Skip to main content

The Problem With Protestantism, Part 3

In addition to the two problems presented by looking at Scripture in a deeper way, there is a third. Actually, the first two aren't problems; they're observations which present problems when their truth is acknowledged. The third is a bonafide problem: What does the Bible say? Even granting the fact that figuring out what the Bible says is not the entirety of what Christians are to believe, it's a very important question. So what method will you teach us so that we can know and do what it says? You cannot retreat to lexical and exegetical expertise, because nearly all interpreters have experts and schools where that expertise is taught. We cannot appeal to the Holy Spirit; anyone holding any position can appeal to Him whenever he wishes. We owe it to ourselves to rule out everything that is not unique or dispositive, and then examine the presuppositions undergirding the rest.

In fact, when we bring this problem into the ecclesial dimension of our Christian lives, we see the problem most clearly. What are denominations, if not authority structures to promote the favored interpretation? The biggest reason we cannot simply accept the reasoning that these formulations apply only to the people in those communities, and that the 'Church' is wider than one interpretation is that no one acts that way, practically. It's a restatement of what I said earlier: We need to know what God says in the places closest to our lives lived in order to be Christians. We've opted for a theological relativism in order to serve our ecclesiology. We have been unwilling to challenge the premise underlying that ecclesiology: that we possess the ability and the authority to decide for ourselves the content of revelation.

When we see the witness of history for what it is, it does not matter that Catholic doctrine does not appear obvious in its particulars from where we stand. Rather,--and this is a point often overlooked--what matters is that the new ecclesiology does not achieve its goal on its own terms. Call it the Presumption of Return; if we are not holding at least what we started with when we follow the paradigm to its logical end, it cannot be correct. We know that as Protestants we were the arbiters of revelation because our authority structures do not carry weight outside themselves, and our subjection to them is voluntary, and always contingent upon their agreement with us. This is the full implication of ecclesial fallibility.

If there is a distinction between doctrines outside the "tribe," and doctrines outside of Christ, it cannot be made clear from either the exercise of ecclesial authority, or the contemplation of the extent of that authority. When we talk next time, we'll talk about history and comparing paradigms.


Nathan said…
"We cannot appeal to the Holy Spirit; anyone holding any position can appeal to Him whenever he wishes."

What's wrong with everyone, everywhere, appealing to Him? Wouldn't there be a lot more truth in the world if we did?

I suppose you mean that anyone holding any position could say that the Holy Spirit agrees with them, even if they're lying or deceived. Well, so? Anyone could say the Catholic Church agrees with them, too. Of course, we would soon find out that they were wrong by consulting the Church herself. Similarly, we can find out if someone is making a false appeal to the Holy Spirit by consulting with the Holy Spirit. He is a real person, capable of communicating. Appealing to Him seems totally legitimate, and in my case it is even necessary to sustain faith. ("I am the vine and you are the branches" and "Apart from me you can do nothing." Jesus did not say that apart from the Catholic Church we could do nothing. He used the pronoun he used.) If I could not appeal directly to God and hear his response, I don't think I would be a Christian at all.

Some aspects of Cathoicism are beautiful and life-giving, but I don't understand why it is any better to appeal to an institution than to appeal directly to the source. I remain interested in your thoughts on this.
Jason said…

Lying or deception in regard to the Holy Spirit is not the problem, necessarily. It's a good faith dispute that causes the most trouble. God the Holy Spirit cannot inspire two contrary opinions on the same question at the same time. The Noltie Conundrum:

You are right that this is about Jesus and His Church. What is the Church? What does she believe? And how do you know?

"Come Holy Spirit! Fill the hearts of Thy faithful. Enkindle in them the fire of Thy Love. Send forth Thy Spirit, and they shall be created, and Thou shalt renew the face of the Earth.

Let us pray: O God, who instructed Thy faithful by the light of the Holy Spirit, grant that in that same Spirit we may always be truly wise, and ever to rejoice in His consolation, through Christ our Lord. Amen."
Anonymous said…
"The Noltie Conundrum". I like it! :-)

May I shamelessly borrow this, Jason?

-- Fred
Jason said…

It's yours, my friend. I go back to your piece again and again.

Popular posts from this blog

I’m Not Ambivalent About Today

 I’ve heard some left-of-center Christians say something like this, and I confess, I don’t understand it. I was never bruised by the “culture war,” and I am not ashamed of it, except perhaps to say that if total culture war is opposed to living in community, then and only then do I oppose it. Because the fact remains that I have been on the “wrong” or losing side the whole time. To oppose the fight itself would be to say that those who fought had illegitimate concerns. I can’t say that. Truthfully, something is only a “wedge issue” to those who disagree, and lack the courage of their own conviction. I believe this is true for other things as well, but abortion is front and center today. If I have disagreements with the “Christian Right,” it’s over tactics, partisanship, and exaggerated apocalypticism. Moreover, people could simply say, “I value other things more highly,” and move on. Yet it seems that bad faith and posturing is more valued than frank honesty. The people know that popul

This Virus Is Still Really Bad

 I checked the COVID cases and deaths this morning. Over 2,200 people already, dead. I hear people saying that we're overreacting, that somehow, we're "living in fear." I just have to suppose that some folks cannot handle "9-11" nearly every day. What mental gymnastics do you have to do, to persuade yourself that it's "no big deal"? I've had 3 doses of the Pfizer vaccine, so I'm not overly concerned about being harmed personally. What I did, I did partly for others. I've lost a lot of friends and loved ones in this life, and suddenly. Death comes for us; it is our fate in this world, we could say. I don't understand why we would want to bring it more quickly, and for no sensible reason. A lot of my friends and family are just stubborn, gullible, or some combination of both, I guess. If that offends you, good. I'm over 40; if people's love for me is conditional at this point, I don't need them. We won't be here fo

Further Thoughts About Life

 One of the interesting things about the regime of legalized abortion under Roe is that we have pretended that “When does life begin?” is an intriguing question for which we do not have an answer. It’s not only that the decision imposed an answer, though it certainly did, but that the answer was wrong. Any other answer besides “at conception” creates huge ethical problems that our most intelligent people can’t solve. Think about what happens when we say the unborn is “potential life”: that means at any time up to birth,—and after—we could argue that there is some achievement of independence or consciousness that the person has yet to reach. Before that, it’s said that there is no problem in killing the product of conception. You’ll have to forgive me; we have to deal frankly with the implications of arguments. We see that “potential life” essentially talks about the living being in terms of its ability to defend itself, or to be defended by someone else. In contrast, the “conception” a