Monday, May 11, 2015

“How do you know?”

It is said:

“The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the [Roman Catholic] Church alone” – quoting CCC 85.

In light of recent blog posts of mine that repeat statements to the effect that “The [Roman Catholic] Church is founded on the Word Incarnate, that is, on a divinely revealed truth” and that Rome, and Rome alone, can define “true biblical faith”, it’s important to look at these presuppositions on the part of the Roman “Church”, and to talk about how such a happy situation [not!] may have come about.

The question of “how do you know?” comes up frequently. It’s a question that is at the heart of Rome’s dismissal of Sola Scriptura, and at the same time, it appears to be at the heart of its own claims for authority.

I’ve been reading through Richard Muller’s “Post Reformation Reformed Theology”. His “Volume 1: Prolegomena”, discusses how the Reformed Orthodox (those writers in the period following the Reformation) thought about their task of understanding God and theology.

Writers from this period genuinely thought about that question, and went to great lengths to respond properly to it.

One of the key distinctions that Muller emphasizes, from the theology of this period is the distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology, which may be stated as: “theology that God knows” and “theology as it is communicated to human beings”. There are many finder distinctions within those two areas, but in general, this major distinction manifests itself this way:

the idea of archetypal and ectypal theology reflects the anthropological doctrine of the imago Dei and, by extension, must also reflect the soteriological problem of the fall and the profound damage inflicted on the imago.

Muller, R. A. (2003). Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise And Development Of Reformed Orthodoxy; Volume 1: Prolegomena To Theology (2nd Ed., P. 237). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

“How” do we know? “What” is it that we actually know? Before I go into the details, here is Muller’s summary response to the question of “the parts and divisions of theology”:

… knowledge of God, reaching from a pure and direct communicated theology of revelation prior to the fall, to a theology after the fall under sin and under grace, to a final visionary theology of the blessed, is designed to mirror the states and therefore also the needs of human beings on their way to redemption and the kingdom of God [pre-fall, fallen man, and fallen man under grace].

The resemblance between this model for understanding Christian doctrine and identifying the nature of theological teaching in our present human condition and the covenantal or federal model for understanding the history of salvation is hardly accidental—nor is the contemporaneous rise of both of these models in early orthodox Reformed theology.

Even the concept of an ultimate archetypal theology points toward this covenantal model, given the identification of theologia archetypa not with the infinite divine knowledge of the Godhead and of all possibilities or even with the voluntary divine knowledge of all actuality, but with the perfect divine knowledge of the entire plan of salvation. Without pressing the point too far, there is a distinct resemblance between the theologia archetypa and the pactum salutis—indeed, historically, the former anticipates the latter.

Once again, [these] prolegomena provide the presuppositions for the system and the proper guide to the interpretation of the system. Specifically, they point us toward a theology of grace in Christ and toward Scripture as the principium cognoscendi of that theology, and they point toward the historical or economical character of the revelation of God as it addresses the human need of salvation.

Muller, R. A. (2003). Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise And Development Of Reformed Orthodoxy; Volume 1: Prolegomena To Theology (2nd Ed., Pp. 268–269). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

The Reformed Orthodox put in a great deal of effort thinking through the question of “how do we know?” – they may have been lacking in some of the tools and resources that we have today, but if we take the time to understand how these great and devout writers thought through these larger issues, then we, “standing on the shoulders of giants”, can prepare ourselves to give much clearer answers in our own day.

8 comments:

  1. That is how my friend Rod Bennett, who shocked me when he converted to Rome in 1996, answered everything in our 8 year debate about RC vs. Biblical Christianity (1996-2004) - "how do you know you have the right interpretation?"

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/01/my-initial-review-of-rod-bennetts-book.html

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/02/what-about-canon-what-about-bob-and.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ken -- the question comes up a lot. I've found in PRRD that the post-Reformation writers went to great lengths to respond to that question. There were a lot of post-Reformation theologians who responded to this, and so I'm going to spend some time on it. A lot of what they wrote has its answer in the realm of reason and presuppositions, but it also has its foundations in what the Medieval writers were talking about. I think it will be helpful for Triablogue readers to understand, and so I'm going to make this (Lord willing) a long-term project.

      Delete
    2. By the way, "PRRD" = Richard Muller, "Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics" -- most of this will be in Volume 1.

      Delete
    3. "Ken: That is how my friend Rod Bennett, who shocked me when he converted to Rome in 1996, answered everything in our 8 year debate about RC vs. Biblical Christianity (1996-2004) - 'how do you know you have the right interpretation?'"

      i) An obvious problem with that tactic is that it ricochets. For instance, Catholics like to prooftext their position from Scripture. Like to prove the papacy or Catholic ecclesiology from Scripture. But how do they "know" they have the right interpretation?

      They can't appeal to the authority of Rome at this stage of the argument, for they are quoting Scripture to establish the authority of Rome.

      ii) Why must we "know" that we have the right interpretation? Why is it not enough to have the most reasonable interpretation?

      If God holds us responsible for what we can know, and if our interpretations come down to the most reasonable or probable interpretation, then that's all that God requires of us.

      iii) How does Rod "know" that he has the right interpretation of the church fathers? How does Rod "know" that he correctly sifted the historical evidence for Rome?

      How does he ever get started? He has to begin with private judgment. Suppose he converts to Catholicism because he thinks church history supports the claims of Rome. But how does he "know" that he has the right interpretation of the historical evidence?

      He can't invoke the authority of the Magisterium at this stage of the investigation, for the authority of the Magisterium is, at best, a conclusion which he derives from his investigation.

      Delete
    4. Thanks John; I hope I can keep up with some of this. I confess I am not able to keep up with all the blog posts here.

      David Waltz has mentioned Muller's work a lot at his web-site and also made this positive comment about Muller's work a few years ago at Beggar's All. (even before you and I were a part of it)


      "Richard Muller’s 4-volume work Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics is perhaps the most outstanding Reformed work since the 19th century (though less than conservative Reformed types would probably argue for Barth’s systheo). "

      Delete
    5. Hey Steve,
      Yes, that is basically how I answered Rod; - I would say something like, "God never expects infallible certainty" - which is what you are getting at with "reasonable or probable interpretation". Only God can know something with infallible certainty, because we are weak and human and there is no such category for us as humans as knowing something with infallible certainty. The problem for Rod and others like him is that they think they are being humble by "not relying on their own understanding" (their take of Proverbs 3:5-6) and they think they get that infallible certainty by relying on the Pope and RCC Magisterium.

      Delete
    6. It's strange that the Romanist doesn't recognize that he's merely moving the question back one step, not answering it. Punting to the Magisterium doesn't get one down the field any further.

      Given Rome's arrogant claims it's amazing those poor Jews were ever able to understand anything in the OT, much less recognize such a thing even existed.

      Delete
  2. "If God holds us responsible for what we can know, and if our interpretations come down to the most reasonable or probable interpretation, then that's all that God requires of us. "

    Yes, exactly.

    Rod eventually told me he didn't want to argue or discuss the issues anymore and he said, "Go debate with Dave Armstrong at his blog, he loves to argue." That was when I started interacting over there.

    ReplyDelete