Mackbrislawn, thanks for a well written and courteous response
I don’t follow everything here. But of course history and tradition are the same thing. I’m not sure how the modern Catholic structure fits in. It would seem to me that the only reason we know of the history is because of the church.
Now, you have done historical study, but I doubt many others have. But what puzzles me is how one can do fallible study to come up with something infallible. In math the final answer is no more accurate than the accuracy of the least accurate factor in the equation.
I take it to mean by historical study you have examined all the ancient Christian writings that have survived and decided for yourself which among them is inspired? And where do you get the notion to begin with that they are inspired or infallible? After all, they make some strange claims about a man rising from the dead.
I agree history and tradition are the same, is it the same history/tradition then that would say which books are scripture and that the pope is infallible? That’s why I take issue with it often; I see tradition/history is seen in the CC however the magisterium says, not down to study. My comment on the modern structure was simply me saying lets not project modern dogma and doctrine into the early fathers which they had no knowledge of. Men can fallibly receive scripture which is itself infallible. The fallible collection of infallible books. They could potentially make error, but did not, this does not mean the scriptures lose their authroritative state, they are as such because they are God breathed. So no I don’t decide for myself, I stand firmly with solid Christian scholarship, that the early church received these books and has handed them down to us.
Well, it seems to me we all start with something infallible. That is, start with a source we consider trustworthy and authoritative. Protestants in general start with an “infallible guide” in scripture. I think we do need an infallible guide as our starting point. So I was pointing out the difference in how Protestants and Catholics begin.
As far as reconciling our differences by exegeting scripture, that’s tough. I agree with Athanasius, scripture is clear. To me it is clear, so why do you insist on twisting it? Are you unstable? I mean this as a way of pointing out the problem. A neutral third party, observing our debate over scripture, would conclude that scripture isn’t clear at all. Obviously, since there is so much disagreement over it.
I indeed start with scripture as that guide, the words of God, as such I see them as naturally being the rule of faith. Good question, but I don’t think its solved by Rome claiming to be the guide, for one thing she rarely if ever does interpret scripture. Secondly to me, Romes voice is just another who must follow the infallible scriptures. Hence I stand by my point; faithful and consistent exegesis, drawing on the history of the church, context, intent, everything. Plus on matters essential to salvation, I still stand by it as clear.
I’m uncomfortable with the idea that scripture was received by the earliest church. I think more like members of the early church wrote scriptures–to, for, and by Christians. In this thinking, the church didn’t receive scripture, but produced it.
Now, it is true, the later, post-apostolic church, did receive a mass of Christian writings. It had to decide what books were appropriate for reading to the congregations. Walter Bauer isn’t completely wrong–there were heretical, or non-orthodox writings and groups out there the church had to deal with and sort through. Which writings were from the infallible, inspired apostles and which were not? One criterion to ask was, does the content of this writing agree with the traditonal teachings we remember from the apostles? If not, it’s out. And so on.
Producing i can accept yes, but what would this imply. I think given the authors knowledge in many cases that they were writing scripture (1), and that functioning covenentaly; the members of the earliest church would expect written terms that testified to their new covenent (2), combined with the way that the Lord viewed scripture (Matt 21:42, Matt 22:29, Mark 12:24…) these people would have known the authoritative place it would take. The plum line for all to be tested too.
It’s good too talk to someone who is aware of Bauers ideas! When did these writings begin to show however? I mean I don’t see Thomas as a first century document… I also don’t view pious Christian literature outside the NT as being considered important until after at least 90-95AD with clement and the didache. All of which is after the last book received was penned. I mean I still think that God protected and guided the church in his providence so they only accepted the right books. I think this is the historical view, also the most honouring to God.
I think there’s a risk of us forgetting Gods simple providence, I know in my reaction to the “you need the guide” argument I can swing too far the other way and make it a purely historical thing with no action of The Lord involved.
Was this done infallibly? I don’t know. But if not, what reason should we have to think we have infallible scriptures?
S to answer this, the reason is God, providentially guiding his church, fallible men, receiving infallible scripture.
Kind regards, good discussion.
Lincs
1 - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, pg 106
2 - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, 98-108
