Tags
Related Posts
Share This
True faith tradition
I believe Peter Schultz is sincere but mistaken when he asserts, “The principal flaw in Evangelical Christianity is denominationalism.” The principal flaw in any church era is deviation from God’s word. Thus, Schultz’s related claim that “the major cause of fragmentation in Protestantism is this notion of sola scriptura” is actually correct, but not in the way he thinks.
The apostle Paul told an early fragmented church “there must in fact be divisions among you, so that those of you who are approved may be evident” (1 Corinthians 11:19; cf. 2 Peter 2:1). Paul wasn’t saying divisions are necessarily good; he meant that they are inevitable and that they occur when some individuals or factions deviate from the standard – then those who remain true to the standard become distinguishable from those who strayed.
The standard, it should be obvious, is the word of God, for “man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4) Therefore, as Paul sought the approved among the fractured Corinthians, each of us must “do [his] best to present [him]self to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).
Paul wrote to the Galatians that “even if we (or an angel from heaven) should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be condemned to hell!” (Galatians 1:8). In other words Paul expected rank-and-file believers to hold even him, a Christ-commissioned apostle, accountable to the standard (cf. Isaiah 8:20; Matthew 4:4, 6-7, 10; 22:29; Mark 7:13; 2 Timothy 3:16).
Surely if an apostle is to be held accountable, then so also is a pope, priest, or magisterium. And hold them accountable is precisely what the Reformers did, just as Jesus held religious leaders and their traditions accountable to Scripture (Mark 7:13).
The Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura does not mean that only Scripture is meaningful, truthful, or useful for believers. It means that Scripture is the final arbiter, or final court of appeal, for spiritual truth claims, and that anyone making spiritual truth claims, no matter how highly s/he ranks as a leader, is ultimately accountable to the authority of the Bible. When individuals are responsible before God to acknowledge and rely upon His word, it is inevitable that there will be disagreements or fragmentations, sometimes very serious and unavoidable ones.
This does not justify the existence of every denomination, but it does mean that to have a top-down approach in which a magisterium or pope dictates theology to the body at large is tantamount to doctrinal tyranny. And I’ll be damned – perhaps literally – if I’m going to let anyone else do my thinking for me.
Where you oppose doctrinal tyranny from a magisterium’s theological dictates you promote a doctrinal democratization via individualistic interpretation of scriptures. If scriptures are to be the final arbiter who is the one who interprets it to determine what it indeed says? This interpreter would absolutely have to be inspired him/herself in order to determine these “spiritual truth claims.” What the reformers did (and of course this is merely my opinion) was destroy over a millenia of tradition which sought to understand the scriptures in the very way you are describing, what we are left with now is an anti-tradition from the reformers that is in fact “doing your thinking for [you]” whether you like to think that or not. I would like to agree that the scriptures are the final arbiter but the final arbiter is actually the interpreter of scripture who can claim ‘inspiration’ from the ‘spirit’ and I guess that interpreter would be you according to your view, and me, and Johnny, and Sally, and Billy, and Ted Haggard.
Unless one holds to the Socratic idea that all truth can be known (and since this very statment cannot be contradicted without descending into insanity, we will asume it is correct), than you realize that interpretation is not up to the opserver. Who then interprets? Well, a community. Socratic dialogue takes place only on the level of many individuals and cultures asking questions and postulating answers to come up with something agreed upon. This dialogue should always revert back to the Bible. Why? Because the bible reflects the authoritative scriptures used by the church for hundreds of years before the Nicene Council and for thousands of years since. So, essentially, the reformers sought to go back to a tradition that actually worked because the Catholic church in Enlightenment Europe was as effective as the Evangelical church in postmodern America: not at all.
I agree somewhat with your response Nathaniel. I am in fact trying to get to a place where we can restore the communal dialogue in Biblical Interpretation, i’m just not sure what kind of an interpretation is ultimately satisfying for me (arrg). I do however disagree with your idea that dialogue should always revert back to the Bible. I agree that the Bible reflects the “authoritative scriptures” used by the Church but I’m not sure which form you imply by “scriptures.” Do we go with early Christians who basically just used the Hebrew Bible and oral stories about Jesus? Do we go with Athanasius? Do we go with the Catholic canon which includes the deuterocanonical books? Do we go with Luther who argued for the removal of James, Hebrews, Jude, Revelation, as well as a relegation of Esther to the Apocrypha? So much of the Canon seems to be based solely on theological arguments and commitments, such as the Reformations five Solas. At this point on my path I can’t help but reject the idea of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. Though I’m not very well versed in Catholic tradition (I’m trying!) I am very reluctant to cast off 1000s of years of said tradition (this served the church just as well as the Canon did). I wonder what the Bible would say if it could speak.
You’re bang-on, Andy. Well said. Sola-Scriptura was the cry of the Reformation because it was the apostolic standard. The notion that subjective, individual interpretation is futile since objective certainty is out of reach is a nice idea for philosophers, but out of touch with reality. Actually I think it is red-herring, a way of changing the subject for people who don’t like what they read in God’s Word. Sure there is truth in the claim that our interpretations are largely constrained by our interpretive community. The fact that I grew up Fellowship Baptist, however, does not mean that I am unable to self-critically evaluate the impact of my interpretive community on my worldview and on my interpretations of Scripture. I may not be able to do so with complete success, and thereby nullify the impact of my own interpretive community on myself, but so what? In the same way, I may not be able to reach absolute objective certainty about the meaning of a passage of Scripture, but so what? I can achieve some level of certainty on some passages of Scripture, personally and individually, and I can compare my interpretations with those of other interpretive communities and thereby discover if my findings are novel or orthodox. The fact is that in spite of the significant differences among interpretive communities in their interpretations of many points of doctrine, it is startling how much consensus exists on what all (Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant) agree are primary doctrines (e.g., the Apostles’ Creed). So there is fair certainty on the essential doctrines of the faith (i.e., those doctrines expressed in the Apostles’ Creed). On the matter of soteriology there is significant difference. But the solution to that chasm of hermeneutics is not to say, “they’re all wrong!” Rather it is to ask, “what do they have in common?” and then ask, “what does the broad Christian tradition have to say about this issue–ante-Nicene, post-Nicene, ante-Reformation, post-Reformation, etc.–?” The fact is, having asked this question myself, the “broad Christian tradition” appeals in general to the Scriptures considered canonical by Protestant Evangelicals (Gen-Rev) and bases their conclusions on what they find in the Canon. It’s as if they all think it is possible to accurately interpret Scripture! So the consensus of Tradition is actually to interpret Scripture, in the light of Scripture (i.e., the apostolic rule), and to esteem Scripture as inspired and authoritative. The Reformers in large measure recovered what had been lost in medieval Catholicism. It is, in fact, people like Logan (above) who sharply break with tradition by rejecting the principles of hermeneutics held in common among the bulk of that Tradition.
Joe Haynes talks about the similarities between Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox. The Orthodox/Catholic response to Joe would be that the reason why Joe CAN figure out some of the meanings of Bible passages is not because Joe’s a smart guy, but because Protestants were once part of the undivided universal church. Joe said that “The Reformers in large measure recovered what had been lost in medieval Catholicism”, yet Luther himself, if one was to compare him to the Catholic Church of today and the Fellowship Baptist Church, would side far closer with Rome. For further references on why Sola Scriptura does not work, look up Jehovah Witnesses, Mormonism, the United Church, and Unitarian Churches.
People like Joe Haynes like to caricature people’s views rather than actually understand them. I never once said that we should revoke Traditional hermeneutics, I’m still trying to figure out where you found that. I agree that scripture should interpret scripture, but we should acknowledge that scripture is situated in a certain socio-historical context and that people authored them. Because of this the authors themselves are re-contextualizing and adapting scriptures to their own theological purposes (see: all of the New Testament). This is where we get tradition from, through prayerful readings of scripture and the theological product that comes out of it, i.e. Paul’s writings, which utilized only the OT, remember, their was no NT during his time.
Further to this, the protestant concept of Sola Scriptura rests on the interesting and dubious presupposition that the literal and natural meaning of scripture is perspicuous but this couldn’t be further from the truth. I agree that many Christian groups agree on similar points of doctrines, this is called an ecumenical orthodoxy. But to say that we can go back to scripture to mediate our doctrinal disputes is to once again go back to the personal interpretations of the people in said dispute since scripture is not so perspicuous.
Peter: Whoever Christ looks at today and says of that person, “He/she is mine, covered by my blood through faith in me,” whether he/she be Protestant or Anabaptist or whatever, that person is STILL part of the universal Church.
Logan: The doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not rest on the presupposition that the literal meaning of Scripture is perspicuous. It rests on the presupposition that Scripture is the product of Divine revelation through human agency in the original autographs. It is the inspiration of Scripture that warrants the Sola. The ante-Nicene fathers were not inspired: their product was not “God’s Word.” Therefore “Scripture Alone” serves, in fact, not just in theory, as the sole INFALLIBLE rule of faith and doctrine, regardless of whether anyone agrees with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Every other (lesser) authority is merely human and thus fallible. Scripture alone is infallible. Hence Sola Scriptura. Not Scripture-by-itself without the mediation (to use your word) of commentators that have gone before us, but Scripture Alone as the sole INFALLIBLE rule illumined with a grain of salt by the historic Christian Church in all centuries. Turns out that when approached this way there are very few historic Christians who deny the perspecuity of Scripture. Even John’s Apocalypse (which many misinterpret) claims to be sufficiently clear in meaning that its message CAN be understood: Rev 1:3, “blessed are those who read… hear… and keep what is written in [the words of this prophecy]…” (ESV).