In this chapter, which I feel is crucial to the shape of the Protestant/ Reformed doctrine of scriptural authority, Calvin argues that scripture has authority over and above that of the Church and that the Church itself is grounded in the scriptures. The scriptures hold authority by virtue of them having been given by God. He says, “Hence the Scriptures have full authority among believers only when men regard them as having sprung from heaven, as if there the living words were heard.” For Calvin, as with the other Reformers, the Scriptures have final and absolute authority-- Sola Scriptura-- they are the very words of God, or at least the closest we have to them.
But this reading of scriptural authority creates a problem. It flies in the face of the traditional Scholastic understanding of scriptural authority which understood it as part of the depositum fidei,or the body of tradition including the Creeds, decrees of Ecumenical Councils and the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. This depositum fidei, was interpreted and used to define doctrine by the magisterium (or teaching authority of the Church). In Calvin's day this magisterium would have been exercised by bishops in union with the See of Rome assembled in Council. The doctrine of papal infallibility, in which magisterium is also exercised by a Bishop of Rome speaking ex cathedra, was not defined until 1879. In this model, Scripture has its authority from the magisterium, the authority appointed to the Apostles and therefore also to the bishops, who are the heirs to the apostolic ministry. In short, Scripture has authority because the Church says so. This is unacceptable to Calvin. He calls it “a most pernicious error”. The Church has authority only in that it is grounded in Scripture. He cites St.Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians that the church “is built upon the prophets and the apostles” (Eph.2:20). And “if the teaching of the prophets and the apostles is the foundation, this must have had authority before the Church began to exist.”
He then attempts to refute a passage from Chapter IV of St. Augustine's Constra epistolam Manichaei, where the venerable doctor of the Western Church seems to contradict Calvin's view. I've read this particular work so I'll quote this passage from Augustine judiciously. He says:
But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. (1) So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichaeus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you;--If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichaeus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;--Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichaeus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I will keep to those who commanded me to believe the gospel; and, in obedience to them, I will not believe you at all. But if haply you should succeed in finding in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichaeus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics who bid me not to believe you; and the effect of that will be, that I shall no longer be able to believe the gospel either, for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichaeus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you read thence some passage clearly in favor of Manichaeus, I will believe neither them nor you: not them, for they lied to me about you; nor you, for you quote to me that Scripture which I had believed on the authority of those liars. But far be it that I should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of believing you too. For the names of the apostles, as there recorded, (2) do not include the name of Manichaeus. And who the successor of Christ's betrayer was we read in the Acts of the Apostles; (3) which book I must needs believe if I believe the gospel, since both writings alike Catholic authority commends to me. The same book contains the well-known narrative of the calling and apostleship of Paul. (4) Read me now, if you can, in the gospel where Manichaeus is called an apostle, or in any other book in which I have professed to believe. Will you read the passage where the Lord promised the Holy Spirit as a Paraclete, to the apostles? Concerning which passage, behold how many and how great are the things that restrain and deter me from believing in Manichaeus.
What does Augustine seem to be saying here? In its original context, he his looking for a means of distinguishing between heresy and orthodoxy. How are we to suppose the Manicheans, who also use some arrangement of the scriptures, and who claim to be apostles of Christ, are in error. Augustine's answer is that they are outside of the body Catholic, which has authority too, and are therefore in error. The consensus of faith held by the Catholic Church, is the litmus test for orthodoxy.
Calvin is not refuting this per se but a certain reading of it which was employed by the enemies of the Reformation, who saw it as a proof that the authority of Scripture rests upon the authority of the institutional church. For them it fit within the framework of magisterial authority expressed by Scholastic theology. Calvin, dismisses this reading. He says that “Augustine is not teaching that the faith of godly men is founded on the authority of the Church; nor does he hold the view that the certainty of of the Gospel depends upon it.” Rather, Calvin argues that Augustine is merely “teaching that the there would be no certainty of the Gospel for unbelievers to win them to Christ if the consensus of the Church did not impel them.” The Church is the witness to Scripture and not, as the schoolmen argue, the source and guaranteer of it. In Calvin's mind, this frees the Scriptures from clutches of the institutional church, which according to the traditional understanding is its sole interpreter.
How then, according to Calvin, are we to come to faith in what the Scriptures proclaim, if not through the ministry of the visible and institutional church? Through the Holy Spirit, is Calvin's answer. From a cursory perspective, this is no different from the classical Roman view. But to Calvin, the ministry of the Holy Spirit is not within the exclusive dominion of the institutional church, it is free. He says, “ The word will not find acceptance in men's hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit.” We are brought to the doors of faith through the Spirit, not through the testimony of the Church. The Church stands only as a witness to the truth revealed in the Scriptures. The Spirit 'seals' and 'guarantees' and not the Church. Indeed, he finishes this chapter saying “Scripture is its own authentication.” In so many words, that through the Spirit, and because Scripture is the very word of God, it bears witness to itself. It does not require the Church for authority, it is an authority in of itself.
As a former Roman Catholic, and one who has not yet shaken off all the theological baggage that comes with that, Calvin's view of Scriptural authority is really quite challenging. I was taught and once believed something quite similar to what Calvin is here refuting. That Scripture is part of Tradition, and as such, is interpreted through the lens of the magisterium, was an article of my faith. To loosely quote Cardinal Newman, the magisterium was the oracle of God. This, of course, I now reject. There is nothing in Scriptures or anything I've read in the Fathers of the Church, that would warrant me to believe this particular view. At the same time, however, Calvin's seeming rejection of reason and belief in an almost fideist position, is also rather problematic to me. It lends itself to a conception of Scripture that makes it seem as if the entire canon fell from heaven complete and perfect . This flies in the face of common sense and, indeed, historical evidence. The Scriptures were not only written by men but also compiled and edited by men. The task of compiling the canon fell to the early Ecumenical Councils, which occurred some three hundred years after the events recorded in the New Testament happened. It therefore took the discernment and wisdom of those in a position of teaching authority to work out what books ought to be recognized. Calvin obviously would have been aware of this. Its unthinkable that he would have had been ignorant of that fact. However, he seems to ignore this fact.
Indeed Calvin's fideist position on Scripture explains a lot of what has gone wrong with the evangelical church. There is no center, no normative means of interpretation, and no way of stemming the ever widening divergence of belief. Of course, the Roman Catholic position leads to an ever changing system of belief, that can and has drifted away from the Scriptural center. Take for instance papal infallibility and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. These things have no basis in Scripture and may indeed be at odds with it. In a way, both the 'evangelical' and 'catholic' worlds suffer from a similar problem. They are both unstable. There must be a way avoiding both these extremes.
I feel there is more to the aforementioned passage from Augustine, than either Calvin or his enemies admit. Calvin is indeed right when says that the contemporary Roman understanding of scriptural authority cannot be found in it. However, I see in that passage something deeper than Calvin seems to understand. Augustine sees the Church as a beacon of truth in the world, more than just witnesses of the Scripture. We are called to be witnesses to Christ, whose redeeming love is recorded in Scriptures. Being a people redeemed, the unbeliever can behold us and see the love that has been wrought within us and which, through the Spirit, we can exude to others. The Scriptures along with with Sacraments are tools of Grace which have been given us to transform ourselves, and with which we can transform others too. The Scriptures should not be a monolithic authority and neither should the teaching authority of the Church. They should be mutually dependent things. Like most things in Christianity, it amounts to something akin to symbiosis.
The classical Anglican position reflected in the metaphor of the 'three legged stool' attributed to Richard Hooker, which sees faith supported by Scripture, tradition and reason can be seen as a fitting solution to this problem. Each one supports the other as legs would on a three legged stool. This can be expanded, I think. The canon of scripture can be understood as product of tradition and reason and those things intern can be understood as the inverse. Like the doctrines of free choice and election, the terms of this doctrine can be understood as mutually dependent – a symbiosis. And in this way, we have a normative way of understanding Scripture, that doesn't lead to arbitrary divergence or the arbitrary definitions of some teaching authority. All three things stand as witnesses to the Truth revealed in Jesus Christ and all three equip us in our mission which is, as Christ says in the Gospel of Matthew: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen (Matt. 28:16-20, KJV)
No comments:
Post a Comment