Catholic apologists are confused about the nature of sola Scriptura. For instance, Francis Beckwith has tried to contrive a dilemma involving sola Scriptura. I’ve discussed Beckwith’s objection on its own terms:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/01/is-sola-scriptura-self-refuting.html
However, I’d also like to approach the issue from a different angle. The problem is that Catholic apologists abstract sola Scriptura from its historical context. The question we need to ask ourselves is what does sola Scriptura stand in contrast to? Does it stand in general contrast to all extrabiblical sources of information? No. It's far more specific.
Historically, sola Scriptura stands in contrast to the teaching authority of Rome. It opposes the pretentious claim that the pope, church councils, or church fathers, enjoy special, supernatural insight into what’s true or false, in doctrine or practice–including the sense of Scripture.
Sola Scriptura isn’t opposed to natural sources of knowledge. Rather, it stands in contrast to two other things:
i) It opposes a rival supernatural source of knowledge, like the “divine teaching office” of Rome.
ii) It opposes the elevation of natural (or even supernatural) sources of knowledge above the authority of God’s word in Scripture.
Put another way, sola Scriptura draws a bright line between God speaking and God not speaking. This is like the OT distinction between true and false prophets. False prophets spoke in God’s name even though God hadn’t spoken to them or given them his word.
When God tells us something, that takes precedence in Christian theology and ethics. That doesn’t mean we can’t have other sources of knowledge. Just that God’s words enjoy priority.
"It opposes the pretentious claim that the pope, church councils, or church fathers, enjoy special, supernatural insight into what’s true or false, in doctrine or practice–including the sense of Scripture. "
ReplyDeleteDo you deny that some believers are granted more insight than others into what is spiritually true or false regarding faith and doctrine? Obviously, it must be the case given the lack of unanimity amongst Christians on many theological issues. Someone must be "more right" or even almost completely right.
The question is who calls them out and identifies them as such.
Is it more reasonable that these people should be self-identified or that they should be labeled as unique by others who ... know less?
The pope doesn't have to be spiritually insightful to be pope. To be pope, he only needs a 2/3 vote.
ReplyDeleteIn principle, he doesn't even have to be a believer. Just be duly elected according to the current rules.
Likewise, church councils don't enjoy any special, much less supernatural, insight into what's true or false. It all depends on who happens to comprise or oversee the council–which varies greatly in time and place.
Church fathers also vary in their competence.
By contrast, ability speaks for itself.
> "To be pope, he only needs a 2/3 vote"
ReplyDeleteJP2 amended the election rules so 50% + 1 will suffice after a certain number of ballots. He didn't want the liberal cardinals blocking Ratzinger and forcing a compromise candidate.
So while it may remain technically true that "truth is not determined by majority vote", the guy who can conclusively determine the truth (and let's face it, if Popes can persuade Catholics to address clergy as "Father", then they can do pretty much anything, Bible be blowed) is now elected by majority vote.