by Bryan Cross, May 22, 2007.
In
his article titled "Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes" (Modern
Reformation, March/April Vol. 16 No. 2 2007 Pages 25-29), Keith Mathison
criticizes the position he calls 'solo scriptura', namely, the position that
"Scripture [is] not merely the only infallible authority but that it [is]
the only authority altogether". He describes the solo scriptura position as rejecting altogether even "the true
but subordinate authority of the church and the regula fidei". He
writes:
"All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations
of Scripture. The only real question is: whose interpretation? People with
differing interpretations of Scripture cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it
to resolve their differences. In order for the Scripture to function as an
authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone. According to "solo"
Scriptura, that someone is each individual, so ultimately, there are as
many final authorities as there are human interpreters."
He
also points out that the supporters of 'solo scriptura' could not adequately
respond to a modern-day Marcion who challenged the canon of Scripture, for they
would have no authority to which to appeal to establish the canon.
I
completely agree with Mathison's critiques of 'solo scriptura', and I'm not
going to focus on them. But I am going to argue here that Mathison's own
position suffers from the same individualism he ascribes to the 'solo
scriptura' position.
In
contrast to the 'solo scriptura' position, Mathison defends what he calls
"sola scriptura", namely, the position that "Scripture [is] the
sole source of revelation, that it is to be interpreted in and by the church,
and that it is to be interpreted within the context of the regula fidei." He quotes Calvin approvingly as saying,
"We indeed willingly concede, if any discussion arises over
doctrine, that the best and surest remedy is for a synod of true bishops to be
convened, where the doctrine at issue may be examined." And he defends
this position again by pointing out that the Apostles provide an example of
meeting in council (Acts 15:6-29) to resolve a question.
The
reason why Mathison's position falls into the very same individualism that
plagues the 'solo scriptura' position is that he rejects a sacramental notion
of Church authority, and puts in its place a neo-Donatist one. Let me explain.
He claims that Scripture must be interpreted "in and by the church".
So what does he mean by 'church'? Who speaks and acts for the church? If by
'church' he means "all individual Christians", then we are left with the
individualism that Mathison rightly rejects. But if the answer is "the
true bishops", then we are pushed back to a deeper question: Who
determines who are the "true bishops"? If the answer to this question
is "each individual Christian decides for himself who are the true
bishops", then again we are left with the individualism that Mathison
rightly rejects. But if the answer is, "the Magisterium of the
Church", then the bishops meeting at the Council of Trent were "true
bishops", and Mathison should subject himself to their decrees. If
Mathison had a sacramental notion of magisterial authority he would either accept
the authority of the Council of Trent or he would become Eastern Orthodox. But
he (apparently) rejects both options. Therefore, he must reject the notion that
"true bishops" are those with valid orders, whether or not they are
in communion with the bishop of Rome. And thus the only option left for
Mathison is the position that a "true bishop" is one who believes and
teaches what he [Mathison] believes that the Bible teaches. That is what I am
calling 'neo-Donatism'. This neo-Donatist view of who counts as a "true
bishop" leaves Mathison with the very same individualism he is trying to
avoid in the 'solo scriptura' position.
He
may protest that he believes that the Bible must be interpreted according to
the regula fidei. But again, who determines what the regula fidei
is, and how it dictates the way in which Scripture must be interpreted: each
individual believer, or the "true bishops"? If the answer is
"each individual believer", then again, we are back at pure
individualism. But if the answer is "the true bishops", then again either
a true bishop is such sacramentally, in which case Mathison should embrace the
decrees of Trent (or become Orthodox), or a true bishop is such by being in
conformity with the individual's determination of what a true bishop should
believe, in which case Mathison is once again strapped with all the problems of
the individualism of 'solo scriptura'.
Similarly,
Mathison himself has the same problem with the canon that he attributes to
those holding 'solo scriptura'. By rejecting the authority of the Council of
Trent (and by not being Eastern Orthodox), Mathison calls into question the
authority of all Magisterial decisions, including those that determined the
canon of Scripture. By rejecting the decrees of the Council of Trent (while not
being Orthodox) he is essentially saying that he accepts as authoritative only
those magisterial decrees with which he agrees, or only those magisterial
decrees made by bishops holding to a version of the gospel with which he
agrees. The problem for Mathison is that almost every heretic in the history of
the Church could also affirm that statement. The Neo-Donatist notion of
magisterial authority is thoroughly individualistic.
Mathison
claims that "the only difference [between the Catholic doctrine and the
'solo scriptura' position] is that the Roman Catholic doctrine places final
authority in the church while "solo" Scriptura places final
authority in each individual believer." Notice that he does not specify
what he means by "final". If by "final" he means highest
*interpretive* authority, then he has failed to distinguish the Catholic
position from his own position, since he himself says that the Scripture
"is to be interpreted in and by the church".[1]
But if by 'final' he means "higher" in the sense of
"greater" or "superior", then who decides whether the magisterium
of the church is acting only as the highest *interpretive* authority or whether
it is treating itself as having greater authority than Scripture? If the answer
is "each individual", then we are back to individualism. But if the
answer is "the true bishops", then, for the reasons already explained
above, this too reduces either to individualism or Catholicism.
Mathison
says that we are "to reject the Roman Catholic doctrine ... which places
final autonomous authority in the church." Again, who determines whether
the church is placing "final autonomous authority" in the church?
If the answer is the individual believer, then again we are right back in pure
individualism. For then whenever the individual's interpretation of Scripture
is at odds with that of the church, the individual can simply judge that the church must be placing "final autonomous authority" in the church instead of in the Scripture. But if the answer is "the true bishops", then
either those bishops have their authority sacramentally (in which case Mathison
should submit to Trent or turn to Constantinople) or the "true
bishops" have their authority only by being in agreement with the
individual believer, in which case Mathison's position is strapped with the
same individualism he recognizes is intrinsic to the solo scriptura position.
I believe Mathison
is misled on this issue by thinking that what distinguishes the Catholic
position from the Reformed position is something to do with the relation
between Scripture and tradition. In fact, however, what ultimately
distinguishes the Catholic position from the Reformed position is the nature of
magisterial authority, whether it is sacramental or neo-Donatistic. If magisterial authority is sacramental, then if that magisterial authority rejects 'sola scriptura', so should Mathison. But if Mathison does not accept the decrees of the sacramental magisterial authority, he thereby takes to himself all the individualism that accompanies neo-Donatism, whether in its "solo scriptura" or "sola scriptura" forms.