Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Private Judgment Revisited

One commentator noted that Protestants see final authority as resting in Scripture alone, and Catholics see it in the Church alone.

But one could say that in another way: for Protestants the final authority is their own private judgment of the Scriptures, and for Catholics the final authority is the consensus of the Church / Magesterium / Tradition.

When it is phrased that way, I clearly side with Catholicism.

As Tertullian teaches:

"They [Heretics] put forward the Scriptures, and by this insolence of theirs they at once influence some. In the encounter itself, however, they weary the strong, they catch the weak, and dismiss waverers with a doubt. Accordingly, we oppose to them this step above all others, of not admitting them to any discussion of the Scriptures.

If in these lie their resources, before they can use them, it ought to be clearly seen to whom belongs the possession of the Scriptures, that none may be admitted to the use thereof who has no title at all to the privilege.

...

Truth is just as much opposed by an adulteration of its [Scripture's] meaning as it is by a corruption of its text.

...

Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough. But even if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: "With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?" For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions.

...

Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, ‘as many as walk according to the rule,’ which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, ‘Who are you?’”" - Tertullian "The Prescription Against Heretics"

In football (soccer) games in England, the home team shouts at newcomers and the opposing sides: "who are you!?" (which sounds like: Eww AHHH YAAHH). That reminds me of Tertullian here.

7 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Spelling error . . .

    If this were true, I would be Roman Catholic too.

    But Protestantism does not confess or practice the ultimate authority of private interpretation. We confess that the completed canon of Scripture, which includes the interpretation of the Apostles, is ultimately authoritative. Nonetheless, the consensus of the church (properly defined, of course) in its reflection upon Scripture in the post-Apostolic era is also authoritative.

    Protestantism confesses one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. But rather than defining catholicity as submission to the Apostolic office (i.e. the papacy), we define it as submission to the Apostolic teaching (i.e. the completed canon of Scripture). The Apostolic teaching is the foundation of the church, not a supposed Apostolic office, the supremacy of which didn't officially exist until the late 6th century.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The 66 book Protestant Canon didn't exist till the 16th century, so our final authority is still older (even if the bogus Reformed claim that St. Gregory the Great was the first 'pope' were true).

    The problem is that it's nice to say you accept the consent of the fathers, but you don't. Just look at your view of Nature and Grace, it's Pelagian. You might have good exegetical reasons for such a view, but it is in contradiction to the intepretation of the undivided church. This is what I find frustrating. If you debated about whether satisfaction was properly a part of the sacrament of penance, that could be defended, but the problem is that Protestantism is entirely ahistorical. Which is why every Protestant church history has to have the mormon-esque doctrine of 'the great apostasy'.

    I get why you have those views -because everything is structured around and interpretted in light of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. But I'm just saying, please - I beg you - show me a single doctrine of the Reformed confession which is in continuity with the Christian Tradition.

    This might sound insulting, it really is not meant to be at all. Reformed theology has great minds, it's just that I think they are not formed by Tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The 66 book Protestant Canon didn't exist till the 16th century

    Which Apostle lived till the 16th century?

    Of course, I would argue Roman Catholicism as distinct from Protestantism didn't exist until the Council of Trent. There were no previous councils on sola fide.

    Doctrines of the Protestant confessions that demonstrate the catholicity of the church are (just to name a few):

    The authority of Scripture
    The received canonical books
    The inspiration of Scripture
    Monotheism
    One holy catholic and apostolic church
    Creation ex nihilo
    The imago Dei
    Natural law
    Freedom of the human will
    Original sin
    Trinity (the full deity of Christ)
    The full humanity of Christ
    The hypostatic union
    The Holy Spirit
    The priority of grace in salvation
    Justification by faith
    Substitutionary atonement
    The sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper
    The necessity of church discipline
    The final judgment
    Heaven and Hell

    ReplyDelete
  5. -Protestants changed the canonical books
    -'spiritualized' the one holy catholic and apostolic church
    -luther said the imago dei was replaced by the image of satan, and Protestants teach total depravity
    -Lutherans conflated the natural law and the law of moses
    -Protestants deny the freedom of the will
    -They magnify original sin into total depravity
    -teach justification by faith ALONE which was an innovation or 're-discovery' of a belief that was absent for 1400 years.
    -teach penal substitution not anselmic substitution
    -deny the real sacrifice of the eucharist and in most cases, the real presence, and deny the regenerative nature of baptism and sometimes infant baptism
    -teach that the final judgment is not for Christians, or that they will not be judged on their own works, breaking with Tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sorry . . . formatting issue.

    Protestants changed the canonical books

    Protestants affirm the canon as it was received by the early church.

    -'spiritualized' the one holy catholic and apostolic church

    Does the Creed distinguish between a visible and invisible church?

    -luther said the imago dei was replaced by the image of satan, and Protestants teach total depravity
    -Lutherans conflated the natural law and the law of moses


    I can't take responsibility for Luther. I'm a Reformed Catholic. I'm going off of the Reformed Confessions, all of which affirm the imago Dei and the natural law.

    -Protestants deny the freedom of the will

    See the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 9. It's Augustinian down the line.

    -They magnify original sin into total depravity

    Was there an official declaration distinguishing between total depravity and original sin prior to the Reformation?

    -teach justification by faith ALONE which was an innovation or 're-discovery' of a belief that was absent for 1400 years.

    Again, was there an official declaration against sola fide prior to Trent? (I'm not arguing that there have been no doctrinal developments since the Apostles).

    -teach penal substitution not anselmic substitution

    Again, was there an official declaration distinguishing between penal and Anselmic substitution prior to the Reformation? (According to your theory here the hypostatic union is an illegitimate teaching because the early early church did not officially teach it [not to mention the heresies of Vatican 2]).

    -deny the real sacrifice of the eucharist and in most cases, the real presence, and deny the regenerative nature of baptism and sometimes infant baptism

    Protestants do not deny the real presence. We confess the real spiritual presence. We do deny that it is a sacrifice. We do deny that baptism is regenerative. However, on these last two points, did the early church distinguish between the issues at hand in the Reformation with precision? Also, I can't claim the baptists.

    -teach that the final judgment is not for Christians, or that they will not be judged on their own works, breaking with Tradition.

    Was there a declaration saying believers are judged by their works instead of the works of Christ? Also, see WCF 33.1.

    ReplyDelete