Controversy
As the title suggests, there is but one purpose for this post. I will be severely disappointed if I receive no comments.
Excerpt from Tertullian circa A.D. 200 from his Catholic heyday, prior to his schism with the Montanists.
I don't think his later schism to a great degree should affect his arguments below, because the claim to apostolic authority was the claim of so many of the early fathers against heretics and their perversion of the Holy Scriptures. This appeal was normative in the early Church.
"The Prescription Against Heretics"- from ccel.org (Calvin College site)
Chapter XIX. Appeal, in Discussion of Heresy, Lies Not to the Scriptures. The Scriptures Belong Only to Those Who Have the Rule of Faith.
Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough. But even if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: "With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians? "For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions.
Chapter XX.-Christ First Delivered the Faith. The Apostles Spread It; They Founded Churches as the Depositories Thereof. That Faith, Therefore, is Apostolic, Which Descended from the Apostles, Through Apostolic Churches.
Christ Jesus our Lord (may He bear with me a moment in thus expressing myself!), whosoever He is, of what God soever He is the Son, of what substance soever He is man and God, of what faith soever He is the, teacher, of what reward soever He is the Promiser, did, whilst He lived on earth, Himself declare what He was, what He had been, what the Father's will was which He was administering, what the duty of man was which He was prescribing; (and this declaration He made, ) either openly to the people, or privately to His disciples, of whom He had chosen the twelve chief ones to be at His side, and whom He destined to be the teachers of the nations. Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to "go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost." Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as "the sent." Having, on the authority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David, chosen Matthias by lot as the twelfth, into the place of Judas, they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judµa, and rounding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner rounded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (rounded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality,-privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery.
Chapter XXI.-All Doctrine True Which Comes Through the Church from the Apostles, Who Were Taught by God Through Christ. All Opinion Which Has No Such Divine Origin and Apostolic Tradition to Show, is Ipso Facto False.
From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for "no man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him." Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach-that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached-in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them-can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles rounded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivG voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches-those moulds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth.
Chapter XXII.-Attempt to Invalidate This Rule of Faith Rebutted. The Apostles Safe Transmitters of the Truth. Sufficiently Taught at First, and Faithful in the Transmission.
But inasmuch as the proof is so near at hand, that if it were at once produced there would be nothing left to be dealt with, let us give way for a while to the opposite side, if they think that they can find some means of invalidating this rule, just as if no proof were forthcoming from us. They usually tell us that the apostles did not know all things: (but herein) they are impelled by the same madness, whereby they turn round to the very opposite point, and declare that the apostles certainly knew all things, but did not deliver all things to all persons,-in either case exposing Christ to blame for having sent forth apostles who had either too much ignorance, or too little simplicity. What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, "when they were alone, He used to expound" all things which were obscure, telling them that "to them it was given to know those mysteries," which it was not permitted the people to understand? Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called "the rock on which the church should be built," who also obtained "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," with the power of "loosing and binding in heaven and on earth? " Was anything, again, concealed from John, the Lord's most beloved disciple, who used to lean on His breast to whom alone the Lord pointed Judas out as the traitor, whom He commended to Mary as a son in His own stead? Of what could He have meant those to be ignorant, to whom He even exhibited His own glory with Moses and Elias, and the Father's voice moreover, from heaven? Not as if He thus disapproved of all the rest, but because "by three witnesses must every word be established." After the same fashion, too, (I suppose, ) were they ignorant to whom, after His resurrection also, He vouchsafed, as they were journeying together, "to expound all the Scriptures." No doubt He had once said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot hear them now; "but even then He added, "When He, the Spirit of truth, shall come, He will lead you into all truth." He (thus) shows that there was nothing of which they were ignorant, to whom He had promised the future attainment of all truth by help of the Spirit of truth. And assuredly He fulfilled His promise, since it is proved in the Acts of the Apostles that the Holy Ghost did come down. Now they who reject that Scripture can neither belong to the Holy Spirit, seeing that they cannot acknowledge that the Holy Ghost has been sent as yet to the disciples, nor can they presume to claim to be a church themselves who positively have no means of proving when, and with what swaddling-clothes this body was established. Of so much importance is it to them not to have any proofs for the things which they maintain, lest along with them there be introduced damaging exposures of those things which they mendaciously devise.
Chapter XXIII.-The Apostles Not Ignorant. The Heretical Pretence of St. Peter's Imperfection Because He Was Rebuked by St. Paul. St. Peter Not Rebuked for Error in Teaching.
Now, with the view of branding the apostles with some mark of ignorance, they put forth the case of Peter and them that were with him having been rebuked by Paul. "Something therefore," they say, "was wanting in them." (This they allege, ) in order that they may from this construct that other position of theirs, that a fuller knowledge may possibly have afterwards come over (the apostles, ) such as fell to the share of Paul when he rebuked those who preceded him. I may here say to those who reject The Acts of the Apostles: "It is first necessary that you shows us who this Paul was,-both what he was before he was an apostle, and how he became an apostle,"-so very great is the use which they make of him in respect of other questions also. It is true that he tells us himself that he was a persecutor before he became an apostle, still this is not enough for any man who examines before he believes, since even the Lord Himself did not bear witness of Himself. But let them believe without the Scriptures, if their object is to believe contrary to the Scriptures. Still they should show, from the circumstance which they allege of Peter's being rebuked by Paul, that Paul added yet another form of the gospel besides that which Peter and the rest had previously set forth. But the fact is, having been converted from a persecutor to a preacher, he is introduced as one of the brethren to brethren, by brethren-to them, indeed, by men who had put on faith from the apostles' hands. Afterwards, as he himself narrates, he "went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of seeing Peter," because of his office, no doubt, and by right of a common belief and preaching. Now they certainly would not have been surprised at his having become a preacher instead of a persecutor, if his preaching were of something contrary; nor, moreover, would they have "glorified the Lord," because Paul had presented himself as an adversary to Him They accordingly even gave him "the right hand of fellowship," as a sign of their agreement with him, and arranged amongst themselves a distribution of office, not a diversity of gospel, so that they should severally preach not a different gospel, but (the same), to different persons, Peter to the circumcision, Paul to the Gentiles. Forasmuch, then, as Peter was rebuked because, after he had lived with the Gentiles, he proceeded to separate himself from their company out of respect for persons, the fault surely was one of conversation, not of preaching. For it does not appear from this, that any other God than the Creator, or any other Christ than (the son) of Mary, or any other hope than the resurrection, was (by him) announced.
Chapter XXXV.-Let Heretics Maintain Their Claims by a Definite and Intelligible Evidence. This the Only Method of Solving Their Questions. Catholics Appeal Always to Evidence Traceable to Apostolic Sources.
Challenged and refuted by us, according to these definitions, let all the heresies boldly on their part also advance similar rules to these against our doctrine, whether they be later than the apostles or contemporary with the apostles, provided they be different from them; provided also they were, by either a general or a specific censure, precondemned by them. For since they deny the truth of (our doctrine), they ought to prove that it also is heresy, refutable by the same rule as that by which they are themselves refuted; and at the same time to show us where we must seek the truth, which it is by this time evident has no existence amongst them. Our system is not behind any in date; on the contrary, it is earlier than all; and this fact will be the evidence of that truth which everywhere occupies the first place. The apostles, again, nowhere condemn it; they rather defend it,-a fact which will show that it comes from themselves. For that doctrine which they refrain from condemning, when they have condemned every strange opinion, they show to be their own, and on that ground too they defend it.
Chapter XXXVI.-The Apostolic Churches the Voice of the Apostles. Let the Heretics Examine Their Apostolic Claims, in Each Case, Indisputable. The Church of Rome Doubly Apostolic; Its Early Eminence and Excellence. Heresy, as Perverting the Truth, is Connected Therewith.
Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile! See what she has learned, what taught, what fellowship has had with even (our) churches in Africa! One Lord God does she acknowledge, the Creator of the universe, and Christ Jesus (born) of the Virgin Mary, the Son of God the Creator; and the Resurrection of the flesh; the law and the prophets she unites in one volume with the writings of evangelists and apostles, from which she drinks in her faith. This she seals with the water (of baptism), arrays with the Holy Ghost, feeds with the Eucharist, cheers with martyrdom, and against such a discipline thus (maintained) she admits no gainsayer. This is the discipline which I no longer say foretold that heresies should come, but from which they proceeded. However, they were not of her, because they were opposed to her. Even the rough wild-olive arises from the germ of the fruitful, rich, and genuine olive; also from the seed of the mellowest and sweetest fig there springs the empty and useless wild-fig. In the same way heresies, too, come from our plant, although not of our kind; (they come) from the grain of truth, but, owing to their falsehood, they have only wild leaves to show.
Chapter XXXVII.-Heretics Not Being Christians, But Rather Perverters of Christ's Teaching, May Not Claim the Christian Scriptures. These are a Deposit, Committed to and Carefully Kept by the Church.
Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, "as many as walk according to the rule," which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, "Who are you? When and whence did you come? As you are none of mine, what have you to do with that which is mine? Indeed, Marcion, by what right do you hew my wood? By whose permission, Valentinus, are you diverting the streams of my fountain? By what power, Apelles, are you removing my landmarks? This is my property. Why are you, the rest, sowing and feeding here at your own pleasure? This (I say) is my property. I have long possessed it; I possessed it before you. I hold sure title-deeds from the original owners themselves, to whom the estate belonged. I am the heir of the apostles. Just as they carefully prepared their will and testament, and committed it to a trust, and adjured (the trustees to be faithful to their charge), even so do I hold it. As for you, they have, it is certain, always held you as disinherited, and rejected you as strangers-as enemies. But on what ground are heretics strangers and enemies to the apostles, if it be not from the difference of their teaching, which each individual of his own mere will has either advanced or received in opposition to the apostles? "
Chapter XXXVIII.-Harmony of the Church and the Scriptures. Heretics Have Tampered with the Scriptures, and Mutilated, and Altered Them. Catholics Never Change the Scriptures, Which Always Testify for Them.
Where diversity of doctrine is found, there, then, must the corruption both of the Scriptures and the expositions thereof be regarded as existing. On those whose purpose it was to teach differently, lay the necessity of differently arranging the instruments of doctrine. They could not possibly have effected their diversity of teaching in any other way than by having a difference in the means whereby they taught. As in their case, corruption in doctrine could not possibly have succeeded without a corruption also of its instruments, so to ourselves also integrity of doctrine could not have accrued, without integrity in those means by which doctrine is managed. Now, what is there in our Scriptures which is contrary to us? What of our own have we introduced, that we should have to take it away again, or else add to it, or alter it, in order to restore to its natural soundness anything which is contrary to it, and contained in the Scriptures? What we are ourselves, that also the Scriptures are (and have been) from the beginning. Of them we have our being, before there was any other way, before they were interpolated by you. Now, inasmuch as all interpolation must be believed to be a later process, for the express reason that it proceeds from rivalry which is never in any case previous to nor home-born with that which it emulates, it is as incredible to every man of sense that we should seem to have introduced any corrupt text into the Scriptures, existing, as we have been, from the very first, and being the first, as it is that they have not in fact introduced it who are both later in date and opposed (to the Scriptures). One man perverts the Scriptures with his hand, another their meaning by his exposition. For although Valentinus seems to use the entire volume, he has none the less laid violent hands on the truth only with a more cunning mind and skill than Marcion. Marcion expressly and openly used the knife, not the pen, since he made such an excision of the Scriptures as suited his own subject-matter. Valentinus, however, abstained from such excision, because he did not invent Scriptures to square with his own subject-matter, but adapted his matter to the Scriptures; and yet he took away more, and added more, by removing the proper meaning of every particular word, and adding fantastic arrangements of things which have no real existence.
Chapter XXXIX.-What St. Paul Calls Spiritual Wickednesses Displayed by Pagan Authors, and by Heretics, in No Dissimilar Manner. Holy Scripture Especially Liable to Heretical Manipulation. Affords Material for Heresies, Just as Virgil Has Been the Groundwork of Literary Plagiarisms, Different in Purport from the Original.
These were the ingenious arts of "spiritual wickednesses," wherewith we also, my brethren, may fairly expect to have "to wrestle," as necessary for faith, that the elect may be made manifest, (and) that the reprobate may be discovered. And therefore they possess influence, and a facility in thinking out and fabricating errors, which ought not to be wondered at as if it were a difficult and inexplicable process, seeing that in profane writings also an example comes ready to hand of a similar facility. You see in our own day, composed out of Virgil, a story of a wholly different character, the subject-matter being arranged according to the verse, and the verse according to the subject-matter. In short, Hosidius Geta has most completely pilfered his tragedy of Medea from Virgil. A near relative of my own, among some leisure productions of his pen, has composed out of the same poet The Table of Cebes. On the same principle, those poetasters are commonly called Homerocentones, "collectors of Homeric odds and ends," who stitch into one piece, patchwork fashion, works of their own from the lines of Homer, out of many scraps put together from this passage and from that (in miscellaneous confusion). Now, unquestionably, the Divine Scriptures are more fruitful in resources of all kinds for this sort of facility. Nor do I risk contradiction in saying that the very Scriptures were even arranged by the will of God in such a manner as to furnish materials for heretics, inasmuch as I read that "there must be heresies, which there cannot be without the Scriptures.
44 Comments:
Ah . . . . Peter. Didn't we give you enough last time? Knowingly doing this, you have only yourself to blame for what comes next.
My initial response is going to be short. In part because (in looking over Teman's shoulder) it appears Teman's first volley will be more lengthy. I will try not to be too repetitious of what he intends to say so to a large extent I will wait and see what he writes.
I guess my short comment will touch on what I think is a big issue looming in the background: Authority.
Who speaks for God?
That is a question that needs to be answered in its own right, but, for the moment, lets apply this question to the passage of Tertullian's writing that you quote. Is Tertullian here acting as the voice of God? Is his writing scripture just like Romans or the letter to the Corinthians?
If not . . . What authority does Tertullian have?
With what authority can he speak that I cannot also speak with? With what reason should we listen to him rather than any other believer? What what measure is the truth of Tertullian's words judged? How do we know if what he says is true or not? If his words are not scripture itself than he is interpreting scripture, and who is to say he is not interpreting wrongly?
Tertullian is not one of the apostles. I'm not one of the apostles. Tertullian claims to be following the teaching of the apostles. I also claim to be following the very teaching of the apostles. Just as Tertullian accused, I can also turn around and accuse Tertullian of perverting the meaning of scripture and, " removing the proper meaning of every particular word, and adding fantastic arrangements of things which have no real existence"
In fact, I do.
I believe he has twisted the meaning of scripture in most of the quotes given in the piece you presented.
I also hold that my doctrine is the self same as that presented in scripture and that the catholic church has perverted and fallen away from the truth of Christ. I hold to the teaching of Christ. I can say right back, "For since they [the catholic church] deny the truth of (our doctrine), they ought to prove that it also is heresy, refutable by the same rule as that by which they are themselves refuted; and at the same time to show us where we must seek the truth, which it is by this time evident has no existence amongst them. Our system is not behind any in date; on the contrary, it is earlier than all; and this fact will be the evidence of that truth which everywhere occupies the first place. The apostles, again, nowhere condemn it; they rather defend it,-a fact which will show that it comes from themselves. For that doctrine which they refrain from condemning, when they have condemned every strange opinion, they show to be their own, and on that ground too they defend it."
I adamantly hold that my doctrine is not something evolved but the very same as that which the Lord Jesus Christ gave to his disciples.
Obviously this comment is not providing answers. But I think we need to deal with more questions before we reach any answers.
Pete,
Thank you for reliving me of my guilt. I felt bad joining in with all those reformed dudes to throw stones at your Catholic faith. I hate to be part of a crowd. But since you seem to incite that sort of thing, I guess I will forgo the apologies this time around.
I love irony, so I love the fact that you are quoting a man who left the Catholic Church some time after he wrote The Prescription Against Heretics. A man who famously said "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" and yet argues just as a Greek philosopher would in The Prescription Against Heretics. The same man who told people that it was wrong to remarry and thus mutilating the scriptures in the same way as the heretics that he wage war against. And I could go on and on for Tertullian lived a life full of irony.
This of course, does not affect his argument as you rightly point out. But it does point out a condition common to man. No matter how smart we are, no matter how much we study things, we are like leaves blown on the wind. One day one something makes sense to us, and the next day we do not even find it creditable. With our understanding being so flimsy, with our natures so transit, will we put our hope in arguments and logical dissertations to arrive at the truth?
To Tertullian's credit, he recognized the limits of human understanding and logic. Hence his comment "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" Hence the fact that Calvin quoted him more than any of the other so called Church Fathers save St Augustine (if memory serves me right.) to buttress his arguments on the inadequacies of man. Therefore, it is worth considering what his solution to the problem was, if only to demonstrate a solution that has been tried and does not work.
His answer to the problem in the Prescription Against Heretics was 'don't argue with the Catholic Church, for the they are descended from Jesus Christ through Peter'. (This is a oversimplification of his argument, but I don't think it distorts it to any serious degree.) Yet this answer did not satisfy him in the end, and it does not satisfy me either. Yet his answer did illuminate a problem that needs to be solved.
One thing Tertullian's answer makes clear is that orthodox Catholics and other orthodox denominations cannot talk to each other as if they shared the same faith. To share the same faith, you must have faith in same authority(ies). If you have faith in authorities that I do not also share, than I am in the same position visa you as a Christian would be against a Jew or a Muslim. To the Jew, a Christian must say, you should believe in the New Testament in addition to what you already believe. To the Muslim, the Christian must say keep your faith in the Bible but discard the Koran. Now, a Christian can try to argue from the Old Testament that the New Testament was foretold. And he can try to argue that the Bible is in such contradiction to the Koran that they cannot both be true. But he is unlikely to have any success until he comes to a common understanding with his opposite about what constitutes a valid authority. Otherwise a Jew will just say that it is not in the law or the prophets so I don't have to believe it. Or the Muslim will say that is how the Koran says that it was, so you are just not reading your Bible right.
I am in the same position visa via you. No matter how much of the Bible I quote to you to prove that Catholic doctrine is in opposition to the Bible, you will always quote the Catholic line as a matter of faith. Not as a matter of what makes sense to you. Since I lack that faith in the Catholic Church, your answers do not seem convincing, to say the least. And yet you can always say with Tertullian "One man perverts the Scriptures with his hand, another their meaning by his exposition." You will tell me that your church can trace itself all the way back to Christ, so how could it be in error? And what can I say back to you that you will accept?
Not that there is anything wrong with taking things on faith. If we try to prove things on the basis of our own logic and intelligence, we are really just making a statement of faith in ourselves. No matter how smart we are, our arguments will only amount to circular reasoning that begin and end with ourselves.
Yet by the same token it is fruitless to argue if we do not share the same authorities. So what we need to do is to begin in the beginning. This is why I was so interested in your statement that "It's a long story, but one of the reasons I became Catholic was the lack of objectivity of a religion I claimed was based on Divine Revelation (which of its very essence should be objective, and not subjective.)". What do you consider "objective" Pete?
Something you see with your eyes? Something you can feel with your hands? But the eyes are not perfect so why should they be an authority? Same with the hands, they are not perfect either. Why do you believe the Bible is the word of God? Because the Catholic Church says so? Why did you come to believe that the Catholic Church is the "ark" as you call it? Was it because of what you read in the Bible?
I am not really doing your posting justice. Tertullian's Prescription Against Heretics is just dying to be taken apart piece by piece, but I am always tired after work and cannot put out my best intellectual effort. Maybe sometime when I can get a good night's sleep. Being a heretic though, and unable to resists the evil impulse to pervert scriptures, I will say this in closing …
To me, for what it is worth, nothing could be more alien to the spirit that pervades the New Testament than the spirit that seems to pervade the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church claims that the Pope sits in seat of the same Peter who said…..
Acts 10:26 (New International Version)
26But Peter made him get up. "Stand up," he said, "I am only a man myself."
Yet the Catholic Church says that you should bow to man who sits in Peter's seat and kiss his hand.
The Catholic Church claims apostolic authority to silence those who would question it, yet in Acts we see the Bereans applauded for testing Paul.
Acts 17:11 (New International Version)
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
The Catholic Church who claims to be the true guardian of the man who said this when he was told his mother was near
48He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" 49Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. 50For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."
Is the same Catholic Church that venerates that same mother as a co- redeemer.
And we could go on and on. The Lord who sent his Son to be born in a stable, has (if the claims of the Catholic church are to be believed) founded a Church that accumulates to itself every type of worldly goods and power. The Lord who wrote down the qualifications for his church leader's home life has now (if the Catholic Church is to be believed) changed his mind and decreed that his overseers shall have no family. The Lord who said that we were not even to call each other teacher because we had one teacher in heaven, now says that we must respect a multitude of titles.
As to claims of being descended in straight line from the early church, I have this to say…
Matthew 3:9 (New International Version)
9And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.
Some other time I will write more coherently.
>>>Is Tertullian here acting as the voice of God? Is his writing scripture just like Romans or the letter to the Corinthians?
If not . . . What authority does Tertullian have?
Of course not. I would say that the early Fathers as a whole are united in belief that the Church is one, visible and authoritative, and that the teaching of apostolic truth and the correct sense of Scripture is only found within this Church founded by the apostles and passed to their successors. Tertullian places forth the argument very well, which is why I used that excerpt as an example. However, I am more concerned with the authority of the early Fathers as a group, united in belief. Do you as an individual have as much authority as they when they stand united against you?
>>>With what authority can he speak that I cannot also speak with? With what reason should we listen to him rather than any other believer? What what measure is the truth of Tertullian's words judged? How do we know if what he says is true or not? If his words are not scripture itself than he is interpreting scripture, and who is to say he is not interpreting wrongly?
>>>Again, I would not make my argument from Tertullian alone, but the unanimous voice of the Fathers.
>>>. I hold to the teaching of Christ. I can say right back, "For since they [the catholic church] deny the truth of (our doctrine),
I also hold that my doctrine is the self same as that presented in scripture and that the catholic church has perverted and fallen away from the truth of Christ
I adamantly hold that my doctrine is not something evolved but the very same as that which the Lord Jesus Christ gave to his disciples.
This last paragraph will allow me to ask a few questions:
1. Who does the "our doctrine" in the first sentance refer to specifically?
2. Your claim is a massive one, that you hold to the same doctrine as the apostles. By what standard should I accept that your doctrine is the same as the apostles? What *specifically* assures you that the doctrines you find in Scripture are indeed apostolic and not tainted with 21st century skeptical American individualistic Protestant presuppositions and are subsiquently erroneous?
I'll get to Teman's later.
>>>This of course, does not affect his argument as you rightly point out.
Thank you. And my main point to Rundy above is that of Fathers taken as a whole on this point, and not Tertullian alone.
>>>With our understanding being so flimsy, with our natures so transit, will we put our hope in arguments and logical dissertations to arrive at the truth.
There is a balance between faith and reason. The following is a quote from John Paul II from his encyclical Fides et Ratio (On Faith and Reason):
"But this does not mean that the link between faith and reason as it now stands does not need to be carefully examined, because each without the other is impoverished and enfeebled. Deprived of what Revelation offers, reason has taken side-tracks which expose it to the danger of losing sight of its final goal. Deprived of reason, faith has stressed feeling and experience, and so run the risk of no longer being a universal proposition. It is an illusion to think that faith, tied to weak reasoning, might be more penetrating; on the contrary, faith then runs the grave risk of withering into myth or superstition. By the same token, reason which is unrelated to an adult faith is not prompted to turn its gaze to the newness and radicality of being."
>>>Yet this answer did not satisfy him in the end
Yes, he rejected the Churchs' proposition that he had articulated, placing his own judgement above that of the Church, and ended up the worse for it, within a group neither of us would consider "orthodox" Christians.
>>>orthodox Catholics and other orthodox denominations cannot talk to each other as if they shared the same faith.
I disagree, but that's a whole different conversation.
(cont.)
"our arguments will only amount to circular reasoning that begin and end with ourselves."
In the most general sense, yes.
Whatever we choose will begin and end with ourselves, in that sense I guess it could be considered circular. In in regards to the specific foundational authority we hold to, that need not be circular. That focus on that specific authority and whether that is circular or not is a different story.
>>>Yet by the same token it is fruitless to argue if we do not share the same authorities
I also would much rather discuss the very foundation of your faith first, rather than all the particulars built upon them. We will see in following posts if your version (there are many) of sola scripura is circular or not.
That is the meat.
Regarding the verses at the end, I have good answers to each one if you want me to answer them one at a time sometime (or later in the thread). But as above, lets test the foundation first.
Teman and Rundy,
Now its time for me to poke you.
I'll start with the Canon of Scripture.
1. On what specific foundation do you believe the collection of 66 books that constitute the Scriptures as you hold them are inspired?
2. Are you bound to believe that only those 66 books, no more, no less, are inspired. If yes, bound by what or whom?
3. Who determined that those 66 books, no more, no less, are the inspired Word of God?
These are easy questions to answer as a Catholic, as I believe the inspired Scriptures are comprised of 73 books. I believe that the Church accepted those 73 books gradually over the first centuries of Christianity (evolution!, no development) and formally acknowledged via two early Church Councils (non-Ecumenical Councils), with the Ecumenical Council of Trent authoritatively and infallibly reaffirming those early Councils by closing the Canon in the late 16th century as the Reformers sought to tear out 7 books of the inspired Scriptures which were previously accepted by Christendom.
Of course I hearken to the voice of the Church in this matter, as I believe Christ founded a Church for this very purpose (to settle disputes, preserve His teaching and Gospel etc.), and that I have been convinced of this fact outside of the Catholic Church claiming this for herself (which would be circular), but also by history, logic, Scripture etc. which are all independent of that self-claim (which makes my position not circular, and my authority not circular.)
I view the Canon as Tradition (oral Word of God preserved within the Church), the same Tradition that you would decry. But you also accept Tradition, and you have no choice, for the Canon of Scripture is extra-Biblical (the Bible does not claim what books belong in the Bible), and therefore is Tradition.
So my last question would be:
4. Why you allow this exception to sola Scriptura (the Canon, Tradition), when by its very nature sola Sciptura excludes you from accepting this very same.
If you hold to solo scriptura instead of sola scriptura you are in big trouble. If you hold to sola scriptura this question is still very very vexing and difficult to answer. In any event, I look forward to your answers.
I took a whole day off of work in part so that I could get things done, but you seem to be intent on distracting me. Ahh well, the first day I have off I always seem to spend recovering from work anyway. And this cannot be much worse than reading or constructing music CDs which is my normal way of recovering.
It is a great temptation when talking to you to go off on various tangents. Church history has always been an interest of mine, and there are many things I could discuss with you about early church history. But these things are not really relevant to our basic argument. If you could show that every early Christian writer agreed with you, it would not make one whit of difference to me. If I was inclined to believe that the traditions handed down from man to man were the authoritative guide to the interpretation scripture, I would become a Jew.
The Jews and Catholics have a lot in common. They both have long scholarly traditions. They both have traditions that they have built up around scripture that they acknowledge as being distinct from scripture and yet regard them as being as authoritative as scripture. It seems to me that the main difference is that the Catholics have changed their beliefs more over the years than the Jews have. In other words, an orthodox Jew of today would have more in common with a Pharisee of Jesus' time than an orthodox Catholic of today would have with an orthodox early Christian. Not only that, but the Jews are of the older faith, so by the methods of reasoning that you have been employing, the more worthy of respect.
That was all slightly tongue in cheek of course. But I do think that the arguments that you have been advancing would work equally well for a Jew who rejects Jesus. Christianity has been a heresy from the beginning. It was founded by one who was crucified for blasphemy and those who share in his spirit have been brought up on the same charges ever since.
But anyway, back to the early church fathers. I was going to jump all over your statement that "Again, I would not make my argument from Tertullian alone, but the unanimous voice of the Fathers" but I decided against it. The only reason for fighting the issue would be to stick up for my younger brother who is not quite as familiar with the "Church Fathers" as I am. Not that I don’t think that he can take care of himself, but I did not think that he would be able to do as good a job as I could at showing that the Church Fathers where far from unanimous. But I found that the Catholic Church was already ahead of me. To wit…
In the last years of the fifth century a famous document, attributed to Popes Gelasius and Hormisdas, adds to decrees of St. Damasus of 382 a list of books which are approved, and another of those disapproved. In its present form the list of approved Fathers comprises Cyprian, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Theophilus, Hilary, Cyril of Alexandria (wanting in one MS.), Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Prosper, Leo ("every iota" of the tome to Flavian is to be accepted under anathema), and "also the treatises of all orthodox Fathers, who deviated in nothing from the fellowship of the holy Roman Church, and were not separated from her faith and preaching, but were participators through the grace of God until the end of their life in her communion; also the decretal letters, which most blessed popes have given at various times when consulted by various Fathers, are to be received with veneration". Orosius, Sedulius, and Juvencus are praised. Rufinus and Origen are rejected. Eusebius's "History" and "Chronicle" are not to be condemned altogether, though in another part of the list they appear as "apocrypha" with Tertullian, Lactantius, Africanus, Commodian, Clement of Alexandria, Arnobius, Cassian, Victorinus of Pettau, Faustus, and the works of heretics, and forged Scriptural documents.
In other words, you're only a church father if the catholic church of today approves of you. Still, what does that tell you about your claim of unanimity when the Catholic Church has to disown at least half of the most prolific early Christian writers. I myself was shocked at the list of proscribed. I had always thought that Clement and Tertullian at the very least would make the approved list. It was a good thing I stop to check though as I was going to make use of Origen and Tertullian as they where the two early church fathers that I was most familiar with. Come to find out they are both rejected. Oh well…
Moving on to your two posts that were directed specifically towards me.
With regards to what Pope John Paul stated about faith and reason, I disagree at least in part. It has been a while since I was really into the writings of Pope John Paul so I can not remember if my problem is just him being taken out context or what. But anyway, I do not think that faith and reason are co-equal. Without faith, there can be no reason. Faith is the acceptance of revelation. Without revelation we would know nothing and thus not be able to reason. As Paul says in Romans, even the unbelievers have experienced the revelation of God. Our eyes, which are gifts from God, reveal to us things that we could never prove by reason if God had not given us the gift of sight. Yet, by having faith in the eyes that reveal things to us (if not the God who gave them) we can reason out all sorts of things. This is what makes the unbeliever's reason worthless. It is not that he is not smart; it is that he rejects revelation, and thus can not reason properly no matter how smart he is.
In regards to the second post, you have me confused. You say,
Whatever we choose will begin and end with ourselves, in that sense I guess it could be considered circular. In in regards to the specific foundational authority we hold to, that need not be circular. That focus on that specific authority and whether that is circular or not is a different story.
I think that you are just restating what I said but I am not sure. At any rate, I would just like to point out that in the end, a true authority is circular. As Jesus said, I am the alpha and omega. It is only when we accept something as an authority in and of itself that we can move beyond circular arguments to something more constructive.
As to your statement that Regarding the verses at the end, I have good answers to each one if you want me to answer them one at a time sometime (or later in the thread). . I have no doubt that you have an answer. In fact, I am pretty sure that I could answer each one of those verses for you. I am only really interested in your response to Bible verses when it departs from the Catholic party line. My main point in quoting those verses was just to point out that if you just read the Bible, the Catholic Church is not what you imagine springing out of such teaching. Sure, if you are forced to accept the Catholic Church you can try to rationalize them but not in the sense that the answers naturally flow from the text.
I was going to bust on you about not being a very good Catholic apologist since you have neglected the standard Catholic argument in defenses of the authority of tradition. I mean, it is a pretty standard Catholic line to say that if you reject tradition than you reject the bible, since the bible was founded on tradition. But I see that I did not post fast enough and all of that busting was thought up in vain. But I will say, what took you so long to get to that argument?
At any rate, I will tackle that argument in a separate post, as I have too many different ideas in this post as it is.
>>>Faith is the acceptance of revelation. Without revelation we would know nothing and thus not be able to reason. As Paul says in Romans, even the unbelievers have experienced the revelation of God. Our eyes, which are gifts from God, reveal to us things that we could never prove by reason if God had not given us the gift of sight
I agree with you here for the most part. The point was not that they are co-equal, but more that they should not be in conflict.
>>>I am only really interested in your response to Bible verses when it departs from the Catholic party line.
What kind of sense does that make?
You only want a response to Bible verses if I give an affirmation of your particular opinion on that verse, or one at odds with the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in which case I would be a Protestant, not a Catholic?
>>>My main point in quoting those verses was just to point out that if you just read the Bible, the Catholic Church is not what you imagine springing out of such teaching.
This is a rather interesting comment. "If you just read the Bible". Is that meant to be condescending? I do read the Bible, and surprise, myself and many others both more learned than either of us see nothing other than the Catholic Church within its pages. Are you saying you are coming to the text without any pressupositions, biases, thoroughly unbound by your own Tradition or severence from the Tradition? If that is the case, then you are better off than just about every other Christian I'd say.
>>>Sure, if you are forced to accept the Catholic Church you can try to rationalize them but not in the sense that the answers naturally flow from the text.
Forced. An awfully strong word. I find the Catholic exegiesis far more holostic, far more consistant, and much more consistant with what I have read in the Fathers of the Church. And none of that was forced on me (believe it or not).
And "answers naturally flowing from the text". I suppose the "answers naturally flowing from the text" align themselves quite nicely with your doctrinal assumptions, NATURALLY.
>>>What took you so long to get to that argument.
I wanted to have some fun first. I don't consider myself an apologist by any means, although I do my best to defend my Faith when I am called to task (and no, not always with stellar results). I am simply a simple Catholic, striving to live out my life for my Lord who gave His life for me.
If I came across as stern the last few paragraphs, well I felt it was needed. I look forward to your next post.
>>>In other words, you're only a church father if the catholic church of today approves of you.
Well, someone has to decide what is orthodox and what is not.
>>>Still, what does that tell you about your claim of unanimity when the Catholic Church has to disown at least half of the most prolific early Christian writers.
I wouln't say the Catholic Church had or has "disowned" all of those mentioned. Certainly it has (and does) reject the certain portions of certain early Christian writers, while others are so steadfast in the Faith that they have earned the title "Father".
By the way, in praying through the Liturgy of the Hours I have come across excerpts from Origen, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria. It does strike me as odd that Clement would not be considered a Church Father (if that is indeed the case).
Himm
I was working on responses to your post on why I believe in the bible that I believe in. But it was pointed out to me by one of my siblings that you where slapping my hand, so I had to go and see for myself. I think it warrants a quick response.
What kind of sense does that make?
You only want a response to Bible verses if I give an affirmation of your particular opinion on that verse, or one at odds with the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in which case I would be a Protestant, not a Catholic?
I try to avoid being offensive if at all possible. I should point out that I did not mean that I did not want you post a response if you so desired. I only meant that you did not need to feel duty bond to explain to me the meaning of the verses in Catholic teaching. When writing to you I always try to look of Catholic teaching on the subject at hand, before writing if I at all think that I do not know what the Catholics teach on certain point. Even when I am pretty sure I know what the Catholics teach I often look it up anyway just to be sure. The first time I wrote I did want your individual response to verse because things you had said to John made me wonder how orthodox you where. Once you made it clear that you are as orthodox as they come, I no longer had much doubt on where you were coming from. My quotes of bible verse where more to give you an indication of where I was coming from.
I think that the reason that I offended you is that I sated something in the negative. I am not interested in hearing Catholic doctrine that I have already looked up restated to me unless you think I have misunderstood/misrepresented it. But I am interested in understanding why/how you came to believe that Catholic traditions are authoritative. Because that is something that is individual to you and not something I can just look up.
This is a rather interesting comment. "If you just read the Bible". Is that meant to be condescending? I do read the Bible, and surprise, myself and many others both more learned than either of us see nothing other than the Catholic Church within its pages. Are you saying you are coming to the text without any pressupositions, biases, thoroughly unbound by your own Tradition or severence from the Tradition? If that is the case, then you are better off than just about every other Christian I'd say.
If the pope can be infallibly guided by the holy sprit, I can be infallibly guided by the holy sprit :). Seriously, you misunderstood what I meant by if. I did not mean to imply that you do not read the Bible. Rather, I was stating my belief that apart from Catholic tradition, you would not see the Catholic Churches common practices in the Bible. In this I am saying nothing that the Catholic Church does not freely admit. For the Catholic Church freely admit that many of their beliefs have no foundation other than tradition and the decrees of the pope. I did state that my belief that the sprits seemed apposed, but if you don't want to here my beliefs just say so. I don't really get that sense from you. Rather, I think that you believed that I was throwing the old "Catholic's don't know their Bible" line at you. I don't doubt that you know your Bible, but you have surrendered all interpretation of the Bible to the Catholic Church.
Now you say that I am relying on my own presumptions in how I approach the Bible. I will not argue that point. But you rely on your own set of presumptions when you accept the Catholic Churches authority. So you defend your acceptances of the Authority of the Catholic Church and explain how you came to believe it and I will explain why I think I can accept the authority of the Bible apart from the Catholic Church or any other tradition and how I came to believe it.
Not that I deny that I have a tradition that I can be identified with. But it will be harder for you to pin an accurate label on me than you might think. It comes with being one of those schismatic type people, don't you know?
Forced. An awfully strong word. I find the Catholic exegiesis far more holostic, far more consistant, and much more consistant with what I have read in the Fathers of the Church. And none of that was forced on me (believe it or not).
And "answers naturally flowing from the text". I suppose the "answers naturally flowing from the text" align themselves quite nicely with your doctrinal assumptions, NATURALLY.
You know, it would help if you explained why you came to be a Catholic and why you believe in the authority of the Church. You like to quote long sections of other peoples writing which is a good way of starting a discussion. But you do not do very good follow up. You say that forced is a strong word and I could not agree with you more. But what about "objective" "holistic" or any of the other words you use to defend your view of the Catholic Church. They are equally strong words. I have to admit that rightly or wrongly I feel that you have a fondness for taking cheap shots but not putting any real work into this discussion. I don't have any problem with you making me watch my language or challenging me when you feel that I get to condescending. Indeed, I would hope that you would not let any problems you have with me of that nature festers. It only does more damage in long run. But it is easy to take put shots like that when you are not writing much yourself. Expressing your self always runs the risk of sounding pompous.
I understand that you have a family and can not devote as much time to this as I can. But I do have to work for living and I would not be devoting as much time to this as I am if I just liked the sound of my own voice. I am honestly interested in the how and why of your acceptance of Catholic obedience. I want to see you answer Rundy's original question back on John's blog. I want you to answer to how you think your defense of the Catholic Faith would differ from a Jewish defense of their faith. You don't have time to do all the things that I want, but I would like something more than mere pot shots across that bow.
I wanted to have some fun first. I don't consider myself an apologist by any means, although I do my best to defend my Faith when I am called to task (and no, not always with stellar results). I am simply a simple Catholic, striving to live out my life for my Lord who gave His life for me.
If I came across as stern the last few paragraphs, well I felt it was needed. I look forward to your next post.
The Catholic faith is designed, with no apologies, to take all the brain work of the backs of the simple Catholics. I have read a lot of the professional apologetic work of the Catholic Church and I am not looking to see you match their caliber. My comments on what took you so long where partially in jest, partially because I thought that issue of the formation of the bible might be a major reason why you chose to become Catholic.
As for you being stern, well, I am glad you that you felt free to. But I don't want you to ever forget that you asked for this. I would have let the whole matter drop if you had shown no further interest and I will still let the matter drop if you stop showing interest.
I have better things to do with my time than talk to myself.
Not that I deny that I have a tradition that I can be identified with. But it will be harder for you to pin an accurate label on me than you might think. It comes with being one of those schismatic type people, don't you know?
Yeah.
I got home late so I can't really add anything to the discussion today. I hope to give some type of response to your question about beliefs tomorrow.
However, before going to bed I would just like to say that Teman and I do not follow the "reformed" tradition or the "evangelical" tradition. There are things these sects believe that we agree with, but on whole but groups would consider us heritics.
More tomorrow.
The stickler in me has to point out that Rundy is being very lose in his languages when he says that we would be considered heretics by both people in the Reformed tradition and the Evangelical traditions. It would be more accurate to say that we have areas of disagreement with both schools of thought.
But back to the Bible or the "cannon" if you prefer; I had a friend that I worked with to whom I wrote a 17 page letter explaining why I believed the Bible to be true. In some ways, I had the opposite problem with him than I do with you.
You can't get away from the fact that I am human being who has his own bias and so on. He on the other hand, wanted me to be auto teller machine that would just spit out the answers for him. I told him that if he wanted that he should become a Catholic :).
In my efforts at making him think for him self, I kept hammering on him as why he believed the Bible was the word of God. Not because I wanted him to give me a good answer, but I just wanted to see what his faith was founded on. He eventually gave me as good of an answer as he was capable of so by the terms of our agreement I had to give mine.
To save me some work, I am going to give you the letter that I gave him plus a post script that builds on the letter I wrote to address the issues that you raise more fully. The problem is that the letter that I wrote him was 17 pages long. The postscript that I am going to write on it is going to be at least 5 more pages, but probably more like 10. Thus, you are talking about 30 pages of writing.
I don't think that you want me to post that much writing, so do you want me to e-mail it to you? Or do you just want to skip it? Rundy may give you a shorter answer, but I really can't. In part, because the scope of Catholic Doctrine and Apologetics that is already out there is just so broad that anything less would just leave me to open to cheap shots. Indeed, 30 pages would just be a warm up. To really get going would require a whole book.
I should note that the 17 pages that I wrote originally I tried to keep as simple as possible so there may be places where you may feel that I over simplified things. Also, it was written with David Hume in mind, rather than Catholic thought. However, I did not do justice to David Hume's philosophy because I was trying to keep it simple enough for my friend to understand. In particular, I ignored Hume's moral Theory as dealing with it would have taken another 17 pages.
However, the letter is still relevant to this discussion because deal with my defense of the Bible. Also, even though he is an Atheist, I may want to borrow some of the rocks that he used to through at Catholic thought. By putting forth the bare outlines of my defense against his rocks hopefully I can keep them from rebounding on me.
Send your letter to my e-mail address.
petefeet@hotmail.com
As to why I became Catholic, I have yet to write it down. Perhaps I should.
It can not be summed up in a few cute quotes, but I basically would echo St. Augustine:
"Let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of scripture, and from the authority of the Church ..."
The authority of the Church is inseparably linked to the Scriptures as a “rule of faith.” Augustine himself says that he would not even believe the gospel “except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” (Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, 5:6)
In short, no rule of faith exists outside of the Church. No rule of faith exists with an individual and Scripture. Severed from the Church, Christianity becomes mere individualist expression of one's opinion on a book. My soul and life could not rest on opinion, a religion of my own making.
None of the above is meant as an argument.
Rhetoric like this "He on the other hand, wanted me to be auto teller machine that would just spit out the answers for him. I told him that if he wanted that he should become a Catholic :)." leads nowhere. I know you say it in jest, but it does seem you have a conception that to be Catholic is to give away one's mind, to become enslaved, etc. It is an unfortunate caricature.
Arlan,
That was a very, very good post. I will only respond to it if I can put some significant time and effort into it. Thanks for posting it, and being so transparant.
Faith and Authority . . .
Peter, some good questions. Unfortunately things are rather messily jumbled together right now so I must see if I can untangle them a bit.
I also would much rather discuss the very foundation of your faith first, rather than all the particulars built upon them. We will see in following posts if your version (there are many) of sola scripura is circular or not.
That is the meat.
Well said, in part at least. Teman and I couldn't agree more that the very foundation of faith (rather than the particulars built upon that) is the important issue of discussion.
However, for whatever reason, you seem reluctant to lay out the very foundation of your faith. You wants us to go first? Very well . . .
The very foundation of our faith is the revelation of Christ Jesus--a revelation before all men, but to those who believe a revelation imparted by God through his Holy Spirit so that we might believe. Without the work of God's Spirit to open eyes and hearts we would remain in darkness and understand nothing. The very foundation of our faith is the promise of God.
So there you have it. We can start building on that as you like. In the meantime I want to respond (attempt to respond) to a few things.
If you hold to solo scriptura instead of sola scriptura you are in big trouble. If you hold to sola scriptura this question is still very very vexing and difficult to answer.
We need to start with some clarification.
1. All reasoning, once reduced, is circular.
2. Whether you agree with my above statement at present or not, Teman and I both hold that our reasoning is circular. If you are expecting a denial of this you'll be sorely disappointed. It starts with God, ends with God, and can only take place on account of God.
3. Technically, I don't think Teman and I hold to solo scriptura or sola scriptura. The use of these words which I am referring to is found at: http://the-highway.com/cgi-bin/hse/HomepageSearchEngine.cgi?url=http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html;geturl=d+highlightmatches+;terms=Scriptura+Sola
(You will have to copy and paste that address. Sorry it is such a mess.)
I disagree very strongly with Keith Mathison, the author of that paper. His errors are many and I itch to rebut him, point by point. But not here, not now. For the present the paper elucidates solo scriptura and sola scriptura so I will use him for interaction.
The problems with both solo and sola scriptura are many. Superficially (one might say) there is the problem that in practical effects they separate scripture from God. What do I mean? Well, let's take a look at the matter.
How does scripture have any meaning? Words without meaning are meaningless. How do we understand the Bible and determine what it means?
The Catholic says that the authority in its church (whether it be pope or Tradition) determines what the bible has said, and what it means. The Reformed holding to sola scriptura say, essentially, the same thing except making the teachers and tradition of the Reformed churches the interpretative authority. Then those Anabaptists hold to solo scripture make the individual the authority on what the Bible has said.
How do we properly understand what is written in the Bible? One could say Catholic church explains it to us. But how do you know that we are properly understanding the Catholic church? If the bible wasn't clear enough itself, how can we have any confidence that the Catholic church is clear enough? Don't different people understand the catholic church in different ways?
Similarly, how do we know the bible is correct? Because the catholic church tells us so. How do we know the Catholic church is correct?
Men can add words upon words, but how do we know when we understand? How do we know when we're not trapped in the confusion of our own mind, hearing but not understanding, seeing but not perceiving? In answer to this among most sects it promulgated that the "other", that is the "Authority," is the guaranteer of truth. This is the "party line" as it were, but what does a close study show? "Authority" church tradition, or otherwise, is appealed too, but under closer examination it all comes back to the I. The self is made the final authority. As you yourself said,
"someone has to decide what is orthodox and what is not."
And,
"Whatever we choose will begin and end with ourselves, in that sense I guess it could be considered circular."
So you conclude,
"I believe the inspired Scriptures are comprised of 73 books. I believe that the Church accepted those 73 books gradually over the first centuries of Christianity [. . .] I believe Christ founded a Church for this very purpose (to settle disputes, preserve His teaching and Gospel etc.), and that I have been convinced of this fact outside of the Catholic Church claiming this for herself (which would be circular), but also by history, logic, Scripture etc. which are all independent of that self-claim (which makes my position not circular, and my authority not circular.)"
You claim not to be circular, Peter, but you are mistaken, just as is Keith Mathison (author of the paper on solo scriptura referenced above). Consider: you claim to accept the authority of the church but it is by YOUR authority that you judge it to be correct and accept its teaching. You say the church decides what is orthodox, but then you say "Whatever we choose will begin and end with ourselves"
By your own determination you had decided history, logic, and the Catholic church have authority--but in making that determination you have put yourself in the position of being able to consider the matter and make a RIGHT judgment. Therefor, in truth, you have put yourself in authority over the Catholic church. Why? Because you have claimed for yourself the ability to judge the claims of the Catholic church, history, and logic, and come to a right judgment.
I could say the same to Keith Mathison . . . but I won't go there at present.
Keith Mathison ridicules, (and the Catholic church also ridicules,) the position of solo scriptura "The individual reason elevated to the position of final authority" (The supposed position of the pernicious Anabaptists.)
But haven't you taken this very same "individual reason" position in what you wrote above? In face, if we examine the matter close enough those who ridicule the position of individual reason actually use the same themselves.
Keith Mathison, Peter Johnson, and those solo sciptura people are all in the same boat. Follow the argument back to the beginning and it is solo ME. Peter Johnson looked at history, the bible, and logic and HE determined that the Catholic Church had authority for reasons that seemed good to him. Keith Mathison looked a history, tradition, and the bible and he determined that it was the preachers of the Reformed and their tradition that had authority.
It all comes back to "solo ME." If someone is subjected to your judgment you are in authority over them. You are the solo. Peter, you may have taken the Catholic teaching as your own and you may claim that you submit to their authority . . . but you were the infallible judge that determined it was right and had authority.
I hope I am not being too confusing. I must touch on things lightly at present so as not to become bogged down in one point. If you desire to go into more detail discussion at one place or another please feel free to do so.
If I have spoken clearly enough (and not created too many rabbit trails) maybe you now see how every one of the positions put forward comes back--in the end--to that "individual reason elevated to the position of final authority." To accept something as true you are putting yourself in the place as the infallible guaranteer that what you agree with is true.
Except all of these positions have left out the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit of God that teaches us and leads us into all truth. Spiritual truths are spiritually discerned and only those who have the spirit of God can accept the truth. It is God, his Holy Spirit, the infallible one, testifying in our hearts, which makes us capable of perceiving and accepting the truth.
Scripture cannot be understood (rightly that is) without the Spirit of God working inside us illuminating our hearts and minds. Someone who rightly preaches scripture cannot be rightly understood by those who listen unless the Spirit of God is working inside them.
If we want to make up a fancy word for my position it can be "sola God, solo Holy Spirit." That is, God is the sole infallible authority and flowing from that into our lives, the Holy Spirit is the sole basis of authority. God works among us. It is the authority of the Holy Spirit testifying in our hearts that convicts us of sin and open our eyes to righteousness. Thus, in every sense of the word, God is the final authority.
An observant reader will note that I have not quoted a lick of Scripture. I strongly believe that the best way to edifying dialog on matters pertaining to God is through the study of Scripture. But I feel that we are at a cross-roads here. Are we going to study scripture or not? I believe that all who are truly of Christ are capable of understanding and interpreting scripture. I understand Peter to be saying, in effect, that he cannot interpret Scripture--that he must defer to others on matters of what the Bible has said to church fathers, the pope, etc. Thus Peter does not seem himself as sufficent in Christ to understand Scripture, while I see myself as being capable, in Christ. If I am wrong in stating your position, Peter, then why don't we forget these Church fathers and popes and study the Bible alone for the present? If the church father's are correct we will come to the same conclusion as them. But if I am right in my statement of your position I do not see how we will get anywhere if I am studying the scriptures and you are studying the church fathers. Aren't we, as it were, unequally yoked?
In conclusion, I offer my response to your "Canon" questions.
1. On what specific foundation do you believe the collection of 66 books that constitute the Scriptures as you hold them are inspired?
Answer: God's declaration through the conviction of his Holy Spirit.
I would say the books of the Bible are self-affirming. The "canon" did not need man to declare it so . . . God has declared it in the hearts of those who are his. Therefore, the declaration of a council is not what has made the 66 books the Bible. I am part of that "tradition" not in that I see the tradition as being the source of authority but as a group of people who recognize the God self affirmed declaration by his Spirit, in our hearts, that these books constitute his written word. So, I don't think I hold to tradition in the sense many do.
2. Are you bound to believe that only those 66 books, no more, no less, are inspired. If yes, bound by what or whom?
Answer: I feel this is a bit of a trick question. It has been said in scripture that all creation declares God. Does that make all creation inspired in your book? But to answer the question by "what or whom am I bound to believe anything" I would say "through the conviction of God's Holy Spirit."
3. Who determined that those 66 books, no more, no less, are the inspired Word of God?
Answer: God determined it and made it known through his Holy Spirit.
4. Why you allow this exception to sola Scriptura (the Canon, Tradition), when by its very nature sola Sciptura excludes you from accepting this very same.
I hope that by this point you understand that I do not accept the application of sola Scriptura to myself (at least as Keith Mathison defines it). I think my position of "sola God, solo Holy Spirit" explains all of my answers to the above questions. Of course all the repercussions of my position were not fully explicated (how can one in such a short space) so further questions are welcome.
"Private revelation" is often taken and used to mean very particular things. I would like to take it for my own use a moment and say I believe all understanding is private revelation. When God showed me my sin and the provision of salvation in Christ Jesus that was private revelation. Yes, it has been declared to the world, but when my eyes were opened so that I could see and believe that was "private revelation." So also, as I continue to grow, every time I come to understand the truth it is another "private revelation" the Spirit of God making the Word of God known to me. The guarantee is the Spirit of God, the seal of God, the deposit.
As per Arlan:
>>>"Moral: Peter and my brothers have raised countless good points (that is to say, points worth answering in depth). But it is very hard for people of different perspectives to answer each other on even one single point, because they keep meaning different things by what they say."
I propose a few ground rules for further discussion.
1. Discussion that is centered around anwering one question the other person poses to you. The more specific the question the better.
2. The person receiving the answer to his question, instead of offering a critique or refutation of the others response, offers only another single question.
3. Only one outstanding question allowed at one time
I think this would serve for better discussion. It would cut down on a muliplicity of rabbit trails or multiple complex questions which are often found in a single post, and is virtually impossible to answer with a single post in kind. It would steer away from the tendency to refute or critique the other persons position, seeking rather to understand the other persons position. Personally, I think this Socratic questioning would be much more fruitful and we would end up learning a great deal more from eachother and encourage respect on all sides.
What say ye?
And of course, the person answering the question should be able to put some decent effort into it and actually speak directly to the question asked.
I'll start with a question to Rundy. I'll call your position of authority Sola Holy Spirit. If I understand you correctly, the correct sense of Scripture is only understood by direct (private) revelation to an individual's soul by the leading and enlightenment of the Holy Spirit.
Question:
There are many SINCERE and GODLY Christians who essentially agree with your concept of authority. As these SINCERE and GODLY Christians come to endless contradictory claims in regards to the person and work of Christ, yet all believe they have come to this understanding directly "guided and enlightened by the Holy Spirit", how do you not view this authority self-refuting on a practical level?
>>>3. Only one outstanding question allowed at one time
Between any two given people, they are each only in the process of answering one question at a time. (Not one outstanding question on the whole board at a given time, that would be rather boring)
Infallible?
Peter,
You say, If I understand you correctly and that is the trouble of the matter. I am not great at explaining and the matter under discussion is not simple. So, ask questions away with no shame if you don't get what I'm saying. I will say that you haven't understood what I've said so far . . . if you had you would already know what my answer would be to the question you raise. But, like I said, there is no shame in not understanding . . . as I freely admit my deficiencies.
However, I will raise the specter that you might never grasp my argument. MOST people don't. Then, even if you do manage to grasp the 1 + 1 of my argument you likely won't agree. MOST people don't.
I think it would be helpful as we progress through this argument if you would restate, in short form, what you understand me to be saying at each junction. That way I will have the opportunity to repeatedly clarify if I feel you have not properly grasped my position--until I either feel you understand what I am saying or we give up on this endeavor.
Make no mistake, we're not dealing with simple and superficial things here . . .
"If I understand you correctly, the correct sense of Scripture is only understood by direct (private) revelation to an individual's soul by the leading and enlightenment of the Holy Spirit."
I am not certain if you understood me in entirety. Part and parcel of fully understanding my position requires you to understand (not necessarily agree) my analysis of your position, and that of sola scriptura and solo scriptura. What you say above is half of what I said, but if you don't understand the second half you won't comprehend the whole.
At a previous time you said, "Whatever we choose will begin and end with ourselves, in that sense I guess it could be considered circular."
There are two things I am trying to demonstrate in this issue of "we" or self which you bring up (perhaps unwittingly) in the above statement.
What I tried to demonstrate previously, (and what Arlan also tried to touch on,) but I will now simply state outright is this: No matter whether it is the Bible, Church Father's, or some person speaking, everything that comes in through our eyes or our ears is filtered through our own understanding. As it is said, "they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding" (Matt. 13:14, Mark 4:12, Acts 28:26). Just because the truth is spoken doesn't mean we rightly hear and understand.
Think about the implications of this. We both go and listen to someone speak and we can come away with two entirely different understandings of what was said. We both go and read the Bible and we come away with two different understandings of what the Bible says.
The Catholic church is aware of this great divergence. They (the Catholic church that is) has said that in understanding the Bible only they, the Catholic church, gives the correct understanding.
But this only moves the problem forward. First we were trying to understand what the Bible said and coming to two different understandings . . . now we're trying to understand what the Catholic Church is saying. The matter of our own understanding is still in the way. As much as we could have misunderstood the Bible we can misunderstand whatever the Catholic church says. If the very words of Jesus that he spoke here on earth were difficult, and understood in different ways by so many people who heard him, how can any Pope (or any group of people) do better? As Jesus said, is the servant greater than his master?
Thus, one thing I have been trying to say is that no matter who is speaking the "limitation" is always in our understanding. The Catholic church setting itself up as the interpreter of the Bible hasn't done away with this problem.
We can agree that the Bible is infallible. Let's say, for the moment, that the Catholic Church is infallible. How does that help us? Jesus Christ was infallible when he walked here on earth, and yet his very Own--his disciples--were stumped by what he said. If the Catholic Church is infallible, how does that guarantee that we (us, ourselves, our own person,) have an infallible understanding of what the Church has written and said? How do we know that we don't only think we understand the Catholic church and in reality we're just as confused and misinformed as Jesus's disciples were when the infallible son of God spoke to them and they had no clue?
I know you believe the Catholic church has solved all the problems, but you need to understand what I am saying--whether you agree or not--if you're to follow my argument. What I have been saying is that the position that the Catholic church is infallible (just like the Bible) doesn't actually remove the problem because the problem is the fallibility of our understanding of whatever we hear or read—whether the written scripture, the spoken word of Jesus, or the Catholic church.
If you've followed me this far you see that the problem—the bottleneck—is at "our" end. If we are not infallible in our understanding then everything—the Bible, the Catholic church, our neighbor Bob—can be infallible to no effect. We can be surrounded by infallibility, immersed in it, but if our understanding is fallible it means nothing. We're right back to that "ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding."
Following the line of this argument, you now see that we need infallibility inside us. We need to be able to infallibly understand what was infallibly said. Otherwise, what was infallibly said is no longer infallible when it enters our understanding. Whether the Catholic church is infallible or not, it doesn't solve our problem because the problem is inside us.
The question now before us is, are we humans infallible? Shall we say that we only lack knowledge, but that we all (every one of us) have the infallible ability to perceive knowledge when it is put before us?
Or are we fallible? If we are fallible then the infallibility of the Bible and the Catholic church is corrupted by our fallible mind and is no longer infallible in its application to our own lives. In that case we are all stuck in our blindness--our lack of understanding and fallibility.
Most people chose to say we are infallible because they see the only other choice as nihilism. If we're not infallible then we know nothing for certain. We don't know if we're understanding the catholic church rightly, we don't know a thing for certain if we're not infallible.
I, on the other hand, do not believe that we are infallible. Well, you might then say, go back and look at your own argument! Aren't you then a nihilist? Nothing is certain in your view?
No.
See, we are fallible. Those who say were are infallible must do so because, as you say, they believe that "Whatever we choose will begin and end with ourselves." I do not believe this. In the sinful and rebellious heart of man it can be said that "everything begins and ends with us" but in truth everything begins and ends with God. We are blind and dead in our sins, but it is God who makes us alive through the outpouring of his Holy Spirit. God is the only infallible one, and it is only He living inside us--his Holy Spirit--that can grant us true understanding, because true understanding is infallible understanding (because whatever we don't understand infallibly, we don't understand truly and so it is not true).
Therefore, I say we are fallible and are capable of understanding nothing in ourselves. But God in us is infallibility dwelling in us that makes us capable of understanding. Truly, spiritual truths are spiritually discerned.
As it says in 1 Cor. Chapter 2:
"When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.
We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as it is written:
"No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him"--but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
"For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.""
I hope that even if you do not agree with my understanding of this passage of scripture that you can at least see the direct relevance this chapter from Corinthians has to our discussion. If not, ask and I will do my best to clarify. But I think that if you look at what I have put in bold and go back and read what I've written you will see where I am coming from, whether you agree or not.
Whew. Okay, now moving on to your question:
"There are many SINCERE and GODLY Christians who essentially agree with your concept of authority. As these SINCERE and GODLY Christians come to endless contradictory claims in regards to the person and work of Christ, yet all believe they have come to this understanding directly "guided and enlightened by the Holy Spirit", how do you not view this authority self-refuting on a practical level?"
Well now, we have an assumption here that you have infallibly understood the position of these other Christians and that you know they are sincere and Godly. Ha! But seriously, I want you to recognize the vast implications I am postulating for fallibility, infallibility, and what that means practically in our lives.
With that little reminder poked at you to think about, I will make an attempt to answer your question. Rather than using the term "sincere" and "Godly" I will simply acknowledge that there are true Christians (and this, I think, is really the heart of the matter) who disagree. Quite logically, then, the question is: "Is God divided?" If we are all running around with little bits of God inside us why aren't we all in agreement?
Excellent, excellent, question. Do you realize how much of the Bible can be studied for how long to come to understanding the fullness of the answer to this question? Any answer I give is bound to be incomplete. We're bound to need to go on to more questions and search for more answers.
But here is my first stab at a short attempt of an answer . . .
Question: Are we presently existing in perfection?
The Bible is very clear in stating that we are not. We have been made perfect IN CHRIST but we have not yet been given our new bodies. We still wage war with our sinful nature. As we progress in our Christian walk we are made ever more in the likeness of Christ, growing ever more in our understanding, but it is not until he returns when "When he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2).
The sinful nature of our present fleshly bodies wages war against our spiritual nature. Christ has not returned and we have not been perfected in the truth. That is why we see all the confusion and disagreement. It testifies that we are not yet what we will be. We are not yet fully "like Christ" for when we are fully made in the likeness of Christ we will be in full unity of knowledge. What we have is the deposit, the Holy Spirit--which is the source of all the truth that we do presently have:
"He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come" (2 Cor. 1:21-22).
And, to further bring out the distinction between our present and future state:
"Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come" (2 Cor. 5:1-5).
Yet again,
"you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession" (Eph. 1:13-14).
Thus in this life we are called to run the good race, to be conformed ever more to the likeness of Christ. Do we think we will come to perfection in this life? No! But as his Spirit is living inside us we will grow in the truth. It is in faith we recognize that God "rewards those who earnestly seek him" (Heb. 11:6).
I don't know if I am making this clear enough. I realize that the great amount of "divergence" among professing Christians is a great stumbling block to many people. I understand this, and rightly it is something that should be addressed. That is why it is so important to grapple with this and come to a Biblical understanding. I believe that when one rightly understands Scripture one comes to the realization that this great divergence must be. It is a sign of this present age and a testament to what we are still waiting and longing for--the final revelation of Jesus Christ when we will all be made like him. As it is we've not yet come into the realization of our perfected state.
At this point perhaps it seems were are right back to where we started. Going from the point where I said the infallibility of God resides in us through his Holy Spirit it seems I've now slid down to the point where I'm saying that everything is all mixed up: our infallibility (sinful nature) is mingled with God's infallibility--so who can sort it all out?
Are we right back to the nihilism that we faced at the very beginning of this discussion--all confusion and no certainty?
No. Remember, I've said that the Spirit of God in us is the source of our infallible understanding. Refer back to my above quotations about that deposit. That Spirit deposit gives us the salvatory understanding and faith. That infallible deposit will not come to its infallible fullness until the return of Christ. Yet, in the deposit of the Spirit of faith we know "he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him" (Heb. 11:6). Therefore, from this initial infallible deposit we infallibly know that in earnestly seeking him we will grow in infallible knowledge--that is, grow in the likeness of Christ. This is our confidence in seeking and searching and our impetus to continue seeking and searching. Yes, truly, we look around and we can see that we do not yet know all--I don't, you don't--none of us. Those who are more mature in the faith know more, but we all study God's word and interact with other believers that we might come into a fuller knowledge of the truth through the Spirit of God working in us through these means. The very divergence among Christians that so many find troubling is the call to action, the reminder of our need to earnestly seek.
I could go on and on. I will stop here, not because I have said all I have to say but, I think, Pete, you need to restate to me what you understand me to be saying (so I will know if I need to clarify what I've already said, and then, also, you need to ask another question so I will know where I need to turn my thoughts.
For just a moment in conclusion I would like to look ahead, into the foggy distance as it were, to some things that lay yet ahead:
I know the desire of some who are in the Catholic church is for an outwardly declared, manifest to the world, body of believers. The "orthodox." Or, for the manifest "consistent" doctrine. But, as I have been trying to point out, this is an illusion. How do you know the hearts of all the others who profess to hold the "Catholic" doctrine? Do you know men's hearts? And how do you know that you yourself have an infallible understanding of this "consistent" doctrine?
The answer is that in this present age we don't. We are not now perfect in what we know. We are still, to put it this way, being made infallible in Christ. The Bible is consistent and infallible--the inconsistency of Christians is an honest testament to that which we are still waiting and longing for. We look in confidence to this statement:
"Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness" (2 Tim 2:19).
The Lord knows those who are is. It is not promised that the world outside will understand or see everything. Our comfort and assurance is that the Lord knows those who are his. And us who are His know him because he is in us and reveals himself to us.
So I stop with that. Peter, I recognize that what I've written does not go into all the implications of your questions. But, as I've said, I need you to restate what you understand me to have said so far so I can judged the clarity of what I've already written. On top of the inherent difficulties of this subject there is added my own frailties, including that of having written this in one sitting. We all know how haste in writing can make for much lack in clarity and incomplete thoughts (not to mention bad grammar and spelling!)
Restate what you understand me to have said, and follow up with the question(s) that this then leads you too. I will try to use that as a guide to where I should go next. Too many things to say, too little time.
In that thought, I hope you do not expect me to be so quick in responding every time. I have stayed up to midnight writing this and I won't be able to do that every night. I hope you can be gracious enough to give me several days to respond on most occasions.
Also, if you should ever like to receive my responses via e-mail, please feel free to request them. I understand the value of having our exchange posted where others can read and (we hope) profit, but for you own sake you might want something easier to read, and perhaps even print out. Let's face it, the comments section of a blog doesn't make for easy reading. I've written this in a word processor and it takes up eight pages. That is a lot to read in a blog comments.
I close for tonight. I pray what I've written has been truly edifying.
Phew!
That was a longer answer than I expected, but I suppose it was necessarily so. As I don't have the time to respond to the post in full right now, I'll try to get to it over the next several days. I will do what you suggested, I will try to post my understanding of what you said. I have about 10 or fifteen questions I'd like to ask as well from what you posted but they can wait. Thanks for taking the time to answer, and I certainly don't expect quick answers from you, I now we all have lives seperate from blogging comments. Good Day.
You can ask all fifteen questions . . .
Rundy,
I think you will see I put some effort into this, and that this should be a good discussion. I think that when I have the opportunity to offer questions and/or a critique of your position and offer a positive explanation of mine I hope you will spend some time pondering what I write as well. I have been interacting with much of what you presented on my own, but what follows is simply my statement of what I understand your current framework (I like that word, and will probably continue to use it throughout) of authority is. I tried to restate as briefly and concisely as I could as I understood it. Please feel free to continue to clear up any areas where you think I still misunderstand you.
>>>”I am not certain if you understood me in entirety. Part and parcel of fully understanding my position requires you to understand (not necessarily agree) my analysis of your position, and that of sola scriptura and solo scriptura. What you say above is half of what I said, but if you don't understand the second half you won't comprehend the whole.”
In other words, I have to see your argument as a whole, not just as “Sola Holy Spirit”. Primarily:
1. Your argument against my position- which I understand to have as its basis that any human understanding of anything (of course including Divine Revelation, the person and work of Christ etc.) through our various senses must first pass through a finite and fallible Self (which is all created individuals). That even when Truth is presented to this fallible Self, the fallible Self may either not understand it or even reject it outright, even if it is clearly presented. The Catholic Churchs’ claim that She gives the correct understanding of Scripture is still subject to this fallible Self, and therefore just as Scripture may be misunderstood, the Catholic doctrines may be misunderstood, therefore that claim makes no great difference in the overall scheme of things.
2. This leads to the argument for your position- Infallibilty must therefore reside within, but not because we are infallible (as we are sinful and depraved man), but because the Spirit of God dwells within us, and by virtue of that fact, can share that infallible (=true) understanding directly to us. This is a spiritual discernment, not based on cogent arguments or glorious presentations of facts or anything else “human”, but only is seen with “spiritual eyes” that have been granted to any given man by God through His Spirit.
3. True Christians still disagree on the true sense of Scripture, as our spiritual nature still fights against a sinful human nature (the flesh), and only when He comes again can we be fully perfected in Truth.
The Truth that we do hold at any given time is of the Holy Spirit and sufficient for salvation while we can expect to grow in the Truth as we faithfully continue our Christian walk. This divergence of Christian belief is a sort of proof of our currently imperfect state as we look forward to and long for our future perfect state in Christ. One does not need to become a nihilist because of this divergence as the infallible knowledge that man does possess is salvific, with the divergence surrounding us calling us to greater knowledge and sanctification in the peace and understanding that we are His even in our imperfect state.
Quickly -
Okay, it seems you've understood me, as far as we've gone.
One little clarification. In referring to my argument you called it my argument against your position. Strictly speaking that isn't the case because I don't know exactly what your position is so I don't have a precise argument I'm combating so much as defining my position. To that extent what I've written so far is as much an argument against certain Reformed positions (as I linked to previously). Of course, as our discussion progresses I expect it will focus more on where you're coming from . . . but to start I purposely began very general. Particulars are yet to come.
There is much I could say the further develop the thoughts I've begun to present, but that would be developing further, and I want some further questions or critique before I go any further.
I will just point out that though I used the Catholic church in a somewhat tangential manner to develop my idea I haven't really addressed the Catholic church directly. Part of my point (not directly stated) is that the Catholic church, implicitly, has to accept a certain amount of Sola Holy Spirit itself. Our differences come in the details--But again, I won't go there until I see where you lead the discussion.
I hope that in seeing the thought I have devoted to this discussion so far you can have some confidence that your contributions will be duly considered. Obviously that doesn't mean agreed with.
Anyhow, carry on. Further understanding will only come with further discussion.
Rundy,
I’d like to talk about this fallible Self. You seem to be saying (certainly correct me if I’m wrong) that because of this fallible Self, there is no difference in kind between a fallible Self misunderstanding the infallible Scriptures vs. the fallible Self misunderstanding a living infallible interpreter of Scripture. It seems that you are taking the fallible Self to a very extreme theoretical position (that I doubt you hold to on a practical level).
1. The fallible Self, by examination of evidences via his senses and reasoning with his intellect, can still know some things to be TRUE. Ie. Although we are fallible Selves, we can still know with certainty that we need to eat and drink to live.
2. There is not an equal relationship between fallible misunderstandings of Scripture vs. fallibly misunderstanding a infallible interpretation of Scripture, which I believe is self-evident. In the simplest case say two fallible Selves come to Scripture and come away with differing doctrines regarding Baptism (Doctrine A ---one states Baptism is regenerative, washes away original and actual sin, and justifies a sinner before God, Doctrine B---the other states Baptism is purely symbolic, and has nothing to do with justification or the remission of sins). These two fallible Selves have come to two contradictory and mutually exclusive views on Baptism. Say both believe that a living infallible interpreter of Scripture exists in an old man named Mister Piddlewig, who has the authority to settle such disputes. As they both are agreed in this they both also will naturally submit their own individual judgements to that of Mister Piddlewig. Mister Piddlewig states emphatically, and very clearly and concisely, that Doctrine B is in harmony with the true meaning of Baptism in Scripture (even though his judgement is not an exhaustive presentation on Baptism). Are we to suppose that because these are two fallible Selves, they may come to erroneous conclusions regarding Mr. Piddlewig’s judgement? How likely is it that after hearing Mr. Piddlewig’s judgement, because of their fallibility, either of them would continue to believe that Baptism is regenerative, and justifies them in the eyes of God. They would both outright reject this view, would they not? And is it not a important distinction that even if they needed any sort of clarification regarding Doctrine B, Mister Piddlewig is alive and therefore could expound further upon why Doctrine B is indeed true.
How can you maintain that there is no distinction between these two frameworks, based on the argument of a fallible Self. I could cite innumerable purely secular examples to show that a living authority (non-infallible) can settle reasonable disputes between two parties in their disagreements regarding two different conclusions that they hold in their respective understandings of a subject from what they have perceived with their senses. And after this living authority has ruled directly affirming one party’s understanding as true, and directly rejecting the other parties understanding as false, (despite whether this ruling is indeed true or not), both parties can understand what this living authority meant by his ruling in affirming the one side and rejecting the other, regardless of both being fallible Selves.
Do you agree that there is not a one to one relationship between the two as you seem to have proposed? Am I misunderstanding you? Elaborate.
I should let Rundy speak for himself, but there are two points I think you are missing.
First, how do you come to accept the authority of Mr. Piddlewig’s judgment? That is where it all boils down to the judgment of the fallible self.
Second, how come your argument about how easy it is to understand Mr Piddlewig does not apply to the Bible? To me, there are many places in the Bible that clearly teach against Catholic doctrine. Just as clear (in my admittedly fallen mind) as Mr Piddlewig statements are. And yet, you would not hesitate to accuse me misunderstanding the Bible due to my fallen state. I understand that Bible is not a living thing that can say, "your wrong and he is right." But if Mr. Piddlewig says that stealing is all right, is he or is he not clearly contradicting the Bible?
I am not sure that last question should be dealt with now. But I am pretty sure the first question is germane to Rundy's point.
I will elaborate on what Teman said.
The first point is more germane.
Basically I think that part of what I need to do is in my response address myself to Mr. Piddlewig . . . I mean, the Catholic church.
I do have an answer to your question . . . at least, what I think is an answer.
But it will have to wait a bit. I just got back from a long day and I need to get some sleep.
But I look forward to answering.
Prelude . . .
Peter,
There must be a living infallible interpreter of Scripture. I tried to make that clear in my previous lengthy response, and I want that to be clear. I do not deny that there must be a living infallible interpreter of scripture. In fact, I was arguing there must be this living infallible interpreter.
Our disagreement is over what constitutes a true living infallible interpreter of scripture and the application of this understanding.
To quote part of your summarization of my position (point 2): "This leads to the argument for your position- Infallibilty must therefore reside within, but not because we are infallible (as we are sinful and depraved man), but because the Spirit of God dwells within us, and by virtue of that fact, can share that infallible (=true) understanding directly to us. This is a spiritual discernment, not based on cogent arguments or glorious presentations of facts or anything else “human”, but only is seen with "spiritual eyes" that have been granted to any given man by God through His Spirit."
Correct. The Spirit of God is living. It is infallible. And it interprets to our hearts. The Spirit of God is the living infallible interpreter of Scripture.
Without the living infallible interpreter scripture cannot be understood.
Peter when you say of me, "You seem to be saying (certainly correct me if I’m wrong) that because of this fallible Self, there is no difference in kind between a fallible Self misunderstanding the infallible Scriptures vs. the fallible Self misunderstanding a living infallible interpreter of Scripture" you are re-framing the discussion into a Catholic mold. The way you have phrased it you haven't correctly represented my position. Rather than just being pugnacious I'll rephrase the question you put forward. Perhaps the answer to this hypothetical question (which is not the one you asked) will elucidate.
Rephrase: "You seem to be saying that because of this fallible self the only way to understand infallible Scriptures is by a living infallible interpreter which has overcome the fallen state within us."
Answer: "That is correct."
Your "no difference in kind" is setting up a distinction based on a opposition you see because of your framework. I say that we cannot understand scripture without a living infallible interpreter . . . but I know the "living infallible interpreter" you have in mind is not the same as I. What I have been saying (at least, trying to say) is that there is no understanding of infallible Scripture without the living infallible interpreter (=Holy Spirit) and that where this living infallible interpreter has spoken there is no misunderstanding.
If the "speaking" of the Holy Spirit could be misunderstood, then the words, "All that the Father gives me will come to me" (John 6:37) would not be true. If the salvific knowledge of the Holy Spirit could be misunderstood (and thus rendered ineffective) then God's sovereign work of salvation would be thwarted. God would be "trying" to save people but since (we pretend) his Spirit does not have the power to overcome our blindness/stupidity/misunderstanding/depravity the salvation of God is rendered into an ineffective crap-shoot.
However, if we recognize and believe what is said in John 6:44-45 that "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me." And, that as in the words of 2 Corinthians 3:14 only in Christ is the veil of misunderstanding (or lack of understanding) taken away so that we are "being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit" (v. 18). If we understand all this then we recognize that when God speaks/works through his Spirit then he is not misunderstood or thwarted.
Thus the guarantee of all understanding is the promises of God to work through the power of His Spirit which overcomes all our deficiencies. He is the living, infallible, powerful interpreter of Scripture (and all things).
I will deal with your two following points in reverse order. Starting with .2 you say, "There is not an equal relationship between fallible misunderstandings of Scripture vs. fallibly misunderstanding a infallible interpretation of Scripture, which I believe is self-evident." I hope I've been able to clarify that this kind of statements misses what I've been trying to say thus far. I think this statement as in view of my framework (which we are discussing) may be an oxymoron.
Continuing, you say, "These two fallible Selves have come to two contradictory and mutually exclusive views on Baptism. Say both believe that a living infallible interpreter of Scripture exists in an old man named Mister Piddlewig, who has the authority to settle such disputes."
Problem:This rhetorical setup evades the real question. How do we know there is (or who is) the living infallible interpreter of scripture? How did these two people come to determine Mister Piddlewig has such authority and ability? Before our two hypothetical Christians ever got to the question of baptism the first question would be "who has the authority to settle such disputes?" and if they couldn't agree there, to whom would they appeal? This most contentious issue is passed over and is the real stickler point.
Again, continuing you say, "Mister Piddlewig states emphatically, and very clearly and concisely, that Doctrine B is in harmony with the true meaning of Baptism in Scripture (even though his judgement is not an exhaustive presentation on Baptism). Are we to suppose that because these are two fallible Selves, they may come to erroneous conclusions regarding Mr. Piddlewig’s judgement? How likely is it that after hearing Mr. Piddlewig’s judgement, because of their fallibility, either of them would continue to believe that Baptism is regenerative, and justifies them in the eyes of God."
Problem: God has empathetically, without any lack in clarity, said "Do not steal" and "Do not lie" and "Do not murder" and yet many people have seen it fit to discover "leeway" in every command.
An extreme example? Yes. But my point is the subjective nature of your argument. What is something unclear, and when is a person exhibiting willful rebellion? We can both agree that anyone who says "God didn't really mean we couldn't ever steal" is obviously in willful rebellion against what God has said. But how much else is already "clear." Who decides? Peter Johnson?
The Pope? Who decides the pope? Who decides scripture is being rightly understood in saying the pope has the authority? As I already said the real contention is determining "Mr. Piddlewig" has authority, and that is the question not addressed in this little story.
You ask the question, "How likely is it that after hearing Mr. Piddlewig’s judgement, because of their fallibility, either of them would continue to believe that Baptism is regenerative, and justifies them in the eyes of God." The answer is, apparently, a lot. As Teman said, "To me, there are many places in the Bible that clearly teach against Catholic doctrine" which are just as clear as "Do not steal" and "Do not commit idolatry."
Do I believe that there is, then, no one whom we can go to for answers? No. On the contrary, I believe, as I have already stated repeatedly, there is a living authority which teaches, affirms, and clarifies. Yes, that is by faith being, "certain of what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:1).
Eek. I see it is getting late and I haven't got to your first point. I will have to write more a different day.
If what I've already written helps you refine your questions you are welcome to reply with your fine tuned questions. Or, if you want, you can wait until I present the second half of my response.
As a closing thought I would mention that I find it interesting that your seeming need for a bodily present person (as opposed to living, for I say Christ is living and working through his Spirit). As I tried to point out in my last lengthy response, when Christ (the ultimate, and, I think, only true infallible interpreter to walk this earth in human flesh) was present on his earthly ministry he left his disciples in a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding about many things. In fact, it is mentioned that the disciples only came to understand things after Christ was exalted (and thus no longer present with them in body). Given that Christ left a lot of confusion and misunderstanding to prevail while he was physically present and then revealed so much by his Spirit after he ascended to the father I wonder at your insistence on the necessity of physical infallible presence to clarify.
You needen't answer that question yet, especially if it will derail our current line of discussion (which I don't think has reached its end). However, at the very least you can consider it as something I will be asking if we ever reach the position where I am asking you questions.
Gotta go. I hope nothing has been too unclear.
>>>In fact, it is mentioned that the disciples only came to understand things after Christ was exalted (and thus no longer present with them in body). Given that Christ left a lot of confusion and misunderstanding to prevail while he was physically present and then revealed so much by his Spirit after he ascended to the father I wonder at your insistence on the necessity of physical infallible presence to clarify.
The above comment will be partially addressed shortly (I owe you some answers, I don't want this to be too one sided). I would like to first explain how we are talking past each other again in you last post, can come again to a common understanding, and post a couple more questions.
Thanks for continuing to post.
Pete -
I probably won't get to the second half of my response until this weekend.
Just wanted to let you know because I left that last post hanging . . . it didn't really complete a thought.
It's been a busy week so a few things had to fall through the cracks.
>>>"Your "no difference in kind" is setting up a distinction based on a opposition you see because of your framework. I say that we cannot understand scripture without a living infallible interpreter . . . but I know the "living infallible interpreter" you have in mind is not the same as I. What I have been saying (at least, trying to say) is that there is no understanding of infallible Scripture without the living infallible interpreter (=Holy Spirit) and that where this living infallible interpreter has spoken there is no misunderstanding."
Actually, we do believe in the exact same living infallible interpreter, because we both believe that that living infallible interpreter is the Holy Spirit. I do not pit the Holy Spirit against the Magesterium, either/or.
The real dispute is whether or not the Holy Spirit grants the correct sense of Scripture to each soul individually, or whether the Holy Spirit grants the correct sense of Scripture to the followers of Christ corporately, as a communion of persons, through the Body of Christ, the Church.
If you'll allow me to break my own rules, I want to ask two questions. If you don't have time now or want to further explain your response first that's fine too. You should feel free to start asking me some questions on my understanding of authority.
1. Under your framework of authority, is it allowable for you to teach your children the true sense of Scripture? Or will you simply hand them a Bible when they are old enough to read and expect the Holy Spirit will do the rest?
2. How can Christians come together as a communion, corporately, as a body, and retain any unity of belief, worship, etc. under your framework? It just seems so radically individualistic
(me and the Holy Spirit, instead of we and the Holy Spirit).
Good questions. I actually do want to explain my earlier self a little more and further that aspect--but in seeing what you've just written I think answering these two recent questions might be the best way to further my previous line of thought. (Esp. as these questions are a little more simple).
Maybe I can squeeze that in this evening as I think the two questions just posted have fairly simple answers whereas discussing previous material requires a more lengthy response.
Gotta get back to work for right now.
Peter,
Two questions is fine.
Seeing as I have a penchant for giving long answers, I will try to answer your two most recent questions in a "short fashion" and then if I still have time this evening I will go back and deal in more detail with ideas and issues. After all, I don't want this discussion to get hung up waiting for me to produce my lengthy pontification.
Skipping your introductory paragraphs for the moment . . .
1. Under your framework of authority, is it allowable for you to teach your children the true sense of Scripture? Or will you simply hand them a Bible when they are old enough to read and expect the Holy Spirit will do the rest?
Answer: I am not able (of myself) to teach my children the true sense of Scripture.
Even if I had, in my mind, all the answers to every question there still would be the issue of being capable of communicating what I possessed. (Surely you have experienced the frustrating inability to communicate what you know to someone else).
As it is, I know that I do not have a perfect understanding of Scripture, so we have the further problem of "how dare I open my mouth if I can't be certain I am speaking the absolute truth?"
The answer is that God has promised that he uses the teaching of father's teaching their children for good. He doesn't guarantee that father's will always be right, but by His Spirit he will work through their teaching to instruct their children. The Holy Spirit uses many means and methods to teach us, the expounding of father's on Scripture being one of them. However, God is not limited. He can so work it that a father will teach something wrong and the child will perceive that it is wrong and so be moved to search out the truth for himself.
When teaching ones children the proper attitude is not to sit down thinking "I have it all" but rather to recognize that it is only God who teaches and it is only by the grace of God and his provision that ones children are going to learn anything, or that He will make us capable of teaching anything. Actually, I believe that one should approach teaching ones children with a heart prepared to receive whatever instruction God might give. Even when we might be in the position of "teaching" we must remember that we are always the "student" of God.
To restate the basic point: Man is not able to teach, in himself, apart from God. The Holy Spirit teaches through the direct reading of the scripture and through the expounding of fathers and learned men (to use a very vague and broad word) . Neither father's nor "learned men" have a lock on the truth. They only have the obligation to teach to the best of the ability which God has given them. It is God who will take them and use them.
2. How can Christians come together as a communion, corporately, as a body, and retain any unity of belief, worship, etc. under your framework? It just seems so radically individualistic (me and the Holy Spirit, instead of we and the Holy Spirit).
Ah. Here we touch on the heart of a much larger issue and where I start to get into my long responses. I really would prefer to give my long answer, but I will make myself start with a short one so you at least have something as I find it hard to always get the long answers together.
How can Christians come together as a communion, corporately, as a body, and retain any unity of belief, worship, etc? We and the Holy Spirit to use your words. That is, the Holy Spirit is what gives us unity. If it is truly Me and the Holy Spirit then it will truly be We and the Holy Spirit because God is not divided.
How does this work out practically in our every day lives? An excellent question and that doesn't have a short answer. The study of that question is one I feel passionately about, and I really believe requires a study of all that the New Testament has said on the matter.
*****
The above was the short answer. I actually feel it leaves more unanswered than answering. In particular I don't think my response really furthers Question 2. as I don't think I delved into things enough for you to have any clearer idea what I am saying.
But . . . Time has run out. I'll *try* to post again sometime over the next three days so don't think that's all I'm going to offer.
Peter,
I find it a little frustrating that I can't devote more time to this discussion. It seems everything I write is half of what I wish to write.
But enough whining from me.
First I'd like to go back to something you said a few posts ago. In this comment (http://animachristi.blogspot.com/2005/05/controversy.html#c111592747954114596 ) you said: "It seems that you are taking the fallible Self to a very extreme theoretical position (that I doubt you hold to on a practical level)."
I wanted to get back to that comment. I am not sure what part you see as "extreme theoretical" and how it conflicts with the "practical." Perhaps some of our following dialog has already cleared the matter up for you, but in case it hasn't I will try a quick summarization.
What I was trying to demonstrate in my discussion of the fallible self is that all knowledge comes from God. In my exposition I focused on Christian spiritual knowledge but it applies to everything. God is the author of all knowledge and it is He who gives it to all men. There is the knowledge that all men have which is necessary for physical sustenance (eating, breathing, etc) and there is spiritual knowledge that all men have (God exists, and God is Holy, Righteous, etc). I am not sure how it is extreme to say that all knowledge comes from God, and that without God we would know nothing, but I find it to have very practical implications.
Thus when you follow up and say "1. The fallible Self, by examination of evidences via his senses and reasoning with his intellect, can still know some things to be TRUE. Ie. Although we are fallible Selves, we can still know with certainty that we need to eat and drink to live." I see no necessary contradiction with what I have said. Everyone knows some things because God has revealed some things to all people. But I would just point out that what we think we know as TRUE by our reasoning intellect and senses isn't always true. Actually, our senses and intellect can be very easily deceived so while our senses may testify to what is true, they can't be the measure of what is true because our senses are reasoning are so untrustworthy.
*****
Continuing, in your most recent comment you say, "Actually, we do believe in the exact same living infallible interpreter, because we both believe that that living infallible interpreter is the Holy Spirit. I do not pit the Holy Spirit against the Magesterium, either/or."
I didn't think you would intentionally pit Holy Spirit against Magesterium but it seemed that you did not fully grasp my usage by the way you phrased your questions.
"The real dispute is whether or not the Holy Spirit grants the correct sense of Scripture to each soul individually, or whether the Holy Spirit grants the correct sense of Scripture to the followers of Christ corporately, as a communion of persons, through the Body of Christ, the Church."
I think you are creating an either/or here that is not necessary for yourself. Perhaps this is because you still do not fully understand my usage of "fallible self" or Sola Holy Spirit?
Do you not agree that in the end it always comes down to the Holy Spirit working in each soul individually? If not, aren't you saying in your above quote that you think the Holy Spirit resides in the corporate Church but not within us individually? That is, us individuals only have intellectual knowledge, not the presence of the living Spirit of God?
To avoid being cornered into that position it seems, from your perspective, that you would best say the Holy Spirit is inside us, and in the Church hierarchy/authority. The Holy Spirit gives the church the correct understanding and the Holy Spirit gives us the ability to understand/believe this "Magesterium." Thus, it seems your own answer to your question would be some form of "both" not either/or.
As I have tried to make clear previously, I haven't really got to the bones I have to pick with the Catholic church, yet. The either/or that you have set up makes it seem that if the Holy Spirit is in the corporate Church then faith, the Christian walk, and salvation, is an intellectual thing, devoid of the Holy Spirit in our own lives.
That, I don't think, is the position you intend to convey. Also, it doesn't quite put the finger on the matter. You are getting close to the issue with your statement about the nature of our dispute, but you are not quite there yet. It is more nuanced.
"How can Christians come together as a communion, corporately, as a body, and retain any unity of belief, worship, etc. under your framework? It just seems so radically individualistic (me and the Holy Spirit, instead of we and the Holy Spirit)."
This, I think, also touches partly on the heart of our disagreement.
As I tried to explain in my previous reply the answer to "How" is always "By the power of God's Spirit." There is no other regenerative method. Before there can be a "we and the Holy Spirit" there must first be a "me and the Holy Spirit." In a sense, yes, it is radically individualistic, but wouldn't you agree that is the nature of our salvation? (On the other hand, I will agree there are people who take the very personal and individual nature of the revelation/salvation and pervert it to do away with the idea of the body of believers. So is there a danger of extremes? Of course, always.
But, I think, it is time I ask a questions at least a beginning question that may help in answering your last question.
So, my first question to you, Peter, is this:
"What constitutes the "body of believers"?"
This may seem like a very fundamental and simple question, but your answer to that will help me answer your question "How can Christians come together as a communion, corporately, as a body . . ."
And, like a shark circling ever closer in the water, we may yet get to the more meaty matters.
I think I need to clear something up perhaps. I am essentially hoping that in this discussion we can contrast the two frameworks of authority. It is not primarily a discussion centered around what framework is the correct one, so much as the practical consequences of Christian belief and practice that we see flowing from either of our frameworks.
ie. When I am asking "How can Christians come together as a communion, corporately, as a body, and retain any unity of belief, worship, etc. under your framework" I am asking you this question to be answered from your perspective, irregardless of who I consider to be a Christian, or who I consider a member of the Body of Christ under my framework.
In other words your question to me of "What constitutes the "body of believers"? should not change the answer you give me, because your answer should be based on your framework, and not mine.
Does that make any sense?
I will certainly answer your question because that is very relevent to the framework of authority that I hold to, and will allow you to ask further questions to probe the cosequences of my holding to such a framework.
I will try to post a rather concise answer later tonight or in the morning. I am leaving tomorrow morning for a vacation through Fri./Sat., so I may not be able to post again until that time.
Thank you for continuing to post in this thread.
>>>"What constitutes the "body of believers"?
Consistant with my framework, I believe the Body of Christ to be the visible Church He founded. This Body of believers consists of those who have validly received the Sacrament of Baptism, are unified in the outward confession of Faith by those who believe the truths of the Faith proposed by the teaching office of the Church, are unified in communion by subjection of the members of the Church to the authority of the Bishops and the Pope. (These same are subsiquently also unified by a common participation of the means of grace-- liturgical and sacramental unity).
One may be cut off from the unity of the Faith via public heresy or apostasy, and from the unity of communion via schism. Either would sever one from the Body of Christ, the Church. All too many Catholics today fall into these categories. More than a few Catholics need to be converted to Catholicism (and I’m not being trite). Some of the more extreme so-called “traditionalists” are in schism (denying the authority of the Bishops and the Pope), many more are the so-called “progressivist” Catholics who are active in publically proclaiming heresy (often under their framework of authority—the Holy Spirit speaking directly to them individually believe it or not), and then there are a few who have totally repudiated the Faith publically and are apostate.
Those outside of this Body, who through no fault of their own by innocent and invincible ignorance do not know the true Church of Christ, and are subject to the demands of the Divine Will of God and his Divine Justice, and in concert with His general will that all would be saved, it is possible that salvation may be obtained by those outside of this Body of believers. I do not presume any individual outside of the Church to be in a state of invincible iignorance, as only God alone can know the state of an indiviual soul. Those who have received a valid Baptism outside of the Catholic Church are to be counted as fellow Christians, and fellow believers in Christ, and although they can not be counted as members of the Body of Christ, they are to be held in the highest esteem as they live out with zeal their love and devotion to Christ. And of course I would ask them to heed the call of the Body of Christ, and return to communion in unity of belief and worship.
The EENS or “no salvation outside of the Church” discussion is not directly pertinant to your question, so I’ll leave it at that for now.
Suffice it to say the univeral claims of the Catholic Church are often viewed by other Christians as horribly "intolerant" in this great age of tolerance, although many of these same Christians hold to a much greater "intolerant" view (which of course I also hold), based on the claims of an "intolerant" man who stated HE was the Way, the Truth, and Life, and that no man could come to the Father except through Him.
"I think I need to clear something up perhaps. I am essentially hoping that in this discussion we can contrast the two frameworks of authority."
I understood that. But I think the simple way you frame that question belies the real complexity behind it. My framework of authority is God. It's that simple. But obviously that answer is a rather unhelpful answer. A lot of people would give the same answer and mean something entirely different.
Stating ones framework in abstract tends to certain deficiencies--namely in the comprehension of others. From my perspective my post on the fallible self clearly demonstrated my understanding of authority but in your questions back to me a recognize a differing background and differing concerns where everything is not so obvious. But to answer better I find it necessary to interact with your position and the presuppositions you are bringing.
"It is not primarily a discussion centered around what framework is the correct one, so much as the practical consequences of Christian belief and practice that we see flowing from either of our frameworks." I don't see mine as being practical. I think that is why the truth of God in Christ is rejected. It isn't practical. It isn't sensible. It doesn't follow the norms which man wants to follow. It requires a walk of faith because to appearances it is madness. I guess that is something I have been (a bit) trying to rub your face into. I feel you keep trying to bend what I am saying around to some frame of "Reasonableness" or "Practicalness" when I believe that God has confounded the wisdom of the wise.
That is not to say I see what I am saying as inconsistent--so by all means if I seem to not being consistent one should ask for clarification--but the complaint about something not being "practical" you seem to be presuming that I am under some delusion that it is "practical" as men judge. To me the question about practical is already answered--no, Peter, it is not practical.
The question is, is it Biblical? Is it what God has called us too? That really, is what I am interested in discussing. Yes, I know you are concerned about the practical and reasonableness and I am willing to continue answering your questions, but I see it mostly as an exercise in showing you how impractical and unreasonable I am. The real question I desire to consider is the Godliness of what I am saying (or lack thereof). As a Catholic you cannot engage in such a discussion because the Catholic Church has already rendered the answer. I might befuddle you but that would only show that you can be befuddled, not that the Catholic church is wrong.
What is the practical implications for a God who teaches us? To seek and listen to him, that is a practical implication. So my desire when someone starts asking me questions is that we together go to study God's word because I believe that he is the only one who can and will teach us both.
Obviously you are hinting at the implications for broader Christian life but I believe understanding the answer to those questions can only be found in seeking the answers from God. What I have been trying to get at is that once you know God can and will teach those who seek to know him that is the foundation for all else. If you believe this then you know where to seek for the answer of how Christians ought to live. You know where to seek for all answers.
"ie. When I am asking "How can Christians come together as a communion, corporately, as a body, and retain any unity of belief, worship, etc. under your framework" I am asking you this question to be answered from your perspective, irregardless of who I consider to be a Christian, or who I consider a member of the Body of Christ under my framework." Yes, but if our perspectives are radically different my answer would be meaningless. The answer to your question, from my perspective, is very simple and obvious. I see no problem at all. Clearly, you do. If I don't see a problem my answer to your apparent problem is not going to be very helpful. So, I asked for your understanding for body of believers so I might understand what I disagree with and so give you a clearer answer that would help you.
I mean, just to continue the idea, what is "unity of worship?" My idea of unity of worship is likely radically different from what yours is, not to mention all of the other words you mention in that question. I recognize that in this discussion it is so easy for us to talk past each other because we can bring such entirely different conceptions to the words used.
"In other words your question to me of "What constitutes the "body of believers"? should not change the answer you give me, because your answer should be based on your framework, and not mine." Right . . . but perhaps you understand with this most recent comment how I feel I can very easily go into the non-sensical if I just stick to my "framework." The very way you ask you questions betrays a Catholic understanding. If I use "unity" in a non-catholic way, how is it going to make any sense to you? If I use body of believers in a non-catholic way, how are you going to understand?
I mean, it seems like the simplest answer to your question is that there is plenty of diversity and yet I see unity. The real question is not is that "practical" but is my acceptance of this diversity (and yet unity) Biblical? Isn't that the real question? Has God said there needs to be the unity you demand?
"I will certainly answer your question because that is very relevent to the framework of authority that I hold to, and will allow you to ask further questions to probe the cosequences of my holding to such a framework." Right. I recognize the relevance to yours, which is why I asked the question . . . I thought perhaps a comparison/contrast might help you see better.
I recognize the danger in me posting questions is that the conversation could explode all over the place and thus bog down. That is something I want to avoid. But there are times, as your unity question seemed to demonstrate, that our framework is so different that comprehension of answers can be questionable.
Having given you my first answer--that is, God teaches us--my answer to every following question is really going to be (in one form or another) let's study the Bible and see what God has said on the matter. Since you believe you cannot come (for certain) to the right understanding of the Bible isn't that an impasse? Aren't you in a position of saying we can't find answers where I say we can (and will).
After having told you that I believe it is God who teaches his people my answer to every one of your other questions (including unity, church body, etc) will be for us to go to the Bible and see what it has to say.
"I will try to post a rather concise answer later tonight or in the morning. I am leaving tomorrow morning for a vacation through Fri./Sat., so I may not be able to post again until that time."
I guess this would be the time to mention that on Fri the 27th I am leaving to help my Grandparents move up from NYC area to Syracuse. I won't be back until Jun 1st so for Fri-Tuesday (of next week) I might not be able to post.
Re:Body of Christ
Ok, read your latest comment.
I'm going to do a little picking (sorry, can't help doing just a little,) but first:
I don't know if it is clear in the past times I tried to answer you question about unity in the Body so I guess I will say I don't entirely get your question, Biblically speaking, I mean.
I see a good deal of diversity even among those I believe to be the true body of Christ. I don't see it as a problem, and I guess before I can address the issue any more helpful than I have you're going to have to show my how, biblically, it is a problem.
OK, not a little picking because I can't help myself. Don't feel you have to answer what follows unless you feel it will further the proper discussion. But in any case I hope they might make you think.
"valid Baptism outside of the Catholic Churchare to be counted as fellow Christians, and fellow believers in Christ, and although they can not be counted as members of the Body of Christ, they are to be held in the highest esteem as they live out with zeal their love and devotion to Christ."
--is not being "in Christ" being part of the "body of Christ." Biblically, what is your distinction between being "in Christ" and part of the Body of Christ.
--"Highest esteem" What kind of authority is the Catholic Church? Is it the same kind of authority as the Bible? If the Catholic Church has the same authority as the Word of God (as you seem to be saying) then how can you hold in Highest esteem those who reject the word of God? Is not the person who rejected the word of God in rebellion against God?
Biblically, how do you explain holding in highest esteem those who have rejected God and rejected the Church he has established. It seems like you could speak about the same zeal and love of the pagans. Rejecting the truth is rejecting the truth whatever clothes it wears, right?
***
I could go on, but that is enough.
Suffice, I think, it shows that I don't feel you are being intolerant enough, if you really hold the Catholic Church to have such authority. Either it is the authority of God and those who rebel against it are rebelling against God or its just a nice little club.
What kind of authority is one which has no consequences for the rejection of that authority?
Just a few feeble and quick comments.
>>>Moses spent forty days and nights on the mountain with God. Elijah and Christ were fed by angels in the desert. Elijah was also fed by ravens. The Israelites were fed with manna.
My point that man needs to physically feed on something to continue to physically live is only further backed up by your above comments. The food they received may have occured in a miraculous manner from the hand of God, or they may have fasted for a longer than ordinary time period, but they still ended up eating food to live did they not?
>>>Alternatively, we know that men can't live in the heat of a blast furnace, but three of them did. . .
Far be it from me to disparage the supernatural or miracles, I live among them every day.
>>>I don't have a problem with working with the implicitly qualifed sense of "knowing" a "TRUTH" as per Rundy's comment on all truth coming from God and all men benefiting from that truth. But I have found that my disagreements with Evangelical acquaintances has almost invariably stemmed from a different conception of what was "necessary," on the level of eating to live.
But that is a great problem, what is necessary to live spiritually, is it not? But I guess you, the Baptist, and the Catholic all "guided by the Holy Spirit" are all coming to different conclusions, (even if I follow the Holy Spirits leading by listening to a living authority instead of a burning within my bosom). That living authority will be something I want to discuss with you in one of the next few posts.
>>>I think the insistence on knowledge goes all the way back to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. To know some essential truth is, I think, the self-deifing ambition of man to be like God. And so it is a desire in me as well; but it is not one I try to encourage.
I don't think I would hastily equate knowledge with truth. Knowing a great deal about anything does not in any way equate to the reality of Truth.
God calls us to be like him, to become Christ-like. The Incarnation and Crucifixtion and Resurrection--this great Fact, this Event-- call us, no demand of us, to march against the Fall aided by His unestimable and most marvelous Grace.
>>>let's study the Bible and see what God has said on the matter.
My next post will some excerpts from Cardinal John Henry Newman. I'm sure you have heard of him, and are probably sick of seeing people quote him, but he makes some important points that I would like you to interact with. I would like to continue this discussion following that post after my vacation. Have fun in Syracuse.
>>>I see a good deal of diversity even among those I believe to be the true body of Christ.
As do I. Devout Catholics thoughout time and around the world are not a monolithic bland lump of pre-programmed robotic regurgitation (really!). I have no problem with diversity, but when it comes to the Faith "once for all delivered to the Saints" there can not be an unlimited/unrestrained diversity of belief.
>>>--is not being "in Christ" being part of the "body of Christ." Biblically, what is your distinction between being "in Christ" and part of the Body of Christ.
Will have to wait, too little time.
>>>If the Catholic Church has the same authority as the Word of God (as you seem to be saying) then how can you hold in Highest esteem those who reject the word of God? Is not the person who rejected the word of God in rebellion against God?
First, because She understands that not all who are separated from Her are at fault for this separation and that many have been born into this separation and that in many cases those separated are not in willful rebellion against God (knowing that this is the Church He established yet willfully refusing to enter therein).
More importantly because the Word of God is, as you yourself stated previously, not just a collection of writings, it is first the Eternal Word, Jesus Christ. The Church can hold those in high esteem who give themselves freely to this Word, who love this Word, who strive to obey this Word. Those who cast their lives upon Jesus Christ and have been baptized can not be seen as no different than pagans or Buddists or Muslims. They are Christians, and seek to follow the Word, as any other Christian, Catholic or non-Catholic.
>>>let's study the Bible and see what God has said on the matter.
My next post will include Holy Scripture (as much as can be pulled together). The next go round should be fun. See you guys next week.
>>>What kind of authority is one which has no consequences for the rejection of that authority?
A pretty lame authority it would be, yes. I never state there are no consequences as a result of rejecting a God ordained authority.
There, now I am really gone, out the door, for a break.
Peter,
You will be coming back from your vacation about the time I will be leaving. I decided that before I disappear for a week I would leave one last post, just to make sure this literary "ball" is lodged in your corner of the court.
I get the sense that our discussion is starting to fragment again. Earlier you stated "I am essentially hoping that in this discussion we can contrast the two frameworks of authority. It is not primarily a discussion centered around what framework is the correct one, so much as the practical consequences of Christian belief and practice that we see flowing from either of our frameworks." I see us balanced on the edge of moving from simply contrasting frameworks of authority to arguing about the merits.
I suggest that we back up a little bit. Instead of answering the multitude of questions and issues we now have up in the air, how about you simply state your framework of authority and then contrast it (as best you understand) with what you think I am saying. That, I think, should pull us a little more back on track with where you wish this comment thread to go.
Of course, you're also welcome to ask as many questions as you want--whether in addition or instead of doing above. I just thought to observe we seem to be pinwheeling out into all sorts of "other" issues, of which there will be no end.
Until such a time as you return and put things back on track, I will take this one last post to fire away at sundry issues:
Some things you said in response to Arlan I took as being a roundabout comment to myself. So I take the liberty of responding as if they were addressed to me:
But that is a great problem, what is necessary to live spiritually, is it not? I thought/think that we all agree that salvation in Christ, the belief (to summarize) that "Jesus is Lord" is what is necessary to live spiritually.
But I guess you, the Baptist, and the Catholic all "guided by the Holy Spirit" are all coming to different conclusions
WRONG!
It seems this is a straw man that you particularly enjoy setting up and knocking down. Perhaps this in part reflects your interaction with other people and your own personal world-view but it is far from accurately reflecting what I am saying. I shall try again . . .
Point 1: All that is necessary to live spiritually is to believe in Christ. On the most fundamental level that is what the Holy Spirit has led us all into . . . and those who have not come to this belief have not been lead by the Holy Spirit and are not spiritually alive.
Point 2: Whether it be me, the Baptist down the street, the Catholic, or anyone else--all who are truly Christ's--in whatever "denomination"--are being led by the Holy Spirit.
Point 3: We haven't yet reached the conclusion. The Holy Spirit is leading us toward that conclusion but we are not there yet. We have not attained perfection, we are not at the conclusion. Now, I know you think differently and you are using terminology differently, but if you're going to throw my view back in my face, make sure it really is my view.
Conclusion: The Holy Spirit is leading all who are in Christ to the same conclusion. It is our sin and failure which is leading us in diversion. (And, I would also say that some of the apparent division in the church is caused by the presence of unbelievers--whether it be the Catholic heretics you name or some Baptist preverter--which are not truly part of the body of Christ and so are not truly being led by the Holy Spirit.)
Obviously you have a big problem with a lack of uniformity and "objective" truth. I don't.
Are Christians in this present life sinless?
No.
Are Christians in this present life perfect in understanding?
No.
Given that we are all imperfect and sinful the great divergence among Christians is only natural. It is an honest and visible manifestation of our sinfulness and imperfect understanding. We aren't at at the conclusion, and as much as we all have sins and failures our understanding will be imperfect as we continue to strive toward that conclusion. All those who are His are being led by the Holy Spirit toward THE CONCLUSION which is Christ, and being formed into the likeness of him.
The very "contradiction" of infallible God and fallible man which you are trying to remove (by having some form of infallible man) is a "contradiction" which I see as a necessary reflection of this present created order.
As much as I have been conformed to the likeness of Christ I have a part of that conclusion which will be fully revealed when Christ returns. But at this present time I fully and freely admit that I am not prefect in understanding. That is okay with me. I know the foundation on which I am being built and the promise he has given to lead his people into all truth (lead, not promised to give it all right now).
The foundation is simply this: God has revealed to me the salvation available in his Son--that revelation came through the filling of His Spirit. It is through this filling that God will continue to teach me and reveal himself ever more to me.
*****
Continuing . . .
"(even if I follow the Holy Spirits leading by listening to a living authority instead of a burning within my bosom)." Then you agree that the Holy Spirit taught you that the Catholic Church is the proper authority? I say the Holy Spirit taught me that the "Bible" is the proper authority. We're both basing our statement upon personal revelation. This is fine with me as I believe our understanding of the truth is based on personal revelation.
With our contradictory positions the conclusion is not that God is divided but rather that one (or both) of us is wrong. This doesn't bother me. It doesn't mean the Holy Spirit fell asleep on the job. It just shows how much more teaching we need. (A rather flippant summarization, but I'm being hasty here.) So often we think we're at conclusions when from the perspective of eternity we are just on the path toward the conclusion.
"That living authority will be something I want to discuss with you in one of the next few posts." I assume you are using "living authority" with the Peter Johnson meaning since I believe I also follow a living authority, an authority which you somehow think is dead.
I still would like to know how my authority is dead since Christ has risen . . .
*****
I really question the Biblical foundation of your definition of the body of believers. Of course, I guess, you didn't claim that it was Biblically founded, but I presumed . . . so it is on Biblical grounds that I take issue . . .
You said, "I believe the Body of Christ to be the visible Church He founded."
But isn't this in contradiction to 1 Corinthians 12:12-13? There it says "The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink." And also Romans 8:9 "if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ" But in contrast you say that a Christian may have a "valid" baptism and be outside the body. Care to explain?
Visible Church . . . hmmm . . . I really find the above question about the body of believers more pressing, but I guess as more of a statement of position rather than argument of persuasion I will reference Matthew 18:20 "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them" and say that I believe the church is "visible" wherever two or three of the body of Christ come together.
I could go on to this "invincible ignorance" and how that flatly contradicts Romans, but why bother? Your Mr. Piddlewig (I mean, the pope and crew) has taken "all are without excuse" and changed it to mean "some are without excuse, but others have an excuse." You accept his authoritative interpretation, while I say he is changing black into white. Not much room for discussion.
Do you recognize the deep divide between our two frameworks of authority?
When I said, "let's study the Bible and see what God has said on the matter" I was speaking of the progression of our dialog if one accepts my framework of authority. I was (implicitly) trying to show how we are at an impasse.
Why? Because how can you study the Bible when you have no authority to interpret? You should study the Catholic teaching because that is what you can understand, not the Bible. For you, in your framework, your understanding of the Bible must be informed by what your chosen teachers say. I don't accept your teachers as authoritative, so how are we going anywhere? If we're not approaching Scripture from the same framework how does it profit anything?
For example . . . If I teach something contrary to the Catholic church you're not going to refute me from the Bible . . . you are going to refute me from Catholic teaching and Catholic interpretation. (say, the issue of Mary's sinlessness which I say is contrary to what Paul teaches in Romans) interpretations which I don't accept as having any authority. And, if somehow I manage to "show" you that the Catholic church is wrong, all that means (from your framework) is that I am a crafty fellow and managed to trick you. As an article of faith you must reject whatever I say (however persuasive) because the Catholic church is correct. It would be like me arguing whether Christ has really risen or not. It's not an argument I could (truthfully) engage in because it would all be a sham. The resurrection of Christ isn't up for dispute from my perspective, and from your perspective the authority of the Catholic Church is not up for dispute.
Don't get me wrong . . . in accord with my framework I believe it is very worthwhile to study scripture. But how, from your framework, can you do any more than "humor" me? I would argue from scripture that the Catholic church is wrong and you would argue from the Catholic church that I am wrong . . . and around in circles we would go.
Okay . . . I gotta go pack now. You've about a week to write whatever, and however many, responses you want.
Post a Comment
<< Home