White Horse Inn Blog

19 Comments on “WHI-1126 | The Loss of Authority”

1. 
   Peter Snyder
   November 5th, 2012 at 1:21 pm

   While your discussion is much broader, I found interesting what you said about people no longer respecting those who have devoted their time and energy (and money?) to study and learn in various areas of knowledge (theology, for example). I am reminded of the book, “Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue.” The author, Charles P. Pierce, contends that, “The rise of Idiot America is… essentially a war on expertise.” He claims, “The words of an obscure biologist carry no more weight on the subject of biology than do the thunderations of some turkey-neck preacher out of the Church of Christ’s Own Parking Structure in DeLand, Florida. Less weight, in fact, because our scientist is an ‘expert’ and, therefor, an ‘elitist.’”

   Pierce, as you can tell, is no Christian, at least not that I can tell. He certainly does not view the Scriptures as infallible. He begins with the Creation-Science Museum in Kentucky to demonstrate his point. How can Christians ignore all this science for evolution?

   I am a Christian who believes the Bible is the Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit from beginning to end. I find it interesting, though, that both this unbeliever and our beloved theologians on the White Horse Inn recognize that the lack of respect for the words of the learned in their particular areas of expertise is a problem. I wonder how you might you respond to this. On the surface it seems that Pierce is saying to Christians, “You ignore the experts.” We can certainly say the same thing to unbelievers and skeptics when it comes to the subject of theology, although there are many liberal theologians that Pierce would be comfortable quoting, I’m sure. I know that this is a tangent of your discussion, but I am interested in your thoughts. Maybe the question is, how might we handle an accusation that says, “Pastor, you ignore the evidence of science. Why should I accept your expertise?” I think I know how I would respond, and finally, it is the Word that convinces people, but I am interested in your thoughts, if you could offer them. Thanks!

2. 
   Peter Snyder
   November 5th, 2012 at 1:23 pm

   Correction: First paragraph, 4th line, 2nd word, “learning,” not “learn.”

3. 
   Fred
   November 5th, 2012 at 6:18 pm

   Luther determined that through sola scriptura, the priesthood of all believers and private interpretation, he would interpret the Bible for himself. He decided, through reading the Scriptures and evident reason alone, that those in authority over him really weren’t. Could Luther’s autonomy ironically be an almost imperceptible thread leading to today’s ubiquitous loss of authority both inside and outside the church?

4. 
   Luke
   November 7th, 2012 at 4:33 am

   Dr. Horton,
   I was interested in your quote from Curtis White’s article “Hot Air Gods.” I even found where you had presumably cited the direct quote, the one you read at the 10:10 mark in this recent Podcast, in your article “Your Own Personal Jesus” in Modern Reformation May/June 2008. I had cut and pasted a portion of that quote to my Facebook page to share with friends. I even inspired a friend of mine to dig up his old Harper’s Magazine to look the article up. It was then that he challenged me about the quote. Bad on me for not doing my homework, but I didn’t realize what you were reading in the Podcast was not White’s words, but your summary of what White had written. I think your summary was accurate, but your representation on the podcast as quoting the article, not yourself, was slightly misleading.
   On a side note, I thoroughly enjoy the WHI and MR products and look forward to what you guys have going in the future. I am looking forward to your Scott Hahn debate. I have met Dr. Hahn and was a week away from going Catholic when God opened my eyes. Your comments on the show concerning the reasons evangelicals are drawn to Rome are accurate. I have read your recent booklet and understand now the biggest elephant in the room is justification, not the Lord’s Supper.

5. 
   Peter Snyder
   November 7th, 2012 at 8:12 am

   Fred, two things:

   First a question: Are you citing private interpretation for Luther as a doctrine, and what exactly do you mean by it?

   Second: While any truth can be twisted by sinful people to be something it’s not or defend something it doesn’t, Luther’s point was that those called into positions of authority in the church give up that authority when they abandon the word of God. On the other hand, we can find much in Luther’s writings about the honor and respect due to all those in authority, inside and outside the church. So if anyone would point to Luther as a reason for the loss of authority or to defend a lack of respect and honor for authority, they would do so ignorantly or disingenuously, and that does happen. Just as people twist the words of Scripture to defend themselves and their views, many also twist the words of others to the same end. So, to answer your question, possibly, but through no fault of Luther’s.

   By the way, to clarify my first post, Charles P. Pierce is a Catholic, I think, but nominally.

6. 
   Alex Garleb
   November 7th, 2012 at 1:14 pm

   Fred: You are totally ignorant of Luther’s theology in terms of sola scripture, the priesthood of believers and “private” interpretation. You thus over-stand Luther’s theology instead of understand it. Thus, though you use Luther’s words & theo-concepts, nonetheless, you do not faithfully represent (re-present!) his theology. Instead, you stand over his theology (like a little kid throwing rocks) in order to twist his words into your personal ideology instead of humbly and diligently taking time to first understand Luther’s theology before adding your critique. Your comments thus lack interpretive virtue and revel an arrogant self-centered re-construal of both Luther’s theology and the Reformation theology on these topics.

7. 
   Fred
   November 8th, 2012 at 12:14 pm

   “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and not by Popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.”
   -Martin Luther

   “Unless I am convinced” by my [insert your name here] interpretation of the Scripture and by plain reason…

   This process is known as interpretation and when it’s just you, it becomes your [private] interpretation. Martin Luther didn’t say “Unless we are convinced.” He only referred to himself thus it’s his private interpretation.

8. 
   Alex Garleb
   November 8th, 2012 at 2:50 pm

   Fred: Your reply confirms my point since you take one phrase of Luther and wrongly expand it into his broader theology on these topics. It is thus obvious that you have not read Luther in depth; it would thus be wise and charitable for you not to comment on his theology until you decide to first read him more deeply. Quoting one phrase and forcing your interpretation onto the author of said phrase (in this case, Luther) betrays your lack of diligence and charity via your faulty interpretation.

9. 
   Peter Snyder
   November 8th, 2012 at 4:08 pm

   Saying, “Unless I am convinced by Scripture,” is not the same as saying, “Unless I am convinced by my interpretation of Scripture.” When Scripture says, “It is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast” (Eph. 2:8,9), the meaning is plain. There is no interpretation needed. When someone says, “This does not mean that I don’t have to do good works to get to heaven,” that’s an interpretation, and a poor one at that for many reasons, not the least of which is that it is not supported by the rest of Scripture, and by that I don’t mean that it’s not supported by my interpretation of Scripture.

   And Luther didn’t say, “Unless we are convinced,” because they were challenging his writings, not the writings of others. There were plenty of men who were also convinced by the Scriptures (not their interpretation of Scripture) of the same truths.

10. 
    Fred
    November 9th, 2012 at 2:02 am

    “Luther himself brought the issue of private interpretation of the Bible into sharp focus in the sixteenth century. Hidden beneath the famous response ["Unless I am convinced..."] of the Reformer to the ecclesiastical and imperial authorities at the Diet of Worms (his trial for heresy) was the implicit principal of private interpretation.”
    -R. C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture, (c) 2009, 2nd Ed, p 37

    “Luther was aware of the dangers of such a move but was convinced of the clarity of Scripture. Though the dangers of distortion were great, he thought that the benefit of exposing multitudes to the basically clear message of the gospel apart from the pope, church councils and church fathers would bring far more to ultimate salvation than to ultimate ruin. He was willing to take the risk to turn the valve that might open a “floodgate of iniquity.”
    -R. C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture, (c) 2009, 2nd Ed, p 40

    “Evangelical Christians love America. Some see in her the last hope of creating a Christian nation. But it is not a Christian nation. It is pagan to the core. It is in danger of becoming, if it is not already, the new “Evil Empire.” The Mayflower Compact is a museum piece, a relic of a forgotten era. “In God We Trust” is now a lie.”
    -R. C. Sproul, “Awaiting the City of God,” Posted on Ligonier.org

    Did Luther’s implicit doctrine of private interpretation alone cause this catastrophe? Certainly not. But according to Sproul, Trent did warn that if private interpretation were unleashed, “grotesque distortions would emerge and these would lead the sheep astray, perhaps into everlasting torment” [Knowing Scripture, p 39].

    For 21st Century America, once a “A Shining City on a Hill” [R. Reagan, 1976], to now be “pagan to the core,” bordering on an “Evil Empire” status — this great experiment has gone disastrously wrong.

    Nevertheless, the intrepid Luther risked opening a “floodgate of iniquity.” To his credit, his view had a good run for almost five-hundred years.

11. 
    Peter Snyder
    November 9th, 2012 at 2:41 pm

    Trent should have known that there were already grotesque distortions, right in the church, leading sheep into everlasting torment. That’s the whole point of the Reformation. The Word of God, the Gospel, was clouded and worse by all kinds of extra-biblical, false teachings. So much for leaving it to the “experts.”

    I don’t know if Sproul is using the word “interpretation” the way it is so often understood today. In our post-modern era, everything is open to interpretation. “There is no such thing as absolute truth… What’s true for me may not be true for you.” Try that with your banker. When he tells you that you have $5,000 in your account, do you interpret that to mean there are $10,000 there? I don’t believe such absurdity is behind Sproul’s words. I’m not suggesting they are behind yours either, but the common understanding of interpret is not the same as this “private interpretation,” i.e., Luther didn’t try to figure out what the words meant for him. He understood them to mean what they say. The Holy Spirit is not excluded in this, either.

    Whether one man or a group of men, the Scriptures are always open to misinterpretation because of the sinful heart of man, not because it shouldn’t be read and studied by an individual. God is faithful. He keeps his promise to work in the hearts of those who hear and read his word. Man is unfaithful. False doctrine is as old as Adam and Eve. That man resists the Spirit and comes up with an interpretation that twists the Word to suit his own pleasure, whether on his own or in a group, should not be surprising.

    You bring up a different point that is strongly debated: Was this ever truly a Christian nation? Never in the way that Israel was God’s chosen people, and there were plenty of non-Christian deists among our founding father.

    I also don’t think your last paragraph is fair. “Had a good run for almost 500 years?” You seem to base this merely on the growing paganism of OUR country. First, there are still plenty of faithful Christians of various denominations in this country. Second, there are plenty of faithful Christians throughout the world. This is because of the word of God and the faith and faithfulness that the word has wrought in the hearts of individual sinners. God has used faithful individuals and churches alike to carry the gospel to others. When you consider what the Scriptures say, the only connection you can make between current heresy, unfaithfulness, etc., and Luther is that Luther, if you want to frame it this way, made it possible for laypeople too, not just popes, bishops and priests, to twist the Scriptures to suit their own desires. The more important and needed thing, however, was for individuals to see for themselves what the Word says and not be led astray by the church.

    God always gives pastors and teachers to his Church to build up the body in faith and service (Ephesians 4). But that doesn’t prohibit individuals from growing from their own reading and studying of the Word (think Bereans, Acts 17).

12. 
    sandra
    November 9th, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    Um, what exactly is an authority according to Scripture. Jesus says to call no man father, that we are all taught of God and all equal brothers. Show me in Scripture where it says we have another authority besides the Bible, and what that means exactly. If someone, a friend or pastor or whoever, quotes scripture to us, their words hold the authority of the bible over us and must be obeyed. anything outside of scripture is their opionion and must be weighed against the Bible and our private conscience, no?

13. 
    sandra
    November 9th, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    Also, the wheat and the tares grow together in the church, which is why we must trust scripture over the teachings of those in the church, including pastors.

14. 
    Rayn
    November 9th, 2012 at 10:35 pm

    It’s not autonomy if you seek to submit to Scripture. Luther just wanted an exegetical ground for his belief. What’s wrong or autonomous about that?

15. 
    Rayn
    November 9th, 2012 at 10:39 pm

    Luther would also admit that he could err. That’s why he said he wanted to be convinced from Scripture that what the councils, popes, and some other Scholars had said was true. He taught that teachers had a ministerial (servant) role to play in this period of redemptive history by pointing to and (fallibly) interpreting Scripture.

16. 
    Geoffrey Willour
    November 14th, 2012 at 12:06 pm

    Luther and the other magisterial Reformers (like Calvin) did not discount the legitimate teaching authority of the church. In fact, they believed that the teachings of the early Church Fathers largely supported their cause (St. Augustine was a favorite of Luther and Calvin, and was often quoted by them). They were “Reformers,” not restorationists or revolutionaries or those who otherwise imagined themselves to be qualified to totally reinvent the wheel of biblical interpretation. “Sola Scriptura” did not mean for them “Solo Scriptura” (i.e., “Just me and my Bible and the Holy Spirit in my prayer closet, cut off from and unaccountable to the corporate study of Scripture in the communion of the church”). Rather, it meant that the Scriptures, being God’s only written revelation, were the only infallible rule of faith and practice, the “norming norm” which “normed” all subordinate and secondary authorities (such as creeds and confessions, which are “normed” by Scripture and are thus dependent upon and subject to the correction of Scripture). Churches and ordained church leaders (Ministers and Elders) possess a genuine spiritual authority from God (just as parents and civil authorities possess a genuine secular authority from God), but their authority is a ministerial and declarative (and hence a fallible) authority subject to and circumscribed by the limitations and constraints of Holy Scripture, the only infallible rule of faith and practice. See “The Shape of Sola Scriptura” by Keith A. Mathison (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2001) and “Scripture Alone: Exploring the Bible’s Accuracy, Authority, and Authenticity” by James R. White (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House, 2004).

17. 
    Paul
    November 19th, 2012 at 8:48 pm

    Dr. Horton:

    “We” may call the President “dude” but Joe Biden calls him “homeboy.”

18. 
    Fred
    November 20th, 2012 at 3:52 am

    What’s the Greatest Ecclesiastical Threat Facing the Church Today?
    Michael Horton | LIGONIER | Nov 10, 2012

    “What’s the greatest ecclesiastical threat facing the church today?
    No one has to be convinced that evangelicalism has about the lowest ecclesiology since the Quakers. It is an ecclesiology based on the individual’s decision for Christ, rather than God, from eternity past, making a blueprint for the church and executing it in His Son by His Spirit. And so it’s easy if the church is just sort of created by a collection of deciders and choosers, to turn the church into a market, into a shopping mall of consumers. … I hear “every believer is a minister, we’re all ministers … every sheep is a shepherd.” Basically, the pastor has become the chief motivator and coach and planner for events, and that’s a big concern I have. Maybe the greatest concern in this milieu that I have is that we’re losing a sense of the catholicity of the church. We’re carving the church into niche markets and setting generation against generation, and socio-economic group against socio-economic group. As such, we are increasingly unchurching the churched.”

    http://www.ligonier.org/blog/whats-greatest-ecclesiastical-threat-facing-church-today/

    What greater evidence of the unprecidented loss of ecclesiastical authority is demonstrated, when the church, herself, somehow unchurches the churched?

    “And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”
    -Mark 3:25

19. 
    david
    April 2nd, 2013 at 9:50 pm

    We see through a glass darkly. as we are still in a fallen world, though the light of God has indeed dawned, all things are not made new yet, and so, so many things are so often so less clear and ideal than what they could be. there is struggle in everything.

Leave a Reply