faith

If Christian theology is the study of the fundamental ideas of the Christian faith, then from where do these ideas come? Many within Protestantism have argued for the so-called Wesleyan Quadrilateral. That is, Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience as sources for knowledge of God and the Christian faith. The fundamental question here is by what authority can we affirm or deny anything as a source of knowledge about God? In other words, what criteria do we use to establish criteria (i.e. sources) for knowledge of God? In asking this question it seems that we come to an epistemological question rather than a theological one: how do we know what we know?

Prior to post-modernity the answer to this question would have most certainly been grounded in some sort of foundational body of knowledge, whether actual or hypothetical. In other words we would be able to through our senses or mind logically reason our way to a criteria. Historically, Thomas Aquinas asserted that the existence of God was logical and practically self-evident, but most contemporary theologians would not make that same assertion. In absence of this foundation, some assert that our faith is the basis of our knowledge; I believe therefore I know. A sort of “Kierkegaardian leap of faith”, if I may be so bold as to use that phrase, although most likely not the same as something Kierkegaard would have argued for himself. On this basis it seems that many assert that we can know.

I myself remain unconvinced that we do not start our knowing with some sort of body of knowledge. Even the modern hermeneutical problem of individual “presuppositions” forming a “preunderstanding” through which we understand everything (thereby mitigating any idea of knowing truth since we all have different “preunderstandings”) seems to be simply a replacement of the Cartesian ideas and categories by which we gain knowledge (see Thomas Howe’s Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation, page 205). In other words, we know because we have some “preunderstanding” that mediates our knowledge. Faith, then, it seems is not grounded in nothing, but in something. So we are unable to escape the problem of first principles or foundations for knowing.

As the reader is painfully aware, I have not come to any conclusions. Yet I do not walk away from the idea that I can know something and can know something about God. Why? In using the best rational logical ability in light of the evidence I am presented with, I am led to believe that God exists and the Bible is his word to humanity. These arguments are outside the scope of this article, but it is important to note that I believe that every person alive does exactly what I have done, whether intentionally or not. That is to say that we all use our minds and in light of the evidence we see we believe something and live accordingly. No one can do otherwise. Even the skeptic has done this, the skeptic has examined the evidence and chosen to believe that nothing can truly be known and they live accordingly.

So how can we know anything about God then? Well, not supposing to solve the epistemic and ontological questions, we know something about God because of the evidence we have at hand. In other words, through his creation and through his word.

I have recently come to hear William Chillingworth’s famous statement, “The Bible alone is the religion of Protestants.” Can Protestants agree with this statement? It is difficult to answer this question at face value, for what is needed is a definition of terms before one can conclude in agreement or disagreement.

First, what does the “Bible alone” mean? For the Bible is never alone, in that an interpretation must always be made. With regard to the general Protestant era (Luther up to the present), we have a variety of ways to interpret the Bible. Do we interpret as Luther did with differentiating between the literal and historical and the spiritual and prophetic? Or do we side with Zwingli and attempt to find a natural sense of Scripture? Or should we use modern rational approach, historical approach, sociological approach, or literary approach? Whichever way one goes, there is always an interpretation of the Bible to go along with the words of the Bible. While unlikely, if the by the “Bible alone,” interpretation of the Bible is to be included, we must then look at the next term: “religion.”

So what of this term? Is by religion meant the works of man to merit the righteousness of God? Or is it meant the structure of the Christian faith that the Protestants have built? Or is it simply the faith of Christ followers? If by “religion” is meant the faith of Christ followers, then to answer our question we still have one more term to examine: “Protestant.”

It is historically plain to see that there is no one “Protestant” faith or religion. If the mainstream Reformation wing is meant, then one can find tradition (as in the traditional method of interpretation), reason (as in the basic human faculty of thinking), and experience (as in theology interpreting our inner experience) all impact the faith of Christ followers. Only in the radical wing of the Protestant reformation do you find a total rejection of tradition.

It seems then the only way Protestants can agree with this statement is to define the Bible alone to include its interpretation, religion to simply mean the faith of Christ followers, and Protestant to mean those denominations derived from the radical wing of the Reformation. Otherwise the Bible alone is not the religion of the Protestants.