Bill you said:
My reply:
Yes, I am aware of Kung and his censorship by the Catholic church; however, I find his approach interesting as a epistemologist, particularly as it pertains to propositional truth as opposed to experiential truth, which, I think is the closest that we can get to ontological truth, noetically. Intuition is the Kierkegaardian leap that I feel gives us cognitive knowledge of truth through an encounter with particular truth. In many ways, I think this is what John was referring to when he wrote: Romans 8:16By the way I would completely avoid Kung if you want to understand Catholicism and specifically papal infallibility.
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Other references that I find interesting concerning grasping truth are:
Galatians 4:6
And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Romans 8:14
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
1 John 3:24
And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
Galatians 4:6
And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
1 Corinthians 2:10
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
All of these deal with invisible intuitive dynamics, which I find very interesting, since it just adds further fuel to my contention that interpretation or verification ultimately rest within the individual—not the pope (who must also be interpreted)—but in the sola scriptura position, since it allows, in fact invites, contributory categories (the creeds, theologians, history, etc.) to reinforce Biblical truth. However, ultimately, the final verification is what some have called the “aha” moment when the individual encounters truth.
Futher, I believe this is epistemological foundation that Christ prayed for, when he prayed,
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. John 17:21 (King James Version)
Perhaps, you would like to give me some feedback on this, and I will continue the discussion in another blog.
Hi Jim,
ReplyDeleteI think von Balthasar is far superior to Kung in his thinking in all these areas. Kung is intelligent but rotten.
Why would you want to follow the epistemology of one who is opertating from an uncritical acceptance of radical historical-critical biblical interpretations and "demythologizations" of traditional doctrines?
Kung denies that the resurrection was a "historical event" occuring in space and time.
This secularized form of theologizing is pretty useless to me. I know the historical-critical method has some uses but the whole method is grounded in purely rationalistic presumptions and is very limited. Kung is a wasted talent, he has no wisdom.
Karol Wojtyla's subjective personalism is far better grounded than Kung's personal subjectivism.
Read de Lubac and von Balthasar.
Best,
Bill
Jim,
ReplyDeleteWhat have you read of Chesterton?
And I think you would get a great deal, and really enjoy, Bouyer's Spirit and Forms.
Before we range to far off the central topic please let me know if you can give the essay I linked a close and careful reading. If there is a way to answer the argument I would be interested. They cover the whole subject thoroughly and accurately.
Best,
Bill
Bill, commenting that I find a particular aspect of Kung's epistemology interest is a far cry from following him. The Devil might say that 2 apples plus 2 oranges is a different 4 than 2 figs plus 2 oranges, and I might find that interesting; but I certainly would not follow him.
ReplyDeleteChesterton? I didn't keep a list, but what I have read of his and other's critique of his work very helpful in understanding the nature of religious truth.
Balthasar? I only skimmed some of his work. I'll have to look into that further.
You said, "Karol Wojtyla's subjective personalism" tops Kung's "personal subjectivism." And, guess what? I agree.
Hi Jim,
ReplyDeleteFair enough on Kung's epistemology and I take your point.
Best,
Bill
Bill, almost thou persuadest me to become a Roman Catholic! I'll get back to you in detail later. However, nowhere in history or scripture do I find scripture subservient to the Apostles or their successors. Even Paul was obliged to obey what scripture clearly taught, even though he wrote much of the New Testament. So, all, including the Pope, are subject to the Word. Therefore, scripture, in my opinion is the primary standard through which the will of God is filtered.
ReplyDeleteNow, as far as Mary is concerned. Where in scripture are we given the right to pray to dead saints? I know that in the Book of Maccabees there is a reference to offering prayers on behalf of the dead; but I don't recall anything in scripture that gives us this license. Correct me if I am wrong.
Now, to be honest with you, my problem is not how God did it--i.e., the virgin birth; whether it was to prepare Mary in the way Catholics believe (i.e., the Immaculate Conception) or not, I don't really have an opinion on that. I, however, do not see how in good faith, I could ever see my way clear on venerating her to the level that she is in the Catholic church. In particular, am I concerned with the attempt by some to elevate her to the position of a Co-redeemtrix.
By the way, Bill, are you Roman Catholic?
No, I have no problem with Theotokos, as long as we understand that Mary is no goddess. Neither did Barth or Calvin. She is the
ReplyDeletemother of our Lord, who is God.
Bill, praying to the saints may sound logical, but I find no precedent for it in scripture.
Mediation is one thing—and, I agree that the Gospel was mediated through the Apostles, but it was not exclusive to them.
Bill, you said:
What I want to know is when did the Church transition from a living authority, an authority of living men, to the authority of
merely the written word?
And, Bill, I must admit that that is a very good point, and one that I am very interested to discover. I do not, however, find inerrant conformity in successionism that you seem to find. The Orthodox are at odds with Rome. Rome and the Anglicans can’t seem to get it straight between themselves. So, as easy as it sounds, I cannot commit my eternal destiny to historically flawed system called the Magisterium, or to the shifting sands of Tradition. To me, at least at this point, I find the written word of greater stability than that of a conflicting body of men, historically or otherwise. Further, if I understand Catholicism correctly, ideally, the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith. Is this not true? Then why the differences of opinion? Protestants are not the only ones to disagree with one another.
Again, I am thrown back on the inerrant word of God. And, yes this is a subjective decision, but pray tell me what honest man can function differently? Once again, I must point out that even the ex catherdra statements of the Pope must be interpreted; therefore, once again the decision is thrown back into a subjective decision.
So, once again, I wish to "contend for the faith that was once and for all entrusted to the saints." (Jude 1:3b) And, as far as I can see, sola scriptura offers me the best path for that. This approach was good enough for the Bereans, and it good enough for me. The New Testament is only a reflection of what God had already revealed in scripture and is the bedrock of the New. John Sailhamer's The Meaning of the Pentateuch (IVP Academic, 2009) is a good source for that position, although, certainly not exhaustive.
I will discuss the Keys of the Kingdom and the remission of sin in another dialogue. During the meantime, however, I would appreciate an ad seriatim rebuttal of these positions.
Bill you stated:
ReplyDeleteChrist gave his authority to forgive sins and to withhold forgiveness of sins to the Apostles (John 20). This is clearly mediation of the form you are against.
My reply:
First of all, let us understand, I am not ipso facto against anything, except that of what I perceive as error.
Concerning John 20:23, Matthew Henry suggest the following interpretation:
Now this follows upon their receiving the Holy Ghost; for, if they had not had an extraordinary spirit of discerning, they had not been fit to be entrusted with such an authority; for, in the strictest sense, this is a special commission to the apostles themselves and the first preachers of the gospel, who could distinguish who were in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity, and who were not…[italics mine] God will never alter this rule of judgment, nor vary from it; those whom the gospel acquits shall be acquitted, and those whom the gospel condemns shall be condemned, which puts immense honour upon the ministry, and should put immense courage into ministers . . . ."
And, further, he remarks that there are:
"Two ways the apostles and ministers [italics mine; I too am a minister acting on the behalf of Christ] of Christ remit and retain sin, and both as having authority:-[1.] By sound doctrine. They are commissioned to tell the world that salvation is to be had upon gospel terms, and no other, and they shall find God will say Amen to it; so shall their doom be. [2.] By a strict discipline, applying the general rule of the gospel to particular persons. “Whom you admit into communion with you, according to the rules of the gospel, God will admit into communion with himself; and whom you cast out of communion as impenitent, and obstinate in scandalous and infectious sins, shall be bound over to the righteous judgment of God.”
In any event, only God can forgive sins, ultimately. Any minister, or priest can instruct the sinner on true repentance, and conditionally announce that he or she is forgiven. I do that all the time; but not as a means of efficacious grace. So, I am not sure if this is just a semantic quibbling or is an argument of substance. I imagine, however, that from the Roman Catholic perspective it is just another example of privileged exclusivity.
Please, however, let’s keep the dialogue open.
Bill, which of Hans Urs von Balthasar's books do you consider the most representative of his theology? Have your read his work on Karl Barth? Is there a good biography. I don’t have the time or years to wade through all of his work. But, I did find some of the things he had to say in Dare We Hope: With a Short Discourse on Hell extremely interesting. I had come to the conclusion sometime back while researching on the topic of Hell that the Roman Catholic Church really did not have a lot to say on the subject. His interest in Barth has also interested me. He also seems to be a man of the scriptures, which to me is also interesting. Thanks for the recommendation.
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteI have been occupied for several days, I will read through this and respond soon.
Take care,
Bill
Hi Jim,
ReplyDeleteI think it will be getting ahead of the most important issue if we get tied up in particular doctrines when we have yet to really work out a clear understanding of the formal principle whereby we operate.
I still am not sure what you have in mind by sola scriptura, as there are times when you fall back to each individual and his responsibility to interpret Scripture and other times where you appeal to the authority of other sources. If something is an authority, of whatever type, it must have a clear principle that defines exactly how it is authoritative and when. Ad hoc appeals to authority seem to me special pleading.
I really think it would be highly conducive to clarity and understanding to work our way together through the article I linked. As I said it is the highest, most informed, and most balanced treatment of the subject I have seen. The author clearly restates the position of sola scriptura as held by its leading Protestant defenders and gives as well a clear presentation of the Catholic and Orthodox understanding.
Please let me know if this is something you think is valuable to pursue as it will be very difficult, in my judgment, to move forward without being clear on this point.
As for Balthasar, that is difficult, but try here:
http://librarian.lishost.org/?p=751
and here
http://hansursvonbalthasar.blogspot.com/
for starters and a sampling of essays and such. The story of his life is jaw dropping.
Here is the great de Lubac's eulogy of Balthasar as well:
http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/757/Hans_Urs_von_Balthasar_Eulogy_de_Lubac.html
He single handedly re-introduced the surpassing brilliance of Maximus the Confessor to the West. From what I can tell his work on Origen is definitive. I haven't yet read his book on Barth but they were great friends and lived and taught in the same city. There is a great anectode that when Barth was found attending Balthasar's lectures on Barth's own theology he replied, "I wanted to come and learn more about my thinking". Balthasar introduced Barth to Mozart and so began his lifelong love and praise of his music.
The central and magnus opus of Balthasar is his trilogy beginning with The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics which is in 7 volumes from Ignatius Press. It is difficult to keep up with Balthasar as his erudition is crushing, but I benefited greatly from the first volume particularly.
Hope that is enough to get you started and perhaps we can read him together and you can help me figure out all he is saying! ;)
Best,
Bill