March 8, 2010 11:56 AM
Jim said...
Bill, you wrote:
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).
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, "Yes, very much so!"
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
Hi Jim,
ReplyDeleteYes, I see part of the problem now. I have been at this a pretty long time and sometimes presume those I am talking with have the same concepts about the foundations of Protestantism that exist in the general literature and discussions of these topics. I am using a very common understanding of the principle of sola scriptura and I think you have in mind something different. So we are probably talking past each other somewhat.
And as an aside I agree with you about the silliness that passes in the Charismatic communities in general, but as a Protestant I have always thought it came with the territory and what one had to look for was the authentic manifestation of the Spirit in and through his people. I think Jack Deere is an excellent antidote and speaks with balance and sense. I think Gordon Fee is one of the finest Protestant exegetes alive and his magisterial God's Empowering Presence ought to be read by every Christian who pursues the greater gifts, and even those who don't.
By the way I would completely avoid Kung if you want to understand Catholicism and specifically papal infallibility. Kung has been stripped of his authority to teach Catholic theology and is therefore not one to appeal to in understanding Catholic doctrine. You are much better off going to Newman (who was around at the time of Vatican I).
I would say go to the mature converts. Men who have shown great perception and a disciplined mind and then convert in the full flowering of their perceptive powers are very much worth listening to. They, of all men who discuss the controversy, have proven that they are willing to look at the matter with disinterest and try to make a principled judgment. They are not merely defending their interests, what we in the South would call 'having a dog in the hunt'.
Great minds who have thought long and seriously and then converted from Protestantism to Catholicism (or vice versa), precisely because they think it is true, have a profound understanding of both traditions. They have made an informed judgment and are not merely expressing an opinion or defending a prejudice.
Read Newman and Chesterton. Read Louis Bouyer's The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism and his short little book The Word, Church, and Sacraments in Catholicism and Protestantism. Read Ronald Knox, Thomas Howard, there are many more.
I am glad you reference Mathison and I am familiar with his work (the article you mention of course is about solo not sola scriptura). I think his analysis on both counts is seriously flawed but he makes a clear argument and I can appreciate that.
I am also familiar with Geisler and Sproul, two leading Protestant authorities in the matter. Sproul highly praises and recommends Mathison's book The Shape of Sola Scriptura. In doing so he recognizes that Mathison is one of the foremost authorities in this realm. The article I recommended, and include the link again, is a response to Mathison's argument in the aforementioned book. It is tight, precise, and cogently argued. The author is a graduate of Covenant Theological Seminary and understands the issue deeply.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/
Please let me know what you think. The essay itself is not that long, but the comments run into the hundreds.
Best,
Bill
Bill, I am having trouble with my blog comments section taking anything of any reasonable size. So, I am posting my replies in the regular blog session. Perhaps, that will work.
ReplyDeleteIf you would comment under my reply, I would appreciate it.
Bill you said:
ReplyDeleteRead Newman and Chesterton. Read Louis Bouyer's The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism and his short little book The Word, Church, and Sacraments in Catholicism and Protestantism. Read Ronald Knox, Thomas Howard, there are many more.
My Answer:
Bill, Chesterton is a favorite author of mine, if not my most favorite. Newman, I have read, sometime back, and found him interesting, although, at the time not very convincing.
Louis Bouyer is new to me; however, the title of the little book The Word, Church and Sacrament in Catholics and Protestantism sounds familiar . . . I will check my library to see if in fact, I have the book.
Let’s keep the dialogue going. By the way, Gordon Fee and I are of the same denomination. Yes, his work on Corinthians, etc, is insightful. He also has written some good stuff in hermeneutics. I haven’t however kept abreast of his work for sometime now.
By the way, I have posted (or will post) an article on the Immaculate Conception. You might want to give that one a shot, too, and let me know what you think. Then perhaps we will take on the granddaddy of them all—Hell . . . That’s a good one; but not for the faint of heart, I must quickly add! Surprisingly, the Catholic Church has not “ex cathedrally” done to much with the subject, as far as I know. But, boy, the Church Fathers did. Take care-Jim
Bill you said:
ReplyDeleteRead Newman and Chesterton. Read Louis Bouyer's The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism and his short little book The Word, Church, and Sacraments in Catholicism and Protestantism. Read Ronald Knox, Thomas Howard, there are many more.
My Answer:
Bill, Chesterton is a favorite author of mine, if not my most favorite. Newman, I have read, sometime back, and found him interesting, although, at the time not very convincing.
Louis Bouyer is new to me; however, the title of the little book The Word, Church and Sacrament in Catholics and Protestantism sounds familiar . . . I will check my library to see if in fact, I have the book.
Let’s keep the dialogue going. By the way, Gordon Fee and I are of the same denomination. Yes, his work on Corinthians, etc, is insightful. He also has written some good stuff in hermeneutics. I haven’t however kept abreast of his work for sometime now.
By the way, I have posted (or will post) an article on the Immaculate Conception. You might want to give that one a shot, too, and let me know what you think. Then perhaps we will take on the granddaddy of them all—Hell . . . That’s a good one; but not for the faint of heart, I must quickly add! Surprisingly, the Catholic Church has not “ex cathedrally” done to much with the subject, as far as I know. But, boy, the Church Fathers did. Take care-Jim