Church Authority and Biblical Interpretation

[WrittenFromUtopia]

How do we, as Protestants, adequately account for the charges that, without Sacred Tradition or the Canon of the Church or Church Fathers as part of our theological Canon, we are left with arbitrary or individualistic interpretations of Scripture (which in turn has led to 10,000+ denominations in the world, post-Reformation)?

 

[Ravens]

Well, here's an off-the-cuff response from a non-elder, so take it with a grain of salt:

I think Rome is being a bit hypocritical. She likes to set "the Fathers" and "the tradition" up as some authority to which she adheres and in which she stands. But really, even a cursory reading of church history (whether its church discipline, Christology, grace & the will, iconoclasts and image-proponents, etc.) shows that the fathers didn't always agree with themselves. Different provincial councils disagreed with one another as well. They were still disagreeing during Charlemagne's reign, with debates over the nature of the presence in the Lord's Supper, predestination and grace, etc. And a few centuries later, you have different schools of Scholastics disagreeing with one another.

When I started reading Reformation and later Protestant literature a couple years ago, I was struck by just how intimately acquainted these men were with church history. Calvin, Turretin, William Whitaker, etc., all of their knowledge of patristics and medieval theology would put ours to shame. And, speaking loosely, it did indeed seem that they used them as interpretive tools, but not as a final authority.

I would say that we, as Protestants, think that there is a real, objective meaning in the Scripture that can be ascertained through diligent study, even if the noetic effects of sin and the limitations of our minds prevent full agreement on some issues. And we hold the tradition of the church up against the standard of Scripture.

Rome holds out Scripture in the one hand, and Tradition in the other, and asks, "What will you do without me to interpret all of this for you?" Because when they speak of tradition as authority, they are really speaking of the particular strands of tradition, made up from a variety of theologians, councils, and outright myths, that Rome approves of and places her seal on. Even Rome doesn't agree with all "tradition."

So she's really asking how we're going to get along without Her? And I would just say, "We're getting along fine."

 

[Ravens]

On a sidenote, its easier to have unity in the faith among the common folk, and thus avoid "10,000" denominations when you have a boastful horn throwing out inquisitions, inderdicts, and excommunications against individuals and nations that disagree with him. Also, conducting your church services in a foreign language and withholding the Bible from the laity help in that regard, too.

 

[wsw201]

I find it odd that we always hear about "10,000" + denominations when the RC is hardly monolithic. Consider all the various divisions within the RC. You can go to 10 RC churches and run across 10 different services and that many theologies! In fact Liberation Theology came out of the RC church in Latin America.