Posted on 02/09/2011 12:55:10 PM PST by RnMomof7
One of the common Catholic objections to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is that without the Church to offer authoritative interpretations we are all just left with our own personal readings of Scripture. So, the argument goes, evangelicals may talk a big game about the Bible being our ultimate authority, but actually the final authority rests with each individual interpretation of Scripture. In light of this chaotic free-for-all, consider how much better is the Catholic understanding of authoritative Tradition with a capital T.
There are a number of ways an evangelical could respond to this argument.
1. Illumination. We believe the Spirit opens the eyes of his people so that spiritual things can be spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:6-16). This illumination is not limited to church councils.
2. Perspictuity. We believe that the main things of the Biblesin, salvation, Christ, man, God, faithcan be clearly understood. Our God speaks and knows how to speak. Jesus and the apostles quoted Scripture all the time as if they believed there was a meaning in the text that they could understand and others ought to have understood as well.
3. History. At our best, evangelicals do not confuse sola scriptura with solo scriptura, the latter entailing a complete rejection of theological tradition. Creeds and confessions matter. The historic Christian faith matters. All councils, catechisms, and theologians are fallible, but this doesnt mean we ignore the communion of the saints that have gone before. Biblical interpretation must be informed by and rooted in tradition, just not controlled by it.
Those three points could be elaborated for a thousand pages, but I want to focus on one other response to the Catholic argument against sola scriptura.
Interpretations Need Not Apply?
I respect Catholic theology for its intellectual history, its commitment to doctrinal precision, and for the many places it promotes historic orthodoxy. But I do not see how an appeal to authoritative church tradition, in its practical outworking, makes the interpretation of Scripture any more settled. In my experience, what it does is push the boundaries of the debate away from Scripture out to papal encyclicals and the like. This is fine to do as a means for establishing what Catholics have believed about Christian doctrine (much like I dont think its a waste of time for Presbyterians to discuss the Westminster Confession of Faith). But heres my point: just because you have an authoritative tradition doesnt mean you wont argue over the interpretation of that tradition.
For example, take the immigration debate. How should Christians view the ethics of immigration? Two evangelicals might both turn to the Bible and come up with a difference response. Im not saying one answer wouldnt be more right than the other (were not relativists or hard postmodernists when it comes to texts), but they could very well disagree even though they both adhere to sola scriptura. So do Catholics have an easier time giving a definitive answer? Clearly not.
In May 2008, First Things printed an exchange between two Catholics on the issue of immigration. This was how the conservative author began (three paragraphs in):
Is there a Christian answer to these urgent question? For Catholics at least, there are relevant teachings in the Catechism: (1) The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome foreigners in search of security or a livelihood; (2) there should be not unjust discrimination in employment against immigrants, and (3) the immigrants themselves should obey the receiving countrys laws. (40)
The author on the left also began with an appeal to Catholic Social Teaching:
Deriving its understanding from revelation and reason, the Catholic Church teaches (1) that persons have right to emigrate in search of a better life when poverty, hunger, unemployment, unrest, and similar factors greatly hinder human flourishing; (2) that states have a right to limit immigration when the common good of society requires it in due consideration of such factors as national security and the domestic economy, but not out of inconvenience, selfishness, or minor cost; and (3) that more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin, as the Catechism puts it. (44)
Both authors are obviously working with the same material, and both quote the part about prosperous nations being obliged to welcome immigrants. But you can already see they are going in different directions. The first authors third point highlights the need for immigrants to obey the laws of the land, while the second authors second point goes out of the way to say that nations cannot refuse immigrants out of selfishness. Same tradition, but still a debate.
Interestingly, both authors go on to interact with various Cardinals and Bishops, but neither quotes from Scripture. This doesnt mean their arguments cant be scriptural, it is simply to make the point that the debate centers on interpretations of interpretations.
A Tangled Mess Too
This leads to one last thought. Just because Protestants have a bazillion denominations and Catholics have, well, the Catholic Church, doesnt mean that the Catholic Church is any less a mishmash of traditions. They have under a more formal unity just as many competing ideologies and theologies.
For example, heres Russell Hittinger, Professor of Catholic Studies at the University of Tulsa, writing about the thought of Thomas Aquinas:
The past century and a half of papal teaching on modern times often seems like a tangle: any number of different strandstheology, Thomistic philosophy, social theory, economicsall snarled together. And yet a little historical analysis may help loosen the know.
In fact, a careful reading of papal documents reveals one of the main causes of the tangle.
Throughout Catholic thought over the past hundred and fifty years, they have run two quite different uses of Thomisma combination of four threads weaving in and out of the Catholic Churchs response to the strangeness of modern times. (First Things June/July 2008, 33)
Later, as a case in point, Hittenger explains (in a sentence that will make sense to few Protestants):
The affirmations to be negated in Pius IXs 1864 Syllabus became affirmation to be affirmed in Leo XIIIs famous 1892 encyclical Rerum Novarumpositive statements on Catholic teaching on modern social and political issues. (35)
In the end, the best arguments of sola scriptura come from the way Scripture views Scripture. I recognize I havent done much of that here. But clearing away counter-arguments is important too. And one of the most common is the charge that Protestantism got rid of one infallible Pope, just to put a million little popes in his place. Makes a good evangelical wince a little, doesnt it? But before you take a step or two in the direction of Rome, remember that even one Pope has a million interpreters.
Typical catholic twisting.
I stand by my post 100%; Sal twisted the meaning of the verse.
All right: care to explain HOW, and prove your case, rather than contenting yourself with playground taunts? (Would you be content if I wrote your comments off as “Protestant twisting”? Though I’ll admid, I usually hear such accusations use the word “spin”, instead...)
The scripture verse makes its intent clear. It requires no high level of “interpretation.”
Lets not try to stretch it to support errant theology.
(*sigh*) Y’know, friend... I’m really trying hard not to write you off as a troll... and you’re not making it easy.
If you have a logical point to make, then you can do it without dodges, snark, and innuendo. Those are the tools of someone with no logical case... other than a case of nerves.
I made a very logical point: The verse is explicit, it speaks of actions, not instructions, and doesn’t include any oral traditions (which Christ roundly denounced himself).
I didn’t use any dodges, snark, or innuendo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.