I don't think that it's a terribly big jump to say that I had to deny Scripture's formal sufficiency, (Sola Scriptura) because if it were true, we would not see all these earnest Christians debating each other about what it says. I was ready to listen to an alternate accounting of the rule of faith, precisely because it would be unreasonable to believe my invocation of the Holy Spirit had been any more dispositive than the guy next to me, who would go to another church, profess other doctrines, all the while believing Sola Scriptura and inerrancy, et cetera. You can't hector the Catholic Church from "Scripture" without knowing, or at least asserting, that the interpretation you have is divine.
But recall, even with the window-dressing of "derivative authority"--which is actually the mechanism which admits creeds, confessions, and the like--there is no mechanism within the system that makes the interpretation I hold more true than any other one. You'd have to beg the question, or, in less philosophical terms, accept the reality of Christian disunity and doctrinal plurality as God's intention, and go on professing whatever you are holding. Some take a further step, and assert that there was and is some happy "center" that unites everybody, but no one has been able to say what it is. Unless, of course, it was and is the Catholic Church. No, that can't be right.
Let's remember what Fred Noltie asked: "What if my "unbiblical" presupposition was Sola Scriptura?"
I had a friend recently say he wasn't comfortable with the notion that the very definition of catholicity is the Catholic Church. I can see that, to a certain extent. But what's left? Sola Scriptura doesn't work--remembering that a fundamentally invisible Church was the result of supposing Sola Scriptura--and holy mother Church is pretty gracious about being the Church Christ founded, anyway.
Is there any evidence to believe any of this? Or is it just some "professional apologists" in their pajamas? "Yes, man!" Happy reading, Mr. Wright. I should say "unhappy reading," at first, because no one likes to hear some version of, "You and all your heroes have been wrong your whole life." Trust me, I know. It sucks worse when you hear it in your own voice.
But recall, even with the window-dressing of "derivative authority"--which is actually the mechanism which admits creeds, confessions, and the like--there is no mechanism within the system that makes the interpretation I hold more true than any other one. You'd have to beg the question, or, in less philosophical terms, accept the reality of Christian disunity and doctrinal plurality as God's intention, and go on professing whatever you are holding. Some take a further step, and assert that there was and is some happy "center" that unites everybody, but no one has been able to say what it is. Unless, of course, it was and is the Catholic Church. No, that can't be right.
Let's remember what Fred Noltie asked: "What if my "unbiblical" presupposition was Sola Scriptura?"
I had a friend recently say he wasn't comfortable with the notion that the very definition of catholicity is the Catholic Church. I can see that, to a certain extent. But what's left? Sola Scriptura doesn't work--remembering that a fundamentally invisible Church was the result of supposing Sola Scriptura--and holy mother Church is pretty gracious about being the Church Christ founded, anyway.
Is there any evidence to believe any of this? Or is it just some "professional apologists" in their pajamas? "Yes, man!" Happy reading, Mr. Wright. I should say "unhappy reading," at first, because no one likes to hear some version of, "You and all your heroes have been wrong your whole life." Trust me, I know. It sucks worse when you hear it in your own voice.
Comments