Skip to main content

The Problem of Authority in Church Doctrine and Practice

     I have been thinking about this subject for quite a while, and find the problem quite interesting. Basically, the problem is as follows. Is the Bible the sole authority for all Christian doctrine and practice. Protestants affirm that it is - Sola Scriptura. However, the positive affirmation brings forward a further problem - the Bible as interpreted by whom? There are many divergent interpretations of the Sacred Scriptures, frequently upon subjects that are important doctrines or practices, such as Justification, the Lord's Supper, baptism, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, etc. The differences of interpretation are not only between such groups as the Catholics and Protestants. Within the ranks of Protestantism there are many important differences (such as the debates between Calvinists and Arminians). Which interpretation of the Bible is authoritative?

     In working through this argument I began with the assumption that any authority must,of necessity, be infallible. However, upon reflection, it seems that such a declaration is, itself, highly debatable. By definition, an authority is any trustworthy source of knowledge or truth. A human authority, on any given subject, will be prone to error, however, the fact that they are considered to be an authority means that when they make an affirmation in that subject, they are probably speaking the truth. All human authorities can only approximate to the truth (that is, they may pronounce many truths, however it seems impossible for the unaided human mind to grasp all truth, therefore, whatever truths are pronounced there will always be some error). In order for a being to be able to pronounce the truth, without any error, that being would have to be, intrinsically, without error, or, at least, informed by a being that is intrinsically without error, in which case only those declarations that were informed by an infallible being would be infallible. (It goes without saying that any document that is written by, or whose author was inspired by, an infallible being, would, itself be infallible.)

     In discussing church authority it is important to note that it is possible for a declaration to be infallible, all while the authority making the affirmation is fallible. That is, a true statement is true, whether it be stated by a fallible being, or an infallible being, by a liar, cheat, pagan, heretic, scientist, philosopher or orthodox theologian. Though an infallible being, by its very nature, can not make a fallible declaration, a fallible creature may be the source of both fallible and infallible statements.

    In light of the above, it seems that we must distinguish between authoritative statements, and people who are authorities in church doctrine and practice. It seems that authoritative statements will always, of necessity, be infallible, whereas, church authorities will only be authoritative insomuch as they utter that which is true. Therefore, the problem of authority in church doctrine and practice, becomes less a question of who or what is the authority, and more a question of determining which declarations are authoritative.

   These are some preliminary thoughts on the question; I will continue to discuss this question in the next couple blogs.

Popular posts from this blog

How Kant’s Synthesis of Empiricism and Rationalism resulted in Agnosticism

Immanuel Kant, presented with the extreme empiricism of Hume and the extreme rationalism of Liebniz, which he discovered through the writings Wolff, sought to take a middle road between these two extreme philosophical positions. I would submit that Kant’s synthesis of these two views leads to an agnosticism about what Kant called “the thing-in-itself”, and ultimately to the philosophical positions known as Atheism, determinism, and nihilism.

Kant’s Sources
First of all, Kant was influenced by Hume’s empiricism and Newton’s physics. He saw that the physical sciences, in contrast to rationalistic metaphysics, were actually making advances. They were making discoveries, and building a system of knowledge that accurately described the world of our sense perceptions. Rationalistic metaphysics, on the other hand, was floundering amidst the combating systems that the philosophers were erecting. It did not provide new knowledge, and only led to unacceptable conclusions, such as the Absolute Mon…

A Short outline of Charles Taylor's: The Malaise of Modernity

            This is simply an outline of Taylor’s basic argument in this short work written by Charles Taylor. The idea of this outline is to help the reader understand the book by providing a simple outline of the basic argument that Taylor is presenting here. The book, which is essentially the manuscript is the fruit of a series of presentations that Taylor made at the Massey Conferences which are hosted by Massey College and Radio-Canada, is divided into 10 chapters. In the first chapter Taylor essentially proposes three causes (recognizing that there may be more) of the Malaise of Modernity: (1) Individualism or the Loss of Sense, (2) The Primacy of Instrumental Reason or the Loss of Ends, and (3) The effect on society and politics in general of the loss of sense to an inauthentic individualism and the domination of instrumental reason, or, the loss of true freedom. Taylor considers the first Malaise in chapters 2 to 8, the second in c…


Leisure: The Basis of Culture & the Philosophical Act. Josef Pieper. Translated by Alexander Dru. 1963. Reprint, Ignatius Press, 2009. 143 pp. $12.99. ISBN 978-1-58617-256-5.
            This book is composed of two articles written by the German philosopher Josef Pieper. Though the two articles are intimately connected, they form two distinct works; as such, this book review will begin by giving a brief introduction to the works in question, followed by and exposition of each of the works individually. The two articles that are included in this book, Leisure: the Basis of Culture and The Philosophical Act, were both published in 1947, and, as such, were written during the cultural crisis in Germany that followed the Second World War. Not only did Pieper have the cultural crisis in mind when he wrote these articles, but he was also writing in light of the works of the most well-known German philosopher of the time – Martin Heidegger. As such, any reader who is familiar with Heidegg…