No more use for the Apostles

[ZMystiCat]

We hold to the creeds because they are true expositions of scripture and as such are authoritative.

Yes, according to your interpretation of Scripture.

Obviously if we hold to the Creeds as definitional of Christian doctrine because they are correct expositions of scripture, this places one outside the realm of relying on “personal interpretation.”

So do you base your doctrine on the accepted creed or base acceptance of the creed on your doctrine? If the former, why did you accept the creed in the first place?

You keep erecting a straw man argument.

You’ve established that Protestants accept the creeds because they are correct expositions of Scripture. I have not, in any way, disregarded or replaced that.

What I am doing is trying to address bridging the gap between something being an attempted exposition of Scripture and your accepting it as a correct exposition of Scripture. That’s the part that you have yet to address directly, so my bringing that up to discuss is hardly a strawman.

And I wish to reiterate that I was a rather devout traditional Presbyterian. I know the arguments you’ve given and have given them myself in the past. I also know that the aforementioned gap is very infrequently, if ever, addressed. If you don’t want to address it, fine, but then I see no reason to not point out that it is filled by one’s personal interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Hodos]

Yes, according to your interpretation of Scripture .

Are you saying you don’t believe in the ecumenical creeds? Interesting. So you would blast basic Christian doctrine to spite Protestants. Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t the first time I have heard this type of argument from budding Catholic apologists, but its an interesting response nonetheless.

So do you base your doctrine on the accepted creed or base acceptance of the creed on your doctrine? If the former, why did you accept the creed in the first place?

No, I am pretty certain I was quite clear. The creeds are doctrinal because they are accurate summations of the apostolic teaching as presented in the gospels.

What I am doing is trying to address bridging the gap between something being an attempted exposition of Scripture and your accepting it as a correct exposition of Scripture.

The gap that you are trying to bridge is what Catholic doctrine does not allow. In other words, the issue that you have is that Catholic apologists keep trying to rest on the fact that the scriptures are these mysterious unknowable documents. The fact of the matter is that scripture was written for the purpose of communicating God’s revelation to his people. Catholic apologists want to assume that they are gnostic in their nature and require special revelation to understand their clear meaning. But that is contrary to why they were written in the first place. The average person who reads scripture in its context can know what the scripture says. And if they misread it, they can be corrected by the community by demonstrating objectively that the interpretation of a specific passage is out of context because… x y z (whatever that reason may be, they are misunderstanding the context, grammar, etc.). But ultimately what norms our interpretation of scripture is what the scripture itself says. Taking a gnostic type of interpretation and reading into the scriptures secret knowledge that makes it read far different than it did to its original intended audience is usually quite evident.

 

[ZMystiCat]

Are you saying you don’t believe in the ecumenical creeds?

No, I’m not. As stated, I’m looking for you to address the gap between an exposition of Scripture and your accepting it as a correct one.

In other words, the issue that you have is that Catholic apologists keep trying to rest on the fact that the scriptures are these mysterious unknowable documents

Wow! And you accuse me of strawmanning!

I never said Scriptures were unknowable. There is a vast difference between recognising the reality that there are hundreds of heresies that claim correct Scriptural exposition and claiming Scripture is unknowable. The bottom line is that when left to each individual or even a fallible community, error is bound to enter. Protestantism has remained a consistent reminder of that, even to Protestants, none of whom accepts everything every group says.

But ultimately what norms our interpretation of scripture is what the scripture itself says.

Scripture doesn’t interpret itself. No teaching does. The teacher can interpret it, but as far as declaring doctrine, the vast difference of Protestants on even critical matters would appear to show that that isn’t happening in Protestantism as it did for, say, the Nicene Creed.

So while the Nicene Creed is objective truth that make objective truths of Scripture clearer, that still doesn’t get down to why you accept it as such. Are you doing it because you also interpret Scripture as such, as opposed to the many heresies it rejected? Are you doing it because of community, and if so, would you submit to that community in all their interpretations? Or are you claiming some charism to fully understand the Holy Spirit as He teaches? But you can’t fall back on the ludicrous notion of words interpreting themselves.

 

[Hodos]

No, I’m not. As stated, I’m looking for you to address the gap between an exposition of Scripture and your accepting it as a correct one.

Hodos:

Yes, and that has been explained. Twice.

Scripture doesn’t interpret itself. No teaching does. The teacher can interpret it, but as far as declaring doctrine, the vast difference of Protestants on even critical matters would appear to show that that isn’t happening in Protestantism as it did for, say, the Nicene Creed.

First, not all Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura, which accounts for many of the differences in doctrine. The Anglican Church and the ELCA would be perfect examples of heterodoxy resulting from an abandonment of Sola Scriptura. That being said, though doctrinal differences do exist within some Church bodies that hold to Sola Scriptura, they are primarily in the realm of adiaphora, and they don’t result in claiming that one is anathema. We still hold to the core doctrines on justification, the trinity, salvation, etc.

Second, the Catholic Church also contains variation within it. Just yesterday for example Cardinal Schonborn tweeted about hopefully ordaining women, so your ecclesiology hasn’t guaranteed orthodoxy either (also look at the history of schism within the Catholic Church).

And again, with regard to the Nicene Creed, the creed once again is authoritative because it is a true exposition of scripture. It defines the roles of the father, the son, and with the addition of the third paragraph at Contantinople, the Holy Spirit. These are taken either directly from or derived from scripture. The issue with Arius is that he interpreted scripture in ways that Alexander of Alexandria and later Athanasius refuted from scripture. And lest you forget, that Constantine and his successors later began programmatically replacing bishops with Arians. The Church in large part at the time became Arian (if you accept Athanasius’ writings). Does this mean that all of a sudden, because of apostolic succession to the bishoprics in the east and west that Arianism was not heretical? Of course not, they still didn’t accord with the apostolic teaching as recorded in the scriptures. So while interpretation is done in community, there is that aspect, there is still objective means to refute the community when the community departs from the apostolic teaching. That objective means is by examination of scripture and adherence to it as the normative means by which doctrine is formed.

Coincidentally, I think its hilarious that all these threads get opened questioning why Protestants believe such and such, and then when we discuss why we believe something you seem to take offense at our answer. Was this thread simply for cheerleading your base or were you actually asking for an answer?

 

[mdcpensive1]

Hodos, I have debated many “Protestants” using many of the writings of the Church Fathers to prove what the Church taught and believes. Most dismiss Church Fathers because their writings “are not scripture”. I know this is a poor excuse on their part but it is used so often.

 

[Hodos]

Hodos, I have debated many “Protestants” using many of the writings of the Church Fathers to prove what the Church taught and believes. Most dismiss Church Fathers because their writings “are not scripture”. I know this is a poor excuse on their part but it is used so often.

I would agree, this is sometimes the case. I can also run circles around the same level of uneducated Catholics who can’t defend their faith from scripture. I don’t however, assume that they represent the best apologetic that the Catholic faith has to offer. That being said, when you speak with educated pastors and read the Protestant confessions you would see that they cite Church fathers to provide additional clarification that we believe in the apostolic faith. We don’t hold them to the same level of authority as the scriptures, that is very true. We evaluate them on the basis of what the scriptures say. But we also recognize that voices like Hippolytus or Augustine, or Chrysostom, etc., were in large measure correct and orthodox in their interpretation of scripture, though they all had blind spots at times. And you also recognize that they frequently disagreed with one another, especially where they wrote to one another. History isn’t as clean as most apologists try to make it sound in their debates and articles.

 

[mdcpensive1]

The idea that one should evaluate the theological writings of another through the lens of scripture has always been the practice of the Church.

This sounds like what the Bereans did when confronted with the oral gospel preached to them. It seems like scripture makes no point as to whether it was good or bad but it seems to be in their best interest to test their knowledge of what God had already revealed.

 

[Hodos]

This sounds like what the Bereans did when confronted with the oral gospel preached to them. It seems like scripture makes no point as to whether it was good or bad but it seems to be in their best interest to test their knowledge of what God had already revealed.

I would agree.

 

[ZMystiCat]

Yes, and that has been explained. Twice.

Not really. You just keep regurgitating the same point that it is correct exposition without addressing how you got to the conclusion of what is/isn’t correct exposition in the first place without it being how you personally exposite Scripture. You mentioned community but haven’t answered if you’d submit to that community in all things (or even defined it considering Protestantism’s fracturing). There’s also been comments about Scripture, as if words self-evidently interpret themselves, which is ludicrous.

But since I don’t actually expect a direct address to the problem, I’m just throwing out this quote from St. Vincent of Lerins. I had many of these issues before coming across his comment, but it reflects many of the concerns I had as a Protestant:

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason — because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

Second, the Catholic Church also contains variation within it.

1. That doesn’t actually address your own problems.
2. Whether or not a Catholic submits to the Church’s doctrine, that doesn’t change what the Church teaches. The Church didn’t become non-Trinitarian because of Arius.
3. There are still matters the Church hasn’t given a complete dogmatic statement on. In those matters, we are allowed to hash it out, but all remain unified under the common Catholic dogma, unlike Protestants which, accounting for the variances and deviations from Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, don’t have any common dogma.

Was this thread simply for cheerleading your base or were you actually asking for an answer?

1. I didn’t ask the original question. I challenged your answer to it.
2. You should expect such challenges on a Catholic forum.
3. I’ll stop when you actually give an answer to the questions I’m asking, not regurgitating the apologetic answer that dodges rather than directly address it. I may also just get tired and leave, which at this rate will probably come first.

 

[GLam1761]

Now, now, children, let’s look at things w/ Love
and generosity, shall we? The Protestants have
MANY GOOD ideas expounded the Gospel VERY
WELL, the Catholics have DEFENDED the Faith
VERY COURAGEOUSLY, the Bible Stands head
and shoulders above ALL other Literature, Christ-
ian or otherwise. We have in the Bible the residue
of the Faith of the Apostles Peter and Paul, which
the Roman Pontiff recognize as the Bedrock on
which the Holy Church is built!! the Bible SUPPORTS
the Church, the Church SUPPORTS the Bible and
so there you have it, there is only need for the Bible’s
teaching of the Apostles and Prophets. Rev. 22:18
for example, gives a warning NOT to add to the
prophetic exhortation. Deut. 12:32 tells us NOT to
add nor diminish from the Law of Moses. Prov. 30:5
says “Every Word of God is pure” v.6 says NOT to add
to His Words.

 

[MiserereMei]

I have read the conversation between you and Hodos. While I see that Hodos’ responses are not satisfactory for you, I must ask, for what reason are you, personally, Roman Catholic? Does it not boil down to the fact that it is the system which makes the most sense of the data as you happen to see it? How is that, ultimately, any less subjective than Hodos’ own position? The only difference I see is that you have a standard of authority which presents itself, and is accepted by those who voluntarily submit to it, as infalliable and defined. While that is certainly a more secure location, there is no difference in how you got to that point in the first place from how Hodos got to theirs.

We share the same exact epistemological problems. We all adhere to what we find convincing ourselves, which may or may not be (but usually is) merely a variation of what our parents taught us to believe when we were young, and we never sufficiently question it ourselves. Now, we can either choose to ignore this fact and insist “Oh no, this or that is the Truth, I know it to be so”, but we are then still faced with that dogged question of “Why?”

There is not a single Roman Catholic apologist who has escaped that question any better than a Protestant, Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist, or anyone else. In short: while I believe in an objective reality outside of ourselves, I do not think we have any hope of saying anything more than this, “The evidence that I have seen so far seems to point to this, as I understand it at this time.”

 

[samsome]

You seem to have a distorted view of Ephesians 4:11 .
Apostles
prophets
Evangelist
Pastors
Teachers
Are alive and doing well.
When people go where prophecy is evident there is an spiritual anointing in the service.

 

[adf417]

In short: while I believe in an objective reality outside of ourselves, I do not think we have any hope of saying anything more than this, “The evidence that I have seen so far seems to point to this, as I understand it at this time.”

Greetings MiserereMei,
If i were an outsider looking in on Christianity and this statment i would have to paraphrase it by saying “those Christians must not take Jn 14:6 as literal it seems their belief is more in line with “ Jesus is sort of the way, kind of the truth, and some of the life”. I really dont understand why some Christians profess to know the truth then turn around and say this truth is subjective. Its like saying Jesus isnt really what He said he was and the advocate is only a metaphor. Do you really preach your truth (Jesus) is subjective?

Peace!!!

 

[ZMystiCat]

Does it not boil down to the fact that it is the system which makes the most sense of the data as you happen to see it?

I’m aware of the shared problem and was aware of it at the time of my conversation. However, that’s really only part of what I’m getting at.

Many more traditionally-minded Protestants, @Hodos included, consistently fall back on the argument: “We don’t reject tradition! That’s a strawman!” It was one I saw frequently, and used frequently, as a Protestant. The same can be said of many Protestants going at least as far back as John Calvin, who discussed it in the preface to Institutes on the Christian Religion. It’s also frequently used to criticize Evangelicals for their prideful “Solo Scriptura” stance, where they often openly embrace the idea that they should discard Tradition in favor of going straight to Scripture.

The problem is that no one is willing to own up to it existing in even the more traditional system. Under the system, no one accepts any Tradition as authoritative unless it is supported Scripturally (or is a “correct exposition of Scripture”), but such a judgement can only be made if Scripture has been interpreted outside of that Tradition, lest we simply accept any claim of correct exposition of Scripture. So the “authority” over us is determined by it first agreeing with us. This is, in effect, what John Calvin himself said:

Still, in studying their writings, we have endeavoured to remember, that all things are ours, to serve, not lord it over us

So Tradition is there to serve us and guide us, not be an authority over us. How much of a far cry is this from St. Augustine who said:

I would not believe the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.

That is treating something as authoritative. It isn’t, “I’ll submit if you first agree.” It is, for whatever reason, accepting that something, or someone, holds an authority and submitting to that. For Protestants (perhaps excluding Prima Scriptura folks), it is the Bible, but by nature that makes everything else a guide or submitted to because the Bible says to do so (e.g. parents).

I would more respect the consistency to at least admit that Protestantism is one following their own (perhaps guided) interpretation of Scripture. Sure, I’ll still find Sola Scriptura a self-disproving doctrine. I’ll still find the approach inconsistent with Scripture’s teaching. I’ll still find it inconsistent with traditional Christian teaching. If I thought acknowledgement was reason to not become Catholic, I may not be Catholic now. But at least it doesn’t come across as knowing that there’s a serious problem and preferring to ignore it. Maybe that’s just my experience of being in that position and wondering what to do speaking.

 

[mdcpensive1]

Never took it that way. :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:

 

[MiserereMei]

I think a lot of our Protestant friends are trying to maintain their confessional position, and so they do just what you have described. My counter criticism is that the position you advocate for seems an abdication of theological responsibility to a degree. When I was considering which communion to join years ago, the Roman Catholicism of my mother was on the list. Ultimately, it was a matter of severe disagreements on certain ethical issues, the notion of infalliability, and the subsequent burden of intellectual consistency that led me elsewhere. I knew I would be expected to totally submit to the authority of that church, and, since I could not submit in such a way to something I, through study and reflection, have honest disagreements with, I looked elsewhere. I spent some time as a rather rebellious LCMS Lutheran (where my wife, raised Baptist in a conservative household, but then not practicing, was finally baptized and we were married), until I decided to make peace with my own doubts, paradoxes, and inconsistencies (at my wife’s advice), rather than deal with rather destructive personal and theological crises on a regular basis, and so now we both are in the ELCA.

I suppose my working definition of Sola Scriptura is as idiosyncratic as I am. I have no issue, for example, with the invocation of the saints (though, except for an occasional angelus, rosary or axion estin, it does not feature prominently in my devotional life), on the basis of the consensus of the Church, and its non-mention in Scripture. Same with the apocrypha/deuterocannon, the Marian dogmas, apostolic succession (which I accept the AS of the Anglicans, Scandinavian Lutherans, Old Catholics, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox), and the like. Of course, historical documentary evidence seems to suggest a fracturing of the Church far more complicated than what Roman Catholic apologists want to present, especially at both the Schism of 1054 and the Lutheran Reformation.

At the same time, I must depart from the Blessed Augustine, for I believe the Scriptures (which must be interpreted from within their historical and cultural and literary contexts, and even then may appear contradictory) and the Church as a whole on the sole basis of the historicity of the Resurrection. Thus, I can in the same breath say that John is inconsistent with Mark, that the latter part of Mark 16 is not original, and that the first part of Genesis reads exactly like ancient myth (and so probably is) AND that all these are true and indeed Scripture, and determinative of doctrine BECAUSE they have been used, promulgated, accepted, and prayed from by the Church. Nevertheless, we are to listen to the interpretation of the Church, even though that does not mean the interpretation is infalliable (for humans are doing the work), And so, where there is sufficient and justifiable reason and evidence to the contrary, theological departure can be made without mortal sin, providing one remains within the same broad flumen doctrinae.

 

[MiserereMei]

Good morning.

You said,

If i were an outsider looking in on Christianity and this statment i would have to paraphrase it by saying “those Christians must not take Jn 14:6 as literal it seems their belief is more in line with “ Jesus is sort of the way, kind of the truth, and some of the life”. I really dont understand why some Christians profess to know the truth then turn around and say this truth is subjective. Its like saying Jesus isnt really what He said he was and the advocate is only a metaphor. Do you really preach your truth (Jesus) is subjective?

Where did I say that I preach a subjective Christ? Quite the contrary. I preach a Christ backed up by evidence, which is the exact opposite of subjective. The very definition of an objective truth is one backed up by evidence, and one which is to be revised based on new evidence. A subjective truth and faith is one that you choose because it makes you feel good, or special, or not a worthless and meaningless speck of dust tossed about in the cosmos. As a fool who had the occasion to make a wise quip on occasion has said, “Facts don’t care about your feelings.”

Now, I have faith only by the work of the Holy Spirit (this is most certainly true), but this faith is not devoid of content or evidence or reality, but is instead grounded upon the historical evidence of the Resurrection. Paul makes clear that without this event, we are to be pitied above all (1 Cor. 15:12-19). The only place subjectivity should come in for Christians is when we are choosing between the various historical expressions of Christianity because history, as a rule, is messy, no one’s hands are clean, and no one’s apologetic quite justifies all of the facts, and we all are miserable, proud sinners. In the end, we all must choose what seems to fit the facts best as they are available and as we are capable of comprehending them. It does not mean that that necessity indicates subjectivity in all places; it means we live broken lives in a broken world and we do not have all the pieces of the puzzle. And so it is in this particular place where emotional comfort and personal character development and pastoral concern can have a home, so long as it is not devoid of facts. For this and every imperfection, we trust in the mercy of God.

[Addendum: I just realized in my original post I forgot the second half of a sentence.

Now, we can either choose to ignore this fact and insist “Oh no, this or that is the Truth, I know it to be so”, but we are then still faced with that dogged question of “Why?”

The second half I meant to add in (but stupidly forgot) was along the lines of: or, we can examine the evidence available for ourselves, wrestle with the hard questions, learn from others, and maybe come to a better understanding of things. I apologize for the neglect.]

 

[ZMystiCat]

My counter criticism is that the position you advocate for seems an abdication of theological responsibility to a degree.

While I understand some Catholics shut their minds down on theological matters, ultimately there is an encouragement of us to understand why the Church teaches what she does and understand as best we can those matters where no dogmatic decree has been made. Obviously, even Catholics struggle with some of the Church’s teachings, but having accepted the premise that the Church is infallible, there is an inherent call to, in faith, submit and seek to understand rather than profess our own “truth”.

On the flip side, even with Sola Scriptura, there are those who effectively shut down on “literary criticism”, for lack of a better term (perhaps “systematic theology” would work). They don’t seek to actually understand Scripture. They only accept what is very explicitly stated. For instance, since there is no direct command or explicit example of an infant baptism, they assume that it was never practiced, never minding the very robust theological effort by Catholics and Presbyterians, to name just two, to defend the practice using only Scripture. That’s just one example, but it wasn’t uncommon for me to meet Protestants who effectively shut down when required to analyze Scripture in any depth that went beyond the “obvious”, similar to how a Catholic might shut down when someone challenges the Church’s teaching.

And if anything, I’ve found Catholicism as intellectually rigorous as, if not more rigorous than, even Reformed Christianity, which generally puts a huge emphasis on rigorous study of doctrine.

 

[adf417]

You said,

adf417:

If i were an outsider looking in on Christianity and this statment i would have to paraphrase it by saying “those Christians must not take Jn 14:6 as literal it seems their belief is more in line with “ Jesus is sort of the way, kind of the truth, and some of the life”. I really dont understand why some Christians profess to know the truth then turn around and say this truth is subjective. Its like saying Jesus isnt really what He said he was and the advocate is only a metaphor. Do you really preach your truth (Jesus) is subjective?

Where did I say that I preach a subjective Christ? Quite the contrary. I preach a Christ backed up by evidence, which is the exact opposite of subjective. The very definition of an objective truth is one backed up by evidence, and one which is to be revised based on new evidence. A subjective truth and faith is one that you choose because it makes you feel good, or special, or not a worthless and meaningless speck of dust tossed about in the cosmos. As a fool who had the occasion to make a wise quip on occasion has said, "Facts don’t care about your feelings.”

Now, I have faith only by the work of the Holy Spirit (this is most certainly true), but this faith is not devoid of content or evidence or reality, but is instead grounded upon the historical evidence of the Resurrection.

Evidence of the resurrection? You mean the written words of first hand witnesses, right? This is not evidence. To an outsider its considered subjective. To you and I we consider it an article of faith.

The only place subjectivity should come in for Christians is when we are choosing between the various historical expressions of Christianity because history, as a rule, is messy, no one’s hands are clean, and no one’s apologetic quite justifies all of the facts, and we all are miserable, proud sinners. In the end, we all must choose what seems to fit the facts best as they are available and as we are capable of comprehending them.

i can agree with this on a certain level.

Continued…

 

[adf417]

…Continued

It does not mean that that necessity indicates subjectivity in all places; it means we live broken lives in a broken world and we do not have all the pieces of the puzzle.

Hmmmm! I hope you dont use this when witnessing to someone searching for the Christian message. Its very alarming! We do have all the pieces and His name is Holy Spirit and He comes to guide us. Why would you think we dont have all the pieces?

And so it is in this particular place where emotional comfort and personal character development and pastoral concern can have a home, so long as it is not devoid of facts. For this and every imperfection, we trust in the mercy of God.

Wait, you haven’t finished defining “this particular place”. You are spending a lot of energy showing the flaw we (man) sometimes wrongly choose subjectively vs. objectively. Where is this line that seperates these two views? Why is the line different depending on who you ask? Who decides where this line is and how do you know it is the correct line? Do you really think Jesus would leave this line undefined?

I apologize for the neglect.

Understood!

Peace!!!