:11 pm :

     Tim: peace, on the china shop – I certainly didn’t intend to break anything!

     What I am saying is that there is no principled difference between a hierarchical interpretive authority and the interpretive authority of legitimate ordained clergy in Protestant churches. Individuals respond to both types of interpretive authority in the same ways.

     What is your point?

     Blessings.

249. Andrew McCallum November 19th, 2009 3:32 pm :

     Sorry you don’t quite see it. You mention above that when “external interpretive authorities” are brought in, then we’re discussing B (means by which ecclesial authorities determine interpretive questions) as opposed to A (how individuals do the same). I don’t think there is any real reason to use the language this way, since of course the ‘ecclesial authorities’ in question might not be relying upon any ‘external interpretive authorities’ at all, and the individual may of course rely upon a collective of people he considers to have expert status, etc.

     Neal – Well sure they could, but that does not speak to my point. When I brought up my case study of what the ECF’s of the 1st/2nd century used as their infallible standard, I did so because this is a question which touches at the center of the Reformed understanding of sola scriptura. Either the ECF’s used 1) only Scripture or 2) Scripture + tradition as an infallible standard. This is the heart of the matter. Now In your article you speak of how the individual Protestant judges theological matters. But on what basis I or you make theological judgments is a different discussion than what the Church used (or should use) as the basis for her official pronouncements. Do you see the difference? We can talk about the infallible standard of the ECF’s without ever touching on the question of the subjective evaluations that an individual makes. And so you could be entirely correct in your assessments of sola vs. sola as you state them in IV.A but be entirely incorrect about what judgments the Church used (or should use) to make her judgments. And it’s the later here that the Reformers were speaking of when they used the term sola scriptura.

     I hope you don’t think I am beating this poor tired old mare to death with my persistency here. I just don’t think you are yet on the same wavelength with those who coined the term sola scriptura.

     I hope you can unplug tonight – have a glass or two of red wine. I’m no doctor but that’s my prescription if you want to relax.

250. Bryan Cross November 19th, 2009 4:20 pm :

     lojahw, (re: #247)

     You wrote:

     Bryan wrote: “Your denomination does not claim to be the Church Christ founded as necessary for salvation for all men, having the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and capable of forgiving men’s sins and retaining men’s sins.”

     Bryan, the above claim as taught by your Church has never been accepted by the whole Body of Christ, starting with the East long before the Protestant Reformation.

     On the contrary, it has always been recognized by the whole Body of Christ. The whole Body of Christ is and has always been the Catholic Church, i.e. those in communion with St. Peter and his successors. That does not mean that it has always been recognized by every individual member of the Body of Christ. But it was well known in the first millennium of the Catholic Church, and remains the doctrine of the Church to this day. The role of the Pope, however, is not the subject of this article. So bringing it up would take us off-topic.

     In the words of Ignatius of Antioch: “Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Smyrnans, 8; and quoted by your catechism: CCC 830).

     Of course. But that does not mean that all those present where Jesus is are in full communion with the Catholic Church.

     Jesus said, “For where two or three have gathered together in my name, there am I in their midst.” (Matt. 18:20)

     Christ’s being present when two or three Catholics have gathered together in His name is fully compatible with what I said above. Christ isn’t in this verse promising to be present even when schismatics or heretics “gather in His name”. Those who do so in invincible ignorance are in a different situation. But cases of invincible ignorance do not set the visible bounds of the Church Christ founded, or the extent of membership in His Church. Membership is visible, because the Church is visible.

     Vatican II recognizes all baptized Christians as members of Christ’s Body (UR 1).

     No it didn’t. That’s a very common misunderstanding, because it fails to recognize the other conditions necessary for membership. To be a member in Christ’s Church, you need to meet three conditions:

     Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. (Mystici Corporis Christi, 22)

     The Protestant, even though having a valid baptism, by his denial of the true faith, and by his separation from the unity of the Body, is not a member of the Church. Vatican II did not change that twenty years later after Pope Piux XII wrote it. Rather, Vatican II affirmed in addition that the Spirit of God can and does work even outside the Church, through the Church’s sacrament of baptism and her Sacred Scriptures, bringing grace and gifts to non-Catholic Christians, thereby bringing them into an imperfect communion with the Catholic Church, a communion which impels toward full communion, and toward membership in His Body. But the possibility of salvation as a Protestant has to be understood in view of what the Church teaches about invincible ignorance regarding the identity and necessity of the Catholic Church. The Catechism teaches:

     Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. (CCC 846)

     You wrote:

     Even if you do not recognize those who have not retained a formal apostolic succession, don’t forget the EO and the Anglican Communion have. There is no command of Christ that requires a specific form of ordination for His words in John 20:23 to be effective.

     According to the Catholic Church, Anglican orders are invalid, and the reason is explained by Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae. We agree that the Orthodox have all seven sacraments, including the sacrament of penance. But they are in schism from the Church, as were the Donatists of the fourth century.

     All of this, though important, is quite entirely off the topic of our article, and we have addressed it elsewhere in other articles and posts here on CTC. Let’s keep the discussion on-topic.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

251. Tim Troutman November 19th, 2009 4:29 pm :

     Lojah – I gotcha on the china shop example.

     Previously I asked:

     Particularly, why do you think there is a principled difference between solo and sola scriptura and what is it?

     Since you did not offer a principled reason between the two, I’m assuming that you agree that there is none. If so, then I agree with you so far. You go on to say that the Catholic position is not any better, so we can discuss that, but my main point was that the article’s major premise is still unchallenged (hence the tongue-in-cheek objection to the china shop.. “well by George….if a bull’s been in this china shop, he must have been a very well behaved bull because the china is still in tact… heck it’s not even dirty.”)

252. lojahw November 19th, 2009 5:22 pm :

     Tim: I think you misunderstand me on the distinction between Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura recognizes the authority of Scripture which itself clearly states: “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” (2 Pet. 1:20-21).

     Whoever does not follow this clear teaching of Scripture is not following Sola Scriptura. As Augustine said,

     “But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted … either by the discourse of someone who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 2.3.4)

     One’s interpretation of Scripture is always subject to testing within the Body of Christ by those who are competent to do so.

     Blessings.

253. Tim A. Troutman November 19th, 2009 5:30 pm :

     Lojah, I’m not misunderstanding you; you’re not answering the question. What is the principled distinction between sola scriptura and solo scriptura?

254. TurretinFan November 19th, 2009 5:45 pm :

     “What is the principled distinction between sola scriptura and solo scriptura?”

     According to the article’s definition the “solo” position rejects “the true but subordinate authority of the church and the regula fidei.” The is distinguishable from a position that accepts the “the true but subordinate authority of the church and the regula fidei.”

     Is the question simply a request to identify this distinction?

255. lojahw November 19th, 2009 6:15 pm :

     TurretinFan’s observation is correct. In Solo Scriptura the Body of Christ has no interpretive authority over the individual’s interpretation, but as I explained in my previous posts, Sola Scriptura requires individuals to yield their person interpretations of Scripture to those in the Body of Christ who are more competent to interpret the Scripture (pastors, teachers, etc.) . Insisting on one’s own interpretation is contradictory to both 2 Peter 1:20-21 and the definition of Sola Scriptura given in the article.

     As I stated, Sola Scriptura is simply incompatible with Solo Scriptura because the latter denies the authority of 2 Peter 1:20-21. I don’t know how to state the difference more clearly.

     Blessings.

256. Tim A. Troutman November 19th, 2009 7:15 pm :

     Lojah & TurretinFan – you’ve both merely restated the definition as explained by Mathison. I thought it would be abundantly clear that I wasn’t asking you to restate Mathison’s position.

     The article demonstrates why Mathison’s position (i.e. that there is a principled distinction between solo and sola) is false. If you disagree with the article, then you should refute it. What you have been doing, instead, is trying to refute the Catholic position which is in no way related to the question of whether sola scriptura is reducible to solo scriptura.

     If you’re unconvinced by the arguments in the article, that’s one thing. But let’s be clear that we’re not actually interacting on the issue when after 250+ comments, you’re just repeating the very thing in question.

     As TurretinFan mentioned, Mathison is preparing a rebuttal. I’m looking forward to reading it; I’m just pointing out that no one has attempted to refute the article’s major premise.

257. TurretinFan November 19th, 2009 8:28 pm :

     Troutman:

     The argument for a lack of principled distinction (which could either be an argument that the distinction is not principled or that there is no distinction) is explained in the article thus:
     

     However, as we shall argue below, there is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura with respect to the locus of “ultimate interpretive authority:” sola scriptura, no less than solo scriptura, entails that the individual Christian is the ultimate arbiter of the right interpretation of Scripture.

     But that doesn’t actually address the definition of Solo Scriptura.

     Recall that the definition was that the “solo” position rejects “the true but subordinate authority of the church and the regula fidei.”

     Saying that (in some sense) the individual is the “ultimate arbiter” does not on its face appear to be a rejection of “the true but subordinate authority of the church and the regula fidei.” Furthermore, the article appears to simply assume that if there is any sense in which the individual is the “ultimate arbiter” then the challenge of demonstrating that the distinction is unprincipled (or that there is no distinction) has been met.

     Finally, as has been pointed out a few times, there is no alternative system (whether in “Protestantism” or within Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism) in which it is not the case that the individual is the “ultimate arbiter” in some sense. The article itself doesn’t provide a principled distinction between the sense in which the sola scriptura advocate makes the individual the ultimate arbiter and the sense in which the {insert your description of the proffered alternative to sola scriptura here} advocate makes the individual the ultimate arbiter.

     Thus, even if we leave aside the portions of the discussion where Mathison seems to be off-base, it doesn’t seem that the article is able to accomplish the mission it sets for itself. The best it can do is show that there is some sense in which the individual in sola scriptura is an ultimate arbiter, but this is not enough to demonstrate that the individual in sola scriptura rejects “the true but subordinate authority of the church and the regula fidei.”

     -TurretinFan

     N.B. Incidentally, identifying the regula fidei as something other than the inspired Scriptures is plainly contrary to WCF1:2, which states of the canonical books: “All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.” In the discussion above, I’m glossing over that issue, which otherwise creates more of the “you’re not addressing the classical Reformed position” problem, which we are trying to minimize for the sake of interacting with this article and the Mathisonian position it is critiquing.

258. Teri November 19th, 2009 9:03 pm :

     You may moderate this appropriately, but I think the fact that the Reformed responses don’t agree with Matthison, who I thought was Reformed, is telling in and of itself.

     They can’t agree on what the Reformed position should be regarding Sola Scriptura. I’m honestly not trying to be argumentative – but this was one of the things that made me, as a Protestant, start looking at what the early church looked like. If the “Gospel” is the “faith handed down once for all the saints”, why does everyone disagree on how it looks in reality using Sola Scriptura?

     Sola Scriptura doesn’t even speak to how a worship service should be conducted actually. We have St. Paul trying to correct abuses at Corinth, but was the service centered around the preaching of the gospel? Did they have singing or chanting? No music or some music. Sounds silly but, it’s caused Church splits.

     The Reformed position would appear much more admirable if they could agree among themselves on what it “is”.

     PAX,
     Teri

259. lojahw November 19th, 2009 10:33 pm :

     Tim: apparently you don’t think the following has been addressed:

     In this case the individual, based upon his own interpretation of Scripture, either establishes or chooses an ecclesial community that conforms to his own interpretation in matters he considers to be essential or important. Then, he ’submits’ to this institution so long as it continues to speak and act in accordance with his own interpretation of Scripture.

     You assume a lot in the above statement. You assume that the reason people change churches is because they disagree with the doctrine of the church where they attend. I previously said that is not the case, but … your idea doesn’t match reality, because to be a member they must sign a doctrinal statement indicating that they affirm the doctrine that church teaches.

     OK, so maybe they change their minds about a major Scriptural interpretation while attending. What are they to do? According to Sola Scriptura: “Obey your leaders, and submit to them for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account” (Heb. 13:17). If they have an honest disagreement over the interpretation of Scripture, they are to go to their pastor and/or elders and explain their position. Most likely they will be shown the error in their understanding because their leaders are: “holding fast the faithful word which is in accord with sound doctrine and [able] to refute those who contradict” (Tit. 1:9). If they leave the church anyway at this point, they are not following Sola Scriptura.

     OK, so what if the leaders of the church change their interpretation of Scripture that contradicts their doctrinal statement? Same procedure: those who disagree are to go to their leaders and follow the same procedure above. If the leaders are truly in heresy as demonstrated by reasoning from the Scriptures by the member (cf. Acts 17:2, 11), the members have to choose to: 1) leave the church (as I did); or 2) stay and pray for the leaders to return to orthodoxy. In actual practice, however, most members are not trained to refute error themselves, so they may need some help from others who are well-trained in the Scriptures.

     However, there are also many minor areas of difference between Protestant Churches that apply to any of the above scenarios. In those cases the following dictum applies: “In the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials, liberty, and in all things, charity.” Because Protestants have a more inclusive view of the Church, moving to another church for social or minor interpretation differences (such as modes of baptism) is not a reason to break communion (yes, most Protestant Churches practice open communion).

     But all of the above are rare in practice (other than growing heresy in some of the mainline churches). Far more common, as I’ve said in previous posts, are social reasons: e.g., marriage to someone from a different tradition, or a move to another city and trying to find a church that one fits into socially, or, sadly, a falling out with people in their church. In the latter case, I always counsel people to follow Matt. 18 to be reconciled, rather than leave. If they leave without trying to be reconciled, they are simply disobeying Sola Scriptura.

     As far as establishing a new church for the sake of a particular emphasis, there’s nothing wrong with that as long as the core doctrines are orthodox. If every member of the body were an eye, where would the body be? However, if one starts a church, like Joseph Smith did (LDS), that is heretical – that’s a cult.
     I don’t doubt the above will raise more questions, because one can’t cover the gamut in one combox post!

     Blessings.

260. Devin Rose November 19th, 2009 11:26 pm :

     Perhaps off-topic, feel free to moderate:

     lojahw wrote “In Solo Scriptura the Body of Christ has no interpretive authority over the individual’s interpretation, but as I explained in my previous posts, Sola Scriptura requires individuals to yield their person interpretations of Scripture to those in the Body of Christ who are more competent to interpret the Scripture (pastors, teachers, etc.) . Insisting on one’s own interpretation is contradictory to both 2 Peter 1:20-21 and the definition of Sola Scriptura given in the article.”

     Who are those persons in the Body of Christ who are more competent than I to interpret the Scriptures?

     Luther certainly thought that he was more competent than others, eventually coming to disdain others interpreting the Scriptures (for example, peasants and the Radical Reformers and even Zwingli). He wrote his catechisms to provide his own interpretive guidelines for how Christians should interpret the Bible. Calvin did the same thing in his Institutes. Zwingli was another educated man who believed strongly in his interpretations, yet all three of these magisterial Reformers differed in their interpretations of the Bible, sometimes in significant ways on essential matters (the Eucharist, for example, sola fide and baptism, etc.)

     So should I be listening to Luther’s descendants, Calvin’s, Zwingli’s, or someone else? Who are the competent (Protestant) teachers to look to when the founders of Protestantism disagreed from the very beginning of the Reformation?

     Why should I follow sola Scriptura and accept another person’s interpretation of Scripture over my own when these pastors and teachers have never agreed on what the Scriptures teach? This fact seems like another reason why sola Scriptura boils down to solo Scriptura.

261. lojahw November 20th, 2009 12:18 am :

     Devon, As Bryan explained to me the Magisterium does not interpret specific passages of Scripture as Luther, Calvin, et al. did. So I guess there is no infallible interpretation of any particular passage of Scripture?

     I’ve quoted Augustine many times on this subject: all bishops and church councils are liable to refutation and correction. We can only do the best we can with what we have. “Thy Word is Truth” is the best place to start…

     On the other hand, the Symbol of Nicea, hammered out from the Scriptures in AD 325 has stood the test of time. “In the essentials, unity; in the non-essential, liberty; in all things charity.” I would suggest that the AD 325 Nicene Creed covers the essentials. The rest we can keep debating…

     Blessings.

262. lojahw November 20th, 2009 7:41 am :

     Teri wrote: “You may moderate this appropriately, but I think the fact that the Reformed responses don’t agree with Matthison, who I thought was Reformed, is telling in and of itself.”

     Teri, please understand that the Reformed position is just one viewpoint within Protestantism. I do not consider myself to be Reformed, so my answers may not entirely agree with Mathison. Nevertheless, we both agree to the principle of Sola Scriptura, and that the church is a subordinate authority to Scripture. The differences in terminology, emphasis, and practice are inconsequential.

     In the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.

     Blessings.

263. T Ciatoris November 20th, 2009 8:05 am :

     lojahw,

     You wrote:
     

     As far as establishing a new church for the sake of a particular emphasis, there’s nothing wrong with that as long as the core doctrines are orthodox.

     Here you’ve touched on, I think, one of the central differences between Catholic and Protestant ecclesiology. For Catholics, it’s nonsense to speak of “establishing a new church” for the sake of anything. The Church was established once by the self-giving charity of Christ in His paschal mystery. His sacred side was opened once and His Bride was formed once of the blood and water flowing from His side. Individual Christians are born from Mother Church. The Church is the logically prior reality. We in the West are so formed in our modern political theory that we’ve imported it into our ecclesiology, so that Christianity is seen as fundamentally an individual phenomenon, and we think the church is “established” by the mutual agreement of individuals whose “core doctrines are orthodox.” “We the people who have individual relationships with God through Christ, in order to form a more perfect union…”

     You can claim, of course, that you still see the Church as the fundamental, logically prior reality, but that that reality is not embodied in any particular, identifiable, concrete, institutional reality. But that’s ecclesiological docetism, and thus a failure in incarnational Christology. It suggests that the Body of Christ is really no “body” at all, but a disembodied set of doctrines that can be bodied forth by any group of individuals who chooses so to do. This is precisely related to other heresies throughout Christian history. In the early middle ages, iconoclasts and those who denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist regularly claimed that Christ had given up His humanity at the Ascension. So He was no longer incarnationally circumscribable and could not be depicted in an icon. And of course His body and blood could not be present in the Eucharist, because He no longer had a body or blood. But we, of course, deny that the Word has ceased to be hypostatically united to His human nature, and so His “body” is not and cannot be an indeterminate, disembodied set of truths waiting to be incarnated by a group of individuals based on their own will. The Holy Spirit has made Christ incarnate in the flesh He took from Mary and in His Body the Church. That’s his job, not ours.

     On the other hand, the Symbol of Nicea, hammered out from the Scriptures in AD 325 has stood the test of time. “In the essentials, unity; in the non-essential, liberty; in all things charity.” I would suggest that the AD 325 Nicene Creed covers the essentials. The rest we can keep debating…

     The Nicene Creed did not define the status of the Holy Spirit (the Creed you’re probably thinking of is properly called the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and it’s from 381, not 325). It did not rule out Nestorianism or Monophysitism. It did not inform us whether we may use sacred images in Christian worship, or whether we may believe that the Eucharist is merely symbolic. These were covered later. Do you really think these are non-essential matters? And on what basis would you argue that these are non-essential matters while those matters covered at Nicaea are essential? I’m having trouble seeing a principled difference between you and an Arian who might say, “Look, guys, we all agree that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior of the world through His cross and resurrection. He’s the Son of God, the perfect image of the Father, indeed he is God – just not in the same way the Father is, you know, not consubstantial. You’re all obsessing about non-essentials when you insist on this silly homoousios language. It’s not biblical – we Arians stick with biblical language – and I’m not going to let these bishops try to tell me that their reading of Scripture is guided by the Holy Spirit.” What’s the difference, lojahw? Why draw the line in the fourth century? Why pick on all those poor Bible-reading Arians but give a free pass to the Bible-reading reformers of the 16th century?

     One more thing: the 16th century schism took place primarily over a soteriological issue: justification by faith alone. Where is that in Nicene Creed? If it’s not there, then your claim that the reformation was justified is in conflict with your claim that all the essentials were established in the 4th century.

     in Christ,

     TC

264. T Ciatoris November 20th, 2009 8:34 am :

     lojahw,

     A couple more things.

     I think you’ve misunderstood what Bryan’s saying with respect to the Magisterium as interpreter of Scripture. It’s true that the Magisterium rarely pronounces that verse X means Y, full stop. When the Magisterium does say something like that, it never presumes to exhaust the meaning of the inspired text, which precisely as inspired always carries an overplus of meaning. But sometimes the Magisterium does assert that verse X means at least Y. More often the Magisterium defines that verse X does not mean Z. The Magisterium’s job is not to provide the Church with a comprehensive, authoritative commentary on Sacred Scripture, but to set boundaries, a framework for orthodox interpretation of Scripture. Thus, the Council of Nicaea prevents Christians who would be orthodox from interpreting Prov 8:22, Col 1:15, or John 14:28 as the Arians did. This does not slam the door on Christian interpretation of these texts, claiming to have definitively exhausted the meaning of these inspired texts. Instead, it provides an authoritative guideline for reading them in an orthodox fashion.

     With respect to your oft-repeated quote from St Augustine, I have two comments. First, it’s highly ironic that you’re quoting from de baptismo, a work Augustine wrote against the Donatists. Donatism was more nearly a schism than a heresy. The Donatists were Nicenes with, basically, orthodox theology. But they were in schism from the Catholic Church. On your principles, Augustine had no business bothering them at all, much less writing long treatises like de baptismo against them, not to mention refraining from communion with them. Second, you’re not accounting for the difference between inspiration and infallibility. The inspiration of Scripture guarantees that the words of Scripture are not subject to revision of any sort. The words of Scripture are the words the Holy Spirit intended. The infallibility of the Councils and Popes, on the other hand, is a negative authority: it’s infallibility. That is, Councils and Popes are guarded from error, but there is no guarantee that they will express themselves clearly or completely at any given moment. Thus, for example, the Council of Nicaea actually proscribes talk about God subsisting in three hypostases, because the Nicene Fathers took “hypostasis” to be a technical equivalent of “ousia.” Of course, the philosophical language employed by Christians in exploring the mysteries of our faith developed in the following decades, and so nobody claims that orthodox language about three hypostases is in violation of the faith of Nicaea. In this respect even the findings of an ecumenical council are subject to “reform.” But the Council of Nicaea is still infallible.

     in Christ,

     TC

265. Andy November 20th, 2009 9:42 am :

     lojahw

     What are the essentials? Protestantism’s disunity has come from the fact that many of these denominations cannot agree, using only the Scriptures, what exactly is an essential belief. First with regards to faith (Baptism, the Eucharist, Justification, Once saved always saved..or not, etc). Then with morals (Birth Control, Divorce, Abortion in all cases, etc). And each denomination attempts to justify their position using the scriptures. Are we really left to discover the Truth by relying on one’s intellect? Of course I believe you would even say no to that question. I imagine you would say we should rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I would agree. Now the question would be whether or not the Spirit has reserved an institution, as a sort of avenue of certainty, to specifically guide the Church into the truth of the essentials, one that has authority to obligate us to confess a certain point as true regardless of what we previously held as our private belief on the point. This is what the reformed protestant churches do not posses. They cannot obligate us, by their authority, to believe a point that is contrary to our own private opinion. So we are really the judge of the point. This is why no matter how one formulates sola/solo scriptura they are still left with a church that really has no dogmatic authority that obligates (meaning it would be a sin to refuse their command) us to believe what they say is the truth.

     But the Scriptures say the Church is the pillar and ground of Truth. If they are then we have to submit to what the leaders proclaim as the truth. Now how are we to know who are these leaders? Well their authority would have to be from Christ and would have a recognizable feature. Christ gave authority to the apostles. The apostles gave authority to their successors. This is evident in both the scriptures and in history. So the feature would have to be an apostolic succession. This is what the creed means by the apostolicity of the church. This succession is critical to unity because it links who we are to follow on something that is recognizable and traceable. Anything outside this chain would be an anomaly and should be avoided. This is what the reformation was, introducing ideas that were never taught universally within the borders of the apostolic church.

     I am not Catholic, by the way. I was raised protestant but this issue of sola scriptura has me believing that I cannot continue to be protestant much longer.

     Andy

266. mateo November 20th, 2009 2:25 pm :

     mateo: I once encountered a Baptist man that argued along the lines that you are advancing. Basically he said this: We are saved by faith alone, but no one can know with certainty what we are supposed to believe. To be saved, we need to have sincere faith in things that may or may not be true.

     Paige Britton: Well, you’re right, that would be unlivable, wouldn’t it! And what a woefully silly impression you received about Protestant epistemology.

     Protestant epistemology has lead to the creation of thousands upon thousands of divided Protestant sects that cannot come together and agree on a single point of doctrine. What is the source of that Protestant doctrinal chaos if it is not the doctrine of sola scriptura? Does the Baptist man I mentioned really believe anything different than the tens of millions of Protestants that also claim to believe that the Protestant Bible is the ONLY source of infallible authority for a Christian? Protestant pastors, elders, deacons, presbyters, educated theologians – whatever man or woman that that a Protestant may recognize as having some sort of authority in religious matters – those religious authorities can never teach infallibly according to the doctrine of sola scriptura. That makes it impossible for anyone who believes in sola scriptura to claim that they know with certainty what they must believe to be an orthodox Christian.

     Paige Britton: As a member, I am conscience-bound to submit to my elders because of the vow I have taken; as a sometimes-teacher, I am also conscience-bound to convey to others only what is in keeping with our doctrinal standards. But unlike the elders, I may harbor private reservations about something like infant baptism …

     You believe that you have the freedom to “harbor private reservations about something like infant baptism”? What you believe on this point of doctrine will either make you either heterodox or orthodox. If you believe that the Protestant Bible is your only source of infallible authority, you can never know with certainty whether infant baptism is something that you should accept or reject by appealing to the Bible alone. Whatever you believe on this point of doctrine, you are just like the Baptist man I mentioned – you might think that your faith is orthodox, but you can never know that it is.

     Paige Britton: … look, all I’m saying is that IF there were no Magisterium to lean on, God would still be good, and what he would give us as far as certainty goes would be reasonable enough to live on. Don’t you think this is a reasonable expectation?

     Well no, I do not think what you are saying is reasonable. I reject the doctrine of sola scriptura because it is an extremely unreasonable doctrine. Sola scriptura doctrine implicitly claims that it is itself an infallible doctrine while at the same time it explicitly claims that the Protestant Bible is the ONLY source of infallible doctrine. Sola scriptura is self-refuting because there are no scriptures in a Protestant Bible that teach that the Protestant Bible is the ONLY infallible source of authority. It is wholly unreasonable for me to believe in sola scriptura since it is full of self-refuting contradictions. Even God with His omnipotence and omniscience cannot believe in things that are full of internal contradictions. God cannot expect me to do what He is incapable of doing!

     If Christ expects me join the Church that he established and to believe what is true about matters of faith and morals (which He does), then it is wholly reasonable for me to believe that Christ would have people in the Church that He founded that are vested with the authority to teach infallibly about matters of faith and morals. That there exists a living magisterium in the Church founded by Jesus is an extremely reasonable thing for me to believe, and that is why I don’t struggle with the idea. If all Christ left me with is a book that no one can know with certainty what it actually teaches, then it is most unreasonable for God to expect me to have a faith that is “reliable”. How can I possibly know if my faith is reliable if I can’t know with certainty that any doctrine taught by His Church is actually true?

     Paige Britton: It’s not like we’re shut up to only two options, a Magisterium on the one hand or dizzying doubt about meaning on the other.

     With sola scriptura there is only one option – doubt about all things religious, because the scriptures have to be interpreted to be understood.

     When I was a kid, I had a Magic 8-Ball toy – I could ask Magic 8-Ball a yes or no question, and then turn it over to see an answer to my question float up to a window. If a Protestant Bible is my ONLY source of infallible authority, it needs a feature like the Magic 8-Ball toy if the Bible is going to interpret itself infallibly. As a minimum, I need to be able to ask my Bible a question about whether a particular interpretation is correct and then have my Bible respond back with a yes or no answer. But since Bibles don’t have that feature, if sola scriptura is true, I can’t ever have infallible knowledge that a particular interpretation is correct, and neither can anyone else.

     Many Protestants claim that interpretation isn’t a problem because scriptures are perspicuous, but if that is true, how does one explain the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations that are bitterly divided over doctrinal matters?

     Paige Britton: I don’t know with 100% certainty that I can trust my husband in all things, but the certainty I have is quite enough to make for an excellent marriage.

     I think that I understand your analogy – just as you can have a good marriage without believing that your husband is an infallible authority, you can have a good relationship with the authorities in your Protestant church without believing that they are infallible authorities. I don’t doubt that at all. But I think that your marriage analogy is faulty since the relationship that the members of the Church have with Jesus is like that of a bride and bridegroom. Jesus doesn’t want a good marriage; He wants a perfect marriage.

     A woman spoke in our church recently to promote a program called Marriage Encounter, and without intending to, she said something that I thought also applied to the Church as the Bride of Christ. Speaking about the benefits of Marriage Encounter, she said that there was a time when she felt that she personally had no need for Marriage Encounter because she already had a good marriage. It was true that she had a good marriage, and she was comfortable with that. What struck me was her statement: “a good marriage can be the enemy of the best marriage”.

     For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. Matt 16:25

267. lojahw November 20th, 2009 5:11 pm :

     TC, thank you for your comments. I would quibble a little on Augustine’s statement that the word “refuted” is not limited to further elaboration, but includes potential denial of what was taught. Also, as I read Augustine, he sided with Cyprian in favor of communion with the Donatists:

     “To this is added the testimony of Cyprian, showing clearly that he remained in communion with them, when he says, “Judging no man, nor removing any from the right of communion if he entertain a different opinion.” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 7.2.3).

     The above suggests to me that Augustine considered certain beliefs and practices to be “non-essential,” and thus not barriers to communion.

     The Church was established once by the self-giving charity of Christ in His paschal mystery.

     No argument. When I said “establish a new church” I was speaking of a new member of the One Body of Christ, not of a new Body of Christ; or a new branch on the true vine. The Church visible cannot all meet in one place this side of heaven, so physical divisions are necessary. And according to the analogy of the Body, not all members are an eye. For there to be different members, there is distinction between them. The eye is not physically connected to the hand, but each are connected to the head. For there to be many branches, each grows from the true vine from a separate and distinct connection with the true vine. These are not Docetic pictures of the Church, but those given by Christ and His Apostles.

     Do you really think these are non-essential matters?

     I agree with you that the Symbol of Nicea (and yes, I really did mean the AD 325 version) was not exhaustive, but since Sola Scriptura teaches that the Bible IS the regula fidei, any contradiction of Scripture is considered heresy (cf. John 10:35). Some heresies are more serious than others. Heresy about God and His nature is always serious.

     I’m having trouble seeing a principled difference between you and an Arian

     How so? If one is committed to Sola Scriptura, one confirms or refutes his beliefs according to the Scriptures, just like the bishops at Nicea refuted Arius and confirmed their faith:

     “The bishops, having detected their deceitfulness in this matter [the Arian heresy], collected from Scripture those passages which say of Christ that He is the glory, the fountain, the stream, and the express image of the person … likewise, ‘ I and the Father are one.’ They then, with still greater clearness, briefly declared that the Son is of one substance with the Father; for this, indeed, is the signification of the passages which have been quoted.” (Theodoret, Church History 1.7)

     And … “And since no passage of the inspired Scripture uses the terms ‘out of the non-existent,’ or that ‘there was a time when He was not,’ nor indeed any of the other phrases of the same class, it did not appear reasonable to assert or to teach such things.” (ibid. 1.11)

     The point is that according to Sola Scriptura, the Scriptures cannot be broken. According to Sola Scriptura, the church, as it was at Nicea, is a subordinate authority to Scripture.

     It is interesting that you bring up later theological debates, since Pope Honorius fell into the Monotheolite heresy and was condemned for it by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Again, Scripture provides the corrective: “Not My will but Thy will be done.”

     Re: the Reformation, you gloss over the historical context: was it necessary to buy indulgences for forgiveness, for justification, before God? Luther and others argued that this contradicted the teaching of, e.g., Romans 4:1-6 (“… For what does the Scripture say? “And Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” … But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.”). If the Scriptures cannot be broken, then it cannot both be true that one must buy an indulgence for justification and that one can be justified by faith without works.

     Blessings.

268. lojahw November 20th, 2009 5:13 pm :

     Andy,

     Within the framework of Sola Scriptura one identifies the essentials by beginning with what Jesus taught as recorded in Scripture:

     1) “Only one thing is necessary” (Luke 10:42). What is that? To be His disciple, as was Mary, the sister of Martha. Jesus defined this in John 10:27-28, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand.” One becomes Jesus’ disciple as St. John taught: “As many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name…” (John 1:12; cf. John 3:16, 18, 36; 5:24; 6:29, 40, 47; 7:38; 11:25-26; 20:31). St. Paul affirmed this truth: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved” (Acts 16:31).

     2) Jesus taught His disciples to “observe all that I have commanded you,” and to make disciples of all the nations, teaching them to do the same. What did Jesus command? In brief: Love God and love your neighbor (upon which all the Laws and the Prophets depend, Matt. ); believe in Him (John 3:18; 10:26) love one another (a new commandment; John 13:34-35); seek first God’s kingdom and His righteousness (Matt. 6:33); be baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; “Do this in remembrance of Me” (share the bread and cup of the Lord’s table until He comes again); and do not contradict the Scriptures (cf. John 10:35). This last teaching eliminates all heresy. You might identify other commands, but these seem obvious to me.

     3) Paul wrote this about essentials: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also receive, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3-4). Those who say that everything is equally important contradict the Scriptures.

     The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 is also instructive on essential practices: “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials.” In keeping with the Apostle’s decision in Acts 15, we should expect a short list of essential practices for future generations of Christians (e.g., from the above list).

     Back to the article, Sola Scriptura does NOT boil down to Solo Scriptura. The Scriptures are the unchanging, sufficient and infallible regula fidei of the “faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” It did not take centuries for Christians to develop a guide for what was always necessary for salvation. The institutional model you suggest requires one to say that what was true and sufficient for the first generation of Christians is no longer true and sufficient, because the institution was slow to figure it all out. That contradicts Scripture (e.g., Jude 1:3).

     According to Sola Scriptura, the Church is a subordinate (and fallible) authority under Scripture. The Holy Spirit did guide Jesus’ Apostles into all the truth, and they passed it down for all posterity. That doesn’t mean that God made everything clear; but I believe He made the essentials clear in His Word.

     In the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.

     Blessings.

269. Devin Rose November 20th, 2009 5:14 pm :

     lojahw,

     Thank you for your reply, but if I am trying to be a sola Scriptura Protestant, I still don’t know who to obey:

     I originally asked: “So should I be listening to Luther’s descendants, Calvin’s, Zwingli’s, or someone else? Who are the competent (Protestant) teachers to look to when the founders of Protestantism disagreed from the very beginning of the Reformation?” I don’t have an answer, so I cannot yield my interpretation to anyone yet. What is the basis for knowing to whom I should yield my interpretation?

     Should I listen to (some particular subset of) pastors from the PCA, PCUSA, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, ACNA, AMiA, Anglican Communion, TEC, Lutheran Missouri Synod, ELCA, or some other set of pastors and teachers that are part of the Body of Christ and identify themselves in continuation with three of the original Protestant movements (Reformed, Anglican, and Lutheran)?

270. lojahw November 20th, 2009 5:55 pm :

     Devon,

     Who’s interpretation of the Trinity are you referring to that contradicts another?
     Who contradicts another on the necessity of faith for salvation?
     Or the necessity of baptism and celebrating the Eucharist?

     The question is: in which doctrine essential to salvation do you see a conflict? (my post on the essentials to Andy is in queue)

     The assumption of Sola Scriptura is that what Jesus didn’t say or what He and His Apostles left ambiguous is not essential to our salvation.

     My short answer is: go to the founding fathers of the faith, the ones who gave us the Scriptures. If they don’t explain it clearly, don’t make a dogma out of any particular interpretation.

     Blessings.

271. Nathan November 20th, 2009 7:40 pm :

     lojahw,

     You seem to be blithely unconcerned with a key point Matthison makes when he says, “All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture.” For this reason, scripture itself cannot be the regula fidei, because it must be interpreted. You seem to be assuming that scripture is self-interpreting and forms a wholly self-contained context (i.e. independent of the church): both of those assumptions are utterly false.

     Moreover, saying, “If they don’t explain it clearly, don’t make a dogma out of any particular interpretation” simply allows you claim that something is not clear and therefore should not be dogmatic. By that standard, Arianism should be perfectly valid, because the Arians would have said the exact same thing. Again, that view cannot escape subjectivism, because what is clear to one person is not to another.

272. Devin Rose November 20th, 2009 9:03 pm :

     lojahw,

     Based on your response, which seems to be implying that sola Scriptura Protestants all believe substantially the same thing on “the essentials” like the Trinity, faith, baptism, and the Eucharist, I would turn it around on you and ask that if they all substantially agree on the important matters, why are they all fractured apart from one another? Shouldn’t they all leave aside their small differences on those non-essentials and worship in communion with each other?

     But since they do not, to follow sola Scriptura, I have to choose a set of Protestant pastors and teachers to yield my personal interpretations to. But they are all divided from one another, so I don’t know whom to choose.

     Finally, Zwingli, Luther, and Calvin each differed from one another on the Eucharist.

     Luther and Calvin had subtle but very significant differences in what they believed and taught about sola fide and its relationship to baptism and both of those to salvation. (Search for Philip Cary Luther and read Dr. Cary’s two papers on Luther and Calvin on this matter (he is an Anglican professor).)

     So even on those essentials, the founding fathers of Protestantism differed substantially. Which of them is right? And who are their descendants which I should follow?

273. Andy November 20th, 2009 11:01 pm :

     lojahw

     I do not believe you sufficiently answered what I presented as a problem with sola scriptura. In fact it seems that you proved my point by picking out from scriptures what you believe to be the essentials. The point I am making is that even the scriptures you quote beg the issue I brought up. What does it mean to love God and neighbor and how does one do it? What did Paul mean by saved and did he mean by believing alone or are works necessary for justification as James states? And can one lose this salvation? When should one be baptized and does this baptism really remit sins as Peter exclaims in Acts? What was all that Jesus commanded? Did everything he command get written down in the Scriptures or were there more things that Jesus did as John (traditionally understood as the last the gospel writer) states in his gospel? Do you believe that the only moral essentials are abstaining from meat that was sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what has been strangled and from sexual immorality? Is this what they are teaching or is what they say supposed to be placed within the context of the dispute that called the council together, namely should gentile converts be circumcised which reflects a practice of the works of the old law. And what is sexual immorality? Does it include divorce, remarriage, polygamy, the use of birth control? All these points and more are central to the many divisions within protestantism and they all accept the your fundamental starting point of authority. Where in the bible does it teach that the scriptures were the only sufficient and infallible reguala fide? Do you really believe that such an essential belief, namely the framework of sola scriptura as the rule of faith, was not necessary to be included in those scriptures which you say are the only sufficient infallible rule of faith?

     The early church fathers did have all that was necessary to know the essentials for their salvation. Read those fathers, they appeal to the church as the way they knew these things and they based their authority on receiving it from the apostles. They did not have an possession a canon of scriptures from the beginning and what were the inspired books was one of the disputes. I encourage you to really study the anti-nicene fathers. As a protestant I was in a foreign land.

     The Catholic Church is subordinate to the divinely revealed truths. They are its servants and they claim it comes from both the Scriptures and also from Tradition. But according to them we are subordinate to both these modes of communication of divinely revealed truth and to their interpretation. And this is the only case where we would no longer be the judge of what is true. For if I was a Catholic no matter what I believed about Mary privately, I would be obligated by their authority to submit to what they proclaim as truths, from the the modes of communication of divine revelation, about Mary. Protestant churches do not possess this obligatory right. Therefore they do not possess dogmatic authority. Therefore knowing the truths of God would come down ultimately to our own private opinions, trying to discern where the Spirit is leading us. Now if all that we have is the Scriptures and the Spirit to guide us, then based on the historical fact of denominationalism, is the Spirit guiding us in different directions and into contradictions with one another? This can’t e be the case, but this is whats happening using sola scriptura as the only infallible and sufficient rule of faith.

274. Tap November 20th, 2009 11:03 pm :

     Any of you here in contact with Mathison, know if he’s response will come soon.? No one so far has been able to answer that Sola Scriptura always reduces to Solo Scriptura.

275. lojahw November 20th, 2009 11:44 pm :

     Tap, I explained why Sola Scriptura does NOT default to Solo Scriptura in posts # 258 & 265.

     Nathan,

     So what’s different about interpreting Scripture and interpreting the writings of your Magisterium? The difference is that God chose the words in the first and your Pope chose the words in the second. Is your pope a better word-smith than God? And how many interpretations are there of your infallible interpreter?

     “We declare, say, define and pronounce, that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam).

     I’ve personally heard RC’s give at least 6 different interpretations.

     And how many interpretations are there of Acts 4:10-12 which begins: “by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene” … and ends: “there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved.”

     Devin,

     Please go back and read post #249. Most Protestant churches ARE in communion with each other. There are many reasons for different churches, just as Paul says that the Body of Christ is made of many members: if all were an eye, where would the body be? The main differences are cultural, ethnic, styles of worship, styles of leadership (Baptists call their lay leaders deacons; Presbyterians call theirs elders; etc.) different ministry focuses (some church plants are focused on particular demographics, like youth at universities or the poor, etc.). Many Protestant churches were split by the Civil War: hence, the Southern Baptists vs. Northern Baptists. However, this does not mean that they are not now in communion with one another. Many splinters recently are over liberal vs. conservative, in which case the liberals have abandoned the historic faith and have abandoned Sola Scriptura (the RCC also is not immune to theological liberals).

     Mateo,

     You really don’t know what you are talking about. Just because you talked to one Baptist man doesn’t mean he knew what his Church teaches (just as most RC’s I’ve talked to don’t know what your Church teaches). Go on the web and look up the doctrinal statements below before you make any more rash statements about how none of them can agree on even one point:

     The Evangelical Free Church, http://www.efca.org/about-efca/statement-faith
     The Southern Baptists, http://sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp
     The Presbyterian Church in America, http://www.pcanet.org/general/beliefs.htm
     United Church of Christ, http://www.ucc.org/beliefs/statement-of-faith.html
     The Methodist Church http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=1648
     The Reformed Church, http://www.crcna.org/pages/beliefs.cfm
     The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=112
     The Anglican Church in North America, http://www.anglicanchurch-na.org/about/theology.html

     Note: I have filtered out the liberal branches of the above traditions that no longer subscribe to Sola Scriptura and have openly become practitioners of Solo Scriptura (really Solo Sua).

     Peace.

276. lojahw November 21st, 2009 1:17 am :

     Andy, You and I see things differently. I sincerely believe that #1 encapsulates the plan of salvation – that each person who is a disciple of Jesus Christ has eternal life. How one practices being a disciple involves being taught and “observing all that I have commanded.”

     I have read the ECFs extensively, from Clement and Ignatius of Antioch, forward and I simply don’t see any claims that Christ commanded things that are not found in the Scriptures. Have you found any? Indeed, Irenaeus in the second century wrote:

     “We have known the method of our salvation by no other means than those by whom the gospel came to us; which gospel they truly preached; but afterward, by the will of God, they delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1)

     If you want to appeal to liturgical traditions, such as multiyear catechesis prior to baptism with triple immersion in the nude (Hippolytus), I make three observations: 1) detailed liturgical practices were not described nor etched in stone from the Apostles; 2) such practices, changed over time like all traditions; and 3) the Apostolic Constitutions and a few other ECF writings that imply learning the faith before baptism appear to be consistent with Matt. 28:19, which says to make disciples … baptizing them. The referent for “them” is “disciples.” It is disciples that Jesus commanded to be baptized, not those who have yet to come to faith in Him. [BTW – Acts 16:31 in the Greek is clearly: “(You, plural) believe in Jesus Christ, and (you, plural) will be saved, you (singular) and your (singular) household.” So Paul is consistent with Jesus, disciples, or those who believe in Him, are to be baptized.]

     As regards all that Jesus did and said not being written down, the Apostle John concludes: “But these HAVE BEEN WRITTEN that you MAY BELIEVE that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, you may have life in His name.” In other words, what has been written is sufficient for one to gain life, and in the context, it is clear that John is talking about eternal life (cf. John 3:36, and the many other references in his Gospel).

     Does being baptized remit sins? Acts 2:38 says forgiveness comes not from baptism alone, but from its combination with repentance. It would be absurd to require infants to repent, so why baptize them? I trust God with infants as well as those who never had the opportunity to respond to the Gospel. God is not unjust, and I trust in His love for the world.

     What does it mean to love God and our neighbor and how does one do it? The Bible gives many examples for our instruction of what love is and how it behaves. Love cannot be taught in a formula, so don’t look for one.

     What Paul means by saved: the same thing Jesus meant in John 3:15-17 – have eternal life (fully realized in a changed body in the resurrection. Read 1 Cor. 15 to see Paul’s description.)

     Is there a contradiction between Paul and James? No, Paul says one may boast of his works, but not before God (Rom. 4:2). James is describing works as the expected fruit of faith: if one says he has faith, but his actions don’t show it, then his boast of faith before men is worthless. Paul says that one may boast of his works before men, so he’s in agreement with James.

     As for the security of the believer, how do you interpret John 10:27-29? “No one can snatch them from My Father’s hand.” Would any human claim himself more powerful than God (do you think if God is holding onto you that you can really pull free?) I don’t pretend to understand God’s sovereign election that Paul teaches in Romans, or the perseverance of the saints, but both are taught by Jesus and the Apostles.

     Re: The Acts 15 “essentials” – I did not claim to believe those were the only moral requirements, but rather that the judgment illustrates the principle that Jesus’ yoke is easy, His burden is light – unlike the heavy burden of the Pharisaic traditions built up over centuries.

     What is sexual immorality? The Greek word, porneia, is where we get the word pornography. Its usage in the Bible seems to relate broadly to sexual sin, which includes both extramarital and homosexual liaisons, as well as bestiality (all worthy of the death penalty in the OT). The Bible teaching related to remarriage is too complex for this post, and I have not found clear teaching on birth control (other than infanticide).

     I am willing to submit my interpretations above to the church’s judgment, with the stipulation that all discussion must be consistent with Scripture and follow accepted rules of hermeneutics (including reference to linguistic, literary, cultural, and historical information relevant to the original writers).

     So you claim these points divide Protestantism and therefore Sola Scriptura is discredited? I’d say these points divide people in every faith tradition, including Roman Catholicism. So does that discredit every faith tradition? Let’s keep a level playing field here. Sinful and fallible people are sufficient to explain what divides us within the One faith. But on the positive side: we all do call on Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, right? We all agree to the Triune God described in the Nicene Creed, right? Let’s appreciate what is good.

     My issue with certain RC traditions is that they are not found (and even explicitly opposed) by the ECFs, e.g., veneration of images (another topic). Lacking continuity from the Apostles, I cannot recognize them as handed down by the Apostles, and therefore cannot legitimately claim to be part of the “faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.”

     Blessings.

277. Andy November 21st, 2009 2:30 am :

     lojahw

     I still don’t believe you have addressed the point of my posts. For each of your explanations of scripture there are many protestants that would have serious disagreements about them. And this is what is expected in the case of sola scriptura, each person or groups of persons using their intellect claiming to be guided by the Spirit, choose to emphasize one passage of scriptures to interpret another passages of scriptures. For instances if one believes that when Paul says you are justified by faith apart from works of the law, he may interpret that to mean justification by faith alone. Now with that belief established he then will attempt to interpret James as meaning something different by justification then Paul, in order to make the statement” one is justified by his works and not by faith alone” harmonize with his already established belief. Whereas another will state that Paul and James mean something different by works. Who is to say who is right? I am not trying to get in a discussion on these passages as that would stray from the article. I am just pointing out that the differences in opinions are great within protestantism and this should not be surprising given the absent of a living, vocal authority to correct us on these essentials. The protestant churches cannot be this authority because again we are not obligated to submit to what they say is true, based on their authority. We would only submit to what they believe, if we believe it, which really is not what is meant by submission. For submission requires that you give something you possessed or believed you knew to a higher authority for their correction. This is what I believe the Catholic does when he gives up what he previously held privately on a certain issue up to the higher authority in order for them to correct once they universally declare something to be true.

     How do you know what is the correct hermeneutical process? Do the scriptures declare it? Are we expected to believe the correct interpretive process based on what is most accepted by a majority? What if they are wrong? Again the protestant will only submit to an authority based on some stipulations that he can judge this authority on privately, therefore leaving no authority but his own private beliefs. This is a hard thing to really see because even I who would have a much easier life as a protestant, cannot help but see this problem. What makes it hard to see, even for me for awhile, is that protestants claim scripture is their only infallible authority but this authority would be contingent on our own interpretations of the Scriptures, if there is not an institution guided by
     the Holy Spirit to constantly correct our errors in a way that is visible and vocal.

     thanks for the responses
     andy

     By the way, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe when St. Ignatius of Antioch was martyred his bones were collected by early Christians and were venerated by them.

278. JoeyHenry November 21st, 2009 11:38 am :

     The problem with this dilemma is that it ignores the qualitative ontological distinction between persons and books, and so it falsely assumes that if a book needs an authoritative interpreter in order to function as an ecclesial authority, so must a living person. A book contains a monologue with respect to the reader. An author can often anticipate the thoughts and questions that might arise in the mind of the reader. But a book cannot hear the reader’s questions here and now, and answer them. A living person, however, can do so. A living person can engage in genuine dialogue with the reader, whereas a book cannot. Fr. Kimel talks about that here when he quotes Chesterton as saying that though we can put a living person in the dock, we cannot put a book in the dock. In this respect, a person can do what a book cannot; a person can correct global misunderstandings and answer comprehensive interpretive questions. A book by its very nature has a limited intrinsic potency for interpretive self-clarification; a person, on the other hand, by his very nature has, in principle, an unlimited intrinsic potency with respect to interpretive self-clarification. This unlimited potency with respect to interpretive self-clarification ensures that the hermeneutical spiral may reach its end. A book cannot speak more about itself than it does at the moment at which it is completed. A person, by contrast, remains perpetually capable of clarifying further any of his previous speech-acts. (Section V, Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority)

     ——————————————

     I think, the counter argument does not answer the problem posed by the “infinite regress” argument pointed out by Protestants. The heart of the Protestant argument is that “communication”, in any form (written, oral, visual, etc.), is subject to the fallible interpretation of the receiver. Thus, there is no real advantage of having an infallible interpreter because the infallible interpretation is still subject to the fallible interpretation of the receiver.
     Granted, that persons can self-clarify what he means by his “message”, the clarification still is liable to fallible interpretation. The potency of self-clarification in the communication process does not remove the possibility of erroneous interpretation. Plus, self-clarification can only be useful if the person clarifying is at the same time clear in his process of communication through the medium that he uses to convey his clarifications. Thus, there is no qualitative ontological difference between books and persons that will remove the possibility of “infinite regress” if RCs demands that an infallible interpretation is needed for to gain understanding of divine revelation. A person to person communication can either increase or decrease the possibility of erroneous interpretation depending on how the communication process was carried out by the sender and receiver of the message. Thus, it seems overly simplistic when the argument speaks of the advantage of “unlimited potency with respect to interpretive self-clarification” that “ensures that hermeneutical spiral may reach its end”.
     Secondly, the scenario being forwarded in this argument is not in sync with the real situation of Roman Catholicism. Majority of individual Roman Catholics are not in direct contact with the Pope (who as far as I understand Catholic Theology is the only person granted with infallibility in the hierarchy). At most, the Roman Catholics are in direct contact with priests or bishops who are also fallible in their understanding and interpretation of dogmatic statements from the Magisterium. The clarifications of these priests or bishops of their speech-acts may consist of clarifications from an already erroneous interpretation of a certain dogma. Thus, it seems to me that, the portrayal of the Catholic advantage of having a “fallible person-to-infallible person” dialogue where the infallible person clarifies each time the fallible person gets it wrong or asks a query, is an illusion.

279. T Ciatoris November 21st, 2009 12:08 pm :

     lojahw,

     Thanks for your response. Out of respect for the topic of the thread, after this comment I’m going to try to discipline myself to only respond to things that have at least some bearing on the issues pertinent to the article. Feel free to respond to what I say here about side-topics – I’m not trying to make a grab at getting the last word – but I won’t be responding to these issues again myself. We need to save fuller discussion of the papacy, indulgences, etc., for more appropriate threads.

     You wrote:
     

     I would quibble a little on Augustine’s statement that the word “refuted” is not limited to further elaboration, but includes potential denial of what was taught.

     In de baptismo 2.3.4, regarding the writings of bishops, Augustine uses reprehendi. I agree that the writings of an individual bishop are subject to refutation. So do all Catholics. Regarding “plenary” councils, Augustine uses the softer emendari. We’ve never claimed that there is any particular bishop (including popes) in Church history all of whose writings are infallible. Ecumenical councils and popes speaking under very particular conditions are infallible. And, if you continue reading from where your quote leaves off, the condition for “emending” or “improving” the findings of an ecumenical council is cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat et cognoscitur quod latebat, not a countervailing biblical prooftext that had somehow been previously overlooked. I would submit that this precisely matches what happened with respect to the term “hypostasis” between 325 and the later fourth century. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if Augustine had this very example in mind. We know from de trinitate and elsewhere that he kept up on Trinitarian lexical issues. So how is Augustine’s statement in tension with the distinction I proposed to you between Scripture’s positive authority (inspiration) and councils’ and popes’ negative authority (infallibility)?

     Also, as I read Augustine, he sided with Cyprian in favor of communion with the Donatists: “To this is added the testimony of Cyprian, showing clearly that he remained in communion with them, when he says, “Judging no man, nor removing any from the right of communion if he entertain a different opinion.” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 7.2.3).

     You’ve taken this quote out of context. The “different opinion” had to do with how to deal with penitent traditores in the wake of a persecution. The Donatists took a rigorist approach, and so they were the ones who opposed Cyprian’s dictum here and became schismatic. For the conditions of returning to communion with the Catholic Church, see the previous chapter (de baptismo 7.1.1): “heretics or schismatics, who have received baptism already in the body from which they came, should be admitted with it into the communion of the Catholic Church, being corrected in their error and rooted and grounded in the faith.” This teaching is upheld, incidentally, at the Council of Trent (Seventh Session, Canon 4 on Baptism).

     The above suggests to me that Augustine considered certain beliefs and practices to be “non-essential,” and thus not barriers to communion.

     Agreed. And as a Catholic, Augustine had a principled way to discern what was essential and what was non-essential. Where, exactly, do you get your list of essential doctrines? How would you respond to, say, a (real) friend of mine who accepts the authority of Scripture, believes in Jesus, but rejects the Trinity? He doesn’t condemn those who believe in the Trinity, but he doesn’t think it’s an “essential” doctrine. He thinks the Gnostics and the Arians should have remained in communion. Why should he listen to the Church in the fourth century when she tells him that the Trinity is an essential doctrine but not listen to the Church in subsequent centuries? NB: I’m not asking you how you would scripturally “demonstrate” the doctrine of the Trinity. I’m asking how you would convince him that this particular doctrine is essential, and why he should believe you. You say later in your post that “Heresy about God and His nature is always serious.” Well, why? I mean, does that apply all the way down the line? Intra-Trinitarian relations? Divine simplicity? Predestination? Mode of hypostatic union? These all pertain precisely to God’s nature as well. Any list of essentials you come up with is going to be non-binding and totally non-authoritative as long as it’s coming out of your own personal interpretation of Scripture. I won’t say it’s arbitrary, because you clearly have developed some of your own criteria for determining what’s essential and what’s not. And it’s an intelligent set of criteria, reflecting the deep thought you’ve obviously devoted to this question. But I don’t see why anyone would be bound to agree with you.

     When I said “establish a new church” I was speaking of a new member of the One Body of Christ, not of a new Body of Christ; or a new branch on the true vine. The Church visible cannot all meet in one place this side of heaven, so physical divisions are necessary. And according to the analogy of the Body, not all members are an eye. For there to be different members, there is distinction between them. The eye is not physically connected to the hand, but each are connected to the head. For there to be many branches, each grows from the true vine from a separate and distinct connection with the true vine. These are not Docetic pictures of the Church, but those given by Christ and His Apostles.

     Okay, I’m going to grant for the sake of argument the application of “members” of the Body to particular churches or parishes rather than to individual Christians (which is, I think, clearly the primary scriptural referent). But I’ll grant it, because it’s true that different parishes, dioceses, and particular churches bring different gifts to the Catholic Church. But to maintain the coherence of the somatic imagery, you have to have some way of demonstrating the organic (and not simply doctrinal) connection between the various “members” who, according to Rom 12:5, “are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.” The only connection you’ve established between, say, AMiA, the OPC, and the church that maybe I’ll start in my living room next week is agreement on “essential” doctrines (with you as the arbiter of what counts as “essential”). This is precisely why I’m claiming it’s a docetic ecclesiology. It’s an ecclesiology that thinks that particular churches are constituted by a group of individuals who enter into a moral agreement regarding the truth of a set of “essential” disembodied doctrines. Any group who adopts the right set of doctrines then says, “We’re the church, or at least a branch of it. We’re a member of the body.” This is not the picture of the Church I see in the Gospels, nor in Paul, nor in the catholic epistles. Nor is it the picture of the Church I see in Clement, Ignatius, or Irenaeus. What kind of organic mutual responsibility obtains among AMiA, the OPC, and the church I’m starting in my living room? Do you see why I find this conception docetic?

     With respect to your reading of the Arian controversy, a few comments. First, if the Bible is sufficient for a clear explication of Christian doctrine, why did the bishops deem it necessary to introduce the non-biblical term homoousios? St Athanasius tells us why: because the Arians “wrest the whole of the divine oracles into accordance with” their Christology (Discourse I against the Arians 12.52). And so an extra-biblical formal principle is needed to prevent the “whole of the divine oracles” from being misinterpreted. This does not mean that the Nicene Fathers have introduced another material principium fidei into the conversation, but it does mean that they recognized the need for a Spirit-guided, authoritative framework of interpretation. If Scripture were perspicuous on the consubstantiality of the Son, why would they need the term homoousios? We have to get past a naïve, triumphalistic reading of the Arian heresy. The Arians did read their Bibles, thoroughly and carefully. They were not idiots, and they were not exceptionally depraved persons. But they were heretics. Why? Because their interpretation of Scripture fell outside that established at the Council of Nicaea, which was divinely guarded from error, and many of them persisted in resistance of the Church’s teaching authority (translation: Magisterium). On your understanding, all the orthodox bishops should have needed to do was give the Arians a few well-chosen prooftexts. Problem was, the Arians already knew them all, and believed them all, only according to their own interpretation. The Council provided parameters of orthodox meaning for the Scriptures. In the case of the debates at Nicaea, Scripture was materially sufficient, but it was not formally sufficient.

     In a way, and I don’t mean to be provocative or belligerent here, your refusal to admit that the ecumenical councils have actually given us infallible parameters for reading Scripture that we wouldn’t have without their findings strikes me as a kind of ingratitude. Do you genuinely think (I don’t know, maybe you do) that you, armed only with a Bible and a community of friends who also accept the Bible, would come up with orthodox Christology and Trinitarian theology without the benefit of the ecumenical councils? Because if you couldn’t or wouldn’t (and I don’t think I could or would), but you do in fact accept classical orthodox Christology and Trinitarian theology, then you’ve admitted that these provide you with a formal principle not found in Scripture alone.

     I have no idea how the Sixth Ecumenical Council pertains to our current discussion, unless you introduced it simply to take a shot at the papacy (thinking maybe that the Vatican I Fathers didn’t know about the famous case of Pope Honorius? They did.). But for what does pertain to this thread, I’ll just point out again that you, living in the 21st century, have the benefit of the findings of the Sixth Ecumenical Council when you so casually quote “Not My will but Thy will be done” as a “prooftext” that Monothelitism is a heresy. I agree that your interpretation of that verse is correct, but that’s because we both accept the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Do you really think that all the Monothelites either (a) had not read that verse, (b) intentionally resisted the “obvious” meaning of that verse, or (c) were just stupid? This prooftexting method of yours can be easily turned around. As I mentioned in the last post, an Arian could quote Prov 8:22, John 14:28, or Col 1:15, just as casually and blithely as you quote verses, and think he’d settled the whole matter. How do you know that we should interpret John 14:28 in light of John 10:30, and not vice-versa? Because Nicaea gives you an authoritative interpretive framework that requires you to.

     Re: the Reformation, you gloss over the historical context: was it necessary to buy indulgences for forgiveness, for justification, before God? Luther and others argued that this contradicted the teaching of, e.g., Romans 4:1-6 (“… For what does the Scripture say? “And Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” … But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.”). If the Scriptures cannot be broken, then it cannot both be true that one must buy an indulgence for justification and that one can be justified by faith without works.

     Indulgences can’t be bought. But abusus non tollit usum. There’s nothing about the proper use of indulgences that contradicts St Paul, or anything else in Scripture. With respect to their abuse: nobody denies that the Church needed reformation in the 16th century. And a reformation she got: the Catholic Reformation. Unfortunately, she got an enormous and perduring schism as well.

     As I said above, please feel free to respond to any or all of the points I’ve just made, but from now on I’m only going to interact with comments that pertain to Bryan and Neal’s article.

     in Christ,

     TC
     1 Cor 16:14

280. Tom Brown November 21st, 2009 12:52 pm :

     lojahw,

     It has been my experience that telling that they really don’t know what they are talking about is unproductive in a conversation the goal of which should be the mutual pursuit of truth. It also lacks charity, and important element (especially over this fairly impersonal medium).

     I thought this comment of yours was interesting:

     I have filtered out the liberal branches of the above traditions that no longer subscribe to Sola Scriptura and have openly become practitioners of Solo Scriptura

     What was the source of these two criteria you applied in making this culling?

     Peace in Christ,
     Tom

281. TurretinFan November 21st, 2009 3:07 pm :

     Tap wrote: “Any of you here in contact with Mathison, know if he’s response will come soon.? No one so far has been able to answer that Sola Scriptura always reduces to Solo Scriptura.”

     Actually, I answered that at #257 above.

282. Paige Britton November 21st, 2009 3:41 pm :

     Re. #266, Hi, Mateo,

     I think you have not caught on that I am not arguing the relative merits of Protestant epistemology vs. Catholicism. I am just trying to be descriptive of an aspect of Protestantism, and I am using a hypothetical situation to try to communicate my description to you. I agree that having an infallible interpreter handy would be preferable to not having one. You, as a Catholic, believe the Magisterium meets this requirement. We, as Protestants, do not, and ought to be living out the implications of that assessment, if we are going to be consistent. But what are the implications, really? Total chaos? Not necessarily! If you could bend your mind around to imagine a world that does NOT have access to infallible interpretation, but where God is still good and still intends to communicate to us, and where responsible interpretation aims for what is sufficient and reliable, then you are glimpsing what I am trying to describe of a “thoughtful Protestant” perspective. Not all Protestants have this perspective in the absence of a Magisterium, and they don’t read the texts carefully and so end up with shallow theologies that range all across the board. The “thoughtful Protestant” assumption is that since (as they believe) there is no infallible and authoritative Magisterium, they should be very, very careful how they interpret the biblical texts, making use of checks and balances as they go. Differences will still turn up, but not at the core. Maybe (as you would say) such people are self-deceived and wrong at a basic level, because they are not recognizing the Catholic Church (or the true texts) – but it would be empirically wrong to say that they are operating at such a level of uncertainty that they can’t agree with each other on a single point of doctrine (to say the least!). (In fact we agree with YOU on more than a single point of doctrine!)

     I used the analogy of marriage not to speak of my relationship with leaders in my church, but to illustrate that a lack of 100% certainty across the board does not preclude excellent understanding, even on a basic human-to-human level.

     You write, “If Christ expects me join the Church that he established and to believe what is true about matters of faith and morals (which He does), then it is wholly reasonable for me to believe that Christ would have people in the Church that He founded that are vested with the authority to teach infallibly about matters of faith and morals. That there exists a living magisterium in the Church founded by Jesus is an extremely reasonable thing for me to believe, and that is why I don’t struggle with the idea.”

     I think that the criteria you express here (for accepting the Magisterium) are way too simplistic for me – even if your conclusions are ultimately right, your criteria for that infallible interpreter seem to rest in your idea of what is reasonable or preferable, rather than in any authoritative source. (I think even Bryan noted above that personal preference should NOT guide our conclusions about the True Church, and I would think this should apply in both directions!)

     From where you are standing, it seems incomprehensible and dangerous to mess with the idea of interpreting the Bible in the absence of a Magisterium. But what if God really had set it up differently? What might we expect? That’s all I’m trying to communicate.

283. Devin Rose November 21st, 2009 3:51 pm :

     lojahw,

     I just drove by the enormous (Southern) Baptist church that my dad attends and couldn’t help but notice the enormous church of Christ literally right next to it along the road. They do not worship together, do not receive communion together; some churches of Christ would even say that the Southern Baptists “aren’t saved” and vice-versa (a relative of mine talks about how Christ “saved his wife out of the church of Christ”).

     Protestant Communities were fractured from the very beginning, not over semantics or trivialities but rather essentials of the Faith like baptism, the Eucharist, church authority, and so on. You have so far ignored my arguments along these lines as well as my evidence that Luther and Calvin themselves had substantial differences over what sola Fide meant with regard to baptism (and hence salvation).

     Protestant Communities have continued fracturing, not over whether they should have a piano or organ in the church, though that does happen sometimes, but over substantive differences in what they consider essentials of the Faith.

     Leaving all of that aside and assuming your statements that all (traditional as defined by your interpretation of Scripture) Protestant churches are in communion with each other and teach the same thing on the essentials, I would then infer that you answer my original question by saying that I should follow sola Scriptura by yielding my own interpretation of Scripture to any of the pastors of these Protestant Communities (whether some traditional strain of Baptist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran, Evangelical Free, and so on). Since you have not answered my question directly, is my inference here a fair assumption of what your answer would be?

284. Tim Harris November 21st, 2009 4:28 pm :

     There are a number of problems with this essay, some of which are also endemic to the Mathison quotes as well.

     1. Who says that this big grab bag of “sects” all have to be owned by a Protestant as Protestants? How about if I divide the world between Presbyterians and Datholics, the latter being the “false church” consisting of Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, and other such sectarians? To use “fellowship with the pope” as the genus definer is question-begging.

     2. If apostolic succession is the key, then what about the Church of England, where succession is claimed and is also recognized (so far as it goes) by many Catholics. Yet they are Protestant. Now if someone denies they are Protestant, than see (1), but on the other hand, the 39 Articles assert justification by faith alone (XI), denies works of supererogation (XIV) and denies Transubstantiation (XXVIII), among other things.

     3. It appears to me at least that there is as much variation of belief within Catholicism, albeit claiming a single umbrella, as there is amongst the different settlements of the magisterial Reformation (e.g. Lutheran, Reformed, Presbyterian, Anglican). Probably more in fact. For example, can someone please tell me which single millennial view all Catholics must subscribe to? or is latitude here allowed? How about the death penalty? It is my “private interpretation” that the Magisterium has condemned capital punishment, but I also hear on my talk radio that there are plenty of Catholics who are publicly for capital punishment, yet are not disciplined for it. How about Predestination? Has that doctrine been completely stamped out, and if so, would Augustine and Aquinas still be allowed to teach in the Catholic Church today? On other issues, such as abortion, the RC has been solid in rhetoric, yet that position is moot since Catholic politicians not only support abortion rights, but by their votes bring it about causally that abortions occur that otherwise would not. Yet they are rarely if ever excommunicated. So in any practical way, even something as life-and-death important as abortion has really not been settled. The umbrella accepts the whole range of beliefs and practices here.

     4. Mathison says, and the author of this post approves, “All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture.”

     Perhaps, but then all appeals to the pope are appeals to interpretations of the pope.

     Do you not need someone to interpret the decrees of the pope or Councils?

     Ultimately, it is an infinite regress.

     If language is so difficult that God cannot communicate directly to individuals using sentences, then neither can any pope or Council.

     Unless it comes down to bare and irrational exertion of force.

     The logical conclusion of the Catholic theory is, that one simply does, says, and believes whatever one wants, until and unless the force of the pope/church comes down on his head. Even then, one would not even know that it was the true pope or true church, for that would require interpretation. One would only know that force had been exerted.

285. mateo November 21st, 2009 4:37 pm :

     lojahw: Mateo,
     You really don’t know what you are talking about. Just because you talked to one Baptist man doesn’t mean he knew what his Church teaches … Go on the web and look up the doctrinal statements below before you make any more rash statements about how none of them can agree on even one point:

     The Evangelical Free Church, The Southern Baptists, The Presbyterian Church in America, United Church of Christ, The Methodist Church,
     The Reformed Church, The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, The Anglican Church in North America …

     Note: I have filtered out the liberal branches of the above traditions that no longer subscribe to Sola Scriptura and have openly become practitioners of Solo Scriptura (really Solo Sua).

     My total experience with Baptists is not just one conversation with one man. When I lived in the South, I used to go to with my Southern Baptists friends to listen to their preachers at their church services and revivals.

     Do Southern Baptists agree with every point of doctrine with those in the Reformed Church? Not by any means – there are deep divisions between Southern Baptists and most Calvinists, e.g. The Lordship salvation vs. Non-Lordship salvation controversy .

     I will grant you that among the select list of Protestant denominations that you gave that there are a few points of doctrine upon which they all agree. But my point was not that. I said this: “Protestant epistemology has lead to the creation of thousands upon thousands of divided Protestant sects that cannot come together and agree on a single point of doctrine.”

     Instead of your select list, include instead ALL Protestant denominations, i.e include, the United Pentecostal Church, Unitarian Universalist Church, Seventh Day Adventists, Church of God Abrahamic Faith, World Wide Church of God, Iglesia ni Cristo, The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Church of Christ Scientist, Swedenborgians, The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, Children of God, Igreja Internacional da Graça de Deus, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the home grown Chinese Bible Churches in mainland China … include all the thousands upon thousands of Protestant sects that have sprung up because of the private interpretation of the Bible.

     If one includes every Protestant denomination that exists and not just a cherry picked list of Protestant denominations, one will find exactly what I said – that the “thousands upon thousands of divided Protestant sects that cannot come together and agree on a single point of doctrine.”

     If sola scriptura doctrine and the concomitant private interpretation of the Bible is not the source of Protestant doctrinal chaos, what is the source of the doctrinal chaos within Protestantism?

286. David Thrall November 21st, 2009 5:51 pm :

     Bryan and Neal,

     Your article clearly presents that “solo” and “sola” are virtually the same position.

     However, I see problems in Mathison’s statement, “All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture,” which leads to, “when I submit (so long as I agree), the one to whom I submit is me.”

     First, the claim the 3 of you are making is that no individual can make an ultimate, correct “solo” interpretation of Scripture. But, in fact, in making this claim, this is exactly what you have done (this fallacy is often called a Universal Negative). It is self-refuting because you are claiming authoritatively that there is at least one ultimate correct interpretation that you as individuals are making: that is, you have arrived at an ultimate interpretation that no individual can arrive at an ultimate interpretation of Scripture. You have just done what you claim that nobody can do. You have refuted yourselves.

     For an example of a Universal Negative, consider what people often say today, “You should not impose your morality on others.” The statement is self-refuting. People who say this are imposing their “morality” upon others.

     Therefore, it is not true that individual ultimate interpretations or conclusions of Scripture cannot be made. Any correct interpretation is an ultimate interpretation. The issue then is what is a correct interpretation not that no individual can arrive at a correct interpretation. To accomplish this, proper rules of reasoning must be followed. If someone were to object, for example, to the Resurrection, verses could be shown proving the Resurrection to be true. If someone were to object to the trinity, verses could be shown with proper reasoning to prove the trinity.

     Therefore, a supernatural authoritative interpreter is not needed. A Divine Authority is needed to reveal objective consistent truth and proper interpretation is achieved by drawing valid inferences (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit).

     Since the premise for your article (no individual can make ultimate “solo” interpretations) which you use to substantiate the need for a magisterium is false, there is no need for a magisterium upon this basis or based upon an absence of a supernatural authoritative interpreter of Scripture.

     Second, the premise is also a composition fallacy because the magisterium of the Catholic Church is made up individuals. At least one individual has to arrive at a conclusion or “interpretation” before the group can arrive at a conclusion or “interpretation.” If no single individual has arrived at a conclusion, then there is no interpretation or conclusion.

     Third, since when does an appeal to an authoritative book always mean an appeal to an interpretation of the book? An appeal to an interpretation can be an appeal to Scripture if the truth of the interpretation is the truth of Scripture. I can say “Christ has risen” and if someone wants to call this an interpretation of Scripture, they may, but certainly it is as much an appeal to Scripture as it is an appeal to an interpretation. It would properly be called an “accurate” or “correct” interpretation. Now if I affirm, for example, the trinity, someone may say that this is my “subjective interpretation.” But, again, if I have followed the rules of proper reasoning, my so-called interpretation is not subjective, it is a valid inference. And the inference is just as true as the Scripture. This is an extremely important distinction to make because when a valid “interpretation” is made, then the conclusion is true. And reasoned truth is just as authoritative as Scripture because truth is truth. The hypostatic union, for example, is a valid and true “interpretation” and just as authoritative as a quote of the 10 commandments.

     Fourth, submission to an “interpretation” is not necessarily a submission to myself. If the interpretation is a valid conclusion, I am not submitting to myself, I am submitting to the truth of the valid conclusion. If I do not submit to truth, I am not insubordinate to myself, but to truth.

     Finally, there are very serious flaws in reasoning that Roman Catholics have “discovered” the Church which Christ established without making an individual presupposition or “solo” interpretation. How do we know that “the Church” even exists? Or that even Christ established such an organization? We learn this from Scripture either directly or indirectly. We presuppose the truth of Scripture even before beginning the investigation for a Church. We make an accurate “solo interpretation” of the Scripture even to “discover” that there was such a man named Peter who was given keys to a kingdom. If we hear of this truth from others or through history books and believe it, then we have presupposed it to be true. And if we are looking for an authoritative revelation to prove that it is true, we will find that this truth came from the authoritative revelation of the Word of God.

     Unless we have authoritative revelation from God, I cannot trust extra-Biblical historical writings as being authoritative revelation from God. How can I or anyone? There is no authoritative basis. So, as I study to discover a succession of prophetic leaders, who can I trust? Why should I believe one author over another? Therefore, since succession is not Special Revelation, I am bound to reject it.

     Furthermore, I find the reasoning based upon Scripture that there exists a succession to be invalid. But I understand that that is not the focus of the discussion here.

     These are some of my initial thoughts. Thank you for the dialogue. I have certainly enjoyed it.

     David

287. Paige Britton November 21st, 2009 10:03 pm :

     Mateo (#285),
     Sure, if you are going to list all of the non-Catholic “churches” in the phone book, you can make the case that “Protestants” don’t agree on any single aspect of doctrine. But what about the reality that many deceivers will come and teach in Jesus’ name? Of course, these groups are ALL apostate from the Catholic p.o.v. – but even Catholics have been able to identify those that are less apostate/more orthodox than others (if such a category exists!). I’m not up on all of the joint declarations made by Catholics and others, but surely there had to be some evaluation of doctrine involved before these could occur. (And isn’t it amazing that there WOULD be agreement, since the Protestants in question didn’t have a Magisterium to guide them? How could this be? Do you think it just might be possible to find out true stuff from the Bible without infallible interpretive help? Hmmmm.)

288. Tim A. Troutman November 21st, 2009 11:48 pm :

     TuretinFan-

     1. You said:

     Saying that (in some sense) the individual is the “ultimate arbiter” does not on its face appear to be a rejection of “the true but subordinate authority of the church and the regula fidei.”

     If Mathison’s claim that all appeals to Scripture are appeals to private interpretation, then to say that an authority is subordinate to Scripture is to say that the authority is subordinate to one’s private interpretation of Scripture. Thus to say that the individual is the “ultimate arbiter of the right interpretation” logically leads to the non-principled distinction of one who says “the Church is subordinate to my private interpretation of Scripture” (i.e. the rejection of “true but subordinate authority of the church and the regula fidei” / solo scriptura position) and the one who says, without qualification, “the church is subordinate to the Scriptures” because, again, his appeal to “scriptures” is merely an appeal to his private interpretation. So if you have a disagreement with Mathison that all appeals to Scripture are appeals to Private interpretation thereof, then you need to show why that is false. It has not been shown that the article is incorrect to note the lack of principled distinction between solo scriptura and sola scriptura.

     As to the second part of your reply, even if it were true that no other Christian system offered a better alternative, the article would still be true (that there was no principled distinction between sola and solo scriptura). You said that “it has been pointed out a few times,” and you are right that it has, that the individual is always the “ultimate arbiter in some sense.” This objection has been adequately shown to be fallacious both here (above, in the article itself, and see the early comments exposing the weakness of the tu quoque fallacy) and here by Dr. Liccione.

289. lojahw November 22nd, 2009 12:25 am :

     Andy: Briefly, our dialog does not seem to be going anywhere, so I think it would be best to let it go.

     Re: hermeneutics, I agree with the rules described in Dei Verbum 3.12 from Vatican II. What I object to is stopping all interpretation of Scripture with the argument: “the Magisterium has spoken.” This is an appeal to the genetic fallacy: assuming the interpretation must be true because of a speculative claim of origin tied to the Apostle Peter.

     I recommend that you and others still arguing against Sola Scriptura seriously consider David Thrall’s post.

     Peace.

290. lojahw November 22nd, 2009 12:28 am :

     TC:

     Thank you for your clarifying comments on emendation of councils vs. refutation of bishops. Re:

     We’ve never claimed that there is any particular bishop (including popes) in Church history all of whose writings are infallible.

     In response to my quoting Augustine, Bryan seems to have claimed what you deny:

     Bryan wrote: “We need to be careful when interpreting the ‘all’ in “that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon” first because it does not say “all bishops”, but “all the letters of bishops”, and second because there is much other evidence in the Fathers indicating that the office of St. Peter is given the charism of truth and divinely protected from error.”

     Bryan’s subsequent communication implies that he takes the latter as literally true in all cases of papal teaching. Re: Cyprian, I accept your interpretation. However the following makes no sense:

     How would you respond to, say, a (real) friend of mine who accepts the authority of Scripture, believes in Jesus, but rejects the Trinity?

     How can one accept the authority of Scripture and deny the Trinity?

     Isa. 48:12-16, I am the first and the last. . . . The LORD Yahweh has sent Me, and His Spirit. (cf. Rev. 1:17-18)

     Matt. 28:19 . . . baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. (one name, three persons)

     Eph. 2:17-18 . . . for through Him [Jesus] we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.

     Why is this essential? Because one cannot deny God’s revelation about Himself AND obey the first and great commandment: to love God with all your heart, and your soul, and all your mind.

     I do not follow your docetic arguments. You seem to imply that if members of Christ’s body organize a particular assembly, somehow they become severed from their brothers and sisters in Christ. Why? The new church plants I’ve seen remain in communion with their mother churches (except in cases of outright heresy). I would quickly add that such new churches are not thereby free to abandon Sola Scriptura, including what they have been taught. According to 2 Tim. 2:2, “The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.” Whoever departs from this teaching, departs from Sola Scriptura.

     Re: the use of homoousios to describe the combination of attributes of Christ which the bishops of Nicea listed from Scripture is a valid description of His divine nature, just as using the term Trinity is a valid description of the Godhead as taught in Scripture. Sola Scriptura, as David Thrall so eloquently wrote, is totally consistent with valid inferences from Scripture. To imply that Scripture is not perspicuous because the bishops summarized all the attributes with that word is an invalid conclusion. You say that the Arians knew and “believed” all of the relevant passages Scriptures and yet declared that there was a time when Christ was not? Come again? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” and “All things came into being through Him.” Was this not sufficient to get the point across that there never was a time when Christ was not? The Arians were simply enamored with their misinterpretation of Proverbs 8, thinking it somehow overrode passages such as John 1:1-3.

     your refusal to admit that the ecumenical councils have actually given us infallible parameters for reading Scripture … strikes me as a kind of ingratitude.

     TC, an adequate response is beyond the scope of this thread. However, I would note that in the context of the Messianic prophecy of Micah 5, we read, “So that you will no longer bown down to the work of your hands.” Since the CF’s for centuries interpreted this and the rest of Scripture to prohibit what the Seventh Ecumenical Council ORDERED and the Council of Trent defended, it would appear that these Councils were not faithful to the teaching handed down by the Apostles.

     Re: indulgences, do you deny that priests and bishops of Rome were granting them in exchange for money? You avoid the term “buy,” yet it accurately describes the practice that catalyzed the Reformation teaching of justification by faith.

     Blessings.

291. lojahw November 22nd, 2009 12:30 am :

     Mateo, You are falling for the genetic fallacy. You are concluding that because the founders of the churches you list may have had some association with a Sola Scriptura Church, that their churches and teachings are based on Sola Scriptura. Wrong! You cannot use churches that do not follow Sola Scriptura (as I explained previously) to discredit Sola Scriptura.

     “The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.”

     Further, your claim that Baptists and Calvinists disagree on the fundamentals of the faith is refuted by the websites I referenced. [BTW – you appear not to realize that many Baptists are staunch Calvinists!] The Calvinists explicitly claim to teach the same faith, yet with an “accent” on God’s sovereignty. This in no way keeps Baptists and Reformed Churches from being in communion with each other.

     Re: Protestant churches that are not in communion with each other, all I can say is that it is sad. There are many Hatfields and McCoys.

     Peace.

292. Bryan Cross November 22nd, 2009 1:10 am :

     lojahw,

     You wrote:

     Bryan’s subsequent communication implies that he takes the latter as literally true in all cases of papal teaching.

     No, it doesn’t. You seem to be having a hard time avoiding misrepresenting my position. For that reason, let me suggest that in the future, before claiming what you think I believe, please ask me first.

     I”d love to be participating more in this thread, but I’m tied down grading papers. I hope we can summarize what has been determined so far (in these comments), especially what are the best objections to our article, objections that have not been answered either in the article or in the comments.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

293. T Ciatoris November 22nd, 2009 2:13 am :

     lojahw,

     Thanks again for your response. I know you’ve been bombarded with comments addressed to you, and so I appreciate your patience and persistence in pursuing constructive conversation.

     As I mentioned in my last comment, I’m going to impose strict limits on what I respond to this time around. So I’m going to have to pass over your comments about ecclesiology, sacred images, justification and indulgences…their time will come :-)

     Regarding my friend who accepts the authority of Scripture and denies the Trinity, I’m not defending his position. That’s why I asked you not to bother doing what you did – to show how you’d demonstrate the doctrine from Scripture (and you did an admirable, concise job!). I don’t think it would get my friend too far though. He has trouble mostly, I think, with the full, co-equal, personal divinity of the Holy Spirit as distinct from Father and Son. He’s not the first Bible reader with this problem, either, which is why, for example, St Basil of Caesarea has to appeal to Tradition in On the Holy Spirit. His opponents, incidentally, were also adherents of the Council of Nicaea. And my friend is not alone these days, either. Check out some of the literature from Oneness Pentecostals. They’re openly modalist, and many of these guys live and breathe Scripture. Without a formal principle extrinsic to Scripture, you and I (who, I repeat, wholeheartedly agree on these Trinitarian matters) are going to have an awful lot of trouble swaying their reading of Scripture. All you’ve demonstrated with your Trinitarian prooftexts is the material sufficiency of Scripture with respect to this doctrine. The fact that Scripture is not formally sufficient is demonstrated by my morally upright and intelligent, Bible-believing, non-Trinitarian friend; by our Oneness Pentecostal modalist friends; by Basil’s appeal to Sacred Tradition; and by Athanasius’s complaint, not that the Arians had outright ignored some passages of Scripture that would have set them right straightaway, but that they had attempted to “wrest the whole of the divine oracles” to their interpretation.

     I don’t want to play heretic’s advocate. I agree with the Nicene interpretation of John 1:1-3, which you share. But, again, the Arians had read this passage and any other you care to name. How do you know, for example, that “in the beginning” actually means “from eternity without beginning”? Why could that not possibly mean what the Arians thought it meant? They were very careful not to say “There was a time when he was not” but “There was when he was not” (ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν). They knew they were pushing the boundaries of language, but they wanted to find a way to say that the Word both pre-exists temporal creation and yet is himself on the creaturely side of the ontological gap (cf. Col 1:15, for example).

     Of course, I don’t buy the Arian arguments (so please, please don’t bother trying to convince me of something we already agree about!). But this is why I said that your posture vis-à-vis the councils seemed ungrateful to me. I don’t think you’re intending to be ungrateful (which is why I probably shouldn’t have said it at all – I genuinely didn’t intend it as an aspersion on your character, but as an objective analysis of your position). It seems to me that you’re claiming the orthodox interpretation of the verses you quote as your own accomplishment: I read them, I understood them thus, and that settles it. Try reading the Gospels as though you knew nothing about traditional orthodoxy. (I actually have tried this.) Read St Paul once through the same way. Or even try reading them as an Arian. Make an honest effort. (Man, I hate acting as heretic’s advocate! Please, nobody become an Arian!) Maybe you’ll see that orthodox Christology and Trinitarian doctrine are not so easily read right off the page. Maybe you’ll see that indeed there is an Arian way of reading John 1:1-3. They were not idiots. They were not outstandingly morally evil. But they were heretics, because they resisted the boundaries set by the Church, guided by the Spirit, for reading Scripture. When I read John 1:1-3 and know that I cannot interpret “in the beginning” as the Arians did, I say “thank you” to the Holy Spirit for His guidance of the Church. I do not say, “Ah, yes, what an obvious text.”

     Thanks for the stimulating conversation, lojahw. I look forward to more.

     in Christ,

     TC
     1 Cor 16:14

294. Andy November 22nd, 2009 2:55 am :

     lojahhw

     I appreciate the discussion. I am not arguing for the Catholic position, as I am not a Catholic. I have been trying to express my concern with this very big problem within protestantism, namely sola scriptura. There is no difference between sola and solo scriptura. I believe this article makes that clear. I have been familiar with Mathison’s book for awhile now and knew how he was trying to distinguish between the two types of Scripture alone theory. I think he failed to make a distinction. This article demonstrates that very clearly. And I also believe this article gives very good reasons why apostolic succession is the only case where there can be a real dogmatic authority, one that has authority to obligate us to confess what they claim as truth. Because it is an authority that would have its origin in Christ first of all who gave authority to the apostles who then gave authority to their successors. This is ordered and recognizable and testified unanimously in the earliest fathers. Its the only option that does not have us chasing ecclesial anomalies. Not a single protestant has given any adequate reason why these points are not the case. Its hard for us moderns, who are skeptical of hierarchy, to put faith in what another group of people tells us to believe without us first having a point by point or chapter and verse explanation that will satisfy our intellects, because we feel all human beings are epistemically equal. This does not surprise me given our cultures egalitarian nature. Personally this is another reason that the Catholic position is compelling to me. Their ecclesiastical setup seems to reflect the hierarchical structure of both the created material world and the angelic reality. The bottom line is if the Catholic Church has infallible authority then it receives that gift from God, so we would have to fashion our opinions to what they claim is true. If they don’t then we are left with ourselves as our own interpretive authorities of dogma which I cannot help but see this option as a big problem. I personally am still on a journey and hope to arrive in the truth.

     Good talking to you
     Andy

295. Irene November 22nd, 2009 3:26 am :

     lojahw,

     Your use of 2 Tim 2:2 is very confusing if you are trying to assert Sola Scriptura. You write

     “According to 2 Tim. 2:2, ‘The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.’ Whoever departs from this teaching, departs from Sola Scriptura.”

     From that passage it would seem that the Apostles orally conveyed infallible information outside of things written in the Bible. Obviously, the Bible could not contain all their oral teaching, and therefore that is why the Church relies on both the Oral Tradition and Written Tradition. The Oral Tradition came first of course, as the apostles preached first before they set up churches. Otherwise, there would have been no churches and no Christians to write letters to. It was only when there were problems in the churches did they write letters, the letters that make up the bulk of the New Testament. Clearly, sola scripture was not an idea that existed back then if only for the fact that it would have been logically impossible as there was no “scriptura” as we know it with which they could “sola.” Even in the jewish tradition from which Christianity came, the emphasis was and still is on the oral tradition, for without the oral tradition there could be no written. There are many things for example that the Jews believe about the revelation of God’s Law at Mt. Sinai that is not found in the Bible.

296. lojahw November 22nd, 2009 11:06 am :

     Thank you, Bryan, for your correction.

     Some observations about the article:

     1) The basic premise that there is no principled distinction between Sola Scriptura (Scripture is paramount) and Solo Scriptura (my own interpretation of Scripture is paramount) is self-refuting:

     a) because the practice of Sola Scriptura cannot contradict God’s Word, and Solo Scriptura contradicts 2 Peter 1:20-21 (no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation), as well as the teaching of Scripture about the role of the Church in interpretation (e.g. Heb. 13:17; 2 Tim. 2:1-2).

     b) Because, as David Thrall so eloquently explained, the argument itself is based on a universal negative (you as individuals have declared an ultimate interpretation that individuals cannot arrive at an ultimate interpretation), which is self-refuting, and relied on a fallacy of composition (that the Magisterium is exempt from the argument even though its interpretations necessarily derive from an individual’s interpretation).

     2. The argument against Sola Scriptura relies on the genetic fallacy by assuming that all derivatives from Protestant churches are true representatives of Sola Scriptura. One cannot assume the fidelity of the derivative to its origin. Each case must be tested.

     Mateo blithely lists a bunch of cults and churches which deny the teachings of Scripture which all orthodox Christians agree are non-negotiable. Anyone who denies what God has revealed about Himself disobeys what Scripture affirms as the first and greatest commandment (Matt. 22:27-39). Further, anyone who denies the atoning death and the bodily resurrection of Christ denies what Paul says is of first importance. Anyone who denies Scripture’s teaching on these things has abandoned Sola Scriptura.

     Further, as I explained on a number of posts it is wrong to assume that the diversity of (orthodox) Protestant Churches proves that they all interpret Scripture differently. Diversity is the result of many factors having nothing to do with interpretation, e.g., the Civil war, ethnic and cultural differences (e.g., the Chinese Baptist Church), social factors, geographical isolation, etc. Likewise, differences of practice (how and who one church baptizes vs. another, styles of worship, structures of church leadership) do not impinge on the fundamentals of the faith. Further, differences of emphasis, such as the Reformed emphasis on the sovereignty of God, do not imply disagreements about the fundamentals of the faith.

     3. The article also relies on the genetic fallacy regarding apostolic succession. It implicitly claims that because the papal office is derived from Christ’s commission of Peter, that all of Peter’s successors must be true representatives of the Apostles’ teaching.

     The moderators have requested that I not challenge the fidelity of the papacy on this thread. I will, however, ask what is the principled difference between the Pharisees who said, “it is not permissible for you to carry your pallet,” and the pope who said the feast of Mary’s conception is a holy day of obligation (cf. Ineffibilis Deus)? Both claim divine authority, the former derived from Moses (although his Law had no such rule) and the latter derived from Peter (although Peter declared no such obligation).

     4. The authors seem to imply that communion with the pope is the ultimate test of fidelity to the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. I would caution that the social obligation of communion in itself is not fool-proof. In other words, it is not legitimate for communion to require one to “invalidate the word of God for the sake of your tradition” (cf. Matt. 15:6).

     Peace.

297. lojahw November 22nd, 2009 11:19 am :

     Irene,

     For2 Tim 2:2 to contradict Sola Scriptura, one would have to identify what Paul was exhorting Timothy to pass on that was not inscripturated. It is a matter of context: when Paul said it, the New Testament was not complete (although most scholars believe that 2 Timothy was the last letter written by Paul). Yes, the Gospel was originally transmitted orally, and it continues to be so transmitted by every preacher and missionary of the Gospel, but in today’s context we have the Scriptures as the full and sufficient revelation of God’s plan of salvation. This was certainly Irenaeus’ understanding in the second century:

     “We have known the method of our salvation by no other means than those by whom the gospel came to us; which gospel they truly preached; but afterward, by the will of God, they delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1)

     There is no contradiction, therefore, in Paul’s exhortation to Timothy, and Sola Scriptura. The point in 2 Timothy 2 is that we need “faithful men” to pass on what the Apostles taught, and not add to, modify, or delete any of their teaching.

     Peace.

298. lojahw November 22nd, 2009 11:34 am :

     TC: Please don’t misunderstand me regarding the church fathers. I do appreciate them, and have learned much from them. They have much to teach the Church today. The point of disagreement is that the pope is an infallible discerner of which interpretations from all of them represent ultimate truth.

     It is also true that “a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised (1 Cor. 2:15). The best thing for your friend is to pray for him and continue to try to “explain the way of God more accurately” to him (cf. Acts 18:26). The untaught and the unstable are always prone to distorting the Word of God.

     Peace.

299. Tap November 22nd, 2009 1:05 pm :

     lojahw,

     You seem to be arguing only to score points, your whole post #297 is an attempt at sophistry. You claim

     “one would have to identify what Paul was exhorting Timothy to pass on that was not inscripturated.”

     But without answering the actual problem you posed, you immediately jump to a conclusion, that does not even follow while claiming “today’s context”:

     “Yes, the Gospel was originally transmitted orally, and it continues to be so transmitted by every preacher and missionary of the Gospel, but in today’s context we have the Scriptures as the full and sufficient revelation of God’s plan of salvation

     Thats the reason i’ve been wondering whether or not you’re Ken Temple, because this is the type of arguments he likes making, quite frankly surprised that this stuff is getting through.

300. T Ciatoris November 22nd, 2009 3:53 pm :

     lojahw,

     You wrote:
     

     The point of disagreement is that the pope is an infallible discerner of which interpretations from all of them [the Church Fathers] represent ultimate truth.

     Oh. I thought we were talking about whether or not ecumenical councils provide a formal principle of orthodoxy extrinsic from Scripture. It’s true that, from my point of view, papal approval is a condition for the authentic ecumenicity of a council, but I don’t see how that has anything to do with our discussion. If what you said above is the case, then do we actually agree about the infallibility of ecumenical councils? I don’t think we do. The Orthodox agree with us in receiving the Seventh Ecumenical Council, though the Orthodox disagree with us about the precise shape and extension of papal primacy. You disagree with both us and the Orthodox about the Seventh Ecumenical Council because its horos does not cohere with your interpretation of Scripture. So I don’t think the papacy is actually the only point of disagreement. This also illustrates Bryan and Neal’s argument that sola Scriptura and solo Scriptura boil down to the same thing. You accept the First Council of Nicaea because it agrees with your interpretation of Scripture. You reject the Second Council of Nicaea because it does not agree with your interpretation of Scripture.

     I agree that I should continue to pray for my friend. But on your principles, your application of 1 Cor 2:15 to him begs the question. You think my friend is distorting the Word of God because his interpretation of Scripture does not agree with your interpretation of Scripture. I think my friend is distorting the Word of God because his interpretation of Scripture does not fall within the orthodox parameters established by the ecumenical councils under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If not because of the infallible statements of ecumenical councils, how do you know that my friend is wrong and you’re right? You’ve appealed before to “valid inferences” as, I suppose, an extrinsic formal principle. But who decides which inferences are valid and which aren’t? Logicians? Lexicographers? Cultural historians? It would be nice to appeal to a vague “common sense,” but the fact is that you and I could probably each name, on the spot, at least a dozen issues on which you and I will disagree about what “valid inferences” can be drawn from Scripture. My friend disagrees with us both about what valid inferences can be drawn from Scripture about the Holy Spirit. You’ll have to take my word for it, but my friend has received orthodox teaching, reads the Bible often and devoutly, and is an extremely well educated person who is capable of thinking logically about “valid inferences.” So again, without an extrinsic formal principle, how do you know that he’s not the one who’s reading the Bible with the Spirit’s aid and you’re not the one who’s deceived?

     In the case of Nicene Christology and Trinitarian theology, you and I agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. You still haven’t refuted my argument, however, that Scripture is not formally sufficient in this case. I’d really appreciate it if you would revisit my previous comments and show me where I’m wrong on this score.

     You’ve characterized Catholicism before as exhibiting a “solo Papa” principle. I want to suggest an alternative to you, based on Vatican II’s Dei Verbum: Catholicism does not adhere to sola Scriptura but to solo Verbo. Jesus Christ Himself is the perfect revelation of God (Heb 1:1-3). Christ is, in the first place, the living and active Word of God (Heb 4:12). Scripture is only the Word of God insofar as, through the Holy Spirit, we encounter the Word Himself in its words, above all in the sacramental context of the liturgy. The fundamental theological problem with sola Scriptura is that it proposes the Bible as an independent, fixed quantity. If the Bible is separated from the other modes of the Word’s presence in His Body the Church—in the Eucharist, in the poor, and, yes, I believe in the sacerdotal hierarchy, etc.—it runs the risk of becoming a mere book, a dead letter.

     Happy Solemnity of Our Lord Jesus Christ the King.

     TC

301. Paige Britton November 22nd, 2009 4:05 pm :

     Tim et al.,
     I wonder if you think these ideas make sense: I am thinking that the concept of “Private Judgment” might bear more than one meaning for readers, which could add some confusion to this discussion. I’ve noticed three ways that autonomy, or private judgment, has cropped up in these comments:

     1. Autonomy of intellect = exercising our human faculties of reason and intellect
     2. Autonomy of participation = the reality that we are active agents when we mentally assent to what is taught to us
     3. Autonomy of conscience = reserving the right to judge or evaluate what we are told by those in religious authority

     I am sure someone else could state these ideas more carefully. But it seems to me that in the Catholic system, #1 and #2 are operative and #3 is relinquished; while in a Protestant system all three are in place. If we think in terms of these distinctions, then TF is right to say that we ALL exercise “Private Judgment” (with reference to #1&2) and Bryan and Neal are also correct in saying that Protestants exercise Private Judgment in a way that Catholics do (or ought) not (as per #3). (Protestants might feel the authors were not exactly delicate in their expression of this aspect of Protestantism, but I think we could agree on the basic definition of #3.)

     Do you think I’ve got the right idea?

302. Teri November 22nd, 2009 4:16 pm :

     CTC, as always I trust you to moderate appropriately to the discussion.

     For Mr. Lojahw:

     I don’t know who you really are, but I pray you are not a member of the group of anti-Catholic bloggers, etc. You don’t seem that way in your response to me. I pray now that you receive this in the manner that I write it – with no malice or desire to exalt myself as being smarter or better. But with true humility to explain what I have found to be Truth.

     “Essentials of the faith” for Our Lord was that you be as one, as He and The Father are One. St. Paul echoed Our Lord when He said “let there be NO divisions among you”. Christ’s Body cannot be divided and that is not only essential, it is a statement of fact.
     If, as Protestant denominations, you cannot partake of the of the cup and the bread together as “one body”, how can you all join with one another at the wedding supper of The Lamb through all of eternity sharing in the consumate table fellowship?

     Understanding the “Oneness” of God in trinity is to understand the mystery of the” Oneness” we have with Christ as our Bridegroom and with “one another” as part of this mystical Body of Christ.

     As St. Paul was inspired of The Holy Spirit to write in his letter to the Corinthian Church:

     “I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say.
     The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
     For we, though many, are one bread and one body;
     for we all partake of that one bread.

     The inspiration of the Holy Spirit shows clearly that everyone can see to be able to “judge for themselves” what this sacred writing is saying. They already knew it was the Eucharist – The Real Presence. They were celebrating this BEFORE they received this letter from St. Paul admonishing them for their sin of divisions, as well as other sins. That is ESSENTIAL to the faith.

     For Andy:

     If I can help you in anyway to understand the beauty of knowing the fullness of Truth in The Church, please feel free to e-mail me. I’ve gotten anti-Catholic hate-mail recently, but I want to give you my e-mail address anyway – shraders2 ‘at’ gmail ‘dot’ com.
     I love Our Lord too much to feel anxiety and not share this with someone who may have questions. I won’t be coming in to the Church until Easter Vigil, but I thank Him everyday for opening my eyes. Maybe I can pray for you or help you in some way in your journey.

     May the peace of Our Lord be with you all during this Blessed Season,
     Teri

303. Tom Riello November 22nd, 2009 4:52 pm :

     TC,

     That was a beautfiul description of the Church’s understanding concerning the Word as per Dei Verbum. Christianity is NOT a religion of the book, but one of the Word of God, namely Jesus Himself, as our Lord Himself says in John 5, “You search the Scriptures thinking that in them you have life, but these testify of Me.” Scripture, like the Church, directs our hearts and minds to Christ and to contemplate Him.

     Lojahw, you speak of these fundamentals that all Christians agree on and then list those things in which it is permissable, according to your criteria, in which to disagree, and included in that you list the style of worship, as though how we worship God is up for grabs. Nadab and Abihu learned quickly that how we approach God in worship is not a thing indifferent. Nadab and Abihu were attempting to worship God but how they did it meant all the difference.

     With TC, may all have a blessed Feast of Christ the King. I just read recently in our diocese back in the 30′s and 40′s about 25,000 would process the streets of Mobile to bear witness to Christ the King. I was delighted to see this past Friday over 20,000 Catholics, mostly youth, processed the streets of Kansas City, Mo in Eucharistic Procession.

304. Bryan Cross November 22nd, 2009 5:09 pm :

     Joey (re: #278),

     Thanks for your comments. Here’s the original dilemma raised by our imaginary Protestant as an objection to our argument:

     The follow-up objection to our argument takes the form of a dilemma. The dilemma runs like this. Either the individual needs the guidance of an interpretive authority when interpreting Scripture, or not. If the individual needs the guidance of an interpretive authority when interpreting Scripture, then he will need the guidance of another interpretive authority when interpreting the first interpretive authority. And he will need the guidance of third interpretive authority when interpreting the second interpretive authority. That would lead to an infinite regress. But there cannot be an infinite regress, hence the individual does not need the guidance of an interpretive authority when interpreting Scripture. (From Part V of our article)

     The objection is an argument that takes the form of a dilemma in which (it is claimed) we must choose between (1) an infinite hermeneutical regress and (2) no need for an interpretive authority when interpreting Scripture.

     Our response to this objection is to show that it is a false dilemma. We do not have to choose between an infinite hermeneutical regress, and not needing an interpretive authority. It can be true that we need a living interpretive authority in order for Scripture to fulfill its function as the authoritative Word of God, without it being true that we are stuck in an infinite hermeneutical regress.

     One reason why there is no necessary infinite hermeneutical regress is that with a living Magisterium we can continue to ask clarifying questions, even to the point of saying, “I’m understanding you to be saying [x]. Is [x] what you are saying? Yes or no?” And the Magisterium can respond by saying “yes” or “no”. And at that point, there is no need for an interpretive authority, so long as a person understands the English language and has adequate hearing. Interpreting “yes” and “no” is quite different from interpreting, say, the book of Romans. We do not need an interpretive authority to explain the meaning of ‘yes’ and ‘no’. But we may very well need an interpretive authority to explain the meaning of the book of Romans, or at least to help us avoid misinterpreting it.

     Your point, namely, that the individual human interpreter is always fallible, is true, but it doesn’t affect our argument, because our argument does not depend upon the individual being an infallible interpreter.

     However, I will take issue your following claim:

     Thus, there is no real advantage of having an infallible interpreter because the infallible interpretation is still subject to the fallible interpretation of the receiver.

     That’s a non sequitur. That’s like saying that there is no advantage of the Bible being infallible over it being full of errors, since the individual interpreter is fallible. The fallibility of the individual interpreter does not mean that there is no advantage (with respect to arriving at truth) in having an infallible book. Likewise, the fallibility of the individual interpreter does not mean that there is no advantage (with respect to arriving at truth) in having not only an infallible book but also an infallible interpreter of that book.

     Then you wrote:

     Thus, there is no qualitative ontological difference between books and persons that will remove the possibility of “infinite regress” if RCs demands that an infallible interpretation is needed for to gain understanding of divine revelation.

     Our argument does not depend on the impossibility of an infinite regress. Our argument shows that there is a middle position between the necessity of an infinite regress and the non-necessity of an interpretive authority. Nor does our argument demand that an infallible interpretation is needed to gain understanding of divine revelation. It is possible to gain understanding of divine revelation simply by reading the Bible. But, having a divinely authorized and infallible Magisterium to guide the Church in her understanding of the Word of God written is of great help in understanding the deposit of faith rightly, even if the individual layperson is not an infallible interpreter.

     Finally you wrote:

     Majority of individual Roman Catholics are not in direct contact with the Pope (who as far as I understand Catholic Theology is the only person granted with infallibility in the hierarchy). At most, the Roman Catholics are in direct contact with priests or bishops who are also fallible in their understanding and interpretation of dogmatic statements from the Magisterium. The clarifications of these priests or bishops of their speech-acts may consist of clarifications from an already erroneous interpretation of a certain dogma. Thus, it seems to me that, the portrayal of the Catholic advantage of having a “fallible person-to-infallible person” dialogue where the infallible person clarifies each time the fallible person gets it wrong or asks a query, is an illusion.

     The individual layperson does not need to be in direct contact with the Pope in order to benefit from the gift of infallibility given to St. Peter and his successors. The whole Church is in dialogue of sorts, much as the parts of a living organism are in communication with each other and with the head. When a priest or bishop speaks or acts in a way that is contrary to the orthodoxy of the Church, word gets around, and he is (eventually) corrected, censored, removed or replaced. This helps keep the bishops and priests of the Church in agreement with the orthodoxy of the Apostolic See, and in this way the layperson is benefited by the gift of infallibility possessed by the Magisterium, even though the layperson does not have direct contact with the Pope.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

305. Bryan Cross November 22nd, 2009 5:46 pm :

     TF (re: #257/#281),

     In the article we showed the incompatibility of (1) the individual holding ultimate interpretive authority and (2) the church being a subordinate interpretive authority [under Scripture, but over the individual]. Then, since we showed that even given sola scriptura the individual retains ultimate interpretive authority, we showed in this way that the sola scriptura position reduces the subordinate authority of the church to an illusion, because such ‘authority’ is merely an indirect form of solo scriptura. (See Section IV of the article.)

     You wrote:

     Furthermore, the article appears to simply assume that if there is any sense in which the individual is the “ultimate arbiter” then the challenge of demonstrating that the distinction is unprincipled (or that there is no distinction) has been met.

     Actually, no, our article does not make that assumption or depend on that assumption. (If you disagree, then please show where our argument makes this assumption or depends upon this assumption.)

     Next you wrote:

     Finally, as has been pointed out a few times, there is no alternative system (whether in “Protestantism” or within Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism) in which it is not the case that the individual is the “ultimate arbiter” in some sense. The article itself doesn’t provide a principled distinction between the sense in which the sola scriptura advocate makes the individual the ultimate arbiter and the sense in which the {insert your description of the proffered alternative to sola scriptura here} advocate makes the individual the ultimate arbiter.

     As I pointed out in #221, we addressed that objection in section V of our article in the paragraph beginning, ‘This objection can also take the following form”.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

306. Tim A. Troutman November 22nd, 2009 6:06 pm :

     Paige – I think you’re going down the wrong road. We have claimed that your boat is sinking and the reply is “so is yours,” but that doesn’t refute the original statement. I’m not dismissing your argument though; the “you too” rebuttal has been repeatedly shown to be fallacious in several ways above in the combox. Sorry I’m pressed for time right now.

307. Bryan Cross November 22nd, 2009 6:33 pm :

     Tim H., (re: #284)

     I have some thoughts on your four objections:

     1. Who says that this big grab bag of “sects” all have to be owned by a Protestant as Protestants? How about if I divide the world between Presbyterians and Datholics, the latter being the “false church” consisting of Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, and other such sectarians? To use “fellowship with the pope” as the genus definer is question-begging.

     Our article does not depend on all the sects that can be traced historically to the Protestant Reformation being treated as belonging to the category ‘Protestant.’ Our argument is fundamentally about sola scriptura. Any sect that would describe itself as adhering to sola scriptura would be subject to the implications of our argument.

     Next you wrote:

     2. If apostolic succession is the key, then what about the Church of England, where succession is claimed and is also recognized (so far as it goes) by many Catholics. Yet they are Protestant. Now if someone denies they are Protestant, than see (1), but on the other hand, the 39 Articles assert justification by faith alone (XI), denies works of supererogation (XIV) and denies Transubstantiation (XXVIII), among other things.

     Anglicanism is a bit different from the other Protestant sects, inasmuch as it attempted to preserve apostolic succession. As for the validity of Anglican orders, I addressed that in #250.

     Then you wrote:

     3. It appears to me at least that there is as much variation of belief within Catholicism, albeit claiming a single umbrella, as there is amongst the different settlements of the magisterial Reformation (e.g. Lutheran, Reformed, Presbyterian, Anglican). Probably more in fact.

     I addressed that objection in #221 where I wrote:

     The principled difference is that there is in the Catholic Church one definite faith, defined by the Magisterium. Any Catholic who deviates from it is ipso facto heterodox. But in Protestantism, there is no Magisterium to set the standard for what is orthodox and what is heterodox. So the “diversity” of theological doctrines among Protestants is not deviation from an established and defined orthoxody, whereas the “diversity” of doctrinal beliefs among Catholics is deviation from an established and defined orthodoxy, excepting those beliefs concerning which there has been no teaching given by the Magisterium, in which matters we have freedom. The reason Catholics can affirm the saying, “In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity” is because in virtue of the Magisterium we have a principled distinction between essentials and non-essentials. But in Protestantism there is no principled distinction or ground for a principled distinction between essentials and non-essentials.

     Regarding all the other doctrinal questions in your third objection, that would take us too far afield for the purposes of this article. In some matters, the Church has defined boundaries, and left latitude between them. In other matters, the Church has defined precise dogmas. The issue of the rate of excommunication for those who dissent from various doctrines is a separate question, because it goes to the Church’s way of seeking to bring straying sheep back into the fold — it has nothing to do with whether the matter remains ‘up in the air’ for the Church.

     Regarding your fourth objection you wrote:

     4. Mathison says, and the author of this post approves, “All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture.” Perhaps, but then all appeals to the pope are appeals to interpretations of the pope. Do you not need someone to interpret the decrees of the pope or Councils?
     Ultimately, it is an infinite regress.

     See #303. If it were an infinite regress, then communication would be impossible. But communication is obviously possible (we’re doing it right now). Therefore, there can’t be an infinite regress.

     Finally you wrote:

     If language is so difficult that God cannot communicate directly to individuals using sentences, then neither can any pope or Council.

     No one has claimed that language is too difficult for God. To imply that this is what our argument does would be to set up a straw man of our argument and our article. The question is not what is too difficult for God (obviously nothing is). The question is this: What has Christ established? Did He or did He not establish a perpetual hierarchy in His Church, consisting of Apostles, and those who would bear their authority perpetually until the end of the age? But for the purpose of our article, the specific question is whether there is any principled difference between solo and sola, and if there is no difference between them, then is any way to avoid solo/sola other than apostolic succession.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

308. Francis Beckwith November 22nd, 2009 7:19 pm :

     Bryan writes:

     “The objection is an argument that takes the form of a dilemma in which (it is claimed) we must choose between (1) an infinite hermeneutical regress and (2) no need for an interpretive authority when interpreting Scripture.”

     I have not the entirety of the comments on this ever-growing entry. So, I apologize if another has raised this point. But it seems to there is another problem with this objection. It assumes Sola Scriptura as the default position. That is, if there is an infinite hermeneutical regress given the Catholic view, the Protestant view is correct. But that does not follow. For could not one first entertain abandoning both Catholicism and Protestantism on the grounds that they former leads to an infinite regress (allegedly) while the latter has been shown to be clearly unworkable since it has led to greater divisions since its inception in the 16th century. That is, Protestantism’s promise has been broken in practice, and we have the past 500 years to prove it. On the other hand, upon reflection, one realizes that Catholicism’s unity and doctrinal purity has been sustained (against amazing odds) with the infinite regress problem having no effect. Thus, one concludes that in practice the infinite regress problem has not really been much of a problem, while the sola scriptura principle has. And consequently, one remains (or becomes) Catholic.

309. Bryan Cross November 22nd, 2009 7:44 pm :

     David, (re: #286)

     Thanks for your comment. I’ll intersperse my comments — I don’t like to do that, but there are so many different claims/objections raised that it is the only way I can do it. First you write:

     First, the claim the 3 of you are making is that no individual can make an ultimate, correct “solo” interpretation of Scripture.

     Actually, none of the three of us (Keith Mathison, Neal or myself) is making that claim, nor does our argument ever make that claim. So, I’ll skip down a bit. Next you say:

     The issue then is what is a correct interpretation not that no individual can arrive at a correct interpretation.

     We (here I’m not speaking for Keith Mathison) would see that as a false dilemma, because there is a third option. The third option is that there can an authoritative interpretation. We distinguished between truth and authority in section V.B. of our article, in the paragraph beginning “Consider the first reason. If two statements are true, … “.

     If you don’t distinguish between truth and authority, then the danger is rationalism, because then you treat a statement as authoritative only if you can verify its truth. But when God speaks, we may not be able to verify (independently) the truth of what He says, but what He says is both truth and authoritative and binding on us, because He is divine. Likewise, when the Church speaks, we may not be able to verify for ourselves the truth of what the Church says, but because of her divine authorization to speak in Christ’s Name, we ought to accept what she says on account of that divine authorization. The existence of authority greater than ourselves means that we are bound to accept claims that exceed the (present) capacity of our rational abilities to confirm or disconfirm. (More on that below.)

     Next you wrote:

     To accomplish this, proper rules of reasoning must be followed. If someone were to object, for example, to the Resurrection, verses could be shown proving the Resurrection to be true. If someone were to object to the trinity, verses could be shown with proper reasoning to prove the trinity.

     This only pushes back the question of Magisterial authority, because someone must set or establish what are the “proper rules” of interpreting Scripture. If the rules for interpreting Scripture were handed down to those to whom the Scripture was entrusted, then they are ones who know how to interpret them. And if these persons were given divine authority to speak in Christ’s Name and with His authorization, then they (and no others) have the divine authority to give the authentic interpretation of Scripture, whether or not some individual laypersons think they need help in interpreting Scripture. (If such laypersons come to different interpretations than the divinely authorized Magisterium, this verifies that these laypersons do need such interpretive help.)

     Next you wrote:

     A Divine Authority is needed to reveal objective consistent truth and proper interpretation is achieved by drawing valid inferences (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit).

     Again, this only pushes back the question of Magisterial authority: Who authoritatively determines who has the Holy Spirit? I addressed that question in my earlier post titled “Play church“.

     Next you wrote:

     Since the premise for your article (no individual can make ultimate “solo” interpretations) which you use to substantiate the need for a magisterium is false, there is no need for a magisterium upon this basis or based upon an absence of a supernatural authoritative interpreter of Scripture.

     The claim that no individual can make “ultimate solo interpretations” is not a premise in our article, nor is it presupposed by our article. So your conclusion (i.e. “there is no need for a magisterium …”) does not follow. Nor have you refuted our argument (because you are criticizing a claim that is not part of our argument).

     Next you wrote:

     Second, the premise is also a composition fallacy because the magisterium of the Catholic Church is made up individuals. At least one individual has to arrive at a conclusion or “interpretation” before the group can arrive at a conclusion or “interpretation.” If no single individual has arrived at a conclusion, then there is no interpretation or conclusion.

     Since the alleged ‘premise’ which commits the “composition fallacy” is not a premise of our argument, therefore this paragraph does not pertain to our argument. Of course individuals in the Magisterium reach interpretations. The issue is not whether individuals reach interpretations; the issue is one of authority, more precisely, interpretive authority, as explained above.

     Third, since when does an appeal to an authoritative book always mean an appeal to an interpretation of the book?

     Since the first appeal to an authoritative book. :-)

     An appeal to an interpretation can be an appeal to Scripture if the truth of the interpretation is the truth of Scripture. I can say “Christ has risen” and if someone wants to call this an interpretation of Scripture, they may, but certainly it is as much an appeal to Scripture as it is an appeal to an interpretation.

     Sure; it is an appeal to Scripture, as interpreted by the individual making the appeal.

     It would properly be called an “accurate” or “correct” interpretation. Now if I affirm, for example, the trinity, someone may say that this is my “subjective interpretation.” But, again, if I have followed the rules of proper reasoning, my so-called interpretation is not subjective, it is a valid inference.

     What you say here presupposes that interpreting Scripture is merely a matter of applying “proper rules of reasoning”. That presupposition begs the question against the position of those who maintain that Scripture was given to a community, and that it belongs only to the community to whom it was given to give the full and authentic interpretation. It also pushes back the question regarding who gets to determine “proper rules”, as I mentioned above.

     And reasoned truth is just as authoritative as Scripture because truth is truth.

     That’s rationalism (i.e. the opposite error of fideism). It is wrong to kill the innocent; we know this rule by our natural power of reason. But Abraham rightly obeyed God regarding the sacrifice of Isaac, because even though it is true that murdering the innocent is wrong, God’s direct command to sacrifice Isaac is greater in authority. One truth can outweigh another truth in authority. Authority is not reducible to truth (where ‘truth’ means correspondence between a proposition and reality).

     Fourth, submission to an “interpretation” is not necessarily a submission to myself. If the interpretation is a valid conclusion, I am not submitting to myself, I am submitting to the truth of the valid conclusion. If I do not submit to truth, I am not insubordinate to myself, but to truth.

     Agreed. But if I submit only to those persons with whom I agree, then the person to whom I submit is me.

     Finally, there are very serious flaws in reasoning that Roman Catholics have “discovered” the Church which Christ established without making an individual presupposition or “solo” interpretation. How do we know that “the Church” even exists? Or that even Christ established such an organization? We learn this from Scripture either directly or indirectly.

     That would be news to the Christians on the day of Pentecost, and to all the Christians who lived before the first book of the New Testament was written. So, it is not true that we only know of the Church through Scripture (either directly or indirectly). We can learn of the Church through the study of history, or through encountering living members of the Church. Even if we do see the Church mentioned in Scripture, that doesn’t mean that it is only through Scripture that we can identify the nature of the Church.

     We presuppose the truth of Scripture even before beginning the investigation for a Church.

     Only a Protestant can say such a thing, because he can’t even imagine any other way of thinking than a sola scriptura way of thinking. There is no need to presuppose the truth of Scripture when discovering the Church in history. One might discover the Church through history and only then discover that it teaches there is a sacred book containing the Word of God. Or might read them both (i.e. Scripture and Church history) in combination, without presupposing the truth of either, but simply trying to fill in various paradigms (i.e. how would it all look from *this* point of view, and how would it all look from *that* point of view?). All we need for the purposes of the argument in our article is the distinction between tracing the Church forward through history by way of apostolic succession, and trying to locate the Church by finding those who agree with one’s own interpretation of Scripture.

     We make an accurate “solo interpretation” of the Scripture even to “discover” that there was such a man named Peter who was given keys to a kingdom. If we hear of this truth from others or through history books and believe it, then we have presupposed it to be true. And if we are looking for an authoritative revelation to prove that it is true, we will find that this truth came from the authoritative revelation of the Word of God.

     Not necessarily. These thing were all known to the Church even before the first NT Scriptures were written. Of course the Church Fathers coming after the Apostles referred to the Apostles’ writings to substantiate their [the Fathers'] claims about the teaching of the Apostles. But the deposit of faith was known wherever the Church was located, long before all the books of the NT were present in every particular church. And for that reason, the inquirer in the present day, who wants to find the Church Christ founded, can trace the Church forward from the first century, by studying the writings of the Church Fathers, and locating their principle of unity (i.e. communion with the successor of St. Peter), and what they understood to be the essential marks of the Church (i.e. one, holy, catholic, and apostolic).

     Unless we have authoritative revelation from God, I cannot trust extra-Biblical historical writings as being authoritative revelation from God.

     You don’t seem to realize that unless you have the Church, you cannot know what is the Bible, and which books belong to it. It is only through the Church that we can know what is the canon. That same authority by which we can know what is the canon is the same authority by which we can know what is the authentic interpretation of those books. If you take away the Church, you not only lose the authentic interpretation of Scripture, you lose the canon of Scripture. If you want the canon, then you run into the contradiction of accepting the Church’s authority to determine the canon while denying its authority to determine the authentic interpretation of the books of that canon.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

310. mateo November 22nd, 2009 8:05 pm :

     Paige Britton : … Sure, if you are going to list all of the non-Catholic “churches” in the phone book, you can make the case that “Protestants” don’t agree on any single aspect of doctrine.

     Which was my point – the doctrinal divisions within Protestantism are so great that Protestantism cannot be defined by what doctrines Protestants confess in common.

     Paige Britton :But what about the reality that many deceivers will come and teach in Jesus’ name?

     Yes, what about that! Since we know that Jesus warned us against false teachers, it stands to reason that there must be some way that we can know whether or not a particular interpretation of the Bible is true or false. But if the Bible is the ONLY infallible source authority for the Christian, how can we ever know with certainty that a particular interpretation is right or wrong? Should we baptize infants, yes or no? The false teacher will give us the wrong answer to that question, and if the Protestant Bible is our only source of infallible authority, we can never know with certainty who is teaching falsely about this point of doctrine.

     Paige Britton: Of course, these groups are ALL apostate from the Catholic p.o.v. …

     No, that is not the Catholic p.o.v. To commit the sin of apostasy, one must first know and accept the Gospel, and then one must reject the Gospel entirely:

     Catechism of the Catholic Church

     § 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

     The Catholic Church does NOT consider most Protestants to be apostates.

     Paige Britton : – but even Catholics have been able to identify those that are less apostate/more orthodox than others (if such a category exists!).

     Certainly the Catholic Church recognizes that some Protestant sects are more orthodox than others in the doctrines that they teach. The Traditional Anglican Communion is more orthodox in their doctrine than say, Iglesia ni Cristo.

     Paige Britton : I’m not up on all of the joint declarations made by Catholics and others, but surely there had to be some evaluation of doctrine involved before these could occur.

     The Catholic Church engages in ecumenical dialog with different Protestant sects to both affirm what we hold in common and to dialog about our differences. The Catholic Church doesn’t see ecumenical dialog as an end to itself – the point of the ecumenical dialog is to bring about reconciliation, which is the same goal that CTC has:
     

     What is the Purpose of Called to Communion?

     We believe that Christ is calling His Church to be one, as He and the Father are one. This is the prayer and the desire of our Savior’s heart and therefore it is also our desire. Our aim is to effect reconciliation and reunion between Catholics and Protestants, particularly those of the Reformed tradition. We hope to accomplish this by removing obstacles founded upon misunderstandings as well as by engaging in charitable discussion of genuine disagreements, in a context of continual prayer for each other and for the unity of all God’s people. We believe that genuine unity comes through truth and never by forsaking or compromising the truth.

     Paige Britton : (And isn’t it amazing that there WOULD be agreement, since the Protestants in question didn’t have a Magisterium to guide them? How could this be?

     Why should that amaze me? Protestantism began as a schism from the Catholic Church. The first “reformers” didn’t reject everything that they learned as Catholics!

     Paige Britton : Do you think it just might be possible to find out true stuff from the Bible without infallible interpretive help?

     Of course it is possible to find truths in the Bible by just picking it up and reading it. But the Bible is not perspicuous, or there would not be books published by Protestants authors such as this one:
     

     Hard Sayings of the Bible

     In Hard Sayings of the Bible you will find explanations of over 500 of the most troubling verses faced by Bible readers. Seasoned scholars provide succinct solutions to a wide variety of Bible difficulties and apparent discrepancies.

     Paige, you have yet to answer this question: If sola scriptura doctrine and the concomitant private interpretation of the Bible is not the source of the doctrinal chaos within Protestantism, then what is the source of that doctrinal chaos?

311. Bryan Cross November 22nd, 2009 8:32 pm :

     [300+ comment humor break]

     Dental version of solo scriptura.

     [/ 300+ comment humor break]

312. Paige Britton November 22nd, 2009 9:11 pm :

     Tim T. (#306),
     I think you are not reading me very carefully — I am not trying to refute anything, I am trying to understand what is being said and say it back to you. My desire is comprehension here, not to say “you too.” If you look back at my attempt (#301), I noted that there are different ways to understand the concept of “private judgment,” and that this might have confused some Protestant readers as to what Bryan and Neal are trying to communicate. I was just checking to see whether I was right, that the idea of private judgment related to NOT submitting one’s conscience to religious authority (or not suspending one’s “right” to judge or evaluate that authority) is the kind of “private judgment” that separates Protestants from Catholics. (On the other hand, as far as I can tell, you all still use your intellectual faculties and are active participants in receiving religious teaching, as we are.)

     Please don’t read this as argument, but as an attempt to understand more clearly your point of view.

313. Teri November 22nd, 2009 9:49 pm :

     # 311

     Hi Paige,

     Look at # 308 from Dr. Francis (Frank) Beckwith. See if his comment explains some of the questions you were asking. I’m not sure, but I think Tim T. was pressed for time this evening. I’m sure he knows you are honestly seeking answers. You seem very genuine in your love for Our Lord’s truth.
     Many Blessings,
     Teri :-)

     Bryan (# 310)
     Humor break was much needed. Now my “sides are hurting from splitting” Wondering if there is a Montes. school for surgeons as well….:-)

314. mateo November 22nd, 2009 11:25 pm :

     lojahw: Mateo, You are falling for the genetic fallacy. You are concluding that because the founders of the churches you list may have had some association with a Sola Scriptura Church, that their churches and teachings are based on Sola Scriptura.

     I don’t think that I am making the “genetic fallacy”. I just see that belief in Luther’s novel doctrine of sola scriptura has its consequences.

     The article by Bryan Cross and Neal Judisch makes this point: “Philosophies and theologies more fully manifest their nature over time. If there is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura, then we would expect the sola scriptura doctrine taught by the early Protestant to come to manifest its true nature over time as outright solo scriptura.”

     The history of Protestantism shows that this is true, i.e. that sola scriptura leads to solo scriptura and to ever increasing doctrinal division within Protestantism. Each of these men believed that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that they were guided solely by what scriptures taught: R.E. McAlister (Oneness Pentecostals), Charles Taze Russell (Jehovah Witnesses), John Thomas (Christadelphians), Benjamin Wilson (Church of God Abrahamic Faith). Each of these men also denied the doctrine of the Trinity, and every one of them believed that they were interpreting scriptures correctly. For example:
     

     the Church of God of Abrahamic Faith : “

     The Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith, much like the Christadelphians, seeks to return to the basic principles and doctrines of the first century church. They perceive that Christianity has been changed dramatically since the death of the Apostles, and believe that the Bible is the only true source of inspired revelation. As a result, both COGAF and Christadelphians place a heavy emphasis on Bible study and understanding . They believe that only through a complete understanding of God and His purpose will one find the path to eternal salvation. ”

     lojahw: Further, your claim that Baptists and Calvinists disagree on the fundamentals of the faith is refuted by the websites I referenced. [BTW – you appear not to realize that many Baptists are staunch Calvinists!] The Calvinists explicitly claim to teach the same faith, yet with an “accent” on God’s sovereignty. This in no way keeps Baptists and Reformed Churches from being in communion with each other.

     The Handbook of Denominations by Frank S. Mead states: “Twenty-seven Baptist denominations reported an approximate membership of 29 million in 1983”. Twenty-seven different denominations just of Baptists! I am quite aware that some Baptists are also Calvinists. The article that I hyper-linked in my post # 286 was written by John MacArthur : “Theologically, MacArthur is a conservative Baptist, a strong proponent of expository preaching, a dispensationalist and a Calvinist.”

     MacArthur is preaching against the non-Lordship antinomianism preached by the Southern Baptists. Even the different flavors of Baptists are divided over doctrine.

     Do Calvinists and Baptists preach the same doctrine?

     A quick Google search turns up these results:

     calvinism vs. arminianism … 921,000 links
     arminianism vs. calvinism … 1,470,000 links
     arminianism, calvinism … 12,600,000 links

315. lojahw November 22nd, 2009 11:28 pm :

     Teri,

     Thank you for your kindness. Actually, I do not like blogs, but the subject matter of this one interested me.

     Am I right that you are a “cradle Catholic”? If so it may be difficult for you to understand, but for a person to “cross the Tiber” to Rome requires a lot, since your catechism says that all the teachings of your Magisterium must be adhered to with the obedience of faith (when definitively proposed as divine revelation) or at least with religious assent (CCC 891, 892). Your catechism is also very long and complex. Having read much of your catechism and having heard the teaching of JPII, I cannot in good conscience agree to all that your Magisterium teaches. The reason is that I promised at my confirmation to “follow Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior” and that implies that He alone has my ultimate allegiance. It is therefore my conviction that it would dishonor my Lord for me to pray to Mary and/or to consecrate myself and my family to Mary as JPII exhorted all Catholics to do. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews wrote that we should be “fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith” (Hebrews 12:2). My first love is Jesus Christ. I could never adopt JPII’s motto: [Mary] “totus tuus ego sum” (Mary, I am totally yours.)

     BTW – most Protestant churches (different branches connected to the true vine) are in communion with each other.

     I hope you understand.

     Blessings.

316. lojahw November 22nd, 2009 11:43 pm :

     Bryan wrote:

     …if these persons were given divine authority to speak in Christ’s Name and with His authorization, then they (and no others) have the divine authority to give the authentic interpretation of Scripture

     Bryan, your conclusion (exclusive authorization) does not follow from the premise. When did Christ ever say that Peter and his successors and no others had this authority???

     The Apostle Paul to Titus, regarding church leaders in Crete (where “all men are liars”): “appoint elders in every city as I directed you … holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:5-9)

     The above is just one of many examples where the Apostles made it clear that the men that followed after them had the authority to faithfully teach and pass on God’s plan of salvation. Indeed this authority was explicitly granted at a local level (“in every city”). This pattern continues to be the norm in Revelation and in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch where he recognizes each bishop as the highest authority in the respective churches.

     According to the Apostle Paul, these “backwater” Cretans had the authority and the responsibility to give authentic interpretation of Scripture. No exclusivity here.

     Anyone who has read the ECFs knows that they did not write as if only the successors of Peter had authentic authority to interpret Scripture.

     “Jerome to the most blessed Pope Theophilus [of Alexandria]. The letter of your holiness has given me a twofold pleasure, partly because it has had for its bearers those reverend and estimable men, the bishop Agatho and the deacon Athanasius, and partly because it has shown your zeal for the faith against a most wicked heresy. … The presbyter Vincent has arrived from Rome two days ago and humbly salutes you. He tells me again and again that Rome and almost the whole of Italy owe their deliverance after Christ to your letters. Show diligence therefore, most loving and most blessed pope, and whenever opportunity offers write to the bishops of the West not to hesitate-in your own words -to cut down with a sharp sickle the sprouts of evil.” (Letter 88)

     Who was saving Rome from heresy here? Come again, Bryan?

     Blessings.

317. Andrew McCallum November 22nd, 2009 11:44 pm :

     Francis Beckwith – You make an interesting comment here:

     On the other hand, upon reflection, one realizes that Catholicism’s unity and doctrinal purity has been sustained (against amazing odds) with the infinite regress problem having no effect.

     So you are able to resolve this matter by assessing the relevant facts of history and determining that the Catholic Church is indeed pure and unified in just the same sense as Christians of the first centuries. And of course we have access to the same historical accounts and we see that the Catholic Church of the Reformation (picking this point because this is the start of the schism) could not possibly be considered as equivalent in terms of unity or purity with the Church of the first few centuries. But we are both making the same sort of judgment, are we not?

318. Nathan November 23rd, 2009 12:46 am :

     lojahw (#275),

     I don’t have a Pope, and it would not be wise to assume that anyone who rejects sola scriptura has one (false dichotomy). To repeat: solo scriptura entails subjectivism; sola scriptura is no different in principle than solo scriptura, therefore it also entails subjectivism. If you want to say you’re pro-subjectivism, fine, go ahead and say it. But if nobody’s opinion is of higher validity than anyone else’s, why are you even arguing for your point of view? Scripture requires a hermeneutic, and you have not provided any principle by which I can distinguish yours as being superior to anyone else’s.

     Andy (#294),

     Good luck in your search. There is no neutral way to approach scripture (because the apostles themselves were not neutral), and to presume so will invariably lead us to error. I have come to believe that the true interpretation of scripture requires an apostolic hermeneutic, which can survive in history only by tradition, which itself necessarily entails apostolic succession. However, I am not Augustinian, so that obviously influences where I will look for answers. Vincent of Lérins is good to study, and likewise the rest of the Fathers, for whom scripture, tradition, antiquity, councils, a rejection of novelty, and consensus are all means by which one distinguishes truth from error.

319. Bryan Cross November 23rd, 2009 12:50 am :

     lojahw (re: #316)

     You wrote:

     Bryan, your conclusion (exclusive authorization) does not follow from the premise. When did Christ ever say that Peter and his successors and no others had this authority???

     Again, you have misunderstood me. Let me suggest that you ask me (privately if necessary) if I hold a position, before criticizing it, because you keep (unintentionally, I think) misrepresenting my position. I did not claim or imply that the successors of other apostles (besides Peter) do not have the authority of apostolic succession. If you had read through the comments, you would have known that. However, only those bishops in full communion with the successor of St. Peter (i.e. the one to whom Christ gave the keys of the Kingdom) participate in the exercise of those keys.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

320. Bryan Cross November 23rd, 2009 1:22 am :

     lojahw (re: #289)

     Regarding this claim of committing the “genetic fallacy”, you wrote:

     Re: hermeneutics, I agree with the rules described in Dei Verbum 3.12 from Vatican II. What I object to is stopping all interpretation of Scripture with the argument: “the Magisterium has spoken.” This is an appeal to the genetic fallacy

     Many of the informal fallacies are informal fallacies precisely because they aren’t always true. If a person is a habitual liar, then we should be more suspicious of his testimony. And if he is known to tell the truth, we should give his testimony the benefit of the doubt. Likewise, when applied to God, the genetic fallacy is not a fallacy at all but the most perfect truth-verifier. In other words, if the premise is: “Proposition P was spoken by God”, then the right and necessary conclusion is “P is true.” In other words, when the source of the proposition is divine, then the proposition is thereby shown to be true. The genetic ‘fallacy’ is in that case not a fallacy at all; it is a guarantor of the truth of the conclusion. If the genetic fallacy were always a fallacy, then replacing your word ‘Magisterium’ above with ‘Jesus’ would give us the following: “What I object to is stopping all interpretation of Scripture with the argument: Jesus has spoken.” Well, if Jesus has spoken, then since Jesus is God, that should stop all debate. Similarly, if Jesus has authorized the Apostles to speak in His Name and with His authority, then the fact that the Apostles say x should stop debate about x. The genetic fallacy is, in that case, not a fallacy, but a demonstration of the authority and veracity of their words. Likewise, if the Apostles authorized successors to carry on the deposit of faith, guard and preserve it, interpret their words and pass them on to each successive generation, then the fact that their successors say x should stop debate about x. The genetic fallacy works in reverse when divine authority is in operation.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

321. Bryan Cross November 23rd, 2009 2:31 am :

     lojahw, (re: #315)

     You seem to be taking every rabbit-trail away from our article, so I’ll just use your proclivity to wander as an occasion to clear up serious misunderstandings of the Catholic faith. You wrote:

     My first love is Jesus Christ. I could never adopt JPII’s motto: [Mary] “totus tuus ego sum” (Mary, I am totally yours.)

     That’s like standing at the altar at your wedding, and telling your bride that because you are a Christian, you cannot be totally hers, but can only give her some level of commitment less than 100%. What is the error here? The groom doesn’t understand that loving God and loving one’s spouse are not incompatible and do not compete; love is not a zero-sum commodity. Loving one’s spouse 100% (and being 100% committed to one’s spouse) is fully compatible with loving God 100% and being 100% committed to God. That is because they are on two different levels: one finite, and the other infinite. If God were finite, then loving God 100% would compete with loving others. But because God is infinite, loving God 100% makes possible loving all other good things 100%. Total commitment to one’s spouse is fully possible only in the context of total commitment to God. Likewise, total commitment to Mary as the mother of Christ and the mother of the Church does not compete with total commitment to Christ. That is because Mary and Jesus do not compete. Her word is: Do whatever He tells you. They are perfectly one, even though she is a mere creature, and He is God made man. But they now possess the perfect unity we (Lord willing) shall have with Christ.

     Just as complete commitment to one’s spouse is fully compatible with (and made possible by) complete commitment to Christ, so likewise complete commitment to Mary as Christ’s mother is fully compatible with (and made possible by) complete commitment to Christ. The stumbling block to loving Mary is mistakenly to see her as competing with Christ for attention (and detracting from loving Christ) rather than as leading us to Christ and urging us to love Him and obey Him more perfectly. You can’t love Christ and not love His Mother. You can’t love Mary and not love her Son. That’s because the two of them deeply love each other. To enter into love with one of them is to enter into love with both of them. Christ loves Mary 100%, while loving His Father 100%. But she is loved as creature, while His Father is loved as God. So likewise, since we are to imitate Him, we are to love Mary 100%, as creature, and love the Father 100%, as God. Totus tuus is a demonstration of the Catholic both/and; loving Christ above all things does not prevent us from fully loving His mother with the devotion and commitment due to the Mother of Christ our King.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

322. Teri November 23rd, 2009 7:47 am :

     #315
     For Mr. Lojahw,
     Actually, I’m not a cradle Catholic, but I consider that a compliment. This is another “Rabbit Trail” so Bryan, et all, may choose to moderate for the sake of (wearily) trying to keep the discussion on topic (very much like herding cats, I think).

     I am in the RCIA program at my parish and will come into full communion with The Church during Easter Vigil 2010. I grew up in a Disciples of Christ Church (My father’s denomination), but with a Mother and Grandmother who were “old school” Methodists who taught me the fear and the love of Our Lord. After being violently raped as a very naive, innocent girl at age 16 by an older youth pastor ( of a charismatic church I attended with friends), I felt very betrayed by God. I had dedicated my life to Him and I truly loved Him with all of my heart.

     In the years since that time I have been in a “Bible Church”, Southern Baptist, Charismatic Fellowship, “Seeker Friendly” Fellowship and lastly Reformed Baptist ( think John Piper not John Macarthur.). I “cut my teeth” on the Bible. I am thankful that I was taught the Bible and read it diligently since early childhood.

     I am deeply in love with Our Lord, Jesus Christ. To suggest that I somehow love anyone at all more than Him is to say I’m not worthy of Him. He is everything to me. If The (Catholic) Church taught I must love anyone more than Him, I would not even be here discussing this with you.

     Mr. lohahw, I wish you weren’t afraid to really try to understand the truth of The Church for yourself before saying things that you don’t fully grasp. I think if you love Our Lord and His Word as you say you do, (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), you should at least give me the courtesy of asking how I accept this catechism, which looks “foreign” to some and “idolatrous” to most who just read it as a “manual”.

     So as not to hijack the conversation and to help Bryan, Tim et all to keep this on Sola Scriptura, Solo Scriptura…. you may e-mail me if you have any questions. If you truly want to understand The Church, the Blessed Virgin Mary, etc., you can e-mail me personally (shraders2@gmail.com).
     I don’t choose to converse or debate with anti-catholics who devote their time and their blogs to spreading lies and instigating hate and prejudice against Catholics. But if the love of Our Lord is truly in your heart, you will want only His truth, not your own.

     May the peace of Our Lord be with you,
     Teri

323. TurretinFan November 23rd, 2009 9:37 am :

     Nathan wrote:
     

     To repeat: solo scriptura entails subjectivism; sola scriptura is no different in principle than solo scriptura, therefore it also entails subjectivism. If you want to say you’re pro-subjectivism, fine, go ahead and say it. But if nobody’s opinion is of higher validity than anyone else’s, why are you even arguing for your point of view? Scripture requires a hermeneutic, and you have not provided any principle by which I can distinguish yours as being superior to anyone else’s.

     Nathan reasons improperly, but the first line of this comment would actually help to form a rebuttal to the article. If we determine that subjectivism is a characteristic of Solo Scriptura, we can then contrast that with the lack of subjectivism in Sola Scriptura. But I’m not sure that even the proponents of Solo Scriptura would defend subjectivism, so ultimately the argument collapses.

     -TurretinFan

324. TurretinFan November 23rd, 2009 10:07 am :

     Troutman wrote:
     

     We have claimed that your boat is sinking and the reply is “so is yours,” but that doesn’t refute the original statement.

     This response misses the point of a uniqueness takeout rebuttal. Perhaps part of the reason it misses the point is the bad choice of analogies. Let me explain.

     A uniqueness takeout rebuttal says that the criticism isn’t a valid criticism of a plan of action, not because it’s not true, but because it applies both to the thing being criticized and to the known alternatives to the thing being criticized.

     The article does a better job (than Mr. Troutman) of responding to this issue. Although the article calls this (misleadingly in my opinion) a “tu quoque” argument, the article at least attempts to address the argument itself, by attempting to draw a principled distinction between solo Scriptura and the Roman Catholic position.

     - TurretinFan

325. Bryan Cross November 23rd, 2009 10:17 am :

     TurretinFan,

     You wrote:

     Nathan reasons improperly,

     See our posting guidelines (under the ‘About’ tab) regarding speaking of participants in the third person.

     Also, how does he reason improperly?

     Next you wrote:

     but the first line of this comment would actually help to form a rebuttal to the article. If we determine that subjectivism is a characteristic of Solo Scriptura, we can then contrast that with the lack of subjectivism in Sola Scriptura. But I’m not sure that even the proponents of Solo Scriptura would defend subjectivism, so ultimately the argument collapses.

     The soundness of our argument does not depend on whether proponents of solo scriptura would (or would not) defend subjectivism, or claim that their position is prone to subjectivism. That’s because none of the premises of our argument is: “Solo scriptura proponents would (or would not) defend subjectivism.”

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

326. TurretinFan November 23rd, 2009 11:09 am :

     Thanks for drawing my attention to the “third person” prohibition in your rules. I’ll try to adjust my comments accordingly. No offense to Nathan or to Mr. Troutman was intended.

     You asked had Nathan’s reasoning was improper. It is improper because it says:

     A involves B,

     A is not distinguishable on principle from C,

     Therefore C involves B.

     That does not follow, because even assuming that principles cannot divide A and C it does not follow that every characteristic of A is present in C.

327. JoeyHenry November 23rd, 2009 11:16 am :

     One reason why there is no necessary infinite hermeneutical regress is that with a living Magisterium we can continue to ask clarifying questions, even to the point of saying, “I’m understanding you to be saying [x]. Is [x] what you are saying? Yes or no?” And the Magisterium can respond by saying “yes” or “no”. And at that point, there is no need for an interpretive authority, so long as a person understands the English language and has adequate hearing. Interpreting “yes” and “no” is quite different from interpreting, say, the book of Romans. We do not need an interpretive authority to explain the meaning of ‘yes’ and ‘no’. But we may very well need an interpretive authority to explain the meaning of the book of Romans, or at least to help us avoid misinterpreting it.

     It seems that the scenario pointed out in this response is that individual RC people have access to the “infallible interpreter” and have the opportunity to ask him/them a “yes or no” question. This is, however, an overly simplistic scenario since this is hardly the case for majority of Roman Catholics. I am also surprised that the argument would assume equality of interpreting the words “yes” or “no” with interpreting the book of Romans. The reason why a “yes or no” scenario is overly simplistic is because getting the right understanding of a theological construction or interpreting a biblical book can not be reduced to a “yes” or “no” question and answer with an infallible interpreter.

     Another example: questions about the interpretation of Dei Verbum, which is already considered an infallible interpretation, with regards to divine revelation for RCs, can not be resolved by a “yes or no” answer. In reading that document one may ask whether Scripture contain implicitly or explicitly all of Tradition or does Tradition contain a unique revelation not implicitly or explicitly derived from Scripture? If this can be resolved with a simple “yes or no”, then we should have a response by now.

     Lastly, understanding the word “yes” or “no” might pose no difficulty without context. The dictionary is pretty clear on the meaning of those words. But, how the question was asked, the degree of difficulty of the topic, in what medium, context, particular words, language used to get a “yes” or “no” answer would largely affect our understanding of those responses (whether in the negative, affirmative, neutral, or any other response). Thus, I am not convinced that infinite hermeneutical regress will not become a necessity, if we demand an “infallible interpreter” to have an authoritative interpretation. The certainty of the individual in getting the “infallible interpretation” right, is always based upon his fallible understanding of that “infallible interpretation”. There is no real advantage on this point with having an “infallible interpreter”.

     Your point, namely, that the individual human interpreter is always fallible, is true, but it doesn’t affect our argument, because our argument does not depend upon the individual being an infallible interpreter.

     Precisely because the individual is fallible in his interpretation affects the argument being advanced here. I may not have grasped the argument well but it seems to me that the argument implicitly states that there is an advantage of having an “infallible interpreter” because this would give us an infallible interpretation. The advantage, however, is only superficial as the “infallible interpretation” will always be subject to the fallible interpretation of the individual seeking clarification.

     That’s a non sequitur. That’s like saying that there is no advantage of the Bible being infallible over it being full of errors, since the individual interpreter is fallible. The fallibility of the individual interpreter does not mean that there is no advantage (with respect to arriving at truth) in having an infallible book. Likewise, the fallibility of the individual interpreter does not mean that there is no advantage (with respect to arriving at truth) in having not only an infallible book but also an infallible interpreter of that book.

     The logic however that the response is portraying misses the point. There is an advantage of having an infallible Bible since it means that we have a Divine Revelation in human language which can be understood using proper exegetical and hermeneutical principles. However, to further demand a mediator to this Divine Revelation such as an “infallible interpreter” in order to issue “infallible interpretation” is where the problem starts to surface. The “infallible interpretation” of the “infallible interpreter” will, in the end, be subjected to the fallible exegetical and hermeneutical principles and judgment of the individual seeker. The certainty of the individual of having the correct understanding is only as certain as to his capacity to fallibly interpret the “infallible interpretation”.

     Nor does our argument demand that an infallible interpretation is needed to gain understanding of divine revelation. It is possible to gain understanding of divine revelation simply by reading the Bible. But, having a divinely authorized and infallible Magisterium to guide the Church in her understanding of the Word of God written is of great help in understanding the deposit of faith rightly, even if the individual layperson is not an infallible interpreter.

     I am thankful for this assertion. It is not necessary to have an infallible interpretation to arrive at a correct understanding of divine revelation. That’s what Protestants are saying. The Protestants would also agree that a divinely authorized leadership would guide the churches in her understanding of Divine Revelation. The difference is that Protestants don’t equate “divinely authorized” with “infallibility”. The protestants don’t demand “infallibility” in order to have a “divinely authorized” teaching office with the purpose of instructing the proper understanding of divine revelation to the catechumen.

     The individual layperson does not need to be in direct contact with the Pope in order to benefit from the gift of infallibility given to St. Peter and his successors. The whole Church is in dialogue of sorts, much as the parts of a living organism are in communication with each other and with the head. When a priest or bishop speaks or acts in a way that is contrary to the orthodoxy of the Church, word gets around, and he is (eventually) corrected, censored, removed or replaced. This helps keep the bishops and priests of the Church in agreement with the orthodoxy of the Apostolic See, and in this way the layperson is benefited by the gift of infallibility possessed by the Magisterium, even though the layperson does not have direct contact with the Pope.

     The response is portraying a more realistic scenario in saying that individuals have no direct access to the “infallible interpreter”. This would, however, challenge the first paragraph’s scenario in which a “yes or no” question and answer dialogue takes place so that the “infinite regress” aspect is ended. Though the scenario is better, it is also highly optimistic, in that it assumes that bishops and priests who are teaching contrary to the RC dogmas are corrected because “word gets around”. This is not the case at all in many instances. “Word does not get around” as only a handful knows for certain whether his judgments of his priest’s or bishop’s teachings are already contrary to RC dogmas. The benefit of the layperson is anchored on the possibility that someone, who fallibly judges the teaching of his/her bishop or priests and reports it to headquarters, did not err in his judgments and interpretation of his bishop’s teaching. The benefits are in the realm of possibility that may or may not happen at all in his or her lifetime. Such advantage is no real advantage, my opinion.

328. JoeyHenry November 23rd, 2009 11:44 am :

     Dear Dr. Beckwith,

     You said: That is, Protestantism’s promise has been broken in practice, and we have the past 500 years to prove it. On the other hand, upon reflection, one realizes that Catholicism’s unity and doctrinal purity has been sustained (against amazing odds) with the infinite regress problem having no effect. Thus, one concludes that in practice the infinite regress problem has not really been much of a problem, while the sola scriptura principle has. And consequently, one remains (or becomes) Catholic.

     Response: Your comparison is not well structured. First, you are comparing a single “organization”, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church, with “Protestantism” in claiming that the Catholic Church is more unified in doctrine. I think this is a false comparison since “protestantism” is not a single “organization”. In my opinion, the more accurate comparison is that of “Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church” against the “Roman Catholic Church”. If we allow comparing apples to apples, you will notice that unity in doctrine and teaching that doctrine to its catechumen in the “Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church“ is no different from the unity claimed by the “Roman Catholic Church”. In fact, there are more churches that are more united in their beliefs and stance than the RC Church. What I mean is that, if we look at the individual members of a particular church and asked them their beliefs, we will get a more united stance. However, ask Roman Catholic members and you will get a more diverse stance or understanding of a particular doctrine. The point is that, the problem of disunity within the Roman Catholic Church can be seen outright when individual members are examined. This is largely because of the “infinite regress problem” which, in effect is saying, that since individual members is fallible in understanding “infallible interpretations” from “infallible interpreter”, “Magisteriums” serves no real advantage in achieving “uniformity” and “unity” of understanding within the church. The RC Church is a testimony of this truth.

329. Nathan November 23rd, 2009 12:35 pm :

     TF,

     My “improper reasoning” is based on these quotations within the article:

     Rather than placing the final authority in Scripture as it intends to do, this concept of Scripture places the final authority in the reason and judgment of each individual believer. The result is the relativism, subjectivism, and theological chaos that we see in modern Evangelicalism today. (Emphasis added.)

     In other words, the modern Evangelical denial of genuine creedal authority reduces the doctrinal content of Christianity to mere subjectivism. (Emphasis added.)

     So it would seem that Matthison thinks that solo scriptura results in subjectivism, which you apparently disagree with. I don’t seriously expect proponents of either sola or solo to defend subjectivism, however, given the article’s conclusion that the two views are ultimately the same in principle, my logic would seem to be fairly sound.

330. Tim Troutman November 23rd, 2009 1:13 pm :

     TurretinFan @326 – It is true that sometimes a principle of distinction cannot be drawn between two things and yet some difference remain in them such that they can and should be treated differently. But not in this case. I explained why in this post.

331. Tim Troutman November 23rd, 2009 1:19 pm :

     Joey – you are treating Protestantism’s fragmentation and lack of unity as a strength and Catholicism’s institutional unity as a weakness. Because the First (second, or third) Reformed Baptist Church of Phoenix has repeatedly schismed from other Protestants until it formed itself into a small homogeneous group, is it then comparable to the universal Church in terms of unity? Far from it. The Catholic Church was not formed out of schism, and it is not a country club of homogeneous Christian saints, but rather a universal hospital for all of the sinners of the world. Yet in spite of this Catholic mission, she retains her unity and hierarchical structure.

332. Nathan November 23rd, 2009 1:49 pm :

     TF,

     If not “every characteristic of A is present in C,” then in this particular case there should be a difference in principle between the two positions, because this is not a superficial characteristic. If subjectivism (i.e. non-transcendence) were only a property of one and not the other, that would certainly constitute a difference in principle. If you can demonstrate that this is the case, I would consider it to be a refutation of the article’s conclusions.

333. TurretinFan November 23rd, 2009 3:07 pm :

     Nathan:

     You stated: “If subjectivism (i.e. non-transcendence) were only a property of one and not the other, that would certainly constitute a difference in principle.”

     There are certainly some folks in “Protestantism” (broadly defined) that do adhere to subjectivism. There are others who do not – some who specifically and explicitly affirm transcendence.

     I’m sure you must be aware of this.

     So it would seem that you mean that the first group is internally consistent and the second group is internally inconsistent. Of course, the onus would be on the one asserting internal inconsistency to demonstrate it. With respect to the author(s) of the article, I don’t think the inconsistency has been demonstrated. If you disagree, you could perhaps point me to the part where you believe the inconsistency was demonstrated.

     -TurretinFan

334. mateo November 23rd, 2009 4:01 pm :

     Joey Henry: It is not necessary to have an infallible interpretation to arrive at a correct understanding of divine revelation. That’s what Protestants are saying.

     If all the Protestants were saying that it is not ALWAYS necessary to have an infallible interpretation of the Bible to arrive at a correct understanding of divine revelation, then the Catholic Church would agree with that. But by leaving out the ALWAYS in that statement, you are implicitly inserting NEVER into the statement, i.e. Protestants that believe that the Protestant Bible is the ONLY source of infallible authority also believe that it is NEVER necessary to have an infallible interpretation of the Protestant Bible to arrive at a correct understanding of divine revelation.

     Five hundred years of Protestant history show that it is not true that it is never necessary to have an infallible interpretation of the Bible to arrive at a correct understanding of divine revelation.

     How do you explain the doctrinal chaos within Protestantism if there is no real need for an infallible interpretive authority?

335. T Ciatoris November 23rd, 2009 4:44 pm :

     Dear friends,

     Some of the contributors to this thread have alleged a basic doctrinal unity among orthodox Protestants as a counterargument to Bryan and Neal’s argument that there is no principled distinction between sola Scriptura and solo Scriptura. I wish to suggest that this contention is based on (1) unacceptably circular reasoning, which results from and is underwritten by (2) a kind of ecclesial amnesia.

     As to (1), my point is relatively simple. Proponents of a broad orthodox Protestant doctrinal unity claim that only those groups who maintain “basic orthodoxy” are genuine adherents of sola Scriptura. And only those groups who abide by sola Scriptura maintain “basic orthodoxy.” The set “adherents of sola Scriptura” and “adherents of basic orthodoxy” thus become mutually defining. According to these orthodox Protestants, if a group, such as the Oneness Pentecostals, departs from orthodox Trinitarianism, they are by definition not adhering to sola Scriptura, irrespective of a Oneness Pentecostal’s own account of the foundations and method of his theology (which he would claim is precisely sola Scriptura). The orthodox Protestant will, I imagine, immediately object that Oneness Pentecostals have not employed sola Scriptura but solo Scriptura. But it’s difficult to see how this accusation can get past being merely a bald assertion. Along with Protestants who claim to be sola Scriptura and not solo Scriptura, Oneness Pentecostals can also claim to be “listening to tradition” in discerning their own interpretation of Scripture. With respect to their modalism, they can appeal, for example, to figures such as Sabellius, or certain interpretations of Marcellus of Ancyra, or Michael Servetus, or perhaps even a particular reading of Meister Eckhart. It’s an alternative tradition to magisterial Catholic tradition, but, from a sola Scriptura point of view, so what? According to proponents of sola Scriptura, there is (or should be) nothing irreformable or infallible about magisterial Catholic tradition, whether we’re talking about the fourth century or the sixteenth. So what, exactly, is the principled problem with Oneness Pentecostals appealing to an alternative tradition rather than the magisterial Catholic one, particularly if the only infallible authority they confess is Sacred Scripture?

     In fact, what we actually find is a basic doctrinal unity among those Protestants who happen, for whatever reason (though I’m going to propose one below), to adhere to the first four ecumenical councils and their accompanying creeds. While protesting that they adhere to sola Scriptura, these Protestants affirm these councils as definitive for orthodoxy by a certain sleight of hand. Because the Bible is materially sufficient to derive the findings of these councils, uncompromising acceptance of the councils is deemed to satisfy the demands of sola Scriptura. But Scripture isn’t formally sufficient to necessitate the conclusions reached by these councils. The fact of the matter is that “orthodox” Protestants adhere to the first few ecumenical councils by dint of a sort of hangover from Catholic tradition, the normativity of which they no longer formally acknowledge—this is what I refer to above as (2) “ecclesial amnesia.” It’s a forgetfulness of the fact that orthodox dogmatic formulations on questions such as the Trinity are a hard-won gift from the Spirit-guided Church, passed down through the Catholic Church to the magisterial reformers, who in turn handed it down to their descendents. But because the dogmatic formulations determined by ecumenical councils were passed down to Protestants accompanied by the principle of sola Scriptura, the dogmas are no longer recognized as hard-won gifts, but viewed as self-obvious conclusions drawn directly and without struggle from the allegedly perspicuous Scriptures.

     Sabellianism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and so forth, do not seem obviously wrong to orthodox Protestants because of the principle of sola Scriptura. On the contrary, I submit that they only seem obviously wrong to orthodox Protestants because of the gifts of dogmatic traditional formulations of orthodoxy, parameters for reading the biblical text, that they have received from their Catholic heritage. Protestants do genuinely derive these dogmatic formulations from their reading of Scripture. But that’s because they, in fact, adhere to the parameters of orthodox interpretation set by early Sacred Tradition—only they’ve forgotten, apparently, why they do so.

     in Christ,

     TC

336. Sean Patrick November 23rd, 2009 6:28 pm :

     Teri,

     Thanks for your comments in #322. I’ll be praying for you this Easter season. I have several friends that are preparing for Easter 2010 confirmation.

337. TurretinFan November 23rd, 2009 6:40 pm :

     Mr Troutman:

     You wrote:
     

     TurretinFan @326 – It is true that sometimes a principle of distinction cannot be drawn between two things and yet some difference remain in them. But not in this case. I explained why in this post.

     I can provide a counter-example that defeats your assertion. One practical difference between Solo and Sola is that in the former case, ordained men are not held to a requirement of confessional subscription and their teachings are not scrutinized in light of confessional adherence. This is just one example, of course, but it is an example that has practical value.

     -TurretinFan

338. TurretinFan November 23rd, 2009 6:50 pm :

     Nathan:

     I notice you also (in a separate comment) stated:
     

     So it would seem that Matthison thinks that solo scriptura results in subjectivism, which you apparently disagree with. I don’t seriously expect proponents of either sola or solo to defend subjectivism, however, given the article’s conclusion that the two views are ultimately the same in principle, my logic would seem to be fairly sound.

     I’m not sure whether Mathison thinks that the Solo group is consciously in favor of subjectivism, unconsciously in favor of it, or simply inconsistent. I had the impression that he was arguing that they were consciously in favor of it. Perhaps I had the wrong impression.

     -TurretinFan

339. Teri November 23rd, 2009 7:35 pm :

     Thanks Sean!! I am more than thrilled! I really feel like it’s a wedding day…so very sacred and beautiful!

     #335 T.C.

     Thank you again for typing all of that out so I didn’t have to. Also you made alot more excellent points, as well.

     I agree with you, T.C. and we are still counting comments on this subject. As much as I enjoy reading and learning how to have true dialogue and argument using a philosophical approach (rather than what passes for it in some blogs) – NO ONE has told T.C. or me – if we were looking for the interpretation of Sola Scriptura instead of Solo where to go..(as in denomination!)

     We seem to be back at square one. So, if Bryan, Tim, Sean and others allow, I would like to ask a simple question.

     Let’s not even look over the entire landscape of Protestant denominations to choose from now. Let’s all look back during the period of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and throw in King Henry VIII…and whoever the Anabaptist leader was at the time (not the one that died in the St. Bartholmew’s Day Massacre)

     Suppose for argument’s sake I can travel to any of these places and find safety in their church. Where should I go for the pure form of Sola Scriptura? Germany and Luther, Calvin and Geneva, Zwingli or whoever after him, and the “radical” Anabaptist…and also England.

     Who among those groups “preach the truth of the gospel and rightly administer the sacraments, AND most importantly for the sake of this topic…adheres to Sola Scriptura – the Word of God alone?

     If The CTC gentlemen will allow this comment, please, please don’t tell me anything but where to go to find this church that reformed the RCC. Tell me where this Church is located that practices Sola Scriptura and is now the Church – the Body of Christ. I think T.C. wants to know as well, but I’m still called “Protestant” although I’m not officially protesting anything. Sola Scriptura, ladies and gentlemen – Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.

     Thank you,
     Teri

340. TurretinFan November 23rd, 2009 7:41 pm :

     Brian:

     You wrote:
     

     The soundness of our argument does not depend on whether proponents of solo scriptura would (would not) defend subjectivism, or claim that their position is prone to subjectivism. That’s because none of the premises of our argument is: “Solo scriptura proponents would (or would not) defend subjectivism.”

     You do quote Mathison, seeminly with approval, as stating:
     

     The result is the relativism, subjectivism, and theological chaos that we see in modern Evangelicalism today.

     I have the impression that Mathison is claiming (and you’re adopting) the idea that the practitioners of the “solo” position actually advocate subjectivism and/or relativism (the distinction between those two is not so great, one suspects). Of course, other places, Mathison seems to suggest that subjectivism is simply an implication of giving the creeds no authority – perhaps an unrecognized implication.

     It would seem to be the case that if the solo position implies subjectivism and the solo position is defended by solo adherents, then either (1) the defense of the solo position is internally inconsistent or (2) the defense of the solo position involves the defense of subjectivism. Of course, that is a big “if.” Perhaps the solo position itself does not imply subjectivism at all. The article seems to simply assume that it does, perhaps because the article is focused on Mathison. But I digress.

     The article does appear to be premised on the idea that the solo position at least implies subjectivism. So, I am not sure what you are trying to point out by noting that you don’t make the following formal premise: “Solo scriptura proponents would (or would not) defend subjectivism.” The question may not itself be a premise, but it is an important question in the determination of whether there is a principled difference between the two positions.

     - TurretinFan

341. mateo November 23rd, 2009 8:41 pm :

     Hi, Paige.

     Somehow I totally missed your post # 282.

     I can certainly bend my “mind around to a world that does NOT have access to infallible interpretation, but where God is still good and still intends to communicate to us”. That pretty much describes my state of my mind after I made the choice for apostasy. When I was in college, I totally rejected the Catholicism that I had been brought up in (and I didn’t just reject the Catholic faith – I rejected Christianity altogether, hence my apostasy).

     What did I learn while in that state of mind? After about fifteen years of trying to find the truth on my own terms I became totally lost. During my time as an apostate, God did communicate directly with me in ways that left no doubt in my mind that God is good and He can communicate directly when He wants to do that. One good thing that God brought out my apostasy is the certain knowledge that God reveals himself to us on His terms, not our terms.

     When I was an apostate, I had to confront a question that was constantly gnawing at my soul: What was the purpose of life? I got a piece of the answer when I happened to ask a practicing Buddhist what the purpose of life was, and he said that we are here to serve. I was open to that possibility, and God confirmed in an otherworldly way that I was correct to accept this truth. That answer made so much sense to me – if we were all trying to serve one another, then we would all live in a much better world – certainly a world without war. But that answer did not completely satisfy me for long, because I could see a problem. Even if we were all trying to serve one another, we would still be in conflict, because each person would have a different plan about the best way to serve. Even if all the plans were good, we would fight over who had the best plan to bring about the best possible world. The fighting might be extremely polite, but the conflict would be unavoidable.

     I realized that the only way to solve this problem would be for everyone to let go of his or her plan and find out what God’s plan was, since He would only have one plan – the perfect plan. I realized right then that I had to totally abandon myself to God’s plan, even if His plan was something that didn’t make any sense to me. It was decision time. I had already hit bottom, so I had no desire at all to keep going down the path where I was the lord of my life. So I said to God, I know that I need to completely abandon my will for your will, even if that means doing the worst possible thing that I could think of doing, which would be to become a practicing Catholic. God immediately confirmed that this was what He wanted me to do. Yikes! “My ways are not your ways” indeed.

     I suppose my “testimony” might seem like a pointless digression, but I thought it might help you understand why I disagree with you. You said that the “thoughtful Protestant assumption is that since (as they believe) there is no infallible and authoritative Magisterium, they should be very, very careful how they interpret the biblical texts, making use of checks and balances as they go.” I agree with that. But you then assert that by doing that, “Differences will still turn up, but not at the core.”

     I disagree. Differences will not only turn up; they will turn up at the core because the fundamental fault of all human beings is that they want to be the lord of their life. The private interpretation of scriptures allows one to retain ultimate authority about what one accepts as truth. The common Protestant attitude is that if I don’t agree with the scriptural interpretations that my Protestant denomination teaches, then I can go church shopping until I find one that does agree with me.

     “When I submit (so long as I agree), the one to whom I submit is me.”

     To that maxim, I would add this maxim:

     “If Jesus is not Lord of all, He is not Lord at all.”

     As evidence that there will be “core differences” if private interpretation is allowed to reign supreme, I ask you to consider the fact that there are plenty of sincere Protestants that deny the doctrine of the Trinity. Have you ever tried to use the Protestant Bible alone to convince a Oneness Pentecostal to change their mind about the Trinity? The Trinity is the number one “core doctrine” of Christianity, and if the Trinity can be denied through the private interpretation of scriptures, then anything can be denied through the private interpretation of scriptures.

     Paige Britton: I used the analogy of marriage not to speak of my relationship with leaders in my church, but to illustrate that a lack of 100% certainty across the board does not preclude excellent understanding, even on a basic human-to-human level.

     Humans can get an excellent understanding of many things if they study and work hard. How else does one excel at music, math and science without hard work and study? The real question is this, can one have faith in things that are divinely revealed apart from supernatural grace? The Catholic Church teaches no one can believe in divinely revealed truths without the aid of supernatural grace.

     Paige Britton: You write, “If Christ expects me join the Church that he established and to believe what is true about matters of faith and morals (which He does), then it is wholly reasonable for me to believe that Christ would have people in the Church that He founded that are vested with the authority to teach infallibly about matters of faith and morals. That there exists a living magisterium in the Church founded by Jesus is an extremely reasonable thing for me to believe, and that is why I don’t struggle with the idea.”

     I think that the criteria you express here (for accepting the Magisterium) are way too simplistic for me – even if your conclusions are ultimately right, your criteria for that infallible interpreter seem to rest in your idea of what is reasonable or preferable, rather than in any authoritative source. (I think even Bryan noted above that personal preference should NOT guide our conclusions about the True Church, and I would think this should apply in both directions!)

     I certainly agree that “personal preference should NOT guide our conclusions about the True Church”. I became a Catholic because it was the worst possible thing I could think of doing! I knew that becoming a Catholic was going to make me uncomfortable – all that “deny yourself and take up your cross” stuff was the reason why I left the Catholic Church in the first place.

     On a scale of things that are believable, I think that believing that there is a Magisterium that keeps the Church that Christ founded from teaching untruth is a very small thing compared to believing in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But why should I believe the latter? The latter belief is something that can only be believed by divine and supernatural faith, as is the former belief. I certainly don’t expect you to believe in the Magisterium because I have given you a good argument.

     I am saying that I don’t believe in sola scriptura because it is an unreasonable thing to believe because it is a self-refuting doctrine that is full of contradiction. That is something that even an unbeliever can know, since there is no verse in a Protestant Bible that claims the Protestant Bible is the ONLY source of infallibly authority. It not only unreasonable to believe that sola scriptura is an infallible doctrine, it is impossible to believe that sola scriptura is an infallible doctrine. I can no more believe in a self-refuting doctrine, then I can believe that it is true that this sentence is false.

     Paige Britton: I agree that having an infallible interpreter handy would be preferable to not having one.

     What if the ONLY way that you could have an infallible interpreter handy is to become a Catholic?

     One thing is certain, you will never have access to an infallible interpreter if you hang around with people that believe that Protestant Bible is the only source of infallible authority!

342. Paige Britton November 23rd, 2009 9:18 pm :

     Mateo (#310)—
     Thanks for continuing to converse with me and straighten me out re. the Catholic p.o.v. :) I’m sorry I didn’t see your post till now, or I’d have answered sooner.

     You asked: “Paige, you have yet to answer this question: If sola scriptura doctrine and the concomitant private interpretation of the Bible is not the source of the doctrinal chaos within Protestantism, then what is the source of that doctrinal chaos?”

     Mateo, I don’t know that there is one source. If the concept of the infallible interpretive Magisterium is true, then we’re all missing the boat, and no wonder we’re floundering around in different denominations. If there is no earthly infallible interpretive authority such as the Catholic Magisterium, then the source is human sin – from the little sin of hasty reading, to the largest sins of lies and deception.
     Pax,
     pb

343. Paige Britton November 23rd, 2009 10:14 pm :

     Mateo –
     p.s. to my other note — in the second case I mentioned, other differences would be attributable to innocuous divergences in emphasis about non-essentials, as within Catholicism.
     pb

344. Paige Britton November 23rd, 2009 10:17 pm :

     Teri –
     Thank you for your suggestion. I will read the comment you mentioned.
     Thanks also for your kind words. I don’t know how I come across here, particularly because I tend to be persistent. But I’m very much interested in understanding things thoroughly, mainly so that I won’t misrepresent other folks’ ideas in my own speech and writing.
     pax,
     pb

345. Tim A. Troutman November 23rd, 2009 10:18 pm :

     TurretinFan – Feel free to call me Tim.

     Your counter example would defeat my argument (not mere assertion) if I had argued that there would be no difference whatsoever, whether practical or otherwise, in a man who explicitly adopted the historical “sola scriptura” position and a man who explicitly adopted the “solo scriptura” position. I have never claimed such a thing and your counter example is a long way from defeating my argument.

     There are a couple of ways to see the deficiency in the example.

     1. As I argued in the link provided (please do read it, especially if you’re going to claim to defeat it with a counter example), the question of authority is one inherently concerned with principles and not pragmatism; distinction between any two competing theories of authority would need to be principled.

     2. The difference in your example is in the behavior of the men who adhere to the competing theories, not in the theories themselves. Even still it is clear, that their behavior has no principle of distinction for the same reasons given above in the article. The solo scripturist does not submit to a confessional standard, but straight to the bible. The sola scripturist submits to a confessional standard, but one of his choosing which must first be subjected to the bible.

     So I repeat my original conclusion which has not been defeated by your counter example: Logically then, since Bryan and Neal actually demonstrated there to be no principled difference between solo and sola scriptura, an appeal to a practical difference is insufficient.

346. lojahw November 23rd, 2009 10:40 pm :

     Tim T wrote:

     The sola scripturist submits to a confessional standard, but one of his choosing which must first be subjected to the bible.

     I don’t recall you responding to my post # 259. Comments?

     Blessings.

347. Paige Britton November 23rd, 2009 10:42 pm :

     T. Ciatoris (#335) –
     I am curious: You have explained why Protestants have some things right in their doctrine (these things are hand-me-downs from Catholic doctrine, which we have ungratefully appropriated). How do you explain the Reformers’ selectivity in their borrowing? Why did they leave some hard-won doctrines behind?

348. Tap November 24th, 2009 12:47 am :

     Paige,

     I don’t know how I come across here, particularly because I tend to be persistent. But I’m very much interested in understanding things thoroughly, mainly so that I won’t misrepresent other folks’ ideas in my own speech and writing.

     Thoroughly enjoying your participation here, you seem to be trying to flesh things out, without resorting to sophistry, i don’t expect you mind to change , but your approach is very refreshing.

349. Tim A. Troutman November 24th, 2009 12:51 am :

     Lojah – I didn’t respond to it. I saw that you were engaged in some other items.

     You said:

     You assume that the reason people change churches is because they disagree with the doctrine of the church where they attend……but … your idea doesn’t match reality, because to be a member they must sign a doctrinal statement indicating that they affirm the doctrine that church teaches.

     To put that into a syllogism it would be:

     1. To be a member, you must sign a doctrinal statement indicating that you affirm the doctrine that church teaches.
     2. Therefore, the reason people change churches is not because they disagree with the doctrine of the church where they attend.

     This does not follow.

     Can you restate your objection to the article? It will help if you make it simple and general to start with, and then go from there. Example:

     Contra the claims of this article, solo scriptura is distinct in principle from sola scriptura per the following arguments:

     1. A principled distinction between two things can be demonstrated when the observable consequences of the two things differ in a principled way. That is, if there were no principled difference between two things, no principled distinction could be made in the consequences. But there is a principled difference in the final behaviors (as consequences) of those who profess sola scriptura and those who profess solo scriptura. Therefore there is a principled difference in the positions themselves.

     2. The article claims that solo and sola scriptura are, respectively, direct and indirect methods of achieving the same thing: private judgment of Scripture, and that therefore, there is no principled distinction between them. But this assumes a priori that direct and indirect, or immediate and mediate positions on authority or epistemology are necessarily non-distinct in principle. But there is a principled distinction between a man who rejects any authority except for the king, and a man who accepts the rightful authorities, who have mediated authority, so long as they do not contradict the king. Further, there is a principled difference in a teacher who tells his student directly that his work is poor and the teacher who tells his student the same thing indirectly. In fact, there are many examples of such principled distinctions between the direct and the indirect and the mediate and the immediate. Therefore this a priori assumption of the article is false and the argument does not stand. There is a principled distinction between solo scriptura and sola scriptura.

     These are just some examples of arguments you might want to use against the article.

350. T Ciatoris November 24th, 2009 1:45 am :

     Dear Paige,

     You asked:
     

     How do you explain the Reformers’ selectivity in their borrowing? Why did they leave some hard-won doctrines behind?

     What an excellent question! Of course, I am neither capable of nor responsible for speaking for any or all of the magisterial reformers (after all, which of them speaks for them all?), but I can offer a few semi-speculative observations.

     First, though, allow me to offer a clarification. You paraphrased me as saying that Protestants “have ungratefully appropriated” some of the dogmatic components of Catholic Tradition. It’s true that, in a past comment (#279), I used language of “ingratitude” on this subject in my interaction with lojahw, and I later regretted it (#293 – lojahw, sorry for my infelicitous word-choice). In comment #335, to which you’re responding, I intentionally abandoned this language. As I tried to make clear in #293, that’s not because I think this language is objectively false; I do think it’s objectively true. But I think it brings unhelpful connotative baggage. I was raised Protestant, and so I know first-hand how incredibly and rightly grateful most Protestants are for the gifts they’ve been given in Holy Scripture (and I know thoughtful Protestants – and you certainly seem to be one – recognize the mediation of the Church in God’s giving the gift of the canon) and in the faith passed on to them by their forebears. I am and will always remain indescribably grateful to my Protestant ancestors. I owe my lifelong relationship with Christ to their faithfulness. This is, in part, why I do not want to paint Protestants as “ingrates”—it would make me one, too!

     And so, as a paraphrase of what I said in #335, I’d prefer “unknowingly (because forgetfully) received.” This is in keeping with my claim about “ecclesial amnesia.” What have Protestants unknowingly received? To be clear once more: in the case of the first few ecumenical councils, I do not claim that Protestants have received a material principle of faith. Scripture is, I believe, materially sufficient for the dogmatic findings of these councils. However, I do think that orthodox Protestants have received formal boundaries or parameters for orthodox interpretation of Scripture which constitute a formal principle of Christian faith extrinsic from Scripture. It would take a long, long time to argue this in detail, but I really do think that there are perfectly plausible Arian, Nestorian, Monophysite, etc., readings of Scripture that do not simply ignore “perspicuous” passages. That doesn’t mean I think their readings are more plausible than the orthodox reading, nor even equally plausible. But whatever I think of these readings’ plausibility relative to that of orthodoxy is, I freely admit, no more than my private opinion. It is not why I am confident that Arianism and the rest are heresies. I am confident that they are heresies because they oppose the infallible magisterial statements of the Spirit-guided Holy Catholic Church, “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

     With respect to your question itself, I would say first that, though I do not accept the Reformed doctrine of the “perspicuity of Scripture,” some things are more “perspicuous” than others. For example, if someone agreed that the Bible was infallible and then denied the Resurrection, I’d want his head checked. If we were setting up a metrics for this, I actually don’t think a full-blown orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is at the “more perspicuous” end of the scale. But I do think that some articulation of both oneness and threeness (two-and-a-half-ness?) in God is probably more nearly perspicuous than not in the New Testament. And, of course, we have to remember historical circumstances. Trinitarian orthodoxy was not something that got the reformers especially riled up (polemically, anyway—I hope it did devotionally), so I suspect that the doctrine of the Trinity, among others, was received from Tradition without undergoing a great deal of scrutiny. And it had the advantage by the 16th century of sheer hoary antiquity. As for other issues that aren’t the headliner (i.e., justification, of course) and about which the Bible isn’t especially perspicuous, it’s interesting to see how they fare among the magisterial reformers. Sacred images? Disagreement. Eucharistic theology? Disagreement. Auricular confession? Disagreement. Perpetual virginity of Our Lady? Very slow fade out of style (even the Wesleys thought it was a perfectly biblically acceptable and highly fitting, though dogmatically unnecessary, opinion for Protestants to hold).

     So, the question of the selectivity of the reformers is an interesting thought experiment. But whatever the experiment’s outcome, does it actually affect the positive points I’ve made?

     in Christ,

     TC
     1 Cor 16:14

351. David Thrall November 24th, 2009 2:04 am :

     Bryan,

     (Ref. #309)

     At the beginning of your response, you say you have not claimed that no individual can make an ultimate, correct “solo” interpretation. I am unsure why you deny this. In the 2nd sentence of your article,

     you wrote:

     “The direct implication of solo scriptura is that each person is his own ultimate interpretive authority.”

     Because “Sola scriptura is arguably the most foundational point of disagreement underlying the nearly five-hundred year rift between Catholic and Protestant Christians,” you disapprove of Sola and Solo Scriptura. Therefore, you disagree with the position that each person is his own ultimate interpretive authority of Scripture. You are asserting that no person can be his own ultimate interpretive authority of Scripture. This is a Universal Negative fallacy (a self-refuting proposition). In holding to this position, you make yourself the ultimate interpretive authority on Scripture to hold that no one can make himself the ultimate interpretative authority on Scripture. You have to possess ultimate interpretive authority on Scripture to assert this. Your position is self-refuting.

     Because your assertion is self-refuting, ultimate interpretive authoritative statements can be made by an individual.

     I wrote:

     “Second, the premise is also a composition fallacy because the magisterium of the Catholic Church is made up individuals. At least one individual has to arrive at a conclusion or “interpretation” before the group can arrive at a conclusion or “interpretation.” If no single individual has arrived at a conclusion, then there is no interpretation or conclusion.”

     To continue: if the leaders reason properly, then their conclusions will be valid. If they reason incorrectly, then their conclusions will be false. If non-leaders reason properly, then their conclusions will be valid. If not properly, then their conclusions will be false. Interpretive conclusions of Scripture are either true or not true. You don’t have to be the Magisterium or some sort of divinely inspired interpreter to arrive at a true interpretation of Scripture. Summaries of Doctrine can therefore be formed based upon proper reasoning.

     How does one find out what is true or not true? Using the rules of proper reasoning from and starting with Scripture. This includes following the direction of Scripture to consult other Christians and Christian teachers regarding proper reasoning.

     You wrote:

     “This only pushes back the question of Magisterial authority, because someone must set or establish what are the “proper rules” of interpreting Scripture. If the rules for interpreting Scripture were handed down to those to whom the Scripture was entrusted, then they are ones who know how to interpret them.”

     To say that “they are the ones who know how to interpret them” is a false alternative (your term false dilemma). A third alternative is that the rules are a part of Scripture. Scripture contains the rules for proper reasoning (whether directly or indirectly stated). These are not contrary to truth, but are logical. Therefore, again, this nullifies magisterial authority in the sense of a need for imparting divine interpretation. The rules simply have to be followed.

     (To answer your question, “Who authoritatively determines who has the Holy Spirit?”, we are to follow the Scriptures criterion for this determination. Perhaps this moves off topic but I’m certainly willing to discuss it).

     You wrote:

     “If you don’t distinguish between truth and authority, then the danger is rationalism, because then you treat a statement as authoritative only if you can verify its truth.”

     Reasoned truth (from the Scripture) is just as authoritative as Scripture because truth is truth. Truth is authoritative because it comes from God. If it is not true, it is not from God.

     You wrote:

     “That’s rationalism (i.e. the opposite error of fideism). It is wrong to kill the innocent; we know this rule by our natural power of reason; we know this rule by our natural power of reason. But Abraham rightly obeyed God regarding the sacrifice of Isaac, because even though it is true that murdering the innocent is wrong, God’s direct command to sacrifice Isaac is greater in authority. One truth can outweigh another truth in authority.”

     You have committed a false alternative. “Natural power of reason” is not authoritative for morality. Abortionists kill the innocent based upon their own natural power of reason. By identifying the correct starting point for reason or, in other words, the correct presupposition for the authoritative basis of knowledge, rationalism is avoided. Presupposing Scripture validates and provides the authoritative basis for reason. Our own reasoning was never intended to start independent of the objective Word of God. Therefore, morality is based upon Scripture.

     In response to the example of Abraham, God, the Author, has the authority to command the taking of life and He has the authority to command the protection of the innocent. Since He is the only Authority in both instances, there is no greater authority.

     In response to “One truth can outweigh another truth in authority,” truth must be both objective and authoritative. Once a person has arrived at truth, there does not exist a higher authority level of truth which can negate a lower level of truth. If this were the case, the lower level would not qualify as truth. Truth cannot be true and not true at the same time. Futhermore, the lower level could never be absolute. If truth is not absolute, then it is not truth. It would be speculation. Therefore a true interpretation is a correct interpretation and an authoritative interpretation.

     You wrote:

     “Authority is not reducible to truth (where ‘truth’ means correspondence between a proposition and reality)”

     There are different kinds of authority. But there is no greater authority than the One who reveals absolute truth, or simply truth. Since all truth originates from God, whatever He defines as truth can not be outweighed by another truth. He is not in conflict with Himself. He is the One who defines what truth is.

     I wrote:

     “We presuppose the truth of Scripture even before beginning the investigation for a Church.”

     You responded:

     “Only a Protestant can say such a thing, because he can’t even imagine any other way of thinking than sola scriptura way of thinking. There is no need to presuppose the truth of Scripture when discovering the Church in history. One might discover the Church through history and only then discover that it teaches there is a sacred book containing the Word of God.”

     This is certainly a possibility and by my statement I meant that once the authoritative revelation of Scripture is discovered, then Scripture must be presupposed in order to arrive at the truth of where the true church exists. Extra-Biblical writings of history are useful but must always be viewed as just that, the writings of men and not divine inspiration. Why should I believe one author over and against another? This is why if the writings of men are not authoritative revelation from God and we are treating them as if they are, then we are bearing false witness of God.

     I wrote:

     “Fourth, submission to an “interpretation” is not necessarily a submission to myself. If the interpretation is a valid conclusion, I am not submitting to myself, I am submitting to the truth of the valid conclusion. If I do not submit to truth, I am not insubordinate to myself, but to truth.”

     You responded:

     “Agreed. But if I submit only to those persons with whom I agree, then the person to whom I submit is me.”

     If you mean that if given 4 leaders of a church and I only agree with 3 of them and submit only to those 3 persons, then yes this is not Biblical submission.

     I wrote:

     “We make an accurate “solo interpretation” of the Scripture even to “discover” that there was such a man named Peter who was given keys to a kingdom. If we hear of this truth from others or through history books and believe it, then we have presupposed it to be true. And if we are looking for an authoritative revelation to prove that it is true, we will find that this truth came from the authoritative revelation of the Word of God.”

     You wrote:

     “Not necessarily. These thing were all known to the Church even before the first NT Scriptures were written. Of course the Church Fathers coming after the Apostles referred to the Apostles’ writings to substantiate their [the Fathers'] claims about the teaching of the Apostles.”

     Absolutely and I would add that to the extent the Church Fathers were faithful to the Apostles’ writings and reasoned from them properly, they were correct. To the extent that they reasoned incorrectly, they were wrong. I cannot trust extra-Biblical historical writings as being authoritative revelation from God. Can you prove that those writings are Divinely inspired? Mormons claim divine inspiration, should we believe them?

     You wrote,

     “You don’t seem to realize that unless you have the Church, you cannot know what is the Bible.”

     This is another false alternative. If someone, who never read the Bible before, discovers one and reads it, the Holy Spirit can certainly impart understanding, repentance, and faith to acknowledge the book for what is really is, the Word of God. Scripture is self-authenticating. It claims that it is and it was imparted through the office of the apostles and prophets. Furthermore, it has to be self-authenticating in order to be authoritative otherwise if another party is the judge of authenticity, then that party becomes the authority.

     You wrote,

     “That same authority by which we can know what is the canon is the same authority by which we can know what is the authentic interpretation of those books. If you take away the Church, you not only lose the authentic interpretation of Scripture, you lose the canon of Scripture. If you want the canon, then you run into the contradiction of accepting the Church’s authority to determine the canon while denying its authority to determine the authentic interpretation of the books of that canon.”

     Again, the same false alternative (See the last response). Scripture is self-authenticating.

     In summary, the Universal Negative fallacy and the Composition Fallacy of a major premise of the article (no individual can be an ultimate interpretive authority on Scripture) prove that individuals can make ultimate authoritative interpretations of Scripture. By following the rules of proper reasoning, this eliminates any need for divinely inspired interpreters. Interpretation is either true or false. If true, then authoritative.

     David

352. JoeyHenry November 24th, 2009 8:51 am :

     Dear Tim,

     you are treating Protestantism’s fragmentation and lack of unity as a strength and Catholicism’s institutional unity as a weakness.

     I have not made this argument, if you are referring to my response to Dr. Beckwith.

353. Paige Britton November 24th, 2009 8:51 am :

     TC,
     Thanks for your thorough and very enjoyable response to my little question. Two-and-a-half, indeed.

     I do agree that most Protestants are completely rootless, not even knowing much about their connection to the Reformation in the first place — maybe we think we sprang full-grown from the church in Acts or something! Or we’d sure like to think so. So I am not surprised by your contention that we’ve forgotten from whom we learned the most basic of our doctrinal formulations. Of course, our perspective on the source of those formulations is necessarily different: you identify it as being the continuing Catholic Magisterium, while we see it (if we think about it) as being the Church in history (as defined by what we determine thru our personal interpretation to be orthodox teaching, though not infallible).

     Here’s an additional piece to add to the thought experiment: Think of how it was when you moved from Protestantism into Catholicism, and submitted your conscience re. interpretation, faith & morals to the Catholic Church. That’s a HUGE epistemic shift, and I am sure it didn’t happen overnight or smoothly, especially if you were previously a conscientiously cynical North American Protestant. I imagine that at the time of the Reformation (which did not happen in anything like a 24-hour period!) the shift from conscientious submission to autonomy of conscience was a gradual thing, for individuals and for groups of people. So no wonder certain doctrines took time to fade out, and parameters and boundaries took time to be defined. Kind of like the situation of the original doctrinal formulations in the first place, the selective rejection or letting-go of older formulations probably happened almost on a case-by-case basis. Maybe it is still happening.

354. Paige Britton November 24th, 2009 8:55 am :

     Tap -
     Thanks for your encouragement. I guess I was absent the day they taught sophistry, because I have no idea how to do it. I’m glad that whatever is coming across here is refreshing. :)
     pb

355. JoeyHenry November 24th, 2009 9:16 am :

     Hi Mateo,

     How do you explain the doctrinal chaos within Protestantism if there is no real need for an infallible interpretive authority?

     I would assume that the question implicitly compares the “unity” of doctrine of within the Roman Catholic Church versus “Protestantism”. Again, I would gently submit that this comparison is not well structured. It seems that the question is portraying “Protestantism” as a single church or organization and then compare it to the Roman Catholic Church.

     The first thing that I would submit in the discussion is to state the fact that “Protestantism” is not a single church or organization. To accurately compare whether or not there is doctrinal chaos, one should look at a church or an organization not a “term” or “label” or “movement”. Then compare this with the Roman Catholic Church. Apples to apples comparison.

     The second thing that I would submit in the discussion is to examine the Roman Catholic Church the same way we critique a certain church. The question above assumes that the Roman Catholic Church is “united”? In what sense is the RC Church “united”? If by “united” we mean to say that the RC Church have a single confession of faith, then pick another church and try to see whether or not that church have conflicting confessions of faith.

     Often times, the comparison that is often utilized is that members of this so called “Protestantism” are not agreeing with each other therefore, the RC church is more united than “Protestantism” is. Yet, if we look at the members of the RC church and ask them fundamental questions, we would soon discover that the views of these members are as diverse as this so called “Protestantism” organization.

     My appeal is that make an intellectually honest and right comparison. Then I’ll respect any decision that anybody would make based on the comparison.

356. Tim Troutman November 24th, 2009 10:04 am :

     Joey -

     You didn’t say those words explicitly, and it’s not an argument to be made; it is a faulty way to handle the data. Suppose that the Reformers had been right and Scripture actually was perspicuous and that, as Luther thought, once Scripture was unleashed to the people, they’d all believe the same thing. Then once they broke from Rome, they would be one unified body in opposition to the Roman church. Then we would be comparing apples to apples if we looked at the two groups.

     But you say we can’t compare Rome to Protestantism because it’s unfair. But it’s unfair because of Protestantism’s inherent weakness of constant fragmentation and schism. That is, we can’t compare the unity of Rome to the disunity of Geneva because of a weakness in Protestantism. If Protestantism had done better and remained unified as Rome has, then we would be comparing apples to apples. Thus you are, as I said, treating Protestantism’s weakness as a strength which is a wrong way to handle it.

357. lojahw November 24th, 2009 10:22 am :

     Tim: Thank you for your kind response and suggestions.

     The problem with your syllogism is that it incompletely represents my argument.

     From your suggestions:

     1) “when the observable consequences of the two things differ in a principled way.” One difference in the observable consequences of Sola & Solo Scriptura which I mentioned is that the former submits personal interpretation to the review of his church leaders where the second does not. This may not be observable to the authors of the article, but it is observable to those involved in the churches to which the article refers. A Solo Scriptura person indeed “submits” nothing to anyone else for correction. A Sola Scriptura person is willing to listen to all Christian testimony and correct his views in order to be more consistent with the whole canon of Scripture (for the purposes of discussion, I assume that the whole canon as commonly recognized by the EO, RCC, and Protestants is sufficient for the fundamentals of God’s plan of salvation).

     The article seems fails to recognize: 1) the validity of this mediated authority (which Sola Scriptura demands, e.g., 2 Pet. 1:20-21; Heb. 13:17); and 2) that the causes of changing churches or starting new ones are seldom driven by differences over interpretation of Scripture, as I have stated in a number of posts on this thread. The failure to recognize the latter leads to the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy: confusion of correlation and cause. By assuming that the proliferation of Protestant Churches is the only observable consequence of Sola Scriptura as well as necessarily the consequence of Sola Scriptura (rather than other causes) are incorrect conclusions.

     To say that Solo Scriptura Protestants exist and that their behavior correlates with the proliferation of Protestant Churches does not prove causation of that particular “observable consequence” from Sola Scriptura. For example, I know of at least 30 churches in my locality that would be classified by your reckoning as 30 denominations, yet they are simply daughter churches of a single church.

     Blessings.

358. Teri November 24th, 2009 10:32 am :

     #354
     Paige,
     I was absent the entire semester when we moved past the simple concepts of philosophical logic, etc.
     I like Thomas Aquinas for armchair theologians, if that counts :-)
     As long as we try to understand what is being said and ask questions, all of the CTC group is great about answering. I know they see your sincerity. You can tell pretty quickly who wants to understand and who doesn’t.

     I stumbled upon this yesterday at one of the personal websites of CTC’s Taylor Marshall. One of the commenters left this link in the combox concerning the verses on authority from a Jewish perspective and source-

     “Binding and loosing authority“

     Maybe you’ve already seen it, but if not, check it out. It always helped me to understand what the inspired Biblical authors meant in some hard to understand sayings. The Jewish encyclopedia is great also in understanding about the Old Testament Canon of the Bible.

     Tim, moderate as needed. I promise not too much of a rabbit trail. It goes with the Authority issue, I think :-)
     Blessings,
     Teri

359. Tim Troutman November 24th, 2009 11:44 am :

     Lojah – I didn’t finish going through the rest of your response because of the fatal error which I pointed out in the first part. I don’t want to sound condescending or dismissive but if you want to engage us here, I’m going to ask that you slow down and think through your arguments more carefully. Also, you should avoid, as one has already suggested, merely trying to score points and win a debate.

     As for the other points you brought up, I have already refuted those. See my interaction with TurretinFan particularly in 330 & 345.

360. Nathan November 24th, 2009 11:51 am :

     lojahw (#259),

     Many people in fact do change churches because of doctrine (mea culpa). I have a number of blogs I follow that are either narratives of or justification for such changes. And they’re all over the place too: from Dispensationalism to Calvinism(and vice versa, oddly enough), to Rome or the Orthodox Church (and between the two), Emerging, Lutheran, Anglican, on and on. Doctrine is a reason why many people come to my church, and why a few left for the local neo-Calvinist church just down the street (they’ve picked up people from a number of non-Calvinist churches).

     It can happen because a non-essential doctrine is treated as essential, or the inverse (who gets to decide what is essential, other than the individual’s interpretation?) or because of the philosophical underpinnings of a particular theological system, or for any number of reasons. It can also happen because of a different interpretation of what is “the church” in Matthew 18 — sola scriptura does not provide an objective definition, so one might consider only confessional protestants to be “the church” and another might include any non-heretical (according to their own definition of heresy) protestants, and in fact it’s not entirely clear what your definition is.

     So, in my experience, people do change churches over doctrine, regardless of a signed “statement of faith” (which, by the way, I think is a rather unbiblical practice for churches who claim to follow the bible: the apostles didn’t do anything like that, they just asserted their own authority as apostles). In fact it happens quite frequently. Saying that people leave for the wrong reasons or because of a lack of submission to authority simply begs the question, because neither the statement of faith nor the leadership can claim to have an infallible interpretation, so the individual’s interpretation, always carrying the possibility of being correct, is primary. All of this is the case because the leadership dare not claim the authority of binding and loosing, because they don’t have apostolic succession. It strikes me as odd that so many people are in search of “New Testament Christianity,” but aren’t really interested in having New Testament Apostles, who have and exercise authority over the church.

361. Nathan November 24th, 2009 12:41 pm :

     TurretinFan (333),

     Thus far your attempt to rebut the claims of this article seems to be simply a restatement of sola scriptura as including a recognition of “the true but subordinate authority of the church and the regula fidei.” The article addresses this by explaining that the proponent of sola scriptura reserves the right to determine from the scriptures what is or is not the Church prior to submitting to its “true but subordinate authority.” This is the inconsistency of the sola scriptura proponent: submission to the interpretation of the church is wholly dependent upon an initial, overriding, non-submitting interpretation. If the identity of the Church cannot be discovered independently of scripture, one’s submission is always predicated upon one’s interpretation.

     All of this is explained in IV.A of the article, particularly under No Middle Ground: Solo Scriptura or Apostolic Succession. To say the church has authority begs the question: what is the church? If individuals have authority to define the church then the answer may be derived from scripture (or any other standard one might prefer, such as gnostic writings). But if they do not, the church has a self-understanding and identity which can be seen in history.

     If the church’s self-definition is, “one, holy, catholic, apostolic,” there are a few avenues for refuting this definition. You could assert the novelty of the construct (300 years later than the apostles (381), adding the word “one,” which was not asserted in 325), but you run up against the near-universal assent of Christendom to the first two ecumenical councils. This would mean that the church has been universally wrong in her self-understanding, for which reason many might be inclined to question the sanity of one who wants to be a part of such a group, even if one is only “reforming” it.

     You can claim that a particular group claiming to be the church is not one (witness the Great Schism, Nestorian schism, etc.), but those schisms have left groups that each claim to be one. You can claim that a particular group that claims to be the church is not holy, which could very well lead you to side with the Donatists. You can claim a lack of catholicity (getting back to the schisms here), however apostolic succession is undeniably catholic (universal) so that should help narrow the field in terms of which groups to evaluate. You could claim that a particular group is not apostolic by falsifying their claims to succession. Another route would be to claim that their ordained minsters somehow have invalid ordinations, but that also tends toward putting interpretation before submission.

     If no group matches the historic self-definition of the church, one could easily conclude that the church does not exist (but then, how would I join any church? I would be starting my own). Of course the easiest route is to simply redefine what is meant by “one, holy, catholic, apostolic,” such that it agrees with one’s interpretation of scripture. But either option puts us back at the beginning, where the one who gets to define the criteria for authority really is the authority themselves. The church has her own criteria (one, holy, catholic, apostolic) and we either accept that definition (and not some redefined meaning for it) or we make our own definition, and ourselves the ultimate authority.

362. Bryan Cross November 24th, 2009 1:38 pm :

     Joey, (re: #327)

     Individual Catholics do have access to the infallible teachings of the Magisterium. We recite them every Sunday when we recite the Creed. We can also read them in the Catechism, and in the Church’s official documents. We also hear them whenever our priest or bishop teaches about them in the homily during the Mass. The mistake is to assume that one can have access to an infallible teaching only if one receives it in an infallible manner.

     Similarly, it would be a mistake to treat the Church in a reductionistic way, just as it is a mistake to treat the human body in a reductionistic way, trying to understand the individual parts apart from their dynamic relation to all the other parts of the body. It is a mistake because it is an artificial abstraction that leaves out the dynamic, organic, and temporal aspect of its existence. The Church is a living Body, and for that reason, all her members have access of some sort to the Magisterium of the Church and to the teachings of the Magisterium, whether that access is mediated in various ways, or direct.

     You seem to be worried about an infinite hermeneutical regress. Your worry, if I’m understanding you, is that if we need an “infallible interpreter,” this will entail an infinite hermeneutical regress. But that conclusion does not follow. The Church’s need for an infallible interpreter of the deposit of faith (both written and unwritten) in order to preserve the unity of the faith and the unity of the Church, does not entail that we must choose between an infinite hermeneutical regress or the claim that each Catholic in the pew is an infallible interpreter. That would be a false dilemma. The need for an infallible interpreter does not entail that the individual’s own act of understanding of that infallible interpretation be infallible. The Church needs an infallible interpreter not to make the minds of each Catholic infallible, but to preserve the unity of the Church’s faith. The protection of the Church from error in the content of the faith does not entail that each mind of each Catholic be incapable of error, or incapable of misunderstanding the Church’s teaching. Having a single unified faith as proclaimed by an infallible Magisterium does not require that each individual Catholic become infallible. Every individual Catholic can (and does) remain fallible while benefiting from having an infallible Magisterium, to clarify the deposit of faith written and unwritten. The false assumption underlying your dilemma is that the individual must himself be infallible in order to benefit from having an infallible interpreter of Scripture. But in actuality, a fallible interpreter can, while remaining fallible, benefit from an infallible interpreter, just as he can, while remaining fallible, benefit from an infallible book.

     If having a teacher did not benefit learning, then we would send our children to schools in which there were no teachers, but only a book on every desk. But that’s absurd. Having teachers, in addition to having books, is helpful to students, in part because the teacher can answer questions about the content and proper interpretation of the books. Likewise, having an infallible interpreter of an infallible book benefits learning, even if the learner remains fallible. Just as the infallibility of Scripture gives us an advantage in knowing the truth, without requiring that we become infallible agents, so the presence of an infallible Magisterium gives us an advantage in knowing the truth, without requiring that we ourselves become infallible agents.

     The protestants don’t demand “infallibility” in order to have a “divinely authorized” teaching office with the purpose of instructing the proper understanding of divine revelation to the catechumen.

     Catholics agree. Even when the Magisterium’s teaching is not infallible, this teaching is authoritative, and we are required to assent to it. See comment #123 wherein I explained this in more detail.

     Though the scenario is better, it is also highly optimistic, in that it assumes that bishops and priests who are teaching contrary to the RC dogmas are corrected because “word gets around”. This is not the case at all in many instances.

     You’re applying an artificial abstraction, as though the starting point for consideration is separated dioceses, each under a separate bishop. Then, (given this artificial abstraction) the diocese learning that its bishop is not orthodox depends on either (1) at least one member of this diocese going to another (orthodox diocese) and recognizing that the doctrine is different, and returning to the diocese in question and spreading the word, or (2) a member of a different (and orthodox) diocese visiting the diocese in question and recognizing that the doctrine is different and spreading the word.

     But this kind of constant communication between dioceses has been the nature of the Church since day 1. People are constantly traveling from city to city, and letters and news constrantly travel across dioceses. This is how Pope Clement could know of the problem in Corinth toward the end of the first century. And the new media and technology have only hastened this continual internal communication.

     The reason your objection is an artificial abstraction is that there are already orthodox believers in every diocese, and they immediately recognize error and heresy as that which is contrary to what they have been taught and what the Church has always believed. This prompts inquiry on the part of such persons, and then [possibly] on the part of the Magisterium, as people seek to verify what the Church has definitively taught on this subject, and whether or not the bishop in question is teaching something contrary to it. In addition, when a dogma is newly promulgated by the Magisterium, it is published and thus accessible in principle to anyone in any diocese.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

363. Bryan Cross November 24th, 2009 2:31 pm :

     Joey, (re: #328)

     In reply to Frank Beckwith you wrote:

     Your comparison is not well structured. First, you are comparing a single “organization”, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church, with “Protestantism” in claiming that the Catholic Church is more unified in doctrine. I think this is a false comparison since “protestantism” is not a single “organization”.

     That’s essentially saying that we cannot compare the degree of unity of a unified thing with the degree of unity of a disunified thing, because the former is united and the latter is disunited. By claiming that the Catholic Church is a unified organization and Protestantism is not, you yourself, by that very claim, are comparing their unity.

     If we could not compare the unity of the Church Christ founded with the disunity of the sects, then unity as one of the four marks of the Church (i.e. one, holy, catholic and apostolic) would be worthless. Your objection seems equivalent to something like this: “Hey, you can’t compare the unity of the Catholic Church with the disunity of all the schisms of Protestantism; that’s not a well-structured comparison, because all the schisms of Protestantism are disunitited, while the Catholic Church is unified.” The Catholic response is: Exactly.

     In my opinion, the more accurate comparison is that of “Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church” against the “Roman Catholic Church”.

     Fine. Let’s see if “Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church” possesses all four marks of the Church. Is it catholic? That is, does it extend all over the world, consisting of people from every language, tribe, tongue and race? Or is it a provincial, local body? Obviously, it is the latter. So, it fails the test of catholicity. Therefore, we need not go on to the mark of apostolicity, and ask whether “Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church” is the Church that the incarnate Christ founded while He was on earth. Since it fails the test of catholicity, it cannot be the Church, because it lacks at least one of the four essential marks of the Church.

     In fact, there are more churches that are more united in their beliefs and stance than the RC Church.

     Christ only founded one Church. So there cannot be more than one true Church. Which of those other ‘churches’ is the one that Christ founded?

     What I mean is that, if we look at the individual members of a particular church and asked them their beliefs, we will get a more united stance. However, ask Roman Catholic members and you will get a more diverse stance or understanding of a particular doctrine. The point is that, the problem of disunity within the Roman Catholic Church can be seen outright when individual members are examined.

     You are glossing the distinction between the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the belief of an individual Catholic. If you gloss that distinction, you make the Church herself out to hold contrary doctrines or incompatible doctrines. But the Church has only one faith, and none of her doctrines is contrary to or incompatible with any other of her doctrines. Those individual Catholics who dissent from any dogma of the Church, are in [at least] material heresy. Only in Protestant ecclesiology is it necessarily the case that a property of a particular Christian is ipso facto a property of the Church.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

364. Bryan Cross November 24th, 2009 3:18 pm :

     TurretinFan (re: #340),

     You wrote:

     I have the impression that Mathison is claiming (and you’re adopting) the idea that the practitioners of the “solo” position actually advocate subjectivism and/or relativism (the distinction between those two is not so great, one suspects). Of course, other places, Mathison seems to suggest that subjectivism is simply an implication of giving the creeds no authority – perhaps an unrecognized implication.

     Mathison is claiming (if I may speak for him) that the solo position leads to subjectivism and relativism, not that adherents of solo consciously believe their position to be one of subjectivism or relativism. See our qualification in footnote 10 of the article.

     It would seem to be the case that if the solo position implies subjectivism and the solo position is defended by solo adherents, then either (1) the defense of the solo position is internally inconsistent or (2) the defense of the solo position involves the defense of subjectivism.

     I don’t think the solo position in itself logically entails subjectivism. (And I don’t think Mathison is claiming that it does.) Rather, I think Mathison’s claim (again, if may speak for him) is that the solo position in combination with the evidence of history implies (abductively) that the solo position leads to subjectivism and what we [Neal and I] called a “practical relativism.”

     The article does appear to be premised on the idea that the solo position at least implies subjectivism. So, I am not sure what you are trying to point out by noting that you don’t make the following formal premise: “Solo scriptura proponents would (or would not) defend subjectivism.” The question may not itself be a premise, but it is an important question in the determination of whether there is a principled difference between the two positions.

     That’s a reasonable point. In our article we did not make an argument that solo leads to subjectivism and/or to practical relativism. Nor does our argument depend on whether it does. However, in the Implications section (i.e. section VI) of our article, we point out that if solo has all the negative implications that Mathison describes, and if (as we argued in our article) there is no principled distinction between solo and sola with respect to the holder of ultimate interpretive authority, then it follows that sola likewise has these same implications, and that solo is an historical outworking (or more explicit expression) of sola. So if your position is that solo does not lead to all those nasty things that Mathison describes, then your response to our article might just be “ho-hum.” Fair enough. We didn’t set out to prove that Mathison was right about solo’s nasty results; we’re taking that as a given in our implications section, but it isn’t doing any work in the section of our article in which we argue that there is no principled distinction between solo and sola with respect to the holder of ultimate interpretive authority.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

365. mateo November 24th, 2009 4:06 pm :

     mateo: How do you explain the doctrinal chaos within Protestantism if there is no real need for an infallible interpretive authority?

     Joey Henry: I would assume that the question implicitly compares the “unity” of doctrine of within the Roman Catholic Church versus “Protestantism”. Again, I would gently submit that this comparison is not well structured. It seems that the question is portraying “Protestantism” as a single church or organization and then compare it to the Roman Catholic Church.

     I have said in my other posts that Protestants are divided into thousands upon thousands of contentious sects, and that these divided sects hold not one article of faith in common. So obviously I don’t believe that Protestantism is “a single church or organization.”

     Joey Henry: The first thing that I would submit in the discussion is to state the fact that “Protestantism” is not a single church or organization.

     Absolutely agree.

     Joey Henry: To accurately compare whether or not there is doctrinal chaos, one should look at a church or an organization not a “term” or “label” or “movement”. Then compare this with the Roman Catholic Church. Apples to apples comparison.

     Since this article is about sola scriptura / solo scriptura let us define a subset within Protestantism. This subset is the set of all Protestants denominations accept Luther’s doctrine of sola scriptura as a foundational belief of their faith. Let us call this subset a Protestant organization – the Organization of all Protestants that Accept Luther’s Doctrine of Sola Sciptura – OAPAL DOSS. Now we have a Protestant organization that we can talk about that is just as real as organization called the World Council of Churches.

     Joey Henry: Yet, if we look at the members of the RC church and ask them fundamental questions, we would soon discover that the views of these members are as diverse as this so called “Protestantism” organization.

     It is true that there are many nominal Catholics that reject one or more of the doctrines of the Catholic Church. But what of it? That doesn’t prove anything more than the fact that many nominal Catholics reject the teachings of their Church. A nominal Catholic (i.e. a Catholic in name only) that obstinately and knowingly rejects even one infallible doctrine of the faith is a heretic, and the penalty for heresy is latae sententiae excommunication from the Catholic Church:

     Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2089… “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same …
     Code of Canon Law, 1364 §1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication …

     Catholic World News: Excommunication can take two different forms. A ferendae sententiae excommunication comes after a formal canonical trial, and is often a matter of public record. A latae sententiae excommunication is incurred automatically, under the terms of the Code of Canon Law, as the punishment for certain offenses. In the case of a latae sententiae excommunication, there is no requirement for formal trial or announcement; in fact, the individual brings the punishment upon himself.

     Excommunication latae sententiae is the canonical punishment for offenses such as heresy, violation of the seal of confession, or procuring an abortion. Catholics guilty of these offenses are excommunicated automatically, even in cases when Church authorities are unaware of their offense.

     The Catholic Church has a teaching office within the Church ( i.e. the living Magisterium). Because the Catholic Church has received official teaching through the teaching office of the Church, it is possible to incur a penalty of latae sententiae excommunication for obstinate disbelief in official teaching. The Catholic Church has a unity of doctrine that is totally missing within OPAL DOSS, because OPAL DOSS has no teaching office that can bind the believer to particular interpretations of scripture.

     The Protestants that belong to OPAL DOSS claim that there is no need for a teaching office that can formally define infallible doctrine for the OPAL DOSS, but if that is true, how does one explain the doctrinal chaos that reigns within OAPAL DOSS?

366. T Ciatoris November 24th, 2009 5:19 pm :

     Paige,

     Thanks for your thoughtful and engaging response!

     I’m not actually sure if I agree that “most Protestants are completely rootless.” Some of them certainly are, but I think it might be more accurate to say that many or most do have roots, but that they don’t fully recognize or take on board the full significance of those roots. To egregiously mix metaphors: if you look inside the roots’ collars, the tags say “Catholic Tradition” and not only “Scripture.” That’s my contention.

     What’s more, I’m not convinced that you and I actually differ on the source of the dogmatic formulations we’ve been discussing. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you would (or should) agree that, if we’re talking about the fourth century, what you mean by “the Church in history” and what I mean by the (fourth-century) “Catholic Magisterium” are the same thing. I assume that you recognize the Church in the fourth century as the one that called herself the “Catholic Church.” And Magisterium, as you know, simply means “teaching office.” So I think we could actually agree about the identity of the source: the teaching office of the Church in the fourth century. Are we on the same page thus far?

     We do, however, disagree on two scores. First, I do believe that the current Magisterium stands in unbroken continuation from the fourth-century Magisterium, but that’s immaterial with respect to the points in question. Second, I think the ecumenical councils were infallible; you do not.

     As a follow-up to this: do you agree that the ecumenical councils do, in fact, constitute an formal principle of orthodoxy extrinsic to the Bible? It seems that you do, though that doesn’t, of course, necessitate your admission of their infallibility (at least not obviously). As you’ve indicated, if I’ve understood you aright, it does make you personally responsible as a Christian for your acceptance (or, as the case may be, rejection) of them.

     As to your proposed thought experiment, I’m not completely sure if I follow you. I think what you’re trying to get across is that the gradual nature of the actualization of a principle (such as sola Scriptura) says nothing about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the principle itself. Is that what you’re getting at? Let me know if it is, and I’ll respond. But my response would/will be too lengthy to spend a bunch of time on it now if I’ve gotten your point wrong.

     You also wrote:
     

     Kind of like the situation of the original doctrinal formulations in the first place, the selective rejection or letting-go of older formulations probably happened almost on a case-by-case basis. Maybe it is still happening.

     It seems to me that the case-by-case basis that you’ve (correctly, I think) identified for evaluating received doctrines would show that none of the reformers actually followed through with their stated governing principle of sola Scriptura. Do you think that’s the case? If I were a confessional Protestant, I wouldn’t want to admit this, because then I’d have to wonder very seriously where I could find the authentic practice of sola Scriptura, whether it’s ever actually been consistently actualized all the way down and all the way across (how long should the gradual process of winnowing doctrine take? How would we know when it’s complete?), and how I’d ever know if I’d found it. Like I said, I wouldn’t want to admit this if I were a Protestant—but, then, you’ve surprised me before, Paige! :-)

     And yes, I think the process you’ve proposed is still happening, in differing, fractured, uncontrolled, and uncontrollable directions, and I think this should be a major cause for concern among Protestants who wish to maintain “classical” orthodoxy (wherever and however they determine the boundaries thereof!).

     Now, in the carefree spirit of indulging in thought experiments, let’s try this one on for size:

     Let’s say that (1) I’m right that the actual, fully developed orthodox dogmatic articulation of the Blessed Trinity is not a perspicuous doctrine, and that (2) orthodox Protestants believe nonetheless that the Catholic Magisterium (in the fourth and fifth centuries in any event) got it right. If the Trinity isn’t a perspicuous doctrine (which means it’s not self-obviously confirmable from a simple, dogmatically unconditioned reading of Scripture), how is the orthodox Protestant surveying the “Church in history” to know when her Magisterium started getting it wrong? That is, if you can trust the hierarchical Church to get it right about the Trinity, which is probably the most metaphysically bold doctrine I’ve ever heard (unless it’s a close second to Ephesian-Chalcedonian incarnational Christology!), how would you know when to stop trusting her?

     The sharp edge of this thought experiment is this: do you agree with me that if (a) the orthodox dogma of the Trinity is necessary for sound Christian doctrine, and if (b) it is not perspicuous in Scripture, then (c) the principle of sola Scriptura cannot be a trustworthy or sufficient measure of sound Christian doctrine? Now, I’m assuming you do accept (a) but don’t accept (c). We don’t have to get into whether or not (b) is actually true at this point (though, as you know, I think it is). I just want to know if you agree with the reasoning linking (a), (b), and (c).

     Thanks again for the great conversation.

     in Christ,

     TC
     1 Cor 16:14

367. lojahw November 24th, 2009 5:23 pm :

     Bryan wrote:
     

     The Church needs an infallible interpreter not to make the minds of each Catholic infallible, but to preserve the unity of the Church’s faith. … Every individual Catholic can (and does) remain fallible while benefiting from having an infallible Magisterium, to clarify the deposit of faith written and unwritten.

     You talk about the benefits of your Magisterium being available to clarify the deposit of faith, but in what way is it uniquely necessary for the unity of the Church on the essential doctrines of the faith – those which have been believed everywhere, always, by all? Cannot other trained Church leaders do the same?

     Blessings.

368. Vincent Murphy November 24th, 2009 10:50 pm :

     I enjoyed reading this article as it is well written and covers the salient points from both sides of the argument. That being said, I feel I must draw your attention to a minor error in argument which unfortunately leads to a conclusion that is not fully supported by the evidence.

     The said error is only that the existence of a measure able to fulfil a desirable aim does not make that measure desirable; and likewise the existence of a measure able to fulfil a righteous and justified aim does not justify the measure or impute righteousness upon it.

     As an illustration, consider that if all hands were amputated there would be much fewer snatch thefts. The reduction in the number of snatch thefts is justified in itself given the effects thereof; but yet the measure, even if we assume it to be of great effectiveness, does not become desirable therein unless it first stands justifiable in its own right.

     Even if this error is allowed to stand unchallenged, and it is accepted that papal authority is justified because it is thought to bring about unity of the church in the body of Christ; it does not take account of the historical record of both sides. For, whilst the reformed churches have erred and strayed from the way of Christ like lost sheep, so too has the roman church. Whilst often the errors have been different, yet errors have still occured, and because of this we cannot clearly state that papal authority is able to bring about unity of the church in the body of Christ for Christ is incapable of error.

     I suggest that the question remains unsettled as to whether the fragmented reformed Churches are, overall, closer to the body of Christ than the Roman church for it is clear that neither can, with a clear conscience and in full knowledge of history, that they are as one in the body of Christ. Indeed, is it even a judgement that man is capable of making? If we cannot even show a clear benefit of one model over another, then surely we cannot fault those who fall within each group, but should instead consider them all as pilgrims in common under one God and one Lord?

     God caused the division of Israel into two nations; and he was God to both parts. As nations they stood individually, yet under God they remained as his one chosen people. In our common strife towards union in the body of Christ, we should remember this model and learn from each other, imitating every step which comes closer to scriptural practice and every step away from human invention and the idolatry which is the base tendency of every sinful man. I am convinced that the greatest barrier to unity is pride on both sides, an unwillingness to cast aside the traditions and doctrines created by man, doctrines which whilst possibly not contrary to holy scripture do not clearly derive themselves from it.

369. lojahw November 25th, 2009 12:12 am :

     TC wrote:

     if (a) the orthodox dogma of the Trinity is necessary for sound Christian doctrine, and if (b) it is not perspicuous in Scripture, then (c) the principle of sola Scriptura cannot be a trustworthy or sufficient measure of sound Christian doctrine?

     TC: a is true; b is refutable; therefore, c is false. Scripture provides clear antecedents for every tenet of the orthodox dogma. If you think you can identify what is not found in Scripture, please do so. I’d like the opportunity to respond (BTW – I once did a men’s Bible study on the Nicene Creed doctrine of the Trinity and filled 18 pages of Scripture passages covering every element).

     Blessings.

370. Paige Britton November 25th, 2009 12:34 am :

     TC-
     Well, no, you’re right, I don’t want to give away the entire farm. Thanks for the heads-up. I was speculating about what the shift must have been like for the earliest Reformers, psychologically speaking – but I really haven’t the depth of historical knowledge to inform my further speculation about how quickly they got “sola Scriptura” up and running, not to mention reevaluating Catholic doctrines one by one. So let’s let that idea quietly die. (Still, they couldn’t have reevaluated everything in a week! Just thinking pragmatically.)

     Yep, the grip on orthodoxy is lax among Protestants, and there is lots of instructional work to be done. This is the kind of work I’m involved in, through writing and teaching. (You can see I certainly have a lot to learn myself!)

     To your thought experiment:

     Numbers first: I wonder, how complex does a non-perspicuous doctrine have to be before it is impossible to confirm that it is Scripturally supported, and one must resort to the assumption that the Magisterium got it right because the Magisterium interprets infallibly? The exquisitely precise language of the Trinitarian & hypostatic union statements are the products of brilliant men engaging with the biblical text with particular heresies in their faces, and crafting such careful confessions may be unrepeatable events. But I don’t think this precludes later Christians (well, Protestants, anyway) weighing and evaluating the statements against what is given in Scripture. If the Reformers believed (however wrongly) that they were allowed (& obligated!) to do this sort of weighing and evaluating of church teaching, then by this process they would have (gasp) judged the Church and maybe even at certain points of doctrine found her wanting, with regard to conformity to Scripture. Which is apparently what happened. If they were right about the Magisterium’s authority, then they were being very brave – and doing the only thing they could have done; if they were wrong, they were being terribly foolish, in the biblical sense of the term.

     Letters next: Bear with me while I sort this out. You are saying that a) the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is necessary, and b) it is not “self-obviously confirmable from a simple, dogmatically unconditioned reading of Scripture,” and so therefore c) sola scriptura bites the dust and the infallible interpretive Magisterium is the only option available?

     Does this mean that you believe nobody could have come up with the doctrinal formulation of the Trinity unless they had an inside track, this infallible interpretive charism (which is yet not the same as inspiration)? If so, what role did the Scriptures play in the formulation of the doctrine? In what sense could we then call the doctrine “scriptural,” if it were only available to a limited body of individuals who alone could perceive it in the text? (i.e., did the meaning exist in the text already, or did it only exist when the Magisterium read it with the help of the Holy Spirit?)

     I guess I would grant you your a-b-c movement if it were worded like this: a) the doctrine is necessary; b) it is not get-at-able by human means in the text of Scripture; c) sola scriptura, which relies on human intellectual activity in the absence of a Magisterium, is an insufficient judge of the doctrine, because supernatural help is needed in order to get to it. (I think your definition of “non-perspicuity” still leaves too much room for the possibility of success via human efforts, since somebody could still make a COMPLEX study of the Scripture.)

     If supernatural assistance (beyond the Holy Spirit indwelling the ordinary believer) is NOT needed in order to perceive this doctrine in Scripture, then the thoughtful Protestant guesses right, that sola scriptura is a sufficient judge of the doctrine – even if it requires “complex” study, rather than a simple read, to accomplish this evaluation.

     I guess it all depends on what God intended the Scriptures to communicate to ordinary believers.

     Hey, you ask challenging things. I’m sure I haven’t done your questions justice. I hope you are not just amusing yourself making a rookie Protestant apologist jump through hoops.
     pax!
     pb

371. Andrew Preslar November 25th, 2009 1:33 am :

     Some comments have been made to the effect that the Catholic Church is not much better off than the Protestant denominations vis unity. I can understand why people would think this. Fr. Dwight Longenecker has recently written a blog post which addresses the phenomenon of Catholic disunity in the wake of modernism (i.e., creepy humanism posing as the Christian religion), by way of comparison to the effects of modernism in the Anglican Communion. Thought you all might enjoy this.

372. Bryan Cross November 25th, 2009 2:27 am :

     lojahw, (re: #367)

     You wrote:

     You talk about the benefits of your Magisterium being available to clarify the deposit of faith, but in what way is it uniquely necessary for the unity of the Church on the essential doctrines of the faith – those which have been believed everywhere, always, by all? Cannot other trained Church leaders do the same?

     In order make use of the Vincentian canon, we first need to know the boundaries of the Church; otherwise we will mistakenly include the beliefs of heretics and schismatics, because we will include them among the ‘all’ in the “believed everywhere, always, by all.” And if we set the boundaries of the Church simply by a set of doctrines, we will have just reasoned in a circle, and then we can simply do away with the Vincentian canon by way of the principle of parsimony. In other words, there is no need to figure out “the true doctrine” by picking out the people who hold “the true doctrine”. That approach would be question-begging, since it would require already knowing the true doctrine. That is why the Vincentian canon requires a sacramental and hierarchical way of determining the bounds of the Church. But that is something Protestantism does not have, because of its denial of Holy Orders. And that is one reason why the Vincentian canon is not an option for Protestantism, in anything other than an ad hoc manner. Another reason why the Vincentian canon is not an option for Protestantism (as such) is that ecclesial deism is intrinsic to Protestantism (as such), as I’ve argued elsewhere.

     Over the past 2000 years, many a “trained Church leader” has fallen into heresy and schism. So, no, merely being a “trained church leader” is not sufficient to ensure unity on essential doctrines. Heretics and schismatics are often trained in many respects, as the history of the Church shows. Tertullian, for example, was a very learned man, but fell into heresy. Origen was a highly trained biblical scholar, but he fell into certain errors. Orthodoxy is not merely a matter of intelligence or logic or exegetical rules. We rightly understand the Scriptures through the same Spirit by which they were inspired. And the Spirit ordinarily operates through the means Christ has established in His Church, i.e. the true shepherds who enter their vocation through the sheep-gate of the Church. If we wish to have the mind of the Spirit, we must find the Church, and then find the mind of the Church, and subordinate ourselves to the Spirit in the Church. But if we define ‘Church’ according to those who agree with our own interpretation of Scripture, we are presuming that the Spirit of the Church just is our own understanding of Scripture. A ‘Church’ defined by its agreement with our interpretation cannot transform us; it is made in the image of our own interpretation, and insofar as it departs from that it ceases to be ‘Church’. The only Church that can transform us is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church not made by mere men in the image of mere man, but founded by the God-man and made alive by His divine Spirit.

     A primary error in the philosophy underlying Protestantism and arising more fully in the Enlightenment is the notion that we can be saved by science, in this case by the science of exegesis and the historico-critical method. Christ’s method, by contrast, is to lead His sheep through the shepherds that He has appointed and authorized, not through those who set themselves up as teachers by way of their training and education or charisma and engaging speech. That’s why it is critical that we find the true shepherds, not by picking out those persons who teach the Bible according to our interpretation, but by locating those persons having the divine authorization from the Apostles, and then conforming our understanding of the Bible to their teaching and interpretation.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

373. Michael Liccione November 25th, 2009 3:11 am :

     You talk about the benefits of your Magisterium being available to clarify the deposit of faith, but in what way is it uniquely necessary for the unity of the Church on the essential doctrines of the faith – those which have been believed everywhere, always, by all?

     You have invoked what’s known as “the Vincentian Canon.” But that cannot possibly suffice for the purpose you seem to have in mind. See my post here. To apply the Canon as St. Vincent intended, one needs to identify the true referent of the phrase ‘the Catholic Church’, which includes her Magisterium.

     BTW, I’m impressed with the number of comments in this thread. The record for comments on a post of mine is 336, and you guys are already well past that. I salute you!

374. Vincent Murphy November 25th, 2009 3:34 am :

     Bryan;

     Does not the entire weight of your argument rest upon the question of whether those you identify as apostolic successors have, in the past, erred from good doctrine? If one is to set them up as the proper authority for interpreting scripture as being instituted and guided by Christ in doing so, then they must be free from error both now and in the past. If they have erred then it shows they can err, and if they can err, then it shows that their interpretation cannot be made a requirement of faith but only an interpretation made by a flawed man just as is an interpretation by a reformed theologian.

     So I ask this question of you; can you, without qualification, state that at no time in the documented history of papal authority and the apostolic succession has such authority erred in its interpretation of scripture, whether in small or weighty degree?

     Vincent

375. lojahw November 25th, 2009 3:48 am :

     Upon rereading the article, I think the ancients have something to say to both sides.

     No Middle Ground: Solo Scriptura or Apostolic Succession

     The writings of the early church fathers suggest that the above is a false dilemma. The third option is to affirm that 1) the apostolic church is the one that teaches what the apostles taught (irrespective of apostolic succession), which entails the Gospel, as Mathison, says, but also 2) recognizes objective references of the Gospel both in Scripture and in the historical witness of the Church.

     As to the first point, Tertullian wrote ca. AD 200:

     “To this test [a pre-Nicene statement of orthodox Trinitarian faith], therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine.” (Prescription Against Heretics, 32).

     As to the second point, St. Vincent of Lerins wrote ca. AD 440:

     Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.” (Commonitory, 2.6)

     And, regarding the essential doctrines of the faith: “Yet in the investigation of this ancient consent of the holy Fathers we are to bestow our pains not on every minor question of the Divine Law, but only, at all events especially, where the Rule of Faith is concerned…” (Commonitory, 28)

     And, further: “But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another’s…” (Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, 23).

     Hence, the Church can be recognized by objectively testing that its teaching agrees with what the Apostles taught, particularly in what the ancients called the regula fidei. This test requires agreement with a) the Apostles’ teaching as recorded in Scripture and 2) “that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all” orthodox Christians in the historic Church. Thus apostolic succession is not necessary, and solo scriptura is avoided by providing an objective standard to 2 Peter 1:20-21:

     “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

     Blessings.

376. JoeyHenry November 25th, 2009 8:38 am :

     Dear Tim,

     You didn’t say those words explicitly, and it’s not an argument to be made…

     Ok. Thanks for clarifying. But, I am also unable to connect the dots where I implicitly made the argument (supposedly I made) from what I wrote.

     Suppose that the Reformers had been right and Scripture actually was perspicuous and that, as Luther thought, once Scripture was unleashed to the people, they’d all believe the same thing. Then once they broke from Rome, they would be one unified body in opposition to the Roman church. Then we would be comparing apples to apples if we looked at the two groups.

     It’s an interesting imagination. People breaking from Rome does not necessarily entail that those people are immediately considered “one organization”. I think the comparison will have the strength of logic if we compare “organization” to “organization”.

     But you say we can’t compare Rome to Protestantism because it’s unfair. But it’s unfair because of Protestantism’s inherent weakness of constant fragmentation and schism.

     “Unfair” is an emotionally laden word. But regardless of how I feel about the argument you made, I don’t find the comparison compelling because it’s not well structured. I’ve laid out the reasons why I said this. I’ll let the readers decide.

377. Bryan Cross November 25th, 2009 9:08 am :

     Vincent, (re: #374)

     I’ll assume you are familiar with the Church’s doctrine of infallibility. If you are not familiar with it, you could read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on it here, and then read Lumen Gentium 25. It might also be helpful to read my article titled “Eccleisal Deism.”

     When you speak of “erring from good doctrine”, you presume some standard by which we know what is interpretive error and what is not interpretive error. So in order to investigate questions of error, we would first have to agree on the standard by which error is determined.

     As for setting up the successors as the proper authority, I’m not “setting them up” as the proper authority. That they are the proper authority was the position of the early Church. The Apostles are the ones who set up their successors as the proper authority.

     If they have erred then it shows they can err, and if they can err, then it shows that their interpretation cannot be made a requirement of faith but only an interpretation made by a flawed man just as is an interpretation by a reformed theologian.

     Correct. I should point out that the gift of infallibility is not the same as impeccability, nor does it apply to individual men in an unqualified way. It is a divine gift to the Church as the Body of Christ, in her Magisterial office, through the operation of the Holy Spirit.

     So I ask this question of you; can you, without qualification, state that at no time in the documented history of papal authority and the apostolic succession has such authority erred in its interpretation of scripture, whether in small or weighty degree?

     Notice your “without qualification”. The doctrine itself is qualified, so my answer to your question has to be qualified. The doctrine is that the Magisterium is infallible in its definitive teaching regarding faith and morals. So throughout the history of the Church, all the doctrines that have been taught definitively by the Magisterium, in matters of faith or morals, have been divinely protected from error.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

378. JoeyHenry November 25th, 2009 9:35 am :

     Dear Bryan,

     [QUOTE] The mistake is to assume that one can have access to an infallible teaching only if one receives it in an infallible manner. [/QUOTE]

     I haven’t made that assumption. I am, however, following the argument that an infinite interpretational regress would not be a necessity because one could ask the infallible interpreter a “yes” or “no” answerable question. This would entail the condition that one has to be in contact with the infallible interpreter in order to do so and thereby stop the regress.

     [QUOTE] Similarly, it would be a mistake to treat the Church in a reductionistic way, just as it is a mistake to treat the human body in a reductionistic way, trying to understand the individual parts apart from their dynamic relation to all the other parts of the body. [/QUOTE]

     I am not sure where I have treated the RC Church in a reductionistic fashion in my responses. In fact, I have pointed out the “reality” of the dynamics in any organization. I have pointed out that the reality of the “dynamics” in any organization such that it doesn’t always caught and correct an error made by its adherents contrary to the argument made that “word will get around” to arrest such errors.

     [QUOTE] You seem to be worried about an infinite hermeneutical regress. Your worry, if I’m understanding you, is that if we need an “infallible interpreter,” this will entail an infinite hermeneutical regress. But that conclusion does not follow… The false assumption underlying your dilemma is that the individual must himself be infallible in order to benefit from having an infallible interpreter of Scripture. But in actuality, a fallible interpreter can, while remaining fallible, benefit from an infallible interpreter, just as he can, while remaining fallible, benefit from an infallible book. [/QUOTE]

     I am not “worried” about infinite hermeneutical regress. I am simply making the argument that the demand for an “infallible interpreter” will have no real advantage simply because the individual remains “fallible” in his understanding of the “infallible interpretation”. I have simply asked myself, what advantage does a Roman Catholic have in addition to reading the Bible (which is already infallible) and having all the “infallible interpretations” (creeds, dogmas, bulls, canon law, his own fallible priests and bishops etc.) if, by his own admission, he remains as fallible as the guy next door in interpreting these things? What kind of certainty does a Roman Catholic have in correctly interpreting these “infallible interpretations” if he remains fallible as that guy next door?

     I have heard it said many times that Protestants don’t have the certainty of knowing the truth because they don’t have the “infallible guide” from Rome who makes the “infallible interpretation”. The Protestant’s interpretation remains fallible and uncertain. But once a person gets down that road of having an infallible interpreter, has that person really escaped the problem being fallible still in interpreting the interpretation of his chosen “infallible interpreter”?

     [QUOTE] If having a teacher did not benefit learning, then we would send our children to schools in which there were no teachers, but only a book on every desk. But that’s absurd. Having teachers, in addition to having books, is helpful to students, in part because the teacher can answer questions about the content and proper interpretation of the books. [/QUOTE]

     First, teachers are not infallible. Second, I have not argued that we can’t benefit from teachers. What I argued is that teachers need not be infallible in order to have a correct understanding of the book.

     [QUOTE] The reason your objection is an artificial abstraction is that there are already orthodox believers in every diocese, and they immediately recognize error and heresy as that which is contrary to what they have been taught and what the Church has always believed. This prompts inquiry on the part of such persons, and then [possibly] on the part of the Magisterium, as people seek to verify what the Church has definitively taught on this subject, and whether or not the bishop in question is teaching something contrary to it. In addition, when a dogma is newly promulgated by the Magisterium, it is published and thus accessible in principle to anyone in any diocese. [/QUOTE]

     This is very optimistic and simplistic of the real situation. I think the real “artificial abstraction” is when you believe that, “there are already orthodox believers in every diocese, and they immediately recognize error and heresy as that which is contrary to what they have taught and what the Church has always believed.” I hope this is the real scenario, though.

379. Bryan Cross November 25th, 2009 9:37 am :

     lojahw (re: #375),

     Here are Tertullian’s words immediately preceding the quotation you provided:

     But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs ] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,— a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed.

     How does Tertullian propose to show that the doctrine of these heretics is contrary to that of the Apostles? He does so with two tests, and these two tests are related to each other. One necessarily comes before the other, and depends on the other. First, he uses the test of apostolic succession. “Let them produce the original records of their churches, let them unfold the roll of their bishops ….”. That’s the first test. For Tertullian, the second test depends on the first test. The second test is comparing whether the ‘faith’ proposed by the heretics agrees with the doctrine held by the Apostles. How is this second test to be conducted? To determine whether the doctrine of the heretics agrees with the doctrine of the Apostles Tertullian doesn’t say, “Look at the Scriptures.” He says that the ‘faith’ of the heretics must be compared to the faith of the churches which are in agreement with the churches founded by the Apostles. So the apostolic churches (the ones founded by the Apostles and maintaining the succession from the Apostles) are still the standard for what is the Apostolic faith. For Tertullian, how do we know which churches have the Apostolic faith? By comparing their doctrine to that of the apostolic churches, i.e. the ones having the succession from the Apostles. So the second test (i.e. comparing the faith of the heretics to that of the Apostles) depends on the first test (i.e. apostolic succession). For Tertullian the succession of men in the apostolic churches is what determines the standard for what is the apostolic doctrine, against which to compare the doctrine of these gnostic heretics. The material succession from the Apostles is that by which we locate and identify the Apostles doctrine. That’s always the way Catholics have understood apostolicity (as one of the four marks of the Church). It was never “apostolic doctrine” alone; it was Apostolic doctrine as known through the authorized succession from the Apostles.

     As for the quotations from St. Vincent, those are fully in agreement with (and supportive of) the Catholic faith and the Catholic Church.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

380. JoeyHenry November 25th, 2009 10:43 am :

     Dear Bryan,

     From your other response:

     [QUOTE] That’s essentially saying that we cannot compare the degree of unity of a unified thing with the degree of unity of a disunified thing, because the former is united and the latter is disunited. By claiming that the Catholic Church is a unified organization and Protestantism is not, you yourself, by that very claim, are comparing their unity. [/QUOTE]

     I think this is a misunderstanding of my intent to clarify the comparison. “Protestantism” is a label of a movement. It is not a church or an organization. Thus, it is not logical to compare an “organization” such with a “non-organization”.

     [QUOTE] Fine. Let’s see if “Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church” possesses all four marks of the Church. Is it catholic? That is, does it extend all over the world, consisting of people from every language, tribe, tongue and race? Or is it a provincial, local body? Obviously, it is the latter. So, it fails the test of catholicity. Therefore, we need not go on to the mark of apostolicity, and ask whether “Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church” is the Church that the incarnate Christ founded while He was on earth. Since it fails the test of catholicity, it cannot be the Church, because it lacks at least one of the four essential marks of the Church. [/QUOTE]

     The context of the comparison is that of “unity”. From the original response of Dr. Beckwith, it seems that he is implying that Roman Catholic Church is “united” versus “Protestantism”. I pointed out that this is not a well structured comparison. I provided an example. You may choose to put any other “church organization” there – Mormons, JWs, Baptists, Presbyterian, Orthodox, etc. Just take note the context is “unity”. I am asking the question whether the Roman Catholic Church has an advantage of “unity” compared to any other “church organization”? I am not pursuing the question on whether or not the “Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church” extends all over the world.

     [QUOTE] Christ only founded one Church. So there cannot be more than one true Church. Which of those other ‘churches’ is the one that Christ founded? [/QUOTE]

     True. Christ founded one Church. So I ask the question, what is the Church? From what I’ve read in Acts 20:28, the Church of God is bought by Christ’s own blood. From that, it is not exclusively my organization or your organization which is the Church that Christ founded. Unless, of course you want to argue that it is the members of your organization alone that Christ bought by his own blood.

     [QUOTE] You are glossing the distinction between the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the belief of an individual Catholic. If you gloss that distinction, you make the Church herself out to hold contrary doctrines or incompatible doctrines. But the Church has only one faith, and none of her doctrines is contrary to or incompatible with any other of her doctrines. Those individual Catholics who dissent from any dogma of the Church, are in [at least] material heresy. [/QUOTE]

     I am pursuing the argument that since the Roman Catholic Church has only one faith or confession so she is united than that of “Protestantism”. This what I wrote to Mateo:

     The question above assumes that the Roman Catholic Church is “united”? In what sense is the RC Church “united”? If by “united” we mean to say that the RC Church have a single confession of faith, then pick another church and try to see whether or not that church have conflicting confessions of faith.

     Often times, the comparison that is utilized is that members of this so called “Protestantism” (if there is such an organization where there is none) are not agreeing with each other therefore, the RC church is more united than “Protestantism”. Yet, if we look at the members of the RC church and ask them fundamental questions, we would soon discover that the views of these members are as diverse as the members of this so called “Protestantism” organization.

     Think about it. Thanks for the opportunity of having my responses posted. This will be my last response on this entry.

381. Tim A. Troutman November 25th, 2009 12:11 pm :

     Joey,

     Conversation is very difficult when one doesn’t read or process the other’s comments carefully. You said: “I am also unable to connect the dots where I implicitly made the argument ” after just quoting me saying “it’s not an argument.”

     We cannot compare the Roman Church to the Protestant sects because the former is the true, united, Catholic Church and the latter is a group of heretical communities that have broken off and splintered from the true Church which Christ founded. You point out that it is unfair to compare the unity of the Catholic Church to the disunity of the various Protestant sects. I agree in some sense that the two are not comparable. But if the claims of the Catholic Church are true, this is exactly the sort of lack of comparability that we would expect to see (as Bryan mentioned above). On the contrary, if the claims of Protestantism were true, we might well expect there to be a much greater degree of unity within Protestantism (as I mentioned). Namely, we might have expected its original founders not to have such strong disagreements on things so fundamental to the faith like the Eucharist and baptism.

     Now you haven’t actually interacted with what I said. My point is clear and if you want to show the contrary, that Protestantism’s disunity is a good thing and Rome’s unity is a bad thing, then you’re welcome to try. I didn’t lay my points out in a hard syllogism but if you want I can:

     1. Disunity is a weakness.
     2. Unity is a strength.
     3. Protestantism has disunity.
     4. Catholicism has unity.
     5. We cannot compare the Catholic Church with the set of various Protestant communities because of their disunity.
     6. It is because of Protestantism’s inherent weakness that it cannot be compared to the Catholic Church.
     7. When two things cannot be compared because one possesses a quality that is objectively better than the other, the lack of comparability is itself a testimony of the vast superiority of the one thing to the other. e.g. when one thing is infinite and the other finite. The lack of comparability of the two speaks of the superiority of the one thing at least in respect of the principle by which it excels the other to the point of preventing comparison.
     8. The lack of comparability between Catholicism and Protestantism, since it is due to a weakness in Protestantism, and is evidence of the superiority of the Catholic position.

     Joey, btw use ‘blockquote’ instead of ‘quote’ and use greater than less than signs instead of brackets.

382. Tim A. Troutman November 25th, 2009 12:27 pm :

     Joey,

     I am asking the question whether the Roman Catholic Church has an advantage of “unity” compared to any other “church organization”?

     I think if you’ll slow down and think about some of these things, the answers will become apparent. The Catholic Church, if viewed as a set of her members, has less unity than probably any particular Protestant community. That is irrelevant for a couple reasons. 1. The doctrinal unity of the Catholic Church is not the collective opinion of all her members. 2. It is due to her other strength – Catholicity and her size that she has any ‘disadvantage’ at all regarding that part.

     So we answer that the unity of Catholic doctrine is the unity of the singular voice (than which no greater unity can be conceived) of the magisterium and the peoples of the Catholic Church conforming to that truth. You are using a Protestant ecclesiology and a Protestant assumption of unity by which to judge the Catholic Church. Specifically, Protestants think that unity is a sort of democratic average such that if we all believe pretty close to the same thing, then we are united. But Catholics believe in sacramental unity wherein we are united under the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, sharing at one table, and believing one faith which was handed on to us by the apostles.

     On your definition of unity, the members of Called to Communion are more united than the Catholic Church. But do you see why this is irrelevant to the question? (Not just because we’re not a church). But suppose we, like many Protestants actually have, decided to call ourselves a church and we elected a preacher, a few of us became elders, and we started preaching the word faithfully. We would be more united than the Catholic Church in the way that I take you to mean. But we wouldn’t be Catholic. We wouldn’t consist of 1.x billion people from all over the world and from every tongue and race. That is, a small group of white American males from Reformed backgrounds, mostly Thomists, similar age range, comparable economic structure, who have spent a lot of time interacting with each other, would naturally have a greater degree of unity than the entirety of the Christian Church which spans the globe.

383. T Ciatoris November 25th, 2009 12:52 pm :

     lojahw,

     Responding to a portion of #366, you wrote:
     

     a is true; b is refutable; therefore, c is false. Scripture provides clear antecedents for every tenet of the orthodox dogma. If you think you can identify what is not found in Scripture, please do so. I’d like the opportunity to respond (BTW – I once did a men’s Bible study on the Nicene Creed doctrine of the Trinity and filled 18 pages of Scripture passages covering every element).

     The question I explicitly asked about (a), (b), and (c) was whether Paige agreed with the logic of what I wrote. I explicitly noted that I knew she would accept (a) and reject (c). I assumed she’d reject (b), and I already knew that you did, but I suggested that we didn’t need to actually get into (b) at this point. So I’m tempted to disregard your comment since it ignores the specific context of the conversation and the stage of its progress. I don’t mind you answering, I just wish you’d answer the question I actually asked. Nevertheless, I’ll take your bait—at least in a qualified sense.

     As I’ve said over and over and over, I absolutely agree with you that Scripture is materially sufficient for the dogmas expressed in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. The challenge you issue above presumes that I think there are items there which are “not found in Scripture.” I don’t, and the fact that you presume that I do indicates that you’ve ignored the careful distinctions I’ve attempted to make between formal and material sufficiency. I’ve made them several times to you already, and I’m not going to repeat them all here. So I’m really not too sure how to move forward with you on this. How do you plan to “prove” perspicuity to someone (like me) who knows the prooftexts, accepts them in a Nicene fashion, has read the fourth-century literature leading up to and following the Council of Nicaea, and does not agree that Scripture is “perspicuous” on this question? Now I’m asking you for a diagnosis: am I (a) below normal intelligence and thus immune to perspicuity, (b) obstinately and inexplicably refusing to admit the obvious clarity of texts about whose meaning you and I actually agree, or, well, what?

     I’m sure your 18-page document is excellent, but frankly, unless you’ve been completely original on some point, I’m pretty confident I’ve seen it all before. I’m even tempted to flatter myself that I know Scripture well enough to assemble a similar document. But my contention is that all such a document demonstrates is that Scripture is materially sufficient to produce the Nicene Creed. I don’t think it shows formal sufficiency, because I think there exists a plausible Arian reading of each of those passages (recognizing, once again, that there exist different degrees of plausibility when it comes to interpreting a text). Even if you or I don’t happen to find the Arian reading plausible, it’s clear that they Arians did, in good conscience, find it so.

     Let me give you two examples of what I’m talking about, both of which I’ve already alluded to in previous comments:

     1. John 1:1-3: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” You quoted this passage in an earlier comment as if it were a knock-down, drag-out prooftext against Arianism. I’m arguing that you only think so because your reading is (thankfully!) dogmatically conditioned by the Nicene faith you’ve received from Sacred Tradition. But let’s think for a moment: does this text actually necessitate the interpretive conclusion that the Word is, not only divine, but co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial with the Father? Is that the only reasonable reading? With regard to co-equality and consubstantiality, I’m sure you know that the Greek literally says “the Word was with the God, and the Word was God [or even, a God].” An Arian totally agrees that the Word is divine, but he would link the distinction between “the God” and “[a] God” in John 1:1 with John 14:28 (“the Father is greater than I”), as well as other texts, and say that the John 1:1 distinction is doing ontological work. What about co-eternity? How do you know what “In the beginning” means? Nicene faith demands that we interpret this as “from eternity,” but that’s by no means obvious (do you think that’s what it means in Gen 1:1, to which John 1:1 is clearly alluding?). It only seems obvious because we’ve received the Nicene faith. The Arians did not think their interpretation of Prov 8:22 “overrode” this “clear” passage in John 1:1-3. They thought the Nicenes had misinterpreted John 1:1-3.

     2. John 10:30: “I and the Father are one”; and John 14:28: “the Father is greater than I.” How do you know which of these passages is the “clear” passage in light of which the “less clear” one should be interpreted? Because the (formally extra-biblical but not unbiblical) Rule of Faith tells you. But if I were an Arian, I’d say, “Look, in John 17:20 Jesus prays that His followers might be one ‘even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee.’ So, come on you silly Nicenes, the “unity” of Father and Son referred to in John 10:30, if it’s imitable by Jesus’ followers, must be a moral unity brought about by the perfect subordination and subjection of the Son to the Father whose will He does. It can’t be a natural unity.” That’s how an Arian, I take it, would reconcile the two passages. And it’s plausible. But it’s heretical, because, without presuming to exhaust their meaning, the Council of Nicaea gives us orthodox parameters (not, in this case, an extrinsic material principle) for reading these passages. And the Arian reading falls outside these formal boundaries. You and I agree that “I and the Father are one” refers to the Divine Nature of the immanent Trinity and that “the Father is greater than I” refers to the “form of a servant” (Phil 2:7) assumed at the Incarnation, because Sacred Tradition requires us to interpret them so. But that doesn’t make the Arian’s reading implausible when he applies John 10:30 to the Father and the Son’s moral unity and John 14:28 to the very being of the Word.

     Now, we could keep this up, with you sending me anti-Arian prooftexts and me trying to give an Arian reading. But I’m not inclined to pursue that route, because I’m not an Arian and I don’t want to play one on the internet. But the fact that I’m not be an Arian and that I assert that Arianism is a heresy, does not, for me anyway, mean that I have to accuse Arians of not having read the whole Bible, nor of being stupid, nor of being especially depraved. It just means that I accuse them of not submitting to the Church’s Magisterium when it set parameters for interpreting Scripture.

     in Christ,

     TC
     1 Cor 16:14

384. Michael Liccione November 25th, 2009 2:13 pm :

     The fundamental question that’s been reached at this point in the thread may be put thus: What are the authoritative criteria by which the inquirer-in-faith can identify the authentic community of faith, aka “the Church,” for the sake of knowing her faith as that which has been divinely revealed, and hence as an object of divine faith rather than just human opinion?

     Bryan’s article shows that if “the Church” is to be identified simply as that body of people, spread through time and space, who have reached and confess the “correct” interpretation of Scripture, then the authoritative criteria for identifying “the Church” as the relevant, authentic community of faith lie ultimately with the inquirer himself. For it is ultimately up to him, and him alone, to determine for himself whether this-or-that particular church or group of scholars has reached and confesses the “correct” interpretation of Scripture. But such authority is in fact no authority at all, and renders even the authority of Scripture otiose. To be sure, such an inquirer can self-consistently say that Scripture alone is the sole “infallible” authority; but without identifying an infallible interpreter, he cannot self-consistently present his account of what Scripture means as anything more than the opinion held by himself and those who happen to agree with him, even if that group is rather large. That is not what it means to be “the Church” Christ founded, and that is not what it means to have divine faith.

     The alternative answer to the question I started with is roughly the one that Bryan and his colleagues expound and defend on this blog. I say “roughly” because that answer does not address, and so far has not been meant to address, the question whether the Roman or the Orthodox communion is “the” one, universal Church of apostolic succession, and thus the true Body of Christ on earth, as opposed to merely being a collection of churches that severally enjoy apostolic succession, but which might lack full unity with said Body. The means of answering that question go beyond the concerns of this thread, and I shall not address them. The basic point is that, without appeal to what is definitively and consistently taught by “the” Church with clear apostolic succession, no interpretation of Scripture can be presented as anything more than opinion. Hence Protestantism as such, as distinct from the good will and sincerity of some individual Protestants, is incapable of transmitting and presenting the deposit of faith as an object of divine faith rather than of human opinion.

385. Bryan Cross November 25th, 2009 3:02 pm :

     Joey (re: #378)

     You wrote:

     I am, however, following the argument that an infinite interpretational regress would not be a necessity because one could ask the infallible interpreter a “yes” or “no” answerable question.

     Take the following conditional as true: If P then Q. Now, if P is false, does it follow that Q is false? No. That would be the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Nothing follows from the falsity of the antecedent. So likewise, just because the possibility of asking an infallible interpreter a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question would prevent an infinite hermeneutical regress, it does not follow that without such an infallible interpreter, there would be an infinite hermeneutical regress. To see that, let P be the possibility of asking an infallible interpreter a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question, and let Q be the avoidance of an infinite hermeneutical regress. Just because “If P then Q” is true, it does not follow that “If not P then not Q” is true.

     I have pointed out that the reality of the “dynamics” in any organization such that it doesn’t always caught and correct an error made by its adherents contrary to the argument made that “word will get around” to arrest such errors.

     The Church, however, is not a natural organization; it is a divine society, that is, a supernatural society vivified by the Holy Spirit. In that respect it transcends the limitations of a natural society.

     The context of the comparison is that of “unity”. From the original response of Dr. Beckwith, it seems that he is implying that Roman Catholic Church is “united” versus “Protestantism”. I pointed out that this is not a well structured comparison. I provided an example. You may choose to put any other “church organization” there – Mormons, JWs, Baptists, Presbyterian, Orthodox, etc. Just take note the context is “unity”. I am asking the question whether the Roman Catholic Church has an advantage of “unity” compared to any other “church organization”? I am not pursuing the question on whether or not the “Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church” extends all over the world.

     When we are applying the four marks of the Church, we are doing so to determine where is the true Church. For that reason, the two things being compared with respect to unity must both be candidates for “the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.” So, if you do not think that ‘Protestantism’ is the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church”, and instead you wish to propose that the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” is “Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church,” and claim that the latter has more unity than the Catholic Church in communion with the Pope, then you have to be prepared to defend the claim that the “Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church” is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that Christ founded, and that all other Protestants are not members of Christ’s Church. Just as it would not be a “well-structured comparison” to compare the unity of a single human being to the unity of the Catholic Church, because a single human being is not a suitable candidate for being “the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church,” so likewise it is not a “well-structured comparison” to compare the unity of “Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church” to that of the Catholic Church, because “Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church” is not a suitable candidate for being “the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” that Christ founded.

     So I ask the question, what is the Church? From what I’ve read in Acts 20:28, the Church of God is bought by Christ’s own blood. From that, it is not exclusively my organization or your organization which is the Church that Christ founded. Unless, of course you want to argue that it is the members of your organization alone that Christ bought by his own blood.

     Here’s what St. Paul says:

     Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. (Acts 20:28)

     St. Paul is not saying there that Christ only died for members of His Church, or even that Christ died only for His Church. The purchasing of His Church includes the application of redemption, and that is limited to those in communion (either full communion or imperfect communion) with His Church. The Catholic Church believes and teaches that she is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that the incarnate Christ founded. She also believes and teaches that salvation comes to the world by the grace merited by Christ’s self-giving sacrifice, and that this grace comes to the world through the sacramental means Christ has established in the Church. This grace, by the operation of the Spirit, can ‘outstrip’ (i.e. outrun), as it were, the actual reception of the sacrament. In that way even those who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, but have received grace through faith in baptism, are in some sense joined to the Catholic Church, and those who are saved are saved through and in the Catholic Church. But they cannot be saved who “knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” (CCC 846)

     Often times, the comparison that is utilized is that members of this so called “Protestantism” (if there is such an organization where there is none) are not agreeing with each other therefore, the RC church is more united than “Protestantism”. Yet, if we look at the members of the RC church and ask them fundamental questions, we would soon discover that the views of these members are as diverse as the members of this so called “Protestantism” organization.

     The two general Protestant alternatives when comparing unity (as one of the four marks of the Church) between some [Protestant] candidate for “the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” and the Catholic Church, are: (1) a particular Protestant institution (e.g. “Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church”) or (2) a set of Protestant institutions. The former option [i.e. (1)] fails for the reason I explained earlier in this comment. The latter option [i.e. (2)] fails because this set of Protestant institutions would be many institutions, while the Catholic Church is one institution, with one visible head, and therefore the Catholic Church has a unity of doctrine, sacraments, and government that this plurality of Protestant institutions would not have.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

386. T Ciatoris November 25th, 2009 3:52 pm :

     Dear Paige (re: #370),

     You asked:
     

     I wonder, how complex does a non-perspicuous doctrine have to be before it is impossible to confirm that it is Scripturally supported, and one must resort to the assumption that the Magisterium got it right because the Magisterium interprets infallibly?

     Hmmm…interesting way of posing the question. First, I didn’t say that the dogmas we’ve been talking about cannot be shown to be Scripturally supported, just that Scripture is formally insufficient to show that they must be believed as the only correct interpretations of Scripture. Second, I myself do not know where to draw the line you’ve inquired about with any precision, so I join you in your wonderment. I can easily see why it would be incumbent upon a Protestant practitioner of sola Scriptura to figure out where to draw it, but as a Catholic, I have the luxury of not feeling any particular urgency for drawing any such line. Lucky me, eh? I’d take exception to your characterization of the Catholic belief that the Magisterium enjoys the Spirit-given charism of making infallible determinations as an “assumption” to which we feel the need to “resort” (cf. the distinction Bryan made way back when between the desire for certainty and the desire for truth), but I don’t want to bicker. :-)

     I’m not totally sure what to make of your tentative admission that it’s possible for precise formulations of dogma on matters crucial to the faith to be “unrepeatable.” If Magisterial statements of Trinitarian and Christological dogma are unrepeatable, how can we claim that Scripture is perspicuous on these questions? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the doctrine perspicuity claimed that derivation of at least the (precise?) dogmatic content, if not the precise expressions, should be repeatable by any believer with normal intelligence. I agree that the precise expressions of traditional dogma are historically conditioned, but I’m a little worried (for your sake, of course) that here, too, you might be giving away at least half the farm.

     You’re certainly right that the unrepeatability of the dogmatic formulations doesn’t prevent anybody from “weighing and evaluating the statements against what is given in Scripture.” But part of the argument I’ve been making is that only material sufficiency is necessary for a positive outcome to such an evaluation. I don’t think that such an evaluation demonstrates formal sufficiency unless it shows that there is no other dogmatic conclusion (like, say, a modalist one) that could reasonably be considered “biblical.” And this is where I think there’s a problem when we’re confronted with groups like the Oneness Pentecostals who also claim to be practicing sola Scriptura while being docile to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This gets back to the point I’ve been trying to make: Traditional dogma about the Trinity was a “given” for the magisterial reformers, because they’d received it through Sacred Tradition. It’s one thing for them to conclude (correctly) that this dogma is biblically supported; it’s another thing to show that sola Scriptura is a sufficient method by which to authoritatively derive the dogma. If any given pre-Reformation heresy could also be plausibly supported scripturally, what business would Protestants have condemning it as a heresy? What if a Protestant ecclesiology had been operative in the fourth century? No ecumenical council could have ever solved the Arian problem. This is why I think you should be chary (as a Protestant) of suggesting that the dogmatic formulations are “unrepeatable.”

     You also asked:
     

     Does this mean that you believe nobody could have come up with the doctrinal formulation of the Trinity unless they had an inside track, this infallible interpretive charism (which is yet not the same as inspiration)?

     I’m not saying nobody could have come up with it, but I am saying that without the Magisterium’s charism of infallibility, we’d have no particularly good reason to believe one formulation over another if both could demonstrate material scriptural support.

     And then:
     

     In what sense could we then call the doctrine “scriptural,” if it were only available to a limited body of individuals who alone could perceive it in the text? (i.e., did the meaning exist in the text already, or did it only exist when the Magisterium read it with the help of the Holy Spirit?)

     I hope I’ve answered already how we can call the doctrine “scriptural” without claiming that the Bible is formally sufficient for the formulation. Your worry about the meaning being “available to a limited body of individuals who alone could perceive it,” I think, only makes sense in the framework of a non-Catholic ecclesiology and ontology of Scripture. I guess I could try to expand on that, but I’m getting tired of typing (and I’m sure you’re getting tired of my disproportionately long responses!). So we’ll save that for later. As to the clarifying question in parentheses, yes, of course I believe the meaning existed in the inspired text already (do I detect in your question some influence from or worries about Derrida or Roland Barthes or somebody??). Though I guess it depends on what you mean by “in” the text… but for goodness’ sake, I don’t want to get into literary theory, at least not now! As I mentioned in a previous post, to propose the Bible as independent from the other modes of Christ’s presence to the Church is, from my particular point of view, a fast track to making it a dead letter (which is precisely what it has become for certain kinds of historical-critical exegetes, who don’t seem to agree that the Bible’s inspiration is self-confirming).

     As to the “complex” study of Scripture, it seems like you’re already mitigating the doctrine of perspicuity. If every individual Christian is personally responsible to confirm the central doctrines of their faith from Scripture, then God would have to expect each individual Christian to have the time and intellectual resources to undertake the complex study you’ve proposed. If a relatively simple reading by a person of average intelligence won’t do, I don’t really see the point in claiming perspicuity at all. If you’re going to defend perspicuity, then stand firm, my dear Protestant!

     I think you’re right: we disagree about the function God intended for Scripture in the life of individual believers. I’ve actually been thinking about this topic a great deal recently. Maybe we can talk about this more, too. But again, tired of typing…

     (And no, I’m not toying with you or making you jump through hoops—that would just be mean! And if you really are a “rookie,” you’re a very impressive one: give yourself a big pat on the back!)

     in Christ,

     TC
     1 Cor 16:14

387. Keith W. Thompson November 25th, 2009 5:45 pm :

     Bryan,

     Sorry I’ve been away for a few days. I see that I have a lot of catching up to do. This thread is exploding! Congratulations for stirring up enough controversy to fuel the fire’s of good discussion in here.
     After reflecting on the issue of authority this past week, I’ve come to the conclusion that the whole matter is really quite simple.

     My argument is that both Rome and protestants alike exercise personal and private judgment of their respective authorities. Our sole infallible authority is Scripture alone, and you accept both Scripture as well as accepting the claims of Rome that She is the sole interpreting authority and source of Scripture. Therein lies the difference between us.

     Solo Scriptura necessarily follows from Sola Scriptura just as much as Solo Ecclesia necessarily follows from Sola Ecclesia. (Although I might disagree with some of the pejorative ways in which you describe it as well as the conclusions you derive from it.) I could easily state that “all appeals to Rome are essentially appeals to interpretations of Rome.” Your definition of “Solo ______” is ubiquitous of the way in which EVERY level of authority relates to the knowledge of that authority in every level of human existence. To simply point out that fact in Protestant churches and then say, “A-HA!” is … well, it is just weird. You are merely pointing out how the knowledge of all authority works. My response to that assertion is, “so what?” It is simply a slight-of-hand trick to attempt to put protestants on the defensive which takes the burden of demonstrating that Rome has true ultimate authority off of you for a brief time.
     You make it sound like personal interpretation of authority is something unique to protestants, BECAUSE of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. But the fact is, that every authority must necessarily be interpreted by all persons subscribing to that authority, whether it is Scripture, the Church, the U.S. Constitution, your parents, etc. All authority must be interpreted. This does not mean that all authority ultimately resides only in the eye of the beholder, true authority is true and real whether people agree with it or not as well as whether people interpret it correctly or not.
     Simply put, the fact that personal judgment plays a role in understanding the authority of Scripture does not in any way detract from the fact that it IS authoritative, nor does it somehow make the personal interpreter somehow ultimately authoritative in a way in which Scripture is not. What really matters is the question, “What IS our ultimate authority?”
     Rome claims to possess an immense amount of authority for herself over and above (rather than subservient to) Scripture, which is God-breathed. That is an assertion which I flat out deny. (In the same way in which I deny that the Mormon Prophet has true and rightful authority given to him directly from God, even though he claims it for himself. Claiming authority doesn’t guarantee authority.) I believe that is the true issue at hand.

     In Him,
     Keith W.T.

388. lojahw November 25th, 2009 6:17 pm :

     Thank you for your comments, Michael, and for the link to your thoughts on the Vincentian Canon (VC). Your article is well-written. Here are some further thoughts:

     First, I find it interesting that St. Vincent never once mentions apostolic succession (a key theme in this discussion). Moreover, I note that his emphasis on the content of the catholic faith is entirely consistent with Tertullian’s statement that churches, “although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men … are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine.”

     From your article:

     Michael: Well then, how are we to know that one big council is to be accepted as authoritative and another not? St. Vincent is silent on that question . . .

     You then suggest that the answer is found in later declarations of bishops of Rome which assert the role of the successors of Peter. I would gently remind you that given St. Vincent’s silence, your suggestion is speculative. As one reads through Vincent’s arguments regarding various scenarios, the dominant theme is: “what has been believed everywhere, always, by all.” The burden is on you to demonstrate that Vincent’s dictum does not provide a sufficient test of catholicity irrespective of apostolic succession and the decisions of councils or popes.

     Michael: But such a consensus is not to be sought among just any old writers claiming to be Christian; it is to be sought only among “teachers approved and outstanding.” Approved by whom? Well, who else than the authorities of the Catholic Church? Outstanding among whom? Among those Catholics who are not Catholics in name only, but who humbly submit their judgments to the Magisterium and those writers whom the holders of the Magisterium recommend.

     I would suggest that your conclusion is both an argument from silence (Vincent did not say how one determines which teachers were approved and outstanding) and anachronistic. To the latter point, there is no pattern of ECFs from Apostolic times until St. Vincent’s day “who humbly submit their judgments to the Magisterium.” Furthermore, the concept of the Magisterium as you understand it today had not been developed in St. Vincent’s day, notwithstanding statements from a few bishops of Rome after Vincent’s time that anticipated the later development of this concept. Nor was there a list in St. Vincent’s day of “those writers whom the holders of the Magisterium recommend.” These are all later developments to which St. Vincent could hardly refer.

     Who, then, are the approved and outstanding teachers? The ones who consistently distinguish themselves in handing down – unadulterated – the teaching of the Apostles. It is the unadulterated version of the faith to which Vincent returns again and again, not to apostolic succession or the Magisterium.

     Michael: I am thus led to believe that the VC is useful not as a empirical method of polling the Christians of the past, still less of the present, than as a normative method of ascertaining the faith of the Catholic Church by synthesizing the statements of her duly constituted authorities and those they approve. Such a normative method is highly useful for those willing to accept it. But it would not make sense without the visible, historical Catholic Church, and her teaching authority, taken as givens.

     I agree with your conclusion that the VC should be considered the normative method of ascertaining the faith of the Church catholic. On the other hand, I would caution against putting blind trust in “the statements of [the Catholic Church’s] duly constituted authorities.” Rather, I would suggest that all authorities are subject to the authority of Scripture in light of the faith “which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.”

     I note in the quote below, St. Vincent’s remedy for heresy is not an appeal to the Magisterium, but rather to antiquity:

     Vincent: But what if some novel contagion try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty.

     You conclude:

     Michael: Such a normative method is highly useful for those willing to accept it. But it would not make sense without the visible, historical Catholic Church, and her teaching authority, taken as givens.

     The question that the above statement raises for me is: would St. Vincent recognize the Catholic Church today as the same Church he wrote about almost 1600 years ago? How would he respond, for example, to the veneration of images which was so vehemently opposed by the same “teachers approved and outstanding” to whom he referred in his Commonitory?

     Blessings.

389. Paige Britton November 25th, 2009 6:43 pm :

     Hey, TC –
     Thanks for keeping me in line. :)
     I appreciate your time & comments and will work my way through them later, though it will have to be just for myself, as we’re headed away for Tgiving for a bunch of days. But I am sure I will benefit from your tutorial. If I think of anything brilliant to ask you I’ll have to do it next week sometime!
     Have a great holiday!
     pax,
     pb

390. Bryan Cross November 25th, 2009 7:12 pm :

     Keith T, (re: #387)

     Welcome back. I too am glad for the good discussion, and especially for the cordial and respectful manner maintained by all the participants.

     My argument is that both Rome and protestants alike exercise personal and private judgment of their respective authorities. Our sole infallible authority is Scripture alone, and you accept both Scripture as well as accepting the claims of Rome that She is the sole interpreting authority and source of Scripture. Therein lies the difference between us.

     I mostly agree, except that we don’t say that the Church is the “source” of Scripture. We say that God is the source of Scripture, and that He gave Scripture to the Church, and gave to the successors of the Apostles the authority to determine the canon and the authentic interpretation of Scripture. (See the document Dei Verbum.)

     Solo Scriptura necessarily follows from Sola Scriptura just as much as Solo Ecclesia necessarily follows from Sola Ecclesia.

     In order to evaluate that claim, I would need to know exactly what you mean by the terms “Solo Ecclesia” and “Sola Ecclesia.”

     I could easily state that “all appeals to Rome are essentially appeals to interpretations of Rome.” Your definition of “Solo ______” is ubiquitous of the way in which EVERY level of authority relates to the knowledge of that authority in every level of human existence. To simply point out that fact in Protestant churches and then say, “A-HA!” is … well, it is just weird. You are merely pointing out how the knowledge of all authority works.

     If all we are doing is pointing out how the knowledge of authority works, then that would be weird. But, that’s not all we are doing. We presented an argument. So which premise of our argument is false, or how does the conclusion of our argument not follow from the premises?

     My response to that assertion is, “so what?” It is simply a slight-of-hand trick to attempt to put protestants on the defensive which takes the burden of demonstrating that Rome has true ultimate authority off of you for a brief time.

     That doesn’t seem like a charitable interpretation of what we are attempting to do. How do you know that we don’t believe our argument to be a sound argument, and that we aren’t presenting it to help others see the truth of its conclusion?

     You make it sound like personal interpretation of authority is something unique to protestants, BECAUSE of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

     That isn’t the conclusion of our argument or a premise of our argument, and I’m sorry if we somehow implied that personal interpretation of authority is something unique to Protestants.

     But the fact is, that every authority must necessarily be interpreted by all persons subscribing to that authority, whether it is Scripture, the Church, the U.S. Constitution, your parents, etc. All authority must be interpreted.

     I agree.

     This does not mean that all authority ultimately resides only in the eye of the beholder, true authority is true and real whether people agree with it or not as well as whether people interpret it correctly or not.

     I agree.

     Simply put, the fact that personal judgment plays a role in understanding the authority of Scripture does not in any way detract from the fact that it IS authoritative, nor does it somehow make the personal interpreter somehow ultimately authoritative in a way in which Scripture is not.

     I couldn’t agree more.

     What really matters is the question, “What IS our ultimate authority?”

     We all agree that our ultimate authority is God. So I don’t think that question is the one that really matters (for reconciling Protestants and Catholics). It seems to me that the important question (viz-a-viz Protestant-Catholic reconciliation) is: What authority or authorities did Christ establish for His Church? We all agree that the Bible is authoritative, even though Catholics and Protestants don’t agree on the canon. So (except for the canon problem — which I’m not belittling) the authority question that separates us is: Did or did not Christ establish a perpetual hierarchy in His Church to shepherd and guide it until He returns, and how do those shepherds receive their authority? That’s the authority question that separates Protestants and Catholics, because Protestants reject, while Catholics accept, apostolic succession.

     Rome claims to possess an immense amount of authority for herself over and above (rather than subservient to) Scripture, which is God-breathed.

     The Magisterium teaches that it is the servant of Scripture. The Catholic Catechism says the following:

     Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith. (CCC, 86, drawing from Dei Verbum)

     Concerning the claim that the Magisterium makes itself “over and above” Scripture, what would it look like for the Magisterium to be subservient to Scripture? In other words, if the Magisterium really were in fact subservient to Scripture, then what would be different about the Magisterium? Or, putting the same question differently: if the Magisterium were in fact presently subservient to Scripture, and you were falsely accusing it of being “over and above” Scripture, how would you know?

     Claiming authority doesn’t guarantee authority.

     I completely agree. Let’s compare respective grounds of ecclesial authority. What is the ground for your pastor’s authority? (My parish pastor has his authority by apostolic succession from the Apostle Peter.)

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

391. K. Doran November 25th, 2009 7:48 pm :

     Lojahw, and Catholics who have been scandalized by him:

     you said: “there is no pattern of ECFs from Apostolic times until St. Vincent’s day “who humbly submit their judgments to the Magisterium.””

     You should read the history of the pelagian controversy here:
     http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num16.htm

     The behavior of all of the major parties (even Pelagius) indicated that a submission of their doctrinal judgments to the Magisterium was taken as the norm of behavior.

     Furthermore, Augustine submitted his judgment to the magisterium regarding whether or not the gospels point to Manicheanism:

     “Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichæus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you—If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;— Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichæus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I will keep to those who commanded me to believe the gospel; and, in obedience to them, I will not believe you at all. But if haply you should succeed in finding in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichæus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics who bid me not to believe you; and the effect of that will be, that I shall no longer be able to believe the gospel either, for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichæus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you read thence some passage clearly in favor of Manichæus, I will believe neither them nor you: not them, for they lied to me about you; nor you, for you quote to me that Scripture which I had believed on the authority of those liars. But far be it that I should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of believing you too.”

     In an earlier post, you said that Ignatius said: “Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” The full quote is as follows: “See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil.”

     If any catholic readers have become afraid that lojahw’s understanding of first millenium Church history is valid, please don’t hesitate to send me an email: KBDh02 ‘at’ yahoo ‘dot’ com. Don’t be afraid. It won’t take much to see through the smoke.

     Sincerely,

     K. Doran

392. T Ciatoris November 25th, 2009 10:00 pm :

     Paige,

     I hope you catch this before you unplug for the holiday. Tutorial? Don’t be silly. I’m very much enjoying our lively and, I think, constructive exchange, and I hope it will continue. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving with your loved ones.

     in Christ,

     TC
     Eph 5:4 :-)

393. lojahw November 26th, 2009 11:08 am :

     TC: thank you for your response on a) b) and c).

     My computer access has been very limited & will remain so for a few days.

     The problem with your argument against the perspicuity of Scripture is that you use the tactics of heretics by limiting your critiques to single passages of Scripture, whereas Sola Scriptura is based on the whole counsel of God’s Word as the regula fidei. Proof-texting is a favorite tactic of heretics, like the Jehovah’s Witness, whose example you gave from John 1 – which also betrays an ignorance of Greek grammar.

     The bishops at Nicea, in contrast, noted their careful examination of all pertinent passages of Scripture on the subjects you mentioned, e.g.:

     On one substance: “The bishops, having detected their deceitfulness in this matter [the Arian heresy], collected from Scripture those passages which say of Christ that He is the glory, the fountain, the stream, and the express image of the person … likewise, ‘ I and the Father are one.’ They then, with still greater clearness, briefly declared that the Son is of one substance with the Father; for this, indeed, is the signification of the passages which have been quoted.” (Church History 1.7)

     The eternality of the Word who was God, John 1:1-3, is further clarified by Psalm 55:19, “God … with whom there is no change.” If God is without change, then “the Word was God” affirms that the Word always was, otherwise God would have changed when the Word was begotten. There are a number of other passages which could be added as well if one wanted to thoroughly examine the Scriptures on the subject. Athanasius’ Discourses against the Arians demonstrates how the application of Sola Scriptura successfully refutes heresy.

     Blessings.

394. Steve November 26th, 2009 5:15 pm :

     Bryan said:

     How does Tertullian propose to show that the doctrine of these heretics is contrary to that of the Apostles? He does so with two tests, and these two tests are related to each other. One necessarily comes before the other, and depends on the other. First, he uses the test of apostolic succession. “Let them produce the original records of their churches, let them unfold the roll of their bishops ….”. That’s the first test. For Tertullian, the second test depends on the first test. The second test is comparing whether the ‘faith’ proposed by the heretics agrees with the doctrine held by the Apostles. How is this second test to be conducted? To determine whether the doctrine of the heretics agrees with the doctrine of the Apostles Tertullian doesn’t say, “Look at the Scriptures.” He says that the ‘faith’ of the heretics must be compared to the faith of the churches which are in agreement with the churches founded by the Apostles. So the apostolic churches (the ones founded by the Apostles and maintaining the succession from the Apostles) are still the standard for what is the Apostolic faith. For Tertullian, how do we know which churches have the Apostolic faith? By comparing their doctrine to that of the apostolic churches, i.e. the ones having the succession from the Apostles. So the second test (i.e. comparing the faith of the heretics to that of the Apostles) depends on the first test (i.e. apostolic succession). For Tertullian the succession of men in the apostolic churches is what determines the standard for what is the apostolic doctrine, against which to compare the doctrine of these gnostic heretics.,

     First off, just because Tertullian and other church fathers took this tact, doesn’t mean that it was best way to handle the situation. It was a way to shortcut the debate. Rather than engage the gnostics head on in debate, they appealed to apostolic succession. “You don’t have bishops in apostolic succession therefore you can’t be right.” It’s not clear to me that this was the better way. Why not engage them in debate, exegete the scriptures and find out who has the better argument?

     Secondly problem here is that this approach falls apart when one looks at the Christological controversies of the 4th and 5th centuries. There you had bishops in apostolic succession who supported all sort of heresies – Arianism, Modalism, Sabellianism, Nestorianism, etc., many if not all who could say they came from apostolic churches. In fact two the leading apostolic sees, Alexandria and Antioch seem to be behind much of the controversy these two centuries as they rivaled against each other for position in the church (hardly behavior one would expect from those in apostolic succession, no?) Tertullian’s solution to identifying orthodoxy falls apart at this point. Thus, apostolic succession does not historically appear to be the defense against heresy that you make it out to be. So what then?

395. Steve November 26th, 2009 5:41 pm :

     T Ciatoris said:

     I’m sure your 18-page document is excellent, but frankly, unless you’ve been completely original on some point, I’m pretty confident I’ve seen it all before. I’m even tempted to flatter myself that I know Scripture well enough to assemble a similar document. But my contention is that all such a document demonstrates is that Scripture is materially sufficient to produce the Nicene Creed. I don’t think it shows formal sufficiency, because I think there exists a plausible Arian reading of each of those passages (recognizing, once again, that there exist different degrees of plausibility when it comes to interpreting a text). Even if you or I don’t happen to find the Arian reading plausible, it’s clear that they Arians did, in good conscience, find it so.

     Much is “plausible, much less is “probable”. Are you saying that you think Arian arguments from scripture are just as good as orthodox Christian arguments from scripture? I don’t think you really want to go there but perhaps you do? :) And if you’re not, and you’re then conceding that orthodox arguments are better, then the prior poster’s point about scripture is much stronger and scripture does indeed show formal sufficiency.

     It just means that I accuse them of not submitting to the Church’s Magisterium when it set parameters for interpreting Scripture.

     But it’s a historical fact that the “magisterium” such as it was, was very divided over the issue of Arianism, or else the debate wouldn’t have raged for so long during the 4th century as Nicea really didn’t settle much. There were bishops in apostolic succession on both sides of the issue. So how did the “magisterium” (the bishops in this case) divided as it was, decide on this and the many other Christological issues that arose during the 4th and 5th centuries? They had no one to appeal to, no one who could tell them what to believe. They certainly didn’t appeal to Rome to settle the issue. So how did they decide?

396. K. Doran November 26th, 2009 7:24 pm :

     Steve,

     The reputation of Roman faith during the fourth and fifth centuries, and its association with the “right” answer to these christological and trinitarian controversies, is well attested by the fathers of that period and the periods immediately before and after. The fact is, there was an old tradition, attested to by (among others) Cyprian (and not in his supposedly forged writings, either, but rather in his letters), that on doctrinal matters (not jurisdictional ones, so don’t bother mentioning these), no heresy would ever overcome the Roman see. Many people believed this, and expressed this belief in one form or another in their writings and their actions. It became a matter of universal acceptance among orthodox Christians that no council, no matter how great, was considered binding unless it was explicitly accepted by the Roman see. This acceptance survived the cases of Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius. It diminished near the end of the first millennium when, due to cultural and political forces, Greek clerics looked back at the history of the last several hundred years to find excuses for claiming certain forms of independence from Rome. Even then, various admissions of dependence of the East on Roman authority for issuing binding doctrinal decisions continued for one or two hundred years, until the great schism brought a more complete break from Rome.

     Some of the most beautiful expressions of allegiance, loyalty, and faith in Rome’s authority and divine protection from error come from the East (or from Greek Christians living in the West) during the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries. Dom John Chapman explains the importance of Rome in settling the various theological controversies of these centuries in the following document:
     “The First Eight General Councils and Papal Infallibility”

     Sincerely,

     K. Doran

397. Tom Riello November 26th, 2009 11:24 pm :

     Steve,

     K. Doran puts it well concerning no heresy affecting the Roman Church. I noticed in your remarks concerning those sees who possessed Apostolic Sucession (Alexandria, Constantinople etc..,) no reference was made to the Bishop of Rome or that see teaching or affirming heretical doctrine concerning the nature of the Godhead or the Person of Christ. It is possible for those who possess valid orders to be involved in heresy or schism, for example the Donatists. In fact, as then Cardinal Ratzinger points out (Father Aidan Nichols’ excellent book The Thought of Pope Benedict XVI) Cyrprian’s appeal to Apostolic Sucession needed the addition of Augustine’s union with the cathedra petri.

398. Steve November 26th, 2009 11:34 pm :

     The reputation of Roman faith during the fourth and fifth centuries, and its association with the “right” answer to these christological and trinitarian controversies, is well attested by the fathers of that period and the periods immediately before and after.

     That’s really a separate issue. The issue being discussed was the assertion that apostolic succession guaranteed correct doctrine and that to find the ancient apostolic faith one need only look to the apostolic churches and their bishops. When large number of bishops in apostolic succession hold to heretical beliefs as in the 4th and 5th centuries, it would appear hard to maintain that assertion in the face of history.

399. T Ciatoris November 27th, 2009 4:37 am :

     Dear lojahw (re: #393),

     I’m starting to feel a bit like this exchange is becoming a slapstick routine. You’ve just accused me of using the tactics of heretics by proof-texting, when in fact I’ve just devoted a lengthy comment to showing that proof-texting is a faulty and insufficient method. The fact that you thought that I was promoting proof-texting does not instill any confidence in me that you’ve bothered to try to understand what I’ve been saying.

     I’m glad to learn that you and I concur in our disapproval of proof-texting. I’d gotten onto the topic in the first place because you have sometimes seemed (to me, anyway) to display a proclivity for it. Here’s an example. (Yes, that’s right, I’m going to proof-text your proof-texting. Like I told you: slapstick!)

     lojahw in #290: Come again? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” and “All things came into being through Him.” Was this not sufficient to get the point across that there never was a time when Christ was not? [Emphasis added.]

     If that’s not a proof-text, I’m genuinely not sure what is.

     I’m puzzled by your suggestion that the regula fidei equals the Bible, simpliciter, for the Fathers. To my (spotty) memory, I’ve never heard regula fidei used quite this way. Can you defend this?

     On another point of disagreement: your position implies that the Bible exhausts the Word of God and that the Word of God is the Bible. I do of course agree that the Bible is the Word of God, but that’s not actually saying the same thing. On all this, see the last paragraph of comment #300, to which you never responded.

     Since I don’t see us making much progress on the issue, this is probably the last thing I’m going to say in this exchange with respect to the perspicuity of Scripture. Once again, I don’t mean to be trying to get the last word in. Please feel free to respond. But I’ll only respond again if I think we’re actually moving forward.

     I suppose I’m glad that Nicene orthodoxy is perspicuous to you. Without the Church’s authoritative guidance, it’s not to me. That’s not a hypothetical or abstract statement. That’s my actual experience as someone who’s studied both Scripture and the patristic period in, I think, reasonable detail and depth. So I suppose that, on this particular question, anyway, you should actually be thankful for my reception of Sacred Tradition as infallibly authoritative, however wrong-headed you may think it in general. :-)

     Now, if perspicuity is true, my own case is only explicable in a few ways: (1) I’m a liar who denies the decisive clarity with which I actually recognize the dogma in the text; (2) I lack faith and humility before the sacred text; (3) I lack normal intelligence; (4) I lack the Holy Spirit; or some combination of the above. (If there’s a fifth possibility that I’ve missed, by the way, please let me know.) Never mind the Arians, the Pneumatomachoi, the Nestorians, the Oneness Pentecostals, or anybody else. I’m talking about my own experience. The doctrine of perspicuity, which, I believe we agree, is necessary to uphold if you’re going to stick to sola Scriptura, makes a claim about a subjective experience of an objective reality (the subjective experience of reading the Bible and finding it objectively clear on essential doctrines) that should obtain given the conditions of honesty, faith and humility, average intelligence, and docility to the Holy Spirit. I truly don’t think any of (1), (2), (3), and (4) is true of me (but maybe I’m wrong—I suppose I can’t “prove” that I’m not self-deceived), so I think I should satisfy the conditions for perspicuity to “work” for me. I’m sorry, but it doesn’t.

     I also think that to claim, as an adherent of perspicuity must do, that one or more of (1), (2), (3), and (4) is true for every person who denies perspicuity and/or comes to heterodox conclusions, is quickly going to involve you in a morass of uncharitable and unfounded judgments with respect to these persons’ honesty, intelligence, and devotion.

     Please tell me what I’ve misunderstood, if anything, about the doctrine of perspicuity. I hope our conversation can move forward, lojahw. On the other hand, I won’t be too upset if you think it’s time for things to fade out.

     in Christ,

     TC
     1 Cor 16:14

400. T Ciatoris November 27th, 2009 5:35 am :

     Hi Steve (re: #395),

     Thanks for responding to a couple of portions of my comment.

     You asked:
     

     Much is “plausible, much less is “probable”. Are you saying that you think Arian arguments from scripture are just as good as orthodox Christian arguments from scripture? […] And if you’re not, and you’re then conceding that orthodox arguments are better, then the prior poster’s point about scripture is much stronger and scripture does indeed show formal sufficiency.

     The first question that comes to my mind is where and how you plan to draw the lines between “plausible” and “probable” and any other evaluative adjectives you’d like to propose. If Scripture is going to be formally sufficient for formulating doctrine that is to be binding for all Christians, then that’s not an idle question. But honestly, if we’re talking about orthodox vs. Arian interpretations of Scripture in terms like “probable” or “just as good” or “better,” I think we’ve already missed the boat. I absolutely believe that the orthodox arguments are “better” (but remember, you can’t trust me—I’m a biased reader of the Bible since I receive Sacred Tradition as giving me infallible guidelines for interpreting it). But my or your or Jack’s or Jill’s personal opinion that the orthodox have a “better” argument could be based on pretty much any hermeneutical canon (that doesn’t mean that all hermeneutics are created equal, but who judges authoritatively among them?), and I don’t believe that the deposit of faith, the Truth about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, is being passed down authoritatively by what you and I might happen to agree are “better” or “more probable” arguments. Unless you lower the bar considerably, I actually don’t think that cuts it for formal sufficiency, if by “sufficiency” we mean sufficiency to safeguard and preserve sound Christian faith.

     As to the historical question you’ve asked, I’ll leave the detailed arguments to other folks (some of whom, thankfully, have already jumped in). The debates about the specific question you asked, as I’m sure you know, have been hashed out and rehashed time and again. But let me take a first stab at one general point that I think speaks to questions that lurk behind your specific question. Because we believe that the Church is the Body of Christ, we Catholics have what you might call an incarnational ecclesiology. That is, since we believe that the Lord of Eternal Glory truly entered into genuine solidarity with us in our messy and sinful world, we aren’t surprised to find His Body the Church on pilgrimage through just as messy a world as Our Lord found. So don’t be scandalized by the messiness. It strikes me that sola Scriptura, regardless of whether or not it’s true, is at least a very effective way of standing aloof from the messy contingency of history, because, as long as I’ve got a Bible in my hands, I don’t actually need that historical Body. It might help me, to be sure. I might learn some neat exegetical pointers from it, or I might hear some salutary cautionary tales from it, but it’s not actually necessary to my Christian faith and is dispensable except insofar as it played a role in getting the Bible to me. On the contrary, replies the Catholic: this messy history in which we find the Church is precisely the messy and contingent history of messy and contingent creatures that Christ came to redeem in His Incarnation, which is now extended sacramentally through time and space in His Holy Church, and there’s nothing dispensable about that.

     I know I’ve by no means made my point here very rigorously or comprehensively (or even coherently?), and it probably has very little warrant for being expressed in this particular thread. Sorry. Just some food for thought.

     in Christ,

     TC
     1 Cor 16:14

401. Steve November 27th, 2009 11:56 am :

     K. Doran puts it well concerning no heresy affecting the Roman Church.,

     Guys, I think you need to be more careful here. Some of you seem to be slipping into “catholicspeak” which it me as a Protestant is rather confusing. “Roman church”? What do you mean by that? My point is that the catholic/Catholic church (East and West) had bishops in apostolic succession who had heretical views. Do you mean something else when you say “Roman church”? Do you mean the Roman see or Roman bishop/pope? Or the Western Church as distinguished from the Eastern Church? Please clarify.

     I noticed in your remarks concerning those sees who possessed Apostolic Sucession (Alexandria, Constantinople etc..,) no reference was made to the Bishop of Rome or that see teaching or affirming heretical doctrine concerning the nature of the Godhead or the Person of Christ.

     No, I didn’t – the issue wasn’t papal infallibility but apostolic succession as a guarantor of correct doctrine. Historically Rome as was on the side of orthodoxy in these disputes. The issue historically seemed to be a greater problem in the East due to their perchant for engaging in speculative theology. Personally, I think they tried to explain too many things that just aren’t explainable from a human point of view, which continually got them into deeper trouble as the answer to one question then inevitably led to other questions which then caused further controversies. The West didn’t suffer from this to the same extent.

     It is possible for those who possess valid orders to be involved in heresy or schism, for example the Donatists.

     Then I guess there’s go Brian’s thesis per Tertullian . . .

     In fact, as then Cardinal Ratzinger points out (Father Aidan Nichols’ excellent book The Thought of Pope Benedict XVI) Cyrprian’s appeal to Apostolic Sucession needed the addition of Augustine’s union with the cathedra petri.

     Again, more “catholicspeak”. Cathedra petri? Ok, I looked it up, the “chair of Peter”. This is like talking to a bunch of doctors at times! Let’s try and use some plain English – I think that will make the discussion easier on all of us. So in the end more than apostolic succession is needed after all. Of course now that does lead us into papal infallibility and I’m not sure that’s in scope here nor am I sure I wish to open that can of worms :)

402. Bryan Cross November 27th, 2009 12:09 pm :

     Steve, (re: #401),

     One of the difficulties with the comments being so numerous is that new arrivals (understandably) tend not to read all the comments, and so questions addressed earlier in the comments are raised again. Your comment about apostolic succession not being sufficient to guarantee orthodoxy was raised earlier (comment #75), and we responded to it then.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

403. Tom Riello November 27th, 2009 12:59 pm :

     Steve,

     I am sorry for the “catholicspeak” which you rightly spoke about. The intention by any of us was not to play some rhetorical game or sound “smart” (which to be honest I too find frustrating when reading a book and then some latin phrase gets thrown in as though we all know what it means). By Roman Church we mean the Bishop of Rome. My Bishop has valid orders and has apostolic sucession but God forbid, he could turn away from the faith and he could, God forbid, teach heresy (as happened some years ago when a European Bishop taught contrary to the Church on Humane Vitae, a Pope Paul VI Encyclical written just over 40 yrs ago). That would be handled according to canon law with the Pope handling the matter. I do think it would be very helpful to read the post that Bryan mentioned (comment #75) and his reply (I believe comment #76).

404. lojahw November 27th, 2009 1:14 pm :

     [Re: #379]
     Bryan, I agree that Tertullian defined two tests of apostolicity; however, I suggest that you reread chapter 32 of Prescription Against Heretics more carefully regarding their respective application.

     First, please note the historical context specified by Tertullian:

     But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches.

     So, Tertullian begins by talking about heresies that began “in the midst of the apostolic age” – when the apostles were still around (e.g., the teachings of Simon Magus, cf. ch. 34; Marcion, et al.). In such cases Tertullian appealed to the teaching of those churches founded by the apostles.

     But Tertullian also recognized two other kinds of churches: those derived from the apostles (by apostolic succession) and those, due to the “lateness of time” which had no direct connection with the apostles. As a result, the first test of apostolicity applies to those churches who can trace their beginnings either to an apostle or to their successors. The second test of apostolicity, according to Tertullian is sufficient for those churches “of much later date” who “although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men.”

     therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily) , yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine.”

     Tertullian’s second test (they are akin in doctrine) applies to all churches, whereas the first test applies to churches that appeal to pedigree alone, either as being founded by the apostles or apostolic men or their successors. Hence, churches “being of much later date” than the apostolic age are accounted apostolic solely “because they are akin in doctrine” to those churches founded by the apostles. This test, therefore, rightly applies to Protestant churches who teach what the apostles taught. This standard, furthermore, was in place long before even the council of Nicea, and it is therefore anachronistic to reference Tertullian’s tests to later-developed teachings of churches claiming apostolic succession.

     My reading of early church history is that apostolic succession was necessary in the apostolic age until the Scriptures became available to the churches. As Tertullian wrote:

     “those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles (Prescription Against Heresies, 21)

     It is not necessary for Tertullian to appeal directly to the scriptures in chapter 32, because he assumed that the viva voce teaching in the churches founded by the apostles and their successors agrees with the gospel declared in the apostles’ epistles. This is consistent with what Irenaeus wrote one generation earlier than Tertullians, that the apostles, having previously preached the plan of salvation, “delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith.”

     My point from Tertullian was not that he taught Sola Scriptura, but rather that apostolicity can be determined independently of apostolic succession. Hence, your “no middle ground: Solo Scriptura or Apostolic Succession” represents a false dilemma. Any church “of much later date” than the apostolic age can be called Apostolic based solely on the second test.

     Blessings.

405. lojahw November 27th, 2009 5:40 pm :

     K. Doran, Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity in my statement: “there is no pattern of ECFs from Apostolic times until St. Vincent’s day “who humbly submit their judgments to the Magisterium.”

     I meant to say that there was no pattern “beginning from Apostolic times until St. Vincent’s day” of approved teachers “who humbly submit their judgments to the Magisterium.” I agree that Augustine late in the fourth century, having been mentored in Italy, naturally called upon Rome, whose “presidency” in the region was well established. My point is that St. Vincent’s insistence on referring to “approved and outstanding” teachers from antiquity applies to many who have been so recognized throughout church history who did NOT “humbly submit their judgments to the Magisterium.” Hippolytus (the first antipope), for example, had legitimate doctrinal and moral issues with Pope Callistus. I do not think I’m out of line to include Hippolytus as one of those “approved and outstanding” teachers of his day.

     As for your quotation from Ignatius, I do not follow that his insistence on the presence of a bishop refutes anything I’ve posted so far. I would suggest you read Tertullian’s Prescription Against Heretics, particularly chapter 32, regarding the tests of an apostolic church (and review my response to Bryan on the subject).

     Blessings.

406. T Ciatoris November 27th, 2009 6:03 pm :

     Incidentally, lojahw, your citation of Ps 55:19 in #393 is misleading in the extreme: if you read the context of that verse in Ps 55, without the ellipses, the antecedent of “with whom there is no change” is clearly not God, but those the psalmist’s enemies who do not fear God. I checked the Hebrew, the LXX, and the Vulgate on this to be extra sure. They all agree. Ellipses are dangerous things, lojahw. In your last comment you tried to use the prepositional phrase “with whom there is no change” from this verse to “prove” God’s eternal immutability (in which I do firmly believe). Now that the referent of “with whom there is no change” turns out, in fact, to be the enemies of the psalmist, do you wish to make a similar metaphysical claim about them? Once again, lojahw, this kind of thing doesn’t build up your credibility for me, because it makes me doubt how carefully you’re handling Scripture. I don’t want to be harsh, but I assume that you join me in taking this kind of thing very seriously because of our deep love for Scripture.

     If you want a text to juxtapose with John 1:1 to show Divine immutability, by the way, you’ll be much better off with, say, Mal 3:6. Even there, the immediate referent of the verse is the immutability of God’s covenantal faithfulness to the children of Jacob, not His eternal Being, but at least the subject there is God.

     in Christ,

     TC
     1 Cor 16:14

407. K. Doran November 27th, 2009 6:49 pm :

     The point about Ignatius is that his phrase “where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” is part of a sentence which reads: “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; EVEN AS, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church..” The first part of the sentence suggests that Ignatius is not here making an admission that any old bloke without a bishop can call himself a member of the Catholic Church. And now, who do you suppose the bishops were in Ignatius’ time? Do you think they were anyone with a little charisma who just happened to call himself one (as in some goofy mainstream super-churches today)? Do you think that they didn’t need some kind of direct connection with the apostles or with those who had been ordained by the apostles? If you agree that they did, and you agree with Ignatius’ statements about the necessity of being under the authority of such a bishop, then why the heck aren’t you a member of a Church with valid apostolic succession?

     As for Augustine, if you read the documents a little more closely you would see that the claims made by and for the popes of his day were significantly different than those made by or for any other see — so enough with the geographic attempt to diminish Augustine’s witness on the papacy. . . it ain’t gonna fly.

     Finally, I have no idea what point you’re making about Hippolytus. He was reconciled with the real pope while they were in prison together, as I understand it. Are you aware of orthodox fourth century people knowingly celebrating the post-heretical (not pre-heretical) writings of people who were condemned as heretics by popes in the second and third centuries? This was an issue which the fourth and fifth century bishops paid very close attention to, I believe. The whole fifth general council was about which writings should and should not be condemned of some generally innocent and generally orthodox people. What do you think they did with the writings of the heretics? Read Quasten’s patrology. There’s a lot of heretical literature that has been destroyed, that we can never get back because orthodox fourth and fifth century scribes were so careful to try to wipe out the seeds of past heresies. The heretics who were condemned by popes from the second century onward were NOT considered equal authorities to the orthodox whose writings were celebrated by the magisterium. It was no free for all. Heresy was deadly serious (and yes, perhaps unfortunately, it lead not infrequently to exile and death, even in the early Church).

     We all ought to be under the authority of validly ordained bishops, and in communion with that particular Church (Rome) of which it was said — in a prophecy of the earliest days whose meaning unfolded throughout the centuries — that heresy would never hold sway.

     Sincerely,

     K. Doran

408. lojahw November 27th, 2009 9:34 pm :

     TC: Slapstick might be an apt description – I was merely trying to say that your critique of Sola Scriptura was based on 2 examples of proof-texting, which indeed has been famously used by heretics and might be acceptable in Solo Scriptura, but never for the practice of Sola Scriptura.

     Re: the Bible as the regula fidei, this is indeed a Protestant viewpoint. In the ECF’s, the term was used for the abbreviated statement of Trinitarian faith epitomized in the Nicene Creed. By recognizing the whole Bible as the regula fidei we are saying that one must interpret the faith according to the “whole counsel of God” as recorded in the whole Bible. Apart from that, all abbreviated statements of faith are incomplete (hence, the need for multiple Ecumenical Councils to address nuances not addressed in the Nicene Creed).

     Re: your comments in #300 about Solo Verbo. Of course I agree that Jesus, the living Word of God, is the perfect revelation of the Father. This does not, however, diminish the sufficiency of the written Word of God as a full record of God’s plan of salvation. One must not assume that there is any competition between the living and the written Word of God.

     Sola Scriptura recognizes that after the apostolic age it was important that the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles be preserved in writing in order to fulfill Jesus’ promise: “heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away.” I’ve never found anything in the ECF writings that claims to be commanded by Jesus that is not in the Bible, so why would one claim that the Bible is not a sufficient record of the plan of salvation (cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1)?

     I hope this helps.

     Blessings.

409. rfwhite November 27th, 2009 9:34 pm :

     Bryan Cross and Neal Judisch:

     Many thanks for a thoughtful and thought-provoking article. As I reflect on your argumentation and conclusions, please clarify your claim that “only by recovering apostolic succession can Protestants overcome solo scriptura and all its destructive effects.” I take it that, agreeable as you are to Mathison’s assessment, you sum up these debilitating effects by referring to “the ‘cacophony of conflicting and contradictory assertions’ [that] leaves even the Christian bewildered and uncertain, groping about to find the way, the truth and the life of Christ and His gospel.”

     Am I right to infer from statements like these and, for that matter, from the article as a whole, that apostolic succession has enabled Roman Catholics to overcome solo scriptura and its destructive effects, not merely among the church’s teaching officers but also among rank-and-file church members? If this inference is incorrect, please point me in the correct direction. If this inference is correct, where would you tell me to look to find the evidence that apostolic succession has had this benefit for Roman Catholics?

410. lojahw November 27th, 2009 10:08 pm :

     TC: ‘sorry, but my computer access has been limited and will remain so for a few days, so I’m just now seeing your post #411. You are 100% right about my poor example from Psalm 55 re: God’s immutability. I appreciate the correction.

     Better would be Exodus 3:14 (I AM WHO I AM) and James 1:17. Particularly in Exodus God explains that He never changes: He who was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will be the same God who will deliver Israel out of Egypt and lead them to the promised land. There is no change in “I AM” from the infinite past to the infinite future. As you know, Jesus applied this designation to Himself a number of times to emphasize that “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” – the I AM never changes. James also says of God: “in whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow.”

     Thank you for the reminder to take time to be more careful.

     Again, as I have tried to say elsewhere, Sola Scriptura defines the whole Bible as the regula fidei for just this reason. You can correct me by showing the error of my interpretation and we can both return to the Scriptures for a more accurate understanding of God’s revelation for all generations.

     Blessings.

411. lojahw November 27th, 2009 10:32 pm :

     Bryan, I just noticed in your response to #374:

     So throughout the history of the Church, all the doctrines that have been taught definitively by the Magisterium, in matters of faith or morals, have been divinely protected from error.

     Could you be more specific: for example, is there a one-to-one correspondence between the current Catechism of the Catholic Church and the definitive teaching of the Magisterium? If this is way off, where can one find the authorized record of the definitive teaching of the Magisterium?

     In Christ,
     Lover of Jesus and His Word

412. lojahw November 27th, 2009 11:08 pm :

     Bryan,

     It occurred to me that we have been discussing how one knows the boundaries of the apostolic church. You have focused on the pedigree of the church leaders traced to the apostles, and to the infallible teaching interpreting the apostolic faith. But one thing you haven’t addressed is how the teaching of your Church is actually derived from the Apostles. Is there an authentic record that traces the content of the teaching of your Church today to what the Apostles themselves taught? For example, when I read your catechism, it often invokes references to things like the Council of Florence or John of Damascus, but nowhere do I find a record that traces its intermediate references back to the Apostles. Is there such an authentic record that traces these teachings step-by-step to the Apostles?

     When using Sola Scriptura, one can directly trace a teaching to the Prophets and Apostles who comprise the foundation of the Church, of which Jesus Christ is the cornerstone. It would seem that for a Church to be called Apostolic, it would be just as important to trace its teachings step by step (as its representatives) to the Apostles.

     Thank you.

413. T Ciatoris November 28th, 2009 12:25 pm :

     Dear lojahw,

     Thanks for your kind responses. Hope your internet access situation improves.

     With regard to our little spat over proof-texting, let me apologize for all the slapstick confusion (Wait, who’s on first?) and try to explain one last time what I understood myself to be doing in #383. I was not giving examples of proof-texting, but taking examples of possible pro-Nicene proof-texts (one of which you’d used yourself in a pretty proof-text-y way in #290, the other of which, I admit, I tacked on gratis) and showing that an Arian could answer these. The possibility that an Arian could respond coherently and plausibly demonstrates the insufficiency of proof-texting. I was by no means endorsing the practice, though I can understand why you might have taken me to mean that proof-texting was a legitimate theater for theological battle—I didn’t mean that.

     As an aside on John 1:1: I know Greek grammar relatively well. I don’t endorse the “a God” reading, which I know the JWs famously do. It’s not a strong reading of the grammar, but it’s not, to my knowledge, actually impossible. In any event, it’s more or less futile to argue about an indefinite article in a language that doesn’t have one. But we non-modalist Nicenes have to be careful, too, in the other direction: the referent of the second “God” isn’t the same as the first (“the God”); otherwise you wind up with patripassianism. The first “[the] God” refers to the Person of the Father (the normal biblical referent of ho theos with the definite article); the second “God” refers to the Divine Nature.

     I appreciate your irenic response to my calling you out on Ps 55:19. One thing I’d like to put back on the table, though, is the hermeneutical implications of your oopsy-daisy mistake (and I recognize, of course, that we all make them!). When you thought that the antecedent of “with whom there is no change” was God, you were prepared to understand this verse to be making a metaphysical claim about God’s eternal Being. Obviously, you don’t want to make such a claim about the psalmists’ enemies. But why not, if you were prepared before to conclude that it was a metaphysical claim? (To answer based solely on the difference between “God” and “the enemies” is to beg the question.) How do we know when we are entitled to accept statements (esp. about God) metaphysically (e.g., Num 23:19) and when we aren’t (e.g., Gen 6:6; Exod 32:14)? Where is the necessary philosophical framework for making such decisions actually laid out within the Bible? And if it’s not there, who’s to say that an alternative philosophical framework (such as we find in the process theologians) isn’t just as good? I have an answer to this, but do you?

     Relatedly, I think your appeal to Exodus as a whole functions similarly to Mal 3:6, emphasizing God’s faithfulness to His covenant people—to apply this to His eternal Nature is still an exegetical leap. The difference I see between us, lojahw, is that because of the teaching I’ve received from Sacred Tradition I have a principled reason to make that exegetical leap with confidence; limited to the principle of sola Scriptura, I don’t think you do.

     With respect to Exod 3:14 in particular, I don’t want to get too deep into the question in this forum, but, as I’m sure you know, it’s a very vexed issue. The precise interpretation of the Hebrew is very cryptic and controverted, and one’s interpretation often depends in part on how much weight one is willing to give to the LXX’s choice of translation here (I’m for it, by the way, especially because of the mileage the Gospel of John gets out of it: cf. the Greek of John 1:18). But to draw a firm metaphysical conclusion from Exod 3:14 does suggest the presence of a Platonic philosophical interpretive framework along the lines of what Philo was doing. Re: James 1:17, I love that verse, and (as with the other texts we’ve mentioned) I don’t have any particular problem with referring it to God’s eternal Nature. But I imagine that one could counter by noting that the emphasis is on God’s loving Providence, not on His ontology. But, look, it’s kind of wearying to argue about a Divine attribute on which you and I agree. I just think we shouldn’t get over-confident about how “obvious” some of these things are from various scriptural texts, not least because this will wind up flattening our own reading of Sacred Scripture.

     I think I understand your take on the regula fidei. I disagree, but I think it’ll be best to drop it for now. There’s only so much we can do at once. :-)

     Regarding my points about “solo Verbo,” you chide me in #408, “One must not assume there is any competition between the living and the written Word of God.” I don’t have time to unpack my reaction to this in full detail; maybe that work can get done elsewhere some other time. But this chastisement actually seems a little ironic to me coming from a proponent of sola Scripture. From my point of view as a Catholic, the Protestant insistence that the Bible is “complete” as the Word of God is actually the position that insinuates some sort of “competition” between Christ’s presence in Scripture and His presence in other modes. I worry that the Protestant approach to the Bible, which divorces it from or at least places it “above” a thick ecclesiology and sacramental theology, constantly runs the risk of reifying and therefore ossifying “the Word of God” into something that I can carry around in my pocket. But Holy Scripture, as proclamation of and genuine encounter with the living Christ in the Holy Spirit, primarily “happens” within the context of the Church’s sacramental life. And so an ontology of “Scripture” that centers on (even if it doesn’t actually terminate in) Scripture as “the Bible” which is “a (divinely inspired, to be sure) book” strikes me as unhealthy and reductionist. I wonder if this helps you understand why your objection, “I’ve never found anything in the ECF writings that claims to be commanded by Jesus that is not in the Bible” (#408), isn’t particularly meaningful to me.

     One more thing on that topic: your assumption that the fact that Jesus’ words will not pass away (what a beautiful promise!) somehow must necessitate full inscripturation (John 21:25?) strikes me as an extremely culturally conditioned assumption. Just a thought.

     in Christ,

     TC
     1 Cor 16:14

414. Keith W. Thompson November 28th, 2009 12:32 pm :

     Tim,

     You wrote:
     

     We cannot compare the Roman Church to the Protestant sects because the former is the true, united, Catholic Church and the latter is a group of heretical communities that have broken off and splintered from the true Church which Christ founded.

     Can we please try to be a “wee-bit” more charitable than this? If this is a site dedicated to opening the lines of discussion between Catholics and Protestants, this sort of language might not be the most… charitable.

     Thanks,
     Keith WT

415. lojahw November 28th, 2009 2:19 pm :

     Bryan, re: the Vincentian canon.

     1) The boundaries of the apostolic Church are determined by Tertullian’s tests: 1) a particular church founded by an apostle (such as Rome) or by a successor of one of the apostles (such as Alexandria); 2) all churches, whether founded early or “later in time” without the benefit of an apostolic successor, must teach the Rule of Faith (a precursor of the Nicene Creed). Your insistence that rule 1 applies to all churches is inconsistent with Tertullian’s own words. It makes more sense to recognize the importance of teaching what the apostles taught than which personalities handed down the teaching. Your insistence on your particular brand of holy orders is special pleading. All valid churches practice ordination of their ministers who have been trained to teach and preach the Gospel. There is no justification for insistence on particular procedures of holy orders unknown to the apostles or the early church (cf. the Didache).

     I disagree with your conclusion that parsimony makes the first rule unnecessary. It was historically necessary for the successors of the apostles to refute heresies until the New Testament was available. Scholars have also shown that it takes three generations for myth to grow around historic events, so the continuity of the message of the gospel was proven to heretics in the apostolic age by the apostles, and afterwards by both the successors of the apostles and the New Testament records. It was important that since some of the successors of the apostles might not accurately remember everything they were taught viva voce, that a written record be established as a perpetual reference for the “faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” After two or three generations, the tendency of human transmission to alter the original message required reference to the permanent authoritative record of the Gospel. By the time of Tertullian (three or four generations after the New Testament was written), there were two witnesses of the gospel: a) the churches founded by the apostles and their successors and b) the New Testament (cf. Prescription, 21). The Trinitarian Rule of Faith Tertullian stated in ch. 13 of The Prescription Against Heretics agreed with the witness of both. The “who” you refer to is definitely recognized by Protestants: they were Christ’s Apostles and the “true doctrine” is that which they handed down in their Gospels and epistles.

     As an aside, Tertullian was not an advocate of Sola Scriptura because he did not believe that most Christians had the comprehensive understanding of Scripture to refute heretics. He was justified in his concern. This, however, does not refute Sola Scriptura, but suggests the need for caution in applying it. It is beyond the ability of Christians to practice individually: it must be practiced within and with the participation of the larger Body of Christ.

     2. Your charge of “ecclesial deism” is a new one! Deism assumes that God is no longer engaged in His creation. In no way can that charge apply to Sola Scriptura churches, which teach that the Holy Spirit speaks to us through His Word in every generation and accomplishes what He desires even through its reading (cf. Isaiah 55:10-11). God indeed engages us through His Word, which is “living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword … able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Heb. 4:12).

     Your article on the subject seems to argue that if God has remained active in His church, then the Church must be infallible, and anyone who denies the Church is infallible denies that God has remained engaged with it. This is a false dilemma. God has sustained His creation with all of its brokenness since the Fall; God sustained His chosen people, Israel, through apostasy (and, as the Apostle Paul taught: one day “all Israel will be saved”). That the Church will one day will be presented as a spotless bride to Christ in no way bypasses the current process of its sanctification and perfection. What you ignore is that God has preserved His perfect Word in Scripture as the infallible record of His plan of salvation. “Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts” (Heb. 4:7; cf. Ps. 95:7f).

     3. You wrote:
     

     “If we wish to have the mind of the Spirit, we must find the Church, and then find the mind of the Church, and subordinate ourselves to the Spirit in the Church.”

     I answered this in #1 above. Special pleading does not help your argument. The Church is wherever Christ’s disciples are gathered together in His name: the Body together with the Head (cf. Matt. 18:20).

     4. You also wrote about Protestantism:
     

     “the notion that we can be saved by science.”

     This is a straw-man argument that mischaracterizes Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura Christians seek salvation through the living Word of God: Christ Himself. We simply trust that the Scriptures are (at this time in history) the supreme and sufficient authoritative teaching that leads to saving faith in Him.

     5. You and I disagree on the extent of divine authorization passed on to the successors of the apostles. You claim it is infallible; I do not because the historical record refutes it (e.g., recall Pope Honorius’ Monothelitism for which he was anathematized by the Sixth Ecumenical Council; Pope Urban VIII who charged Galileo with heresy for teaching the diurnal rotation of the earth; etc. – the actual list is long).

     6. You wrote:

     As for the quotations from St. Vincent, those are fully in agreement with (and supportive of) the Catholic faith and the Catholic Church.”

     I would like to know how you defend this statement (perhaps on another thread?).

     Blessings.

416. TurretinFan November 28th, 2009 4:33 pm :

     Tom Riello:

     You wrote:
     

     K. Doran puts it well concerning no heresy affecting the Roman Church. I noticed in your remarks concerning those sees who possessed Apostolic Sucession (Alexandria, Constantinople etc..,) no reference was made to the Bishop of Rome or that see teaching or affirming heretical doctrine concerning the nature of the Godhead or the Person of Christ. It is possible for those who possess valid orders to be involved in heresy or schism, for example the Donatists. In fact, as then Cardinal Ratzinger points out (Father Aidan Nichols’ excellent book The Thought of Pope Benedict XVI) Cyrprian’s appeal to Apostolic Sucession needed the addition of Augustine’s union with the cathedra petri.

     This seems like an odd response. Liberius is fairly accused of signing the Sirmian (semi-Arian) creed, and Honorius I promoted monothelitism. Both were bishops of Rome. Honorius I is listed as the seventieth pope in typical lists, and Liberius as the thirty-sixth.

     And these are only two of the less disputed examples. We might, for example, point out Hippolytus of Rome and his reasonable accusations against Zephyrinus, (199-217) and Callistus I (217-22).

     It doesn’t appear that the Roman bishops have been free from reasonable accusation of heresy either, even after we grant (a bit unfairly) a list of bishops generated after the fact and selected among competing rivals who are not objectively distinguishable in terms of succession.

     -TurretinFan

417. TurretinFan November 28th, 2009 4:43 pm :

     K. Doran:

     You wrote:
     

     It became a matter of universal acceptance among orthodox Christians that no council, no matter how great, was considered binding unless it was explicitly accepted by the Roman see.

     I wonder when you think this became a matter of universal acceptance among orthodox Christians?

     As I have previously noted on my blog (link to the relevant post), the Council of Constance (1414 to 1418) declared “that everyone of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey [an ecumenical council] in those matters which pertain to the faith,” which seems not to reflect a belief on their part that they needed papal approval. In fact, requiring papal approval for the Council of Constance would have made it difficult for the council to heal the western schism.

     -TurretinFan

418. TurretinFan November 28th, 2009 4:53 pm :

     Several commenters have mentioned Vincent’s canon. This rule, in a typical translation is:
     

     Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly ‘Catholic,’ as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.

     There a few obvious difficulties applying Vincent’s canon today, even if it worked in Vincent’s day. First, it is difficult to create any sort of reliable poll of “all, or certainly nearly all, [ancient] bishops and doctors.” Second, selecting certain ancient “Christian” writers over others as fathers sometimes begs the doctrinal question under consideration. Finally, identifying “the whole Church through the world” can be itself a difficult task, without bringing one’s prior doctrinal commitments to bear.

     In short, Vincent’s canon is not a workable alternative (at least not these days) to Sola Scriptura. Moreover, Vicent’s canon was not itself a universal, ancient majority belief in any circle. Instead, the ancient majority belief is the one that Vincent identifies as a hypothetical question to his own comments:
     

     Here, it may be, someone will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church?

     Those views, namely that the canon is complete and not just sufficient but abundantly sufficient, are the views that were held not only in Vincent’s day but among those who we consider the fathers of the church.

     -TurretinFan

419. Bryan Cross November 28th, 2009 6:02 pm :

     rfwhite (#409),

     Strictly speaking, Catholics have never had to “overcome” solo scriptura, because it has never been the case in the Catholic Church that Scripture alone was the only authority. There have always been successors of the Apostles leading the Church. Your question, however, is something like this: How can we know if apostolic succession has prevented a situation within the Catholic Church equivalent to that described by Mathison as resulting from solo scriptura? What is the evidence that apostolic succession prevents theological chaos and confusion? If apostolic succession is supposed to prevent the theological confusion that comes from solo scriptura, why does there seem to be theological confusion among many Catholics? Doesn’t such theological confusion among Catholics undermine your claim that recovering apostolic succession takes care of this problem?

     Undoubtedly you are referring to the fact that many Catholics seem theologically confused, even about the doctrines of the Catholic Church. This is, unfortunately, all too true, and it is the result of poor catechesis. But, there are principled differences between the two situations (i.e. confusion resulting from solo scriptura, and confusion resulting from poor catechesis within the Catholic Church under the three-fold authority of Scripture, Magisterium, and Tradition).

     First, I should make two preliminary qualifications. As I mentioned earlier in the comments (around #76 I believe), we all agree that apostolic succession (without further qualification) does not prevent individual bishops from falling into heresy and schism. The Catholic Church believes and teaches that the gift of the keys given by Christ to St. Peter are passed down by apostolic succession from St. Peter, and that therefore the successor of St. Peter is protected from error when, exercising his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church. (Vatican I) All the bishops in communion with the successor of St. Peter, either when assembled or spread out over the world, are also protected from error when they propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful. So apostolic succession, without any further qualification, does not prevent a situation of a rogue bishop collecting followers who agree with his interpretation of Scripture and Tradition, etc. Apostolic succession, in conjunction with the keys given to St. Peter, does, however, prevent the kind and degree of theological chaos and confusion that would result if there were no keys and no succession.

     In addition, even the degree of clarity we have concerning the identity and nature of the Bible and which books belong to it, is dependent on the Magisterium. (I understand that you may not agree; I’m simply describing things from the Catholic point of view. Our next article will address the canon question.) The solo scriptura position is, in that respect, parasitic on the previous decisions by the Magisterium regarding the canon of Scripture. It necessarily but unconsciously borrows even the one thing all solo scriptura-ists have in common (i.e. commitment to the [Protestant] Bible) from prior decisions by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church regarding the canon.

     So, how can we know if apostolic succession (as just qualified) has prevented a situation within the Catholic Church equivalent to that described by Mathison as resulting from solo scriptura? In order to answer that question, we have to understand the difference between the sort of theological confusion that necessarily follows solo scriptura (and the kind of division that entails), and the sort of theological confusion we presently find among many Catholics (and the kind of unity that permits).

     Solo scriptura entails that no interpretation of Scripture is definitively established and irreversible. Given solo scriptura, we pick up the Bible as if no one has ever picked it up before, because no one’s having picked it up before requires anything of the way we now read it. That results in entirely unrestricted theological uncertainty, excepting whatever is perspicuous to all readers of at least minimal intelligence. This is why unrestricted theological uncertainty is intrinsic to solo scriptura. Take a thousand people and give each a Bible, and ask them each to come up independently with a systematic theology, the result would be many different incompatible systems, even though there would be a good deal of theological common ground. The Bible itself is insufficient to adjudicate between theological systems, in part because individuals each bring different presuppositions to the interpretive process. For these reasons the interpretive disagreements would be perpetual, because the persons would be at an irresolvable theological impasse.

     How do we know this? This experiment has already been done; it is Protestantism. Perspicuity of Scripture is not sufficient in itself to maintain one Church, or to restore unity out of fragmentation. The evidence for this can be seen in various sects in Church history, but especially in the almost five hundred year history of Protestantism. Wherever apostolic succession is lost, a process of fragmentation immediately commences, and the history of Protestantism demonstrates this indisputably.

     The situation is so bad that most contemporary Christians have even lost our memory of the historical unity of the Church, and hence we think nothing of seeing a building belonging to a different denomination on every street corner. We think nothing of seeing this sort thing in every Saturday newspaper. Fragmentation is now normal to us, so normal that we don’t even perceive it as evil, as not the way things are supposed to be. The unity of the Church has been transferred (in our minds) to the invisible Church. That was the only way to rationalize the evil of schism, a word no one even uses anymore, because it is not applicable when the Church is invisible. It would be unbelievably scandalous to the contemporary Christian mind to conceive of all these different denominations (and independent churches) on every street corner as schisms from the Church. We’ve become so desensitized to schism, that the very suggestion that denominations are in schism from the Church prompts charges of arrogance against Catholics and the Catholic Church. This widespread fragmentation is a result of the unrestricted theological uncertainty intrinsic to solo scriptura and its rejection of the Magisterium havings its authority in succession from the Apostles.

     Contrast that sort of theological uncertainty with the theological epistemological situation within the Catholic Church. The three-fold Catholic authority structure of Scripture, Magisterium and Tradition entails that over the course of twenty-one ecumenical councils, how I can interpret Scripture is not wide open and indeterminate. There are many theological boundaries that have already been laid down by the Church once and for all, and so the range of orthodox interpretive options is limited to those that remain within those boundaries. That leaves two sorts of theological uncertainty possible within Catholicism: one resulting from ignorance of what the Church has already defined, and the other resulting from open theological/interpretive possibilities that the Church has not closed off. Both of those types of uncertainty are quite different from the sort of uncertainty resulting from having no Magisterium, but having only a Bible (in solo scriptura).

     The first sort of ignorance (i.e. ignorance of what the Church has already defined) is not intrinsic to Catholicism per se, as unrestricted theological uncertainty is intrinsic to solo scriptura. Ignorance of what the Church has already defined can largely be remedied simply by reading the Catechism, and the acts of the Councils, or any collection of Catholic dogmas (e.g. Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma). We will always have the ignorant among us, just as we will always have the poor among us. (Matt 26:11) But theological uncertainty due to mere ignorance of what the Church has already explicitly and clearly stated is easily remedied, while theological uncertainty resulting from what I have referred to elsewhere as “underdetermination of hermeneutical disambiguation,” (i.e. an indeterminacy that is objective, not merely subjective) cannot be remedied. Of course Catholics are fine with mystery. The problem with objective indeterminacy is that it cannot be the epistemological foundation, without entailing skepticism. Objective indeterminacy has to be located within an epistemic framework in which other things are known. For example, the Eucharist is a mystery, but we know that it was instituted by Christ. But solo scriptura does not provide that epistemic framework; it does not provide the framework for distinguishing essentials from non-essentials, for answering the second-order question of what is allowable mystery and what is not. And if the second-order questions are all up in the air, fragmentation and disintegration are inevitable.

     The other sort of theological uncertainty possible within Catholicism (i.e. open theological possibilities that the Church has not closed off) is also very different from the sort of theological uncertainty entailed by solo scriptura. This kind of theological uncertainty is not divisive, because Catholics know (or, if they don’t, can easily find out) that differing opinions on these matters are not schism-justifying differences, precisely for the reason that the Church has not made any decision about them at this point in time. So it is a first-order theological uncertainty (whether this particular doctrine/interpretation is true or not) but not a second-order theological uncertainty (i.e. whether this particular doctrine/interpretation is essential/non-essential, orthodox/heretical). But as just mentioned, there is no principled basis within solo scriptura for distinguishing essentials from non-essentials, orthodoxy from heresy. In solo scriptura, orthodoxy is what I think Scripture says, and what I think Scripture says you must say as well, if I am to consider you a believer. Heresy is anything contrary to that. Whether it really is orthodox or heretical, I may not know for sure, but going by my interpretation of Scripture is the best I can do, given solo scriptura. This is second-order theological uncertainty, and it is intrinsic to solo scriptura, and makes solo scriptura intrinsically disposed to perpetual fragmentation and disintegration.

     In other words, under solo scriptura, among the theological questions that necessarily remain unanswered are “what is essential and what is not,” “what justifies schism, and what does not.” There is no ground or basis within solo scriptura for a distinction between essential and non-essentials; each person has to determine for himself what are the essentials and what are the non-essentials. So the sort of theological uncertainty entailed by solo scriptura potentially justifies fragmentation upon fragmentation, while the two sorts of theological uncertainty possible within Catholicism do not allow or justify any schism. The two sorts of theological uncertainty possible within Catholicism call on Catholics to deepen their understanding of the Church’s faith, and extend liberty on non-essentials. The Church, not the individual, decides on essentials and non-essentials; the Church, not the individual, interprets and defines the faith. And this is where the principled ontological difference between a book and a person makes a difference. (See V.A. of our article.) The sort of theological uncertainty entailed by solo scriptura is intrinsic and objective; no amount of deeper study of Scripture will necessarily resolve it, because of the problem of underdetermination of hermeneutical disambiguation.

     So what is the evidence that apostolic succession (as qualified above) has enabled the Catholic Church to avoid the effects of solo scriptura? The best evidence is that for two-thousand years, the Church has remained one, with one faith shared by 1.1 billion people, while those Protestants who have adopted some form of solo scriptura in less than five hundred years have fragmented into so many pieces that many don’t even bother to belong to a denomination, but instead form independent ‘megachurches’ or ‘emergent’ churches.

     Those Catholics who have rejected the one faith of the Church cannot be cited as evidence of Church disunity, without begging the question. In other words, in order to treat dissenting Catholics as evidence against the unified faith of the Church, one would have to assume that the beliefs of the dissenters belong to the faith of the Church. That we recognize them as dissenters shows that we already know that they are at odds with the teaching of the Church. They aren’t in the same condition as someone who simply doesn’t know what the Church teaches. Those Catholics who know what the Church teaches, and willfully reject it, excommunicate themselves, according to Canon Law (1364): “With due regard for can. 194, part 1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication.”

     But those Catholics who simply don’t know what the Church teaches, even if their ignorance is a result of culpable neglect, remain in full communion with the Church. Their ignorance of the faith isn’t a strike against the necessity of apostolic succession for Church unity, because that necessity does not entail that every Catholic must have perfect agreement and certainty about every single doctrine of the Church. (See Hauerwas’ comments) Some members of the Body are weaker, either in the subjective dimension of their faith (i.e. the firmness and certainty of their faith) or in the objective dimension of their faith (i.e. their comprehensive grasp of the objective faith of the Church). The same is true of those Catholics who know what the Church teaches, but wrestle with doubts about particular doctrines, though nevertheless in obedience to Christ they affirm those doctrines, even while seeking better to understand the basis for them. That kind of situation is altogether different from myriads of schisms, each holding a doctrine incompatible with the others, and after almost five-hundred years of continued fragmentation, seemingly now standing at an impasse with respect to resolution and reconciliation with each other, unless they recover that principle of unity (principium unitatis) from which they separated in the sixteenth century.

     If this inference is correct, where would you tell me to look to find the evidence that apostolic succession has had this benefit for Roman Catholics?

     The best evidence is the Church herself.

     The video’s message for lapsed Catholics is the same message for those who lapsed a generation ago, and those who for different reasons left almost five hundred years ago.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

420. TurretinFan November 28th, 2009 6:08 pm :

     Michael Liccione:

     You wrote:
     

     The fundamental question that’s been reached at this point in the thread may be put thus: What are the authoritative criteria by which the inquirer-in-faith can identify the authentic community of faith, aka “the Church,” for the sake of knowing her faith as that which has been divinely revealed, and hence as an object of divine faith rather than just human opinion?

     While that may be an interesting question (it seems a tad loaded from where I’m standing), it does not seem to be a question particularly raised by the article or by the majority of the comments that I’ve seen in this box.

     Nevertheless, the question still pushes us back to a recurring theme in this box: the ultimate arbiter issue. Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that there are “authoritative criteria by which the inquirer-in-faith can identify the authentic [church],” the individual is asked to judge again – twice now: first in identifying the criteria, and second in applying the criteria to various churches.

     The question is loaded because the third judgment (whether one should be seeking a single communal entity to trust) is already taken as assumed.

     That does make the individual the ultimate arbiter in some way, but we trust that the authors of the article (Bryan and Neal, as I understand) do think that there is a principled distinction between that position and the position of sola scriptura.

     -TurretinFan

421. TurretinFan November 28th, 2009 6:33 pm :

     Tim Troutman wrote:
     

     We cannot compare the Roman Church to the Protestant sects because the former is the true, united, Catholic Church and the latter is a group of heretical communities that have broken off and splintered from the true Church which Christ founded.

     Someone else (I don’t recall who) had cricitized this as potentially uncharitable. I don’t agree with that criticism, Tim. I think you are simply honestly and frankly stating your opinion, and I’m glad you are willing to be open about it. I commend you for being frank.

     We (well, some of us) on the other side of the Tiber have a very different view, as you doubtless realize. My question to you: how can we resolve those different points of view? After all, truth is objective – not subjective. How can we determine the objective truth of whether Rome has maintained the faith of the apostles or departed from it?

     -TurretinFan

422. mateo November 28th, 2009 6:42 pm :

     lojahw :… is there a one-to-one correspondence between the current Catechism of the Catholic Church and the definitive teaching of the Magisterium?

     To answer your question, we would need to be precise in what you mean by “definitive” in your phrase “the definitive teaching of the Magisterium”.

     A doctrine of the Church is said to be de fide definita when it has been solemnly defined through the extraordinary exercise of the magisterium. Doctrines that are de fide definita are infallible.

     Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott

     If Truths are defined by a solemn judgement of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are “de fide definita”.

     —————–

     Pocket Catholic Dictionary, John A. Hardon, S. J

     MAGISTERIUM, EXTRAORDINARY The Church’s teaching office exercised in a solemn way, as in formal declarations of the Pope or ecumenical councils of bishops approved by the Pope. When the extraordinary magisterium takes the form of papal definitions or conciliar decisions binding on the consciences of all the faithful in matters of faith and morals, it is infallible.

     Doctrines that are de fide definita are received by the Church through the extraordinary exercise of the magisterium. The ordinary way that the Church receives infallible doctrine is through the ordinary and universal magisterium.

     —————–

     THE CHURCH’S MAGISTERIUM, by John Young

     The term ordinary universal Magisterium means an exercise of the Church’s teaching office where there is complete agreement, or fairly close to complete agreement, among the Catholic Bishops of the world that a particular doctrine is certainly true, but without a solemn definition. …

     ——————

     Pocket Catholic Dictionary, John A. Hardon, S. J

     MAGISTERIUM, ORDINARY The teaching office of the hierarchy under the Pope, exercised normally, that is, through the regular means of instructing the faithful. These means are all the usual channels of communication, whether written, spoken, or practical. When the ordinary magisterium is also universal, that is, collectively intended for all the faithful, it is also infallible.

     —————————–

     Code of Canon Law

     Can. 750 Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal magisterium, which is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred magisterium. All are therefore bound to shun any contrary doctrines.

     Back to your question, “… is there a one-to-one correspondence between the current Catechism of the Catholic Church and the definitive teaching of the Magisterium?” If you are asking if everything written in the CCC is de fide definita doctrine, then the answer is no. There are de fide definita doctrines quoted within the CCC. There are also infallible doctrines quoted in the CCC that has been received through the ordinary and universal magisterium, and there is material in the CCC that would not be considered to be infallible.

     lojahw :… is there a one-to-one correspondence between the current Catechism of the Catholic Church and the definitive teaching of the Magisterium? If this is way off, where can one find the authorized record of the definitive teaching of the Magisterium?

     There is no reason to assume the CCC is “way off” just because not every word within the CCC is a statement of infallible doctrine. The CCC is a “a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine.”

     APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION

     ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
     PREPARED FOLLOWING THE SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

     JOHN PAUL, BISHOP
     SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD
     FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY

     The Doctrinal Value of the Text

     The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. … I ask all the Church’s Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms.

     If you are interested in a reference book for Catholic Dogma, I recommend:

     Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Dr. Ludwig Ott.

     Recognized as the greatest summary of Catholic dogma ever put between two covers. A one-volume encyclopedia of Catholic doctrines. Tells exactly what the Church teaches on any particular topic. Tells when the pronouncement was made and gives the sources from Scripture, Church Councils, Papal statements and the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Essential for priests, seminarians, parents and teachers.

     You can read the introduction to Dr. Ott’s book here.

     Please take the time to read section 8 of the introduction, “The Theological Grades of Certainty”.

     You can find a list of all the de fide definita doctrines listed in Dr. Ott’s book here.

     Another invaluable reference book is Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma.

423. mateo November 28th, 2009 7:20 pm :

     lojahw :… It occurred to me that we have been discussing how one knows the boundaries of the apostolic church.

     The Catholic Church speaks about the visible boundaries of the Church in her documents, e.g.:

     Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.

     The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church- whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church–do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.

     Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

     The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

     Decree On Ecumenism – Unitatis Redintegratio (3)

     ———————

     Furthermore, the salvific action of Jesus Christ, with and through his Spirit, extends beyond the visible boundaries of the Church to all humanity.
     Dominus Iesus (12)

     ————————–

     For those who are not formallyand visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation.
     Dominus Iesus (20)

     An adult becomes a visible member of the Apostolic Church by receiving valid Sacraments of Initiation (Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist).

424. lojahw November 28th, 2009 9:23 pm :

     TC wrote:

     How do we know when we are entitled to accept statements (esp. about God) metaphysically (e.g., Num 23:19) and when we aren’t (e.g., Gen 6:6; Exod 32:14)? Where is the necessary philosophical framework for making such decisions actually laid out within the Bible? And if it’s not there, who’s to say that an alternative philosophical framework (such as we find in the process theologians) isn’t just as good? I have an answer to this, but do you?

     I find it curious that you introduce pagan philosophical frameworks. Tertullian famously wrote: “What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church?” (Prescription Against Heretics, 7). Indeed, it saddens me to read church fathers (including Augustine and Aquinas) who, in my opinion, gave too much deference to such philosophers. On the other hand, as Cyril of Jerusalem wrote: “Go to the bee, and learn how industrious she is: how, hovering round all kinds of flowers, she collects her honey for your benefit” (Catechetical Lectures 9.13). God has revealed Himself in many ways, even to pagan philosophers; yet most clearly and infallibly, in His Son, and through His prophets and Apostles.

     Sola Scriptura recognizes the “analogy of faith” – that is: Scripture interprets Scripture. The things that are really important are repeated in Scripture (like the story of the kings of Israel and the fourfold telling of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus). The point is that every heretical interpretation of a particular passage of Scripture can be countered by a careful examination including other parallel passages. This is particularly true of passages such as the ones you cite above about God. Passages that teach about God’s nature cannot be contradicted by an interpretation of other passages that are presented as observations from a human perspective (e.g., “so the Lord changed his mind…”). Re: Exodus 3:14, the Hebrew is unquestionably ontological: two identical instances of the Qal imperfect form of “I AM” connected by a relative particle is clearly self-referencing. While one might infer “faithfulness” from this ontological description, it is a merely result of God’s nature. In deference to our moderators, if you would like to further discuss the LXX translation, John 1:1, etc. I would recommend doing so offline (CTC can give you my email address).

     From my point of view as a Catholic, the Protestant insistence that the Bible is “complete” as the Word of God is actually the position that insinuates some sort of “competition” between Christ’s presence in Scripture and His presence in other modes.

     TC: perhaps your difficulty here is that (as elsewhere) your narrow focus takes your mind away from the larger context. In this case, you seem to have forgotten the Reformers’ Solus Christus. We are saved by Christ alone (not Scripture!). I agree with you about our encounter of the living Christ both in dying and rising with Him in baptism and in the remembrance of His once-for-all sacrifice in the Eucharist until He comes, yet I am also deeply moved when I hear His voice in the Gospels calling me to follow Him.

     Blessings.

425. lojahw November 28th, 2009 9:38 pm :

     Mateo,

     I understand what the CCC says about infallible definitions of faith, but I asked for a list of them. You RC’s make a big deal over knowing the exact canon of Scripture, but can you not give us a list of your infallible Magisterial teachings? (BTW: my question was a response to Bryan’s quote. If you want to know what he meant by it, you should ask him.)

     Peace in Christ,
     lojahw

426. lojahw November 28th, 2009 9:51 pm :

     TurretinFan: You shouldn’t feel threatened by the Vincentian Canon, which a) limits itself to investigations regarding the doctrine of the Trinity; b) requires solid support of ancient teachers to any novel teaching not found in the Rule of Faith from the beginning (e.g., Marian devotion, paying homage to images, even the role of the bishop of Rome).

     Blessings.

427. Tim A. Troutman November 28th, 2009 11:49 pm :

     TurretinFan – thanks for understanding. I think you’ve been around the Catholic-Reformed discussion (not just here) long enough to know that I don’t mean that any of you are heretics. I can understand where Keith was coming from; sometimes, even if something is true (or one thinks it is) it might be better to hold your tongue. At any rate – to you, thanks for understanding, to Keith – please excuse my imprudence.

     How can we determine the objective truth of whether Rome has maintained the faith of the apostles or departed from it?

     Well, the Reformation didn’t start overnight and it ain’t gonna end overnight either. It takes just a second for a body to get wounded, but it takes a long time for it to heal.

     Attempting to determine the objective truth is exactly what we hope to do here at CTC. So many of these issues are so interdependent that it is difficult to plot the best course of argument. Do we start with ecclesiology or hermeneutics? Do we start with monergism/synergism or with apostolic succession? We set out on a deliberate course of ‘lead articles’ which we’re posting and though it never plays out this way, in theory, one would not bother reading article 3 until they substantially (or at least conditionally) agreed with article 2. But I think no matter how we lay that out, we require some provisions on account of the reader to take our arguments fully into account. The best explanation of what I mean can be seen in my response to Jason Stellman in #145 above. I assumed he substantially agreed with the points made in articles prior to this one (at least provisionally) and conceded that the only way I could fully refute his objection to this one was dependent upon future articles.

     That is all to say that this is a long and tedious process which requires, from all of us, patience, humility, and above all, a love for the truth. I am glad to be seeking it along side of you.

428. Bryan Cross November 29th, 2009 12:44 am :

     Friends,

     We at CTC are trying to create and maintain a context in which there can be productive ecumenical dialogue. Of course that doesn’t mean that anyone who comments here must agree with us. That would make ecumenical dialogue impossible. But, in order for us to have a productive ecumenical dialogue, there is a certain basic minimum that we have to hold in common, not primarily in doctrine, but in method. Here I’ll say something about that method.

     Many Protestants who participate here are excellent examples of how it needs to be done. They ask sincere questions, usually just a few at a time. They also raise excellent objections, again, only a few at a time. They usually don’t post more than once a day, because they are focused and intellectually disciplined, and want to give careful thought to their questions and their answers. But they don’t just post and leave. They understand that this sort of dialogue requires long-term participation to be truly productive. Yet in their comments they are very measured, restrained, focused on the fundamental underlying points of disagreement, and seeking with us to get to the bottom of them. Their goal is not ultimately to refute us, even where they think we are wrong, and even though refuting us on certain points might be their proximate goal. Their fundamental goal is to find the truth with us, no matter who turns out to have been right or wrong.

     And when you are talking with someone who is seeking the truth, and who treats you as someone who is also seeking the truth, then you recognize that coming to agreement by rational dialogue is a real possibility; such truth-seeking charity gives hope to the future of ecumenical dialogue. We might not end up persuading each other, at least in the short-run, but even so, in such dialogue we come away with a deeper respect for the other person, precisely because we sense a sincere love for God and for the truth in the other person, and for a recognition in the other person of our own love for God and for the truth. Neither person can deny that shared affinity, nor deny that the other knows it. It is a bond of charity that impels toward unity in the truth.

     The contrasting approach is not one of dialogue. It is monologue, even if many people are speaking. It consists in throwing every objection within reach at the other person(s), and asserting the truth of one’s own position, as often and loudly as possible. Dialogue with such persons is futile, because they seem to have no interest in finding the truth, but only in debate, or in demonstrating superiority by a flood of information or tangential objections, or in hindering others from hearing what those who disagree with them have to say. One commenter of this sort posted eighteen comments in one day, most of which were not replies to our replies to his comments. That’s a sign of sophistry. There is no possibility of careful and serious dialogue when one person dumps a truckload of objections/information/contrary assertions, etc. on his interlocutors. It shows disrespect for the other persons at the [virtual] table.

     Another sign of sophistry is ‘refutation by high-handed assertion’. Table-pounding assertions kill ecumenical dialogue, because nothing more can be done when one or both sides resort to table-pounding, instead of ‘backing-up’, so to speak, in charity, to find the common ground necessary in order to show the other person why his position/claim is incorrect. But table-pounding assertions and sophistry also ruin the dialogue space for others who do know how to engage in rational dialogue, and wish to do so. It is one thing to explain one’s own position, how it differs from one’s interlocutor’s, and why one thinks one’s interlocutor’s position is false. That is good and necessary for ecumenical dialogue. But simply asserting that one’s interlocutor’s position is false doesn’t show anything. It is a resort to power, rather than reasoning, to resolve disagreement.

     The sophist generally does not give arguments, but he often says things like “I would suggest that …” or “I would argue that …”, as though his subjunctives are suitable replacements for real arguments. He patronizes his interlocutors by using the imperative voice, and treating them as though they have never read works they have in fact read. He treats statements like “I maintain that … ” or “I hold that … ” or any other self-descriptive statements as evidence for the truth of his own position, and sufficient to refute contrary positions. Philosophers (and truth-lovers in general) aren’t fooled by such techniques. We see right through them. But such sophistic techniques (and the persons who use them) destroy the contextual space for others who want to pursue genuine ecumenical dialogue.

     People are generally not persuaded by other persons who don’t show any interest in truly understanding their position, but merely assert the truth of their own. The more one person sees that the other person truly understands his position, the more he can take seriously the other’s criticisms of and objections to his own position. The more he sees that the other person does not understand his position, and seems to have no interest in coming to understand it accurately, the more difficult it is to take his objections seriously. The good interlocutor recognizes that when the other person keeps pointing out that he is misunderstanding his position, it is time to stop criticizing (let alone asserting the truth of his own position), to slow down, start listening, and starting asking sincere questions.

     We here at CTC are striving to foster genuine ecumenical dialogue and exclude the practice of sophistry. The necessary mutually shared method for engaging in genuine ecumenical dialogue avoids sophistry and pursues the truth in charity and mutual understanding, as I described above. Although we at CTC do not perfectly meet this ideal ourselves, it is what we are striving for, and what we hope our readers and participants will strive for as well. Popular internet ecumenical dialogue often is little more than sophistical sparring, and it sours people to the hope of real progress through dialogue, especially those who do not understand the difference between sophistry and the rational pursuit of truth. Helping develop the virtues required for rational dialogue (and avoiding sophistry) is part of our aim here. What we hope for ultimately is that through mutual pursuit of the truth in charity and these other virtues, we can come to unity in the truth on these matters that now divide us, so that we all, together, may bring glory to Christ in His Church in a time when the unity of Christians before the world is more important than ever before. May God give us His people grace this Advent to prepare for His Second Coming. May we bear the light of Christ to the world in darkness.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

429. T Ciatoris November 29th, 2009 5:39 pm :

     Dear lojahw,

     Here’s what I was trying to communicate about philosophical frameworks (pagan or otherwise) for exegesis, in three simple points:

     1. Everybody has one. This includes you and it includes me. There is no such thing as a philosophically innocent reading. There are philosophically unaware readings, philosophically unsophisticated readings, and philosophically inconsistent readings. But there aren’t philosophically innocent ones.

     2. Not everybody has the same one. Yours and mine, for example, are different from a process theologian’s.

     3. Therefore, an intellectually responsible reading of the Bible should be attentive to its philosophical framework and the reasons that justify it.

     That’s all I was trying to say, lojahw. Perhaps I was less than clear, but please try to give my comments a charitable reading.

     I’m not positive how you wish to synthesize the quotes from Tertullian and Cyril of Jerusalem. I assume it is this:
     

     God has revealed Himself in many ways, even to pagan philosophers; yet most clearly and infallibly, in His Son, and through His prophets and Apostles.

     If that’s the case, then (in company with St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas) I heartily agree.

     Your assertions about Exod 3:14 are not persuasive. Your only actual argument is to parse the Hebrew verb—to identify its stem and aspect—and then to tell me what this “clearly” means. This kind of grammatical argument does not of itself prove that Exod 3:14 constitutes an ontological statement; it’s just a bare assertion designed to dazzle those who haven’t studied Hebrew. I don’t understand what your point is when you (rightly) say the statement is “self-referencing”. Nobody here has claimed that God wasn’t referring to Himself in Exod 3:14. But “self-referencing” does not obviously equate to “ontological”? Frankly, a truly flat reading of the self-referential statement would make it merely tautological: on purely grammatical terms, anybody could say it! On your grammatical logic, Popeye’s “I yam what I yam” would have to indicate ontological immutability as well.

     But let’s be clear, once again: I’m not disagreeing with your conclusion; I’m disagreeing with your methods. Throughout our conversation about various texts you’ve been responding as if I disagreed with the results of your exegesis, even though I’ve repeatedly noted my agreement. I believe that God is eternally immutable. I believe that this is one (very important!) aspect of the inspired meaning of Exod 3:14. But I disagree with the assumptions and methods behind your exegesis.

     I agree that this is not the place for further discussion of the LXX or John 1. Since I agree with the results of your exegesis of these texts, I don’t feel an urgent need to pursue them with you privately. If, though, you think I’m missing something important, you may request my email from the moderators. Sorry to just put the ball back in your court. I’m not trying to be coy, but my interest is just not sufficiently acute to initiate myself.

     You wrote:
     

     TC: perhaps your difficulty here is that (as elsewhere) your narrow focus takes your mind away from the larger context.

     Insult noted.

     In this case, you seem to have forgotten the Reformers’ Solus Christus. We are saved by Christ alone (not Scripture!).

     Unless I’m completely confused, lojahw—and that’s possible, I admit—Solus Christus is fundamentally a soteriological slogan, and sola Scriptura is one about Divine Revelation. I’m aware of the reformers’ Solus Christus, but I thought we were discussing Divine Revelation, which the reformers, unlike Catholics, wished to limit to sola Scriptura.

     I am also deeply moved when I hear His voice in the Gospels calling me to follow Him.

     Excellent! Beautiful! Me, too. :-)

     Lojahw, please be assured that if you wish to respond again, I’ll happily read your comments thoughtfully and carefully. But I think it’s time we parted ways on this thread, so this will be my final comment to you—I guess that makes me a sitting duck! :-) Thanks for the invigorating conversation. Have a blessed Advent.

     Your fellow lover of Jesus and His Word,

     TC
     1 Cor 16:14

430. lojahw November 29th, 2009 7:34 pm :

     And a blessed Advent to you as well, TC. (I agree with you that further dialog between us on this subject is of doubtful value.)

     I do hope someone else will be able to help you understand Sola Scriptura better than I have.

     Blessings.

431. Andrew Preslar November 29th, 2009 9:11 pm :

     lojahw,

     I do hope someone else will be able to help you understand Sola Scriptura better than I have.

     It is with some reluctance, but in hope of improving our quality of conversation, that I draw your attention to the rude and unbecoming nature of this comment. The rudeness might be unintentional. I hope so.

     Obviously, you have not convinced your interlocutor that Sola Scriptura is true. And it is understandable that you hope that everyone will come to believe that Sola Scriptura is true.

     But not affirming the principle of Sola Scriptura, and not understanding the principle of Sola Scriptura, are two very different things.

     On a superficial level, your comment is self-deprecating, in that it implies that you have failed to teach your interlocutors a valuable lesson. On a more fundamental level, your comment is insulting to your interlocutors, because it implies that they stand need of some special instruction, due to a lack of understanding on their part.

     It would be better to say that “I hope someone else will be able to convince you of the truth of Sola Scriptura,” since this statement would be based on an objective fact, namely, that Catholics deny the principle of Sola Scriptura, and a subjective fact to which you have direct access, namely, your wish that Catholics (and everyone else) would accept this principle.

     As it is, the language you use presumes something that you have no direct knowledge of, nor have demonstrated, namely, the ignorance of your interlocutor.

     That is the kind of thing that tends to shut down dialogue. But we want to keep the lines of communication open.

     Andrew Preslar

432. Paige Britton November 29th, 2009 10:55 pm :

     Dear TC,
     Here I am again!
     This is in response to your #386 (which in turn responded to my #370) sometime last week.

     Part of the difficulty involved in a conversation like this is that, since we are not sitting across from each other at the kitchen table, we can’t very quickly correct misapprehensions & missteps. I do apologize if any of my phrasing comes across as slighting – that is surely not my intent. (I spoke of ‘resorting’ to the ‘assumption’ of a magisterium as if from the p.o.v. of a Protestant coming to the point of throwing in the towel, not meaning to caricature your own submission to Church teaching. :)

     A second difficulty arises because I am sometimes standing on tiptoes trying to grasp what you are asking, even before I begin to draft any kind of response. I’ve not had any formal training in this area, so I am a funny mix of knowledge and ignorance. Acting on the theory that it’s ultimately better (if initially more painful) to take a stab at answering and receive correction than it is to risk nothing and learn nothing, I plunge ahead. Thanks for your patience, and your willingness to converse.

     Some thoughts and Q’s:
     1. Re. Material & Formal Sufficiency: I have heard these terms, but I am not familiar with their meanings. Do they describe the difference between *content* and *authority*? And does the difference between Protestant & Catholic understanding here lie in our different confessions of what the Bible inherently IS? It would seem that we (P’s) would want to stress that the Bible contains its own authority and interprets itself, so does this mean that we find “formal sufficiency” in the text while you find it in the Church?

     2. Re. Perspicuity: I questioned your phrase “self-obviously confirmable from a simple, dogmatically unconditioned reading of Scripture,” noting that one could yet make a *complex* study of the biblical text in order to arrive at (or evaluate) a doctrinal formulation, and still not expect to need infallible Magisterial help. You felt that I was implying that all believers need to be formally educated in order to get at the doctrine of the Trinity. Now I am wondering whose perspicuity we are talking about. If you were speaking in terms of Protestant perspicuity (rather than a more general definition), here is my understanding of it (which I’ve double checked with my local Reformed scholars):

     a.) Perspicuity is an attribute inherent to the Bible itself, rather than to individual doctrines in varying degrees, and it describes God’s intention to communicate his revelation directly to believers through his written Word with no help from supernaturally guided interpreters (of the Catholic Magisterial sort). Individual doctrines may be more or less *obvious* in the text (e.g., Creation v. Trinity), but the degree of effort needed to discern/formulate a doctrine does not change the nature of the perspicuous Scriptures.

     b.) Perspicuity is an objective attribute of Scripture and does not vary according to the skill of the interpreter. The Bible’s perspicuity does not change just because some doctrines require concentrated effort or instruction for ordinary believers to perceive them in the text, or because, say, an illiterate reader cannot make sense of Gen. 1:1.

     This is why I adjusted your a-b-c phrasing in my last note, since such perspicuity does not depend on simple or complex reads, but on God’s intention for the interpretation of Scripture (i.e., thru a Magisterial arrangement, or not). No, I don’t believe that everybody has to be a scholar – that’s why God gives us teachers and pastors. (By “ordinary believers” I do not refer to “believers with average intelligence and education,” but to “ordinary believers as opposed to the supernaturally guided Pope and Magisterium.” Within the set of “ordinary believers,” then, different individuals will be more or less gifted and equipped for the task of interpreting Scripture and evaluating competing interpretations.)

     3. Re. Texts & Meanings: My puzzled questions stemmed from a lack of detail in my mind about the “material sufficiency” of Scripture in the Catholic system, which you’ve now filled in for me, thanks!

     4. Re. what I tentatively called the “unrepeatablility” of the two particular doctrinal formulations, I did indeed mean that the historical conditions at Nicaea/Constantinople and Chalcedon led to the crafting of something unique, not in *meaning* but in specific phrasing – as a Hopkins sonnet or even a da Vinci painting would be unique and unrepeatable events. Given this clarification, I don’t see that this suggestion betrays the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture; and certainly the Reformed, at any rate, would recognize and celebrate God’s providence and sovereignty over history in these formulations. (Of course God might have arranged for these crucial doctrines to have been articulated differently somehow, at a different time and by different individuals – but it is very difficult to imagine a more excellent convergence of personal and historical details!)

     Speaking of God’s providence, here is a related Q for you: at one point in the article above, Bryan and Neal write,

     “The denial of sacramental magisterial authority closes a person off to the Church as supernatural, leaving only the possibility of democratic (bottom-up) man-made authority under providential guidance.” (Under “Implications”)

     Now, to a Reformed believer with a robust view of God’s personal, intimate guidance of even the minutiae of human history, the latter arrangement doesn’t sound half bad. But of course the authors meant to contrast the solid certainty of the Catholic system with the rather chaotic, uncertain, and dicey arrangement of “sola scriptura.” Am I correct to read here a real difference between Catholic and Reformed teaching on providence? In Bryan and Neal’s usage, it would seem that resorting to an assumption of providence, so to speak, would be akin to relying on impersonal fatalism or chance. For some, “providence” is a throwaway word meaning “not much better than luck, might as well flip a coin,” but for others it’s a wonder and a delight. What do you think is going on in B&N’s use of the term?

     I look forward to your thoughts!
     pax,
     pb

433. Paige Britton November 29th, 2009 11:12 pm :

     Bryan (#419) wrote, “The video’s message for lapsed Catholics is the same message for those who lapsed a generation ago, and those who for different reasons left almost five hundred years ago.”

     The thoughtful Protestant mind boggles: Which is easier, do you think, straightening out contemporary evangelicalism on basic Christian doctrine, or convincing the same constituent that they are lapsed Catholics (well, as of 500 years ago)? Either way seems to resemble bailing the ocean with a teacup. We’ve all got our work cut out for us. :)
     cheers!
     pb

434. TurretinFan November 30th, 2009 10:49 am :

     lojahw:

     You wrote: “You shouldn’t feel threatened by the Vincentian Canon, which a) limits itself to investigations regarding the doctrine of the Trinity; b) requires solid support of ancient teachers to any novel teaching not found in the Rule of Faith from the beginning (e.g., Marian devotion, paying homage to images, even the role of the bishop of Rome).”

     I think you may have misunderstood my comments. Vincent’s canon is simply unworkable today, whether or not it was workable in Vincent’s day. In principle, it sounds nice – and would rebut all sorts of subsequent innovations. In practice, however, it is plagued by the difficulties I already noted.

     -TurretinFan

435. TurretinFan November 30th, 2009 10:57 am :

     Tim Troutman:

     I had written: “How can we determine the objective truth of whether Rome has maintained the faith of the apostles or departed from it?”

     You wrote (after some other discussion): “That is all to say that this is a long and tedious process which requires, from all of us, patience, humility, and above all, a love for the truth. I am glad to be seeking it along side of you.”

     I agree that patience, humility, and love for the truth are the state in which we should be while seeking to determine the objective truth. So far, so good.

     My question, however, was intended to be aimed more at the authority or authorities to which we should appeal (if any) to determine the objective truth of whether Rome has maintained the faith of the apostles or departed from it?

     -TurretinFan

436. TurretinFan November 30th, 2009 12:36 pm :

     Bryan Cross:

     Thanks for your comments at #364. I won’t repeat all of them. Your comments help illuminate your opening summary to me now. That summary was:
     

     In this article we argue that there is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura with respect to the holder of ultimate interpretive authority, and that a return to apostolic succession is the only way to avoid the untoward consequences to which both solo scriptura and sola scriptura lead.

     My response is a little complex, and so I hope I’ll make myself more clear by using some formatted structure in this response.

     1) If I understand you correctly, you do not mean by this to suggest that solo/sola lead to these consequences as a matter of logical necessity, but rather as a matter of historical reality (I was going to write “historical accident” but that is rather weaker than the claim I think you’re making). Can you please confirm that I have correctly understood that you are saying that these consequences are simply a practical outworking, not a logical necessity?

     2) I believe that by the expression “untoward consequences” you mean to include a bundle of things. I found interesting that later in the article you seemed to equate these untoward consequences with “unbiblical consequences”: (“Moreover, we shall show that the only way to avoid the solo/sola position (and the unbiblical consequences to which it leads) is by way of apostolic succession.”) But tracking down your definition of these consequences is tricky. You state, for example:
     

     In that respect, rejecting the authority of the Church, according to Mathison, has devastating consequences for Christianity, because it eliminates the creeds, and thereby eliminates the historic Christian faith as an objective reality.

     But you never explicitly state which consequences you had in mind, at least not by identifying them as the consequences. I’m left thinking that your implications section provides the answer (I’ve added the bracketed letters for convenience later in this comment):
     

     In this paper we have argued that apart from apostolic succession, there is no principled difference between solo scriptura and sola scriptura. If our argument is sound, it follows that the criticisms Mathison raises against solo scriptura apply no less to sola scriptura. If [A] “hermeneutical chaos and anarchy” result from solo scriptura, then they likewise result from sola scriptura. If solo scriptura leads to the [B] “multiplication of schisms,” so does sola scriptura. If solo scriptura entails that [C] the creeds have no “real authority,” then sola scriptura likewise entails that the creeds have no real authority. If the necessary result of solo scriptura is [D] a practical relativism concerning the content of Scripture, then this too is the necessary result of sola scriptura. If solo scriptura [E] “destroys” the authority of Scripture “by making the meaning of Scripture dependent upon the judgment of each individual,” then so does sola scriptura.

     I think that those are the five identifiable consequences that you have tried to assert (when I say “assert” – I don’t mean to suggest that you have avoided using arguments). Can you please confirm that [A]-[E] are in fact a more or less complete list of the consequences you have mind?

     3) Assuming for the moment an affirmative answer to (1) and (2), with respect, I offer the following undermining arguments:

     as to [A], “hermeneutical chaos and anarchy” is not a characteristic of the sola position. For example, confessional sola scriptura prevents this chaos and anarchy by the administration of the elders. Of course, what level of internal disagreement over things is considered chaos/anarchy tends to be a bit subjective, so it may be difficult to judge the historical data here in an unbiased way.

     as to [B], “multiplication of schisms” – this allegation is counter-intuitive. Churches where the elders lack any real authority or in which elders don’t exercise their authority are churches from which people would seem less likely to want/need to split. It seems that folks would want to split from churches where the elders are viewed as having authority, and they find themselves unable (due to conscience) to submit to that authority. Furthermore, if a church has [A], we wouldn’t expect [B], unless to avoid [A]. That is to say, these consequences seem opposed to one another.

     as to [C], “the creeds have no “real authority,”” – this allegation is logically impossible. By definition, the creeds/confessions/whatever-you-want-to-call-it have real authority in churches that practice sola scriptura. One might argue that such churches are prone to lapsing into a solo position, but this seems to suggest a problem with the people holding the position (too loosely) rather than a problem with the position itself.

     as to [D], “a practical relativism concerning the content of Scripture” – this one is requires some clarification. If the claim is that there is a “practical relativism” regarding non-essential doctrines in Scripture, why is this a problem? Should we not have charity in things that are not essential doctrines? If the claim is that there is a “practical relativism” in essential doctrines, this seems to fall prey to the same objection as at [C]. Would you please identify what you mean by [D]?

     as to [E], ““destroys” the authority of Scripture “by making the meaning of Scripture dependent upon the judgment of each individual,”” this one too requires some clarification. It seems to be, to some extent, a rephrasing of [D]. Furthermore, it appears simply to be reflective of the fact that the meaning of statement (whether in documentary or oral form) to a person is necessarily dependent on some judgment by the person. As such, it doesn’t really seem to much of a consequence. In other words, if it is simply pointed out that an individual must make judgments to understand things, that’s not really a destruction of the authority of Scripture, any more than it is a destruction of all external authority absolutely.

     Which gets us to the final point:

     4) You state that “a return to apostolic succession is the only way to avoid” these consequences. Nevertheless,

     a) allegedly the “Protestant Reformation” came out of a church that had apostolic succession. If it is good for the goose that the radical relativists be blamed on sola scriptura, then it seems proper for the gander that sola scriptura be blamed on apostolic succession.

     b) only following apostolic succession consistently would seem to avoid those parts of the problems that are avoidable. Yet, if one consistently follows sola scriptura one also would not have those same avoidable problems. To pitch inconsistently practiced [X] against consistently practiced [Y] seems to be an unfair comparison. Wouldn’t you agree?

     c) there are other ways to avoid the problems than apostolic succession and sola scriptura. For example, Mormonism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses [so-called] avoid this problem without apostolic succession (although one might argue that they substitute something similar) or sola scriptura.

     d) it may be that the cost of apostolic succession as the means to solving these problems is not worth the price. That is to say, a rigid hierarchy may avoid dissent, but it may do so at the cost of truth. Whether that is, in fact, the consequence is another story. I trust that you see that in the case of the Mormons and JWs, it is the case that their tightly controlled beliefs are not more true simply because the countenance less dissent.

     -TurretinFan

437. Colman November 30th, 2009 3:54 pm :

     Pardon me if I err but I don’t think the Roman Catholic Church has a single canon of scripture. Like the Creed the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the Scriptures of the Eastern Orthodox as being canonical. I believe that the Eastern Catholic Churches use the Eastern Orthodox Scriptural Canon.

     In some respects, the final parameters of the Canon of Scripture remain undetermined.

     Colman

438. lojahw November 30th, 2009 4:46 pm :

     TC (if you are still there): Please know that I intended no insult: I regret that we were unable to communicate better.

     Since my comments about understanding Sola Scriptura appear to have caused offense, please consider:

     Sola Scriptura begins with the affirmation that “the whole counsel of God” as recorded in Scripture is the regula fidei, and all interpretations must be consistent with all of Scripture. Secondly, Sola Scriptura affirms 2 Peter 1:20-21, “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” Because your arguments focused on a) possible alternate interpretations (not the common understanding of Christians from the time of the Apostles until now) of b) isolated verses, neither of which is compatible with the basic principles of Sola Scriptura, the dialog could not be fruitful. As I have argued previously, Sola Scriptura is perfectly compatible with consulting (as the Reformers themselves did) the historic understanding of Scripture from apostolic times forward. According to Sola Scriptura, the secondary authority of the Church – from the time of the Apostles until the present – is nontheless a valid authority. One who challenges the faith as “believed everywhere, always, by all” has a mighty tough burden to prove that Scripture should be interpreted differently.

     Peace in Christ.

439. T Ciatoris November 30th, 2009 7:40 pm :

     Dear Paige,

     Nice to have you back, and I hope your holiday was great! I’m sorry to say this will probably be my last comment to you on this thread, for two reasons. First, the thread is getting absurdly long. Second, I’m getting especially short on time these days. But if you want to continue privately, please don’t hesitate to ask the moderators for my email, and I’d be more than happy to continue our discussion without the pressure to respond as quickly as we tend to in the combox. I hope that sounds good to you. On to responding to your comment, which I’ll try to do point-by-point.

     As to the first difficulty, rest assured that I wasn’t offended and didn’t think you intended your phrasing to come off as slighting. Thanks for the clarification…but there’s a “but”. You noted that you were speaking “as if from the p.o.v. of a Protestant coming to the point of throwing in the towel.” I still want to register some concern about that, especially since I myself am an ex-Protestant who used to hold sola Scriptura, and I don’t think my abandonment of it was a case of “throwing in the towel,” as tempting as that sometimes was! It’s possible for a Protestant to wish to become a Catholic for this reason, but this would be a conversion out of a desire for certainty rather than out of a desire for truth (cf. Bryan’s post on Principium Unitatis here). I don’t think anybody should throw in the towel, throw up their hands, and become a Catholic out of epistemic despair. That might be a sufficient reason not to be a Protestant, but it’s not sufficient to become a Catholic. I think one should become a Catholic because one believes that Catholicism is true, not because it offers a subjective experience of certainty. But again, all this for the sake of accuracy and clarity, not because I think you were intending to be condescending or dismissive, either to the objective Catholic doctrine or to my subjective submission to it. And you’re right: all of that would have taken about forty seconds at a kitchen table. Still, a combox plus some patience makes for progress nonetheless!

     Second difficulty: thanks for your candor, humility, and persistence in dialogue.

     Thoughts/Questions
     1. Material & Formal Sufficiency
     You asked, “Do they describe the difference between *content* and *authority*?” I think that’s actually a decent way of putting it, understanding “authority” to mean “interpretive authority.” Material sufficiency (for a particular doctrine) means that the content of that doctrine is found in Scripture, but it does not say anything about how clearly or unclearly it’s expressed in the Bible. I’ve seen this equation before, which I think is probably about right and might be helpful: “material sufficiency” + “perspicuity” = “formal sufficiency”. I’ve been trying to argue that Scripture is materially sufficient for the dogmas defined in the fourth and fifth centuries, but that Scripture is not formally sufficient for these dogmas to bind the conscience of all Christians without a living ecclesial interpretive authority guided by the Holy Spirit.

     (Sidebar: As I’ve tried to clarify above, this means that, as a Catholic studying Church history, I can confidently identify heresies as heresies rightly anathematized (thus avoiding doctrinal wishy-washiness) without being constrained to impugn the intelligence and/or scriptural knowledge and/or moral character of every single heretic. Certainly there have been heresies that Scripture is formally sufficient to refute (including many that are popular today!), but I don’t believe that’s the case for all of them. Certainly there have been plenty of stupid and/or biblically illiterate and/or evil heretics, but I don’t believe all of them are such.)

     I think you’re quite right that there are different ontologies of Scripture operative in Catholicism and Protestantism. This is way too big an issue to get into in depth right now, but I’ll not resist the temptation to throw out a few preliminary thoughts. I think it’s a wonderful gift that Catholics and Protestants can agree that the Bible is the written Word of God (bracketing the extent of the canon for now), but that can sometimes mask deeper differences. For example, as a Catholic I cannot intelligibly speak of the Bible as Sacred Scripture if it’s separated from its home, its native context: the Church, above all in her liturgy. The Bible as the Word of God does not subsist as an independent, fixed entity in an ecclesial vacuum, but precisely in the Church, the Body of Christ and Temple of the Holy Spirit. Outside the Body animated by the Spirit, the Bible is in constant danger of becoming a “dead letter.” And yes, I think you’re right that, unlike Protestants, we Catholics would not be comfortable, if we’re using language precisely, talking about the Bible “containing its own authority.” All authority is, of course, God’s, and He doesn’t deposit it somewhere (the Bible, the Church, my own mind, or whatever) and then leave it to fend for itself or function by itself (much less interpret itself :-) ). So I think we need to talk more precisely about how Scripture mediates God’s authoritative revelation without setting it up as an independent (even if divinely appointed) source of authoritative revelation. (I do realize, Paige, that you may or may not have been using precise language when you referred to the Bible “containing its own authority,” so you may not have intended to imply everything I just inferred. I’m not trying to pull a “Gotcha!” on you, just to push for more precise language.) I’m about to get carried away far beyond the scope of this comment, so I’ll stop, but I hope that at least sets the table for potential future discussion.

     2. Perspicuity
     I really appreciate your careful articulation of the doctrine of perspicuity. I’ve occasionally been sloppy in my use of the term, so this is very helpful. Here are a few things that come to mind:

     First, I think we need to be circumspect about how much work can be done by the insistence that perspicuity is an “objective attribute” of the Bible, because it nonetheless makes a claim about the Bible’s (inherent and objective) capability of producing a subjective experience for the Bible-reader under the proper conditions. That is, if I understand it aright, the doctrine of perspicuity asserts that, as a result of God’s salvific intentions for Scripture, there inheres in the Bible an objective clarity. Fair enough, but this is only an abstract postulate until and unless it issues in concrete subjective experiences of believing readers finding doctrinal clarity in the Bible. This is where I think we run into trouble.

     You’ve agreed, I think, that some complex central doctrines (say, the Trinity in a developed articulation) may not be clear to any given member of the faithful, but that this is not a problem for the doctrine of perspicuity because some have been appointed as pastors and teachers. But let’s say I don’t have a vocation to be a pastor or teacher. How do I know which pastors and teachers to listen to? The well-educated Catholic priest down the street says the Bible teaches one thing about a central doctrine; the well-educated Presbyterian minister says it teaches something else; and the Pentecostal preacher who claims to have the anointing of the Holy Ghost says something totally different, but boy does he thump his Bible a lot! So here, anyway, we’re back to sola = solo. How else, according to sola Scriptura, am I supposed to select my subordinate and fallible ecclesial authority responsibly? The onus is right back on me to figure out who is actually giving the right interpretation of the allegedly perspicuous scriptural Word of God on central doctrines. So if there are some complex central doctrines (like the Trinity—and the elephant in the room, justification :-) ) that aren’t actually in practice clear to any given Christian with average intelligence who hasn’t received formal training and isn’t called to be a pastor or a teacher, then what kind of work is the doctrine of perspicuity actually doing? This is why I think the emphasis on perspicuity being “inherent and objective” will only get you so far before it just turns in on itself, so that the Bible is inherently clear to, well, itself, but not necessarily clear to anyone else.

     At this particular point, one release valve for proponents of perspicuity is the appeal to the necessity of illumination by the Holy Spirit. But the presence or absence of the Holy Spirit in another person is, of course, very difficult to adjudicate, to say the least (cf. Bryan’s post here). So what winds up happening in practice is that 1 Cor 2:14, for example, gets used as a weapon. This verse has already been used once to bludgeon a (heretical, I admit) friend of mine on this thread (#298), and once to bludgeon me in a comment over at TurretinFan’s blog: here. Whatever the intention, the logic in practice seems to run like this: (1) the illumination of the Holy Spirit is required to understand the perspicuous Bible; (2) your interpretation of the perspicuous Bible does not agree with mine; (3) my interpretation of Scripture is correct (it’s perspicuous, after all); (4) therefore, you do not have the illumination of the Holy Spirit. This is extremely troubling to me, and I assume it would be to you, too, Paige.

     3. Texts & Meanings
     Glad to have helped. :-) One disclaimer: I’ve been careful to confine my assertions about “material sufficiency” to the early ecumenical councils, where it’s basically uncontroversial. To be fair, you should know that you’re not getting my full view of material sufficiency, which is, I like to think anyway, very complex and nuanced. But for the purposes of the present discussion, I think we’re in good shape.

     4. The “unrepeatability” of the formulations of Nicaea-Constantinople and Chalcedon
     This is totally unfair to you, but I’m going to have to simply gesture at a couple of things here. I think you’ve done a beautiful job clarifying what you meant by unrepeatability. But the fact that I’m uncomfortable as a Catholic abstracting the dogmatic content from its historical formulation (though I don’t say it’s impossible) indicates to me that we’re getting at something very significant here that’s probably also too big for a combox, viz., that Catholics are tethered to history in ways Protestants aren’t. I think maybe revisiting my comments about ecclesiology in ##263, 279, and 400 might give you some idea of where I’m going with this (sorry to be so allusive and vague, but this was supposed to be a brief comment!). I think these ecclesiological comments probably relate to the quote from Bryan and Neal that you asked about. Beyond that, though, you’ll be way better off asking them your excellent questions about Divine Providence and the Church. I sit near the back with the total ignoramuses on the Philosophy Bus, but those two sit up front and chat with Aquinas.

     Thanks one last time for the excellent conversation, Paige!

     in Christ,

     TC
     1 Cor 16:14

440. mateo November 30th, 2009 7:47 pm :

     Hi Paige, glad to see you back! I would like to pick up our conversation again.

     Paige Britton: … You asked: “Paige, you have yet to answer this question: If sola scriptura doctrine and the concomitant private interpretation of the Bible is not the source of the doctrinal chaos within Protestantism, then what is the source of that doctrinal chaos?”

     Mateo, I don’t know that there is one source. If the concept of the infallible interpretive Magisterium is true, then we’re all missing the boat, and no wonder we’re floundering around in different denominations. If there is no earthly infallible interpretive authority such as the Catholic Magisterium, then the source is human sin – from the little sin of hasty reading, to the largest sins of lies and deception.

     Are the Amish given over to hasty readings of the Bible? If not, then why don’t they agree with every doctrine espoused by the Calvinists? Could a source of the doctrinal chaos within Protestantism be simply due to ignorance, and the fact that not every doctrine of the Christian faith is perspicuous in the Bible?

     You have been asserting the scriptures are perspicuous. But I don’t see any evidence at all that with only a Protestant Bible in my hands, that after a careful and prayerful reading of the Protestant Bible, that I will necessarily understand that certain fundamental doctrines of orthodox Christianity are perspicuous. I agree with T Ciatoris that with only a Protestant Bible to guide me, that a modalist, or an Arian reading of scriptures is also at least plausible. That is why I asked you in my post # 341: “Have you ever tried to use the Protestant Bible alone to convince a Oneness Pentecostal to change their mind about the Trinity?” I know that I have tried to do that many times. My experience tells me that it is not possible to prove, using a Protestant Bible as my only source, that a modalist interpretation of scriptures is impossible to maintain. I have had the same experience with Jehovah Witnesses – if all I have is a Protestant Bible as my only source, I cannot really prove through the alleged perspicuity of scriptures that an Arian interpretation of scriptures is a totally implausible interpretation of scriptures.

     Paige Britton: I wonder, how complex does a non-perspicuous doctrine have to be before it is impossible to confirm that it is Scripturally supported …

     I don’t want to sidetrack this thread with a discussion about the perspicuity of the Doctrine of the Trinity. But since this is a thread about “Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority”, I do want to ask you whether sola scriptura doctrine is itself a perspicuous doctrine.

     The Catholic Bible contains every book of a Protestant Bible, and Catholics maintain that there are NO scriptures within their Bible that explicitly teaches that the Protestant Bible is the ONLY source of authority for a Christian.

     If I asked you to show me the scriptural verses in the Protestant Bible that are so perspicuous that I would have to agree that the Protestant Bible is the ONLY source of infallible authority for a Christian, could you do that?

441. Bryan Cross November 30th, 2009 7:57 pm :

     TurretinFan, (re: #436)

     You wrote:

     If I understand you correctly, you do not mean by this to suggest that solo/sola lead to these consequences as a matter of logical necessity, but rather as a matter of historical reality (I was going to write “historical accident” but that is rather weaker than the claim I think you’re making). Can you please confirm that I have correctly understood that you are saying that these consequences are simply a practical outworking, not a logical necessity?

     The term ‘logical necessity’ is used in difference senses, and the more common sense of the term is one that is synchronic and formal, the way a conclusion of a syllogism follows by logical necessity from its premises. But we don’t have to choose between logical necessity and historical accident, because there are other kinds of necessity. One of those other kinds of necessity is called ‘natural necessity’ (necessitas naturalis). For example, that an acorn becomes an oak tree is not a logical necessity, but it is a natural necessity, even though many contingencies could prevent this particular acorn from becoming an oak tree. Given the ordinary conditions, the acorn would naturally become an oak tree. That is the natural end of an acorn, given its nature, and it will necessarily move toward that end, unless other factors interfere. (In that respect, the result does not follow in just the same way a conclusion follows by necessity from premises in a deductive argument.) So likewise, the results of sola/solo (described by Mathison) follow from it over time by natural necessity, because of what it is by nature (i.e. each individual retaining ultimate interpretive authority).

     Can you please confirm that [A]-[E] are in fact a more or less complete list of the consequences you have mind?

     Yes, they are.

     as to [A], “hermeneutical chaos and anarchy” is not a characteristic of the sola position. For example, confessional sola scriptura prevents this chaos and anarchy by the administration of the elders. Of course, what level of internal disagreement over things is considered chaos/anarchy tends to be a bit subjective, so it may be difficult to judge the historical data here in an unbiased way.

     Order within a confessional community of like-minded individuals practicing sola scriptura is fully compatible with hermeneutical chaos and anarchy when we expand our field of vision to include the fact that all these confessional communities (each practicing sola scriptura) cannot agree, and hence are divided. The seeming absence of “hermeneutical chaos and anarchy” is only the result of an artificial abstraction, i.e. abstracting away all those other sola scriptura practioners who do not agree with “me,” and only counting those who agree with “me.”

     as to [B], “multiplication of schisms” – this allegation is counter-intuitive.

     Whether or not it is “counter-intuitive” is irrelevant; the question is whether it is true. The existence of all these (thousands) of different Protestant sects is indisputably true.

     Churches where the elders lack any real authority or in which elders don’t exercise their authority are churches from which people would seem less likely to want/need to split.

     I’m wondering (tongue-in-cheek) whether you have had any pastoral experience. My uncle pastored a church that came a hair’s breadth from splitting, (wait) . . . over the color of the replacement carpet in the ‘sanctuary’. Lack of authority only compounds the schism-tendency of sola scriptura.

     It seems that folks would want to split from churches where the elders are viewed as having authority, and they find themselves unable (due to conscience) to submit to that authority.

     True, but that doesn’t prevent schisms within sola scriptura communities/denominations.

     as to [C], “the creeds have no “real authority,”” – this allegation is logically impossible. By definition, the creeds/confessions/whatever-you-want-to-call-it have real authority in churches that practice sola scriptura. One might argue that such churches are prone to lapsing into a solo position, but this seems to suggest a problem with the people holding the position (too loosely) rather than a problem with the position itself.

     As we pointed out in the article, a so-called authority that has as its basis of authority that it agrees with me, is not an authentic authority. And that is manifested as soon as that ‘authority’ disagrees with me, and ipso facto loses ‘authority.’ “When I submit (so long as I agree), the one to whom I submit is me.” That’s premise 1. The second premise is that given sola scriptura, the basis of the creed’s authority is that it agrees with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. (We explained this in the article.) From those two premises it follows that given sola scriptura, the creed does not have authentic authority.

     as to [D], “a practical relativism concerning the content of Scripture” – this one is requires some clarification. If the claim is that there is a “practical relativism” regarding non-essential doctrines in Scripture, why is this a problem? Should we not have charity in things that are not essential doctrines? If the claim is that there is a “practical relativism” in essential doctrines, this seems to fall prey to the same objection as at [C]. Would you please identify what you mean by [D]?

     We mean practical relativism simpliciter, not limited to non-essentials or limited to essentials. (Sola scriptura has no principled basis for distinguishing essentials from non-essentials anyway; see my comment #419.) If you think this unqualified practical relativism falls prey to the same object as [C], then see my reply (immediately above) to your objection to [C].

     as to [E], ““destroys” the authority of Scripture “by making the meaning of Scripture dependent upon the judgment of each individual,”” this one too requires some clarification. It seems to be, to some extent, a rephrasing of [D]. Furthermore, it appears simply to be reflective of the fact that the meaning of statement (whether in documentary or oral form) to a person is necessarily dependent on some judgment by the person. As such, it doesn’t really seem to much of a consequence. In other words, if it is simply pointed out that an individual must make judgments to understand things, that’s not really a destruction of the authority of Scripture, any more than it is a destruction of all external authority absolutely.

     That’s like saying that all the laws on the books don’t lose their authority if you take away all the judges, that taking away all the judges wouldn’t be “too much of a consequence”. If that’s what you really believe, then I’ll just rest my case, because I think it is self-evidently false that taking away all the judges wouldn’t be “too much of a consequence”. And Mathison (and other Protestants) recognize the same thing. That’s the whole problem with solo scriptura; it makes the individual the ultimate arbiter, and in doing so, it undermines the authority of Scripture, not only because individuals don’t all have the necessary training to interpret Scripture rightly, but because people bring different presuppositions to the interpretive process, and end up (in many ways, whether intentionally or unintentionally) interpreting it in ways that make it conform to themselves — hence, eviscerating its authority. Scripture can function authoritatively in the Church only if the individual does not have the final interpretive say, just as the law of the land can function authoritatively only if the individual does not have final interpretive authority over the law, i.e. is not his own judge. And as we have argued in our article, sola scriptura entails the rule of private judgment, and thus entails that each person is his own ecclesial supreme judge and supreme teacher. In other words, each person is his own pope.

     a) allegedly the “Protestant Reformation” came out of a church that had apostolic succession. If it is good for the goose that the radical relativists be blamed on sola scriptura, then it seems proper for the gander that sola scriptura be blamed on apostolic succession.

     That would be like saying that since God made Lucifer, therefore God is to blame for Lucifer’s sin. But while Lucifer’s being comes from God, Lucifer’s sin does not come from God, even though Lucifer’s sin depends upon Lucifer’s being. All evil comes from good in this way, as Aquinas explains in Summa Theologica I Q.49 a.1. Protestantism came out of the Catholic Church not by an essential continuity with its intrinsic principles, but as a discontinuity, a rupture with the principles of sacramental authority and apostolic succession that had been operative in the Church from the first century. Solo scriptura, on the other hand, is the natural outgrowth of sola scriptura, because the same principle is operative in both (i.e. the individual retains the ultimate interpretive authority).

     b) only following apostolic succession consistently would seem to avoid those parts of the problems that are avoidable. Yet, if one consistently follows sola scriptura one also would not have those same avoidable problems. To pitch inconsistently practiced [X] against consistently practiced [Y] seems to be an unfair comparison. Wouldn’t you agree?

     No. Every sola scriptura practitioner in good conscience is consistently practicing sola scriptura, because to practice sola scriptura is to operate as one’s own ultimate interpretive authority. The only possible inconsistent practice of sola scriptura (apart from intentionally twisting the Scripture) would be to affirm sola scriptura and simultaneously treat someone else as being able to bind one’s conscience regarding faith and morals. (This is why Turretin, who is consistent, allows Christians to reject ecclesial authority when it goes against their conscience, as Mathison explains, and we discussed in the article.)

     c) there are other ways to avoid the problems than apostolic succession and sola scriptura. For example, Mormonism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses [so-called] avoid this problem without apostolic succession (although one might argue that they substitute something similar) or sola scriptura.

     Mormonism and JWs are also subject to this same dilemma. What is different in their case is that they add pseudo-succession and/or pseudo-revelation. The origin of both groups, is the 19th century. Both of them are outgrowths of Protestantism, not immediately from its sola scriptura form, but in the God-speaks-directly-to-me form. That is just a return to Montanism. But, again, if the Holy Spirit directly and immediately [not through the Magisterium of the Church] guides my interpretation of Scripture (WCF I.10), then not only am I my own ultimate interpreter of Scripture, but I am my own ultimate interpreter of what the Holy Spirit is saying. And that’s how the theology of Jakob Boehme (1557-1624) and George Fox (1624-1691), and these other new revelation sects (Mormons and JWs) naturally grew out of Protestantism.

     d) it may be that the cost of apostolic succession as the means to solving these problems is not worth the price. That is to say, a rigid hierarchy may avoid dissent, but it may do so at the cost of truth. Whether that is, in fact, the consequence is another story. I trust that you see that in the case of the Mormons and JWs, it is the case that their tightly controlled beliefs are not more true simply because the countenance less dissent.

     First, speculation is cheap and easy. Lucifer did it in the garden: “Did God say …”, speculating about whether the cost of abiding by what God had established was not worth the price. No schism can be justified on the basis of mere speculation: “it may be that …”

     Second, authority is not control or force. Of course Satan can (and does) mimic authority. Mormons and JWs believe they are submitting to divine authority, but they are submitting to persons with merely man-made authority. (In section V.A. of the article we explained the limited way in which man-made organizations can bind the conscience, compared to the way in which the Church can bind the conscience.) Those man-made sects may exercise force and control, but they do so with merely human authority. But the Church Christ founded has divine authority, because He (the God-man) gave it His own authority, to bind things in heaven, and loose things in heaven.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

442. T Ciatoris November 30th, 2009 10:16 pm :

     Dear lojahw (re: #438),

     I appreciate the fact that it’s difficult to make one’s intended tone clear in a combox, so thank you for the clarifications. It’s clear that at a number of points in our exchange we talked right past each other. I know I could have been more lucid at some points. Thanks also for the clear and admirable summary of sola Scriptura, in this comment as elsewhere. What you describe is, indeed, the principle I held for a long time.

     Despite our miscommunications, on the whole I enjoyed our discussion.

     in Christ,

     TC
     1 Cor 16:14

443. Tim A. Troutman December 1st, 2009 1:35 am :

     TurretinFan:

     My question, however, was intended to be aimed more at the authority or authorities to which we should appeal (if any) to determine the objective truth of whether Rome has maintained the faith of the apostles or departed from it?

     I’m not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for if my previous one didn’t suffice. Can you ask it in a different way?

444. TurretinFan December 1st, 2009 9:03 am :

     Tim Troutman:

     I had written:
     

     My question, however, was intended to be aimed more at the authority or authorities to which we should appeal (if any) to determine the objective truth of whether Rome has maintained the faith of the apostles or departed from it?

     You responded:
     

     I’m not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for if my previous one didn’t suffice. Can you ask it in a different way?

     Well, I looked through your previous answer and I don’t see you identifying any authority or authorities to which we should appeal (if any) to determine the objective truth of of whether Rome has maintained the faith of the apostles or departed from it. Perhaps I missed something. It seemed that your previous answer had to do with our personal subjective state.

     Perhaps an analogy would help. If I say, “How can we know who signed the U.S. Constitution?” you might answer, “We inquire diligently, humbly, and calmly.” That would be similar to your answer to my question, in that it addresses our subjective state but not the source(s) of authority to be used. The answer I’m looking for, by analogy, would be something like “Go to such-and-such U.S. Government website and review the facsimile images there, or if you really want to be sure, go to the National Archives in Washington, D.C., and examine the original document for yourself.”

     With that clarification (I hope it helps to clarify) using what authority or authorities (if any) can we determine the objective truth of whether Rome has maintained the faith of the apostles or departed from it?

     -TurretinFan

445. Devin Rose December 1st, 2009 12:20 pm :

     TurretinFan wrote: “My question, however, was intended to be aimed more at the authority or authorities to which we should appeal (if any) to determine the objective truth of whether Rome has maintained the faith of the apostles or departed from it?”

     I was interested in this question and thought it was a very good one, but didn’t respond to it initially because I feared my answer would be off-topic from the post. But since it has been asked again to Tim, I would like to offer an answer of sorts from a conversation I had with two of my Protestant friends yesterday (one is Plymouth Brethren/cessationist, the other Bible church/Baptist).

     We were discussing the Eucharist: they both believe in the symbolic-only Eucharist (ala Zwingli and the Baptists) whereas I as a Catholic believe in transubstantiation. I asked them how can we know what the Apostles believed on this subject, given that we disagree with each other on how to interpret the Bible on this doctrine.

     They said it comes down to their belief in the Bible and how clearly it teaches the symbolic-only Eucharist. I told them that, since we disagree on the interpretation, what if we looked at other sources, say, two of the early Christian leaders whose writings we know are authentic: St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Justin Martyr. I am sure you are familiar with what they wrote about the Eucharist. In short, they unequivocally speak of the bread and the wine becoming the body and blood of Christ. Even if one were to try to interpret their words in the most Baptist-leaning way possible, they fall much closer to the Catholic (and Lutheran and even Calvinist) belief on the Eucharist than the Zwinglian/Baptist symbolic belief.

     What did my friends say? “We have only a few witnesses in the 2nd century, so we cannot trust that their beliefs represented what was really taught by the Apostles. These few men could have come to a wrong understanding of the Eucharist that the Apostles did not believe, and then the Church eventually absorbed their false beliefs until Zwingli in the 16th century finally corrected this error.”

     So how do we know what the Apostles taught (and thus whether the Catholic Church’s teachings jive with it)? For my Protestant friends, there is no way to know other than the “clear, correct” reading of the “plain Scriptures,” which they assert teaches the symbolic-only Eucharist. They will not admit historical witnesses, the Fathers, the early or medieval Church, and claim that this is following the true understanding of sola Scriptura. I told them that it is really the Anabaptist/Radical Reformers’ understanding of sola Scriptura and not Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin’s, but they responded that Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin were just fallible men and thus have no more authority or accuracy of interpretation of the Scriptures than they do. The Anabaptists were the only Protestants taking the doctrine sola Scriptura to its logical end.

446. rfwhite December 3rd, 2009 4:39 pm :

     Bryan Cross: as you understand it, does the Holy Spirit work immediately, mediately through the church, or both immediately and mediately to effect the right understanding of Holy Scripture?

447. Paige Britton December 4th, 2009 8:20 am :

     Hi, Mateo,
     I’m glad you want to keep conversing, and I’ll happily do my best. But if you are sincerely curious about these things, you’d do better consulting the writings of someone more learned, like J. I. Packer.

     You asked about perspicuity, and where we find it in Scripture. Remember that we (P’s) are operating within a different worldview than the Catholic view; we are not convinced of (and many of us at this point in history may never even have considered) the claims to papal infallibility. But we ARE convinced of God’s goodness, the necessity of his communication to us, and the location of that communication in Scripture. Perspicuity as a doctrine is the theological confession that God’s Word is clear because GOD is clear, and that he means to communicate to believers through that Word, without appointing anybody to a special infallibly interpretive office.

     I think there is some confusion here about the doctrine – I have read several times in these comments the assumption that if God’s Word is so “perspicuous,” then all doctrines should be immediately obvious to every reader, and there should be none of the disagreement that we find among Protestants. But this is a caricature or misunderstanding of perspicuity.

     Perspicuity (as Protestant doctrine) instead relates to God’s *intention* to communicate to his people via his inspired Word, without mediation from an infallible earthly interpreter, and is (we believe) a quality inherent to the Bible as a whole. Various doctrines may be more or less *obvious* in the text – compare Creation with the Trinity, for example – but the degree of effort it takes to recognize or formulate a doctrine does not affect the “perspicuity” of Scripture. Nor does perspicuity depend on the abilities of any particular reader. We do not have to BE Bible scholars to understand God’s intentional communication to us, but we may need to LEAN on Bible scholars to understand well, especially if our own reading skills are poor or we do not yet have a deep knowledge of the Word. (This opens out to TC’s good question re. “whom do we trust,” but I will leave that for another time.) And all of us (P’s) OUGHT to lean on each other for checks and balances to our understanding (we don’t always!).

     One more thought re. perspicuity: To understand what we mean by the doctrine, consider God’s other perspicuous “book,” Science (or Nature). We can study Nature, we can do Science, we can gain knowledge, because God the Creator is a God of reason. He has left us a good deal to figure out: some of it is accessible to the littlest children; most of it takes some instruction and experience to know; some of it requires concentrated effort and training to comprehend. Our knowing in every case is fallible and can be corrected, but it is also sufficient for living on planet earth. Following on this thought, and because our worldview does not include the Catholic Magisterium, we (P’s) assume the same kind of perspicuity will be true of God’s *written* book, and believers should therefore approach it carefully, humbly, and expectantly. [I should not be mistaken here for calling Scripture the OBJECT of Science, something MERELY objective to be mastered: rather, the parallel is that both Science & Scripture come to us from the God who means for us to KNOW.]

     As to where the doctrine is found in the text: well, briefly, it is assumed by the many statements about the writers’ intention for the written text, especially in the NT. (I can list these if you want.) But as far as convincing you about perspicuity, I think the only thing that would get you there would be the conviction that God did not arrange for the infallible Magisterial interpretive body after all. And that’s another ballgame.

     Re. the Amish: as it happens, I live among the Amish. I don’t know firsthand what their church services are like, nor their daily experience with the Bible. But I do know that they are farmers and carpenters, not theologians, and that their education stops at 8th grade. This tells me that in their closed and close-knit community, they are probably limited in their ability (AND their desire!) to go beyond the basic teaching they’ve inherited, and take a good look at the texts.

     Re. the failure of the Protestant Bible in your previous apologetic encounters – well, I have to wonder whether it was not the Bible, nor you as apologist, but rather the stance of those you were talking to that made the difference. (Did you really expect to convince them of ANYTHING?) People can be trained to sidestep orthodox readings by giving words different spins. (But even the Protestant Bible has [Jewish!] people worshiping Jesus as divine. That’s harder to get around than the definition of “Son.”)

     Thanks for your good questions.
     pax!
     pb

448. Tim A. Troutman December 4th, 2009 10:56 am :

     TurretinFan,

     A better analogy would be: what authority would I appeal to determine whether the woman claiming to be my mother was actually my mother.

     Here’s what I’d appeal to:

     1. Testimony of my father ( Word of God: Scripture/Tradition )
     2. Birth certificates, hospital records, early family photos ( Early Church history )
     3. Her self testimony (Standing miracles, four marks of the Church, holiness of saints, etc.)

     My brother could deny her motherhood on a couple different accounts. Perhaps he only accepted the written testimony of our father and used something he wrote out of context to prove she wasn’t our mother. Perhaps he has bad philosophy and questions whether or not her body could be the same body that bore us since none of the original molecules remain or that just because one molecule replaced an old one (as a new living cell replaces dead ones in the body) it doesn’t mean that the molecule actually holds valid succession. Maybe it means nothing that the molecules are literally and directly succeeded from her original set of molecules. Perhaps if she stops acting like a mother, then she loses motherhood. By his estimation, maybe our true mother is the sum of all women everywhere who treat us as a mother would.

     So I repeat what I answered the first time, if my brother didn’t already believe this woman to be our mother, it would take a long time to convince him, and it would require patience, humility, and above all, a love for the truth.

449. TurretinFan December 4th, 2009 1:10 pm :

     Tim Troutman:

     Without commenting on whose analogy is better, let me seek some clarification. I think you are saying that to determine the objective truth of whether Rome has maintained the faith of the apostles or departed from it, you would appeal to the following authorities/evidence:

     1. “Word of God: Scripture/Tradition”
     2. “Early Church history”
     3. “Standing miracles, four marks of the Church, holiness of prophets, etc.”

     Have I understood you correctly?

     -TurretinFan

450. Teri December 4th, 2009 2:42 pm :

     Tim,

     After reading R.C. Sproul, Jr .’s description of Sola Scriptura here and at his Church’s website
     (http://saintpeterpresbyterian.org/), I am more convinced than ever that what he says is the complete opposite.

     Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn’t the Anabaptist sect have been clearest to the meaning of Sola Scriptura? Unlike Luther or Calvin, they read solely from The Bible, and based their belief in adult baptism, for instance, on the fact that they could not read clearly from scripture alone that infants were baptized.

     Martin Luther proclaimed “Sola Scriptura” and then proceeded to reform abuses he saw in the Catholic Church. Clearly, he was vehement against the idea of the Eucharist as a mere memorial. That is something most Protestants say is not clear or true in Scripture.

     Calvin, under the auspices of reform, redesigned what Church looks like, sounds like, and how you could tell you were in the True Church. He used Sola Scriptura – but as I’ve said before, because he wrote tons of letters and commentaries explaining the scripture, he meant Sola Scriptura according to Sola John Calvin.

     The Anabaptist at least didn’t bring anything from the Catholic Church that I’m aware of. Just the Bible and their faith in their interpretation of it. Wouldn’t that mean they were more in line with reading and trusting in the Bible alone without relying on earlier Sacred Tradition such as baptizing infants?

     On a side note, we should be in prayer for the congregation of R.C. Sproul, Jr.’s Church.
     The Church is in my area and two women in their congregation were killed the other day when the high winds blew a large tree into their vehicle. We should pray for them and their families at this tragedy.

     PAX,
     Teri

451. Tim A. Troutman December 4th, 2009 3:28 pm :

     TurretinFan – Yes that is correct.

452. Tim A. Troutman December 4th, 2009 4:51 pm :

     Teri,

     Sorry to hear about those two women.

     There is a sense in which the Anabaptist tradition is more consistent with their own beliefs in that solo scriptura is not disguised under a pretension of Church authority. As the article demonstrates, those who subject the Church to the authority of the Scriptures subject the Church to the authority of their private interpretation of Scripture. No one has been able to refute this yet and there haven’t been many legitimate attempts. Mathison’s reply is forthcoming I understand.

     But I think it might be a little misleading to say that Anabaptists were more faithful to sola scriptura than the Reformed Protestants. Anabaptists and their modern grandchildren may have a different application of S.S. but that doesn’t mean they’re more or less faithful to S.S. itself. They cannot be more faithful to the Reformed conception of S.S. than the Reformed are because the Reformed conception of S.S. is whatever they say and believe it to be. They (the Reformed) invented it, so by definition it means what they say it does. It is possible that the Reformed could be inconsistent with their own belief, but by being inconsistent with the original belief, the belief would change with whatever their practice is. That is why, Reformed generally qualify the things they are defending by saying “the historical Reformed view of…” as if the fact that it is original or historical gave it any authority.

     The problem is that the logical out-workings (e.g. solo scriptura) of all the ‘historic’ Reformed positions (insofar as the originals diverged from the faith once delivered to the apostles) are completely indefensible as shown by this article and the combox. The ‘historic’ beliefs are also indefensible but it is much easier to see their weakness when the logical results are demonstrably false or when they can be shown to lack a principle of distinction between obvious errors (like solo scriptura).

453. mateo December 5th, 2009 12:36 am :

     Paige Britton:

     Hi, Mateo,
     I’m glad you want to keep conversing, and I’ll happily do my best. But if you are sincerely curious about these things, you’d do better consulting the writings of someone more learned, like J. I. Packer.

     I would like to keep conversation going. I hope I am not coming across as harsh and without sympathy for all things Protestant. If so, I apologize, and I will try to do better. I have been reading with delight the comments that you have added to this thread, and I really do look forward to your responses.

     Paige Britton: You asked about perspicuity, and where we find it in Scripture.

     I see that I didn’t do a very good job communicating my question to you. I wanted to ask a question about the doctrine of sola scriptura: i.e. … Where are the scriptures that explicitly teach that the Protestant Bible is the ONLY source of authority for the Christian?

     But let us talk about the perspicuity of scriptures, since the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura assumes that scriptures are perspicuous.

     Paige Britton: Remember that we (P’s) are operating within a different worldview than the Catholic view; we are not convinced of (and many of us at this point in history may never even have considered) the claims to papal infallibility.

     I think that we can put the issue of papal infallibility to the side for the moment. The Orthodox believe that when bishops formally define dogma in a valid Ecumenical Council, that the bishops of the Council have spoken infallibly, and that the whole church must accept these doctrines as binding. Do you agree with that?

     Paige Britton: But we ARE convinced of God’s goodness, the necessity of his communication to us, and the location of that communication in Scripture.

     Catholics believe that God is good, that God desires to communicate with us, and that God speaks to us through the Scriptures. So on those points, we agree. But when one reads the Bible, it is obvious that God doesn’t speak to us ONLY through the Scriptures, because the Scriptures teach us about other ways that God speaks to his people, such as God speaking to us through the supernatural gift of prophecy: e.g. Numbers 11:25-29, Joel 2:28, 1 Cor. 14:1.

     Paige Britton: Perspicuity as a doctrine is the theological confession that God’s Word is clear because GOD is clear, and that he means to communicate to believers through that Word, without appointing anybody to a special infallibly interpretive office.

     I understand that some (most) Protestants believe that there is no one within the Church that Christ founded that can infallibly interpret scriptures, but where are the scriptures that teach this belief? This belief of Protestantism comes from an interpretation of scriptures, not from scriptures themselves! Catholics and Orthodox believe that there is nothing within the scriptures that supports this Protestant doctrine.

     Paige Britton: I think there is some confusion here about the doctrine – I have read several times in these comments the assumption that if God’s Word is so “perspicuous,” then all doctrines should be immediately obvious to every reader, and there should be none of the disagreement that we find among Protestants. But this is a caricature or misunderstanding of perspicuity.

     Perspicuity (as Protestant doctrine) instead relates to God’s *intention* to communicate to his people via his inspired Word, without mediation from an infallible earthly interpreter, and is (we believe) a quality inherent to the Bible as a whole.

     Various doctrines may be more or less *obvious* in the text – compare Creation with the Trinity, for example – but the degree of effort it takes to recognize or formulate a doctrine does not affect the “perspicuity” of Scripture.

     I quite agree that some doctrines of Christianity are “more or less obvious in the text”, and you chose two good examples to illustrate that point. But it seems to me that you are trying very hard to redefine the word “perspicuous” so that you can claim that the Bible is perspicuous!

     Perspicuous – adjective
     clearly expressed or presented; lucid; easy to understand: perspicuous prose

     Synonyms: intelligible, plain, distinct, explicit.

     Catholics agree that God intends to communicate to his people through Scriptures. What doesn’t follow from that belief is that Scriptures are perspicuous, that is, that the scriptures are “easy to understand, explicit, plain”!

     And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he [Jesus] interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. Luke 24:27

     So Philip ran to him [an Ethiopian, a minister of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians], and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” Acts 8: 30-31

     Protestants write books about the Bible to explain the things that are in the Bible that are not perspicuous (plain, easy to understand). There are also a lot of contradictory explanations within these different Protestant books. All of which does not prove that the Bible is unintelligible and full of contradictions – it just proves that the Bible is not perspicuous in the ordinary meaning of the word.

     Paige Britton: Nor does perspicuity depend on the abilities of any particular reader.

     If scriptures have the quality inherent in them of being perspicuous, then that quality must be perspicuous to someone, or the scriptures aren’t perspicuous! Now we are touching upon a key point discussed in the article by Byran and Neal:

     Mathison: All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. The only real question is: whose interpretation? People with differing interpretations of Scripture cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve their differences. In order for the Scripture to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone. According to “solo” Scriptura, that someone is each individual, so ultimately, there are as many final authorities as there are human interpreters.

     Bryan and Neal’s response to the above: Because Scripture must be interpreted, and because Scripture cannot interpret itself by itself, it follows that some person or persons must interpret Scripture if Scripture is to function as an authority. … Mathison’s point is that when individuals take Scripture out of its ecclesial context, and treat themselves as the ultimate or highest interpretive authorities, the practical authority of Scripture is effectively destroyed. Scripture can function as an objective authority only when interpreted in and by the Church.

     “Scripture can function as an objective authority only when interpreted in and by the Church.” Do you agree with that?

     Paige Britton: We do not have to BE Bible scholars to understand God’s intentional communication to us, but we may need to LEAN on Bible scholars to understand well, especially if our own reading skills are poor or we do not yet have a deep knowledge of the Word.

     If a person with average reading skills needs to “lean” on expert advise to understand the scriptures, then the scriptures are not perspicuous by definition!

     Paige Britton: (This opens out to TC’s good question re. “whom do we trust,” but I will leave that for another time.) And all of us (P’s) OUGHT to lean on each other for checks and balances to our understanding (we don’t always!).

     I agree – “whom do we trust” is the question that must be asked! Where do I find the Church that Christ founded that authoritatively interprets scriptures? Why should I trust Calvin, Luther, or any other Protestant teacher if they begin teaching novel doctrines? What makes Calvin and Luther any more trustworthy in their interpretations of scripture than the interpretations of scriptures given to us by John Wesley, John Smyth, Joseph Smith, Chuck Smith, Theophilus Lindley, Charles Taze Russell, Garner Ted Armstrong, Ellen Gould White, Aimee Semple Mcpherson, Victor Paul Wierwille … etc., etc., etc.? It is impossible to argue that Protestants are united in their doctrine when the doctrinal division within Protestantism is so perspicuous! Obviously just belonging to a Protestant church doesn’t guarantee the orthodoxy of what is taught in that particular Protestant church.

     Paige Britton: One more thought re. perspicuity: To understand what we mean by the doctrine, consider God’s other perspicuous “book,” Science (or Nature). We can study Nature, we can do Science, we can gain knowledge, because God the Creator is a God of reason. He has left us a good deal to figure out: some of it is accessible to the littlest children; most of it takes some instruction and experience to know; some of it requires concentrated effort and training to comprehend. Our knowing in every case is fallible and can be corrected, but it is also sufficient for living on planet earth.

     You said that some Christian doctrines are “more or less obvious from the text”, and I agree with that. Some things that we know about nature are also more or less obvious too, such as the fact that the sun rises in the east, or that fire burns hands that touch it. But again, I think that you are redefining the word perspicuous. Would the usual definition of the word “perspicuous” apply to an understanding of nature that is possible through, say, Quantum Electrodynamics and Quantum Chromodynamics? I don’t think so. I would argue that most scientists do NOT think that, say, quantum physics is perspicuous (for one example, see this article about the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox: “…most physicists today regard the EPR paradox as an illustration of how quantum mechanics violates classical intuitions”).

     Paige Britton: Following on this thought, and because our worldview does not include the Catholic Magisterium, we (P’s) assume the same kind of perspicuity will be true of God’s *written* book, and believers should therefore approach it carefully, humbly, and expectantly.

     I understand that most Protestants have a “worldview” that rejects that there is an authoritative teaching office within the Church that Christ founded (JW and LDS are Protestant exceptions to this worldview – they do accept a belief in an authoritative teaching office within their respective churches). The typical Protestant “world view” about teaching authority is why most Protestants don’t have a problem with church shopping.

     To me, it naturally follows that if a Protestant believes that God speaks to all people through the scriptures, that he or she “should therefore approach it carefully, humbly, and expectantly” because that is how any sane person would approach God speaking to them. I would think that we would agree that part of the respect that is due to scriptures is to accept what scriptures actually teach without regard to whether I am comfortable with what scriptures teach. Which is why I find it hard to understand why the Protestant practice of church shopping is not seen as a scandal within Protestantism. Where do scriptures teach church shopping or synagogue shopping? Where do scriptures teach that I can found my own church if I disagree with the existing church?

     This question of interpretive authority gets us back to the question that I really wanted to discuss. Where are the verses in scripture that explicitly state that the Protestant Bible is the ONLY infallible source of authority for a Christian? If I have to accept someone’s infallible interpretation of the Bible to find out about the existence of the doctrine of sola scriptura, then I have a very big problem indeed. If need two sources of infallible authority to know that sola scriptura is infallible doctrine (i.e. I need both the Bible and Martin Luther’s infallible interpretation of the Bible) then the Bible cannot be the ONLY source of infallible authority for me! Any pleading to the authority of the writings of the Fathers of the Church doesn’t make the case for sola scriptura any stronger, even if the Fathers of the Church did teach that the Protestant Bible is the ONLY source of authority for a Christian (which is something that they definitely didn’t teach!)

     Paige Britton: As to where the doctrine is found in the text: well, briefly, it is assumed by the many statements about the writers’ intention for the written text, especially in the NT. (I can list these if you want.)

     I have no doubt that you can quote the Bible to show that scriptures are authoritative, and that God speaks to us through scriptures. That is a point of agreement that I have with you, not a point of contention.

     What I was trying to ask you in my previous post was whether you could provide me with a list scriptures that explicitly teach that the Protestant Bible is the ONLY source of infallible authority for a Christian. It is the “ONLY” that is the source of contention – Catholics and the Orthodox don’t reject the idea that the scriptures speak with authority, they reject the idea that Scriptures are the ONLY infallible authority for a Christian.

     Paige Britton: But as far as convincing you about perspicuity, I think the only thing that would get you there would be the conviction that God did not arrange for the infallible Magisterial interpretive body after all.

     Since I believe that scriptures are infallible, you could make your case simply by quoting to me the scriptures that explicitly teach that the Protestant Bible is the only source of infallible authority for a Christian. The question about perspicuity is nothing more than a question about reading skills.

     Let us suppose a teacher of reading skills at the local community college gives an assignment to a class of Japanese exchange students that are not Christians and that have never read the Protestant Bible. The teacher’s assignment is to list all the verses in the Protestant Bible that make the explicit claim that the Protestant Bible is the ONLY source of authority for Christians. The Japanese students with average to above average reading skills would learn from this assignment that there are no verses in the Protestant Bible that make the explicit claim that the Protestant Bible is the ONLY source of infallible authority for a Christian.

     If you think that there are verses in the Protestant Bible that make the explicit claim that the Protestant Bible is the ONLY source of authority for a Christian, then I would certainly like to know what they are! Catholics have been reading the Bible for two thousand years and they have yet to find those verses. Even Luther never quoted any scriptures that supported his novel doctrine of sola scriptura, because there aren’t any verses in scriptures that he could quote to support his novel doctrine.

     Paige Britton: Re. the Amish: as it happens, I live among the Amish. I don’t know firsthand what their church services are like, nor their daily experience with the Bible. But I do know that they are farmers and carpenters, not theologians, and that their education stops at 8th grade. This tells me that in their closed and close-knit community, they are probably limited in their ability (AND their desire!) to go beyond the basic teaching they’ve inherited, and take a good look at the texts.

     I also lived near the Amish when I lived in Pennsylvania. As far as I know, the Amish don’t build churches. Their “church” services were always held in someone’s house where they were spoken in German. In the summertime, I could hear the preaching coming from the Amish houses, but I couldn’t understand it because I don’t speak German. The Old Order Amish that I knew had a relationship with scriptures that was pretty intense. My point in bringing up the Amish was that I don’t believe that the Amish are given over to “hasty” readings of the Bible, and they don’t agree with every interpretation of the Bible that are held by Calvinists. If the Bible is perspicuous, why does anyone need to read John Calvin to understand the Bible? How were the Christians that lived before John Calvin supposed to understand scriptures without John Calvin to teach them?

454. Matthew Anderson December 5th, 2009 8:31 am :

     Tim,

     You’ve stated repeatedly that there have been no substantial refutations of the original essay. My feeling is that there are several claims made in the paper, and so it depends on which claim you’re referring to. My understanding is that there are two main arguments in the paper:

     1) Sola scriptura, in principle, reduces to solo scriptura
     2) solo scriptura is unworkable.

     Many Protestant may accept # 1, and may have done so eagerly without having to read a lengthy argument about it. But even so, that doesn’t mean they accept # 2. Are you suggesting that argument #2 has been proved by this essay?

455. Tim A. Troutman December 7th, 2009 9:55 am :

     Matthew,

     Good point. I wouldn’t say that #2 has been as carefully demonstrated as #1. The article mostly assumes that #2 is true as would most of the confessional Reformed. The reason why #2 wasn’t more carefully proven was because we assumed a wide consensus with it. Interestingly, no one who agrees with #2 believes that #1 is true. It seems that since you don’t have a problem with #2, you’re willing to admit that #1 is true.

     We have a difficult job defending ourselves because the accusations come from all over and cover every imaginable topic. You said (or implied) that what I said was true: we had not been refuted on #1, but another commenter states the opposite (that we have been refuted). Above, one guest affirms that if Catholics had material apostolic succession, then it would prove their claims but he doesn’t believe that we have it. Another Protestant says we do have material apostolic succession but it doesn’t matter. These aren’t just anecdotal examples I’m giving you; this is the norm for us. I hope you can appreciate the difficulty of defending so many things at once!

     That is why I keep repeating that the article has not been refuted. Many have only seen “sola scriptura” somewhere in the title and took that as an invitation to attack devotion to the saints and Petrine primacy. We have over 450 comments but at least 100 have not gone through. I’m just keeping it real – let’s all be on the same page regarding what’s going on. We made a claim that there is no principled difference between sola and solo. If you don’t think that matters, then you have no beef with this article.

456. Bryan Cross December 7th, 2009 12:08 pm :

     rfwhite, (re: #446)

     You wrote:

     does the Holy Spirit work immediately, mediately through the church, or both immediately and mediately to effect the right understanding of Holy Scripture?

     Both. The Holy Spirit illumines Scripture to us as we study it privately, and the Holy Spirit works through the Church to help us better understand Scripture. But the Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself. The ordinary way in which the Spirit guides the Church in her interpretation of Scripture is through the organ Christ established to do just that. So we submit our private interpretation of Scripture to the authority of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Magisterium.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

457. Matthew Anderson December 7th, 2009 1:03 pm :

     Tim,

     Thanks for your response. My understanding has been that confessional Protestantism has always been confident that their particular creed or doctrine (depending on the tradition or denomination) could be defended adequately on the basis of Scripture alone. Take for example the Anglican tradition. The 39 Articles state repeatedly that only doctrines which can be proven from Scripture may be held as necessary for salvation. So, even the creeds are affirmed because as Article 8 states, “they can be proven by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.” So, the Anglican tradition doesn’t necessitate that every single aspect of church life be proven by Scripture, but that those beliefs which are held to be necessary to salvation be proven by Scripture.

     For me, the kind of point that Mathison and others are making is more about interpretive method and ecclesiological culture, in that he (and others) are attempting to distinguishing between historic Protestant method in biblical interpretation and the culture of respect for tradition that comes with it, from the method and culture of modern evangelicalism. But, I feel that both sola scripturists and solo scripturists would at the end of the day believe their doctrines could be defended adequately from the Bible alone. I think they both would agree that at the core the operative principle is the same, but that there are substantial differences in the practical outworking of the two approaches.

     To put all this another way, are you suggesting that Mathison is arguing that Reformed churches can hold to various significant doctrines without any substantial appeal to Scripture?

     I hope that makes sense.

458. Paige Britton December 7th, 2009 9:22 pm :

     Hi again Mateo:
     Wow, we need a thread all to ourselves! I’ll try to be both brief and thorough here, though I will have to address your comments in parts. :) (You are not coming across as harsh! I’m not offended by your questions, only feeling limited in my ability to answer.)

     PART ONE: PERSPICUITY & SOLA SCRIPTURA
     We are playing tug-of-war with the word “perspicuity.” You are using a dictionary definition to understand it; I am trying to clarify what the Protestant doctrine means. I am not personally redefining the word, but I am simply trying to express that it is a THEOLOGICAL (and polemical) confession made by Protestant theologians, who have co-opted the dictionary word and made it a label for “God’s intention to communicate through his written word to believers without need of an infallible interpreter.” “Perspicuity” is a technical term, in this use. (Whether or not Protestants in general understand that this is what is going on with “perspicuity” and “clarity,” such is the case.)

     And yes, yes, yes – I do indeed dare to compare the Protestant doctrine of perspicuity with even such difficult scientific discoveries and theories as Quantum Chromodynamics. I can do this because I am not using the dictionary definition of “perspicuity” (i.e., “anybody of ordinary education could understand”) but the technical Protestant term, which is a theological confession: God’s Word is MEANT for humans to understand it, just as God’s WORLD is meant to be understood, both coming from the Great Communicator. Both are complex because GOD is complex: but both are open to investigation, and (we P’s believe) both need no infallible interpreter.

     I am afraid that we cannot set aside the doctrine of magisterial infallibility of interpretation here: in fact, I believe it is the crux of the matter! If it is true, there is no need for this doctrine of “perspicuity,” or indeed of “sola scriptura.” If it is NOT true, then the Protestant explanation is the only available option, if we are going to receive God’s communication at all. It is this decision (or assumption) about whether or not we have access to an infallible interpreter on earth that determines our approach to the Bible. I think the most important question is: Does any one of us (within the Church) have special access to God’s truth, or is there “epistemic parity” among us? There is a world of difference between these views!

     If there is an infallible interpreter on earth, then that interpreter has the ability and the right to tell us what the Bible IS – e.g., one authority among several, in the Catholic or EO view (or an unreliable authority that needs to be upgraded, as per the Mormon view). If there is no infallible interpreter on earth, then the Bible itself must teach us what the Bible IS – i.e., the sole authoritative revelation of God to his people. We simply do not have any other “visitors’ booth” to the universe, to tell us the way things stand and what God has been up to.

     You note that “Catholics & Orthodox believe that there is nothing w/in the scriptures that supports this Protestant doctrine” of no earthly infallible interpreter. Perhaps this means that there is something w/in the scriptures that supports the opposite? But I note in Tim’s response to TF above that there are about four means needed to assess the truth of the Catholic doctrine, only one of which is the Bible. And to what authority can Catholics appeal for their particular interpretation of the texts they see as relevant to this doctrine? Isn’t it the infallible Magisterium? As a couple of Protestant guests have expressed on this thread, we are utterly baffled as to how we’d ever arrive at an objective confirmation of papal infallibility, standing as we are on this side of the Tiber, heirs of the Reformation. The only “visitors’ booth to the universe,” the only “authorized version” of the way things really are, seems to us to be the Word of God. It does not appear obvious to us that the Word comes with an infallible earthly interpreter, as a package deal. (As I half-jokingly asked ‘way back at the beginning, perhaps there is a new move of the Spirit needed to overcome the “noetic effects” of our Protestantism!)

     You asked for Scripture proof that the Bible speaks of itself as the ONLY authority for believers, as confirmation of the claim to “sola scriptura.” But sola scriptura, like perspicuity, is not something built out of a verse here or there; it is a doctrine reflecting biblical themes, and a confession of God’s intention for his Church, for how we are to know him and his works. So, just scratching the surface: It is the sum of the messages about the writers’ intentions for the text, that they would be read (or heard) and understood by ordinary believers, for a purpose (e.g., John 20:31; 21:24; Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1; Eph. 3:1-6; 1 John 2:1, etc.)…Plus the call to test our own and others’ teaching against a particular standard called “sound doctrine” (Mt. 7:15-20; Acts 17:11; Rom. 16:17; Gal. 1:6-9, 11-12; 1 Tim. 4:6, 16; 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 2:2, 15)…Plus the identification of the biblical texts as the repository of that doctrine, the very words of God, useful for ordinary believers (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Eph. 6:17; 2 Thess. 2:13).

     You gave several (biblical) examples of ways that God has communicated besides his written Word: OT prophets, NT church gift of prophecy, etc. But here are three ways to understand this kind of communication that do not assume a continuation of revelation via this medium: 1) OT prophecy had specific significance in redemptive history, and has now ceased; 2) OT prophecy was inspired revelation from God; 3) the “prophecy” referred to in the NT churches was not new revelation, and always had to be tested by what was established teaching (Gal. 1:8-9; 1 Thess. 5:21; 1 John 4:1). If you are using these examples as an argument for the existence of present-day extrabiblical revelation, I’d have to note that the Montanist controversy happened pretty early (150AD), and was easily recognized as heresy; and also that in the case of the Magisterium’s claims to infallible *interpretive* authority, there is NO concurrent claim to *inspiration* (which I learned from Bryan or from Andrew Preslar in some venue this fall, I forget where). (Though I am not sure how to categorize the extrabiblical doctrines such as Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception – they are not technically interpretation, but are they considered inspired? Don’t know.) Anyway, the Protestant reading is, of course, that the canon is closed, and no new verbal revelation can be added – which seems to have been the attitude of the very earliest Church Fathers, though I am no expert in that literature.

     There, that is enough for you to chew on for now. I’ll address the rest of your ideas later today or tomorrow. I do appreciate this chance to interact with you on these topics!

459. Tim A. Troutman December 7th, 2009 10:52 pm :

     Matthew,

     The article is not about whether doctrines need to be explicitly stated in Scripture or not. Neither is it about epistemology (though many guests have tried to move it in that direction ). The issue is about authority. The Reformed claim to believe in Church authority but they subject that authority to their own private interpretation of Scripture and thus their self-view of Church authority is no different in principle than the Protestant who would explicitly state that his only authority is his private interpretation of Scripture. That’s what the article demonstrates. If someone disagrees they need to say so and start out with something like this: “There is a principle of distinction between sola and solo scriptura and it is this:” (and then go on to explain what that principle is).

     But if they do not do that or something very similar, then they do not refute the article and don’t really engage it. In 349 I gave two very explicit examples of what a refutation would look like. So far, nothing has looked like that at all.

460. Paige Britton December 8th, 2009 8:18 am :

     Mateo —
     Here is some more food for thought:

     PART TWO:
     You asked: “The Orthodox believe that when bishops formally define dogma in a valid Ecumenical Council, that the bishops of the Council have spoken infallibly, and that the whole church must accept these doctrines as binding. Do you agree with that?”

     No, I do not agree that the Ecumenical Councils produced infallible doctrines – because I am not convinced that there is any such thing as an infallible interpreter on earth. I believe that even those brilliant theologians who wrote those doctrinal formulations were on the same epistemic footing as myself (i.e., fallible, and with access to the biblical texts). But to say that interpreters are “fallible” does not mean that they are necessarily always wrong, and to say that doctrines are “fallible” does not mean that they are necessarily always untrue. “Fallible” simply refers to our (believers’) state of dependence on God’s Word and one another (as co-readers of God’s Word) for checks and balances to our understanding, and to the fact that our interpretations are sometimes wrong and therefore correctible, something that cannot be said by Catholics about the Pope’s ex cathedra pronouncements.

     As to whether the doctrinal formulations are binding on the church, I believe the Protestant understanding is that they are NOT binding EXCEPT to the extent that they accurately represent the biblical witness to the particular doctrines. Yes, this means that other believers must judge the accuracy of the doctrines against the biblical text. Protestantly speaking, we believe this is a sufficient and reliable course to take. Here’s why:

     If the Bible is perspicuous – i.e., God’s sole intentional verbal communication to the church, regardless of difficulty level (some things are more obvious than others) – then any interpretation can be judged more or less orthodox by appeal to the text. Yes, yes, yes – different people would like to convince me of different interpretations! Big surprise: the Bible is thick and complex, and if we are operating with an assumption of epistemic parity, differences of interpretation will arise. I am not saying that I as a believer, or even a J. I. Packer, will always be able even to *judge* competing interpretations correctly, let alone come up with the right ones every time ourselves. What we WILL do is a lot of listening to arguments, a lot of comparing of texts, a lot of weighing and judging of explanations, and a lot of leaning on those more experienced than ourselves (this last is hard to do if you are a J. I. Packer!). And sometimes we’ll have to say, “I don’t know which interpretation is best,” and sometimes we will choose to say, “This one seems most convincing, though that other one is possible,” and sometimes we will firmly say, “No, that one is not at all supported by the text of Scripture, and is an unorthodox reading,” and often we can say confidently, “Yes, that is a valid reading, and I will stand on it.”

     And while Bryan and Neal characterize this Protestant interpretive process as being solely (and shamefully) an individualized one, thoughtfully & rightly done it is something that happens in community, each of us being humbly aware of our own fallibility. Yes, each individual Protestant must finally make decisions for herself, whether about whom to trust or what to believe; but wise individuals seek checks and balances before making life-changing (or church-changing!) decisions. (And none of us are really surprised to find that individual Protestants are not always wise!!)

     [Side note: I am kind of an anomaly among Protestant laypeople, given my interest in theological topics. The evaluative process that I sketch above is most commonly the course of pastors and professors, with laypeople encouraged to know the Bible and theology to the extent of their abilities. This means that knowing WHOM TO TRUST is hugely important in Protestantism, though it is, I think, a much-neglected topic in our teaching. More on this later.]

     Obviously, it would be easier for everybody if we had an infallible interpreter on earth. We wouldn’t make mistakes and missteps in our interpretations, because we would read everything according to our Magisterium’s teaching. But just because something seems preferable does not mean it is TRUE. If we are NOT convinced that the Catholic claims are true, then (to be consistent with our confession) we are to dive into studying God’s Word with all the intellectual skills and spiritual gifts that God has given us, trusting that he will provide wisdom, teachers, and sufficient understanding if we ask him to, and acknowledging that we (and others whom we trust) may sometimes make mistakes.

     That’s all for now — I’ll write a few more notes later today.
     pax!
     pb

461. Matthew Anderson December 8th, 2009 9:22 am :

     I graduated from a Reformed seminary (WTS), and my experience was that people there generally didn’t see doctrinal, confessional, or ecclesiastical authority functioning apart from Holy Scripture. That there was a distinction between a confessional formulation and scripture was of course acknowledged, but the idea would be that if you took enough time to study and understand, you could eventually see why the confessional formulation was a legitimate deduction from Scripture. WCF chapter 1 would indicate that all essential doctrine is based upon scripture, and this would further suggest that anyone who wants can test a particular doctrine accordingly. I guess I’m just saying that I don’t know how revolutionary it is to prove that at the core level, solo scriptura and sola scriptura are operating according to the same principle. The real issue for me would be whether there is something inherently flawed or broken in this approach.

462. TurretinFan December 8th, 2009 10:51 am :

     Tim Troutman:

     You are mistaken about how the article can be refuted. You are correct that one way to refute the article would be to use the format you mentioned: “There is a principle of distinction between sola and solo scriptura and it is this:” (and then go on to explain what that principle is). However, there are other ways to refute the article, such as by demonstrating that the article is unfounded or that the article is self-defeating. Those sort of refutations of the article have been offered (both by myself – here, for example – and by others.

     Yet, lest you continue to assert that no refutation has been offered according to your preferred form:

     There is a principle of distinction between sola scriptura and solo scriptura and it is this: respect for subordinate authority.

     Scriptures teach that the elders are overseers (Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.) and that they are to be accorded special dignity (1 Timothy 5:1 Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; & 1 Timothy 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. ). This respect, of course, is not without limits. An elder can be accused by a plurality of witnesses (1 Timothy 5:19), an elder can be entreated when in error (1 Timothy 5:1), and there will be false teachers that will come in (2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. ).

     Submission to the elders of the church is part of a Christians overall duty to submit to authority to authority (Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. & Titus 3:1 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,). Indeed, even the civil authorities in an ungodly empire are called ministers of God:
     

     Romans 13:1-7
     Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

     Indeed, Jesus himself commended human authority to his disciples (Matthew 23:1-3 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.”) However, this submission to human authority was rightly understood by the apostles to be tempered by a higher duty toward God (Act 5:27-29 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, saying, “Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, “We ought to obey God rather than men.”)

     The elders, like the civil magistrate, are ministers of God (1 Thessalonians 3:2 And sent Timotheus, our brother, and minister of God, and our fellowlabourer in the gospel of Christ, to establish you, and to comfort you concerning your faith:). They accordingly ought to be obeyed and respected, so long as obedience to them does not conflict with obedience to God.

     There is one further parallel that must be made. Obedience to parents is repeatedly emphasized in Scripture:
     

     Exodus 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

     Deuteronomy 5:16 Honour thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

     Micah 7:6 For the son dishonoureth the father, the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter in law against her mother in law; a man’s enemies are the men of his own house.

     Malachi 1:6 A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the LORD of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name?

     Matthew 15:4-6
     For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; and honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

     Matthew 19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

     Mark 7:10-13
     For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: but ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

     Mark 10:19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

     Luke 18:20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

     Ephesians 6:2 Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;)

     Colossians 3:20 Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.

     Yet even the divinely commanded obedience to father and mother is tempered by a necessary trumping obedience to God (Ephesians 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. & Matthew 8:21-22 And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead. & Luke 9:59-60 And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.)

     Now the Roman Catholic church does not deny that the authority of parents and kings are subordinate to the authority of God. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic church (at least in theory) affirms that God is a higher authority than the church. Thus, this principle of distinction between sola scriptura and solo scriptura ought to be understandable, at least, to the Roman Catholic reader.

     Finally, and this is where the refutation extends beyond simply stating the principle of distinction and explaining it, the sola scriptura position is the position that best fits our present circumstance. Our elders are men. They are not incarnations of the Logos – they are not divinely inspired prophets. They are teachers and pastors. They are owed submission and respect, but not absolutely. Even the apostles (who were sometimes divinely inspired prophets) were not given absolute respect (Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. & Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.).

     Even Jesus himself, though he could have insisted on his divine prerogative, opened his ministry to Scriptural examination (John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. & Matthew 11:2-5 Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said unto him, “Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?” Jesus answered and said unto them, “Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.” & compare Isaiah 35:4-6 Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert. & Luke 24:25-27 Then he said unto them, “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?” And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.).

     The Scriptures, after all, are the very word of God, not the private interpretations of men (2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.) Furthermore, the Scriptures are both formally and materially sufficient (2 Timothy 3:15-17 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. )

     Accordingly, not only is there a principled distinction between sola scriptura and solo scriptura, but sola scriptura is distinguishable from (and superior to) an unbounded submission to the successors (real or alleged) of the apostles. I’m aware of Bryan Cross’ objections to this distinction and I’ve answered them (here – where I demonstrate that his objection amounts to a denial that there can be subordinate authority).

463. Devin Rose December 8th, 2009 12:02 pm :

     Turretinfan,

     I will let the CtC guys respond to your post directly in regard to their article, but several months ago I wrote a blog post that demonstrates the problem with your particular concept of “obeying the elders of the church” here: http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2009/04/30/what-if-the-elders-are-wrong/

     I do not want to pull the thread off-topic, but I would certainly be interested in how you respond to my objection to this concept (you can comment on my site).

464. Paige Britton December 8th, 2009 12:56 pm :

     Mateo — last installment!

     PART THREE: (are you tired of hearing from me yet?? :)

     You quoted Mathison & then Bryan & Neal, then asked (quoting B&N) if I agreed with the statement, “Scripture can function as an objective authority only when interpreted in and by the Church.” I do not agree, for how can the Scripture function as an objective authority when its interpretation is subject to the authority of the Church? I would say instead that it only functions as an OBJECTIVE authority when the Church’s teaching is subject to IT.

     But we can’t agree on definitions, here, I think, because of the difference in worldviews – from the Catholic perspective, it is only when Scripture is used by those with the infallible interpretive charism that it has its proper authority; and hence anyone who seeks to judge the church’s teaching by the content of the biblical text is both disobedient and merely being subjective, since the true interpretation is the sole commodity of the Magisterium. From the Protestant perspective, God has set things up so that a) language communicates, b) as co-readers we provide checks and balances to one another’s interpretations in the church, and c) the content of church teaching can be judged against the biblical message by fallible human readers sufficiently and reliably. (Do we always do this well, carefully, impartially, and irenically? Nope.)
     ……..
     Knowing whom to trust in general is a *wisdom* question. Some of this discernment can be taught directly, but much of it comes through imitation and experience (sometimes hard experience). The sincerity or friendliness of a teacher should not be our final measure of good teaching, although these can be examples of good fruit.

     Very, very briefly: we should test those who teach us by their character, their intellectual virtues (both in learning and teaching), and their faithfulness to the biblical message. (This last piece requires time and hard work for the student to gain it, so there will probably be a delay before it is in place. This means we need to pay special heed to the first two – and we need also to be aware when a lack of information means we should not lean too heavily on a particular teacher or message till we have checked with others whom we trust.)

     Teachers who encourage us to be like the Bereans (Acts 17) and DIG in the Scriptures to validate what they teach indicate their willingness to be tested and subject to the higher authority of God’s Word. Teachers who discourage questions and challenges should be regarded with a healthy skepticism.
     …..
     I am totally in agreement with you that there is a “scandal of church shopping” among Protestants – though I guess I lament most those changes that are due to spiritual immaturity, such as subjective tastes in worship styles, lack of perseverance, unresolved conflicts, boredom, and the like, which I think account for a lot of church hopping. I am much more respectful of those choices that are made out of thought and conviction, with much prayer, counsel, and peaceable partings. It does not surprise me that some Protestants would move from one denomination to another because they have grown in their knowledge of theological systems and the biblical text, and are newly convinced that a certain system of thought best expresses the biblical message. (Frequent theological changes, though, are a sign of immaturity!) And of course many changes are due to necessity, and not attributable to either immaturity or theological conviction.
     …..
     Re. the Amish again: Hey, did you live in Lancaster County? You are right, “hasty” is not a word I would ascribe to the Amish in any area of life, let alone in Bible reading! But I do still think that they probably lack the ability and the desire to STUDY the texts that they read. Maybe they are the opposite of hasty; maybe they are just stuck.
     ….
     So, the $64K question: where is the True Church? Did Calvin and/or Luther find it, or leave it? If they left it, then we heirs of the Reformation are in a pickle, stranded here on the wrong side of the Tiber. But if they caught a glimpse of God’s intention for his church that had been obscured for centuries, then we 21st century Protestants have some catching up to do, to live up to the implications of what they saw — not least in growing literate enough to make use of the clear but complex Scriptures to evaluate the myriad of options you mentioned.

     pax,
     pb

465. Tim A. Troutman December 8th, 2009 1:00 pm :

     TurretinFan,

     I went to those posts earlier but I confess I did not read them. I’ll let Bryan respond directly if he wants to; I’m more interested in the direct refutation of the article.

     We need to more carefully define what we mean by “principle of distinction” since the obvious meaning seems to be in question now (for the sake of winning a debate I guess). We mean a principle of distinction in regard to the principle of the thing in question. For example, is there any principle of distinction whatsoever in any way between solo scriptura and sola scriptura? Sure, 1. the former is spelled “solo” and the latter is spelled “sola.” We can always distinguish them by inspecting the last letter of the word. That is a principle of distinction as regards spelling. Another principle distinction: The former is improper Latin and the latter is proper Latin. That is a principle of distinction as regards grammar. If we examine the concepts themselves, there might be principles of distinction in one regard, but not in regard to the principle of the things in question. The principle here is authority. So while there is a principled distinction in regard to spelling, there is no principled distinction in regard to authority.

     Suppose a government started an education lottery. “We will raise $1 million and all of it will go to education” they said. Having raised the money, the tax payers realized that the $5 million education spending stayed the same. They question it, and the authorities reply that they indeed used the $1 mil from the lottery to pay for education, but that freed up $1 mil of the education money to be used elsewhere. We can say without qualification that what the government did is no different in principle than if they had directly misappropriated the fund. They rebut: “No there is a principle of distinction in what we did, we respected the law and we did everything according to the book. The $1 mil was designated to education exactly as promised.” So there is a principle of distinction in the action of the government, but not in regard to the principle of the things in question, namely whether or not the government misappropriated the funds. One way does it directly; the other does it indirectly. But they both do the same thing in principle.

     There are some accidental differences and those differences could be considered principles of distinction but only in regard to a certain aspect of the question. For example, in regard to the question, per se, of whether or not the money was designated according to the law, is there a distinction between the government designating 1 mil and then moving other funds and them not designating 1 mil? Yes there is. But there still is no principle of distinction in regard to the very thing in question: whether the funds were misappropriated.

     We can probably think of many examples. But to tie it into your argument, the question is whether or not one’s private interpretation of Scripture is authoritative for a believer. In regard to this, there is no principle of distinction between sola and solo scriptura. Your argument shows that there is a principle of distinction in regard to an accidental aspect, namely whether one acknowledges church authority in any way whatsoever, but not in regard to the very thing in question: whether one’s private interpretation of Scripture holds more authority than the Church.

466. Tim A. Troutman December 8th, 2009 1:06 pm :

     Matthew,

     I get where you’re coming from; it depends on the recipient. I think that in my Presbyterian days, I would have been in your camp. But I think you can see that TurretinFan and a few others consider it much more important and are going to some lengths to try and disprove it.

     I think it is related mostly to one’s self perception. Many Reformed see themselves as subordinate to the Church in a more tangible way than say a ‘community church’ member or even a Baptist. When someone else comes out and says, “in principle there’s no real difference,” it can rub the fur the wrong way.

467. Bryan Cross December 8th, 2009 1:11 pm :

     TurretinFan,

     In our article we explain carefully how there can be subordinate authority, both of the civil government, and even within heretical sects. See also comment #149.

     The conclusion of our argument is not that there is no [conceptual] distinction between solo and sola, but that there is no principled distinction between them with respect to the holder of ultimate interpretive authority. And that is why in essence they are the same, even though they are defined differently. Sola is merely the indirect form of solo. I can either directly act as my own ultimate interpretive authority (that’s solo), or I can pick people who agree with my interpretation, and then ‘submit’ to them (that’s sola). The underlying principle or essence is the same in both cases (i.e. the individual is his own ultimate interpretive authority), but in the latter case this essence is hidden by a layer of customized secondary ‘authority.’

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

468. Keith Mathison December 8th, 2009 2:09 pm :

     All,

     I’ve seen several comments here and on other blogs wondering about my response and when I will have it ready. Two quick things:

     1). This is a long paper and it deals with a number of important issues. I’m sure Bryan and Neal didn’t compose the whole thing in a week, or even a month. It obviously took some time to write. It will also take some time to write a response that will do it justice.

     2). I was planning on beginning the response back at the beginning of November. However, a couple of unforeseen incidents have taken up the majority of my time since then. Two weeks before Thanksgiving, my wife took a bad fall and seriously injured her face. We were in and out of doctor and dentist offices for several days. One week before Thanksgiving, while she was still recuperating, a water pipe burst in the wall behind my kitchen sink. Those who have dealt with this know it is a mess. We spent the next week or so ripping out damaged drywall, insulation, floors, and even cabinets when we discovered that the burst pipe had been slowly leaking for some time and had caused mold and mildew to grow into the cabinet wood. Now we’re slowly getting everything put back together.

     Needless to say, I haven’t had much time to think about sola scriptura or apostolic succession since the beginning of November.

     In short, it may take some time to write a thoughtful response. I’ll let Bryan know when it is done and where it is posted, so he can let the folks here know. But don’t expect it anytime in the next few weeks. I have too many people coming in and out of my house right now to get much done when I’m home.

     Thanks,

     Keith

469. Andrew Preslar December 8th, 2009 5:14 pm :

     Keith,

     I am so sorry to read about your wife’s injury. I hope that she is well on the mend. What a time to have the house turn against you! May the Lord grant healing to your wife and good repair to your house.

     Thanks for posting this update.

     In Christ,

     Andrew Preslar

470. Teri December 8th, 2009 5:17 pm :

     Dr. Mathison

     I will certainly be in prayer for your wife. I also will pray for your situation with water pipes! These things do try our patience and there is never an opportune time for them. An aside, since my husband and I have an insurance agency, be sure that you have done everything they tell you exactly.

     I will wait until you can comment fully about this article. The gentlemen here at CTC are to be commended for moderating so many, many comments!

     Along the lines of interpretive authority…
     I was re-reading some of Flavius Josephus’ work the other night. My thought was how amazing it was that when Our Lord spoke to his apostles and told them when to leave Jerusalem, they remembered and heeded this warning.
     From Josephus you can understand how someone who didn’t listen to the apostles may have been fooled by the priests or false messiahs, etc.
     What a horror that ensued upon those people that were inside the city gates!
     I wonder what it would be like in today’s world with so many competing voices of authority according to sacred scripture?
     Who would you follow?
     Thankfully, the apostles were entrusted with Our Lord’s words and those who followed them fled to safety. I wonder sometimes if that is just an example of the end of time in our own world order.
     I personally will still follow those who Our Lord entrusted with His Kingdom on earth from the beginning. HE hasn’t failed them yet.

     Blessings and peace on this Holy Day, Tim and the rest of the CTC!
     Teri

471. Bryan Cross December 9th, 2009 2:05 am :

     Matthew, (re: #461)

     You wrote:

     but the idea would be that if you took enough time to study and understand, you could eventually see why the confessional formulation was a legitimate deduction from Scripture. WCF chapter 1 would indicate that all essential doctrine is based upon scripture, and this would further suggest that anyone who wants can test a particular doctrine accordingly.

     This was my own point of view as well, when I was in seminary (see here). The meta-level assumptions implicit in this methodology, cannot be tested by the method, because they are presupposed by the method. This methodology presupposes, for example, that Scripture is such that the Church’s entire confession can, by sufficient historico-critical study, be deduced from Scripture. If that assumption is false (and I believe it is) then the whole methodology is based on a false presupposition. That assumption paints the magisterial target around one’s interpretive arrow, which implicitly withholds from that magisterium interpretive (not to mention canon-determining) authority. For that reason, the methodology cannot be used to evaluate whether apostolic succession is true, because the methodology itself implicitly presupposes the falsity of apostolic succession, by presupposing that the ‘magisterium’ consists of persons agreeing with wherever my interpretive arrow lands. The methodology in that respect begs the question against the Catholic Church, assuming precisely what is in question between Protestants and the Catholic Church.

     I guess I’m just saying that I don’t know how revolutionary it is to prove that at the core level, solo scriptura and sola scriptura are operating according to the same principle. The real issue for me would be whether there is something inherently flawed or broken in this approach.

     It gets rid of the Church. Christ founded a Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. It is the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Tim 3:15), and the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12). It is the ark of salvation (St. Cyprian), and the Israel of the New Covenant. All men are called to enter Christ’s Church by baptism, having one faith and one baptism (Eph 4), and being one Body because of [Eucharistic] partaking of the one Loaf which is Christ (1 Cor 10:17). Through our unity in Christ’s one Church, we testify to the world that the Father sent the Son and loves us as He loves the Son whose name we (Christians) bear. (John 17:23) Solo scriptura solves the problem of schism not be reconciling Christians in the one Church that Christ founded, but simply by redefining ‘Church’ so that schism is impossible (see here and here and here). You can’t pray for the schismatics if you don’t even believe there is such a thing as being in schism from the Church, let alone that it is a grave sin. If sola scriptura is in principle the same as solo scriptura, then all the sola scriptura folks who think they are “doing church” (as it is now fashionably called), are merely playing church.

     If those consequences aren’t revolutionary to you, that might be precisely because there is no principled difference between sola and solo. But in that case, the contrast between your ecclesiology and that of the Church Fathers is revolutionary. And unless you’ve drunk deeply of ecclesial deism, the discontinuity between solo and the Fathers should be deeply troubling.

     St. Augustine and St. Thomas were not advocates of solo scriptura. To the Donatists, St. Augustine wrote:

     “You know what the Catholic Church is, and what that is cut off from the Vine; if there are any among you cautious, let them come; let them find life in the Root. Come, brethren, if you wish to be engrafted in the Vine: a grief it is when we see you lying thus cut off. Number the Bishops even from the very seat of Peter: and see every succession in that line of Fathers: that is the Rock against which the proud Gates of Hell prevail not.”

     And Aquinas showed the same thing. As Aquinas lay dying, the Sacred Viaticum (i.e. Holy Eucharist) was brought into the room, and he said:

     “If in this world there be any knowledge of this sacrament stronger than that of faith, I wish now to use it in affirming that I firmly believe and know as certain that Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, Son of God and Son of the Virgin Mary, is in this Sacrament.”

     Then as he was to receive the Eucharist, Aquinas added these words:

     “I receive Thee, the price of my redemption, for Whose love I have watched, studied, and laboured. Thee have I preached; Thee have I taught. Never have I said anything against Thee: if anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written anything erroneous concerning this sacrament or other matters, I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I now pass from this life.”

     The solo scriptura-ist cannot submit his doctrine to the judgment and correction of the Church; he is his own ‘Church’, which means, for him, there is no Church.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

472. mateo December 9th, 2009 3:56 pm :

     Paige Britton: Mateo … are you tired of hearing from me yet??

     No, I am not tired of hearing from you! I enjoy the dialog and I appreciate the thoughtful responses. And now I will need to respond to your three-part response in more than one post. :-0

     Paige Britton: PART ONE: PERSPICUITY & SOLA SCRIPTURA

     We are playing tug-of-war with the word “perspicuity.” You are using a dictionary definition to understand it; I am trying to clarify what the Protestant doctrine means. I am not personally redefining the word, but I am simply trying to express that it is a THEOLOGICAL (and polemical) confession made by Protestant theologians, who have co-opted the dictionary word and made it a label for “God’s intention to communicate through his written word to believers without need of an infallible interpreter.” “Perspicuity” is a technical term, in this use. (Whether or not Protestants in general understand that this is what is going on with “perspicuity” and “clarity,” such is the case.)

     I am indeed using the dictionary understanding of the word “perspicuous”, and I think that you can see the problem I have with using the Protestant “theological” definition of the word “perspicuous” to mean “God’s intention to communicate through his written word to believers without need of an infallible interpreter”. One, this isn’t even close to the ordinary meaning of the word “perspicuous”. Two, there is nothing in scriptures that explicitly makes the claim that God has the intention to “communicate through his written word to believers without need of an infallible interpreter”. My objection here is that communication breaks down when words that have an ordinary meaning are redefined to mean the exact opposite of what they normally mean.

     Paige Britton: And yes, yes, yes – I do indeed dare to compare the Protestant doctrine of perspicuity with even such difficult scientific discoveries and theories as Quantum Chromodynamics. I can do this because I am not using the dictionary definition of “perspicuity” (i.e., “anybody of ordinary education could understand”) but the technical Protestant term, which is a theological confession …

     Right. If we redefine the word “perspicuous” to mean “non-perspicuous”, then Quantum Chromodynamics can be said to be “perspicuous”. Likewise, if we redefine the word “perspicuous” to mean “a Calvinist interpretation of the Bible”, then Calvinists can claim that the Bible is “perspicuous”. But Calvinist’s aren’t alone in abusing the word “perspicuous” in this manner, because there are thousands of other Protestant denominations that use the word “perspicuous” to mean nothing more than “my Protestant denomination’s interpretation of scripture”. So what we really need is something to replace the word “perspicuous” since “perspicuous” doesn’t ordinarily mean thousands of different interpretations of the same thing – it means the exact opposite of that.

     How about this? If the interpretation of scriptures agrees with John Calvin’s interpretation of scriptures, we will call this particular interpretation of scriptures Calvinist Perspicuity ®™. In a like manner, if a particular interpretation of scriptures agrees with Martin Luther, we will call that Lutheran Perspicuity ®™. Proceeding in this manner we can define United Methodist Perspicuity ®™, SDA Perspicuity ®™, UPC Perspicuity ®™, UU Perspicuity ®™, Southern Baptist Perspicuity ®™, etc, etc.

     ;-)

     Paige Britton: God’s Word is MEANT for humans to understand it, just as God’s WORLD is meant to be understood, both coming from the Great Communicator. Both are complex because GOD is complex: but both are open to investigation …

     Agreed.
     

     … and (we P’s believe) both need no infallible interpreter

     And my response to a person asserting Protestant sola scriptura doctrine will always be this: show me the scriptures that explicitly state there is no need for a teaching office in Christ’s Church that can infallibly interpret scriptures!

     Paige Britton: I am afraid that we cannot set aside the doctrine of magisterial infallibility of interpretation here: in fact, I believe it is the crux of the matter! If it is true, there is no need for this doctrine of “perspicuity,” or indeed of “sola scriptura.”

     If there is another source of infallible authority for Christians besides scripture, then obviously Protestant sola scriptura doctrine is false, since the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is the claim that scripture is the ONLY source of infallible authority for a Christian.

     Claiming that scriptures are Perspicuous ®™ doesn’t get us away from the fact that scriptures are, in fact, not perspicuous, and that scriptures need to be interpreted correctly to be understood correctly.

     Paige Britton: If there is an infallible interpreter on earth, then that interpreter has the ability and the right to tell us what the Bible IS – e.g., one authority among several, in the Catholic or EO view …

     Absolutely. An infallible authority other than the Bible can tell us what does and does not belong in the canon of scripture. Without that infallible temporal authority, how does the Protestant infallibly know what constitutes the canon of scripture? He can’t know, because there are no scriptures in a Protestant Bible define the canon of the Bible. How does the Protestant know that sola scriptura is itself infallible doctrine? He can’t know that either, because there are no scriptures in a Protestant Bible that claim that the Protestant Bible is the ONLY source of authority for the Christian.

     A seeker of the truth is in the position of having Jews, Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants telling him that the Bible is an infallible source of authority. But only the Protestant are telling the seeker of the truth to ignore the fact that there are no scriptures in anyone’s Bible that explicitly teach the doctrine of sola scriptura. The Protestant is telling the seeker of the truth the he should assume that sola scriptura is true, and then make this unsupported assumption a foundational belief of his faith. Then, armed with a Protestant Bible as his only source of infallible authority, to arrive at the truth, he needs to sort through the thousands of Protestant denominations that interpret the Bible in contradictory ways . :-(

     Paige Britton: You note that “Catholics & Orthodox believe that there is nothing w/in the scriptures that supports this Protestant doctrine” of no earthly infallible interpreter. Perhaps this means that there is something w/in the scriptures that supports the opposite?

     Of course. Both Catholics and the Orthodox claim that if the scriptures are properly interpreted, that the scriptures support the idea that the deposit of faith entrusted by Christ to his Church is contained in both Scriptures and Holy Tradition (e.g. 2 Thes 2:15 – “ … brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”) Neither the Catholics nor the Orthodox have ever claimed that the scriptures are formally sufficient to support every doctrine of Christianity. But that is not a problem for the Catholics and the Orthodox, since they have never believed in the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.

     Paige Britton: You asked for Scripture proof that the Bible speaks of itself as the ONLY authority for believers, as confirmation of the claim to “sola scriptura.” But sola scriptura, like perspicuity, is not something built out of a verse here or there; it is a doctrine reflecting biblical themes, and a confession of God’s intention for his Church, for how we are to know him and his works.

     IOW, there are no scriptures that explicitly make the claim that the Protestant Bible is the ONLY source of authority for the Christian. One needs to assume that this Protestant doctrine is correct without regard to what scriptures actually say.

     Paige Britton: So, just scratching the surface: It is the sum of the messages about the writers’ intentions for the text, that they would be read (or heard) and understood by ordinary believers, for a purpose (e.g., John 20:31; 21:24; Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1; Eph. 3:1-6; 1 John 2:1, etc.)…Plus the call to test our own and others’ teaching against a particular standard called “sound doctrine” (Mt. 7:15-20; Acts 17:11; Rom. 16:17; Gal. 1:6-9, 11-12; 1 Tim. 4:6, 16; 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 2:2, 15)…Plus the identification of the biblical texts as the repository of that doctrine, the very words of God, useful for ordinary believers (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Eph. 6:17; 2 Thess. 2:13).

     These scriptures support what Catholics, Orthodox and some Protestant denominations hold in common – that God intends to speak to us, that God speaks to us through the scriptures, that scriptures are a source of authority for the Christian, etc . But there is NOTHING in the scriptures that you quoted that asserts that the Protestant Bible is the ONLY source of authority for a Christian. Since the Protestant doctrine of “ONLY” is not found in the scriptures, it must have its source in something other than scriptures. Sola scriptura is truly an extra-biblical doctrine! One day a Protestant yanked this doctrine out of the clear blue sky and it has been plagueing Protestantism ever since.

     Paige Britton: You gave several (biblical) examples of ways that God has communicated besides his written Word: OT prophets, NT church gift of prophecy, etc. But here are three ways to understand this kind of communication that do not assume a continuation of revelation via this medium …

     Agreed. Revelation is the key word here. What do we mean by Revelation?

     Paige Britton: If you are using these examples as an argument for the existence of present-day extrabiblical revelation, I’d have to note that the Montanist controversy happened pretty early (150AD), and was easily recognized as heresy …

     The biblical interpretations of Montanus were easily recognized as heresy by whom? ;-)

     To directly address your point, I am not claiming that the supernatural gift of prophesy is a source of what Catholics call “public revelation” (i.e. the Revelation given to us in both Scripture and Holy Tradition)

     CCC 66 … no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

     CCC 82 … the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”

     Paige Britton: … there is NO concurrent claim to *inspiration* (which I learned from Bryan or from Andrew Preslar in some venue this fall, I forget where).

     Catholics believe that the Holy Scriptures are inspired writings. Infallible means without error in matters of faith and morals. So all Scriptures are both inspired, and infallible. We will receive no more Revelation that is inspired. A dogma defined at a valid Ecumenical Council is infallible, not inspired. The dogma may be worded in ways that are clumsy and wooden and in need of further development, but it will be without error in matters of faith and morals.

     Paige Britton: … Though I am not sure how to categorize the extrabiblical doctrines such as Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception – they are not technically interpretation, but are they considered inspired? Don’t know.

     Catholics would reject the notion that the dogmas of Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception are “extrabiblical”. The scriptures are at least materially sufficient to support both these dogmas. In any case Purgatory, I would argue that scriptures are formally sufficient to support this dogma – the problem here is that the Catholic canon of scripture contains 2 Maccabees, and the Protestant canon does not. Arguing whether scriptures are formally sufficient to support the dogma of Purgatory would involve an argument of the canon of scriptures. To pursue whether or not Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception are “extrabiblical” will take this conversation way off topic. Let us discuss this another day. :-)

     Paige Britton: Anyway, the Protestant reading is, of course, that the canon is closed, and no new verbal revelation can be added – which seems to have been the attitude of the very earliest Church Fathers, though I am no expert in that literature.

     None of the earliest Church Father’s proclaimed that the Protestant canon of scriptures is something that the Church accepts. Other than that, we are in agreement here – the canon is closed, and the supernatural gift of prophesy, while still active within the Body of Christ, will not add new Revelation to what has been received in the Deposit of Faith.

     The supernatural gift of prophecy is a charism that is given to some within the Church to build up the Body of Christ. Likewise, the gift of teaching infallibly is also a supernatural charism that is given to some to build up the Body of Christ.

     Christ has created a Church where charisms are not equally distributed among the members of the Church (see 1 Cor. Chapter 12 – “… there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; … Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?”)

473. K. Doran December 9th, 2009 4:44 pm :

     Paige,

     The world responds to scientific experiments. God’s inspired scriptures do not. The former is not merely a dataset, but a tangible world that can be experimented on. The latter is, in the absence of any direct inspiration of the holy spirit to the person doing the interpretation, merely a dataset.

     And a dataset can always be tortured until it confesses . .. to whatever confession the torturer wishes.

     This sort of thing happens all the time in empirical (non-experimental) work. People torture the data, and since no one can experiment on the data, alternative viewpoints inevitably develop. That is the nature of a dataset that can’t be experimented on. In fact, when the models we care about have more variables than the dataset itself has observations, there is a mathematical indeterminacy that necessarily results.

     I don’t see how you can make the analogy between God’s WORLD and his WORD (meaning, in protestant circles, his scriptures, as opposed to the deeper Catholic sense of the WORD).

     Coming to know God’s World involves experimentation, or else it involves not coming to know it at all, but rather spinning out into multiple and contradictory interpretations. Since we can’t experiment on God’s Word, multiple interpretations are the inevitable result.

     Sincerely,

     K. Doran

474. lojahw December 9th, 2009 7:31 pm :

     Hello Bryan,

     Can you give examples of substantive differences in essential doctrines between churches that actually practice sola scriptura to substantiate your thesis? If churches that practice sola scriptura are in agreement on the essentials of the faith, then you’re arguing against a strawman caricature – not sola scriptura.

     One cannot assume 1) that churches that practice sola scriptura differ on essential doctrines (rather than on style or emphasis only); 2) that Protestants choose churches because of essential differences in doctrines; nor 3) that all Protestant churches practice sola scriptura (see my posts #259 & 275).

     Pointing to Protestants who change churches in order to find others who agree with their own interpretation of scripture merely shows that they are not practicing sola scriptura (cf. 2 Pet. 1:20-21; Tit. 1:9; Heb. 13:17). Solo scriptura is a corruption – not a mode – of sola scriptura.

     Blessings.

475. herbert December 9th, 2009 10:17 pm :

     Bryan (re#471)-

     The solo scriptura-ist cannot submit his doctrine to the judgment and correction of the Church; he is his own ‘Church’, which means, for him, there is no Church.

     This article seems to demonstrate that the solo scriptura-ist can rightly be seen as not having a Church. However, he still has the Christ upon whom the Church is built, correct?

     As the non-Catholic sees it, and as CS Lewis said, the church is a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Non-Catholic Christians, then, can be seen as already having the end which God had in mind, namely Christ.

     How does a Catholic, then, convince a non-Catholic Christian that he also needs the means to Christ, when the non-Catholic already undeniably has Him? It seems that the non-Catholic would ask “Why argue about the right route to take home, when you’re already there?”

     As a Catholic, I would look to Christ’s prayer for our unity and its reference to the unbelieving world (John 17). We aren’t only to be united for our personal sake. We’re to be united so that the unbelieving world may see and believe!
     thanks. herbert

476. lojahw December 9th, 2009 10:29 pm :

     I would appreciate your comments:

     One principled distinction between Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura is that the former is associated with indiscriminate church selection, the latter is not. Solo Scriptura people are “tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming” because they are either untaught or unstable (cf. Eph. 4:14; 2 Pet. 3:16). They “accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires” (2 Tim. 4:3). Rather than adhering to sound teaching based on the “whole counsel of God” from the whole Bible, they fall for distortions of Scripture based on proof-texts and unsound exegesis.

     Sola Scriptura Christians, in contrast, are not carried about by every wind of doctrine nor do they accumulate teachers in accordance with their desires, but they recognize sound teaching based on the “whole counsel of God” from the whole Bible. Sola Scriptura Christians are committed to the essential truths of God’s plan of salvation clearly taught by Scripture. They would never join a church that denies Christ’s incarnation through the virgin Mary, or His substitutionary death on the cross for our sins, or His bodily resurrection and ascension into heaven.

     The above persuades me that there is at least one principled distinction between Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura.

     Blessings.

477. Bryan Cross December 9th, 2009 10:30 pm :

     lojahw (re: #474),

     Just to clarify, neither the conclusion of our argument nor any of its premises is the claim that there are substantive differences in essential doctrines between persons or communities who affirm sola scriptura. Protestantism has no principled, non-arbitrary basis for distinguishing essential from non-essential doctrines, and there are substantive differences in [what are believed by at least one party to be] essential doctrines between persons and communities that affirm sola scriptura. But neither of those two claims is a premise of our argument, or its conclusion. So your claim that “If churches that practice sola scriptura are in agreement on the essentials of the faith, then you’re arguing against a strawman caricature” is itself arguing against a strawman caricature of our argument.

     Pointing to Protestants who change churches in order to find others who agree with their own interpretation of scripture merely shows that they are not practicing sola scriptura (cf. 2 Pet. 1:20-21; Tit. 1:9; Heb. 13:17).

     Two questions:

     (1) Are you in the same denomination you were in when you became a Christian? If not, then your commitment to sola scriptura, and your claim that sola scriptura disallows ‘changing churches’ to find others who agree with your own interpretation of Scripture would seemingly require you to return to the denomination in which you became Christian. Have you done so? If not, why not?

     (2) How did all these different Protestant denominations come into existence from the Catholic Church, if being faithful to ‘sola scriptura‘ entails not ‘changing churches’ in order to find others who agree with one’s own interpretation of Scripture or to start an ecclesial community of one’s own? Here’s the dilemma. Either (a) the founders of each of these denominations and sects were not faithful to sola scriptura in order to come into existence as separate entities from the Catholic Church or (b) sola scriptura does not disallow ‘changing churches’ in order to find others who share one’s own interpretation of Scripture. Which is it?

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

478. lojahw December 9th, 2009 10:43 pm :

     For TurretinFan,

     You previously argued against the Vincentian Canon, but it occurs to me that the VC can be seen as evidence for the perspecuity of Scripture with respect to the essential doctrines of the faith. The associated caveats of St. Vincent apply: what is believed everywhere, always, by all (or nearly all, approved Christian authorities). This common intersection of beliefs should be no different for Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and/or Protestants.

     Blessings.

479. Neal Judisch December 9th, 2009 10:54 pm :

     Dear Keith,

     Very sorry to hear about your wife’s injury. Be assured of our prayers, concerning this and (what must seem to you the lesser matter of) the annoyances of home ownership. I sympathize wholeheartedly with both.

     Every blessing,

     Neal

480. Bryan Cross December 9th, 2009 11:43 pm :

     Herbert, (re: #475)

     You wrote:

     This article seems to demonstrate that the solo scriptura-ist can rightly be seen as not having a Church. However, he still has the Christ upon whom the Church is built, correct? As the non-Catholic sees it, and as CS Lewis said, the church is a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Non-Catholic Christians, then, can be seen as already having the end which God had in mind, namely Christ. How does a Catholic, then, convince a non-Catholic Christian that he also needs the means to Christ, when the non-Catholic already undeniably has Him? It seems that the non-Catholic would ask “Why argue about the right route to take home, when you’re already there?”

     From the Catholic point of view, Protestant ecclesial communities do not have all the grace and gifts Christ has established in His Church by which her members may attain to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. This is why the Catholic Church has always taught that being reconciled to the Church is not soteriologically optional (e.g. Extra Ecclesium Nulla Salus), even though salvation is possible for persons not in full or perfect communion with the Church. Protestant communities have some gifts, but not the most important gift by which we are to grow in Christ, i.e. the Eucharist, not the fullness of the Spirit we receive in the Sacrament of Confirmation, not the Sacrament of post-baptismal forgiveness, i.e. Penance, and not the Sacrament of Holy Orders by which believers benefit from the charism of truth that belongs to the Magisterium.

     It is much more difficult to grow in the Christian life without all the sacraments Christ has instituted in His Church, because these are the means He established by which we are to receive His divine life, i.e. sanctifying grace, and grow in it. Without the Sacrament of Penance, for example, the Protestant who has committed mortal sin must have perfect contrition in order to attain forgiveness of post-baptismal sins, whereas for a Catholic receiving the Sacrament of Penance only imperfect contrition is necessary for forgiveness of post-baptismal sins (though perfect contrition is better). And therefore, from the point of view of the Catholic Church, it is much more difficult to grow into the fullness of the life of God and to persevere in grace unto death in Protestant communities than in the Catholic Church. This is why remaining in schism is not soteriologically neutral.

     Furthermore, all this assumes invincible ignorance about the identity and necessity of entering the Church Christ founded. And invincible ignorance is a very high standard, as James Akin has explained in his article “Ignorance – Invincible and Vincible.” As the Catetchism states, “Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” (CCC, 846)

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

481. mateo December 9th, 2009 11:47 pm :

     Paige Britton: Mateo —
     Here is some more food for thought:

     PART TWO:

     You asked: “The Orthodox believe that when bishops formally define dogma in a valid Ecumenical Council, that the bishops of the Council have spoken infallibly, and that the whole church must accept these doctrines as binding. Do you agree with that?”

     No, I do not agree that the Ecumenical Councils produced infallible doctrines – because I am not convinced that there is any such thing as an infallible interpreter on earth. I believe that even those brilliant theologians who wrote those doctrinal formulations were on the same epistemic footing as myself (i.e., fallible, and with access to the biblical texts).

     I would argue that you are not on the same “epistemic footing” as bishops defining dogma at an Ecumenical Council, and here is why. You and I can never be on the same “epistemic footing” as the authors or Sacred Scriptures, because the authors of Sacred Scripture were cooperating with a supernatural charism of the Holy Spirit that inspired these writers in a way that you and I will never experience. In an analogous manner, the bishops formally defining dogma at an Ecumenical Council are cooperating with a supernatural charism of the Holy Spirit that you and I will never experience. God in his divine Providence has determined that not every member of the Body of Christ receives the supernatural charism of inspiration or the supernatural charism that protects teaching from error.

     The assertion that you are on the same “epistemic footing” as bishops solemnly defining dogma at an Ecumenical Council is a novelty of Protestantism, and the article by Bryan and Neal addresses that point:

     The Protestant epistemological stance, by contrast, is exemplified in the words of Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms: “Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason — I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other — my conscience is captive to the Word of God.”

     Luther’s statement captures the very essence of Protestant religious epistemology. All Protestants who followed Luther’s example took this very same stance, subjecting the Church’s teaching, councils, and interpretive tradition to the standard of their own interpretation of Scripture, picking and choosing from them as though they were mere advice. Since according to Mathison “all appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture,” Luther’s claim that his conscience was “captive to the Word of God” means in actuality that his conscience was ultimately bound by his own interpretation of Scripture. That very claim, namely, that our conscience is bound ultimately by our own interpretation of Scripture, is contrary to the perpetual teaching of the Church …

     Paige Britton: As to whether the doctrinal formulations [of a valid Ecumenical Council] are binding on the church, I believe the Protestant understanding is that they are NOT binding EXCEPT to the extent that they accurately represent the biblical witness to the particular doctrines. Yes, this means that other believers must judge the accuracy of the doctrines against the biblical text.

     The Dogma of the Trinity is NOT a settled matter among Christians? Who has the authority to determine whether or not the dogma of the Trinity accurately reflects the “biblical witness”?

     Paige Britton: If the Bible is perspicuous – i.e., God’s sole intentional verbal communication to the church, regardless of difficulty level (some things are more obvious than others) – then any interpretation can be judged more or less orthodox by appeal to the text.

     The reality of the state of Protestantism testifies that this isn’t true – there are thousands of Protestant denominations that interpret the Bible in contradictory ways! Protestants leaning on one another in determining the “accuracy of the doctrines” has only resulted in ever increasing doctrinal chaos within Protestantism.

     Paige Britton: Yes, yes, yes – different people would like to convince me of different interpretations!

     Why would it be difficult to convince you of this? There are thousands of Protestant denominations that disagree with your own denomination’s interpretation of scriptures.

     Paige Britton: Big surprise: the Bible is thick and complex, and if we are operating with an assumption of epistemic parity, differences of interpretation will arise.

     Of course differences of opinions will arise, if we assume “epistemic parity”. “Epistemic parity” makes every man, woman and child his or her own pope. See Bryan’s comment in his post # 441: “And as we have argued in our article, sola scriptura entails the rule of private judgment, and thus entails that each person is his own ecclesial supreme judge and supreme teacher. In other words, each person is his own pope.”

     Paige Britton: I am not saying that I as a believer, or even a J. I. Packer, will always be able even to *judge* competing interpretations correctly, let alone come up with the right ones every time ourselves. What we WILL do is a lot of listening to arguments, a lot of comparing of texts, a lot of weighing and judging of explanations, and a lot of leaning on those more experienced than ourselves (this last is hard to do if you are a J. I. Packer!). And sometimes we’ll have to say, “I don’t know which interpretation is best,” and sometimes we will choose to say, “This one seems most convincing, though that other one is possible,” and sometimes we will firmly say, “No, that one is not at all supported by the text of Scripture, and is an unorthodox reading,” and often we can say confidently, “Yes, that is a valid reading, and I will stand on it.”

     This is what most Protestant denominations do – and there are thousands of Protestant denominations that interpret scriptures in irreconcilable ways. It seems to me that your solution is no solution for reigning in the doctrinal chaos of Protestantism. Most Protestants will confidently say “Yes, that is a valid reading, and I will stand on it” while they are contradicting another Protestant and his confident reading of scripture.

     The Pontifiator’s Second Law: When the Bible alone is our authority, the Bible ceases to be our authority.

     Paige Britton: And while Bryan and Neal characterize this Protestant interpretive process as being solely (and shamefully) an individualized one, thoughtfully & rightly done it is something that happens in community, each of us being humbly aware of our own fallibility. Yes, each individual Protestant must finally make decisions for herself.

     You agree that “each individual Protestant must finally make decisions for herself”, which is the usual Protestant position.

     From the article by Bryan and Neal:
     

     According to Turretin, the individual Christian should submit to the Church’s teaching and interpretation, except when his conscience, ultimately informed by his own interpretation of Scripture, cannot accept what the Church says. … To submit to others only when one agrees with them, is to submit to oneself. But submission to oneself is an oxymoron, because it is indistinguishable from not submitting at all, from doing whatever one wants.

     … “when I submit (so long as I agree), the one to whom I submit is me.” For this reason, in sola scriptura it is the individual who ultimately has and always retains final interpretive authority. Sola scriptura is a more sophisticated version of solo scriptura, but this added sophistication makes the position more deceptive, by allowing the individual to believe that he is not one of those me-and-my-Bible individualists.

     So how do you maintain that there is a principled distinction between sola scriptura and solo scriptura if the final interpretive authority is the individual Christian?

     Paige Britton: Side note: I am kind of an anomaly among Protestant laypeople, given my interest in theological topics. The evaluative process that I sketch above is most commonly the course of pastors and professors, with laypeople encouraged to know the Bible and theology to the extent of their abilities. This means that knowing WHOM TO TRUST is hugely important in Protestantism, though it is, I think, a much-neglected topic in our teaching. More on this later.

     Whom to trust is indeed the key to escaping the doctrinal chaos that reigns within Protestantism. I can’t argue with that!

     Paige Britton: Obviously, it would be easier for everybody if we had an infallible interpreter on earth. We wouldn’t make mistakes and missteps in our interpretations, because we would read everything according to our Magisterium’s teaching. But just because something seems preferable does not mean it is TRUE.

     Being preferable doesn’t make it not true either! I am glad that we can agree on certain things, as this gives us a basis for further dialog. I believe that we agree that:

     God is good.
     God desires to communicate with us.
     God communicates with us through the scriptures.
     Scriptures are a sublime gift from God written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
     Scriptures are a source of infallible authority for all men and women.
     It would be preferable to have an infallible interpreter of scriptures than to have doctrinal chaos reigning within the Church founded by Christ.

     You may be deeper in the Tiber than you realize! :- )

     Paige Britton: If we are NOT convinced that the Catholic claims are true, then (to be consistent with our confession) we are to dive into studying God’s Word with all the intellectual skills and spiritual gifts that God has given us, trusting that he will provide wisdom, teachers, and sufficient understanding if we ask him to, and acknowledging that we (and others whom we trust) may sometimes make mistakes.

     There was a time that I wasn’t convinced of the “Catholic claims” either, so I can understand where you are coming from. If you continue to dialog at CTC, perhaps some of the reasons that you are not convinced of Catholic claims will disappear over time. It seems to me that you are a seeker of the truth, and you are at least willing to hear the Catholic claims from Catholics, which is all that I could ever ask of you.

     May God bless you abundantly with the supernatural charism of discernment!

482. lojahw December 10th, 2009 12:26 am :

     Bryan wrote:

     (1) Are you in the same denomination you were in when you became a Christian? If not, then your commitment to sola scriptura, and your claim that sola scriptura disallows ‘changing churches’ to find others who agree with your own interpretation of Scripture would seemingly require you to return to the denomination in which you became Christian.

     Bryan, We seem to be going in circles: I can’t figure out why my previous explanations for the many reasons Protestants change churches aren’t communicating. Your question assumes what I have explicitly denied: that Protestants ONLY change churches in order to find others who agree with their own interpretation of scripture. Please reread my posts # 259 and 275. There are many reasons – other than interpretation of Scripture – for which Protestants change churches. Given that many agree on the essentials of the faith, there is freedom for a number of other reasons to change churches. For example, when people from different denominations get married, they may choose a third denomination, wherein all three denominations are in communion with each other, but there are differences in style or social dynamics (not doctrinal substance). Also, people move, and their particular church may not exist in their new location or if it does, it may not honor the doctrinal statement of the denomination. In the case of the Episcopal Church in the USA, the denomination drifted away from its own doctrinal statement. Meanwhile, non-denominational churches which are all in agreement on doctrine, are started, many of them as daughter churches from a single church, with different names, making them appear (by your counting method) to be many separate denominations, when in fact, they are not.

     But to answer your question: I, a former Episcopalian, married a former Baptist, and we looked for an orthodox church that was a good fit for both of us. After many years, my wife has acquired an appreciation for liturgical worship and we are now in the Anglican Church of North America (the orthodox wing of my first church) – so, yes, I am back where I started. The journey in between, however, has given me a great appreciation for the diversity of Protestant churches (like different branches on the true vine, different members of the one Body of Christ, different instruments in a common orchestra) which share a common faith and common communion in our Lord Jesus Christ.

     (2) How did all these different Protestant denominations come into existence from the Catholic Church, if being faithful to ‘sola scriptura‘ entails not ‘changing churches’ in order to find others who agree with one’s own interpretation of Scripture or to start an ecclesial community of one’s own? Here’s the dilemma. Either (a) the founders of each of these denominations and sects were not faithful to sola scriptura in order to come into existence as separate entities from the Catholic Church or (b) sola scriptura does not disallow ‘changing churches’ in order to find others who share one’s own interpretation of Scripture. Which is it?

     The answer is too complex to cover in this combox, but fundamental differences over soteriology and ecclesiastical practices (based on the teaching of Scripture) launched the initial Reformation Churches based on personal convictions that the RCC was teaching/practicing “another gospel.” “Another gospel” is a deal breaker; e.g., Scripture does not teach that it is necessary for the salvation of every human being to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. After that initial break, most of the differences between the early Protestant denominations were due to 1) acceptance/rejection of certain traditions (e.g., infant baptism); and/or 2) teaching of particular practices based on proof-texting (e.g., pacificism, forbidding oaths and taking public office). Among the various branches of Protestantism, however, the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith were commonly held. So your point a) explains some differences among Protestant churches, but does not explain the initial break from the RCC. Geography, wars, and many other social factors have proliferated the number of churches – having nothing to do with doctrine.

     Re: b) see my most recent post on the principled distinction between Solo/Sola Scriptura. A Sola Scriptura Christian is bound to orthodoxy, but since there is a common orthodoxy among many Protestant churches, one may for non-doctrinal reasons (e.g., social and geographical) change churches.

     Please let me know if I need to further clarify anything above.

     Blessings.

483. Bryan Cross December 10th, 2009 12:45 am :

     lojahw (re: #476),

     A principled difference between two things requires more than a difference in what they are associated with, and more than a difference in degree, rate, or emphasis. Those are accidental differences, and accidental differences are not principled differences, because they do not show a distinction in essence. We are using the definitions of solo scriptura and sola scriptura given by Keith Mathison in his book; you can find them in the article. We are arguing that there is no principled difference between them with respect to the holder of ultimate interpretive authority. But the truth of our conclusion is fully compatible with there being many accidental differences between them, and between persons holding them.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

484. Bryan Cross December 10th, 2009 2:02 am :

     lojahw, (re: #482)

     It is my understanding that ECUSA and ACNA are not in full communion. Is that correct? If that is correct, then ACNA is not a “wing” of ECUSA, but an entirely separate denomination. If I’m understanding you correctly, at some point while you were in ECUSA, you came to disagree with ECUSA’s interpretation of Scripture at that time, and so you found another denomination (i.e. ACNA) that more closely matched your interpretation of Scripture, and you joined ACNA.

     Now let’s go back to what you said in #474:

     Pointing to Protestants who change churches in order to find others who agree with their own interpretation of scripture merely shows that they are not practicing sola scriptura

     So this raises the question of whether you were acting in accord with sola scriptura when you decided that ACNA fit your interpretation of Scripture better than did ECUSA. (You don’t need to answer.) The point is that you didn’t decide that the ACNA is the Church Christ founded, and then submit to its doctrine regarding what is the gospel, which books belongs to Scripture, etc. Rather, you found an institution whose doctrines matched your interpretation of Scripture, and you joined it, under the condition that it remains faithful to your interpretation of Scripture. And there’s no principled difference between that and solo scriptura.

     I think we get a further clarification when you say the following:

     The answer is too complex to cover in this combox, but fundamental differences over soteriology and ecclesiastical practices (based on the teaching of Scripture) launched the initial Reformation Churches based on personal convictions that the RCC was teaching/practicing “another gospel.” “Another gospel” is a deal breaker;

     So, your claim in #474 that “Protestants who change churches in order to find others who agree with their own interpretation of scripture … are not practicing sola scriptura” needs to be qualified with a large caveat: unless the individual thinks that his present worship community isn’t teaching or practicing the gospel according to his own interpretation of Scripture. In other words, it is perfectly compatible with sola scriptura, in your opinion, to change churches whenever one judges that one’s present church is not teaching or practicing the gospel according to one’s own interpretation of Scripture. But given that qualifying exception, there’s no principled difference between solo and sola, as we showed in Section IV.A. “No Middle Ground” of our article. The individual retains ultimate interpretive authority, and hence submits on matters he deems important (i.e. central or essential to the gospel) only when he agrees. But when I submit (only when I agree), the one to whom I submit is me. And that’s exactly the situation of the person advocating solo scriptura. He acts as his own ultimate interpretive authority directly; the sola scriptura proponent does so indirectly, by selecting a group of persons who already agree with his interpretation of Scripture, and then ‘submitting’ to them (so long as he agrees with them, on matters he deems important).

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

485. TurretinFan December 10th, 2009 9:49 am :

     lojahw:

     As to Vincent’s canon, I had noted that the canon is simply unworkable. Among the reasons I had given were some similar to Bryan’s first comments at #372:
     

     In order make use of the Vincentian canon, we first need to know the boundaries of the Church; otherwise we will mistakenly include the beliefs of heretics and schismatics, because we will include them among the ‘all’ in the “believed everywhere, always, by all.”

     In fact, the way that folks avoid including the beliefs of heretics and schismatics is by using some touchstone of orthodoxy. What we then discover is that the only (or almost only) commonality among the group we’ve discovered is the very touchstone that we selected. As such, to establish orthodoxy, it looks very much like a circular appeal.

486. TurretinFan December 10th, 2009 12:25 pm :

     Tim and Bryan,

     Thanks for your responses above (). I’ve typed up a fairly detailed response to your comments (link to response). I’ll summarize it here:

     1) For Mathison (as distinct from the Reformed view of sola scriptura), the principle with respect to the ultimate holder of interpretive authority that distinguishes Mathison’s view from solo scriptura is that individual must not interpret Scripture contrary to the ecumenical creeds – i.e. he must read Scripture through that interpretive grid.

     2) Mathison’s methodology is functionally the same as the methodology of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox positions, as to how the individual interprets the Scripture. Yes, the RC and EO positions use different grids, but the methodology of applying a binding grid is the same.

     3) In consequence of (2), if Mathison’s position shares a commonality with solo scriptura as to the ultimate holder of interpretive authority, then so do the RC and EO positions, in which case, who cares. Similarly, since submission to any grid is necessarily voluntary any objection that because the submission to the interpretive grid is voluntary, it is not true submission, is an invalid objection.

     4) Because the absence of a binding extrinsic hermeneutic grid is not the chief or main problem of solo scriptura, we are fine if that turns out to be a common feature of both the Reformed sola and erroneous solo positions.

     5) The absence of a binding extrinsic hermeneutic grid does not preclude the presence of a binding intrinsic hermeneutic grid and consequently does not mean the death of hermeneutics.

     -TurretinFan

487. Tom Riello December 10th, 2009 1:23 pm :

     lojahw,

     When you write: “and we looked for an orthodox church that was a good fit for both of us, ” I think you make the point that, at the end of the day, the Protestant submits, as Bryan rightly states, to himself and himself alone!

488. Bryan Cross December 10th, 2009 2:14 pm :

     TurretinFan, (re: 486)

     You wrote:

     For Mathison (as distinct from the Reformed view of sola scriptura), the principle with respect to the ultimate holder of interpretive authority that distinguishes Mathison’s view from solo scriptura is that individual must not interpret Scripture contrary to the ecumenical creeds – i.e. he must read Scripture through that interpretive grid. … Mathison’s methodology is functionally the same as the methodology of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox positions, as to how the individual interprets the Scripture. Yes, the RC and EO positions use different grids, but the methodology of applying a binding grid is the same.

     We addressed this in sections VI and V of our article, and again in the comments. As we explained in our article, the Reformed ‘methodology’ is to find ‘the Church’ by finding those who agree with one’s interpretation of Scripture (especially those who agree with one’s own determination from Scripture of what are the marks of the Church). We explained the Catholic approach in section V.A., in which we wrote:

     The person becoming Catholic, by contrast, is seeking out the Church that Christ founded. He does this not by finding that group of persons who share his interpretation of Scripture. Rather, he locates in history those whom the Apostles appointed and authorized, observes what they say and do viz-a-viz the transmission of teaching and interpretive authority, traces that line of successive authorizations down through history to the present day to a living Magisterium, and then submits to what this present-day Magisterium is teaching. By finding the Magisterium, he finds something that has the divine authority to bind the conscience.

     So, it is not true that “Mathison’s methodology is functionally the same as the methodology of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox positions, as to how the individual interprets the Scripture”, because in sola scriptura the ground for the ‘grid’ (as you call it) is still the individual’s own interpretation, whereas in the Catholic Church the ground for the ‘grid’ is the succession of Christ’s authority passed down through apostolic succession.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

489. TurretinFan December 10th, 2009 3:07 pm :

     Bryan,

     You and Mathison may pick your grids different ways. He’s actually not really very clear about how he decides to go with the ecumenical creeds, perhaps he thinks he “seek[s] out the Church that Christ founded”).

     That difference, however, is not a difference with respect to the use of the grid once obtained. You both apply an hermeneutic grid or, if you prefer, lens to your interpretation of Scripture once the grid/lens is in place.

     Furthermore, for Mathison (as best I follow him), sola scriptura is only possible with the lens in place. So, for you to bring in his pre-lens activities is to compare apples with oranges.

     Finally, Mathison alleges that the lens itself predates the New Testament scriptures, although he’s not very specific about how this is possible, given the fact that it must have existed in some other form than the ecumenical creeds. With that in mind, at least according to Mathison’s assertions, it would seem impossible that his identification of the grid/lens is supposed to be based on first interpreting the Scriptures, then picking creeds etc. that match that interpretation.

     -TurretinFan

490. lojahw December 10th, 2009 3:15 pm :

     Bryan,

     The differences between solo scriptura and sola scriptura are not merely accidental. In the former, there are no extrinsic limitations to interpretation; in the latter, the extrinsic limitations defined by Scripture itself cannot be denied. This constitutes a principled difference between the two. The individual is not the ultimate interpretive authority because Scripture itself is the ultimate interpretive authority.

     By declaring “the Scripture cannot be broken,” Jesus defined Scripture itself to be the ultimate interpretive authority: all interpretations to be consistent with Scripture, the ultimate regula fidei. Further, as Peter wrote, one is forbidden to distort Scripture. Jesus likewise chided the Pharisees for being mistaken because they did “not understand the Scriptures.” To understand the Scriptures, one must rightly interpret them (without distortion) in light of the whole Bible. Solo scriptura is not constrained to be consistent with all of Scripture, and hence a principled difference does exist between solo and sola scriptura. The extrinsic interpretive authority of Scripture itself is a valid principled difference.

     The outcomes of the principled difference between solo/sola scriptura are also measurable by the doctrines both affirmed and denied. Those things which Scripture declares to be of first importance, including what Jesus commanded to be observed by His disciples, are affirmed by those who practice sola scriptura (see my post # 268 for examples). Solo scripturists deny what Scripture teaches (e.g., the Trinity) and affirm what it denies (e.g., ordination of gay bishops).

     Blessings.

491. lojahw December 10th, 2009 6:53 pm :

     Tom wrote:

     When you write: “and we looked for an orthodox church that was a good fit for both of us, ” I think you make the point that, at the end of the day, the Protestant submits, as Bryan rightly states, to himself and himself alone!

     Tom, you seem to assume that a Protestant cannot discern truth and orthodoxy? Why not? Like a bank teller trained to recognize true currency, one who has listened to God’s voice in Scripture for many years is able to distinguish between the real thing and the counterfeit. I remain constrained and committed to the truth that God teaches in Scripture. If you believe I have erred, please show me where I am inconsistent with God’s Word.

     Blessings.

492. lojahw December 10th, 2009 7:20 pm :

     Bryan,

     ECUSA and ACNA are both members of the Anglican Communion. Family feuds don’t mean the children are no longer members of the same family. Re: my leaving ECUSA, you misunderstood – after I grew up in ECUSA, it was ECUSA that walked away from its own doctrinal statement (the 39 Articles of Religion). Watching the apostasy in ECUSA over a period of years without any sign of its return to orthodoxy, I honored my confirmation vow to “follow Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior” and sought a Church whose leaders were committed to Him and to His Word.

     in your opinion, to change churches whenever one judges that one’s present church is not teaching or practicing the gospel according to one’s own interpretation of Scripture.

     You misrepresent me. If a church changes what it teaches and demonstrates that it is no longer committed to the authority of Scripture, one should leave: “Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God” (2 John 9).

     The individual retains ultimate interpretive authority

     Not true. The Scripture is the ultimate interpretive authority, and one who practices Sola Scriptura is willing to submit his interpretation to whomever would challenge his consistency with Scripture. Your hypothetical dialogues avoid the issue of actually confronting the interpretations of Scripture which you claim are private interpretations. If you can show me where my interpretations of Scripture are not consistent with God’s Word, be my guest; otherwise, please stop accusing me of private interpretation.

     Blessings.

493. mateo December 10th, 2009 9:12 pm :

     Paige Britton: Mateo — last installment!

     PART THREE:

     You quoted Mathison & then Bryan & Neal, then asked (quoting B&N) if I agreed with the statement, “Scripture can function as an objective authority only when interpreted in and by the Church.” I do not agree, for how can the Scripture function as an objective authority when its interpretation is subject to the authority of the Church? I would say instead that it only functions as an OBJECTIVE authority when the Church’s teaching is subject to IT.

     We both agree that scripture has authority. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that you could affirm this:

     CCC 105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture.“The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

     Since God is the author of Sacred Scripture, no man has the authority to change or contradict what is written in scriptures. Therefore, a valid interpretive authority would not be above scriptures, but the servant of it. Which is what I think you believe – i.e. the authorities that you trust would strive to interpret scriptures in a manner that does not change or contradict what scriptures teach. That is also what the Catholic Church teaches about the Magisterium:

     Catechism of the Catholic Church

     The Magisterium of the Church

     85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

     86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”

     890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. …

     Paige Britton: But we can’t agree on definitions, here, I think, because of the difference in worldviews – from the Catholic perspective, it is only when Scripture is used by those with the infallible interpretive charism that it has its proper authority; and hence anyone who seeks to judge the church’s teaching by the content of the biblical text is both disobedient and merely being subjective, since the true interpretation is the sole commodity of the Magisterium.

     I read scriptures because I believe that the scriptures are God speaking to me. I would think that you read scriptures for this reason also. The role of the Magisterium is to make sure I don’t go off the reservation with my own mistaken interpretations of scriptures. If a JW comes to my house and tells me that Jesus is not divine, no matter how many scriptures he quotes to me, I know with certainty that that the JW has gone off the reservation because the Magisterium has infallibly addressed this matter. If a Southern Baptist tells me that baptism doesn’t bestow grace on infants, I know he has gone off the reservation, because the Magisterium has infallibly addressed this matter.

     How is that you know with certainty that the JW, or the Southern Baptist is mistaken in his interpretation of the Bible? More importantly, how do you know that your Protestant sect doesn’t teach mistaken interpretations of scripture?

     Paige Britton: From the Protestant perspective, God has set things up so that a) language communicates, b) as co-readers we provide checks and balances to one another’s interpretations in the church, and c) the content of church teaching can be judged against the biblical message by fallible human readers sufficiently and reliably.

     How do you KNOW that your Protestant denomination’s interpretation is “reliable” if you have no way of knowing with certainty that the interpretations you accept are without error? Scriptures can’t interpret themselves!

     (quoting from the article): Because Scripture must be interpreted, and because Scripture cannot interpret itself by itself, it follows that some person or persons must interpret Scripture if Scripture is to function as an authority. Otherwise, irreconcilable hermeneutical disputes can only end in division, as each faction has no recourse but to separate.

     Paige Britton: …we should test those who teach us by their character, their intellectual virtues (both in learning and teaching), and their faithfulness to the biblical message. (This last piece requires time and hard work for the student to gain it, so there will probably be a delay before it is in place. This means we need to pay special heed to the first two – and we need also to be aware when a lack of information means we should not lean too heavily on a particular teacher or message till we have checked with others whom we trust.)

     You say that we must test the character of the teacher against their “faithfulness to the biblical message.” This presupposes that I would already know the correct interpretation of the Bible, and that the trustworthy teacher agrees with what I know!

     Paige Britton: Teachers who encourage us to be like the Bereans (Acts 17) and DIG in the Scriptures to validate what they teach indicate their willingness to be tested and subject to the higher authority of God’s Word.

     I agree that a teacher should encourage us to dig into the Scriptures, and that what he teaches should not contradict what is in the Scripture. But a sincere teacher may think that his interpretation of scriptures is correct when it isn’t. Calvin was sincere, and he thought he could interpret scriptures correctly – but was he really he correct in everything he taught? Is it possible that Calvin got some things wrong? There are thousands of Protestant denominations that think that he did. How do we know that these Protestant denominations are not wrong in their interpretations of scriptures?

     Paige Britton: Teachers who discourage questions and challenges should be regarded with a healthy skepticism.

     Agreed.

     Paige Britton: Re. the Amish again: Hey, did you live in Lancaster County? You are right, “hasty” is not a word I would ascribe to the Amish in any area of life, let alone in Bible reading! But I do still think that they probably lack the ability and the desire to STUDY the texts that they read. Maybe they are the opposite of hasty; maybe they are just stuck.

     I lived in western Pennsylvania and knew the Amish living there. I know that the Amish study their Bibles, but I don’t know what else they might study.

     Paige Britton: So, the $64K question: where is the True Church? Did Calvin and/or Luther find it, or leave it?

     Obviously there were Christian churches (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox) that that existed for over a thousand years before Calvin and Luther founded their own churches. Since Calvin and Luther were divided over doctrinal matters from day one, it is not possible that they both found the True Church.

     Paige Britton: If they left it, then we heirs of the Reformation are in a pickle, stranded here on the wrong side of the Tiber.

     Or the Bosphorus. ;-)

     Paige Britton: But if they caught a glimpse of God’s intention for his church that had been obscured for centuries, then we 21st century Protestants have some catching up to do, to live up to the implications of what they saw — not least in growing literate enough to make use of the clear but complex Scriptures to evaluate the myriad of options you mentioned.

     Do you see any reason why Protestantism will not continue down the path of fragmentation into ever more sects that are divided over fundamental doctrinal matters? It seems to me that solo scriptura is on the ascendancy within Protestantism, and the latest trend among Protestants is not to belong to any church at all.
     :-(

494. Bryan Cross December 11th, 2009 3:28 am :

     TurretinFan, (#489),

     The objection you are raising is the tu quoque, which we addressed in section V of our article. You are saying that Catholics and sola scriptura Protestants are doing the same thing, because they both have an interpretive ‘grid’, as you put it. My response was to point out that the essential difference is that since sola scriptura Protestants pick their ‘Church’ by finding those who agree with their interpretation of Scripture, they retain ultimate interpretive authority. Catholics, by contrast, find the Church that Christ founded by tracing His authority through apostolic succession, and then submitting to those whom they discover to have this authority from Christ. For this reason, they do not retain ultimate interpretive authority. Hence there is principled difference between sola scriptura and the Catholic relation to Scripture. In reply you wrote:

     Furthermore, for Mathison (as best I follow him), sola scriptura is only possible with the lens in place. So, for you to bring in his pre-lens activities is to compare apples with oranges.

     The nature of the “pre-lens activities” is precisely why there is no principled difference between sola and solo, and why there *is* a principled difference between sola and the Catholic approach to Scripture.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

495. Bryan Cross December 11th, 2009 3:45 am :

     lojahw, (re: #490)

     You wrote:

     The differences between solo scriptura and sola scriptura are not merely accidental. In the former, there are no extrinsic limitations to interpretation; in the latter, the extrinsic limitations defined by Scripture itself cannot be denied.

     Why, exactly, are there no “extrinsic limitations to interpretation” under solo scriptura?

     The individual is not the ultimate interpretive authority because Scripture itself is the ultimate interpretive authority.

     Whose interpretation of Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture is authoritative? (And if you answer “Scripture”, then the follow-up question will be “Whose interpretation of Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture is authoritative?”, and you’ll have an infinite regress on your hands.)

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

496. Paige Britton December 11th, 2009 8:57 am :

     Mateo –
     Hi! I am not ignoring you — tis the season to be busier than usual. I will read over your comments and respond as I can, so keep you eye out for me.
     pax!
     pb

497. Paige Britton December 11th, 2009 10:23 am :

     Mateo –
     Okay, I was able to fit some thinking in this morning. The troops are still asleep.

     I’m responding to your good questions (to my 3rd installment) in reverse order:

     1. “Do you see any reason why Protestantism will not continue down the path of fragmentation into ever more sects that are divided over fundamental doctrinal matters?”

     There’s no denying that Protestantism is scandalously divided, and that we have rather got into the habit of doing so. Bryan & Neal have asserted that the sola/solo scriptura approaches are at the root of the divisions. To my mind, the most satisfying explanation for the North American slew of fragmentation is Mark Noll’s “Scandal of the Evangelical Mind,” which places the situation in the context of religious history since the Wesleys. A religious climate of anti-intellectualism, revivalism, and Arminianism has combined with American individualistic autonomy and consumerism to produce a mindset of competition amongst religious leaders.

     Even without the influence of those factors, even if we boiled it down to just the most sincere and careful interpretations, there would still be differences of opinion amongst Protestants interpreting the Bible without help of Magisterium. And some of these would be great enough to cause splits. I’m not saying that this is a good thing, but only that it is an inevitability, given an assumption of epistemic parity among believers, and the limited nature of human knowing. But if that assumption is correct, or if we are convinced that it is, then we must work within the limits we’ve been given, and accept responsibility before God for how we conduct ourselves while forming our beliefs and differing with one another.

     2. Did Calvin sometimes get things wrong? How do we know which competing interpretations, or parts of interpretations, are correct?

     This gets back to the question of certainty. We (P’s) believe we can operate in the world as God’s people without the100% certainty that we would gain from leaning on an infallible interpretive teaching body like the Magisterium. We believe this not because we happen to like autonomy (though many of us do, overmuch!), but because we believe this is the way God has set things up.

     In a world like this, we evaluate interpretations by comparing them to the Scriptures. Sometimes we will agree that a teacher has accurately represented the biblical message; sometimes we will disagree; and sometimes we won’t be sure, and we’ll have to hold out till we have more information. And in the course of our growing up in knowing the Word, as well as any growing we do in our knowledge of theological systems and church history, we may change in our convictions about whose explanation best represents the biblical message. The point is not that this approach leads us immediately to 100% certainty; the point is that we may test our teachers at all – something a Catholic may not do re. the teaching of the Magisterium.

     3. “How do you KNOW that your Protestant denomination’s interpretation is “reliable” if you have no way of knowing with certainty that the interpretations you accept are without error? Scriptures can’t interpret themselves!”

     When you (or Bryan and Neal) say that “Scriptures can’t interpret themselves,” you mean that there is an activity of the human reader, who is gathering meaning from the biblical texts, that the Scriptures (being inanimate) cannot duplicate. I agree.

     But on the other hand, the Scriptures interpret themselves all over the place. NT writers give definitions of their terms and illustrations of their statements. They give deeper interpretations of OT prophecies and passages, and identify OT types and shadows. Jesus explains his parables sometimes. The principle of using clearer passages to interpret the more obscure ones is based on this idea that the whole Book was authored by God, and will be consistent in its message. If we pay attention to it, we will pick it up, sufficiently and reliably for life on planet earth.

     And who among us P’s is claiming that we’re expecting to achieve complete certainty across the board, or interpretations without error? (Maybe some of us are, in which case we’re misguided!) WE don’t get to make that claim. The claim that we are aiming for what is “sufficient” or “reliable” is a theological confession: we believe that God intends to communicate, and that he has set things up so it will be possible, without an infallible earthly interpreter. We’re responsible to do what depends on us to make this happen; but we’re conscious that we – and our leaders – are always open to correction.

     4. “The role of the Magisterium is to make sure I don’t go off the reservation with my own mistaken interpretation of Scriptures.”

     Well, right. That is indeed what the Magisterium claims it is here on earth to do. It would be handy to have one around for that reason. But if we don’t happen to be convinced that the claim is true, we will have to seek out other ways to make sure our interpretations are sound, so we don’t go skittering off into eisegesis. (And note that we are aiming for “sound” interpretation, that is, reasonably supported by Scripture, not infallibly so.)

     5. “A valid interpretive authority would not be above scriptures, but the servant of it.”

     Well, right. We agree that both the Magisterium and the Protestant pastor are to be the servants of the Scriptures. The difference is, I as a member of my elder-led church may question or challenge or even bring charges against my pastor for teaching that is out of accord with the Scriptures, and you as a Catholic may never question the Magisterium’s teaching, even if you felt that they had changed or added to or contradicted what was presented in the text. You must always assume your doubts about the Magisterium’s teaching to be wrong, because you believe they have received the charism of infallible interpretation. We are operating with different assumptions about the way God has chosen to lead his church; simply pointing out similarities does not cancel out the basic difference at the level of epistemology (i.e., “How do we know what we know?”).

     pax!
     pb

498. rfwhite December 11th, 2009 10:42 am :

     Bryan Cross: As I continue to study your thesis and argumentation, I notice that when it comes to identifying the locus of “ultimate interpretive authority,” you have consistently, and understandably, focused our attention on the individual. I am seeking clarification of the Church’s relation to the individual. Would you agree that it is the Church, whether conceived in Protestant or Roman Catholic terms, that retains ultimate authority to grant or deny admission of the individual into its midst? If so, how does this fact affect your identification of the locus of “ultimate interpretive authority”?

499. Bryan Cross December 11th, 2009 11:51 am :

     rfwhite, (re: #498),

     You wrote:

     Would you agree that it is the Church, whether conceived in Protestant or Roman Catholic terms, that retains ultimate authority to grant or deny admission of the individual into its midst?

     The Catholic Church retains the authority to grant or deny admission of an individual into its membership. So does any Protestant denomination or independent “Bible church.”

     If so, how does this fact affect your identification of the locus of “ultimate interpretive authority”?

     It doesn’t. The authority held by every Protestant denomination or independent congregation to grant or deny admission of a person into their community is fully compatible with our argument, and fully compatible with it being true that each individual Protestant retains ultimate interpretive authority.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

500. rfwhite December 11th, 2009 3:06 pm :

     Bryan Cross: to follow up on your #499 comment — how, then, do you understand the relationship between the authority to grant or deny admission and ultimate interpretive authority?

501. Bryan Cross December 11th, 2009 5:53 pm :

     rfwhite (re: #500)

     The authority of a denomination or independent congregation to grant or deny admission is an authority limited to determining membership in that denomination or congregation. It is not ultimate interpretive authority. The denomination or congregation can require that anyone who wishes to be a member must believe x doctrine or interpretation of Scripture. And it can expel those of its members who cease to believe x, or come to believe ~x. So it can bind the conscience of the individual in a qualified or conditional sense, i.e. “If you want to become or remain one of us, then you must believe x.”

     But if an individual in such a denomination or congregation comes to believe that Scripture teaches ~x, he is not bound to believe that Scripture teaches x, even though he may very well be bound morally to inform his pastor, and/or resign his membership. The denomination or congregation does not have the authority to bind his conscience in an unqualified way regarding doctrine and the interpretation of Scripture, but only in a conditional way, as we explained in the article (i.e. “if you want to be or remain one of us”). That’s because the denomination or congregation does not have ultimate interpretive authority; it has only if-you-want-to-be-one-of-us-then-you-must-believe-x authority. So when the individual comes to disagree with his denomination or congregation, he is not bound to submit; he is only bound to submit if he wishes to stay. If he does not wish to stay, he may leave and join some other denomination or congregation (or start one of his own) that shares his new interpretation of Scripture. That’s because he retains ultimate interpretive authority. The denomination or congregation does not have the keys of the Kingdom; it only has keys to membership in itself. And because that denomination or congregation is merely human, it has no more interpretive authority than any individual in it, and hence it cannot bind the conscience of its members (or anyone else) in an unqualified way.

     Every Protestant denomination and congregation is necessarily limited in authority in this way, because claiming otherwise would undermine its separation from the Catholic Church in the sixteenth century. In other words, if a Protestant denomination claimed that the Church has the authority to bind the conscience in an unqualified way regarding the interpretation of Scripture, then it would logically follow that Protestantism is in schism from the Church, because the first Protestants appealed to their own interpretations and conscience to believe and act contrary to the teaching of the Church with respect to [what they determined to be] essential doctrines, marks of the Church, etc. And so claiming that the Church has the authority to bind the conscience in an unqualified or unconditional way regarding faith and morals would undermine the Protestant separation from the Catholic Church, and thus undermine Protestantism’s existence as such.

     In contrast to the conditional interpretive authority of Protestant denominations and congregations, the Catholic Church claims to be a divine society, the very society that Christ founded and hierarchically ordered, having authorized shepherds with divine authority in succession from Christ through the Apostles and their successors. Because of apostolic succession the Church can bind the conscience in an unqualified way regarding doctrine and morals. The layman does not have divine authority, and therefore does not have the interpretive authority had by the Magisterium. This divine authority is not conditional (i.e. “if you want to be one of us”), but unconditional: “By divine authorization we declare and define … x”. To be excommunicated from the Catholic Church is to be excommunicated from the Kingdom of Heaven and from every right to expect eternal life, so long as one intentionally remains estranged from the Church. This is why the Church has always taught “They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” (CCC, 846) The excommunication scene from Becket comes to mind:

     Lord Gilbert could not just go to another denomination or congregation, or start his own ‘church’. And the reason for that has nothing to do with historical contingency, and everything to do with the divine authority present through apostolic succession in full communion with the successor of St. Peter. The authority of the bishops by apostolic succession includes not only the authority to exclude from the Kingdom, but also the authority to give the authentic and definitive determination and interpretation of matters of faith and morals for all the faithful.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

502. mateo December 11th, 2009 7:13 pm :

     mateo: “Do you see any reason why Protestantism will not continue down the path of fragmentation into ever more sects that are divided over fundamental doctrinal matters?”

     Paige Britton: There’s no denying that Protestantism is scandalously divided …

     … if we boiled it down to just the most sincere and careful interpretations, there would still be differences of opinion amongst Protestants interpreting the Bible without help of Magisterium. And some of these would be great enough to cause splits. I’m not saying that this is a good thing, but only that it is an inevitability, given an assumption of epistemic parity among believers, and the limited nature of human knowing. …

     I agree with you – given the limited nature of human knowing, if every man and woman is ultimately the final arbiter of what interpretation of Scripture he or she is willing to accept, then the division within Protestantism is inevitable. But it seems to me that you are arguing that for some mysterious reason known only to God, that He has given us the scriptures, and then left us with no way of ever settling disputes about what they mean. This is really an argument that God intends for us to NOT have certainty about the meaning of the Bible, and there is nothing we can do about that.

     Paige Britton: But if that assumption is correct, or if we are convinced that it is, then we must work within the limits we’ve been given …

     If God has set limits that preclude us from ever having certainty about the meaning of His scriptures, then the height of wisdom would be to know that this is true. The wise man would simply follow his conscience as the ultimate arbiter of truth, and forget trying to understand scriptures, because God does not intend for us to understand scriptures.

     mateo: Did Calvin sometimes get things wrong? How do we know which competing interpretations, or parts of interpretations, are correct?

     Paige Britton: This gets back to the question of certainty. We (P’s) believe we can operate in the world as God’s people without the100% certainty that we would gain from leaning on an infallible interpretive teaching body like the Magisterium. We believe this not because we happen to like autonomy (though many of us do, overmuch!), but because we believe this is the way God has set things up.

     Quite right, this get us back to the question of certainty, and what, if anything, that God has established for those of us in the world to have that certainty. You are arguing that God set up the world so that no one can know with certainty the meaning of the Scriptures. Therefore, Calvin’s interpretations of scriptures are doubtful, as are anyone’s interpretations of scriptures.

     Paige Britton: In a world like this, we evaluate interpretations by comparing them to the Scriptures.

     Why would you do that? Where is that going to lead you? If God does not intend for anyone to have certainty about the meaning of the scriptures, why would you compare any interpretation of scriptures to scriptures themselves? How can the interpretation be less doubtful than the scriptures themselves?

     Paige Britton: The point is not that this approach leads us immediately to 100% certainty; the point is that we may test our teachers …

     What is the point of testing your Protestant teachers? From what I understand you to be saying, your teachers can no more know with certainty the meaning of scriptures than you (or anyone else) can know with certainty the meaning of scriptures. Testing your teachers for orthodoxy is pointless if there is no interpretation that can be known to be orthodox. This would be like trying to calibrate a weight scale without having a known calibration standard.

     Paige Britton: And who among us P’s is claiming that we’re expecting to achieve complete certainty across the board, or interpretations without error? (Maybe some of us are, in which case we’re misguided!) WE don’t get to make that claim. The claim that we are aiming for what is “sufficient” or “reliable” is a theological confession: we believe that God intends to communicate, and that he has set things up so it will be possible, without an infallible earthly interpreter.

     What do you mean when you say “that God intends to communicate”? If God has set things up so that no one can know with certainty the meaning of scriptures, then what God intends to communicate to us is exactly that – that scriptures are not meant to be understood by us! Sure, we can guess about what they mean, but we can never know with certainty what they mean.

     If no one can know with certainty that any particular interpretation of scriptures is correct, then how can anyone possibly know that they have an interpretation that is “sufficient” or “reliable”? If I gather together with three hundred people who agree with my interpretation of scriptures, what of it? It may only mean that I am gathered together with people that make the same mistakes in interpretation that I make. And such it is within Protestantism. People gather together with others that have the same mistaken interpretations of the Bible. And I know that that is true, because there are thousands of Protestant denominations that interpret the Bible in irreconcilable ways. Someone has to be wrong, and that is a truth that I can know without scriptures!

     The problem with Protestantism is that no one can know with certainty who is wrong. Perhaps all Protestants believe in some things that are mistaken – no one can know that that isn’t true since no one can know with certainty that any particular interpretation of the Bible is true or false.

     mateo: “A valid interpretive authority would not be above scriptures, but the servant of it.”

     Paige Britton: Well, right. We agree that both the Magisterium and the Protestant pastor are to be the servants of the Scriptures. The difference is, I as a member of my elder-led church may question or challenge or even bring charges against my pastor for teaching that is out of accord with the Scriptures …

     You would only be charging that your pastor disagrees with your personal interpretation of scriptures. He could make the same charge against you. In the Protestant world, there is no way to settle these disputes, since every man, woman, and child is the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes a true or false interpretation of scriptures.

     Paige Britton: … and you as a Catholic may never question the Magisterium’s teaching, even if you felt that they had changed or added to or contradicted what was presented in the text.

     If the Magisterial teaching is infallible, I cannot challenge it. You are correct, what I feel is true wouldn’t matter in the case of an infallible teaching. But that doesn’t bother me, since I know from experience that my feelings are no infallible guide to the truth! But in all honesty, I don’t know of a single infallible teaching of the Magisterium that contradicts what I read in scripture. As for adding to scripture … Catholics believe that the Revelation that Christ and the Apostles gave to True Church is found in both Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. I don’t have any expectations that scriptures should be formally sufficient to prove every dogma of the faith – that is an alien way of thinking to me, something that only troubles the minds of Protestants that believe in Luther’s doctrine of sola scriptura.

     Bottom line, the dogmas of the faith can’t contradict Sacred Scriptures, since Holy Tradition and Holy Scriptures can’t contradict each other, and I don’t think that there are any dogmas of the Catholic Church that contradict Sacred Scripture.

     I also believe that Luther’s sola scriptura doctrine does contradict Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. To have any reason to believe in sola scriptura I have to look outside of scriptures, since there are no scriptures that teach the Protestant Bible is the only source of authority for a Christian. What source of authority should I trust to believe in Luther’s sola scriptura doctrine?

503. rfwhite December 11th, 2009 7:15 pm :

     Bryan Cross: I appreciate your patience in answering my questions about your thesis and argumentation. From where I sit, your comment in #501 provides additional clarity to your definition of “ultimate interpretive authority.” If I understand you correctly, ultimate interpretive authority entails ultimate disciplinary authority.

     Returning to #456, and still seeking understanding and clarification, would you say that the Holy Spirit ever immediately and directly gives the individual the right interpretation of Scripture?

504. TurretinFan December 11th, 2009 7:37 pm :

     Bryan:

     You wrote:
     

     The objection you are raising is the tu quoque, which we addressed in section V of our article. You are saying that Catholics and sola scriptura Protestants are doing the same thing, because they both have an interpretive ‘grid’, as you put it.

     a) As I pointed out at 324, the label tu quoque for this category of response is not appropriate. The argument is a uniqueness argument. If what you are criticizing in Mathison is also present in what you are offering as an alternative to Mathison, you haven’t given us a reason to change boats.

     b) I actually presented 5 objections, numbered. I assume you are referring in this comment to number 3. However, while this objection may fall in the same category of being a uniqueness take-out, it is not addressed in the article. The article seemingly ignores the fact that the path is voluntary in both cases. Instead, the article states: “But the Catholic finds something principally different, and properly finds it by way of qualitatively different criteria.” Even assuming that is true (for the sake of the argument), the distinction lies at a different level then who is the holder of ultimate interpretive authority. In both cases (yours and Mathison’s) the holder is “me looking through my grid” and in both cases the grid is “the grid that I chose.”

     c) You assert that you and Mathison go about picking your grids in different ways, and you argue (in the article) that it is this difference that permits there to be a principled distinction between Roman Catholicism and Mathison’s position (actually, in the article you typically distinguish between Roman Catholicism and solo scriptura, which leads to a problem that I’ll address below). However, in fact, Mathison’s selection of the ecumenical creeds as his grid looks pretty similar to the approach that you have proposed. Your article, which had so many quotations from Mathison before, goes dry on quotations from Mathison here. I’d respectfully submit to you that the reason it goes dry is that Mathison doesn’t propose the approach that you characterize as the “Protestant” approach.

     d) Since Mathison’s approach is different from the “Protestant” approach (as you describe it), and since his difference is based on the same underlying principle (the felt need for an extrinsic grid), the distinction in your article between your position and the “Protestant” position ought to serve to demonstrate that Mathison’s position is also distinguishable in principle from solo scriptura.

     e) Yes, you arrive at a different grid from the one that Mathison arrives at. However, if a different grid is a sufficient distinction, then Mathison again is distinguishable over solo scriptura since he uses a grid whereas the solo scriptura practitioner does not. If the difference between grids is great, the difference between a grid and no grid is even greater.

     f) Your assertion regarding how people pick the Roman Catholic church may be more autobiographical than general. In other words, people pick the Roman Catholic church for lots of different reasons – and there is not any dogmatic requirement that people go about picking the RCC in a particular way (at least, you haven’t set forth any evidence that the RCC requires folks to pick the RCC based on specific criteria).

     g) Similarly, assuming that people have chosen to accept Mathison’s position, there does not seem to be a requirement that they use specific criteria. In fact, Mathison’s argument asserts that one could come to his position without having any access to Scripture (see, for example, pages 20-21 of Mathison’s book).

     h) Your article compares picking a congregation or denomination (a “Protestant community”) to picking the Roman Catholic church. That’s not a relevant comparison for the purposes of Mathison, because Mathison has not argued (that I can see) that the grid is one’s particular congregation, denomination, or communion (in fact, Mathison criticizes this kind of approach at p. 323). Picking the grid for Mathison is not picking a denomination, congregation, or the like: it is (to try to use his words) believing the apostolic faith. In fact, I wish Mathison would be less apophatic in his approach, but he clearly distinguishes his approach from the idea of selecting a particular communion.

     i) It is important to be clear that while you stated, “You are saying that Catholics and sola scriptura Protestants are doing the same thing, because they both have an interpretive ‘grid’, as you put it,” I actually do not agree that Mathison’s approach is the sola scriptura approach. I don’t agree that sola scriptura involves the application of an extrinsic interpretive grid.

     You (Bryan) continued:
     

     My response was to point out that the essential difference is that since sola scriptura Protestants pick their ‘Church’ by finding those who agree with their interpretation of Scripture, they retain ultimate interpretive authority.

     a) I dealt with this at point (h) above. Mathison’s alternative is not picking a different communion, and Mathison does not indicate that one finds “the Church” by first interpreting Scripture.

     b) As noted above, for the reasons I’ve already given, Mathison’s approach is not sola scriptura in the Reformed sense.

     c) “Protestants” pick congregations and denominations for lots of reasons (similar to the fact that people become Roman Catholic for lost of reasons). Sometimes “Protestants” do so because of a desire to be faithful to God’s word, other times for less noble reasons. Hardly anyone (Roman Catholic or “Protestant”) picked their church because it disagreed with what Scriptures says (in their judgment, of course, both of Scripture and their prospective church).

     You (Bryan) continued:
     

     Catholics, by contrast, find the Church that Christ founded by tracing His authority through apostolic succession, and then submitting to those whom they discover to have this authority from Christ.

     a) This is as good a point as any to point out that folks who are considering joining the RCC are not Roman Catholics. Likewise, a prospective Mathisonian is not yet a Mathisonian.

     b) As noted above, that may be an autobiographical comment, but it is not a “required” way for people to become Roman Catholic, nor is it the only way that people do.

     c) In point of fact, I’m dubious that many folks bother with very much historical investigation at all as to the matter of apostolic succession. I’m not questioning your own claim (I assume you wouldn’t say what you said if that’s not what you did) to have made an historical investigation, but I would question whether most folks who join Roman Catholicism (even if we limited our consideration to proselytes and ignored cradle folks) make an investigation that goes beyond surface level.

     d) Typically, Roman Catholic apologists make appeals to Scripture in attempting to proselytize. There may be some somewhere that do not. Those who do are, at least implicitly, encouraging folks to base their decision to become a Roman Catholic on their own interpretation of Scripture and on that interpretation being in agreement with what they think that Rome teaches. They may also appeal to history or other things, of course, but the point I’m drawing out here is the overlap.

     e) Similarly, some (though not all, of course) “Protestant” evangelists suggest examining history. So there is also overlap in that regard.

     You (Bryan) continued:
     

     For this reason, they do not retain ultimate interpretive authority. Hence there is principled difference between sola scriptura and the Catholic relation to Scripture.

     a) This is an interesting implicit admission. The use of the term “retain” suggests that you think that the individual has the authority, but gives up that authority by submitting.

     b) As per (a), that means that the search itself (again) is irrelevant. It is the submission after the search, not the search itself, that removes (per your argument) the locus of the holder.

     c) But Mathison’s approach doesn’t differ from yours here. Mathison essentially argues that one must submit to the grid and must read Scriptures through that lens.

     You (Bryan) concluded:
     

     The nature of the “pre-lens activities” is precisely why there is no principled difference between sola and solo, and why there *is* a principled difference between sola and the Catholic approach to Scripture.

     a) There is no pre-lens activity in solo, because there is no lens in solo.

     b) The task of finding an extrinsic binding grid is the same task in both Mathison’s view and your view. The task is performed the same way as to the holder of ultimate interpretive authority during the search.

     c) As noted above, the pre-lens activities vary significantly both among “Protestants” and Roman Catholics. One assumes that they would likewise vary among Mathisonians.

     -TurretinFan

505. Bryan Cross December 11th, 2009 8:09 pm :

     rfwhite (re: #503),

     You wrote:

     Returning to #456, and still seeking understanding and clarification, would you say that the Holy Spirit ever immediately and directly gives the individual the right interpretation of Scripture?

     Undoubtedly, yes. But, if many people are claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of Scripture, and they are all disagreeing with each other, then obviously not all of them are being led by the Holy Spirit, because He is the Spirit of truth and order, and not the Spirit of confusion. The sacramental way of thinking is that God ordinarily works through appointed means. That doesn’t bind or limit God from working outside those means (this we call extraordinary, i.e. outside the ordinary means), but it is for our sake, so that we are not left groping about like Montanists for the word of the Lord, peering within for the direction of the burning in our bosom. We are humans, not angels; we learn through matter. If we want to know what the Holy Spirit has said in illuminating Scripture, we ask, “What has the Church, and all her doctors and saints and councils, taught about Scripture?” We pull out the Catena Aurea, or the Fathers, and the councils, and there we find the Spirit speaking through the Church to the Church, illuminating Scripture, and thus deepening our understanding of Christ and His redemption, because as He tells us, the Scriptures testify of Him.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

506. Bryan Cross December 11th, 2009 8:21 pm :

     TurretinFan,

     I’ve just read through your comment (#504), and I don’t see anything there that challenges either the validity or the soundness of our argument. Could you, in one paragraph, state which premise you think is false, or why the conclusion of our argument does not follow from the premises?

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

507. Paige Britton December 12th, 2009 9:03 am :

     Dear Mateo,

     I’m afraid this will have to be my last entry in our conversation, due to the press of demands on my time right now! I’m sorry I didn’t get to respond to all of your comments, but here’s a final go:
     The accusation that (within Protestantism) “each person is his own pope” is an inaccurate caricature of Protestant epistemology. It is true that each Protestant believer retains autonomy of conscience regarding what he or she will believe, which includes retaining the right to critique the teaching of our leaders. But none of us is a “pope,” because none of us claims the infallible charism of interpretation that the Catholic Pope is understood to have. We are all on equal footing, being correctible.

     I would finally say that there is no principled difference between solo and sola scriptura in this: that in both cases, we retain autonomy of conscience regarding what we will believe, as well as retaining the right to critique and test those who teach us. But because our confession is that the Bible needs no earthly infallible interpreter, we are responsible before God to remember that we, too, are fallible, and our efforts to understand his communication to us must be pursued with humility, openness to correction, and diligent study. In this area of responsibility of approach, I think, we see a principled difference between Mathison’s categories, even if epistemologically there is no difference.

     Thank you again for being willing to go back and forth with me on these topics. It has been very helpful and interesting to interact with you and others on this blog. I wish you all the best.

     pax,
     pb

508. TurretinFan December 12th, 2009 9:52 am :

     Bryan:

     Regarding #504, there were so many responses offered, that I’m not sure a single paragraph could do them justice. In general, I’d suggest to you that if you want to see how #504 addresses your argument, one easy way is to do this: as you read each of the counter-points {(a), (b), etc.}, consider to yourself whether you can accept the counter-point I’m making as true and still maintain the point to which that counter-point responds. I have identified the point to which the counter-points respond by block-quoting the argument you presented.

     Alternatively, you may be asking how what I wrote interacts directly with “the argument” set forth in section IV(A) of your original post. I’m not sure it does, exactly. That argument takes a different position than the position my post #504 was addressing. The primary germane aspect of #504 is the reminder that Mathison’s view =/= the Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura. I’ll address “the argument” in section IV(A) in a new post of my own.

     -TurretinFan

509. Teri December 12th, 2009 9:56 am :

     Bryan,

     We are at over 500 comments and not one of the Sola Scriptura advocates has yet to tell me which Reformer – Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, King Henry VIII, or the Anabaptists had/has the real interpretive authority given by God to interpret sacred scripture.

     I am sure you will moderate this comment appropriately, but this seems like the same problem the Reformers started out with and could not agree on even then.

     I’m looking at this too simply, I know. But it reminds me of the movie, The Wizard of OZ. The great and powerful Oz made everyone tremble with the power of his words, but in the end it was just the little man behind the curtain pulling the strings.

     No matter what group is pulling the strings or interpreting the sacred scripture, it still is just a man’s interpretation. Those who understood from the beginning what Our Lord and His Apostle’s meant when they spoke of the One Eucharist,One Baptism, One Faith, One Body,One Spirit, One Lord who is over all surely are the ones entrusted with the authority to interpret the sacred writing.

     No matter who is behind the curtain of The Great and Powerful Oz pulling the strings – he is still just a man unless his authority came from God. As the apostle John says, He became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld Him. Not the Reformers, but the Apostles and those they ordained.

     In the peace of Christ

510. Bryan Cross December 12th, 2009 10:23 am :

     TurretinFan,

     If your primary point in #504 is that Mathison’s description of sola scriptura is not the Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura, then would you say that the Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura is what Mathison calls “solo scriptura,” or is it a third position altogether?

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

511. TurretinFan December 12th, 2009 10:35 am :

     Bryan,

     That wasn’t my primary point. If I had to pick a primary point it would be that given your claim that it is the pre-lens activity that provides the distinction, it is an undermining fact that the people doing the pre-lens activity are neither Mathisonians nor Roman Catholics. Nevertheless, to answer your question, sola scriptura is a third position (between, in some sense, Mathison and the solo position), namely the position set forth in the Westminster Standards, Three Forms of Unity, and Thirty-Nine Articles (as I’ve pointed out several times now).

     -TurretinFan

512. Bryan Cross December 12th, 2009 10:48 am :

     TurretinFan, (re: #511),

     You wrote:

     If I had to pick a primary point it would be that given your claim that it is the pre-lens activity that provides the distinction, it is an undermining fact that the people doing the pre-lens activity are neither Mathisonians nor Roman Catholics.

     Which premise of our argument does this “undermining fact” undermine?

     sola scriptura is a third position (between, in some sense, Mathison and the solo position), namely the position set forth in the Westminster Standards, Three Forms of Unity, and Thirty-Nine Articles

     What is the “in some sense“? In other words, in one paragraph or less, what is the significant difference between Mathison’s position regarding sola scriptura, and the account of sola scriptura found in “the Westminster Standards, Three Forms of Unity, and Thirty-Nine Articles”?

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

513. TurretinFan December 12th, 2009 11:40 am :

     Bryan,

     You asked: “Which premise of our argument does this “undermining fact” undermine?”

     You previously conceded:
     

     The nature of the “pre-lens activities” is precisely why there is no principled difference between sola and solo, and why there *is* a principled difference between sola and the Catholic approach to Scripture.

     Obviously, that concession is not in the form of a formal argument with premises and a conclusion. However, the undermining fact I identified undermines the premises in which the “pre-lens activities” are predicated as to the various positions. For example, reducing your concession to a more formal argument, you are stating:

     1) The pre-lens activities of Solo are [X];
     2) The pre-lens activities of Mathison are [Y];
     3) The pre-lens activities of RC are [Z];
     4) There is no principled distinction between [X] and [Y]; and
     5) There is a principled distinction between [Y] (or [X]) and [Z].

     My undermining fact undermines 2-3. As a result, 4-5 are moot whether or not they could be shown to be the case. Incidentally, other of my points in #504 undermine other items. For example, that there is no lens in Solo undermines 1, that [Y] and [Z] are not uniform quantities undermins 2-5, and that [Z] as you describe it is [Y] as Mathison appears to describe it undermines 5.

     ***

     You again make a “in a single paragraph” request. Given that we’re discussing a 20,000+ word article in an even more wordy comment box, single paragraph requests are a bit odd and don’t seem to be particularly conducive to a thorough dialog. That said, as I’ve mentioned repeatedly, one of the key differences between Mathison’s position and the position of the WCF, 3FU, and 39A is that he identifies the regula fidei in a proper/formal sense with something other than Scripture. I emphasize proper/formal because if he had done so informally (as some of the fathers he cites did) there would be only a distinction of expression, not concept.

     I hope that helps.

     -TurretinFan

514. Bryan Cross December 12th, 2009 12:04 pm :

     TurretinFan,

     When I make a statement, that is not a “concession”; it is a statement. If you don’t want me to start referring to your statements as ‘concessions,’ (or ‘desperate attempts to save your position’ or something worse) then please practice the Golden Rule, and avoid such sophistry.

     You wrote:

     However, the undermining fact I identified undermines the premises in which the “pre-lens activities” are predicated as to the various positions.

     I don’t understand what that sentence means.

     You wrote:

     For example, reducing your concession to a more formal argument, you are stating:

     1) The pre-lens activities of Solo are [X];
     2) The pre-lens activities of Mathison are [Y];
     3) The pre-lens activities of RC are [Z];
     4) There is no principled distinction between [X] and [Y]; and
     5) There is a principled distinction between [Y] (or [X]) and [Z].

     Not only is that not my argument; it is not even an argument. It is only a set of statements.

     I’ve asked for a brief [in a paragraph or less] explanation of the difference between the Reformed view of sola scriptura, and Mathison’s account of sola scriptura. You responded:

     You again make a “in a single paragraph” request. Given that we’re discussing a 20,000+ word article in an even more wordy comment box, single paragraph requests are a bit odd and don’t seem to be particularly conducive to a thorough dialog.

     Since my request is not about our article, but about the difference between Mathison’s view of sola scriptura and the Reformed view of sola scriptura, the length of our article is not relevant to my request.

     You continue:

     That said, as I’ve mentioned repeatedly, one of the key differences between Mathison’s position and the position of the WCF, 3FU, and 39A is that he identifies the regula fidei in a proper/formal sense with something other than Scripture. I emphasize proper/formal because if he had done so informally (as some of the fathers he cites did) there would be only a distinction of expression, not concept.

     Good and well, but our article did not deal with the relation between Scripture and Tradition, but only with the relation between Scripture and the Church. Hence, if the Reformed view of sola scriptura differs from Mathison’s only in the relation of Tradition to Scripture, and not in the relation of Church to Scripture, then this difference [between Mathison's position and, as you call it, the Reformed view of sola scriptura] is not relevant to our article or to the argument within our article. In other words, if Mathison’s account of sola scriptura is identical to the Reformed view of sola scriptura with respect to the relation between Church and Scripture, then since our article only focuses on Mathison’s account of sola scriptura in its position on the relation of Church to Scripture, therefore insofar as our argument shows that there is no principled difference [with respect to the holder of ultimate interpretive authority] between Mathison’s account of sola scriptura and solo scriptura, our argument likewise shows that there is no principled difference [with respect to the holder of ultimate interpretive authority] between the Reformed account of sola scriptura and solo scriptura.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

515. rfwhite December 12th, 2009 12:15 pm :

     Bryan Cross: To clarify my question in #503, let’s stipulate that neither of us is interested in what many (or few) people are claiming with regard to the Holy Spirit’s guidance in their interpretation of Scripture. Instead we share an interest in, to apply your language, what is ordinary and what is extraordinary in the Holy Spirit’s work of giving illumination to the individual.

516. TurretinFan December 12th, 2009 1:27 pm :

     Bryan:

     Before my paragraph response you stated: “Since my request is not about our article …” yet after my paragraph response “Good and well, but our article … .” Perhaps you will understand my confusion.

     I appreciate your distinction amongst Church, Tradition, and Scripture. In Roman Catholic theology (particularly if one accepts Mathison’s characterization of it at, for example, p. 183) there is a distinction among those three categories. Furthermore, of course, Mathison uses the term “tradition” in a wide variety of senses, some of which he labels with numbers.

     However, if Mathison views the regula fidei as the voice of the Church (and pages 246 and 325 suggest that such is his view), then the difference between his view and the Reformed view (as expressed by the WS/3FU/39A – and we could add other Reformed confessions, like the Irish Articles of Religion) matters.

     Do you deny that Mathison views the regula fidei as the voice of the Church? If you do deny that, how do you explain his comments at pages 246 and 325?

     -TurretinFan

517. rfwhite December 12th, 2009 1:30 pm :

     Bryan Cross: Still seeking understanding … in relating the sacramental way of thinking to the Spirit’s work of illumination, would you say that, in that work, the individual ordinarily is or is not in direct contact with and immediate dependence on the Holy Spirit?

518. Bryan Cross December 12th, 2009 1:48 pm :

     TurretinFan,

     As for Mathison’s position on the regula fidei, I’d like to wait to let him clarify his own position.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

519. TurretinFan December 12th, 2009 1:59 pm :

     Bryan:

     I had written:
     

     However, the undermining fact I identified undermines the premises in which the “pre-lens activities” are predicated as to the various positions.

     You responded:
     

     I don’t understand what that sentence means.

     Maybe a brief illustration will help:

     Man X and Man Y are two atheists searching for the truth. One ends up buying into Mathison’s view, the other ends up becoming a Roman Catholic. During the time of their searching, neither was yet either Mathisonian or Roman Catholic. So to say that one set of “pre-lens” activities is either Mathisonian or Roman Catholic is incorrect: those searchers are neither. Does that help clarify what I meant by “However, the undermining fact I identified undermines the premises in which the “pre-lens activities” are predicated as to the various positions.”?

     -TurretinFan

520. Bryan Cross December 12th, 2009 2:51 pm :

     rfwhite, (re: #515,517),

     Does “the Holy Spirit ever immediately and directly gives the individual the right interpretation of Scripture?”

     Undoubtedly, yes.

     “[I]n [the Spirit's work of illumination], the individual ordinarily is or is not in direct contact with and immediate dependence on the Holy Spirit?”

     The Holy Spirit dwells within every believer who is in a state of grace. (John 14:27, Rom 8:9; 1 Cor 3:16, 2 Tim 1:14) A spirit, because it is not material, is not something that can be touched, so ‘contact’ is at best only a metaphor. But, I hope that by saying that the Holy Spirit indwells every believer who is in a state of grace, I’m getting at what you are asking. It is not as though the individual believer in a state of grace is devoid of the Holy Spirit, and only has ‘contact’ with the Spirit at the moment he or she is receiving a sacrament.

     As for whether the individual is ordinarily immediately dependent on the Holy Spirit for the correct interpretation of Scripture, if that means, “When the Holy Spirit directly and immediately [i.e. without the meditation of the Church or Tradition] illumines Scripture to the individual who is studying or meditating on Scripture and allows that individual to perceive the right interpretation of Scripture, is the individual in that case immediately dependent on the Holy Spirit?” then the answer must be yes. But, if your question is whether the direct and immediate [i.e. unmediated] operation of the Holy Spirit for the correct interpretation of Scripture is the ordinary [i.e. divinely established] way in which the individual believer is to come to know the correct interpretation of Scripture, then I would say no. Scripture is ordinarily exposited in the Church, in her liturgy. The exposition of Scripture to the faithful in the liturgy is guided by the Magisterium and the Tradition, and that is the ordinary means through which the Holy Spirit works to teach the faithful the correct interpretation of Scripture. The Holy Spirit is the “soul of the Body of Christ”, and thus is the Spirit of the Body of Christ. The operation of the Spirit is not the sum of His work in individual believers; it is a singular activity that is participated in to various degrees by the members of that Body. The individualistic conception of the Spirit’s work is just that — individualistic; it fails to see that the Spirit’s operation is the operation primarily of the Body, and in the individual believer derivatively and by participation.

     In other words, we don’t want to say that what is extraordinary is ordinary, because that would nullify the distinction between extraordinary and ordinary. So we don’t want to say that the believer’s dependence on the extraordinary work of the Spirit is ordinary. When the Spirit immediately grants a believer insight into the correct interpretation of Scripture, that’s extraordinary. But that will never contradict what the Spirit has done ordinarily, in the Church. The Spirit will never contradict Himself, and so He will never give some ‘insight’ to an individual member, something that is contrary to what He has given to the whole Body. That wouldn’t be the “correct” interpretation of Scripture. The standard for what is the correct interpretation of Scripture is found in the Church and the Tradition, not in the individual’s direct unmediated experience.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

521. Bryan Cross December 12th, 2009 3:19 pm :

     TurretinFan,

     You wrote:

     Man X and Man Y are two atheists searching for the truth. One ends up buying into Mathison’s view, the other ends up becoming a Roman Catholic. During the time of their searching, neither was yet either Mathisonian or Roman Catholic. So to say that one set of “pre-lens” activities is either Mathisonian or Roman Catholic is incorrect: those searchers are neither.

     We didn’t claim that one person’s “pre-lens” activities are Mathisonian and another’s are Catholic. We didn’t even talk about lenses or “pre-lens” activities. Those are your terms that you are importing into the discussion, to frame it from your point of view. That’s fine, but you need to avoid setting up a strawman by criticizing your own [inaccurate] construal of our position.

     We explained, in section V of our article, that there is a principled distinction between the means by which the Catholic Church is identified as the true Church, and the means by which someone picks out a Protestant denomination as the true Church (or a branch of it). The former relies on an historical succession of magisterial authority to find the Church and then through the Church determine what is the Bible and its canon and its authentic interpretation. The latter relies on one’s own determination of what one assumes to be Scripture to pick out that group of present day persons whose beliefs and practices most closely match one’s own determination (on the basis of one’s own interpretation of what one takes to be Scripture) of what the early Church must have been like. The former locates form by tracing matter. The latter locates matter by matching form.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

522. TurretinFan December 12th, 2009 3:33 pm :

     Bryan:

     You have now written:
     

     We didn’t claim that one person’s “pre-lens” activities are Mathisonian and another’s are Catholic.

     (#521)

     You previously wrote:
     

     The nature of the “pre-lens activities” is precisely why there is no principled difference between sola and solo, and why there *is* a principled difference between sola and the Catholic approach to Scripture.

     (#494)

     Are you now taking back what you said in #494?

     -TurretinFan

523. TurretinFan December 12th, 2009 4:01 pm :

     As to “the Argument” in Section IV(A), a detailed response is at this link but in a nutshell:

     a) 10 does not follow from 4 and 9;
     b) even if 10 is modified to be what actually follows from 4 and 9, modified 10 could be expanded to include apostolic succession, because 4 could be expanded to include apostolic succession, using the same rationale upon which 4 is based; and
     c) if we permit apostolic succession the escape from 4 argued-for in Section V(A) of the article, then premises 2, 7, and 9 are false because Mathison’s position and solo scriptura (as well, incidentally, as the Reformed position on sola scriptura) can all use the same escape.

     There’s plenty more in the article (link to the article) but those are some of the high points.

     -TurretinFan

524. Bryan Cross December 12th, 2009 4:07 pm :

     TurretinFan, (re: #522)

     No, I’m not taking anything back. I used the term “pre-lens activities” in #494, for your sake, because you had used it (and the term ‘grid’) in 489. The problem with that term, however, is that it is too ambiguous. As I used it in 494, I was referring to anything prior to full membership in the Catholic Church or in a Protestant denomination or congregation. And as I just explained in 521, there is a great deal of difference between the respective bases for identifying ‘the Church’ prior to full membership in the Catholic Church or in a Protestant denomination or congregation.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

525. TurretinFan December 12th, 2009 4:17 pm :

     Do you agree with my contention that “prior to full membership in the [Roman] Catholic Church” a person is not a Roman Catholic?

526. Bryan Cross December 12th, 2009 4:19 pm :

     TurretinFan, (re: #523),

     You wrote:

     a) 10 does not follow from 4 and 9;

     Correct. Line (10) should include the qualifier “with respect to the holder of final interpretive authority” [regarding what is essential and thus, by extension, all other doctrines as well].

     b) even if 10 is modified to be what actually follows from 4 and 9, modified 10 could be expanded to include apostolic succession, because 4 could be expanded to include apostolic succession, using the same rationale upon which 4 is based;

     The fact that a premise could be modified does not refute an argument.

     and c) if we permit apostolic succession the escape from 4 argued-for in Section V(A) of the article, then premises 2, 7, and 9 are false because Mathison’s position and solo scriptura (as well, incidentally, as the Reformed position on sola scriptura) can all use the same escape.

     I don’t understand the antecedent of this conditional. Nor do I see how the consequent of the conditional follows from the antecedent.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

527. Bryan Cross December 12th, 2009 4:28 pm :

     TurretinFan (re: #525)

     You asked:

     Do you agree with my contention that “prior to full membership in the [Roman] Catholic Church” a person is not a Roman Catholic?

     I agree. Prior to being received into the Catholic Church, a person is not a Catholic.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

528. TurretinFan December 12th, 2009 4:29 pm :

     “The fact that a premise could be modified does not refute an argument.”

     That may be true, but it is irrelevant. The modification of premise 4 results in apostolic succession being included with “sola” and “solo” in 10. That makes the argument useless, though not necessarily invalid.

     “I don’t understand the antecedent of this conditional. Nor do I see how the consequent of the conditional follows from the antecedent.”

     The article to which I linked provides a more complete explanation. Perhaps if you read the article, it will become more clear. Section IV is the section that deals with that particular issue. Here is the URL: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2009/12/distinction-gets-narrower-again-further.html

     -TurretinFan

529. TurretinFan December 12th, 2009 4:38 pm :

     Bryan,

     Given your agreement in #527, I renew my objection that your principled distinction is not between the positions of someone who affirms a Mathisonian view and someone who affirms a Roman Catholic view, but between the positions of two people, neither of whom necessarily holds to either view, in view of your statement (I didn’t mean to offend you by calling it a concession):
     

     The nature of the “pre-lens activities” is precisely why there is no principled difference between sola and solo, and why there *is* a principled difference between sola and the Catholic approach to Scripture.

     (#494)

     According to your own characterization, you’ve tackled seekers, not those actually holding to either view.

     -TurretinFan

530. Bryan Cross December 12th, 2009 4:45 pm :

     TurretinFan, (re: #528)

     I had written: “The fact that a premise could be modified does not refute an argument.”

     You replied:

     That may be true, but it is irrelevant. The modification of premise 4 results in apostolic succession being included with “sola” and “solo” in 10. That makes the argument useless, though not necessarily invalid.

     If I’m understanding you correctly, you are saying this: If premise (4) of our argument were to be modified, then our argument is made useless.

     Two things. First, arguments are not evaluated by whether they are “useless”, but by whether they are sound. Second if you criticize a modified form of our argument (a modification that you make), that is not a criticism of our argument. That’s a textbook case of the strawman fallacy. And that’s why “our argument being useless” does not follow from any true statement about a modified form of our argument.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

531. TurretinFan December 12th, 2009 4:59 pm :

     Bryan:

     As to 1) You’re wrong. In the context of “should I be RC or SS” an argument that SS has a trait that RC also has is a useless argument. Whether you make it explicit or not, the proposition for which this article is an argument is the proposition that we should all be RC. You recognize this fact in that you include Section V in your article.

     As to 2) You’re wrong again. I’m not criticizing a modified form of your argument. I believe that you would understand this, if you had read the article to which I’ve now linked a few times (here it is again). I encourage you to do so. When you misrepresent the other person’s argument, you run the risk of committing the straw man fallacy.

     When I demonstrate that the reasoning behind premise 4 of your argument can be extended (without changing the reasoning) to cover apostolic succession, I’m not criticizing a modified form of your argument. Instead, I’m demonstrating that conclusion 10 is a non-unique conclusion.

     -TurretinFan

532. Bryan Cross December 12th, 2009 5:01 pm :

     TurretinFan, (re: #529)

     You wrote:

     I renew my objection that your principled distinction is not between the positions of someone who affirms a Mathisonian view and someone who affirms a Roman Catholic view, but between the positions of two people, neither of whom necessarily holds to either view

     You are objecting to something that we have neither claimed nor denied, so I don’t see why you frame it as an objection. We never claimed that one has to be a Catholic in order to find form by tracing matter. We never claimed that one has to be a “Mathisonian” (your term) to locate matter by matching form.

     According to your own characterization, you’ve tackled seekers, not those actually holding to either view.

     Our article and argument do not tackle any person. Our argument is an argument about the relation of solo to sola. The tu quoque objection to the conclusion of our argument is that even if all Protestants retain ultimate interpretive authority, so do all Catholics, and therefore there is no Catholic advantage here over Protestantism. In reply, we show in section V of our article that Catholics do not retain ultimate interpretive authority.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

533. TurretinFan December 12th, 2009 5:04 pm :

     Bryan:
     You wrote: “Our argument is an argument about the relation of solo to sola.”

     However, as I’ve pointed out above, the place where you (per #494) find absence of principled distinction is not among the holders of those views, but among folks who don’t hold those views.

     -TurretinFan

534. TurretinFan December 12th, 2009 5:15 pm :

     Bryan:

     Thanks for the very active dialog today on this topic. I’m going to take a break for the weekend. I’m glad we could have this civil conversation despite our differences.

     -TurretinFan

535. Bryan Cross December 12th, 2009 5:19 pm :

     TurretinFan (re: #531)

     You wrote:

     As to 1) You’re wrong.

     In order for us to have a productive conversation, you need to put yourself in my shoes a little. I had no idea what you were referring to by “As to (1)” until I figured it out from what you said below. To avoid this confusion, please include my statement that you are criticizing, and make sure you include the comment number, so I know where you are getting it from.

     You wrote:

     In the context of “should I be RC or SS” an argument that SS has a trait that RC also has is a useless argument. Whether you make it explicit or not, the proposition for which this article is an argument is the proposition that we should all be RC. You recognize this fact in that you include Section V in your article.

     The evaluation of an argument itself, and its application, are two distinct things. If you agree that our argument is sound, but claim that the truth of its conclusion doesn’t give the Catholic a leg up because of the tu quoque, then I’ll know where you stand, and where you disagree. I’ll know that you’re not challenging the argument itself, but the application of it to the Protestant-Catholic discussion, so as seemingly to give the Catholic an advantage.

     As to 2) You’re wrong again. I’m not criticizing a modified form of your argument.

     Yes you are. In #528 you wrote: “The modification of premise 4 results in apostolic succession being included with “sola” and “solo” in 10.” Well, who modified premise 4? Not Neal or me. Therefore, it must have been you. And therefore you are criticizing a strawman, and that’s a fallacy.

     You wrote:

     When I demonstrate that the reasoning behind premise 4 of your argument can be extended (without changing the reasoning) to cover apostolic succession, I’m not criticizing a modified form of your argument. Instead, I’m demonstrating that conclusion 10 is a non-unique conclusion.

     The soundness of our argument does not depend on conclusion (1o) being unique. So, showing our conclusion to be non-unique does not refute the argument.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

536. Bryan Cross December 12th, 2009 5:23 pm :

     TurretinFan (re: #533),

     You wrote:

     However, as I’ve pointed out above, the place where you (per #494) find absence of principled distinction is not among the holders of those views, but among folks who don’t hold those views.

     Could you point me to the place in our article where we claimed to find a person holding a view that he or she didn’t actually hold? Thanks.

     As for your appreciation for the civility of the conversation, I feel the same. Enjoy your weekend.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

537. lojahw December 12th, 2009 5:38 pm :

     Teri wrote:

     We are at over 500 comments and not one of the Sola Scriptura advocates has yet to tell me which Reformer – Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, King Henry VIII, or the Anabaptists had/has the real interpretive authority given by God to interpret sacred scripture.

     I think you miss the point of sola scriptura. The authority is not in the person, but in the Scriptures. Any interpretation that is inconsistent with the teaching of the Scriptures is false – regardless of who it comes from. The only reason this is an issue is that you reject the perspicuity of Scripture. When the Scriptures say, “Christ is risen” and then tell how He invites Thomas to put his fingers in His wounds and that He eats food, it is clear that Scripture teaches Jesus’ bodily resurrection. It takes no special “interpretive authority” to arrive at that conclusion. Since we both recognize that

     1) not all doctrines are essential to salvation; and
     2) not all Scriptures are perspicuous,

     it would seem to be more helpful to talk about where Scripture does not clearly teach what is essential to salvation. In such cases, sola scriptura recognizes the subordinate interpretive authority of the Church and its leaders. What CTC contributors have failed to provide is examples where Churches committed to sola scriptura disagree with one another on matters essential to salvation (e.g., not on colors of carpet, ancillary social agendas, etc.).

     Blessings

538. mateo December 12th, 2009 5:40 pm :

     Paige Britton: Dear Mateo,
     I’m afraid this will have to be my last entry in our conversation, due to the press of demands on my time right now!

     I quite understand – may you have a blessed Christmas!

     Paige Britton: I’m sorry I didn’t get to respond to all of your comments, but here’s a final go:

     The accusation that (within Protestantism) “each person is his own pope” is an inaccurate caricature of Protestant epistemology. It is true that each Protestant believer retains autonomy of conscience regarding what he or she will believe, which includes retaining the right to critique the teaching of our leaders. But none of us is a “pope,” because none of us claims the infallible charism of interpretation that the Catholic Pope is understood to have. We are all on equal footing, being correctible.

     I hope you will excuse me for me for painting what you perceived as a caricature of Protestant epistemology. You are quite right, you have said all along that no Protestant can infallibly interpret scriptures; so to imply that all Protestants believe that they are infallible interpreters of scriptures would be a grossly unfair accusation.

     The point that I was trying to make about the Pope was about where the final temporal authority rests for deciding between disputed interpretations of scriptures. For Catholics, the ultimate temporal authority rests with the Pope. For Protestants, the ultimate temporal authority rests with each man, woman and child, since each person is on “equal epistimic footing” and “we retain autonomy of conscience regarding what we will believe, as well as retaining the right to critique and test those who teach us.”

     The dispute here is about primacy – Catholic believe in the Primacy of Peter; most Protestants believe in the Primacy of the Believer (JWs and LDS are obvious exceptions to that rule).

     Paige Britton: I would finally say that there is no principled difference between solo and sola scriptura in this: that in both cases, we retain autonomy of conscience regarding what we will believe, as well as retaining the right to critique and test those who teach us.

     Thank you for being bold enough to take an unequivocal position on Bryan and Neal’s article!

     Paige Britton: … because our confession is that the Bible needs no earthly infallible interpreter, we are responsible before God to remember that we, too, are fallible, and our efforts to understand his communication to us must be pursued with humility, openness to correction, and diligent study.

     Which is certainly a sensible approach to take if there is no one you can trust to be infallible in his or her interpretations of scripture …

     Paige Britton: In this area of responsibility of approach, I think, we see a principled difference between Mathison’s categories, even if epistemologically there is no difference.

     Right … if sola scriptura is true, then each individual Protestant is responsible for making sure that every single article of faith that he or she believes is true. If I believe in sola scriptura I don’t have freedom in my “Bible Freedom” – instead, I have had a heavy burden of responsibility placed upon me. I must diligently seek to know if there is any valid reason for me to accept the traditional interpretations embraced by my particular church community. If my community embraces, say, the doctrines established by the first seven Ecumenical Councils, that would not be sufficient reason for me to embrace those doctrines. It would be incumbent upon me to begin educating myself so that I could judge the conclusions of the bishops reached by these seven Ecumenical Councils. All two thousand years of doctrinal development would need to be weighed by me before I could accept anything that I don’t find explicitly stated in scriptures.

     I must say this – I have never personally met a Protestant that is willing to take on this crushing burden of personal responsibility. I have never met a Protestant that does accept most of what believes because he accepts it on authority.

     C. S. Lewis make this point about authority:
     

     Do not be scared by the word authority. Believing things on authority only means believing them because you have been told them by someone you think trustworthy. Ninety-nine per cent of the things you believe are believed on authority. I believe there is such a place as New York. I have not seen it myself. I could not prove by abstract reasoning that there must be such a place. I believe it because reliable people have told me so. The ordinary man believes in the Solar System, atoms, evolution, and the circulation of the blood on authority – because scientists say so. Every historical statement in the world is believed on authority. None of us has seen the Norman Conquest or the defeat of the Armada. None of us could prove them by pure logic as you prove a thing in mathematics. We believe them simply because people who did see them have left writings that tell us about them: in fact, on authority. A man who jibbed at authority in other things as some people do in religion would have to be content to know nothing all his life.

     C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

     I accept the teachings of the Magisterium on authority. I am not really doing anything different than what most Protestants do when they accept their religious beliefs on authority. The real question is this; do I have any reason for accepting the authority of the Magisterium? Is it really possible that God does give the charism of infallibility to certain men in certain circumstances?

     “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
     Luke 10:16

539. mateo December 12th, 2009 5:50 pm :

     Oops .. this sentence makes no sense: “ I have never met a Protestant that does accept most of what believes because he accepts it on authority.”

     The Protestants that I know do accept their beliefs on authority!

540. lojahw December 12th, 2009 6:20 pm :

     Bryan wrote:

     Why, exactly, are there no “extrinsic limitations to interpretation” under solo scriptura?

     Because a solo scriptura person is free to make personal claims based on isolated texts, disregard the broader teaching of Scripture on any given point, and/or make any argument that he wants as long as he can find someone else who will agree with him.

     Whose interpretation of Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture is authoritative?

     Another way of answering your question is to answer this one: “How can one know which interpretations of Scripture are NOT authoritative?” The answer is: if the interpretation is inconsistent with Scripture. For example, the Scripture teaches:

     “The Gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, ‘But the righteous man shall live by faith.’” (Rom. 1:16-17).

     Pope Boniface VIII taught: “We declare, say, define and pronounce, that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Bull Unam Sanctam)

     It should be evident to all that “everyone who believes” in Romans is not the same set of people who are “subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Unam Sanctam therefore is inconsistent with Scripture regarding the extent of the power of the Gospel. The sola scriptura conclusion is that Pope Boniface’s interpretation is NOT authoritative.

     Blessings.

541. Bryan Cross December 12th, 2009 6:36 pm :

     lojahw (re: #537),

     You wrote:

     it would seem to be more helpful to talk about where Scripture does not clearly teach what is essential to salvation. In such cases, sola scriptura recognizes the subordinate interpretive authority of the Church and its leaders.

     Who, presently, are the “leaders” of “the Church”? What are their names?

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

542. Bryan Cross December 12th, 2009 7:08 pm :

     lojahw (re: #540)

     I had asked you: “Why, exactly, are there no “extrinsic limitations to interpretation” under solo scriptura?”

     You replied:

     Because a solo scriptura person is free to make personal claims based on isolated texts, disregard the broader teaching of Scripture on any given point, and/or make any argument that he wants as long as he can find someone else who will agree with him.

     Given that solo scriptura means that Scripture is the only authority, why is the person holding solo scriptura “free to make person claims based on isolated texts, disregard the broader teaching of Scripture on any given point, and/or make any argument that he wants as long as he can find someone else who will agree with him”, if the sola scriptura person is not free to do those things?

     I had asked you: “Whose interpretation of Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture is authoritative?”

     You replied:

     Another way of answering your question is to answer this one: “How can one know which interpretations of Scripture are NOT authoritative?” The answer is: if the interpretation is inconsistent with Scripture.

     First, you seem to be assuming that there is only one interpretation of Scripture that is logically consistent (i.e. doesn’t contain contradictions). How do you justify that assumption?

     Second, your reply doesn’t answer my question. My question is this: “Whose interpretation of Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture is authoritative?” Telling me that interpretations which are inconsistent with Scripture are not authoritative gives me a ‘what’ answer when I asked a ‘who’ question. It also give me a negative answer (i.e. x interpretations are not authoritative) when I had asked a positive question (“Whose interpretation of Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture is authoritative?”). So in both ways your reply does not answer my question.

     Third, your reply only pushes back the question. You claim that an interpretation is not authoritative if it is inconsistent with Scripture. But that pushes the question back: “Inconsistent with whose interpretation of Scripture?”

     You wrote:

     It should be evident to all that “everyone who believes” in Romans is not the same set of people who are “subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

     You are assuming that St. Paul is giving the sufficient condition and not merely a necessary condition. So your conclusion that Unam Sanctam is inconsistent with Romans is based on your speculative interpretation of Scripture. Otherwise, if you take St. Paul to be giving the unqualified sufficient condition, you make him contradict Jesus, because Jesus says “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved” (Mk 16:16), and “it should be evident to all” that “everyone who believes” in Romans is not the same set of people who “believe and are baptized”. Therefore, given your assumption that St. Paul is giving the unqualified sufficient condition, Jesus’ addition of baptism is “NOT authoritative”.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

543. Teri December 12th, 2009 8:12 pm :

     #538
     Dear Mr. lojahw,

     I understand what you are saying, but it still doesn’t work. First, no one before Luther (correct me if I’m wrong) said the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was an essential of the faith or part of the “gospel that was to be preached throughout the world”.

     Since the Reformers – Luther,Calvin, Zwingli, Anabaptist, and Henry VIII were the group that said this was essential to the faith AND they disagreed on what the Eucharist is (memorial, body and blood in spirit, actual body and blood BUT not like the papist…etc.) AND on baptism of infants versus adults – those are essentials I would think.

     The persecuted Church went from around 120 people in a small sect of Jewish believers to a majority in the 300 or so years after Our Lord ascended in Heaven. They did this without killing or forcing anyone to be Christian. They were willing to give up their lives for their faith under the worst tortures imaginable. Yet, the Christians grew and multiplied.

     They did not believe in Sola Scriptura and they did not believe the gospel was Calvinist, Arminian, etc. They did, however, believe in the actual real presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist.

     If I have to pick which authority is true regarding sacred scripture , it will be the Catholic (universal) Church because after over 2000 years, they are either the Church of The Apostles that Christ gave authority or they are crazy or just liars. They’ve outlasted every single other faith and heresy since the beginning. They kept all of the Old Testament that the Apostles used (Septuagint). At least if you are going to have a doctrine like Sola Scriptura you shouldn’t start by pulling out what you don’t like or deem not “sound doctrine”.

     The RCC is to the interpretative authority. Not because it fits with my own idea. On the contrary. But because it was what those who died for the faith believed. The prayer Our Lord taught us to pray is, “Our Father”….not “my Father”……

     In the peace of Christ during this glorious season of Advent,
     Teri

544. lojahw December 12th, 2009 9:36 pm :

     Bryan wrote:

     The authority of the bishops by apostolic succession includes not only the authority to exclude from the Kingdom …

     On what basis do you claim that apostolic succession includes the authority to exclude from the Kingdom? Soteriology belongs to God in Christ alone. I agree that the apostles’ successors have ecclesial authority, but they have no power to take away the salvation that Christ alone can give:

     “the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out … and this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:37-40 (cf. John 20:29, “Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”)

     In Christ,
     lojahw

545. lojahw December 12th, 2009 10:15 pm :

     Bryan wrote:

     why is the person holding solo scriptura “free to make person claims based on isolated texts, disregard the broader teaching of Scripture on any given point, and/or make any argument that he wants as long as he can find someone else who will agree with him”, if the sola scriptura person is not free to do those things?

     I explained the difference, Bryan: the sola scriptura person is contrained by the whole of Scripture, and therefore not at liberty to “disregard the broader teaching of Scripture on any given point.” To do such is to disregard the principles of sola scriptura, just as one who chooses to disobey traffic laws. The one who practices solo scriptura is, in effect, practicing lawlessness.

     To your question, “Whose interpretion of Scripture’s interpretation is authoritative,” the answer is Christ and the Apostles. When you ask “who,” that is the only definitive answer I can give. On the other hand, it is possible to disqualify those whose interpretations are inconsistent with Scripture. Since the goal is to interpret Scripture, shouldn’t we focus on which interpretations can be eliminated? (BTW – I did not say there is only one correct interpretation, but rather only that one can rule out those which are inconsistent with Scripture.)

     You are assuming that St. Paul is giving the sufficient condition and not merely a necessary condition.

     Given the many unqualified statements of Scripture to the same effect, that salvation comes from believing in Christ, the Son of God, I believe my assumption is sound.

     “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved” (Mk 16:16),

     The above statement does not require that baptism is a prerequisite for salvation, but it does reflect obedience to Jesus’ great commission that all disciples be baptized. Indeed, this concords with Acts 10:47, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit as we did, can he?” Peter recognized the manifestation of the Holy Spirit as a sign of salvation and hence a prompt for baptism of Christ’s new disciples.

     The real question is where do the Apostles add the condition to salvation that Boniface claims? (I have found it neither in the Scriptures nor in the ECFs.)

     Blessings.

546. Bryan Cross December 13th, 2009 12:43 am :

     lojahw, (re: #544)

     You wrote:

     On what basis do you claim that apostolic succession includes the authority to exclude from the Kingdom?

     The keys that Jesus gave to Peter were the keys to the Kingdom (κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας). (Matthew 16:19) Whatever he binds on earth is therefore bound in heaven. And whatever he looses on earth is therefore loosed in heaven. (Mt 16:19) Those who listen to him listen to Christ; those who reject him have rejected Christ. (Luke 10:16) Those whose sins he forgives, their sins are forgiven by Christ. Those whose sins he retains, their sins are retained by Christ. (John 20:23) These keys didn’t go out of existence when Peter died; they were handed down to his successors, because the Church did not cease to need visible government when Peter died or when the last Apostle died.

     If a person knows of the Church and does not submit to the Church, he is not submitting to Christ. And this is why if a person refuses to enter the Church, knowing that Christ established His Church as necessary for salvation, that person cannot be saved. To reject the Church is to reject Christ, because it is His Body. And to reject Christ is to reject the Father, because He is the Son of the Father. And to reject the Father is to forfeit eternal life.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

547. Bryan Cross December 13th, 2009 1:28 am :

     lojahw, (re: #545)

     I had asked (in #542):

     Why is the person holding solo scriptura “free to make person claims based on isolated texts, disregard the broader teaching of Scripture on any given point, and/or make any argument that he wants as long as he can find someone else who will agree with him”, if the sola scriptura person is not free to do those things?

     You replied:

     I explained the difference, Bryan: the sola scriptura person is contrained by the whole of Scripture, and therefore not at liberty to “disregard the broader teaching of Scripture on any given point.”

     There is a difference between an assertion and an explanation. You have merely asserted that the person holding sola scriptura is constrained by the whole of Scripture, and that the person holding solo scriptura is not so constrained. But you have not explained why the one is so constrained and the other is not.

     To do such is to disregard the principles of sola scriptura, just as one who chooses to disobey traffic laws. The one who practices solo scriptura is, in effect, practicing lawlessness.

     What are the “principles of sola scriptura”? Please list them. If they are found in Scripture, then since solo scriptura means that the Bible is the only authority, why isn’t the holder of solo scriptura subject to them. But if these principles are not found in Scripture, then where do they come from, and why is the holder of sola scriptura subject to them?

     To your question, “Whose interpretion of Scripture’s interpretation is authoritative,” the answer is Christ and the Apostles.

     This simply pushes back the question: Whose determination of what is Christ and the Apostles’ interpretation of Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture, is authoritative?

     You wrote:

     Given the many unqualified statements of Scripture to the same effect, that salvation comes from believing in Christ, the Son of God, I believe my assumption is sound.

     Where does the Bible say that if an unqualified statement is made many times, it is safe to assume that there is no qualification? You are bringing that extra-biblical philosophical assumption into your hermeneutics. The fact is, the Bible never says that faith alone is sufficient for salvation. The only place the Bible mentions faith alone, it says that faith alone cannot save. St. James tell us:

     “You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)

     Therefore, you are not only using an extra-biblical assumption to reach your conclusion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, you are going against an explicit statement of Scripture, and then using your speculative assumption to justify interpreting Jesus statement in Mark 16:16 to mean that one of the two conditions Jesus lists there (i.e. belief) is necessary and sufficient, and the other condition (i.e. baptism) is neither sufficient nor necessary. Instead of using Mark 16:16 to explain what the other verses mean when they speak about salvation through faith in Christ, you use your assumption that those verses really mean (even though they don’t say) that faith alone is sufficient for salvation to trump what Jesus says in Mark 16:16 about baptism. So you assume that the other verses are explanatorily prior and thus explain Mark 16:16, rather than that Mark 16:16 is explanatorily prior, and explains what constitutes the faith referred to in the other verses. How you justify that assumption you do not say. Perhaps you do not even know that you are making that assumption. The point is, however, that there are a great many assumptions going into your hermeneutic, and you seem not to be aware of them, thinking that you are merely reading the meaning straight off the page.

     The real question is where do the Apostles add the condition to salvation that Boniface claims? (I have found it neither in the Scriptures nor in the ECFs.)

     I think I’ve already explained the answer to that question in my previous comment. If being in submission to the Church didn’t matter for salvation, then excommunication would have no soteriological consequences. But in reality it is a handing over to Satan, as St. Paul says. (1 Tim 1:20) Heaven is a community, and those who wish to enter it, must enter the society Christ established, and love those who are His own members. If we do not love His members, then we do not love Him. But if we love Him, we will not refuse to be members of His Body, the Church. To be cut off from that society, is to be cut off from Christ. And since the successor of St. Peter bears the keys of the Kingdom, he is the visible head of that society. And thus to be in the Church is to be under the authority of the successor of St. Peter.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

548. Richard December 13th, 2009 6:27 am :

     lojahw, may I ask how you know your canon is correct? As far as I can make out we have four choices:
     1. It is an infallible collection of infallible books.
     2. It is an infallible collection of fallible books.
     3. It is a fallible collection of infallible books.
     4. It is an fallible collection of fallible books.

     Which of these is it? Note that if it is a fallible collection then in effect there is no canon as a canon is a defined collection of “what’s in” but if we cannot be sure what is in then there is no defined collection. If the collection is infallible then who or what made that choice, i.e. who was / is the infallible judge?

549. lojahw December 13th, 2009 7:43 pm :

     Bryan,

     But you have not explained why the one is so constrained and the other is not.

     You are ignoring the obvious, Bryan. Your question is like asking why a church organist playing Bach is constrained to play the notes on the page instead of using the score as an occasional reference. Sola Scriptura is a discipline: those who disregard the rules of the discipline simply do not practice Sola Scriptura.

     What are the “principles of sola scriptura”?

     From the Anglican 39 Articles of Religion (there are other equivalent statements):

     Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

     The Scriptural basis for the above includes:
     1) Jesus’ statements: “Thy Word is Truth” (John 17:17) and “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Hence anything that contradicts the teaching of God’s Word is false.

     2) John 20:31 affirms the sufficiency of the written Word for salvation. Jude 3 attests to the complete revelation of God’s plan of salvation: “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” If anyone claims that this “faith” is not fully contained in the written Word let them produce evidence that such other teachings were handed down by the Apostles to their successors as required articles of faith.

     3) 2 Tim. 2:15 states that the word of truth must be handled correctly, which excludes distortion by those who are untaught and unstable (2 Pet. 3:15). Further, since God’s word is Truth, one must consult all of it for consistency of interpretation, particularly since multiple passages often touch on the same subjects (cf. Psa. 119:160). This excludes solo scriptura, e.g., resorting to interpretations of isolated proof-texts which are contrary to the sense of the broader teaching of Scripture. A further corollary of 2 Pet. 3:15, is that hard to understand passages of Scripture may not yield interpretations that can be proved. According to the rule above, such interpretations are not to be required as articles of faith.

     4) 2 Tim 3:16 states that the “profit” resulting from Scripture as the source of teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness is that “the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” Further, if Scripture is sufficient to make “the man of God adequate,” then whatever is neither found in nor proved by Scripture, cannot be required of Christians.

     5) 1 Cor. 4:1-2; Heb. 13;17; and Titus 1:9 recognize the leaders of the Church as secondary teaching authorities subject to the Truth taught by the Scriptures.

     since solo scriptura means that the Bible is the only authority, why isn’t the holder of solo scriptura subject to them [the rules acc. to sola].

     The difference is in how one uses “the only authority” – as explained previously, the rules of sola scriptura are not recognized by a person using solo scriptura because they are either untaught or unwilling to submit their interpretations to what is consistent with all of Scripture.

     Whose determination of what is Christ and the Apostles’ interpretation of Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture, is authoritative?

     Your question assumes that either there is an infallible authority by which all interpretations of Scripture can be known to be true or false, or that one cannot know which interpretations of Scripture are true or false. I deny the first, but believe that there are some teachings of Scripture about which all true Christians agree with reasonable certainty are true or false based on standard hermeneutical practice [and there are also interpretations which can be shown with some certainty to be false]. That there are such common teachings held / rejected by all major streams of Christianity demonstrates my point. Neither the EO nor Protestants recognize the RCC Magisterium as an infallible authority, yet we all agree on the interpretation of the core tenets of Christian doctrine.

     You want to make it all or nothing; I’m suggesting that we start with what we agree about and work from there to understand the reasons for our differences. You seem to want to accept only a fiat [the Magisterium IS the only infallible authority], which squelches dialogue about why our interpretations on certain things differ.

     You quoted James 2:24 and wrote:

     you are not only using an extra-biblical assumption to reach your conclusion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, you are going against an explicit statement of Scripture

     Bryan, we both recognize that James is talking about counterfeit faith that exposes itself by lacking the fruit of saving faith (as Jesus said, you will know them by their fruits). It is also commonly recognized that justification refers to different things in different contexts. In James it refers to one’s claim of faith before men; in Romans 4 it refers to one’s justification before God (about which Paul writes: “For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.”). Can you show me where Scripture says that salvation / eternal life is NOT assured for those who truly believe in Christ (i.e., they not only say they believe but they show it by the way they live)? I don’t find such teaching in John 1:12; 3:15-16; 5:24; 6:29, 40, 47; 20:31; Acts 16:31; 1 Cor 1:21; 1 Tim. 1:16; etc.

     If being in submission to the Church didn’t matter for salvation, then excommunication would have no soteriological consequences. But in reality it is a handing over to Satan, as St. Paul says. (1 Tim 1:20)

     Bryan, why do you assume 1) that Boniface’s Unam sanctam is about excommunication and 2) that excommunication has the power to condemn people to hell? Firstly, Unam sanctam never mentions excommunication. Secondly, do you really believe the Roman Pontiff condemned the Eastern half of the Church to hell by a bull of excommunication in 1054? That somehow the EO stopped being part of the Body of Christ by that act? Thirdly, how do you know that those who came to faith in Christ without being in communion with the Roman Pontiff are not saved? Your example from 1 Tim 1:20 does not help your argument, for all Paul claims there is “so that they may be taught not to blaspheme.” Paul is not claiming to condemn these blasphemers to hell, as Boniface appears to do. Can you give one example where an Apostle claimed to have authority to condemn a person to hell?

     It is interesting that you chastise me for making assumptions, but your definition of the Body of Christ makes a huge assumption with which half of the global Body of Christ disagrees. It is sad that you only recognize certain baptized Christians as members of His Body (cf. 1 Cor 12:13). Where did the Apostles teach this?

     In Christ.

550. lojahw December 13th, 2009 7:59 pm :

     Richard,

     I will simply say that I believe there are some good tests of canonicity for affirming what should and should not be in the canon. If you seek dialogue (and not simply staking out a position), I would suggest that the common books recognized by the EO, RCC, and Protestants provide much material for fruitful dialogue:

     “Sacred Scriptures provide for the work of dialogue an instrument of the highest value in the mighty hand of God for the attainment of that unity which the Saviour holds out to all” (Unitatis Redintegratio 21)

     Alternatively, if moderation wishes, perhaps another thread will focus on dialogue about the canon.

     Blessings.

551. Ronnie December 14th, 2009 11:08 am :

     lojahw, may I ask how you know your canon is correct? As far as I can make out we have four choices:
     1. It is an infallible collection of infallible books.
     2. It is an infallible collection of fallible books.
     3. It is a fallible collection of infallible books.
     4. It is an fallible collection of fallible books.

     Which of these is it? Note that if it is a fallible collection then in effect there is no canon as a canon is a defined collection of “what’s in” but if we cannot be sure what is in then there is no defined collection. If the collection is infallible then who or what made that choice, i.e. who was / is the infallible judge?

     Richard,

     This doesn’t follow. Fallibility does not always mean error, therefore a fallible collection can be inerrant which I believe is the case. To make the point another way. Jesus held the people during His time accountable for knowing the Scriptures. However, if there was not infallible council telling the people what the canon was how could He? If there was an infallible council then this goes against the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Pick your poison.

552. TurretinFan December 14th, 2009 12:13 pm :

     Bryan:

     There are two parts to this, so as to keep my responses to one today.

     Part 1:

     I had written:
     

     However, as I’ve pointed out above, the place where you (per #494) find absence of principled distinction is not among the holders of those views, but among folks who don’t hold those views.

     You responded (at #536):
     

     Could you point me to the place in our article where we claimed to find a person holding a view that he or she didn’t actually hold? Thanks.

     I’m not sure what this request has to do with my comment. My comment is about the fact that (per #494) the alleged presence of distinction between sola/solo and apostolic succession is a distinction between people who don’t yet hold either view. That doesn’t mean you claimed to find a person holding a view he doesn’t hold. I hadn’t expressed an opinion about that (as far as I recall). Do you agree or disagree that the implication of #494 is what I’ve stated? If you agree, I have a further question, but if you don’t agree, I’d like to know why.

     Part 2:

     At #535 you wrote:
     

     The soundness of our argument does not depend on conclusion (1o) being unique. So, showing our conclusion to be non-unique does not refute the argument.

     You (and Tim Troutman) have made this statement or one like it a number of times. I’m not sure why you think this is significant. Assume for the sake of discussion that your argument is sound and valid, but that your argument is completely irrelevant to the Roman Catholic/ Reformed dialog (and, indeed, irrelevant to any call for folks to change communions). Can you see why that would matter to almost everyone who plans to spend the time necessary to read the article? If you don’t agree that this would matter, could you please explain why you think it would not matter?

     -TurretinFan

553. Richard December 14th, 2009 3:58 pm :

     lojahw,

     I am all for fruitful dialogue, what are the “good tests of canonicity” and who gets to decide them. Hebrews seems to have been included in the canon because the early church believed St. Paul to have written it, if he didnt (which is plausable) should we include it? Further, how can we possibly prove that it should be canonical?

     Ronnie,

     My question concerns the quality of the collection (canon) rather than the quality of the books (scriptures). Jesus indeed held the people during His time accountable for knowing the Scripture but even in his day there was no Jewish canon, the Psalter wasn’t closed until 50 C.E.

554. lojahw December 14th, 2009 6:40 pm :

     Richard,

     Since you insist: it appears that the RCC canon fits somewhere between your categories #3 & #4 (a fallible collection of infallible and fallible books) because it includes at least one fallible book, while Jesus teaches that the books of the Penteteuch, the Psalms, Daniel, Isaiah, etc. are infallible.

     Example: Judith 1:5-2:6 claims that Nebuchadnezzar ruled the Assyrians from Nineveh. Judith therefore explicitly contradicts both secular history and 2 Kings 24:1; 1 Chron 6:15; 2 Chron 36:7; Ezra 2:1; 5:14 “the Chaldean”; Neh. 7:6; Esther 2:6; Jer. 21:2, 7; Jer. 22:25; Jer. 24:1; Ezek 26:7; Dan. 1:1-2; 5:11, etc. Since Jesus declared the other books to be infallible, Judith must be fallible.

     No orthodox Christian questions the infallibility of the books in the Protestant canon, so it would appear to fit either #1 or #3. Which do you think is correct?

     In Christ.

555. Tim A. Troutman December 15th, 2009 12:05 pm :

     TurretinFan – There are two primary claims being made: 1. Sola and solo are not distinct in principle 2. Catholicism avoids this error. The tu quoque objection, which has been refuted, would only relate to 2 and not to 1 were it true.

556. TurretinFan December 15th, 2009 12:42 pm :

     Tim:

     As Bryan has acknowledged (I hope that’s a sufficiently neutral word) at #526 above, the first primary claim is more significantly more limited than that those two positions are not distinct in principle. Your comment regarding the second primary claim is essentially a reiteration of what I addressed in “Part 2″ of #552 above. If you have responses to the questions I was asking Bryan there, I’d be interested in hearing them.

     -TurretinFan

557. Tim A. Troutman December 15th, 2009 1:11 pm :

     TF – “acknowledge” might be neutral but “significantly more limited” doesn’t sound very neutral to me. It makes it sound, and you have made this assertion I think, that we’ve re-adjusted our argument. That is not the case.

     If I say there is no principle of distinction between jogging and running very slow and you say “yes there is, one has three words and the other only has one” I might add a qualifier that “I meant with respect to the action being performed not to the number of words used to describe it.” You might come back and say “well now your new assertion is significantly more limited than before.” But my original statement is still true. Sometimes we have to add more qualifiers to expose bad arguments; it doesn’t mean we’re re-adjusting our original statement.

     I agree with you that the question of whether the Catholic Church is subject to this same problem of individual interpretation is an important question for Christian dialogue. But if you don’t agree that Protestantism has the problem, then how can we say that the Catholic Church has the problem also. Do you agree that Protestantism has this problem?

558. lojahw December 15th, 2009 1:24 pm :

     Richard,

     Jesus indeed held the people during His time accountable for knowing the Scripture but even in his day there was no Jewish canon, the Psalter wasn’t closed until 50 C.E.

     Two questions:
     1. If Jesus granted authority to the Scriptures without there being a formal Jewish canon, why should a particular fourth century Christian canon (which was not held by the vast majority of ECFs prior to Augustine) be authoritative? How did God protect His Church for so many centuries beforehand?

     2. On what basis do you claim the Psalter was not closed until 50 C.E.?

     Regarding the tests of canonicity: I have given one, but I really think that further discussion about canonicity should be held for another thread on that subject (the canon is not the emphasis of this thread).

     Blessings.

559. lojahw December 15th, 2009 1:37 pm :

     For those who accept the thesis of the article:

     Is there a principled difference between:

     1) A lush and a person who only drinks responsibly?
     2) A kid who screeches his car out of his driveway and lays rubber at every traffic light, and a person who drives responsibly and respectfully obeys the traffic laws?

     If there is not a principled difference, why not?

     Blessings.

560. Tim A. Troutman December 15th, 2009 2:50 pm :

     Lojah,

     The principle of distinction in the two things is contained in their definition. So:

     1. One drinks excessively the other does not.
     2. One drives responsibly and the other does not.

     I understand the objection you’re getting at and I’ve already answered it here. I see that you’ve already commented on that blog post, but you either didn’t read the article or didn’t understand it because you’re bringing up the same objection I already showed to be false. Or else you may have an objection to it that you didn’t write. If so, what is it?

561. TurretinFan December 15th, 2009 2:50 pm :

     Tim:

     Conclusion 10, as presented in the article does not follow from premises 4 and 9, as I’ve demonstrated. You can either limit 10 further (in an important way) or you can have an invalid argument.

     I’m not convinced that the alleged lack of principled distinction with respect to the ultimate holder of interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential is a “problem” at all. I’m not sure it is even worth investigating whether it is a problem, if it is a common trait of “Protestantism” and “Roman Catholicism.” That’s why Section V(A) of Bryan’s article and my own recent article (link) are so important. Do you see my perspective?

     -TurretinFan

562. Andrew Preslar December 15th, 2009 3:40 pm :

     TF,

     Here is the comment that I posted on your site, in response to the post you linked to in your comments #523 and #528 (and, I just observed, #561):

     The conclusion of your post claimed that

     Bryan’s argument is plainly invalid on its face since conclusion 10 is an invalid generalization. Furthermore, even when corrected, Bryan’s conclusion can be just as legitimately expanded to include the RC position. And if the RC position is permitted to escape by distinguishing between finality of communication and finality of authority, the sola scriptura position (whether in the classical reformed sense or in the Mathisonian form – and even solo scriptura) also escapes.

     Thanks for this analysis and for your interaction with the article at Called to Communion.

     You are correct that [10.] needs to be narrowed down. (I think that Bryan said the same, in one of the comments above.) This narrowing, however, is perfectly acceptable, in fact, helpful, for the purpose of the article, which is focused upon final interpretive authority.

     (Just to make sure that everyone knows what we are referring to, here is the original conclusion of the argument for the non-distinction, in principle, of solo and sola: “10. There is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura.” TF rightly point out that the premises upon which this conclusion is based validly yield a narrower conclusion, i.e., *10.* The is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura with respect to final interpretive authority. The entire formal argument is found at the end of Section IV.A. of this article.)

     It seems to me that in the last bit of your conclusion you are alluding to (what I take to be) your argument to the effect that there is a parity between solo, sola and Catholicism with respect to final interpretive authority both in sense of the terminus of communication (the individual interpreter) and in the acknowledgment of a hierarchy of interpretation (culminating in the highest interpretive authority). At least, this is what I take to be the point of the following:

     The key weakness (and perhaps I ought to have placed it first, so bored readers would find it) to Bryan’s response is that he is comparing the whole governing authority of the solo person to a part of the governing authority of the RC person. In other words, where he ought to compare (Scripture, Oral Tradition, and the Magisterium) to (Scripture) he compares (Scripture [...]) to (Scripture), hiding the Oral Tradition and Magisterium from consideration. In the process, Bryan himself conflates the finality of communication with the finality of authority, as noted above. The true comparison would be that for the solo person the Scriptures are the final authority, whereas for the RC person (per Bryan) the final authority is the Magisterium.

     Several things come to mind at this point.

     (1) It is agreed on all sides that the individual is the final interpreter in the sense of being a terminus of communication.

     (2) Again, it seems that you are also claiming that solo (and sola?) is non-distinct from Catholicism in that it too posits a hierarchy of interpreters, one which does not culminate in the individual.

     (3) I am not sure why you assert that there is a conflation between the two senses of interpretive finality in Neal and Byran’s article. Perhaps you could point out where this occurs, and what is the significance thereof for the argument.

     (4) Another point of this section of your post seems to be that the disparity between solo/sola and Catholicism is accounted for by the fact that, for s/s, Scripture is the highest interpreter of Scripture, while for Catholicism, the Magisterium is the highest interpreter of Scripture.

     If this is your point, then it trades upon an equivocation with respect to interpretation. It is not the same thing for a book to “interpret” itself, and for a person, or body of persons, to interpret a book. (This issue was addressed in the article.)

     If, however, your claim is not about interpretive authority, but about (religious) authority per se, then the last sentence in the quote above does not represent the Catholic position. The Catholic position on authority is that God, revealed in Christ Jesus, is the “final authority” (Mt 28:18). I am sure that you would agree, and that our dispute, at this point, concerns not so much interpretation as identification of that objective divine revelation, including how it has been preserved (more or less) and transmitted through the centuries following the Ascension of Our Lord.

     In sum, after reading this, I am not sure that we are all on the same page in maintaining a careful distinction between divine revelation and the interpretation of divine revelation. Hence, there seems to be some (understandable) ambiguity (in this discussion) on the distinction between the authority of revelation and interpretive authority in the exposition of that revelation.

     Thanks again for engaging the argument.

563. Tim A. Troutman December 15th, 2009 4:39 pm :

     TurretinFan,

     I did not understand your perspective before but I think I do now; thanks for clearing that up. If the non-distinction between solo and sola scriptura is not problematic because there is not, or could not be, an option that avoids the “problem,” then I don’t understand why you are attempting to refute the article. Above (can’t find the number and ctrl+f seems to crash my browser on this long thread) you argued that there is a principle of distinction between the two. This seems to be contrary to what you are saying here but perhaps the above was just an example in which you wouldn’t invest much effort since it’s not important from your perspective.

     The article was written with those in mind who share our position that solo scriptura, as described by Mathison, would be a problem if one held that position. If one thing is a problem, and another thing is not different in principle with respect to the problematic aspect of the former, then it would also be a problem.

     1. A is a problem (with respect to X)
     2. B is not different in principle from A (with respect to X)
     3. Therefore B is a problem.

     It seems that you do not agree that A is a problem or that if it is, there is no way to avoid the problem and therefore no position is superior (with respect to X). Then it seems your argument is something like:

     1. Putatively: A is a problem (with respect to X)
     2. But if this problem exists, it cannot be avoided by any position.
     3. If a problem is universal, then a position cannot be refuted as inferior to another position on the grounds that it is subject to that problem.
     4. Therefore even if there is no distinction between A & B in position Z, Z is not refuted.

     Is that a fair assessment?

564. TurretinFan December 15th, 2009 7:58 pm :

     Tim:

     Thanks for your comments (#563). I think you’re comments have helped me to think more precisely about the issues. There are two different things going on. One has to do with what we might call a direct rebuttal, the other with what we might call a dismissal.

     I. Direct Rebuttal

     From where I’m sitting, it looks like a lot of folks are reading Bryan’s (and Neal’s) article as though the argument were the following:

     1) Solo Scriptura is a bad thing.
     2) Sola Scriptura is the same as Solo Scriptura with respect to (X).
     3) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is also a bad thing.

     I think you would agree with me that if that were the extent of the argument, the argument would be fallacious. After all, it would be absurd to draw that conclusion if (X) were that both have a label that uses the word “scriptura.” Thus, the flow can’t work for any arbitrary (X). But I think you would also agree with me that the three points above are not the argument that is being made.

     Instead, the argument is more like what you have described (I’ve slightly tweaked it):

     1. Solo Scriptura has a problem with respect to (X).
     2. Sola Scriptura is not different in principle from Solo Scriptura with respect to (X).
     3. Therefore Sola Scriptura has a problem with respect to (X).

     The direct refutation is that (1) is wrong because (X) has been selected incorrectly. That is to say, Solo Scriptura may have one problem or a whole host of problems, but not with respect to (X). Several responses in this thread have made an argument to the effect that “the problem with solo scriptura is (Y)” where (Y) is not “the holder of ultimate interpretive authority with respect to the things he considers essential” but something else, like a failure to apply ‘tota’ scriptura or a lack of reverence for subordinate authority, etc.

     II. Dismissal

     The dismissal takes a slightly different form. The dismissal says that the “real argument” is:

     A. Sola/Solo Scriptura share a common problem.
     – 1. Solo Scriptura has a problem with respect to (X).
     – 2. Sola Scriptura is not different in principle from Solo Scriptura with respect to (X).
     – 3. Therefore Sola Scriptura has a problem with respect to (X).
     B. Roman Catholicism does not share this problem.
     C. Therefore you should be a Roman Catholic.

     But the dismissal responds that B is wrong. Roman Catholicism does have a problem with respect to (X). Therefore, C does not follow.

     But the dismissal can also be phrased differently:

     1. It is alleged that Sola/Solo suffer from problem (X);
     2. If something is a characteristic of every alternative, it shouldn’t be called a problem;
     3. (X) is characteristic of every alternative; therefore
     4. (X) shouldn’t be called a problem.

     I should point out that one response to the dismissal is to say that Roman Catholicism doesn’t have (X). However, as I’ve pointed out previously, the grounds on which it is said that RC doesn’t have (X) could also serve as grounds for why Mathison’s position, the real sola position, and (depending on the argument – in some cases) even the solo position doesn’t have (X).

     -TurretinFan

565. lojahw December 16th, 2009 12:03 am :

     Tim,

     Following your response to my analogies:

     Self is subordinate to the totality of Scripture in sola scriptura, self rules over personally selected proof-texts from Scripture in solo scriptura.

     The person who practices sola scriptura is constrained to be consistent with all Scripture, the solo scriptura person exempts himself from this principle of sola scriptura.

     The former interprets Scripture responsibly, the latter does not.

     Please clarify your objection to my descriptions of the differences.

     Blessings.

566. Tim A. Troutman December 16th, 2009 9:59 am :

     Lojah, there are at least two problems with your descriptions of the difference.

     1. The one who practices solo scriptura would also consider himself to be constrained to obey all of scripture.
     2. This is, at best, a principle of difference in respect to something other than what we’ve clarified above as the principle of the argument. That is, it would not solve the problem of lack of principled distinction between sola and solo with respect to authority.

567. TurretinFan December 16th, 2009 10:12 am :

     Andrew:

     Thanks for your comments. I’ve responded in more detail on my own blog (in the same comment box where you left your comment). Very briefly, (1) the question is not really who is the “final” religious authority (everyone agrees in principle that this is God) but what is the “final” source of revelation from God and (2) while a book interprets itself intrinsically and everything else (including people) interpret the book extrinsically, it nevertheless remains the case that both are sources of interpretation.

     -TurretinFan

568. Purify Your Bride » Blog Archive » Sex and Authority December 16th, 2009 11:10 am :

     [...] see the Sola/Solo thing being somewhat similar. Sure there are some who take to many liberties with scripture. But that is [...]

569. Andrew Preslar December 16th, 2009 3:24 pm :

     TurretinFan,

     For (1), I am happy to just get rid of “religious authority” (my phrase) and stick with “final source of revelation from God” (your phrase). I think that in either case we end up at the same place: the Word made flesh. For (2), I agree that Scripture is, in some general sense, including a few explicit instances, a source of interpretation for Scripture.

     The difficulty, for your comparison of S/S and Catholicism, seems to begin with the fact that the intrinsic interpretations that are explicitly stated as such (e.g., “text x means y“) are very few, not enough to settle many fundamental theological issues. Apart from these explicit intra-biblical interpretations, we are ultimately left to our own discretion (on the S/S model) in discerning which biblical texts “interpret” which other texts. This is undoubtedly an exciting and often illuminating exercise. However, on S/S, there is no ultimately binding interpretive authority to adjudicate between orthodox and unorthodox theological conclusions derived from this hermeneutical activity. And this is where the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic interpretations of divine revelation comes into play, viz the principled difference between S/S and Catholicism.

     Andrew

570. mateo December 16th, 2009 3:36 pm :

     lojahw responds to Teri: I think you miss the point of sola scriptura. The authority is not in the person, but in the Scriptures. Any interpretation that is inconsistent with the teaching of the Scriptures is false – regardless of who it comes from.

     No one in here is disputing that Scriptures are a source of infallible authority for the Christian, and we all agree that a false interpretation of scriptures is wrong no matter where it comes from. The dispute is about Martin Luther’s assertion that the Protestant Bible is the ONLY infallible source of authority for a Christian. It is the “ONLY” that is in dispute, not the authority of scriptures.

     You make the claim that “authority is not in the person, but in the Scriptures.” By what authority do you believe Luther’s doctrine of sola scriptura? You can’t appeal to the authority of the Protestant Bible, since there are there are no verses in a Protestant Bible that explicitly teach that the Protestant Bible is the ONLY source of infallible authority for the Christian on matters of faith and morals.

571. TurretinFan December 16th, 2009 5:03 pm :

     Andrew:

     It seems you and I stand on opposite sides of the river on these particular issues. Thanks for explaining your position.

     -TurretinFan

572. Andrew Preslar December 17th, 2009 6:07 am :

     TF,

     It seems you and I stand on opposite sides of the river on these particular issues.

     I think that we knew that going in. The question is not on what side of the river one stands on particular issues, but whether, as you seem to imply, Solo/Sola adherents are not their own final interpretive authority.

     Thanks for explaining your position.

     I was not so much explaining my position as critiquing yours. But you are welcome.

     Andrew

573. lojahw December 17th, 2009 9:57 pm :

     Tim,

     The article assumes that if a person finds anyone else who agrees with his own interpretation on a particular point, whatever that might be, that such a person is practicing sola scriptura. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The reference point for sola scriptura is never an individual’s – or some group’s – interpretation, but what the whole of Scripture consistently teaches (for which the teaching of many centuries of Christians beginning with the Apostles provides great sources of reference). This is why we speak of the perspicuity of the Scriptures regarding the essentials of salvation – there are many non-essentials for which Scripture is not clear.

     A person who finds other persons – no matter how many or whether they call themselves a church – who agree with his own interpretation – is starting from “self” as the primary reference, rather than Scripture. “I interpret X from this passage of Scripture or from these few passages of Scripture” (solo scriptura) is principally different from “the Scriptures consistently teach X” (sola scriptura). The article misrepresents sola scriptura by not acknowledging this difference.

     In Christ.

574. lojahw December 17th, 2009 10:09 pm :

     Mateo,

     I demonstrated in #554 that your Magisterium is not an infallible authority because it mistakenly declared a fallible book to be infallible. Do you know of another infallible authority today besides God’s written Word?

     Blessings.

575. Bryan Cross December 18th, 2009 2:45 am :

     lojahw,

     In #574 you wrote:

     I demonstrated in #554 that your Magisterium is not an infallible authority because it mistakenly declared a fallible book to be infallible.

     In #554 you wrote:

     Judith 1:5-2:6 claims that Nebuchadnezzar ruled the Assyrians from Nineveh. Judith therefore explicitly contradicts both secular history and 2 Kings 24:1; 1 Chron 6:15; 2 Chron 36:7; Ezra 2:1; 5:14 “the Chaldean”; Neh. 7:6; Esther 2:6; Jer. 21:2, 7; Jer. 22:25; Jer. 24:1; Ezek 26:7; Dan. 1:1-2; 5:11, etc. Since Jesus declared the other books to be infallible, Judith must be fallible.

     How do you know that two people could not have had the same name? This is the same way that liberals treat the rest of the Bible: every seeming contradiction is treated as an actual contradiction, when there are other ways of explaining the data.

     So, you have not actually demonstrated that the Magisterium is not an infallible authority.

     Let’s keep the thread on-topic. Our next article will be on the canon, so please save canon discussions for that thread.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

576. Tim A. Troutman December 18th, 2009 10:41 am :

     Lojah,

     Please check my comment 566. Right now what you’re doing is table pounding; I’ve already refuted the argument you’re making.

577. lojahw December 18th, 2009 6:58 pm :

     Tim,

     If it seems that I’m belaboring a point, it’s because you don’t seem to recognize it. The article claims that there is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura; I have shown that there is when one properly describes sola scriptura.

     Properly understood, sola scriptura is indeed a third option apart from solo scriptura and Apostolic succession. All have interpretive ability, but infallibility belongs only to God and to His revelation through the Prophets and Apostles who make up the foundation of the Church.

     Blessings.

578. Tim A. Troutman December 18th, 2009 9:03 pm :

     Lojah,

     Please respond to my comments in 566 then we can continue the dialogue.

579. T Ciatoris December 18th, 2009 9:07 pm :

     Dear lojahw,

     I’m going to be straightforward. Here’s what I think is going on:

     From the article’s introduction:
     

     In this article we argue that there is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura with respect to the holder of ultimate interpretive authority. (Emphasis added.)

     On my reading, the primary reasons you think you’ve refuted this argument are twofold. First, you redefine solo scriptura to mean “irresponsible or incomplete use of Scripture (according to your judgment).” In practice, this is a catch-all argument for you. If anyone draws conclusions from Scripture about essential matters with which you disagree, you can always have recourse to the accusation that they are not, and must not be, listening to “the whole counsel of God,” because, as you see it, since Scripture is perspicuous, they would naturally agree with you if they were “truly” practicing sola scriptura. So you brand them as solo scripturists. But since you’re dealing with a definition of “solo scriptura” foreign to the article’s definition, you’ve refuted nothing from the article.

     The second part is related to the first. You think you’ve refuted the article’s argument because you deny the fact that every interpretation of Scripture, no matter how thorough, well-defended, cogent, or venerable, is precisely and inevitably an interpretation of Scripture. You believe that your interpretation of the Bible (on “essentials”) is not an interpretation: it’s simply what the Bible says. Therefore you deny that you retain ultimate interpretive authority. You say you are submitting to Scripture, period. We say you are submitting to lojahw’s interpretation of Scripture. This has nothing to do with whether your interpretation is good, bad, or middling. It could be the greatest anybody has ever achieved. It might be intelligently informed by the Church Fathers and by discerning readings of other theologians. It might be based on the most unimpeachable “common sense” and “valid reasoning” known to the Western Hemisphere. But it’s still your interpretation. You do not seem prepared to agree with this. And that makes sense, because it would logically entail agreement with the article’s claim that, by practicing sola scriptura, you are retaining ultimate interpretive authority, and thus failing to demonstrate a principled difference from solo scriptura, not with respect to thoroughness of reading or hermeneutical intelligence, but with respect to the holder of ultimate interpretive authority, which is the “with respect to” explicitly named in the article’s introduction.

     That’s why you think you’ve refuted the article. And that’s why Tim (and I) don’t think you have, and seem, to me anyway (I won’t speak for Tim), to be tilting at windmills.

     in Christ,

     TC
     1 Cor 16:14

580. Spencer December 18th, 2009 10:04 pm :

     lojahw,

     I don’t want to seem like I’m jumping into the debate between you and Tim, but I do have a question for you regarding one thing you said:

     “I interpret X from this passage of Scripture or from these few passages of Scripture” (solo scriptura) is principally different from “the Scriptures consistently teach X” (sola scriptura). The article misrepresents sola scriptura by not acknowledging this difference.

     Are you saying that the definition of solo scriptura is “deriving one’s doctrinal beliefs from few passages of Scripture” and that the definition of sola scriptura is “deriving one’s beliefs from all of Scripture consistently?” And if so, how would you view (for example) an Arian, who claims to be deriving his views from all of Scripture read consistently, in spite of the fact that it contradicts everything the Church (I use the term in a generic, not specifically Roman Catholic sense) has taught and still teaches about the deity of Christ? Is he an adherent to sola scriptura, or solo scriptura?

     Pax Christi,

     Spencer

581. lojahw December 19th, 2009 10:08 pm :

     Dear TC,

     There is a disconnect over “ultimate interpretive authority.” Sola Scriptura does not recognize an “ultimate interpretive authority” outside of the Prophets and Apostles through whom God has revealed His Word. Instead, Sola Scriptura recognizes relative interpretive authority that is judged by consistency with “the whole counsel of God.” Generally, this favors those who have spent their lives studying God’s Word, including those ordained as leaders in the Church. Such interpretive authority is magnified by the degree of universal agreement among church leaders and all other church leaders, going back to the Apostles. But “ultimate interpretive authority” among members of Christ’s Body today is just not a concept that Sola Scriptura recognizes. I do not deny that every interpretation of Scripture is an interpretation. So what? Every interpretation of your catechism is also an interpretation. Every interpretation of Unam sanctam is an interpretation (and there are many among RCs!).

     Sola Scriptura does, however, teach the analogy of faith: that clearer passages of Scripture often guide the interpretation of less clear passages. Sola Scriptura also recognizes that the core teachings of the faith are clearly presented in Scripture, and the evidence for this is the universally recognized core doctrines taught by approved leaders of the Church all the way back to the Apostles (e.g., the basic doctrines of the Trinity, the observance of baptism and the Lord’s Table in obedience to Christ’s commands, etc.).

     You say I seem to be tilting at windmills, but that sounds like the pot calling the kettle “black.” You want to engage me in a controversy over some supposed Sola Scriptura interpretation on unspecified essentials that would cause me to switch Churches. Can you give me an example?

     Blessings.

582. lojahw December 19th, 2009 10:21 pm :

     Spencer,

     You would have to go back to earlier posts for what I’ve already written about the Arian heresy, but Arius indeed focused on a brief passage in Proverbs 8 on “sophia” which he assumed defined and limited Christ, from which he decided that the more immediate NT texts about Christ must be interpreted consistently with HIS interpretation of Proverbs. If you want a better account of the many NT texts with which Arius did not reckon, I suggest you read Athanasius’ Four Discourses Against the Arians. Note also Theodoret’s description of how the Council of Nicea used many texts of Scripture on Christ to refute Arius.

     Blessings.

583. Spencer December 20th, 2009 12:11 pm :

     lojahw,

     Thanks for the reply. I think you may have misunderstood my question, though, I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear enough. I certainly disagree with Arius as well and agree with you that Scripture consistently opposes Arianism. But my point was this: if someone argued a heretical position and claimed to be doing so from all of Scripture read consistently (and not just a few passages), then would you consider him to be an adherent to sola scriptura or solo scriptura?

     Pax Christi,

     Spencer

584. lojahw December 20th, 2009 7:16 pm :

     Spencer wrote:

     if someone argued a heretical position and claimed to be doing so from all of Scripture read consistently (and not just a few passages), then would you consider him to be an adherent to sola scriptura or solo scriptura?

     ‘Sorry I misunderstood your question. It is not the “claim” to argue from all of Scriptura that makes one an adherent of Sola Scriptura, but that one can reasonably demonstrate that they are doing so. To reasonably demonstrate that one’s interpretation is consistent with all of Scripture, one must reasonably show how their interpretation is consistent with Scripture as well as refute arguments against that interpretation by experts in the subject matter (i.e., if one argues that a particular Greek word must mean X, one would have to defend that assertion with reference to credentialed Greek scholars). This is how one proves that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not practicing Sola Scriptura: they “claim” that their version of the Arian heresy is consistent with Scripture, but close examination shows that they are not.

     For another example: I was asked to read a Catholic defense of Marian doctrines, in which it was claimed that the Greek word translated “overshadowed” uniquely identified Mary with the Ark of the Covenant because the Septuagint and the NT Greek used the same word with reference to both. The problem with this argument is that the same word is also used for Peter’s shadow in Acts 5:15, for the cloud overshadowing the Israelites in Exodus, for Jesus’ transfiguration, etc. When one carefully examines interpretations with knowledge of the languages, the historical and literary context, parallel passages in Scripture, etc. one gains an appreciation for how difficult it is to argue for a novel interpretation of Scripture.

     Blessings.

585. retro satana December 20th, 2009 9:01 pm :

     Quoted by Bryan Cross, post #483:
     “Those are accidental differences, and accidental differences are not principled differences, because they do not show a distinction in essence. We are using the definitions of solo scriptura and sola scriptura given by Keith Mathison in his book; you can find them in the article. We are arguing that there is no principled difference between them with respect to the holder of ultimate interpretive authority. But the truth of our conclusion is fully compatible with there being many accidental differences between them, and between persons holding them.”

     Sorry I haven’t able to keep up with this discussion. My original posts on presuppositionalism came to no avail since the authors reject presuppositionalism as “fideism built upon skepticsm.” I was told to discuss that elsewhere, so I stayed quiet. However, the email notifications keep piling up in my inbox and I just happened to catch this quote by Bryan. If my following points have already been stated by someone else, please just discard them and accept my apology for beating a dead horse. It is not my intention. Directing me to the replies would be sufficient. I know this is quite lengthy, but it is my full thoughts on the subject. Aside from further exchange I don’t believe I have anything left to add.

     I think we all know that there is no such thing as SOLO scriptura. It was a catchy play on words that the Presbo’s came up with to try to show a difference between Scripture as the only infallible source of knowledge (as they proclaim) and the “what-my-bible-says-might-not-be-what-your-bible-says/’what-does-it-mean-to-you’-relativism” of modern evangelicals (that RC’s accuse Protestants of). It could be argued that the continued usage of this term and the fact that Mathison wrote a whole book defining it is in poor taste and is actually doing more harm than good to the Reformed-cause. But even if there were such a thing as solo scriptura, then the authors of this article are absolutely right that there is no principled difference between it and SOLA scriptura. Indeed, the individual Protestant must ultimately use his private judgment and private interpretation to decide what he thinks is true or false doctrine. I heartily affirm this, and so should every Protestant.

     But what does this mean? It means that the authors have written a splendid article on how all humans think and make choices. God has given us the tools of reason and logic by which we filter all received data. Sometimes our logic is valid and we make correct choices or believe certain things to be true. Sometimes our logic isn’t so great and we make bad decisions or believe things to be false. Welcome to fallen nature. The key then is to think as critically as possible and rely on the Holy Spirit to guide our thoughts, but we are all still using our “private judgment” in this process. The two are not in opposition to each other. When any given Christian believes the Holy Spirit has revealed truth to him, was it not his reason and judgment that brought him to that conclusion? This is not unique of Protestants. Everyone does this, even RC’s and Orthodox Christians.

     In the article’s tu-quoque-objection answer, we are basically told that the “principled” difference between the RC and the Protestant is that Protestants start with an interpretation of Scripture, and then seek a church body that aligns with that particular interpretation. Whereas the RC convert simply seeks the church Christ founded, and then submits to all of her infallible interpretations. But I will dare to say this only begs the question. First of all, it implies that there is some area of neutral facts that all people can receive and properly interpret – as if all the history books unanimously agree to the validity of Rome’s succession, primacy and infallibility. We know that isn’t true. There is no such thing as a brute fact. All ‘facts’ are interpreted facts. By what standard of evidence can I conclude which version of history is correct? Whichever Rome says is correct? What about the Eastern Orthodox’s version? Can a RC direct me to a history book or Christian theologian that proves Rome’s assertions? What makes that source so reliable? Secondly, the RC convert had to presuppose his own interpretation of Scripture prior to “seeking the church Christ founded.” He has to assume that Christ existed. That Christ established a church. That his understanding of Matthew 16:18 is the right one. That apostolic succession is true. The RC convert starts with his own interpretation of scripture and then finds the church body that agrees with his conclusion: Rome. He’s already made up his mind, and he’s looking for all the ‘facts’ that align to his position. If Bryan or another reader disagrees with this assessment, I would ask them to please explain how a Protestant believing Scripture is the highest interpretive authority and submitting himself to what he understands it teaches is any different than a RC believing the Magisterium is the highest interpretive authority and submitting himself to what he understands her to teach.

     The binding-conscience explanation is problematic as well, because the RC is still his own “final interpretive authority.” The RC will say that he doesn’t rely on his private interpretation, but rather the ex cathedra pronouncements of the Pope. But let’s take it back even further: how did he decide that he should rely on the ex cathedra pronouncements of the Pope? He had to use his private “interpretation” of scripture, tradition, and history to conclude that Rome was the true church and what the Magisterium proclaims is infallible. Furthermore, the individual RC has to use his private judgment to interpret what the ex cathedra documents actually mean, and he’ll rely on the Pope to correct any misinterpretation of that document. But then the RC has to interpret that correct interpretation, ad infinitum. The inevitability of the RC having to use his private interpretation is inescapable. If he perceives a contradiction in dogma or in the historical validity of Rome his conscience will not allow him to remain. This happens whenever a RC leaves for another church-body. Rome binds the conscience as long as she aligns with the individual’s conscience. Is it not a sin to go against one’s own conscience? Or should he simply pretend to not see inconsistencies? If you say he should ignore his conscience, then you are saying he should not ignore his conscience in joining Rome, but after that, his conscience should be abandoned. “Use your conscience and judgment to realize you shouldn’t use your conscience and judgment.” I don’t think any of you are really trying to say this, but I don’t see how it leads to any other conclusion.

     The Protestant in essence does the same thing as the RC, except we disagree on the ultimate authority. For the RC it’s the Magisterium, for the Protestant it’s the Scriptures. The Protestant relies on the pronouncements of the Scriptures, and seeks to understand them properly while guided by the Holy Spirit. The Protestant believes that Scripture can interpret itself, and that it can also correct someone’s interpretive error. RC’s believe in a living church, Protestants believe in a living church AND living Scriptures. (Not to say RC’s wouldn’t admit the Scriptures are living, I’m simply making a point that the way they view the Magisterium w/interpretation is the same way we view the Scriptures themselves.) To use Bryan’s philosophical language above, in the end there is no principled difference between sola scriptura, solo scriptura, or the “three legged stool” of Roman Catholicism. Perhaps the only differences are “accidental.”

     This isn’t to say there isn’t a true debate between RC’s and Protestants. There certainly is, but the “private interpretation” argument isn’t it. The real debate should be on the consistency of the two worldviews, the logical or illogical circularity within the two. But I regress, since that is not the topic at hand. Needless to say, whenever I’ve pressed RC’s on this point, they always resort to telling me they had to take a “Kierkegaardian leap of faith” into the Magisterium. I’m personal friends with a reader of Called To Communion and he said the same thing. What other option is there? I guess presuppositionalism isn’t the only fideism built upon skepticism.

586. lojahw December 21st, 2009 11:40 am :

     One thing that “does not compute” with adherents of Sola Scriptura is the attempt to identify WHO has ultimate interpretive authority. The notion that any person or group should be trusted because of who they are or what office they hold is inconsistent with Paul’s statement in Galatians 1:8.

     ”But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.”

     Who is the “we” in the above quote? the apostles themselves. By this statement Paul places ultimate authority in the gospel, the Word of God, which the apostles preached – not in any interpretive authority of those who preach it. If an apostle or angel can be accursed for preaching a gospel different than that which Paul preached, the successors of the apostles are not exempt. This is an argument from the greater (the apostles) to the lesser (their successors).

     Jesus taught that “the Scripture cannot be broken,” and “He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day” (John 10:35; 12:48). Jesus says that the ultimate authority is in “the word I spoke,” not in any interpreter of His word. All Christians have responsibility to listen to and respond to Jesus and His words, but no one in the Church has ultimate authority to interpret them for all Christians.

     Sometimes it is the little town boy who sees and tells the town leaders that the emperor’s new clothes are not what everyone else claims they are. Truth is truth regardless of who recognizes it.

     Blessings.

587. Spencer December 21st, 2009 9:18 pm :

     lojahw,

     You said:

     Sorry I misunderstood your question. It is not the “claim” to argue from all of Scriptura that makes one an adherent of Sola Scriptura, but that one can reasonably demonstrate that they are doing so. To reasonably demonstrate that one’s interpretation is consistent with all of Scripture, one must reasonably show how their interpretation is consistent with Scripture as well as refute arguments against that interpretation by experts in the subject matter (i.e., if one argues that a particular Greek word must mean X, one would have to defend that assertion with reference to credentialed Greek scholars).

     I do see your point, but can’t a person argue a false position and make good exegetical defenses for it from the whole of Scripture? If so, then sola scriptura, as you define it, could lead to false beliefs, and there would only be competing interpretations, with no authority to show which one is correct–which would seem to lead to the problem that this article describes: everyone functioning as their own ultimate authority. But if someone can’t argue a false position and make good exegetical defenses for it from the whole of Scripture (not a proposition that most would agree with), then it would necessarily follow (from the great number of competing interpretations of Scripture on many points of doctrine) that either a) Scripture is not at all clear or b) Scripture is clear, but we–because of biases, cultural background, presuppositions, etc.–can barely interpret it rightly. Either way, we would have a hard time knowing if we are interpreting Scripture rightly. It could be said–rightly–that a careful study of Scripture will mostly yield right doctrines, and this is true, but there are indeed some issues in which the opposing sides are both carefully reading Scripture and still coming to different conclusions.

     A case in point would be the Reformed dispute over baptism. Both Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians argue from the whole of Scripture. They give exegeses and counter-exegeses of the relevant passages. Both can make good cases for their position Scripturally. But at the end of the day, one is right and one is wrong. The question is, since both are arguing from Scripture consistently, how is the issue to be resolved? Both sides could–and probably do–think that the other side is not -really- interpreting Scripture consistently, but then this just goes down into a sort of stale-mate, and at the end of the day, the issue is not resolved and the Reformed are still divided over baptism. I’m not asking your opinion on baptism, but in a situation like this, where both sides are actually arguing consistently from Scripture but differ, would you say that both are practicing sola scriptura?

     I should probably also note that I’m undecided on this matter, so I’m chiefly questioning you to learn.

     Thanks, pax Christi.

     Spencer

588. Bryan Cross December 22nd, 2009 3:03 pm :

     retro (re: #585)

     You wrote:

     In the article’s tu-quoque-objection answer, we are basically told that the “principled” difference between the RC and the Protestant is that Protestants start with an interpretation of Scripture, and then seek a church body that aligns with that particular interpretation. Whereas the RC convert simply seeks the church Christ founded, and then submits to all of her infallible interpretations. But I will dare to say this only begs the question. First of all, it implies that there is some area of neutral facts that all people can receive and properly interpret – as if all the history books unanimously agree to the validity of Rome’s succession, primacy and infallibility. We know that isn’t true. There is no such thing as a brute fact.

     If there are no “brute” or “neutral” facts, then the claim “there is no such thing as a brute fact” is just your biased, subjective, worldview-mediated, personal lens-colored, private paradigm-distorted opinion, and there is therefore no reason to believe it to be true.

     All ‘facts’ are interpreted facts.

     Again, that’s just your self-interpreted, privately-mediated, non-neutral biased opinion, so there’s no reason to take it seriously as referring to objective reality, or being objectively true.

     By what standard of evidence can I conclude which version of history is correct?

     Until you get your epistemology squared away, you will be unable to answer this question without reasoning in a circle. Paradoxically, you haven’t reserved that same skepticism for your epistemology, because you have embraced as objectively true the non-existence of “brute facts”.

     So there’s no point in responding to the second half of your comment, until you give up the post-Kantian skepticism you now confidently (and contradictorily) hold to be objectively true.

     Grace builds on nature. So errors at the level of philosophy (including epistemology) lead to errors in sacred theology. So there is no point in trying to reason about sacred theology, until we first agree about the truth at the level of nature, i.e. in this case, epistemology.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

589. Bryan Cross December 22nd, 2009 4:29 pm :

     lojahw,

     There are a few questions I have asked you, that you have not answered. First, in #537 you wrote:

     sola scriptura recognizes the subordinate interpretive authority of the Church and its leaders.

     In #541 I replied by asking:

     Who, presently, are the “leaders” of “the Church”? What are their names?

     You have not yet provided those names.

     Second, in #495 I wrote:

     Whose interpretation of Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture is authoritative? (And if you answer “Scripture”, then the follow-up question will be “Whose interpretation of Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture is authoritative?”, and you’ll have an infinite regress on your hands.)

     In #540 you replied:

     Another way of answering your question is to answer this one: “How can one know which interpretations of Scripture are NOT authoritative?” The answer is: if the interpretation is inconsistent with Scripture.

     In #542 I replied by showing that your reply did not actually answer my question, but only pushed back the question. Hence I wrote:

     Second, your reply doesn’t answer my question. My question is this: “Whose interpretation of Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture is authoritative?” Telling me that interpretations which are inconsistent with Scripture are not authoritative gives me a ‘what’ answer when I asked a ‘who’ question. It also give me a negative answer (i.e. x interpretations are not authoritative) when I had asked a positive question (“Whose interpretation of Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture is authoritative?”). So in both ways your reply does not answer my question.

     Third, your reply only pushes back the question. You claim that an interpretation is not authoritative if it is inconsistent with Scripture. But that pushes the question back: “Inconsistent with whose interpretation of Scripture?”

     In #545 you responded:

     To your question, “Whose interpretion of Scripture’s interpretation is authoritative,” the answer is Christ and the Apostles.

     In #547, I responded:

     This simply pushes back the question: Whose determination of what is Christ and the Apostles’ interpretation of Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture, is authoritative?

     In #549 you answered:

     Your question assumes that either there is an infallible authority by which all interpretations of Scripture can be known to be true or false, or that one cannot know which interpretations of Scripture are true or false.

     In fact, my question assumes no such thing. My question asks “Whose determination of what is Christ and the Apostles’ interpretation of Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture is authoritative?” It does not ask “Whose determination of what is Christ and the Apostles’ interpretation of Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture is infallible.” If you think that all interpretive authority is ipso facto fallible, then you’ll have to retract your original claim in #537 that “sola scriptura recognizes the subordinate interpretive authority of the Church and its leaders”, or else you’ll need to claim that your Church’s leaders (whom you have not yet named) are infallible. I assume you wish to do neither. Therefore, now that we are agreed that interpretive authority does not need to be infallible in order to be an interpretive authority, we can agree that my question (asked in #547) does not assume that anyone is infallible.

     But, that still leaves my question in #547 unanswered: “Whose determination of what is Christ and the Apostles’ interpretation of Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture, is authoritative?”

     So those are the two questions I am asking you. What are the names of the present leaders of the Church? And, whose determination of what is Christ and the Apostles’ interpretation of Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture, is authoritative?

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

590. Bryan Cross December 22nd, 2009 5:01 pm :

     TurretinFan (re: #552)

     In #533 you wrote:

     However, as I’ve pointed out above, the place where you (per #494) find absence of principled distinction is not among the holders of those views, but among folks who don’t hold those views.

     In #536 I replied:

     Could you point me to the place in our article where we claimed to find a person holding a view that he or she didn’t actually hold? Thanks.

     Then in #552 you replied:

     I’m not sure what this request has to do with my comment. My comment is about the fact that (per #494) the alleged presence of distinction between sola/solo and apostolic succession is a distinction between people who don’t yet hold either view. That doesn’t mean you claimed to find a person holding a view he doesn’t hold. I hadn’t expressed an opinion about that (as far as I recall). Do you agree or disagree that the implication of #494 is what I’ve stated? If you agree, I have a further question, but if you don’t agree, I’d like to know why.

     Notice that in #533 you claimed that we found absence of a principled distinction in a “place”, i.e. “among folks who don’t hold those views”. In fact, we never claimed to find an absence of principled distinction in a place, or between persons, but between two theological positions, i.e. the position referred to as ‘sola scriptura’, and the position referred to as ‘solo scriptura’, as defined by Mathison. Because you claimed that we had found absence of principled distinction in a place (i.e. “among folks who don’t hold these views”), I asked you (in #536) to point to the place in our article where we made such a claim. You reply (in #552) seemingly confused, not sure what my request has to do with your comment. Here’s what it has to do with your comment: If you claim that we claim something in our article, then you need to be prepared to show where in the article we make that claim. It is as simple as that. You claimed that we found an absence in a place (i.e. “among folks who don’t hold these views”). We never made such a claim. So, your claim (in #533) is not true.

     When you write (in #552): “alleged presence of distinction between sola/solo and apostolic succession is a distinction between people who don’t yet hold either view” you show the same misunderstanding of our thesis. We’re arguing, in our article, that there is no principled distinction between two positions, not between two sets of persons, and not in a place.

     In #535 I wrote:

     The soundness of our argument does not depend on conclusion (1o) being unique. So, showing our conclusion to be non-unique does not refute the argument.

     In #552 you replied:

     You (and Tim Troutman) have made this statement or one like it a number of times. I’m not sure why you think this is significant.

     I make statements because I think they are true, regardless of their “significance.” A statement cannot be significant if it isn’t true. And it is true that the soundness of an argument does not depend on its conclusion being unique. That’s why an argument is not refuted by showing that another argument has the same conclusion. So, if you have shown that another argument has the same conclusion as our argument, you have not thereby shown the conclusion of our argument to be false.

     You wrote:

     Assume for the sake of discussion that your argument is sound and valid, but that your argument is completely irrelevant to the Roman Catholic/ Reformed dialog (and, indeed, irrelevant to any call for folks to change communions). Can you see why that would matter to almost everyone who plans to spend the time necessary to read the article?

     Yes, of course. But that would not be a criticism of our argument itself, but a criticism of its relevance or applicability. That would require (from you) the construction of another argument, having as its conclusion something like “The truth of the conclusion of Neal and Bryan’s argument is irrelevant to Catholic / Reformed dialogue.”

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

591. Bryan Cross December 22nd, 2009 7:56 pm :

     lojahw,

     In #540 you claimed:

     Because a solo scriptura person is free to make personal claims based on isolated texts, disregard the broader teaching of Scripture on any given point, and/or make any argument that he wants as long as he can find someone else who will agree with him.

     In #542 I replied:

     Given that solo scriptura means that Scripture is the only authority, why is the person holding solo scriptura “free to make person claims based on isolated texts, disregard the broader teaching of Scripture on any given point, and/or make any argument that he wants as long as he can find someone else who will agree with him”, if the sola scriptura person is not free to do those things?

     In #545 you replied:

     I explained the difference, Bryan: the sola scriptura person is contrained by the whole of Scripture, and therefore not at liberty to “disregard the broader teaching of Scripture on any given point.” To do such is to disregard the principles of sola scriptura, just as one who chooses to disobey traffic laws. The one who practices solo scriptura is, in effect, practicing lawlessness.

     In #547 I replied:

     There is a difference between an assertion and an explanation. You have merely asserted that the person holding sola scriptura is constrained by the whole of Scripture, and that the person holding solo scriptura is not so constrained. But you have not explained why the one is so constrained and the other is not.

     In #549 you replied:

     You are ignoring the obvious, Bryan. Your question is like asking why a church organist playing Bach is constrained to play the notes on the page instead of using the score as an occasional reference. Sola Scriptura is a discipline: those who disregard the rules of the discipline simply do not practice Sola Scriptura.

     No, my question is not like that at all. A person “playing Bach” is, by the very meaning of the words ‘playing Bach’ following Bach’s score. Whereas a person who is just messing around on the organ would, by the very meaning of the words ‘messing around’ not be constrained to follow Bach’s score. But nothing about the definitions of sola scriptura and solo scriptura constrains the former to follow the whole of Scripture but does not constrain the latter to the whole of Scripture. Therefore, your assertion that the former is so constrained and the latter is not, is an ad hoc assertion.

     In order avoid this problem, you need to show why, given the definitions of ‘sola scriptura‘ and ‘solo scriptura’ provided toward the beginning of the article, the person holding sola scriptura is constrained by the whole of Scripture, while the person holding solo scriptura is not thus constrained.

     In #565 you make the same mistake. There you wrote:

     Self is subordinate to the totality of Scripture in sola scriptura, self rules over personally selected proof-texts from Scripture in solo scriptura. The person who practices sola scriptura is constrained to be consistent with all Scripture, the solo scriptura person exempts himself from this principle of sola scriptura. The former interprets Scripture responsibly, the latter does not.

     Here again you are making an ad hoc assertion that under sola scriptura the self is subordinate to the totality of Scripture, while under solo scriptura the self is not subordinate to the totality of Scripture. Nothing about these positions, according to the definitions given by Mathison and stated toward the beginning of our article, entails the distinction in your assertion. And this is why your assertion is ad hoc.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

592. Bryan Cross December 22nd, 2009 8:17 pm :

     lojahw (re: #573),

     You wrote:

     The article assumes that if a person finds anyone else who agrees with his own interpretation on a particular point, whatever that might be, that such a person is practicing sola scriptura.

     Actually, neither our article nor our argument makes this assumption.

     Then you wrote:

     This is why we speak of the perspicuity of the Scriptures regarding the essentials of salvation

     What are those essentials? Please list them out, without omitting a single one. (Since they are each essential for salvation, then surely you must know and believe them all.)

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

593. retro satana December 23rd, 2009 12:18 am :

     Bryan, perhaps we should define “brute facts.” I’d define a brute fact as “that which corresponds to reality, known for what it is, as it is, without the need of interpretation.” Do you agree or disagree with this definition? In the context of my comment I assumed it was clear that I was talking about the way in which we receive information and interpret data. This is why we’re dealing with epistemology (“how do we know what we know?”) I do believe in objective truth but only because I believe in God and that he knows the proper interpretation of all data and events. It’s his interpretation (objective truth) that we are to seek. However, when it comes to individuals seeking that truth, to simply say, “You just find the church Jesus founded by looking to history, bro” doesn’t cut it. Facts to our fallible minds only make sense in the context of other facts, which are subject to each person’s understanding and private interpretation of any given data. No one is an unbiased observer. This is why I said there were no brute facts, meaning there is no neutral perspective that any person can take when trying to understand the world around them. You’re either for the Truth or against the Truth, there’s no middle ground. It’s precisely because observations require interpretations that facts and faith go hand in hand. No matter the worldview, no matter the belief, inductive and deductive reasoning alike will always require a measure of faith when it comes down to it. But, of course, I’m making factual claims and so are you. Our claims are in opposition to one another. Can you please give an example of a brute fact that we can know as true without the need of interpretation? You don’t believe the Scriptures teach brute facts, because you admit they need to be interpreted. Which facts in the world are “brute”?

     To disregard my epistemology as “subjective-non-brute-fact-skepticism” does not follow. To realize that all worldviews must rely on a measure of faith is not skepticism. This is how God made us. To realize that all worldviews must argue in a circle inevitably is not skepticism or “blind/irrational” faith. There’s no way around it. If I ask a rationalist why he uses reason to discover truth, he’ll appeal to reason. If I ask an empiricist why he uses sense experience, he’ll appeal to sense experience! In light of your accusation I find it ironic that my RC friends are the ones who have admitted to taking “Kierkegaardian leaps of faith”. It sounds like you are placing a false dichotomy between faith and reason. They are not opposed to one another. Faith provides the basis for rationality. Do you deny that you had to have a measure of faith in concluding Rome was the true church? Or was that a brute fact that had nothing to do with faith?

     There’s no contradiction in believing “there are no brute facts” as objectively true because I believe it’s a revelational fact revealed by the HS through the Scriptures, not a brute/neutral fact. You’d rightly point out a contradiction if I said, “it’s a brute fact that there are no brute facts.” But that’s not what I’ve said.

594. Bryan Cross December 23rd, 2009 12:41 am :

     retro, (#593)

     Your question is an epistemic one, and it belongs on the fideism thread. I’ll reply there.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

595. retro satana December 23rd, 2009 1:10 am :

     Bryan,
     My posts were actually in response to your tu-quoque rebuttals, just so everyone knows I’m not changing topic. I was pointing out the holes in part V, article A above. You disagree with my method, so you say we cannot discuss it on this thread. If debating methods of interpretation or epistemology is necessary to this debate, I don’t see why it should be restricted on this thread. But, it’s your website and I respect your rules. Just so long as we can return to my response after we’ve dealt with the epistemic issue. See you over there. Blessings!

596. Bryan Cross December 23rd, 2009 2:50 am :

     TurretinFan,

     In our article, we included the following paragraph:

     This objection conflates two senses of the term ‘final.’ ‘Final’ can mean the terminus of a movement or of a series of movements, as an airplane has a final destination, the terminus of a series of flights for the day. ‘Final’ can also mean the terminus in an order or hierarchy, as the Commander in Chief is for the military. In a communication, the individual receiving that communication is, by definition, the terminus of the movement whereby knowledge is transmitted. He is, in that sense, the final interpreter. But he is not thereby the final interpretive authority in the sense of a terminus in an order or hierarchy. He may be the terminus of the motion of the communication, while remaining subordinate in the order of interpretive authority. The exercise of interpretive authority by the Magisterium, say, at an ecumenical council, does not prevent believers from interpreting Scripture or any other communication. Nor does it withhold from them the skill by which to interpret Sacred Scripture. On the contrary, the exercise of this teaching and interpretive authority provides a supernatural light by which the believer ought to interpret Scripture. We ignore or disregard that interpretive authority at our peril, because it is God-given authority, for our good.

     In response you wrote “four rebuttals” on your own blog. I’ll respond to them here. You wrote:

     1) In sola scriptura and Mathison’s position, the individual is only the “final” interpreter in the sense of communication. Scripture itself is the final authority for the sola scriptura position and scripture plus the ecumenical creeds (in essence) is for Mathison. Even in solo scriptura, it is not necessarily the case that the individual grants himself any authority over the text (though it appears that Mathison thinks this does happen in solo scriptura). So to the extent that Bryan’s escape from lack of principled distinction works for the RC position, it proves too much, in that it undermines premises 2, 7, and 9.

     I don’t know for sure what your last sentence means, because I’m not escaping from a lack of anything. You seem to be saying in this paragraph that sola scriptura (according to your definition) is a position in which only Scripture has interpretive authority. If you are claiming that the only interpretive authority is Scripture itself, then you seem to be implying that the Church (however you define ‘Church’) has no interpretive authority. Do you hold that the Church (as you define ‘Church’) has no interpretive authority? That would seem to reduce sola scriptura to solo scriptura. How then is your position different from solo scriptura?

     In addition, since Scripture needs to be interpreted (otherwise you would never say “Scripture interprets Scripture), then the Scripture that interprets Scripture needs to be interpreted. This pushes back the question: Who holds interpretive authority in the determination of Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture? Someone must determine which verses are clearer than others, and which verses serve as the touchstone by which to interpret the others. If your answer is ‘Scripture”, then this just pushes the question back again: Who holds interpretive authority in the determination of Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture? This leads to a regress problem. If there were something in Scripture itself that prevented the regress, then all truth-loving and adequately intelligent persons who come to Scripture would all arrive at all the same conclusions regarding its interpretation. But obviously they do not. Hence, Scripture does not provide its own self-evident hermeneutical foundation that by necessary inferences closes off all false interpretive alternatives, leaving only the one correct interpretation of Scripture. So, without such a hermeneutical foundation, the position (that Scripture alone has interpretive authority) is left with the regress problem. There are only two ways to avoid this regress. Either deny that Scripture needs to be interpreted, and thus abandon the claim that Scripture interprets Scripture, or locate a regress-stopping point in human persons holding interpretive authority.

     Denying that Scripture needs to be interpreted at all, is sufficiently naive and self-evidently false so as to be self-refuting. What about the human alternative? You might think that if human beings have interpretive authority that would not avoid the regress problem. But it does. That’s because there is a relevant ontological difference between a person and a book. As we explained in our article:

     The problem with this dilemma is that it ignores the qualitative ontological distinction between persons and books, and so it falsely assumes that if a book needs an authoritative interpreter in order to function as an ecclesial authority, so must a living person. A book contains a monologue with respect to the reader. An author can often anticipate the thoughts and questions that might arise in the mind of the reader. But a book cannot hear the reader’s questions here and now, and answer them. A living person, however, can do so. A living person can engage in genuine dialogue with the reader, whereas a book cannot. Fr. Kimel talks about that here when he quotes Chesterton as saying that though we can put a living person in the dock, we cannot put a book in the dock. In this respect, a person can do what a book cannot; a person can correct global misunderstandings and answer comprehensive interpretive questions. A book by its very nature has a limited intrinsic potency for interpretive self-clarification; a person, on the other hand, by his very nature has, in principle, an unlimited intrinsic potency with respect to interpretive self-clarification. This unlimited potency with respect to interpretive self-clarification ensures that the hermeneutical spiral may reach its end. A book cannot speak more about itself than it does at the moment at which it is completed. A person, by contrast, remains perpetually capable of clarifying further any of his previous speech-acts.

     If the possession of interpretive authority by persons did not avoid the regress problem, then this problem would continue in heaven, since we would need an interpretive authority to interpret the interpretive authority, etc. etc. But that’s obviously false. So the possession by persons of interpretive authority does avoid the regress problem. In short, some humans having interpretive authority is the only real option.

     Next you wrote:

     2) Mathison explicitly selects the ecumenical creeds as his extrinsic grid to which he submits. That’s the same as Bryan’s example. If submitting to the outcome of an ecumenical council liberates you from matching the solo position, Mathison is liberated in the exact same way.

     The statement “That’s the same as Bryan’s example” is false. Picking some Creed or confession (e.g. the Westminster Confession of Faith) as one’s “extrinsic grid” isn’t the same thing as locating in the first century the Church that Christ founded, and tracing it forward to the present, and then submitting to it. The person who draws from the Scripture to identify the first-century stage of the Church, and then traces the Church forward through history from the time of Christ is doing something altogether different from the person who uses Scripture (and perhaps an ad hoc assortment of selections from tradition) to derive a general theology, against which he compares the existing theologies of all the competing sects, and judges the sect(s) whose doctrine most closely matches his general theology to be ‘the Church’.

     The latter use treats the faith as something entirely formal, and hence not as requiring organic continuity with Christ and the Apostles. And that’s why it is gnostic, because it de-materializes the faith, making it quite entirely reducible to propositions, something you can carry around in a book, or on a flash drive. And propositions (like mathematical truths) have no organic history; they are timeless and spaceless, without matter, without flesh, without action, motion, love or life. If you were the last person to know them, you could bury them in a time capsule, and a society could discover them ten thousand years from now, and carry on ‘the faith’. That’s why a gnostic faith is a dead faith, because it is constituted by mere abstractions.

     But the former use treats the faith as something organic, living, uninterruptible, and necessarily contiguous, not an abstract set of propositions, but a divine Person indwelling a human society. The only way to find the word of that Person is to find it in that society. But the other approach treats the abstract words as the formal and sufficient identifier of the Church, and hence in that approach the Church need have no history at all; it need only be conformed to one’s own interpretation of Scripture.

     A conception of the Christian faith that treats it as something essentially *formal* (i.e. a message, a set of truths, fundamentally a body of doctrines to be known) is, by that very fact, gnostic (not necessarily in the matter-is-evil sense, but at least in the devoid-of-matter sense), and not organic. That’s because anything that is purely formal, by its very nature need have no organic and uninterrupted relation to the early Church. A set of propositions could [in theory] have been buried in the ground for the last two-thousand years, and we could rediscover it, and then carry on ‘the faith’ of the Apostles.

     But if the faith is more than a set of propositions, and necessarily includes the divine life of the incarnate Son, and the mission and authority He gave to His Apostles, then the faith has to be related to the early Church by a continuous and organic relation, and couldn’t (in theory) have been reduced to a book and buried in the ground for any number of years.

     Next you wrote:

     3) The key weakness (and perhaps I ought to have placed it first, so bored readers would find it) to Bryan’s response is that he is comparing the whole governing authority of the solo person to a part of the governing authority of the RC person. In other words, where he ought to compare (Scripture, Oral Tradition, and the Magisterium) to (Scripture) he compares (Scripture, Oral Tradition, and the Magisterium) to (Scripture), hiding the Oral Tradition and Magisterium from consideration. In the process, Bryan himself conflates the finality of communication with the finality of authority, as noted above. The true comparison would be that for the solo person the Scriptures are the final authority, whereas for the RC person (per Bryan) the final authority is the Magisterium.

     In our article Neal and I did not “hide” the oral Tradition or the Magisterium. The ‘governing’ authority for a Catholic cannot be divided into parts, except by abstraction. Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium all inseparably function together as our unified governing authority. Nor did we conflate “the finality of communication with the finality of authority.” We in fact distinguished them, as the quotation at the top of this comment shows. To claim that for a Catholic “final authority is the Magisterium” [and not also the Tradition and Scripture], would be to set up a straw man.

     Lastly you wrote:

     4) Does Bryan really mean to say that the Magisterium is above Scripture in a military-like hierarchy? Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 86 states:
     “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.” (Quoting from Dei Verbum, Section 10, paragraph 2) Interestingly, Bryan’s analogy is the usual Reformed criticism of the RC position, whereas CCC 86 is the usual response by Roman Catholic proselytizers and apologists.

     We did not claim that the Magisterium is above Scripture. But your suggestion (in the form of a question) that we did so, is an example of sophistry. The better approach for fruitful rational dialogue is not to read into one’s interlocutor’s statements something that he did not say, and then criticize him for saying what he did not in fact say. The better approach, in such cases, is to ask him. The point is not to score crowd-points, but to arrive at the truth together. Sophistry does the former, but genuine rational dialogue does the latter.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

597. lojahw December 23rd, 2009 7:16 pm :

     Bryan,

     Your objections to my posts seem to be based on what Mathison explicitly claims about sola scriptura vs. what is implicitly entailed in his claims. My comments about “the whole of Scripture” are implicitly entailed in Mathison’s statement that Scripture is the final authoritative norm of doctrine and practice. In other words, the norm is not based on any particular arbitrary subset of the norm, but on the whole. Therefore, my statement that “Self is subordinate to the totality of Scripture in sola scriptura is not ad hoc, but a recognition that Scripture itself is the norm.

     Blessings.

598. Bryan Cross December 23rd, 2009 7:33 pm :

     lojahw, (re: #597)

     Nothing about solo scriptura, as defined by Mathison, implies that according to solo scriptura, Scripture is not the final authoritative norm of doctrine and practice. Likewise, nothing about solo scriptura, as defined by Mathison, implies that anything less than the whole of Scripture is the norm of doctrine and practice. Hence your claim that according to sola scriptura the individual is constrained by the whole of Scripture, while according to solo scriptura the individual is not constrained by the whole Scripture, is ad hoc.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

599. lojahw December 23rd, 2009 7:46 pm :

     Spencer wrote:

     can’t a person argue a false position and make good exegetical defenses for it from the whole of Scripture?

     To answer your question, one must recognize that Scripture is clear about some things and not clear about others (cf. 2 Pet. 3:15). Hence, I agree with you:

     there are indeed some issues in which the opposing sides are both carefully reading Scripture and still coming to different conclusions

     What one must then ask is: are the issues in which opposing sides are both carefully reading Scripture essential to salvation? Sola scriptura adherents answer “no,” assuming that proper exegetical disciplines are exercised by both sides. You mention a good example of such an issue: the significance of baptism.

     Reformed Presbyterians emphasize the covenantal significance of baptism, whereby one is recognized (in lieu of circumcision) as a member of the covenantal community of faith, whereas Baptists emphasize the experiential significance of baptism as a sign and testimony of the individual’s new spiritual birth. There is indeed Scriptural support for both positions, so perhaps conflicts over the two represent a false dilemma. Why cannot baptism be viewed as both/and instead of either/or?

     Such an “in-house” debate, however, does not make one side or the other unfaithful to an essential of salvation: both observe what Jesus commanded the disciples. Both groups faithfully baptize their members.

     I hope this is helpful.

     Blessings.

600. lojahw December 23rd, 2009 7:51 pm :

     Bryan,

     Can you give me an example where solo scriptura has NOT exhibited the characteristics I have mentioned?

     Blessings.

601. lojahw December 23rd, 2009 8:14 pm :

     Bryan wrote:

     If you think that all interpretive authority is ipso facto fallible, then you’ll have to retract your original claim in #537 that “sola scriptura recognizes the subordinate interpretive authority of the Church and its leaders or else you’ll need to claim that your Church’s leaders (whom you have not yet named) are infallible”

     The above is a false dilemma, Bryan. A fallible authority can indeed be a subordinate interpretive authority under an infallible norm – being subject to correction by Scripture, as Paul claimed in 2 Tim. 3:16-17.

     So, yes, we agree that an interpretive authority does not have to be infallible.

     “Whose determination of what is Christ and the Apostles’ interpretation of Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture, is authoritative?”

     Scripture teaches that qualified presbyteroi/episkopoi have authority over those under their spiritual charge (cf. 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Heb. 13:17). This authority, however, does not extend beyond the teaching of Chirst (2 John 9) nor does it apply to those who teach a different gospel than that which the Apostles taught (Gal. 1:8-9).

     Blessings.

602. Bryan Cross December 23rd, 2009 8:36 pm :

     lojahw, (re: #600)

     Positions and practices are two different things. Practices can be (or not be) consistent with positions, to varying degrees. The definitions given by Mathison are of positions. And the argument in our article is about those positions, and thus only derivatively about the practices corresponding to those positions.

     As for an example, pretty much everyone in the Pentecostal tradition in which I was raised would fall under Mathison’s definition of solo scriptura. No one believed that the Church (as Pentecostals define ‘Church’) had authority, because we all had the Spirit. Persons who disagreed with the pastor just went to a different Pentecostal ‘church’, or started their own ‘house church.’ But we all believed that we were constrained by the whole of the Bible.

     There are still two questions I’m waiting for you to answer: the second question at the end of #589, and the question at the end of #592.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

603. Bryan Cross December 23rd, 2009 8:41 pm :

     lojahw (re: #601)

     You wrote:

     The above is a false dilemma, Bryan.

     Yep. My mistake. I mistyped a word in #589. It should have read as follows:

     If you think that all interpretive authority is ipso facto infallible, then you’ll have to retract your original claim in #537 that “sola scriptura recognizes the subordinate interpretive authority of the Church and its leaders”, or else you’ll need to claim that your Church’s leaders (whom you have not yet named) are infallible.

     Sorry!

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

604. lojahw December 24th, 2009 7:58 am :

     Bryan,

     It sounds like you have described a principled difference between solo scriptura as found among Pentecostals and sola scriptura. You say that Pentecostals do NOT recognize any interpretive authority of church leaders, whereas Mathison and I agree that church leaders have such authority, albeit subordinate to Scripture, undersola scriptura. In my only experience with Pentecostals, the church had elders who were recognized as having such authority and members were accountable to them.

     I can only see some of the post numbers – could you repeat your question in 589?

     Regarding your question in 592, please refer to my post #268.

     Now that is Christmas Eve, I would like to wish all a blessed Christmas. (I’ll check in again after Christmas.)

     Blessings.

605. T Ciatoris December 24th, 2009 4:31 pm :

     Dear lojahw,

     Many moons ago (or so it seems) you wrote (#581):
     

     You want to engage me in a controversy over some supposed Sola Scriptura interpretation on unspecified essentials that would cause me to switch Churches. Can you give me an example?

     Well, the point at issue was whether or not you’d logically refuted the article’s claims, not whether we could point to concrete examples of the equivalence of solo scriptura and sola scriptura.

     But still, yes, I’ll give you several examples: the full coequality and coeternity of the Son and the Spirit with the Father; their subsistence as separate hypostases from the Father; justification by faith; sacred images; the nature of the Church; the nature and effects of baptism; the nature and effects of the Eucharist.

     These are the giants I’m tilting at. Unfortunately, I’m under no illusion that this is going to get us anywhere. You’ll turn each of these giants into windmills by making use of two tactics. One tactic is to deny that the issue is “essential,” as you’ve done already with regard to the nature and effects of baptism. The second is to gerrymander your definition of “solo scriptura” so as to exclude those who claim to adhere to sola scriptura but disagree with you on a point you consider essential.* Thus you can pretend that there is a broad consensus on essentials among practitioners of sola scriptura, because you’ve defined away any potential deficiencies in the consensus.

     The fact that you can employ these two tactics rhetorically to transform the “giants” I’ve mentioned into “windmills” helps me understand why my claim that you’re tilting at windmills (which I do think you are doing) appears to you like the pot calling the kettle “black.”

     As to your wish for a blessed Christmas, I wholeheartedly concur!

     TC
     1 Cor 16:14

     * In order to “prove” to you that heresies such as Arianism and Modalism are potentially consistent with sola scriptura, understood as the formal sufficiency of Scripture, I’d have to actually perform such reading in their entirety. That’s not a reasonable thing for me to try to do in a combox. But I do think it can be done, and I think it has been done in the past. I know you’ll simply say, “No, it can’t.” If anybody knows of a way for lojahw and me out of this impasse, I’d be grateful to learn of it.

606. Bryan Cross December 26th, 2009 1:07 am :

     lojahw (re: #604)

     I couldn’t find the list of essentials in your comment #268. I’m looking for the precise number (not one more or one less), of those “essentials of salvation”, as you called them, and see them listed out. (You said there that the list is short, but you didn’t provide the list.) So that’s one question that’s still unanswered.

     In #537 you wrote:

     sola scriptura recognizes the subordinate interpretive authority of the Church and its leaders.

     So in #541 (and again in #589) I asked:

     Who, presently, are the “leaders” of “the Church”? What are their names?

     That is my other unanswered question.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

607. lojahw December 26th, 2009 1:41 pm :

     Bryan,

     It is ironic that you press me for a definitive list of essentials and a list of whom I consider to be church leaders when you have failed to answer my oft repeated question:

     why is it “absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff”? (Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam, fourteenth century)

     If this were “absolutely necessary” for salvation, why was this “essential” never articulated by the Apostles or by anyone in authority in the Church for over a thousand years? Your vague comments about the relationship of the keys of the kingdom and soteriology fail to show how this statement “abides in the teaching of Christ” and does not “go forward” from it (2 John 1:9). How does the teaching of Christ even remotely resemble Boniface’s declaration?

     “The one who comes to Me [Jesus] I will certainly not cast out. . . . For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day. . . . Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.” (John 6:37, 40, 47)

     And, “”My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” (John 10:27-29)

     How can anyone (including the Roman Pontiff) come between Jesus and one who believes in Him? According to the Apostle whom Jesus loved, all Christians should shun Boniface because he has “gone forward and not remained in the teaching of Christ” (cf. 2 John 1:9-11).

     For a succinct statement of the essentials of salvation, how about:

     John 3:36, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

     As for church leaders, I recognize Jesus, the Apostles and writers of Scripture, the same early church fathers that you recognize, and a number of others, such as John Stott and J. I. Packer. These should be sufficient as interpretive authorities subject to the ultimate authority of Scripture as the norm of doctrine and practice.

     Blessings.

608. lojahw December 26th, 2009 1:43 pm :

     Bryan wrote:

     Positions and practices are two different things. Practices can be (or not be) consistent with positions, to varying degrees. The definitions given by Mathison are of positions. And the argument in our article is about those positions, and thus only derivatively about the practices corresponding to those positions.

     Yet, the crux of the article’s argument that there is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura is based on practice:

     “The indirect way of making oneself one’s own ultimate interpretive and magisterial authority is more complicated and subtle. In this case the individual, based upon his own interpretation of Scripture, either establishes or chooses an ecclesial community that conforms to his own interpretation in matters he considers to be essential or important. Then, he ’submits’ to this institution so long as it continues to speak and act in accordance with his own interpretation of Scripture. If it deviates from his own interpretation of Scripture in matters he deems important, he repeats the process of either establishing or choosing an institution or congregation that conforms to his own interpretation in matters he considers to be essential or important.”

     The article therefore argues from practice rather than the positions stated by Mathison:

     1) Scripture is the sole source of revelation; 2) Scripture is the final authoritative norm of doctrine and practice; 3) Scripture is to be interpreted in and by the church; 4) it is to be interpreted according to the regula fidei.

     Further, in order for Scripture to be the final authoritative norm of doctrine and practice, all interpretations must be subject to the entirety of Scripture. However, the article suggests that individuals appeal to their own interpretations of Scripture – which can be empirically shown to be based on isolated proof-texts and poor exegesis. Thus, the thesis of the article is not supported by the positions stated by Mathison.

     Blessings.

609. lojahw December 26th, 2009 1:55 pm :

     TC,

     I concur that you have listed some “giants” and I agree that 1) discussion of them is beyond the scope of this combox; and 2) it is unlikely that you and I will see eye to eye on the sufficiency of Scripture to resolve the issues. Perhaps, however, you have some thoughts on my latest post about positions and practice. I don’t believe the thesis of the article has been sufficiently defended.

     Blessings.

610. Bryan Cross December 26th, 2009 2:46 pm :

     lojahw,

     In #607 you wrote:

     For a succinct statement of the essentials of salvation, how about:

     John 3:36, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

     So are you saying that there is only one essential: believing in the Son? If so, that would entail that Arians, Pelagians, and Nestorians are not heretics. And, since Catholics also believe in the Son, this would entail that the Protestant separation from the Catholic Church in the 16th century was unjustified, since Protestants were dividing from the Church over non-essentials.

     You continued:

     As for church leaders, I recognize Jesus, the Apostles and writers of Scripture, the same early church fathers that you recognize, and a number of others, such as John Stott and J. I. Packer.

     I assumed you understood that I was asking only about presently visible church leaders, not persons already in heaven. On what basis (other than that you agree with their interpretation of Scripture) are Stott and Packer “church leaders”?

     Regarding Unam Sanctum, I already answered that question #213 and #542.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

611. Bryan Cross December 26th, 2009 4:21 pm :

     lojahw, (re: #608)

     You are claiming that the “crux” of our argument is based on practice rather than on the position stated by Mathison.

     There is a difference between practice that is accidental to a position, and practice that is essential to a position. The practice of ‘finding the Church’ [without apostolic succession] in the indirect way [we described] is essential to sola scriptura, for the reasons we explained — there is no other way (given the denial of apostolic succession) of locating ‘the Church’. But the practice of not embracing the whole of Scripture is not essential to solo scriptura (as defined by Mathison), but is only accidental to it. We are not basing our argument on some accident or contingency, but on what is essential to sola scriptura.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

612. lojahw December 27th, 2009 11:46 am :

     Bryan,

     I would appreciate an answer to my long-standing question of your pope’s interpretive authority as represented in Unam sanctam.

     Believing in Jesus and obeying Him entails all that He taught, including the revelation He attributed to the Holy Spirit throughout the Scriptures. Heresies don’t fit.

     I beg to differ on the extent of Mathison’s “final authoritative norm of doctrine and practice.” It is NOT accidental that the Word of God encompasses the WHOLE of the Bible. (You wouldn’t accept mere portions of any other literary work to authoritatively represent the whole.) Furthermore, the practice of finding a church according to sola scriptura entails submission to the “final authoritative norm of doctrine and practice,” the whole of Scripture.

     Your insistence on asking about only church leaders now living is inconsistent with your own position which requires recognition of all leaders going back to the apostles. As I stated in earlier posts, I am an Anglican: John Stott and J. I. Packer are Anglican leaders. And just as in days of the Apostles, the collegial leadership of the Church continues and is not bounded by affiliations within the global Body of Christ; I even recognize Benedict XVI as a Church leader, but not as an ultimate authority. And yes, I have a local pastor, but his name would mean nothing to you. What is your point?

     Blessings.

613. Bryan Cross December 27th, 2009 2:30 pm :

     lojahw (re:#612),

     Your reply doesn’t show me what you think are the essentials of salvation. Here’s a very simple way of putting the question: How many essentials are there? Just one, or more than one?

     Regarding the present (visible) leaders of the Church, my asking a question about the identity of presently visible Church leaders is not inconsistent with recognizing all Church leaders going back to the Apostles. I understand that you are Anglican. My question is this: On what basis (other than that you agree with their interpretation of Scripture) are Stott and Packer “church leaders”? You haven’t answered that question.

     Imagine that someone says to me, “As for present leaders of the Church, I recognize Todd Bentley and Benny Hinn.” Then I say to him “On what basis (other than that you agree with their interpretation of Scripture) are Bentley and Benny Hinn “church leaders”? He replies, “I am charismatic; Bentley and Hinn are charismatic leaders”. At that point I would say, “I understand that you are charismatic. But telling me that you are charismatic, and that Bentley and Hinn are leaders of the charismatic movement, doesn’t explain the basis for their leadership, other than that you (and people who interpret Scripture like you) agree with their interpretation of Scripture.”

     So likewise, when you tell me that Stott and Packer are present leaders of the Church, having interpretive authority, my reply is quite the same. I understand that you are Anglican. But telling me that you are Anglican, and that Stott and Packer are Anglican leaders doesn’t explain the basis or ground for their leadership, other than that you (and people who interpret Scripture like you) agree with their interpretation of Scripture. You seem to be exemplifying precisely what we wrote about in the article, i.e. the indirect way of acting as one’s own ultimate interpretive authority, by identifying as “church leaders” those who share one’s own interpretation of Scripture.

     As for your “long-standing” question about Unam Sanctum, what, exactly, is your question?

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

614. lojahw December 27th, 2009 5:29 pm :

     Bryan,

     Your responses in #213 and #542 are simply weak arguments from silence (as I said previously). Such responses fail to explain how Unam sanctam, after over a thousand years of bishops and Ecumenical Councils, suddenly declared it “absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” If this really were “absolutely necessary,” it would have been taught in the creeds and canon law of the Church, as well as by all “approved” church fathers, from the beginning – but it never was. It thus fails St. Vincent’s criteria of antiquity (which you said you accept). It represents an innovation, an addition, and therefore cannot legitimately be part of the Catholic Faith “which was once for all delivered to the saints.”

     I have identified a number of essentials in an attempt to find common ground, with which you neither agreed or disagreed that they are essential. We haven’t made progress on either the “absolutely necessary” condition declared by Boniface VIII or on the essentials I have listed. It is important to deal with old questions before moving on.

     John Stott and J. I. Packer are recognized Church leaders according to the global community of Anglican bishops, clergy, laity, as well as many other Christian Churches. I don’t recognize them simply because I agree with them. In fact I don’t 100% agree with them, but that doesn’t mean I don’t recognize them, or R. C. Sproul, or John McArthur, or Charles Stanley, Henry Nouwen, or Pope Benedict XVI, for that matter, as Church leaders. You seem to be trying to fit me into your mold: that the only reason a Protestant can recognize someone as a Church leader is because he agrees with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. ‘Sorry, but I do not fit your mold.

     Where to from here?

     Blessings.

615. lojahw December 27th, 2009 5:32 pm :

     ‘Sorry about the misspelling of Henri Nouwen. I appreciate his writings as well.

616. Bryan Cross December 27th, 2009 8:27 pm :

     lojahw (re: #614)

     How many essentials of salvation are there? (If you don’t know how many essentials there are, then how do you know you believe them all? And if you don’t know that you believe them all, then how do you know you are saved?)

     You wrote:

     John Stott and J. I. Packer are recognized Church leaders according to the global community of Anglican bishops, clergy, laity, as well as many other Christian Churches. I don’t recognize them simply because I agree with them. In fact I don’t 100% agree with them, but that doesn’t mean I don’t recognize them, or R. C. Sproul, or John McArthur, or Charles Stanley, Henry Nouwen, or Pope Benedict XVI, for that matter, as Church leaders.

     I understand that Stott and Packer are believed by many Anglicans to be church leaders. But I assume that you are not suggesting that merely being believed by many to be a “church leader” is sufficient to make someone a church leader. Bentley and Hinn are believed by many to be “church leaders.” So what I’m asking is the basis or ground for Stott and Packer being “church leaders”, other than that you agree (for the most part) with their interpretation of Scripture. So far, you haven’t provided any other reason for Stott and Packer being “church leaders” except that you mostly agree with their interpretation of Scripture. (If you mostly disagreed with their interpretation of Scripture, you surely wouldn’t count them as “church leaders”.)

     You wrote:

     Your responses in #213 and #542 are simply weak arguments from silence (as I said previously).

     I did not offer any argument from silence in #213 or #542.

     You wrote:

     If this really were “absolutely necessary,” it would have been taught in the creeds and canon law of the Church, as well as by all “approved” church fathers, from the beginning

     The apodosis does not follow from the protasis. Your claim is logically equivalent to saying that if Christ were absolutely necessary for salvation, then He would have been explicitly revealed in the Old Covenant. But clearly that conditional is false. Similarly, an Arian could say that if belief in homoousious were absolutely necessary, it would have been explicitly revealed by the Apostles. Yet it wasn’t. Nevertheless, in AD 325 belief in homoousius did become absolutely necessary. To deny homoousius is to deny the Creed of the Church and ipso facto become a heretic. Does that mean that someone who has never heard of the Creed (or homoouious) cannot be saved? No. So the sense of ‘absolute’ in Unam Sancum has to be understood according to this qualified sense, as what belongs to the deposit of faith according to its latest stage of development, just as homoousious is absolutely necessary to believe.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

617. lojahw December 27th, 2009 11:58 pm :

     Bryan,

     According to Jesus, only a few things are necessary, really only one (Luke 10:42; cf. Matt. 7:21-23). That is: to be His disciple, with all that entails (cf. Matt. 28:19-20; John 1:12-13; John 3:15-36; John 10:27-29; etc.). You want a list? Are you married? Is there an authoritative list of requirements to be a husband – or for any other relationship? To whom much is given, much is required: I do not believe there is a fixed comprehensive list. It starts with: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). A disciple then spends his lifetime learning to “observe all that I commanded you” (Matt. 28:20). Creeds are good reference points, as Mathison states, but they merely point one to the Word of God for the “whole counsel of God.” To follow Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior cannot be reduced to a fixed set of beliefs or practices.

     However, I am willing to be taught what I do not know: what does your Church teach about the essentials of salvation?

     You asked why John Stott and J. I. Packer are considered Church leaders, and I told you: the Anglican Church recognizes them as Church leaders. That is independent of my personal interpretation of Scripture. You did not question my acceptance of Henri Nouwen or any of the others as Church leaders. Why not?

     I said your arguments in #213 or #542 were arguments from silence because you said the absence of a condition for salvation (which you applied to being “subject to the Roman Pontiff”) did not exclude it.

     Your argument about Christ not being revealed in the Old Testament is surprising for one with so much learning. How is it that the Gospel writers and Christ repeatedly referred to the Old Testament to prove that He was the Christ, the Son of God, for example:

     “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace”

     There are more than 200 Old Testament prophecies about Christ, from which Jesus and the Gospel writers demonstrated that God clearly revealed His Son throughout the Scriptures. “You search the Scriptures [the Old Testament] because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me” (John 5:39). And what did the Old Testament teach about salvation?

     And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” And he answered, “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE.” (Luke 10:25-28)

     One who truly loves God loves the Son, because, as Jesus said: “I and the Father are one.”

     No, the absence of the name “Jesus” from the Old Testament is NOT equivalent to the absence of any teaching that remotely resembles: it is “absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Your argument for “stages of development” of doctrine is no more than relativism in disguise.

     The use of homoousios to describe the combination of attributes of Christ which the bishops at the Council of Nicea listed from Scripture is a valid description of His divine nature, just as using the term Trinity is a valid description of the Godhead as taught in Scripture (cf. Isa. 48:12-16; Matt. 28:19; Luke 3:21-22; Eph. 2:17-18). No “stages of development” were required to apply these terms to clear Scriptural teaching.

     In Christ alone is My salvation.

618. Bryan Cross December 28th, 2009 12:34 am :

     lojahw (re: #617)

     The reason I asked you for the number of “essentials of salvation” is that in #573 you wrote the following:

     This is why we speak of the perspicuity of the Scriptures regarding the essentials of salvation

     But it turns out that you don’t even know how many “essentials of salvation” there are. In fact, you say (in #617), “I do not believe there is a fixed comprehensive list.”

     That statement makes hash of your original claim (in #573) that Scripture is perspicuous about “the essentials of salvation”. If Scripture is perspicuous about the essentials, then you should know them all, and have no trouble rattling them off. And, if Scripture is perspicuous about the essentials, then the number of essentials shouldn’t be changing; it should be fixed, precisely because Scripture is not changing. So, it turns out, given what you have just said, that Scripture is not perspicuous about the essentials. And if that is so, then this is one more reason why Christ established His Church with a Magisterium.

     When asked for the list of essentials, instead of listing essentials, you point to a practice (i.e. “being a disciple”), which in itself entails absolutely no single doctrinal claim and forbids (as heretical) no set of beliefs. Every heretic in the history of the Church would have been delighted to hear that there is no complete list of essentials, that the only ‘essential’ is being a disciple. It would allow them to remain in the Church, and allow the heretical nature of their heresy to remain hidden. Such a position entirely guts historic Christianity. This, apparently, is where your sola scriptura position leads.

     In #537 you wrote:

     sola scriptura recognizes the subordinate interpretive authority of the Church and its leaders.

     When asked for the names of these leaders, you point to Stott and Packer. And when asked for the basis for their interpretive authority as “church leaders,” you claim that the “Anglican Church recognizes them as Church leaders”. The problem with that answer, as I pointed out, is that charismatics recognize Bentley and Hinn as “church leaders”. So it just pushes the question back. What makes recognition by the Anglican Church legitimate, and recognition by charismatics illegitimate, when it comes to grounding church leadership, if not that you (mostly) agree with the Anglican interpretation of Scripture, but (mostly) don’t agree with the charismatic interpretation of Scripture?

     Finally, you said:

     Your argument about Christ not being revealed in the Old Testament is surprising for one with so much learning.

     I didn’t fail to notice your ad hominem. But the larger problem with your statement is that you misrepresented what I said, by rephrasing it in your own words, in such a way that it isn’t what I said at all. Here’s what I said:

     Your claim is logically equivalent to saying that if Christ were absolutely necessary for salvation, then He would have been explicitly revealed in the Old Covenant.

     Notice the word “explicitly”, which I have here put in bold font. That’s altogether different from saying that Christ is not revealed in the Old Testament.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

619. lojahw December 28th, 2009 11:34 pm :

     Dear Bryan,

     You seem to be unsatisfied with the answers of Jesus and the Apostles to the question: “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” – i.e., what is essential to salvation? Do you think that there is a specific list of doctrinal questions that everyone must answer to be saved? What about little children and the mentally retarded? If they cannot answer all of those doctrinal questions, will Jesus turn them away? Yet Jesus said: “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (John 6:37). Why is the below not enough?

     And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” And he answered, “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE.” (Luke 10:25-28)

     As to the Anglican Church, I answered your question a while back: it meets the ancient requirements of an Apostolic Church: all churches, whether founded by an apostle or “later in time” without the benefit of an apostolic successor, must teach what was then called the Regula fidei, referred to by Mathison. Below is a second century version of this Rule of Faith, written by Irenaeus (a precursor of the later creeds):

     “the faith in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas and all the things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who made known through the prophets the plan of salvation, and the coming, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his future appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise anew all flesh of the whole human race . . .” (Against All Heresies, 3.4.1-2)

     I accept the interpretive authority of recognized leaders of apostolic churches according to the above criteria.

     As to Christ being explicitly revealed in the OT, I gave this quote:

     “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace”

     Why is this not enough? It is undeniable that the above OT prophecy refers to Christ.

     As for Boniface VIII’s ”it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” in Unam sanctam, please recall the context of these words:

     “We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: ‘Behold, here are two swords’ that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: ‘Put up thy sword into thy scabbard’. . . . Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God “

     Boniface thus asserts that the temporal authority of kings be subordinated to his spiritual authority as Roman Pontiff. By quoting Romans 13 out of context he distorts the Scripture wherein the Apostle Paul exhorts Christians to be subject to civil authorities. Boniface’s insistence on making every human creature subject to himself as if to a king having power over the temporal sword stands in sharp contrast to Jesus’ denial that His kingdom is of this world, and to Peter’s exhortation to bishops:

     ”shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain”

     (1 Pet. 5:2).

     Is Unam sanctam really an example of infallible interpretive authority?

     In Christ alone is my salvation.

620. wilkins December 29th, 2009 8:59 am :

     For a succinct statement of the essentials of salvation, how about: John 3:36, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

     and

     According to Jesus, only a few things are necessary, really only one… That is: to be His disciple, with all that entails… You want a list? … To whom much is given, much is required: I do not believe there is a fixed comprehensive list. It starts with: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved”… A disciple then spends his lifetime learning to “observe all that I commanded you”…

     and

     You seem to be unsatisfied with the answers of Jesus and the Apostles to the question: “What must I do to inherit eternal life?”

     lojahw, i can’t imagine Bryan “wants” a list or is “unsatisfied with the answers of Jesus and the Apostles”—right? Honestly, it’s uncharitable how you pretty consistently twist up what Bryan says in order to point a finger at the error you yourself have introduced—you and not Bryan. i can’t help but detect the same strident manipulation in your abuse of the Boniface quotation. As Bryan has already said, the more you do this the more you illustrate the wisdom of (and need for) the very sacramental authority this CTC article supports.

     You’ve referred to ‘essentials’ more than once, so it’s perfectly reasonable to insist that you share, as a definitive list, what those Christian ‘essentials’ are. Given that you’ve also argued pretty extensively that disagreement between Protestants is actually quite minor—essentially inconsequential—i’ve been excited to compare your list with those i’ve heard from Baptists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Methodists over the course of 30+ years of Protestant life.

     On the one hand, you’ve moved from “essentials” to “only a few things” to “really only one” essential, namely discipleship; on the other hand, you’ve also included the phrase “with all that entails,” which invites us to imagine the many essential elements of this discipleship which remain strategically unstated.

     i’ve recently been reading the Dake bible some very dear Protestants gave me several years ago, and i think it’s safe to say that Protestant Dake would very seriously disagree with Anglican lojahw’s assertion that there’s only one essential. Dake can point to 100k hours of Scripture study in ‘discipleship’ over the course of 43 years, the culmination of which is his reference bible packed with 9k headings, 500k cross-references throughout 35k notes and comments, 8k subject outlines, 2k illustrations and a great deal more (i’m getting all this from his own preface).

     Is Dake’s example of ‘discipleship’ the kind of discipleship you’re referring to? Should a Christian follow the interpretations of a disciple and leader like Packer or Stott instead of Dake? i’m trying to illustrate the fact that disagreement among Protestants is, in fact, substantial, and appeals they (you) make to “the essentials” help stave off a thorough and honest examination of the incoherence of sola scriptura.

     w

621. lojahw December 29th, 2009 10:31 am :

     w wrote:

     lojahw, i can’t imagine Bryan “wants” a list

     w, Brian indeed insisted multiple times for a list of essentials:

     When asked for the list of essentials, instead of listing essentials, you point to a practice (i.e. “being a disciple”), which in itself entails absolutely no single doctrinal claim and forbids (as heretical) no set of beliefs.

     My response was honest. As I previously wrote, to whom much is given, much is required. Not everyone can comprehend the great truths of the faith. Hence, Jesus’ answer to “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” is a true response to the question of what is essential to salvation.

     On the question of essential confessional truths of the Christian faith, I have consistently referred to the ancient Regula fidei which has been universally agreed to by Christians since the Apostles. I quoted a second century version of this Rule of Faith in #619 to demonstrate the continuity of these beliefs long before even the Council of Nicea.

     As to Dake, he might be a man of great learning, but sola scriptura submits everything by the final authoritative norm of doctrine and practice, the Bible. It is tiring to keep hearing questions on this thread about which person to accept as a final interpretive authority. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Dake all have good things to say, but none of them are final interpretive authorities.

     Roman Catholics often appeal to various church fathers for authority, but perhaps the most noted among them, Augustine, wrote:

     “Do not be willing to yield to my writings as to the canonical Scriptures.” (De Trinitate, 3 pr. 2)

     Blessings.

     Blessings.

622. Devin Rose December 29th, 2009 12:33 pm :

     lojahw,

     You wrote “As to the Anglican Church, I answered your question a while back: it meets the ancient requirements of an Apostolic Church: all churches, whether founded by an apostle or “later in time” without the benefit of an apostolic successor, must teach what was then called the Regula fidei, referred to by Mathison…I accept the interpretive authority of recognized leaders of apostolic churches according to the above criteria.”

     But the Anglican Church teaches that infant baptism is true and good, yet I recall you are a credo-baptist, so 1) you do not accept their interpretive authority on this important issue (one of the two sacraments (in your beliefs) that Christ instituted and commanded us to do) and 2) it means that “an Apostolic Church” teaches falsehoods as truth.

     Anglicans also ordain women priests (and now bishops), which I recall you also believe is against the Bible (“I do not permit a woman to have authority over a man” etc.).

     It seems to me that in reality you do not accept their interpretive authority. But you say that you do, so how do you reconcile that apparent contradiction?

623. lojahw December 30th, 2009 1:21 pm :

     Hi Devin,

     I hope you & your family are well – it’s been a while since we talked!

     To answer your questions, in brief, the key is the regula fidei. This determines whether a church is apostolic and upholds the essential truths of the Christian faith. One is not permitted to contradict these. However: “In the essentials unity, in the non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.”

     I do agree that baptism is important. The Anglican Church practices it, and thus “observes what Christ commanded.” That is the first order of importance. A church that does not practice baptism is disobeying the clear command of Christ, and thus is apostate. Regarding my own views: the Anglican Church does not deny baptism to those who come in faith as Jesus’ disciples; in fact, in my particular church people may choose either pedo-baptism or credo-baptism (the rector has a preference for the latter, but also freely baptizes infants). As I wrote earlier about interpretive traditions on baptism:

     Reformed Presbyterians emphasize the covenantal significance of baptism, whereby one is recognized (in lieu of circumcision) as a member of the covenantal community of faith, whereas Baptists emphasize the experiential significance of baptism as a sign and testimony of the individual’s new birth. There is indeed Scriptural support for both positions, so perhaps conflicts over the two is a false dilemma. Why cannot baptism be viewed as both/and instead of either/or?

     A number of Protestant traditions, including the Anglican communion, are inclusive of the practices of both covenantal- and credo-baptism.

     The ordination of women is also an important topic. Since this is not defined in the regula fidei, it is a matter of liberty. Indeed, the vast majority of Anglican Churches do not ordain women as priests or bishops; it is a matter of “in-house debate.” On the other hand, neither Scripture nor the early church excluded women from the deaconate. The “in-house debate” is not about whether women can hold church office, but about which offices are appropriate. I agree with most Anglican Churches that Scripture defines limits for the ordination of women, e.g., 1 Timothy 3:2, “An overseer [bishop] must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, …”

     As to the question of whether an apostolic church can teach falsehood, please note that I accept the RCC as apostolic, yet I have given an example of a much more important issue (what is essential for salvation) for which I strongly believe the RCC has taught falsely. There is no contradiction in accepting the subordinate interpretive authority to Church leaders under the clear teaching of Scripture. There will always be areas of “in-house debate” – and that is OK as long as they are over non-essentials.

     Blessings.

624. lojahw December 30th, 2009 1:38 pm :

     To recap some important points, the position and practice of sola scriptura cleary differ from those of solo scriptura.

     The sola scriptura position: 1) Scripture is the sole source of revelation; 2) Scripture is the final authoritative norm of doctrine and practice; 3) Scripture is to be interpreted in and by the church; 4) Scripture is to be interpreted according to the ancient regula fidei.

     The solo scriptura position: 1) Scripture is the sole source of revelation; 2) equal authority of interpretation of Scripture is vested in everyone who claims to have the Holy Spirit; 3) the final authoritative norm of doctrine and practice depends on #2.

     The differences are substantial. Because solo scriptura recognizes no higher interpretive authority than the individual, nor does it require that Scripture be interpreted according to the ancient regula fidei, there are many conflicting interpretations of Scripture – often extending to the essential truths declared by the regula fidei.

     The differences in practice are well described in Bryan’s description:

     pretty much everyone in the Pentecostal tradition in which I was raised would fall under Mathison’s definition of solo scriptura. No one believed that the Church (as Pentecostals define ‘Church’) had authority, because we all had the Spirit. Persons who disagreed with the pastor just went to a different Pentecostal ‘church’, or started their own ‘house church.’

     On the basis of the above, there are indeed principled differences between the two.

     On the question of ultimate interpretive authority, the Holy Spirit has provided all we need on the essential truths of the faith in the Scriptures.

     What more important topic is there to test this than: “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” The article claims that Scripture does not interpret Scripture, yet Jesus’ answer to this question is just one of scores of examples where the New Testament interprets the Old. Have you ever thought about how the numerous Old Testament quotations in the New Testament are there for the purpose of interpreting the faith? How would we know that Jonah’s three days in the belly of the fish was a sign of Jesus’ death and resurrection apart from Jesus’ explanation in Matthew 12? How would we know that Immanuel meant “God with us” unless Matthew told us? Hebrews is full of interpretations, including the salvation of Old Testament saints by faith, consistent with Jesus’ answer in Luke 10. The list goes on and on. When Jesus said, “you are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God,” He made no reference to an external infallible interpretive authority.

     The example from Luke 10:25-28 on what is essential for salvation demonstrates both the continuity of salvation as taught by Scripture and the discontinuity of interpretation given by Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam. The Old Covenant testified to a better New Covenant, in which Jesus’ incarnation gave new meaning to the “Greatest Commandment.” To obey the Greatest Commandment in the New Covenant context entails being Jesus’ disciple: to believe in Him and to obey Him. However, there is no prophecy in the New Covenant about future changes in God’s plan of salvation; rather, it represents “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” Regarding the continuity of the plan of salvation, the writer of Hebrews says about the Old Testament saints: “And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised [on earth], because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they should not be made perfect” (Heb. 11:30-31). The salvation of the OT saints by faith is thus inseparably linked with the salvation “once for all” made possible through the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. There never were “stages of development” in the Christian faith that could later redefine what is “absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature.” Hence, Unam sanctam represents a false interpretation of Scripture regarding what is essential for salvation.

     “In the essentials unity, in the non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.”

     Blessings.

625. Bryan Cross December 30th, 2009 2:24 pm :

     lojahw,

     In #607 you claimed that there is only one essential, believing the Son. In #614 you claimed that there are a “number of essentials”. In #617 you claimed that the only essential is being Christ’s disciple, adding that you don’t think there is a “fixed comprehensive list” of essentials. In #619 you take as the only essential something any Jew could affirm (because Jesus is there drawing from the Old Testament). So your latest answer to the “essentials of salvation” question is one that is not even uniquely Christian.

     Your multifarious answers to this question show that when proponents of sola scriptura talk about the “essentials of salvation”, they are speaking of a shape-shifting chimera, something that has no principled basis, something that can be whatever they want it to be, based on their own private interpretation of Scripture.

     My other question was about the identity of the present “leaders of the Church”, and the basis for their interpretive authority. You claim that Stott and Packer are present “leaders of the Church”, because the “Anglican Church recognizes them as Church leaders”. I pointed out that charismatics recognize Bentley and Hinn as “church leaders”. So your answer just pushes the question back: What makes recognition by the Anglican Church legitimate, and recognition by charismatics illegitimate, when it comes to grounding church leadership, if not that you (mostly) agree with the Anglican interpretation of Scripture, but (mostly) don’t agree with the charismatic interpretation of Scripture? Your reply (in #619) is that the Anglican Church “meets the ancient requirements of an Apostolic Church, i.e. it teaches the regula fidei. But, again, this pushes back the question: Whose determination of the regula fide is authoritative? You quote the following from St. Irenaeus:

     “the faith in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas and all the things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who made known through the prophets the plan of salvation, and the coming, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his future appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise anew all flesh of the whole human race . . .” (Against All Heresies, 3.4.1-2)

     If you think this quotation is a compete summary of the regula fidei, then the problem is that this quotation could be affirmed not only by Bentley and Hinn; it could also be affirmed by any Arian. So, do you consider the leaders of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to be leaders of the Church? If not, then why not?

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

626. Bryan Cross December 30th, 2009 2:29 pm :

     lojahw

     In #624 you claimed:

     On the basis of the above, there are indeed principled differences between the two.

     Could you name one (just one) principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura?

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

627. lojahw December 30th, 2009 9:35 pm :

     Bryan,

     You’re confusing different questions: what is “essential for salvation” is not the same thing as “essential truths of the Christian faith.” Jesus defines what is essential for salvation in terms of one’s personal relationship with God and his neighbor. If you will remember, I said the “one thing” is “to be Christ’s disciple, with all that entails.” “With all that entails” differs according to one’s circumstances and abilities. Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell all that he had. No one argues that this is normative for all Christians. He told another man not to go bury his father. He told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more. To the thief on the cross, he said, “Today you will be with me in paradise.” As I said, there are great truths of the Christian faith which those who are able must also confess and defend, but not all are able to do so. When talking about salvation (eternal life) Jesus didn’t ask anyone to recite a particular doctrinal litany.

     The essential truths of Christian faith are those things which Christ’s disciples confess and defend according to their ability. A little child or a severely retarded person cannot be expected to confess and defend all of the same things as a seminary graduate. There is no contradiction in addressing these questions (what is essential for salvation and what are the essential truths of the Christian faith) separately.

     Regarding the regula fidei, the reality is that present-day Churches that qualify as members of “the one holy catholic and apostolic church” ascribe to the regula fidei that has been passed down by the fathers of the Church: the Nicene Creed and/or the Apostles Creed (some also include the Athanasian Creed) – none of which the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the others you mentioned confess.

     Blessings.

628. lojahw December 30th, 2009 9:46 pm :

     Bryan,

     Having listed the differences in the two positions and in their practice, I don’t know how to be any clearer. The components of sola scriptura are demonstrably different than those of solo scriptura. The former, constrained by interpretation consistent with the regula fidei and the authority of Church leaders to interpret Scripture (subordinate to Scripture itself) and the requirement that Scripture is the final authoritative norm of doctrine and practice are all absent in the latter.

     Please explain in plain terms why you do not believe these are principled differences.

     Your brother in Christ.

629. Bryan Cross December 31st, 2009 1:59 pm :

     lojahw (re: #627),

     You claim that the Nicene Creed (and/or Apostles Creed) are the regula fidei. The problem for the sola scriptura position, however, is that given sola scriptura, the only basis for the Creed’s being the regula fidei is that it agrees with your interpretation of Scripture. Otherwise, you would accept the fifth, sixth, and seventh ecumenical councils.

     But if the authority of the Creed is based on its agreement with your interpretation of Scripture, then for the Arian whose interpretation of Scripture is at odds with the Creed, the Creed is non-authoritative.

     If you disagree with what I’m saying here [in this comment], then what is the basis for the Nicene Creed’s authority, other than that it agrees with your interpretation of Scripture?

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

630. lojahw December 31st, 2009 4:36 pm :

     Bryan,

     It does not follow that the authority of the creeds is based on my interpretation of Scripture, nor that accepting them has anything to do with accepting the canons of later councils (none of which replaced the Symbol of Nicea with other creeds).

     The historic regula fidei has been universally recognized by all orthodox Christians as consistent with the deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles. Because the regula fidei is a brief summary of doctrinal truths – that pre-existed the Reformation and summarizes the faith that has been “believed, everywhere, always, by all” approved Christian leaders since the time of the Apostles – orthodox Protestants accept it. Why do you think it is contingent on my personal interpretation of Scripture rather than that it informs my interpretation of Scripture? I learned the creeds before I read the Bible.

     Blessings.

631. lojahw December 31st, 2009 4:57 pm :

     Bryan wrote:

     given sola scriptura, the only basis for the Creed’s being the regula fidei is that it agrees with your interpretation of Scripture.

     This statement contradicts your article, which quotes Mathison as saying that sola scriptura entails interpreting Scripture according to the regula fidei, among other things.

     It seems like you are trying to revise the claims of sola scriptura in order to defend your own private interpretation of sola scriptura. Why can’t you accept the definition given by those who follow it?

     Blessings.

632. Bryan Cross December 31st, 2009 6:00 pm :

     lojahw (re: #631),

     I asked you: “What is the basis for the Nicene Creed’s authority, other than that it agrees with your interpretation of Scripture?”

     You replied:

     The historic regula fidei has been universally recognized by all orthodox Christians as consistent with the deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles.

     That just pushes back the question: What is it, except your interpretation of Scripture, that determines what is “orthodoxy” and what is “heresy”? Since you are defining the regula fidei
     in terms of “all orthodox Christians”, then you can’t define “orthodoxy” in terms of the regula fidei without arguing in a circle (defining A in terms of B, and defining B in terms of A). So now you need a basis for ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘heresy’ other than “agrees with my definition of Scripture” and “disagrees with my interpretation of Scripture”, respectively.

     In #629 I wrote: given sola scriptura, the only basis for the Creed’s being the regula fidei is that it agrees with your interpretation of Scripture.

     In #632 you replied:

     This statement contradicts your article, which quotes Mathison as saying that sola scriptura entails interpreting Scripture according to the regula fidei, among other things.

     My statement doesn’t contradict any claim in our article. (Here’s a piece of advice for dialogue. When you claim that someone has contradicted himself, show the contradiction, don’t just assert that there is a contradiction. Assertions are a dime a dozen. Rather than merely asserting a contradiction, show how the claim is logically incompatible with something we previously claimed to be true. That requires placing the two allegedly contradictory propositions adjacent to each other, and showing how if one is true the other must be false, and vice versa.)

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

633. Bryan Cross December 31st, 2009 6:25 pm :

     lojahw (re: #624)

     You wrote:

     The sola scriptura position: 1) Scripture is the sole source of revelation; 2) Scripture is the final authoritative norm of doctrine and practice; 3) Scripture is to be interpreted in and by the church; 4) Scripture is to be interpreted according to the ancient regula fidei.

     The solo scriptura position: 1) Scripture is the sole source of revelation; 2) equal authority of interpretation of Scripture is vested in everyone who claims to have the Holy Spirit; 3) the final authoritative norm of doctrine and practice depends on #2.

     The differences are substantial. Because solo scriptura recognizes no higher interpretive authority than the individual, nor does it require that Scripture be interpreted according to the ancient regula fidei, there are many conflicting interpretations of Scripture – often extending to the essential truths declared by the regula fidei.

     The two alleged differences are “solo scriptura recognizes no higher interpretive authority than the individual” and solo scriptura “does not require that Scripture be interpreted according to the regular fidei. Now that the conversation has continued on a bit, it is clear why those two alleged differences are no difference at all. Regarding the first alleged difference, sola scriptura does not actually admit any higher interpretive authority than the individual, precisely because given sola scriptura, those admitted to have interpretive authority are only those who generally agree with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. Regarding the second alleged difference, given sola scriptura, what is allowed to count as the regula fidei is only what agrees with one’s own interpretation of Scripture.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

634. lojahw December 31st, 2009 6:36 pm :

     Bryan,

     Thank you for pointing out that Jehovah’s Witnesses and other heretics could use Irenaeus’ words in a manner he never intended. I’m sure you wouldn’t rank him among Arians or other heretics. But this also illustrates the point that sola scriptura safeguards against such distortions by insisting that Scripture itself is the ultimate regula fidei, the final norm of doctrine and practice. One must interpret Irenaeus’ words in light of what the Scriptures tell us about them. The Lord Jesus Christ in Irenaeus’ statement is the same Lord Jesus Christ expounded by the Gospels and Epistles, and could never be equated with the Arian heresy.

     Also, following the Scriptures as the final norm of doctrine and practice, one should never be led astray by false prophets and charlatans like Jehovah’s Witnesses or Benny Hinn or Todd Bentley. “My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. They will have no place in the council of My people” (Ezek. 13:9), and “You will know them by their fruit.”

     Blessings.

635. lojahw December 31st, 2009 6:51 pm :

     Bryan,

     It is ironic that after I told you that I learned the creeds before I read (past tense) the Bible that you persist in telling me that the only reason I accept them is because they agree with my interpretation of the Bible. You are confusing correlation with causation. I have honestly told you that I believed the creeds before I read (past tense) the Bible.

     As to your statement about sola scriptura contradicting the article, you wrote:

     given sola scriptura, the only basis for the Creed’s being the regula fidei is that it agrees with your interpretation of Scripture.

     The article (section III) says:

     Mathison defends what he calls ‘sola scriptura,’ namely, the position that “Scripture [is] the sole source of revelation; that it [is] the final authoritative norm of doctrine and practice; that it [is] to be interpreted in and by the church, and that it [is] to be interpreted according to the regula fidei.”

     What is the last claim of sola scriptura above? It is that the Scripture is “to be interpreted according to the regula fidei.” It does not say that the creeds are optional, depending on one’s interpretation of Scripture.

     I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.

     Blessings.

636. Devin Rose December 31st, 2009 7:02 pm :

     lojahw,

     (Writing from the hospital room with wife and new baby…)

     Your personal belief (on baptism) is very general, such that “as long as a ‘church’ does it, they’re good.” With that broad a requirement for a church, I can understand why you do not think that what baptism does or doesn’t do or what a particular Christian tradition teaches about what baptism does and is is that important. (Same with the Eucharist I conjecture.)

     I would challenge one part of your later comments concerning the Nicene Creed by bringing up the clause “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” It is not just one baptism, but one baptism with a purpose, that actually accomplishes something, through which God forgives sins. But you do not believe that God forgives sins through baptism, so when you say you accept the Nicene Creed, you do not accept this part of it in full, or else you must think that one baptism for the forgiveness of sins means something else. The early Christian witnesses and the unanimous teaching of the Fathers and of the Church has been that baptism regenerates, that sin is forgiven through it. How do you reconcile this apparent contradiction?

     Your definitions of matters of the Faith are sufficiently elastic so as to encompass a broad range of theology and doctrine held by different Christian traditions, making it hard to “pin you down” on specifics, as you can just wave them away as being “unimportant” or “non-essential.” Your _particular beliefs_, on the other hand, are specific and do not coincide with, say, the Anglican Communion on many issues, but to you those issues are non-essential; the problem is that nowhere in the Bible is there a bulleted list of what the “essentials” are.

     Someone with an even more elastic set of definitions than you have could classify Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons as Christians because they believe in (this person’s) one essential thing: “belief in Jesus.” “As long as the church teaches that you have to ‘believe in Jesus’ it’s a good one,” and it is “unessential” (to them) as to what the specifics are of what the church teaches _about_ Jesus other than that he “can save us.” You would take issue with them because this is too elastic, too broad, but they just insist that “the essentials” are just what they say, and they can show you the Bible verses to prove it (love God, love neighbor, believe in Jesus, “end of story”). It is an impenetrable position but one that doesn’t help us to know what, exactly, is truth on matters of faith and morals (what they are, what they aren’t, how God wants us to do things, what his commands mean, etc.)

     What say you to this challenge? (And I hope this helps the discussion along.)

637. Bryan Cross December 31st, 2009 7:09 pm :

     lojahw (re: #635)

     You wrote:

     It is ironic that after I told you that I learned the creeds before I read (past tense) the Bible that you persist in telling me that the only reason I accept them is because they agree with my interpretation of the Bible.

     Actually, I never claimed anything about *you*. I’m talking about the basis for the authority of the creeds, given sola scriptura. Of course people can come to believe the creeds before ever cracking a Bible. That’s entirely consistent with my claim that given sola scriptura, the only basis for the Creed’s authority is that it agrees with one’s own interpretation of Scripture.

     You wrote:

     As to your statement about sola scriptura contradicting the article, you wrote:

     given sola scriptura, the only basis for the Creed’s being the regula fidei is that it agrees with your interpretation of Scripture.

     The article (section III) says:

     Mathison defends what he calls ‘sola scriptura,’ namely, the position that “Scripture [is] the sole source of revelation; that it [is] the final authoritative norm of doctrine and practice; that it [is] to be interpreted in and by the church, and that it [is] to be interpreted according to the regula fidei.”

     What is the last claim of sola scriptura above? It is that the Scripture is “to be interpreted according to the regula fidei.” It does not say that the creeds are optional, depending on one’s interpretation of Scripture.

     There is no contradiction between what I said in my comment, and what we said in the article. Given sola scriptura, the only basis for the authority of the Creed is its agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. If you think that the Creed has some other basis for its authority, other than agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture, please explain that basis for authority. Catholics and Orthodox have another basis of authority to which to appeal (other than “agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture), precisely because we believe in apostolic succession. But sola scriptura, because it denies apostolic succession, does not have any other basis for the Creed’s authority than agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

638. Bryan Cross December 31st, 2009 7:22 pm :

     lojahw,

     You seem to have two different ideas about what is the regula fidei. In #627 you wrote:

     Regarding the regula fidei, the reality is that present-day Churches that qualify as members of “the one holy catholic and apostolic church” ascribe to the regula fidei that has been passed down by the fathers of the Church: the Nicene Creed and/or the Apostles Creed (some also include the Athanasian Creed) – none of which the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the others you mentioned confess. (my emphasis)

     Likewise, in #630 you wrote:

     Because the regula fidei is a brief summary of doctrinal truths – that pre-existed the Reformation and summarizes the faith that has been “believed, everywhere, always, by all” approved Christian leaders since the time of the Apostles…. (my emphasis)

     In #634 you wrote:

     But this also illustrates the point that sola scriptura safeguards against such distortions by insisting that Scripture itself is the ultimate regula fidei, the final norm of doctrine and practice. (my emphasis)

     So in #627 and #630 you claim that the regula fidei is the Creeds, i.e. “a brief summary of doctrinal truths”. But in #634 you claim that the regula fidei is “Scripture itself.” So which is it?

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

639. Sean Patrick December 31st, 2009 8:07 pm :

     Congrats Devin!

640. lojahw January 1st, 2010 11:40 am :

     Bryan,

     Your argument that agreement with one’s interpretation of Scripture is the basis of authority for the Creeds, when in fact, the former comes after belief in the latter, makes absolutely no sense.

     You pose a false dilemma: that only the individual’s interpretation of Scripture or your Magisterium can be the basis of authority for the Creeds. If I haven’t said it explicitly before: the basis of authority of the Creeds is two fold: 1) agreement with the Scriptures (there is universal agreement that the creeds are consistent with “the Word of Truth” and no one has ever demonstrated that they contradict this infallible Word); and 2) the secondary authority of the “one holy catholic and apostolic” Church. Neither of these is contingent on any individual’s interpretation of Scripture.

     If you disagree, please explain how the above is contingent on any one individual’s interpreation of Scripture.

     Blessings.

641. Bryan Cross January 1st, 2010 12:14 pm :

     lojahw (re: #640),

     You wrote:

     If I haven’t said it explicitly before: the basis of authority of the Creeds is two fold: 1) agreement with the Scriptures (there is universal agreement that the creeds are consistent with “the Word of Truth” and no one has ever demonstrated that they contradict this infallible Word);

     The Arians claimed that their position was in “agreement” with the Scriptures. So there wasn’t “universal agreement” with the Creed, or that what is contained in the Creed is what Scripture taught.

     In this lecture (starting around 9’30”), Prof. Feingold explains precisely why Scripture was insufficient at the Council of Nicea.

     To get “universal agreement”, (as I already explained in #632), you have to restrict the set of persons, so that it does not include those who disagree. And given sola scriptura, the only way to restrict the set of persons is on the basis of those who generally agree with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. So, given sola scriptura and this first criteria (that you offer), the basis for the Creed’s authority would be that it agrees with one’s own interpretation of Scripture.

     Second, you wrote:

     and 2) the secondary authority of the “one holy catholic and apostolic” Church. Neither of these is contingent on any individual’s interpretation of Scripture.

     The problem is, as we explained in the article, that given sola scriptura, what counts as the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” is that set of persons who sufficiently agree with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. So, given sola scriptura and this second criterion (that you offer), the Creed would be authoritative only if it agrees with one’s own interpretation of Scripture.

     Therefore, given sola scriptura, both of the criteria (that you offer) make the authority of the Creed contingent on its agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture.

     In the peace of Christ,

     - Bryan

642. lojahw January 1st, 2010 12:18 pm :

     Congratulations, Devin. Blessings to you & your family!

     “One baptism for the forgiveness of sins” is a not really a problem for me because:

     Peter {said} to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” (Acts 2:38-29).

     I affirm the statement in the Creed because forgiveness of sins is indeed promised to all who repent and are baptized.

     Your definitions of matters of the Faith