This post by Scott McKnight at Jesus Creed comes on the heels of a discussion at the CAA I've been having on the problem of "unchanging biblical truths." I've been trying to get a few of the people there to explain how, if there are unchaging biblical truths, Protestatn doctrines can change over time. My point has been that having an unchanging text doesn't mean unchanging doctrines in the absence of an unchanging interpretative tradition.
It's amazing to me how such an obvious point is apparently incomprehensible.
McKnight's post discusses a forthcoming book by Christian Smith, "Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is not a truly Evangelical reading of Scripture." McKnight writes:
His argument will look a bit like this: the problem is called biblicism (defined below).The Thin Veil explains:
1. He sees biblicism in evangelicalism (not all of it) and in most charismatic and Pentecostal Christianity.
2. Biblicism involves belief in the Bible’s exclusive authority, infallibility, perspicuity, self-sufficiency, internal consistency, self-evident meaning, and universal applicability.
3. Liberalism is the corrosion of historic orthodoxy and is intellectually naive and susceptible to some reprehensible social and political expressions, but opposing liberalism — which Smith does — does not lead to or require biblicism. There are other alternatives.
4. What ultimately defeats biblicism is “pervasive interpretive pluralism.” The Bible says and teaches different things — if you listen to biblicists carefully — about most significant topics. It is, he argues, meaningless to talk about the inerrancy of the text if the interpretation of that text is up for grabs.
5. His goal is to become more evangelical, not less, in approach to Scripture.
6. Christian Smith, a notable Christian sociologist, has become a Roman Catholic, but he wrote this book before that move took place. He had these problems with evangelicalism before he became Catholic, but these problems are part of the reason he became Catholic.
Scot's post and the upcoming book hit right at the heart of two major flaws in Protestantism:
In order to trust the Bible you need to trust the Bible's origin. If you say the Catholic Church wasn't given the authority to define doctrines, then neither did she have the authority to define the books of the Bible back in the fourth century. How can Protestants be sure that the books that make up their Bible--and only those books--are the inspired Word of God? They can't accept them unless they take for granted the authority of Church.
Any appeal to Scripture is an appeal to an interpretation of Scripture. Biblical interpretation is really not a question of "what does the Bible say?" but "what do I or my community think the Bible says?" But what happens when two people think the same Bible verse means two different things? Why should someone believe the interpretation of this teacher, or that writer, or that church instead of others? It really boils down to the question of authority--who has the authority to ultimately explain the meaning of the text? The Catholic Church holds that her interpretation is the true one since she alone was given the authority of Christ (Matthew 16:19), an authority which has been passed down through the centuries. She alone was promised the protection of the Holy Spirit.
Posts
5 comments:
Hi PSB,
"How can Protestants be sure that the books that make up their Bible--and only those books--are the inspired Word of God? They can't accept them unless they take for granted the authority of Church."
How can Catholics be sure the RCC is divinely instituted and authoritative? And the claim the canon was settled in the 4th century by church decree is misleading. Christians before then were using Scripture, 4th-century councils defining the canon were provincial, not ecumenical and not infallible - canon wasn't defined infallibly until Trent (hence the dispute on deuterocanonicals by RCs up to that point). No RC would claim Christians were helpless until Trent.
"But what happens when two people think the same Bible verse means two different things? Why should someone believe the interpretation of this teacher, or that writer, or that church instead of others? It really boils down to the question of authority--who has the authority to ultimately explain the meaning of the text?"
But what happens when 2 RCs think the same magisterial documents means two different things? Why should someone believe the interpretation of this priest, or that bishop, or that theologian instead of others? Private interpretation and personal accountability of who you will submit yourself to is inescapable; there is purpose behind having minds/reasoning abilities.
Hello, Interlocutor,
This is a “tu quoque” argument that falsely assumes that our epistemological basis for accepting the authority of the Bible is the same as our epistemological basis for accepting the authority of the Church. We can know through history that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ by tracing back the historical evidence in part through writings – and traditions and historical objects – that are do not have to be inerrant. So, we can break the vicious cycle of self-authentication by appealing to objective evidence other than saying the “church is authoritative because it says it is authoritative,” i.e., we can see writings that link the earliest Church with the person of Christ.
But apart from the authority of the Church, on what basis would we know what texts are authoritative for Christian belief? St. Augustine’s answer was “apart from the authority of the Church, I would not believe the scriptures.” That is the answer we all have to give. Even Protestants accept the Bible they accept because their Church directs them to the Bible. No Protestant starts from scratch and decides what texts are authoritative, much less inerrant. The question, then, it would seem is, why does a Protestant accept the authority of his church to tell him what is “scripture”?
“Christians before then were using Scripture, 4th-century councils defining the canon were provincial, not ecumenical and not infallible - canon wasn't defined infallibly until Trent (hence the dispute on deuterocanonicals by RCs up to that point).”
Several points –
First, the controlling concept is “lex orandi, lex credenda,” or, in essence, what we pray determines what we believe. The purpose of having a canon was not – as moden Protestants imagine – to have a library for individual study. It was to have a body of texts that could be used in the liturgy. The canon as we know it in the Catholic and Orthodox churches was the body of texts that were used in liturgy throughout the Church.
So, yes, the Church recognized a canon long before it had a list of canonical documents. Nonetheless, because there was some minor variation with some texts being used rarely and by a tiny minority of churches – e.g., the “Gospel of Peter” – the canonical listing was necessary. It was also authoritative because it told dissenting churches that they were in error, and the dissenting churches recognized the authority of the universal – or catholic – or Catholic – church to make some decisions.
Second, it should be obvious from what I am saying that there was a body of Old Testament books that were used in liturgy before Trent and were understood as having been defined infallibly as canonical long before Trent. If you look at sources as disparate as St. Augustine in the 5th Century and Erasmus in the 16th Century, you will see that the “deuterocanonical” books were being used without any dissent or problem in Catholic liturgy. As such, they were defined as canonical by tradition through the ordinary magisterium, which is infallible, before Trent in the same way that the New Testament was defined as canonical by tradition through the ordinary magisterium before there were any lists of canon for the New Testament.
At some point, if you are able, check out Erasmus’ debate with Luther. Erasmus presented Luther with a verse from Sirach about free will and made the comment that Luther couldn’t deny the canonicity of Sirach since it had been used in liturgy since time immemorial. Now, Erasmus had shown a willingness to debunk scriptures that were of dubious origin, but he had no problem with the deuterocanonical books. Luther, however, made a lack of free will the centerpiece of his theology, and, so, it seems that Sirach had to go. So, out went the deuterocanonical books that had been accepted as inspired from the time of the apostles. See, for example, First Clement’s use of Sirach.
In short, the idea that the Old Testament canon was not known “infallibly” until Trent is bad history and ignores how the canon was used and defined.
“But what happens when 2 RCs think the same magisterial documents means two different things?....”
Yes, in a way, and no, in a way.
Ultimately, we all have to make our own decisions. But there is a difference in orientation between someone who says “this is what an authority teaches and I respect that authority” and someone who says “there is no authority and my opinions are as good as anyone else’s even if that person is a priest, bishop or doctor of the church.” The difference goes to the weight that we will give an opinion that we happen to personally disagree with.
In all of us, reason can war with appetite. There are things that I know to be true – I should not have that 4th glass of wine – and things that I just want – I want that 4th glass of wine. Ultimately, the person has to make a decision.
In making a reasoned decision, the person will be in a much better position if he has inculcated the habit of making the decision from an objective perspective, i.e., from a perspective that is outside of his individual perspective. This, however, requires that he do something unnatural in according more authority to an alien perspective than to his own self-interested perspective. So, in refusing to have that 4th glass of wine, a person might say, well the law will impose on me a penalty if I am caught driving, even though I know that I am perfectly alright.
In short, humans have the amazing ability to imagine themselves inhabiting an alien point of view when they weigh think about problems.
In theological terms, this is what is meant by thinking with the church – sentire cum ecclesia.
Protestants, of course, do the same thing, but they do it under the table, so to speak. One convert from Lutheranism said that sola scriptura was a terrible burden because he was supposed to read the bible and come up with his own individual answer which would be wrong if it didn’t agree with what the Lutheran church taught. Certainly that kind of thing – demanding that people pretend that they were exercising private judgment when they weren’t – would be cruel.
In practce, though, the difference is profound. Catholics can - and do - resolve disputes by reference to the authority of the church. I have been in some discussions where an answer seems unclear and the arguments equally forceful. Then, after we have referred to the Catechism, we find an answer. At thatpoint an amazing thing happens - the person who was wrong - even me - will say "well, I guess I was wrong," and the issue dies and the person who was wrong adjusts their view to incorporate the right answer.
Now, I have no idea why or how such a thing would ever take place in a system where private interpretation was the habit of mind. Unless one side or the other could be brought to heel by some non-rational influence - social sanction or an appeal to an authority, such as a respected pastor - why would a person who thought they were right concede they were wrong? And if it was felt to be an important enough issue, how would the community survive?
It probably would not, which is why there are so many Protestant denominations.
Hi PSB,
"We can know through history that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ by tracing back the historical evidence in part through writings – and traditions and historical objects – that are do not have to be inerrant. So, we can break the vicious cycle of self-authentication by appealing to objective evidence"
Apostolic succession cannot be proven objectively or historically - it is a matter of faith as there are no records tracing the present hierarchy's lineage past the 16th century. If there was ever a broken/invalid link (made even more precarious by Trent's doctrine of intent), then the whole thing breaks down and the grounding of Rome's authority vanishes. What happens when "objective evidence" in the historical arena seems to conflict with Rome's claims - I can cite from various RC scholars/popes about the approach being that these apparent conflicts need to be interpreted in a theological, rather than historical, sense and that theologians are to find support from history for doctrine after it has been defined, but I don't want to bog down the combox. I'm just saying the circle still seems evident - "study history/writings to ascertain the truth of our claims, but do not interpret history contrary to our claims" or "tradition validates our claims, but we are the arbiters of what constitutes said tradition".
"Why does a Protestant accept the authority of his church to tell him what is “scripture”?"
A Protestant would readily admit to God's guidance and providence in history in Christians recognizing the canon of scripture, and Protestants do not limit the "church" to just their denomination. Does recognition of providence automatically mean one must believe in the technical and nuanced/qualified and rather murky (practically speaking) defintion of papal infalliblity as articulated by Vatican I and contemporary theologians?
"First, the controlling concept is “lex orandi, lex credenda,”"
Do you never believe there is a conflict here between infallible pronouncements and lex orandi, lex credenda? If not, why have infallible pronouncements at all? If so, what value is characterizing it as a "controlling concept" if infallibility is where the real meat's at?
"The canon as we know it in the Catholic and Orthodox churches was the body of texts that were used in liturgy throughout the Church."
Of course the canon of the Orthodox churches differs from the RCC.
"In short, the idea that the Old Testament canon was not known “infallibly” until Trent is bad history and ignores how the canon was used and defined."
My point was that yes deuteros could be considered canonical in the church up to Trent, but not in the *same sense* as other OT books (and so the opinions of Cajetan and Ximenes and others throughout history) - Trent changed that - they were held in equal regard now and doctrine could be extrapolated from them. So just because it wasn't "infallibly known" what sense the deuteros held until Trent, does that mean Christians were helpless with their use or the use of other books? Obviously not as you said. But just because a canon definition came from a provincial council in the 4th century and was followed by all, does that mean Protestants need to be consistent and follow all the doctrines throughout history that have been defined at authoritative provincial councils? Of course not (no doubt there are conflicts as well), as RCs will say infallibility does not apply to provinicial councils. My point is that the claim that Protestants need to be consistent if they are going to follow the ruling of a provincial council on the canon can easily be applied to the RC as well.
Will get to your third comment later hopefully.
Post a Comment