The standard conception is "biblicism", which is basically the view that the Bible is the absolute, unerring, and final authority of both truths of the faith and over manner of living, such that the Bible serves as a kind of "handbook" or "instruction manual" for how Christians ought to live, and where no other source of authority is required to settle the matter.
The problem in short is that even if one claims that the Bible is inerrant or infallible, absolutely authoritative, etc., the actual practice has lead to what Smith calls "Pervasive Interpretative Pluralism" (or, what I'll call 'PIP' for short), which is the fact that many well-meaning, sincere, intelligent (evangelical) readers of the Bible will walk away with a whole host of different interpretations.
So even though Jones and Mary both say that the Bible is the absolute guide by which they will form their religious beliefs and will conduct their lives, it is not unlikely that Jones and Mary may diverge in what they believe and how they think they should live. That is, there is widespread disagreement. Given the so-called (democratic) perspicuity of the Scriptures, it seems strange that this would occur. Nor can Jones and Mary resolve their disagreement by appealing to the Bible, since it is the very source of their conflicting views.
Now I have no real problems with there being disagreement of this sort, and it is, for the most part, just what I expect to happen. For example, Smith lists several standard examples of disagreement, where the parties to the disagreement cite the Bible as "proof" or evidence for the correctness of their view. Some of these are the disagreements over church government, Arminian vs. Calvinist understanding of providence (as well as freedom and predestination), gender roles (especially with respect to church leadership), charismatic gifts (e.g., tongues, prophecy), etc. I suspect that there would be such disagreement since I take it that the Biblical evidence is underdetermined regarding many of these issues and positions.
However, Smith's main point is that many evangelicals believe that such issues can be resolved and certain positions endorsed as the Biblical position solely based on Scripture. But this is impossible given the PIP that follows from biblicism.
I have a bigger worry than Smith's (though along the same lines). Many evangelicals will consider these debates as "non-essential" doctrinal matters. However, there is also PIP with respect to what many evangelicals would call "essential" doctrines. For instance, the doctrine of the Trinity has been given various interpretations, over and above the creedal formulations. Many argue that the creedal formulations cannot be derived directly form Scripture, and many evangelicals hold a theory of Trinity that in no way resembles the creedal formulations. Furthermore, some evangelicals, like the oneness pentacostals, reject Trinitarianism altogether. Now some may just consider them non-Christians, but that seems fairly hasty, especially given their commitment to the teachings of the Bible (they typically are biblicists) and allegiance to Jesus as their Savior (though he is not divine). The evangelical cannot point to Bibical passages since some fellow evangelicals will say no Trinitarian passage is to be found (and will interpret differently the proposed passage that serves as evidence). Thus, here is what looks to be an "essential" doctrine in which the pesky problem of PIP lurks.
Furthermore, there is the PIP with respect to what even counts as essential and non-essential. C.S. Lewis takes the doctrine of the Trinity (in its creedal formulation) to be essential, whereas oneness pentacostals do not. Some evangelicals take baptism to be an essential matter in the Christian life, whereas others do not (it is merely symbolic, an "outside expression of an inside decision" or something like that). Some evangelicals take it as essential to the Christian life that one must accept a certain account of justification (some Reformers do), whereas others do not. Given this kind of PIP about essential/non-essential matters, it becomes even more difficult to state any set of conditions by which we can clearly demarcate Christians from non-Christians (or at least evangelicals from non-evangelicals).
One lesson to draw. Evangelicals should use the word 'heretic' and 'heresy' very scarcely and with a great deal of caution.
But my worry (of which many previous posts deal with) remains. What is the unifying factor for evangelical protestantism? It can no longer be the "teachings" found in the Bible, since the "teachings" are legion (at least for evangelicals that embrace biblicism). If Smith is correct such that evangelicals must reject biblicism, where else can they turn regarding authoritative declarations over praxis and doxastic matters? Smith claims at the outset that though he eventually became Catholic, that evangelicals don't necessarily have to even if they agree that they should reject biblicism. But where else can they turn to authority? Eventually they will turn to Tradition (along with Scripture), but Tradition itself will have some degree of PIP (though much less than biblicism). Thus, the only remaining option seems to be a live, current authority, one in which division is not possible, and that looks an awful lot like the Magisterium, and in particular the see of Peter.
No comments:
Post a Comment