7/27/2019 Certeza Protesta Anders

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/certeza-protesta-anders 1/10

Is Certainty a Bad Thing? Certainty, Infallibility, and

the Reformed Tradition

Aug 1st, 2012 | By David Anders | Category: Blog Posts 

Is it wrong to desire certainty in our act of faith? If you peruse the Reformed blogoshpere

these days, you might come to that conclusion. As more and more Reformed Christians join

the Catholic Church in search of doctrinal certainty, an all-too common response from the

Reformed world has been to impugn this desire for  certainty as somehow illegitimate.Instead, we are told, ―All we can do is commend ourselves to God, keep vigilant, and keepon our knees.‖ Presumably, then, the best we can do is hope that we shall not be led into

doctrinal error. We can have no assurance that we will not actually err.

The Incredulity of Saint Thomas Caravaggio

As someone raised across the two worlds of American Evangelicalism and Reformed

Protestantism, I confess to finding this line of reasoning strange and novel. Growing up, Icut my theological teeth on Francis Schaeffer and C.S. Lewis. In seminary, I discovered the

likes of B.B. Warfield, the Hodges, Graham Machen, Carl Henry, and David Wells – all of 

whom would be astonished, I think, to learn that we could not be certain in our act of faith.

7/27/2019 Certeza Protesta Anders

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/certeza-protesta-anders 2/10

Indeed, the whole 20th century Reformed and Evangelical apology for traditional

Protestantism against liberalism and modernism was that it offered the only rational basis

for sure knowledge of ethics and metaphysics.

But it is not just 20th century Protestants who took this line. In graduate school, I turned to

a much deeper study of the sources of the Reformed tradition. There I found no skepticismat all about theological knowledge, provided it was derived from Scripture as interpreted bySpirit-illumined ministers of the Gospel. Granted, the early Reformers allowed for human

depravity and were not surprised by religious dissent, but they believed that Christians

could arrive (were in fact morally obligated to arrive) at certainty and agreement regardingthe core doctrines of the faith. Moreover, one of the earliest arguments for  sola scriptura 

was that it would allegedly provide doctrinal clarity whereas the multiplicity of Catholic

authorities had brought only confusion.

Where, then has this new-found assault on certainty come from? How does it compare to

earlier Reformed statements on religious epistemology? The answers, I think, are morehistorical, social and psychological than exegetical or theological. Early in the Reformation,

there was a very broad range of topics about which certainty was believed both possible

and necessary. Calvin, for example, did not hesitate to assert that proper Eucharistic

theology is necessary for salvation. (See his Petit traicté de la Saincte Cene.) With each passing generation, however the promise of agreement became more and more elusive.

Eventually, Protestants were forced by circumstances to declare themselves theologically

 pure in the most narrowly sectarian way, or else continually and reductively to redefinewhat counts as ―core,‖ or ―essential.‖ In some cases (Schleiermacher, Barth, and some

evangelicals) this ―core‖ was redefined in non-doctrinal terms altogether.

Against this theological reductionism, the Catholic Church begins to appear an attractive

alternative. Catholicism offers a principled way to distinguish dogma from mere theological

opinion. Rather than admit the impossibility of doctrinal certainty arising from Scripture

alone, however, Reformed detractors now impugn the very desire for the certainty promised by Catholicism.

To be fair, Michael Horton, Wes White and the others who have made these claims do not

 personally ascribe to the radical theological skepticism I think their critique suggests. They

do acknowledge a type of theological certainty. However, I would like to place their viewof certainty in historical context, and ask why it has failed to satisfy the restless heart of the

ex-Reformed.

Certainty and the Catholic Tradition

If you are going to object to the quest for doctrinal certainty in the Catholic Church, I think 

it is very important that you understand just what the Catholic Church offers. SomeReformed Christians of my acquaintance object to the Catholic doctrine of an infallible

magisterium on the grounds that ―there is no infallible list of infallible pronouncements,‖ or 

―Catholics disagree on the status of such-and-such a dogma,‖ or ―where is the infallibleinterpretation of such-and-such a verse?‖ What such objections amount to, it seems to me,

7/27/2019 Certeza Protesta Anders

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/certeza-protesta-anders 3/10

is –  ―If you cannot give me an infallible answer to every question I have, then your 

infallibility is of no use.‖ 

All of these objections miss the mark. The point of the extraordinary Magisterium (councils

and ex cathedra pronouncements) is not to give an infallible answer to every question, but

only to intervene on those questions that the Church deems essential to the faith. There aremany issues on which the Magisterium has refused to dogmatize. (See the Congregatio deauxiliis, for example). There are others for which the ordinary teaching of the church is

deemed sufficient.

In all of these cases, what must be born in mind is the distinction between dogma and

theological opinion. The Catechism: ―The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority itholds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes

truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes in a definitive way truths

having a necessary connection with them . . . Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they

illuminate it and make it secure.‖ (CCC, 88) 

What the Catholic Church promises, then, is not an answer to every question, but a

 principled way, established by divine authority, to differentiate dogma from mere opinion,and to do so in a way that allows for certainty in our act of faith. As we shall see, the

historic Reformed tradition makes very similar claims, but on a very different basis.

Certainty in the Reformed Tradition

 Zwingli 

Ulrich Zwingli offered one of the earliest apologies for the doctrine of  sola scriptura. In his

Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God (1522), he argued that a spirit-illumined readingof Scripture could provide far more certainty and clarity than any appeal to competing

Catholic authorities:

When the rabble of carnal divines that you call fathers and bishops pronounce upon a

doctrine about which there is a doubt, are you enlightened, and do you know with absolute 

certainty that it is as they say? . . . [You] put your trust in fallible men, who can do nothing

without the grace and spirit of God . . . You believe that men can give you certainty, which

is no certainty, and you do not believe that God can give it to you. . . .You do not know that

it is God himself who teaches a man, nor do you know that when God has taught him thatman has an inward certainty and assurance. . . . If you think there can be no assurance

of certainty for the soul, listen to the certainty of the Word of God . The soul can be

instructed and enlightened – note the clarity – so that it perceives that its whole salvation

and righteousness, or justification is enclosed in Jesus Christ. [1] 

Zwingli here specifically contrasts the lack of certainty in Catholicism with the absolute

certainty one has of one’s salvation from Scripture and the Spirit. This emphasis onsoteriology and pneumatology continues to be a mainstay of Protestant hermeneutical

theory, and the response to Catholic claims about authority.

7/27/2019 Certeza Protesta Anders

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/certeza-protesta-anders 4/10

Calvin 

Anyone familiar with Calvin’s struggle for ―doctrinal purity‖ in Geneva, his imposition of acommon catechism, the legal strictures placed on theological dissent, and the harsh words

he uttered against other Protestants cannot doubt that he thought doctrinal clarity was both

 possible and necessary. (See  How John Calvin Made me a Catholic. ) 

 Not only did Calvin believe in doctrinal certainty, he also believed that failure to agree with

an ordained minister was a sign of reprobation. On Friday June 28 and Saturday June 29,1549, Calvin preached two sermons that must have goaded the individualists in his

congregation. Calvin taught that the mother of all superstition and idolatry, and the cause of 

all dissension is the belief that one can ―discern between the good and the bad apart fromthe rule of God.‖ [2] He made it quite plain, however, that the office of discerning good

from bad belongs exclusively to the ordained ministry. Those who obey this rule are the

elect, those who disobey the reprobate. Calvin says:

We see that those who have charge of the word of God, their office is to discern what is

good in order to approve it and what is bad in order to condemn it. And when men submit

themselves to the doctrine that we preach, we [should] regard them as those in whom Godis working [i.e., the elect]. On the contrary, those who draw themselves back, we [must]

hold them in derision. [3] 

In a number of places, Calvin equates opposition to ministerial teaching (i.e., the Reformed

Magisterium) as rebellion against God himself. Some deny that the ministry of the prophets

continues in the church, Calvin says, but this is ―execrable blasphemy.‖ Though his wordmay be pronounced by a mortal man, ―we must be completely certain that God rati f ies 

fr om heaven whatever is pronounced here in his name .‖ Those who oppose a prophet,

Calvin explains, oppose not the prophet but God. ―If someone brings us the word of God

and he is despised among us,‖ he preaches, ―we must not look to mortal men as if it were tothem that we had done injury, but let us know that God will always be their guardian, and

let us feel that it is him we have offended.‖ [4] 

This is why the mature Calvin could even affirm the doctrine of  implicit faith. The majority

of the faithful, he held, are unable accurately to derive doctrinal conclusions from Scripture,

 but must be content with an implicit faith in the teaching of the ordained ministry.

The Westminster Confession on Certainty and Infallibility

Zwingli and Calvin were naive in their belief that Scripture-interpreted-by-the-Reformed-

ministry would provide doctrinal clarity and theological unity. By the time of the

Westminster Assembly, theological pluralism was a fact of Protestant life. Rather than giveup the hope for clarity and unity, however, the Westminster divines articulated a nascent

theological reductionism. According to Westminster, certainty might not be possible for 

every issue, but God did promise infallibility and certainty regarding those doctrinesnecessary for salvation.

7/27/2019 Certeza Protesta Anders

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/certeza-protesta-anders 5/10

In chapter one, the WCF treats of Holy Scripture, its composition, nature, authority, clarity,

and interpretation. For our purposes, the most interesting part is how the confession

addresses the problem of Scriptural interpretation. It acknowledges that ―all things in

Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all,‖ yet it asserts that ―thosethings which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation are so

clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only thelearned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficientunderstanding of them .‖ WCF I.vii 

The confession is equally interesting when it considers the kind of knowledge available tothe elect regarding those doctrines ―necessary for salvation.‖ 

The Confession:

[S]uch as truly believe in the Lord Jesus . . . may in this life be certainly assured that they

are in a state of grace . . . This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probably persuasion,grounded upon a fallible hope; but

an infallible assurance of faith, founded upon thedivine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto

which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing

with our spirits that we are the children of God. XVIII.I (Emphasis mine.)

Certainty. Infallible. Assurance. This is the language of the Confession, though limited tothe doctrines and knowledge of salvation.

Protestantism and Theological Reductionism

Why did some Reformed Protestants take the reductionistic path? Scripture does not call

for theological reductionism. Paul could exhort the Corinthians ―to agree on everything.‖Clearly, Calvin and the early Reformed tradition envisioned something much more solid

than the current Reformed fare. The answer, I think, is historical. Although the process of 

doctrinal disintegration began immediately with the Reformation (and is reflected in theWCF) it had reached a fever pitch by the 18th century.

As I have discussed elsewhere, the 18th century revivals were disastrous for Protestant

Ecclesiology and hermeneutics. As Protestants across denominations began to testify to the

same saving experiences, revival proponents concluded that denominational differences did

not matter. George Whitefield, for example, remarked:

I saw regenerate souls among the Baptists, among the Presbyterians, among the

Independents, and among the Church [i.e., Anglican] folks — all children of God, and yet all born again in a different way of worship: and who can tell which is the most evangelical.

And again,

7/27/2019 Certeza Protesta Anders

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/certeza-protesta-anders 6/10

It was best to preach the new birth, and the power of godliness, and not to insist so much on

the form: for people would never be brought to one mind as to that; nor did Jesus Christ

ever intend it. [5] (Emphasis mine.)

Whitefield’s remarks are very far removed from the sentiments of Calvin and the early

Reformed Tradition, but they are emblematic of the emerging direction of ReformedEcclesiology. Eventually, some schools of Reformed theology would move away from

doctrinal affirmations of any sort.

Certainty, the Blogosphere, and the Reformed Tradition

The historic Reformed tradition promises doctrinal certainty. Zwingli believed in certaintyat least regarding the soteriological core of the Christian faith. Calvin had a much more

robust notion of doctrinal certainty, based on the authority of the Reformed Magisterium.

Westminster, like Zwingli, promises certainty and assurance regarding the question of 

 personal salvation.

Some contemporary writers, like Horton, recognize the more robust, classical Calvinistview of certainty and religious authority. To Horton, it seems incredible that anyone could

defect from a ―Reformational‖ view of Scripture and authority, and seek certainty from the

elusive and questionable Catholic magisterium. The question then arises, ―Why would so

many ex-Reformed Christians find the Reformation option ultimately unsatisfying?‖ 

Assessment:

Horton would have us believe that anyone who defects from the Reformed faith must not

really have understood the Reformed faith, and its nuanced view of Scripture, tradition, and

ministerial authority. But this is not true. There are a number of problems with theReformed view, so that even a fully-orbed Reformational view of Scripture fails to satisfy

the ex-Reformed.

To begin with, we note that the historic Reformed faith is as interested in the question of 

certainty and assurance as any Catholic. Zwingli uses the language of absolute certainty;the WCF speaks of an infallible assurance. The problem enters in with the basis of that

certainty. The Reformed tradition offers two approaches.

First, there is the infallible assurance that WCF lodges in the individual conscience. This is

the theme, taken in a highly reductive sense, of the Evangelical tradition. Second, there is

the magisterial authority – worthy of implicit faith – that Calvin asserts. Writers like Horton

and Keith Matthison seek to blend the two, emphasizing the final authority of Scripture,while stressing both Scripture’s soteriological core and the role of authorized interpreters.

Let’s take each view in turn. 

First, the subjectivist view. The subjectivist dimension to Reformed theology is particularly

 problematic when considered in light of the WCF teaching on false assurance (basically,

that false assurance is possible). (XVII.i) If infallible assurance is possible, and false

7/27/2019 Certeza Protesta Anders

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/certeza-protesta-anders 7/10

assurance is possible, then there must be some way to differentiate an infallible witness of 

the spirit from a spurious one. What is that way? What could it possibly look like?

Here is where I would like particularly to challenge our Reformed readers. Can you give a

coherent description of how one could distinguish a genuine from a spurious claim to

illumination? I imagine that the true and the genuine could be distinguished only by what philosophers of mind call qualia: those utterly subjective and ineffable elements of 

consciousness that color our perceptions, like the way that green appears to me. I can give

no coherent description of what green ―looks like,‖ nor can I know with certainty that my

―green‖ is not your ―orange.‖ This is what philosophers call the ―inverted spectrum‖ problem.

I can think of no coherent way to differentiate genuine from spurious claims to illumination

that does not fall prey to the inverted spectrum problem. It is always possible, it seems to

me, that my experience of ―true faith,‖ is really your ―hypocritical and passing faith.‖ This

is rendered even more likely by the Reformed doctrine of original sin. If my every thoughtand inclination is depraved, then even my most perfect act of faith and trust must be

deficient. In the final analysis, it seems to me that Reformed subjectivism can provide

certainty of only one proposition: ―I am the subject of  something ; I have had an

experience.‖ But that purely interior experience can tell me nothing certain and objectiveabout the world outside my mind.

Another problem with the subjectivist view is that it wrecks havoc with ecclesiology. This

may not bother Schleiermacher or the radical evangelical, but it should seem problematic to

anyone with an even slightly empirical doctrine of the Church. Without an external 

authority to check my private experience, the church necessarily reduces to ―Me andwhoever agrees with me.‖ This is, in fact, precisely the answer to religious pluralism given

 by one recent critic of Catholic converts. He writes, ―The way forward is to separate

oneself from all that is evidently doctrinally and morally corrupt [ sic!] and fellowship with

 small groups of like-minded believers.” 

What of the Reformed Magisterum? Many Reformed Christians acknowledge the authorityof creeds, confessions, and Church ministers. These serve allegedly as a check on the

 private interpretation of individuals. The problem with this view comes in the criteria we

must use to identify that Magisterium, and the degree of authority we ascribe to it.

The Reformed tradition clearly rejects apostolic succession, miracles, or any other 

empirical criteria for recognizing the Magisterium. Calvin’s view was that the Reformed

Magisterium be recognized by its fidelity to ―The Word.‖ Horton stresses the hermeneuticalcentrality of ―the Gospel.‖ The problem with these is that they reduce, in the end, again to

subjectivism. Who gets to be the judge of an authority’s fidelity to ―The Word?‖ Who

 judges fidelity to ―The Gospel?‖ This very question befuddled the Genevan church inCalvin’s day, which was wracked over just these problems of biblical interpretation and the

criteria for religious authority.

There is a way to illustrate this from something in the field of finance. In my business

(investments), you NEVER give unqualified investment advice. You always qualify it with

7/27/2019 Certeza Protesta Anders

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/certeza-protesta-anders 8/10

a lengthy, legal disclaimer saying, in effect, ―This investment advice really should not be

construed as investment advice. Really, its just for educational purposes. If you act on it

and lose your shirt, remember that we never told you to act on it.‖ In the end, the Reformed

Magisterium reduces to something similar. The only infallible interpreter of Scripture isScripture itself. The only infallible assurance is the subjective assurance of salvation.

Therefore, any pronouncement of the Reformed Magisterium is qualified by, ―But, we’rereally not certain of this. Make sure you check it against Scripture.‖ 

Again, in his own ministry, Calvin had no credible answer to this problem. When members

of his congregation challenged him on biblical exegesis, he would respond by insultingthem, impugning their motives, questioning their election, and asserting his own divine

authority. (Oh, and by urging the city council to enact legal strictures against, and

 punishments of theological dissent.)

Another problem with the Reformed view of Scripture and authority is the glaring historical

record, the very reason for evangelical reductionism. However you construe theologicalcertainty, there just hasn’t been any in Protestant history. The only way you can say

otherwise is to assert some doctrinal core (based on subjective criteria) and then to go

 poking through history looking for theological bedfellows. But this hardly does justice to

the actual theological pluralism of Protestantism – of even the Reformed tradition. (If anyone doubts the existence of Reformed pluralism, please take a peak at Janice Knight’s

Orthodoxies in Massachusetts.)

Closely related to this is another problem: the putative ―clarity‖ of Scripture’s soteriological

core. One of the mainstays of Reformed hermeneutics is the alleged clarity of those

doctrines ―necessary for salvation.‖ By this, the WCF means the whole complex of ideasrelated to justification, imputation, faith-alone, atonement, etc. Increasingly, the claim that

these are clear even to the unlearned seems less and less credible.

At risk of provoking shrieks and catcalls, I invoke N.T. Wright and the ―New

Perspectives.‖ Anyone who has read Wright’s Justification can hardly question his

commitment to sola scriptura, his seriousness as an exegetical scholar, and his rejection of traditional Reformed soteriology. Now, it is one thing to reject Wright on exegetical

grounds (as many do). But then what to make of the WCF claim that the core doctrines of 

the faith are so plain that even the unlearned (elect) can grasp them in Scripture? Do wereally conclude that Wright is among the unregenerate simply because he disagrees with the

Reformed doctrine of justification? To many ex-Reformed, this appears an egregious case

of special pleading.

There is yet another pr oblem with the ―soteriological core‖ view of Scripture’s clarity.

Positing a clear ―core‖ of soteriological doctrines, and a less clear penumbra of 

ecclesiology is one way to distinguish essential from non-essential. But, it is atrociously ad hoc. Who says we should divide essential and non-essential this way? Calvin clearly didn’t

limit the ―essentials‖ to only soteriological data. Neither did Nicaea. Nor does Scripture

itself. (―Agree on everything,‖ says Paul.) 

7/27/2019 Certeza Protesta Anders

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/certeza-protesta-anders 9/10

Then finally, there is the actual teaching of Scripture about religious authority. Many of the

ex-Reformed were persuaded in favor of the Catholic Magisterium on the basis of Scripture

itself. The ultimate problem with the Reformed view of biblical authority (however you

construe it) is that it is unbiblical. Scripture simply knows no doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Scripture says much, however, about the authority of the Church.

Conclusion

More and more Reformed Christians are becoming Catholics in search of doctrinalcertainty. They have recognized that Protestantism has no principled way of objectively

distinguishing dogma from opinion. The Catholic claim to be able to do this is not only

attractive and satisfying, but it is objectively grounded in revelation and history. 

Some Reformed writers have criticized this quest for certainty. They object to this search

for ―hard edges.‖ Instead, they urge humility and prayer, veneration of Scripture alone, and

a limited reliance on ministerial authority and tradition. They acknowledge that thesemeasures are prone to failure and cannot provide absolute certainty, but they suggest that

they provide enough certainty to guarantee a saving knowledge of Christ.

We have placed this objection in historical context. We see that the early sources of the

Reformed tradition were not reticent about promising doctrinal certainty, but that over time

Protestantism was subjected to a type of theological reductionism. This reductionism is achallenge to the Reformed view of doctrinal certainty. We have also called into question a

central claim of the Reformed view of Scripture: that there is a (Reformed) soteriological

core that is so clear as to be reasonably beyond question. We have also questioned whytheological certainty should be limited to only soteriological issues?

Finally, it is not true that all Reformed converts to Catholicism are ignorant of Reformationhistory and doctrine. I, for one, was raised fully in the reductionistic, evangelical school of 

Reformed history. When I began to study the Reformation in earnest, however, I discovered

the more robust view of ecclesiastical authority, liturgy, and sacramental life. I alsodiscovered an intolerance of schism, and a real desire for doctrinal unity on even(seemingly) trivial questions. Inspired  by this more robust, Calvinistic vision of doctrinal

unity, theological certainty, and ecclesial life, I pursued a systematic investigation of 

Scripture, history, and tradition to discern which communion had the strongest claim toorthodoxy, historical continuity, and biblical fidelity. Study of history, Scripture, and

tradition made the Calvinist claim to authenticity incredible to be. It made the Catholic

claim credible.

 ____________ 

[1] Cited in Zwlingli and Bullinge, ed. G.W. Bromley (Westminster/John Knox, 1953), 83-

84.

[2]Supplementa Calviniana 6: 54. Cited hereafter as SC.

7/27/2019 Certeza Protesta Anders

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/certeza-protesta-anders 10/10

[3] Calvini Opera 6: 48. (Cited hereafter as CO): ―En cela nous voyons que ceulx qui ont

charge de la parolle de Dieu, leur office est de discerner ce qui est bon pour l’approuver et

ce qui est meschant pour le condampner. Et quant les hommes se rengent à la doctrine que

nous portons que alors nous les regardions comme ceulx en qui Dieu besogne. Au contraireceulx qui s’en retirent que nous les ayons en mespris.‖ 

[4] SC 5: 3, 11; 6: 122: ―Et de dire que les prophetes n’ayent plus de lieu, mais qu’il nous

fault contenter de la doctrine de l’Evangile, c’est un blaspheme execrable.‖ ―Combien que

cela nous soit annoncé d’ung homme mortel, nous en debvons estre tout certains, d’autant

que Dieu ratiffie au ciel ce qui est icy prononcé en son nom.‖ ―Voila donc l’intention du prophete: c’est de monstrer à ceux qui on mesprisé sa doctrine qu’ilz n’auront [pas]

seulement à faire à luy, mais à Dieu. Voila qu’il faut que nous notions, que si on nous

apporte la parolle de Dieu et [qu’]il y a mespris en nous, il ne faut pas que nous regardions

les hommes mortelz comme si c’estoit à eux que nous pens[i]ons faire injure, mais quenous congoissons que Dieu sera tousjours leur garand et sentions que c’est luy que nous

avons navré.‖ 

[5] Journals (London: Banner of Truth, 1960), 458, Cited in Mark Noll, The Rise of 

 Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield and the Wesleys ( Downers Grove: IVP,

2003), 13-15.