Why I Have a Love Affair With Dogma.
Some comments on the Trawlerman's blog led me to write this little bit, although not directly related to the original discussion.
A basic definition of dogma would be: "Dogma is understood to be a Truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by Tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful. It might be described briefly as a revealed Truth defined by the Church -- but private revelations do not constitute dogmas."
Note that there can be no Dogma without the Church. What then is the Church? There can be no Dogmatic pronouncements if the Church is "invisible" (in the extreme sense). There can be no dogma if the visible Church is composed of X number of "denominations" holding to differing definitions on doctrine (ie. Baptism) in their respective Confessions. These are merely institutionalized opinions, not authoritative definitions on Divine Revelation.
One of the foundational reasons why I returned to Rome is because I came to believe very strongly that Divine Revelation by its very nature necessitates a visible and infallible authority to define doctrines when the need arises (typically when portions of Divine Revelation are being attacked or perverted).
I enjoyed listening to Doug Jones' tapes on Sola Scriptura. Something he said touches on what I am talking
about. In one portion of the tapes he mentions how fathers can have genuine authority in regards to the family and the Supreme Court can have genuine authority in regards to interpreting the Constitution without being infallible. I agree. The basic problem I see in this analogy is that neither of the above authorities are dealing with Divine Revelation. Is there no more protection given to the Church by the Holy Spirit to protect Divine Revelation than is given to a father minstering as the head of his household or the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution? Is not Divine Revelation in another realm altogether in this regard as it is the basis of all Truth? Can such a comparison be reasonably made? I don't think so. I agree with a statement he makes on the first tape when he says "If there is one thing I could try to convince you of today, it is that, at base, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not so much a debate about Scripture, it is a debate about the Church." He is right on, and it was good to hear someone say that.
This protection from error can be seen in Scripture and is intimately linked with the coming of the Holy Spirit.
John 15:26-27 "But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me. And you shall give testimony, because you are with me from the beginning."
John 16:13-15 "But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all Truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, that he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you.
Now is this guidance into "all Truth" meant in an individualistic sense or in a collective sense? Well, the Holy Spirit fell upon the gathered apostles, the leaders of the Church at its institution on at Pentacost. Common sense and other Scriptures confirm that it is meant in the collective sense. I know no good Reformed Christian will disagree with this, as this is more the fare of some of the more hyper-individualistic evangelical Christians.
1 Timothy 3:15 "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the Truth."
And John, speaking in reference to apostolic authority states:
1st John 4:6 "We are of God. He that knoweth God, heareth us. He that is not of God, heareth us not. By this we know the spirit of Truth, and the spirit of error."
And of course the Jerusalem Council:
Acts 15:28 "For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things ..."
The above verses are not meant as a sort of proof but merely as an indication of the continuity between the authoratative institutional Church, the Holy Spirit, and Truth.
I didn't (and still don't) see a way that Protestantism could have ever been a Dogmatic Faith, or a Faith with a great deal of certainty on many given doctrines. Even the "central" doctrines of Christianity were built on the Dogmatic foundation of the early Church Councils, which were never viewed as if you could pick and choose among the definitions of such Councils based on portions of the Council conflicting with Scripture (because it was understood that such a Council by its very nature couldn't contradict Scripture) . If there ever was a unified Dogmatic Christian Church founded as the guardian Divine Revelation, the foundational claim was that it no longer existed (or for many, never existed). I'm sure this may spur some (hopefully not too heated) discussion.
posted by Peter @ 6:13 PM
17 Comments:
"The basic problem I see in this analogy is that neither of the above authorities are dealing with Divine Revelation."
pete, you still haven't solved the dilemma of who or what was the infallible authority under the old covenant, the "visible and infallible authority to define doctrines when the need arises."
certainly, you would agree that divine revelation existed prior to pentecost or our lord's incarnation, yet there was no "infallible" authority. in fact, our lord attacked those who were seated in moses' seat.
"portions of Divine Revelation [were] being attacked or perverted" throughout the old covenant era.
why did god not set up an infallible authority? did he care less about his holy law being violated? scripture indicates to the contrary.
-just a quick post during a break between classes,
john.
"(because it was understood that such a Council by its very nature couldn't contradict Scripture)"
pete, curious, because i don't know, do you have a primary source reference for this claim?
Let's look at our Lord's comments to the Pharisees.
Matthew 23:2-3
"The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice."
He condemns the fact that they don't "practice what they preach". This does not however nullify their authority, and to the contrary, our Lord reaffirms their authority with a command to "practice and observe whatever they tell you" (because they sat in Moses Seat).
This verse incidentally also affirms Oral Tradition under the Old Covenant, in that no reference to Moses Seat is found in the Old Testament Scriptures.
I'll answer the other two tomorrow.
hey pete, i thought about qualifying my statement, but thought that you'd give me the benefit of the doubt. i'll be more precise in the future.
would you maintain then that the scribes and pharisees were an infallible authority? certainly according to your statements, if there was a divine revelation, then there needed to be an infallible authority to define doctrines.
"would you maintain then that the scribes and pharisees were an infallible authority? certainly according to your statements, if there was a divine revelation, then there needed to be an infallible authority to define doctrines"
I don't know, under certain circumstances perhaps they were. I don't think I can build any stronger of a case that they were than you can that they weren't.
I don't fully understand the deep hostility to the notion of infallibility, in the sense that fallible men could speak infallibly under the power of God. The most obvious example is the writing of "infallible" (I know I'm not using the word properly here) inspired innerrent Scripture by fallible men. The Catholic notion of infallibility is a much lesser and resticted gift than the former, yet the possibility (no matter the need) is denied.
A better parallel can be seen with the Old Testament prophets, when they orally spoke "the Word of God" (whether it was later inscripturated or not) they were acting infallibly and the Israelites had no option to deny their pronouncements under any circumstance. The people couldn't run to their Torah and show the prophet where he contradicted their Scripture and therefore his message (or portions thereof) from God were thereby nullified. We see instances throughout the Old Covenant of men making infallible declarations. Yet when we reach the New Covenant, no longer are any instances of men acting infallibly allowed.
(dinner time, will continue later)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Deuteronomy 18:20
But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. [be put to death]
it seems clear that there are those that hold the office of "prophet" who deceive god's people, and command things contrary to god's law.
of course god's true (fallible) prophets communicated an infallible message and needed to be obeyed. but how did the people know who was a true prophet? there were numerous false prophets within israel. was it because they claimed to be a prophet? was it because they had inherited the see of rome? or was it because what they said was in accordance with god's holy law and what they prophesied "came to pass."
the test for a prophet is set down in deuteronomy 13.
Isaiah 9:20
To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
i don't deny that fallible men can speak infallibly, but i do deny that that the see of rome or a college of bishops are fundamentally, according to their nature, infallible when defining doctrine. Even if there is a successive line of "prophets" today, coming down from the apostles, that does not mean that each prophet is faithful to god's law.
"The people couldn't run to their Torah and show the prophet where he contradicted their Scripture..."
In fact, they were obligated to do so. If a prophet was running around telling the people to do such and such idolatry and he claimed to be sent by god, how were they to know that he was sent by god? or did they simply trust in his infallibility?
You made several good points. I was speaking of those who were true prophets in the Old Covenant and recognized as such. My main point in that post is that we see fallible men (by the power of God) making infallible declarations that the people receiving these declarations have no recourse to private judgement.
Since it is quite clear that there are instances of fallible men making infallible statements under the Old Covenant, can you allow for any specific instances of leaders of the New Covenant (under any circumstances) making infallible statements? That is my main point and main question.
P --"(because it was understood that such a Council by its very nature couldn't contradict Scripture)"
J --pete, curious, because i don't know, do you have a primary source reference for this claim?
No, not in the sense that I can dig up an exact quote that explicitly states this.
Either Ecumenical Councils are fallible or they are infallible. The question is whether the the Church considered Herself to be fallible in Her definitions, and what evidences can be given that the Church considered herself fallible in Her pronouncements in these Councils.
I think that the leaders of the early Church considered their definitions made in Ecumenical Council to be infallible even though not using that strict terminology.
Just one statement as an example only.
Athanasius,Councils of Ariminum & Seleucia,5(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:453
"This gave occasion for an Ecumenical Council[ie Nicea], that the feast might be everywhere celebrated on one day, and that the heresy which was springing up might be anathematized. It took place then; and the Syrians submitted, and the Fathers pronounced the Arian heresy to be the forerunner of Antichrist, and drew up a suitable formula against it. And yet in this, many as they are, they ventured on nothing like the proceedings of these three or four men. Without pre-fixing Consulate, month, and day, they wrote concerning Easter, 'It seemed good as follows,' for it did then seem good that there should be a general compliance; but about the faith they wrote not, 'It seemed good,' but, 'Thus believes the Catholic Church;' and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to shew that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolical; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles."
Athanasius writes that concerning the Faith they write not "it seemed good" but "thus believes the Catholic Church". These were not "sentiments" or "novelties" but "the SAME as was taught by the Apostles". Without using the term infallible, he states that the Church is defining Apostolical doctrine, (and by its very nature Apostolical doctine is infallible). Is their any great evidence that the leaders of the Catholic Church thought that their definitions in Council were anything less than Apostolical (and therefore fallible). Is there any terminology used to the effect that these statements made in Ecumentical Council "may be" Apostolic, "probably are" Apostolic, "possibly could be" Apostolic or any related language to this effect. Or do we see the Church assured and confident that what they are teaching is absolutly Apostolic and therefore absolutely TRUE and what they are refuting is non-Apostolic and therefore absolutely FALSE. That is the nature of Dogma.
The earliest Church (one, visible, and heirarchial) considers herself the bearer and preserver of the fullness of Apostolic Truth.
1. Can you give evidence to the contrary?
2. If you agree with the above statement, did such a Church at some point fail to exist, and therefore there is currently no visible bearer and preserver of the fullness of Apostolic Truth?
Could the early Church make Dogmatic statements yet there is no Church today that can make Dogmatic statements?
I guess I'm still struggling with what the Reformed concept of what the visible Church was in the first four centuries and what the visible Church is today.
ok
I took an afternoon and read through the comments
I'm not exactly sure what the discussion has evolved into. We all freely admit that fallible men can make infallible/fallible pronouncments. But when I say something, a requirment of infalliblity isn't that I'm part of council. My point is that just because one is a member of a large historical denomination doesn't by default make all pronoucements infallible and authoritative. Conversely, because some of God's people are what you call protestants, doesn't mean that they can't make infallible dogma either.
Also, Christ denounces the pharisees for not being obeident. Not for making 'infallible' judgements. An unbeliever could, in a strict sense, make an infallible judgement. But that doesn't mean he's authoritative or that we should blindly follow him.
--- "Conversely, because some of God's people are what you call protestants, doesn't mean that they can't make infallible dogma either."---
You misunderstand infallibility. **A true statement is not an infallible statement**.
An infallible statement is one in which the Holy Spirit guarantees to prevent the issuer from making an error.
Therefore if any Christian (or Christian denomination) makes the statement "Jesus Christ was both fully divine and fully human" is this an infallible statement. Absolutely not, because the person/denomination making such a statement was not prevented by the Holy Spirit from instead making an erroneous statement. I can accept that many statements in the Westminster Confession of Faith are true, yet none of them are infallible, and some of them are erroneous.
The erroneous Confessional statements or doctinal beliefs in any given denomination are damaging to the understanding and practice of the Faith as a whole. The more error, the more damage. How much error is too much error? Is this error in any practical way able to be identified?
If one thinks they have identified what they consider serious doctrinal or Confessional errors what should they do? Leave? Form a new denomination with a new Confessional statement without the erroneous doctrine (according to their absolute rule of private judgement).
If the error is not practically able to be identified, then one must live with the knowledge that an unknown quantity of doctrine that they adhere to is completely contrary to what Christ and the Apostles taught. Of course, most will simply assume that their denomination has very little error, and only on "lesser" or "insignificant" doctines (while in reality this may very well not be the case).
Is this what Christ intended? The is how the Church was to function until he returns? This is Truth? Is it not somewhat plausible that he may have given the successors to the Apostles not only authority but guidence and protection to teach the TRUE Gospel thoughout all ages until He comes again.
The Pontificator (An Anglo-Catholic) is having very honest and frank discussions about this on his blog, no doubt precipitated by some of the most recent developments in the Episcopal Church.
Check him out http://pontifications.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=477
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I don't expect any answers to the questions in the above posts. They're just to provoke thought (not that you haven't already thought about all this). Thanks for posting, it makes me think too you know.
pete, last saturday i wrote out a long comment in response to the athanasius quote, but it got erased as i was having browser problems. sorry that i've lost interest since then, but 14 comments is enough.
pete, do you ever read joel garver's blog?
here's a recent short post from his blog that is relevant to this post of yours.
Calvin's Confessionalism
No, I haven't heard of him. I just added him to my the list of interesting blogs to frequent.
I can hardly think of anything more frustrating than tying some sort of response and then losing it all because of an uncooperative computer.
I would like to discuss his blog post via e-mail because I want to comment on some things in it that I still can't make sense of.
Maybe next week.
Post a Comment
<< Home