In a previous entry I introduced the concept of an new version of Sola Scriptura. It is designed to give the same practical result as the original while being more intellectually defensible. I call it "Sola Scriptura Minor".
This version doesn't make the explicit claims that every Christian doctrine (or practice) is contained within the Bible and that any proposed teaching (or practice) must be proved from within its pages. Thus, it doesn't fall victim to the obvious self-refutation problem which plagues Sola Scriptura Major.
Recapping:
To recap, Sola Scriptura minor entails the following:
Point 1: The 66-Book Protestant Bible is the only infallible source of Christian doctrine we have available to us today.
Point 2: As a corollary to Point 1, there is no person or group of people today who can deliver an infallible interpretation of the Bible which would bind other Christians in obedience.
And we might add onto that a third hidden point:
Point 0: The ability to render an infallible teaching was gifted to the Apostles only, and this was lost upon their deaths.
OK, now let's see if we can take this thing apart.
Starting at Point 0:
What is infallibility? Let's go with a working definition of:
"Teaching in a way which is guided by the Holy Spirit into the truth and guaranteed to not be wrong."
This charism is on display in Acts 15 when the council of the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem prefaces their letter with:
"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to not burden you with anything beyond the following..." - Acts 15:28
Sola Scriptura Minor insists that, though this was a meeting of both Apostles and elders, this charism of infallibility was only possible because there were Apostles present. The gift was given to them and no one else.
That's the first problem: The person asserting Sola Scriptura Minor has the burden of proving this presupposition. Did Jesus ever say that? Is there a Scripture passage which teaches that the Apostles - and only the Apostles - were given the charism of infallibility?
I don't know of any.
What Signaled the Change?
This is the argument which Jimmy Akin used in a recent debate on the subject. It starts by noting the pattern of Church governance that we see in the Bible. You can read about the origin of this structure in Matthew 19:28, in which Jesus appoints the twelve Apostles to positions of leadership.
But it doesn't stop there. The start of the second generation can be seen in Acts 14:23, where we observe Paul and Barnabas ordaining men in every town they visited. This is also mentioned in 1Timothy 4:14 when Paul recalls the ordination of Timothy.
Preparations for the third generation can be found in texts like 2Timothy 2:2 and Titus 1:5. In both locations we find Paul instructing the two recipients of his letters (themselves bishops) to ordain more men who can carry on in their place.
So if you were a Christian at the beginning of the Church, what would your expectation be?
> You know that the Church's apparatus for teaching consists of the Apostles and the men whom they are appointing - the first bishops.
> You know that Paul expected these bishops to ordain yet more bishops.
> You also know that when there was a major controversy, the Church's leadership met together and delivered a ruling which was guided by the Holy Spirit.
That's the model of Church governance which you've come to expect. So if there is going to be a shift from that model - to a model where:
> Councils are limited to considering the data within Scripture
> Their dogmatic decisions are subject to error
> And the laity have the responsibility to check their teachers' work against Scripture
... then there must be something to clue us in on that.
Thus, the second challenge becomes; where does the Bible say that shift will occur?
With the Church?
One might retort that we (Catholics and Orthodox) have the burden of proving the charism of infallibility is vested in the Church. Fair enough.
Prior Probability:
First, let's consider the common sense, prior probability of the thing.
Jesus knew that throughout Church history there would be controversies which need to be settled. Many of these would concern the proper way to interpret Scripture. In order for the faithful to have confidence in the way these controversies get settled, and so the Church would be able to move on from them, it would really help the Church to have the charism of infallibility.
We all agree that charism was present in Acts 15. So Jesus apparently thought it was necessary to instantiate the Church with this capacity. But did the Church's need for the ability to settle issues infallibly stop after that? Wouldn't it also be useful through the ages?
To put it a different way: Anyone can see how a public, infallible teaching office would be a benefit to the Church. And not just for the beginning of Church history, but continuing on. But if Sola Scriptura Minor is correct, Jesus saw the need for an infallible teaching authority and gave us one... but made it expire within 60 years. Does that really make sense?
Biblical Evidence:
Now let's look at a trio of Scripture passages which bolster our case:
"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. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” - Matthew 28:19-20
“I am writing to you so that if I am delayed you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” - 1 Timothy 3:15
"Jesus answered him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'” - Matthew 16:17-19
What do we see in these three passages?
First, Jesus commands the Apostles to teach everything they learned from Him. He promises to be with them until the end of the age. Is this better understood as a promise to the Apostles or to the Church? Well, since the Apostles are now dead and the age is still continuing... this would seem to be a promise of guidance given to the Church.
Next, we read Paul's description of the Church to Timothy as the "pillar and bulwark of truth". If the Church lost its charism of infallibility when the final Apostle died - and the Church's teaching apparatus lost its ability to settle matters with certainty - could the Church really continue to be the pillar and bulwark of truth?
Lastly, Jesus tells Peter that the gates of Hell will never prevail over the Church. This means - at least - that the Church will never pass out of existence. But extrapolating out, we can ask: Wouldn't the Church teaching heresy be an instance where the gates of Hell prevail?
While someone could look at these passages and say they aren't conclusive, they still point in the direction of Church retaining the charism of infallibility. And they tip the scales against the person who says the Church's infallibility died with the Apostles - a proposition for which there is no evidence.
The Canon Conundrum:
The final argument to bring up is an old classic for combatting Sola Scriptura. Reverting to Sola Scriptura Minor does not eliminate a weakness in the original version: The Canon Conundrum.
The Bible, as those who are familiar with history are aware, did not fall out of the sky after Jesus ascended. First, the inspired writings had to be written. Then, the Church began of long process of discerning precisely which early Christian writings were inspired. This is discernment process lasted centuries.
While the Church didn't make the writings inspired*, it did play the role of telling us which Scriptures are inspired. And the way that knowledge got passed down is through tradition.
This leaves the believer in Sola Scriptura with a problem. The only infallible source of knowledge is the Scriptures. But my knowledge of which books are Scripture comes from tradition... which is fallible. It could be wrong. So there's nothing wrong - in principle - with a person saying, "I think the Church got it wrong with Paul's pastoral letters."
This problem can be elaborated in different ways, but suffice it to say: Sola Scriptura Minor compromises your ability to have the Bible in the first place.
Conclusion:
Let's wrap things up.
Sola Scriptura Minor is a work of evolution. The original version had vulnerabilities which Catholic Apologists have largely overcome over the years. The doctrine needed to evolve to survive.
Sola Scriptura Minor is that adaptation. It tries to trim the vulnerable edges off the original to make something more defensible. And yet, we're left with a doctrine which can be assaulted on these front:
> It says the Church's infallibility was limited to the Apostles, a claim it needs to justify from Scripture.
> It says the Church's governance changed after the Apostles died, another claim which needs Scriptural support.
> It goes against the evidence we do have from Scripture about the Holy Spirit's guidance over the Church.
> It compromises our ability to know what the Bible's true contents are.
No comments:
Post a Comment