I thought that a good project is to read what is considered possibly the best modern defense of sola scriptura. It is called The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith Mathison. You can probably get a copy from the nearest library. They can always get it through inter-library loan. Or you can all so get at most of the book at The Shape of Sola Scriptura - Google Book Search.
Anyway this is my first installment. This is my response to the Forward of this book, written by Douglas M. Jones III.
The first thing Prof. Jones is that he indirectly quotes from C.S. Lewis, that the more he became medieval, the farther he grew away from Roman Catholicism. I wished he had documented this. I have much respect for Lewis, and I cannot imagine him saying such an illogical statement. Medieval pertains to the middle ages, just before the Reformation – a time where even Protestants would agree was the heyday of Roman Catholicism. So, in essence, Jones wrote that Lewis once said that the more Roman Catholic he became, the less Roman Catholic he became. This is an obvious contradiction, and I expected more than that from a great mind such as that of Lewis. But I do not want to dwell too much on this.
But then what Jones said after this that I totally disagree with:
In contrast, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox accounts fall out rather perfectionist and rationalist commitments that are alien to the earthiness of biblical reality. Submitting to an infallible magisterium requires a little faith; everything is, in principle, neat and clean, like a doctor’s office or a robot husband. A perfect husband would make easy marriage; faith wouldn’t be hard at all. He could never go wrong. But most wives require faith. Submission takes on more fascinating dimension when marriage involves sinners.
I beg to differ with him. Submitting to an infallible magisterium takes a LOT of faith! It depends on whether we want clarity or ambiguity from God’s Word. Jones seems to love ambiguity, where each denomination has its own interpretation of God’ Word. Jones celebrates all these different interpretations of God Word, that this has more “earthiness” to Christianity. Having just one interpretation is just too neat and clean.
Even in my Protestant day, I never thought of celebrating the fact that each Christian sees the Bible in conflicting ways. Truth is exclusionary. Only lies are inclusive. As a Protestant, it bothered me that that there were so many different ways to interpret the Bible. How can any embrace it for its “earthiness”?
People like this “earthiness” kind of Christianity because it is much easier to live. If one church’s interpretation of the Bible becomes too strict for someone, he can always go to another church for a different interpretation. Keeping the Bible ambiguous makes life so much easier. You can be totally committed to God, but on your own terms. YOU get to ultimately decide what the Bible means. This is a very safe kind of Christianity. For instance, I remember once reading of a minister who said that he once preached that divorce is wrong under any circumstances. But then his daughter gets a divorce. Now he sees the teachings of the Bible differently – divorce is acceptable. Did he change his mind on what the Bible teaches because of his exegesis, or did he change his mind because his current interpretation was then too difficult for his family? It is just so easy to find some church that will accept an interpretation of the Bible to accommodate your lifestyle!
But it takes real faith to be convinced that a certain interpretation of the Bible is true no matter what. And this is what your have with the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church. You know exactly what is right and what is wrong. There is no wiggle room. It is difficult to rationalize your lifestyle.
I remember once watching one of the sequels of Scary Movie, with Charlie Sheen. In one scene the wife was just hit by a car, and his dying. Sheen arrives to say his final good-bye. The dialogue goes something like this:
“Darling, I am dying. There is one thing I ask you to do as my dying wish”
“Honey, I love you with all my heart. I will do whatever you tell me to do”
“I cannot bear you ever being with another woman. I want you never to be with another woman again!”
“What?”
“I want you never to have sex again”
“I, eh, am not sure you mean.”
“No more sex!”
“I don’t understand what you mean.”
“NO SEX!”
“I just don’t understand”
“OH, NEVER MIND! Also, another thing. I received a revelation about your brother. Tell him to swing away!”
“OK, I’ll tell him”
“You understand that?”
“Yes”
“Sure! THAT you understand!”
Charlie Sheen’s character pretended not to understand his wife when she said no more sex. But he had no problem in understanding the “swing away” part. The first request demanded a changed lifestyle that he was not prepared to give. Instead of either keeping her request, or telling her no, he found a much safer option – he just rationalized her request away that her request was too difficult to understand.
This was what we have in Protestantism, which Jones celebrates as “earthiness. As long as we have multiple options of how to interpret God’s Word, we can always choose to safest option, the option that less challenges our particular lifestyles. This does not require much faith at all. Just as Charlie Sheen’s character can tell his dying wife that he will do anything she says, so is it easy to tell God you will do anything He says, as long as the interpretation of what God said falls on you and not on someone else such as the magisterium of Catholic Church.
“But is that not too much power for one person? But what if the pope says something absolutely absurd – something such as that we should give all our money to the pope, or that pope is the second coming of Christ, or that we should kill each other?” That is exactly my point! It takes tremendous faith that the pope will never declare something absurd or dangerous for us to do! We Catholics believe that God has promised us that He will prevent that from ever happening. God will ensure that no pope will ever lead us into heresy and darkness. We believe that Jesus has promised that the gates of death and hell will not prevail against His Church. My faith is not in the pope. My faith is in God! God works behind the pope, through the pope, and over the pope. And for 2,000 years, no pope has ever declared that he is the second of Christ or that we should kill each other. The same cannot be said of certain non-Catholics. The Albengians in the middle ages preached that suicide was the highest form of spiritual act. David Koresh implied to his cult followers that he was the second coming of Christ.
Throughout these 2,000 years most popes have been very saintly, but there have been maybe 5 to 10 popes that were real scoundrels. I know at least one that had a mistress! I would not be surprised if some of them do not make it to heaven at all. Imagine the Catholics who lived under such a pope! They were still required to submit to him. So it is not like submitting to the perfect husband. God does not guarantee us that the pope is perfect, only that he will never lead the church into heresy. To me, THIS takes faith, to submit to a pope that you believe is a scoundrel!
My faith is on the line every day. Any day, our current get Alzheimers and declare to us something totally absurd, or something that contradicts Catholic dogma – such that there is a fourth person of the Trinity. And if that ever happens, my Catholic faith will be shattered. But I am betting that this will never happen, because God is the one in control. How can this be considered little or no faith at all?
Biblical history reveals that God’s ways are often more ragged around the edges than we might wish. In the Old Covenant, we see the Spirit through broken institutions, illegitimate priesthood, and lonely Elijahs. The Sanhedrin of Christ’s time presented delicious institutional unity and pomp, but the Spirit happened to be working through a locust-eating prophet and a band of unordained fishermen.
I admit that I have been away from the Protestant scene for 25 years, so if I am wrong on this maybe someone can correct me. But as far as I could remember, I do not recall ever meeting a Protestant minister who ate locusts. And neither do I recall any Protestant church being run by unordained fishermen.
In fact, every single Protestant denomination has “institutional unity” and “pomp”. Even in the Assemblies of God, which is considered not as hierarchical as your mainline denominations, you still have a national headquarters and state districts. They have a national president, a board of directors, and district leaders. All this seem to me as “delicious institutional unity and pomp”. This is a far cry from a locust-eating prophet and a bad of unordained fishermen!
So if the Spirit is not going to work through the Catholic Church because it is far more structured then the way Christ and His band of disciples started, then I am afraid the Holy Spirit is not going to work through any Protestant church either.
So this is my first installment in this series. Granted, this is not the actually work of Matthison. But Matthison must have approved of Jones arguments, so they must have made sense to Matthison. And if Matthison approved of the arguments presented in his forward, then I think it will be interesting to see what he considers valid arguments for sola scriptura.
Anyway this is my first installment. This is my response to the Forward of this book, written by Douglas M. Jones III.
The first thing Prof. Jones is that he indirectly quotes from C.S. Lewis, that the more he became medieval, the farther he grew away from Roman Catholicism. I wished he had documented this. I have much respect for Lewis, and I cannot imagine him saying such an illogical statement. Medieval pertains to the middle ages, just before the Reformation – a time where even Protestants would agree was the heyday of Roman Catholicism. So, in essence, Jones wrote that Lewis once said that the more Roman Catholic he became, the less Roman Catholic he became. This is an obvious contradiction, and I expected more than that from a great mind such as that of Lewis. But I do not want to dwell too much on this.
But then what Jones said after this that I totally disagree with:
In contrast, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox accounts fall out rather perfectionist and rationalist commitments that are alien to the earthiness of biblical reality. Submitting to an infallible magisterium requires a little faith; everything is, in principle, neat and clean, like a doctor’s office or a robot husband. A perfect husband would make easy marriage; faith wouldn’t be hard at all. He could never go wrong. But most wives require faith. Submission takes on more fascinating dimension when marriage involves sinners.
I beg to differ with him. Submitting to an infallible magisterium takes a LOT of faith! It depends on whether we want clarity or ambiguity from God’s Word. Jones seems to love ambiguity, where each denomination has its own interpretation of God’ Word. Jones celebrates all these different interpretations of God Word, that this has more “earthiness” to Christianity. Having just one interpretation is just too neat and clean.
Even in my Protestant day, I never thought of celebrating the fact that each Christian sees the Bible in conflicting ways. Truth is exclusionary. Only lies are inclusive. As a Protestant, it bothered me that that there were so many different ways to interpret the Bible. How can any embrace it for its “earthiness”?
People like this “earthiness” kind of Christianity because it is much easier to live. If one church’s interpretation of the Bible becomes too strict for someone, he can always go to another church for a different interpretation. Keeping the Bible ambiguous makes life so much easier. You can be totally committed to God, but on your own terms. YOU get to ultimately decide what the Bible means. This is a very safe kind of Christianity. For instance, I remember once reading of a minister who said that he once preached that divorce is wrong under any circumstances. But then his daughter gets a divorce. Now he sees the teachings of the Bible differently – divorce is acceptable. Did he change his mind on what the Bible teaches because of his exegesis, or did he change his mind because his current interpretation was then too difficult for his family? It is just so easy to find some church that will accept an interpretation of the Bible to accommodate your lifestyle!
But it takes real faith to be convinced that a certain interpretation of the Bible is true no matter what. And this is what your have with the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church. You know exactly what is right and what is wrong. There is no wiggle room. It is difficult to rationalize your lifestyle.
I remember once watching one of the sequels of Scary Movie, with Charlie Sheen. In one scene the wife was just hit by a car, and his dying. Sheen arrives to say his final good-bye. The dialogue goes something like this:
“Darling, I am dying. There is one thing I ask you to do as my dying wish”
“Honey, I love you with all my heart. I will do whatever you tell me to do”
“I cannot bear you ever being with another woman. I want you never to be with another woman again!”
“What?”
“I want you never to have sex again”
“I, eh, am not sure you mean.”
“No more sex!”
“I don’t understand what you mean.”
“NO SEX!”
“I just don’t understand”
“OH, NEVER MIND! Also, another thing. I received a revelation about your brother. Tell him to swing away!”
“OK, I’ll tell him”
“You understand that?”
“Yes”
“Sure! THAT you understand!”
Charlie Sheen’s character pretended not to understand his wife when she said no more sex. But he had no problem in understanding the “swing away” part. The first request demanded a changed lifestyle that he was not prepared to give. Instead of either keeping her request, or telling her no, he found a much safer option – he just rationalized her request away that her request was too difficult to understand.
This was what we have in Protestantism, which Jones celebrates as “earthiness. As long as we have multiple options of how to interpret God’s Word, we can always choose to safest option, the option that less challenges our particular lifestyles. This does not require much faith at all. Just as Charlie Sheen’s character can tell his dying wife that he will do anything she says, so is it easy to tell God you will do anything He says, as long as the interpretation of what God said falls on you and not on someone else such as the magisterium of Catholic Church.
“But is that not too much power for one person? But what if the pope says something absolutely absurd – something such as that we should give all our money to the pope, or that pope is the second coming of Christ, or that we should kill each other?” That is exactly my point! It takes tremendous faith that the pope will never declare something absurd or dangerous for us to do! We Catholics believe that God has promised us that He will prevent that from ever happening. God will ensure that no pope will ever lead us into heresy and darkness. We believe that Jesus has promised that the gates of death and hell will not prevail against His Church. My faith is not in the pope. My faith is in God! God works behind the pope, through the pope, and over the pope. And for 2,000 years, no pope has ever declared that he is the second of Christ or that we should kill each other. The same cannot be said of certain non-Catholics. The Albengians in the middle ages preached that suicide was the highest form of spiritual act. David Koresh implied to his cult followers that he was the second coming of Christ.
Throughout these 2,000 years most popes have been very saintly, but there have been maybe 5 to 10 popes that were real scoundrels. I know at least one that had a mistress! I would not be surprised if some of them do not make it to heaven at all. Imagine the Catholics who lived under such a pope! They were still required to submit to him. So it is not like submitting to the perfect husband. God does not guarantee us that the pope is perfect, only that he will never lead the church into heresy. To me, THIS takes faith, to submit to a pope that you believe is a scoundrel!
My faith is on the line every day. Any day, our current get Alzheimers and declare to us something totally absurd, or something that contradicts Catholic dogma – such that there is a fourth person of the Trinity. And if that ever happens, my Catholic faith will be shattered. But I am betting that this will never happen, because God is the one in control. How can this be considered little or no faith at all?
Biblical history reveals that God’s ways are often more ragged around the edges than we might wish. In the Old Covenant, we see the Spirit through broken institutions, illegitimate priesthood, and lonely Elijahs. The Sanhedrin of Christ’s time presented delicious institutional unity and pomp, but the Spirit happened to be working through a locust-eating prophet and a band of unordained fishermen.
I admit that I have been away from the Protestant scene for 25 years, so if I am wrong on this maybe someone can correct me. But as far as I could remember, I do not recall ever meeting a Protestant minister who ate locusts. And neither do I recall any Protestant church being run by unordained fishermen.
In fact, every single Protestant denomination has “institutional unity” and “pomp”. Even in the Assemblies of God, which is considered not as hierarchical as your mainline denominations, you still have a national headquarters and state districts. They have a national president, a board of directors, and district leaders. All this seem to me as “delicious institutional unity and pomp”. This is a far cry from a locust-eating prophet and a bad of unordained fishermen!
So if the Spirit is not going to work through the Catholic Church because it is far more structured then the way Christ and His band of disciples started, then I am afraid the Holy Spirit is not going to work through any Protestant church either.
So this is my first installment in this series. Granted, this is not the actually work of Matthison. But Matthison must have approved of Jones arguments, so they must have made sense to Matthison. And if Matthison approved of the arguments presented in his forward, then I think it will be interesting to see what he considers valid arguments for sola scriptura.
