We've all been bored enough to stack a house of cards. It's fun because it's so fragile it can come crashing down at once. Any movement of a single card, the whole thing falls. Our modern culture and church culture can be compared to a stack of cards, specifically in the area of certain knowledge. You see, if certain knowledge is impossible then there is a large amount of freedom to believe and do whatever I want. Who really knows what is true? Who really knows what is right? Doubt gives rise to autonomy, and I can have as much or as little of it as I choose. But pull out this idea and my entire autonomous house of cards comes crashing down. That's why relativism is such a useful tool for the rebellious and the fool.
Relativism, as discussed on this blog before, is not the denial of objective truth but rather the denial of certainty that one can know that objective truth. This is why certainty is seen as arrogance in our culture. Yes, there is an objective reality. No, one cannot know for certain what that is.
The problem? That statement just made a claim that assumes a knowledge of reality with certainty. This is the problem of relativism. People have to make claims of certainty, and they therefore, often do so while denying that one can do so.
Humans must think in absolutes. The relativistic idea that somehow this is denying the reality that humans are subjective and are often limited in their knowledge of reality is itself an absolute knowledge claim about reality. It is the law of non-contradiction at play. As many times as people try to deny the law, they will simply prove it every time.
This means one of two things. We all actually just live in delusion and can know nothing, not even that delusion that we know nothing, or we are able to actually know reality with certainty.
We all live in the latter, not the former. We all think in the latter, not the former. We all speak in the latter, not the former. Why? Because if we did not, life, thought, and communication would be impossible. It is part of the ordered system of the world to be certain about the nature of reality, to know things with certainty.
The real issue is how we know those things and whether we can be wrong about what we believe to be true about reality, and when we can and cannot know that we are wrong when we use the wrong methods of knowing.
For instance, if I believe the moon is made of cheese because it looks like it, I've used a non-verifiable means of evaluating whether the moon is made of cheese. I've just gone on impressions comparing what the moon could look like with something with which I am familiar, i.e., cheese.
Now, it is possible to believe something that is true about reality without verifying it in some way, but this is only a happy accident on my part. I don't actually know with certainty that something is true unless my belief is met with some form of verification, e.g., physical examination, reports of eyewitnesses, etc. Otherwise, I may believe what is true and can act upon it but it has a higher chance of my being deluded and believing what is not true.
All of this to say that the war on certainty is nonsense and it takes a whole lot of people who are really certain about their claims of reality to deny it.
This brings us to the practical denial of sola Scriptura. Note that. I said the "practical denial" not the "theoretical denial" of sola Scriptura. This is because most people who deny sola Scriptura do so while proclaiming very loudly and dogmatically that they believe in it.
The practical denial of sola Scriptura often looks like one of two things: (1) The use of emotion, circumstance, tradition, popular opinion, etc. as an assumed (not explicitly stated) higher authority than Scripture when one reasons a position out despite there being a clear interpretation of Scripture to the contrary known through a robust exegetical methodology. (2) The claim that a text of Scripture is unclear, often making an appeal to the diversity in interpretation of that text despite there being exegetical factors in that text that would make it clear and refute those other opinions.
I want to talk mainly about the latter because I think it feeds the former.
The statement that a particular Scripture cannot be known with any certainty is not unlike the claim of relativism above. In fact, it is the adoption of that very position applied to a biblical text. It is often concluded that this must be true because of the diversity of opinion held by various scholars or godly men (the false assumption of the latter having some sort of supernatural power given to them to interpret Scripture, a sentiment the Bible never supports) have disagreed about a particular passage, and therefore, it must be that the passage is not something that can be known with certainty.
It is objective truth, whatever it is, whatever it may say, but no one can be certain about what it says. Now, there may be passages that are like this, but one cannot know this fact about the text with certainty by just guessing that because there is a diversity of interpretation it must mean the passage is ambiguous. This is like saying the moon looks like cheese, and therefore, it must be.
Instead, one would only know it is ambiguous through a rightful means of knowing that fact. In other words, if there is no method that can be employed to affirm our belief about what the passage says, then one might conclude that given our current methods of knowing, we cannot know what the passage says with any certainty. This does not mean we cannot know what the passage says at all, as one belief about the passage may end up being true by virtue of our stumbling upon it in the dark. It just means that we cannot know whether we know it, and therefore, cannot know it with certainty.
Most of the passages that people argue over, however, tend to be over theological and ethical ideas, and ironically, those tend to have a diversity of interpretation about them, not because they are ambiguous, but because the interpreter has either unintentionally or intentionally employed a methodology that would lead him or her to the wrong conclusions. When confronted with a proper methodology of knowing, the interpreter will often appeal to relativism and accuse the one critiquing his methodology and conclusion with arrogance. After all, how can anyone claim certainty about what a biblical passage says when one cannot know what it says with certainty, and we know that one cannot know what it says with certainty because of the diversity of its interpretation.
It's quite interesting that one must be certain about what can and cannot be known about the passage when claiming this and still think of himself as humble, but one who claims certainty about the passage's ability to be understood is seen as arrogant. This really is a sleight of hand. Both are claiming certainty about the nature of the passage and its ability to communicate knowledge. One is simply using a fallacious methodology and then protecting that methodology by making a self-defeating claim about certainty and then using ad hominem to silence anyone who further protests that claim.
This has made the Bible's authority to actually say anything that is contrarian to modern theology or ethics impossible, since every passage with which someone disagrees or dislikes will be disputed with some methodology, and then this cycle can begin all over again and bad interpretive methodologies can be guarded and sustained by the mere shaming of anyone who has the audacity to claim that he knows something with any certainty. It can be applied and taken away to each individual or group's liking. They can employ good exegetical methods where they want the Scripture to speak and bad ones when they want to shut it down. Rinse and repeat. In this way, the proclamation that one believes in sola Scriptura while believing this relativistic nonsense is just virtue signaling to other Christians, mainly Reformed Christians.
In reality, the entire doctrine has been undermined, since one needs to know what Scripture says with certainty enough to reject that which opposes it and to act upon the authority of those truths. If I say the adults in Charlie Brown have supreme authority over everything else the kids say in that cartoon, but no one can ever make out what the adults are saying with any certainty then the claim that they have any overriding authority over the children is a worthless statement. It sounds real nice. It tickles the ears, but it denies in practice what it affirms in word.
The committed practice of proper exegesis and hermeneutics is essential to affirm the doctrine of sola Scriptura. Don't just take the person's word for it. Don't just read it on signs and banners and think that you're at a church that affirms it. Watch how they argue. Watch how they view humility and arrogance when it comes to certainty and the Word of God, and the methodologies they employ to get there. That's where you'll see it affirmed or denied.
We live in a day when each person wants to be the god of their own lives. No one should tell them what to believe or do. Relativism is born out of that rebellion, not an intellectually sustainable argument that certainty cannot be known. The truth is that people just don't want their beliefs to be questioned, and that means they don't want the faulty methods they use to affirm those beliefs questioned. Pull that out and the stack of cards comes crashing down.
No comments:
Post a Comment