The Canon Question

“I would not have believed the gospel, unless the authority of the Church had induced me.” (St. Augustine, Contra Ep. Fund., V, 6.)

I. THE CANON QUESTION.

As Christians, how is it that we know we are saved by the death and resurrection of the incarnate Son of God? For those raised as Christians, the Sunday School sing-song answer “for the Bible tells me so” may come to mind, and this fairly well summarizes the Protestant teaching on the communication of saving truth. The Belgic Confession, an historical expression of the Reformed faith used widely in Dutch denominations, asserts that we know God by the beauty of creation, and “more openly by his holy and divine Word.” Continue reading...

[Four Corners] Scriptura?

There is a classical dispute in the law of contracts, the underlying problem of which also bears on the doctrine of sola Scriptura.  

Suppose you enter into a contract to purchase a home from a seller, and at some point the other party refuses to sell, claiming that a term of the contract allows them out of the deal.  If you disagree with their interpretation of the disputed clause, and take it to a judge, what should he consider in resolving the matter?  Should he only consider the "four corners" of the contract that you and the seller signed (i.e., nothing beyond the written page itself), or should he also consider extrinsic ("parol") evidence, such as testimony that the seller assured you orally that the clause meant the opposite of what he now claims?   

The underlying issue, then, is whether courts can consider something more than the contract, when the parties are bound only by the contract document they signed.  The traditional position has been that only the written contract could be considered by the courts, not testimony about oral promises made outside of the writing.  If we wax theologic, this is sola pactum, if you would.  But a rift started to emerge in the courts, prompted, as is often the case, by bad cases and clear scoundrels benefiting from a 'bright-line' rule.  

A fairly philosophical view appeared: a contract is never in fact interpreted by its four corners alone because every judge's mind comes pre-loaded with normative or interpretive biases.  Anyone reading it would filter the words on the page through their own preexisting understanding of language, or of the matters being agreed upon in contract.  Specialty terms from a particular field related to the contract (e.g., construction terms) may have a different meaning to the contracting parties than they would to a lay judge.  Language is never a perfect medium for underlying thought, it seems.

Analogously, if our authority for faith and morals is the Bible alone, may we look only to the four corners of Scripture, or do we admit extrinsic sources to our interpretation as well? Some will insist upon a negative answer: "no book but the Bible, no creed but Christ."  

The Reformer opposed to 'biblicism' will be quick to note that his authority is sola Scriptura interpreted with the church (see here).  That is, some measure of deference to others' interpretations or to a traditional vein of interpretation is due.  This view, which I admire for its humble respect for tradition, is the analog to the liberal trend in contract interpretations admitting extrinsics.  But in choosing our extrinsics, in selecting whose or which traditional vein's interpretation receives our deference, we, like judges and anyone else handling text, do not start with an interpretive tabula rasa.  We add our own extrinsic.  And like the specialty terms in contracts worsening the problem of four corners alone for judges, specialty terms, period-specific terms and the like, in the Bible worsen the problem when attempting to interpret Scripture without the influence of pre-loaded biases.

How is the term sola proper when it is not [Four Corners] Scriptura, but Scriptura + Interpretive Extrinsics?

Authority, Authority, Authority, Part III

Mr. Merrick relieving Capt. Queeg, The Caine Mutiny (1954)

In my previous two posts, here and here, I discussed two difficulties I have with the confessional Reformed view of sola Scriptura: that it inherently requires subjective interpretation of Scripture, and that it is uses post hoc rationalizations in defense of its tenets about the Bible. In this post I will address a third problem, more to the root of the Reformation. While I put it third, I believe the thoughts in this post have been the most influential to me as I have reflected on the Protest, on Catholicism and on Orthodoxy.

3) Reformational ecclesial acts require authority from God, the "Principle".

Even if there is a principled distinction between the Biblicist and the confessional Reformed positions, and even if the reformational tenets about the Bible do not require post hoc rationalizations, the confessional Reformed system still seems deficient for want of proper authority. In other words, I am not certain that the confessional Reformed system has God’s authority to be at all.

I cannot overstate how fundamental to a discussion of the Reformation is our understanding of Authority. Caveat: I have been schooled by civilian seafarers, by military men, and most recently by professors of law, all of whom heavily stress matters of authority. Therefore, the possibility does not escape me that I might have an inflated view of authority in any system -- I pray that I remain open to correction and truth. However, I do believe that the principles of authority are universally true; because we see them reflected in places like the (secular) law does not mean that they derive from the (secular) law.

Black's Law Dictionary defines authority as "The right or permission to act legally on another's behalf...; the power delegated by a principal to an agent". At law, then, when I act on another’s account, I must have authority in order for that action to be valid. This is the purpose of the “power of attorney”; it is a legal document which authorizes another to act on one’s own account. If someone seeks to act in my name by writing a check from my bank account, but they do not have my authority, their conduct is invalid. If they do have my authority, then I have to honor the check they wrote, even if I disagree with their decision to write it. In the law’s eyes, it is as if I wrote the check myself.

Likewise, when we perform acts as the Christian Church, unless we believe these acts flow from our individual capacities, we need authority from God (because we act as agents of His capacity). Could anyone act in God’s name without authority? Could someone baptize their children in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit in the bathtub one quiet afternoon because they want to do so? I believe that would be analogous to someone writing a check on my account without my proper authority, without a power of attorney.

The Protestant, then, must maintain that his acts are authorized by God based on the authority to act that God granted through the Bible itself. He must maintain that Luther and his followers were authorized to reject the authorities of their time, and to establish their own authorities, based on the Bible’s authority (for the sake of the Gospel).

But does the Bible authorize us to overthrow our authorities (which we know are all established by God, be they good or bad (Rom. 13:1)) and set up our own authorities? It seems, rather, that we are to submit to authorities (Rom. 13:1-5, Titus 3:1), and to pray for their righteousness (1 Tim. 2:1-3). God the Son did not usurp the Jewish authorities of His earthly time on account of their being in doctrinal or practical error, but He articulated the authority He had been given to teach the New Covenant ("All authority on heaven and earth has been given to me..." (Matt. 28:18b)). He delegates or transmits that authority to his Apostles ("Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." (id., v. 19-20b; cf. 2 Cor. 10:7-8, 13:10, 1 Thes. 4:1-2)).

This is a befuddling problem for us in reformational churches. The Apostles were given authority for acts such as conducting baptisms immediately by Christ (who Himself said He had authority from the Father). What happened to that authority? We certainly can agree that it did not die with the Apostles, or else there would be no authorized baptisms after the first century, upon John's death. Therefore, either the authority was given to all, or to a finite group of Christians. But it is obvious that it was not given to all, because I am not authorized to baptize anyone (see WCOF ch. XXVII, sec. 4)).

So the Apostles must have passed on their own delegated authority from Christ to a finite group of individuals within the early Christian community. Who were they? I tend to think Timothy was one, for Paul tells us that Timothy received the "gift of God" through Paul's laying on of hands (2 Tim. 1:6). Titus was, as well, who had “all authority” to speak, exhort, and reprove (Titus 2:15). So we know there was some delegation or transmission of authority from the Apostles on.

Clement was one also, and he gave an interesting discussion of authority matching what I have said above:

The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labors], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe (Letter to the Corinthians, ch. 42).

The Clementine (and Catholic) derivative authority scheme for the Church thus looks like this: God > His Son > the Eleven (Apostles) > those they appointed subsequently. Apart from this, no act is properly authorized, be it discipling the nations, baptizing, etc. But the Reformational derivative authority scheme for the Church is like this: God > His Son > the Eleven > those they appointed until they fell into some degree of apostasy, and then to an educated disciple approved by the faithful. Some problems I can see with that scheme are: 1) that it requires a reliable body to articulate when the appointees of the Apostles (who had real authority from Heaven) fell into the requisite degree of apostasy; 2) that its rule allowing for self-assumption of authority is not found anywhere in Scripture, but arguably the opposite rule is (see supra); 3) that it places the authority to make new authorities in the subjective hands of the faithful, and 4) that it is indistinguishable in structural form from the various Christological, Trinitarian, and other heresies of the early Church.

I mean no disrespect or challenge to my elders (teaching or ruling) with this post, but mean the inquiry in a more academic manner. I believe my pastor is devoted to God, and that God uses him for His glory. But I must ask these questions because my conscience compels me to be assured that I am properly submitted to the proper authorities of His Church.

Authority, Authority, Authority, Part II

2) The sola Scriptura position appears to have been reached by post hoc rationalization.

In my previous post, I discussed the difficulty I have in articulating a principled distinction between the Biblicist position and the confessional Reformed position vis-à-vis subjective interpretations of scripture. In this post I will consider another intellectual difficulty I face in remaining in the confessional Reformed camp.

Even if there is a principled distinction between the Biblicist and the confessional Reformed methods of interpreting Scripture, the latter position still seems to require post hoc rationalization to conclude that all revealed truth has been inscripturated into 66 books in the Bible.

Notice the two integral claims of the confessional sola Scriptura position, that a) all revealed truth has been inscripturated, and b) our confessions have the proper listing of books (i.e., canon). These are the sine quibus non of the Reformation -- that is, without these two claims being true, the Reformers would be mere dissidents, with no unifying claim to the possession of truth or authority. If these two truth-claims are to be the foundation of the believer's authority structure, binding his conscience above all else, they must be demonstrable and supportable. If they cannot be demonstrated, or are unsupported, then the entire system fails for want of authority to bind the conscience.

Complete Inscripturation.

To maintain the reformational position, the confessional Reformed must be able to articulate that God's revelations of absolute truth have been completed (i.e., have ceased), have been recorded in writing, and are to be reliably found no where else but the Bible. I have previously described why I see circularity in this position. Briefly stated, the critique with which I wrestle goes something like this: only Scripture contains revealed truth, but the claim that 'revealed truth is only in Scripture' is itself not in Scripture, so that claim is not a revealed one. The confessional Reformed may respond that this is a problem only for the Biblicist view. They may say (though I disagree that this is the Westminster Confession-al position) that their claim is actually that the early Church was reliable to determine truth, and it determined that only what is in the Bible is revealed truth, so that claim is reliable.

However, the early Church was far from clear on this matter of revealed truth having been completely inscripturated (see my reply to Keith Mathison's claim about this seminal matter here). Scripture itself seems to point in another direction (e.g., 2 Thes. 2:15, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings [traditions] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."). The irony, then, is that complete inscripturation is the opposite conclusion of what one might reach from a plain reading of Scripture.

Canon.

The Canon Question seems like a deeper example of the problem of necessary extra-biblical truth claims in the sola Scriptura paradigm. Obviously, the 66-book canon is not revealed within a book of the Bible, so one must look to an external, or extrabiblical source of truth to determine which books contain revealed Truth.

When I first heard the Catholic critique of sola Scriptura, I was intrigued by the claim that without a visible Church possessed of divinely-granted authority, the canon could not reliably be defined. My intrigue turned to dismay when I could not get a uniform answer from Reformed pastors and scholars as to why we have the 66 books we have. I was not dismayed that there were no answers, but rather that there were a variety of theories explaining why the 66-book canon is right. That rationales have been derived from a common conclusion (i.e., our particular 66 books) evidences post hoc rationalization.

Here are various rationalizations of the common conclusion with which I am familiar:

1. Our 66 books are in the Bible because the inward work of the Holy Spirit bears witness in “our” hearts (WCOF).


2. Our O.T. books are those which were accepted by the Jews in Hebrew in the early Church era.


3. Apostolic authorship determines N.T. canonicity.


4. Our N.T. books are those which received widespread acceptance by the early church, which was divinely reliable in its conclusions until the 4th century.


5. Under the Lutheran variant of #4, we have a homolegoumena (universally accepted books) for establishing dogma , and an antilegoumena (disputed books, e.g., Jude or Revelation) to corroborate disputed dogmatic claims.

I believe that each of these variants has problems and inconsistencies (i.e., that each one might not reach the same 66-book conclusion under its own terms if strictly applied). However, the larger point to make here is that the use of a plurality of rationales (justifications) evidences that a bedrock reformational truth-claim (that our 66 books contain revealed truth and none others) -- the only truth-claim able to bind the Protestant's conscience -- is reached through post hoc rationalizations. Why is it that we can debate infant baptism under the terms of sola Scriptura, but not debate whether Jude belongs in the Scripture's corpus? Why is the meaning of communion open for discussion, but not the placement of Ecclesiastes in Holy Writ? What is the principled distinction between a debate over the truth of a doctrinal matter, and a debate over the truth of the listing of canon?

If the rationale that informs us that we have 66 books containing the complete inscripturation of God's revelations cannot bind our consciences (because there isn't one rationale at all), then neither can the conclusion. And if the conclusion can't bind our consciences, then the matter of canonicity seems like Protestant fair game for debate.

(To be continued...)

Authority, Authority, Authority

Zrim and I recently interacted in some posts at De Regnis Duobus. We got to discussing authority and the church, at which point he asked about my wrestling with a particular Protestant via media, "yours is a more specific quest to find the via media between T0 and T2/3? Is it that T1 is not good enough or that you are trying to unpack T1 in order to understand it?" I replied in part, but would like to do so more fully here.

The "T0", "T1", and "T2/3" scheme to which Zrim refers is that presented by Keith Mathison in his The Shape of Sola Scriptura (I have previously discussed that book in a series here, here, here, and here). Stated simply, "Tradition Zero" is shorthand for the Biblicist position on revelation and authority, and "Tradition Two" is shorthand for Catholic and Orthodox positions allowing for two repositories ("sources") of revelation, one the Scriptures, and one the Church's Tradition (T3 is a later variant of T2). "Tradition One" is the magisterial Reformed position that strikes the proper middle way (via media), the argument goes, on authority and revelation.

I have had (now years) of ongoing difficulty defending that there is this logical middle way between individualism and authoritarianism in church structure. The following are my thoughts:

1) I find it difficult to articulate a principled distinction between the confessional (magisterial) Reformed position and the Biblicist position.

I previously described the Biblicist position as a belief that all revelation is contained within the Bible, and that there is no authority apart from the good Book itself. This is a subjective system that says "no creed but Christ, no book but the Bible" (which, as I have previously noted, is itself a creed).

While it has several variations, I will address the confessional (magisterial) Reformed position as articulated by Mathison, as I believe it is a fair archetype. This position is a belief that "Scripture was the sole source of revelation; that it was the final authoritative norm of doctrine and practice; that it was to be interpreted in and by the Church; and that it was to be interpreted according to the regula fidei [(rule of faith)]" (Mathison at 256).

I think the claimed distinction, which is necessary to avoid the criticism of individualism, is this: the Biblicist reads his Bible subjectively and individualistically, so making up his own interpretation as he goes, whereas the confessional Reformed reads the Bible in the light of Reformed teaching, giving himself over to its tenets. I will examine this distinction in practice and in theory.

In practice, this seems like a fair distinction. The Reformed man teaching his family the Gospel will do so generally in accordance with the Reformed faith whereas the Biblicist will feel at liberty to handle the texts of Scripture as seems fitting to him (subjectively). However, my experience with "Biblicists" has been that they do actually submit themselves to a tradition (something objective) when handling the Bible, often the Baptist free-church position. This tradition has a feel to it that is often characteristic of "unaffiliated" Christian charitable and missionary organizations. When one is with these Christians, there is a certain presumptive way to discuss the faith and to handle the Scriptures. They may have a lesser quantum of deference to objective materials (like formal confesssions or the opinions of venerable scholars), but they still do not pick up their Bible with a traditionless tabula rasa. They are not the proverbial man isolated on a tropical island, never having seen a Bible until one washes up on the beach. Their objective standard is simply less articulated, historical and rigorous.

And on the other side of this 'in practice' coin, I observe a lack of Reformed-minded people reading their Scriptura with much deference to the objective distinctives of the Reformed faith. Individualism seems the norm in American Reformed churches. I know of one (non-PCA) pastor teaching on "the five points of Calvinism" receiving almost no interest from the congregation. I remember visiting one PCA church where I was asked by a regular, "what's the PCA?" I was once a member of another that had baptistic (Baptist?) elders. I doubt those of the larger PCUSA are more commonly found reading their Bibles "with the Church" under a confessional Reformed light. The Tradition One-er may be partly in the imagination. At any rate, while I am comfortable granting that the confessional Reformed are less (or even much less) subjective in their handling of the Bible, this is not a distinction of principle, so much as one of degree. And the degree may not be so large.

In theory, the distinction between the two camps is harder for me to see. Today's Reformed subscriber may read his Bible with deference to an objective system (the Reformed confessions and scholarly teachings), but that system lacks an objective lineage. Just because many today give deference to opinions of the past does not mean those opinions were not reached individualistically. (A claim of a Holy gift of truth given to historical consensus or to present majority consensus would make for a conversation worth holding.) Using Mathison's verbiage, I would say the Reformed version of the regula fidei, by which Scripture is to be interpreted, is not an originally objective criterion, but an originally subjective one, having been made the subject of opinions five centuries ago. It is thus an objective system subjectively reached. If that is so, while we are many generations removed from the problem, we are no different in principle from the hypothetical Biblicist. I should note that something being "subjective" does not make it inherently bad, just as something that is "objective" is not inherently good. But for comparison purposes, if one is characterized by subjectivism (so individualism), so is the other, at least at its roots.

Take an example: if the Jimmy Stewart Fan Club only listened to music that Mr. Stewart is known to have admired, we would have an objective system subjectively reached. Anyone picking tunes for a fan club meeting knows what tunes are approved for listening (so objective), but the tunes that Mr. Stewart liked were textbook subjective matters of his taste. The tunes wouldn't be inherently good, only inherently tunes Jimmy Stewart liked. Likewise, while I may subscribe to a clearly articulated system, and may allow that system to inform my reading of Scripture, someone at some point in history had to have created such a system from their subjective (individualistic) reading of Scripture (e.g., "Calvinism" and "Lutheranism"). However, there's a big "or" that could go here: or the confessional Reformed has to claim that their reading of the Bible, their objective system, is the true and original (objective) regula fidei from Christ that had been lost from about the year 400 until 1520 or so. I believe that the Reformed system contains at least some novelty by Calvin and his peers (e.g., Calvin thought that he was taking Augustine's views on Predestination to their natural conclusions), so it does not have objectively evidenced objective lineage throughout the history of Christianity -- it contains at least some subjective conclusions.

I see another point of commonality between the confessional Reformed position and the Biblicist position in their theories. This commonality is that the individual believer is ultimately (not penultimately) bound to his conscience's interpretation of Scripture. So his deference to an objective system reaches its limit when the reader's conscience conflicts. To put it another way, the confessional Reformed system is objective until its subjective limit (or trump, or governor, etc.) has been reached. In that case, subjectivism necessarily prevails (though one could go a lifetime without this happening, of course). If the subjective conscience of the believer does not hold a trump over the Reformed articulation of the regula fidei, one has to contend with one's justification for the Reformation itself. That is because the Reformation was built on the sentiment ascribed to Luther at the Diet of Worms, "Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason--I do not accept the authority of popes or councils, for they have contradicted each other--my conscience is captive to the Word of God." Clearly conscience, the conscience of each individual, holds the trump.


Those are my thoughts on the lack of principled distinctions. The Biblicist does not read the Bible without his own "Tradition", the confessional Reformed often reads his Bible without deference to his own "Tradition", these traditions are not without subjective, individual interpretations of Scripture at their origins (unless you grant that the Reformed regula fidei is what was delivered by Christ), and in either case, the individual's conscience holds the ultimate trump over allegedly objective doctrines which demand deference. For these reasons, the confessional Reformed position seems to lack a principled distinction from the Biblicist 'Tradition Zero' position.

(To be continued...)

Protestant Conversions Critique: Sola Scriptura

[This continues a previous post.] Mr. Hagopian continues his efforts at helping "Protestants to come to grips with the reasons why [ ] Neocatholics have set their compasses toward Rome" (internal citations omitted), by turning to the relation of tradition to Scripture.

Sola scriptura. Mr. Hagopian's says that "Neocatholics not only appeal to apostolic succession and to the antiquity of the Roman Catholic Church; they also claim that Scripture was never intended to be the believer's sole guide for all of faith and practice"; they claim they need Scripture and tradition. Christ left a church, not a book, their argument goes, and the very act of defining a canon "requires and presupposes an infallible church."

While the Canon Question shook me from my Sola Scriptura upbringing more than any other, Hagopian dismisses it in two sentences which each repeat the same thought: "The church didn't create Scripture; it simply recognized" its divine character. The Neocatholics are guilty of failing to distinguish between recognition of Holy Writ and its creation.

Frustratingly, he offers no explanation of why this distinction is relevant. It is not evident why an infallible church, which would be required to produce infallible Writ, would not also be required to produce an infallible identification of Holy Writ. Would Mr. Hagopian agree with Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul's conclusion that the Bible is a "fallible collection of infallible books"? Would he agree with Protestant Keith Mathison's view that the church was authoritative to define canon, but only until the 4th century (see The Shape of Sola Scriptura)? In terms of needing an infallible authority, I think writing Scripture and recognizing it is a 'distinction without a difference.' I discussed various Protestant views on the Canon Question here.

Having summarily dismissed that the Church was needed to identify canon infallibly, he turns to the need for the church as an interpretive authority. A Neocatholic analogy here, that the church is needed to interpret something as complex as the Bible because even our simple Constitution needs a Supreme Court to interpret it, is also summarily dismissed. The Supreme Court has "arrogated" (assumed without justification) powers to itself, and become a judicial tyrant. He then implies that the Catholic Church has done the some, and become an ecclesial tyrant. Besides his curt dismissal of one analogy, he does not take up the Neocatholic belief that the Church is somehow needed to interpret Scripture. This is unfortunate. What is one to do when one's interpretation of a biblical text, say on a matter like divorce, does not line up with that of his church? Change churches? Sit unhappily in dissent?

Finally, he takes up the charge of the Neocatholic that "the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura leads necessarily to an "incipient subjectivism"" (citation omitted) because each man becomes his own individual interpretive authority. This position "is riddled with error", I am reassured, because it relies on the "fallacious assumption that a plurality of interpretations necessarily entails subjectivism." The "many interpretations competing in the Protestant marketplace of ideas" are not all false. Indeed, "[t]hey can't all be false, since we know that Christianity is true."

Mr. Hagopian is certainly right that some individual Protestants' interpretations of Scripture are objectively true, even if subjectively derived. I believe his implication is that a group of people (in this democracy of ideas) will be able to corporately identify an objective truth. But this is of little moral comfort for the millions of Protestants whose individual interpretations of Scripture lead them, say, to use contraception or have themselves sterilized. Does the open marketplace of ideas excuse their morally erroneous conclusions? (Note: I am assuming ex arguendo that contraception is objectively immoral.)

He next denies that there is objectivity in Tradition. Rather, he says, Catholicism is at best a system of replacing the individual's subjective views with the subjective views of one man, the Pope, or perhaps a few men, the Magisterium. This, of course, presupposes that the Catholic claims of receiving infallible direction and guidance from the Holy Spirit are false. With the likes of John 14:26 in mind ("But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you"), I wonder if this is a completely fair denial to make.

Mr. Hagopian's discussion on Sola Scriptura continues, but I will wrap it up by noting that without his admitting the possibility that the Holy Spirit could preserve a visible, actual Church, the conversation is a bust. He rejects the Sacred Tradition of Catholicism because it invariably tends to displace Scripture. By displacing Scripture with Tradition, the Neocatholics have accepted that Scripture is not necessary. But this position falls apart if one accepts that the Holy Spirit may work within a Church in ways other than through Scripture alone, if one accepts that Christ's authority could have passed to a visible, actual Church, and not to certain preserved writings alone.

This serves as yet another reminder to me of how vital it is that ecumenical discussions burrow down into the foundational layers of dispute. To bash our opponent-brothers over our surface differences may be to aggravate our divisions, and further offend the will of Christ expressed in John 17: "I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me."

Argue The Forest, Not The Trees

I blogged here that I could no longer confess the doctrine of sola Scriptura, leaving me in a sort of spiritual no-man's-land. That sentiment has not changed since September 1, 2007, but it has not clearly progressed either.

Marian angst (I use this as a term of art; let me know if you're not sure what I mean) is a recurring problem. At times it feels critically acute, and at other times the sensation is minimal. I believe that it is probably a proxy feeling for overall anxiety over subscribing to a belief that the (i.e., "a", or "one") Church holds infallible interpretive authority over Divine Revelation. Therefore, and because of the formality of its decrees, this feeling is most acute vis-à-vis the Catholic Church, even where the Orthodox Churches may articulate Marian doctrines with stronger emotive language.

So while I have toed the line of entering the Catholic Church for some time, this recurring angst makes me think I need to step back and try as well as possible to objectively recapitulate and reconsider what I believe to be the constitution of Christ's Church. While I realize that I am incapable of objectively viewing the church, I'd like to try all the same. By “objective”, I will mean “expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations” (Merriam-Webster).

I think that I tried something similar here, where I asked five questions related to authority that I hoped were fair and not loaded to lead to a certain conclusion. Here I will try to describe the analytical steps I think I need to pursue, without using the form of question and answer. There’s an old law school trick to writing I’ll use: Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion. I’ll try that here.

To be clear, I don’t mean to discuss issues like whether the Catholics are wrong for 'violating' the “call no man father” verse, or the Orthodox are wrong because they had a Sultan select their hierarch, or the Protestants are wrong for excluding the apocrypha/deuterocanon. My experience is that for every such argument, there is some reply, and for most, there is an able reply. I do mean to discuss the overall analytical framework I think I need to use when considering ecumenicism, and how those facts and arguments should fit within the framework.

ISSUE:

I'd like to consider whether the claims by any one of the major branches of Christianity are objectively superior to the others (I realize this is an idealist approach).

First, I assume that anyone engaged in this discussion, like me, believes and so assumes that Christ is True and not false. From there I assume that each candidate Church model sees at its core a mission to preserve and transmit the Gospel-Truth (i.e., Logos or Word). Other functions of the Church (e.g., sacramental, communal) flow from the substance of the Gospel-Truth that the Church has preserved and transmitted. In this way, the candidates, indeed all of Christianity, aims to bear Witness to the world of the Messiah’s coming. Church, in my expression “candidate Church model” simply means God's people, however additionally defined by the particular candidates (in other words, I don’t mean to load that expression with lots of biased meaning).

So assuming that Christ is True, and that the candidates, as witnesses, all preserve and transmit His Truth, the discussion instantly turns to authority. By what authority does a candidate articulate and develop the Gospel-Truth? Disputes of authority have also been the catalysts of all schism within Christianity, so it’s a natural focal point.

A recent discussion helped me to see three major authority views or camps within Christianity: Papalism, Conciliarism and Biblicism. Each understands the Church's place in transmitting and safeguarding the Logos differently, and each has a different conclusion as to what the primary and subordinate principles of the Logos are. I suppose I could add "Individualist" to these three, which would look approximately like this, "whatever I understand to be true about Jesus from my feelings and from whatever I accept to be true from this book the Bible." I'm not going to add that though.

The nature and essence of the Logos is the fundamental question for the Church; to understand the nature and essence one must understand the Church, to understand the Church, one must see the Church as either Papalist, Conciliarist, or Biblicist (that is, one must have a view of authority). So my issue becomes which of these three camps has the objectively superior claim as preservationist, propagator, and articulator of the Logos.

The Biblicist believes that all authority for the Church is contained within the Bible. The Logos was exclusively preserved within its written contents, and it has been propagated through the ages. In our culture, while Biblicist groups are diverse in outward appearance, they share this view of authority – the Logos is co-extensive with the contents of the Protestant Bible. The Baptists and those that describe themselves as "fundamentalist", many branches of Reformed, Lutheran and other traditional denominations that call themselves "Evangelical", and perhaps Charismatic groups would fall within this camp.

The Conciliarist believes that authority for the Church is contained within ecclesial councils. The Logos has been preserved and propagated within the Bible and articulated by authoritative councils. I have learned of a Protestant group that considers itself conciliarist, but the traditional Anglicans and the Orthodox are also in this camp. They would add that the Logos is preserved and propagated within the Church proper, the Bible representing only a part of this Gospel-Truth. [Note: in an attempt to remain objective, I accept the candidates’ claims as true, so I accept the traditional Anglican position that they are not protestant.]

I am only newly aware of the protestant conciliarist position, known as the "magisterial protestant". This camp believes that the councils of the church, while not the source of all authority, still have real authority. These reformers perceive the state, at least classically, as playing some role in empowering these authorities and enforcing their authority. These reformers seek to turn back to the fundamental roots of the Reformation, and seek to subscribe to its traditional confessions, depending on where one lives (see here for some subscribers to this position). I'm still learning about this view, so I should not try to explain it further. But suffice it to say that the Bible is not the source of all authority to the magisterial protestant conciliarist, but is the source of ultimate authority. Only the Bible is infallible, and all articulation of the Logos will be measured by the authorities (and not the laity) against the Bible.

The Orthodox and the traditional Anglicans are within the Conciliarist camp, and have an older claim to its essence. They are both distinct from the magisterial protestants by their subscription to Apostolic Succession, that is, the belief that their Bishops have ties by succession of ordination back to the Apostles. [Note, again, I accept the traditional Anglican position as true for these purposes.] The authority of the Church and its evangelization and articulation of the Logos subsist within the Church itself. I have only recently begun making myself smart on the Anglo-Catholic view that their ties to the Apostles extend through the days of Henry VIII, so I will stop here (see here for a subscriber to this position). I don't mean to minimize distinctions between traditional Anglicans and the Orthodox (and that would be an absurd undertaking), but only leave it hear because if I tried to go on, I might paint the traditional Anglican position in an unfair light.

Finally, the Papalists (and, as I've learned, this is not the same as the derogatory use of the term "Papist"), who are not just Latin Rite (Roman) Catholics, but also their Eastern rites, believe that the Pope is not only first in honor among Bishops in council, but has actual authority over the other Bishops. Under this view too, authority exists within the Church, but binding dogmatic articulations of the Logos can flow from councils and the Pope alike.

RULE:

By what standard can I objectively judge which candidate is the right witness to and articulation of the Gospel-Truth in the 21st century? I must use reason and faith, which includes prayer, to do so. The Scriptures cannot be an independent standard by which to reach the right conclusion because 1) not all 'candidate' churches believe in the same canon of Scripture, and 2) their interpretation or articulation is part of the very essence of this dispute (i.e., what is the "Truth" handed down through the ages from Christ, assuming He is True). The Scriptures could be used, however, as a measure of the internal integrity of each candidate's claims. E.g., if a book identified by Church X as canonical and infallible says "Blessed are the poor", and that candidate church teaches, "Blessed are the Healthy and Wealthy", we find evidence that Church X is not teaching the Truth of Christ. But ultimately this would only be evidence that must be judged by reason because of competing interpretations and hermeneutic methods. I guess I have no better rule, then, than reason (which gauges the internal integrity of each belief system) informed by faith (which relies on prayer).

ANALYSIS:

I have (personally) ruled out the Biblicist position, as I stated in my post rejecting the validity of the Biblicist view of sola Scriptura cited above. The position lacks internal integrity, as it commands that all authority flows from the Bible alone, yet the Bible does not articulate a Bible alone position, nor is it self-identifying, in terms of its canon. Indeed, a multitude of rationales have been used to justify the existing Protestant canon. I withhold personal judgment on whether the magisterial protestant means something different by “sola Scriptura” than does the Biblicist, and whether his view of authority would allow the creation of canon. I believe that the majority view in my denomination (the PCA) is Biblicist, though there seems to be strong (and perhaps growing) resistance to this position (that is, there are factions of magisterial reformers who recognize the need for other authority, albeit fallible).

I started with the Biblicist position because it could be easily removed from my table. This is my no-man’s land: Church ≠ Biblicism, therefore Church = Conciliarism or Papalism. From here we come to real contention at every turn. I analyze the remaining candidates by first asking whether the Church’s own authority is fallible or infallible. The infallible camp consists of the Orthodox and Catholics, and the fallible camp consists of traditional Anglicans and magisterial Protestants.

I am surprised to find that, so long after I started my meager efforts at discerning the proper constitution of Christ’s Church, I am not certain that it has to be infallible. One of the earliest ‘shoes to drop’ for me was coming to see that a fallible church fallibly identifying a canon of scripture and a doctrine about its infallibility had serious problems of logic. And yet I read the earnestness of certain members of these camps, and can’t help but think that I might just be missing a deeper truth to their views. I still hold out some shred of hope, that the Holy Spirit could work within and preserve even a fallible Church. After all, early particular churches fell into grave error (e.g., the Church at Corinth), as did the Apostle Peter (as Protestants are fond of observing).

Taking a Newman-like view of doctrinal development may be fruitful in this context. The true principles of the fallible-camp candidates should come to light over time, as their theorems are put to practice and bear (or fail to bear) fruit. This method of thinking speaks somewhat against the magisterial protestant, who holds a model of church in his head, but can point to its existence nowhere (and its failure everywhere). The Anglican too is plagued by failures from within his camp.

But I need to consider and pray more about this before ruling out the fallible camp. I still don’t understand how the magisterial protestant differs from the Biblicist in essence, and I have only recently come to think I should give the traditional Anglican claim to Apostolic Succession more consideration. Perhaps their take that there was real, but fallible authority makes more sense than I give it credit. They would say that the authorities are the only ones who should correct error, not the laity (although in the magisterial protestant view, if the authorities become entirely corrupt, the faithful laity are free to, indeed called to assume the reigns and Reform).

On the infallible side of the house, the analysis necessary to make a rational conclusion between the claims of the Orthodox and the Catholics is a real head-splitter. I see two main ways to resolve this quest.

First, one could accede to the hemisphere in which God has them. If you’re in the West, just stay with the Western Church. However, this makes relative the fundamental differences that exist between the candidates’ view of authority, and the doctrinal views that have flowed therefrom over the last millennium plus. In other words, you would be saying that it doesn’t really matter to God that the filioque was added; what matters is that we participate with the representation of the Church that is native to our own land. Further, the geographical East-West distinction may be more notional than real. The Papalist camp does have a real presence (pardon the pun) in the East, and the Orthodox churches in the states are working hard to move beyond being mere immigrant churches, such that their presence as Western churches is real too (see this excellent post discussing how Orthodoxy in America is becoming “native”). So, while I don’t find a homesteading view all that compelling, I respect it, and I hear its advocacy often. The six-of-one-half-dozen-of-the-other crowd can point to impressive similarities between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but similarity is only plain when seen relative to the Protestantism.

Second, one can immerse one’s self in history. This effort overwhelms me. I have read and read and read the primary sources (the Eastern and Western Fathers) as well as secondary sources (books on church history, particularly describing both ‘halves’ of the Church). I feel like I only barely understand what happened after the early persecution ended, and what happened after the first millennia rolled into the second. I suppose that coupled with prayer and faith, applying reason to a deep study of history could give one the knowledge of which infallible-camp Church has the claim of Truth in its evangelization and articulation of the Logos. The temptation to resolve this difficult and time-consuming method of analysis by leaning on the homesteading view should be carefully avoided.

The fundamental dispute between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is about authority, so if I rule out fallible conciliar churches, I would be forced to decide between the infallilble conciliar model for church, and the infallibile papal model. The factual arguments in favor of each are too much for me to get into here, but I will note that arguments of Biblical and Patristic support for Papalism are persuasive, as are arguments about the meaning of the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15 and early church conciliar practice.

Finally, reason needs to turn its eyes to the doctrines of these churches. If Catholic or Orthodox Marian dogmas and doctrines, for example, conflict with one’s use of reason, informed by faith, it could provide an independent basis for looking elsewhere. This has been the premise behind my view that if all logic councils against a sola Scriptura view, but I believe that all alternative groups practice idolatry (let’s say), I must have been mistaken about sola Scriptura.

CONCLUSION:

While my attempt at objectively viewing the church has not yielded any clear winners (and if it did, I’d probably be further away from objectivity than I hope), it has taught me something. Those deeply entrenched and self-assured of the rightness of their own position ought to be well equipped to explain themselves. We should realize that each of our trench-warfare debate points (like whether we can call any man father, whether praying to saints is right or wrong, etc.) fits in a larger debate about what the Church is and is meant to be. For the sake of unity, we must try to see the forest through the trees.

[This is the best I can do with the time I have, and I realize that this is a paltry effort. I am going to keep this document at least for my own personal reference, and will update and correct my use of terms, analysis and conclusions as problems are pointed out to me. So I would appreciate constructive input if for no other reason than my own benefit.]

Inerrancy And Unanimity

My latest habit, which hopefully I can shake soon, has been to check in on the often-confusing comment-free exchanges at the Boar's Head Tavern.

This interseting little post asked, "Inerrancy is supposed to help us achieve unanimity in doctrinal matters, yes? Has it?" And it left off impliedly answering in the negative.

One contrary reply said, "Agreeing in the most general terms that the Bible will be our authority does not mean we will agree about conclusions. But it does mean that I can have a discussion using the same source." I think that's selling Reformational view of the Bible short. The belief in the authority of an inerrant Bible is meant to support the proposition that the Bible is both necessary and sufficient to acquire a "saving faith". It is more than a kind of lowest common denominator of theological discussion.

I think, then, that the former question about the Bible and unanimity is a valid one -- if it is necessary to tell us and it does sufficiently tell us without error what we need to be saved, what are we to make of mutually exclusive formulations on how to be saved?

Mathison Cont. (Tertullian)

[Read my prefatory piece on Mathison's "The Shape of Sola Scriptura" here.]

It's been a little while since I've addressed the underlying research and analysis used by Keith A. Mathison in his articulation of the doctrine of sola Scriptura. I've noted that the entirety of his popular work is centered around the principle that the Reformers sought to return the Church to a view of Scripture that he calls "Tradition I". This is contraposed against, inter alia, "Tradition II", which is defined as "the concept of tradition that allows for an authoritative extra-biblical source of revelation. (p. 39)" [Note: the Apostolic Churches do not claim to rely on continuing general revelation in order to teach authoritatively.]

So far I have considered his treatment of Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. I am unpersuaded by Mathison's claims that the early Church Fathers proffered a view that the Regula Fidei was "inscripturated" into the Bible to be the sole norm and authority of the Christian Faith.

That dusting off having been accomplished, let me take up Mathison's discussion of Tertullian, the 2nd Century ecclesial author (later turned heretic).

Mathison says. Like Irenaeus, Tertullian taught that the oral preaching of the Apostles was written down in Scripture. He rebuffed a teaching of Docetism by saying that "there is no evidence of this, because Scripture says nothing." He condemns the idea that the Apostles did not reveal all to all men but instead disclosed some of their knowledge only to a few and in secret.

Tertullian believed that the Scriptures furnish us with a rule of faith, and this rule of faith is the "hermeneutical context for a proper interpretation of Scripture." Because the Scriptures and the Regula Fidei both have the apostles as their source, they are mutually reciprocal and indivisible.

My analysis. Tertullian rebuffed an aspect of a certain heresy by saying that it lacked evidence in Scripture. It does not follow that Tertullian believed that all Truth is contained within Scripture (i.e., sola Scriptura). Any adherent to Tradition II could equally criticize for lack of evidence a heretical belief on account of Scripture saying "nothing" of it. Crudely stated: Scripture contains Truth; many derivative Truths can be deduced from Scripture; therefore, a teaching that is not derivable from Scripture lacks evidence. This accounts for Tertullian's view, without requiring Tradition I.

That Tertullian condemned the Gnostics for claiming that there were secret written teachings of the Apostles speaks nothing to Tradition I or II. The Catholics and Orthodox do not maintain that they derive teachings from any secret revelations given only to Bishops.

A little digging through Tertullian's work has been revealing. He taught that the Holy Spirit sat in Office over the churches, not permitting them to understand or believe differently than that which He (the Spirit) was "preaching by the Apostles" (On the Prescription of Heretics, Ch. XXVIII). He famously said (with sarcasm) that the heretics could validate their claims of having Apostolic teaching by unfolding "the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such manner that their first bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles." The Bishops he called "transmitters of the apostolic seed" (Ibid., Ch. XXXII). Finally (of my brief surveillance of his work), he notes the double honor of Rome's apostolic authority (Ibid., Ch. XXXVI).

Lastly, Mathison's view that the Regula Fidei is particularly authoritative (though "indivisible" from the Scriptures) because it derives from the Apostles is nothing short of fascinating (and enticing). The view seems necessary to prevent rejection of the early Creeds. But this rule of faith exists nowhere in writing -- it is notional, and at best made analogous to the Apostles' Creed by Mathison. So he acknowledges that there is a deposit of all Truth in the Church, that it is properly handled and interpreted within the Church, but then maintains that the early Church Fathers recognized its as no more than co-extensive with Scripture. Up until that last part, Mathison's is a very Catholic sounding view.

Conclusion. Mathison has yet to show a belief from the early Church that the Bible, the "inscripturation" of the Regula Fidei, had any authority independent of the Apostolic Successors within the Church. Such independence has to be shown though for sola Scriptura to stand.

Mathison Cont. (Clement of Alexandria)

(Read my prefatory piece on Mathison's The Shape of Sola Scriptura here.)

After giving us his impression of Irenaeus' view on Scripture and Tradition, Mathison sets out to cover Clement of Alexandria.

Mathison says. Clement's Stromata (Book VII, Ch. 16) describes scripture as the criterion by which truth and heresy are to be distinguished. To Mathison, Clement declares with the following the necessity of having all things proven from scripture:

"But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves."

Mathison takes the time in a footnote to observe that the perpetual virginity of Mary is denied in this very chapter of the Stromata.

My analysis. Here we are thankfully given actual words from the Church Father cited. Unfortunately, the precise point does not necessarily follow from the proof provided. Clement of Alexandria does say that Scripture is a criterion for distinguishing Truth from heresy. But Mathison is wrong to claim that this quote shows Clement's belief in the necessity of having all things proven from Scripture. Clement says in this little quote that those seeking truth (and he is referring to the philosophers) will not rest in what their mind finds as truth until it is in conformity with Scripture.

The Stromata is his 'miscellanies', an eclectic work that scholars describe as frustratingly hard to follow or within which to find any central meaning (see Tixeront here). Clement was engaged with Gnostics and philosophers of the academically-minded community in Alexandria. He sought to refute those who claimed to have the secret oral truths, and he is clear in stating that their claims are disproved by sacred Scriptures. He criticizes their willy-nilly use of Scriptures out of context in an attempt to prove their claims. He believes that the Scriptures are Truth and are from God, but I do not see in his work a claim that the Truth contained in Scripture is co-extensive with Tradition.

Clement's writing does resemble the "Tradition I" notion as set out by Mathison, but it does not follow from this that the Scriptures are all Authority. Rather, they are the highest source of Truth to be wielded by the proper Authorities, the Bishops within the Church. This is a distinction of fundamental importance: are the Scriptures Authority, or Truth?

Here are some quotations I found from Clement which might help paint a fuller picture:

"The knowledge of the truth among us from what is already believed, produces faith in what is not yet believed; which [faith] is, so to speak, the essence of demonstration. But, as appears, no heresy has at all ears to hear what is useful, but opened only to what leads to pleasure. Since also, if one of them would only obey the truth, he would be healed. (emphasis added)"

Here Clement discusses the truth among the faithful that is already believed, or Tradition. It is important to remember that there is no canon formed within Christianity at this time, and Clement himself quotes as "Scriptures of the Lord" texts that are Apocryphal (he quotes pseudo-Ezekiel as such; see Fr. Gambero's Mary And The Fathers Of The Church, page 70, footnote 5).

"Now, since there are three states of the soul—ignorance, opinion, knowledge—those who are in ignorance are the Gentiles, those in knowledge, the true Church, and those in opinion, the Heretics. Nothing, then, can be more clearly seen than those, who know, making affirmations about what they know, and the others respecting what they hold on the strength of opinion, as far as respects affirmation without proof. (emphasis added)"

"For those are slothful who, having it in their power to provide themselves with proper proofs for the divine Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, select only what contributes to their own pleasures. And those have a craving for glory who voluntarily evade, by arguments of a diverse sort, the things delivered by the blessed apostles and teachers, which are wedded to inspired words; opposing the divine tradition by human teachings, in order to establish the heresy. (emphasis added)"

"But as the good man must not prove false or fail to ratify what he has promised, although others violate their engagements; so also are we bound in no way to transgress the canon of the Church. And especially do we keep our profession in the most important points, while they traverse it. (emphasis added; this is his well-known reference to an ecclesial canon, not the canon of Scripture)"

Plain error. Now to Mathison's claim that this quoted section of Clement proves his disbelief in Mary's perpetual virginity, I must note a plain and egregious error. The citation that supposedly shows Clement's disbelief is this:

"But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin. Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin, in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth. “And she brought forth, and yet brought not forth,” says the Scripture [this is the reference made to pseudo-Ezekiel]; as having conceived of herself, and not from conjunction. (emphasis added)"

Fr. Gambero, in the work I have already referenced, takes this same passage to indicate the opposite, that it evidences an early belief in Mary's perpetual virginity. He uses a clearer translation that reads, "...was found to be in the state of a woman who has given birth, while in fact she was not so", as opposed to "...the puerperal state, although she was not". If I were to guess, I would think that Mathison read that uncommon word as a typographical error meant to read "perpetual." But the word is real, and means "of or pertaining to childbirth."

So some believed Mary to resemble a woman who has given birth, on account of the fact that she did give birth, but Clement says this resemblance was not so. Mathison claims for Clement a completely opposite view, and this should be corrected if there is a future printing of his book.

Mathison Cont. (Irenaeus)

In The Shape of Sola Scriptura (see my prefatory piece here), Mathison sets out to prove that “Tradition I”, to which the Reformers sought to return us, was universally held by the unified early church. He believes this tradition consists of the doctrine committed to the Church by Jesus and the Apostles, and it is "coinherent" with Scripture (p. 21).

I would like to walk through the evidence and analysis he uses to reach the conclusion that the early church held to Tradition I. The entirety of his work is built around this premise, so his use of early church evidence deserves careful scrutiny. I will not scrutinize the overall theological and exegetical cogency of Mathison's argument (it has been well scrutinized and discussed here, ht: Chad).

In this post, I will discuss only his claim that Irenaeus held to the 'Tradition I' framework.

Mathison says. Irenaeus developed the concept of Regula Fidei (Rule of Faith), which was recited by catechumens as a summary of the faith handed down from the Apostles (p. 23). We are told that Irenaeus insists that the Regula Fidei, which was "inscripturated" into written form, as such is the foundation and cornerstone of the faith. We are told exegesis was probably the only theological method of the early church, and that the authority of the scriptures was "sovereign and supreme," with the Regula Fedei as the necessary interpretive norm. We are told that the Regula Fidei was distinguishable from Scripture only when in reference to its use in interpreting the same (p.24). We are given the conclusory statement that "plainly" what was written and what was handed down orally are one and the same body of teaching (think of two co-extensive circles in a Venn Diagram).

My analysis.

In this section about what Irenaeus taught, which sets the table for the entire book, not a single word from Irenaeus' pen is given. We are given one lengthy quotation from the venerable Bruce, one from Oberman, and a brief quotation of the (very Protestant sounding) Orthodox theologian Florovsky. I find this to be unpersuasive, and have no idea from the reading what Irenaeus truly held. A book of this breadth and length should offer factual statements and not merely resort to the conclusions of fellow Protestants (reputable as they may be).

Bearing in mind that I spend minutes and not weeks doing my research, I came across some germane Irenaeus passages, courtesy of the wonderful Christian Classics Ethereal Library. The first is from Book 1 of Against Heresies, Chapter III: "Texts Of The Holy Scripture Used By These Heretics To Support Their Opinions".

"And it is not only from the writings of the evangelists and the apostles that they endeavour to derive proofs for their opinions by means of perverse interpretations and deceitful expositions: they deal in the same way with the law and the prophets, which contain many parables and allegories that can frequently be drawn into various senses, according to the kind of exegesis to which they are subjected. And others of them, with great craftiness, adapted such parts of Scripture to their own figments, lead away captive from the truth those who do not retain a stedfast faith in one God, the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

From Book III, Chapter IV: "The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolic doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles."

"1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?

"2. To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.

"3. For, prior to Valentinus, those who follow Valentinus had no existence; nor did those from Marcion exist before Marcion; nor, in short, had any of those malignant-minded people, whom I have above enumerated, any being previous to the initiators and inventors of their perversity. For Valentinus came to Rome in the time of Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and remained until Anicetus. Cerdon, too, Marcion’s predecessor, himself arrived in the time of Hyginus, who was the ninth bishop. Coming frequently into the Church, and making public confession, he thus remained, one time teaching in secret, and then again making public confession; but at last, having been denounced for corrupt teaching, he was excommunicated from the assembly of the brethren. Marcion, then, succeeding him, flourished under Anicetus, who held the tenth place of the episcopate. But the rest, who are called Gnostics, take rise from Menander, Simon’s disciple, as I have shown; and each one of them appeared to be both the father and the high priest of that doctrine into which he has been initiated. But all these (the Marcosians) broke out into their apostasy much later, even during the intermediate period of the Church."

[Continue to read the next Chapter if you're interested, which does lay some marvelous groundwork for the infallibility of Scripture. But I do not get the sense from this Chapter that Irenaeus saw Scripture as the exclusive source of teaching, co-extensive with the Tradition that he praises above.]

Conclusion. This does not support the unsubstantiated conclusion made by Mathison that Irenaeus insists on a Regula Fidei "inscripturated" into written form to be the cornerstone of faith. It would appear, rather, that Irenaeus saw the church as being that cornerstone (a very Scriptural view, I might add). Nowhere do I get the sense that Irenaeus saw Scriptural exegesis as the only theological source, nor a notion of co-extensive Scripture/Tradition that is "sovereign and supreme". It is not so plain, at least from the proofs provided, that what was written and what was handed down orally are one and the same body of teaching.

Mathison on the Church Fathers

Much has been written about Keith A. Mathison's The Shape of Sola Scriptura (for example, one blogger wrote this). I previously noted that Mathison describes one of five theories I've heard of the canon rationale churches follow to reach a 66-book canon. Mathison expresses that the church was authoritatively (though not infallibly) reliable in identifying canon, but only until the fourth century, at which point it become corrupt. Thus the Reformation, properly understood, merely recaptured the early church's purity.

I am struck by the fact that his work has been so well received and highly praised within my Reformed circle. Indeed, the book was given to me by a Reformed pastor as an antidote to the confusion I experienced from the likes of Catholic apologists (I noted this in a recent comment). It is striking simply because his theory may not be in conformity with the Westminster Confession. The Confession notes that while "[w]e may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture," "our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit..." (Chapter 1, Section V). Contrariwise, Mathison relies on the true church abiding under the regula fidei to determine canon and articulate the doctrines relating thereunto.

Admittedly, it is difficult to sum up his book so briefly, and I've probably done a poor job of it. He covers a great deal of territory and makes many controversial claims (what isn't controversial within Christianity?). I do recommend that you read him before you accept any of my compliments or criticisms. That said, I'd like from time to time to post on his interpretation and analyses of certain Church Fathers, and will refer back to this as a prefatory post. If you have read it, I hope some subsequent posts can spark fruitful discussion on the merits of his analysis.

Sola Scriptura is Dead

Dear friends,

I have been nagged by a feeling of slight disingenuity (which some of you have no doubt perceived) regarding the depth of my "Protestantism". I am a PCA member, and have made my doubts known to my Pastor, so that I can be properly under my elders' rule and discipline. However, the time has come where I must recognize, and admit to anyone reading my thoughts on this blog, that sola Scriptura has, to me, finally died.

My church teaches that, "The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. (WCOF, Chapter 1, Section IV)"

Further, "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. (WCOF, Chapter 1, Section IX)"

Finally worth noting presently, "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. (WCOF, Chapter 1, Section X)"

I can no longer make these confessions. Taking these three sections in order:

1) Identifying which books are Holy Scripture is a prerequisite to obeying their inherent authority. I believe that we certainly rely on the testimony of the ancient church, and the testimony continuing through to the present, to know which books are Holy Scripture. While the spoken Word of God is authoritative because of its source, and without the approval of men, this Word is not self-authenticating. To say that the Holy Scriptures are self-authenticating is novel to the Reformation (later than Luther, even), and is an extra-biblical rule.

2) I believe that the rule of 'scripture interprets scripture; clear text interprets vague' has failed. It was a theory novel to the Reformation, to counter claims that a Church is needed to interpret Scripture. Who decides which passages are clear, and which are vague? Do the vague passages carry less truth than do the purportedly clear? Why would the God-breathed Word given to be our sole rule be so vague in the first place? The Holy Scriptures are no Constitution, and they are no Catechism. They are a collection of sacred and ancient writings. To interpret vague text by clear is an extra-biblical rule.

3) I do not believe that the Holy Spirit solely speaking in Scriptures is the sole judge of all councils, doctrines, and judgments of men. That the Holy Spirit can guide and judge in no other way is in clear tension with the practice of the early Church as noted in Holy Scriptures. Judas was replaced by the casting of lots, done in faith that the Holy Spirit would judge who was the most fit replacement. Paul was called on the Road to Damascus not by Scripture, but by Christ's immediate appearance. Peter called the Council of Jerusalem to set doctrine and settle dispute. That the Holy Spirit could teach in no way other than through the finite and particular word of Holy Scripture is to limit His ability to respond to prayer and work through the Sacraments of the Church. I believe that the Word is our ultimate authority, but the Word is bigger than the text of the words in Holy Scripture. That the Holy Spirit is so contained is a teaching novel to the time of the Reformation, and is an extra-Biblical rule.

I do confess that I don't know where to go from here. I'm in a ghastly no-man's land, truly a citizen neither of the World, nor of the Church. I do not mean in any way to disparage the Holy Scriptures, but only to point out that man's extra-biblical rules of interpretaion are no longer persuasive. If the Reformation was right, surely we can do better!