Response to Keith Mathison on Solo Scriptura

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.



[1] The Catholic Church specifically denies that the Magisterium is superior to the Word of God.