The following is Keith Mathison's definition of
sola Scriptura.
"The magisterial reformers argued that Scripture was the sole source of revelation, that it is to be interpreted in and by the church, and that it is to be interpreted within the context of the regula fidei."
I found it while reading
here.
Doesn't this sound a lot like what a Catholic would say about Scripture/Tradition? And if so, is not sola Scriptura just an emasculated Catholic doctrine?
Especially if the term "sole source of revelation" is read as Scripture being materially sufficient. I mean, as far as I know Catholics don't deny that Scripture contains everything that Tradition contains and vise versa. I think a Catholic could (with proper qualification) say that at the end of the day the Scripture is his sole source of revelation. And Keith Mathison could (would!) say it as well (with proper qualification.) It is in the qualification that the subjectivity of the Protestant doctrine is revealed. The identity of the "church" is really the key here. Really what the meaty version of
sola Scriptura (as opposed to
solo Scriptura)is demanding is a subjective identification of what the church is.
Of the three points in the statement, a Catholic only has to qualify #1. A Protestant must qualify all 3 and blush at the verbiage required for him to qualify #2 and #3.
1. Scripture is the sole source of revelation
2. it is to be interpreted in and by the church
3. it is to be interpreted within the context of the regula fidei
For the Protestant, #2 is out the window. I mean "in and by" what church? What if I disagree with that "churches" interpretation? Subjective identification (by the individual Christian) of a "church" who will do the actual interpreting mentioned in #2 is critical to the Protestant doctrine.
#3 just boils down to a sort of "Vincentian cannon" for the Protestant. Which boils down to a mere Christianity that has every interpretation under the sun.
So my question put another way is this: Is it fair to say that (A.) the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura first and foremost
requires the right of the individual Christian to identify the church, while (B.) the Catholic doctrine of sola Scriptura (If there could be such a thing) requires a church that explicitly rejects and reverses (A.)?
So as Obi-Wan Kenobi said to Luke, sola Scriptura is "true... from a certain point of view." And my main point is that the doctrine as written is not bad, but dies the death of a thousand qualifications as a Protestant doctrine. Not so as a Catholic one. After all, there is a reason why the Scriptural cannon is closed for Catholics. Scripture is complete and sufficient. And of course it needs interpreting... no one denies this. I think there may be a place for a Catholic to sometimes say "yeah, I agree with
sola Scriptura...
IF it means..." Perhaps granting this "sola" of the reformation in the qualified way I suggest could be way to help Protestants see the faulty assumptions underlying their view of Scripture.
So my question put another way is this: Is it fair to say that (A.) the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura first and foremost requires the right of the individual Christian to identify the church, while (B.) the Catholic doctrine of sola Scriptura (If there could be such a thing) requires a church that explicitly rejects and reverses (A.)?
ReplyDeleteI don't think Mathison would agree with the "first and foremost" necessity of this "right." His discussion of the identity of the Church can be found in ch. 11 of The Shape of Sola Scriptura, free on Google Books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=w_PHAGr2TfgC&lpg=PP1&dq=the%20shape%20of%20sola%20scriptura&pg=PA319#v=onepage&q&f=false
Matthew,
ReplyDeleteI think you are correct, based on what Mathison wrote, that he would not agree with the statement. But it is hard to see, when you get through his branch theory and regula fedei requirements for identifying true churches, how it does not eventually go back to the individual. In fact Keith's choice of requirements for identifying the Church, or true churches, boils down to an opinion that does not have any authority behind it. Sola Scriptura certainly does not come close providing enough information. And of course we can see the circle again because we still have not infallibly identified The Church that is required for sola scriptura to work in the first place. So ultimately we are back to the individual because we still have not pin-pointed The Church needed to interpret the scriptures.
Btw,he concludes that Rome must be included in the Church "in some sense" based on his criteria. But again it is only his criteria.
The issue is what you mean by "how it does not eventually go back to the individual." In one sense, it always "goes back" to the individual, since he investigates evidence and decides, for himself, which authority, or set of authorities, should govern his spiritual life. Even when someone who enters the PCA denomination or the Roman Catholic denomination decides to submit his conscience to the ruling elders or the Magisterium, this submission is contingent on his initial judgment that one of these bodies is worthy of submission. To the extent we can call it one, individual responsibility is a problem inherent to both Reformed Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.
ReplyDeleteYou write:
In fact Keith's choice of requirements for identifying the Church, or true churches, boils down to an opinion that does not have any authority behind it.
What force of authority does your opinion that Roman Catholicism is the true Church carry?
If you say it has authority because Rome agrees with your opinion, then so too can Mathison claim that his opinion has authority to the extent it agrees with the Church as he identifies it.
The force of authority behind all ultimately binding claims is God. We both know he expresses ultimately binding claims in Scripture. So it is to Scripture we should first turn to resolve the question of the identification of the Church.
Sola Scriptura certainly does not come close providing enough information.
How do you know this? What grounds your concept of sufficiency in this matter?
Mr. Shultz said:
ReplyDelete"I don't think Mathison would agree with the "first and foremost" necessity of this "right." "
Perhaps he wouldnt.
Do you agree that it is a necessity in the Protestant framework? If you answer no, then arent you saying that all other protestants must submit to the church you identify?
"The issue is what you mean by "how it does not eventually go back to the individual." In one sense, it always "goes back" to the individual, since he investigates evidence and decides, for himself, which authority, or set of authorities, should govern his spiritual life."
ReplyDeleteCertainly we all need to use reason to arrive at conclusions but there is a difference. When I went from Calvinistic Baptist to Presbyterian it was because I found a Church that was more in line with my new insights to scripture (which I previously read very differently). So I found a church that agreed with me. When I found the Lutheran view of Sacraments more biblical than the WCF's... I was compelled to move on. So any submission to a denominational authority was based on their agreeing with my interpretation of Scripture. So I would submit to those who agreed with me. But such a submission is really just a submission to oneself. When one submits to the Church it is a true submission based not on my current, personal interpretation of scripture but inspite of it. So no Protestant truly submits to The Church. They submit to scpripture and the church that most closely agrees with their understanding of it or at least their hermeneutical framework. It is not the same thing as submitting to the authority of the Church because you believe it is the Church.
"Even when someone who enters the PCA denomination or the Roman Catholic denomination decides to submit his conscience to the ruling elders or the Magisterium, this submission is contingent on his initial judgment that one of these bodies is worthy of submission. To the extent we can call it one, individual responsibility is a problem inherent to both Reformed Protestantism and Roman Catholicism."
This is the tu quoque argument. But I will reiterate my point above. One only submits to the ruling elders so long as they agree with them. One does not do such a think when they submit to the authority of the Church. The number of Presbyterian church splits (or any Protestant denomination) is evidence enough that they such a submission is a submission to a structure for the sake of order more than to a legitmate authority.
"If you say it has authority because Rome agrees with your opinion, then so too can Mathison claim that his opinion has authority to the extent it agrees with the Church as he identifies it."
Again that is the tu quoque argument. It does nothing to address the actual unworkability of the Protestant framework.
Also, Keith never really identifies The Church. He at best identifies a loose confederation of communities that fit his criteria. There is a big difference because how can this confederation apply his definition of Sola Scriptura in any meaningful way? Only a united church with uniformity of doctrine can do such a thing.
"'Sola Scriptura certainly does not come close providing enough information.'
How do you know this? What grounds your concept of sufficiency in this matter?"
David quoted Keith:
"The magisterial reformers argued that Scripture was the sole source of revelation, that it is to be interpreted in and by the church, and that it is to be interpreted within the context of the regula fidei."
An authoritative church alone is sufficient to make such a concept come close to working. Mathison does not present a church that can legitimately fit his own criteria.
As David demonstrates faulty assumptions underline the protestant view of scripture.
David H. writes:
ReplyDeleteCertainly we all need to use reason to arrive at conclusions but there is a difference.
I read through your comments. If there is a difference, it was not elucidated in an serious fashion.
One only submits to the ruling elders so long as they agree with them. One does not do such a think when they submit to the authority of the Church.
I thought you said you were a convert from a Presbyterian system of church governance. Your characterization does not seem fair. Consider Turretin's comments on someone who disagrees with the decisions of his local church authority:
...they ought to undertake nothing rashly or disorderly and unseasonably, so as to violently rend the body of their mother, 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 the inner court of conscience, except inasmuch as they are found to agree with the word of God (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 3 [Phillipsburg: P&R, 1997], 284).
The only court the Church cannot bind (in the qualified sense given above) is the inner conscience. Yet there are still times when it is possible, even preferable, to submit despite disagreement.
This also does not account for submission to authority in situations without agreement or disagreement--such as when a teaching elder in a Reformed Baptist denomination makes some kind of claim based on his position as a qualified theologian that the congregant cannot (by virtue of a lack of training, time, etc.) verify, yet still trusts as true.
The number of Presbyterian church splits (or any Protestant denomination) is evidence enough that they such a submission is a submission to a structure for the sake of order more than to a legitmate authority.
This seemed to be the only true argument in favor of a functional difference, but it is hard to see how it is relevant or how it succeeds on its own terms. What does the "number" of splits have to do with the issue?
In any case, it strikes me as a composition fallacy--so some people within a Protestant denomination found it more convenient to deny the reigning authority structure than obey it, so, therefore, all people within said denomination do not really believe submission is to a legitimate authority.
And here the tu quoque argument is useful again: there were (and continue to be) plenty of "splits" from Rome-centered Christianity before Protestantism arrived, including a particular Eastern sect that still enjoys, according to Roman Catholic standards, valid apostolic succession. Does that mean submission within Roman Catholicism is really just for the sake of order than to what is considered a legitimate authority?
Again that is the tu quoque argument. It does nothing to address the actual unworkability of the Protestant framework.
That is because the tu quoque succeeds in dismissing the current charge of unworkability. Either I've missed another argument on the table or you are suggesting I proactively address another, currently unknown, set of objections to the Protestant framework.
Indeed, the Catholic apologetic of raising these kinds of objections to Protestantism, objections Catholicism cannot itself answer on its own terms to any intellectual satisfaction, was a prime reason I decided not to convert to Rome.
Mathison does not present a church that can legitimately fit his own criteria.
I asked what grounds your concept of sufficiency on why the Scriptures are insufficient to address the identification of the Church. You don't have to answer that question, but I am not sure how this answer addresses that question.
As for Mathison, people are free to judge for themselves whether this charge is merited.
Consider also the various Reformed authorities quoted and discussed here on the issue of "going back" to the "individual":
ReplyDeletehttp://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/rank-individualism-and-sola-scriptura.html
(I am the author of the linked item. I provide it simply a more efficient means of providing the documentation and discussion I would otherwise have liked to reproduce in this comment box.)
Matthew:
ReplyDeletePreviously I asked a question and I really would be interested in your answer.
You said:
"I don't think Mathison would agree with the "first and foremost" necessity of this "right." " (of the individual to identify the church)
I said:
Perhaps he wouldnt.
Do you agree that it is a necessity in the Protestant framework?
Your quote of Turretin is a curious one, and one that was influential in my conversion. When I read it in Keith's book (which I have read through twice praying it would give answers) I was blown away by the honesty of that quote. The arrogation to oneself of the "binding of the inner court of conscience" Turretin speaks of IS EXACTLY what makes your Tu Quoque not work. And it is EXACTLY the way in which the Protestant paradigm "requires the right of the individual Christian to identify the church". Turretin is clear and forthright, and the fact that Keith quotes him in his book I think shows that this is clearly what Keith believes as well. In corespondence with Keith he gave the Tu Quoque as well. (from June of this year posted on this blog) But it does not stick, because of exactly this issue of binding conscience.
The only similarity in the 2 systems is in the initial stage of discovering the Church. But Turretin's defense (and my critique) are not talking about that stage. We are talking about once the believer is in the "church" that he has discovered.
If you want to go back and examine ground floor epistemology, well then OF COURSE the Tu Quoque applies to absolutely everything then, including theism itself. The Catholic finds a Church that demands submission of conscience. The Protestant finds one that absolutely does not, and proudly so. So again, the Tu Quoque does not work.
Perhaps I can read your article later today.
Peace,
David Meyer
David Meyer,
ReplyDeleteAnd it is EXACTLY the way in which the Protestant paradigm "requires the right of the individual Christian to identify the church".
...
If you want to go back and examine ground floor epistemology, well then OF COURSE the Tu Quoque applies to absolutely everything then, including theism itself. The Catholic finds a Church that demands submission of conscience. The Protestant finds one that absolutely does not, and proudly so. So again, the Tu Quoque does not work.
One reason I responded the way I did is because of the vagueness in David H.'s remark about the whole process "going back" to "the individual." That response, one which clarified that the phrase could be taken in various ways, wasn't a response to you, so of course that argument won't work if you are approaching a different issue. You are observing that an argument meant for someone else does not work against your (different) position.
As for the meat of the matter, it is unclear how this "right" is "required" given what you've said. Perhaps it is because your language is confusing given the stage of inquiry in your critique. To say someone has the right to "identify" the Church suggests a time before one has completed such an identification. Do you mean something like re-identify? Or, really, the right to break fellowship with the Church? If so, I don't see how that's anything of an "honest" admission, or why it would "influence" your conversion, as if this is somehow damaging to sola Scriptura.
In corespondence with Keith
If Mathison was unsuccessful, I doubt my arguments will be any more persuasive. Perhaps it is time for me to go elsewhere.
Matthew,
ReplyDeleteI apologize for the vagueness of my argument. However, I think David has done a very good job getting to the heart of the issue which I would like to see you engage a bit more.
Just because Keith was not persuasive to David doesn't mean there cannot be a fruitful discussion.
"If Mathison was unsuccessful, I doubt my arguments will be any more persuasive. Perhaps it is time for me to go elsewhere."
ReplyDeleteI dont know what tradition you were raised in or how many you have been through, but I for one have been through 3 protestant ones and now Catholic and I was at one time pro-abortion as well so I have at least shown that I can be pursuaded by good arguments. I got in touch with Keith (and R.C. Jr, and Doug Wilson, and read lots of books) to try to regain confidence in sola Scriptura only to again and again have it end exactly like this. With the Protestant basically saying that it is not worth their time to come up with a good argument, and dropping the Tu Quoque as they walk out the door. But I will no longer give confessional Protestants a pass when they claim sola S. is their objective authority and then turn around and do the tu quoque. It is one or the other. The best is when the conversation starts by the Protestant complaining about Rome binding the conscience, and ends with the tu quoque and them saying Rome is just another denomination the believers conscience can choose.
At this point I am starting to understand that by the tu quoque they are saying "ok, ok, yeah, we are our own authority, so what?... but neener neener so are you."
Well it is either one or the other: Either you have an objective authority, or you can use the tu quoque. It is that simple. I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are a seeker of the truth-for-truth-sake, but with your last comment it seems as if you just want your "side" to win. I want Jesus to win. Wherever that leads.
Peace to you bro.
-David Meyer
David Meyer writes:
ReplyDeleteWith the Protestant basically saying that it is not worth their time to come up with a good argument, and dropping the Tu Quoque as they walk out the door.
Mathison has given arguments he considers good in a work you've said you've prayerfully read. You've had personal interaction with Mathison, and I've also issued arguments here, arguments I believe are good. I've also asked for clarification on your part with respect to your specific arguments. So it's not an issue of failing to "come up" with a "good argument," or just blithely issuing some simplistic response and then leaving. (And I issued a post a little while ago interacting with you over at Beggars All, so it's not as if I'm interested in hit and run behavior.) The arguments we think are sufficient to refute the claims of Rome exist in print and are expounded regularly by Protestants. The point of my comment was that I don't really have anything novel to add to Mathison's treatment of this particular issue. Why should I repeat what you've already dismissed as insufficient and unreasonable when someone far more qualified than I failed to convince you of the reasonableness of his position?
Yet you wish to construe this in rather uncharitable terms. You're welcome to do that, but that doesn't make me take your charge of "just want your 'side" to win" seriously.
Well it is either one or the other: Either you have an objective authority, or you can use the tu quoque. It is that simple.
I've asked questions of you as to why your argument succeeds as I don't see how it follows. But instead of addressing them, you assert this dilemma as if the issue were obvious. Perhaps it is obvious. I don't always follow obvious arguments. And you are, of course, under no obligation to answer questions; I don't set the agenda at your blog. But it's one thing to pass on an inquiry and quite another to ignore this and still construe my approach as some petty and partisan attempt to score rhetorical points.
Matthew,
ReplyDeleteI just wrote a lengthy response and it was deleted into the ether somehow. How frustrating. Anyway, sorry if I accused you of just wanting to score points, I understand what you meant now about Keith. Sincere apologies.
Anyway, my rewritten comment was too long so I just made a new post out of it. (I also did a little dabling in Microsoft Paint for some humor).