Note too that (in
my last post) Jaki has to rely on the time-worn canard that Roman Catholics
are always pulling out of their hats, a perpetual excuse for not having to
respond to the substance of Protestant arguments. Recall that Cullmann, complained
that, upon publication of his work on Peter, that the
typical Roman Catholic response was not to address the work directly, but
rather he noted that “One argument especially is brought forward: scripture, a
collection of books, is not sufficient to actualize for us the divine
revelation granted to the apostles. (Oscar Cullmann, “The Early Church,”
London: SCM Press LTD., pg 57
But by erecting a chasm between the
apostolic and the postapostolic church, it undercut the consistency of the
times of all Christians, Catholic and Protestant, with the Church founded by
Christ on the apostles. Among those ties is the New Testament itself as a
document whose divinely inspired character can be assured only by a Church
teaching in the name of Christ. (Jaki, “And On This Rock”, pg 40)
This is a tactic for which I have almost no patience any
more, and quite a bit of disdain. In our day, Protestants may point to Kruger’s
work “Canon
Revisited”, as providing a most thorough response to this age-old
accusation.
Again ... no fan of Catholicism here but regarding Sola Scriptura:
ReplyDeleteIf all that was needed to understand Scripture was Scripture, why bother going to seminary, reading Calvin or taking any religious instruction from any pastor whatsoever?
Even if it's because we require contextual or historical knowledge to better understand the meaning of Scripture or to gain a more comprehensive knowledge of complex theological subjects, that would have to imply that we are using knowledge outside of Scripture itself.
We are relying on both the thoughts and fact-finding of people who have come before us, whether it's the Reformers, translators or even an archeologist. These, too, are part of Christian tradition. The only difference is that these traditions (small-t) do not come with a stamp of authority given by men wearing very tall, very fancy hats.
James said...
ReplyDelete"...regarding Sola Scriptura: If all that was needed to understand Scripture was Scripture, why bother going to seminary, reading Calvin or taking any religious instruction from any pastor whatsoever?"
That's a caricature of sola Scriptura.
The only difference is that these traditions (small-t) do not come with a stamp of authority given by men wearing very tall, very fancy hats.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the Reformers, they do have the advantage of having been thought through by primarily Godly men.