In this month's issue of Modern Reformation magazine, Mike Horton argues for the classic Protestant understanding of Sola Scriptura, and reminds us that the Mainline Reformers have always had to argue against two extremes, Rome and the Anabaptists (or "Radical Reformers"). Since both of these positions are alive and well today (and since Roman Catholic and Orthodox apologists have a tendency to lump all Protestants together under the radical or Anabaptist view), this article is timely and helpful.
Dr. Horton's essay is available for free here.
-
8 comments:
I'd like to re-open the discussion I see on your other post, on Sola Scriptura.
Here is my question.
Consider proposition P: Group S of books are all divinely inspired books. (this is the question which will in effect answer the question- which books belong in the Bible- which tells us what is the correct Canon).
Now, how do you justify a belief that P is true?
Here's how the Catholic might justify, or could justify his belief that P is true. The Catholic, as someone in the comments explained, can say- look at the Bible as a historical document. Jesus claims to be God, and He also claims that have established an infallible teaching magisterial authority- an infallible Church. This is a merely historical claim at first- even the atheist will believe that Jesus claimed such things- even though he may not believe that the claims are true. Now, the Catholic puts faith in Jesus and by faith knows that all Jesus says is true. So, he believes that there is an authority that can answer the question- and this authority is the Catholic Church. And this is how it happened historically. The Church infallibly declared which books were actually inspired.
Now, how would you justify belief that P is true? Is there some authority to answer such matters for you that is itself infallible? You might think that we don't need infallibility to have knowledge. Perhaps it's true that we don't need an infallible source in order to justify some beliefs (like that 2+2=4), but won't you need an infallible source to justify the belief that the list of Books in the Bible is infallible, that all those books are inspired and none of them are un=inspired books (especially in light of the historical debate about which books were inspired)? If the atheist questioned you, how would you justify your belief that you have the right books in the Bible?
Also, check out the debate between Michael Horton and Bryan Cross, on Sola Scriptura. Check out this link, and have a look around on the website, Called to Communion. They have written some articles with arguments against Sola Scriptura.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/11/sola-scriptura-a-dialogue-between-michael-horton-and-bryan-cross/
Mark, before answering your question, let me ask one of you.
Consider proposition P: Group S of men make up the leadership of the one and only true church instituted by Jesus Christ, and possess a divinely inspired infallible authority in matter of faith.
Now, how would you justify a belief that P is true? Is there some authority to answer such matters for you that is itself infallible? You might think that we don't need infallibility to have knowledge. Perhaps it's true that we don't need an infallible source in order to justify some beliefs (like that 2+2=4), but won't you need an infallible source to justify the belief that the magesterium of the Roman Catholic church is infallible, that all of their pronouncements in matters of the faith are divinely inspired and infallibly true? If the atheist questioned you, how would you justify your belief that you have a living source of infallible divine truth?
I would look at the Bible as a historical document. In that Book, I will read the story of a man named Jesus. He claimed to be God, and of course, claims that everything He says is true. He (Jesus) claims to be perfect, infallible. So this is step 1- read the book as a historical document. Like I said- even the atheist who researches history (and reads the Bible as an accurate historical document), can believe that there was such a Man who said such things.
Now, second step. This is where the atheist differs from the believer. I, moved by grace, put my faith in Jesus. I believe that He is Son of God, God become man. He is God. As part of this step, or as a result, I believe everything that Jesus says. Everything. So I look in the Bible to read the things He said. It turns out that in Matthew 16:18, he did establish One Church which was supposed to last forever,and the foundation of this Church was Peter (the first Pope). This pope has had successors, all the way down to the current Pope of the Catholic Church. We then look where He said to His apostles, 'Whoever hears you hears Me'. Reading these passages in the Bible, along with many other passages that I would love to discuss here, would show us the following picture- a Man named Jesus claimed to be God, and that Man said to certain men that they would be infallible in their teaching authority. These men chose successors, and their teaching authority was handed- we see this in Scripture. And their successors make up the apostolic succession that leads all the way to the current bishops of the Catholic Church.
If the atheist asked my way I put my faith in Jesus, the man whom I read about in the Bible. I would tell Him (I could say a lot of things) that there is motive of credibility. Given the historical evidence, I have good reason to believe that Jesus was not a liar, that he was not crazy, and only have reason to believe that He was God. This is the Lord, Liar, or Lunatic argument.
I would justify my claim that P, on the basis of the fact that Jesus said that P is true. The atheist might think Jesus is not God, or Jesus is a liar, or whatever. But, I have justification for my believing that P.
Okay, your turn to answer my question.
Mark, I appreciate your response. But surely you must see the dilemma that I set up for you by turning your own question against you. Your response was a good one, but I'm afraid it failed to meet your own criteria.
You claimed that I would need an infallible authority to tell me infallibly which books were divinely inspired. Why? Apparently because such a belief is not like other beliefs (your example was 2 + 2 = 4). Ok, so why do you not need an infallible authority to tell you infallibly which group/church to believe in? Is your belief that the Roman Catholic church is the only true church created by Christ just another belief like 2+2=4? Is your belief that the Magersterium and the Pope are sources of divine revelation (similar, perhaps equal to the Bible) just another belief like 2+2=4? Of course not. It is exactly like the belief that "this book is divine revelation, and this one is not." Only for you it is "the Roman Catholic church is the one true church, the Orthodox, Anglican, Presbyterian, etc., churches are not."
So you have missed the point. You failed to meet your own standard. The answer you gave me rests upon two things: Your personal experience of grace leading you to faith, and your own ability to reason and interpret the meaning of a text like Matt. 16. Neither one of those things gives you infallible certainty in the Roman Catholic church, and thus you cannot have infallible certainty in the pronouncements of the Roman Catholic church (including their supposedly "creating" the Canon of Scripture).
"The answer you gave me rests upon two things: Your personal experience of grace leading you to faith, and your own ability to reason and interpret the meaning of a text like Matt. 16. Neither one of those things gives you infallible certainty..."
The source which I take to be infallible is Jesus Christ.
You are confusing, I think, the difference between:
1) basing my belief in A on B and 2) basing my belief in A on 'my belief that B'.
1) I base my belief in the infallibility of the Catholic Church (A) on the infallibility of what Jesus says (B).
Or in a conditional: Jesus is infallible, therefore what he says is true. If he says that there is an infallible Church, then that Church is infallible.
2) I base my belief in the infallibility of the Catholic Church (A) on the infallibility of my belief that I am correct in believing what Jesus says (B).
Or, expressed as a conditional: I am infallible in my belief that Jesus really is God, therefore I am justified in believing that what he says is true.
I am going for 1, not 2. I think that you might have analyzed my reasoning (maybe as a result of my lack of clarity) as an example of 2.
Mark, I'm afraid that won't work because you are essentially claiming to have some sort of direct and infallible knowledge of what Jesus' teaching in Matt. 16 means. I'm sure you don't really believe that. So, what you mean to say is that you base your belief about the Roman Catholic church upon WHAT YOU INTERPRET Jesus' words to mean. I'm afraid you cannot remove yourself from the equation.
To put it another way, HOW do you know what Jesus' words in Matt. 16 mean? Obviously you have considered possible interpretations, you have looked at the history of commentary on this passage by godly men, etc., and you have come to a decision about what the correct interpretation is. But it remains your fallible decision, based upon your own fallible ability to understand the evidence and reason your way to a conclusion.
Now, if you are conceding that your belief in the infallibility of the Roman Catholic church is NOT an infallible belief, wonderful. But if so, then your initial objection to the Protestant position still fails, because your objection was that we cannot know which books are infallible divine revelation without someone to infallibly tell us. If this holds true for my belief in Scripture, it must also hold true for your belief in the Roman Catholic church.
I do not think I am infallible in interpreting Scripture, though I think the Church is. However, I take the plain sense of Scriptura- he tells Peter that He is establishing a Church on him that the gates of hell shall not prevail against. If you are going to try and reply with a point about greek grammar- please first look into the attic/koine distinction- you will see that Peter is the rock, and there is no way around it. And this Church, founded on Peter, was promised to last- the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I think this interpretation is obvious and that even the atheist would agree with my interpretation of the text, though he would not agree that they are true.
The part that requires an infallible source is this- infallibly discriminating between divinely inspired books and non-divinely inspired books. Historically, the discrimination had to be mad- it did.
Now, I ask you why do you choose the accept the Canon that you have receieved from tradition.
I believe that the list of books is innerant, and that the Church that compiled the list was infallible. That's at least a coherent concept, even if it's false.
You will not say that the Church is infallible, neither are all Christians infallible when they agree on things. So how do you justify your claim that the list of books is correct, that it is innerant (ESPECIALLY, in light of the need to discriminate between divinely inspired books and other books that were believed to be divinely inspired, but were not). Do you think that you have a fallible list of infallible books- a view held by R.C. Sproul?
Do you have some coherent concept about your believe that you have the right list of books- what warrant do you have about the correctness of the historical decision to accept some books as inspired while denying others?
My earlier question, even if it turned out to be an objection to Catholicism (which I explained why it wasn't, in my last post before this one), is a good question. So, if you think Catholicism is false or whatever, I would still like you to answer it.
Best,
Mark
Post a Comment