Why "Just Me and My Bible" Is Insufficient
26 comments | Permalink
Michael Horton: "The best way to guard a true interpretation of Scripture, the Reformers insisted, was neither to naively embrace the infallibility of tradition, or the infallibility of the individual, but to recognize the communal interpretation of Scripture. The best way to ensure faithfulness to the text is to read it together, not only with the churches of our own time and place, but with the wider 'communion of saints' down through the age."
Larry Woiwode: "There is rugged terrain ahead for those who are constitutionally incapable of referring to the paths marked out by wise and spirit-filled cartographers over the centuries."
Larry Woiwode: "There is rugged terrain ahead for those who are constitutionally incapable of referring to the paths marked out by wise and spirit-filled cartographers over the centuries."
posted by JT at Tuesday, October 07, 2008
26 Comments:
I love Michael Horton's quote. A good Confession or two are indispensable.
This is very wise advice. Thanks for the quote JT.
I am sure we are probably all familiar with Jaroslav Pelikan's well worn quote on tradition v traditionalism. This kind of tangentially reminded me of it.
excellent reminders...oh that the evangelical world of the west would awaken to our rich history...we ought not be trying to re-invent the wheel! there is "nothing new under the sun" and each issue we deal with today has been in one way or another dealt with before if we'd only review our family history!
good stuff.
"The best way to guard a true interpretation of Scripture, the Reformers insisted, was neither to naively embrace the infallibility of tradition, or the infallibility of the individual, but to recognize the communal interpretation of Scripture."
Welcome aboard. We call it the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church. The difference is that you allow laypeople to interpret scripture rather than the bishops. If we did that, we'd have Nancy Pelosi's (or Joe Biden's) definition of when life begins, which is no where near conception.
Horton: "to naively embrace..."
Um, that's what I call a split-infinitive.
I second teresita. Individual and communal interpretation outside the Magisterium of the Church has birthed tens of thousands of continuously multiplying denominations. Having said that, you are either visibly or invisibly joined to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Welcome aboard!
This post has been removed by the author.
Teresita: Welcome aboard. We call it the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church.
Which in the Roman Catholic Church is tradition which is the exact opposite of what Horton is saying. No welcome aboard here, sorry, Teresita.
Teresita,
I am with cr. Horton's not naively embracing the infallibility of tradition seems to be saying something different to what you are saying. Is there a difference between listening to interpreters in other times and leaving the interpretation to bishops?
From an outsiders perspective what you are saying sounds really scary. Maybe you can help us understand better but, what is the difference between leaving the interpretation to bishops and a cult? What would you do if, for exmaple, your bishops started saying that religious pluralism was ok?
CR: Which in the Roman Catholic Church is tradition which is the exact opposite of what Horton is saying. No welcome aboard here, sorry, Teresita.
Not so. There is Sacred Tradition, and there is Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium relies on both to teach the faith delivered once to the saints. Before assailing Catholic teachings find out what they really are first.
Logically, ultimately, Protestantism leads to the exaltation of individual interpretation of Scripture over all else.
Sure they can exhort one another to live out their faith communally, but in the end, if the pastor says something one deems to be "unscriptural," then case closed. Sola Scriptura to the rescue (or to the destruction?)!
I would rather trust the Church that Jesus Christ founded to guide the faithful into a full understanding of the Gospel. If there is someone out there who feels they can trust their own judgement over that of the Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, then more power to you.
Ian,
The difference between bishops interpreting the Scriptures (for doctrinal purposes...obviously, we all need to interpret the Scriptures for devotional purposes) and cult leaders is that the office of bishop was founded by Christ and, when acting in concert with one another under the bishop of Rome, they have the promise of the power to bind and loose and not being overcome by the gates of hell.
Cult leaders, on the other hand, advance their own private interpretations of Scripture, contrary to all prior understanding of the faith by the entire Church, and break off from the Body of Christ forming thousands of their own little sects all at theological war with one another. Sound familiar?
This is a fantastic quote and I think that it has always been a mistake to cede any idea of tradition entirely to the Roman Catholic Church. Looking to history for support for Protestant interpretations of Scripture is very important and I think that Thomas Oden's idea of Paleo-orthodoxy is very instructive. There is no need to allow Roman Catholicism a monopolistic hold on this as it is obvious that their idea of tradition is fluid, and Eastern Orthodoxy has a tradition that is certainly as old, if not having an even greater claim to authority.
phillip said: "I would rather trust the Church that Jesus Christ founded to guide the faithful into a full understanding of the Gospel. If there is someone out there who feels they can trust their own judgement over that of the Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, then more power to you."
Tell us how you came to decide that Rome was the "true" church without engaging in the very private judgment that Rome condemns as illegitimate.
Demonstrate that you picked the "true" church from among all the other "true" churches that say you can’t rightly understand the Bible and church history without their help, such as the Eastern Orthodox church, the Watchtower Society, Mormonism, and every other cult that exists (remember, you can’t use private judgment for this since you are fallible).
An observation: it appears to me that the Catholic church has changed its doctrines and interpretations much more over the years than the Reformed Church.
Of course, it is hard to pin down what the "Reformed Church" has changed because it is an abstraction, but if you look at the beliefs/interpretations of Evangelicals today and compare them to Calvin and Luther, what significant departure do we see?
It seems the Reformed church doesn't allow for much change [which is why there are so many branching contrarian denominations. A church that does not allow for change begets division as the only recourse to those who disagree.]
One could make the claim, then, that the Reformed church is (at least in consequence) more traditionally biased than Catholics.
While Catholicism has had more time to change, even if you account for that...divide the "change" by the time, we still find that the Reformed Church does not seriously consider that some of its beliefs are inaccurate.
[None of the above, of course, is meant to excuse the general scantiness of lay Catholic bible study.]
Is the Bible all we need when we share our faith with the intellectual Atheist and intellectual Agnostics or do we need to first go outside the Bible to prove the Bible? Can we use the Bible to prove that the Bible is The Word of God?
The following is an exchange that I had with a believer about the above question.
As I've listen, or read, the rhetoric and blind backwash I am move to spew a few thoughts of my own.
The origin of thought/life is a knowledge lost in the turmoil of skewed facts and gross misinterpretation. Every culture has its version and thus we are left with no definitive answer. One persons "Thus sayeth the Lord" is another's "Hum Du'Allah", being so, no one produces anything concrete.
For the Christians, you can not use the Bible to prove the Bible. Especially when approaching someone who has no belief in the Bible in the first place. As Jesus teaches in Matt. 10:16 "See, I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. So be as cunning as serpents and as innocent as doves." Jesus knew that the apostle, most of whom had non-scholastic jobs and upbringings, were going into a world where philosophy and intellectualism was the norm. They were in Greece at a time when the Greeks were the "purveyors of truth and wisdom" God has proven himself to men before scriptures. Abraham had no new testament or prophet books or Talmud or Pentateuch/Torah (as these were written after the flood and thus after Abraham) yet he knew God enough to be willing to sacrifice a son God himself promised. The existence of God, who He is and what he's done is proven through creation, without the Bible. These are the tools used to speak with the non-believers.
For the Non-Christians, you must understand that all thought/belief/religion and practices thereof are conveyed though some man, somewhere at sometime. Nothing is original and no argument new. So when attacking the scriptures, be sure that your own rationale falls within the realm of your own logic less you succumb to the very argument you're trying to make and thus you yourself prove that you don't know.
I look forward to this discourse as these are the stones to which our Faith (Christian) are founded as Paul said in Acts 17:10-12 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men." (No blind Faith)
My Reponse Below
Well put C,
I guess it depends on how you view the Bible. I view the Bible as the Word of God, living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. A famous preacher once said that the way you defend the Bible is the way you defend a lion, you just let it out of the cage. Power to change the heart does not rest with me or how well I can articulate my position, the power to change the heart rest with the word of God and the God of the word.
Paul dealt with heavy weight Greek philosophers in Corinth and Paul’s approach was this: When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified 1 Corinthians 2:1-2. Further he says in verse 4 "My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power" the reason Paul used this approach is stated in verse 5 "so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power".
Furthermore I can confirm the transforming power of the Bible, being that I was once assassinating its authenticity and authority. My life has now been transformed because of the Bible.
The Bible was written during a period spanning over 1500 years by over 40 different writers and yet has one underlining theme “Jesus is Lord”. No other historical literature has withstood the scrutiny that the bible has. No other ancient historical writings have more verified manuscripts as the Bible. Yet, that is not what’s going to defend the Bible, the Bible will defend the Bible.
Great quote!
Philip,
But what happens when your bishops interpet Scripture in a way that is completely antithetical to the Bible? I think of the dogma of the immaculate conception (1854). The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907 said there is "no direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture". Why believe something that is not even biblical? Again, Papal infallibility (1870). Didn't this bring schism in the Catholic Church itself? What of the Old Catholic Church? And what of the Anathema pronounced against those who don't hold to it? I guess I come under that because I don't accept it but I am really happy to claim the promises of Christ who Scripture clearly tells us is the true Head of the Church. And what about the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary (1950)? Can we really take John 14:3 as a proof text for this?
Philip, I am not wanting to be provocative and inflammatory (just speaking from my heart) here but I feel that accepting those doctrine requires the kind of blind faith that the cults ask of people.
Fitts: The Bible was written during a period spanning over 1500 years by over 40 different writers and yet has one underlining theme “Jesus is Lord”.
Maybe the last third of the Bible does. The first two-thirds of the Bible has the underlining theme "Hear, O Israel, the LORD thy God is one LORD."
Teresita,
I continue to be perplexed by your misrepresentation on this blog of what you really believe. You "respond" to Michael Horton's quote with "Welcome aboard. We call it the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church." However, you have told me specifically that you are not a Catholic, that you were merely raised in a Catholic family, and that you do not consider yourself to be a Christian. Your blog profile states your affinity for a certain kind of Taoism. Why do you continue to post comments, and respond to other peoples' comments, in ways that imply you are a Catholic and/or Christian, generally speaking?
Christopher Lake: ...you have told me specifically that you are not a Catholic, that you were merely raised in a Catholic family, and that you do not consider yourself to be a Christian. Your blog profile states your affinity for a certain kind of Taoism. Why do you continue to post comments, and respond to other peoples' comments, in ways that imply you are a Catholic and/or Christian, generally speaking?
Despite endless explanations that the daojia variety of Taoism (as opposed to daojiao) is merely a philosophy, which impedes religious belief no more than an economic philosophy such as laissez fair capitalism impedes religious belief, people in the blogosphere continue to deliberately misunderstand me. I am also told that Catholicism is not a form of Christianity, and in any event, I am not in good standing with the Church, as indicated before. However, my personal goodness (or marked lack thereof) has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of a biblical claim. Some people like to discuss how the discrimination against "mudbloods" in the Harry Potter cycle is an allegory for racism, without believing or even enjoying the Harry Potter books at all.
As someone whose own study of the Bible has left me rather orphaned/widowed, I feel a certain degree of empathy with Teresita.
Evangelically, I would say most of the Bible points to the statement "Jesus is Lord," and that is a statement that is very much neglected in modern churches [with other "Jesus is ____" given greater import.]
But normatively and in many other ways the Bible has plenty of other value as we try to understand the Almighty.
As someone who believes too many people read the Bible without really feeling or thinking about the narrative taking place...an OT where a whole chosen people rose and fell and felt God's wrath, etc., I would not suggest the summary that the whole Bible points toward the idea "Jesus as Lord" without at the same time saying that there are plenty of other things it points to as well.
Furthermore, given that Jesus cannot be fully understood without understanding the context of God's plan for and in the Jews, understanding the Jews and the events of the OT without reference to Christ helps us understand Christ Himself. In particular, it stops us from reading in our own theology into the OT, thereby reinforcing what we have already been told.
[Note this last is purely a practical matter concerning human weakness. If our theology were accurate and we fully understood Christ, I would have no problem then tracking back and seeing everything in the Bible as a pattern for Christ. Contrast that with looking back and finding the patterns you want to find and not those that disagree with your theology.]
Teresita,
Your seeming frustration in your response is also perplexing to me, because surely you know that when you write, in response to a quote from a Reformed Christian, "Welcome aboard. The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church," you are implying to people here that you are a Catholic who actually *respects* and *submits to* to the "teaching authority of the Church."
I am a former Catholic myself, Teresita. I know what these things mean. Why do you write as if you are a Catholic who respects and submits to the "teaching authority of the Church" when the reality is exactly the opposite?
David Rudel: If our theology were accurate and we fully understood Christ, I would have no problem then tracking back and seeing everything in the Bible as a pattern for Christ.
For thousands of years learned Jewish scribes and rabbis faithfully copied and studied their scripture, and never once gleaned a hint of the pre-incarnate Jesus in its pages. Then Christianity came around, and many eager men retrojected the Son of God concept into many OT passages, to the everlasting horror and disgust of the Jews. But this wasn't the last time it happened. Mohammad came along about six hundred years later with his Q'u'r'a'n as the new New Testament, making our new Testament middle-aged and claiming that the underlining theme of our entire bible is submission to Allah, to the everlasting horror and disgust of both Jews and Christians. And Joseph Smith came along even later to do the same thing, claiming that the underlying theme of the entire bible is "as man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become" to the everlasting horror and disgust of Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
Teresita,
That's an interesting point. However, I do believe it is important to note that Christianity can take the entirety of Jewish Scripture and "make sense of it."
[Here I refer to the fundamental beliefs taught in Acts and the NT in general...not the beliefs that the Christian church has "grown into" so to speak.]
However, neither Islam nor LDS can take all the Jewish Scripture as known at the time plus the Gospels and Apostolic teachings.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home