The stock argument against sola Scriptura is that Scripture lacks clarity. This, in turn, leads to a plethora of competing interpretations. And the solution is the divine teaching office of the Roman magisterium.
However, this objection boomerangs. For we can raise the same objection to the church of Rome. There are hundreds of millions of Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox et al. who don’t believe the church of Rome is the One True Church.
Assuming (ex hypothesi) that God failed to make Scripture sufficiently clear to function as a freestanding rule of faith, then, by parity of argument, the evidence for the church of Rome also lacks sufficient clarity. God failed to provide unmistakable evidence singling out the Roman church as the One True Church. The very fact that there’s such widespread dissension regarding the claims of Rome (including dissention within the Roman communion) belies the lack of clear evidence for the claims of Rome. The case for the magisterium is fatally imperspicuous. The evidence is inclusive at best, and conflicting at worst. Reasonable people can examine the same historical evidence and draw opposing conclusions. There are Catholic church historians, Protestant church historians, Orthodox church historians. They see all the same evidence, but perceive it differently.
So even on its own terms, Rome has merely substituting one ambiguity for another. Foggy history for foggy Scripture.
(I don’t grant that Scripture is foggy. But it’s certainly no foggier than church history.)
This is a tu quoque argument, yes?
ReplyDeleteYes.
ReplyDeleteEvangelical converts to Rome typically rationalize their conversion by pointing out that Protestants can only offer fallible interpretations of Scripture, whereas the Roman Magisterium presents infallible interpretations of Scripture.
ReplyDeleteBut a basic problem with that argument is that it’s a fallible argument for an infallible Magisterium. The convert relies on his fallible interpretation of Scripture, his fallible interpretation of church fathers, his fallible interpretation of church history, to arrive at the (allegedly) infallible Magisterium. The infallible Magisterium is a hypothetical.
By what authority does the convert presume to make a case for Rome? He can’t fall back on the authority of the Magisterium to authorize his fallible arguments before he knows if the Magisterium is, in fact, authoritative. Somehow he must be able to know that apart from the Magisterium.
I used to get email from Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Copts all making the same argument against the authority of Scripture and in favor of the Authentic Tradition and the authority of the One True Church, except that they disagreed on which tradition and church that was.
ReplyDeleteBut even recent religions make the same move, whether it is the Mormans, the Monnies or the Iglesia ni Cristo. As the argument is so illogical and foolish, it suggests some other very powerful motivation to get under a false authority.
Paul says: "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." Yet this yoke of slavery is greatly desired by those who see the freedom as a burden.
I had similar thoughts reading Stellman's resignation letter.
ReplyDeleteIt seems impossible, at least for the convert, to avoid 'fallible human opinion'. And if fallible human opinion makes one go weak at the knees they might as well hit the deck and not get back up.
George Salmon just keeps on giving.
ReplyDelete