A couple threads ago, I questioned how, in lieu of a Church hierarchy, one determines what Scripture means or what reference one is to use when checking one's interpretation of Scripture for accuracy. I never did get a response. Is that because there is no such reference, or that the references vary, depending on mood?
Oh, for the Blessed Mother's sake, how shall we ever answer this?
1. Global skepticism cuts both ways.
2. Try "exegesis," as Rhology said...and just to drive the point home...
a. The GHM doesn't select for any particular theological tradition. But, hey, if you have an alternative, by all means tell us all about it.
b. The results of using the GHM are often not the issue among Protestants. As we've demonstrated many times on this blog, for example in interacting with Arminians, the issue isn't the exegesis itself, but the aprioristic commitments the ones reading it have. In the case of the Arminians, their own theologians admit they are committed to libertarian freedom and concepts of God's love. These two presuppositions feed into each other and affect their exegesis. We know this, because when we ask where Scripture teaches LFW, they can't answer. They admit to assuming it. By way of contrast, the Reformed don't do that.
c. Some conflicts, as over Presbyterian and Baptist views of baptism, are actually instances of different views of ecclesiology. We Baptists enjoy bringing that to the attention of our Presbyterian brothers to no end. On the other hand, some of us are willing to stipulate that the Bible lays out a basic eccelesiology for the NT churches internally but not much with respect to their external relations. In that event, the differences between us are over certain points that each side believes (or denies) extend from one covenant administration (Abrahamic) to another (New Covenant). That's a function of certain inferences that are often made by each side.
d. Liberal and conservative exegesis rarely differs at all. In that case, the difference lies not in the result of the work but the authority each side gives it.
e. Some differences between us, as over eschatology with respect to Dispensationalism and Covenantalism, are a result of using a "literal" hermeneutic vs. a Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutic. So, in that event, the differences in result are methodological.
3. You have clear ideas, as Steve said; are you incapable apart from Mommy Church, to adjudicate who has the better argument? Has Roman Catholicism killed that many brain cells? Must be something in the sacramental wine.
4. Where does Scripture teach the need for an infallible Magisterium? Don't cite the Scriptures, provide a full argument and accompanying exegesis. Let's see how long it will take you to realize that doing that is usually a vicious regress for the Roman Catholic.
5. Don't you have to interpret papal decrees, dogmas, and other "tradition?" How is it they are clear but Scripture isn't? Commenters like you, James, should stop and think for a minute that when you make that claim, you're insulting the Spirit of God. He can't be clear or is intentionally obscure, but Rome - and nobody else - is. Steve was right - whereas Christ is the one Head of the Church, you turn the Church into a freak, 2 headed mutant beast. Given the number of addresses for the Magisterium in Dulles' book, this makes me truly wonder if the multi-headed dragon in the Bible is, indeed, the Roman Communion after all.
6. Apropos 5, are you infallible? No. You can't get infallibility to jump from the speaker/teacher/book from the mouth or page. To attain the level of certainty you seem to want means you need to be infallible as well. Why is it that Roman Catholics don't bother to consider that fundamental concept?
7. So, it seems to me that, as Steve noted elsewhere Catholic piety isn't just a recipe for nominalistic, superficial piety, its a recipe for stunted Christian growth and understanding. Most of them on the 'net strike me as no better than the general population of the Baptistboard, where they cite but rarely exegete Scripture, and when they do, the assume what they need to prove.
"Try "exegesis," as Rhology said"
ReplyDeleteYou take much for granted, and you act as if a true exegesis is possible. I'm not so sure. You never met St. Paul. You were born in the 20th century, in a culture that was influenced by multiple religious and ethnic traditions. How are you going to ascertain the truth of what Scripture means and what the authors intended? How are you going to grasp it? What tools are you using?
You take much for granted, and you act as if a true exegesis is possible. I'm not so sure.
ReplyDeleteApparently, you were able to exegete my comments correctly. You didn't require a Magisterium to interpret them for you.
You're the one placing an infallibilist constraint on knowledge. Where's the supporting argument?
You never met St. Paul.
You've never met Thomas Aquinas. You've never met me. Yet you can understand me, it seems, clearly enough to respond. Yet you're claiming global skepticism. Apparently you haven't considered that your objection, if true, cuts both ways.
You were born in the 20th century, in a culture that was influenced by multiple religious and ethnic traditions.
Grammatical-historical exegesis doesn't select for a given outcome.It also makes allowances for these sorts of differences. You might want to familarize yourself with the GHM. By the way, it isn't as if the GHM is alien to Catholicism. Read a modern RC commentary.
How are you going to ascertain the truth of what Scripture means and what the authors intended?How are you going to grasp it? What tools are you using?
1. I've already answered that. When I point you to the GHM, I assume you'll know what that is.
2. Apropos 1, there are 3952 articles on this website. You can avail yourself of the archives. We don't have to reinvent the wheel for ever commenter on this blog. Read what we've written, and then come back here.
3.How do you ascertain the truth of what anybody, including yourself, writes and what the author intends?How are you going to grasp it? What tools are you using?
What's your alternative if you disagree with the GHM? I'm so tired of complaints from skeptics, POMO's, and Catholics on this issue. You complain but offer no alternative.
You chose to frame this in terms of a Church hierarchy, remember. So...
Presumably then you think the Magisterium eliminates uncertainty. Where's the supporting argument? How does that work, James? Are you infallible? Is the Magisterium more clear than Scripture?
I guess I'll have to post part of Steve's response to you in the other thread so you can figure it out:
JAMES SAID:
“So, whatever is true is true by virtue of the fact that you believe it?”
Of course, that doesn’t follow from anything I said. Try again.
“And how are we to know that you haven't been deceived or lied to, that you aren't confused or simply misinformed when formulating your theology? Why should we believe that your ‘guidance’ isn't your own ego?”
If you’re going to play the global sceptic, then you cut yourself off at the knees in the process.
“You're entitled to your opinion about what you think is the reality about your God, but I think a bit more humility is in order: the heretic and apostate labels are used a bit too easily here.”
Your mock humility is a mere pretense. You clearly have very definite views about what is true and false in religion. Try not to be such a transparent poseur.
James,
ReplyDeleteYour objection is fallacious. In order to demonstrate that we cannot know what Paul meant, you have to be able to know what Paul meant. Allow me to use an example.
Suppose I say, "te amo" means "I love you" in Spanish. You respond: "You cannot know what it means in Spanish. No one can." How can you substantiate that claim? If you do not know Spanish, your assertion is worthless. On the other hand, if you do know Spanish, your claim is self-refuting.
So let us step back. Instead of Spanish, we're dealing with Koine Greek. Either it is possible to know what Paul meant by translating the Greek or you cannot substantiate that we got it wrong.
The fact of the matter is that exegesis of old texts is not any more difficult than exegeting a blog post today. Languages are based on objective reality; therefore, translations are valid. Every human experiences a great degree of similar body functions, emotions, and environments. Cultures are not as radically different as you assert. If they were, no one could ever learn a foreign language, nor could anyone ever communicate outside his own sphere.
It is therefore not enough for you to say that we may be mistaken about what Paul believed. You have to show us that we are mistaken about what Paul believed. But you cannot provide that while remaining consistent with your bias.
Like I was saying, James, you're acting like an atheist.
ReplyDeleteHey, maybe we've identified the next Touchstone! Let The Lofty One know!
Oh, for the Blessed Mother's sake
ReplyDeleteBlasphemy!
:)
Suppose I say, "te amo" means "I love you" in Spanish. You respond: "You cannot know what it means in Spanish. No one can." How can you substantiate that claim? If you do not know Spanish, your assertion is worthless. On the other hand, if you do know Spanish, your claim is self-refuting.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that I can't know what the words themselves imply but that I can't ascertain what the speaker thinks it means.
Perhaps the speaker perceives love as some sort of lusty, smothering and possessive sort of relationship . I'd have no way of knowing that from merely their words.
In that case, I certainly don't wan t their love if that's what it means.
So, too, with Scripture. I can gather a meaning of a particular passage, but its meaning is what it is to me. It's not necessarily the meaning as the author thought or intended.
This seems self-evident.
So, too, with a papal encyclical or conciliar statement. I can gather a meaning of a particular passage, but its meaning is what it is to me. It's not necessarily the meaning as the Pope, Magisterial author, or Council thought or intended.
ReplyDeleteThis seems self-evident.
...
Or, we could drop the false and one-sided, question-begging skepticism and engage in exegesis.