The Baggage of Sola Scriptura
Today we have a guest post from Tom Massoth, the father-in-law of my friend John, who will also soon be a guest poster here at Restless Pilgrim.
Tom and his wife of 39 years, Michele, reside in Yorba Linda, CA where they raised their two daughters Lisa and Jennifer. Now blessed with four perfect grandchildren, this retired Boeing engineer dedicates his time to God, family and friends, and various time-gobbling hobbies such as cycling. He is also a a Certified Flight Instructor in both airplanes and gliders.
Tom has a love of Scripture and is a student of Church history and the early development of Christian doctrines. His particular interest lies in presenting the fullness of the Catholic faith in simple and easy-to-understand terms to Catholics and non-Catholics alike. He prays for a more unified Christian faith in the world and sees open honest dialog as the key to spreading the Good News.
Here is what Tom has to say on the subject of Sola Scriptura…
Following apologetic debates on various internet blogs is usually interesting, sometimes entertaining and often very frustrating. The exchanges start with the initial blog entry that posits a position favored by the author, which invariably includes historical evidence, perhaps quotations from the writings of Church fathers and of course verses from Holy Scripture that are offered as proof of point in question.
The comment boxes then fill in reaction using the same general modus operandi: “Great Point!” leads the pack. “Ridiculous Point!” soon follows. Still another says “Ref. Romans X: Y-Z and you’ll see the real truth and proof of your foolish conclusions!” Another commenter counters with “Hey, this is so easy, just read 1 Cor A: B, which of course refers to Psalm ##, which was foreseen by Jeremiah L: MN-OP.” the beat goes on, and the beat goes on.
The most frustrating scenario, however, is a case when people holding opposing views on a particular topic offer the exact same Bible verse as proof to support their position! We then have two differing viewpoints, both claiming the inspired Word of God as proof of their positions. We know that the Bible cannot contradict itself; so where do we go from here?
Now, I’m not a member of clergy, nor a trained theologian or Bible scholar, but it doesn’t take an expert to see that something is terribly wrong with the way we are attempting to discover and embrace God’s revealed truth. Jumping from proof text to proof text, trying to understand the position, arguments and supporting evidence, it soon becomes apparent that the Bible per se is no longer at the core of the controversies. It was people themselves that had somehow replaced the single truth of God’s Word.
A battle cry of the Protestant Reformation was the idea of Sola Scriptura, i.e. that the Bible and the Bible alone stands as the sole revelation of God’s truth to mankind. I fully accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God, so at a certain level I agree with the spirit of Sola Scripture. That said, for any premise like Sola Scriptura, we must not only understand the basic concept, we must also peel back the layers to see what other conclusions necessarily come along as an implied attachment.
To that end, I would like to discuss a thought experiment that began with a definition of Sola Scriptura, which continued through some intermediate observations and ended with a most unexpected conclusion…
The Thought Experiment
The phrase Sola Scriptura is a shorthand which we use to mean the following:
The Bible is the Only and Final Authority of Faith and Practice for a Christian
Without even getting into what the Bible is and where it came from, it is clear that, in physical form, the Bible is a binding of many books, written thousands of years ago, written by many authors in several languages not in common use today. These writings offer historical narrative, as well as sometimes practical and sometimes spiritual guidance for the reader.
I think it is fair to say that the intended meaning of any particular book, chapter or verse is often complex and not necessarily self-evident due to the diversity of factors mentioned above. It seems rather obvious that the written word needs to be interpreted.
Now, some may claim that, due to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, their interpretation is correct and represents God’s intended message, but since that claim is made by everyone (even those holding opposing interpretations) that claim is unconvincing.
Clearly personal interpretation has a role to play here, so let’s update our definition of Sola Scriptura:
[My personal interpretation of] The Bible is the Only and Final Authority of Faith and Practice for a Christian
Once we have recognized the necessary inclusion of our own personal perspective into the search for God’s truth, we have set the stage for a redefinition of all truth. If Divine truth is a matter of my own point of view then it follows that we can adjust our definition once more:
[My personal understanding] is the Only and Final Authority [For Everything]
Once we have we have placed our own authority on par with Divine authority, it is only a matter of time and convenience that the notion of Divine is eliminated altogether. Perhaps it is unfair to paint Sola Scriptura with too broad a brush, but it seems reasonable to conclude that the notion of Sola Scriptura directly contributes to incredible variations in Christian doctrinal positions, weakens Christianity, and invariably culminates in widespread religious indifference and subjective secular individualism. What started out as a sincere challenge to a perceived aberration of Divine authority actually has led to a growing rejection of God altogether.
Advocates of the Sola Scriptura position celebrate the intrinsic characteristics and merits of the idea, but must be willing to honestly look deeper at the unintended consequences and be ready to take ownership of those secondary effects as a legitimate challenge if not total rejection of the entire premise.
I can hear the critics now complaining of my Catholic-centric bias and flaws in logic or cause and effect relationships, but take a step back and look around. The evidence is clear in our global society today. The Churches in Europe are empty, people are “spiritual but not religious”, and atheism is on the rise. The mantra of the modern age is “I have my truth, you have your truth” which is so utterly preposterous. The modern, enlightened man has forgotten that Truth transcends opinion.
People today are hungry for truth on which to build and live their lives. They desire God, but in the absence of a rock of Divine and objective consistency on which to build, they instead turn inward and reside on the ever-shifting sands of subjective comforts. It is time to return to God’s plan, to truth, to the Catholic Church.
This was a fantastic post! I would like to see a lot more of Tom’s writings.
Well written Tom! The lack of consistency and the watered down truths that people who are on the fence about Christianity hear often gives them one more reason not to choose a life of faith. It is such a gift in the Catholic Church that we enjoy a consistent interpretation and a truth that is not watered down by the popular beliefs of our times, and a number of people have converted for this reason.
That was a greatly ridiculous post!
It does hit pretty close to home. The protestant world, (to which I belong) is the perfect illustration as to why Sola Scriptura is flawed as a practical concept. It sounds right, in theory. In practice, it has led to all kinds of crazy interpretations and movements. IF the Scriptures are truly all we need, and God intended for it to be this way, we should expect there to be almost universal agreement as to what they teach. Instead, we have the opposite.
The Catholic faith and the Orthodox faith reject this idea. Yet, they have a similar dilemma. They don’t agree with each other either. Not on everything. How do these great bodies of faith reconcile their differences? They don’t (see Filoque)
These days, as I wrestle with these types of things, I can only conclude that God, not being a theologian Himself, doesn’t care as much about our doctrinal differences as we do. I shared my thoughts about that here: http://notforitchingears.com/2014/05/29/why-god-might-not-be-concerned-about-our-doctrinal-differences/.
It is the only thing that makes sense to me.
There is also a consequence to this which I find troubling… If Scripture is all we need and Scripture is clear, what then do we make of those who misinterpret Scripture? Must we assign to them ignorance or malintent?
Ooh, I think you need to be a bit careful here, for fear we end up with a straw man which says that Christians must agree on every single thing. Should any divergent opinion between Paul and Barnabas be allowed (Acts 15:36-41)? Does the Quartodeciman Controversy necessitate a broken theological system?
I don’t think this is a very good example because, aside from some of the more extremist voices within the Orthodox Churches, the theology associated with the Filioque is largely settled. The issue behind the Filioque was driven largely by the differences between the Greek and Latin languages and the nuances associated with “proceeding” in each of these languages. The issue is a bit more complicated than that, obviously, but the very fact that the Eastern Catholic Churches omit the Filioque and yet manage to maintain communion with Rome shows that this isn’t an insurmountable issue.
Hmm…yes and no. The troublesome question we need to answer is: does God care about truth?
“Ooh, I think you need to be a bit careful here, for fear we end up with a straw man which says that Christians must agree on every single thing”.”
I agree with that. We don’t have to agree on everything, but the EO and Catholic church both claim to be the truest expression of the truth. Each appeals to church history to support their claim. Of course I am overly simplifying things here, but at the end of the day, each Church stakes it’s claim of being the truest expression of the church on its preferred church history / council.
“I don’t think this is a very good example”
I think it is a pretty good one. The church split as a result of it. I know there were already issues going on, but had this not happened, would the church still had divided? Who knows. We are talking about disagreeing on the nature of God. My point is that even with an appeal outside of scripture, to the historical writings and councils of the church, His church cannot agree.
“The troublesome question we need to answer is: does God care about truth?”
I think it is clear that God cares about truth, and that truth about God and his church and his ways is found in the Scriptures as well as in the church. In the protestant world, we argue about the order of salvation and things like that. What happens first, second, third in the process of one coming to know Christ? Does God care if we understand the sequence incorrectly? I am not so sure he does, as long as we come to know and follow him. Now, we care and we violate the 2nd greatest commandment all day long to defend our positions.
It still seems a bit like comparing apples and oranges to me. The difference between the Protestant situation and the Catholic-Orthodox situation is very different by several orders of magnitude.
As you alluded, there was an awful lot more going on at the time, most of which was cultural and political rather than theological. To answer your question, even if the Filioque hadn’t happened, I’m pretty certain that the Church would have still divided. If it wasn’t the Filioque, it’d have been something else.
Not really. At various points in Church history, groups have been suspected of heresy but further clarification has concluded that they do, in fact, hold the same Faith.
Concerning the Filioque, there was (understandable) confusion in the Eastern Church as to what the Latin Church was saying when it spoke about the Spirit’s “procession” from the Son. Clarification was needed. Expressing what we mean is often tricky due to the limitations of language and it often require further explanation. For example, it’s actually possible for a Catholic to affirm Sola Fide, at least in a certain sense…
Also, as I pointed out earlier, you have Eastern Catholic Churches who omit the Filioque in the Creed each Sunday and yet are in communion with Rome. This shows that variation in expression of the Faith doesn’t necessarily mean breaking communion. Within the Latin Church you have Thomists and Augustinian theologians who don’t always agree on everything, yet they can still coexist in the same Church.
So what do you then conclude? Can I say that the Orthodox Churches are wrong to break communion with Peter’s successor? Or does this disagreement show truth un-knowable?
Sure, although the identification of Scripture does hinge on identification of the Church.
Are you alluding to the role of baptism and works here?
Catholic theology would agree with this in the sense that we use the light we’re given, to a greater or lesser extent. However, I think there is an epistemological problem in talking about misunderstanding God’s revelation yet still coming to know Him.
Not necessarily. Obviously it happens, but not necessarily.
Hi David,
It still seems a bit like comparing apples and oranges to me. The difference between the Protestant situation and the Catholic-Orthodox situation is very different by several orders of magnitude.”
Oh yes, I agree completely. There really is no comparison and I am not attempting to say there is!
“So what do you then conclude?”
To be honest, absolute conclusions evade me on this one!
“Can I say that the Orthodox Churches are wrong to break communion with Peter’s successor? Or does this disagreement show truth un-knowable?”
Even the way that question is framed reveals a bit of my problem. The Orthodox churches would claim that it was the Western church that left, not them, and that it was wrong for the Catholic church to break succession with Peter’s successor. Both appeal to history to buttress their argument. If only one of these ancient churches can truly be the church that is still in communion with Peter’s successors, which one is it?
My thought, as an admiring outsider is that they are both following Peter and the point at which they are wrong is where they believe the other one isn’t.
“Are you alluding to the role of baptism and works here?”
No, but that is a good one. Calvinists and Armenian’s argue over the sequence of how a person is born again. To them Baptism has nothing to do with it! Calvinists believe that regeneration occurs prior to faith, and the A’s oppose that view.
“However, I think there is an epistemological problem in talking about misunderstanding God’s revelation yet still coming to know Him. ”
I am sure that you are not suggesting that one has to fully understand the nature of God in order to know him. That is what I am talking about. The fact that a person can believe wrongly and still know God and follow him and to strive to become like His son is proven every Sunday as we gather around his table.
As a protestant, I may rightly or wrongly believe that my catholic brothers/sisters have misunderstood the nature of the communion elements or praying to the saints, or purgatory or the perpetual virginity of the blessed virgin Mary. Or, my catholic brothers/sisters may correctly believe those things. I submit that whatever the truth is about those things, anyone in any expression of his church can still know and follow Him regardless of the view they hold on those.
I really enjoyed Tom’s post and my real point was not to soften the reality that SS is flawed (I left out the point that NOBODY actually believes in SS completely, as we all have our own traditions that help us understand the scriptures. I wrote about that here http://notforitchingears.com/2014/12/14/questioning-our-protestant-tradition-of-sola-scriptura/ , but you know that because your comments are all over the place there!) but to simply point out that those who reject SS still can’t agree on important things.
The Western and Eastern churches are much closer to each other and only differ on some minor, albeit important matters that keep them separated. Their is a remote possibility that they could once again reunite and become one church. I mean remote in the most remote way! Still it is possible. Although I do believe in miracles, I would say there isn’t even a remote possibility that the protestant church could ever agree and unite on anything! That says a lot to me.
If only one of these ancient churches can truly be the church that is still in communion with Peter’s successors, which one is it?
We wouldn’t deny that they are part of the Church, not at all. They have Apostolic Succession, valid Sacraments… However, in the same way that we would say that Protestant communities are lacking many key elements instituted by Christ (Eucharist etc.), we would say that the Eastern Orthodox lack just one, communion with the inheritor of the Keys of the Kingdom.
No problem with this, although I would again qualify it with “…using the light they have been given”.
Sure, but you agree that if truth is objective, then you’d agree that either one of these groups has a seriously defective view of God or the other has an extremely limited view?
There’s really only one thing that separates the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic. Both groups would affirm Papal Primacy. The disagreement relates to the exact nature of that primacy.
“we would say that the Eastern Orthodox lack just one, communion with the inheritor of the Keys of the Kingdom ”
Now that is refreshing to know, though I am pretty sure that those are fighting words to any good Orthodox believer. 🙂 Now I have heard that a Catholic brother is not allowed to come to the table in an Orthodox church and vice versa. Is there any truth to that? If so, why is that?
“There’s really only one thing that separates the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic. Both groups would affirm Papal Primacy. The disagreement relates to the exact nature of that primacy.”
Granted, but isn’t that THE issue?
“Sure, but you agree that if truth is objective, then you’d agree that either one of these groups has a seriously defective view of God or the other has an extremely limited view?”
Not really. When one examines the The Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran as well as other Protestant faiths theological big ideas about the Trinity and salvation, there is a lot of agreement. It is not so much that we have extremely limited views or a defective view of God (although in the case of Calvin, I would say he DOES have a seriously defective view of God) as much as we have different views about them.
To get a quick summary of the Catholic position here, I’d suggest reading paragraphs #817-819 of the Catechism. The paragraphs in the subsequent sections are also a good read.
Of course 🙂
Not quite. I’m going to paint with broad strokes here, but basically speaking, the Catholic Church will allow a Catholic to receive communion in an Eastern Orthodox Church if (a) he cannot attend a Catholic liturgy and (b) the Eastern Orthodox priest is willing. This is found in Canon 844, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Canon Law:
“[Catholic] faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick, from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid.”
In contrast though, the Eastern Orthodox practice is more stringent, with Eastern Orthodox priests typically not giving communion to anyone who isn’t Orthodox. This is why I typically visit Eastern Orthodox churches for Vespers as it avoids this issue.
Sure, I’d just identify that as the issue, rather than the Filioque or the use of unleavened bread.
I’m afraid it still sounds a bit like relativism to me.
“I’m afraid it still sounds a bit like relativism to me.”
Martha, did he just call me a Relativist?
I’m afraid I don’t agree, but that may just be because of the remnants of the Sola Scriptura/Protestant DNA that remain in my system.
I don’t think you would argue that the Orthodox Church, in stating that THEY hold the correct view about the Schism, is using a relativistic argument. You would say that they are just wrong. Isn’t there a difference?
But perhaps it is relative? The EO see it a certain way, and the Catholic church obviously sees it another way. How you see it depends largely on what group you align with and ones chosen facts.
As an outsider to that debate, I look and see that both parties had something to do with it and that neither is without fault. I don’t see this as thinking in a relativistic manner. I think God knows who is clearly at fault or who bears most of the blame, but it is possible that we can’t know for sure UNLESS we accept one view over the other.
Now we are digressing from Tom’s very well written article!
I should let you know that based upon our interactions, I have become a Jehovah’s Witness.
Just kidding!
Jim,
I’m glad you enjoyed my post. I completely agree with you and the commenters on the blog link you provided that God doesn’t care what particular denominational membership card we carry in our wallet. That said, I’m sure he cares completely that we hear and understand and embrace the truth of His revealed word, and that is the issue. How do we know God’s revealed truth?
The point of my post was to examine one common claim of knowing God’s truth, namely SS. My point was simply that as we evaluate SS as a paradigm of God’s revealed truth, we must dig deeper and also include those secondary effects that come along as necessity. Specifically, the personal relativism and the unbridled and radical doctrinal differences that result from SS should be the basis for the rejection of this theory. At this point, I think we more or less agree, although you never specifically stated that.
You then noted that the RC and EO did not agree ‘on everything’, somehow implying that any disagreement is proof that the positions of one (or both) can not represent God’s intended revelation of truth. Citing the Filioque as supporting evidence seems a bit like a non-sequitur in so far as it involves that theologically complex and mysterious concept of the Trinity.
[I completely agree that the RC and EO positions are technically different on this issue, namely that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (EO) vs from the Father and the Son (RC). However, it also seems like the big dust up goes beyond the technical complexity of explaining the Trinity. As I’m sure you know, the Third Council of Toledo, a local RC council in 589, added the words ‘and the Son’ to the Nicene-Constantinople Creed. Eastern scholars to this day argue that the RC Church violated the Council of Chalcedon’s (449) agreement not to change the creed. So it is entirely probable that the Filioque controversy is mainly fueled by misplaced pride on both sides. But, I have no real dog in that fight so that is a discussion for another day.]
Now back on point. Where I begin to take issue with your conclusion is how you explain or deal with doctrinal differences. Your position is that they are either unimportant or intended. If unimportant, then what is the biblical basis for you determining that issue X or issue Y is, or is not, important? This seems to be another example of personal relativism (claimed by the SS advocates) that we already rejected.
If you hold that doctrinal differences are God’s will, then we must reconcile that position with the apparent Biblical demand for quite the opposite. I find that problematic.
I agree that this is a difficult issue to grapple with but rather than it being an issue of doctrines, it seems rather an issue of God’s post-resurrection intention of authority.
A Divinely established authority on earth, empowered and protected from error by the Holy Spirit, is the only thing that is even remotely supported by Scripture that can preserve God’s revelation of truth. The SS alternative is an empirical failure, and other concepts attempting to explain rampant Christian diversity are clearly non-biblical.
And that is the only thing that makes sense to me.
p.s. I must say that I feel truly blessed to have these blogs, and genuine lovers of Jesus like you, available to hold such difficult discussions. As brothers in Christ, we seek the truth together.
HI Tom,
“That said, I’m sure he cares completely that we hear and understand and embrace the truth of His revealed word, and that is the issue.”
I agree with this wholeheartedly!
” A Divinely established authority on earth, empowered and protected from error by the Holy Spirit, is the only thing that is even remotely supported by Scripture that can preserve God’s revelation of truth. The SS alternative is an empirical failure, and other concepts attempting to explain rampant Christian diversity are clearly non-biblical.”
I agree again. Now we have to argue over what church is that Divinely established church. Is it the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox church? Both lay claim to being the sole possessors of that authority. Wouldn’t it be great if the two could just reconcile? That being said, I think both of those expressions of Christ’s Church are healthier precisely because they reject SS.
” You then noted that the RC and EO did not agree ‘on everything’, somehow implying that any disagreement is proof that the positions of one (or both) can not represent God’s intended revelation of truth. Citing the Filioque as supporting evidence seems a bit like a non-sequitur in so far as it involves that theologically complex and mysterious concept of the Trinity. ”
I didn’t actually mean to imply that. I do think you would agree that disagreeing on the nature of the Trinity is, in fact, a serious thing. Can both views of the Holy Spirit be true? Both sides will appeal to scripture and the writing’s of the Fathers to come to different views. I don’t have a dog in that fight either.
” I must say that I feel truly blessed to have these blogs, and genuine lovers of Jesus like you, available to hold such difficult discussions. As brothers in Christ, we seek the truth together.”
I couldn’t agree more. I like this Restless Pilgrim guy and the stuff he writes about!