The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So what about the other two Solas (Solus Christus &Sola Deo Gloria)? I understand that this article is pointed at the bread and butter of the Ref, but it left me wondering about tea and lemon(or honey or milk). Does the book that this person is referencing go into detail about these peripherals? Or if you have already answered this please link it in a response or give an approximate page number.
 
steido01 said:
Randy, PR, Tertium, et al. - I just want to thank you for this excellent academic discussion on the last few pages. I’m learning so much, and seeing that the Catholic understanding of the relationship between Magisterium and Scripture sounds excitingly close to the Lutheran practice of Sola Scriptura. Agreement might yet be found!
Click to expand...
I second this. What PR and Randy ( and Mr. Akin) have described sounds interestingly similar to the first three paragraphs of the Summary Rule and Norm of the Epitome.

Jon
 
guanophore said:
While I have great respect for Mr. Akin as an apologist, I am not fond of his choice of words here. Certainly the CC teaches that only the Scriptures are theopneustos. However, to say that there is Word of God that is not “inspired” does not make any sense to me.
Click to expand...
That’s why I think it’s important to just stick to “theopneustos” when we mean inspired.

Does it make you uncomfortable to have it stated this way: There is a channel of the Word of God (Tradition) that is NOT theopneustos, but is rather achieved through the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

Would you have a problem with it stated in that way?
 
TertiumQuid said:
In fairness to Mr. Akin, I’m not sure exactly where the quote is from. I would like to see a context to see if he explained himself further. He typically is very thorough in what he states.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is to my discredit that I did not save the source.
or if it’s a dogmatic view of the church. My curiosity is piqued.
Click to expand...
I do not believe it is a professed dogma of the Church. It is, however, a common understanding of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
 
PRmerger said:
That’s why I think it’s important to just stick to “theopneustos” when we mean inspired.

Does it make you uncomfortable to have it stated this way: There is a channel of the Word of God (Tradition) that is NOT theopneustos, but is rather achieved through the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

Would you have a problem with it stated in that way?
Click to expand...
No, I think we can all agree that it is not possible to retain the Teaching of the Apostles without the assistance of the HS. I would prefer a term/concept used by the Apostles and the Fathers.

For that reason I prefer the paradosis which has been preserved infallibly in the Church by the HS.
 
guanophore said:
No, I think we can all agree that it is not possible to retain the Teaching of the Apostles without the assistance of the HS.
Click to expand...
Right.
I would prefer a term/concept used by the Apostles and the Fathers.
Click to expand...
For that reason I prefer the paradosis which has been preserved infallibly in the Church by the HS.
Click to expand...
What is your disagreement with Akin’s point that only Scripture is theopneustos, but that Sacred Tradition is achieved through the assistance of the Holy Spirit, rather than being God-breathed?
 
Various responses:
JonNC said:
I second this. What PR and Randy ( and Mr. Akin) have described sounds interestingly similar to the first three paragraphs of the Summary Rule and Norm of the Epitome.
Click to expand...
If you have moment, I would be interested in seeing the similarities you see.
PRmerger said:
ONLY Sacred Scripture is theopneustos.
Click to expand...
PRmerger said:
That’s why I think it’s important to just stick to “theopneustos” when we mean inspired.Does it make you uncomfortable to have it stated this way: There is a channel of the Word of God (Tradition) that is NOT theopneustos, but is rather achieved through the assistance of the Holy Spirit.Would you have a problem with it stated in that way?
Click to expand...
I have theory of what is going on here. It’s probably the case the the dogmatic pronouncements specifically state that Sacred Scripture is God-breathed, but do not state anything as specific about unwritten Tradition and the declarations of the Magisterium, so the position you’re putting forth may be more of an interpretation rather than the defined position of the Catholic church.
PRmerger said:
I do not believe it is a professed dogma of the Church. It is, however, a common understanding of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
Click to expand...
I was thinking that as well after reading through Dei Verbum while going back and forth with you the other night. The crucial phrase (as I see it) from Mr. Akin’s quote is “Theologians talk about sacred Tradition being ‘assisted’ by the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church…”. Had the position you’ve brought into this discussion (as described by Mr. Akin) been a perspicuous dogmatic declaration, I don’t think Mr. Akin would’ve used the word “Theologians.” It appears to me the position that both you and Mr. Akin have put forth is an interpretation of (at least) Dei Verbum, and perhaps some other official statements.

As I stated earlier, I don’t consider myself any sort of expert on the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, but in what I have read, I don’t recall ever coming across a dogmatic pronouncement making a distinction between a Word of God that is assisted rather than* inspired*. A few of you have kindly posted sections of the Catechism for me, but I already have a working knowledge of what it says in regards to this issue.

Unless someone has an official statement from the Church on this, I don’t have any more questions related to this issue. I’m content to have discovered the position being put forth is an interpretation of what the Catholic church teaches. I’ve appreciated the interaction.
 
steido01 said:
Randy, PR, Tertium, et al. - I just want to thank you for this excellent academic discussion on the last few pages. I’m learning so much, and seeing that the Catholic understanding of the relationship between Magisterium and Scripture sounds excitingly close to the Lutheran practice of Sola Scriptura. Agreement might yet be found!
Click to expand...
This was a refreshing exchange. I particularly have been delighted to interact without anything personal being thrown in, or at me, for that matter. I realize that my time here is a slow walk on thin ice, and I have fallen in a few times already. I’m of the belief that people with significant differences can still have a cordial exchange of ideas.
 
TertiumQuid said:
Various responses:

If you have moment, I would be interested in seeing the similarities you see.
Click to expand...
Sure, James,

I was particularly thinking of the third paragraph.
  1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.
Click to expand...
2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.
Click to expand...
3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.
Click to expand...
The language here is quite strong in support of the creeds, that one could infer this “assistance” of the Holy Spirit in their writing. Even in the second paragraph can include that inference…

Obviously, there is a difference in degrees, but I thought what PR and Randy were saying has a similarity to this.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Obviously, there is a difference in degrees, but I thought what PR and Randy were saying has a similarity to this.
Click to expand...
I wonder if the Orthodox spotted the same similarities in the 4th Plenary of the Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission in 1987? It sure seems like statements 7-11 are leading to it, if not outrightly saying it – the second half of the St. Basil reference is particularly striking.

Sounds to me like, “Yeah, sure, there may be three legs to the proverbial stool, but one leg is significantly thicker, stronger, and supports more weight than any of the others.”
 
TertiumQuid said:
This was a refreshing exchange. I particularly have been delighted to interact without anything personal being thrown in, or at me, for that matter. I realize that my time here is a slow walk on thin ice, and I have fallen in a few times already. I’m of the belief that people with significant differences can still have a cordial exchange of ideas.
Click to expand...
There is no need to view it as a “slow walk on thin ice”. There are numerous posters here (to wit: JonNC, Anna Scott, benjohnson, Bradski) who have been prolific in their posts and have been able to dialogue quite freely, skating gracefully and making beautiful figure 8’s…

 
TertiumQuid said:
It appears to me the position that both you and Mr. Akin have put forth is an interpretation of (at least) Dei Verbum, and perhaps some other official statements.
Click to expand...
Yes.
As I stated earlier, I don’t consider myself any sort of expert on the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, but in what I have read, I don’t recall ever coming across a dogmatic pronouncement making a distinction between a Word of God that is assisted rather than* inspired*. A few of you have kindly posted sections of the Catechism for me, but I already have a working knowledge of what it says in regards to this issue.
Click to expand...
Unless someone has an official statement from the Church on this, I don’t have any more questions related to this issue. I’m content to have discovered the position being put forth is an interpretation of what the Catholic church teaches. I’ve appreciated the interaction.
Click to expand...
:tiphat:
 
steido01 said:
Just curious, how common is your understanding among Catholics? Is this a widespread view of Scripture and Tradition, or a relatively small one?
Click to expand...
As Catholics, sadly, are the most uncatechized of folks, I would say that it is relatively uncommon.

You know more about Catholicism than the average Catholic, so I would just extrapolate your view on S and T to the general “elite” Catholic population.

And by “elite” I am by no means indicating the state of their soul, their goodness or holiness. I am simply using “elite” in the very, very narrow sense of “Catholics who know their faith intellectually.”
 
PRmerger said:
There is no need to view it as a “slow walk on thin ice”. There are numerous posters here (to wit: JonNC, Anna Scott, benjohnson, Bradski) who have been prolific in their posts and have been able to dialogue quite freely, skating gracefully and making beautiful figure 8’s…

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/0c/8b/94/0c8b94e22a55326b3ace509be7a80191.jpg
Click to expand...
For the record, PR has not here used an actual picture of me. :dts:

Jon

PS. But thanks for the kind words
 
Thank you all for the laugh today and thank you for an enlightening and courteous thread! :tiphat:

Peace to all!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top