Rome insists that she is an authentic interpreter of Scripture. We can easily provide an example, within a document defining a dogma, of Rome making a clear blunder. But let's leave that aside for a second, and consider the effect of Rome's claims on a conversation.
Christian: We should reject Marian devotion because the Bible teaches us to trust in God alone.
Roman apologist: You have wrongly interpreted the Bible. Only Rome can authentically interpret the Bible.
Christian: That's not true, the Bible was written to be understood. Anyone can authentically interpret the Bible, and many do - some more, and others less, well than others.
Roman Apologist: No, you cannot understand the Bible without the Roman Catholic church.
Christian: That's not so.
Roman Apologist: Look, it says so right here in Matthew 16:18.
Pause
Now, that appeal to Scripture looks an awful lot like the Roman Apologist conceding that people can understand the Bible without the Roman communion. But behind that appearance lies a question about what this Roman hermeneutic entails.
1) Is it like special decoder glasses?
Is the Bible simply incomprehensible on its own, and one needs the Roman church to provide spectacles to make the incomprehensible, comprehensible? If that were true, then it would make no sense to appeal to Scripture to anyone not already looking through the spectacles.
2) Is it like the answer key to a Rubik's cube?
Is the Bible simply highly complicated, and one needs the Roman church to show the map of the way through to get the solution? If this were the case, the appeal to Scripture might make sense. This is just the first breadcrumb along a trail that eventually leads to Rome. In fact, though, all of Rome's attempts to prove her distinctive doctrines from Scripture fail. When you get an answer key to a Rubik's cube, you can see the parts all come together to form the solved puzzle, even if you couldn't have done it on your own. But with Rome, you don't get satisfactory answers like that. You get alleged solutions, but even knowing the supposed solutions, one cannot arrive at these solutions from Scripture.
3) Is it like the person who showed you how to look at "Magic Eye" 3D pictures?
Sure, at first it was just a weird bunch of lines and patterns, but once you were taught how to change your focus, suddenly the beautiful stereoscopic patterns emerged. Some of Rome's converts stories make it sound like they feel Rome's hermeneutic is similar to this. The two problems are - first, they don't seem to be able to teach us how to see the butterfly amidst the squiggly lines - and second, until we see the butterfly, appeals to Scripture are just appeals to squiggle lines, and consequently futile.
4) Is it like Humpty Dumpty?
In Alice Through the Looking Glass, she encounters the character Humpty Dumpty who insists on making words mean what he wants them to mean, even when that meaning is quite distant from any conventional sense of the word. Some of the arguments from the Roman side favor this interpretation. After all, some Roman apologists try to approach the Bible as though it were the creation of the Church, rather than being God's word delivered to the churches (and CCC 111 and 113 seem to encourage them to take this approach). If the Bible were the product of the Church, then the authorial intent behind the words becomes important, and we need to let Humpty Dumpty use words like "only mediator" in a far from conventional sense. One problem with that is that it turns the text of Scripture into such a "living document" that the document itself has no particular significance. Matthew 16:18 might as well teach the papacy as it teaches the bodily assumption of Mary, so long as Rome says that is what it means. The fact that we don't see it in the actual meaning of the words doesn't matter.
Ultimately, no matter what we liken the Roman hermeneutic to, we should realize that the Roman hermeneutic boils down to sola ecclesia: what Rome says goes. If the Bible appears to say the same thing, and that convinces someone that Rome is right - great. If the Bible appears to say the opposite, the Bible's apparent meaning should be subordinated to what Rome teaches.
But if that's Rome's hermeneutic, then the appeals to Scripture as an authority are really disingenuous. Honest Roman apologists shouldn't argue that we should believe them because (to use their lingo) we interpret the Bible the same way they do. After all, when we interpret the Bible differently, we're supposed to just set that aside, no matter how clear the Bible is.
Yet, I welcome comments from Roman apologists, clergy, and even laity. To what do you liken the Roman hermeneutic, and to what shall I compare it? And when you try to quote the Bible to me, do you think I'm just unaware that your church teaches that "all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is
ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely
conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of
God" (CCC 119, quoting Dei Verbum 12, 3rd paragraph)?
-TurretinFan
P.S. Oh, and by the way - the alternative is that the Bible is the very word of God, and that God made it clear enough to serve as a rule of faith and life for his church. Not all parts are equally clear, however, and sin blinds the minds of some men so that even the most clear parts become dull. Nevertheless, core doctrines (like the contents of the Apostles' creed, for example) are plainly and unmistakeably set forth in the Scriptures, without the need for any special glasses, tricky eye techniques, or authoritative lexicography.
Sunday, February 05, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
When you think about it...: "Now, that appeal to Scripture looks an awful lot like the Roman Apologist conceding that people can understand the Bible without the Roman communion. ..." you have one of two reactions, or, at least one?
Oooops!
But, seeing their insistence on Peter being the rock upon which their dogma is built, I don't suppose adding Paul's admonishments will help convey or convince them otherwise? Paul, in writing to the Ephesian leaders wrote commending them and us to "God and the Word of His Grace" which builds one up and "gives" them what God created naturally in us all to long for, our place with Him.
The irony of it is the "free" gift of Eternal Life freely given, known and written about well before Christ's ascension to His Eternal Glory after His passion and burial and resurrection. "To know Thee, the Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He sent"!
Once one realizes this, one can easily swim across the Tiber to the other side all the while rejoicing in the free Gift of Eternal Life, drinking and eating and rejoicing in gladness and joy!
It makes sense that Christ's Body would interpret Christ's Word.
Two points here:
(1) The Church clarifies, particularly when serious disagreements arise (e.g. Trent's decrees on Justification).
(2) The Church teaches the Bible is, in general, clear and to be read by all, but no one should be presumptuous to run around thinking they've understood something that everyone else has gotten wrong.
Expanding on the second point, Turretin himself basically exposed the problem when he said nobody should presumptuously cause schism just because they think they're right on a dogma and the rest of the body is wrong, but - and this is an important but - he said they are able to do so if they truly think Scripture is on their side. Thus down comes any sort of church unity, for anyone is free to sever the body as soon as they feel justified.
Secondly, and this is big for me, the notion of Ad Fontes - to the sources - that the Reformers championed is a myth since they never did in fact analyze the Greek and such with any consistency and fairness. Exhibit A is the Greek word Logizomai, which is the elephant in the Protestant room and is going to spell doom once more Protestants become aware of the term. This is a word that every Protestant pastor should have learned in the first year of seminary, but alas have never studied it at all. The ultra critical foundation of Sola Fide - imputation - has been forgotten about in terms of exegesis, and that simply doesn't work for me.
Until Protestants address Logizomai, it would be absolute folly to suggest Catholics are ignoring Scripture in favor of "Sola Ecclesia". In this instance, the Church is telling me to examine Scripture, and I'm doing just that with Logizomai, and yet I'm being told I'm blindly following Rome.
Nick, you got me there! Huh?
Can you go ahead and turn the light on the elephant and let me in on just what it is you see?
You wrote: "... which is the elephant in the Protestant room ...".. This was supposedly to uncover some ignorance of the Protestants in the room when it comes to understanding the Greek word Logizomai?
Ok, I am all ears!
Hi Nick. Your post contains a level of dishonest in some of the things of which you claimed. It displayed to me a total lack of objectivity coming from you. I will note the prime examples which made have been stated either through ignorance of standard Protestant works or at worst intentionally dishonest.
1 " This is a word that every Protestant pastor should have learned in the first year of seminary, but alas have never studied it at all. The ultra critical foundation of Sola Fide - imputation - has been forgotten about in terms of exegesis, and that simply doesn't work for me. "
All Pastors who have went to seminary do indeed studied that and other NT Greek words. So I have no idea where your claim is coming from at all. How can you claim they never studied that specific word when you have no personal knowledge of what they did or did not study. That has to be an evident claim of omniscience by you. They use standard OT Hebrew and NT Greek works for their courses in those languages. How are you aware of what is taught in any given Protestant theological seminary ? I personally believe you made a claim that is unsupported by the facts as it relates to the various seminaries on what they teach on the original languages of Scripture.
2 ) " Until Protestants address Logizomai, it would be absolute folly to suggest Catholics are ignoring Scripture in favor of "Sola Ecclesia". In this instance, the Church is telling me to examine Scripture, and I'm doing just that with Logizomai, and yet I'm being told I'm blindly following Rome. "
That is either being intentionally dishonest or is being said through ignorance of Protestant works which deals with that. The word is addressed and discussed specifically in 1 . VINE'S COMPLETE EXPOSITIORY DICTIONARY OF OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT WORDS on pages 512-513. And in 2. The New Unger's Bible Dictionary on pages 612-613. Likewise it is also discussed indepth is about 12 standard protestant systematic theology sets that I own and use. Roman Catholicism will never deal honestly with the original languages of Scripture at all. The RCC wont get in to things such as propitiation, redemption or reconciliation in an honest manner because it would go againist it's theological construct of it's modified semi -pelagianism that was offically approved of at Trent as the offical RCC position.
I can go into more details if you wish, but in brief: Logizomai is the Greek word translated into English as "reckon" and "impute" and used about 40 times in the NT. It's the same word Paul uses in Romans 4 in regards to Abraham's faith being "reckoned" as righteousness. It turns out, the term Logizomai never means "impute" in the sense Protestants think, rather it means something akin to "count as true what is actually true". This is serious because it means there can be no "imputation" as the Bible's own word doesn't mean that. Many Protestant apologists and pastors are aware of this, but they keep it hushed or they will write a sentence about logizomai and claim to have "covered it" when they have not.
I don't say this lightly: there is a massive cover-up in Protestant scholarship on Logizomai.
Hi Chafer,
I've searched for many years trying to track down Protestant scholars and apologists who have covered Logizomai, most of them never have, and the few who have write a brief sentence or two and leave it at that while hiding the big picture. Go pick up any number of Protestant textbooks and apologetics texts and you'll see what I mean.
You quoting from Vine's Dictionary is a prime example of what I mean by the utter lack of study done on the word. Protestants, including yourself apparently, have never actually turned to Scripture in this case, they've simply picked up a dictionary and believed the author...not realizing the author has unconsciously substituted his own definition for the true Biblical one. This is true in other Protestant lexicons as well.
The term Logizomai is used 40 times in the NT and it NEVER means "impute" the way Protestants think. Even James Buchanan - one of the most famous Protestant scholars ever - admitted the Bible doesn't teach this.
Nick,
According to Liddel and Scott the standard secular Greek lexicon translates Logizomai as consider, set down to one's account, count as. This is clearly the meaning in Luke 22:27, Romans 2:3; 2:36; 14:14; 2 Corinthians 10:2. I see no basis anywhere for your translation "count as true what is actually true." Where do you get it from?
There is no cover up as claimed there. That is basically a myth or legend that you are basically telling me. You leave me shaking my head at the claims you make and at how wrong you really are theologically.
Nick,
Have you ever heard or read about a person who is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel?
I suppose you are making a camel out of a gnat here?
Like Chafer, I, too, was born into a Roman Catholic family. I went to catechism and at times Mass. It wasn't until things began falling apart in my life, things were getting out of control and the consequence of my life of errors was crashing down all around me and on top of me that God mercifully set up a series of events that brought me to read the Scriptures.
I started reading Matthew's Gospel and got to chapter 1 verse 21 and something came over me, something opened up my understanding, something within me realized "who" I was at that moment and at that moment I understood my lost state of being and what my condition was at the moment in time before God!
Now, these many years later, I can say I tend to have compassion on people such as yourself.
I am confident that if you are known by God in the way Scripture teaches, as one of His Elect, all this that you are arguing now will fade away as the Light of the Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ will come shining upon your soul as this "Light" has on countless souls before our time and will shine on countless souls after our time, too, to the very last moment of created time!
"Roman Catholicism will never deal honestly with the original languages of Scripture at all."
In the not too distant past Catholic Scripture studies could boast of men like Hugh Pope, Edmund Sutcliffe, Ferdinand Prat, John Steinmueller, and Manuel Miguens, who combined rigorous modern scholarship with faith in the truth of the Bible. The past few decades have been dominated by the Brown-Fitzmeyer school, so Catholic biblical studies have been very unproductive. But a restoration of Catholic exegesis is on the horizon.
"I prepared some notes for a Sola Scriptura debate a few years back which address the questions you raise "
Let's see if it deals honestly with what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura teaches. All too often it gets misrepresented by Roman Catholic apologist and results in strawman arguments being used. I noticed that even when I still held to Roman Catholic beliefs prior to 1992.
" Ability to accurately draw out from the Bible the essential doctrines of the Christian faith will vary from person to person, depending on qualities such as one’s talent and training in exegesis and logic, intellectual honesty, and the accuracy of the perhaps subconscious presuppositions which one brings to the text, such that not every essential doctrine of the Christian faith will be open to everyone from the Bible alone, no matter how sincerely or attentively one reads it. Indeed, in some cases the teaching of the Bible is really indeterminate based on the text alone, such that two opposing schools of thought will be able meet each other toe to toe in biblical debate and each hold its ground. At best one side might be able to establish the greater probability of its position. And let me emphasize that this goes for essentials as well as non-essentials. The upshot of this is that the Bible is not in itself sufficiently clear to give the Church definitive answers to every question which she needs answered in order to function as the Church. "
Scripture itself is a inspired revelation of God that is infallible in teaching and without error in it's contents. The claim of Scripture itself prior to the addition of the New Testament stated that the Old Testament which is called Holy Scripture says " is able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus " ( 2 Tim 3:15 ) . With the addition of the New Testament Scripture it is even more clear. Scripture is given to us that we may come to know who Jesus Christ is and the way of salvation. That principle is found in John 20:31 where the apostle John stats his purpose of the writing of his Gospel. The claim is made that the suffficient nature of Scripture relates only to the message of the way of salvation and of daily Christian living. And that man of God is able to meet his task of teaching, correcting and so forth with Scripture. That is what the apostle Paul taught with respect to the nature and quality of Scripture on it's purpose right in 2 Tim 3:15-17. With the complection of the OT and NT the man of God is more than able to meet his specific task. All this without the need for a claimed " infallible Pope " or claimed " infallible councils " or things like that. What the RCC is basically saying is that John 1:1;14 is not clear enough for me to know the that Jesus Christ who is the Word of God is Deity and distinct from God the Father. What is held is that Scripture is the only infallible source for the proof of the deity of Jesus Christ on this specific point.
" For instance, I think everyone here will agree that one of the duties of the Church is to discourage adultery. I have here a book called Remarriage after Divorce in Today’s Church: 3 Views. This is a debate book between three Evangelical bible scholars, one of whom, Gordon Wenham, defends the Catholic position that Christian marriage is indissoluble except by death. Hence, if a man divorces his wife, even for the cause of fornication, and marries another, he is in God’s eyes still married to his first wife, and his putative second marriage is merely an adulterous affair. If this is the case, the great majority of Protestant churches, including Mr. Donahue’s, have, as a matter of principle, endorsed and blessed adulterous unions. "
The comments there are very logically flawed and does not actually present what the doctrine of Sola Scripture actually teaches and is presenting a strawman argument. It does not claim all things are equally clear in Scripture but those doctrines which relate to salvation are. The issue of divorce is not a doctrine which relates to the doctrine of salvation. It also commits the fallacy of special pleading. It fails to state how are we to know of the Roman Catholic position is correct or not. In it's attack of Sola Scriptura it fails to apply the standard it setted forth on it and apply it to it's own position. In otherwords, you are telling me the RCC position is correct because it says so and not based on biblical evidence for it's arguments. The only manner of which your arguments hold any type of valid argument is if you somehow hold that the teaching authority of the RCC are present day prophets. Yet Roman Catholicism does not claim this. Thus the argument is based on false reasoning. What I as a former Roman Catholic am aware of is the fact that the RCC itself as doctrinal disagreement within it's own scholars and within the church fathers themselves. As a former Roman Catholic I was Augustinian on the doctrine of predestination yet within the RCC it always 3 or so views on predestination to be held and refuses to settle this doctrinal disagreement. Likewise the church fathers themselves disagreed on the doctrine of end times. Some were premillennial and some were amillennial. Yet the RCC wants to stand by and claim doctrinal unity when it has no settled several doctrinal disagreements within the church. This shows the double standards of RCC apologetics.
" Suffice it to say that the Church needs to know whether Wenham is right in order function as the Church. And the Catholic Church does know, based on Apostolic Tradition, mediated to us by the unanimous teaching of the early Church Fathers (which all three authors of this book recognize) that, indeed, Christian marriage is indissoluble. But the authors of this book are not able to reach a definitive answer operating under the principle of Sola Scriptura. Although at the end of the book I certainly think Wenham has the upper hand, the other authors make defensible cases as well. As Wenham says himself, “Anyone who reads books and articles about the Bible soon becomes aware that it is very difficult to know which arguments are right” (p. 88). We need another authority to resolve this issue. "
This is basically telling me is that you claim the RCC is this so called infallible another authority without even attempting to prove that it is. This is saying the RCC is right and you are wrong because the RCC says it is right. The reality is the RCC avoids the exegetical issues involved and merely claim it is right. I have no problem with the teaching authority within the church but the thing is that the church is not infallible in it's teaching or is equal to with Scripture. The burden of proof is on the RCC to prove it's claimed authority and that is infallible in teaching. Yet they will never meet this burden of proof.
"Mr. Donahue argued that the reason there are so many interpretations of Scripture is because people just don’t love the truth enough. They aren’t sufficiently humble to take God at His Word and submit. This is certainly part of the problem, but it is by no means the whole. I know of Calvinists who would vigorously disagree with Mr. Donahue’s Campbellite theology, perhaps even to the point of accusing him of teaching a false gospel. And I don’t think they are any less earnest in their belief in Sola Scriptura, in their desire to discover the teaching of the word of God and submit to it once discovered, than Mr. Donahue is. Part of the problem is Sola Scriptura; God never intended the text to be the sole rule of faith for the Church, so He didn’t make the text sufficiently easy to understand that it is capable of functioning as such. "
Nice little misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura. In reality it teaches that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church. It does not deny the need for Bishops in the church to teach the people of God. What it is claimed is that Scripture is presently the only infallible rule of faith. And that the church is NOT infallible . And that the church itself is subject to the authority of Scripture. Scripture is sufficiently clear in matters relating to knowing the way of salvation and for christian living. But of course you and the RCC would deny a proper exegesis of 2 Tim 3:15-17 which makes the point of the nature and quality of Scripture. Scripture is inspired by God while unwritten doctrinal oral traditions are not. That is the contrast between Scripture and claimed unwritten doctrinal tradition. If we follow your argument we can not with Scripture know if Jesus is deity or not apart from the RCC yet the RCC will never prove this at all. In otherwords, the RCC claims Scripture is unclear wholly from a logical stand point. And needs would need the addition of claimed tradition but also would need the claimed teachers of the RCC to tell us what Scripture and tradition teaches. All this without any proof for it's claims .
"Mr. Donahue quoted St. Paul as saying that he wrote in order that his readers might understand. This applies most properly only to St. Paul’s original audience. The Apostle didn’t always take special precaution that his writings would be equally understandable to readers 2000 years removed from his original context. For example, in 1 Cor 15:29 St. Paul speaks of Christians being baptized for the dead. His original audience knew exactly what he was talking about, but we don’t. In 2 Thess 2:6 St. Paul reminds the Thessalonians, “You know what is restraining [the antichrist] now so that he may be revealed in his time.” The Thessalonians knew what was restraining the antichrist, because St. Paul had told them orally, but we don’t know. Daniel Wallace, in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, explains how St. Paul’s letters to the churches presuppose a shared preunderstanding between author and readers:"
My question to you would be if they RCC itself has infallibly and dogmatically defined either of those two things you brought up ? The funny thing here is you brought up 2 issues of which the church fathers themselves were divided on in the matter of interpretation. Yet the RCC itself has not told us what the correct position is on either of those. You are basically pulling a Gerry Matatics on that point of argument.
" “[L]anguage is by its nature compressed, cryptic, and symbolic. Whole epistles are interpreted in widely divergent ways. In part, this is due to the distance between the original author-reader matrix and the modern interpreter. It is as if we were listening in on half of a phone conversation. Yet, even the original readers did not necessarily fully grasp an author’s meaning (cf. 1 Cor 5:9-13; 2 Pet 3:15-16). That is, not everything in language is fully explained. Indeed, few things are. "
You basically did 2 things there. First you gave without any offical RCC interpretation of those verse your very own private interpretation of Scripture yet you are attacking the private interpretation of Scripture. Logical fallacy there of special pleading. Neither of those verses teaches what you claim anyway. It teaches that unstable and untaught men distort the teaching of Scripture. And people can fall prey to this. The passages do not claim that all Bishop or everyone is an untaught or unstable man. In biblical interpretation the historical context must be followed. That is where the literal grammatical historical method principle of interpretation comes in. Evidently you are unaware of the method of interpretation that is followed by Protestants. God communicated to us in human language through Scripture yet the RCC is telling us we cant understand God apart from them.
I am done with my replies . I have found that the post I am reponding to makes many errors in them and found myself repeating the very same corrections on points of issue. I replied to most of it and felt unnecessary to go on since I already showed how flawed it was.
"My question to you would be if they RCC itself has infallibly and dogmatically defined either of those two things you brought up?"
It has not, and I never claimed it had. I used those two examples to illustrate a specific point.
"your very own private interpretation of Scripture"
Actually, it's a quote from Daniel Wallace (Protestant).
"you are attacking the private interpretation of Scripture."
Not absolutely. I advocate studying Scripture from within the Catholic tradition, with results subject to the final judgment of the Church. Catholics don't need the Pope to define every verse for them.
I know what grammatical historical exegesis is. It is a useful method, but it does not answer every question that the Church needs to have answered in order to be the Church.
"unwritten doctrinal oral traditions are not [inspired]"
And where does the Bible say that?
"If we follow your argument we can not with Scripture know if Jesus is deity or not apart from the RCC"
And where did I say that? I never denied that some questions can be answered on the basis of grammatical historical exegesis alone. I denied that all necessary questions can be answered on that basis alone.
" The reality is the RCC avoids the exegetical issues involved and merely claim it is right."
A very ignorant claim. Many Catholic scholars have written about the exegetical questions surrounding the New Testament's teaching on divorce and remarriage.
"The issue of divorce is not a doctrine which relates to the doctrine of salvation."
Sure it is. Adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10). Besides, earlier you had argued, "The claim is made that the suffficient nature of Scripture relates only to the message of the way of salvation and of daily Christian living." Certainly the issue of divorce and remarriage relates to daily Christian living. And by the way, who are you to decide whether a doctrine is or is not among the essential doctrines of the Christian faith?
These arguments don't settle the rival claims of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, but that was beyond the scope of a 20 minute opening statement.
Why should I accept the claims of Roman Catholicism over againist the claims of Eastern Orthodox ? Each claims apostolic succession yet each has doctrinal disagreements with one another. For example, Eastern Orthodox rejects purgatory and papal supremacy and infallibility though more can be listed. They state those things are not apostolic. These are things Roman Catholics do not face when things like that are raised. While growing up in Roman Catholicism no information at all was stated concerning Eastern Orthodox . I found out that they predate the Roman Church. Also of events which lead to the schism.
"These are things Roman Catholics do not face when things like that are raised."
James Likoudis has written extensively on the dispute between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy: http://credo.stormloader.com/articles.htm#4
"I found out that they predate the Roman Church."
That depends on how you answer the question of who split off from whom.
"Roman Catholicism will never deal honestly with the original languages of Scripture at all."
"The past few decades have been dominated by the Brown-Fitzmeyer school, so Catholic biblical studies have been very unproductive. But a restoration of Catholic exegesis is on the horizon. "
There is a systemic hermeneutical problem with Roman Catholicism, as distinct from individual scholars. In fact, some - perhaps including folks like Brown and Fitzmeyer - by ignoring the official hermeneutic have actually provided honest dealing with the text.
But whether they or a different generation deal honestly with the text is different from Rome abandoning her "analogy of the faith."
Oh that is just plain Excellent...and fun way of putting it into perspective. Great writing!
Post a Comment