The Bible’s True, Objective, & Correct Meaning: Response 3

Last updated on: September 23, 2024 at 12:45 pm by Dennis Knapp

0 Comments

The Bible’s True, Objective, & Correct Meaning: Response 3 2024-09-23T12:45:16-06:00 Dennis Knapp

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Guest writer: Eric Luppold.

Introduction

Given that this is the last round of responses, I will do my best to address all of Dennis’s points. While I agree with his definition of the Church as “the visible historical institution Jesus established,” the Roman Catholic Church today looks nothing like what Christ established. In answering this challenge, Dennis utilizes the acorn analogy that was popularized by John Henry Newman in the 1800s, who argued that any perceived changes were a matter of maturity over time and were not real deviations.

A Tree and Its Fruit

The problem with this analogy is that it ends up excusing everything. For how could one know if a new dogma is simply the next stage in the life of the tree, or if it is a foreign object being grafted in? As an example, if a future Magisterium were to declare the sacrament of marriage as applying equally to same-sex marriages, it could theoretically justify that change by stating that this is the next phase of the oak tree. How would anyone be able to argue differently? What standard would be used? For the acorn-tree analogy to truly work, we must be able to discern whether something is a natural outgrowth of the tree or if it is a foreign object. That is, we need an ultimate standard by which to test the fruit to see if that fruit has come from native branches or from an invading plant.

Says Who?

The issue comes down to final authority. Protestants affirm that God’s word is at the top, having authority over all believers (both individually and corporately). If an individual deviates, the corporate can correct him. And if the corporate deviates, the individual can correct it. This is possible because God’s word has an objective meaning. Consider the example of the prophet Micaiah in 1 Kings 22. At the time, King Ahab asked four hundred prophets of Israel whether he should fight Syria. All said yes, except for Micaiah, who spoke accurately from the Lord. After Micaiah went against the then-established Magisterium, Zedekiah the lead prophet smacked him on the cheek and asked, “How did the Spirit of the Lord go from me to speak to you?”

Dennis accuses Protestants of boiling everything down to the individual, as if to deny that an objectively true and accurate interpretation of Scripture exists. And if Scripture really is just a choose-your-own-adventure novel, then Catholics are themselves guilty of boiling everything down to the words of the corporate (i.e., the Magisterium). For just as Dennis would ask me how I know that I made the right interpretive choice, I would ask him how he knows that the Magisterium made the right interpretive choice. To use the example of the Council of Ariminum, Dennis says that Pope Liberius decreed that it was not authoritative. But how does he know that Pope Liberius reached the right conclusion?

God Speaks For Himself

Ultimately, what both Protestants and Catholics face is the issue of epistemology – how we know anything at all. Dennis accuses Protestants of using circular reasoning. In actuality, all epistemological systems are spirals, rather than circles. Knowledge claims begin from a certain starting point and spiral outward (e.g., “I think therefore I am”). And just as Dennis requires me to account for how I know a certain interpretation of Scripture to be true, he must give an account for how he knows the Magisterium’s interpretation of Scripture to be true, or how he even knows that he picked the correct Magisterium to follow.

For the person who holds to Sola Scriptura, the epistemological starting point is that there is a God, and he has spoken (Hebrews 1:1-2). But the epistemological starting point of the Roman Catholic is that there is a Church, and she has spoken – Sola Ecclesia. By adopting this position, the Roman Catholic transfers divine qualities, such as infallibility, from God to the Magisterium. God is robbed of his glory, and the Magisterium lays claim to a level of authority not granted to it. Rather than allowing God to speak, the Magisterium functionally speaks for God and cannot be questioned or corrected. It justifies this authority by claiming that it can draw a straight and unbroken line back to the Apostles. Yet when we look carefully, we find that the current Magisterium both teaches and requires things that the Apostles neither taught nor required.

These false doctrines and dogmas are not natural outgrowths from a maturing tree but are invading plants that ought to be cut away.

Follow Those who Follow Christ

This leads me to my last point – our duty as believers. Dennis says that his role “is to submit and assent to the Church, not to dictate to her.” But he assumes that the current Magisterium he submits to is teaching what the Apostles taught. I would argue that our duty, to take a principle from Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:1, is to follow our leaders as they follow Christ. We are not to assume that simply because someone claims to be a leader, or claims to follow Christ, that they are necessarily doing so. Rather, we are to use the mind of Christ to discern what our leaders are teaching us. If they rightly handle God’s word, then let us follow them joyfully. But if they abuse God’s word and would lead us astray, we ought to respectfully correct them.

In any case, we must heed the voice of our Eternal Shepherd (John 10:27) rather than allow ourselves to be taken into error.

Conclusion

In the end, God’s word has a true, objective, and correct meaning that is revealed to God’s people through the Holy Spirit. Scripture does not have an arbitrary meaning. There is a real meaning that is understood when one rightly handles the word of God, as all God’s people are obligated to do. Not all do it perfectly, but the Spirit is at work by interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual (1 Corinthians 2:13). And so, the final word belongs to God alone, not to either individual man or corporate man.