We Believe the Bible and You Do Not

I came across this 2010 article from Dr. Keith Mathison: We Believe the Bible and You Do Not. Mathison makes a helpful analysis based on the following:

Not too long ago, in an effort to get a better grasp of the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, I was reading the chapters on the sacraments in Francis Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics, and I ran across this statement: “The difference between the Lutheran Church and the Reformed in the doctrine of Baptism is fully and adequately defined by saying that the former believes God’s Word regarding Baptism, the latter not” (vol. 3, p. 269).

Mathison then notes how often he's seen this argument, not only from Lutherans... but just about every group on a variety of Biblical issues. The author concludes:

The problem with Pieper’s statement is that he does not allow for any conceptual distinction between the infallible and inerrant Word of God and his own fallible and potentially errant interpretation of that Word. Thus, to disagree with his interpretation is to disagree with God. But this is obviously false. Presbyterians and Baptists do not reject the Lutheran doctrine of baptism because they disbelieve God’s Word. They reject it because they think Lutherans have misinterpreted God’s Word. 

The fact of the matter is that people who believe equally in the authority and inerrancy of Scripture sometimes disagree in their interpretation of some parts of that Scripture. We know God’s Word is not wrong, but we might be. God is infallible; we are not. We are not free from sin and ignorance yet. We still see through a glass darkly. In hermeneutical and theological disputes, we need to make an exegetical case, and we need to examine the case of those who disagree with us. It proves nothing to make the bare assertion: “We believe the Bible and you don’t.”

Food for thought.

Our Daily Crumb

A close family relative reads Our Daily Bread. Here's a curious inference that I was asked about in regard to the October 24 entry, Eloquent, Yet Humble. "Did Apollos know about the death and resurrection of Jesus?"  The entry states,

"Apollos knew about Jesus’ teachings but may not have known about His death and resurrection and that the Spirit had now come (Acts 2). His teaching was incomplete because he didn’t know about being filled with the Spirit for daily empowerment."

Now the main information we have on Apollos comes from Acts 18. I realize that based on the Biblical information available, certain inferences can be made about Apollos... but I can't understand how someone could infer, "Apollos knew about Jesus’ teachings but may not have known about His death and resurrection..."  Odd. Watch your inferences!

Roman Catholics and Private Interpretation

The following is a brief excerpt from Eric Svendsen's book, Upon This Slippery Rock, Countering Roman Catholic Claims to Authority (New York: Calvary Press, 2002) pp. 74-76. This is posted because a few Roman Catholic bloggers decided to tell me what they think "private interpretation" means for Roman Catholics. This book can be purchased here.

Appendix B: The Roman Catholic Teaching on Private Interpretation
I INCLUDE this section because there are many Roman Catholics who deny that they argue in the way this book represents. When confronted with these epistemological fallacies, rather than present a defense of the Roman Catholic view, they claim that the fallacies are meaningless since Rome has never condemned private interpretation in the way this book suggests. I have included writings from Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II, to demonstrate the contrary; namely, that Rome really does condemn private interpretation, and that individual Roman Catholics really do commit the epistemological fallacies we have enumerated. I have italicized text within each council's documents to draw attention to the relevant points. Where clarification of a point is necessary, I have interspersed my own comments, offset in bracketed italicized text.

Vatican I Council
"Likewise I [the Bishop of Rome] accept sacred scripture according to that sense which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers" (Session II, 3).

"Everybody knows that those heresies, condemned by the fathers of Trent, which rejected the divine magisterium of the church and allowed religious questions to be a matter for the judgment of each individual, have gradually collapsed into a multiplicity of sects, either at variance or in agreement with one another; and by this means a good many people have had all faith in Christ destroyed" (Session III, 5).


The Council of Trent
"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,—in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine,—wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, —whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,—has held and does hold, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established" (Session IV, "Decree Concerning the Edition, and the Use, of the Sacred Books").

Vatican 11 Council
"But the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church.... It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls." ("Dogmatic Constitution On Divine Revelation" [Dei Verbum] II, 10).

[The council goes on to assert a contradictory principle]:
"To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to `literary norms.' For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at the period in their everyday dealings with one another." (Ibid., III, 12 ["Sacred Scripture, Its Inspiration and Divine Interpretation"]).

[The principle is contradictory, because those who follow it will invariably depart from the Roman Catholic interpretations on many issues, including Mary's perpetual virginity, Mary's status among the NT writers, Mary's role as mediator, as well as a host of other issues. Predictably, the council is quick to revert back to its original position in the very same section]:

"For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgement of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the Word of God" (Ibid.).

[The council likewise addresses the study and interpretation of the patristic writers as it pertains to private interpretation]:

"The bride of the Incarnate Word, the Church taught by the Holy Spirit, is concerned to move ahead toward a deeper understanding of the sacred Scriptures so that she may increasingly feed her sons with the divine words. Therefore, she also encourages the study of the holy Fathers of both East and West and of the sacred liturgies. Catholic exegetes then and other students of sacred theology, working diligently together and using appropriate means, should devote their energies, under the watchful care of the sacred teaching office of the Church, to an exploration and exposition of the divine writings" (Ibid., VI, 23 ["Sacred Scripture in the Life of the Church"]).

[Contrary to the claims of some modern Roman Catholic apologists, the Roman Catholic church does indeed condemn private interpretation of both the Scriptures and the writings of the churchfathers. "Private interpretation" is defined in these documents as any interpretation that is contrary to what the Roman Catholic church has decided the meaning is. Obviously, any religious system could claim that—and many in fact have. Therefore, individual Roman Catholics do indeed commit the epistemological fallacies presented in this book; for in evaluating the claims of Rome, each and every one of them must interpret the Scriptures and church history for themselves to decide that it is Rome who is the true guardian of the truth, and not some other contender.]

A Closer Look at David Waltz’s Objections

In comments below, David Waltz, noting that he “Could not sleep, so I jumped online and checked in on my blog and BA [‘Beggars All’]” said:

You accuse me of being "simplistic", and yet, in a number of the threads at Articuli Fidei where I have delineated the “methods” and “presuppositions” of liberal scholarship, you have been noticeably absent, and have failed to supply a conservative critique of the liberal paradigm.

Elsewhere, he had said, “perhaps John will give some thought to Garry Williams' reservations...”

And so, yes, in a recent blog post, I commented on his objection that a conservative Presbyterian had called Eamon Duffy a “revisionist historian,” and I had commented on David’s failure to suggest precisely how “Duffy’s work on the English Reformation intersects with what he has written about the early papacy” was a good reason to characterize his objection as “simplistic”.

But if he is inclined to suggest that his other materials offer more substance, well, that’s questionable too. For example, this post of his seems to contain and summarize his strongest objections to, and remedies for, the work of Peter Lampe. In this thread, which gets posted around the internet by some of David’s followers and fans who seem to be less thoughtful and sophisticated even than he is, which he seems to proclaim as his “magnum opus” against Lampe, I want to summarize his “objections,” just to show how absolutely “fluffy” they are.

After providing a series of links to my various blog posts responding to him (and which I have supplemented here), here, unvarnished, is his devastating criticism:

I do not believe that John has adequately addressed the most pressing issue—which I have mentioned on more than one occasion—here it is again:

The premise/presuppostion [sic] that archeology and secular history must take precedence over Biblical historicity.

This is the method that is foundational for Lampe (and so many other liberal scholars), and he applies it not only to Biblical historicity, but also to the history provided in the writings of early “Catholic” bishops and authors.

Look again at that most pressing issue: “The premise/presuppostion [sic] that archeology and secular history must take precedence over Biblical historicity." And that Lampe (and so many other liberal scholars) apply this method “also to the history provided in the writings of early “Catholic” bishops and authors.”

For gosh sakes, I hate to bring this up, but the Bible is history. And “archaeology and secular history” do not take precedence over “Biblical historicity” – these things confirm and provide a backdrop for “Biblical historicity.”

What in the world is David actually saying here? I grant that “Liberal Scholarship” has relied on the methodology of “historical criticism” (which incorporates – gasp – “archaeology and secular history) to challenge the Bible – Old Testament, New Testament, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the missionary journeys of the Apostles, the letters of Paul and the other New Testament writers.

Yes, using the tools of “historical criticism” – yes, “Liberal Scholarship” has provided the very Revelation of God [to which I hold most dearly] with the most intimate rectal exam that any school of thought or body of literature has ever undergone in the history of the human race.

But in doing so, two things have happened (and I have noted this repeatedly):

1. The facts and historicity of the Bible, especially the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, have been confirmed as true, in and by “archaeology and secular history,” to a degree that far exceeds virtually any other body of knowledge that we can point to, and

2. In the process of #1, “Liberal Scholarship” has beaten itself upon the Rock of Truth in such a way that it can no longer protest against the factuality of the Bible, Life of Christ, etc. Such things are now well-established facts. And thus, “Liberal Scholarship” has been reduced to one thing, and that is, to a denial of the supernatural character of the Bible.

And so, from a factual point of view, especially with respect to the New Testament, there are very few unresolved questions about persons, dates, places, events, etc. “Liberal Scholarship” and “Conservative Scholarship” largely have come to a consensus on these things (there are some outliers, but I am speaking of a vast majority). The one key difference is an allowance for the Supernatural or not. Conservatives embrace the supernatural, and take it for what it says it is; Liberals seek to explain it away.

And thus, when in Acts 2, for example, when Peter says, “Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know …” – there is not much question between Conservatives and Liberals as to what Jesus said and what these folks are reported to know. There is not much disagreement about what “God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it” means. Conservatives and Liberals, having both adopted methods of “historical criticism,” largely agree on the events that Peter was talking about.

Does everybody get this so far? Does anybody have any questions?

Representative links on the topic of Biblical Interpretation

The role and misuse of Authority

Biblical Interpretation 1

Biblical Interpretation 2

Ratzinger Part 1

Ratzinger Part 2