If Life's a journey, then there must be a destination. Where are you headed?
Isaiah 6:3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.
so paul uses the title apostle to confirm his authority...but let's say one uses the adjective form of that word (apostolic)...that means they have just as much authority as him right? they would have no need to validate from scripture their faith, practice, traditions, or doctrine right? they could simply stand on their own authority?not that anyone would ever do that or anything, it's purely hypothetical.
"They say the church wrote the Bible, and these guys were just officials of the church, which means that the church, any time it wants, can add to the Bible."Umm...that's certainly a wrong view, but it's not a Catholic one.http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PK.HTMI'm with him on the red-letter Bibles stuff. It implies levels of truth and scripture-ness. Ugly theology. At the same time, I might hazard that people tend to look for those 'nuggets of truth' in Scripture because they're not sure what do with a number of OT passages, that don't feel as meaningful to them. Just a guess.Traever, I agree. It's almost as bad as those who would dare label themselves 'Christians', acting as though they had the same authority as the Son of God.
yeah, him saying that they claim they wrote the bible is a little bit of a mis-characterization, or at least hyperbole. it's more that they claim they decided what would be in the bible because they have the authority to do so. and they say they did it infallibly. i agree with sproul when he says it's a fallible collection of infallible books, but one that he has more confidence is correct than any other church counsel decision. as in there exists the possibility that the church erred in it's assembling together of the bible. the catholic church however says that is not the case.
For moderns, I think the Catholic position sometimes has more to do with providing some kind of epistemology (ie How can we fallibly declare or recognize something infallible?). Though historically, they simply wouldn't have seen the church as being opposed to or other than the apostles, and would've looked to certain understandings of apostolic succession. Then again, if the given office-holder would oppose the apostles, then they wouldn't have been acting as apostolic representatives anyway. So if a bishop doesn't act like a bishop should, he's not acting as a bishop, thus allowing the office to retain the honor of authority.The idea, I think, is related to how Augustine dealt with the validity of the sacraments performed by heretics. Though I think Chesterton's point applies as well; that we mustn't judge a thing by its abuses.This isn't to say that any of this stuff is right. That's just my impression of what they're saying.Oh, and Traever, I must apologize for the unnecessary snark in my last comment. My desire to show that the adjectives do not imply equality in and of itself, but a guide towards conformation gave way to the general feeling of annoyance I had at the time.
...and by annoyance, I meant that it had been a long day with very little sleep.
no big deal. i wasn't actually saying they use the word like that i was just making a segway to the attitude we've experienced from much of leadership. essentially they'll defend their authority till they are blue in the face without ever once being willing to address the actual issue of what they are doing with that authority. it's been incredibly frustrating by revealing as well.
Funny, as I tend to notice those attitudes more in the pews than the pulpit...and even more so in myself. It's easy to think that what I think defines the boundaries of truth. It's even easier to think that I must understand a thing before I can recognize it as truth. Like you said, we too much stand on our own authority.
we have one authority- scripture. it's not always difficult to see when it's being twisted, misused, and ignored. such is the case in regards to legalism, church government, church discipline, and soteriology (in the ac church). for example, the biblical model for church discipline is not that complicated. when a church refuses to submit itself to that model, it's wrong. scripture is supposed to be the only authority in which they derive their right to discipline.the same can be said of the catholic church with their mariology, forced celibacy, priestly absolution, mass and all kinds of other doctrines. it's clearly not scriptural and it doesn't take a genius or a theology professor to see it. acknowledging and being against that kind of distortion of the word is not an arrogant or unbiblical attitude on behalf of "those in the pews". in fact, it's part of their job.
all in all, i don't think we could honestly say that the problems people have in those areas (especially the ac ones) come from a wrong attitude or their misunderstanding of a truth. what would one need to understand better in regards to church discipline that makes it biblical to punish a repentant sinner? same goes for plurality of elders. no one's attitude is making the bible "seem" to teach it, that's just what the new testament calls for in church government. again, it doesn't take a scholar.
Since I'm not sure what you're getting at (tradition, authority, scripture, our problems, problems of leadership, etc), let me mention some of the reflections I had while reading your comments. If this discussion is getting too long, tedious, or distanced from the blog post feel free to email me instead.1. Who discerns?Most important, in my mind, is where you point out that part of the job of the congregants is to discern and oppose any distortions of the word that occur in the preaching. This is fantastic stuff! I can only add that the church leaders have this role as well, in addition to the responsibility of doing so on behalf of the church (at least when acting in their official capacity).My apologies if I implied that the congregation is the sole source of any problems we may have. I didn't in any way mean to imply that. My point was simply that those who I have heard point to tradition in an escapist way (trying to elude any need to be loyal to the consequences of scripture, any need to think about what a passage means, and even the mere possibility that they could be wrong) have far more often not been in leadership positions. This may be coincidence or a consequence of certain church cultures, but that has been my experience. I wasn't trying to place blame.2. How do they discern?Any confusion resulting from such a process can, at times, be linked to the different ways that we comprehend the word. As you said, there are often times when there is no disagreement as to the meaning of a passage (at least within a particular group). One would hope that in these situations everyone involved would be willing to man up and live out the implications of recognizing that meaning as true, though that is not always the case. From what you say about church discipline, it sounds like you're saying that this is the situation we're in.At the same point, as I'm sure you'll understand, I'm rather wary of any sort of hermeneutic of obviousness as it can easily lead to oversimplification if Biblical exegesis, can stifle discussion and investigation of issues, and can make it easy for people to feel self assured in whatever belief they have (or in whatever they're claiming at that moment). It also can create issues if one assumes that those certain bits of scripture that we understand (or at least agree on) are the only important bits. It can quickly lead to the red-letter Bible problem as MacArthur mentioned above.Having said that, though, any full on discussion of the coexistence of tradition, authority, and doctrine and their place within scriptural exegesis is a big topic and certainly deserves much more space and effort than this combox can accomodate.3. Simple belief isn't simplisticI would want to add on a personal note, that I do tend to think that one is warranted to believe something is true without full comprehension of how or why that thing is true. The justification for such a belief may extend anywhere from simply believing someone who does know something of the matter at hand to a personal experience of that matter. Of course, justification does not imply warrant and is certainly not a guarantee of certitude. As such, I would definitely agree that solid Biblical interpretation does not require a scholar, even if it does require a Spirit.
i'll try to email you when i get home. i think we're having a little trouble deciphering tone/intent; at least on my part anyway. there's probably not much here we disagree about.
ok, turns out i don't have your email. just send me one quick at traever7@yahoo.com or leave yours on here and i'll get. you have to promise we don't talk about gk chesteron though.
Post a Comment
12 comments:
so paul uses the title apostle to confirm his authority...but let's say one uses the adjective form of that word (apostolic)...that means they have just as much authority as him right? they would have no need to validate from scripture their faith, practice, traditions, or doctrine right? they could simply stand on their own authority?
not that anyone would ever do that or anything, it's purely hypothetical.
"They say the church wrote the Bible, and these guys were just officials of the church, which means that the church, any time it wants, can add to the Bible."
Umm...that's certainly a wrong view, but it's not a Catholic one.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PK.HTM
I'm with him on the red-letter Bibles stuff. It implies levels of truth and scripture-ness. Ugly theology. At the same time, I might hazard that people tend to look for those 'nuggets of truth' in Scripture because they're not sure what do with a number of OT passages, that don't feel as meaningful to them. Just a guess.
Traever, I agree. It's almost as bad as those who would dare label themselves 'Christians', acting as though they had the same authority as the Son of God.
yeah, him saying that they claim they wrote the bible is a little bit of a mis-characterization, or at least hyperbole. it's more that they claim they decided what would be in the bible because they have the authority to do so. and they say they did it infallibly. i agree with sproul when he says it's a fallible collection of infallible books, but one that he has more confidence is correct than any other church counsel decision. as in there exists the possibility that the church erred in it's assembling together of the bible. the catholic church however says that is not the case.
For moderns, I think the Catholic position sometimes has more to do with providing some kind of epistemology (ie How can we fallibly declare or recognize something infallible?). Though historically, they simply wouldn't have seen the church as being opposed to or other than the apostles, and would've looked to certain understandings of apostolic succession. Then again, if the given office-holder would oppose the apostles, then they wouldn't have been acting as apostolic representatives anyway. So if a bishop doesn't act like a bishop should, he's not acting as a bishop, thus allowing the office to retain the honor of authority.
The idea, I think, is related to how Augustine dealt with the validity of the sacraments performed by heretics. Though I think Chesterton's point applies as well; that we mustn't judge a thing by its abuses.
This isn't to say that any of this stuff is right. That's just my impression of what they're saying.
Oh, and Traever, I must apologize for the unnecessary snark in my last comment. My desire to show that the adjectives do not imply equality in and of itself, but a guide towards conformation gave way to the general feeling of annoyance I had at the time.
...and by annoyance, I meant that it had been a long day with very little sleep.
no big deal. i wasn't actually saying they use the word like that i was just making a segway to the attitude we've experienced from much of leadership. essentially they'll defend their authority till they are blue in the face without ever once being willing to address the actual issue of what they are doing with that authority. it's been incredibly frustrating by revealing as well.
Funny, as I tend to notice those attitudes more in the pews than the pulpit...and even more so in myself. It's easy to think that what I think defines the boundaries of truth. It's even easier to think that I must understand a thing before I can recognize it as truth. Like you said, we too much stand on our own authority.
we have one authority- scripture. it's not always difficult to see when it's being twisted, misused, and ignored. such is the case in regards to legalism, church government, church discipline, and soteriology (in the ac church). for example, the biblical model for church discipline is not that complicated. when a church refuses to submit itself to that model, it's wrong. scripture is supposed to be the only authority in which they derive their right to discipline.
the same can be said of the catholic church with their mariology, forced celibacy, priestly absolution, mass and all kinds of other doctrines. it's clearly not scriptural and it doesn't take a genius or a theology professor to see it. acknowledging and being against that kind of distortion of the word is not an arrogant or unbiblical attitude on behalf of "those in the pews". in fact, it's part of their job.
all in all, i don't think we could honestly say that the problems people have in those areas (especially the ac ones) come from a wrong attitude or their misunderstanding of a truth. what would one need to understand better in regards to church discipline that makes it biblical to punish a repentant sinner? same goes for plurality of elders. no one's attitude is making the bible "seem" to teach it, that's just what the new testament calls for in church government. again, it doesn't take a scholar.
Since I'm not sure what you're getting at (tradition, authority, scripture, our problems, problems of leadership, etc), let me mention some of the reflections I had while reading your comments. If this discussion is getting too long, tedious, or distanced from the blog post feel free to email me instead.
1. Who discerns?
Most important, in my mind, is where you point out that part of the job of the congregants is to discern and oppose any distortions of the word that occur in the preaching. This is fantastic stuff! I can only add that the church leaders have this role as well, in addition to the responsibility of doing so on behalf of the church (at least when acting in their official capacity).
My apologies if I implied that the congregation is the sole source of any problems we may have. I didn't in any way mean to imply that. My point was simply that those who I have heard point to tradition in an escapist way (trying to elude any need to be loyal to the consequences of scripture, any need to think about what a passage means, and even the mere possibility that they could be wrong) have far more often not been in leadership positions. This may be coincidence or a consequence of certain church cultures, but that has been my experience. I wasn't trying to place blame.
2. How do they discern?
Any confusion resulting from such a process can, at times, be linked to the different ways that we comprehend the word. As you said, there are often times when there is no disagreement as to the meaning of a passage (at least within a particular group). One would hope that in these situations everyone involved would be willing to man up and live out the implications of recognizing that meaning as true, though that is not always the case. From what you say about church discipline, it sounds like you're saying that this is the situation we're in.
At the same point, as I'm sure you'll understand, I'm rather wary of any sort of hermeneutic of obviousness as it can easily lead to oversimplification if Biblical exegesis, can stifle discussion and investigation of issues, and can make it easy for people to feel self assured in whatever belief they have (or in whatever they're claiming at that moment). It also can create issues if one assumes that those certain bits of scripture that we understand (or at least agree on) are the only important bits. It can quickly lead to the red-letter Bible problem as MacArthur mentioned above.
Having said that, though, any full on discussion of the coexistence of tradition, authority, and doctrine and their place within scriptural exegesis is a big topic and certainly deserves much more space and effort than this combox can accomodate.
3. Simple belief isn't simplistic
I would want to add on a personal note, that I do tend to think that one is warranted to believe something is true without full comprehension of how or why that thing is true. The justification for such a belief may extend anywhere from simply believing someone who does know something of the matter at hand to a personal experience of that matter. Of course, justification does not imply warrant and is certainly not a guarantee of certitude. As such, I would definitely agree that solid Biblical interpretation does not require a scholar, even if it does require a Spirit.
i'll try to email you when i get home. i think we're having a little trouble deciphering tone/intent; at least on my part anyway. there's probably not much here we disagree about.
ok, turns out i don't have your email. just send me one quick at traever7@yahoo.com or leave yours on here and i'll get. you have to promise we don't talk about gk chesteron though.
Post a Comment