Defending the Faith: sola Scriptura vs. Sacred Tradition - Part 3

Finally, we come to the last part of this weighty debate on sola Scriptura vs. Sacred Tradition: should we look to the Church or ourselves as the authoritative interpretation of the Bible?

The Evangelical Stance - Many Evangelicals who believe strictly in the "Bible alone" mentality, will say that this is one of the main areas of contention that they have with the Catholic church and any other denomination that professes an authoritative belief in apostolic succession. They are quick to cite Proverbs 8:9 ("They are all plain to him who understands, and right to those who find knowledge.") and 2 Corinthians 4:2 ("Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God."), using these passages to assert that since Scripture is God-inspired and given to man, God expects the readers to comprehend it. Because of this, God can privately communicate his message to the reader in such a way that they can comprehend it if they are seeking truth. Evangelicals contend that doctrine must be based squarely on the Bible and not on tradition or what the magisterium (the authoritative teaching of the Church) says. John Calvin asserts that, "...our conviction of the truth of Scripture must be derived from a higher source than human conjectures, judgments, or reasons; namely, the secret testimony of the Spirit."

The Counter Argument - This sounds good and paints a glowing example of the 21st century, "it may work for you, but not for me" mentality. There's only one problem. The Bible and they mysteries of God are not open to private interpretation. Who said so? The apostle Peter: "...knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation..."(2 Peter 1:20).

In 2 Peter 3:15-17 ("Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position."), Peter is discussing Paul's letters concerning the doctrine of salvation. And as we continue through the passage, Peter goes on to recognize that some of Paul's teachings are "hard to understand". This passage is quite damning for those who do not believe in an authoritative Church. Why? Because a major tenet in personal interpretation of the Bible is perspicuity (clearness and understanding) of Scripture and that each believer has the right to interpret the Bible as they see it. The only problem with this is this passage. It negates some beliefs that the central tenets of Scripture are totally clear enough to understand and that we do not need the authoritative Church to help us. No one in Christianity would say that the doctrine of salvation is not essential to our faith. And yet, this doctrine is "hard to understand" and, in fact, many were distorting this doctrine and not fully understanding it.

So, according to Peter, because we can find ourselves "ignorant" of even some tenets of the most basic doctrine in our faith and can potentially have the opportunity to "distort" some Scripture to our "own destruction" (consciously or unconsciously) then is there a testimony that we can looks to and on to NOT twist or be ignorant of the Scriptures as a whole? 

The problem with the "Bible alone" mentality is it holds that the self is the final authority on Scripture and interpretation. But this implies a subjective opinion that is based on feeling and emotions - not fact. This form of personal interpretation leads itself to religious subjectivism - which means that there is no subjective truth independent from what you yourself subjectively believe. So, if there is no subjective standard of Truth (to which we conform to, are under authority of, and will eventually be judged by) and your opinion is as adequate as someone else's, then we are only one step closer to Christian anarchy with no single voice of Truth, authority, or order. If private judgment and interpretation is true, then the only criteria we can go by to discern what is the original word of God is this litmus test, as the Mormon Church teaches, "But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right." (Mormon Doctrine and Covenants 9:8)

The Mormon approach is purely subjective - and purely dangerous because that burning could just as easily be heartburn from dinner. This leads to the uncomfortable realization that, following that guideline, there is no objective criteria for us to known which documents are even inspired by God. Personal interpretation leaves the door open to argue that not only is the Bible inspired, but the Book of Mormon and the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses as well. Of course, we know that the latter is not true and shouldn't be true - but that is the problem with relying on personal Biblical interpretation: this subjectivism is not a criteria for determining God's revelation of the Scriptures - not everyone who reads a passage receives a burning bosom - so someone must be in error. The problem with this mentality is that if we must rely only on the secret testimony of the Spirit, as Calvin believed, we can never know absolutely what the inspired words of God are because we would have reason to doubt someone else's independent self-subjective judgment.
 So is private interpretation and judgment a form of religious agnosticism? Proponents of sola Scriptura assert that there is no infallible testimony outside of what is found inside the Bible. If a group is sitting together reading out of the Bible, what happens if some choose to disagree with a majority interpretation? No one's interpretation is infallible and 100% absolutely truthful because the self is subject to fallible error. The Bible is the only thing infallible to them - not the person(s) making the interpretation. Therefore, I could not have faith in Person A's subjective interpretation of the Bible because he is fallible (and under the evangelical Protestant doctrine, only the Bible alone is infallible) and subject to error - but faith and error cannot coexist. Faith and doubt cannot coexist. And because of this, if Person A, and not the Bible, is fallible and subject to error, I have reason to doubt his assertions and I cannot put faith into his interpretation of the Scriptures. Likewise, because I am fallible and subject to error, then I cannot put absolute faith in my own judgment of the Bible. If there is no infallible and over-arching authoritative testimony to rely on in order to know the authentic meaning of Christ's words as revealed in sacred Scripture, then we must conclude religious agnosticism, that is, this interpretation might be true - but it very well might not be because interpretation is of equal value and one is not superior or inferior to another. Because of this, if private judgment lends itself to not being able to know what is the Truth either way, what is true Scripture? The Gospels? Epistles? Apocrypha? Old Testament? New Testament? "Bible alone" advocates contend the only infallible testimony comes from God himself. But has God himself ever say anywhere in the Bible  what documents are inspired by Him? NO. Believing in sola Scriptura means never being able to discern absolutely what part(s) of Scripture are inspired by God because believers say we must rely only on ourselves for a God-inspired interpretation and yet each one of us is subject to error and fallibility.

But fear not. There IS an infallible voice to which we can appeal to, to discover which documents have God as their author and inspiration. Without that authority and that infallible voice of interpretation we could never rely fully upon ourselves because we are fallible and subject to error. The closest any of us could get would be to say, this might be the word of the Lord or this might not be.

So if it's not a matter of private interpretation, the most obvious question would be, who does the interpreting? Matthew outlines the answer to this explicitly: "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." (Matthew 18:15-17) He is quite clear here, we should first try to find a resolution between each other if a doctrinal or Scriptural opinion difference arises, but if we are not satisfied with what our "brother" says, Scripture does not say we both can have different dissenting opinions and go about on our merry way, no, Scripture commands us to take it to the CHURCH as the final authoritative arbitrator. Peter makes it even more clear when he writes, " So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention..." (2 Peter 1:19). Taken into context with the rest of this section of Scripture and the timeframe in which it was written, the "we" Peter is referring to was not a collective "we" of individual believers who could interpret as they individually saw fit. No, the "we" describes Peter, James, and John who were the leaders of the CHURCH at this time.

Because of this understanding, we must read the Bible not apart from the Church, but from the heart of the Church. We must realize that if this was not the case, there would be no verse 17 in the aforementioned Matthew 18. But Matthew makes it quite clear that there is a final court of appeals for all Biblical interpretations outside of ourselves and it is not the individual believer. It is the Church and we are commanded to look to it for what interpretation is right, correct, true, and authoritatively binding. The Church is the high standard of authority we must mold to fit and not try to force a mold of our own personal interpretation.

To build upon that, the authoritativeness of the Church is expounded upon in v. 18 where that type of power is granted to it when Christ commands, "...whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." This directive denotes the authoritative voice of the Church - evidence of the source of the authority granted to the Church to be in Heaven.

We do have an infallible voice. Matthew names it, Peter instituted it, his apostles evangelized it, their teachings voiced it and confirmed it, apostolic succession solidified it, and the Bishop of Rome today lives it. It is Holy Mother Church.

AMEN.