This is Life!: Revolutions Around the Cruciform Axis

Hermeneutics and Infallibility, or, As Expected, the Impasse Has Quickly Been Reached: A Reply to Kevin

Kevin has taken the time to reply in a single post, "Epistemological Comfort Blankets," to my last two posts responding to him. Regrettably, however, though Kevin has obviously taken time to carefully argue his point, he has not quite taken the care necessary to address the actual substance of my previous replies. But this may have less to do with his avoidance of the fundamental items in the debate and more to my own inability to carefully articulate what are those fundamental matters. So I am grateful for the opportunity to sharpen the focus.

Before I do that, however, I want to just briefly address some tangential matters so that I, myself, may not be accused of avoiding them, and also so as to clear them out of the way as so much distracting debris. First is the historical matter of iconography and the Church. If Kevin will peruse the information on the following links on icons, he will find that his own position cannot be substantiated:

--Christian Iconography on Encyclopedia.com 2002
--Icon at Wikipedia
--Byzantine Icons: General References: Byzantine Empire, History of Icons and Mosaics, Eastern Orthodoxy

That latter, especially, is a wealth of archaeological and scholarly information. I'm certain, however, that Kevin will remain convinced in his own mind that icons are an anti-biblical tradition unjustified from Scripture, since there is no Scripture that commands all Christians everywhere to venerate icons. Thus, his logical fallacy of assuming absence of proof as proof of his own position will once again be committed by him, though he has failed to actually delineate what constitutes proof and whether his rules concerning such constitution are themselves valid.

Finally, regarding cessationism and 1 Corinthians 13, I simply point him to this reasonable and logical exegesis which says it better than I could:

Questions Cessationists Should Ask: A Biblical Examination of Cessationism

Besides all which, aberrant interpretations such as the one he applies to 1 Corinthians 13 only take us further afield from the issues under discussion.

But now let us turn to the matters at hand, namely hermeneutics and infallibility. It will become clear, however, that the argument has reached an impasse beyond which it is likely not to go further. I have taken due warning from one of Kevin's comrades-in-arms (in the comments here), however, and have no obsessive need to circle the axis of a dia-blog that has run out of tether. If we can advance the argument from here, well and good. Otherwise, I thank Kevin for the opportunity's he's given me to manifest the beauty and strength of the historic Faith once for all delivered to the saints and the Church which has been called both to guard it and to transmit it.

(A list of all the posts and replies between Kevin and myself follows at the very end of this post.)

The Question of Authority

It is not coincidental that when Kevin invited this online dia-blog via his response to the precipitating post I made affirming that one does not have the authority to change the Church's Tradition, from the very start the specter of hermeneutics and authority was raised. In his initial comments to that post, he wrote:

In affirming the sufficiency of Scripture, I am not denying the necessity of such secondary standards as creeds or confessions, or of preaching. In each case, however, these are examples of tradition justified from Scripture properly exegeted ( and where they are not, such as Nicea II, we are required to ignore them).

There is no equivocation here: the point of focus will be on the role of hermeneutics and the authority attendant upon such interpretations. But inextricably bound up with this notion of authority must be the issue of infallibility. After all, if one is faced with two competing and contradictory interpretations, one will have to decide between the two alternatives. And if the matters are of sufficient gravity, a decision will have to address the question of authority. For example, Kevin thinks the inference of the Holy Trinity from the Scriptures is clear and unequivocal, but he readily admits that his thinking on this has been shaped by the Church in her dogma of the last eighteen hundred years. I would argue that, historically, such an inference from the Scriptures was not so clear and unequivocal given the actual wranglings at Nicea I and after. What settled the matter was primarily the authority of the Tradition--plus, I like to think, a "donchew-talk-ta-yer-Momma-the-Church-that-way" cheek-slapping St. Nicholas and a much-persecuted St. Athanasius, who each instantiated the mind of the Holy Spirit for the Council.

In any case, let me address these two matters, fundamental to our entire discussion, in turn.

The Question of Infallibility

First, let's deal with Kevin's misconstrual of my argument regarding the Church's infalliblity. He confuses two things here: the Church's essence and how infallibility is a characteristic of that essence with the obvious need for an authority to discern between two competing claims about the truth of Scripture. In other words, contra Kevin's assertion, the Church did not invent her quality of infallibility so as to authoritatively determine Scriptural interpretations, but rather her infallibility came as a result of who She is, indeed, as a result of dominical promise.

In my earlier post, I made reference to three Scriptures which promised to the Church authority to bind and loose (Matthew 18:18-20), delineated her capacity on the basis of her own members to grow and mature into the Head, Who is Christ (Ephesians 4:16), and in which she is called the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). I might just as well have quoted Jesus' words to his Apostles during the last supper that the Church would be led into all Truth by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13).

Kevin attempts to address these passages through such tortured and tortuous exegesis that his desperate desire to avoid reading the Scriptures on their face is continuously manifest. For Matthew 18 he concludes, "The idea is that they are acting according to the will of Christ, presenty [sic] known by its revelation in Scripture. The idea is not a license for the Church to do as it pleases knowing that she can't be wrong. It is that, provided she is acting according to the revealed will of God, then her verdicts will reflect those that are true in heaven." Funny thing, though, nothing in the context of the Matthew 18 passages says anything about the Church exercising discipline in terms of what is "presently known by its [i. e., the will of Christ] revelation in Scripture." In point of fact, what are the conditions the passage notes? "Again, assuredly I tell you, that if two of you will agree on earth concerning anything that they will ask, it will be done for them by my Father who is in heaven" (v. 19). While I don't disagree with Kevin that such things must be done in concert with the revelation of God, I do not, like Kevin, limit such revelation to a body of written texts. Nor does Matthew. And, again, I would have to stress, since all of the New Testament had not yet been written, let alone canonized, even if there were the connotation of Scripture in this passage, it would have to be the Old Testament, not the New, which wasn't, properly speaking, yet in existence.

I'll save 1 Timothy 3:15 for last, since it is the most egregious of all, so let's go on to his account of Ephesians 4. In short, he attempts to show that the only thing Paul means by "speaking the truth in love" (which is, in part, how the Church builds herself up into the Head, Who is Christ), is, in the end, only by the preaching and teaching of the Word. Now he goes to great lengths, pulling in some passages from 2 Timothy, to show that this "Word" is nothing more nor less than the Scriptures. Once again, however, his eisegesis is manifest, for Paul could not have meant the Scriptures that we have today (Old and New Testaments), but could only have meant the Old Testament. Thus, if Kevin wants to import these extratextual meanings into the context of Ephesians, he is going to have to limit himself to only the body of the Old Testament writings. It's clear, however, that he does not want to do this but wants to anachronistically read "Protestant 66" into every instance of the word "Scriptures" or "Word" in the passages under consideration. I need not here worry over much that Kevin is also reading his cessationist interpretation into the gifts listed in Ephesians 4, but as this also begs the question of his premises, then I ought at least note it.

But finally, most strange of all, Kevin misses the forest for the trees in 1 Timothy 3:15. He wants to spend much time on the gender of the nouns "pillar" and "ground" and to offer some definitions, all in the effort to deny that pillar and ground refer to the Church. But, and I really hate to embarrass Kevin so, he really should have read the whole verse. I reproduce it here for the benefit of our readers:

but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how it is necessary to conduct oneself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, [a] pillar and bulwark of the truth.

Note the development of the phrases, "the house of God" followed by the appositive "which is the church of the living God" followed by yet another appositive "the pillar and bulwark of the truth." Kevin is correct that the definite article "the" is not actually in the Greek, so I have replaced it with an indefinite article (assumed by the Greek construction). The house of God is called the church of the living God and a pillar and bulwark of the truth. In other words, had Kevin not paid so much attention to noun genders and articles, and simply read the entire verse, he would have seen that contra his assertion the Church is indeed called the pillar and ground of the truth. This is what she is, not something she argues about herself so as to consolidate here authority.

In other words, because of what the Church is--the house of God, the dwelling place of the living God, She in Whom Christ is in Her midst--results in her having the quality of infallibility. If the prayer prayed in Christ's name in matters of discipline results in binding and loosing in heaven, then the Church must be infallible, for what is bound or loosed in heaven is infallibly so bound or loosed (unless one would attribute to God fallibility). If the Church is the house of God, the assembly of the living God--then on that basis she is infallible. The Church did not invent infallibility, she received it in her birth, for she is the Body of Christ, necessarily united to him to even be what she is.

Now Kevin does admit that the Holy Spirit will lead the Church into all Truth. But he has a non-biblical notion as to what that leading will do:

The Holy Spirit will lead the Church into all truth. But he will not do this immediately nor will he do it by gifting the Church that remains on this earth with infallibility. The Church is led into truth by dealing with her error; into strength by struggling with her weakness.

But if we look at the text of John 16:13, we do not see this sort of "gradual" process. And even if such an interpretation is made, it leads to irresoluble logical contradictions.

First of all, on sheer grammatical grounds, the aorist subjunctive (which is the verbal mood of the verb "to lead") does not of itself lead to progressive interpretations. It is a simple snapshot of action located in future time (future to when Christ was speaking). That the promise to the Apostles was fulfilled in Acts 2 few will dispute, not even Kevin, I think. It does not follow grammatically that the fulfillment necessarily happens in full. In that case one would expect some sort of perfect tense (Jesus looking back in future time on the fulfillment; e. g., "when that day will come the Holy Spirit will have led you into all truth" or something of the sort). But an aorist subjunctive certainly lends itself to an interpretation of complete fulfillment, if it doesn't settle the matter unequivocally.

Let us consider also one other aspect necessary to the passage: the audience to whom the promise was made. I suspect that Kevin will gleefully point out that this promise was made to the Apostles (minus Judas) and not to the Church, and that such a promise was made toward the end of, as Kevin puts it, "inscripturating" the apostolic tradition. And certainly I agree with Kevin that, the promise was made to the Apostles (minus Judas) and that Scripture is included in that promise. Obviously, however, Kevin and I disagree as to the extent of that promise.

That it is a promise that is made to a wider audience than the Eleven in the upper room can be reasonably inferred from the following. First, other Apostles than the Eleven were given to the Church, namely Matthias and Paul. If the promise was only to the Eleven, and not, by extension, to the wider group of later Apostles, then Matthias and Paul are excluded. And yet, Jesus says in John 14:26, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and will remind you of all things which I said to you." and in John 15:26-27, " "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me. And you also will testify, because you have been with Me from the beginning." Matthias was, we know, with Jesus from the beginning. Yet, if we limit the promise only to the Eleven, he is excluded. So neither Matthias nor Paul were, on this interpretation, to be included in the promise that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth.

This, of course, makes no sense, because we have writings in the New Testament which do not come from the Eleven, even if we take the traditional authorial ascriptions as givens. The Gospel of Mark is by the hand of a non-apostle, as is Luke's Gospel. We may well ascribe Petrine authority to Mark, as the Tradition does, but we have no clear-cut ascription to Luke who avowedly used many sources, though he could not have used Paul as an eyewitness. Then there is the entire body of Pauline writings, with Hebrews, for whether we ascribe Hebrews to Paul or not, we have no certainty of its authorship by one of the Eleven. One ought not forget James and Jude, for even if these are brothers/kinsmen of the Lord, they were not part of the Eleven. Which leaves us with more than half of the New Testament writings not covered by this promise presumably made only to the Eleven.

But even more to the point, we have instances, "inscripturated from the Tradition" in which the Holy Spirit did lead the Church. Cf. if you will Acts 15:28 in which James, not of the Eleven, speaks for the whole Church and says, "For it seemed best to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to put on you no greater burden except for these necessary things." Or consider Acts 8:29, "Then the Spirit said to Philip, 'Go near, and join yourself to this chariot.'" Now this is about one of the Eleven, but note there is no distinction made between the Spirit's guiding him and the Spirit's guidance of James. Or Acts 16:6, "Now when they had gone through Phrygia and the Galatian region, they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit from speaking the word in Asia" where Paul and his companions are led by the Spirit. Again, no distinction is made here between Paul and Philip; the Holy Spirit leads them both.

In short, this promise to the Eleven is meant more widely than just to the Eleven, as we can see from Scripture itself. Kevin may well challenge that even these other instances are only instances of Apostles, whether the Eleven or not, and he would be correct. But from here it is a simple matter to consider the passages about the Holy Spirit and the members of the Church:

Romans 8:5-9:

For those who are fleshly set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace. Therefore the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it does not submit to the law of God, nor indeed can it. And those that are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

1 Corinthians 2:10-16:

But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the things of a man, except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we did not receive the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, in order that we might know the things granted to us by God; which things we also speak, not in words taught in human wisdom, but in words taught by the Holy Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is discerned by no man. For "Who has known the mind of the LORD, that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

1 John 2:20-21:

But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I did not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth.

I could go on, but it is clear from the whole of Scripture that the audience to whom Jesus' promise that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth is, in full, the Church of God.

Indeed, Kevin must so ascribe the promise to the whole of the Church, for as will be seen Scripture is and always will be interpreted, and on Kevin's own reading of Scripture, it is the Holy Spirit that confirms these interpretations. So if the only way to know the truth contained in Scriptures is by the interpretation given by the Holy Spirit, then the promise, on Kevin's own argument, that the Holy Spirit will lead into all truth must apply to the Church else it does not apply to anyone who is not an Apostle or did not write Scripture, not even Kevin.

Furthermore, there is no promise given to the Apostles or the Church such that the "leading into all truth" refers only to the full canon of the Scriptures. The truth here is all the truth. Indeed, if we are going to be sticklers about context, which I suggest is a good thing, this promise of John 16:13 about the truth must refer fundamentally and ultimately to the Person of Jesus who is the Truth (John 14:6).

But let's consider an alternative interpretation, that the promise was a progressive one and not meant to be fulfilled all at once on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was given, and what a progressivist interpretation would mean; i. e., that the Holy Spirit will gradually, over time, lead the Church into all truth. It would, in its most obvious effect, mean that the promise would not be fulfilled until such time as the Church had all the truth, which would mean that until the Church had all the truth the promise remained unfulfilled. Which raises the necessary question: when is the promise fulfilled?

If Kevin wants to argue that this progressivist interpretation was indeed fulfilled in the completion of the Scriptures, then it necessarily follows that the promise of the leading of the Holy Spirit into all truth is no longer in effect. (Indeed, if it could only have been claimed by the Eleven or any Apostle, then it necessarily is void today.) But this is a strange promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all truth vis a vis the Scriptures, but then leave the message of the Scriptures subject to the whims and fallible reason of human interpreters. What would be the point of such a promise? Apparently the Holy Spirit can lead interpretive horses to water, but cannot make them drink, or even if they do drink, will not slake their thirst. This is tantamount to saying to the sick, "I promise you to lead you to the hospital in which are all things necessary for your full healing. But once you get there, you'll just have to figure it out for yourselves."

Please note: I am intentionally not drawing out any implications as to the infallibility of the Church. Such implications are not necessary, given the logical absurdity of Kevin's own position.

But if Kevin does indeed tie the promise of the Holy Spirit's leading to both the completion of the canon and the proper interpretation of it, he once again begs the question as to how to determine between interpretations.

And that leads necessarily to the next fundamental matter.

The Role of Hermeneutics

Kevin will claim that the authority of Scriptural interpretations does not rest in the interpretation itself, but insofar as it accurately conveys the message of the Scriptures. He must, in fact, claim this, or else he will have to give up his argument of the sufficiency of the Scriptures for all faith and practice. Because if an interpretation can be as authoritative, or authoritative in the same way, as Scripture, then it begs the question as to why one must decide between such an authoritative interpretation and an uninterpreted Scripture. The authority of the interpretation will be, then, a derived authority, secondary to Scripture. That derivative authority may still be authoritative, because it may, through the illumination of the Holy Spirit on the interpreter, be completely consonant with the Scriptures, but such an interpretation can never be binding in the same way that the authority of the Scriptures bind, because an interpretation is not, however consonant it may be, Scripture, it is only and always an interpretation.

But if all that we have is interpretation, what does one do with equally compelling but contradictory interpretations?

This is no mere academic exercise, for if Kevin is correct, my assertion that even the Tradition that is properly justified from Scripture but is otherwise extra-biblical is necessary for life and faith, is, indeed, heresy, or at best liable to lead many believers astray. But how does one decide such momentous controversies? Apparently by sheer hope and patience:

Churches can fall into heresy becase [sic] of their interpretation of the Scripture. More often, this is not the sole cause. They are are [sic] either ignoring other parts of Scripture or they are adding what is not contained in Scripture. Furthermore, they are paying no attention to the general consensus of thought within the historical Church. I would also say that, depending on the seriousness of the heresy, they are not being led by the Holy Spirit. In short, churches that have fallen into and persist in serious heresy may soon cease to be a part of the Church. Interpretation is no problem for my thesis. I am perfectly confident that the Holy Spirit can overcome any and all epistemological objections.

So, what evidence does Kevin have that some persons are teaching heresy and are not led by the Holy Spirit? Ultimately it can be one and only one thing: they do not agree with his interpretation. It really is as bald and straightforward as that. For let us suppose that on any matter of interpretation, both Kevin and I put forward stellar biblical exegesis, each of us has a truckload of historical data, and more to the point, our arguments are logical, valid and for all intents and purpose unassailable. But we both make contradictory interpretations. How does Buridan's ass choose between the two? If it is the leading of the Holy Spirit, this only begs the question as to whether our leadings are, indeed, the Holy Spirit.

Though Kevin's assertion about his own state may well do him just fine--"If I attend to the means of grace, if I add to my faith those things by which I make my calling and election sure (II Peter 1), then I may be assured that, although I may not have everything just right, my grasp of the truth is sufficient unto life."--this simply enshrines his own mind and thinking as at least the penultimate arbiter (assuming the Holy Spirit will be the final one) of all his interpretive difficulties. He can assume the leading of the Holy Spirit. He cannot however, prove it, and certainly not so in the face of equally compelling evidence.

So, although Kevin makes nice not to give in to the actual need of his argument to affirm the individual believer as the penultimate authority in interpretive matters, the conclusion actually is inescapable from his premise. He may make whatever necessary distinctions he wishes, in practical effect, Kevin is the source of authority of his interpretations of Scripture--all other evidence he may present otherwise as to the mind of the Spirit and His leading only begs the question.

Now the immediate problem with hermeneutics is that there are many methods and many disagreements between interpreters not only on what is the correct interpretation, but also on which sort of interpretive practice is warranted for any particular passage or series of passages. Kevin, however, thinks this a non-issue:

It is possible to narrow down the options without resorting to infallible interpretation. If the doctrine of Scripture's infallibility implies anything, it is that there are intended parameters on the range of interpretation. Allegorical and "what does it mean to me" are both far too open to eisegesis to be of any use. On the other hand, the woodenly literal interpretation of many fundamentalists completely misses the intent of the various biblical genres. The Bible is, at the very least, a book of literature. As to the suggestion that Scripture itself cannot suggest an interpretive method, this is not entirely true. My own approach to hermeneutics was greatly helped when I noticed that the authors of the NT have a way of interpreting the OT that is not at all in keeping with what I had been doing. In any event, even if correct exegetical methods were nearly impossible to come by, this would not necessitate an infallible interpreter.

I find it interesting that Kevin disparages the allegorical method of interpretation, when this very method itself is enshrined in the infallible and inspired Scriptures he rightly reveres (cf. Galatians 4 and the inimitable St. Paul). Apparently the allegorical method was of such a use to St. Paul that he included it in his own inspired writings, which writings were also included in the canon of Scripture. Kevin will doubtless reply that when one is an inspired author of Scripture, one may do as one wishes, but this begs the question and still avoids the central issue. And in any case, if Scripture itself suggests a single interpretive method, such a method will have to include allegory, since Scripture itself does so and to exclude it would be a self-contradiction.

But ultimately, the justification of hermeneutical methods, of what counts as evidence, the use of logical, the role of faith, all of these arguments will and must be made in extra-biblical fashion. To discern an interpretive method from Scripture is, itself, an interpretation and one is caught in a vicious circle from which there is no escape. Kevin is right to note that the use of the New Testament authors of the Old Testament will run counter to the favorite method of biblical interpretation among evangelicals: the historical-grammatical method. But once he has begun to draw up principles of interpretation, he has already interpreted the Scripture.

Kevin will likely say that the Holy Spirit is involved in proper Scriptural exegesis. But he cannot validate or substantiate his argument from Scripture itself. He must interpret it.

This is not to say that hermeneutics is unnecessary or useless in our dealing with Scripture. Indeed, it is necessary. (I note here for the record that Kevin did not at all touch on my claims that all Scripture is always interpreted by the reader/hearer.) But it is to say that Kevin has caught himself in a vicious argumentative circle from which he cannot extricate himself and lay claim to his argument that only the only true Tradition is the one properly exegeted from Scripture. For throughout his entire argument Kevin has recourse to extra-biblical tradition and question-begging hermeneutics. Perhaps I am not the only one to notice that Kevin's own claims are apparently justified with recourse to the Westminster Catechism.

How ironic.

Final Note: For all the posts in this discussion, cf. the following:

No, You Do NOT Have a Right to Depart from the Tradition (Initial post by Clifton)
Inscripturated Apostolic Tradition (Initial response by Kevin)
My Reply to Kevin re: Tradition and Scripture (Clifton)
Response to Tradition and Scripture (Kevin)
My Account of Scripture and Tradition (Secondary post by Clifton reflecting on Scripture and Tradition in general)
Voiding the Word (Kevin's reply to "My Account of Scripture and Tradition")
Tradition and Scripture Continued: My Response to Kevin (Clifton's reply to Kevin's "Response to Tradition and Scripture")
A-Voiding the Word: My Response to Kevin's Other Post (Clifton's Reply to Kevin's "Voiding the Word")
Epistemological Comfort Blankets (Kevin's combined reply to the previous two replies by Clifton)
And this post today constitutes the most recent, and possibly penultimate, post.

Posted by Clifton at February 28, 2005 12:00 PM | TrackBack