Comments on: (Mis)Understanding Sola Scriptura

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:22:00 +0000

David One of the blogs that I check regularly has a post of Scott Hahn talking about church authority. I thought you might find it interesting. If you do check it out, let me know what you think. I linked to it through my blog, so if you have any comments, you can post them there. That way I will be sure to get them.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:37:00 +0000

David
Thanks for visiting my blog. I am curious to hear what your opinion is of the Didache as well as Pope Benedicts book…is this your first time reading him?
I am sure that there will be more opportunities for discussion. Keep the posts coming and I will as well.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:18:00 +0000

David C,
You said: “1. I am asking that you extend me the same consideration that I may in fact be correct. According to your rubric, my stance has just as much of a possibility of being correct as yours…in fact I would argue that I have more of a chance of being correct…”
I do extend you that consideration, but I think I might have been unclear. My “rubric” does not say that you and I have an equal possibility of being right. I'm not arguing for that kind of radical uncertainty! To throw out an arbitrary number, I would say that I'm 80% sure that Reformed (Calvinist) Protestantism is correct (as opposed to other forms of Protestantism), and 90% sure that Protestantism in general (as opposed to Catholicism or Orthodoxy) is correct. So you see, while I believe that it is possible that Catholicism is true, I don't think it very probable.
You said: “2. How can you say that scripture interpretation can be known the same way that one can know anything else? Truth is truth. We can know for sure that a pizza is a pizza. There is no option that it may be something else. I don't need to look at all the arguments and based on my flawed logic come to a conclusion.”
Really? Suppose you saw something that you thought was a Pizza, but in reality it turned out to be a cherry pie with pieces of fruit on top that looked like pepperoni from a distance. Things are never so simple as “a pizza is a pizza.” As long as we are finite and fallen, there is always a chance (no matter how small) of error. Now, you might say that if the “pie” was right in front of you, you could easily identify that it was not actually a pizza. It was only the distance and the finitude of your vision that caused you to make the mistake. But then, it is the same with revelation. Some parts of the Bible are so clear and obvious in their meaning that they are like the pie being right in front of you. But other parts of Scripture are not so clear, and those parts require hard work (studying the commentators of the past, genre, historical context, etc.)
You said: “What you are really saying is that there is in fact no way to be sure. I appreciate your transparency on this issue. That is why I have enjoyed dialoguing with you. You are a seeker of truth. However, you yourself have said that there really is no way of knowing for sure due to our clouded intellect. This seems to be a direct contradiction to the Westminster Confession of Faith. In fact 1:7 states: “yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” ”
Hopefully my previous comments have already answered this. By “there is really no way of knowing for sure” I mean only that, as finite human beings, we can't honestly ever say that we have more than 99.9% certainty. But Obviously any person who was 99.9% certain about something would be a fool not to believe it. I'm not Presbyterian, but I assume that that is all the Westminster Confession is asserting.
You said: “However, I struggle with the notion that God has revealed truth to us but, according to your estimation, there really is no way for us to know it for sure.”
I appreciate your transparency as well. I believe this is the heart of the debate. As I said once before, I don't really share this struggle with you, because I am aware of both my finitude and fallenness, and I don't really expect 100% certainty in this life to come from any human agency. But like I said, 99.9% certainty is functionally equivalent to Truth with a capital “t”, so I'm not throwing out the possibility of knowing truth. I simply think that the number of truths we can know with 99.9% certainty is a bit smaller than Rome thinks.
Since this looks like it's going to be the end of the discussion, I thought I should tell you that I'm not dogmatically opposed to Catholicism. I'm open to the possibility that it's correct, I simply don't think the possibility is a very big one. Like I said, if I was to give up SS and accept church infallibility, I find Eastern Orthodoxy far more convincing than Rome. But I am currently reading several early church fathers (primarily Augustine and Maximus Confessor), as well as the Apostolic Fathers (Clement, the Didache, Hermas, etc.). I'm also lightly dabbling in church history. In fact, I'm so interested in this area that I hope to focus on Patristics and early church history when I go to seminary. I mention all of this to show you that I am open to the possibility that the Reformation was one big mistake, it's just that right now I'm 90% sure that it wasn't.
Thank you again for a vigorous dsicussion. I appreciate it when my interlocutors have good, sound arguments for me to consider, and go out of their way to present them in a charitable manner.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:44:00 +0000

David
I meant to include this in my last comment, but forgot.
Perhaps relativism is too strong of a word for me to use. However, I struggle with the notion that God has revealed truth to us but, according to your estimation, there really is no way for us to know it for sure. I don't mean to accuse you of anything and if my comments have seemed uncharitable, I humbly ask your forgiveness. I think mamamarieb is correct in saying that often times we try to win an argument rather than have a true dialogue.
I have learned a lot from our conversation and I hope you have as well. We may not see things the same way, but I do believe that we are still brothers.
I am sure that there will be ample opportunities for us to dialogue about other topics.
God bless you.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:34:00 +0000

so i know i am just jumping in here, and that was such a thoughtful response from david c. that i really don't know if i want to interject. but just from reading this blog, there have been a couple things that i have noticed.
you are all very dedicated and i appreciate your dicipline. i only pray that your motives are right. it is hard for me to be involved in dialogues of this sort because i struggle with charity at times. i think i am arguing for the love of truth, but many times i just want to be right. so until i have arrived at some level of holiness i will have to play only a small part in this discussion. (this is a good thing:) the ending paragraph in the prologue of the catechism of the catholic church says “the whole concern of doctrine and its teaching must be directed to the love that never ends. whether something is proposed for belief, for hope, or for action, the love of our Lord must always be made accessible so that anyone can see that all the works of perfect Christian virtue spring from love and have no other objective than to arrive at love.”
another reason i try not to engage in these discussions is because i found that i spent so much time defending my faith, that i was failing to celebrate it. that being said, i wish to share my joy with you. i praise God that i have not been left alone to decide for myself what the truth is. i thank our Lord Jesus for giving us a church against which the gates of hades will not prevail. i rejoice in the Divine Wisdom that says that truth is not decided on by a majority vote.
let me leave you with this thought. what if there was a way that we could all be united in one mind? what if the exhortations that saint paul gives in nearly every letter he writes were not just in vain, but that we could “stand firm in one spirit with one mind, struggling together for the faith of the gospel.” (phil 1:27)
would God give us this desire for unity in truth and not give us the grace to attain it?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:38:00 +0000

David
I have tried to address all objections, however, in this format, it is quite difficult to do so. I would ask you to show me which ones I haven't addressed.
I find one thing lacking in one of your latest responses. On one hand you say that, “I can know I have the correct interpretation just like I can know anything else,” but in the same paragraph you ask that due to our fallen nature and flawed intellect “Does this give me 100% certainty that I am correct? No. And that is why I humbly allow for the possibility that those who disagree with me may in fact be right.”
Two things hit me here:
1. I am asking that you extend me the same consideration that I may in fact be correct. According to your rubric, my stance has just as much of a possibility of being correct as yours…in fact I would argue that I have more of a chance of being correct as I have scripture, patristic sources and history on my side. Using the Bereans hardly proves the doctrine of SS.
2. How can you say that scripture interpretation can be known the same way that one can know anything else? Truth is truth. We can know for sure that a pizza is a pizza. There is no option that it may be something else. I don't need to look at all the arguments and based on my flawed logic come to a conclusion. What you are really saying is that there is in fact no way to be sure. I appreciate your transparency on this issue. That is why I have enjoyed dialoguing with you. You are a seeker of truth. However, you yourself have said that there really is no way of knowing for sure due to our clouded intellect. This seems to be a direct contradiction to the Westminster Confession of Faith. In fact 1:7 states: “yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”
This is pretty clear. Even the unlearned can sufficiently understand “those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation” because they “are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture.”
David, let me ask you something, with this corner that you have painted yourself into, how can you know anything for sure?
Do I think you are going to hell? Absolutely not. I think you are seeking the truth. However, scripture is very clear that we will be held accountable for what we know. Willed ignorance is no ignorance at all.
God, in His infinite wisdom, has raised his church as a father raises a family. There is no way that he would leave us, his children orphans…left to find our own way. That is why Jesus left us with a visible church to help nurture us. You seem to cringe at words like “infallibility” and “authority.” I remember being a little boy and seeing my dad as some sort of infallible authority. Now as I grew older, I realized that my dad was anything but infallible, but he was an authority nonetheless. The judge in a courtroom isn't final because he is right, he is right because he is final. We see this logically in our everyday lives…why wouldn't the need for infallible authority be necessary in our spiritual lives?
This doesn't mean that the Church can just make up the truth. It doesn't mean that dogma can be arbitrarily defined. I would encourage you to look into what the Church actually teaches in the way of Apostolic succession, authority and infallibility. The Catholic Church and the Pope actually claim less authority than your average church down the street. Your pastor and elders can change the doctrine of your church in an instant. That can't happen in the Catholic Church…there are too many checks and balances.
Do I think you are a heretic? Absolutely not! I think you are my brother…separated though we may be. Just know this, the Catholic Church is like stained glass windows, they may look nice from the outside, but are absolutely beautiful from the inside. G.K. Chesterton said that once a man stops pulling away from the Church, he can't help but be drawn to it. There are no neutral position on Catholicism.
Let me leave you with this. If SS is true, then I have lost nothing. I already believe in the inerrancy and authority of scritpure. However, what if I am correct? What do you stand to lose?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:33:00 +0000

David C,
You said: “However, the main problem I have is that all the attributes for an infallible interpretive authority (Pope and magisterium) you (by “you” I mean a collective you) give to yourself. You make yourself out to be the measure of all truth, your own pope and magisterium, if you will. You do this when you say ” I will believe x,y and z, but will reject a, b, and c.” You can say this because “the bible says so” or “because I have good reason to believe” or “it just makes sense.” ”
You run into a small problem here. How exactly are we applying the criteria for infallible authority to ourselves? When have we claimed that our interpretation of Scripture is infallible? You see, we don't, and simply saying that “I will believe a and reject x because best reason tells me to” is equivalent to “I will believe a and reject x because I am an infallible interpreter”, doesn't make it so. The difference is actually quite significant.
You said: “Not one proponent of SS has cited one scripture or church father as an argument in favor of the doctrine of sola scriptura.
I think DFR did a great cursory job of showing the centrality of Scripture in the NT church. The Apostles are certainly not depicted as infallible interpreters, and the Bereans are a great example of those who used Scripture and their own reason to see if Paul's Apostolic message was correct. I also think there are plenty of good arguments against interpreting the one or two passages you've mentioned as supporting infallible church authority, some of which DFR has also mentioned. If you're only looking for a single proof-text for SS, then I'm afraid we won't be able to convince you.
You said: “There has been a bunch of rhetoric and arguments about “rational thinking” but nothing concrete.”
It's easy to dismiss an argument by simply calling it rhetoric or saying (vaguely) that it isn't concrete, but we won't get anywhere if you don't actually engage the specific points we're making. You have done so with some of our points, but not all.
“I am not relying on my own intellect, because it is flawed. I am relying on the promise of Christ that the Holy Spirit will guide his church in all truth.”
You've run into another problem here, almost an outright contradiction in fact. How do you know that Christ's promise is that the church will be infallible? Is this not the interpretation of the passage that, with your admittedly flawed intellect, you have decided is the right one? Were you not convinced of this by rational argument when you decided to join the Catholic church? Once again, positing an infallible authority doesn't really do anything to solve the problem for you. It simply give you a more comforting certainty about your decision after you (fallibly) made it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:18:00 +0000

David C,
You said: “Again this brings us back to the original question that you have yet to answer: How can one be sure he has the correct interpretation? ”
I have answered this question already, but I will do so one more time. I can know the correct interpretation of Scripture in the same way I can know anything else. I accept the limits of my being finite and fallen, and then proceed to use my God-given rational faculties to read the text, understanding the arguments from different positions, and choose the interpretation that seems best. Does this give me 100% certainty that I am correct? No. And that is why I humbly allow for the possibility that those who disagree with me may in fact be right.
Several times you have either hinted at or explicitly said that SS makes every believer his own little pope. Consequently, you claim that this makes each of us the measure of truth and that we have functionally accepted relativism. But this is all quite false. It would only be true if we thought that our own interpretation of Scripture was infallibly correct, but this is precisely what we reject. Only the Word of God is infallible, and all our interpretations will be fallible. The most humble and rational thing I can do is to submit to what I am convinced is the correct interpretation, all the while asking God to enlighten my understanding by His Spirit.
I believe DFR put it quite nicely when he said: “Uncertainty is an unfortunate reality of this world. Fallibility is an unfortunate essence of our creatureliness. The natural discomfort and tension generated by the very question Dave C continually raises is evidence of the longing for the eternal which rests in the hearts of men. It is one of the curses of living in the already/not yet times we inhabit. We must simply do the best we can, and, like the Bereans, continually return to Scripture to test everything that we hear.”
You said: “You may not have explicitly condoned relativism or defined the chuirch as a dismembered body, but your acceptance of the disunity implicitly condones that former and defines the latter.”
Once again, against the charge of relativism, I can only this: to admit that I and my neighbor are both finite and fallen human beings and that it is likely that neither of our interpretations are 100% accurate to the true reality as God knows it, is simply not relativism. I'm not sure what else I can say.
You said: “If you believe that all christian denominations are following the truth as they understand it and you are “fine with that,” then aren't you basically saying that “what's good for you may not be good for me?”
No. You are quite insistent on finding relativism wherever you can. I sincerely hope that you are simply misunderstand me. I never said that I accepted the conclusions of other denominations as being “true for them but not for me.” I think they're wrong, just I think that Catholics and Orthodox are wrong. But let me put a simple question to you: Do you believe that I (or any other Protestants here) am going to Hell because I don't accept the infallibility of church tradition and the authority of the Pope?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:26:00 +0000

DFR
This post is a bi product of a long discussion between David N. and myself. You can find that discussion here.
I am not sure how you answer any of my questions. But I will address your points one at a time:
1. We did lose the right to have direct communion with God, but Jesus came to “make all things new” in the palengenesia (new genesis). This Greek word is used twice in the new testament, once by Jesus (in Matthew)) and once by Paul (in Titus) referring to baptism.
Your understanding of the Catholic doctrine of the church's infallible teaching authority seems limited especially if you will say something like “Basically, God did all the creating, Christ did some of the saving, and the HS is the waterboy for now-empowered man.
“We must simply do the best we can, and, like the Bereans, continually return to Scripture to test everything that we hear.”
How do you know what to consider scripture if you don't trust the Church's authority. No one has yet to provide a good answer to this. We have the cannon because it was given to us by the Church.
2. If you are using Acts 17:11 to prove the doctrine of SS, you are completely ripping a verse out of context. You are proof texting which does nothing but validate my claim that SS doesn't work.
“Look at the damnation that John holds out in Revelation for adding or subtracting one thing from Scripture. ”
You had better be careful with this because a guy named Martin Luther subtracted 7 books from the bible. He tried to get James and Revelation thrown out as well.
You seem to think that the church exists because of scripture, but the church is chronologically prior to scripture. Scripture is not the only source of God's revelation (cf. 2 Thess 2:15, 1 Cor 11:34)
3. The number one thing that Jesus talks about in the synoptics is the “kingdom of God.” He comes to re establish the Davidic kingdom. Look through Matthew with all the descriptions of the kingdom and you will find it obvious that Jesus isn't talking about Heaven. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Davidic line, which is obvious when you look at the genealogy in Matt 1. The genealogy contains 3 sets of 14 generations (14 being the numeric value of “David”). Since Hebrew has no comparitive forms (ie. big, bigger, biggest) the repetition of something three times indicates the highest value (eg. Holy, Holy, Holy)…a first century Jew would get this. We may miss it. Jesus is not only the new Adam, the new Moses, but he is the new David. The Davidic kingdom had a prime minister who was given the “keys to the kingdom” (cf. Is 22) and he had the authority of the king when the king was away. The keys to the kingdom were given to Peter.
Israel did have infallible teaching authority these institutions were established by Moses (cf Ex 18:13-26). Jesus refers to this authority in Matt 23:2-3 and elswhere. Notice that Jesus tells the Jews to do as they say but not as they do. Infallibility doesn't mean that all bishops or popes are saints. It means that they will not teach error. This isn't tough to believe as Jesus builds his church on Peter and guarantees that the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
(“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me [Jesus].”)
Again, an attempt at proof text. Jesus also told them that “he who receives you, receives me.” He also gave the apostles the power to bind and to loose.
4. Pretty sure I answered this one above.
The bottom line is that SS isn't tenable for the following reasons:
1. The doctrine of sola scriptura can't be adequately defended using scripture.
2. No new testament scripture existed until decades after Christ established the church.
3. The church functioned without an official Bible until the end of the 4th century.
4. You can't even verify the cannon without the aid of the church's authority.
5. SS requires that the individual must have access to scripture in order to rightly interpret sound doctrine. Fact: Bibles weren't readily available until recently. The printing press wasn't invented until the 1500's (is it a coincidence that this about the time that Luther came up with this doctrine?) and even then books were not affordable to the general public.
6. Most people were illiterate until recently, so the only place they would hear the Word of God read would be church.
7. There are no patristic sources backing SS, but many to back the church's infallible teaching authority.
8. SS gives interpretive authority to the individual's assessment of the leading of the Holy Spirit.
1 Spirit and 1 Bible leads to 1000's of protestant denominations.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:38:00 +0000

see above David C…I think I mentioned some things you're questioning here.