Individualism vs. Individuality

I'm continuing a discussion from a previous thread with Nick:

This also touches upon the notion of hierarchy, which is just as decisive as the other issues. If you assert a genuine hierarchy, you're self-condemned since Luther and Calvin (and others) weren't hierarchy. If you assert no hierarchy, then each man's authority to judge/interpret is by *definition* equal.

This is a bit confusing. It doesn't follow that because Luther and Calvin "weren't hierarchy," Protestant belief is "condemned." I can still hold to a belief in hierarchy and say that the hierarchy of the Church during the Reformation was mistaken on critical issues. That's within the possible appropriate evaluations of a subordinate authority. It's also congruent with Scriptural precedent (e.g. Apostles disobeying the valid Jewish hierarchy in the New Testament, Old Testament prophets disobeying the divinely established monarchy and its temple priests and prophets, etc.).

And Luther's ultimate "middle finger" was when he said: "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils" How is this not individualism at it's bedrock?

Let's assume your quote is in context and that we can conveniently ignore all the other statements Luther made regarding the authority of the Church (or, for that matter, the good that came from the Papacy). It seems you're simply trading on different senses of what it means to be individualistic. That someone can disagree with an authority figure (or that someone ultimately does disagree with an authority figure) does not entail individualism in the sense of thinking all authority is rooted in the individual. The former is describing a basic fact of being an person with a will--that individuals can ultimately attempt to do whatever they wish within the pool of talents, resources and opportunity they've been given by God. That's a different (metaphysical?) concept than what is meant by individualism in the post-Enlightenment West. Granted many Evangelicals, products as they are of a country deeply influenced by Enlightenment, engage in individualism as properly construed, this does not reflect the attitudes and preferences of the Reformers and their faithful followers.

Also consider that lay-Catholic apologists disagree with priests and scholars within their denomination from time to time, even though these figures (who are sometimes even bishops and scholars at the same time and appointed by other bishops to commissions with oversight from the Magisterium) are authorities (in various sense of the word) above them. They do this because they believe these priests and scholars are not accurately representing the teachings of Tradition; they are failing in their roles as subordinate authorities. (And sometimes they are correct in this assessment, e.g. Luke Timothy Johnson on homosexuality.)

Likewise, Protestants can also speak of rejecting certain manifestations of hierarchical structures if it seems they have over stepped their bounds of authority or violated the principles of Scripture, God, etc. to which they have sworn allegiance as officers of the Church. How this entails individualism as construed by the post-Enlightenment conception of a self-determined identity (and all of its philosophical baggage) is unknown. Indeed, the very idea of disagreeing with an authority means that a valid authority already exists. But radical individualism denies the presence of authorities outside of man (or Scripture, in the case of the Anabaptists) from the beginning; it's not even part of the discussion.

In other words, the approach of Luther and Calvin is decidedly different than the idea that all authority ultimately rests in the individual—that the individual decides first and foremost without any respect or regard or deference to the established structure of the Church, whether in elders, councils or pastors.

Don't be simplistic in confusing similar results in some cases, where, for example, someone in the PCA who decides that Sartre's philosophy is to be preferred to the standards of the WCF, with someone who was born into a deeply anti-authority Evangelical culture and lives her entire life deciding that she'll live however she pleases. The structures are significantly different, especially when we consider the threats of excommunication and discipline--which constitute authoritative action--on an individual in a properly functioning Reformation church.

I'd be interested to see how you'd reconcile deeply individualistic approaches to Scripture with the measured approach Turretin outlines should someone find himself unable to accept the teachings of the church under which he submits:

...they ought to undertake nothing rashly or disorderly and unseasonably, so as to violently rend the body of their mother, but to refer the difficulties they feel to their church and either to prefer her public opinion to their own private judgment or to secede from her communion, if the conscience cannot acquiesce in her judgment. Thus they cannot bind the inner court of conscience, except inasmuch as they are found to agree with the word of God (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 3 [Phillipsburg: P&R, 1997], 284).

Consider also how Turretin distinguishes between various kinds of judgments:

Three types of judge must be carefully distinguished. The first is the ultimate and authoritative who decides authoritatively and absolutely, as supreme ruler, and from whom there is no appeal. The second is that of a functionary or minister, who gives a decision as a public official. The third is personal or private-the individual's decision regarding either the law or its interpretation. In the first case, the decision is final and absolute. In the second, it is official, but subordinate and limited by the law. In the third case, it is a personal opinion without official standing (The Supreme Judge of Controversies and the Interpreter of Scripture).

In the radical individualistic approach, at the very least, the second kind of judge is completely removed from the picture.

As for Calvin, I've read Institutes 4.9, and he clearly reserves the right to object or toss out anything he thinks doesn't conform to (his interpretation) of Scripture. I've also read where he went line by line on the Council of Trent (especially on Justification) and single-handedly rejected anything he didn't agree with.

And you reserve the right to object or toss out anything you think doesn't conform to your interpretation of the Magisterium's official documents—Tradition.

This isn't unique to Protestantism, and it isn't unique to those outside of Catholicism. You are inconsistently applying the simple fact of life that all people are ultimately free to disregard whatever anyone says. If it's a problem for Protestantism, it's a problem for Catholicism.

I'd also add that your picture of Calvin doesn't square with what I've already quoted from him in the previous thread and what he wrote on the authority of the church elsewhere (cf. Institutes, IV.x.18). Consider also what I've quoted from him in this thread.

Nick writes elsewhere:

The *catch* is that the (pretend) Reformers' actions paved the way for radical individualism since in principle each layman could fall back on their own interpretation of Scripture, just as Luther and Calvin did when they disagreed with someone else.

This eventually led to watering down the Christian Gospel as a whole, and where the radical individualism really began to show - and eventually became so common that most Protestants see it as "normal" in Christianity.

In the sense you're using the concept, it seems everyone could "fall back on" whatever interpretation of Scripture they hold. I don't see how you connect that with the Reformers in a meaningful fashion; it's not as if people didn't engage in this kind of behavior before the Reformation.

Rank Individualism and Sola Scriptura

Abstract

It is often asserted that sola Scriptura devolves into rank individualism. Once the right to judge Church tradition by Scripture is given to individuals, rampant doctrinal confusion is the inevitable result. This criticism, however, is often based on a fallacious conflation of a post-Enlightenment individualism imbued in some modern Evangelicals and the doctrine of the Magisterial Reformers and their intellectual successors. Credible attempts to critique the doctrine of sola Scriptura must first aim to properly represent it.

(This post contains some extended quotations. For those with limited time, I have done my best to highlight their essential content through bolding.)

Asserting the Fallibility of Councils Produces a Regular Objection

Anticipating the Reformed approach to church councils, Calvin argues in the Institutes that councils are not infallible (and, therefore, to be judged by the higher standard of Scripture). Calvin summarizes his position as follows:

Wherefore, we cannot on any account admit that the Church consists in a meeting of pastors [at a council], as to whom the Lord has nowhere promised that they would always be good, but has sometimes foretold that they would be wicked. When he warns us of danger, it is to make us use greater caution.¹

I suspect, however, that the articulation of this position in other contexts had produced a regular objection from Catholics—that this kind of judgment reduces to rank individualism. Perhaps that is why Calvin immediately proceeds to write (bold mine):

What, then, you will say, is there no authority in the definitions of councils? Yes, indeed; for I do not contend that all councils are to be condemned, and all their acts rescinded, or, as it is said, made one complete erasure. But you are bringing them all (it will be said) under subordination, and so leaving every one at liberty to receive or reject the decrees of councils as he pleases. By no means; but whenever the decree of a council is produced, the first thing I would wish to be done is, to examine at what time it was held, on what occasion, with what intention, and who were present at it; next I would bring the subject discussed to the standard of Scripture. And this I would do in such a way that the decision of the council should have its weight, and be regarded in the light of a prior judgment, yet not so as to prevent the application of test which I have mentioned. I wish all had observed the method which Augustine prescribes in his Third Book against Maximinus, when he wished to silence the cavils of this heretic against the decrees of councils, "I ought not to oppose the Council of Nice to you, nor ought you to oppose that of Ariminum to me, as prejudging the question. I am not bound by the authority of the latter, nor you by that of the former. Let thing contend with thing, cause with cause, reason with reason, on the authority of Scripture, an authority not peculiar to either, but common to all." In this way, councils would be duly respected, and yet the highest place would be given to Scripture, everything being brought to it as a test. Thus those ancient Councils of Nice, Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, Chalcedon, and the like, which were held for refuting errors, we willingly embrace, and reverence as sacred, in so far as relates to doctrines of faith, for they contain nothing but the pure and genuine interpretation of Scripture, which the holy Fathers with spiritual prudence adopted to crush the enemies of religion who had then arisen. In some later councils, also, we see displayed a true zeal for religion, and moreover unequivocal marks of genius, learning, and prudence. But as matters usually become worse and worse, it is easy to see in more modern councils how much the Church gradually degenerated from the purity of that golden age.²

The Charge of Individualism Today

The substance of the objection Calvin addressed has not changed since the Reformation; only its form has been altered. Take two modern examples by Catholic apologists who assert that the right to judge the merits of tradition through Scriptural interpretation (which is the broader issue through which councils act as a particular lens) reduces to rank individualism (bolding mine):

The most scandalous fruit of Luther's linear lie has been the ballooning of over thirty-three thousand different Protestant denominations, as the due result of private interpretations apart from the true teachings of the Magisterium. The reason why there are over three-three [sic] thousand different denominations is because definitive and authoritative truths cannot be known through sola-scriptura.

The first fruit of sola-scriptura is not denominations or division, but is actually Christian relativism. Because sola-scriptura empowers its adherents to discover the truth according to their own light, the truth of sacred Scripture remains elusive to them and it proves to be the gateway to Christian secularism and the rejection of the authority of sacred Scripture all together. This is not hyperbolic rhetoric; the proof is [sic] these statements are all around us.

...

It is an odd thing indeed to suggest that a Christian can be guilty of being a relativist or an individualist, but such is the case in the Protestant religion, which is the seed of the so-called 'age of enlightenment'...it is their praxis [i.e. the natural outworking of their theological position, as opposed to their stated position] of sola-scriptura that Protestants hold that the definitive truth of God is unknowable.

...

In individualism, the human person exists as an isolated individual who has himself as his own moral arbiter and who enters into relationship with others only if he so chooses. Sola-scriptura inevitably leads to Individualism because through Scripture-alone each Christian can arrive at his or her own interpretation of the truth, relative to themselves. Sola-scriptura does not require a prayerful community effort.³

And:

Sadly, for the last 2,000 years, many have followed that tragic course of ignoring the teaching authority of the Church. Notice also that Christ shows the Church as being the court of final appeal, the last resort, the place whence the final decision on an issue would emanate. This clearly shows that the Church was established with a teaching authority that supersedes that of the individual. And Christ did not arrange things in such a way to hinder or "straightjacket" the individual believer, but to protect him from the dangers of heresy, disunity, and sin. By establishing the Church's Magisterium as the "court of final appeal" on doctrinal issues, and endowing the Magisterium with his own authority to preach and teach in his name (cf. Luke 10:16), believers are safeguarded from the theological and moral vagaries that arise when the principle of "private interpretation" of Scripture and Tradition (i.e., when dissociated from Church teaching) are put into play.⁴

A Respect for Councils and a Community-Oriented Approach to Doctrinal Truth

As with a number of Catholic objections to Protestantism, these only seem applicable to those Protestants who reject all tradition and/or hold to the post-Enlightenment value of the supreme autonomy of the individual to determine his own beliefs and identity. But that isn't what Calvin promoted, and neither is it what the modern children of the Reformation promote; these kinds of arguments fail to address the positions put forward by the confessional Protestantism born out of the Magisterial Reformation. Consider how irreconcilable these criticisms are with the following perspectives:

A. Here is another excerpt from Calvin:

Having proved that no power was given to the Church to set up any new doctrine, let us now treat of the power attributed to them in the interpretation of Scripture. We readily admit, that when any doctrine is brought under discussion, there is not a better or surer remedy than for a council of true bishops to meet and discuss the controverted point. There will be much more weight in a decision of this kind, to which the pastors of churches have agreed in common after invoking the Spirit of Christ, than if each, adopting it for himself, should deliver it to his people, or a few individuals should meet in private and decide.⁵

B. I've previously discussed how Berkhof describes Scriptural interpretation as a community-oriented task. I'd like to add the following with respect to the validity of councils:

The Roman Catholic Church ascribes to its dogmas absolute authority, not only because they are revealed truths, but even more particularly because they are infallibly apprehended and proposed by the Church for the belief of the faithful...

The Churches of the Reformation broke with this view. While they maintain that a doctrine does not become a dogma, and does not acquire ecclesiastical authority, until it is officially defined and accepted by the Church, they ascribe authority to it only because, and in so far as, it is founded on the Word of God. Their view of the matter can perhaps be best stated as follows. Materially (that is, as to contents) dogmas derive their authority exclusively from the infallible Word of God, but formally (as to form) they derive it from the Church...Church proclamation is an approximation to the original revelation, and not a perfect reproduction of it; but in so far as it does agree with it and is therefore really God speaking to sinners in the present, it is clothed with divine authority. The dogmas so conceived should be distinguished from the dogmas (plural), in which it is not God who speaks, but the Church, and which for that reason have only relative authority.⁶

C. Consider Whitaker's remarks:

We do not say that each individual should acquiesce in that interpretation which his own private spirit frames and dictates to him; for this would be to open a door to fanatical tempers and spirits: but we say that that Spirit should be the judge, who speaks openly and expressly in the scriptures, and whom all may hear; by him we desire that all other spirits, that is, all doctrines, (for so the word is to be taken in this place,) should be examined. We recognise no public judge save scripture, and the Spirit teaching us in scripture: yet this man speaks as if we made the spirit within the judge of others; which should never be done. For we are not so mad or foolish as to deal thus: You ought to acquiesce in this doctrine, because my spirit judges it to be true; but we say, You should receive this doctrine because the Holy Spirit in the scriptures hath taught us thus to think and to believe...For we allow that it is a highly convenient way of finding the true sense of scripture, for devout and learned men to assemble, examine the cause diligently, and investigate the truth; yet with this proviso, that they govern their decision wholly by the scriptures. Such a proceeding we, for our parts, have long wished for; for it is attended with a twofold advantage: first, that what is sought by many is found the more readily; second, that errors, and heretics the patrons of errors, are the more easily repressed, when they are condemned by the common consent and judgment of a great number.⁷

D. Consider the WCF as well:

For the better government, and further edification of the Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils.

As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers, and other fit persons, to consult and advise with, about matters of religion; so, if magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the ministers of Christ, of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons upon delegation from their Churches, may meet together in such assemblies.

It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.⁸

E. And, finally, Mathison:

Instead of being defined as the sole infallible authority, the Bible is said to be the “sole basis of authority” Tradition is not allowed in any sense; the ecumenical creeds are virtually dismissed; and the Church is denied any real authority. On the surface it would seem that this modern Evangelical doctrine would have nothing in common with the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox doctrines of authority. But despite the very real differences, the modern Evangelical position shares one major flaw with both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox positions. Each results in autonomy. Each results in final authority being placed somewhere other than God and His Word. Unlike the Roman Catholic position and the Eastern Orthodox position, however, which invariably result in the autonomy of the Church, the modern Evangelical position inevitably results in the autonomy of the individual believer.

...

The Bible nowhere gives any hint of wanting every individual believer to decide for himself and by himself what is and is not the true meaning of Scripture. The classical Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura meant that Scripture is the sole final and infallible authority. It does not mean that the lone individual is the one to determine what that Scripture means. Scripture was given to the Church within a certain pre-existing doctrinal context that had been preached by the Apostles for decades. Solo scriptura denies the necessity of that context, and it denies the necessity of that Church. In doing so it denies Christ who established that Church and who taught that doctrine to His disciples. It is rebellion in the name of God against the authority of God for the sake of preserving the authority of man.⁹

Considerations

When Roman Catholic apologists produce this dichotomy between rank individualism and the authority of the Magisterium, they assert a false dilemma. Reformed Protestants do not promote the authority of the individual to decide matters of doctrine in the same manner secular society promotes individualism. Rather, they stake out a position in which the Church still has real and functional authority. Subordinating the Church to Scripture is not the same as subordinating the Church to rank individualism, and rejecting the Roman Catholic view of authority does not entail a rejection of all authority outside of the individual.

Perhaps a detailed argument could be made that even the more sophisticated and nuanced version of sola Scriptura entails radical individualism. But I'm not aware of what a successful version of that argument would look like.

And, of course, even if there are proposed arguments like this, the critical problem is how little sola Scriptura is properly engaged in published literature or distinguished between the approach used by some radically individualistic Evangelical Protestants.¹⁰ This is neither honest nor intelligent, and deserves to be dismissed for what it is.

____________

1. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV.9.7. Supporting arguments are developed (rather well) in the previous sections of the chapter.

2. Ibid., IV.9.8.

3. David, L. Gray, Dead on Arrival: The Seven Fatal Errors of Sola-Scriptura, Vol. I, (Xenia, Ohio: Erehmai Uoyevoli, 2010), 75-77.

4. Patrick Madrid, Where is That In the Bible? (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 2001), 20-21.

5. Calvin, Institutes, IV.9.13

6. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, New Combined Edition (Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 1996), 25.

7. William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture (Cambridge: Parker Society, 1894; reprint, Orlando: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2005), 433-434.

8. Westminster Confession of Faith, XXXI/i-iii.

9. Keith Mathison, "A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura." http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html (accessed 8/13/10).

10. I haven't kept up with all of the most recent literature, so it's possible the polemical landscape has changed in recent years to reflect a more nuanced approach to sola Scriptura. My experience in both reading Roman Catholic literature and engaging the fruits of the teachings of popular Catholic apologetic ministries and resources (via discussions on blogs, online boards, in person, etc.) strongly suggests otherwise. However, it is an area in which I hope my conclusions turn out to be false; it would be much better to have a proper representation of sola Scriptura in discussions of the subject.

Calvin on Radical Individualism

Contrary to a modern mindset of some Evangelical Protestants, who change churches as one would change outfits to fit the caprice of fashion and weather, Calvin approached the issue of church fellowship with decidedly more caution:

Be this as it may, when the preaching of the gospel is reverently heard, and the sacraments are not neglected, there for the time the face of the Church appears without deception or ambiguity; and no man may with impunity spurn her authority, or reject her admonitions, or resist her counsels, or make sport of her censures, far less revolt from her, and violate her unity, (see Chap. 2 sec. 1, 10, and Chap. 3. sec. 12.) For such is the value which the Lord sets on the communion of his Church, that all who contumaciously alienate themselves from any Christian society, in which the true ministry of his word and sacraments is maintained, he regards as deserters of religion. So highly does he recommend her authority, that when it is violated he considers that his own authority is impaired.

...

I admit, that it is a great disgrace if dogs and swine are admitted among the children of God; much more, if the sacred body of Christ is prostituted to them. And, indeed, when churches are well regulated, they will not bear the wicked in their bosom, nor will they admit the worthy and unworthy indiscriminately to that sacred feast. But because pastors are not always sedulously vigilant, are sometimes also more indulgent than they ought, or are prevented from acting so strictly as they could wish; the consequence is, that even the openly wicked are not always excluded from the fellowship of the saints. This I admit to be a vice, and I have no wish to extenuate it, seeing that Paul sharply rebukes it in the Corinthians. But although the Church fail in her duty, it does not therefore follow that every private individual is to decide the question of separation for himself. I deny not that it is the duty of a pious man to withdraw from all private intercourse with the wicked, and not entangle himself with them by any voluntary tie; but it is one thing to shun the society of the wicked, and another to renounce the communion of the Church through hatred of them. (Institutes, IV.i.10, 15)