Pages

Sunday, June 08, 2008

The church of we'll get it right...tomorrow

Alvin Kimel

I have to honestly say, with all love and respect, that I find the Protestant confession of sola scriptura, with the attendant confession of biblical perspicacity, incoherent, implausible, and impossible to believe. Michael, when you express your confidence that any believer can discern the fullness of Christian doctrine simply by reading the Bible with his “brain on,” I can only shake my head in disbelief, just as I know you shake your head when confronted with Catholic claims about the Eucharist or the Mother of God. Even as an Anglican I found biblical perspicacity far-fetched and absurd, which is why I relied so heavily on the Church Fathers and the Vincentian canon as my theological guides. It was only when I finally admitted the impossibility of *all* forms of Protestantism to stand intellectually against the skepticism and relativism of modernity that I then turned to the Catholic Church.

Alvin Kimel

Michael, regarding the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, you may find of interest these reflections of mine. There is no question that a clarification, purification, and reformulation of the doctrine has occurred in the Catholic Church over the past fifty years. This clarification is grounded in a deeper apprehension of the infinite love and mercy of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-imonk-spends-five-hours-with-scott-hahn-the-full-report#more-2110

On the one hand, sola Scriptura is incoherent, implausible, and impossible to believe. On the other hand, it’s only been within the past 50 years that the true church has begun to clarify, purify, and reformulate the traditional doctrine of purgatory.

Yes, I can see how a divine teaching office confers a tremendous advantage over the blinkered outlook of the benighted Prots, can’t you? In modern Catholicism, truth is just around the corner...or the next...or the next...

5 comments:

  1. Vincent's canon...which we can apply selectively to select writings of selective church fathers over a selective period of church history.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve, I think you may be doing it wrong. I think it's supposed to go that the notion of biblical perspicuity is completely ridiculous, stupid, and a modernistic invention EXCEPT for Matthew 16:18 and John 6:53. *Then* it's perspicuous.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Steve,
    Do you think certain essential orthodox beliefs encapsulated in the various Protestant confessions developed over time in the post-Apostolic church? Things like sola fide, Trinity, nature of the atonement, original sin, etc. Actually, I say post-Apostolic because I presume you would agree that many of those doctrines weren't fully fleshed out or held by the church at large at all times, but do you think all the Apostles after the Resurrection held full-orbed, exhaustive understandings of these doctrines as well and it was just the post-Apostolic church screwing things up?

    If the understanding of these doctrines did develop over time for the church, with God providentially directing the events of various guideposts in development (such as at Nicea or the Reformation and its associated confessions or whatever other councils/creeds your church agrees with), the RC view as touched upon in this post does not seem to be completely off-base right? If God chose to keep much of the church blind to the fully-developed view of certain doctrines (not completely ignorant, but only holding traces/shadows perhaps), and then chose to guide events/people so that a deeper understanding was made for the church at large, truth is in a sense always "around the corner" - development did not end/culminate with the Reformation did it? Further insights/reflections are always being made, so isn't it possible some new Confession down the road could supplant WCF or something as a fuller expression of Christian doctrines?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Dude,

    Several issues:

    1. I can’t speak to issues the Apostles didn’t speak to. I can’t speak for all the Apostles. Most of them didn’t leave any written records.

    2. We can only judge by what was said, and not by what was left unsaid. The NT letters are occasional writings. They don’t attempt to expound the Christian faith in a systematic fashion.

    3. The Apostles varied in their intellectual aptitude.

    4. No man, even if inspired, has an exhaustive understanding of certain doctrines (e.g. the Trinity).

    5. The NT writings also vary according to genre, so the style of indoctrination varies. In the Forth Gospel, we’re dealing with narrative theology. That’s less explicit than Romans or Ephesians. Yet it’s clear that underlying the narrative is a well-developed theology.

    That’s obviously true in the case of Paul. Likewise with the author of Hebrews.

    6. A thinker can have more developed views in some areas than others.

    7. Historical theology makes use of the conceptual resources provided by the culture. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. But we shouldn’t equate that with a linear development of what the Apostles taught, believed, or would have recognized.

    8.There’s a difference between having an underdeveloped, post-Apostolic theology which is consistent with NT theology and having a developed, post-Apostolic theology which is inconsistent with NT theology.

    9.The Apostles developed their views on the basis of new redemptive events, new revelations, and inspired reflection on old revelations or old redemptive events.

    While our theological understanding can also evolve, it can’t evolve on the same basis. We don’t have inspiration, new revelations, or new redemptive events. All we have is the inspired record they left us.

    10. In classic Protestant theology, we move forward by going back. By recovering the understanding of the Apostles.

    No, the Westminster Confession isn’t the end of the road. But to the extent that we can improve on the WCF, that’s because Biblical archaeology (to take one example) enables us to recover more of the original intent of the Scriptures. We advance or progress by returning to the sources. The future of theology lies in the past. In the revelatory event.

    11.With respect to Catholicism, there are two problems. First, you can’t lay claim to a divine teaching office, then periodically reinvent yourself. You can’t redefine Purgatory after Trent spoke to that issue. You can’t say, “we’ll get it right the next time.” At that point you need to drop the pretense of infallibility.

    Of course, Catholicism isn’t going to openly admit that it’s contradicting itself. But it is. And you don’t have to be an outsider to see that.

    12.But even if these were still open questions in theology, they shouldn’t be. The afterlife is a fundamental concern of religion. What happens to you after you die.

    This far down the pike, the Catholic Church shouldn’t be rethinking its position on Purgatory. That should have been settled in the first few centuries of the church.

    When it claims to be the true church, founded by Jesus Christ, with a continuous, 2000-year history, and a divine teaching office, and it has yet to turn the corner on the nature of Purgatory, then it should drop the pretensions of a divine teaching office.

    What is it waiting for? New revelation? But, according to Catholic theology, the age of public revelation ending with the death of the Apostles.

    An enormous theological infrastructure built up around the traditional doctrine of Purgatory. Is that really still in play? Think of all the readjustments that would need to be made? And what about all the pious Catholics who lived and fought and prayed and died under the old, antiquated system? How many times can you change the rules that former generations fought for, lived by, and died under?

    It’s like directing pilgrims to the wrong address. Sorry, guys, I’m dyslexic. Did I say Jesus was crucified at 717 Golgotha Lane? I meant 771 Golgotha Lane. I’m afraid you were praying all that time over the grave of my neighbor’s pet dog Ziggy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. IMHO, well-regarded Catholic professor-philosophers such as Kreeft, Francis Beckwith, J. Budz..., would probably and humbly acknowledge the strengths of Steve's arguments when he points out the presuppositional contradictions and faultline cracks in the foundations of Catholic theology and ecclesiology.

    ReplyDelete