LVKA said:
"And the problem with interpretation is not whether it's literal or figurative, but whether it's condoned by Tradition or not."
Like the Tradition of the ante-Nicene fathers who interpreted scripture in opposition to the veneration of images? Or the Tradition of the early Christians who prayed only to God, not to the deceased or angels? Do you agree with the Marian beliefs of the earliest Christians, such as their Tradition that Mary committed sin?
I agree with the principle that we can accept an interpretation of scripture that isn't derived from a grammatical-historical method of interpretation, if a verifiably authoritative entity is giving us that interpretation. For example, since Jesus is God, He would be in a position to know that an Old Testament passage has a secondary meaning that can't be attained through a grammatical-historical method of interpretation. We would be justified in accepting such a secondary meaning for an Old Testament passage, since that secondary meaning had been taught by Jesus.
The problem is that you and other Eastern Orthodox don't give us any reason to believe that your concept of Tradition has the authority you claim it has. You would first have to make an objective case for that system of authority by means of interpreting the relevant historical documents through the grammatical-historical method. That's the normative means by which we approach historical documents in general, such as the writings of the church fathers and ecumenical councils.
All that Evangelicals are doing is interpreting scripture as we would interpret other historical documents, until we have justification to do otherwise. The archives of this blog contain many examples of our asking Eastern Orthodox participants to make an objective case for their system of authority and their failure to do so. You haven't given us any reason to look to your Tradition to interpret scripture for us in the manner in which we look to Jesus or the apostle Paul to do so. Even if we assume that an interpretation of scripture given to us by Jesus or Paul wasn't derived from a grammatical-historical method, we still have reason to accept that interpretation on other grounds. The same can't be said for the interpretations derived from your Tradition.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteVery accurate post. I want to thank you for all your work over the years. You have helped me sort through Church History in a balanced manner. I am currently posting on PlanetEnvoy although I expect to be banned very soon (for obvious reasons). Thanks again for all your contributions here and at NTRMin.
Algo
I second that, except for the Envoy stuff. I served my penance in Purgatory at Steve Ray's board.
ReplyDeleteMany thanks to Jason; may his reward be great.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteSt. Paul said: "mimic me even as I mimic Christ". If You don't wanna listen to me, fine, I get it. But please give St. Paul a chance. His use of both allegory as well as typology is clear to anyone. And he didn't get it from himself, he got it from Jesus. Christ uses the Old Testament in a very unoriginal way (normal Second-Temple interpretative procedure); but what's curious however is that He preaches ... Himself. Kinda like Wisdom in the Books of Solomon. Weird! Just plain weird. But on this sheer madness is our entire faith founded. It relies on nothing else but the truth of the revelation of God embodied in man.
Tha fact that You don't use the Bible the same way that Christ and Paul used it is disturbing. I'm not gonna let You go away with it! The fact that You continue in ascribing to us the things that YOU ALSO SHOULD be doing is outright debilitating. I don't like it. If gramatic-historical-literal interpretation is all You got left, might as well put on a kippa and open the Sacred Talmud.
"Your church this, Your church that" -- well, that's fine, but... are You (subconsciously) implying that somehow the Orth. is the First Century Church, since You seem to be saying that it kinda applies to us, not to anyone else. (I mean, did either Christ or Paul say: "OK, now You guys just skip o'er this passage, OK?, `cause what I'm gonna say now goes only for the Orth., kappiert?" ?).
I know that the Gram-Hist-Lit method is not "wrong" (I didn't say that it was wrong), but where are You gonna end up with it? If the Bible does not teach us about Christ or about our spiritual life except in a very restricted places, then ... what purpose does it serve then? :-\ A dry, museum-like purpose?
I know that the Gram-Hist-Lit method is a safety measure introduced to not let Prots. drift even more apart from eachother,... but isn't Sola Scriptura (1500s) more important for Prot than GHLM? And don't Scripture teach us through the words of the Word Himself and of His mouth, St. Paul, the proper way, the specifically-Christian way, of doing this interpretation? I don't understand why You (or anyone) would fight against what is believed by all (regardless of denomination) to be true.
Just be or act Sola Scriptura for once in Your life (especially now that it's 'safe' and OK to do so).
Lvka,
ReplyDeleteYou're assuming, without benefit of argument, that typology is contrary to the grammatico-historical method.
In addition, maybe you have limited access to standard reference works in Rumania, but it's not as if the facile objections you're lobbing at Jason haven't been dealt with in some detail:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/februaryweb-only/106-52.0.html
What I like about Eastern Orthodoxy and the Papists is their claim that sola scriptura, and "private interpretation", makes us Protestants splinter into different cells since we don't have that "infallable" interpretation...
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, Tradition rarely says what a text *means*...at *best*, Easterns/Romanists can read the Bible and surmise what it isn't saying...without an actual infallable interpretation, they are practicing private interpretation each time they open the Bible and think they're understanding it.
You're assuming, without benefit of argument, that typology is contrary to the grammatico-historical method.
ReplyDeleteI'm not merely "assuming" it, I've witnesses first-hand how constipatedly Protestants shy away from ANYTHING even *remotely* resembling it. And I'm not happy about it. Not to mention allegory (which is not the same thing, but which Paul uses, and states it by name), and which they pointlessly reject also for no good reason.
The fact that You discard something without any reason -save for it being used by the Orthodox also- is completely senseless and mind-buggling.
private interpretation
ReplyDeleteIt's not private interpretation, it's communal interpretation.
LVKA SAID:
ReplyDelete"I'm not merely 'assuming' it, I've witnesses first-hand how constipatedly Protestants shy away from ANYTHING even *remotely* resembling it."
What's your source of information? Internet chat rooms? If you bothered to read some standard evangelical commentaries on the NT, you'd see that Protestant scholars have no problem with typology.
"Not to mention allegory (which is not the same thing, but which Paul uses, and states it by name), and which they pointlessly reject also for no good reason."
Have you ever bothered to read a standard evangelical commentary on Galatians?
"The fact that You discard something without any reason -save for it being used by the Orthodox also- is completely senseless and mind-buggling."
Unless and until you give some evidence of actually knowing the first thing about Evangelical commentaries on the NT, it would behoove you not to make so many demonstrably ignorant statements.
The article ends in the words:
ReplyDeletea king who would reign from a cross.
which I take to be a refference to the famous Psalm-passage "The Lord will reign from the wood" -- which (needless to say) doesn't exist anywhere, in any [extant] copies of either the MT or the LXX (but which Justin quotes in his Dialogue with Trypho, mid second century AD).
In any case, from one end of it to the other, the article does nothing more than to reveal problem after problem after problem between what they call "traditional GHM exegesis" and the way Christ and His Apostles actually handle the O.T. text. The fact that they constantly refer to "Christians" being something like shocked by the most fundamental Christian texts (!?) only serves to strenghten my fears instead of diminishing them.
What's your source of information?
ReplyDeleteOur friend Rhoblogy.
LVKA SAID:
ReplyDelete"which I take to be a refference to the famous Psalm-passage 'The Lord will reign from the wood' -- which (needless to say) doesn't exist anywhere, in any [extant] copies of either the MT or the LXX (but which Justin quotes in his Dialogue with Trypho, mid second century AD)."
Carson's reference was more general.
"In any case, from one end of it to the other, the article does nothing more than to reveal problem after problem after problem between what they call 'traditional GHM exegesis' and the way Christ and His Apostles actually handle the O.T. text."
No, that is simply your knee-jerk impression of how Jesus and the Apostles actually handle the OT text.
The interview is not a substitute for the reference work they edited. Rather, it's an introduction to that volume. That is where you'll find the detailed analysis.
The literalist Pharisees were shocked by Jesus' interpretations, and so are "Christians" raised up in the anything-but-from-Sola-Scriptura-arrived-at GHL method. Gee, I wonder why ...
ReplyDeleteJust think of what St. Paul says in his repeated "the letter brings death, but the Spirit gives life" line. And couple this with the clearly allegorical passage in Galatians, about Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Ishmael and Agar. And with his extensive typology. And quit bull____ing me about the way that all of this so nicely fits with Prot EXegesis: it doesn't: from Prot pastors on any possible TV-channel, to online articles, to bible-commentaries, to Rho's failure ... it just doesn't. OK?
ReplyDeleteAnd Rho's definitely not alone in his impotent constipation: he's being helped and aided by our friend Peter Pike here also (see last comment on the bottom of the page):
ReplyDeleteYou said:
---
The difference between 8 days and 6? Both Chrysostom and Basil say that the days symbolize the number of witnesses. So for Luke, the 8 days include the Holy Spirit and God the Father.
---
Or perhaps 6 was the age of the first donkey, and 8 was the age of the second donkey....
The problem with the types of "interpretations" that many early fathers fell into is the fact that it's pure speculation that is only loosely related to the text in the first place. You can make the numbers fit anything if you try.
On the other hand, it seems quite reasonable to me to say that Matthew and Mark were simply more precise in stating "After six days" while Luke gave the "about eight days later" (and six is about eight; if I said, "About eight days ago, this happened" and it turns out that what happened was really only six days ago, no one would accuse me of error). This is A) something that happens frequently in language already and B) doesn't require us to make up some other "facticity" in an ad hoc manner.
Lvka said:
ReplyDelete"And Rho's definitely not alone in his impotent constipation."
Impotence and constipation are two very different medical conditions. The state of medical science must be awfully primitive in Rumania if you don't know the difference. Do you guys use witch-doctors?
LVKA wrote:
ReplyDelete"If You don't wanna listen to me, fine, I get it. But please give St. Paul a chance."
Not only have I "given him a chance", but my post even mentions him by name as an example of an authority figure whose Biblical interpretations we should accept regardless of whether they were attained through the grammatical-historical method. But, as I explained, we don't have any reason to accept your Tradition as having the sort of authority Paul has.
You write:
"Tha fact that You don't use the Bible the same way that Christ and Paul used it is disturbing."
I also don't accept worship, as Christ did, or claim apostolic authority, as Paul did. It's not enough for you to argue that Jesus and Paul did something. That fact doesn't, by itself, suggest that we should do the same. Jesus and Paul had knowledge and authority that we don't have.
And you aren't following your own advice. You told us that Tradition interprets scripture for you. You aren't Tradition. If your Tradition interprets scripture by some method other than the grammatical-historical method, then it's your Tradition that's doing so, not you. Do you then go on to interpret scripture and Tradition in your own non-grammatical-historical manner? Do you interpret the ecumenical councils allegorically, for example? Do you add your own non-grammatical-historical interpretations of scripture to the ones you allegedly derive from Tradition?
Here's your original comment, which I was responding to:
"And the problem with interpretation is not whether it's literal or figurative, but whether it's condoned by Tradition or not."
If a non-grammatical-historical interpretation has to be "condoned by Tradition", then you're not accepting all non-grammatical-historical interpretations. Rather, you're only accepting the interpretations "condoned by" your system of authority. Since Evangelicals don't accept your system of authority, why would you fault them for limiting their acceptance of non-grammatical-historical interpretations to the interpretations that come from their system of authority (the interpretations of Jesus, Paul, etc.)? If we accept the interpretations of authority figures such as Jesus and Paul, but we don't accept the interpretations of your authority figures, then what's the significant difference? Both of us are willing to accept Biblical interpretations on the basis of authority, even if the interpretation couldn't be verified by means of the grammatical-historical method. The difference is that we can make a good objective case for our system of authority, whereas you can't make a good objective case for yours.
You write:
"'Your church this, Your church that' -- well, that's fine, but... are You (subconsciously) implying that somehow the Orth. is the First Century Church, since You seem to be saying that it kinda applies to us, not to anyone else."
My post implies no such thing. The reason why I mentioned Eastern Orthodoxy was because I was responding to an Eastern Orthodox. How would my mentioning of Eastern Orthodoxy imply "that somehow the Orth. is the First Century Church"? Do our posts responding to Roman Catholicism and Mormonism, for example, suggest that we have the same view of those groups?
You write:
"If the Bible does not teach us about Christ or about our spiritual life except in a very restricted places, then ... what purpose does it serve then? :-\ A dry, museum-like purpose?"
If I don't interpret the Council of Nicaea allegorically, is that ecumenical council "dry" and "museum-like"? Why don't you tell us how you interpret the canons of Nicaea in a non-grammatical-historical manner?
And how would you know how "restricted" scripture should be? How do you allegedly know that the grammatical-historical method is too restricted, whereas adding interpretations "condoned by Tradition" isn't too restricted? What if somebody who wanted to add some allegorical interpretations to the ones derived from your Tradition would object that your method of interpretation is too restricted? How would you respond?
You write:
"I know that the Gram-Hist-Lit method is a safety measure introduced to not let Prots. drift even more apart from eachother"
The objective nature of the grammatical-historical method does work against "drifting". That's true not only when that method is applied to the Bible, but also when it's applied to other documents, such as the writings of the church fathers and ecumenical councils. Would you prefer to have one Eastern Orthodox arguing that the sixth canon of Nicaea is a reference to the bodily assumption of the apostle Philip, while another Eastern Orthodox sees it as a reference to the primacy of the bishop of Moscow?
You write:
"I'm not merely 'assuming' it, I've witnesses first-hand how constipatedly Protestants shy away from ANYTHING even *remotely* resembling it."
You'll often find Protestants referring to possible secondary meanings or typology, for example, that could be seen in a passage, even if such a reading can't be derived from a grammatical-historical interpretation or from the authority of some later Biblical author. For example, Protestants commenting on the book of Genesis often see Joseph's story as a foreshadowing of Christ, even when the relevant details of Joseph's life aren't applied to Christ by any of the Biblical authors and the grammatical-historical method can't prove that a foreshadowing was intended. They'll see Christ in the Old Testament more than the grammatical-historical method or the authority of the New Testament can verify.
But they hold those interpretations with a loose grip. They acknowledge that there's a difference between a possibility and a probability. There's a difference between what can and can't be verified. You can speculate that a passage was meant to have a particular secondary meaning that isn't verifiable, but you'll need something more than such a speculative reading to make an objective case for a doctrine.
You write:
"The fact that You discard something without any reason -save for it being used by the Orthodox also- is completely senseless and mind-buggling."
The "fact" you're referring to isn't a fact. Who said that we "discard something without any reason -save for it being used by the Orthodox also"? I think you need to make more of an effort to apply the grammatical-historical method to other people's posts.
You write:
"It's not private interpretation, it's communal interpretation."
When the early Christians interpreted scripture differently than you do as an Eastern Orthodox, as they sometimes did, you reject their "communal interpretation" as unauthoritative.
Since Lvka like the allegorical interpretation so much, I'm going to interpret his comments allegorically from now on.
ReplyDeleteLvka says:
---
But please give St. Paul a chance.
---
This is an obvious reference to St. Paul, MN; and chance refers to gambling. Reading between the lines, we see the Lvka supports gambling in Minnesota.
Lvka says:
---
And he didn't get it from himself, he got it from Jesus.
---
Jesus is, of course, a common name in Mexico, which means Lvka supports NAFTA.
I could continue, but everyone else already got the point before I made my first reference. BTW: that analogically means that Big Burgers at Carl's Jr. are better for you than humus pitas from the Pita Pit, which is itself typological for saying White over Red, which is metaphorical for good over evil, which is an allusion to The Dark Tower series, which has no bearing on this discussion except insofar as I am now hungry and ready for dinner.
Also, while I shouldn't have to point it out, there's a difference between interpreting something typologically and interpreting everything typologically (same with allegory). I don't hold to the "every passage needs to have the literal meaning, the allegorical meaning, the ecclesiastical meaning, blah blah blah."
ReplyDeleteSt. Paul said: "mimic me even as I mimic Christ". If You don't wanna listen to me, fine, I get it. But please give St. Paul a chance. His use of both allegory as well as typology is clear to anyone. And he didn't get it from himself, he got it from Jesus. Christ uses the Old Testament in a very unoriginal way (normal Second-Temple interpretative procedure); but what's curious however is that He preaches ... Himself. Kinda like Wisdom in the Books of Solomon. Weird! Just plain weird. But on this sheer madness is our entire faith founded. It relies on nothing else but the truth of the revelation of God embodied in man.
ReplyDeleteTha fact that You don't use the Bible the same way that Christ and Paul used it is disturbing.
Actually what's more disturbing is where this logically leads you...
1. Jesus interprets Scripture as the Incarnate Son.
2. Paul interprets Scripture as an Apostle and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
So, by way of reply to you:
Is "Holy Tradition" inspired? If so, where's the supporting argument? If you think Holy Tradition is inspired, then how do you know it is inspired? An appeal to inspiration should lead us to a claim that there's an authoritative body of new revelation supplied by, and continuing to be supplied by the Holy Spirit. Where, pray tell, might we find this body of revelation documented? Why isn't it canonized as Scripture?
There are Fathers who openly and demonstrably contradict each other, and your Orthodox compatriots have admitted it on the pages of this very blog. How can we know which ones are correct?
And if you narrow the list down to "possibilities" then you're saying the best that these methods can attain are a list of "possible" interpretations. So, you have the Holy Spirit inspiring contradictions and "possibilities." So much for the clarity of Holy Tradition and the claims of Orthodox apologists that their rule of faith is epistemically superior to ours.
3. We accept the interpretations of Scripture that are in Scripture. We accept what Paul said, as in Galatians. We accept the allegorical method used in parts of Ezekiel. We accept what Jesus said about Scripture. We accept what the NT says about the fulfillment of the OT and so on.
And we do so because the GHM accounts for the methods of their day. All you're doing is broadcasting your ignorance of what the GHM does and is used for to the readership of this blog. Good job.
So, how exactly are we rejecting anything they said, if we accept what they said as infallible and inspired and therefore binding? And to anticipate the statement that we should follow their example - this conflates an example with a command. Not every example is there for us to follow.
How would you be in a position to know what their methods were - from Scripture - apart from using the GHM? You see, Lvka, on the one hand, you reject the GHM, but on the other you use it when it suits you.
And Jason is right. Do you interpret the ECF's allegorically? No, you use the GHM.
What's your source of information?
ReplyDeleteOur friend Rhoblogy.
Um, quote me shying away from anythg "remotely resembling" typology.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteThey aren't medically, but conceptually, related. :-)
Jason,
towards the end of Your long post You mention *that* some Prot. do in some way interpret some things in a more allegorical or typological manner. BUT (with great exactness and precision) You also make it cristal-clear that their somehow on-their-own, posibilities, probabilities, they DON'T HAVE NT 'blessing' to do do FOR THOSE PARTICULAR verses, etc. -- and precisely here lies the problem: that's just like saying: "many Orth. have fridges, many don't, and when they buy them, they stand on pretty thin ice": That's the problem basically: the THE method is viewed as if it were a strange oddball ... and another one is set in its rightful place. (There's nothing wrong with kissing a woman, but when you kiss more the neighbour's wife than you kiss yours, then something's definitelly VERY wrong there).
As for equating not demanding worship like Jesus did with not using the same way of interpreting the Bible like He did, I can't help You out of it. It's up to You to either believe or disbelive what I say here; I just do what I *can* do, namely say these things to You, just maybe.
Your entire long comment contains actually the same idea repeated in various wordings throughout ... and Peter Pike picks the same idea and uses it also repeatedly, and Gene does the same thing also. And that was my point when I left my first comment here, where I wrote the few lines that I wrote: there is a difference between Gnosticism and Christianity, and this difference lies not with the method: it lies in or with one's creed or faith or belief. Which fits with what I've told You in the same place (and which You've also denied), namely that Christianity was a creedal religion from its inception. Prot. also use the Creed (and they don't feel that they somehow subconsciously "bow down" to the Orth. claims by doing that), so I don't know what's possibly keeping You from using the same Creed to shape Your GHL-allegorical-typological interpretative method (which method is as Orth. as the Creed ... which You also use without being frustrated, so ... ).
Your repeated question is practically this: how do we know how to interpret things allegorically or typologically in a safe and non-heretical manner, without becoming liberal Prot., Gnostics, historical revisionists? I assume Your problem might not lie with the fact that You really believe that using a non-GHL method would equate to demand worship like Jesus did, but with Your difficulty in how exactly to apply it, or make it work ... and the answer lies in the Creed (to which You also ascribe), which is THE most fundamental tenet of our entire Christian religion: "I believe in one God, Father Allkeeper, Maker of Heaven and earth" and so on: You just stay within the Creed and then feel all the freedom to interpret things from all possible angles (and the Creed will also reveal to You the im-possible and un-permited or unallowed angles as well).
I don't expect You to become Orth., nor do I expect Hindus to become Christians ... but if I were to find out more and more positive similarities between them and us, I would rejoice.
If Christ said JUST DO IT, and if Paul said JUST DO IT then *please* listem to the two of them and JUST DO IT. :-(
-------------------------
Let's say a few words regarding Gnostics: they believed in a different supreme reality than the rest of the orthodox Christians. Now let's make a number of true (and easily verifiable) statements:
-- the orth. Chr. interpreted the OT in a "GHL", allegorical, and typological/christolgical manner.
-- the orth. Chr. interpreted the NT allegorically as well.
-- but the orth. Chr. did not believe in a superior reality to Chr. and the Holy Trinity. (Chr. and the Trintity were not types of a superior Pleroma, composed out of not just three but thirty deities, each one far more cooler than the other; so much more cooler that were an inferior deity [say Sophia] to try to comprehend a superior Aeon, it would give birth to all sorts of "monsters", i.e., distorted ideas or views about the superior reality: Quite to the contrary, the orth. Chr. believed in the "mutual indwelling" or perienchoiresis of the Three Divine Persons).
-- Iraeneus writes Against Heresies (Gnostics), but does not use another method than them [or Christ or Paul or all the Fathers]. His creed is different than theirs and his orth. faith is the one that makes him come to different results than them: the example he gives with the pieces of the same puzzle being differently rearranged by different people [orth. and Gnotics] due to their different world-views is pretty eloquently expressed and very actual also. "We have seen the Face of the King" [i.e., the revelation of God the King of Kings in Christ, His Word and (inter-)Face].
I've accidentally inserted the phrase "Prot. also use the Creed, etc." to the end of the paragraph that begins with "Your entire long comment, etc."; instead, it should've been inserted at the end of the paragraph that imediately follows it, namely the one that begins with the words: "Your repeated question, etc". Sorry for this mistake. :-(
ReplyDeleteThe First Ecumenical Council does not need a typological or Christological interpretation: because it *IS* a Christological statement. And it doesn't need a spiritual or allegorical interpretation either: the Dogamtical statement that Jesus is God is intrinsically tied up with our Chr. spirituality: "If Christ is not God, then He cannot engod us either, since He does not then possess divinity by His proper nature, and we're pointlessly [not to mention heretically] baptised in the Name of a creature" --> that's what St. Athanasius said in his defence of the faith against the Arians. "God became man so that man might become God" -- there's no spiritually-superior statement to that. If not even the fact that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us isn't enough to boost us spiritually and make us more spiritual people, then nothing else will.
ReplyDeleteLVKA said:
ReplyDelete“That's the problem basically: the THE method is viewed as if it were a strange oddball ... and another one is set in its rightful place. (There's nothing wrong with kissing a woman, but when you kiss more the neighbour's wife than you kiss yours, then something's definitelly VERY wrong there).”
Your analogy assumes what you need to prove. You’ve given us no reason to believe that our view of interpretation is “kissing more the neighbor’s wife”. The fact that non-grammatical-historical interpretations have been used in the past, by Biblical authors or others, such as church fathers, doesn’t prove that non-grammatical-historical interpretation is “THE method”, for reasons I’ve explained.
The use of non-grammatical-historical interpretation doesn’t prove that the person who used it would place it in the same category as or above grammatical-historical interpretation. As I said earlier, people often distinguish between possible and probable implications of a passage. And a passage can be used to illustrate a point without that illustration being intended to carry the same weight as a grammatical-historical interpretation. The fact that a source uses non-grammatical-historical interpretations doesn’t tell us what status he assigns those interpretations relative to grammatical-historical interpretations.
And when an authority figure such as a prophet or apostle enters the discussion, we’re no longer discussing methods of interpretation alone. Rather, the authority of that authority figure is being added to the equation. It’s misleading to act as if the acceptance of that authority figure’s interpretations tells us how a method of interpretation should be viewed apart from that authority.
Jesus, the apostles, and the other authorities relevant to this discussion (authorities Evangelicals and Eastern Orthodox agree about) didn’t command us to interpret scripture in the manner you’ve advocated. Thus, we interpret scripture as we would any other historical document, which is what you do with the church fathers, ecumenical councils, etc. Your assumption that the use of non-grammatical-historical interpretations by the relevant authority figures would be equivalent to a suggestion that we should use the same sort of methodology, with your qualifications added to it (we have to follow particular creeds, etc.), is gratuitous. Since we have no way of verifying which post-Biblical non-grammatical-historical interpretations are correct, whereas the more objective nature of the grammatical-historical method allows for verification, it would make no sense to not distinguish between the two in the manner in which Evangelicals distinguish between them. Jesus and Paul were in a position to know about a secondary meaning of a passage of scripture or to impose such meanings on others by their authority. You’re not. Your denomination is not. Post-Biblical councils and theologians are not.
You write:
“As for equating not demanding worship like Jesus did with not using the same way of interpreting the Bible like He did, I can't help You out of it. It's up to You to either believe or disbelive what I say here; I just do what I *can* do, namely say these things to You, just maybe.”
If all you can do is state your position, without supporting argumentation, then you aren’t making an objective case for your position. You’re just asserting it. Why should anybody accept your assertions?
You write:
“Which fits with what I've told You in the same place (and which You've also denied), namely that Christianity was a creedal religion from its inception.”
The fact that early Christianity involved some creeds doesn’t prove that later creeds would have the same authority as earlier creeds that were supported by apostolic authority. You keep ignoring the difference between something done in apostolic times, with the support of apostolic authority, and something done by later figures with lesser authority. The fact that the apostle Paul supported creed X doesn’t necessarily give me reason to accept creed Y of Eastern Orthodoxy.
You write:
“Prot. also use the Creed (and they don't feel that they somehow subconsciously ‘bow down’ to the Orth. claims by doing that)”
Does your agreement with ancient Jewish statements of faith suggest that you should agree with modern Judaism on other issues as well?
You write:
“so I don't know what's possibly keeping You from using the same Creed to shape Your GHL-allegorical-typological interpretative method”
What’s “keeping me” from doing what you suggest is the fact that there’s no logical connection between the two activities you’re describing. My agreement with a creed doesn’t suggest that I should “use the same Creed to shape my GHL-allegorical-typological interpretative method”.
You write:
“You just stay within the Creed and then feel all the freedom to interpret things from all possible angles (and the Creed will also reveal to You the im-possible and un-permited or unallowed angles as well).”
That’s an assertion, not an argument. And the fact that an interpretation is consistent with a source of authority wouldn’t prove that the interpretation is correct. If one person claims that a passage in Galatians is an allegory about monotheism, and somebody else denies that it’s such an allegory, both interpretations are consistent with the doctrines of the creed you cited. But the interpretations are contradictory.
You write:
“The First Ecumenical Council does not need a typological or Christological interpretation: because it *IS* a Christological statement.”
That’s another assertion without a supporting argument. Why should we think that whether a source includes “Christological statements” is what tells us whether we should apply a non-grammatical-historical method of interpretation to that source? And what about the non-Christological-statement portions of Nicaea? Or the Christological statements in scripture?
You write:
“’God became man so that man might become God’ -- there's no spiritually-superior statement to that. If not even the fact that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us isn't enough to boost us spiritually and make us more spiritual people, then nothing else will.”
So, are you saying that scripture should have non-grammatical-historical interpretations applied to it, since it’s so unspiritual, whereas extra-Biblical sources like the ones you’ve cited are more spiritual and therefore don’t need to have non-grammatical-historical interpretations applied to them? If so, then that’s another example of your low view of scripture. It’s also another example of an assertion you’ve made without supporting argumentation. Why should we think that the Christology of Nicaea or the statement of Athanasius you’ve cited is unbiblical and more spiritual than the Bible?
ReplyDeleteYour entire long comment contains actually the same idea repeated in various wordings throughout ... and Peter Pike picks the same idea and uses it also repeatedly, and Gene does the same thing also. And that was my point when I left my first comment here, where I wrote the few lines that I wrote: there is a difference between Gnosticism and Christianity, and this difference lies not with the method: it lies in or with one's creed or faith or belief. Which fits with what I've told You in the same place (and which You've also denied), namely that Christianity was a creedal religion from its inception. Prot. also use the Creed (and they don't feel that they somehow subconsciously "bow down" to the Orth. claims by doing that), so I don't know what's possibly keeping You from using the same Creed to shape Your GHL-allegorical-typological interpretative method (which method is as Orth. as the Creed ... which You also use without being frustrated, so ... ).
Let the record first show the readers that Lvka has a penchant for not answering questions put to him. I asked several, and he has yet to reply to them.
What's keeping us from shaping our interpretations according to a creed? Answer: The creed is subordinate to its source material, Scripture.
We have no problem with creeds and confessions. We find them most useful, but their authority is subordinate to that of Scripture. It, and it alone, is infallible. That's our rule of faith. We've been over this before with you several times.
We're not "bowing down" to Orthodox claims, because the creeds to which you refer would be products of both the Eastern and Western arms of the Nicene and PostNicene eras. The claims would therefore not select for East or West. Is it your position that the churches of the West, the West from which Protestants descend, was under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchates of the East?
Of course, we're not acknowledgin the authority of any single church. We agree with those creeds insofar as Scripture agrees with them, or, as Jason says, do you bow the knee to Judaism when you acknowledge the OT?