In an interview by Paul Bradshaw with Rick Warren, Rick said: People ask me, What is the purpose of life?
In a nutshell, he responded, life is preparation for eternity. "We were not made to last forever," he says, "and God wants us to be with Him in Heaven." Then he continues:
One day my heart is going to stop, and that will be the end of my body-- but not the end of me. I may live 60 to 100 years on earth, but I am going to spend trillions of years in eternity. This is the warm-up act - the dress rehearsal. God wants us to practice on earth what we will do forever in eternity. We were made by God and for God, and until you figure that out, life isn't going to make sense.Life is a series of problems: Either you are in one now, you're just coming out of one, or you're getting ready to go into another one. The reason for this is that God is more interested in your character than your comfort; God is more interested in making your life holy than He is in making your life happy.We can be reasonably happy here on earth, but that's not the goal of life. The goal is to grow in character, in Christ likeness..This past year has been the greatest year of my life but also the toughest, with my wife, Kay, getting cancer.I used to think that life was hills and valleys - you go through a dark time, then you go to the mountaintop, back and forth. I don't believe that anymore.Rather than life being hills and valleys, I believe that it's kind of like two rails on a railroad track, and at all times you have something good and something bad in your life.No matter how good things are in your life, there is always something bad that needs to be worked on.And no matter how bad things are in your life, there is always something good you can thank God for. You can focus on your purposes, or you can focus on your problems:If you focus on your problems, you're going into self-centeredness, which is my problem, my issues, my pain.' But one of the easiest ways to get rid of pain is to get your focus off yourself and onto God and others.We discovered quickly that in spite of the prayers of hundreds of thousands of people, God was not going to heal Kay or make it easy for her- It has been very difficult for her, and yet God has strengthened her character, given her a ministry of helping other people, given her a testimony, drawn her closer to Him and to people.You have to learn to deal with both the good and the bad of life.Actually, sometimes learning to deal with the good is harder. For instance, this past year, all of a sudden, when the book sold 15 million copies, it made me instantly very wealthy.It also brought a lot of notoriety that I had never had to deal with before. I don't think God gives you money or notoriety for your own ego or for you to live a life of ease.So I began to ask God what He wanted me to do with this money, notoriety and influence. He gave me two different passages that helped me decide what to do, II Corinthians 9 and Psalm 72.First, in spite of all the money coming in, we would not change our lifestyle one bit. We made no major purchases.Second, about midway through last year, I stopped taking a salary from the church.Third, we set up foundations to fund an initiative we call The Peace Plan to plant churches, equip leaders, assist the poor, care for the sick, and educate the next generation.Fourth, I added up all that the church had paid me in the 24 years since I started the church, and I gave it all back. It was liberating to be able to serve God for free.We need to ask ourselves: Am I going to live for possessions? Popularity? Am I going to be driven by pressures? Guilt? Bitterness? Materialism? Or am I going to be driven by God's purposes (for my life)?When I get up in the morning, I sit on the side of my bed and say, God, if I don't get anything else done today, I want to know You more and love You better. God didn't put me on earth just to fulfill a to-do list. He's more interested in what I am than what I do.That's why we're called human beings, not human doings.Happy moments, PRAISE GOD.Difficult moments, SEEK GOD.Quiet moments, WORSHIP GOD.Painful moments, TRUST GOD.Every moment, THANK GOD.
Now, the question remains: Does this philosophy rest on a solid Christian theology that is applicable to all generations in all cultural circumstances—in other words, is it essentially part of the eternal Gospel delievered for once and for all to humankind?
Jim,
ReplyDeleteI understand and identify with your desire for sound doctrine. I am greatly concerned with the doctrinal anarchy that characterizes Protestantism. Is it possible that the move, in the 16th century controversy, to sola scriptura is unauthorized and incorrect? I mean, how am I to know that I should accept this as my formal principle? Where does the bible clearly teach it?
Best,
Bill
Bill, you have a good point here. (I assume you are making a point.) I think you are asking, "By what authority do we accept sola scriptura as the standard for sound doctrine?"
ReplyDeleteNaturally, the answer is that this comes through the consensus of the church-both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches appeal to the scripture as the final authority. Even when the Pope speaks ex cathedrally the infallible teachings of the Pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture.
The Scripture also confirms that the Scripture is the source for sound doctrine:
2 Tim 3:15-17 says,
"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
Hopes this answers your question.
Thanks Jim,
ReplyDeleteI am still not sure if this helps me in the end though. Isn't accepting the authority of the Catholic Church on the Canon and yet rejecting her authority on everything else ad hoc? For example the episcopacy emerges as a stable authority almost immediately, and ubiquitously, but it is rejected. Not to mention that if we accept her testimony regarding the canon what basis is there for rejecting the deuterocanonical books?
Thanks again,
Bill
I am not sure this answers my question though, perhaps it does and I don't see it. I thought that before the 16the century the paradigm was universally accepted that Apostolic Tradition (of which Sacred Scripture is the main, but not sole, component) as interpreted by the Catholic Church (which alone in the earth has the authority to bind the conscience of the faithful when she pronounces an interpretation) is the means God established to secure the fidelity of his Revelation against error and misinterpretation. This had always been believed by all. Augustine and Aquinas believed it, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe 'reformers' abandoned this understanding in favor of sola scriptura as interpreted by the individual believer (which seems to me will inevitably produce exactly what we see, namely, doctrinal chaos).
What I am trying to figure out is whether or not the move to sola scriptura is what God wants us to follow. How do I know it? How do I know Luther and Calvin were correct? If Scripture is our sole authority, where is the principle of sola scriptura clearly taught in Scripture? If it isn't in the Scriptures why should I believe it? I just can't find it.
2 Tim 3 doesn't teach sola scriptura, besides wasn't Paul referring to the Septuagint in his reference to Scripture in that passage? Surely he wasn't calling his personnal letter to Timothy "Scripture"? I don't see how we can give a meaning to Paul here which he didn't mean.
Best,
Bill
True, Paul most probably was referring to the Septuagint; however, Peter, whom Roman Catholics believe to be the first pope, equates the epistles of Paul to that of “other scripture." So, it is on that basis that I base my conclusions.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, Peter, referring to Paul, says in 2 Peter 3:16, As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. And, incidentally, that would include Paul's personal letter to Timothy (both Catholics and Protestants accept this).
Hope this helps.
In any event, the pope has not given ex cathedra weight to each verse of scripture, so on which he has not, it seems leaves interpretation open, if not permanently, at least temporarily for us, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, to interpret. In addition, it must be understood that it is not the scripture that is fallible, but rather those that interpret the scripture. So, in the final analysis the scripture when rightly interpreted is infallible.
Now, let us assume that the pope is infallible, even his ex cathedra pronouncements must be interpreted. Protestant chose to cut to the chase, you might say, and rest their final interpretation on the scripture.
As far as Luther and Calvin are concerned, they too fall in the category of an interpretation that we must consider; just as I would consider someone's interpretation of the Pope's ex cathedra pronouncements.
So, Bill, the bottom line is, no matter how we slice it, the buck stops with us.
Sorry, Bill, I did not intend to overlook your reference to the deuterocanonical books, which by-in-large are composed of what the Protestants refer to as the Apocrypha. Believe me, I am no expert; however, I have read the deuterocanonical books in the Jerusalem (I believe it is called) Catholic version, and in the Protestant's New English Bible translation.
ReplyDeleteSo, my question is, first of all, where does the Apocrypha or if you prefer the deuterocanonical books contradict or shed any additional light on the commonly accepted canon of the Protestant Bible? I am asking, because I did not find all that much difference. We Protestants do not say that our canon contains the sum total of truth, but rather that it bears witness to the truth. Therefore, salvific truth is essentially found in our canon of scripture.
The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England lists the deuterocanonical books as suitable to be read for "example of life and instruction of manners, but yet doth net apply them to establish any doctrine." The early lectionaries of the Anglican Church (as included in the Book of Common Prayer of 1662) included the deuterocanonical books among the cycle of readings, and passages from them were used in the services (such as the Benedicite).
The Benedicite (also Benedicite, omnia opera or A Song of Creation) is, as you most probably know, a canticle that is used in the Roman Catholic Liturgy of the Hours, and is also used in Anglican and Lutheran worship. So, apparently there is no strong opposition to the use of deuterocanonical literature in worship.
There is much more that I could say, but I will leave it there. Do, however, continue the dialogue. Perhaps, we shall learn from one another.
Hi Jim,
ReplyDeleteI am still not quite sure all of this answers what I am trying to answer. What authorized Luther to make the move to sola scriptura?
Sola scriptura entails a denial of the authority of the whole of Apostolic Tradition and a denial of the authority of the Church to authentically interpret the Word of God (which includes but is not limited to Sacred Scripture). Sola scriptura claims that Scripture is the only infallible and innerant authority for Christian faith.
But how do we know this? Where does God teach this? The Apostles certainly don't presume it, nor do their writings. The Church for 1500 years didn't presume this. If the Scriptures are the only source for Revelation, then where do they teach sola scriptura?
If this teaching cannot be clearly shown from Scripture itself then the foundational principle of Protestantism is an extra biblical teaching.
Again what caused me to reckon with this is the absolute doctrinal chaos that is the necesssry product of sola scriptura and one of the defining characteristics of Protestantism in general. If we do not know what the Scriptures mean then we do not know what God has revealed. This is in fact exactly the state of things!
Is it really reasonable to think that it took 1500 years and for Martin Luther to come along in order to 'discover' sola scriptura? Augustine and Aquinas missed this clear teaching of God? What credible explanation can account for the fact that these men, who were far more perceptive than Luther, along with all the other incredible Fathers and Saints, missed this clear principle?
They clearly accept the authority of the Church to interpret the Word of God. Luther doesn't even make a case for abandoning what had always been believed! He simply moves to sola scriptura without the least attempt to justify why this is the authorized and God's will. Why in the world should I follow him? That is what I am trying to figure out.
Best,
Bill
Bill you asked on March 3, 2010 7:01 PM, “What authorized Luther to make the move to sola scriptura?”
ReplyDeleteBill, you are barking up the wrong tree here. I am not defending Luther. However, on the other hand, I must point out that sola scriptura was not his unique contribution. Others before him took the same position.
Concerning Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, and Dr. W. Robert Godfrey states,
"Let me offer as an illustration two examples from the work of Augustine, often quoted against the Protestant position on the question of the authority of the church. At one point in his debate with the Pelagians, a bishop of Rome sided with Augustine, and Augustine declared, “Rome has spoken, the matter is settled.” Later, however, another pope opposed Augustine on this subject, and Augustine responded by saying, “Christ has spoken, the matter is settled.” Augustine did not bow to the authority of the bishop of Rome, but turned to the word of Christ to evaluate the teaching of Rome.
Another statement of Augustine’s often cited by Roman Catholic apologists, reads: “I would not have believed had not the authority of the Catholic Church moved me.” That seems very strong and clear. However, in another place Augustine wrote: “I would never have understood Plotinus had not the authority of my neo-Platonic teachers moved me.” This parallel shows that Augustine is not talking about some absolute, infallible authority in the church, but rather about the ministerial work of the church and about teachers who help students understand."
Bill you stated: “Sola scriptura claims that Scripture is the only infallible and inerrant authority for Christian faith.”
No, sola scriptura does not claim that Scripture is the only infallible and inerrant authority for Christian faith, either. Sola scriptura, however, will affirm theological truth. Even the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches celebrate Mass differently. So, how can tradition or the Church take such a lofty attitude, when they too must adhere to Scripture for authenticity? Tradition is a mixed bag of customs, and the schismatic nature of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church is very much alive. (I smiled when the emissaries Pope Benedict and Patriarch Bartholomew haggled over whose throne would be higher as the sat across from one another. Finally, the issue was settled when they were placed on equal footing. Moreover, in the final analysis, both rest their position squarely on Scripture and their interpretation of tradition. I say, I smiled; however, I could not help but think that what divided them was the very thing they were trying to defend; i.e., tradition and the church, not Scripture. That they agreed was infallible truth.)
Bill, I personally believe that unbiased historical research on the sola scripture position will reveal that this is not a new doctrine, but in essence has been the foundation of sound theology from the beginning. That the Lord preserved truth through the instrument of the Apostles and their successors, I have no doubt; however, in all cases, the Scripture was and is the anchor for sound doctrine.
Continued . . .
Continued . . .
ReplyDeleteBill you asked: If the Scriptures are the only source for Revelation, then where do they teach sola scriptura?
Bill, I have already referred to 1 Tim 3:16-17 and to 2 Peter 3:16. Just keep in mind that sola scriptura does not rule out tradition, it only interprets and affirms sound doctrine, whether in the church or in tradition.
Bill you stated: If this teaching cannot be clearly shown from Scripture itself then the foundational principle of Protestantism is an extra biblical teaching.
Bill, it is not extra biblical teaching that I am defending, I am defending what you should be defending, that is, the Word of God. That’s all. If the majority of Christendom disagrees (and they don’t) then I must insist that for me the Scripture is the foundation of sound doctrine. Incidentally, this is the position that Augustine took, also. Scripture was never twisted to meet the theology of the Church; it was always the other way around.
Agreed. There is doctrinal chaos, but this is not the fault of Scripture. Otherwise, I would blame God and let it go at that.
Bill, you also stated: They clearly accept the authority of the Church to interpret the Word of God. Luther doesn't even make a case for abandoning what had always been believed! He simply moves to sola scriptura without the least attempt to justify why this is the authorized and God's will. Why in the world should I follow him? That is what I am trying to figure out.
Bill, am I wrong. Are you really trying to figure this out, or have you already come to a position that you would like to persuade me to take? For the record, however, I enjoy the dialogue.
Best,
Jim
Hi Jim,
ReplyDelete"Are you really trying to figure this out, or have you already come to a position that you would like to persuade me to take?"
Well, wherever I am in the process of asking the question, I assure you I have tried to ask the question, I am not merely defending what I have always believed. And I have spent a very long time living within the sola scriptura paradigm. I have tried to recognize my own prejudices and approach the question with disinterest. Either way I am in the same position, I am trying to see if there is any reasonable way to rescue sola scriptura.
"it is not extra biblical teaching that I am defending, I am defending what you should be defending, that is, the Word of God. That’s all."
If you cannot show FROM Scripture that we are to believe that all of God's binding Revelation for his Church has been committed SOLELY to the written Scripture (which is, by definition, the doctrine of sola scriptura, or Scripture Alone), then yes I think you are using an extra biblical teaching as the foundation stone of your approach to Revelation.
It seems to me that your idea of exactly what sola scriptura entails is somewhat different from the classic Reformation notion. Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) by definition rules out tradition (whatever you may mean by this) as a necessary Authority for salvation or "concerning faith and life", as your Dr. Godfrey would state it. This is what the Alone means.
Contra Calvin, and regardless of how you slice it, sola scriptura cuts off any appeal to Oral Apostolic Tradition (which is what is at stake) as an Authority and places every individual believer in the position of being the final arbiter of truth. For even if you wish to give the 'church' some kind of interpretive authority you are still burdened with the responsibility to judge whether they have done so in a 'biblical' manner, which places the individual, in the final analysis, in the seat of judgment. You can't merely invoke 'tradition' as an 'authority' when it suits you. If tradition agrees with one's interpretation then one claims it as a witnessing authority, if it doesn't one dismiss it. Therefore it is no authority at all.
From a historical point of view I don't see how it can be denied that sola scriptura is the necessary cause of doctrinal anarchy. When I studied the revolution of the 16th century closely I saw that from the very start there were wildly different interpretations of Scripture. When one examines the hermeneutical principles which the continental reformers brought to bear on the texts of Scripture it is easy to see why (and since Zwingli, Luther, and Calvin, each claimed to be led by the Holy Spirit in the manner they interpreted Scripture I think we can easily dismiss this a manifestly insufficient interpretive principle). They each came with a completely different set of principles to get at the meaning of Scripture (see The Problem of Authority in the Continental Reformers by Rupert Davies, himself a Protestant). And if we can't agree as to the meaning of Scripture using the principle laid down by the 'reformers' (i.e. sola scriptura) then we have to admit that what they established necessarily leads to doctrinal chaos. This is exactly what happened. Luther saw it clearly and was profoundly alarmed at the situation regarding the Anabaptists, his reaction is well documented. But they were simply using the exact same principle of sola scriptura which Luther employed.
continued...
Calvin indeed recognized the shipwreck and sought to rectify the problem by assuming the role of an Apostle and recreating a magisterial office of his own. He rejects the Catholic Magisterium in favor of one that follows his own personal guidelines of interpretation. Where does he get the authority to do that? If the Church does in fact have the authority to interpret Scripture then why does he deny the Catholic Church this mission? Where does he find the authority to establish a Church other than the one which Christ himself established? Because if there is anything one can draw from an honest examination of the 16th century it is that Calvin establishes a church over and against the One which had always existed.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't mean to imply that you are defending Luther, only that we, as non-Catholics, all follow Luther in the decision he made to stand on the ground of sola scriptura. It is the Formal Principle of all the non Catholic/Orthodox communities whether they think they are Protestant or not. So I am only saying that his decision needs to be justified because in standing on the same ground it is our position as well.
And of course if one comes to judge that Protestantism is not on stable ground then a decision between Orthodox and Catholic looms on the horizon, but this does not necessarily mean that such a decision would be arbitrary, or that neither of them are right, or that the Church most fully and rightly ordered does not subsist in one or the other. That is a question for later, what I am trying to do is simply see if Protestantism is on solid ground.
But I think it is critical to recognize that if the foundation of Protestantism is false then every judgment a Protestant makes about the Catholic or Orthodox paradigm is necessarily question begging and incorrect to one degree or another because they are all completely informed and conditioned by the principles of Protestantism. I understood this clearly from the start of my investigation so the first thing I did was to listen carefully and disinterestedly to the best critiques of my own position, something I don't think many Protestants have done in good faith.
continued...
As far as Augustine is concerned. I have discovered that this appeal to him as a sort of proto-Protestant is very common, but when one examines the whole of his life and thought it quickly evaporates. Am I to really think that this great man, a monk and priest, a Bishop of the Catholic Church, a disciple of the great Bishop Ambrose of Milan, the defender of the Catholic Church against the Donatists, a Doctor of the Catholic Church, whose doctrines on apostolic succession, the sacraments, and ecclesiology, are all Catholic, this man denied the central doctrines of the infallibility of the Catholic Church and the Authority of Oral Apostolic Tradition? To accept this without a thorough examination strikes me even at first glance as credulous.
ReplyDeleteI am not a fan of the type of proof texting Dr. Godfrey employs. It is all too easy to find comments in isolation, and ripped from the overall thought, of this or that Father and put this forward as their final word in support of a peculiar principle. I have always thought that it was intellectually dishonest and lacked integrity.
The two quotes on authority that you cite by Augustine are not concerning the same thing Jim. In regard to the Catholic Church he says he would not have believed, in regard to Neo-Platonic thought he says he would not have understood. To miss this point is to miss the point. Even if he reaches an understanding of Neo-Platonic teaching it would not then follow that he believed it simply by the authority of his teachers. To be moved to understand is light years from accepting someone's authority to proclaim a message from God, and this is the claim of the Catholic Church which Augustine accepts. He accepts that the Church has been entrusted with the Apostolic message, the deposit of faith, that the Apostles entrusted their message to men and not merely to writing.
Have you really gone out and read Augustine in order to determine what you think his stance is regarding the Authority of the Catholic Church and Apostolic Tradition? Just to counter Dr. Godfrey let me quote some more of Augustine.
"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary councils, the authority of which is quite vital to the Church." Letter of Augustine to Januarius 54,1,1, 400 A.D.
"I believe that this practice comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices not found in their writings nor in the councils of their successors, but which, because they are kept by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commended and handed down by the Apostles themselves." St. Augustine, Baptism 1,12,20, 400 A.D.
"What they found in the Church they kept; what they learned, they taught; what they received from the fathers, they handed on to the sons." St. Augustine, Against Julian, 2,10,33, 421 A.D.
"This Church is holy, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church, fighting as she does against all heresies. She can fight, but she cannot be beaten. All heresies are expelled from her, like the useless loppings pruned from a vine. She remains fixed in her root, in her vine, in her love. The gates of hell shall not conquer her." St. Augustine, Sermon to Catechumens, on the Creed, 6,14, 395 A.D.
Note that in the first quote he does not understand tradition as a sort of confirmation of Scripture but as an equal Authority to Scripture, hence the phrase "derives...from Tradition".
continued...
You say, "I personally believe that unbiased historical research on the sola scripture position will reveal that this is not a new doctrine, but in essence has been the foundation of sound theology from the beginning."
ReplyDeleteThis a remarkable claim, one that hardly any Protestant apologists in this area would dare to put forward. The episcopacy emerges as a stable authority immediately in the Church. Ignatius of Antioch writing in 107 a.d. bears clear witness to this, as do all the Fathers. They all accept the episcopacy as of Apostolic Authority. Apostolic Succession is ubiquitously accepted as Apostolic in origin by the whole of the Fathers. These two facts alone disprove your thesis, as neither one of these doctrines are established by Scripture Alone but by Apostolic Traditions not found in Scripture. Therefore none of the Fathers subscribe to sola scriptura. In addition the very fact that the Fathers all recognize the normative and binding authority of Councils bears witness that they understood the Catholic Church to be the only authoritative interpreter of the Word of God (in both its written and unwritten forms).
I am not trying to persuade you of anything Jim, I am trying to see if sola scriptura is tenable. I have tried to make a principled decision based on careful reasoning. I am not at all interested in who has the better case in the matter. I am not merely defending my interests or maintaining commitments to the mistakes of the past. And I have no idea whether you have honestly asked the questions I am asking, I find that most men haven't, and that most men find a plausible argument that allows them to maintain their precritical commitments. It is the nature of men to do so. I find that very few mature decisions are made in this matter.
Perhaps the best way to continue, if you ever were to desire to continue, would be to read the following article, which is about the best that I have seen giving a fair hearing to all sides:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/
The author is a graduate of Covenant Theological Seminary.
Best,
Bill
Bill, you wrote, March 8, 2010 10:27 AM …
ReplyDeleteCalvin indeed recognized the shipwreck and sought to rectify the problem by assuming the role of an Apostle and recreating a magisterial office of his own. He rejects the Catholic Magisterium in favor of one that follows his own personal guidelines of interpretation. Where does he get the authority to do that? If the Church does in fact have the authority to interpret Scripture then why does he deny the Catholic Church this mission? Where does he find the authority to establish a Church other than the one which Christ himself established? Because if there is anything one can draw from an honest examination of the 16th century it is that Calvin establishes a church over and against the One which had always existed.
And I don't mean to imply that you are defending Luther, only that we, as non-Catholics, all follow Luther in the decision he made to stand on the ground of sola scriptura.
Bill, the point is that Luther was not the first to stand on the ground of sola scriptura, as I pointed out, so did Saint Augustine—although, I think you missed the point there. Yes, Augustine was a successionist; but he reverted to sola scriptura when in disagreement with the Bishop of Rome on the aforementioned occasion.
My argument is for sola scriptura not against papal infallibility, or sacred tradition. The pope (for the sake of argument) may or may not be infallible; and sacred tradition may or may not be true; however, in all occasions each must be attested by the standard of Scripture.
For the record, I do not know Godfrey, nor can I attest to his academic integrity on all occasions, but in this instance, he is right. Whether or not Augustine ever recanted, I do not know, either. However, in each of the cases you cited from St. Augustine, may I also quote him, in Chapter 2, verse 2, of the letter to Januarius, he states:
For such a custom, if it is clearly not contrary to the faith, nor to sound morality, is to be held as a thing indifferent, and ought to be observed for the sake of fellowship with those among whom we live.
Notice he says, the custom is not contrary to faith (faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of the Lord) and is to be observed for the sake of fellowship. I think you will find that Augustine does not quibble over tradition as much as we would like to think. For example, he consults Ambrose, on one occasion, and Ambrose counseled,
“When I visit Rome, I fast on Saturday; when I am here, I do not fast. On the same principle, do you observe the custom prevailing in whatever Church you come to, if you desire neither to give offense by your conduct, nor to find cause of offense in another's.” chapter 3, verse 3, ibid.
Advice, by the way, that St. Augustine took to heart.
Continued ...
Continued ...
ReplyDelete"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary councils, the authority of which is quite vital to the Church." Letter of Augustine to 54,1,1, 400 A.D.
My comment to is, “So?” There is nothing in statement that indicates that such tradition trumps sola scripture. In each of the cases cited, the intent of scripture is still maintained. It is for sure if tradition, in Augustine’s eye, had been contrary to scripture (which he says in the reference I made to chapter 3, verse 3, of the letter), he would have ceased the practice.
Please understand, I am not arguing against sacred tradition, or even papal infallibility. All I am saying is that in each instance, all must adhere to the intent of scripture.
Now, if you wish, we can examine some of the cardinal differences between Roman Catholicism and the rest of Christendom, and put that to the test of sola scriptura.
By the way, in closing, I have on my desk copies of the Selected Writing of Marin Luther, edited by Theodore G. Tappert, and nowhere in them do I find that Luther reject the Church, or even Church authority unless it did not meet the test of scripture. His beef was not against authority, but against abuse of authority and the heresy of papal infallibility and tradition that was contrary to scriptural practices. Please, however, let’s not get off on a side rail here on Luther. Luther is immaterial. As is Calvin. As is Jim or Bill.
All the best,
Jim
Bill, you wrote:
ReplyDeleteTherefore none of the Fathers subscribe to sola scriptura. In addition the very fact that the Fathers all recognize the normative and binding authority of Councils bears witness that they understood the Catholic Church to be the only authoritative interpreter of the Word of God (in both its written and unwritten forms).
Jim replied:
Well, perhaps, we are arguing 2 things here. You seem to be arguing for authority of the church to settle on doctrine; whereas, I am saying that none of the church fathers worked independent of scripture. Now, can we agree that Scripture, when properly interpreted, is infallible? Can we also agree that no authority can negate scripture, or change the intent of properly interpreted scripture? If that is the case, then all we are quibbling over is interpretation.
Now, to answer you question as to whether or not I have ever seriously considered the claims of the Catholic Church. The answer is 100% Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The primary sequence that I am working through right now is Apostolic succession. Where and when did the church jump the track? I know that in the Charismatic community they are calling people prophets, and apostles, and so forth. Which, incidentally, I think is absolutely silly. I really do.
I've been reading lately some of Hans Kung's take on papal infallibility, and I do find some of his observations interesting. Stanley Obitts discusses a dialogue that he had with Kungs in an article called "Religious Certainty And Infallibility: A Discussion With Hans Kung," in which Kung raises several good points on the uncertainty of any "infallibility" foundation because of linguistic and metaphysical considerations. Kung’s observations, I find quiet interesting, primarily, I think, because I have raised some of the same concerns in some of my lectures, etc. The bottom line is infallibility must rest on someone or something somewhere. Personally, for me that foundation is Christ, and I feel that the scripture sieves propositional and experiential truth out in our journey towards the Truth. Barthian? Perhaps. But, not in all aspects. (Just this one for the time being. Okay?)
This throws me back to a statement I made earlier, that is, “even the pope’s ex cathedral pronouncements must be interpreted.” And, in my opinion, they have not met some of the very standards that the doctrine of papal infallibility demands; namely, his pronouncements can not contradict scripture—therefore, scripture is the final authority.
Now, if you wish to change the terminology and call my position sola scriptura maximus, I don’t care. The point is that even the church is subservient to scripture, as is the pope, and as is tradition. The Word of God has been foundational since the beginning, even before scripture, as we know it, was canonized. Why do I say this? Because His eternal will and purposes are unchangeable. So, if indeed, the Scripture is the Word of God, then it is foundational, and trumps any theological propositions that are contrary; including the pope, and tradition if they are contrary.
Blessings-Jim
Bill, I am not sure if I referred you to http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html or not. I think there is a pretty good article there that may thrown some light on our discussion.
ReplyDelete