Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Trick questions for Protestants

Bryan Cross has posted a dozen trick questions for Protestants. The form of a question tends to dictate the form of the answer. Bryan’s questions are laden with certain assumptions. Therefore, it’s not a matter of simply answering his questions. We really need to question his questions. To challenge the way he has chosen to cast the question. Here are his questions:

1. Whose determination of the canon of Scripture is authoritative? (If your answer is "the Scriptures testify to their own canonicity", then, since persons disagree about the content of this testimony, whose determination of the content of this testimony is authoritative?)

2. Whose interpretation of Scripture is authoritative? (Again, if your answer is "Scripture interprets Scripture", then, since persons disagree about the content of Scripture's interpretation of Scripture, whose determination of the Scripture's interpretation of Scripture is authoritative?)

3. Whose determination of the identity and extension of the Body of Christ is authoritative? (If you deny that Christ founded a visible Church, then skip this question.)

4. Whose determination of which councils are authoritative is authoritative? (If you deny that any Church councils are authoritative, then skip this question.)

5. Whose determination of the nature and existence of schism is authoritative?

6. Whose determination of the nature and extension of Holy Orders (i.e. valid ordination) is authoritative?

7. Whose determination of orthodoxy and heresy is authoritative? (If your answer is "Scripture", then go to question #2.)

8. If your answer to any of questions 1-7 is "the Holy Spirit", or "Jesus" or "the Apostles", then whose determination of what the Apostles, the Holy Spirit, or Jesus have determined is authoritative?

9. Given your answers to the above questions, how does your position avoid individualism and the perpetual fragmentation that necessarily accompanies it? (If your answer appeals to the "fundamentals of the faith" or the "essentials of the faith", then whose determination of what are "the essentials of the faith" is authoritative?)

10. Does not even nature teach you that a visible body needs a visible head? If so, then does grace therefore destroy nature, or does grace build upon nature?

11. Why do you think that your present [Protestant] pastor has more authority than the successor of St. Peter? In other words, why do you "obey" and "submit" (Hebrew 13:17) to your Protestant pastor rather than the successor of St. Peter?

12. Whose determination of the nature of "sola scriptura" is authoritative?


http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2008/01/questions-for-protestants.html

Notice a pattern? Every question is framed in terms of authority. That’s not explicit in #10, but you could argue that headship is also a question of authority. So that’s the recurring motif.

Indeed, Bryan said at the outset that “I'm drawing attention here to what I believe to be the fundamental, meta-level source of all the divisions between Christians: the issue of authority.”

You can’t answer his questions as he phrases them without buying into the assumptions which he has built into his questions.

Now, just because he thinks that authority is the “fundamental,” meta-level” issue doesn’t mean a Protestant would share his authoritarian paradigm. Of course, there is a generic sense in which the conflict with Rome comes down to an issue of authority: the authority of scripture over against the authority of the church. But this doesn’t mean that every specific question related to the conflict with Rome should be framed in terms of authority.

To see the problem, let’s rephrase a number of his questions:

1. Whose determination of the canon of Scripture is correct? Whose canon (e.g. Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Ethiopian) enjoys the best evidentiary support? E.g. internal and external attestation.

2. Whose interpretation of Scripture is correct? What’s the best method to arrive at the correct interpretation of Scripture? E.g. Allegorical method. Grammatico-historical method.

3. How does Scripture define the identity and extension of the church?

4. To what extent are councils true or false in light of Scripture?

5. How does the Bible distinguish between licit and illicit schism?

6. What does the Bible say about the qualifications for church office?

7. How does the Bible draw the lines between orthodoxy and heresy?

8. See #2.

9. Should we stipulate in advance of the fact what consequences ought to be avoided, and then construct a just-so story to avoid those consequences, or should we take our cue from how God has governed his people in the past?

10. Does not even nature teach you that a normal body has one head (e.g. Christ) rather than two heads (e.g. Christ and the Pope)? If so, then doesn’t Catholicism destroy nature by turning the church into a two-headed freak mutant?

11. How does the Bible describe and circumscribe the authority of a pastor?

12. Whose determination of the nature of "sola scriptura" is correct? How do we determine sola scriptura?

You only have to start rephrasing his questions to see how prejudicial his questions really are. He built the answer into the question. He’s trying to steer the Protestant towards a Catholic answer. But as soon as we recast his questions to eliminate the tendentious assumptions, then they no longer point in that direction. The original questionnaire was an exercise in rhetorical sleight-of-hand.

Why is he so fixated on the issue of authority? In responding to a commenter, he says: “Your position leaves us with no authoritative determination of what is orthodoxy and what is heresy. One man's orthodoxy is another man's heresy, and there is no one to provide the authoritative adjudication. If no one can provide the authoritative determination of orthodoxy and heresy, then we are left with theological relativism.”

I guess the point he’s getting at is that unless you have sufficient authority for what you believe, you can’t be sure of what you believe. But if that’s his concern, and if he converted to Catholicism because it supposedly offers a level of certainly unavailable to the Protestant, then he’s guilty of the very thing for which he faults the Protestant: "painting one's target around one's arrow."

He’s taking aim at theological relativism, then painting a target around his arrow. The Magisterium is the solution to theological relativism.

But there are several problems with that move:

i) You don’t achieve certainty by setting an artificial goal for yourself, then concocting an etiological fable which will conduct you to your goal. Just because he wants to avoid “individualism” or “fragmentation” doesn’t mean those consequences are, in fact, avoidable.

On the face of it, we live in a messy world. God could have made things far more neat and tidy, but he hasn’t chosen to do so. It’s futile to turn the church into a movie set where every street is clearly marked. We need to conform our doctrine of the church to the reality of the church.

ii) As a practical matter, Bryan’s alternative doesn’t achieve certainty. His appeal to apostolic succession is fraught with uncertainties every step of the way. For you would have to verify every link in the chain.

iii) There’s nothing wrong with probabilities as long as God is in control of the variables. I don’t have to be sure of everything as long as God is sure of everything, and I’m sure of God.

God didn’t give Abraham a roadmap when God called him out of Ur and set him on his journey. God guided Abraham every step of the way without posting road signs every step of the way.

Bryan is like a man who consults a psychic because he feels the need to see where he’s going before he takes the next step. But that is not how God leads his people. God sees the future, we don’t. But God takes us by the hand. We don’t need to see where we’re going as long as our divine guide will be our eyes and ears. That’s the walk of faith.

13 comments:

  1. Ah, the old "how often do you beat your wife?" tactic. Good to know that Catholics have no real option but to pursue the cheesiest debate strategies possible.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve,
    You charge Bryan with lading the questions with an assumed authority but many of your rephrased questions are also with an assumed authority at play. The assumption for you has changed but not your use of the issue of authority, which you chastise him for. You are yourself forcing answers to be given for questions which assume Sola Scriptura.

    Sola Scriptura can give you no more certainty in interpretation because it's based on personal scientific methodology which selects and evaluates it's own "internal and external" evidence.
    You say every link of evidence for succession needs to be proven for certainty, yet you only require probablility and not certainty when it comes to evidentiary proof from your side.
    All you seem to have done is found a different set of "probabilities" using a different assumed authority, and a different methodology.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "You only have to start rephrasing his questions to see how prejudicial his questions really are. He built the answer into the question. He’s trying to steer the Protestant towards a Catholic answer. But as soon as we recast his questions to eliminate the tendentious assumptions, then they no longer point in that direction. The original questionnaire was an exercise in rhetorical sleight-of-hand."

    Bingo! Well done Steve.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I might differ from both here, but my standard reply when confronted with Roman authority claims, is to refer them back to 1054. They cannot adequately explain that away - plus everything that led up to it. No need for endless, and they really are endless, arguments. But Bryan is correct in one way: All of Romanism hangs by one linchpin, and that is the supremacy of the authority of the pope. Marian arguments, purgatory - these things are all derivative. Otherwise Rome will have to turn back to Orthodoxy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Scylding, you said:
    "Otherwise Rome will have to turn back to Orthodoxy"

    That's Right.
    And I should make clear that I was not supporting Papal authority or Rome.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Speaking of Authority and the Roman Catholic Church, please see this 2 minute, 41 second video of a discussion between Pastor John MacArthur and practicing Roman Catholic. It's quite interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You are yourself forcing answers to be given for questions which assume Sola Scriptura.

    No, he's actually using a common point of reference.

    1. Is Scripture infallible or not? It's hardly a case of Protestants and others disagreeing over this, or do you think Rome believes Scripture isn't infallible? The Bible's authority isn't in dispute.

    The issue isn't the infallibility of Scripture, but the clarity thereof. Does the Bible or does it not teach a high Christology? Is it impossible to figure out the doctrine of the Trinity or a high Christology from the Bible?

    2. How is Magisterium more reliable or clearer than Scripture? It requires not an infallible Magisterium but an infallible recipient of the teaching for that to be the case, Canadian. Are you infallible? Is anybody infallible?

    3. Thus our argument here isn't that the Protestant rule of faith is superior to yours or theirs, but that it's (a) the true rule of faith and (b) on epistemic par with yours and theirs.

    Sola Scriptura can give you no more certainty in interpretation because it's based on personal scientific methodology which selects and evaluates it's own "internal and external" evidence.

    A. That's not the argument. Rather the argument is that our rules of faith are on epistemic par.
    b. Every recipient of Magisterial teaching must interpret its meaning too, so this objection doesn't get you where you wish to go.

    You say every link of evidence for succession needs to be proven for certainty, yet you only require probablility and not certainty when it comes to evidentiary proof from your side.

    Do try to follow the discussion. One of the standard arguments for the necessity of the Magisterium is that it is superior, clearer, and more certain than Sola Scriptura. So, when Steve or Jason or I say this, it's because we're casting it in their own terms, because Romanists cast the argument in terms of "certainty" are generating an argument that requires you to prove the line of succession with certainty as well.

    ReplyDelete
  8. CANADIAN SAID:

    “Steve,_You charge Bryan with lading the questions with an assumed authority but many of your rephrased questions are also with an assumed authority at play. The assumption for you has changed but not your use of the issue of authority, which you chastise him for. You are yourself forcing answers to be given for questions which assume Sola Scriptura.”

    You’re not paying attention. I said at the outset that “there is a generic sense in which the conflict with Rome comes down to an issue of authority: the authority of scripture over against the authority of the church.”

    So, at the level of an authoritative criterion, one’s authority source does figure in the dispute. But Bryan is talking about interpretive and/or teaching authority. He’s loading every question with that assumption. So he’s bringing authority into the debate at a different level. And it begs the question for him to frame every inquiry in terms of interpretive or teaching authority.

    “Sola Scriptura can give you no more certainty in interpretation because it's based on personal scientific methodology which selects and evaluates it's own ‘internal and external’ evidence. _You say every link of evidence for succession needs to be proven for certainty, yet you only require probability and not certainty when it comes to evidentiary proof from your side. _All you seem to have done is found a different set of ‘probabilities’ using a different assumed authority, and a different methodology.”

    Once again, you’re not paying attention. I’m answering Bryan on his own level. He’s the one who’s trying to frame every question as a question of one’s authority source because, apparently, he thinks that Magisterial authority warrants a higher degree of certainty than Scriptural authority alone. If, however, his own position is saddled with various uncertainties, then it confers no advantage over the Protestant alternative.

    Whether or not my own rule of faith is subject to the same objections is irrelevant to the immediate point at issue since I’m not operating with the same standard he is. I don’t have to be consistent with his standard since it’s not my standard. But it is a problem if he’s inconsistent with his own standard. And I’m not attempting, at the moment, to defend my own position, but merely to answer Bryan on his own terms.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "We don’t need to see where we’re going as long as our divine guide will be our eyes and ears. That’s the walk of faith."

    So, whatever is true is true by virtue of the fact that you believe it?

    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?

    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.

    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?

    ReplyDelete
  10. James provides another example of a Romanist pretending to be an atheist, in his presuppositions, when attacking Sola Scriptura.
    Read John 10, James. The voice of the shepherd.

    As for your question, here's a good place to start. Don't they use the word "exegesis" in your parish? Or is that a "Protestant word"?

    ReplyDelete
  11. 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.

    “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?”

    i) I have bigger fish to fry.

    ii) I’ve been busy posting on other things.

    iii) I don’t need to repeat myself every time a novice pops up.

    ReplyDelete
  12. My comments are interspersed.

    >Bryan Cross has posted a dozen >trick questions for Protestants. >The form of a question tends to >dictate >the form of the answer.

    The form of the Revelation tends to dictate the nature of the issues that arise from it.

    >Bryan’s questions are laden with >certain assumptions.

    Not assumptions, but prior conclusions based on the nature of the Revelation that we are discussing.

    >Notice a pattern? Every question >is framed in terms of authority. >That’s not explicit in #10, but >you >could argue that headship is >also a question of authority. So >that’s the recurring motif.

    That's because of the nature of the Revelation and the nature of the P-C dispute and the nature of how we know Revalation through other men and through history.

    >You can’t answer his questions as >he phrases them without buying >into the assumptions which he has >built into his questions.

    It is not about the questions, but about the nature of Revelation itself that we must get at here. There are things that are built into the nature of Revelation that cannot be avoided, especially when that Revelation comes to us through other men.

    >Now, just because he thinks that >authority is the “fundamental,” >meta-level” issue doesn’t mean a >Protestant would share his >authoritarian paradigm. Of course, >there is a generic sense in which >the >conflict with Rome comes down >to an issue of authority: the >authority of scripture over >against the >authority of the >church.

    This is a false dilemma. First, we do not have to choose between the authority of Scripture and the authority of the Church. We can have both. Second, there is not just the issue of how to relate the authority of Scripture to the authority of the Church, but, for Protestants, whether there even is an authoritative Church, and, if there is, what it is and where it is to be found. Third, if there is an authoritative Church, for Protestants, there is the issue of how the individual Protestant's authority relates to that authority. Some Protestants claim that Scripture is the ultimate authority and then claim themselves to be the final authority in interpreting Scripture and forming a theology based on it. Scripture is the final authority, not any Church, in one respect, but the individual is the final authority in interpreting Scripture, not the Church. That is one approach offered by some who work under the title of 'Protestant'. Others place themselves under the authority of other individuals who they judge to be superior to themselves with respect to such matters. Others think there is a general consensus that they should yield to. Others yield on some things, but not on others, suggesting that when they place a Church or group of people or organization over them, they will not always do so across the board. Lots of variations come to mind here.

    >But this doesn’t mean that every >specific question related to the >conflict with >Rome should be >framed in terms of authority.

    But this does not mean that authority can be brushed aside, regardless of matters of extension.

    >To see the problem, let’s >rephrase a number of his >questions:

    >1. Whose determination of the >canon of Scripture is correct? >Whose canon (e.g. Catholic, >Protestant, Orthodox, Ethiopian) >enjoys the best evidentiary >support? E.g. internal and >external attestation.

    Can the matter ever be settled without addresing the authority issue? Steve's approach would have to try to figure out what criteria to rely on and then which interpretation was really correct given that criteria. But the options are many, and many are reasonable.

    >2. Whose interpretation of >Scripture is correct? What’s the >best method to arrive at the >correct interpretation of >Scripture? E.g. Allegorical >method. Grammatico-historical >method.

    The focus of Cross' questions, for the most part, is on 'Whose determination' and 'Whose interpretation' we should rely on as authoritative. Steve relies on the same concepts here, but instead of focusing on a resolution in terms of authority, Steve wants to resolve the issues by by-passing authority, as though it does not matter. How could Steve ever determine whose interpretation is best? Would it always be his? Would he be the interpretational trump card or king instead of an authoritative church?

    >3. How does Scripture define the >identity and extension of the >church?

    >4. To what extent are councils >true or false in light of >Scripture?

    >5. How does the Bible distinguish >between licit and illicit schism?

    >6. What does the Bible say about >the qualifications for church >office?

    >7. How does the Bible draw the >lines between orthodoxy and >heresy?

    Regarding these questions, note that Steve is placing the Bible in one position of authority, but ignoring the fact that the Bible has to be interpreted, and can be interpreted authoritatively or non-authoritatively. But, if non-authoritatively, why should anyone believe Steve's interpretation over John's? The questions 'assume' or have concluded to the truth of perspicuity. They have also 'assumed' or concluded to the notion that the Bible gives answers to all of these questions. And, implicitly, I wonder if Steve is not assuming that the authority issue can be avoided.

    >8. See #2.

    >9. Should we stipulate in advance >of the fact what consequences >ought to be avoided, and then >construct a just-so story to >avoid those consequences, or >should we take our cue from how >God has governed his people in >the past?

    In the past, there was a Seat of Moses and there was an office of authority.

    >10. Does not even nature teach >you that a normal body has one >head (e.g. Christ) rather than >two heads (e.g. Christ and the >Pope)? If so, then doesn’t >Catholicism destroy nature by >turning the church into a two->headed freak mutant?

    But nature is full of heirarchical arrangements. Christ is the head, but that would not prevent Christ from offering a leader on earth as well. Different senses are at work in the term 'head' and so the analogy, which relies on the term 'head' being used in the same sense, fails.

    >11. How does the Bible describe >and circumscribe the authority of >a pastor?

    But the answer will be in the form of an interpretation of the Bible. It is at the level of interpretation that we must also deal with the issue of authority. So, 'whose interpretation' of the Bible best describes the Bible's stance on this issue?

    >12. Whose determination of the >nature of "sola scriptura" is >correct? How do we determine sola >scriptura?

    Here's another 'whose determination' question. 'Whose' has to do with who which has to do with a person, not a book. In fact, even the questions that Steve rephrases in terms of the Bible giving the answer rely on an interpretation of the Bible. But only a person can interpret the Bible and so we are back to the person category again, i.e., 'whose determination', 'whose interpretation'?, which is the form of most of Cross' questions. Steve could not avoid that form on several questions, and really cannot avoid it in the end, either.

    >You only have to start rephrasing >his questions to see how >prejudicial his questions really >are.

    It is not a matter of prejudice. It is a matter of the nature of Revelation and the nature of the P-C controversy.

    >He built the answer into the >question.

    What answer? How so? Questions regarding authority demand an answer about who the authority might be, if there is one. The same questions are built into Steve's questions, just hidden in some. That is because authority is critical when we talk about Revelation.

    >He’s trying to steer the >Protestant towards a Catholic >answer.

    He is trying to help people unite as Christians in the truth. That is important and we should all let unity weigh on our hearts, as well as love and truth. Truth should have priority over labels like 'Protestant' or 'Catholic', which are secondary. I think we sometimes do what Democrats and Republicans do. But we must remember that just as Democrats and Republicans are Americans first, we are Christians first. That means that we want the truth about Christ and want to live according to it, I hope.

    >But as soon as we recast his >questions to >eliminate the >tendentious assumptions, then >they no longer >point in that >direction. The original >questionnaire was an exercise in >rhetorical sleight-of-hand.

    Not at all. The nature of Revelation and the nature of the P-C controversy drive the questions in that direction. If the questions are not adequate to begin with, other questions will come up and eventually we will be back to the issue of interprational authority.

    >Why is he so fixated on the issue >of authority?

    'Fixatd' here is not charitable, as though there is something terribly wrong with him. He is focused on what is important based on an understanding of the nature of Revelation and the nature of the P-C controversy.

    >I guess the point he’s getting at >is that unless you have >sufficient authority for what you >believe, you can’t be sure of >what you believe.

    That is not the point. The nature of Revelation makes the issue of authority important. If there is no authority, the field is wide open with respect to what the Bible is, how to interpret it, and what theology should be drawn from it. That influences unity, recalling that Christ prayed for unity, and that unity is better than disunity.

    >But if that’s his concern, and if >he converted to Catholicism >because it supposedly offers a >level of >certainly unavailable >to the Protestant, then he’s >guilty of the very thing for >which he faults the >Protestant: "painting one's >target around one's arrow."

    Non sequitar.

    >He’s taking aim at theological >relativism, then painting a >target around his arrow.

    Non sequitar. He may be noting the theoretical and practical problems that arise when we do not grant an authority, and then concluding that this is good reason to think we should. But this is not an example of painting a target around his own arrow.

    >The Magisterium is the solution >to theological relativism.

    Well, it may be Christ's solution and it may be one that many are ignoring. Why would Christ not give us an authoritative Church? Why would He not give us an enduring guide along the way so that we are not left alone to decide all of this? The founding fathers did not just give us a Constitution and then leave us to do the rest. They also gave us a government with leaders along with the Constitution, a living tradition and a written document.

    >But there are several problems >with that move:

    That is not the move.

    >i) You don’t achieve certainty by >setting an artificial goal for >yourself, then concocting an >etiological >fable which will >conduct you to your goal. Just >because he wants to >avoid “individualism” or >“fragmentation” doesn’t mean >those consequences are, in fact, >avoidable.

    But if Christ did more than Protestants think in the form of a Church, the consequences are avoidable for those who will join the New Covenant Family of God and recognize what Christ instituted for us. This does not reduce to what this or that person wants in terms of unity. We have to consider what Christ wanted and what Christ started, himself and through the Apostles.

    >On the face of it, we live in a >messy world. God could have made >things far more neat and tidy, >but he >hasn’t chosen to do so. >It’s futile to turn the church >into a movie set where every >street is clearly >marked. We >need to conform our doctrine of >the church to the reality of the >church.

    God could have avoided making an institutional Church that would be opposed by so many. Those who do oppose it need to conform to it, though, even if they do not like it, instead of creating their own versions of it. See how this thinking goes both ways. Steve is implying that God did not make a certain arrangement, even though God very well might have, and Steve may simply be wrong about Him having done so.


    >ii) As a practical matter, >Bryan’s alternative doesn’t >achieve certainty. His appeal to >apostolic >succession is fraught >with uncertainties every step of >the way. For you would have to >verify every link >in the chain.

    I may be wrong, but I doubt Bryan Cross is trying for the type of certainty Steve is thinking of here. All of us have to make judgments about the Bible, about the Church, about whether there is authority, whether there is not authority, etc. We then have to make judgments about how to relate to that authority, if we think it exists. Our epistemological status at that level of judgment is one thing. Our status at another level, i.e., at the interpretational level once we submit to the authority of the Bible, or the Bible and the Church that canonized it, is another. It would seem to me that Bryan would, at least not be any worse off here.

    >iii) There’s nothing wrong with >probabilities as long as God is >in control of the variables. I >don’t have >to be sure of >everything as long as God is sure >of everything, and I’m sure of God.

    Anyone from just about any position could say this.

    >God didn’t give Abraham a roadmap >when God called him out of Ur and >set him on his journey. God >guided Abraham every step of the >way without posting road signs >every step of the way.

    But God can guide us in different ways and He could be guiding us through a Church that He started. If so, then we have a bunch of people trying to figure out a bunch of things under God's guidance, but are unwilling to go to the Church that God started for further help.

    >Bryan is like a man who consults >a psychic because he feels the >need to see where he’s going >before >he takes the next step.

    This is unfair. It compares the Church Christ started, if the Catholic Church is that Church, with a psychic, and compares those who are willing to walk in faith with Christ's Church to those who need to see where they are going before they take the next step. Further, I would say that if Christ did start an authoritative Church that such a Church can be thought of as a light to the world whereby we can know, broadly, where we should walk and boundaries which we should not cross over.

    >But that is not how God leads his >people. God sees the future, we >don’t. But >God takes us by the >hand. We don’t need to see where >we’re going as long as our divine >guide will be >our eyes and ears.

    But the Church may be the divine guide, along with the book it canonized. God has consistently guided us, in the Old and New Testaments, through other people, at least in part, even people with authority or an authoritative office.

    >That’s the walk of faith.

    But the walk of faith may have to do with walking in faith with the Church that Christ [and His Apostles] started, with that Church having an authority over the individual in matters of faith and morals. That could be the walk of faith that Christ really had in mind. Christ gave us the Apostles, not just a message and life. They gave us other leaders. They gave us other leaders. We know what is true about Christ because of those leaders. They are God's co-workers and they guide us, with the help of Christ, along the path. If those leaders are rejected, the entire field darkens and the path becomes just about whatever path a person wants it to be within the context of Scripture, with Scripture having to be interpreted and so not limiting the path by much. Instead of walking down a path with the help of Christ's Church, the person is walking through fields, with a lot of other people telling him which way to go and left to decide it all, every step of the way.

    God Bless,

    Eric

    ReplyDelete
  13. Steve,

    In response to another, you wrote:

    > I said at the outset that “there >is a generic sense in which the >conflict with Rome comes down to >an issue of authority: the >authority of scripture over >against the authority of the >church.”

    We do not have to choose between the authority of Scripture and the authority of the Church, as though this an either/or. The Bible itself tells us that the Church is the pillar and bullwark of truth. If we read any authority at all into that passage, we do not have to then put the Church above the Bible in any sense, necessarily, and especially not every sense. It could be that the Bible has more authority in one or more senses, while the Church has authority in other senses. It could be that they have complementary authority or some sort of co-authority. There are many logical possibilities here to consider.

    >So, at the level of an >authoritative criterion, one’s >authority source does figure in >the dispute.

    Yes. Whether one only accepts the Bible that the Church canonized or the Church and the Bible that the Church canonized will make a difference.

    > But Bryan is talking >about >interpretive and/or >teaching >authority. He’s loading >every >question with that >assumption. >So he’s bringing >authority into >the debate at a >different level. >And it begs the >question for him >to frame every >inquiry in terms >of interpretive >or teaching >authority.

    First, every question was not framed in terms of interpretive authority. Some were framed in terms of 'determination' of things outside the interpretation of Scripture. Second, there is no question being begged in the narrower context. The issue of authority is being brought in, but needs to be brought in at that level. Why? Because it is important. Why? B ecause the Bible has to be interpreted, and we have to decide how we relate to others at this level, some of whom may have a legitimate office of authority, others of whom do not, without just assuming that no one has any more authority than us at this level.

    Steve wrote:

    >Once again, you’re not paying >attention. I’m answering Bryan on >his own level. He’s the one who’s >trying to frame every question as >a question of one’s authority >source because, apparently, he >thinks that Magisterial authority >warrants a higher degree of >certainty than Scriptural >authority alone.

    No. It is not, at that level, a dispute between Magisterial authority and Scriptural authority for we are not talking about that level. We are talking about the level of interpretive authority and so the issue is between the interpretive authority of an individual lay Christian as compared to the interpretive authority of the Magisterium.

    At one level, we have to deal with the relation between an authoritative Church (if we grant one) and the authority of Scripture. At another level, we have to deal with the relation between the teaching office of an authoritative Church and the individual lay Christian.

    In Christ,
    Eric

    ReplyDelete