Monday, June 25, 2012

Censorship at Triablogue...


Back on June 14th, I submitted a post to John Bugay's June 8th thread, Irenaeus on “Divine Protection from Error”: Scripture Interprets Scripture. Comments submitted to John's threads are moderated, and it seems that John has no intention of publishing my comment, given that it has been well over a week since I submitted it. The following is my 'evil', 'subversive' post (grin):

==Hello John,

Longtime no chat; hope all is well with you and yours. From your opening post:

>>Consider this word from the Westminster Confession of Faith: “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”>>

You believe that Irenaeus in a very real sense was a faithful adherent of the above principal; unfortunately, he was not. Please note the following:

There was, however, another aid which he [Irenaeus] looked upon as of the most certain and most important utility, so far as it extended, and that was the baptismal creed, which he regarded as infallible for leading to the right sense of Scripture upon fundamental points, and according to which he thought all Scripture ought to be interpreted. [I.ix.4] It is evident, therefore, that he regarded the tradition of the Church, to that extent, as divine and infallible. (James Beaven, An Account of the Life and Writings of S. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons and Martyr, 1841, p. 139 – bold emphasis mine.)

You have conflated material sufficiency with formal sufficiency—Irenaeus held to the former, but not the later.

See posts under THIS LINK for more on this issue.


Grace and peace,

David==


If ever there was a post the deserves censorship...


Grace and peace,

David

11 comments:

Lvka said...

Oh, boy... You've seen nothing, Dave... Trust me...

John Bugay said...

Hi David, Steve let me know that you had stopped by.

I am probably less involved than you think in the comments area. According to the current settings, comments made 5 days after the post are automatically rerouted to moderation. The purpose for this setting is to avoid getting spam comments.

I don't see them at that point, and if I accidentally forget to "subscribe", I don't see them at all.

We are not so sinister as you think we are.

I have a new post up today about some of the granular details of how "tradition" functioned. Cullmann suggests that this must be kept in mind when reading Irenaeus, though I've not gotten that far into the story yet.

David Waltz said...

Hi Lvka,

Thanks for the links—very interesting—from the posts linked to I cannot discern exactly why you guys were banned. Are you still banned?

(BTW, I noticed that Gene Bridges is no longer in the list of "TBLOGGERS".)


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello John,

Thanks much for dropping by and commenting. In your post you wrote:

==Hi David, Steve let me know that you had stopped by.

I am probably less involved than you think in the comments area. According to the current settings, comments made 5 days after the post are automatically rerouted to moderation. The purpose for this setting is to avoid getting spam comments.

I don't see them at that point, and if I accidentally forget to "subscribe", I don't see them at all.==

Me: Thanks for clearly up the non-posting of my comment.

==We are not so sinister as you think we are.==

Me: I am sure you know that my opening post contained some hyperbole.

==I have a new post up today about some of the granular details of how "tradition" functioned. Cullmann suggests that this must be kept in mind when reading Irenaeus, though I've not gotten that far into the story yet.==

Me: Thanks for the heads-up, will head over there later and check it out.


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

There was, however, another aid which he [Irenaeus] looked upon as of the most certain and most important utility, so far as it extended, and that was the baptismal creed, which he regarded as infallible for leading to the right sense of Scripture upon fundamental points, and according to which he thought all Scripture ought to be interpreted. [I.ix.4] It is evident, therefore, that he regarded the tradition of the Church, to that extent, as divine and infallible. (James Beaven, An Account of the Life and Writings of S. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons and Martyr, 1841, p. 139 – bold emphasis mine.)

David,
I looked up Against Heresies Book 1, ix. 4 - on the ccel web-site and it doesn't say anything about baptism.

Is that the right reference within Beaven's quote?
Is he referring to "Against Heresies" I.ix.4 ?

I have not had time yet to study Heckel's article on Sproul, etc. but I did have to look this us and was wondering if I understood the Beaven quote right - did I understand it rightly?

Drake Shelton said...

David w,

Hey can you refer me something I can read on the material-formal sufficiency?

Ken said...

but I did have to look this us and was wondering if I understood the Beaven quote right - did I understand it rightly?

should have been :


but I did have time to look this up and was wondering if I understood the Beaven quote right - did I understand it rightly?

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

You posted:

==David,
I looked up Against Heresies Book 1, ix. 4 - on the ccel web-site and it doesn't say anything about baptism.

Is that the right reference within Beaven's quote?
Is he referring to "Against Heresies" I.ix.4 ?

I have not had time yet to study Heckel's article on Sproul, etc. but I did have to look this us and was wondering if I understood the Beaven quote right - did I understand it rightly?


Interesting...the following is from the famous Roberts and Donaldson Ante-Nicene Fathers series, volume 1 (this volume edited and translated by A. Cleveland Coxe):

>>In like manner he also who retains unchangeable in his heart the rule of the truth which he received by means of baptism, will doubtless recognise the names, the expressions, and the parables taken from the Scriptures, but will by no means acknowledge the blasphemous use which these men make of them. For, though he will acknowledge the gems, he will certainly not receive the fox instead of the likeness of the king. But when he has restored every one of the expressions quoted to its proper position, and has fitted it to the body of the truth, he will lay bare, and prove to be without any foundation, the figment of these heretics.>> (I.IX.4)


Most patristic scholars are of the opinion that the summaries of faith (i.e. "rule of faith", "rule of truth", "canon of truth", etc.) found throughout the writings of Irenaeus were part of the catechetical instruction given to baptismal candidates. For instance, Mathison wrote:

>>In defense of apostolic Christianity, Irenaeus developed the concept of the regula fidei or the "rule of faith." The regula fidei was essentially the content of the profession of faith that every catechumen was asked to recite from memory before his or her baptism. It was a summary of the faith taught by the Apostles and committed to their disciples.>> (Keith Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, p. 23)

For an excellent summary of Irenaeus teaching on the regula fidei, I would like to recommend W. Brian Shelton's contribution in a recently published book (2010), Shapers of Christian Orthodoxy: Engaging With Early and Medieval Theologians, edited by Bradley G. Green. It looks like Shelton's entire chapter/essay is available via Google Books:

Shapers of Christian Orthodoxy: Engaging With Early and Medieval Theologians


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi Drake,

You asked:

==Hey can you refer me something I can read on the material-formal sufficiency?==

I think C. Michael Patton's online summary is quite useful here:

In Defense Of Sola Scriptura - Part One - Authority Across The Spectrum

And A.N.S. Lane's contribution in, A Pathway Into the Holy Scripture (pp. 323-326), is quite good: LINK.

But my favorite treatment on the relationship between Scripture and tradition is Lane's following essay (which I have referenced a number times here at AF):

Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

I did not notice that Against Heresies 1.IX.4 is a very long passage and that the part you and Beaven quote from it comes at the very end. I had to keep reading it several it several times before I saw the whole thing.

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

Yes, it is fairly long passage, and reading it online instead of from a book makes it much easier to miss things. While on the subject of missing things, I just noticed I made a slight error in my previous comment to you: Coxe was the editor of the passage I quoted, but Roberts was the translator.


Grace and peace,

David