I. Sic
I have often confided in my theological friends that if I held to the principal of sola scriptura that I would probably be a Homoiousian, or a Homoian Arian (I am Trinitarian due to Tradition, more precisely, Nicene and post-Nicene Tradition).
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/09/samuel-clarke-sola-scriptura-and.html
For example, in "mere Christianity", apart from the authority of the Church, there is no ground for an authoritative determination that Arianism is a heresy. There is just one's own interpretation of Scripture versus that of the Arian. (And don't think that heretics didn't appeal to Scripture: see here and here.) And so to find a lowest-common denominator between oneself and the Arian means that something even like "Jesus is God" must be left out of the "essentials of the faith". In this way, the "mere Christianity" position provides no authoritative determination of what exactly are those "essentials of the faith".
http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2008/04/unity-and-mere-christianity.html
II. Et Non
Jesus is God: Biblical Proofs
C O N T E N T S
I. DIRECT STATEMENTS OF JESUS' EQUALITY WITH GOD THE FATHER
II. JESUS IS THE CREATOR
III. JESUS IS ETERNAL AND UNCREATED
IV. JESUS IS WORSHIPED
V. JESUS IS OMNIPOTENT (ALL-POWERFUL)
VI. JESUS IS OMNISCIENT (ALL-KNOWING)
VII. JESUS IS OMNIPRESENT (PRESENT EVERYWHERE)
VIII. JESUS FORGIVES SINS IN HIS OWN NAME
IX. JESUS RECEIVES PRAYER
X. JESUS IS SINLESS AND PERFECT
XI. THE PRIMACY OF THE NAME OF JESUS
XII. JESUS CLAIMED TO BE THE MESSIAH (CHRIST)
XIII. FIFTY O.T. MESSIANIC PROPHECIES FULFILLED BY JESUS
XIV. JESUS' SUBJECTION (AS MESSIAH) TO THE FATHER
{For many further biblical evidences see The Holy Trinity: Biblical Proofs}
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/01/jesus-is-god-biblical-proofs.html
The Holy Trinity: Biblical Proofs
C O N T E N T S
I. FORTY DESCRIPTIONS APPLIED BOTH TO GOD/YHWH AND JESUS
II. GOD/YHWH, THE MESSIAH, AND JESUS: PARALLEL PASSAGES
III. THE UNITY OF GOD AND MONOTHEISM
IV. THE HOLY SPIRIT AND/OR TRINITARIANISM
V. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS A PERSON: FORTY PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES
VI. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD: DIRECT BIBLICAL EVIDENCE
VII. 13 DESCRIPTIONS APPLIED TO ALL THREE IN THE TRINITY
VIII. GOD'S APPEARANCES AS A MAN IN THE O.T. (THEOPHANIES)
IX. JESUS IS THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE FATHER
X. A DEFINITION OF THE TRINITY: THE ATHANASIAN CREED
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/09/holy-trinity-biblical-proofs.html
And the winner is...?
Unreal ...
ReplyDeleteIMHO, Dr. Raymond Brown has some cogent insights into this issue:
ReplyDelete“Three different figures, Father, Son, and Spirit, are brought into conjuction in the NT. Some NT formulas join the three; other references unite the Father and the Son; and still other references relate the Spirit to the Father and/or Son. Nevertheless, in no NT passage, not even in Matt. 28:19, is there precision about three divine Persons, co-equal but distinct, and one divine Nature—the core of the dogma of the Trintiy…If ‘tradition’ implies that first-century Christianity already understood three coequal but distince divine Persons and one divine Nature but had not developed the precise terminology, I would dissent. Neither the terminology nor the basic ideas had reached clarity in the first century; problems and disputes were required before the clarity came…Precisely because the ‘trinitarian’ line of development was not the only line of thought decectable in the NT, one must posit the guidence of the Spirit and intution of faith as the church came to its decision.” (Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Exegesis & Church Doctrine, 1985, pp. 31-33.)
[For futher reflections on this topic see this THREAD.]
Grace and peace,
David
IMHO, Dr. Raymond Brown has some cogent insights into this issue...Precisely because the ‘trinitarian’ line of development was not the only line of thought decectable in the NT, one must posit the guidence of the Spirit and intution of faith as the church came to its decision.
ReplyDeleteHow does one verify that the Church was guided by the Spirit and the intuition of faith if the Word of God is not clear in the matter?
IMHO, David Waltz has some interesting insights on this issue:
Because Scripture IS cyrstal clear when one is armed with the proper ‘filter’.
How does one verify what the proper filter is if Scripture is not clear and there is more than one option from which to choose?Indeed, if we're going to start talking about the need for filters, then how does one filter Magisterial statements? What is the appropriate filter for them? Do we take the Magisterium's own standards to do that for granted? If so, then that's obviously circular. We are to filter the Magisterium with the Magisterium - one self appointed authority with the same authority. That invites a vicious regress. How do we confirm that is the right "filter?" If it takes Scripture to do that - yet Scripture's proper "filter" is the Magisterium, we've done nothing to change the argument.
Hello Gene,
ReplyDeleteYou posted:
>>How does one verify what the proper filter is if Scripture is not clear and there is more than one option from which to choose?>>
Me: I think that is an excellent question, and I don’t believe that there exists an easy answer to it—at least I am not aware of one. For sometime, I was convinced that apostlic succession and the Ecumenical Councils held the ‘key’; but after reading Darby’s critique, the threads on development at fides quaerens intellectum (see these THREADS for additional interaction with f.q.i.), and Jason’s recent thread, I am not as convinced as I once was.
>>Indeed, if we're going to start talking about the need for filters, then how does one filter Magisterial statements? What is the appropriate filter for them? Do we take the Magisterium's own standards to do that for granted? If so, then that's obviously circular. We are to filter the Magisterium with the Magisterium - one self appointed authority with the same authority. That invites a vicious regress. How do we confirm that is the right "filter?" If it takes Scripture to do that - yet Scripture's proper "filter" is the Magisterium, we've done nothing to change the argument.>>
Me: Once again, excellent questions; and once again, I am not aware of any easy answers to them. But, one thing I do know, no one approaches Scripture without some tradition. A contempary, Baptist, patristic scholar recently wrote:
“Scripture can never stand completely independent of the ancient consensus of the church’s teaching without serious hermeneutical difficulties…The issue, then, is not whether we believe the Bible or whether we will use the Tradition—the real question, as the patristic age discovered, is, Which tradition will we use to interpret the Bible?” (D. H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism, p. 234.)
Grace and peace,
David
BTW, somebody signing his posts under the name “Filter Boy”, had some provocative comments on “filters” (who would of thought…) HERE.
ReplyDeleteYou know, David, I asked you that question several weeks ago - you didn't answer.
ReplyDeleteAnd it seems your answer lies on shifting grounds, and it always will as long as you deny the perspicuity of Scripture.
But my point here is this: If we follow your train of thought to its logical end, then you're caught in a vicious regress. How do we know the proper filter? How do we filter the filter? And so on and so on...
But, one thing I do know, no one approaches Scripture without some tradition.
I don't recall Steve, Jason, Paul, James Swan, myself, or even James White saying we don't. I do recall the issue isn't over coming to the Scriptures with some "tradition," rather it's the level of authority one gives that tradition. Is it fallible or infallible?
And, by the way, Steve's greater point here is that your post (and those of Bryan Cross who take this same position) are at variance with your fellow Catholic e-pologists.
On the one hand, you say we need a Magisterium to ascertain the truth of this doctrine. On the other, Dave Armstrong says otherwise.
And I might also point out that your citation of Brown is a tad "off." What Protestant will affirm that there is precision to the level of the Nicene Creed and all the distinctions that theologians have posited?
On the other hand, it was Hilary of Poitier who said that he came to an understanding of "homoousian" from Scripture without knowing the Creed. It was Athanasius who exegeted Scripture and arrived at the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.
It's also worth noting that Brown tends toward a form-critical stance on Scripture. So, of course you'd expect him to make the observations he makes. He's a student of higher critical theory and exegetes the texts accordingly. It's quite common for the less conservative to hold views like his, so you've added nothing new. One might say, "Consider the source" by way of response to that quote.
And the question has never been about whether or not it is necessary to affirm that Scripture is so clear as to use the term "homoousian," rather it is over whether or not it is clear enough to teach the concept, and if there is more than one trajectory that Scripture actually takes, then Scripture is teaching contradictory concepts. Is that what you believe - that Scripture - without reference to "tradition" (however defined) contradicts itself?
Since I spent the better part of a decade "in heresy" so to speak, I think I'm more qualified to speak on this than most. I had read a ton of apologetic material from trinitarians, JWs, unitarians etc and I found it easy to be swayed from one argument to another. As it happens the view that I adopted was not exactly any of these, it was kind of a bit of each. But what brought be back was more tradition and convention than any biblically convincing argument. JWs are not stupid people. Unitarians are not stupid people. Neither of them are excessively ignorant either. There is no easy way for an individual to settle this issue. The list of arguments here may seem convincing if you haven't seen, or haven't approached openly the other arguments. Since I spent a lot of time not welded to one view or the other, without an a-priori committment, I think I know this more than most. Now you may say I am more stupid or something than you are. Whatever. But I can tell you life is very tough without tradition if you are actually open enough to take all the viewpoints seriously. What we have here is someone pretending they don't have traditions. Perhaps pretending is too harsh, because he has probably convinced himself.
ReplyDelete. What we have here is someone pretending they don't have traditions.
ReplyDeleteThis, of course, is the exact opposite of what Steve has elsewhere stated, Lloyd, and nobody is claiming that we come to Scripture with any tradition, however, defined. Just check the archives.
And, by the way, Steve's greater point here is that your post (and those of Bryan Cross who take this same position) are at variance with your fellow Catholic e-pologists.
ReplyDeleteI successfully suppressed the urge to snicker.
Lloyd said:
ReplyDelete"There is no easy way for an individual to settle this issue. The list of arguments here may seem convincing if you haven't seen, or haven't approached openly the other arguments. Since I spent a lot of time not welded to one view or the other, without an a-priori committment, I think I know this more than most. Now you may say I am more stupid or something than you are. Whatever. But I can tell you life is very tough without tradition if you are actually open enough to take all the viewpoints seriously. What we have here is someone pretending they don't have traditions."
As Gene has noted, who's claiming that we come to scripture without extra-Biblical traditions? There's a difference between using one tradition and using another. Not all traditions are equally credible. And there's a difference between considering a tradition fallible and considering it infallible. If your search for the truth took you so long, then the tradition you eventually came to wasn't something easy to attain, was it? Protestants don't deny that there are many helpful extra-Biblical traditions in church history and in modern times. What they deny is that systems of allegedly infallible tradition, such as Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, are correct. They also deny that such systems are easy to authenticate and appropriate, which your experience and that of David Waltz illustrate. If a system like Catholicism or Orthodoxy is true, which we deny, it still isn't the sort of easy solution that some advocates of those systems suggest.
"As Gene has noted, who's claiming that we come to scripture without extra-Biblical traditions?"
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be aiming for that.
"And there's a difference between considering a tradition fallible and considering it infallible."
Yes, the former allows you to be a JW, Unitarian, and so forth. The latter does not.
"If your search for the truth took you so long, then the tradition you eventually came to wasn't something easy to attain, was it?"
In so far as my formative years were indoctrinated to accept the authority of scripture, but reject the authority of tradition, the hard part was realising the necessity to question this indoctrination.
If I had started out being indoctrinated that scripture was unreliable, I'd imagine the journey would be twice as long with twice the baggage.
So if being loaded with the wrong baggage makes it "hard", then I guess its hard.
In my journey I had to face a lot of murky questions about scripture that make it "hard to authenticate". Questions like major differences in the LXX version. liberal critics and so forth.
If "hard to authenticate", is a difficulty, I could easily have fallen off into atheism, Arianism, Modalism, or a number of others, and not come out. And I'd still be there if I hadn't discovered the authority of tradition.
Lloyd wrote:
ReplyDelete“You seem to be aiming for that.”
You’re not giving us any reason to agree with that assessment.
You write:
“Yes, the former allows you to be a JW, Unitarian, and so forth. The latter does not.”
What does it mean to be “allowed” to follow a position? The fact that some people take a position doesn’t suggest that the means by which they claim to arrive at that position actually leads to the position.
And the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to have extra-Biblical tradition. Similarly, the Arians had their own church councils, Mormons have claimed support from the church fathers and revelation outside of the Protestant canon, etc. Whether tradition leads to a position depends on what tradition you have in mind. The standards by which you determine which tradition to accept don’t come from that tradition. There’s no way to avoid personal judgment. Why follow the tradition of some church fathers, for example, if you don’t first determine that Jesus existed, that He founded a church, that the church fathers in question existed and have given us a tradition we should follow, etc.? Before you get to something like a tradition of some church fathers, you have to make multiple prior judgments that are controversial, where the evidence has “allowed” people to reach conclusions contrary to yours.
You write:
“And I'd still be there if I hadn't discovered the authority of tradition.”
What tradition? What authority?