Save yourself some time. I wish I had this man's clarity of thought. But I can think back to when the problem of fallibility became acute. It's when and why I looked into the Catholic Church. As I recall, I wrote of an "Abyss Of Relativism." This is that. I will readily grant that Protestants and Catholics would be in a similar epistemic position, in the absence of evidence for the claim of infallibility. But it seems to me that this other man needs to investigate that claim, and the evidence offered, rather than merely assert that it is false.
By the way, it's still arbitrary and ad hoc to accept the first two Councils while rejecting the others, especially using a principle and a method the Fathers knew nothing about. To even use Sola Scriptura, wouldn't one be asserting that one's own interpretation is the measure by which all others are judged? And that applies to history itself. Some ecclesial body ("the Church") can't really be a check on the individual unless that Church is infallible.
That was the heart of my frustration as I wrestled with the claims of the Catholic Church, and other counter-claims: I needed either a promise of infallibility for my interpretation of Scripture, or an infallible Church. You don't, and can't, completely alter the practice of Christianity on the strength of, "I don't know." Let me say it another way: If I am not willing to assert that my interpretation is correct, I cannot say it is truer than the claims of the Catholic Church. In the absence of a compelling reason, I have to return to the Catholic Church.
And that's the point about other interpretations: not to mock the disunity therein, but to see the competing interpretations for what they do: weaken the power of my particular claim against the Catholic Church. After all, if each of these has compelling elements and plausibility, enough that other Protestants remain separated from me, why would I think that I have found the "magic bullet" that will silence the papists once for all?
When I started writing these thoughts out, I started at the church and denomination level so that we could see the problem where it hits us first. But it's good to look at it globally also. It's still the same question: Where does dogma come from? I'm going to say it like this: Given that God, who is Truth, has spoken, what has he said? And to whom has he spoken authoritatively?
A lot of people are content with this epistemic uncertainty. They do not see the danger of it. The damage has already been done. It's pointless to talk about "fences" divine and human if you can't tell which is which. I may have the goods to found a very beautiful heresy for myself, but on these terms, make no mistake: It's still just mine, and it's still a heresy.
It is a grace to us--though a severe one--that Protestantism shatters into a million pieces. Something that is divine in origin does not lead to confusion and disharmony. The inevitable conclusion, since it was Sola Scriptura--and the individualism behind it--that led us here, is that it was a mistake.
Someone commented on Devin's Facebook post pursuant to the debate he had, mentioned here at the outset. It's pretty snarky, but it makes the basic point well: "Incredible. Absolutely incredible. Sola scriptura leads inevitably to denial of certainty and eventually to relativism and skepticism of the worst kind. Yet, while denying certainty, it grants one the ability to claim an infallible and certain authority, while using that authority to justify any number of subjective and relative claims (personal interpretations). You can literally have it both ways--enough skepticism to deny any position you do not like as 'unscriptural' and an infallible authority used to defend any position you do like. It's perfect!"
We have to have infallibility somewhere, given the fact that the Infallible One is at the heart of the endeavor. In myself, or another. But 'neither' is not an option.
By the way, it's still arbitrary and ad hoc to accept the first two Councils while rejecting the others, especially using a principle and a method the Fathers knew nothing about. To even use Sola Scriptura, wouldn't one be asserting that one's own interpretation is the measure by which all others are judged? And that applies to history itself. Some ecclesial body ("the Church") can't really be a check on the individual unless that Church is infallible.
That was the heart of my frustration as I wrestled with the claims of the Catholic Church, and other counter-claims: I needed either a promise of infallibility for my interpretation of Scripture, or an infallible Church. You don't, and can't, completely alter the practice of Christianity on the strength of, "I don't know." Let me say it another way: If I am not willing to assert that my interpretation is correct, I cannot say it is truer than the claims of the Catholic Church. In the absence of a compelling reason, I have to return to the Catholic Church.
And that's the point about other interpretations: not to mock the disunity therein, but to see the competing interpretations for what they do: weaken the power of my particular claim against the Catholic Church. After all, if each of these has compelling elements and plausibility, enough that other Protestants remain separated from me, why would I think that I have found the "magic bullet" that will silence the papists once for all?
When I started writing these thoughts out, I started at the church and denomination level so that we could see the problem where it hits us first. But it's good to look at it globally also. It's still the same question: Where does dogma come from? I'm going to say it like this: Given that God, who is Truth, has spoken, what has he said? And to whom has he spoken authoritatively?
A lot of people are content with this epistemic uncertainty. They do not see the danger of it. The damage has already been done. It's pointless to talk about "fences" divine and human if you can't tell which is which. I may have the goods to found a very beautiful heresy for myself, but on these terms, make no mistake: It's still just mine, and it's still a heresy.
It is a grace to us--though a severe one--that Protestantism shatters into a million pieces. Something that is divine in origin does not lead to confusion and disharmony. The inevitable conclusion, since it was Sola Scriptura--and the individualism behind it--that led us here, is that it was a mistake.
Someone commented on Devin's Facebook post pursuant to the debate he had, mentioned here at the outset. It's pretty snarky, but it makes the basic point well: "Incredible. Absolutely incredible. Sola scriptura leads inevitably to denial of certainty and eventually to relativism and skepticism of the worst kind. Yet, while denying certainty, it grants one the ability to claim an infallible and certain authority, while using that authority to justify any number of subjective and relative claims (personal interpretations). You can literally have it both ways--enough skepticism to deny any position you do not like as 'unscriptural' and an infallible authority used to defend any position you do like. It's perfect!"
We have to have infallibility somewhere, given the fact that the Infallible One is at the heart of the endeavor. In myself, or another. But 'neither' is not an option.
Comments