It is extremely rare for me to recommend a book that I have yet to read, but I am going to venture into such rarity, concerning the above book (link to purchasing options). I have done so, based on the following three online reviews:
Dr. Peter Enns – “Have Evangelicals Made the Bible Impossible?
Dr. Tim Henderson – “Christian Smith: The Crumbling Foundation of Biblicism (Part 1)”
Kevin DeYoung – “Christian Smith Makes the Bible Impossible”
The first two reviews are favorable, whilst the third is hostile. Having not yet read the book myself, I am unable at this time to assess the reviews; however, I did find the following from Dr. Enns review to be cogent:
Smith’s central contention is that “pervasive interpretive pluralism” renders moot evangelical presumptions of the nature and authority of Scripture.
The above seems to duplicate the insightful reflections of Dr. A.N.S. Lane on this subject. I have provided the following from his pen on the right side-bar of this blog for over three years now:
It was this belief in the clarity of Scripture that made the early disputes between Protestants so fierce. This theory seemed plausible while the majority of Protestants held to Lutheran or Calvinist orthodoxy but the seventeenth century saw the beginning of the erosion of these monopolies. But even in 1530 Casper Schwenckfeld could cynically note that ‘the Papists damn the Lutherans; the Lutherans damn the Zwinglians; the Zwinglians damn the Anabaptists and the Anabaptists damn all others.’ By the end of the seventeenth century many others saw that it was not possible on the basis of Scripture alone to build up a detailed orthodoxy commanding general assent. (A.N.S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey”, Vox Evangelica, Volume IX – 1975, pp. 44, 45 – bold emphasis mine - LINK)
I have ordered this book, and hope to post some further reflections once I have read it (the Lord willing).
Grace and peace,
David
Hello David,
ReplyDeleteYou would probably be very interested in this link, which, based on what you've said, I would guess is a summarized version of that book:
http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/07/06/a-protestant-decimates-sola-scriptura/
This link is a commentary on a slightly longer article written by a Protestant a few weeks ago that has been spreading across the Catholic blogosphere.
Hi Nick,
ReplyDeleteThanks much for the link!
Question: have you read Devin Rose's, If Protestantism is True: The Reformation Meets Rome ? (If so, is it worth ordering?)
Grace and peace,
David
Kevin De Young's analysis was not "hostile", but very fair and even handed and right!
ReplyDeleteGood to see you back writing something. It is boring without your articles that make me think.
What do you think of Philip Jenkins' Jesus Wars ??
Hi,
ReplyDeleteSo good to see you back! Hope all is well with you and yours.
From your post:
>>Kevin De Young's analysis was not "hostile", but very fair and even handed and right!>>
Me: "Hostile" = negative (as "favorable" = positive). Whether or not De Young's analysis was, " very fair and even handed and right", I will hopefully weigh in on this after I have received and read the book.
>> What do you think of Philip Jenkins' Jesus Wars ??>>
Me: I have not read any of Jenkin's books, though many seem to think that they are highly controversial. Have you read the above; if so, what is your assessment?
Grace and peace,
David
P.S. In about 30 minutes I am heading out of town until late Sunday evening, so I probably will not be able to get back here until Monday.
I have Philip Jenkins' The Lost History of Christianity and have read it; and I was very disappointed in some aspects of it. Sometimes he gives good information, but sometimes he injects subjective opinion and, it seems to me, he has left out a lot of information also.
ReplyDeleteBefore I bought Jesus Wars I wanted to know what you thought of it; since you have read more books on historical theology that anyone else I have seen; who is willing to discuss things; and very accessible.
David,
ReplyDelete"By the end of the seventeenth century many others saw that it was not possible on the basis of Scripture alone to build up a detailed orthodoxy commanding general assent."
Could not the same argument be made to tradition? The Protestants have their factions but so do the Anchoretics. Chalcedon resulted in a separated Oritenal Church, a Persian Church and the Orthodox amongst many other splinter groups. Even amongst the so called Orthodox there was never full agreement. For crying out loud Chalcedon was a condemnation of Cyril's Theology of Mia Physis while heralding him against Nestorius. With 1054 and the recent events following Vatican 2, I as a Protestant see the Oriental Church, The Persian Church, The Eastern Orthodox Alexandrians, The Eastern Orthodox Antiochians, the Roman Church, the numerous Sedevecantist groups, and see that none of these groups has ever achieved universal consent, and then can in no sense be termed Catholic. This brings a thought to my mind, has Church tradition and authority done a better job than Sola Scriptura? No.
"Could not the same argument be made to tradition?", asks Drake Shelton.
ReplyDeleteHi Drake. Assuredly one can make the argument, as you did. But it isn't worth examining unless it is conceded that sola scriptura does not unite and results in division. I haven't read the book yet either, but I have a strong hunch that the problem lies with lack of clarity. In Protestantism, the problem of multiple plausible interpretations of biblical doctrine is often combined with an unwarranted belief in the perspicuity of Scripture.
In my opinion, most Protestants are not ready to analyze any problems there may be with Apostolic Tradition. First, they need to be brought face to face with the problem of why their fellows who agree on the perspicuity of Scripture, nevertheless find themselves doctrinally distant from those who would, if Scripture was clear, believe the same things.
Protestants who love the Bible can be as difficult to reconcile as covenant theology and dispensationalism. Those are just two among many incompatible theological views that develop from equally ardent students of the same Bible. The false belief in perspicuity of Scripture leads to an inevitable and unfortunate opinion. What of those who err? What explanation can say why any Christian would misunderstand the clear, precise, and obvious teachings of Holy Scripture?
Whatever answer one comes up with, it cannot be commendable on the part of the erring teacher or the body of believers who follows the erring teacher. If the Biblical doctrine is plain and clear, it seems difficult to me not to conclude that any false teachings warrant nothing less than the strongest condemnations.
Hello again Ken,
ReplyDeleteThanks for responding; you posted:
>>I have Philip Jenkins' The Lost History of Christianity and have read it; and I was very disappointed in some aspects of it. Sometimes he gives good information, but sometimes he injects subjective opinion and, it seems to me, he has left out a lot of information also.>>
Me: If I remember correctly, you bought the above book for information on how Christianity faired under Islamic rule—is that correct?
>>Before I bought Jesus Wars I wanted to know what you thought of it; since you have read more books on historical theology that anyone else I have seen; who is willing to discuss things; and very accessible.>>
Me: I still have not received The Bible Made Impossible (it has been shipped, so I should get it this week). After I have had a chance to read this book, I will think about ordering Jenkin's Jesus Wars; wish I knew a bit more about Jenkin's himself, and his qualifications...
Grace and peace,
David
Hello Drake,
ReplyDeleteBack from my weekend excursion, and I am intrigued by your post. Sure hope that you will check back in, for I am eager to find out what you think about Rory's response.
I cannot help but reflect on our Lord's plea to His Father:
"Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word; that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me." (John 17:20, 21 - ASV)
I do not think that it is much of a stretch to suggest that lack of belief amongst the majority mankind is somehow a product of the lack of oneness among believers...
Grace and peace,
David
Me: If I remember correctly, you bought the above book for information on how Christianity faired under Islamic rule—is that correct?
ReplyDeleteBasically, yes, to understand the background of the churches in the east, Orthodox, heretical, Coptic, Assyrian, Nestorian, Jacobite-Syrian, Catholic, etc. and how Islam treated them and what happened to them.
Jenkins has a doctorate in history from Cambridge and has taught at Penn State University since 1980, but some of his conclusions and opinions appear to be typical political correctness and some agreement with the whole Bauer thesis of "diversity" that is so widely propagated by moderns in the media like Pagels and Ehrman.
You could google him and read the reviews of his books at Amazon for more info on him.
I was not impressed with his interview on a news channel (either CNN or Fox or ABC) that I saw about the Jesus Wars.
Rory,
ReplyDelete“But it isn't worth examining unless it is conceded that sola scriptura does not unite and results in division. ”
>>>Assertion. What is your proof for this? Sounds like the logical error of Post hoc ergo hoc.
“In Protestantism, the problem of multiple plausible interpretations of biblical doctrine is often combined with an unwarranted belief in the perspicuity of Scripture.”
>>>First a definition of Protestantism please. The word in the context of its birth means people who protest the Papacy. I know of a handful of Churches that believe the Pope is the antichrist. I doubt you know any.
“In my opinion, most Protestants are not ready to analyze any problems there may be with Apostolic Tradition”
LOL. Ever read Isaac Taylor’s Ancient Christianity?
“First, they need to be brought face to face with the problem of why their fellows who agree on the perspicuity of Scripture, nevertheless find themselves doctrinally distant from those who would, if Scripture was clear, believe the same things. ”
>>>I know of no dispensationalists who believe in the perspecuity of scripture. They will give lip service to it, but I was a member of a dispensationalist churches for 7 years. They do not believe the Old Testament is God’s Word. They tell you they do, but they could give a rat’s a#@$^^ what it teaches. I am a scripturalist and we believe we have the answer to this problem, namely a complete epistemological and metaphysical theory based on scripture alone with the protestant canon as the axiom.
“Protestants who love the Bible can be as difficult to reconcile as covenant theology and dispensationalism. Those are just two among many incompatible theological views that develop from equally ardent students of the same Bible. ”
Assertion. Is this a deduction from personal experience? What is your proof? Taken your premises, I was the roommate of a Bible major, a straight A student, who was a dispensationalist. I woke up in the morning an hour and a half earlier than he did every day to read and memorize the scriptures and I did it every day for years. I was a culinary arts major and knew my bible better than every Dispensationalist Bible major I knew.
“Whatever answer one comes up with”
You have to get your arguments off the ground first. Every statement you made I rejected.
Hi Drake.
ReplyDeleteThanks very much for your reply to my post. I truly appreciate it and the spirit with which it was written. I didn't expect anything. Nothing personal...it's just the way things often go. On these internetty/blog things...it soemtimes seems like the more effort one makes, the less the reward (someone answering).
So thanks again for an answer. Allow me to ponder your reply and I hope you'll have the interest to wait a day or two for mine in return.
Regards,
Rory
Regards,
Rory
Hi Drake,
ReplyDeleteI haven't read the book that has been reviewed. Perhaps the author offers Tradition as a solution to the apparent problems that is discussed in the book. I doubt it. Even if he does bring it up, all that matters is whether he is right or wrong in any theory he offers about of sola scriptura.
Tradition isn't necessarily the only proper response to any problem raised. I certainly doubt that our blog host, who has left the Catholic faith, is inclined to think that Tradition must be posited as the only possible answer.
In any case, what need is there to question Tradition if it is only the solution to a problem that can be refuted?
That is the context for my first assertion here:
"But it [sola scriptura] isn't worth examining unless it is conceded that sola scriptura does not unite and results in division."
In other words, unless there are merits to any criticism of sola scriptura, why would a focussed discussion of sola scriptura need to consider alleged historical problems for Tradition? It seems to me like historical problems of Catholicism should be put to the side, and that is what I was suggesting.
Your objection was as follows:
">>>Assertion. What is your proof for this? Sounds like the logical error of Post hoc ergo hoc."
I am not going to try to prove that there is no need to discuss Apostolic Tradition. But it does not seem pertinent to me as I said above. The author of the book isn't Catholic. Our blog host isn't Catholic.
By giving your understanding of the divisiveness among those who claim to follow Apostolic Tradition, your initial reply to the original post seems to avoid discussion of the question at hand by raising an objection to a possible solution that no one is offering at this time.
I hope that clarifies the rebuttal I made to your initial post. I wanted to get that out of the way before analyzing some very interesting points your post.
More later, Lord willing.
Rory
I see I made a blunder...
ReplyDeleteOf course some of you see that I made many. Anyway, the one I would like to correct is in the post of 5:38 AM on Aug. 10, where I quote myself saying:
"But it [sola scriptura] isn't worth examining unless it is conceded that sola scriptura does not unite and results in division."
The clarification in brackets should be as follows: "But it [Apostolic Tradition] isn't worth examining unless it is conceded that sola scriptura does not unite and results in division."
I was arguing that it doesn't help the cause of sola scriptura if Tradition is equally flawed.
Hi again Drake.
ReplyDeleteI had suggested the following:
“In Protestantism, the problem of multiple plausible interpretations of biblical doctrine is often combined with an unwarranted belief in the perspicuity of Scripture.”
Your rejoinder is as follows:
>>>First a definition of Protestantism please. The word in the context of its birth means people who protest the Papacy. I know of a handful of Churches that believe the Pope is the antichrist. I doubt you know any.<<<<
I don't see how your conjecture about my probable inexperience among non-Catholics who think the pope is an antiChrist bears upon your question about a definition of Protestantism.
By Protestant, I intended broadly what most educated people (not necessarily Christian) would mean by it.
I am Catholic and historically speaking, I perceive the so-called Reformation as revolution. I don't insist that my interlocutors accomodate their usage of commonly understood terms like Reformation or Protestant to my own preferences. I am willing to use whatever designation you would like for me to use to designate the Christians who believe in a 66 Book Bible, reject a sacerdotal priesthood, and who can be traced to the movements of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, but not necessarily limited to those three leading figures. I understand that Protestant isn't a perfect designation, but I can't just type out a long sentence listing all the different groups that need to be included. So maybe with that explanation, Protestant is okay? If not, please suggest something else. As you see, I definitely did not intend to limit it to groups that continue to teach Rome as antiChrist.
Thanks,
Rory
I commented above:
ReplyDelete“In my opinion, most Protestants are not ready to analyze any problems there may be with Apostolic Tradition”
Drake replied:
"LOL. Ever read Isaac Taylor’s Ancient Christianity?"
My current reply:
I fear I was misleading. I did not mean to say that Protestants (or whatever word we end up agreeing about) are somehow incapable of conducting an inquiry into Tradition historically. Presumably, you consider this work with which I am unfamiliar as a reputable study and I have no basis to deny it.
What I meant is that if the criticisms of sola scriptura so far posited are faulty, the exercise of looking at Tradition would be merely academic. IF this new book offers food for thought that makes a Protestant/OtherWord have doubts about sola scriptura, any subsequent examination of Traditional claims will carry a weight of urgency that doesn't exist when there are no misgivings about the claims of sola scriptura.
I hope to continue examining Drake's rebuttal of my first post, but first I wanted to share a thought in connection with the cynical observations of Caspar Schwenckfeld noted above.
ReplyDeleteWhen Christians are taught that the Scriptures teach clear and plain doctrine (persecuity), it is usually accompanied with doctrine that can be satisfying in its cohesive use of the biblical data.
The pernicious results of this teaching of perspecuity tends to show itself by disdain for those who disagree. In many cases the Christian knows, and I would even say rightly so, that their own beliefs based on plausible biblical interpretations "make sense".
If biblical perspecuity is true, it is reasoned, and rightly so, it is impossible that multiple interpretations of Scripture would "make sense". This permits each of the groups to casually dismiss the claims of other biblical interpretations as the fruit of foolishness at best, or sin at worst.
The perspecuity doctrine tends to encourage an unwarranted confidence in the first sincere beliefs while discouraging a careful and open-minded analysis of beliefs that are incompatible with that which one already knows.
An unwarranted presumption about perspecuity of Scripture is a possible explanation for the condemnations heaped by Christian against Christian that was mentioned in the opening post quoting A.N.S. Lane. This was why I made a suggestion in my opening post that if Scripture is plain and clear, that strong condemnation of "false doctrine" (what the other guy believes) would follow naturally.
It seems to me that the Christian landscape remains largely populated by serious and devout students of the Bible who disdain the "absurd beliefs" of other Christians, while maintaining that their own doctrine is clear and obvious.
I welcome from any quarter, whether from Quaker or Catholic, a re-examination of a view of the Bible that in my opinion, is plainly and clearly unwarranted, that brings with it division and discord.
Hi Rory,
ReplyDeleteInteresting discussion going on; hope that Drake returns soon. In the meantime, thought you might want to take a look at the book he recommended, Isaac Taylor’s, Ancient Christianity (the book is free for online reading and/or downloading at the following sites):
Google Books
Internet Archive
Grace and peace,
David
David,
ReplyDeleteHave you read the book, Ancient Christianity ?
If so, what is your synopsis and analysis of it?
Google books formal is rather irritating to try and read something, as it is hard to jump around.
The Internet archive format is much, much better.
It appears he is focusing in on celibacy in the early church.
??
I am asking cause I don't have time to read more of it right now.
Ken , David, Rory,
ReplyDeleteIsaac Taylor's book is the chief vindication of the Protestant Reformation. In the 1800s a movement occurred almost identical to the one you have with Perry Robinson's posse and much that has happened in the PCA. The Reformation was coming under serious fire in favor of Ancient Christianity and Isaac Taylor through down the gauntlet. I was going through a mind torturing phase a year and a half or go or so. I was seriously considering converting to Eastern Orthodoxy. This book was the primary reason I did not convert. It is devastating. I wrote a review of the book here: http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/concerning-orthodoxy/against-ancient-christianity
Hi Drake,
ReplyDeleteThanks much for the link; an impressive 'review' for sure! It has been a number of years since I last read the book, but your contribution has inspired me to pick the it up anew, though it will probably be this weekend before I can do so (I am working on a new thread, and need to read Smith's book that I finally recieved in the mail yesterday afternoon).
In the meantime, I would be interested in your thoughts on the following two forum exchanges:
credal authority
What Defines Orthodoxy?
Grace and peace,
David
Good morning Ken,
ReplyDeleteFor now, I am going to take a 'back-seat' to Drake's impressive review; but as I mentioned in my previous post, I do want to re-read Taylor's book, and may start a new thread to discuss it, along with Drake's assessments.
Grace and peace,
David
David,
ReplyDeleteTo the first, "credal authority" I submit Chapter 2 of Samuel Rutherford's Free Disputation.
http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/sam_rutherford/sam_rutherford.FreeDisputation.html
To the second, "What Defines Orthodoxy?"
I submit Chapter 7 of the same work. A summary for you: Rutherford says,
"Assertion 1.) “Such opinions and practices as make an evident schism in a Church, and set up two distinct Churches, of different forms of government, and pretending to different instituitions of Christ, of which the one must by the nature of their principles labor the destruction of the other, cannot be tolerated”
“there is but one old way, Jer. 6. 16. One Lord, one faith, one baptism, Eph. 4. 4. One faith once delivered to the Saints, Jude 3. one truth to be bought, Prov. 23. 23. one Christ, which the Apostles, heard, saw, and handled with their hands, from the beginning, 1 John 1, 1. One name of Jesus, not any other under heaven by which we may be saved, Act. 4. 12. not Jehovah and Malcom, Zeph. 1. 5. not Jehovah and Baal, 1 King. 18. 21. not the true God, and the Gods of the heathen, the Samaritan mixture, 2 King. 17. 33. (2) And this one way we are to keep with one heart, Ezek. 11. 19. with one judgment, one mind, one tongue, one shoulder, Act. 4. 32, 2 Cor. 13. 11, Phil. 4. 2, 1 Cor. 1. 10, Zeph. 3. 9. Zach. 4. 9. Being rooted and established in the faith, Col. 2. 7. Not tossed to and fro, nor carried about with every wind of doctrine, Eph. 4. 14. Without wavering, Heb. 13. 9."
I've not been keeping up as must as I would have linked, but Drake's link to Isaac Taylor's book is fascinating (so far). The thesis: "the Patristic Church and the Protestant Church are two separate epistemic systems"
ReplyDeleteThis is precisely what Catholics have been arguing since day one, and is the thesis of Newman: "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant".
Of course, many reasonably minded Protestants heartily reject that thesis, and the early Reformers tried desperately to find ties back to the Fathers. On the other hand, there has been a strain in Protestantism that has always 'proudly' repudiated the Fathers, though I believe, if questioned properly, all Protestants would come to the point of repudiating the Fathers as well.
Thus, I believe the more genuine the Protestant, the more publicly they'll repudiate Church history and the Fathers.
Continuing from above:
ReplyDeleteI said:
"First, [before examining the claims of Tradition] they need to be brought face to face with the problem of why their fellows who agree on the perspicuity of Scripture, nevertheless find themselves doctrinally distant from those who would, if Scripture was clear, believe the same things."
Drake, you reply as follows:
">>>I know of no dispensationalists who believe in the perspecuity of scripture. They will give lip service to it, but I was a member of a dispensationalist churches for 7 years. They do not believe the Old Testament is God’s Word. They tell you they do, but they could give a rat’s a#@$^^ what it teaches. I am a scripturalist and we believe we have the answer to this problem, namely a complete epistemological and metaphysical theory based on scripture alone with the protestant canon as the axiom."
My current response:
This seems a little unfair to the dispensational point of view. It seems you and I share a little bit of a similar journey. As it happens, I had been a Baptist preacher for seven years. Most of that period I was what one could call a moderate dispensationalist.
You will understand that I did not accept the doctrinal implications of Old Testament promises to Zion as being applicable to the Church. But that hardly means that I did not believe in the perspecuity of Scripture. I thought that such passages taught PLAINLY and literally that when the Jews accept Christ that an earthly millenium would follow, according to the Old Testament promises which were suspended when instead of accepting their Messiah, the Jewish nation crucified Him, and the Church Age followed.
As you well know, EVERYONE assigns certain portions of Scripture as being applicable in practice to different bodies of God's people at different times. It is just a question as to how it should be divided up. Perspecuity of Scripture, and the highest regard for the authority of the 66 Book canon is not necessarily compromised simply because for practical purposes there is no need to have a practical application for every passage of every Scripture. Do we not give a "rat's you know" what about Exodus if we don't have any practical application for many of Moses' instructions in that book?
Dispensationalists would unhesitatingly accept any moral lessons drawn from the same Old Testament passages that speak to a different age than the one in which they think they find themselves. Certainly this would be in keeping with the assertion of the Apostle who said and I paraphrase, that "All Scripture is given for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
Regards,
Rory
In my journey away from dispensationalism, it never occured to me to accuse them of doubting the principle of biblical perspecuity. I know my church members believed in it and so did I, which explains why I confidently preached my way verse by verse through various Old Testament books over a period of perhaps five years of my pastorate.
ReplyDelete(It would have been in the late 80's sometime. I cannot recall exactly when I despaired of "writing sermons" and chose instead to give my listeners an attempt at a balanced diet of God's Word that was less susceptible to "hobbyhorsism" by forcing myself to read every passage of a biblical book and making comment.)
I note that you have admiration for the books of Gordon Clark. For some reason, I had got hold of one of his little books called Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism. I suspect that it sounded like a reaction against modernist undermining of the Scriptures, and as one with a high view of the inspiration and authority of the Bible, I obtained the book without reference to some of his other beliefs.
Clark wasn't a Baptist. Why not I wondered. Others of his books followed and then there were two, not so well known works that "knocked me on my can". The first was Duane Spencer's Holy Baptism. In college days, we never even imagined that there was any biblical ground for pedo-baptism. I had used the epithet "baby-sprinkler" to refer to Protestants who retained the Romish practice. I read and re-read that book in 1990. I could see that I had been grossly unfair in my ignorance of the ways that Reformed and Lutheran interpreters of Scripture arrived at the conclusion that pedo-baptism was a legitimate practice of the Christian Church.
The second book, also in 1990 might have been any of a number of books that do the same thing. But for me, I recall Philip Mauro's The Gospel of the Kingdom as a real and even more threatening challenge to my dispensational roots than anything raised by Clark or Spencer. I think it was Mauro who made me look at how St. Paul spoke about "the Israel of God" in Galatians.
In dispensationalism, I now see a clever and intelligible novelty of only the last few centuries. I think the longer pedigree of Reformed and Lutheran thought appealed to me, as well perhaps, as for me, the opening horizons of something new and refreshing.
But it never occurred to me, and still doesn't to accuse my former church members, my pastor friends, or any of my own teachers of not believing in or teaching the Old Testament. I remember one old pastor friend in the 80's laboriously and rather in a dull manner I fear, working his way through the Pentateuch verse by verse. I heard one session on Numbers I think. Thankfully, I was never faced with the scary proposition of having preached all 64 books except for Leviticus and Numbers! Heh.
Anyway, of all the things of which I could accuse dispensationalists, a failure to accept the value and authority of Old Testament teaching wouldn't seem right at all. And whether we are speaking of the Dallas Seminary crowd, the Ruckmanites, or even the ultras who reduce even the books of the New Testament in terms of practical application, I never met or heard of one who doubted the clear, plain and authoritative (perspecuity) teachings of all 66 books of both Testaments, even as they, in my current opinion, "wrongly divided the word of truth".
More later, Lord willing.
Rory
Drake,
ReplyDeletethank you for the link to your synopsis of Isaac Taylor's book.
Very interesting indeed.
I agree that the emphasis on celibacy and Mary and asceticism, penance, and exalting the bishop out of and over the college of elders, and baptismal regeneration (external rite over internal faith) - all of these are the early beginning of corruptions and leaving their first love (Revelation 2:4-5; and leaving the gospel - Galatians 1:6-9) that eventually turn into the apostate church of Rome (529 Orange - to Middle Ages to Trent).
But there is mixture of good things in the early centuries also. (Ignatius, Polycarp, martyrs, heroism under persecution, Irenaeus and Tertullian vs. Gnostics and Marcion, doctrine of the Trinity, external recognition of the Canon, first 4 Ec. Councils, Cyprian vs. Stephen, Athanasius, Augustine on grace; etc.)
Your summary was very nice and beneficial and much easier to read through in one sitting.
Thanks so much!
Hi again Drake...
ReplyDeleteYou charge me with making an unsupported assertion when I make the following proposal:
"Protestants who love the Bible can be as difficult to reconcile as covenant theology and dispensationalism. Those are just two among many incompatible theological views that develop from equally ardent students of the same Bible."
Here is your objection:
"Assertion. Is this a deduction from personal experience? What is your proof? Taken your premises, I was the roommate of a Bible major, a straight A student, who was a dispensationalist. I woke up in the morning an hour and a half earlier than he did every day to read and memorize the scriptures and I did it every day for years. I was a culinary arts major and knew my bible better than every Dispensationalist Bible major I knew."
------------
It is at first difficult to know which clauses of my proposal that you disagree about.
1) Do you disagree with me when I say that dispensationalism and covenant theology are incompatible?
2) Do you disagree with me when I say that "equally ardent students of the same Bible" arrive at distinctly incompatible conclusions?
On reflection, it seems difficult for me to conclude that you could disagree with the first "assertion". Do you think Clarence Larkin, Lewis Sperry Chafer, John Walvoord, and Charles Ryrie, to name a few, were lacking in conviction or zeal for God's Word? I am fully confident that the pioneers of that movement, and their leading theologians today remain committed to confidence in the Bible as God's Word. I hold that whatever led them to interpret Scripture as they did, neither laziness, nor disrespect for the Bible were the reasons.
Just so we are clear, are you arguing that if Chafer, Larkin, and Ryrie's love for and labor over God's Word equalled that of, let us say, Hodge, Warfield, or Machen, that they, like you, would be Reformed? You say further down in your post that you disagree with every statement I made:
"You have to get your arguments off the ground first. Every statement you made I rejected."
I wouldn't believe you except that you proceed with anecdotal evidence about how much better you knew the Bible as one who was studying culinary arts than some roommate who was apparently studying for ministry:
"I was the roommate of a Bible major, a straight A student, who was a dispensationalist. I woke up in the morning an hour and a half earlier than he did every day to read and memorize the scriptures and I did it every day for years. I was a culinary arts major and knew my bible better than every Dispensationalist Bible major I knew."
Granted you said you would be basing your conclusions about the biblical zeal of the founders and keepers of dispensationalism because on my premises. But I didn't give any indication of how I arrived at my conclusions. My experience is mainly from books, but nothing in my extensive personal experience makes me think that the clear, true, and unambiguous teaching of Scripture will be arrived at by laboring long with conviction over the same Scriptures.
It was the biblical references to difficulties in understanding the word of God that MADE me deny the perspecuity of Scripture! St. Peter warns his readers that St. Paul's letters are difficult and "hard to be understood" which many wrestle with "to their own destruction". Perspicuous? The Ethiopian eunuch begged for some man to guide him so that he might understand the meaning of a text of the Prophet Isaias. Perspicuous?
On the basis of Scripture, my personal experience, and on the evidence of the hours of diligent Bible study as evidenced in the massive and detailed works of dispensational scholars, I conclude that dispensationalism qualifies as one of "many incompatible theological views that develop from equally ardent students of the same Bible."
---to be continued
Despite that you said you disagree with every statement I made, I am confident you have to agree that dispensationalism and Reformed theology are irreconcilable. That is why you don't go to church together. You spoke of the PCA. You are Presbyterian then? Your practices are irreconcilable with Ken's, who has just posted about how right you are about Catholics. You are NOT united with him about what you believe, but about what you disbelieve. You can't even attend the same church! You are united in your "anti-fidelity". Good. I don't complain about that. We have to agree about is wrong. But more importantly we need unanimity about what is right!
ReplyDeleteKen is a Reformed Baptist. That is why, if you are Presbyterian, you can't go to the same church. I spoke about pedobaptism a little in a previous post. I do not want to give the impression that the 66 Book canon alone ever made me completely comfortable with pedobaptism. I don't think the debate between pedobaptists and believer's baptism can be settled if only both sides will give equal loving labors to a diligent study of the biblical text of your Protestant canon.
It seems to me like if you believe in perspecuity, you can't help but say the dispensationalists are lazy, or the believer's baptists are lacking in zeal. But seeing as the Scriptures encourage us to know that they can be difficult to understand, when one interacts with the literature, and then meets individuals in real life and on the internet, it seemed impossible for me to maintain the stance that "unorthodoxy" or heresy, if you wish, was necessarily the result of spiritual retardation caused by foolishness, laziness, or sin.
If you are able to maintain perspecuity by condemning all of those who fail to reach complete orthodoxy, I truly and honestly applaud your integrity. You would be consistent.
God bless you on your journey Drake.
Rory
Rory,
ReplyDeleteI am simply stating that Historiography and causality are impossible disciplines that we feeble humans try to make the best of and saying that event A necessarily caused event B is some of the most ambiguous and IMO impossible business on planet earth. Dr. Clark wrote a whole book on how impossible this is, titled Historiography Secular and Religious.
Hi Drake,
ReplyDeleteWe aren't talking about cause and effect because the desired effect is absent.
No one is in doubt about the code of laws that rule the road. No one goes to court with the argument that the law permits you to proceed on a red light.
There have been attempts, but few are in doubt about the Council of Trent and how it defines itself in such a way as to be incompatible with the teachings of Luther and Calvin.
The rules of the road clearly make a community of people obeying clearly understood law. The canons of the Council of Trent clearly provide a source of unity to those who believe them. They are clearly irreconcilable to those who disbelieve them.
I am not saying that sola scriptura CAUSES disunity. I am saying that sola scriptura provides ambiguous law that fails to bring any unity of understanding.
The 66 Book canon is unlike the rules of the road. The 66 Book Bible is unlike the canons of the Council of Trent.
I am not saying that the 66 Book canon as a sole authority of faith and practice causes division. I am making an observation that is plain to everybody whose head is out of the sand. The 66 Book canon as a sole authority of faith and practice DOES NOT cause the desired unity that the original Reformers would have expected.
Who needs to prove cause and EFFECT? If there was unity among those who held to a 66 Book canon, I agree that it wouldn't prove that the 66 Book canon was the cause. As it is, unity is lacking. Clearly, the 66 Book canon as a sole authority of faith and practice does not provide the desired EFFECT.
Rory,
ReplyDelete" I am making an observation that is plain to everybody whose head is out of the sand. The 66 Book canon as a sole authority of faith and practice DOES NOT cause the desired unity that the original Reformers would have expected."
I am trying to find out why you think the 66 book canon is a sole authority. The Solemn League and Covenant was written to bind the nations of england scotland and ireland to many authoritative extra-canonical rules of faith and practice.The Directory for the Publick Worship of God, The Form of Presbyterian Church Government etc. were all approved and ratified by the church of Scotland for the exact opposite purpose that you are describing.
Rory,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of this passage: 2 Cor 1:24 Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.
I would be very interested in your opinion of this book: Dissertatio de S. Scripturarum interpretatione secundum Patrum commentarioshttp://books.google.com/books/about/Dissertatio_de_S_Scripturarum_interpreta.html?id=hRoPAAAAQAAJ
by Daniel Whitby. Maybe you can have your priest look at it if he knows latin or maybe you do. This is probably the best book in print on how many different interpretations the early patristic authors have made of the scriptures. If there is ever going to be a “unanimous consent of the Fathers” this book must be dealt with. Every page of it. Good luck!
Rory,
ReplyDeleteCan you show me where your Church has given an authoritative pronouncement on the interpretation of a single chapter in the Bible?
Rory,
ReplyDelete" Clearly, the 66 Book canon as a sole authority of faith and practice does not provide the desired EFFECT."
Moreover, why are you asserting that perfect unity is the desired effect? 1 Cor 11:19 demands divisions as a dialectical principle to make manifest those who are doing their homework and not living for the world.
Rory,
ReplyDeleteFrom my statement above: "I am trying to find out why you think the 66 book canon is a sole authority." I need to clarify that the scripture is understood as infallible while everything else is fallible. So the subordinate confessions etc. are fallible rules, not infallible.
Drake,
ReplyDeleteI am sorry about the delay and hope you are still observing.
Drake said:
"I am trying to find out why you think the 66 book canon is a sole authority. The Solemn League and Covenant was written to bind the nations of england scotland and ireland to many authoritative extra-canonical rules of faith and practice.The Directory for the Publick Worship of God, The Form of Presbyterian Church Government etc. were all approved and ratified by the church of Scotland for the exact opposite purpose that you are describing."
Rory replies:
I think you helped provide an answer in your latest post in which you expanded on your being puzzled at why I keep referring to the 66 Books as a sole authority.
Drake said on 17 Aug. at 5:17 PM:
"I need to clarify that the scripture is understood as infallible while everything else is fallible. So the subordinate confessions etc. are fallible rules, not infallible.
Rory's reply:
I thought it was understood that I was referencing the sole INFALLIBLE authority.
Catholics, as you know, appeal to Church Tradition as an infallible authority to interpret the infallible Scriptures that the Church brought forth.
Such a dual authority is not what you have and that is why I perceive an elevated authority for Scripture for your group, above the fallible authority of any of the confessions or creeds. It seems to me like you still can't be accused of having another authority equal to the Scripture, and it was on that basis that I use the expression even for creedal Protestants.
If the way I expressed myself was imprecise, I was not being deliberately difficult. I was not expecting you to object to the way I described biblical authority.
(By the way, have we adequately resolved the question of the term Protestant? No disrespect is intended by referring to "your group". I think I'll try to continue to refer to "creedal Protestant" and how about "non-creedal Protestant"?)
I understand an important distinction. When the Berean Bible Church was organized, we at first held that our only creed and confession was the 66 Books. It was early on discovered to be an inadequate authority. We attracted sincere students of the Bible (other non-creedal Protestants) who could never find a way to agree with each other.
If I understand you correctly, you want to emphasize the need for creeds and confessions of faith as "sub-authorities" if you will?
I can grant that. Any confessional church is much closer to the model that I have now discerned as true than how it was at Berean Bible. You are set apart from the more radical form of Protestantism, non-creedal (as it relates to biblical authority). You are not so naive as to hope that "Luther's milkmaid" will do any better with Scripture than the Ethiopian eunuch.
Hi Drake.
ReplyDeleteYou asked for my thoughts on 2 Cor. 1:23.
The first epistle to the Corinthians was written with the intent to squelch strife, worldliness, and to restore church discipline. 2 Corinthians cannot be understood independently of the purpose for which the first letter was sent and how it was received by the Corinthian believers.
"For, whereas there is among you envying and contention, are you not carnal, and walk according to man? For while one saith, I indeed am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollo; are you not men? What then is Apollo, and what is Paul? The ministers of him whom you have believed; and to every one as the Lord hath given." (I Cor. 3:3-5)
Ch.4 continues with with a promise of his intention to come visit them again, with a view to confront and upbraid those who are "puffed up" if necessary:
"But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will: and will know, not the speech of them that are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in speech, but in power.
What will you? shall I come to you with a rod; or in charity, and in the spirit of meekness?" (vv.19-21)
Though St. Paul threatens to come in thunder and tempest, he is their spiritual father. Ten thousand teachers will not have the love of St. Paul for the Corinthians inasmuch he had begotten them in Christ. He is trusting that the people will reflect on how he has behaved himself unselfishly before them, not so that he may be a domineering father, but a loving father:
"For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you." (4:15)
There is much more in the first letter, but I think this introduction helps us to better understand what the Apostle said and why in his second letter, which includes the passage I was asked to consider.
More to follow.
Continued...
ReplyDeleteIn Catholic Bibles, chapter one ends at verse 23. The whole text is present. Its just divided differently as you'll see. We need what you call verse 23, as well as verse 24 and the first 4 chapters of ch. 2. Its beautiful!
First we have to note that St. Paul delayed his intended visit:
"But I call God to witness upon my soul, that to spare you, I came not any more to Corinth: not because we exercise dominion over your faith: but we are helpers of your joy: for in faith you stand." (2 Cor 1:23 [and 24])
Why didn't he come as he had orginally intended? Because of his aching heart of love for them! To spare them! He wanted to give them time to repent. Unlike the ten thousand teachers of I Corinthians, St. Paul wasn't seeking to rule them, even though he had promised to come with a rod.
Oh no. It wasn't he who threatened with a rod who wanted to reign over and take advantage if the flock. It was those ravening wolves who looked the other way at worldliness, division, promiscuity, and scandal. A good and loving father exercises his God-given authority to save his children though ten thousand "friends" of those he begat should shout out that the father is an authoritarian trying to maintain his reign over the children.
Thanks be to God, many heard "the tyrant" in Corinth. The good saint's prayers and tears of grief for his straying children were heard in heaven.
One more passage. Ch. 2: 1-4:
"But I determined this with myself, not to come to you again in sorrow. For if I make you sorrowful, who is he then that can make me glad, but the same who is made sorrowful by me? And I wrote this same to you; that I may not, when I come, have sorrow upon sorrow, from them of whom I ought to rejoice: having confidence in you all, that my joy is the joy of you all. For out of much affliction and anguish of heart, I wrote to you with many tears: not that you should be made sorrowful: but that you might know the charity I have more abundantly towards you."
Isn't that sweet? Really truly wonderful. He really bares his soul to them doesn't he? He didn't even want to sadden them, but he had a duty and he did it. Later on in the letter you see where he distinguishes between "godly sorrow" and "worldly sorrow".
Part Three
ReplyDeleteOne more passage...again...last time.
Okay, I have just one more thought to see a little deeper into St. Paul's fatherly heart. Referring once more to the first letter, he writes in the second:
"For although I made you sorrowful by my epistle, I do not repent; and if I did repent, seeing that the same epistle (although but for a time) did make you sorrowful; Now I am glad: not because you were made sorrowful; but because you were made sorrowful unto penance. For you were made sorrowful according to God, that you might suffer damage by us in nothing. For the sorrow that is according to God worketh penance, steadfast unto salvation; but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
(2 Cor. 7:8-10)
St. Paul continuously loved his children as he chastised them. He feared that he might make them "over sorrowful". He knew that children can despair of pleasing an overly stern father. But a contrition that brings about penance is always sweet and good. We should never be discouraged on our pilgrimage to heaven though the path is strait and the road steep.
Our Father in heaven, of whom St. Paul is a type, sometimes uses the lash, but only when necessary, and never to seek dominion. God doesn't need somebody to reign over. Its for us that He does everything. Who could be discouraged who remembers while experiencing a little trouble, from whose loving hand it comes?
Drake, continuing through the observations and questions directed to me, I'll try to be less verbose. I don't know what it is about the internet, but even though I will read a book readily, long posts on the internet make me impatient.
ReplyDeleteYou can read Latin? Great. Maybe you have a calling to be a Catholic priest of the Roman Rite? Heh. Don't answer that right now.
Less verbose. So anyway, I need translations. Although our new priest speaks beautiful Latin (many have an awful American accent), I would not presume that he would like to be beset with assignments from his parishioners until he has settled in a bit.
The Catholic Church does not suggest that unanimous consent of all or even most of those figures of ancient Christianity which we call Fathers left their recorded beliefs on extant papers. But if a dozen Fathers express public belief in a given proposition, without incurring any known public opposition, it is safe to presume that such teachings were acceptable to the Church.
For instance, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, is the first of the Fathers to explicitly accord primacy to the Church of Rome. In this, he is an agreement with both the Apostle Paul and St. Ignatius of Antioch who in their respective letters to the church at Rome, give praise that is disproportionate to that given to many letters they wrote to the Christians of other cities.
There are also hints in fragmentary literature retained by Eusebius that this belief in the primacy of one church over the others was not isolated. In addition there are other clues to be found in the writings of St. Clement of Rome and the Shepherd of Hermas. They don't discuss the primacy. It wasn't a question of controversy. It seemed to be assumed.
But if St. Justin was silent in the presence of this presumption, St. Irenaeus reminded his readers of the clear teachings which had been handed to him:
"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." (Against Heresies 3:3:2)
---to be continued
Part Two:
ReplyDeleteWe do have serious disagreements between the bishops of Rome and other bishops, but none of the Fathers ever denied the primacy of Rome and from the times of Irenaeus, it becomes more and more the clear belief of the Universal Church.
It would be time consuming to do a roll call of Fathers that began to refer to the authority of the "Apostolic See", as Rome came to be recognized. In any event my point is that all the historical evidence indicates widespread acceptance of a universal authority accorded to the church at Rome which is inexplicable. It doesn't make any sense, UNLESSS, their really was something different about that city.
Of course, unanimous consent of the Fathers doesn't include doctrines like papal infallibility that weren't defined until 1870, or the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin which was also in the 19th Century. But we have to look at the earliest material and see what later teachings develop from them and what later teachings are incompatible. In my opinion, the Protestant view of both the Roman primacy, and the sinfulness of the Mother of God are incompatible with the writings and obvious beliefs of the Christians with whose blood the Church was fertilized and grew. If we take our cues from aniquity, it seems so difficult to reconcile ancient Ecclesiology or Mariology with any Protestant perspectives with which I am familiar.
That alone, doesn't mean that the Catholic Church is true, or that the subsequent theological developments are not corruptions. But it leaves the option open that Rome still has primacy, and makes one want to dig a little deeper to discover if it should be expected that God's Church would limit itself to proclaiming only those truths of Scripture which are explicit, or also those that are implied and subject to legitimate development.
This would bring us to the often discussed question of formal sufficency vs. material sufficiency of Scripture. Now we come back to the original theme of this whole thread. I think we both hold as "confessional Christians", that the Scripture is formally insufficient in that it requires teachers and creeds in order that the faithful may have confidence as to what they believe. The Scripture of course, is materially sufficient in that everything which is proposed in the creeds and confessions, is derived from truths which put together in systematic harmony, imply another truth which isn't lying on the surface.
Well, despite my best intentions, I fear I have composed another two or three part post. My apologies. I wish I had the skill of our blog host to be able to cut right to the heart of a question with a few sentences.
Regards,
Rory
Hi again Drake.
ReplyDeleteYou asked:
"Can you show me where your Church has given an authoritative pronouncement on the interpretation of a single chapter in the Bible?"
My reply:
No I am afraid that is not the way it works. It is not at all dissimilar to the way other creedal Christians have made it clear what they believe.
I found a statement of faith on the internet by the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). In ch. 29, para. 6 we read the following:
"That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yea, of gross idolatries."
It would be grossly inaccurate to say that the PCA has given an authoritative pronouncement on any sizable section of Scripture hereby. Since the Scriptures are given to us for doctrine, reproof, correction, and insturction in righteousness, there are manifold ways in which the biblical treasure reveals itself.
It seems like it would be better to say that this section from the PCA's confession of faith informs us as to how the faithful members of the PCA are taught to understand a section of John 6 that has been the subject of interpretative controversy. Likewise, this is how the teachings of the Catholic Church are communicated to the faithful.
Drake objects to my line of thinking as follows:
ReplyDelete"Moreover, why are you asserting that perfect unity is the desired effect? 1 Cor 11:19 demands divisions as a dialectical principle to make manifest those who are doing their homework and not living for the world."
Are you saying that every failure to understand the Scripture is a result of laziness or worldliness? If so, I would agree that perfect unity should not result when lazy worldlings approach the Scripture.
I have to wonder, do you recognize that their are studious and devoted believers who sincerely differ with you doctrinally? It is among those who would be studious and prayerful where one would expect agreement if the Scriptures are perspicuous.
Drake?
ReplyDeleteI do not imagine that I gave the most scintillating answers but I tried pretty hard to give your input some serious thought. Is literally nothing the reply I am to expect from my efforts over the course of several days to respond to the broad range of questions and comments you aimed at me?