epistemology and Scott Hahn
Scott Hahn is a Roman Catholic who converted from Presbyterianism. To Reformed folks, he is an infamous defector. He was a devout and zealous Calvinist, who gradually lost his faith in the system. One of the final blows to his tottering Protestantism came in the form of a question that one of his students asked him. In his own words:
“Can I first ask you a question, Professor Hahn? You know how Luther really had two slogans, not just sola fide, but the second slogan he used to revolt against Rome was sola Scriptura, the Bible alone. My question is, ‘Where does the Bible teach that?’”
I looked at him with a blank stare. I could feel sweat coming to my forehead. I used to take pride in asking my professors the most stumping questions, but I never heard this one before. And so I heard myself say words that I had sworn I’d never speak; I said, “John, what a dumb question.” He was not intimidated. He look at me and said, “Give me a dumb answer.” I said, “All right, I’ll try.” I just began to wing it.I said, “Well, Timothy 3:16 is the key: ‘All Scripture is inspired of God and profitable for correction, for training and righteousness, for reproof that the man of God may be completely equipped for every good work….’” He said, “Wait a second, that only says that Scripture is inspired and profitable; it doesn’t say ONLY Scripture is inspired or
even better, only Scripture’s profitable for those things. We need other things like prayer,” and then he said, “What about 2 Thessalonians 2:15?” I said, “What’s that again?” He said, “Well, there Paul tells the Thessalonians that they have to hold fast, they have to cling to the traditions that Paul has taught them either in writing or by word of mouth.” Whoa! I wasn’t ready. I said, “Well, let’s move on with the questions and answers; I’ll deal with this next week. Let’s go on.”I don’t think they realized the panic I was in. When I drove home that night, I was just staring up to the heavens asking God, why have I never heard that question? Why have I never found an answer?
My pastor told me that the problem with Hahn was that he was operating under a linear epistemology. What does that mean?
Linear philosophy - the idea that everything that exists is connected through cause and effect to everything else that exists - came into its own with Descartes in the seventeenth century. But it is an assumption. Non-linear philosophy simply sets that assumption aside and examines the universe as connected through complex organisation.
So under Hahn’s linear view, when one linchpin was pulled out of his system, the entire thing collapsed. Sola Scriptura was not taught in the Bible, therefore his Protestant apologetic was made of straw.
Opposed to this viewpoint is a web based, nonlinear, postmodern epistemology. This type of thinking has been described as “all of the beliefs in the system standing in relations of mutual support, but none being epistemically prior to the others.” (Greco and Sosa) My pastor said that Hahn could have started from the fact that angels exist, and built upon that, for example, rather than Sola Scriptura.
I am curious about your article regarding Scott Hahn. While I am not Roman Catholic I do see certain problems in the issue of Sola Scriptura and its lack of ‘Biblical Evidence.’
I understand the non-linear and linear views (albeit I think the linear view you described did not get at the heart of Descartes’s overall thought), in the non-linear view the whole system operates upon relations to other components of the system (epistemically speaking), thus what does the non-linear view do with a component that does not fit anywhere in the system (i.e. has no relations to the other parts in an epistomological sense - this could certainly not be the case metaphysically)?
The issue I think that Catholics have with Sola Scriptura is the fact that it is always, to them anyway, presented as an authority based on itself. Logically this is just poor thinking and very circular (the circle of logic is too small). The only other sources outside of Scripture that point to Scripture as authoritative come from Church Tradition, sources such as creeds, councils, theologians throughout history point to Scripture as being authoritative (or infallible).
One could start with angels, as your pastor suggested, and build up to Scripture, but then one would need to make sure that these ‘outside’ sources give some claim to the authority of the Bible. Unless you would argue that these things in themselves provide that authority, but this would seem too problematic as well. (???)
I’m simply a Reformed Protestant trying to find a ‘better’ argument for Sola Scriptura.
Are we defining sola scriptura the same way? It doesn’t mean that the Bible is the only place truth can be found (otherwise the creeds and confessions would be invalid). This is the “solo Scriptura” straw man. What Sola Scriptura does mean is that the Scriptures are the “only ultimate and infallible authority for faith and practice.” They are the final authority and contain everythign needed for one’s salvation.
This site has very good articles on the topic.
http://www.monergism.com/ thethreshold/articles/topic/scripture.html
(You’ll need to remove the space in there as I wasnt’ sure if it would fit on the page otherwise).
The AA Hodge article gives the Scriptural proof for it, while the Samson article succinctly describes what it is and what it is not.
I echo anonymous.
My History of Christianity prof calls the Hahn type understanding of Sola Scriptura Nuda Scriptura: scripture alone is true and alone has authority. That is not really what it stands for. Instead it is: “Scripture alone is the infallible, authoritative reference point for other authority. It ranks above all other authorities.” In such a reading, church tradition is not dismissed outright, but only where it conflicts with scripture. The reason for scripture having this authority: It’s the word of God. So its authority derives from the God who speaks scripture. Is this circular, since much of what we know about God is in scripture? Well, if God chooses to disclose himself chiefly in scripture, then I’d say it’s not.
One additional point. In historical Protestantism, Sola Scriptura assumed the indwelling work of the Spirit. Only with the God’s Spirit’s regenerative work that takes away the blindness of sin do we properly understand God’s words.
One significant aspect of the Protestant confrontation with Roman Catholicism was that much of the Catholic authority structure gave clear evidence of not having the Holy Spirit illuminating their understanding of scripture, thus much of Catholic usage of scripture was abusive and wrong.
I get this point from Ian Murray’s Evangelicalism Divided. I’ve recently posted some quotes from this book. I’ll try and post some more related to this discussion.
Followed the link here from BHT. We ought to start a Rez Church bloggers guild or something!
Some quibbles with the characterization of linear and non-linear philosophy:
Descartes did not “invent” linear philosophy. What he did invent is a species of epistemological foundationalism. On Descartes’s account of the epistemological project, the goal was to base all of knowledge on certain and indubitable foundations, which then supported by logical (not causal) relations the whole edifice of knowledge erected thereupon.
What Hahn was operating under was a certain foundationalist assumption about epistemic justification. Among his foundational beliefs was a belief in sola scriptura, which laid out a criterion of justification for theological beliefs:
A theological belief is justified iff it can be extrapolated from the canonical books of the Bible.
The problem that Hahn saw is that sola scriptura itself was a theological belief, and as such, had to satisfy its own criterion in order to be justified. But, as Hahn recalls in your excerpt, he couldn’t do that: his formulation of sola scriptura was self-refuting.
Now the postmodernist might reject foundationalism, but it’s difficult to make sense of what “non-linear” philosophy might amount to. It sounds like a species of epistemological coherentism: a belief is justified iff it coheres with other beliefs in a larger system. I think coherentism is unsatisfactory because it leaves out any reference to how beliefs ought to conform to the world. All that matters is other beliefs.
Burtt: welcome aboard, nice to meet you.
Mr. Vick:
I do not know how to better present the case for this Sola. I personally don’t believe in it. I see 2 issues here:
1. Sola Scriptura (SS).
2. Linear thinking.
If I think in a linear fashion, then when SS falls, I need a new foundation, maybe I run to Rome or something.
My pastor didn’t elaborate, so I don’t know exactly how you would justify Protestantism based on a web based epistemology anymore than you would justify Roman Catholicism or anything else. I’m not sure. Sorry I can’t be of more help.
anonymous:
whatever definition we hold of Sola Scriptura, do you think the Bible teaches it, and if so - where?
nelmezzo:
I think a great many Catholic and Orthodox through time have also emphasized the imperative need for a right relationship with God prior to ever interpreting Scripture. I blogged about it ages ago. That said, no doubt there were and are abuses of Scripture going on.
I think the fact is that every person and group of churches uses a tradition and reads the text through that tradition. That shouldn’t be hard to understand. Reformed folks have their own magisterium and their own confessional docs, indeed, Calvin et al function as a new version of the Church Fathers. The question seems to become, why is one tradition right and the other wrong?
I do think the church gave birth to the Scriptures, and is the pillar of the truth.
wearied one:
great points. Where do you stand on SS ? What type of epistemology do you think is credible?
Good topic and discussion.
A couple of points occur to me. First off, there have been a few queries regarding the scriptural evidence for Sola Scriptura. Few orthodox Christians would dispute that there are quite a few strands of scriptural evidence for the authority of scripture. These very much have a bearing on the notion of Sola Scriptura. I.e., if scripture is what it says it is (the explicitly inspired word of God) then there is something very powerful to be said for the authority of scripture and where it ought to stand in a hierarchy of Christian authority.
Second, as to the church giving birth to scripture, I realize that this is a widely held view. But I disagree. First and foremost, God generates the church through the work of Christ in the power of the Holy Spirt (nothing controversial in that, I think). But then the question comes as to where the church gets its story, its beliefs its practice, its spirituality, its early history, etc. It seems to me that all of these come from scripture. Yes, the canon was established in an eccelesiastical process, but that does not mean that the church generates scripture. In fact, when one looks at what we do know about the formation of the canon, one way of reading it is with awe at the self-authenticating power of scripture. Most of the books in the canon were self-evidently authoritative to the church (not all). Most of the books rejected lacked the discernible divine and power and authority most of the books in the canon just seemed to have. This is one way of looking at it.
If one defends the other direction, one runs into the trouble that the church is clearly inferior to scripture in perfection and authority. Thus, if the church generates scripture, one does not have a divine anchor for authority. (One could say that a perfection of authority has been given to the church by God, but to me the evidence seems against that). If one tries this tradition oriented approach one runs into the problem that quite early on the church deviated from its own traditions and was also forced to expand its traditions. Unless one attributes an infallible nature to this process, all of a sudden the church’s standards of belief and practice are grounded in very human authority, not divine authority.
Two notes on what I just wrote: in saying that the church early on deviated from its own tradition I do not mean to say that this deviation was always necessarily false. But it does point to the mutability of the church.
Second, I have not yet gotten to where I see this fitting with apostolic authority.
This is getting long for a comment, so I’ll leave off there for now. I welcome agreement, disagreement, discussion, elaboration, etc.
Thanks!
This post from Pedantic Protestant a whil;e back is as good a summary of what is more or less my position. Perhaps it might help. One of the commenters cites a work by John Murray, which a pastor shared with me many years ago. http://pedanticprotestant.blogspot.com/2005/09/sola-scriptura-not-self-refuting.html
I would point out that there is reasonably strong evidence that the cannon was mostly formed well before the early church had moved beyond what I call its “Committees of Correspondence” stage (to make an analogy to the American Revolution before there was even a Continental Congress) to any sort of hierarchy beyond the local bishops. To say the bible comes from the Church is not the same thing at all is saying that it comes from Rome or Constantinople.
For some reason that link got cut off. Here tis again:
http://pedanticprotestant.blogspot.com
/2005/09/sola-scriptura-not-self-refuting.html
Wow! I come back to this about 7 hours later and look at the comments since mine! I’m behind in the discussion here.
Nelmezzo:
with regard to this comment,”But then the question comes as to where the church gets its story, its beliefs its practice, its spirituality, its early history, etc. It seems to me that all of these come from scripture.”
Actually Scripture was formulated from these. The things you listed abover were passed along in an oral fashion/verbally, before they were ever written down. In that point I concede with the Roman Catholic Church. The gospel itself was first verbal, a spoken word, long before it was ever written. The practices of the first century Church were first performed, then written down. So Scripture, historically would have followed from these things. Thus, hypothetically, if all Bibles were destroyed today and none remained, the gospel would still exist via the spoken word from person to person.
I understand the difference between the ’sole’ and ’sola’ my problem here is that most Catholics who are either my close friends or who I meet and discuss issues with claim that sola scriptura is usually presented by some Protestants in the ’sole’ type argument and this, I declare (and have told them) is simply a wrong approach all around.
However, I think a better case can be made from tradtion w/o placing traditon over and against Scripture.
I do not think Luther ever dismissed Tradition altogether, only where the Magisterium placed itself or Tradition over Scripture. Of course, I have serous problems with that as well (as a Protestant). But we should never dismiss tradition, since certain doctrines such the Trinity were defined via councils of Tradition and both Catholics and Protestant consider these certain doctrines essential.
BTW, someone posted a comment about when the ‘canon’ was actually formulated. The offical formulation of the NT Canon occurred at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. So, the Bible as we know it was already formulated by 382 A.D.
Just more food for thought. Everyone have a blessed Thanksgiving!
Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
Random thoughts:
From the divine perspective, God superintended and knew exactly what would be contained in his book. But from the POV of man, it was hashed out and worked on for centuries. Kind of the same issue as divine will and human will, where is the ‘causal joint’ at which God makes things happen? I believe that there could have been no other canon - God ordained it, but the means of this canon happening was the Church excercising its apostolic authority to declare what was in and out. Shepherd of Hermas for example, used to be in, Rev. was out in some versions of the canon. Heretics had their own false canons, with more or less books.
2nd thought, an outsider to modern Christianity could say that we still don’t have a fixed canon due to Prot/RC/Orth differences.
I’ll try to write more later.
TB, I hadn’t yet gotten around to where I see all of this fitting with apostolic authority and tradition. You’re right, there was an oral phase.
Here are some thoughts on that. The oral phase was vested with apostolic authority (possibly the most significant criterion in the later formation of the canon). I.e., what was transmitted was transmitted in apostolic witness. The material that made it into scripture and was confirmed as scripture out of the oral material was the apostolic tradition.
Joel, there is another way of looking at it: The church did not exercise apostolic authority in canon formation. It responded to it and confirmed it. Thus, Hermas was ultimately rejected because it was not found to have the same apostolic authority as those books which were put into the canon. This view is one where scripture has the generative power and the church responds to it through a process of discernment.
Here’s where Rome and classic Protestantism diverge. For Rome, apostolic authority continues in apostolic succession in the bishops of the church, and foremost in the pope. For Protestantism, the early apostolic authority that existed when the apostles were living witnesses to Christ was enscripturated. And in scripture is where the apostolic witness continues. The church also continues the apostolic witness, but on the basis of scripture. Because scripture contains what God inspired his apostles to record, scripture is the church’s highest authority.
It is fashionable to portray the Protestant understanding as historically naive. But when it was formulated, it was formulated in full awareness of church history and tradition and the historical processes involved in forming the canon. The simplification where Scripture apparently arrived ready-made on golden plates without historical processes came about later.
TB and Joel, I sense that you do not fully agree with the classical Protestant picture as I am presenting it (and I hope I’ve done it a bit of justice). One question I pose: if church generates scripture, then does not the church have the authority to add? We can look at the formulation of the Trinity and be tempted to say: “YES, of course the church added”. But I would claim that that formulation was actually a long process of trying to make accurate sense of all the scriptural data. It was an exegetical process. Precisely because scriptural authority was acknowledged, the Trinitarian implications of scriptural revelation had to be fleshed out (in response to heretical attempts at exegesis and proclamation). The example of the Trinity is firmly rooted in scripture and in submission to it.
But, here’s a different example: does the church have authority to formulate purgatory, the immaculate conception of Mary, her ascent into heaven, that she is Queen of heaven (and soon to come: that she is co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix), the infallibility of the pope, the need for works of satisfaction when we sin, etc.? I believe that these or similar things are bound to emerge when we place church authority in parallel or above scriptural authority.
I hope it doesn’t seem like I’m dissing Catholicism. It has its picture of things and has made these doctrinal developments within that framework. I believe in respectful dialog between Protestants and Catholics. Through the work of Christ and the indwelling of the Spirit, we can be brothers or sisters regardless of differences of tradtion. But it is important to be precise on the differences of our traditions. And, as you can tell, I strongly believe that the Protestant doctrine of scripture is a more correct and historically accurate view than that of Catholicism. I think Catholicism’s failure to put the authority of scripture highest has been the error from which all others have flowed for Catholicism. Protestantism has not gone so far astray into doctrinal error, precisely because of its insistence that scripture is of higher authority. Because of this insistence, it has a reliable principle for semper reformanda to correct error: an authoritative center that can bring the church back from error. Protestantism can develop, but centripetally bound to scripture. Catholicism does not have such a center, which is why it is in a situation of centrifugal development with regard to scripture, where there is unceasing addition to the deposit of faith, many additions of which have little or no scriptural basis.
Looking forward to people’s further thoughts!
nelmezzo:
You sound like Bahnsen, I have read his article on this subject before.
Let me quote from the Catholic Catechism to see how they would answer your questions:
There will be no further Revelation
66 “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.”[28] Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfilment, as is the case in certain nonChristian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”[69]
“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”[70]
106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”[71]
107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”[72]
108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book”. Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, “not a written and mute word, but incarnate and living”.[73] If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.”[74]
Ouch. Lol. I’m not sure sounding like Bahnsen is an altogether favorably thing. Those quotes from the Catechism were fascinating. I’ll have to reflect for a while. What’s your background? Mind is obviously Protestant. I grew up Baptist, am in Chicago and now in an independent Reformed church. How about you?
BTW, I neglected to say Happy Thanksgiving All!
I have always been a Protestant. I grew up in a non-denominational church with a Lutheran background. I have spent time at Calvary Chapel, a small charismatic church, then became Reformed and was part of an independent Reformed church for three plus years. I was drawn to liturgy and have been in Anglican churches for the past 2 years (we switched churches due to moving). Our current church is part of the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA) which is led by the church of Rwanda. My pastoral staff is completely Reformed, 2 RTS guys and 1 WTS East guy.
I am not proud of all this church hopping, but it reflects changes in my thinking, moving phsyically, and a church collapsing at one point.
I attended an Episcopalian church for a while, St. Barnabas in Glen Ellyn. It was wonderful. I also attended a blessed AMIA church, Church of the Resurrection in Glen Ellyn (I live in Chicago–it ended up being just was too far away). Recently when my wife and I were looking for a new church (a prolonged and bad church situation having preceeded), we were strongly considering a starting AMIA church (chapel), Advent Anglican Chapel, in Chicago. We ended up deciding on an independent Reformed church, Holy Trinity Church, but I’ve got some Anglican roots myself! I’m also not happy to have jumped so much, but it’s how it turned out.
There I was time when I was going through catechesis to become an Episcopalian. The catechism (at the Cathedral of St. James in Chicago) revealed the strong unorthodoxy (doubting the incarnation and the Trinity) of some of the local leadership. That line of spiritual pursuit came to an end for me.
Well, I have not responded to the material from the Catechism yet. I’ll have to pull out my copy and ponder a bit. Anybody got some ideas to keep things going for now? I think this is an important discussion (one that I’ve never really had) . . .
Nelmezzo:
“But, here’s a different example: does the church have authority to formulate purgatory, the immaculate conception of Mary, her ascent into heaven, that she is Queen of heaven (and soon to come: that she is co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix), the infallibility of the pope, the need for works of satisfaction when we sin, etc.? I believe that these or similar things are bound to emerge when we place church authority in parallel or above scriptural authority.”
I emphatically agree with your remarks as quoted above, and it is at this point that I become VERY Protestant. I simply think that many Protestants (esp. certain denominations within Protestantism)have either ignored or disregarded Tradition altogether. I think that it is unhealthy and can be theologically damaging at times to do so. I concede to your point above, and on other theological issues and doctrines which you did not name.
TB, I couldn’t agree with you more on tradition. I have a particular concern at the moment that some of the more astute people in the Protestant stream of things are so fed up with the silliness of contemporary Evangelicalism that they have concluded that the fruit of Protestantism is rotten and that it (as a tradition) is best jettisoned. That’s probably putting it a tad strongly.
In any case, though, one of the things I want to argue for strongly is the worth of Protestant tradition (including, perhaps, some of the better features of the Protestant doctrine of scripture).
That being said, I’m very much a proponent of not discarding Catholic tradition wholesale, either. One of the things I lament most in much of Protestantism (not the case in the Anglican tradition) is its suspicion of the Lord’s supper due to suspicion of the mass. With regard to making the Eucharist central to Christian worship, surely Catholicism has gotten something far more right than Protestantism. Further, Catholicism has preserved traditions of prayer that are sorely needed in the church. If we look at history, Catholicism preserved the Christian faith for over a millenium. The Spirit was active during all that time. To turn our back on what God did through his church during that time (or is doing now) is not just sinful, but wrong.
I’ve heard of Church of the Resurrection in Chicago, it looks like a good church.
I would be one of those Protestants who have a hard time articulating the continued efficacy of the Reformation. We have produced a divorce culture where churches divorce themselves from other churches ad infinitium, a disrespect for the history and tradition of the church that produces the wacky heresies that abound again today from modalism to word of faith.
The conciliar decisions of the Church are what established our creeds, our understanding of the Holy Trinity, the canon of Scripture, and many other important issues.
I think there should be a recognition of Scripture, tradition, reason, and a dependence on the Holy Spirit to guide us.
All of us approach Scripture with preconceptions. If we grow up in the church we are taught the meaning of certain passages from a young age. We assume as “common sense” basic values of western democracy, capitalism, consumerism, and so forth. We assume the ability of every person to interpret the text for himself, etc. So we approach the text from within a tradition. What I advocate is consulting the Fathers and the thinking of the Church on any passage, reflecting on a text, and prayerfully petitioning God for understanding.
BTW I totally agree with you on the Eucharist. I think that Calvin himself placed a much higher value on it than we see in most quarters today.
“What I advocate is consulting the Fathers and the thinking of the Church on any passage, reflecting on a text, and prayerfully petitioning God for understanding.”
Well, that certainly would be a wise approach in any case. Recently, there are signs of a recovery of a wider sense of tradition for Protestantism and Evangelicalism in particular (a la Oden and the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series). Furthermore, Protestant seminaries now regularly teach Church History with a much more sympathetic grasp over its whole breadth. Patristics in particular is a subject being taught with a depth and interest that is probably only two or three generations old. (At least that’s the very unscientific impression I’ve gotten).
However, I think I have a somewhat different read on church history than the one you presented:
“I would be one of those Protestants who have a hard time articulating the continued efficacy of the Reformation. We have produced a divorce culture where churches divorce themselves from other churches ad infinitium, a disrespect for the history and tradition of the church that produces the wacky heresies that abound again today from modalism to word of faith.”
I think this is unduly singling out Protestantism (although it is incontrovertible in terms of what it says about Protestantism). The divisiveness we see in Protestantism is a result of church being decoupled from secular power. Christianity simply has not yet given rise to forms of institutional unity that do not require secular power to achieve. One could look to Roman Catholicism for a counterexample, but it would be illusory. For much of its history, it, too, was held together in an intricate mesh with secular power. The power of papacy itself arose against against (an often necessary) wielding of secular power by the church hierarchy. Catholicism’s principle of unity, the papacy, would be unthinkable without the historical and political forces that gave rise to it. It does not represent a spiritual source of unity, at least not at its birth.
As to church councils, although I believe the universal church should continue to universally subscribe to the (early) ecumenical councils and I believe in creedal unity based on those councils, the history of the councils puts the lie to a superior unity. The history of the establishment of Nicene orthodoxy is a history of political advance and reversal, with mutual banishment and frequent foul play. I happen to think the outcome was correct in the end, but the arising unity depended on the power and cooperation of the emperor.
Protestantism’s divisiveness is merely what came about as the church was increasingly separated from its realiance on secular power.
Perhaps, we are at the beginning of a time when our unity will become more apparent as a spiritual unity rather than a hierarchical one. Certain the prevailing post-denominationalism might hint at that.
One the other hand, Protestantism has not yet shown itself up to the task of transmission of faith and its own traditions without the old denominational structures. The evidence for that can be found in Liberal Protestantism on the one hand and on the other hand the wackiness and reversion to other heretical patterns which we see Evangelicalism.
Can we transmit faith and tradition without primary dependence on the power structures of hierarchy (and their original and even present dependence on secular power)? Any affirmative answer will require an even surer notion of Sola Scriptura, one which, for sure, is itself a part of a tradition, but also the anchor and source of that tradition.
As I re-read what I just wrote I realize that my Baptistic roots come out more than I expected. (In term of decentralizing human authority and appealing to scriptural authority). But the key difference is that I would say that I’m looking for a new unity that can be achieved under scriptural authority and that is schooled by the breadth of Christian tradition under that authority. Christ has built his church and is building it. To turn away from Christian history is to spurn that truth.
So I’m interested in seeing a turn back toward the history, but firmly under scriptural authority (which would certainly look different to different traditions, no doubt), as being a higher authority than a human hierarchy. It also is an authority that may (within limits) authorize human hierachies. I have no quibble with churches that organize themselve episcopally or in a presbyterian fashion under the authority of scripture. It’s just that place human authority higher than the authority of scripture has demonstrably caused more problem than it has solved.
And yes, human authority will always be involved in the interpretation of scripture. It’s inescapable. But who submits to whom? Leadership to God’s word? Or vice versa? And yes, it is possible to profess submission and not submit. But that’s always the case.
I guess a good deal of what I’ve just written was in “pipe-dream” mode. But it’s interesting stuff to dream about.
Nelmezzo stated:
“That being said, I’m very much a proponent of not discarding Catholic tradition wholesale, either. One of the things I lament most in much of Protestantism (not the case in the Anglican tradition) is its suspicion of the Lord’s supper due to suspicion of the mass. With regard to making the Eucharist central to Christian worship, surely Catholicism has gotten something far more right than Protestantism. Further, Catholicism has preserved traditions of prayer that are sorely needed in the church. If we look at history, Catholicism preserved the Christian faith for over a millenium. The Spirit was active during all that time. To turn our back on what God did through his church during that time (or is doing now) is not just sinful, but wrong. “
WOW! I could not have said that any better. Finally I find someone else who is thinking along the same lines as me, and has remained Protestant. I have a handful of close friends, all Protestant, who have expressed the same thing as what you declared above.
I believe many Protestant Churches have gotten away from true worship, especially those who are Reformed since the liturgy has, for the most part been removed, and the eucharist is not practiced each and every Sunday (or day of worship). Protestants would do well to remember that worship is Word and Sacrament.
Anyway, thank you for your thoughts on all this, it has really got me to thinking about these issues again.
While I find much to agree with in what you say, I also find much to disagree with. I have no problem with doctrinal and governmental development post New Testament. I don’t think we need to see a form of church government explicitly in the NT to make it valid.
More importantly, in picking and choosing what we like from the tradition, we are excercising the ultimate western, individualist, Protestant impulse. “I’ll take a dab of Nicea and a little of Chalcedon, with some Constantine on the side.” We pick and choose what parts of the tradition suit us and form the picture of the ideal church in our new image.
I am just as guilty of this. To me it is the one huge stumbling block out there - what right do we have to say: ‘this and not that’ to the collective voice of our history?
Augustine is a great example. Most Calvinists revere him as their church father, yet if you read him, you will see all kinds of things that are currently not acceptable in Prot churches. So we take a bit of this and a bob of that, and reject the rest. I think this is troubling. Our sense of all knowingness in standing up to the history of the church is a bit scary.
That said, I am in the same place with you. I can’t accept large swaths of the tradition and I don’t know right now what the answer is.
For what it’s worth, I believe that Hahn was epistemologically a Clarkian when he was a Presbyterian. Not sure the relevance of that, but I thought I’d throw it in.
joel garver
Joel said: “I don’t think we need to see a form of church government explicitly in the NT to make it valid.”
Actually, I agree with you 100%. The NT is not a church government manual. It does have a ready made church government. There are many forms of governing a church that can be successfully argued for from scripture.
When I was referring to myself as being Baptistic, it was because I noted a bit of a suspicion of hierarchy in me. (That’s akin to Baptist think they don’t have a tradition–Baptists have their own hierachies, too). My point is that it goes wrong when we place human hierarchy on par with scripture. The church will always have human leadership and typically that leadership is to be followed (a biblical principle). But the leadership itself stand under the scrutiny of scripture. (Even if the leadership is involved in helping interpret scripture, just as a tradition is–this is an inescapable bit of circularity that doesn’t bother me).
Tradition and authority exist in the church outside of scripture. But hierarchically, I’d put them below it, even if they necessarily inform and guide our reading of it.
The picking and choosing issue is a problem, yes. But also unavoidable. For every questions asked in church history, there are multiple answers (even within the same tradition!). Also, I don’t find it suprising when people don’t consistently following their theological fathers, such as Augustine. Augustine was just a man after all. Even if he was one of the most gifted, insightful and profound men in church history.
I accidentally published instead of previewing for typos.
One sentence should have read “It does NOT have a ready made church government”.
Sorry for all the other typos, but at least they don’t change the meaning.
Joel, I think you bring up an impoertant point (if not a good distinction about what we choose or do not choose from Church history).
Unless I am mistaken, Catholics would do the same with reference to Augustine, Aquinas, etc. When ‘picking and choosing’ is done amongst certain theologians, I think this is warranted.
Most Protestants (and many Catholics for that matter) do not realize that Aquinas rejected the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary, and there are other great theologians along this same line who have done similair things.
However, when it comes to certain creeds or councils (e.g. the first ecuminical creeds/councils of the Church), these councils and creeds helped to establish certain doctrines which found certain support from the Scriptures, but were not delineated in the Scriptures with as much detail as they were in the creeds and councils.
With the exception of the Council of Trent (which is where I believe the Roman Catholic Church needed much more reformed than they gave themselves), I would venture to say that there are not too many Protestant (at least of the Reformed persuasion) who would reject the doctrinal outcomes of those ecumenical councils and creeds prior to Trent (albiet it has been awhile since I have read them, I am uncertain if these councils contained doctrines such as the infallability of the Pope, etc.).
Therefore, to that end I believe we should pay the most attention. Trent and post Trent, the Church, I believe did need massive reform and Luther and the other Reformers were at least getting at some proper reform.
Garver: I’ve never delved far enough to understand the Clark/Van Til distinctions.
Mr. Vick: If you read the conciliar definitions I think you will find a lot of things that we don’t follow today. I’m not referring to Christology, but other things like fast days, bishops staying in a diocese, etc.