tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2918949076119584293.post8285335583829443685..comments2013-03-04T05:02:31.665-08:00Comments on Mackerel Snapper: An Infallible Church?Apologetics From Scratch:http://www.blogger.com/profile/05949451340332788696noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2918949076119584293.post-53401523653201103382011-08-02T11:37:48.718-07:002011-08-02T11:37:48.718-07:00As much as I would enjoy the dialogue, I need to d...As much as I would enjoy the dialogue, I need to decline the invitation re: the web site/newsletter. I am in the middle of a writing project so I don't have time to engage much at the moment. I had mainly just wanted to make the observation that the Reformers position re: sola scriptura is often misunderstood by both Protestants and Catholics. . . and that our conversations with one another might be more productive if we clarified this. <br /><br />A couple of comments and then I'll bow out. In reading both sides of the historical debate, it seems to me that Catholics and Protestants often talk past one another. As you have ably pointed out, it is not wise to argue against what the least informed members of a particular denomination believe. Just as the Catholic position is often misrepresented, so too is original Reformers' position. I know that I didn't understand it until I did further research. If we don't take the time to first understand one another's beliefs (or even our own as you pointed out), we end up building strawmen and arguing against them. . . which is intellectually exhausting and gets us no where. <br /><br />I realize you are arguing against Bart's position, but as I pointed out in the comment you deleted, you also mischaracterized the original Reformers' views.<br />In reading through the excerpt of the Geneva Confession above, the the language seems to be confirm the position I described earlier--the Reformers were looking to Scripture alone as the highest court of appeal in all matters of religious controversy. . . they came to this position because, in the opinion of many at that time, some teachings in the church exceeded scripture. What they were saying is that controversies arise, scripture must be the rule of faith. Their practices and theological approaches indicate they respected tradition and acknowledge the corporate church had a role in interpreting scripture.<br /><br />Keith Mathison's book, The Shape of Sola Scriptura does a pretty good job of distinguishing between the original Reformers and the Radical Reformers points of view. <br /><br />I wonder if explaining the Reformers true position would help Catholics and Protestant gets on the same page more quickly . . .annie119https://www.blogger.com/profile/16370295777496360256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2918949076119584293.post-1287112231444872172011-08-01T22:21:30.161-07:002011-08-01T22:21:30.161-07:00Annie has written back challenging on two points:
...Annie has written back challenging on two points:<br /><br />1) That the reformers never used the phrase Bible alone and creates a distinction between the original Reformers and the "radical Reformers". However, the following from the Geneva confession shows this is not the case: "First we affirm that we desire to follow Scripture alone as a rule of faith and religion, without mixing with it any other things which might be devised by the opinion of men apart from the Word of God, and without wishing to accept for our spiritual government any other doctrine than what is conveyed to us by the same Word without addition or diminution, according to the command of our Lord" (Sec. I). However, even if I were to grant her challenge to the common understanding that sola-Scriptura was a foundational platform, it is still a widely held belief today, and the foundation of works, such as Bart's essay.<br /><br />2) Annie also wishes to know whether the "pillar and foundation" of truth, which is the Church of the living God, refers (in my opinion) to the teaching magisterium or to "the members of the Church who make up God's household". The context of my essay makes clear that my understanding is the former because 1 Tim. 3:15 should be taken in the greater context of Scripture and the early Church writings. In addition, it is impossible for the collective members of the Church who make up God's household to be the pillar and foundation because, as can be seen in any yellow pages, no consistent source of truth can be found. If, for instance, I am struggling with the passages on baptism, where do I find the pillar and foundation among the members of the Church? At the local Church of Christ? At the Baptist Church? These would both disagree. Do I do a poll or survey of both of these groups?<br /><br />At this point, I ask Annie to refer her questions specifically to me at spencerallen@apologeticsfromscratch.org so that we can dialogue further on these excellent questions. Perhaps she consents to our exchange being published in the newsletter for others to learn from.Apologetics From Scratch:https://www.blogger.com/profile/05949451340332788696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2918949076119584293.post-29103147057413064852011-08-01T22:10:41.097-07:002011-08-01T22:10:41.097-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Apologetics From Scratch:https://www.blogger.com/profile/05949451340332788696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2918949076119584293.post-35210420879428717522011-07-31T19:36:15.150-07:002011-07-31T19:36:15.150-07:00Hi Annie,
A few things:
One, I think you meant f...Hi Annie,<br /><br />A few things:<br /><br />One, I think you meant for this comment to go in the column about sola-Scriptura, not infallible Church. Unfortunately, there is no way I can fix that.<br /><br />Two, you may feel the definition of "sola-Scriptura" I am discussing is faulty, and it may not be yours or that of the reformers (or Robert Letham), but it is that of Bart Larson, whose study I am critiquing. It is also that of several other Protestant lay and clergy, which points to the problem with identifying how authority works in the Protestant off-shoot.<br /><br />Three, in matters of infallibility, the Catholic Church has not gotten it wrong once in her two-thousand year history. If you care to point out an occurance, I'd be happy to discuss it in my column.<br /><br />Four, when you say the Catholic Church (and some Protestants) get it wrong, by what authority do you make that call?<br /><br />Five, regarding the claim by both Catholics and Orthodox to be the true Church, this is only problematic if one cannot trumpt the other in proving that claim. This is not the case, and while the comment box is too small to explore that, I'd be happy to in future columns, once done with this series.<br /><br />Six (and finally), you are right that Scripture calls for us to be one, but this will never happen, even reading Scripture together, until we figure out the pillar and foundation of what truth is when we disagree. Fortunately, Scripture has defined this for us in 1 Tim. 3:15. So, the good news is, you don't have to keep on dreaming!<br /><br />Thanks for your thoughts!Apologetics From Scratch:https://www.blogger.com/profile/05949451340332788696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2918949076119584293.post-65290333414767630992011-07-31T17:56:25.615-07:002011-07-31T17:56:25.615-07:00May I gently suggest the $1000 challenge needs to ...May I gently suggest the $1000 challenge needs to reframed as it is based on what seems to be a faulty understanding of sola scriptura.<br /><br />For one thing, according to scholar Robert Letham, "there's no evidence of such a slogan in the entire 16th c. It is probable that it did not put in appearance until the 18th c. at the earliest. When it was coined it was held to affirm that the Bible is the highest court of appeal in all matters of religious controversy, which is what the Reformers and<br />their successors actually held. The slogan itself, still less the reality to which it was intended to point, never meant that the Bible was the only source for theology." (Through Western Eyes, p. 197).<br /><br />In reality, the early Reformers never rejected the apostolic tradition, nor did they pit Scripture against Tradition as some have said. Rather, they believed the Church in their day was practicing an erroneous form of extra-biblical tradition that distorted and at times, even contradicted apostolic writings. Their purpose was not to lead a rebellion against Rome or found a new, independent movement but to<br />challenge the Church to reform herself by referring back to the view of Scripture and tradition held by the early Church and described by the Fathers. For the Reformers, sola Scriptura was never a matter of<br />Scripture OR tradition but of recovering the right relationship between Scripture AND tradition.<br /><br />The fact that they never called for Christians to rely on Scripture alone is evidenced by their reliance on Augustine and the other fathers when formulating their theologies. The early Reformers weren't saying we should disregard tradition or that scripture was all we needed; they were trying to address the abuses in the Church of their day. It was<br />some of the radical reformers who decided to totally ditch tradition and to say that "all we need is the Bible." <br /><br />I am a Protestant and I totally agree with you re: the problem of all the different interpretations--it is one of the things I find distressing about this branch of the church. And I agree that many Protestants don't read their Bibles any more than Catholics do. But if I<br />can say this kindly, in spite of the authority of the Pope and the teaching magisterium, the Catholic church has gotten it wrong on many, many occasions throughout history as well. And that, from a Protestant point of view, some of the teachings exceed scripture (I think some Protestant teachings do too).<br /><br />As far as the unwritten oral tradition is concerned, one of the questions I've been wrestling with is how the two major branches of the Church--Catholic and Eastern Orthodox--who both claim to be the one true church in the apostolic succession and who each claim that tradition is an equal source of Christian faith ended up with such very different<br />"authoritative" dogmas and practices. As Father Congar said in a conversation with EO divines "We have become different men. we have the same God but before him we are different men, unable to agree as to the nature of our relationship with him." Could it be because their "unwritten teachings" differ and there's no way to resolve it now since in in both, tradition holds the same degree of authority as scripture?<br /><br />Instead of pointing fingers at one another, is there any way that all of us can own our own weaknesses . . .embrace the idea that maybe we have something to learn from one another . . . and then start reading<br />scripture TOGETHER. As crazy as it may sound, scriptures say that we are to be of one mind, and because it says so, I have to believe it's possible. Just dreaming. . .annie119https://www.blogger.com/profile/16370295777496360256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2918949076119584293.post-49642395785082573792011-07-31T17:49:58.208-07:002011-07-31T17:49:58.208-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.annie119https://www.blogger.com/profile/16370295777496360256noreply@blogger.com