Who Interprets tradition: From a curious Evangelical

  • Thread starter Thread starter michaelp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Note this ‘pot calling the kettle black’ in particular in light of the assertion by Patton’s blogging buddy Dan Wallace which follows th Chicago Statement excerpt:

Chicago Statement:
  1. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this
total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible’s own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

Dan Wallace My Favorite Passage That’s Not in the Bible :
]…These two texts – Mark 16.9-20 DRC and John 7.53-8.11 (John 8:1-11 DRC) … are almost always marked out in modern translations with notes such as “Not found in the oldest manuscripts”…
Keeping these two pericopae in our Bibles rather than relegating them to the footnotes seems to have been a bomb just waiting to explode… those in ministry need to close the gap between the church and the academy.
We have to educate believers. Instead of trying to isolate laypeople from critical scholarship, we need to insulate them… The intentional dumbing down of the church for the sake of filling more pews will ultimately lead to defection from Christ.
continued…
 
There are a number of issues which come up in this blog alone: the most obvious one is a ‘quiet’ admission of the existence of an Evangelical magisterium – the ‘academy’.

Moreover another ‘quiet’ admission emerges – the desire to curb laypeople from reading critical scholarship – a tradition – something which Catholics are consistently (and wrongfully) accused of doing.

So instead of a magisterium which curbs laypeople from accessing the tradition of critical scholarship, Wallace writes of a magisterium which interprets the tradition of critical scholarship for laypeople.

And the difference is – drumroll – there is no difference. It’s a shell game. Those who were ‘gentlemen and scholars’ get to be autocrats. And those who were peasants get to be serfs.

I can only conclude that this is a variant of the same old same old bone point of departure: not authority itself – although this certainly brings the blood rushing to the head with some – but who gets to wield that authority.

Language is power. Not the much sought-after authority, but power nontheless.

continued…
 
Whether curbing or interpreting, the Evangelical magisterium which Wallace/Patton promote is about an oligarchy of scholars wielding authority. Is this true of Catholics? No.

Witness Ste Therese de Lisieux and those humble, simple, unschooled saints who number in the multitudes and who have influenced Catholic interpretation of traditions and scripture in no small measure.

In any case, in* My Favorite Passage That’s Not in the Bible* alone, Patton seems to have answered his own question *Who Interprets tradition? *The academy does. Is the academy Catholic? No. It is Evangelical.

continued…
 
What tradition are we talking about? In part, the Chicago Statement, in part Dei Verbum, both of which Wallace/Patton unceremoniously repudiate.

In support of his candidacy for the magisterium, Patton resorts to the not very scholarly ad populem:
Seeing as how the mass majority of biblical scholars would submit that they are inauthentic… it seems rather upsetting to me that we have even been set up to make such an unnecessary and emotionally based decision.
Most who read this will react because they are familiar with and love these passages… But the fact is that anyone who objectively looks at the evidence would undoubtedly be convinced that these passages should not be included…
Having said this, I think that these passages should be placed in the footnotes at most, but most readers versions of the Scripture should not have them at all.
Gosh, that would not seem even to be an insulating move, but an isolating move!

continued…
 
If that isn’t damaging enough to the reliability of their proposed magisterium of the academy, Wallace then walks into his own trap by subverting the ‘irreproachable’ tradition of Sola Scriptura itself:

I appreciate… the concerns that some raised about relying on scholars rather than relying on scripture.

And here comes the ‘however’ clause which serves to negate what he has just said:

However… there is no single manuscript that we can point to and say, “That’s exactly what the original says!”

Those who agree with him are ‘honest scholars’. Those who question the authority of the magisterium of the academy overturning the tradition of The Chicago Statement and Dei Verbum to interpret the tradition of Sola Scriptura are ‘emotional’.

Is this theology? Or politics? 🤷 ~ end of post
 
Actually I created a Catholic education website this last winter. But the folks I was working with … well … let’s not stir that up again.

I will think about doing the blog thing later. But I have a lot of other things to do first. Pray for me?

🙂
Would I fail you in that Sister of mine? :signofcross:
 
Mike, I appreciate your respect in asking this question. I like it when people are genuinely seeking answers, rather than being self-righteous or antagonistic. I must tell you, however, that there is absolutely positively NO Scriptural support, whatsoever, for the doctrine of Sola-Scriptura. Sola-Scriptura is about as far from “infallible” a doctrine that we can possibly get. With over 33,000 different denominations of Protestants that all claim “Sola-Scriptura,” yet all believe different things, we can CLEARLY and DECISIVELY conclude that individual interpretation of Scripture is anything but “infallible,” or “authoritative,” and that the doctrine of Sola-Scriptura is by NO means, “verified.” Scripture is NOT self-explanatory. All Scripture is true, but not all individual interpretation of Scripture is true, even if one genuinely believes that such interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirit. To believe “Sola-Scriptura” is to be DECEIVED into thinking that you are trusting the Bible alone, when in reality, you are trusting your own comprehension skills, which can easily be tainted by personal bias and prejudices, misunderstandings, or false teachings of others who were in error.
For example, no offense, but your understanding of Deuteronomy 13 and Deuteronomy 18 are both totally off. Deuteronomy 13 tells you not to follow people who try to lead you to worship other gods, even if their signs and prophecies come true. Deuteronomy 18 talks about prophets, telling us that if someone prophesizes something that does not come true, then the prophesy was not from God. Neither of those chapters of Scripture have anything to do with the Church’s authority to define doctrines, interpret Scripture, and preserve the true faith. They merely are giving examples of people not to trust, nowhere providing any formula to verify trustworthiness, but giving examples that can conclude that a prophet is NOT trustworthy. If you are looking for miracles or signs to trust that someone speaks for God, heed the warning in Matthew 24:24. If you are looking for a conclusive formula to “test spirits,” you’ll find that in 1 John 4:2-3, but even that is for spirits, not people. To understand the Church’s authority, you need to see that it was authority established by Christ, Himself.
Christ established His Church (Matthew 16:18-19) which is refered to as the “pillar and bulwark of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15.) That Church gave us the New Testament. If you don’t believe that the Church first had the authority to write and canonize the New Testament, by what logic can you trust the New Testament? It didn’t just magically fall from the sky. Realize that the New Testament comes from the Church, not the other way around. The New Testament, as we know it, today, was not canonized until the late 300s. Also, the “Word of God” is not limited to the written letter. (See 2 Thessalonians 2:15). Sola-Scriptura suggests that people can place more trust in their own personal interpretations of Scripture, than they can trust in Christ’s ability to found a Church that can infallibly teach truth, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13). Read Proverbs 3:5, and realize that the doctrine of Sola-Scriptura outright contradicts Scripture.
There is much more I can say in opposition to Sola-Scriptura, as I can give countless examples of how people have been led astray through their personal interpretations of individual verses of Scripture, but I hope that I made my point clear. While the Bible is 100% true and inspired, individual interpretation of the Bible is NOT. Christ wanted unity (John 17:20-21), and therefore established am authoritative Church that would guide us in all aspects of the faith, including Sacred Tradition, the interpretations of the existing Hebrew Scriptures(Old Testament), and the writing, canonization, and interpretation of the new Scriptures.(New Testament.) This Church can speak with ONE voice, under authority of the Pope (successor of Peter) something that Sola-Scriptura does NOT allow, since Sola-Scriptura makes individual people into their own personal popes, often causing hatred and division, even within the same denominations. Again, the 33,000+ denominations of “Sola-Scriptura” Protestants, as opposed to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church should be enough evidence to prove the point I am making. I sincerely hope this helps you, Mike, and that my words are taken as a genuine heart-felt correction and do not come across antagonistically, as such is not my intent. May God be with you.
 
**
40.png
Philthy:
Here are my thoughts - and I beleive we covered this together over a year ago, but I could be wrong.
**
40.png
Philthy:
Scripture,** which is fixed**** and static, …**
I believe I might have some observations that may be relevant to this discussion.

I have been conversing with michaelp on the blog he uses to promote his Theology Program, and in the process have discovered the sincerity of his “curiosity” is indeed suspect and he feigns he doesn’t “understand” the Catholic perspective when given clear explanation only to move to another thread and repost the same questions with supposed “curiosity” as demonstrated myriad times on these threads he involved himself in here at CAF…

To be frank, I went to his blog that he referred to in a recent thread he started here on CAF and linked to. I went there in good faith–believing his claim that he intended to have the Catholic perspective presented in the spirit of “finding common ground.” Almost immediately (partially as reaction to Moto Proprio and some due to the uproar about the president of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dr. Francis Beckwith’s, conversion back to Catholicism) offensive blog entries appeared. From attempting to find a chink in the “Catholic Confessional Armor” evident in Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism: Has the Battle Ground Begun to Change?


**to The Catholic Church is a Cult to patently disrespectful tomes by Patton himself called Letter to Pope Benedict and Dear Pope, I am Confused About the Early Chapters of Genesis …more and more it became evident that the sincerity of wanting to find common ground was dubious. **

…CONTINUED
 
Now I have become concerned that this “curiosity” expressed here on CAF is really merely an underhanded way to lure those weak in Catholic apologetics to his product called the “Theology Program” which promotes the heretical notion that the Canon of Scripture is not closed. Not only has there been a blog entry that justifies relegating some portions of the New Testament to “footnotes” or even removed entirely per the system of study promoted in the Theology Program (see: My Favorite Passage That’s Not in the Bible ), but also in the words of Michal Patton (michaelp on this forum) whole books of the New Testament could be excised by something akin to majority rule!

This only became apparent as I had to research his program due to repeated evasiveness on his own blog when asked how per his system any text was deemed appropriate to be included in the Scriptures and called “inspired.” (see: Is the Bible a “Paper Pope” for Protestants? ) He never did answer, but had linked to his lectures available online in a little “advertisement” within one of the combox exchanges. (Post #12 in Is Our Canon of Scripture a Fallible Collection of Infallible Books? )


**From that, I learned his view on Scripture, and ultimately that he is preaching and teaching at least one heretical point of view—that Scripture can be monkeyed with if the community of believers decides to. **

Here is the direct quote from that lecture that has convinced me the theology of the “Theology Program” is NOT of God:

This is from the lecture by Michael Patton titled: “What are the facts concerning the canon?”.

**MICHAEL PATTON: “We do have a community of believers that must recognize the cannon. If everybody in the community, or half of the community said, ‘This is not part of the Canon’ and that went on and on throughout history, I would say ‘hey, it’s not the voice of God, it can’t be the voice of God” (muffled question from student) “no, you need, you need a high percentage, you’d have to have it way up there, I would say the majority of people, it ought to be always an exception whenever you see a rarity where one of the Biblical books is rejected but not throughout history where you see, well, you know, people, half the people have always rejected the book of Revelations, you know, from whenever it was written until now, I’d say, hey, get it out, because the people of God have not recognized it, unless you can find something within those people of God that have rejected it and say to them this is something that is common within you to be a fringe movement that …(stopped really making any sense and so the questioner is probably more confused)…the canon is simply the books that we need in order to be equipped in the age that we are in—that’s as far as I would go with it. I would not go with it’s a closed canon that is complete and there is nothing else that could ever be added to it…”
 
40.png
st_felicity:
Now I have become concerned that this “curiosity” expressed here on CAF is really merely an underhanded way to lure those weak in Catholic apologetics to his product called the “Theology Program” which promotes the heretical notion that the Canon of Scripture is not closed…
Are there precedents for nipping and tucking Scripture? In other words is there a tradition among Reformers to remove books from the Bible? If so, what comprises the magisterium for interpreting and applying that tradition?

Luther and the seven missing books certainly comes to mind. James Swan, however, claims that Luther never removed the ‘apocrypha’ from the Bible but only "Sorting them out of the canonical books, he appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, ‘These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read*.’*”[8]

continued…
 
On this subject, Dan Wallace speaks of a tradition of timidity:
When it comes to the story of the woman caught in adultery or the long ending of Mark, why is it that translators are still hesitant to relegate these verses to the margin? My sense is that there is a tradition of timidity.
Wallace claims that “…no cardinal truth is lost if these verses go bye-bye. No essential doctrine is disturbed if they are MIA.” Ultimately Wallace neatly sidesteps the question of requisite authority for fooling around with Scripture by offering a false dilemma close on the heals of an ad populem:
What I want to ask is a different question: In light of the scholarly consensus, how should translators address these passages? What would you prefer?

Would you want the texts to remain in their place, with only a tiny marginal note that, like the small print in consumer products, is hardly noticed by the reader?

Would you want these verses expunged from the text entirely with no trace?

Would you want them relegated to footnotes with explanation?

Ultimately, what I’m asking is, How honest do you want biblical scholars to be?

Would you rather hear this sort of news from those who are enemies of the faith or from those love Christ and are willing to go to the wall for the scriptures?

What say you? link
continued…
 
Speaking about the tradition of expunging verses from the text entirely with no trace: I can remember a friend trying to tell me that God did not want me to be Catholic. I think we were leafing through our respective Bibles at the time and I mentioned the Book of Wisdom.

You can imagine her horror that I was referring to a Book she nothing about! I explained that seven books and bits of other books had been removed from the Bible. And actually they were.

Whether Luther did it or not is not the point. Luther, being thoroughly political, merely moved the books into a marginal position where he knew they would be not accorded any relevance even if they were read.

For 275 years there were efforts to purge the apocrypha from the Bible: (scroll down)

1534: Luther Bible: APOCRYPHA, that is, Books which are not to be esteemed like the Holy Scriptures…

1535: Coverdale Bible: The books and treatises which among the Fathers of old are not reckoned to be of like authority with the other books of the Bible, neither are they found in the Canon of Hebrew…

1560: Geneva Bible : Apocrypha, that is, books which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church…

1618: The Synod of the Reformed Church held at Dordrecht… condemned the Apocrypha.

1562: The thirty nine Articles of the Church of England… rejected the canonicity of these apocryphal writings…

1880: The American Bible Society voted [to] remove the “Apocrypha” Books from the King James Version. These 14 Books… of the Apocrypha had been part of the King’s bible since 1611.

1885: The “Apocrypha” was officially removed from the English printings of the KJV by the Archbishop of Canterbury leaving only 66 books.

Luther started a tradition of removing books – a tradition which was enthusiastically upheld by others after him. But how did they know who got to interpret this tradition?

If this tradition is continued, then how will the invisible churches apply sola scriptura to an invisible Bible? Will someone interpret the tradition of removing books as a tradition which includes adding books?
 
If this tradition is continued, then how will the invisible churches apply sola scriptura to an invisible Bible? Will someone interpret the tradition of removing books as a tradition which includes adding books?
I know—The Invisible Man!

The road to hell is paved with anarchy. How do you stop someone from picking and choosing their own canon when your very founders did it?

If someone decides the Book of Job is all that’s necessary for salvation, what precisely prevents them from doing so? How is their interpretation any less valid than Luther’s or Calvin’s or Zwingli’s?
 
40.png
Teflon93:
…How is their interpretation any less valid than Luther’s or Calvin’s or Zwingli’s?
Did Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, or any of the rest of the Early Reformers have traditions?

:cool: :whistle:
 
Looks like some Protestant folks are not very happy with Dan Wallace and I guess, by extension, Wallace’s buddies Michael Patton and Chuck Swindoll… The head of Dallas Seminary is Chuck Swindoll, a Promise Keepers speaker and long-time Billy Graham supporter…

DALLAS PROFESSOR DENIES BIBLICAL INSPIRATION

Wallace writes:
It is quite impossible to hold that the three synoptic gospels were completely independent from each other. In the least, they had to have shared a common oral tradition. But the vast bulk of NT scholars today would argue for much more than that…

We shall see later that before the Gospels were written there did exist a period in which the gospel materials were passed on orally, and it is clear that this oral tradition influenced not only the first of our synoptic Gospels but the subsequent ones as well…

The majority of NT scholars hold to Markan priority [Mark was written first and then Matthew and Luke based their gospels upon it] (either the two-source hypothesis of Holtzmann or the four-source hypothesis of Streeter). This is the view adopted in this paper as well…

One argument concerning Mark’s harder readings which has been (as far as I can tell) completely overlooked is the probability that neither Luke nor Matthew had pristine copies of Mark at their disposal. … An intermediate scribe is probably responsible --either intentionally or unintentionally–for more than a few of the changes which ended up in Luke and Matthew…

Matthew and Luke have in common about 235 verses not found in Mark. … Only two viable reasons for such parallels can be given: either one gospel writer knew and used the gospel of the other, or both used a common source.
continued…
 
Brother Cloud writes:
This approach to the Gospels, now parroted by scholars claiming to be “evangelical,” was devised by unbelieving modernists who deny the perfect inspiration of Holy Scripture… These men look at the Bible largely as a product of human invention…

IF THE REDACTION THEORIES OF THE GOSPELS ARE TRUE, WE DO NOT HAVE AN INFALLIBLE ACCOUNT OF CHRIST’S LIFE…

IF THE REDACTION THEORIES OF THE GOSPELS ARE TRUE, WE WILL NEVER KNOW FOR SURE WHAT PART OF THE GOSPELS ARE THE FALLIBLE WORDS OF MEN AND WHAT PART IS THE INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD…

THOSE WHO ACCEPT REDACTION THEORIES ARE NOT EDIFYING THE FLOCK; THEY ARE ENTERTAINING THE SCHOLARS…

THE ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS AND PROBLEMS WITHIN THE GOSPELS WHICH ARE RAISED BY THOSE WHO PROMOTE REDACTION CRITICISM HAVE BEEN ANSWERED SATISFACTORILY WITHOUT RESORTING TO REDACTIONISM…

ONE OF THE ERRORS WHICH LEADS TO THEORIES SUCH AS REDACTIONISM IS TO FOCUS ON THE METHOD OF INSPIRATION RATHER THAN THE PRODUCT…

REDACTION CRITICISM IS OF THE DEVIL…

THE FACT THAT DANIEL WALLACE AT DALLAS SEMINARY IS PROMOTING REDACTIONISM SOUNDS A LOUD WARNING TO FUNDAMENTALISTS ABOUT THIS SCHOOL…
So much for unity. 😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top