-Roman Catholic apologist Leila Miller wrote an article titled "Catholicism is objective, Protestantism is subjective," attempting to illustrate how Sola Scriptura results in hopeless doctrinal confusion and anarchy. The author characterizes non-Catholic interpretations of biblical texts as being inherently relativistic, in contrast with the Roman Catholic Church as being the exclusive source of doctrinal truth and certainty. Following are a handful of excerpts from the author alongside with a critique:
"...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 inspired authors of the Bible wrote for the express purpose of instructing believers in their absence (Romans 15:4; 2 Corinthians 13:10; 2 Thessalonians 2:5; 1 Timothy 3:14-15). Scriptural truths relating to salvation and holiness are easy for us to comprehend. Other parts of the Bible are more complex and require more study. Sometimes we may even need other people to explain a passage to us, but that does not require a complex church hierarchy. The "paradigm" that the author speaks of is certainly not new, as it was the Bereans who were considered noble for daily searching the Scriptures to test the gospel message delivered by Paul (Acts 17:10-11). The Proverbs were written to give people "certainty" in regards to proper moral instruction (Proverbs 22:17-21). Luke wrote his gospel narrative to give Theophilus "certainty" concerning the life and ministry of Jesus Christ (Luke 1:1-4). Scripture brings clarity in the midst of disorder. That is at least the testimony it provides in regard to itself.
"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."
The same logic is advanced by cultic groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and International Churches of Christ. We do have disagreements that are more peripheral and tertiary in nature. There are differences that are more philosophical in nature than 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 Rome itself. There are also pseudo-Christian sects which redefine biblical terminology to fit their theology. There is the possibility that people reject what Scripture says in spite of its clear teaching.
"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."
Matters for Roman Catholics are nowhere near as simple as Leila Miller makes them out to be. There are just as many divisions within the Roman Catholic Church as there are Roman Catholics themselves. Catholics disagree on the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. Catholics 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 contemporary Catholic Scripture scholars do not uphold the inerrancy of Scripture. There has even been a threat of schism within the Church of Rome with the 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.”
In addition, the Catholic teaching on the death penalty is subject to change. Note the words of Roman Catholic philosopher Edward Feser:
"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 a Roman Catholic website called 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 central to Roman Catholicism? Indeed it is. Yet, the above report plainly tells us that a significant number of Roman Catholics do not agree with official Church teaching on this issue. Consequently, the claims of unity existing within the Roman Catholic Church have been greatly inflated. Should we conclude that the Magisterium needs an infallible interpreter in order for it to make sense? Who could take on that task?
The Roman Catholic Church has never given an "infallible" interpretation of every passage in the Bible. In fact, it has done so only on a handful of occasions to serve its own purposes. What is even more interesting is that, while the Church of Rome guarantees certainty behind the infallibility of its official decrees, it never promises that the theological reasoning used to support a decree is accurate itself. Consider these words from 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."
"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 "Bible only Christians" 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 one is exempt from using fallible reasoning faculties in discernment. Everybody has to fallibly interpret communicated messages. Roman Catholics cannot have their cake and eat it too. They 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 Code of Canon Law. Roman Catholics do and must 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. Catholics operate no differently than Protestants because they *subjectively* appeal to evidence which has to be analyzed in their own minds. Catholics are severing the very branch that they sit on because one could not even begin to submit to some outside authority without *subjectively* making the choice to do so. They are not in any better of a position than anyone else.
When interpreting Scripture, a person should take into account the surrounding context and various literary devices. Commentaries, lexicons, and concordances can also be useful in matters of interpretation. We should be approaching Scripture with a humble and prayerful heart. The Word of God should be treated with utmost respect. Not every argument or interpretation is equally valid. If one must have some special authority in order to give grounds for his or her beliefs, then how does he or she become a Roman Catholic? One cannot argue for an authority by appealing to that same authority. There has to be external sources verifying at least to some degree its validity. On what basis does one establish the authority of the Roman Catholic Church? If such a process involves using one's own powers of reason to evaluate evidence, then the person investigating is behaving as does a Protestant. "Infallible" certainty is but a mirage. Having some sort of a representative present to preside over a body of people does not translate into having no divisions of any kind.
Catholics are soooooo funny! What about the times in history when there was more than one pope? Which one had the authoritative teaching?!?!?ReplyDelete
What simple-minded Catholics refuse to understand is that ALL of the doctrine of Mary is missing from the Bible and developed beginning centuries after the N.T. church. That's just one of the many subjective teachings of Rome. So don't tell me that non-Catholics are the only ones with subjective beliefs!
How do you know "it's certain Catholics teach error" if you can't claim your own interpretation of the Bible is infallibly correct? Who are you to hold anyone as a heretic? You are but only a man promoting your traditions, with not even a CLAIM to Christ's authority.ReplyDelete
Our opinions on how to interpret scripture are worthless, only God's opinion can determine right and wrong doctrine, as He is the objective compass of morality.
There is no such thing as truth without the authority of God. The protestant must admit they do not have the authority of God to interpret scripture without error.
Therefore, there is no objective truth in doctrine that disagrees with the catholic church (which has a claim to Christ's authority via apostolic succession).
The underlying problem with your argument is that it is self-refuting. The premise is inherently flawed because it has been set forth by a person who is fallible. How could the pope be of any avail to me, since I must fallibly interpret his interpretations of Scripture? I think that progress would be made in discussions with Roman Catholics, if they would realize that infallibility and authority are not requirements in order to make accurate judgments as to the meaning of Scripture. The Roman Catholic hierarchy is really just one subjective authority existing in the midst of many other subjective authorities. Having said that, you would disagree with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses who claim to be the one true church. But who would you be to dispute their claims, since you cannot claim that your interpretations of the Bible are infallibly correct? The Eastern Orthodox Church makes identical claims to authority as does the Roman Catholic Church. Both cannot be correct because they contradict each other.
I just want to add a few thoughts to Jesse’s:
How do you know the Pope’s interpretation is correct? As Jesse noted, such claim is circular reasoning.
My interpretation of the Bible, based on English versions, is simply reading the text and context. Standard reading skills. When the Bible says Mary had more children after Jesus, that is the plain understanding of the text. But Papist theology makes Mary into a God and a perpetual virgin (which would violate her marriage). That’s just one example of hundreds where Papist theology is all made up.
Where does it say in the Bible that there is one earthly man with Christ’s authority? Is this not just a claim of popes rather than an actual biblical teaching? Nowhere in the Bible does it give just ONE man the authority to interpret Scripture. Remember the Bereans? There was no one man over them!
There is also no Biblical basis for “apostolic” succession. The church was built on the foundation of the Apostles so there are no more than them, nor did the Bible ever say people would succeed them; especially not within a horribly corrupt system as the Papist Church.
Great job! You are absolutely correct. Catholics have the same "problem" as Protestants when it comes to Scripture interpretation.
Very well done!