I've been reading even more of Acts, and some of Hans Urs Von Balthasar's great apology for the Papacy, and the two have left me with the same old thought.
The Problem
I was reading Acts, and there are some parts that seem so "Catholic". For instance, the church binds on the consciences of believers that they are not to fornicate in the council of Jerusalem. They call a council, Peter stands up among them, and they declare a moral discipline - albeit a shortlived one, but one just the same.
There are some mentions of Bishops or "overseers" and some heirarchical mention that is uncanny. But in the next chapter there is simply 'the brothers', and every time the Eucharist (presumably) is described it is "bread" that is broken, not the body of Christ. This of course, not being a problem for consubstantiators and Reformed guys, but certainly is a problem for the Catholic, as transubstantiation means that it literally ceases to be bread. Anyway, it's a weak argument, but it's there.
Then I realized, how am I even supposed to know what the Scripture says? Who am I? to ask the great question of the Psalms.
I was reading Balthasar and he cites Jn 21:3 as an example of Petrine Supremacy: "Simon Peter said to them, “I am going fishing.” They said to him, “We will go with you.”". I burst out laughing in the car when I read it. What a ridiculous prooftext. But then I thought about it, and it holds up. That could certainly be one interpretation of the text, and who is to say it is right or wrong?
As the American philosopher Alan Watts says: the judge and the prosecuter are the same person in such a case.
Once more, I was reminded that you cannot read Scripture without a Tradition. And how does one arbitrate between Traditions except by the creeds formulation: "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church", it is the 'map' left by the fathers for us.
There is one way out, that I've mentioned before:
The Inner Light
Protestants like Kierkegaard have promoted this view, and talking to a friend about Jonathan Edwards, he seems to (in a much lesser extent) agree with this epistemology, basic structure. George Fox the famous founding Quaker, claimed that the personal witness of the Holy Spirit is above all other authorities: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, etc. Only if I accepted this idea, could I leave what I see is a binding authority placed on me by the Catholic Church. It would lead to subjectivism, which would lead to relativism, and it would be fideism, which means I could have no witness to my university atheist friends, except that of inner peace and tranquility, etc.
I thought about it long and hard, and 2 minutes later, I decided that I am sticking with logic, Aristotle, and Augustine, who declared with the African bishops: "Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God because of this one crime: that he abandoned his union with Christ' (Epistle 141)". Even the famously 'liberal' Vatican II states: "They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it" (Lumen Gentium 14).
Conclusion:
So no matter how much I may hate the freewheeling liturgies of aging hippy priests. The moralizing and lack of the gospel of the work of Christ everywhere. The liberalism which misses the goodness of both the Protestant and Catholic gospels. The almost exclusive focus on social justice. All of the things I hate about Catholicism. Despite all of that, I am bound to observe it, unless I throw away my entire brain, and live in peace and freedom for a while, only to regret it eternally.
I think my favourite Augustinian slogan (and probably the one I quote most) is: "The Church is a whore, but she's my mother".
until next time, pax Christi tecum.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
The Council of Jerusalem
"Since we have heard that certain persons who have gone out from us, though with no instructions from us, have said things to disturb you and have unsettled your minds, we have decided unanimously to choose representatives and send them to you... who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.’" -Acts 15:24-29
If Dogma doesn't develop, then really, we should consider the 'essentials' of Christianity: food regulations and no pre-marital sex. I wonder if Catholics agree whether this was a church council or not.
I mean it's a great prooftext, and as long as you make the dogma/discipline divide (distinction) then you can get around their dietary rulings, and say it was a council.
No one can really win though, because it seems like Petrine supremacy from "Peter stood up" (15:7), but also congregationalism as "the apostles and the elders, with the consent of the whole church, decided".
Hurray, 2 more polemic readings that anachronistically interpret the text in light of later ideas. I would make a terrible exegete, I should stick to Anglo-American History.
If Dogma doesn't develop, then really, we should consider the 'essentials' of Christianity: food regulations and no pre-marital sex. I wonder if Catholics agree whether this was a church council or not.
I mean it's a great prooftext, and as long as you make the dogma/discipline divide (distinction) then you can get around their dietary rulings, and say it was a council.
No one can really win though, because it seems like Petrine supremacy from "Peter stood up" (15:7), but also congregationalism as "the apostles and the elders, with the consent of the whole church, decided".
Hurray, 2 more polemic readings that anachronistically interpret the text in light of later ideas. I would make a terrible exegete, I should stick to Anglo-American History.
Concupiscence and Original Sin Revisited.
So the other day I was at my Chaplain's apartment and we were talking about la Nouvelle Theologie, and he asked if I knew about it, and I said "oh ya, when the modernists won out". For example Pope Leo XIII and others condemned many modern ideas as heresy (see Syllabus of Errors) that would later be -if not approved- at least painted in a much better light.
Now when you have an institution of highly trained philosophers like you do in Catholicism, you can get out of any claim of contradition, there's always some reason why technically it isn't a contradiction. 2 examples. Religious Freedom, which was condemned by Leo XIII or at least people thought it was condemned, because he wrote 'it is against reason for truth and error to have equal rights'. But Vatican II said, those in error had rights, so technically, Leo's statements are made meaningless, and the respect for other religions shown in the Vatican over the last 100 years have been a de facto contradiction of Leo's claims. I'm not with SSPX and those condemning religious freedom, I'm all for it, I'm just showing how dichotemies can emerge and how things can "change" within Catholicism without using the word 'change'.
Secondly, the Development of Doctrine used to be considered a hereetical modern idea because it said Dogma could 'change' over time. The Tridentine doctrine was that every Tradition was actually passed on by the apostles. So St. Paul was walking around Ephesus expounding the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and giving Indulgences. Obviously, most Catholics today would not hold this view, and Cardinal Newman is probably responsible for this. I don't disagree that Dogma develops, again I'm just saying that it's place has 'changed' (or developed) in the Catholic view.
So the Modern/Contemporary Church can "re-interpret"/Develop/Change it's own previous teaching it seems, to the point that previous teaching is superfluous, but can they do that with Scripture? This has troubled me. I know we're "never supposed to put a dichotemy between Scripture and Tradition", but it is something we have to engage in, even as we engage in solving contradictions in the bible.
The Council of Trent said in Session 5, First Decree, Canon 5:
"...concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin."
So to simplify. Concupiscence, is not properly sin according to Trent, even though St. Paul (the apostle referenced) called it sin.
Luckily for Trent, St. Paul does not appear to have engaged in Aristotelian definitions in his epistles, so he didn't say "sin materially but not formally dwelleth in me", but only "sin dwelleth in me" (Rm 7:20).
"Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me." (Rm 7:20)
The problem for Catholic theology is that a distinction is made between Original and Actual sin, and further Mortal and Venial sins. For a sin to really "count" as a sin, someone has to willfully and knowingly commit it. Then Catholic teaching is that when someone has done this, they have clearly shown that they are rejecting God.
The problem is that Paul attributes the bad action to the sin which dwells in him, for the Reformers: (Formally) Original Sin, for Trent: Concupiscence (Materially Original Sin).
Pastorally, whenever I've asked Catholics about this issue, they have sided (unknowingly) with Luther and Calvin. Calvin said that man was nothing but a heap of Concupiscence, and he and Luther argued the biblical definition of sin was: anything that fell short of the Glory of God. Thus every human action was sin. Luther said the only mortal sin, damnable sin in the end, was unbelief. The problem I see personally in Tridentine doctrine is the fact that Christians who know the law, ALWAYS sin mortally, because they know it, and they do it. The Catechism says 'with full consent of the will', but one might argue phenomenologically, that obviously any act committed is done with the full consent of the will, how else could it occur if not from a completed decision of the will? (maybe they could half commit a sin?)
As well, I don't know any Catholics who would agree that every time they lied, masurbated, or dishonored their parents, they really thought "I hate God, and by this action I willfully reject him, because my faith and works are so closely tied!".
Rowan Williams paraphrases St. Augustine by saying "most sins are committed by people weeping and groaning" (De natura et gratia xxix 33 - though this is a fairly liberal paraphrase, I checked, it is not inaccurate).
Now I dont deny that Catholicism offers forgiveness through the sacrament of reconciliation/confession/penance, and I don't deny that the best in the Catholic tradition have basically disagreed with Church teaching on mortal sin - or to put it sophistically - have had a very open view as to what constitutes perfect contrition (basically any contrition = perfect). Some pre-Tridentine Catholics even taught justification by faith alone like the Spirituali and Cardinal Pole (although the Catholics get out of this by saying that they taught it by infusion, and had a view of the Chruch that they would've submitted, and indeed did submit, as Cardinal Reginald Pole did). BUT, if you read the Catechism, it still says that if you are in a state of mortal sin (and most would be amazed at how many things are dogmatically mortal sins) and you don't have a perfect love for God (which must be the result of an actual grace from God), then you are not allowed to hope you will be saved. Imperfect contrition does not equal forgiveness, repentance does not equal forgiveness, only perfect love for God (perfect contrition) and a desire for immediate sacramental confession = forgiveness. My friend who I have bible study with (a Catholic) always says "I hope we don't get hit by buses before saturday (the day we have Confession)", because technically speaking we would go to Hell.
We almost got into a car accident the other day, and even though I'm planning on going to confession, I'm still in mortal sin (I didn't go to mass yesterday, among other things), and even though I've asked God for forgiveness and confessed to him, I wouldn't say I have perfect love for God. If I did have perfect love for God, why would I sin in the first place? Riddle me that.
Now the Reformers argued that when we physically died, Original Sin is gone because it is tied to our 'flesh', and of course Catholcs jump on that and say "AHA! gnostics! Manichees!, etc". Except that St. Paul seems to say exactly what they do, and I doubt we'd want to account him a gnostic or a manichee. But that isn't a sufficient rebuttle to that criticism, I know.
There are so many prayers we find in medieval history for a good death, and people genuinely terrified that after all their lives of repentance and attempts to follow Christ, at that last pivotal moment when they died, they could lose it all. I reminds me a bit of musical chairs. When the music stops, you have to rush and hope there's a chair. Not a very comforting image, not very Romans 8:1. And I know of course, good Aristotelians don't use such existential arguments. Just because something horrifies a person almost to the point of insanity with fear and guilt, doesn't mean you can't 'technically' call it love, or grace.
Don't worry Catholics, my head is still holding the gun to my heart. Aristotle has not been "put to death" as Luther admonished. But I'm assuming that eventually one of two things will happen: 1) I'll give in to my emotions and become an Existentialist, and thereby become Protestant, or 2) My heart will just die, and my reason will finally have control of my passions as Aristotle and Kant spoke so highly of.
But sometimes I picture all of the people of the world, the Protestants, and the Catholics and Orthodox who don't go to confession, or die without it. It is like a scene from "Watchmen":
On that last day, we will look up to Christ and shout "Save us!", and he'll whisper "no".
Now when you have an institution of highly trained philosophers like you do in Catholicism, you can get out of any claim of contradition, there's always some reason why technically it isn't a contradiction. 2 examples. Religious Freedom, which was condemned by Leo XIII or at least people thought it was condemned, because he wrote 'it is against reason for truth and error to have equal rights'. But Vatican II said, those in error had rights, so technically, Leo's statements are made meaningless, and the respect for other religions shown in the Vatican over the last 100 years have been a de facto contradiction of Leo's claims. I'm not with SSPX and those condemning religious freedom, I'm all for it, I'm just showing how dichotemies can emerge and how things can "change" within Catholicism without using the word 'change'.
Secondly, the Development of Doctrine used to be considered a hereetical modern idea because it said Dogma could 'change' over time. The Tridentine doctrine was that every Tradition was actually passed on by the apostles. So St. Paul was walking around Ephesus expounding the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and giving Indulgences. Obviously, most Catholics today would not hold this view, and Cardinal Newman is probably responsible for this. I don't disagree that Dogma develops, again I'm just saying that it's place has 'changed' (or developed) in the Catholic view.
So the Modern/Contemporary Church can "re-interpret"/Develop/Change it's own previous teaching it seems, to the point that previous teaching is superfluous, but can they do that with Scripture? This has troubled me. I know we're "never supposed to put a dichotemy between Scripture and Tradition", but it is something we have to engage in, even as we engage in solving contradictions in the bible.
The Council of Trent said in Session 5, First Decree, Canon 5:
"...concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin."
So to simplify. Concupiscence, is not properly sin according to Trent, even though St. Paul (the apostle referenced) called it sin.
Luckily for Trent, St. Paul does not appear to have engaged in Aristotelian definitions in his epistles, so he didn't say "sin materially but not formally dwelleth in me", but only "sin dwelleth in me" (Rm 7:20).
"Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me." (Rm 7:20)
The problem for Catholic theology is that a distinction is made between Original and Actual sin, and further Mortal and Venial sins. For a sin to really "count" as a sin, someone has to willfully and knowingly commit it. Then Catholic teaching is that when someone has done this, they have clearly shown that they are rejecting God.
The problem is that Paul attributes the bad action to the sin which dwells in him, for the Reformers: (Formally) Original Sin, for Trent: Concupiscence (Materially Original Sin).
Pastorally, whenever I've asked Catholics about this issue, they have sided (unknowingly) with Luther and Calvin. Calvin said that man was nothing but a heap of Concupiscence, and he and Luther argued the biblical definition of sin was: anything that fell short of the Glory of God. Thus every human action was sin. Luther said the only mortal sin, damnable sin in the end, was unbelief. The problem I see personally in Tridentine doctrine is the fact that Christians who know the law, ALWAYS sin mortally, because they know it, and they do it. The Catechism says 'with full consent of the will', but one might argue phenomenologically, that obviously any act committed is done with the full consent of the will, how else could it occur if not from a completed decision of the will? (maybe they could half commit a sin?)
As well, I don't know any Catholics who would agree that every time they lied, masurbated, or dishonored their parents, they really thought "I hate God, and by this action I willfully reject him, because my faith and works are so closely tied!".
Rowan Williams paraphrases St. Augustine by saying "most sins are committed by people weeping and groaning" (De natura et gratia xxix 33 - though this is a fairly liberal paraphrase, I checked, it is not inaccurate).
Now I dont deny that Catholicism offers forgiveness through the sacrament of reconciliation/confession/penance, and I don't deny that the best in the Catholic tradition have basically disagreed with Church teaching on mortal sin - or to put it sophistically - have had a very open view as to what constitutes perfect contrition (basically any contrition = perfect). Some pre-Tridentine Catholics even taught justification by faith alone like the Spirituali and Cardinal Pole (although the Catholics get out of this by saying that they taught it by infusion, and had a view of the Chruch that they would've submitted, and indeed did submit, as Cardinal Reginald Pole did). BUT, if you read the Catechism, it still says that if you are in a state of mortal sin (and most would be amazed at how many things are dogmatically mortal sins) and you don't have a perfect love for God (which must be the result of an actual grace from God), then you are not allowed to hope you will be saved. Imperfect contrition does not equal forgiveness, repentance does not equal forgiveness, only perfect love for God (perfect contrition) and a desire for immediate sacramental confession = forgiveness. My friend who I have bible study with (a Catholic) always says "I hope we don't get hit by buses before saturday (the day we have Confession)", because technically speaking we would go to Hell.
We almost got into a car accident the other day, and even though I'm planning on going to confession, I'm still in mortal sin (I didn't go to mass yesterday, among other things), and even though I've asked God for forgiveness and confessed to him, I wouldn't say I have perfect love for God. If I did have perfect love for God, why would I sin in the first place? Riddle me that.
Now the Reformers argued that when we physically died, Original Sin is gone because it is tied to our 'flesh', and of course Catholcs jump on that and say "AHA! gnostics! Manichees!, etc". Except that St. Paul seems to say exactly what they do, and I doubt we'd want to account him a gnostic or a manichee. But that isn't a sufficient rebuttle to that criticism, I know.
There are so many prayers we find in medieval history for a good death, and people genuinely terrified that after all their lives of repentance and attempts to follow Christ, at that last pivotal moment when they died, they could lose it all. I reminds me a bit of musical chairs. When the music stops, you have to rush and hope there's a chair. Not a very comforting image, not very Romans 8:1. And I know of course, good Aristotelians don't use such existential arguments. Just because something horrifies a person almost to the point of insanity with fear and guilt, doesn't mean you can't 'technically' call it love, or grace.
Don't worry Catholics, my head is still holding the gun to my heart. Aristotle has not been "put to death" as Luther admonished. But I'm assuming that eventually one of two things will happen: 1) I'll give in to my emotions and become an Existentialist, and thereby become Protestant, or 2) My heart will just die, and my reason will finally have control of my passions as Aristotle and Kant spoke so highly of.
But sometimes I picture all of the people of the world, the Protestants, and the Catholics and Orthodox who don't go to confession, or die without it. It is like a scene from "Watchmen":
On that last day, we will look up to Christ and shout "Save us!", and he'll whisper "no".
Friday, April 30, 2010
Trip Reading
I'm going on a road trip with my friend to Montreal, Quebec City, and then back through Ottawa, and we leave tomorrow. So I won't be posting anything. The only theology book I'm bringing is Hans Urs Von Balthasar's biblical defense of the Petrine office, which should be interesting. But more than that, I hope to really just read my bible, and finish Acts. So far I've noticed some interesting things this time around.
I really notice how everything is about the Preaching of the Gospel in Acts. It's been interesting reading over the council of Jerusalem, and the conversion of Paul again. The phrase "having cleansed their hearts by faith." (Acts 15:9) really struck me for some reason. I also really am seeing a different emphasis. The Resurrection is so central to things, the church is called a witness to the resurrection (1:22). I'm also really enjoying reading the Psalms again, I read Psalm 50 today and I think I could write a book just on that one. Calvin was right in calling them the anatomy of the soul.
I am really looking for the two things that have been the contentions in my journey all this way: the mention of salvation and the doctrine of the church.
I thought it was very telling that Acts 1:20 says Judas' position which Matthias fills was that of "overseer" or in the Authorized Version (KJV) "bishoprick". That to me seems to be a pretty solid apostolic succesion prooftext. While that doesn't solidify Roman Catholic claims, the verses preceding it are at least worth pondering "In those days Peter stood up among the believers" (1:15).
I am very confused, as I find the issue of concupiscence/free will/original sin and by connection, Justification, to be weak for Catholics, but I find the doctrine of the Church to be strong for Catholics.
Perhaps B.B. Warfield was right in his famous axiom on the Reformation.
By God's grace, and in his word, may I find the answers, and if and when I do, may I have the courage to voice them, despite the influence of friends on either side of the Tiber. Even in my writing I try to balance things out so that people don't get angry or lose hope. I need to hear Christ's voice again and follow, wherever that is.
I really notice how everything is about the Preaching of the Gospel in Acts. It's been interesting reading over the council of Jerusalem, and the conversion of Paul again. The phrase "having cleansed their hearts by faith." (Acts 15:9) really struck me for some reason. I also really am seeing a different emphasis. The Resurrection is so central to things, the church is called a witness to the resurrection (1:22). I'm also really enjoying reading the Psalms again, I read Psalm 50 today and I think I could write a book just on that one. Calvin was right in calling them the anatomy of the soul.
I am really looking for the two things that have been the contentions in my journey all this way: the mention of salvation and the doctrine of the church.
I thought it was very telling that Acts 1:20 says Judas' position which Matthias fills was that of "overseer" or in the Authorized Version (KJV) "bishoprick". That to me seems to be a pretty solid apostolic succesion prooftext. While that doesn't solidify Roman Catholic claims, the verses preceding it are at least worth pondering "In those days Peter stood up among the believers" (1:15).
I am very confused, as I find the issue of concupiscence/free will/original sin and by connection, Justification, to be weak for Catholics, but I find the doctrine of the Church to be strong for Catholics.
Perhaps B.B. Warfield was right in his famous axiom on the Reformation.
By God's grace, and in his word, may I find the answers, and if and when I do, may I have the courage to voice them, despite the influence of friends on either side of the Tiber. Even in my writing I try to balance things out so that people don't get angry or lose hope. I need to hear Christ's voice again and follow, wherever that is.
The Transforming Friendship
I've been struggling with alot of theological and philosophical issues recently. Yesterday I found myself wondering: why am I even a Christian. Originally it had something to do with Jesus Christ if I remember correctly. When I was at Bible School in England, the first lecture series we had was called "The Transforming Friendship" and was taught by a great Baptist preacher. In remembering my spiritual beginnings, perhaps I will find light on where to go in this dark time.
A kind soul recommended a book to me, and the first words brought me to tears. They reminded me of something I might've forgotten:
"Let me tell you how I made His acquaintance. I had heard much of Him, but took no heed. He sent daily gifts and presents, but I never thanked Him. He often seemed to want my friendship, but I remained cold. I was homeless, and wretched, and starving and in peril every hour; and He offered me shelter and comfort and food and safety; but I was ungrateful still. At last He crossed my path and with tears in His eyes He besought me saying, Come and abide with me.
Let me tell you how he treats me now. He supplies all my wants. He gives me more than I dare ask. He anticipates my every need. He begs me to ask for more. He never reminds me of my past ingratitude. He never rebukes me for my past follies.
Let me tell you further what I think of Him. He is as good as He is great. His love is as ardent as it is true. He is as lavish of His promises as He is faithful in keeping them. He is as jealous of my love as He is deserving of it. I am in all things His debtor, but He bids me call Him Friend." - in "The Friendship of Christ" Robert Hugh Benson
A kind soul recommended a book to me, and the first words brought me to tears. They reminded me of something I might've forgotten:
"Let me tell you how I made His acquaintance. I had heard much of Him, but took no heed. He sent daily gifts and presents, but I never thanked Him. He often seemed to want my friendship, but I remained cold. I was homeless, and wretched, and starving and in peril every hour; and He offered me shelter and comfort and food and safety; but I was ungrateful still. At last He crossed my path and with tears in His eyes He besought me saying, Come and abide with me.
Let me tell you how he treats me now. He supplies all my wants. He gives me more than I dare ask. He anticipates my every need. He begs me to ask for more. He never reminds me of my past ingratitude. He never rebukes me for my past follies.
Let me tell you further what I think of Him. He is as good as He is great. His love is as ardent as it is true. He is as lavish of His promises as He is faithful in keeping them. He is as jealous of my love as He is deserving of it. I am in all things His debtor, but He bids me call Him Friend." - in "The Friendship of Christ" Robert Hugh Benson
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Interesting Point by Gregory the Great
I started Pope St. Gregory the Great's commentary on Job this morning and noticed something most biblical scholars should take note of these days.
St. Greg is going through the authorship debates of Job and makes this comment after summing up all the different possibilities:
"But who was the writer, it is very superfluous to enquire; since at any rate the Holy Spirit is confidently believed to have been the Author. He then Himself wrote them, Who dictated the things that should be written. He did Himself write them Who both was present as the Inspirer in that Saint's work, and by the mouth of the writer has consigned to us his acts as patterns for our imitation." (http://www.lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Preface.html)
I was also amazed at his depth of insight into the debates on who wrote Job, the fathers were much smarter than some people give them credit for. This summer, I want to pick a father and just try to read everything he wrote (perhaps St. Gregory as I've read his letters to St. Anselm in the Ven. Bede's English history already).
He had some other great quotes I found as well:
"Holy Scripture is a stream in which the elephant may swim and the lamb may wade."
"Learn the heart of God from the Word of God"
"The Bible is a letter from Almighty God to His creatures."
Which Protestants would jump on to say AHA! he was a proto-protestant...untill you read his other work on purgatory / soteriology.
A very great man though to be sure. Jaroslav Pelikan seemed to paint him as a mindless plagiarist/copyist of St. Augustine, but I'm seeing he goes deeper than that.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
The Strongest Defense of Protestant (Reformed/Barthian/Lutheran) Theology I can come up with
Just out of interest I thought I would try to write the strongest argument in favour of Confessional Protestantism, and see if I couldn't knock it down later. It is not that I am tempted to believe it, I just want to lay it down for my own understanding.
Faith and Reason:
The great Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth argued that natural theology and the use of philosophy in Christian faith, was 'where things all went wrong'. As Luther sayeth, 'the Theologian must first put to death the philosopher (Aristotle)', before burning the Summa Theologiae in public. Barth cites the famous unfinished symphonies as examples, surely no one can listen to the first half, and then using natural reason, discover the remainder, given any amount of time. This he proposed is what Roman Catholics do when they enter theology. Genesis 3:15 says there would be enmity between 'the woman' (Virgin Mary) and Satan. Examine that long enough, and you start talking about the Immaculate Conception, humans as Barth noted are "idol factories", and any attempt to add to the word of God with human words, no matter what the phrasing is 'development', 'unwritten traditions', etc, is sin.
Soren Kierkegaard in "Fear and Trembling" describes the divine command for Abraham to kill his son. Nothing in natural reasoning could explain this as logical. God is not a Being to be reasoned about, he is a speaking God who is to be trusted or rejected.
The Canon:
Roman Catholics ask how Protestants know which Scriptures are valid and which are not, as the Bible did not come straight from Heaven. Granted Barth would agree, BUT as the second Helvetic Confession declares:
"The preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God"
All throughout the book of Acts, it is the declaration of the Word (invisibly in preaching, visibly in the sacraments) that leads to salvation. As it is written, "faith cometh by hearing" (Rom 10:17). While the succession of Bishops may or may not be valid (Anglicanism v. Presbyterianism), the real succession of the Apostles was their preaching. The church is described as witnesses to the resurrection, to the Christ Event, to something that had happened and was now finished, all that was required now was the preaching of it to others. By this message which was preached since the apostles, did the council fathers know what was canonical and what was not. (I could then develop the argument that the new testament was clearly agreed on, Romans says 'to the Jews were entrusted the oracles of God' as the prooftext for the 39 book proto-canon).
In the same way that Luigi Giussani argued that people today can encounter Christ only through Christ's body as an objective historical reality, so would Barth argue that people today are faced to encounter the preaching of the gospel as an objective historical reality.
Furthermore, God has no need of an institution to tell people what the Word of God is, and what it isn't, for Christ is "the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (Jn 1:9), and because the apostle says:
"When God made a promise to Abraham, because he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, saying, ‘I will surely bless you and multiply you.’ And thus Abraham, having patiently endured, obtained the promise. Human beings, of course, swear by someone greater than themselves, and an oath given as confirmation puts an end to all dispute. In the same way, when God desired to show even more clearly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it by an oath" -Hebrews 6:13-17
If God swears Scripture by the Church then he is swearing it by human beings. As God has always done - since Abraham - he swears his covenant by himself. The gospel, as Barth notes, is not modified or evaluated by man, it can only be responded to. It is a message which is preached, it is an existential experience and an encounter.
Conclusion:
Christ says "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed" (Jn 8:31). For "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Mt. 24:35), and so by the direct command of God we must "destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ" (2 Cor 10:5). Whatever we can discern through history or tradition must be subject to Christ, for he declares: "the scripture cannot be broken" (Jn 10:35). Scripture makes a clear dichotemy between the Word of God and the words of men, and such a dichotemy allows for tradition to be subjected.
Once they get sola scriptura/prima scriptura, they can then go on to quote Jer. 23:6 "The LORD is our righteousness" and make the imputation of Christ's righteousness argument, add Romans 4:5, and nail down Sola Fide.
Obvious Criticisms:
Philosophical Realism, Appeals to Church History, Claims of Anachronism, Attacks on Fideism, Appeals to Church Unity, etc. Standard Catholic attacks.
For instance, one could say this argument gives me no case against the Quran as the Word of God beyond: I don't feel that it is. It is basically just a fideist argument that defends irrational trust in a source based on the claim that it is from God. If it is from God (which cannot be determined except existentially/experientially) then it works as an argument, but if more than one faith claims true existential religious experience, then this has to be explained away somehow (usually be anti-Islamic attitudes or racism).
The fact that St. Paul also uses philosophy in the Areopagus in Athens to debate the pagans also destroys this nominalist/Lutheran division of faith and reason.
I'm reading a great book by Von Balthasar about the Petrine office, and he has some of the strongest biblical -and unique ones- arguments for the papacy, and once I'm done that book, I'll post the counter arguments to this thesis.
Even one of our Popes declared Karl Barth to be the most important theologians since St. Thomas Aquinas, so I figured I would set up the strongest argument for Reformed Protestantism using his emphasis.
Protestants reading this: let me know where it should be strengthened.
Catholics reading this: let me know problems with the argument.
Faith and Reason:
The great Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth argued that natural theology and the use of philosophy in Christian faith, was 'where things all went wrong'. As Luther sayeth, 'the Theologian must first put to death the philosopher (Aristotle)', before burning the Summa Theologiae in public. Barth cites the famous unfinished symphonies as examples, surely no one can listen to the first half, and then using natural reason, discover the remainder, given any amount of time. This he proposed is what Roman Catholics do when they enter theology. Genesis 3:15 says there would be enmity between 'the woman' (Virgin Mary) and Satan. Examine that long enough, and you start talking about the Immaculate Conception, humans as Barth noted are "idol factories", and any attempt to add to the word of God with human words, no matter what the phrasing is 'development', 'unwritten traditions', etc, is sin.
Soren Kierkegaard in "Fear and Trembling" describes the divine command for Abraham to kill his son. Nothing in natural reasoning could explain this as logical. God is not a Being to be reasoned about, he is a speaking God who is to be trusted or rejected.
The Canon:
Roman Catholics ask how Protestants know which Scriptures are valid and which are not, as the Bible did not come straight from Heaven. Granted Barth would agree, BUT as the second Helvetic Confession declares:
"The preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God"
All throughout the book of Acts, it is the declaration of the Word (invisibly in preaching, visibly in the sacraments) that leads to salvation. As it is written, "faith cometh by hearing" (Rom 10:17). While the succession of Bishops may or may not be valid (Anglicanism v. Presbyterianism), the real succession of the Apostles was their preaching. The church is described as witnesses to the resurrection, to the Christ Event, to something that had happened and was now finished, all that was required now was the preaching of it to others. By this message which was preached since the apostles, did the council fathers know what was canonical and what was not. (I could then develop the argument that the new testament was clearly agreed on, Romans says 'to the Jews were entrusted the oracles of God' as the prooftext for the 39 book proto-canon).
In the same way that Luigi Giussani argued that people today can encounter Christ only through Christ's body as an objective historical reality, so would Barth argue that people today are faced to encounter the preaching of the gospel as an objective historical reality.
Furthermore, God has no need of an institution to tell people what the Word of God is, and what it isn't, for Christ is "the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (Jn 1:9), and because the apostle says:
"When God made a promise to Abraham, because he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, saying, ‘I will surely bless you and multiply you.’ And thus Abraham, having patiently endured, obtained the promise. Human beings, of course, swear by someone greater than themselves, and an oath given as confirmation puts an end to all dispute. In the same way, when God desired to show even more clearly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it by an oath" -Hebrews 6:13-17
If God swears Scripture by the Church then he is swearing it by human beings. As God has always done - since Abraham - he swears his covenant by himself. The gospel, as Barth notes, is not modified or evaluated by man, it can only be responded to. It is a message which is preached, it is an existential experience and an encounter.
Conclusion:
Christ says "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed" (Jn 8:31). For "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Mt. 24:35), and so by the direct command of God we must "destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ" (2 Cor 10:5). Whatever we can discern through history or tradition must be subject to Christ, for he declares: "the scripture cannot be broken" (Jn 10:35). Scripture makes a clear dichotemy between the Word of God and the words of men, and such a dichotemy allows for tradition to be subjected.
Once they get sola scriptura/prima scriptura, they can then go on to quote Jer. 23:6 "The LORD is our righteousness" and make the imputation of Christ's righteousness argument, add Romans 4:5, and nail down Sola Fide.
Obvious Criticisms:
Philosophical Realism, Appeals to Church History, Claims of Anachronism, Attacks on Fideism, Appeals to Church Unity, etc. Standard Catholic attacks.
For instance, one could say this argument gives me no case against the Quran as the Word of God beyond: I don't feel that it is. It is basically just a fideist argument that defends irrational trust in a source based on the claim that it is from God. If it is from God (which cannot be determined except existentially/experientially) then it works as an argument, but if more than one faith claims true existential religious experience, then this has to be explained away somehow (usually be anti-Islamic attitudes or racism).
The fact that St. Paul also uses philosophy in the Areopagus in Athens to debate the pagans also destroys this nominalist/Lutheran division of faith and reason.
I'm reading a great book by Von Balthasar about the Petrine office, and he has some of the strongest biblical -and unique ones- arguments for the papacy, and once I'm done that book, I'll post the counter arguments to this thesis.
Even one of our Popes declared Karl Barth to be the most important theologians since St. Thomas Aquinas, so I figured I would set up the strongest argument for Reformed Protestantism using his emphasis.
Protestants reading this: let me know where it should be strengthened.
Catholics reading this: let me know problems with the argument.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)