So, in this post, we shall start off by looking at sola scriptura as an epistemological framework for assessing matters of faith. According to this principle, Scripture is the final and ultimate authority for all matters concerning faith for the Christian. However, whilst virtually all Christians can agree that Scripture is authoritative, there nevertheless exists a plethora of different views on multiple subjects.
As such, how can we tell which interpretation is valid? Which translation of the Bible ought we to use? Are all translations equal and valid, or are some better than others? Whilst I was still a Protestant, I endeavored to research the underlying context of Biblical passages by looking at commentaries of the Bible that explored the linguistic and socio-cultural backgrounds behind the original text.
Of course, religious and atheist fundamentalists alike both insist that the Bible shouldn't need to be 'interpreted' since it is the 'Word of God'. You even have people who claim that the King James Version of the Bible is the only correct version of the Bible, amongst other things. Moreover, there were still (primarily philosophical) disagreements between those who relied on finding the context.
The first thing to notice about all of this is that you are indelibly indebted to things other than the Bible to determine what beliefs are true. When arguing for a given interpretation or translation of the Bible, you have to rely on things other than the text of Scripture itself to determine the meaning of Scripture.
You're reliant on your personal intuitions, your pastor, Biblical scholars, etc. when confronted with difficult passages. How do we decide which approaches to Biblical interpretation are valid or not? You can't say just use the Bible, because that is circular reasoning.
Second, it is worth noting that nowhere in the Bible does it say that Scripture is the ultimate and final authority either. Jesus said that all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, but then how does one determine what is and is not Scripture? The Protestants famously removed several books from the Bible, but on what basis?
Whilst I was still a Protestant, I decided that it would probably be best to try and discover what the earliest Church believed, since they were closer in time to Jesus than I am. Well, it's worth noting that the New Testament documents were not written until a few decades after Jesus' death and the canon of the New Testament would not be decided until a few centuries after.
Moreover, most people were illiterate, and so primarily relied on oral tradition and did not read themselves. It took me awhile to find out, but the earliest Church was much closer to Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and the Church of the East than to Protestantism, especially low church Protestantism.
The earliest Church had bishops and priests, they had services modeled on Old Testament temple worship. They also had councils, which is even in the text of the New Testament itself. When there was disagreement among the disciples regarding whether Christians were still required to follows the laws of the Torah or not, they held a council in Jerusalem.
The canon of Scripture was decided by the entire Church through a series of synods and local councils. In other words, we are reliant on tradition in order to even get to Scripture in the first place. Not just the oral tradition preached by the apostles, and the textual tradition of the manuscripts, but you had extra-Biblical teachings passed onto the Church Fathers, and commentaries on Scripture made by the Church Fathers as well.
So, in order to maintain sola scriptura, you would need to maintain that tradition was authoritative in the past but suddenly ceased being authoritative. However, it seems obvious that to maintain such would be nothing more than an exercise in question begging. Your only reason for believing it would be because you already accept sola scriptura.
However, sola scriptura is nowhere found in Scripture itself and is not taught by the Church Fathers. Nor is it affirmed in any of the Ecumenical Councils. It's not until Martin Luther, et al. came along that people started claiming that Scripture alone determined matters of faith. But if sola scriptura is true, then why is that?
In fact, what one finds is that Protestant-exclusive beliefs as a whole do not appear anywhere in the earliest Church. Nor are they evidenced in the writings of the Church Fathers. Scripture is important, but it is important to understand that it is only part of Holy Tradition. So, it seems clear that Protestantism and its various denominations aren't serious contenders for which branch is correct.
However, it seems far from clear that the Catholics are correct. Now, it is important to understand that when Catholics claim that the Pope has jurisdiction of authority over the whole Church, they base this on the passage where Jesus states that upon this rock He would build His church. They claim that the rock refers to Peter, but they also go a step further and claim that this was the view of the original Church, and that it has always been understood that way.
However, the evidence for such an understanding is nowhere evidenced in the writings of the Church Fathers. Rather, the understanding of the Church Fathers was that the successor of Peter held a position of being first in honour, but did not hold authority over his brother bishops. This is clearly reflected in the Book of Acts.
For during the Council of Jerusalem, when Peter initially sided with the Judaisers, Paul openly rebuked Peter to his face. Whereas there exists a multitude of interpretations of the passage cited by Catholics in defence of papal supremacy. Only a few held the rock to be peter, whereas others held it to mean the Church as whole, others took it to be faith in Christ, and so on.
The first evidence of anyone holding to the view that the Pope held authority over the whole Church comes to us from the 5th century AD from Pope Leo I. He was the first to argue that the Roman Church held a position of authority over its sister churches based on the primacy of Peter.
Given that the Pope therefore does not hold authority over the entire Church, the Pope has no authority to excommunicate other Patriarchs. He can break communion with other churches, though. The problem is, however, that he would need a valid reason for doing so, and the other churches not accepting papal supremacy and the Filioque clause, etc., are not valid reasons.
No comments:
Post a Comment