The perennial question in the debate over sola Scriptura is whether the church is over the Bible or the Bible is over the church. If you take the latter position, then you are (generally speaking) a Protestant who believes the Scriptures, and the Scriptures alone, are the only infallible rule and therefore the supreme authority over the church. But, here is the irony: Roman Catholics also claim to be “under” the authority of the Bible.
The Roman Catholic church insists that the Scripture is always superior to the Magisterium. Dei Verbum declares, “This teaching office is not above the Word of God, but serves it” (2.10), and the Catholic Catechism declares: “Yet, this Magisterium is not superior to the word of God, but its servant” (86). However, despite these qualifications, one still wonders how Scripture can be deemed the ultimate authority if the Magisterium is able to define, determine, and interpret the Scripture in the first place. Moreover, the Magisterium seems to “discover” doctrines that are not consistent with the original meaning of Scripture itself—e.g,, the immaculate conception, purgatory, papal infallibility and the like. Thus, despite these declarations from Rome, residual concerns remain about whether the Magisterium functionally has authority over the Scriptures.
My friend and colleague James Anderson has written a helpful blog post that brings even further clarity to this issue. He begins by observing the judicial activism that happens all too often in the American political system. Judges go well beyond the original intent of the constitution and actually create new laws from the bench. He then argues:
What has happened in the US system of government almost exactly parallels what happened in the government of the Christian church over the course of many centuries, a development that finds its fullest expression in the Roman Catholic Church.
The Bible serves as the constitution of the Christian faith. It is the covenant documentation. It defines the Christian church: what constitutes the church, what is its mission, who runs the church and how it should be run, what are the responsibilities of the church, what is the scope of its authority, what laws govern the church and its members, and so forth. Once the constitution has been written, the task of the ‘judges’ (the elders/overseers of the church) is to interpret and apply it according to its original intent. Their task is not to create new laws or to come up with “interpretations” that cannot be found in the text of the constitution itself (interpreted according to original intent) and would never have crossed the minds of the “founding fathers” (Eph. 2:20).
Yet that’s just what happened over the course of time with the development of episcopacy, the rise of the papacy, and the increasing weight given to church tradition. To borrow Grudem’s phrasing: If the Bible didn’t say something something that the bishops wanted it to say, or thought it should say, they could claim to “discover” new doctrines in the Bible — purgatory, indulgences, apostolic succession, papal infallibility, etc. — and no one would have power to overrule them.
Adapting the candid statement of Chief Justice Hughes, today’s Roman Catholic might well put it thus: “We are under the Bible, but the Bible is what the Pope says it is.” In fact, that’s exactly how things stand in practice. Functionally the Pope has become the highest governing authority in his church: higher even than the Bible. The church has been derailed by “ecclesial activism”.
Thus, even though Rome claims that the Bible is its ultimate authority, practically speaking it is the church that is the ultimate authority. Rome is committed to sola ecclesia. And this clarifies the real difference between Protestants and Catholics. Something has to be the ultimate authority. It is either Scripture or the church.
Richard Zuelch says
Sometimes, it seems as if – even in Reformed circles – the church stands over the Bible. I recently was in the middle of a conversation in which several other people insisted that Calvin’s interpretation of Jude 9 – that the archangel Michael is actually Jesus Christ – was true even though that interpretation is clearly contradicted by a plain reading of that text. They would be shocked to know that even Calvin can be wrong.
dean says
On one level, I would agree with you, Calvin in some circles is given great honour. So much so that it’s easy to be swayed by what may be said at a given time, especially if you are new in the family of faith. That’s what makes the Bible so great, it is not swayed or impressed like we can be at times. But if you look at the overall teachings known as Calvinism…TULIP…I would say their source is the Scriptures & the glory is all for God.
There is a passage somewhere in the OT that speaks of two prophets, one is misled by the other & ends up being eaten by a lion. I have never heard a sermon on that text but one application could be caution in the church as to what is being said by those in authority or influence…as in, does it really reflect the Bible or is it a manipulation of the text to serve an ulterior motive. Not an easy position to be in…going against the leadership, but if God is with you He will uphold & guide your steps.
The Apostle Paul puts it pretty boldly when he writes to the Galatians… “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let that person be under God’s curse!”
The biggest concern for me is what should I get concerned about in seeking God’s leading, what should concern me when something seems wrong or puzzling, is it a big thing or a little thing. To be honest I have often found out the hard way but I can still say thank you God for your patience & leading as You grow Your church.
steve hays says
Here’s a good book on the subject:
http://www.9marks.org/books/book-review-finding-will-god-bruce-waltke
dean says
true enough…regarding the link & summary. But the Christian experience has its own dilemma’s even within the confines of Scripture. For someone who struggles with “what is best” at times knowing what to do can be part of a “waiting on the Lord” kind of thing filled with struggling & prayer.Gideon comes to mind, but we are not instructed to seek signs & wonders. Some things are clear & straightforward…others are not.Should I marry…whom should I marry, where should I look for work, is this what God really wants me to do…those kinds of things.In that regard I look fondly on the Old Testament & God’s working in the lives of those who are blessed…the psalmists also…but maybe I am just a romantic at heart.
Chris says
It seems to me that this interpets the term “the word of God” to mean “only the Bible.” What the Roman Catholic Church means by “the word of God,” however, is not ” only the Bible” but “everything revealed by Jesus and handed down to us today,” in other words, Scripture and Tradition. Thus it is from Tradition, still the word of God, that The Roman Catholic Church teaches doctrines such as purgatory and apostolic succession, and yes, even the precise contents of the biblical canon. In this way, the Roman Catholic Church is perfectly justified in claiming that the teaching authority of the Church is subordinate to the word of God, even while it affirms and promulgates doctrines not found in Scripture.
steve hays says
Even if you expand the definition of “God’s Word,” Kruger’s argument still goes through. For on the expansive definition, the “Word of God” still means whatever the Magisterium says it means. So “God’s Word” is effectively subordinated to the Magisterium.
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III says
Dear Michael,
All this is well and good. I would agree that the Bible is “sola scriptura.” Then what does one do with the following: Nicene Creed, Chalcedon-Nicene Creed, Westminister Cathechism, etc.? Too many rely on the findings of “Ecumenical” creeds or “confessions” (Baptists) than they rely on Scripture.
dean says
Just a thought…but I see the creeds as summaries of Scripture, formulated at certain times to respond to situations within the church framework.
Personally I have lent on the heidelburg catechism at times in my life…the proof texts left me puzzled at times but I consider its teaching similar to a sermon…pointing to the Word & Christ.
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III says
Dear Dean,
As long as we remember that they were summaries, albeit quite accurate summaries, then we will be fine; but it is the Scriptures that are the FINAL authority in ALL that they teach including faith and practice.
BTW, I suspect that Michael will discuss the problems within Eastern Orthodoxy and its traditions. That would be an eye-opener.
dean says
Hi Bryant,
I find I can relate to many things regarding the work & input that goes into this blog but in one way I am not on the academic level of others. The way traditions & culture influence the church is amazing stuff, perplexing at times also…
Its one thing to say Scripture is final & I wholeheartedly agree…but then comes the interpretation part & if you dont know the Greek & the Hebrew then you are at the mercy or wisdom of others as they discuss & debate…this is where I am at in Gods amazing kingdom…happy to listen,learn & discuss.
On the one hand knowledge is essential yet it can have a negative impact if pride gets the better of me…So like the Psalmist in 119 or Timothy I need to learn how to handle it wisely…
Justin Boulmay says
I’m not sure Protestant churches escape what you believe to be this weakness of Rome’s. When many Protestants say that the Bible is the ultimate authority, what they really mean is the Bible, as they interpret, understand, and teach it, is the ultimate authority. How is that not doing exactly what you say the Catholic Church does and subject the Scriptures to an interpretive group or person?
steve hays says
As Protestants, our interpretation of Scripture is not an appeal to authority, but the use of the right method, to arrive at the best explanation of the passage in question. An interpretation of Scripture is only as good as the exegetical arguments. And that’s open to scrutiny.
By contrast, Rome appeals to the unaccountable authority of the Magisterium. So it’s not comparable.
dean says
I would say when Protestant churches say that Scripture is Authorative, in the first place they would be meaning that the Bible & the Bible only is from & is inspired by God, it is His work. By faith the church accepts this & draws its teachings from that, despite the difficulties involved, it perseveres.
As I understand it Catholicism has another set of books that it derives its teachings from (Apocrypha). Plus what Steve has written regarding the Magisterium…a new word for me.
So in one way they appear similar & in another different, the more you get into it, the more different they become I would say.