Scripture Alone

[joelmichael]

Paradox,

Thank you for the well written consideration. You’ve obviously done some reading and thinking on the matter!!

I agree with much of your discourse. The tenents of the reformed position are certainly much aligned with Catholic thought – as they should be since it is Catholic thought – I don’t think the reformers ‘invented’ very much. However, I do believe the differences between reformed theology and Catholic theology were manifested mostly as a result of rebellion against the AUTHORITY of The Church.

Historically, it may be conceded that some leaders of The Church abused AUTHORITY and did very bad things. However, that doesn’t make the TRUTH any less the TRUTH. I believe the Holy Spirit working in the Catholic Church today just as it has for 2000 years. For me that is the clincher.

With respect and yours in Christ,

Joel

 

[II_Paradox_II]

Flounder:

Hey Paradox, how’s that carpal tunnel syndrome feeling? I’d ask a question, but I’m afraid your hands will fall off…

Sorry, couldn’t resist…it’s good reading

heh… When I was in college I had a teacher ask for a 3 page paper on multi-culturalism and I ended up with a 32 page paper after it was all done.

Don’t worry though… I type really fast so it doesn’t take that long!

ken

 

[II_Paradox_II]

I agree with much of your discourse. The tenents of the reformed position are certainly much aligned with Catholic thought – as they should be since it is Catholic thought – I don’t think the reformers ‘invented’ very much.

I would agree. Personally, I think some of our divisions have perpetuated simply because we refuse to see areas in which we really aren’t that far apart. Again, not to say we don’t have legitimate areas of disagreement, but sometimes both sides have a tendency to see division where it doesn’t need to exist.

However, I do believe the differences between reformed theology and Catholic theology were manifested mostly as a result of rebellion against the AUTHORITY of The Church

On this point of course we’d disagree, but I do think it’s important to deal with. IMO - the problem really began with what Oberman says at the end of the quote I cited. As the relation of tradition and scripture changed over time you started to see an increasing division between dogmatic theology and scripture (and between dogmatic theology and the basic creeds, the regula fidei), hence the creation of a tension within the church between those who sought to maintain such a relation and those who saw the authority of the church going beyond these basic elements. I think you can see a very similar effect in the Orthodox schism as well as they often object to the western church going beyond the creeds and 7 councils.

Historically, it may be conceded that some leaders of The Church abused AUTHORITY and did very bad things. However, that doesn’t make the TRUTH any less the TRUTH. I believe the Holy Spirit working in the Catholic Church today just as it has for 2000 years. For me that is the clincher.

But I think you may be giving too little emphasis here to the role in which different conceptions of truth really did help create and perpetuate the schisms in the church. Lest you forget, both The Orthodox and Protestants alike found their primary complaint with Rome in her going beyond the conciliar and consensual faith of the church throughout the ages. The complaint was not just over abuses, real or imagined as they may have been, but over the very different conceptions of where the truth lay and how much it could change or develop over time.

ken

 

[Britta]

II Paradox II:

It’s not being asserted as a democracy, but simply the fact that we need to make judgments for oursleves sometimes from the evidence God places before us.

Previously you said scripture is final authority but given the course of action to reach your interpretation, it is actually you that have final authority. Much like society’s ideas today, as long as it makes sense for you, then go with it? The problem is there is a right and wrong.

Some people believe abortion, euthanasia, death penalty etc. is okay, others do not. Whose to say which one is “right?” Many people research both sides and make a lot of sense. The fact is we can’t just say okay, whatever works for you is great. Why? Because what we do will affect everyone else.

Same with Christian doctrine. We are one body and some things need to be understood correctly because we are affecting each other in the body. By being our own final authority, we are actually saying we do not need others in the body.

As we can see from history, we have very devout Christians all “believing” they hold the Truth and all “certain” they are guided by the Holy Spirit. Of course, we cannot “all” be guided because so many of the issues are on completely divided. Therefore, somone has taken scripture and “distorted to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16). I agree that many of the issues are not worth the divisions, but there are some that are essential to the health of the Body.

Matthew 18:15-20 discusses what to do when there is a problem. First tell him directly, then take a few friends, then take it to the “Church.” Which Church? With the splits today, I could very well go to any denomination and find the one that suits my perspective and feel very righteous about my position. Afterall, I now have backup. Doesn’t make me right!

Scripture is completely laced with the need to refer to authority outside of ourselves. Peter’s position is so clear. He had final say and was respected for that. The family unit is much like the Church, we all have opinions and feelings about things and for the most part, everyone is respected for that. But when it comes down to the big stuff, Dad has final say. You can’t have everyone off on their own deciding for themselves on the major issues.

While the kids were younger, we “fed them milk, not solid food, because you were not able to handle it” (1 Cor 3:2) (paraphrasing) Although, as they got older they do have more of a say because they matured and can handle more truth. Unfortunately, during our teenage years, (which is what I see the reformation much like) we have just enough information to make us think we know it all. Then over time, we realize we really didn’t know anything.

Sorry to ramble but I just don’t trust myself that much. We are constantly being warned about how deceptive Satan is and we all know full well how much pride gets in the way of everything we do, all in the name of Jesus, of course!!! He warned us “let no one deceive himself.” (1 Cor 3:18) :ehh: I hope that makes sense.

God Bless

 

[Cindy]

II Paradox II:

For instance, the early creeds summarized the doctrinal tradition in the early church. However, where are such dogmas as the Assumption or the Immacualte Conception in the creeds? What about papal infallibility?

Hi Paradox,

You remind me of myself a few years ago.

Just one comment: You won’t find Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide in the early creeds. I remember being in a Reformed church on Trinity Sunday when we stood to recite the Athanasian Creed. When we came to the end, there was an audible gasp.

… From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. At Whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; And shall give account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

Blessings!

Cindy

 

[II_Paradox_II]

You remind me of myself a few years ago.

Lazy & tired, ready for a long vacation?

Just one comment: You won’t find Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide in the early creeds. I remember being in a Reformed church on Trinity Sunday when we stood to recite the Athanasian Creed. When we came to the end, there was an audible gasp.

I am aware of that. There are plenty of things believed today by all sorts of Christians that are not in the creeds. The creeds summed up what for the early church were the main scriptural and apostolic teachings the church held to and must interpret within. However, they clearly were not exhaustive of all important doctrines in the church and did not for the most part deal with epistemic issues (such as the canon itself or papal infallibility), nor did they deal with our more nuanced soteriological positions such as infusion vs. imputation or various theories of election.

That is why my point was not to make the creeds exhaustive of Christian orthodoxy, but to make the point that some issues we divide over should be reconsidered in light of the evident lack of concern over them in the early church. That, however, is not conferring on the creeds an eternal status, but giving them a position of respect whereby we should careful when we divide over issues the church has only recently considered that important. There very well may be issues worth dividing over the early church did not consider, but we must be thoughtful when we approach such things.

… From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. At Whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; And shall give account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

Amen… I just said this last sunday…

ken

 

[II_Paradox_II]

Finally had some time to get back to you… so here goes with a short reply.

Previously you said scripture is final authority but given the course of action to reach your interpretation, it is actually you that have final authority. Much like society’s ideas today, as long as it makes sense for you, then go with it? The problem is there is a right and wrong.

1. No, I wouldn’t say that. I think you’re view is far too Either/Or to reflect how humans know things. We don’t have EITHER infallible knowledge OR purely subjective relative knowledge. Our knowledge is always subjective to some degree because we must interpret everything that comes into our sense without exception. However, unless you wish to argue that that interpretive actions makes every bit of knowledge we have worthless on the basis of it’s subjectivity, you have to take a more moderate view that God has equipped us with generally reliable sense and interpretive abilities. As such, when I read the first chapter of John, I’ll be overcome with the beauty of the eternal Word, not overcome with what to me looks like a biography of Groucho Marx. The point is simply this - language itself regulates our understanding because humans are built to understand it to a more or less accurate degree thus making our admittedly subjective judgments as to its meaning generally reliable, if not completely inerrantly objective.
2. I don’t think your skepticism is justified either by logic or by the heritage handed down to us by the early church. Your comments here remind me a lot more of modern skeptics of langauage and not very much of what the fathers of the church wrote. They were far more positive about our ability and obligation to study, listen to, read (if possible) and understand the revelation of God.
3. You have to understand that to me, your point here sounds very suspicious. If infallible langauge in God’s word is not understandable except when infallibly interpreted, why should I trust my ability to understand the words of the infallible interpreter? All he can give me are more words that can be misinterpreted, words subject to my own subjective understanding and interpretive ability. Even in my own head, I think in words which must even there be interpreted as I think them as I converse in my mind.

IMO - such a position about how we know things will either lead to a corrosive general skepticism when applied consistently or an inconsistently applied skepticism that can’t justify why we can know one thing and not another.

ken

 

[II_Paradox_II]

Britta:

Previously you said scripture is final authority but given the course of action to reach your interpretation, it is actually you that have final authority. Much like society’s ideas today, as long as it makes sense for you, then go with it? The problem is there is a right and wrong.

One more quote from someone else who expresses himself far better than me. This is on the issue of interpretation and certainty and was originally posted on another forum (and I hope he doesn’t mind me quoting his very eloquent words). Disregard the pojnts about Calvin, that was just part of the original context for the quote.

*"Interpretation is not a deductive or an inductive process. The meaning of a text cannot be demonstrated like a mathematical or logical claim or supported by empirical testing like a causal explanation. Interpretations cannot in any clear analytical sense be verified or falsified. We accept the interpretation that gives us the best reconstruction of the meaning of a certain scope of text relative to a certain context, but the necessary and sufficient conditions of what is to count as the best reconstruction cannot be stated before hand since the meaning of a text is too rich and too vague.

The most interesting aspect of this problem is that it isn’t a problem. Hermeneutics is something we do all the time successfully, given that it does seem we actually communicate in spite of the challenges. Methodologically, we naturally assume the basic reliability of our exegetical activity. Interpretation is a cyclic process between offering a plausible account of the whole and returning again and again to the details, checking and rechecking the whole in the light of new considerations. The process is never final but some aspects of it may remain stable over time, not changing in the light of new efforts. Hermeneutical conclusions are not deductions or inductions but personal judgments very similar to the judgments that courtroom judges and juries have to make.

When Calvin argues for his interpretation he does so be partial retracing his own reflections as he has reflected on the Scriptures. His work illustrates the exegetical process itself in that he wrote the Institutes when he was a young man after studying the scriptures (the whole story), began preaching and commenting more and more extensively through the whole Bible (the details) and constantly returning and rewriting the Institutes (the whole) through the years. Studying the development of the Institutes is to study Calvin’s exegetical autobiography.

This the way to the best interpretation for all of us. If you want to evaluate Calvin’s conclusions, there is a sense in which you have to retrace his steps and see if you agree.

When one is in the grip of skepticism one must remember that one can be in the “grip” of skepticism in a similar way that Wittgenstein observes that one can be in the “grip” of a picture. It’s part reason and part obsession."*

ken

 

[hlgomez]

It’s similar, except that we would deny the church is infallible, though it is authoritative.

You are saying that the church is fallible? Then how can we say or be assured that the Bible is all inspired when the Church (through the Pope and Bishops) proclaimed them to be inspired?

I guess your understanding of the Church Authority (the Apostles and their successors) is flawed. Do you know who is the head of this Church?–Christ himself!–when He said to Peter “upon this Rock I will build MY CHURCH.” This CHurch was not established by just plain men and women, it is Christ who established this Church and will be guided by Him until the end. So do you say that Christ authority which rests upon the Apostles in the Church is not to be trusted? Then who can be trusted? The Bible “alone”?

Further, what do you think is the Pillar and Foundation of truth?

Pio

 

[Britta]

Thank you for the quite lengthy dissertation I have had a chance to read it and wanted to respond.

1) No, I wouldn’t say that. I think you’re view is far too Either/Or to reflect how humans know things. We don’t have EITHER infallible knowledge OR purely subjective relative knowledge. Our knowledge is always subjective to some degree because we must interpret everything that comes into our sense without exception. However, unless you wish to argue that that interpretive actions makes every bit of knowledge we have worthless on the basis of it’s subjectivity, you have to take a more moderate view that God has equipped us with generally reliable sense and interpretive abilities. As such, when I read the first chapter of John, I’ll be overcome with the beauty of the eternal Word, not overcome with what to me looks like a biography of Groucho Marx. The point is simply this - language itself regulates our understanding because humans are built to understand it to a more or less accurate degree thus making our admittedly subjective judgments as to its meaning generally reliable, if not completely inerrantly objective.

You misunderstand - my point is not that everything is either/or and I agree with you for the most part. Generally speaking, our interpretation is very reliable. However, that is “generally” speaking. I would never claim that “every bit of knowledge” we have is “worthless” based on subjectivity. In fact, it is through each individual’s subjective points of reference that we are able to teach one another. However, given that, there are still the basic facts of Truth - there IS a heaven and a hell - there IS a God. However, some would argue, using their subjective judgments that this is not true.

1. I don’t think your skepticism is justified either by logic or by the heritage handed down to us by the early church. Your comments here remind me a lot more of modern skeptics of langauage and not very much of what the fathers of the church wrote. They were far more positive about our ability and obligation to study, listen to, read (if possible) and understand the revelation of God.

Again, I believe you may be misunderstanding me. I agree that we have a very strong ability and obligation to study, read and understand. The Church (and the Pope) completely encourages it. He has written much on our obligation in this area. Sadly, far too many are not fulfilling this duty. However, we need to remember and fully embrace how our own humaness and distorted vantage points can easily skew our perception of truth.

1. You have to understand that to me, your point here sounds very suspicious. If infallible langauge in God’s word is not understandable except when infallibly interpreted, why should I trust my ability to understand the words of the infallible interpreter? All he can give me are more words that can be misinterpreted, words subject to my own subjective understanding and interpretive ability. Even in my own head, I think in words which must even there be interpreted as I think them as I converse in my mind.

That’s where we differ. I do not find it suspicious because I trust that if the Holy Spirit would lead to the written word, He would ensure its proper interpretation. It is a matter of Faith in God’s providence. Given the history of the reformation, and the various interpretations we have seen, it seems obvious to me our subjective judgments are not completely reliable.

more on next message…

 

[Britta]

"Interpretation is not a deductive or an inductive process. The meaning of a text cannot be demonstrated like a mathematical or logical claim or supported by empirical testing like a causal explanation. Interpretations cannot in any clear analytical sense be verified or falsified. We accept the interpretation that gives us the best reconstruction of the meaning of a certain scope of text relative to a certain context, but the necessary and sufficient conditions of what is to count as the best reconstruction cannot be stated before hand since the meaning of a text is too rich and too vague.

I took this from your second message and wanted to respond.

The fact that we cannot demonstrate interpretation on a factual and logical basis is exactly why our own judgments are unreliable at some point. Furthermore, in that interpretation gives us the best reconstruction of the meaning of text relative to “context” is precisely the reason I would submit to Papal authority. Again, it’s a matter of faith and trust in the Holy Spirit.

It is through this succession that we are ensured the treasures and Truths that have been held firmly in place for 2000 years. Nothing has been altered, only clarified over the years. One of which is recognizing the authority of the Church as well as sacred scripture. For it is the Catholic Church, His Church guided by the Holy Spirit, that scripture is defining. Scripture is the text and the Church is the context. This very scripture was meant to fulfill the Church’s teaching, not take its place. Much like Jesus, He came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it.

Thank you for your responses. I hope I have been more clear.

God Bless

 

[II_Paradox_II]

Sorry I don’t have more time to respond, but I must get to work. This will probably be my last response… Thanks for talking though, you have been gracious.

As for your previous post, I appreciate the clarification. In my time I have met those who do hold to the more extreme position I was addressing, I am happy to see you do not.

The fact that we cannot demonstrate interpretation on a factual and logical basis is exactly why our own judgments are unreliable at some point. Furthermore, in that interpretation gives us the best reconstruction of the meaning of text relative to “context” is precisely the reason I would submit to Papal authority. Again, it’s a matter of faith and trust in the Holy Spirit.

1. I think one rhetorical issue that comes up first is that you mention your position as one of faith and trust in the HS. For clarification, I would submit that my position is such as well, just with a different object.
2. Part of the reason I have grown so suspicious of the interpretive neccessity of Rome is that from what I have studied, she has not reflected a good use of context, neither historical nor biblical. Ultimately, we put our faith in an infallible authority we think has sufficient proof such that we rationalize contradictory evidence. For example, I accept the inerrancy of scripture though I have never seen an inerrant bible. Through a combination of evidences I submit my skepticism to a faith that embraces a perfect scripture that doesn’t exist in my reality. In the same way, one who embraces the infallibility of Rome must also judge whether the proof of Rome’s infalliblity is sufficient to justify belief in her even when there is evidence to the contrary.

From what I have seen, the level of evidence to justify such a conclusion is lacking, thus I find no confidence in the infallbility of the Pope and Magesterium.

It is through this succession that we are ensured the treasures and Truths that have been held firmly in place for 2000 years. Nothing has been altered, only clarified over the years. One of which is recognizing the authority of the Church as well as sacred scripture. For it is the Catholic Church, His Church guided by the Holy Spirit, that scripture is defining. Scripture is the text and the Church is the context. This very scripture was meant to fulfill the Church’s teaching, not take its place. Much like Jesus, He came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it.

I guess this is ultimately where we part company. I would regard many of the things you mentioned as interesting philosophical statements about the church, but not ones that can be historically sustained to a sufficient degree to merit a dismissal of counter-evidence; thus making these claims an object of faith to be a counter-intuitive choice.

In many ways our starting points are so radically different, it is difficult for me to conceive of how we would come to any sort of mutual agreement over these issues. I cannot, for instance, agree with the notion that things have not changed, only developed over the years. To me, this Development hypothesis seems burdened with far too much speculative and philosophical overhead to be sufficient to compel belief that the contradiciting evidence for real change is really just an organic development. I accept that development happens, but I reject the notion that it can be applied so easily and so broadly to solve the disparities inherent in the details of history.

ken

 

[Britta]

Though I had not intended this to become an exhaustive analysis of the differing positions, I must admit I enjoy debating. Obviously, while much of our opinions are the same, we also differ.

Basically maintain two points: 1) I still fail to see how scripture can be viewed above the church when scripture was birthed from the church; and 2) the fact that we take the same scripture, history, and tradition and come to two different conclusions, I believe, supports the necessity for the Church to maintain authority of proper interpretation.

I appreciated your (name removed by moderator)ut and time. You were very informative. Have a nice day and God Bless

 

[Malachi4U]

II Paradox II:

…That being said, we normally support this through a combination of scritpural passages, patristic authority, reason, and theological considerations (tradition, broadly speaking, would be part of this and the patristic category).

ken

This is not what the "re"formers taught as its definition. When and why was it changed? Who changed it? Can theological truths be changed or is Gods Word unchangeable? What “reason” was used?

My old Baptist churches would totally disagree with your new definition by the way.

I see your church is accepting more RC Tradition or fixing faulty protestant theology? Neither? Both?

I would like to see you write more on this subject, it is very interesting!:yup:

Malachi4 U

 

[Calvin]

Malachi4U:

This is not what the "re"formers taught as its definition. When and why was it changed? Who changed it? Can theological truths be changed or is Gods Word unchangeable? What “reason” was used?

My old Baptist churches would totally disagree with your new definition by the way.

I see your church is accepting more RC Tradition or fixing faulty protestant theology? Neither? Both?

Your old Baptist parish was probably motivated by Anabaptist theology not Reformed theology. (Although there are some “Reformed Baptists.”) Both are Protestant but they also both emphasize different things. Reformed theology has always drawn from the Church fathers and early creeds. Folks who take their cue from Anabaptist theology are usually the ones who try to only use the Bible alone.

To the Reformers the sola slogans were just that – slogans. They were not theological statements. If they were they would be self-contradictory, since how can you have three or four “onlys”?

Reformed theology is actually older than Anabaptist theology and so Reformed theologians would not say they are “fixing” Protestant theology. Anabaptists, however, would (and did) say that the Reformation did not go far enough and they claimed to be “fixing” Reformed theology.

-C

 

[II_Paradox_II]

This is not what the "re"formers taught as its definition. When and why was it changed? Who changed it? Can theological truths be changed or is Gods Word unchangeable? What “reason” was used?

It’s not using the same words, but it is the same idea. Calvin’s explanation above was pretty good so I’ll let that sit. If you’d like to read more about it, there are several authors who deal with it fairly well including A.N.S. Lane & Heiko Oberman. If you want a more popular treatment of the aforesaid scholars work, you may want to get “the shape of Sola Scriptura” by Keith Mathison. He does a pretty good job of making the previous works mroe accessible.

My old Baptist churches would totally disagree with your new definition by the way.

As Calvin said, they are probably more influenced by the Anabaptist tradition than the Reformed or Lutheran traditions.

I see your church is accepting more RC Tradition or fixing faulty protestant theology? Neither? Both?

Everyone has to accept tradition to some degree, there is no escaping it. It only looks like we’re becoming more accepting because so many people have been going the opposite direction. You have to remember that the Reformation was not about every issue, but only a few issues. Catholics and Reformed protestants have quite a bit of common ground, and much of it is traditional (i.e… our use of the standard creeds and confessions, our conciliar ecclesiology, our Christology, etc…). We do have large disagreements over some elements of Catholic tradition, but that isn’t to say we find all of it to be spurious.

ken

 

[SteveG]

WOW! I always try to read all the posts in a thread before commenting so I don’t go over turf that’s already been covered. This one was tough to do so (thanks Paradox ), so apologies if I do repeat.

Clearly Paradox has given an elequent and well thought out explanation of his belief. Nonetheless, some of the positions he takes are ultimately untenable.

Firstly, it is posited that the reformed theology spoken of accepts both scripture and tradition (albeit understood differently). However, the charge that we Catholics make against those who TRULY adhere to the modern notion of Sola Scriptura of ‘You’d make yourself your own Pope!’ still stands and now in a double context. You would use your judgement to not only interpret scripture, but do so in light of the traditions, patristic writers, etc. that you judge as well. You have now nicely incorporated the concept of tradition, but totally insulated it from anything other than what you can get your hands on, read, or stumble across.

For instance, I have studied in fair depth, the idea of the primacy of the Roman bishop over the church from the viewpoint of the Church Fathers, and find it astounding that you hold that this was not clearly evident prior the final council (7th) which you accept as valid. Is it only that you haven’t happened to have seen the same evidence as I? In any event such a dispute arises from the fact that your subjective experience and mine on this issue is simply differnent. Must not there now STILL be an arbiter between us? You’ve really solved nothing by adding your understanding of tradition to the Sola Scriptura doctrine. You’ve just made it seem more reasonable and palatable. But ultimately you are till the sole judge over what you believe.

Now, it could be argued that by submitting to the authority of the church, I am only pushing the issue back a step. It’s still my subjective judgement, and my faith that has caused me to make that judgement. This is true to some extent. But at least the Church’s claim can be evaluated in a somewhat objective manner. We can look at both scripture and other writings of the early Christians and determine whether they are historically reliable. If so, we can then evaluate the forms of church hiearchy based on those writings that the earliest Church left us. Based on those facts, we can evaluate whether the Churhc’s claim to hold authority has been the norm since the time of the apostles. None of this need resort to faith or doctrinal claims. We can look at what the model was and see if it supports Catholic understanding. From Scriptures, to the writings of Ignatius, Irenaeus, Justin, Origen, Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine, et. al. The Catholic understanding of authority and heiarchy is clearly evident. And further, I do not as you might want to suggest, still subjectively determine what I believe. I hand that decision over to the church. I follow what they teach and am not involved in determining such for myself. All I need to is determine if their claim to authority is valid or not.

 Another point you made which I found untenable and even outlandish was that the church Fathers...

‘were far more positive about our ability and obligation to study, listen to, read (if possible) and understand the revelation of God.’
…For most of history, the VAST majority of humanity (Christians included) were not literate, nor enjoyed the liesure time to engage in much of the type of activity you suggest. They would have had neither the time nor resources to do the necessary leg work to make individual judgements as are needed under your non-heiarechal system. This statement would have really boiled down to their obligation to ‘listen to’. But then one must need ask, listen to who? Now we move clearly into the realm of faith and subjective claims. It seems to me that given the evidence mentioned above regarding the clear evidence for a heiarchical church, and the Lords goodness, that he would not have left us, or the earliest Christians in such a state. I hate to oversimplify, but is it reasonable to believe (assuming Jesus is who we believe him to be), that he would have left us with the bottom line position of ‘Figure it out for yourself’?
...CONTINUED....

 

[SteveG]

Further, contrary to you assertion that the Church as a whole interprets, teaches, instructs on doctrine without adequete reference to historical context. I have not found this to be so when you look at any given issue. I have yet to see a position of the church (on even the most contreversial of issues) which was based solely on understanding of that time without reference to scripture, historical practice, Jewish culture and understanding, etc. The church ALWAYS keeps both the OT and the historical perspective in view. Rather in my experience, it is the Protestant world (with the notable exceptions of a few people such as yourself and those with vastly greater education than the average Protestant) who are wholly ignorant of both history and context with regards to interpreting scripture and deciding doctrinal issues.

Finally, it is common to claim, and you did in such charitable and elequent terms, that many of the differences we view as such, need not really be differences. This is just flat out wrong. The range of differences on doctrine is vast. The necessity of baptism, infant baptism, the role of faith vs. works in salvation, Eucharist as symbol vs. real presence, even the canon of scripture itself, the list goes on and on and is not made of ‘side’ issues. The church fathers would not have had such brotherly attitudes towards those who disagreed on such key issues (in particular the Eucharist), and would have had a word they used for them. Usually it was heretic (I am in know way throwing this charge at anyone in this thread). No brotherly congeniality in fighting against heresies as you suggest.

 

[II_Paradox_II]

Further, contrary to you assertion that the Church as a whole interprets, teaches, instructs on doctrine without adequete reference to historical context. I have not found this to be so when you look at any given issue. I have yet to see a position of the church (on even the most contreversial of issues) which was based solely on understanding of that time without reference to scripture, historical practice, Jewish culture and understanding, etc. The church ALWAYS keeps both the OT and the historical perspective in view. Rather in my experience, it is the Protestant world (with the notable exceptions of a few people such as yourself and those with vastly greater education than the average Protestant) who are wholly ignorant of both history and context with regards to interpreting scripture and deciding doctrinal issues.

I would agree that much of the protestant world is caught up in an ahistorical muddle plenty of times. The lack of context, both historical and otherwise often leads many protestants down some very odd paths. In that respect, I don’t have any argument with you. However, that being the case, I still don’t think that validates the claims of the CC to point out that problem in others.

The issue I have with the CC in particular is that while it claims a historical perspective and actually holds to it in many areas, it’s methodologies are increasingly driving it away from a true connection to history. I’ll give you a few examples:

1. The modern fascination with Development of Doctrine has, IMO, weakened the connection between catholic doctrinal assertions and history itself. This has occured because DoD, as a method of historical interpretation, justifies the discontinuity of belief between our time and previous times by in part flattening out the historical details that would cause doubts to arise over the legitimacy of certain claims. In metaphorical terms, it is somewhat akin to finding to a string on the ground that is all tied up in knots (the messy details of history) and then grabbing both ends of the string and pulling it straight. DoD acts the person who grabs one end of the string (the earliest belief - the DNA of doctrine), then finds the other end of the string (what we believe now) and just pulls on them to make the whole thing look straight.

In essence, I’m not convinced that the philosophy of history asserted by Newman and so many here is really leading to a greater appreciation of history as it was, but a flattening of it to fit our modern dogmatic needs.

1. Another example is that of Oberman in the quote I made earlier
   "Until the beginning of the fourteenth century theologians defined their own task in the terms in which we have described Tradition I, while the enterprise related to Tradition II was more or less an appendix. Yet it was certainly not a sign of “late medieval disintegration” that more and more doctors realized that they had to come to terms with a dual concept of tradition. Rather it indicates theological progress in the period that as a result of their better understanding of the setting and context of biblical passages, more and more theologians either had to call for a doctrinal reformation or to abandon the claim to a biblical warrant for a particular doctrine. Special significance was thus attached to John 20:30: “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples which are not written in this book…”

One further point is simply this - I don’t doubt that the magesterium relies on scholarship and broad context to establish it’s claims (it has some of the best scholars in the world). My issue is that I don’t think they are always right and I don’t think their grand claims can be lived up to. Pointing out the deficiencies in other churches won’t help to justify the claims of the CC itself.

ken - part II is below

 

[II_Paradox_II]

Finally, it is common to claim, and you did in such charitable and elequent terms, that many of the differences we view as such, need not really be differences. This is just flat out wrong. The range of differences on doctrine is vast. The necessity of baptism, infant baptism, the role of faith vs. works in salvation, Eucharist as symbol vs. real presence, even the canon of scripture itself, the list goes on and on and is not made of ‘side’ issues.

1. You have to remember the context in which I was pointing out those similarities - the Rule of Faith as embodied in the creeds. Beyond there are certainly differences, many very serious. My point was that the Reformed Churches recognize the need to interpret within that broad Rule of Faith, thus the reason we are not Arian or Modalist among other things.
2. In addition - I was also using this in context of saying that we need not divide over things that really don’t divide us. For instance, the issue of imputation vs. infusion divides us, but at the same time the issue of neccessity of works really doesn’t divide as much as many popular polemics would make one think.

The church fathers would not have had such brotherly attitudes towards those who disagreed on such key issues (in particular the Eucharist), and would have had a word they used for them.

They were often not so friendly to each other even over issues we would consider trifling. They often had strong words for each other over things we would not dream of dividing over (easter controversies come to mind). I have read numerous passages where they excoriate each other over such things as the stupidity of the allegorical method, the absurdity of one’s liturgical calendar or views of any number of issues.

You have to remember my point - it was simply to argue that sola scriptura, as classically defined, did not mean a rejection of tradition as an authority as a whole. It did decisively reject any two-source view of authority in the church, but it didn’t reject the validity and usefulness of tradition outright. As such, the Reformed and Lutheran churches sought to maintain the primacy of the core issues of the early church as outlined in the Rule of Faith and the general consensus of the fathers.

Usually it was heretic (I am in know way throwing this charge at anyone in this thread). No brotherly congeniality in fighting against heresies as you suggest.

I don’t think I suggested that. The church fathers were often in great disunity and didn’t always live up to the ideals we imagine for them or that they actually held themselves. Further, when they went after acknowledged heretics, they were quite a bit nastier and did not mince words.

ken