Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Last night I was scrolling down through James Swan’s Beggars All blog’s “LABELS” looking for possible links to Eastern Orthodox posts, and stumbled upon this following link: DAVID WALTZ. Out of curiosity, I clicked on the link and was completely surprised to find that James had chosen to respond to a November 2009 Articuli Fidei thread five months later in April, 2010. One would think that such a late response would prompt James to inform me that he had done so; but alas, not a word…
Anyway, now that I am finally aware of his post, I would like to share a few of my thoughts on it.
James posted the following:
David Waltz on On Scripture and Tradition:
“Once again, Scripture is CLEAR, but only for those who have embraced the true regula fidei. This was THE view of the majority of the early Church Fathers, and has been recognized as such by a consensus of patristic scholars; the following are but a few selections from this overwhelming consensus."
Here's a citation he used for support:The ‘ancillary view’ is Lane’s term for the sixteenth-century Protestant view, in which tradition functions as an aid, but not a norm, for the interpretation of Scripture… In spite of claims to the contrary, the Reformers did not return to the ‘coincidence view’…The Reformation posited a degree of discontinuity in church history… (Richard Bauckham, “Tradition In Relation To Scripture and Reason”, in Scripture, Tradition, and Reason, ed. Drewery & Bauckham, p. 122.)
So, this quote from Bauckham is used as scholarly evidence that the Reformers posited a "discontinuity in church history" because they rejected the established God-given relationship between Scripture and Tradition. Since the Reformers rejected this, they therefore rejected the true regula fidei. The true regula fidei embraces the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
James has misread my thread; the primary focus of the thread was dealing with the view of the early Church Fathers on Scripture and Tradition. James pulls one quote (out of context) from the nine scholarly citations I provided and ignored the relationship of that selection to all the others. What I find even more troubling is the fact that James later goes on to provide the broader context the quote I provided from Dr. Bauckham, which affirms what I (and the other scholars I cited) have said about the early Church Fathers—i.e. that early CFs held to the “coincidence view” of Scripture and Tradition, and not the “ancillary view” of the Reformers.
So, I cannot help but ask myself: “What was James (Swan) thinking” when he wrote up his post? Further, did he actually read the entire thread; and if he did read the entire thread, should I not question the motives of his post?
In ending, I would like to state that once I discovered this disappointing post from James, I felt compelled to respond—sincerely hope my readers have some sympathy with me for addressing a sub-standard issue…
Grace and peace,