Does Protestantism Have A Problem With Subjectivity?

• Discussion:

          -Leila Miller wrote an article attempting to illustrate how the concept of Sola Scriptura is unworkable, resulting in hopeless doctrinal confusion and disorder. The author characterizes non-Catholic interpretations of biblical texts as being inherently relativistic, since they do not originate from an infallible teaching authority that issues decrees for everyone else to obey. This seems to be a fairly lopsided defense of Rome's authority and how it works. Following are excerpts from Miller in bold letters along with a critique of those assertions:

          "...this new paradigm of each Christian interpreting Scripture for himself means that there are as many interpretations of Scripture as there are Protestants. As you can imagine, this leads to a host of problems for a religion that exists to proclaim Truth."

          The biblical authors intended that their writings be used in instructing believers while absent (Romans 15:4; 2 Corinthians 13:10; 2 Thessalonians 2:5; 1 Timothy 3:14-15). We have no other source to turn to but them today, since the apostles and prophets have all passed away. With that being said, some parts of Scripture are more complex and require in-depth study. Sometimes we may even need other people to explain passages to us. However, that does not require a person to have some ability to infallibly interpret Scripture. The Bereans serve as a historical example of individual interpretation without an infallible authority to guide them (Acts 17:11-12). Therefore, individualized examination of Scripture to find out its meaning is not a "new paradigm."

           The New Testament church embraced a unity that allowed for cultural and practical diversity. Jewish and Gentile believers differed on food laws, holy days, and customs, yet were united in Christ. This model of unity, centered on the gospel rather than institutional uniformity, remains a powerful witness. True unity is forged not by coercion but by shared faith, mutual love, and the work of the Spirit in the community of believers. The unity that Christ prayed for is not found in stiff and unyielding institutional allegiance, but in shared life in Him. Unity is a fruit of the Spirit, not a product of ecclesiastical control. The gospel, justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, is the true center of Christian fellowship. This unity transcends denominational lines and reflects the spiritual reality of the one body of Christ.

          "Protestants will tell you that sincere Christians can find the Truth easily, because the "Scriptures are clear" -- and yet Protestants cannot seem to agree on even the essentials of salvation."

          It is a fact there are disagreements that are peripheral and tertiary in nature. Some of those issues are both philosophical and exegetical. For example, the debate in regards to the nature of predestination is one that can be traced back to the days of Augustine. It has not even at this point in time been dogmatically defined by the Roman Catholic Church. Further, anyone who takes even a cursory glance at various historic Protestant creeds knows that there are hardly any differences on the essentials of salvation. Finally, there is the possibility that people reject what Scripture says in spite of its "clear" teaching. That the dogmas of Rome have been laid out in a systematic fashion, does not by itself prove anything. Any group can do the same with its own teachings. Therefore, the Magisterium is by no means the silver bullet it has been made out to be. A centralized authority can enforce uniformity, but that does not ensure that the beliefs held are true or reflect the apostolic faith.

          "Catholics, thankfully, don't have that headache. We know what the Church teaches on every issue that touches on salvation, because Tradition has been handed down intact throughout the centuries, both written and orally, and those teachings are accessible to all."

          This reasoning sounds good in theory, but has not proven itself to be effective in real life. It is even naïve as to how solutions to everyday problems are discovered. Further, there are just as many divisions within the Roman Catholic Church as there are Roman Catholics themselves. For example, they disagree on the relationship between Scripture and tradition. They disagree on the number of teachings which should be considered infallible, and even what they are. Catholics disagree as to the meaning of several passages in the Bible. Many Catholic biblical scholars do not even uphold the inerrancy of the Bible or the traditional authorship of various biblical books like they used to. Other issues have arisen, such as a threat of schism within the Church of Rome with more traditionalist folks, on the issue of homosexuality:

          "Much of the dissent has remained within the Vatican walls, as Francis’s opponents worked to stonewall reforms. A few high-ranking church leaders have questioned him publicly about his teachings. But the simmering opposition has suddenly exploded across the Catholic world, with a former Vatican ambassador accusing the pope of covering up sexual abuse — and demanding that Francis step down. The accusations came in a 7,000-word letter written by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò that could be viewed as an act of courage or unprecedented defiance. Either way, it sheds light on the opposition movement, and particularly its insistence that homosexuality within the church — and Francis’s inability to keep it at bay — is to blame for the sexual abuse crisis."...“We are a step away from schism,” said Michael Sean Winters, a columnist for the National Catholic Reporter. “I think there is a perception among the pope’s critics that there is vulnerability here — on the part of the pope and in the Vatican generally.”

          Consider also that Rome's teaching on the death penalty is subject to change. In the words of Edward Feser, a Catholic philosopher:

          "For another thing, if the Pope is saying that capital punishment is always and intrinsically immoral, then he would be effectively saying – whether consciously or unconsciously – that previous popes, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and even divinely inspired Scripture are in error. If this is what he is saying, then he would be attempting to “make known some new doctrine,” which the First Vatican Council expressly forbids a pope from doing. He would, contrary to the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI, be “proclaim[ing] his own ideas” rather than “bind[ing] himself and the Church to obedience to God’s Word.” He would be joining that very small company of popes who have flirted with doctrinal error. And he would be undermining the credibility of the entire Magisterium of the Church, including his own credibility. For if the Church has been that wrong for that long about something that serious, why should we trust anything else she teaches? And if all previous popes have been so badly mistaken about something so important, why should we think Pope Francis is right?"

           Consider this excerpt from Ignitum Today on the issue of Catholics being divided on the dogma of transubstantiation:

           "According to John Young, theologian and philosopher, “Protestants reject transubstantiation, and so do many Catholic scholars. The average Catholic is vague concerning the nature of the Eucharistic presence of Christ, and one can sympathize with him, in view of the lack of clear teaching about the Most Blessed Sacrament." He further asserts, “The basic objection to the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence is not that it is against Scripture, but that it is against reason.” Theologian and professor at Virginia Seminary, Charles P. Price similarly believes that “most Catholics, without realizing it or perhaps considering it, actually believe in Consubstantiation,” as did Luther, and even a Catholic would be hard-pressed to refute the allegation."

          Is not the dogma of the mass essential to Roman Catholicism? Indeed it is. Yet, the above excerpt plainly tells us that a significant number of Roman Catholics do not agree with official church teaching on this issue. Consequently, claims of unity existing within the Roman Catholic Church have been blown out of proportion. Further, should we conclude from this that the Magisterium needs an infallible interpreter in order for it to make sense to us? The root cause of this rejection of Catholic dogma by Catholics themselves is not the point of emphasis here. It is enough that division over transubstantiation exists among Catholics in many parts of the Western world. Additionally, even if this situation were to somehow change, the fact remains that divisions of this severity have occurred and always remain a possibility, which is all that is necessary to undermine any authoritative appeal that the Magisterium has in eliminating doctrinal conflict once and for all.

          While the Church of Rome claims certainty in the infallibility of its decrees, it offers no such guarantee for the theological reasoning underpinning those decrees, leaving room for inconsistencies and ambiguity. Consider the words of the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia online:

          ''the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached."

          This creates an insurmountable problem: how can one trust the conclusion if the path to it is riddled with fallibility, ambiguity, or even political motives? The distinction between an infallible conclusion and a fallible process undermines confidence in the conclusion itself. It is akin to trusting a math answer without trusting the calculation.

          Claims of unchanging doctrinal unity are challenged by the historical emergence of dogmas that were unknown or contested for centuries. When doctrines are declared essential long after the apostolic era, it raises questions about whether the early church possessed the fullness of truth. If the content of the faith can be expanded or redefined over time, then the claim to preserve the apostolic deposit becomes difficult to sustain.

         The Roman Catholic appeal to visible unity mistakes institutional cohesion for theological integrity. While centralized governance may preserve organizational continuity, it cannot guarantee doctrinal clarity or fidelity to truth. Unity of governance is also not the same as unity of belief. Catholics must still rely on fallible human reasoning to interpret magisterial teachings, just as Protestants interpret Scripture. If unity is defined merely as agreement with an authority one must first choose to trust, then it offers no epistemic advantage, only the illusion of certainty dressed in institutional form.

          "At base, the divide between Protestants and Catholics boils down to authority. If there is no earthly, human authority, if everyone gets to decide for himself what the Bible means, then we have a system of subjectivity and chaos."

          The claim of Protestants being "subjective" is ironic, since Roman Catholics *subjectively* believe the Roman Catholic Church to be objectively authoritative. We all have to make personal decisions in searching for truth. No man is exempt from using his reasoning faculties in analyzing written and spoken content. Everybody has to use their fallible minds to fallibly interpret communicated messages. It is impossible for one to escape from this reality. All understanding is filtered through fallible human cognition. Catholics must fallibly interpret every word of church teaching, whether they retrieve information from Papal Encyclicals, Ecumenical Council documents, the catechism, hearing priests during mass, or the Code of Canon Law. Regardless of whether one is Catholic or Protestant, fallible minds interpret infallible claims. Subjectivity is not inherently problematic nor unique to Protestantism.

          Roman Catholics can and do possess individualized, subjective interpretations of Roman Catholicism. They must judge for themselves the validity of the Roman Catholic Church in order to argue their position. Catholic apologists *subjectively* appeal to evidence, which has to be analyzed in their own minds and by those who encounter their claims. In arguing for the absolute necessity of an infallible teaching authority to prevent church divisions from happening, Roman Catholics sever the very branch of logic that they sit on. One could not even begin to submit to some outside authority without *subjectively* making the choice to do so. Therefore, Catholics are not in any better of a position to understand spiritual truth than anyone else. Their belief in the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church is itself fallible. The difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism is not in the presence of subjectivity, but how each tradition chooses to handle it. Both sides alike must use reason, discernment, and conscience.

          When interpreting biblical literature, a person must take into account historical context and various literary devices. Commentaries, lexicons, concordances, and dictionaries are valuable aids for biblical interpretation. Further, not every argument or interpretation is equally valid. The presence of diverse interpretations does not negate the sufficiency of Scripture. Rather, it underscores the need for humility, dialogue, and continual reformation under the Word of God. Moreover, if one must have some special authority in order to provide justification for his beliefs, then he could not become a Roman Catholic in the first place. One cannot argue for an authority by appealing to that same authority. There has to be external sources verifying to some degree its reliability or credibility, which, once again, requires a person to sift through data on his own. The moment that someone chooses to trust the Magisterium, he has already exercised subjective judgment. The question becomes not who has the authority, but how we responsibly engage with truth claims in light of our limitations.

          On what basis does a person establish the authority of the Roman Catholic Church? Since the answer to that question requires using one's own powers of reason to evaluate evidence, then he must rely on inherently fallible faculties. Hence, there is no such thing as infallible certainty of possessing the fullness of divine truth. There is always the possibility that one is wrong in his decision-making. Further, having a representative available like the pope to preside over a whole group of people only proves that they have decided for themselves to accept as true the claims he makes on religious issues. It is entirely possible for people who have different points of view to co-exist peacefully. 

          The Magisterium itself is interpreted by fallible minds, so the claim of infallibility does not eliminate subjectivity. That office merely directs it toward itself as the object of trust. This undermines the claim that Roman Catholicism escapes subjectivity. It simply relocates it to the act of submission and calls that a resolution of conflict. This is not really the resolution of doctrinal conflict, but a reclassification of it, a rhetorical maneuver that avoids the real problem of disagreement. By defining unity as agreement with the Magisterium and excluding dissenters from “the faith,” Catholicism creates a self-sealing system that is immune to critique. That is not real unity, but redefining the problem away. It is definitional arbitration, a "unity" that exists by redefining disagreement out of existence.

          If Roman Catholics must use their own fallible reasoning to recognize Rome’s authority, interpret its teachings, and decide to submit to it, then they are in the exact same epistemic position as Protestants who use fallible reasoning to interpret Scripture. The claim that the Magisterium resolves doctrinal confusion collapses, since its authority must first be subjectively accepted and its teachings individually interpreted, just like Scripture. Therefore, the appeal to an infallible authority does not eliminate subjectivity. It merely shifts it to the act of choosing and interpreting that authority, leaving adherents of Rome no less reliant on personal judgment than those that they critique.