D
dennisknapp
Guest
That you cannot answer the challenge is understandable, but to respond with a personal attack is just not crickett.
Peace
- Status
Peace
S
Shibboleth
Guest
First off if I offended you I am sorry.
Let me defend my position. I did make comment on this issue very early on in the thread. I posted a series of quotes by Church Fathers that one could apply to the Sola’s if understood correctly. Soon after it became apparent that the original premise of the argument was not the intent of the thread… not that I ever thought that you were being literal in your statement but it went beyond that fact.
What happened is that even if a Protestant did supply a quote that supported their theological viewpoints it was more or less disregarded by showing contradictory statements by other early Church individuals. On the level of the original premise though the Protestants did exactly as you asked – they showed things in the early Church that supported their viewpoints.
Anyways, the argument is strange because the Gospel of James shows strait out that there must have been some in the Early Church that believed in a flawed version of Sole Fide else he wouldn’t be rebuking it…
So if your thread is not foolish it is at least disingenuous and this is why:
In Pope Paul VI encyclical Paths of the Church he outlines the path of Dialog one should take in regards to evangelization – something that is commonly referred to as pedagogical prudence. In this work he states that ones Apologetics should be guided by Clarity, Meekness, Trust, and a balance of Faith, Hope, and Charity against Truth. The last three should be vary familiar in that they are what constitutes Fide Formata.
Anyways, because the original premise was more of a goaded ploy than a real statement you break the first three rules of Clarity, Meekness, and Trust. The fact that one would be willing to leave their Church based on something of this nature shows a weakness of Faith and Hope. And lastly and most importantly this whole thread has not been constructed upon Charity.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
dennisknapp:
I think truth being a grey haze is very much akin to Paul’s statement that now we see through a glass darkly, but then we shall see face to face. Truth may not be the haze in itself, but our perception of the truth is hazy. By God’s grace (working in us and in the church), the truth becomes clearer and clearer, but the general condition of seeing through the glass darkly remains until we are on the other side of the veil. True, the veil may be lifted now and again (the saints attest to this), but this seems to be a very personal spiritual experience–how do you describe what is on the other side of the veil to those who know only through the veil? You use language, image, allusion, metaphor–things that will reveal, but things that, by their nature, are also veils of a sort.
To say, “The truth is crystal clear, see?” and then to run through various doctrines and dogmas (revealed and vessels of grace though they may be) is still looking through the glass darkly. To say, “The truth is crystal clear–know it, experience it” is a different thing altogether and is an invitation to peer through the veil, not resting content with the contours of the veil itself as the ultimate image of the truth. I think this is the invitation of the church, “Taste and see that the Lord is good,” not “Let me explain how the Lord is good.” Of course, the knoweldge derived through the explanation serves as the primer for the experience of God, tilling the soil of the soul, but if we do not continue on to “Taste and see” then I wonder if we are fully answering the call of the church or her Lord.
You write that truth is black and white, that God sees it that way, and then conclude by saying that there is no darkness in God. I see these statements as contradictory. Origen writes that because there is no darkness in God, God consequently does not see the darkness–it does not exist for him–the metaphysical consequence of which is that it does not properly exist at all. Augustine and Dionysius the Areopagite are both clear on this point–evil has no positive existence and absolute evil cannot exist because being in itself is a good and anything that can be said to be cannot be wholly evil.
I think, then, that–insofar as one can say such things–truth is light and God knows the light because Christ is the Truth and the Light of the World–the light is not separate from God. To go further and say that God knows the truth as black and white is to posit two absolutes, the Light and the Dark, God and Not God as if the Not God were a principle in itself! Such a situation is untenable–there can be only one absolute. Ours is not a dualist faith–qualified dualism, perhaps–that is, we in the phenomenal realm can experience light and dark, good and bad mostly due to a failure in perception–we have fallen from a vision of the original unity and seen ourselves and our created natures as separate and opposed to God. But to attribute to the realm of Principle an experiential knowledge of dualism, of one thing irrevocably opposed to another, is to divide the Godhead. The Not-God of creation finds its completion in the fullness of God in Christ. For this fullness to not be reached is for creation to destroy itself of its own accord by denying its own principle. Creation exists because God knows it, and because God knows Godself in it. For Creation to pass out of the knowledge of God by denying God or setting itself up as a separate god (for it to deify and objectify it’s Not God-ness) is for creation to destroy itself. Whatever has no share in the knowledge of God cannot be said to be. As Stratford Caldecott writes (and I’m paraphrasing), “I am whatever God knows me to be.”
All of which is to say: God knows the Light. To say that he knows the truth as black and white, light and it’s absence, as this and that, I think is incorrect, divides the Godhead, and introduces dualism into the Union of the Trinity.
Just my two.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
Dennis, I think this is a very interesting statement, but I think it is more wishful thinking than it is a description of the reality of the situation (which, in all of its complexity, is unknowable to us).
I think truth being a grey haze is very much akin to Paul’s statement that now we see through a glass darkly, but then we shall see face to face. Truth may not be the haze in itself, but our perception of the truth is hazy. By God’s grace (working in us and in the church), the truth becomes clearer and clearer, but the general condition of seeing through the glass darkly remains until we are on the other side of the veil. True, the veil may be lifted now and again (the saints attest to this), but this seems to be a very personal spiritual experience–how do you describe what is on the other side of the veil to those who know only through the veil? You use language, image, allusion, metaphor–things that will reveal, but things that, by their nature, are also veils of a sort.
To say, “The truth is crystal clear, see?” and then to run through various doctrines and dogmas (revealed and vessels of grace though they may be) is still looking through the glass darkly. To say, “The truth is crystal clear–know it, experience it” is a different thing altogether and is an invitation to peer through the veil, not resting content with the contours of the veil itself as the ultimate image of the truth. I think this is the invitation of the church, “Taste and see that the Lord is good,” not “Let me explain how the Lord is good.” Of course, the knoweldge derived through the explanation serves as the primer for the experience of God, tilling the soil of the soul, but if we do not continue on to “Taste and see” then I wonder if we are fully answering the call of the church or her Lord.
You write that truth is black and white, that God sees it that way, and then conclude by saying that there is no darkness in God. I see these statements as contradictory. Origen writes that because there is no darkness in God, God consequently does not see the darkness–it does not exist for him–the metaphysical consequence of which is that it does not properly exist at all. Augustine and Dionysius the Areopagite are both clear on this point–evil has no positive existence and absolute evil cannot exist because being in itself is a good and anything that can be said to be cannot be wholly evil.
I think, then, that–insofar as one can say such things–truth is light and God knows the light because Christ is the Truth and the Light of the World–the light is not separate from God. To go further and say that God knows the truth as black and white is to posit two absolutes, the Light and the Dark, God and Not God as if the Not God were a principle in itself! Such a situation is untenable–there can be only one absolute. Ours is not a dualist faith–qualified dualism, perhaps–that is, we in the phenomenal realm can experience light and dark, good and bad mostly due to a failure in perception–we have fallen from a vision of the original unity and seen ourselves and our created natures as separate and opposed to God. But to attribute to the realm of Principle an experiential knowledge of dualism, of one thing irrevocably opposed to another, is to divide the Godhead. The Not-God of creation finds its completion in the fullness of God in Christ. For this fullness to not be reached is for creation to destroy itself of its own accord by denying its own principle. Creation exists because God knows it, and because God knows Godself in it. For Creation to pass out of the knowledge of God by denying God or setting itself up as a separate god (for it to deify and objectify it’s Not God-ness) is for creation to destroy itself. Whatever has no share in the knowledge of God cannot be said to be. As Stratford Caldecott writes (and I’m paraphrasing), “I am whatever God knows me to be.”
All of which is to say: God knows the Light. To say that he knows the truth as black and white, light and it’s absence, as this and that, I think is incorrect, divides the Godhead, and introduces dualism into the Union of the Trinity.
Just my two.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
I
Ignatius
Guest
xxpnoisnxx said:
This generates an error: Corrupt or infected.
I
Ignatius
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:
That would mean that Jesus would’ve lied since He would not have stayed with the Church “all days, even to the end of time.”
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Let me defend my position. I did make comment on this issue very early on in the thread. I posted a series of quotes by Church Fathers that one could apply to the Sola’s if understood correctly. Soon after it became apparent that the original premise of the argument was not the intent of the thread… not that I ever thought that you were being literal in your statement but it went beyond that fact.
I was quite serious about reverting (if shown my original search missed something).
What happened is that even if a Protestant did supply a quote that supported their theological viewpoints it was more or less disregarded by showing contradictory statements by other early Church individuals. On the level of the original premise though the Protestants did exactly as you asked – they showed things in the early Church that supported their viewpoints.
Nothing in the early Church supports the Sola’s. The fact that those same Fathers you used said the exact opposite in context and in other writings shows there were no Sola’s in the early Church.
Anyways, the argument is strange because the Gospel of James shows strait out that there must have been some in the Early Church that believed in a flawed version of Sole Fide else he wouldn’t be rebuking it…
Um, I think you should reread James. Did he not say, “See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” James 2:24. This the only time sola fide is mentioned in all the bible and it’s preceded by “not by,” interesting.
So if your thread is not foolish it is at least disingenuous and this is why:
In Pope Paul VI encyclical Paths of the Church he outlines the path of Dialog one should take in regards to evangelization – something that is commonly referred to as pedagogical prudence. In this work he states that ones Apologetics should be guided by Clarity, Meekness, Trust, and a balance of Faith, Hope, and Charity against Truth. The last three should be vary familiar in that they are what constitutes Fide Formata.
This is true and good.
Anyways, because the original premise was more of a goaded ploy than a real statement you break the first three rules of Clarity, Meekness, and Trust. The fact that one would be willing to leave their Church based on something of this nature shows a weakness of Faith and Hope. And lastly and most importantly this whole thread has not been constructed upon Charity.
It was not meant to goad anyone, but to spark debate. Why is this such a hard thing to grasp? Why are people so against honest dialog?
Anyone should be willing to follow the truth wherever it leads. I think it shows a lack intellectual integrity to stay in the Church if it is shown to teach false doctrine. No lack of faith, just an openness to dialog and change, if necessary.
As for the charity part, where? Where has anyone been uncharitable? You must not mistake warm fuzzy feelings with true charity. One works with Hallmark cards, the other can be quite harsh.
Peace
C
CatherineofA
Guest
I haven’t read through the thread. Instead of reading about early church history, wouldn’t it be better to view what the scriptures actually say? The scriptures are promoted by any church as the word of God. Especially the gospels. Wouldn’t it be better to just go by that since that is considered word from the horse’s mouth? That predates early church followers.
S
Shibboleth
Guest
That was my point. James wouldn’t be telling someone that it is wrong if someone wasn’t saying that it was right at the time.Um, I think you should reread James. Did he not say, “See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” James 2:24. This the only time sola fide is mentioned in all the bible and it’s preceded by “not by,” interesting.
I
Ignatius
Guest
CatherineofA said:
Hi CatherineofA (Catherine of Alexandria?)
Actually, the Church was founded by Jesus Himself before any of the New Testament writers. The Church predates the New Testament. Christ founded a Church, even the Gospels weren’t even started for another half a century. Also, in the scriptures it says the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, meaning the foundation from which the Truth Flows. If you check it out, you will find that it is the Church which is the source of the New Testament Scriptures.
May God bless and watchover you.
I
Ignatius
Guest
The fact remains that Scripture says that “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” James 2:24.
S
Shibboleth
Guest
Yep, read through these debates that I had on a Lutheran Board - the second one gets really interresting.
oldlutheran.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1082&sid=04377e8a3c7c6aa8e2e23a0009e77a26
oldlutheran.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1046&start=0&sid=04377e8a3c7c6aa8e2e23a0009e77a26
oldlutheran.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1082&sid=04377e8a3c7c6aa8e2e23a0009e77a26
oldlutheran.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1046&start=0&sid=04377e8a3c7c6aa8e2e23a0009e77a26
O
On_my_way
Guest
CatherineofA said:
If you go by what comes out of the horses mouth then why do you Protestants, refer to the Eucharist has symbolic. Didn’t the horse say that it"IS" my Body and it “IS” my Blood?
Trust me it is in Scpriture.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
On my way:
You are generalizing “You Protestants.” And yes… it is in Scripture. Your point?
O+
I hear this over and over and over again, again, and again… and again I say: not ALL Protestants refer to the Eucharist as “symbolic.” This is anti-Protestant bigotry to spread half-truths and untruths.If you go by what comes out of the horses mouth then why do you Protestants, refer to the Eucharist has symbolic. Didn’t the horse say that it"IS" my Body and it “IS” my Blood?
You are generalizing “You Protestants.” And yes… it is in Scripture. Your point?
O+
O
On_my_way
Guest
O.S. Luke:
I apologize if I was labeling all protestants, was not my intent. My point is that some Protestants follow scripture to the fullest right. Then why is it when it is pointed out in scripture some protestants turn it around? If it is said then why is it not followed? Some Protestant have said that they follow scripture, but why only certain parts of scripture? Can I use the word “some” without affending anyone?
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
On my way:
Anglicans and Methodists subscribe to the belief that Scripture, Reason, Experience, and Tradition are interwoven and influence each other.
O+
Again… you’ve labeled/pigeonholed all Protestants again (though I don’t think you meant to). Not ALL Protestants “follow scripture to the fullest right.”
Anglicans and Methodists subscribe to the belief that Scripture, Reason, Experience, and Tradition are interwoven and influence each other.
O+
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
I think you edited your post while I posted my post.
O+
O+
O
On_my_way
Guest
O.S. Luke:
I made some corrections to my last post. I added the word “some” because I knew it was a btter word to use. Maybe I was a little slow and you got the version without the corrections.
D
dennisknapp
Guest
O.S. Luke:
Peace
Yes, but which has the priority? Which has the final say, Scripture, Reason, Experience, or Tradition?
Peace
S
Shibboleth
Guest
I think a good analogy would be to take a paper plate, four quarters, and some masking tape. Put tape on each of the four quarters and write on one – scripture, write on another tradition, on the third reason, and on the fourth experience. I would change a few of the labels but the concept is the same.
Now place the four quarters on four corners of the plate and balance the plate on your finger. If you remove one of the quarters from the plate – reason, scripture, etc. The plate will come crashing down.
All together they are the final say but not only can one not stand alone but without one of the others all will fail.
D
dennisknapp
Guest
This is what Catholics believe about Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium.
Peace
- Status