DAVE ARMSTRONG SAID:
“Then why are works always central in every discussion of the final judgment that I could find in Scripture (50 passages: linked to above)?”
1) Well, if you have to ask, then, presumably, you don’t think Scripture gives us any sort of explicit answer as to “why?” Therefore, we’re left to speculate.
Of course, any speculation must avoid contradicting what Scripture has revealed could not be the basis.
2) What possible functions do rewards serve?
i) To motivate
Rewards give people an incentive to be diligent and persevere.
Does this mean we deserve a reward? Is a reward proportionate to the performance?
If we use an award to motivate a 5-year-old, is the reward necessarily proportionate to the performance? Did he really earn it?
ii) To acknowledge excellence
An award or reward may be bestowed to publicly recognize that one thing is, in some sense, better than another. Take a beauty contest. Some women are prettier than others.
Does that represent something they merit? No. They were born that way.
Same thing with awards given to opera singers. They were born with a great voice.
By the same token, awards can also be handed out to acknowledge mediocrity or incompetence. Hell is the infernal equivalent of the Golden Raspberry Award, Golden Fleece Award, or Golden Turkey Awards.
Instead of the Hollywood Hall of Shame, it’s the Wormwood Hall of Shame.
3) If you think heavenly rewards are meritorious, then that makes you Pelagian.
“Why is this the case if God is supposedly wanting to completely separate any notion of works or acts from salvation itself?”
You’ve been corrected on this more than once. Salvation and justification aren’t synonymous concepts. You’re chronically unable to even accurately state the position you presume to critique.
“I agree with what C. S, Lewis said: asking one to choose between faith and works is as senseless as saying which blade of a pair of scissors is more important.”
That’s a simpleminded caricature of the issue. And it disregards some fundamental distinctions which the Bible treats as all-important:
Romans 4
1What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." 4Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
8blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin."
9Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
13For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
16That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17as it is written, "I have made you the father of many nations"—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. 18In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, "So shall your offspring be." 19He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead ( since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. 20No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, 21fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. 22That is why his faith was "counted to him as righteousness." 23But the words "it was counted to him" were not written for his sake alone, 24but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou are what you write.
ReplyDeleteDave,
ReplyDeleteSteve provided you with a rather cogent response. When you reply with "zzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZ" and what can only be described as whining, I have to assume you don't have anything intelligent to offer in return.
You could save us readers of Triablogue a good deal of trouble and simply not post these kinds of retorts. If you have nothing substantive to say, just don't say anything at all. (Or, better yet, admit as much.)
The other option is for me to just ignore whatever you write, as I suspect some readers of this blog have already done. I'm equally open to that option as well, should you decide to take the immature route.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Yet you want me to start interacting with a guy who thinks I am "evil" and who has a long history of mocking and unserious discussion?"
ReplyDeleteDon't look now, but you're already interacting....
Now Dave deletes all his posts in this thread. I'm glad he agrees with my take on their value.
ReplyDeleteNot at all. Paul warns about the foolish, vain discussion. I slipped and fell into it. It goes nowhere, so I have removed all of that. I can't even say Merry Christmas without a load of hogwash thrown my way. That's foolish discussion.
ReplyDeleteJason Engwer is the only person on the blog today who has acted normally, and hasn't issued insults, so I have retained my comments to him. That is an actual conversation (though not a debate per se). My last question (I'm awaiting an answer) was a simple, sincere one.
Dave said:
ReplyDelete---
Paul warns about the foolish, vain discussion. I slipped and fell into it.
---
Does your priest know you have this problem?
Yeah; the penance he assigned to me was the endurance of a day's worth of your puerile inanities. 25 minutes to go! YES!
ReplyDeleteBlasphemous as well... and they hold THIS up as something we should run to?
ReplyDeleteDave,
ReplyDeleteApparently, you misunderstood me. I was only trying to ensure you were a good Catholic.
Quote: If you think heavenly rewards are meritorious, then that makes you Pelagian.
ReplyDeleteThat's a false statement and likely a misunderstanding of what Pelagianism is. Look at what the Council of Orange (definitive on anti-Pelagianism) teaches:
"CANON 18. That grace is not preceded by merit. Recompense is due to good works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to be done."
This "gracious merit" view is very much the Catholic view, and it is anti-Pelagian by definition.
Lastly, I'm not sure why you quoted Romans 4, when it fully supports Catholic teaching. (in fact, Rom 4 so plainly and decisively contradicts Protestant teaching, notably Sola Fide, that I can't imagine why it would be appealed to in the first place)
oops, forgot to subscribe to comments
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, “Salvation and justification aren’t synonymous concepts.”
ReplyDeleteThe Apostle James writes, “What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith *save* him?”
From a Calvinist perspective, when James uses this word “save” in 2:14, is he referring to the Calvinist concept of justification, salvation, neither, or both?
NOBLE CREED SAID:
ReplyDelete"The Apostle James writes, 'What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith *save* him?'”
You're confusing Scriptural usage with the specialized usage of systematic theology or dogmatic theology. To take a pertinent example, both Catholicism and Protestantism use the same word for "justification," but they use it to denote very different concepts.
Nick said:
ReplyDelete---
Lastly, I'm not sure why you quoted Romans 4, when it fully supports Catholic teaching. (in fact, Rom 4 so plainly and decisively contradicts Protestant teaching, notably Sola Fide, that I can't imagine why it would be appealed to in the first place)
---
Do you have the Magisterium's official interpretation of Romans 4 for us, or are you using your own private interpretation to come to that conclusion?
Steve wrote, “You're confusing Scriptural usage with the specialized usage of systematic theology or dogmatic theology.”
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply. I’m asking the question so as to avoid confusing Scriptural usage with the specialized usage of Calvinist systematic or dogmatic theology.
From a Calvinist perspective, when James uses the word “save” in James 2:14, is he referring to the Calvinist concept of justification, salvation, neither, or both?
Peter,
ReplyDeleteI don't need a magisterial interpretation. The Magisterium lays down parameters of orthodoxy, it's job never was issuing interpretations and/or long drawn out commentaries on any given Scripture.
So called "private interpretation" only applies when a layman interprets Scripture authoritatively against the Church authorities. I'm not doing that. My interpretation of Rom 4 is within the parameters of orthodoxy which the Church has issued. The Church doesn't mind how I interpret any given Scripture, so long as it is not in such a way as to contradict a Dogma.
Nick said:
ReplyDelete---
I don't need a magisterial interpretation.
---
So you're your own pope. Got it.
Nick said:
---
The Magisterium lays down parameters of orthodoxy, it's job never was issuing interpretations and/or long drawn out commentaries on any given Scripture.
---
How exactly can the "parameters of orthodoxy" be established without interpreting and commenting upon Scripture?
More importantly, Protestant interpretations of Scripture are obviously no longer problematic for you, since you agree that the Catholic church has nowhere defined what Scripture means. Glad we got that out of the way.
Nick said:
---
So called "private interpretation" only applies when a layman interprets Scripture authoritatively against the Church authorities.
---
You already told us that interpreting Scripture is not the job of the Magisterium. How can a layman interpret Scripture against the interpretations of a non-existent Church authority's interpretation?
Nick said:
---
My interpretation of Rom 4 is within the parameters of orthodoxy which the Church has issued.
---
And where are these issued paramaters regarding Romans 4?
Nick said:
---
The Church doesn't mind how I interpret any given Scripture, so long as it is not in such a way as to contradict a Dogma.
---
Really? So I can interpret "In the beginning was the Word" as meaning that you should give alms to the poor, and the Church wouldn't mind that I interpreted Scripture that way becaue it doesn't contradict a Dogma?
NOBLE CREED SAID:
ReplyDelete"From a Calvinist perspective, when James uses the word 'save' in James 2:14, is he referring to the Calvinist concept of justification, salvation, neither, or both?"
Since McCartney is a Reformed exegete, and since we linked to his excursus, why don't you begin there?
Nick,
ReplyDeleteWhat happens if your interpretation of 'any given Scripture' contradicts Roman Catholic dogma?
Peter,
ReplyDeleteHow am I my own pope if I'm subject to the Magisterium? That's like saying a child is also their own parent when they are subject to their parents.
The parameters are established by taking Scriptural testimony into account. But you are not likely to find anything in the form of a verse-by-verse commentary, which is what you were speaking of when I mentioned Romans 4. Dogmas usually are built from multiple Scriptural texts (e.g. Christ's two natures), so it's easier to issue a dogmatic definition than it is to simply list/amass multiple texts. Taking the example of the teaching that Christ has two natures, I use that as a parameter when reading Scripture that I should never interpret any given passage that would lead me to deny that dogma. When it comes to subjects such as justification, the Decrees of Trent are an important place to consider, and would help guide my interpretation of Romans 4.
You said: Really? So I can interpret "In the beginning was the Word" as meaning that you should give alms to the poor, and the Church wouldn't mind that I interpreted Scripture that way becaue it doesn't contradict a Dogma?
Nick: The Church "wouldn't mind" in that it isn't the job of the Church to go chasing down every little thing. I would not be denying a dogma, so I wouldn't incur any canonical penalty, so the Church wouldn't spend the time going after it. That doesn't mean it's a good interpretation, and in your example it's not, but that's a different issue than private interpretation.
Andrew,
The answer to your question is that I've fallen into heresy, by definition.
Nick:
ReplyDelete---
How am I my own pope if I'm subject to the Magisterium?
---
Oh, so then the Magisterium *HAS* provided an interpretation for you. And that is, what, exactly?
Nick:
---
But you are not likely to find anything in the form of a verse-by-verse commentary, which is what you were speaking of when I mentioned Romans 4.
---
Oh, so the Magisterium does *NOT* provide an interpretation for you, and you must do it yourself, making you (as Catholics say of Protestants) your own pope.
Hmm.
Something seems a bit...
Nah.
Nick:
---
When it comes to subjects such as justification, the Decrees of Trent are an important place to consider, and would help guide my interpretation of Romans 4.
---
By what basis do you conclude that Romans 4 needs to be interpreted in light of Trent? Has Trent said, "This is how to interpret Romans 4" or are you assuming Romans 4 is talking about the same thing as Trent, and therefore Trent needs to be acknowledged? Wouldn't the latter imply that you must first interpret Romans 4 in order to see that it is dealing with justification before you then turned to Trent to see what the passage was "allowed" to say? That is, are you not pre-interpreting Romans 4 before you read Trent, which you then interpret to provide your interpretation of Romans 4?
If you have the ability to interpret Romans 4 enough on your own to see that it is speaking of the same thing as Trent, what need is Trent?
Nick:
---
The Church "wouldn't mind" in that it isn't the job of the Church to go chasing down every little thing.
---
So Biblical interpretations are just "little things" now. If the Church is so unconcerned with getting Biblical interpretations correct, just why the fat should I care what the Church says about how I can interpret it?
Nick:
---
That doesn't mean it's a good interpretation, and in your example it's not, but that's a different issue than private interpretation.
---
Bad interpretation = Who Cares? Private Interpretation = Damned Protestants.
Nick:
ReplyDelete---
That doesn't mean it's a good interpretation, and in your example it's not...
---
By the way, I should also add:
Did you check with your priest before determining that was a bad interpretation? Or did you use private judgement?
Peter,
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that you're not interested in trying to understand my position. I don't believe most of your last two posts would have been necessary had you addressed my example of how one would approach the dogma of Christ's two natures.
Jason Engwer is the only person on the blog today who has acted normally, and hasn't issued insults, so I have retained my comments to him.
ReplyDeleteAh, the mighty and moral DA. Recently he called David King "David King Tut" .... but then the mighty DA has the nerve to come over here to and complain of "insults."
DA, you are indeed, a strange man.
Nick,
ReplyDeleteWell that just shows that you don't understand the reason for which I ask my questions. Roman Catholics are quick to assure us that, as Protestants, we cannot rightly understand Scripture and that we must, therefore, retreat to the Church in order to know what any of it means. Yet the Church is horrendously silent, having not exegeted a single passage of Scripture and never proclaiming the infallible interpretation of anything. What benefit is it to say you have an infallible interpreter if the infallible interpreter is asleep on the job?
You stumble about for Church declarations, such as Trent, yet you are still unable to provide a link between the interpretation of any particular passage and the very council you claim provides guidance. That guidance is also pitiful in that (even according to you) it does not care to address such obviously erroneous statements as the example "interpretation" I gave. Apparently, your maxim is that anything goes in the service of Mother Church.
Yet even then you smuggle in hidden concepts that you've stolen from Protestants. You say that my interpretation is wrong, not because the Church has told you anything, but because you have read John 1:1. You used your private judgment, yet condemn those who disagree with you for doing the same thing. Why is it that the faculty that allows you to easily disregard my bogus interpretation of John 1:1 suddenly fails when we engage in any other kind of exegesis?
See, here's the part you've got to grasp. You've set up this entire hierarchy of a bureaucratic church complete with authorities you claim to submit to, yet then you fail to use it. You rely on your own interpretation of Scripture here--it is virtually impossible for you to have checked your responses with your priest before you commented back to me. And why should you? What could he possibly add to the conversation that you cannot do on your own?
So you claim to be under his authority, yet you behave exactly like a Protestant. You claim to need the Church to interpret Scripture, yet I would wager you've never in your life contacted the Vatican for help interpreting a single passage of Scripture. All the claims you made about Romans 4 were because you believe the system of Catholicism, not because you asked and they told you, "Respond thus."
There is no manual on how to interpret Scripture--you've said so yourself. The Magisterium isn't interested in that sort of thing. Therefore, you're on your own, but you pretend you're not.
I'm just trying to get you to see that by the very act of you engaging in dialogue here, you've already abandoned your Catholic presuppositions.
I am not aware of anyplace where the Church teaches when it comes to Scripture we cannot know "what any of it means." The Scriptures are generally plain - though some parts are difficult and/or disputed, and here is where the Church steps in. The infallible interpreter is not "asleep on the job," it's job was never to give a verse-by-verse exegesis of the Bible anymore than it's job was to get a Bible in the hand of every believer. Those things are good, but not essential.
ReplyDeleteYou're arguing against a phantom, against a sort of agnostic approach where the Catholic can't know anything without the Church specifically and explicitly stating it (and even that that decree is unintelligible). That's not the Catholic position.
As for your John 1:1 example, you're not differentiating between a doctrinal error and other types of errors (fallacy, misreading, misunderstanding, etc). If I read "in the Beginning was the Word" and I think that's Microsoft Word, without intending to deny Jesus is the Word, that's not a doctrinal error. It's a error of another non-soteriological sort, a basic misunderstanding. You might as well condemn someone for not knowing how to pronounce some of those fancy OT names that some translations break down to be able to pronounce. It's the same principle, an error in reading, but not in denying a doctrine.
Nick said:
ReplyDelete---
The Scriptures are generally plain - though some parts are difficult and/or disputed, and here is where the Church steps in.
---
Except by your own admission, the Church doesn't step in at all. Name even one verse of which the Magisterium has given an infallible interpretation.
I agree that Scripture is generally quite easy to read and understand, and it is for that reason that an infallible interpreter of Scripture is superfluous. And while there are some difficult passages of Scripture, those are not in places that would alter what you call Dogma anyway.
Of course, to be clear you must disagree and assert that there are all kinds of texts relating to Dogma that are difficult to understand. But this is because Catholics have a habit of poorly proof-texting arguments, which require them to force texts to mean something against the obvious plain meaning of the text. This causes "difficulties" for you in terms of interpretation, but it's not a difficulty at all for the Protestant. But I note that despite those difficulties, your precious Magisterium *STILL* has not given an infallible interpretation of even those passages. So what's a Catholic to do?
Nick said:
---
You're arguing against a phantom, against a sort of agnostic approach where the Catholic can't know anything without the Church specifically and explicitly stating it (and even that that decree is unintelligible). That's not the Catholic position.
---
Why don't I hear you rebuking your fellow e-pologists then? They continually claim that Protestants cannot correctly understand Scripture without an infallible interpreter. They continually make the claim that the Catholic church is better because it has the certainty of said infallible interpreter. Yet so far in our discussion you've managed to jettison the entirety of the Magisterium's role in interpreting Scripture, claiming that's not its role and saying that you're perfectly capable of doing it on your own. All of which are precisely what Protestants argue.
Why, then, do you need the Magisterium? What does it accomplish?
Nick said:
ReplyDelete---
If I read "in the Beginning was the Word" and I think that's Microsoft Word, without intending to deny Jesus is the Word, that's not a doctrinal error.
---
Yes it is. For one thing, it would be impossible to say John 1:1 refers to Microsoft Word without simultaneously denying Jesus is the Word mentioned in John 1:1, or without believing that Jesus and Microsoft Word are one and the same--both of which happen to be doctrinal errors.
Further, this is not the same type of error as mispronouncing an OT name. In the case of mispronouncing a name, the object remains the same even if the label is different. Thus, you could logically use simple substitution and not change the meaning (for example, you could do find and replace and change all instances of "Jesus" to "Fred" and that would not change doctrine because the object is what is important, not the label). This is vastly different from when you change the object--that is, when John 1:1 no longer refers to the object Jesus Christ, 2nd Person of the Trinity, but now refers to the object of computer software.
Jesus Christ, as the second person of the Trinity, can be called Jesu, Yeshua, etc., but He cannot become a computer program.
And yes, this does have sotereological ramifications. After all, Mormons hold to the same label as Christians, but the object that is Jesus is vastly different; they believe in a false Christ. The same would be true if you believed your software was God.
I bring this up because I was careful with my example to avoid the error you made above when I
"misread" it as giving alms to the poor. The reason I was careful was to give you the benefit of the doubt when you claimed the Magisterium wouldn't concern itself with errors that didn't affect Dogma. But your example most certainly does affect Dogma, so if you insist that the Magisterium would have no problem with you misreading John 1:1 as referring to Microsoft Word because that kind of error is no big deal, then not only is the Magisterium asleep on the job, but they're comatose.
Nick said: "The Scriptures are generally plain - though some parts are difficult and/or disputed, and here is where the Church steps in."
ReplyDeleteWho decides what is and is not plain? If you're not having trouble understanding Romans 4, but another RC is, is Romans 4 plain or not - or is plainness relative?
Peter,
ReplyDeleteYou asked for one verse that the Magisterium has infallibly interpreted. Here is an example from Trent, Session 24:
"The perpetual and indissoluble bond of matrimony was expressed by the first parent of the human race, when, under the influence of the divine Spirit, he said: [1] But that by this bond two only are united and joined together, Christ the Lord taught more plainly when referring to those last words as having been spoken by God, He said: [2] and immediately ratified the firmness of the bond so long ago proclaimed by Adam with these words: [3]"
Here the Church infallibly states these (parallel) passages signify marriage is indissoluble (i.e. divorce and remarriage is impossible and sinful). Now, I believe the Biblical evidence is pretty clear that marriage is indissoluble, and John Piper even came to this realization through careful exegesis:
http://tinyurl.com/ydje2v
The problem is, many other Protestants are not convinced by the (clear) Biblical evidence, and in fact teach divorce and remarriage are allowed (even the Westminster Confession allows divorce).
The issue at stake here is nothing short of adultery, and yet various groups appealing to Scripture cannot agree on whether it's adultery or not. This is a good example where the Church steps in and formally defines something. The difference between the Catholic Church and the Protestant church is that for Catholics the matter is settled, while for Protestants the doctrine is relative to what the pastor thinks. Regardless of how solid John Piper's exegesis is, other Protestants wont accept it and instead believe Scripture allows divorce and remarriage.
As for the issue of e-pologists making that claim: if they do, they're wrong. The issue isn't that none of the Scripture can be understood, but rather that when there is a dispute the Church is necessary to resolve it.
And you're overthinking my John 1:1 example. Regardless of how badly one butchers the text, so long as it's not done maliciously, with the intent of denying Christ's Divinity, it's not heresy but misunderstanding. The Church is not saying it's ok or it's no big deal, the Church just doesn't have the time/resources to go correcting every single possible misunderstanding.
Ryan,
The subject of 'perspicuity' of Scripture is admittedly elastic, just as it is in Protestantism. There are two extremes which need to be avoided - saying Scripture cannot be understood at all versus all Scripture is easily understood - and both sides agree the 'balance' is that *most* of Scripture is easily understood. How much "most" is is hard to define, and is often largely dependent upon how well educated in Scripture one is.
Someone who studies a passage more than another is going to have a better understanding that one who reads it for the first time. In this sense, Scripture could be 'plain' but doesn't mean a beginning reader is going to get it (it isn't 'plain' to them immediately). Other texts could be easily understood upon the first reading of them, which is the most 'plain' a passage can possibly be. So it is 'relative' in that sense. Some passages are difficult to understand (2 Pt 3:16), so they are not as plain by definition.
Nick said:
ReplyDelete---
You asked for one verse that the Magisterium has infallibly interpreted. Here is an example from Trent, Session 24
---
Trent is not interpreting Scripture there (at least, not what you quoted); they are applying Scripture as a proof-text for their argument. There is a difference. Interpreting Scripture starts with Scripture and says, "This is what Scripture means." Proof-texting starts with the idea you wish to prove correct and says, "This Scripture shows my idea is correct."
I will have more to say later, but for now I need to run.
I don't see a difference, in the end, with your distinction. One cannot apply something as a proof text without saying this passage means X.
ReplyDeleteTrent listed passages and said they meant marriage was indissoluble, that's interpreting them.
Perhaps you could give a concrete example where one can proof-text without interpreting the passage.
Nick wrote: "Someone who studies a passage more than another is going to have a better understanding that one who reads it for the first time."
ReplyDeleteSo if many things still remain abstruse to many, this does not arise from obscurity in the Scriptures, but from their own blindness or want of understanding, who do not go the way to see the all-perfect clearness of the truth?
I don't see a difference, in the end, with your distinction. One cannot apply something as a proof text without saying this passage means X.
ReplyDeleteTrent listed passages and said they meant marriage was indissoluble, that's interpreting them.
Perhaps you could give a concrete example where one can proof-text without interpreting the passage.
In those centuries, texts were listed in confessional documents with the known distinction between prooftexting and exegesis. More often than not, this was done tbecause the exegesis was assumed to be known by the reader and documented elsewhere. What is being asked of you is an infallible exegesis of these texts that documents the use of them ala Trent. Just becaus Trent refers to them, it does not follow Trent exegeted them. All you have provided is an instance of infallible prooftexting. Where's the exegesis? How can we be assured that this these texts mean what Trent prooftexted?
Prooftexting and exegesis are no convertible. Are you so simpleminded that you don't understand this?
Nick said:
ReplyDelete---
I don't see a difference, in the end, with your distinction. One cannot apply something as a proof text without saying this passage means X.
---
When I responded, I thought you might say that, and I wish I could have said more at that time but I was up against a meeting. In the meantime, Gene's helped with a little clarification too which should help as well.
There is a simple difference between interpreting a passage and prooftexting a passage. Interpretation does involve exegesis; you are trying to pull out the entire meaning of a text. In prooftexting, at best you are not interested in the entirety of the passage, but you are only interested in what it says as it relates to a specific issue. At worst (which is unfortunately how most people do it) it is simply quoting a passage that sounds similar to your topic without bothering to explain how it relates.
To give an analogy, suppose we take a passage (X) and it contains concepts A, B, and C in the verse. Correctly interpreting the passage would be to say: "Passage X means A, B, and C."
But suppose you are looking at verses that talk about C. In that case, you can say "We find C in places such as Passage X." That is not an interpretation of Passage X, because you are ignoring the content of A & B, focusing only on C. This is, however, a prooftext for C.
Now there is nothing wrong with prooftexting, as long as the concept being prooftexted really is present in the passage. As a Presbyterian who holds ot the WCF, I fully acknowledge that the WCF uses prooftexts and does not interpret Scripture.
Now, is there some level of interpretation involved in prooftexting? Certainly, but it is not a detailed interpretation at all. In your example, Trent doesn't care anything about the statement of Adam in Genesis other than to the extent by which it applies to their belief that marriage is "perpetual and indissoluble." Yet Adam's statement was more than that, even if Trent's understanding turned out correct. Thus, Trent doesn't interpret Adam's statement, but rather focuses on one part of it and prooftexts it to their argument.
[Incidently, I wonder how Trent (and by extention, you) would deal with Matthew 1:19, which states: "...her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly"...but this is an aside.]
Finally, one other aspect must be looked at. Even if we grant you everything and say Trent did infallibly interpret Adam's statement in Genesis, you do realize that divorce is not a 100% universal, right? That is, while there may be a large number of people who get divorce, there are also a large number of people who never do.
On the other hand, justification is relevant to every single person. Why, then, if the Magisterium has such limited time and resources that it cannot engage in all the errors, do they focus on an issue that affects only part of humanity while ignoring an issue that affects every single person? Wouldn't it be a better use of time for the Magisterium to infallibly interpret Romans 4 and James 2, rather than infallibly interpreting Genesis 1 & 2?
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteThere are too many things to factor into your question for me to be able to give a sufficient answer. Nor do I have the time to go off on tangents like that. As I said, the notion of perspicuity is affirmed, but admittedly elastic. If someone fails to understand a given verse, it could be due to multiple factors, including but not limited to (1) the verse is not perspicuous or (2) they are not studied enough.
Gene and Peter,
Based on what you've said, I will revise my answer and say I don't know where the Church has ever exegeted a passage. But I don't see what the big deal is. Proof-texting is fine, because often only certain truths are relevant and not the entire meaning of any given passage.
As for the issue of Joseph and divorce (only in Matt 1:19), that's why the divorce accounts in Matt include the exception clause. But if you read John Piper's fine exegesis, he notes this and shows Joseph was betrothed to Mary, which isn't quite marriage but more significant than our modern notion of engagement.
Lastly, your claim that since divorce isn't a universal that is somehow less important is irrelevant to my point that sometimes the Church needs to step in and formally define things like this. Adultery is a grave sin and there are unfortunately many Christians engaging in it due to not following Scripture in this regard. And the amount of time Trent spent dealing with this divorce issue was minuscule compared to the amount of time spent on the Decree on Justification.
Nick said:
ReplyDelete---
Proof-texting is fine, because often only certain truths are relevant and not the entire meaning of any given passage.
---
Yes, I had alluded to that when I mentioned how the WCF uses prooftexts. However, you miss the larger picture. The Catholic claim is that we have an infallible interpreter of Scripture to fall back on to avoid confusion and error, yet the best that the Magisterium has ever done is prooftexting.
Put it this way: the canon of Scripture has been closed for at least 1900 years now insofar as Catholics and Protestants both agree no new Scripture is being written. In that time, controversies have come and gone throughout Church history. Yet never, in all that time, has a single pope or council decided that it might benefit believers to infallibly interpret even one book of Scripture.
Of course, a large reason for that is because as soon as an infallible interpretation is put forth, we'd require an infallible interpretation of the infallible interpretation. Which means the existence of such infallible interpretations would disprove the necessity of the aforementioned infallible interpretations. (See my next comment for an example.)
So the Church really does have a vested interest in saying they are infallible interpreters of Scripture without actually ever doing infallible interpretation.
Nick said:
---
Lastly, your claim that since divorce isn't a universal that is somehow less important is irrelevant to my point that sometimes the Church needs to step in and formally define things like this.
---
It is relevant in that it shows the church places an emphasis on minutia rather than on something that would be meaningful.
Nick said:
---
And the amount of time Trent spent dealing with this divorce issue was minuscule compared to the amount of time spent on the Decree on Justification.
---
So why didn't you show me where Trent gave an infallible interpretation of Romans 4 or James 2? I'm responding to your statements, after all.
To give an example of why we need infallible interpretations of infallible interpretations of Scripture, consider Canon VI from the same session (24) that Nick has already referenced. Namely:
ReplyDelete---
CANON VI.-If any one saith, that matrimony contracted, but not consummated, is not dissolved by the solemn profession of religion by one of the married parties; let him be anathema.
---
Follow the negatives in that sentence and tell me what it means. Remember, this was the infallible council trying to clarify the issue for us.
My reading of the above is that it says: if someone goes through a sacrament of marriage, takes his vows before the priest, the congregation, and God Himself, BUT who, before the wedding night bliss, says, "I solomly profess religion," he is perfectly fine and the marriage is void; but if anyone says in response to him, "Your marriage vows are still in effect" that man who claims the vows are in effect is anathema.
In short, Trent is saying there's a probation period from the time you get hitched at church to the time you have sex, during which a man (or woman) can violate his vows with impugnity.