Although I agree with much of what this article proposes, as a Sydney Anglican, I don't see myself as one of the "descendents of the Protestant Reformation", with all of its bellicose death-dealing and Puritan cultural aridity, but, rather, of the Apostolic Fathers. And as for Luther and Calvin, et al. -

For them, the early Fathers of the church were often faithful and insightful expounders of the Scriptures – especially Augustine and Chrysostom.

- it's a shame that they didn't embrace more of the earlier, Apostolic Father's doctrines (up to about 200 AD) and less of the abovementioned johnny-come-latelies'. (I'm thinking of, for example, Augustine's 'sexualization' of original sin, arising from his own youthful indiscretions illogically mapped onto everyone else - at the expense of God's original blessings, as focussed on by the 2nd-to-3rd-century Church. But when Julian of Eclanum took him to task on this, Augustine had him 'dealt with' after arranging a bribe for the Emperor! Nice bloke...) And Luther shot himself in the foot with hypocrisy from outset: sola scriptura, but you'd better read my commentary on Romans - longer than Romans itself!

ctd.

Sola scriptura is, ultimately, an impossibility: there are always Biblical passages that demand interpretation with reference to extrabiblical sources (such as the Apostolic Fathers). Restricting ourselves to the NT, this is a natural consequence of its Koine Greek Urtexte - written all in a single case (i.e. only upper case [uncials] or lower case [minuscules], but not both) usually without spaces between words. So, for example, pneumati in 1 Cor 14:2 may be referring either to a human spirit or to the Holy Spirit; the text itself is ambiguous. The lack of spaces between words also gives rise at times to translational confusion. Moreover, variant texts exist for certain passages. For instance, several manuscripts of Rev 13:18 affirm the number 616 instead of 666 (the apparatus from UBS4 confirms this); the main reason we moderns have adopted 666 is because Irenaeus of Lyon (fl.180 AD) had written in his Against Heresies that 666 is found "in all good and ancient copies [containing Rev 13] ... and is attested to by those who had themselves seen John face to face [such as Polycarp?]".

My goal here is merely to show that the concept of sola scriptura can be simplistic and problematic indeed.

(... and that the Reformation's usual suspects are not all they're cracked up to be. Doubtless this will cause SydAng's [hyper]Calvinistas to froth at the mouth and have me burnt at the stake, but I'd concede that the Roman Catholic alternative is far worse...)

One more thought:

As much as possible, I believe that readers of Scripture need to work hard to embrace the mind-set (insofar as it is possible) of each passage's scribe AND his original target-audience ... hence, to engage in cultural archaeology. After 2000+ years, of course this is an immensely difficult task. Still, we must ever seek to avoid simplistic sola scriptura, idiotic fundamentalist autoliteralism as well as its opposite - an overexcess of poetics. In other words, neither a Christianity that demands we leave our brains outside the church door (e.g. Pentacostalism, or that of science-denying upholders of Genesis-1-as-history), nor an anaemic Christianity that denies the divine power of Jesus (à la Joe Hockey, or of some in the liberal Church).

May God always help us to read His word properly, authentically, and intelligently!

Ian - parts of your comments I consider to be rather ill-mannered (''hyper Calvinistas', 'froth at the mouth' for example). And in any case, you are repeating the very points I am making about simplistic uses of sola scriptura and so on.

In your first post, you rely on wild and cliches about the Reformation ('bellicose death-dealing and Puritan cultural aridity'; the alleged hypocrisy of Luther). I am not sure these help us any.

And Luther shot himself in the foot with hypocrisy from outset: sola scriptura, but you'd better read my commentary on Romans - longer than Romans itself!

This is a bit silly, not unlike complaining that the plant that has grown from the seed is bigger than the seed. It's an observation that proves precisely nothing about the relative importance of the seed and what it produces.

Everything that's good in Christianity comes from the seed that is God's Word; that there's a lot of good that's been produced doesn't discredit either seed or plant.

...it’s either arrogant or simply naive to imagine we are the first readers of Scripture, or that we can or should read it without reference to that tradition.

Can't argue with the first half of this sentence! But the second half slips in an assumption that Scripture doesn't support.

Indeed, the writer of Hebrews assumes the exact opposite to what Mike says here, quoting Psalm 95 as a word that is written directly to his readers many hundreds of years after David composed it.

Also, the Reformers weren't as positive about tradition as Mike's article suggests. Yes, they knew tradition and were prepared to use older commentators to demonstrate that their ideas were not newfangled. But if tradition (even the good bits like Augustine) didn't align with Scripture they were prepared to throw it out the window, with lots of sixteenth century words that make Ian Shanahan's posts appear the paragon of politeness.

So one of the reasons we think of Calvin as the 'theologian of the Holy Spirit' was his confidence that Scripture communicated directly to the believer without needing mediating tradition.

Yes, Calvin knew "tradition" (note that the distinctions T1/T2 are not Calvin's). But his own frequent example, which you get by reading his commentaries, is that Scripture can be read without referring to it. The person who reads like this may simply be trusting God's goodness.You don't even need Calvin!

Following on, here's just one example of Calvin modeling how you use Scripture. By mysterious coincidence it's his commentary on Hebrews.

There's more reference to church tradition in John Owen's 1853 foreword than in Calvin's first 25 pages of commentary. Scroll down to page 12 and you see Calvin, in his foreword, putting the boot into the Roman Catholic church, because of whom "the truth of God lies buried under innumerable lies."

It's not until page 25 that we get a reference to the great Augustine, who is dismissed as "frivolous" for his interpretation of the word "Today". In fact, there are only 5 references to Augustine, and the final one on p.249 explains how he, and church fathers like Chrysostom and Theophylact "sadly blundered" on a particular point.

Calvin's approach, smart as he was, was to read Scripture sentence by sentence and prayerfully do his best to understand and explain it. He knew tradition but in practice he relied very little on what it had to say; basically because he was confident in God's Spirit.

How do we interpret 1 Tim 3:15?

I think Gordon is confusing sola scriptura with the clarity of scripture with the language of 'directness' here. 'Reference to the tradition' may of course be critical. But just as reading the bible within a church community helps us to beware our own tendency to misread because of our sinfulness, likewise reference to the history of biblical interpretation is an important check on our tendency to be sinfully swamped by our culture and spiritually blinded to our foibles. I am sure Gordon would agree with that. I am not talking about anything too detailed here! For example, it seems appropriate to proceed on the assumption that the traditional doctrine of the Trinity is the right way to read scripture - though in principle one could decide otherwise. Right?

And while Hebrews does proclaim the unmistakable clarity and directness and completeness of the revelation of the Son of God, and because of him can read a word like Psalm 95 as directed to its readers, it is also a letter which encourages its readers to be thoroughly grounded in the past. Remember the 'cloud of witnesses' passage? Don't forget them!

Gordon's reading of Calvin is a little funny too - though I expect we are really saying something pretty similar. Calvin's stated intention in his commentaries was to be 'lucidly brief' - so crowding it with footnotes was not part of the exercise. But there is no suggestion but that Calvin was utterly soaked in the tradition of scriptural interpretation, and knew contemporary commentators as well. And would have thought it inappropriate to proceed otherwise. Where traditional readings could be adduced in support of his reading, he brought them forward as authoritative witnesses. But he was also willing to challenge and disregard interpreters from the tradition - of course.

So, either Gordon is only saying what I am saying, OR, he wants to side with 'tradition 0' - which I assume not.

Hi Michael,

Well done.

Having read Calvin's Institutes this year I have been most impressed by his constant critical interaction with the Church Fathers as well as his sure footed way of dealing with the Biblical text, including the OT!

The point I would like to pick up and perhaps I'll come back to it as I'm about to go out.

You say:

I often hear even experienced and well-trained Christians confuse sola scriptura with solo or nuda scriptura. That is: ‘scripture alone’ is confused with ‘scripture only’ or ‘scripture undressed’.

The point I want to come back to is that we have 2 books of revelation: nature and the Bible. I have a particular concern about young earth creationists in this respect, which leads me on to Calvin's (and Luther's) two kingdom theology, which opens up other issues. More anon.

To quote from Richard A. Muller, the doyen of contemporary Calvin scholars:

...Calvin's exegetical theology frequently reflects the older tradition: Calvin not only studied the exegetical works of contemporaries lke Bucer, Bullinger and Oecolampadius; he also read carefully in the commentaries of fathers like Ambrose, Augustine, and Chrysostom and quite possibly of medieval exegetes like Nicolas of Lyra and Denis the Carthusian. Calvin's exegetical conclusions are not universally or even usually original - they rise out of a venerable catholic tradition and, in their typically nonpolemical mood, seldom indicate indebtedness directly or explicitly.

from 'The Unaccommodated Calvin' p. 116

That is to say, the practice of citing sources and authorities - as Gordon points out, not frequently done in the commentaries - belonged to the realm of disputation and more systematic accounts of scripture. Their lack of prominence in the commentaries does not disprove my insistence that Calvin had a quite positive view of tradition. (Note the word 'catholic' here doesn't mean 'Roman Catholic'.)

Interestingly - discussing what Calvin did or did not think rather proves my point, don't you think?

Sola scriptura is, ultimately, an impossibility: there are always Biblical passages that demand interpretation with reference to extrabiblical sources

Isn't this confusing solo with sola? Solo, or the Bible unplugged, might deny all reference to other sources, but sola simply asserts that the Bible is our only ultimate authority - hence the importance of using all the best resources, tools and methods we can lay our hands on to understand it, including the great minds of past and present, "cultural archaeology", as well as textual archaeology, and so on ...

Yes, I think you are right. The famous Anglican 'three legged stool' is another misused analogy in this regard.

The Quadrilateral oughtn't to be about sole authority: it should be about final and supreme authority. Does anyone want to try to read the Bible without reason at all (for example)? Reason in its right place is indispensible. Likewise the others.

Michael, can you say more about your definition here of Tradition 1?

Tradition 1 was the teaching that doctrine is grounded on Scripture and tradition is the ‘traditional way Scripture has been interpreted’.

Is that the same as saying tradition is valuable so long as it is consistent with with Scripture, perhaps illuminating it, but not ever contradicting it?

I guess my uncertainty was with the second half of your definition. It seems there are some very early traditional ways of interpreting Scripture which contradict Scripture itself when interpreted by the 'analogy of faith' (one part of Scripture in light of the rest of Scripture, and never in contradiction of another part of Scripture).

We put significant weight on how early readers of Scripture understood it, being closer to the language and time. But I also want to reserve the right to say early church traditions got their reading of Scripture wrong sometimes, even when it was the majority reading. (Can't think of an example off the top of my head, sorry.)

I think I prefer the way you put it a sentence or two earlier.

But the Reformers still held the idea of tradition with a great deal of reverence. And if you read a Calvin, or a Luther, you will see they accorded the continuous tradition of orthodox teaching a great deal of weight – insofar as it matched up with Scripture.

Thanks Sandy. I don't think the definition (which comes from Reformation scholar Heiko Oberman, by the way) of T1 ought to cause concern here. It gives no unwarranted authority to the consensus of the early church, or example. But it doesn't ignore it either.

I think the 39 Articles get this right when they talk about General Councils (Article XXI) - that is, (in sum) 'General Councils are all fine and dandy, but they may err and have erred, and we ought to subject them to the authority of Scripture'. Strong stuff.

Yes, John Reed (#13)! The slogan itself - sola scriptura - is incredibly misleading. Much better would have been prima scriptura: Scripture first.

Ian - parts of your comments I consider to be rather ill-mannered (''hyper Calvinistas', 'froth at the mouth' for example). And in any case, you are repeating the very points I am making about simplistic uses of sola scriptura and so on. In your first post, you rely on wild and cliches about the Reformation ('bellicose death-dealing and Puritan cultural aridity'; the alleged hypocrisy of Luther). I am not sure these help us any.

@Michael. Not "ill-mannered" at all! I know plenty of SydAngs who refer to themselves as Calvinists or hyperCalvinists, and who become irrationally angry when challenged. Sorry to see that you're so delicate; also you haven't addressed the points I raised. As for repetition ... perhaps. But see the above comment to John. And as for "wild cliches" etc. - no: they are FACTS. Calvin (like Augustine before him) condoned the murder of heretics; and the English Puritans smashed numerous works of art. Would Jesus or His Apostles have approved? I think not. If you and Gordon wish to slavishly follow their theology and glorify such men, despite these FACTS, then more fool you. I'm afraid I can't stomach such hypocrisy.

@Gordon (#5): My point is not primarily the length of Luther's commentary; rather, the contradiction between the idea of sola scriptura and his creation of a 'new paradosis'.

Well, I guess you'll posting on some other hypocrite-free discussion board then.

Ciao.

Let me challenge you further Ian, seeing you claim to be so keen on the the blunt truth. I just want to check that you are not using rhetoric to spin things.

Who are the "plenty of SydAngs who refer to themselves as Calvinist or hyperCalvinists, and who become irrationally angry when challenged"? It's easy to slur people, but I have never met a Sydney Anglican who labels him or herself as a hyperCalvinist! And defensive yes, upset sometimes, and maybe even angry. But plenty who become irrationally angry when challenged? Not so sure. It's easy to throw mud by hearsay! Obviously I am just too "delicate".

Likewise, a more historical claim you propose - that Calvin "condoned the murder of heretics". He was involved in judicial processes that led to the execution of some judged at trial to be serious heretics. (And as we now see, sadly this was typical of the time on both sides of the Reformation.) But I am not aware that Calvin ever condoned murder. And there is a distinction worth considering between judicial execution and murder. You might oppose both, but do we assume they are moral equivalents, or is this another use of spin.

To be honest I think you have breached the posting policy at many points, Ian, and have no right to claim the high moral ground.

However I don't advocate your material being removed because your manner of speech speaks for itself.

Michael, what do you see as the practical implications of what you are saying re place of tradition?

How are you imagining a Christian sitting at home reading their Bibles are supposed to take into account ‘tradition’ when there is so much written and spoken?

Am I right in assuming that Calvin and Luther etc knew their Bibles really well and that is why they could often interact wisely with the Fathers?

Di

That's a great question Di.

The Christian sitting at home reading their Bible should get out of their chair and go to church or Bible study, and sing God's praises and say the creed and have the Lord's Supper and listen to the sermon and talk to other Christians. The point is not that 'you need to be an expert in the whole 2000 years of reflection on the Bible', but rather to acknowledge that reading Scripture is a communal and corporate practice - and thank goodness it is.

William Tyndale translated the Bible into plain English so that the ploughboy could read it and understand it. But he always imagined the ploughboy coming in from the field and going to church to hear it read and explained.

@Michael. How smug. I plan to hang around a while yet and illuminate such blindnesses, if that's OK with you...

Sandy: The SydAngs I refer to are many regular pewsitters I've encountered over the years. How can I name names? Anyway, I certainly don't regard such labels as a slur, nor am I mudslinging or passing on hearsay - but, rather, personal experiences.

Judicial execution = murder. My point follows logically. Contrast with the praxis of the Ante-Nicene Church. Irenaeus et al. argued successfully with their opponents, without having them bumped off. I'm not claiming any "moral high ground" for myself, but it does sound like you are in your last two paragraphs. Precisely how have I breached posting policy? Robust criticism of argument is not personal attack...

As one of the site editors can I remind everyone that the rules of this thread do not allow personal name-calling.

This conversation appears to becoming tetchy so I'd ask if people would reflect a little before posting.

Discussion of 'Tradition' in contradistinction to 'Scripture' amongst us seems to primarily revolve abstractly around explicitly Christian writings/sayings. Might an analogous test-case to focus discussion be found in St. Jerome's treatment of the Apocrypha?

The Christian sitting at home reading their Bible should get out of their chair and go to church or Bible study, and sing God's praises and say the creed and have the Lord's Supper and listen to the sermon and talk to other Christians.

A wise answer.

I grew up thinking the most important spiritual thing I could do was read my Bible (with SU notes!) and pray - it was called a "quiet time".

I still do that but learnt the most important thing was to meet with fellow Christians in corporate worship on the Lord's Day, for the ministry of Word and Sacrament, secondly to conduct family worship with my wife and children (the children long gone but my wife and I still together after the main meal) and thirdly my own quiet time.

All good and necessary - but not sufficient. To even approach understanding the Bible, one needs to immerse oneself in books that cast light on the cultural and literary mindsets of Biblical times. This is surely crucial for recognising each Biblical writer's intentions, and avoiding interpretative errors. I personally find the 10-volume Ante-Nicene Fathers to be invaluable as a secondary source.

Re #27

Well,I guess this is why we send our ministry candidates off to Theological Colleges for 4 years.

That is to say, the practice of citing sources and authorities - as Gordon points out, not frequently done in the commentaries - belonged to the realm of disputation and more systematic accounts of scripture.

(Michael's comment #12).

I don't think anyone wants to dispute that Calvin knew his tradition; just that we need to beware of statements like

But the Reformers still held the idea of tradition with a great deal of reverence.

Knowing and revering are two different and distinct things. While Calvin and the other Reformers made considerable use of tradition as it suited their purposes, they were a very long way from holding it in awe. It seems to me that the fat commentaries of today have slipped from the 'gold standard' that Calvin set here, and their usefulness to the average struggling pastor like me has slipped commensurately.

Which reminds me of a funny story about Dick Lucas.

Even the fact that Calvin wrote commentaries, rather than spending his energies in disputation (as he could easily have done and in some ways wanted to—as I'm reminded in Bruce Gordon's most excellent biography of Calvin) tells you something about where his emphases lay. And his Institutes are soaked in exegesis, whereas their attitude to tradition is that Calvin chooses what he likes, like the fat Aussie at the buffet coming back for his third plate of prawns.

I will stick with reverence. This is not a slavish reverence, not at all. It is a critical respect. We need also to beware a cavalier disregard of tradition in favour of novelty and originality - a besetting sin of contemporary Australian culture that affects church people too.

Of course, Calvin spent great energy in disputation, as any reading of the Institutes will show. And a reading of his many controversial treatises, too. Further, Gordon is making a false distinction between 'exegesis' and 'tradition' here. Calvin practised his exegesis, as Muller says, with reference to tradition. In fact, it is specifically the tradition of exegesis we are talking about.

As I said before, the fact that we think that it is worth enlisting Calvin to our cause rather proves my point...

@David in #28. Sure. But what I'm saying is that every Bible-reading Christian needs to do this - each up to the limits of their intellectual aptitude.

Two questions for the professional Calvinists (particularly those who know his Institutes better than I do): Is he really the ne plus ultra of theologians (compared with someone like, say, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Justin Martyr, or Irenaeus)? How well did he know, let alone adhere to, the Ante-Nicenes?

1 - no. But compared to those aforementioned...I think he comes up very well.
2 - knew them pretty good. Adhered to em sometimes, sometimes not.

Michael, would you please care to elaborate a little, so that I might see for myself?

OK, so a question about labels...

"Sola" is different to "Solo"... refering to the primacy of Scripture as opposed to its strict isolation, yes? Hence Ian's suggestion of "Prima"???

But is this the meaning of "Sola" in the other slogans?

The "primacy/authority" of Christ along with other mediators/messiahs? The "primacy/authority" of grace along with our own efforts? In the context of the other slogans I'm not so sure there's that much of a distinction between "Sola" and "Solo".

Thoughts Mike?

At the Lausanne Disputation (1536) Calvin heard a speech given by a Roman Catholic priest on how the reformers allegedly had low esteem for the writings of the early fathers (in this case particularly on the issue of Jesus corporeal presence). Calvin stood up at that point and interrupted by quoting long sections of Cyprian, Tertullian, John Chrysostom, and Augustine. He then said something like "if you had even bothered to read the 'ancient doctors' then you would see that they actually agree with us, not you". (A Franciscan friar actually repented and 'defrocked' himself on the spot!)
I love how this incident shows Calvin's opinion that the reformers held to the Bible's teaching in continuity with the best of the early fathers.

I think those who want to diminish the role of tradition are being a bit naive. You might say "I just believe what's written in Scripture", but all the studies, books and sermons you have heard have shaped your understanding. Many of us here come from an evangelical and reformed tradition, and that has a massive influence on how we interpret our Bibles. It's very naive to think otherwise.

The great thing is, once you are aware that you are operating within a tradition, you are then able to look critically at that tradition, and subject the tradition itself to scripture. When you deny the influence of tradition upon yourself, you are actually making yourself it's slave.

@ David Palmer

The point I want to come back to is that we have 2 books of revelation: nature and the Bible. I have a particular concern about young earth creationists in this respect, which leads me on to Calvin's (and Luther's) two kingdom theology, which opens up other issues. More anon.

Surely any doctrine about nature as general revelation needs to be derived from the propositional verbal special revelation of the Bible? Does the Bible in fact support this 67th-book-of-the-Bible idea, or does it not rather say that special revelation is far clearer and more detailed?

The problem I see is that many who think in terms of two books of revelation, in practice make nature not the 67th but the FIRST book of the Bible - and in the example in view, sometimes seem to make Genesis not the second but the 67th in practice!

If you're able to get hold of it, I'd recommend the careful discussion of this question in chapter four of Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth (Master Books, 2008), a scholarly but readable symposium by fourteen theologians who together mount a solid Biblical/theological/philosophical/historical defence of young-earth creationism which may well become the standard text in its field, or even something of a classic. Time will tell....

PS it may be worth adding that Luther and Calvin were both YECs anyway.

The great thing is, once you are aware that you are operating within a tradition, you are then able to look critically at that tradition, and subject the tradition itself to scripture. When you deny the influence of tradition upon yourself, you are actually making yourself it's slave.

... Lest one become a neoPharisee, an accusation which could be levelled at the Reformed Evangelical Tradition itself (now nearly half a millennium old); this is another reason why I choose to align myself with the Ante-Nicenes.

"PS it may be worth adding that Luther and Calvin were both YECs anyway." - in my book, yet another nail in their coffin, and a hurdle to evangelism amongst the scientifically savvy. When will people learn that Genesis 1 IS NOT HISTORY!?

"PS it may be worth adding that Luther and Calvin were both YECs anyway." - in my book, yet another nail in their coffin, and a hurdle to evangelism amongst the scientifically savvy.

While I agree that sort of red-herring is utterly bonkers to us, from what I recall they tended to spend more time on soteriology than cosmology anyway; thus one needn't be too concerned here.

Ian wrote:

To even approach understanding the Bible, one needs to immerse oneself in books that cast light on the cultural and literary mindsets of Biblical times. This is surely crucial for recognising each Biblical writer's intentions, and avoiding interpretative errors.

Pretty much everyone on this thread has agreed that sources other than the Bible can aid understanding. But this over-statement above makes understanding God's Word very difficult - perhaps beyond reach - for many people, due to age, educational background, lack of opportunity etc. But such detailed background knowledge is apparently "crucial" to avoid error. Without being able to immerse themselves in books detailing to cultural and literary mindsets of biblical times, apparently one cannot begin to "even approach understanding the Bible".

By contrast to this apparent elitism, I am reminded of this quote from Don Carson, pp121-22, The Gagging of God,

...although none of us ever knows any complicated thing exhaustively, we can know some things truly. Our confidence in what we know may not enjoy the certainty of Omniscience, but it is not condemned to futility. Even a child may believe and understand the truth of the proposition "God loves the world," even when the child's knowledge of God, love, and the world is minimal, and her grasp of Johannine theology still less (John 3:16).

Carson continues

With patient study and increased learning and rising experience, a believer may come to understand a great deal more about the proposition "God loves the world" than does the child. [... And Carson details some examples of the fruit of such further study...] But would it not be incorrect to say that the child mis-understands the proposition? The proposition as John gave it, I would argue, is true; as grasped by the child, it is truly understood, even if not exhaustively understood. The child may have (and probably has) adopted some false associations along with her understanding – associating love, perhaps, with good cuddle, or with a kind parent. But the heart of the matter is nevertheless rightly said to be understood, even if there is further explanation (and demonstration!) of God's love to come in the child's experience.

With you all the way, Sandy. One of the worst habits of contemporary Biblical exegesis (perhaps accounting for the large size of commentary more than references to traditional readings it has to be said) is the claim to have rediscovered the actual historical context which makes a previously obscure text now clear. Historical background work needs to be done: but the claims made for what can be determined by such reconstructions are often dubious.

And thanks to the Don, too.

@Marty - they are just slogans. You have to check the Reformers themselves for what they meant by the slogan and how they did it in practice.

(I’ll come back to Dan’s post when I’ve said what I wanted to say)

The point I wanted to pick up with Michael’s statement

That is: ‘scripture alone’ is confused with ‘scripture only’

is that I think this error comes up under many guises including creation science of the young earth variety, essentially argued on the basis of a literal 24 hr creation day and a very literal reading of the biblical genealogies.

Leaving aside the contested issue of the meaning of yom in Genesis 1, the age of the earth is essentially one for the natural sciences, not the Bible.

In thinking about this I’m reminded of Luther’s 2 kingdom theology whereby he understood that God is the ruler of the whole world and that he rules in two ways.

Firstly, God rules the earthly or left-hand kingdom through secular government, by means of law, that is according to natural law and by way of the sword and secondly He rules in the heavenly or right-hand kingdom, his spiritual kingdom, that is, the Church through the gospel.

Calvin largely followed Luther in his two Kingdom theology in differentiating between secular society and the church.

The magistrate ruled according to natural law in secular matters. This Kingdom of the world relates to God as the creator God.

In contrast the Kingdom of God is represented by Christ as Redeemer ruling through His Word in the church.

(I have some reservations about 2K theology but that’s another matter)

However, I was reminded of this distinction last Sunday when I was asked whether the Presbyterian Church would come out and nail its colours as a global warming sceptic institution. My answer was that we would do no such thing given the matter of anthropomorphic induced global warming is essentially a scientific issue, not an issue for biblical/theological reflection, even though as an individual my biblically informed brain is led in certain ways when considering the issue.

Hi Dan,

Re your post #37

I was being a little contentious raising YEC, but it does illustrate the point I wanted to make, and I suppose the tenacity of YECs highlights my point - my experience of YECs is that if they find a supposedly orthodox Christian rejecting their position they become extremely toey, if not downright aggressive.

Because of Luther and Calvin’s 2K theology I am very doubtful either would maintain a YEC position had they our knowledge of the modern world. I’m sure had I had lived in the 16th C I would have thought in terms of a young earth. Whilst I have not read Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis, I do know that at most there would be only a couple of references in his Institutes to the (a young) age of the earth (III.xxi.4 is one example I know) – hardly the prominent place to the subject that YEC give it.

You put words in my month, in this case about my substituting general revelation for Genesis. I’ll gloss over that and bounce back your question by asking whether you consult the Bible on how to clean your teeth or drive a car?

If we are to recommend books, I recommend you read Henri Blocher In the beginning and Anthony Hoekema’s Created in God’s Image.

(Please don’t misunderstand me: in relation to the issue of knowing God, because of the entrance of sin general revelation is defective, for this we need the aid of spectacles - special revelation. This is covered in the early chapters of Institutes Book 1)

@Sandy in #40, who wrote:

Pretty much everyone on this thread has agreed that sources other than the Bible can aid understanding. But this over-statement above makes understanding God's Word very difficult - perhaps beyond reach - for many people, due to age, educational background, lack of opportunity etc. But such detailed background knowledge is apparently "crucial" to avoid error. Without being able to immerse themselves in books detailing to cultural and literary mindsets of biblical times, apparently one cannot begin to "even approach understanding the Bible". By contrast to this apparent elitism, ...

I do not resile from my position one bit! Indeed, a perfect understanding of the whole Bible is surely lost to us, millennia after the texts were penned. Certainly, the central message of the Gospel - God's grace through Jesus - is perfectly apprehensible to all. But many other parts of Scripture are not. If you (and Michael) are correct, then why do some Christians engage in formal study at theological colleges, with their large libraries? It is cultural ignorance (of Scriptural intent, etc.) that has led to the YECs' errors, for example.

And actually, I'm the opposite of an elitist (= one who denies access); I am an educator, who wants Christians to get off their own backsides to learn and think for themselves. OK? (Or would you prefer that theological amateurs, like myself, leave the knotty stuff to you pros?)

No Ian, you overstate your case.

Persons who have families, demanding jobs, etc are not in a position to do as you say. However (hopefully) they attend upon the preaching of the Word by suitably qualified men each Lord's Day.

You are interested in the tradition of the church, the tradition of the church is precisely this pattern that I outline. In former days people simply did not have the resources we have today. They were taught the truth of God's Word by their pastor/priest/minister.

Persons who have families, demanding jobs, etc are not in a position to do as you say.

Well, they can try as much as they're able - I have done for years in the face of all kinds of pressures (like completing a PhD in music while lecturing part-time at universities) and will continue to do so until I'm dead or mentally incapacitated. However, David, I absolutely agree with the rest of what you write. It is precisely the ready availability of a vast range of resources - e.g. both The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Volumes 1-9) and Calvin's Institutes are freely downloadable from e-sword.net - that yields the 'average first-world Christian' no excuse for ignorance nowadays. Still, as my own rector would confirm, I rely to some extent on the professionals' training by asking them (lots of) questions...

I realise a fair bit of water has passed under the bridge since Michael's original post - this may now be superfluous! Nonetheless, what Michael is talking about ties in pretty closely with a tool of biblical interpretation known as the 'analogy of faith', which in one form or another became virtually universal in Reformed exegesis throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. While modern interpreters have struggled to come to grips with its significance, it was an important device that regulated the findings of exegesis against a small but significant body of faithful tradition which put the Creeds at the top of the list. As one writer has put it recently, the analogia fidei served as a safeguard against excessive ‘rationalism’ on the one hand and ‘emotionalism’ on the other (the former became a big problem in the 17th cent, the latter in both), and also served a pastoral function as a device that helped less experienced/well-trained pastors stay on track, as it were. Far from representing a declension of the ‘sola scriptura’ principle, a failure to utilise it properly was typically seen to be a denial of the clarity, harmony—indeed, the authority—of scripture reflected in the received understanding of the church. Think about it – if God has spoken clearly and authoritatively in scripture, then wouldn’t you expect his church to have heard him clearly? If so, then in a measured way, tradition can – no, must – guide our exegesis.

And that's where 1 Tim 3:15 comes in.

Yes, precisely!

Think about it – if God has spoken clearly and authoritatively in scripture, then wouldn’t you expect his church to have heard him clearly? If so, then in a measured way, tradition can – no, must – guide our exegesis.

Beautiful - then we are all in agreement!

Beautiful indeed. But, alas: the disputations and schisms over Scripture for upwards of 1900 years, as well as Christendom's diverse attitudes to 'tradition', demonstrate that God's Church 'has not heard Him clearly', hence innate 'Scriptural clarity' is something of a chimera.

Scripture is full of examples of God speaking clearly through the prophets and in latter times through his Son and the sad failure of people to submit to the truth.

1 Timothy 3:14…
In this passage Paul makes it clear that he is writing things down so that the church will have the truth.
Paul goes on to say ‘some will depart from the faith’.

Hence the importance of holding to the apostolic tradition, and not adding to or subtracting from it.

2 Thessalonians 2
To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

Di

Do you say the Creed in your church? If so, then it claims - as does mine - to have heard something clearly! BTW, another couple of devices used by the Reformed to regulate the results of exegesis were the analogy of scripture (i.e., comparing scripture with scripture) and the 'scope of scripture' (scopus scripturae), which meant broadly, comparing exegesis against the general thrust of scripture, and more narrowly, the meaning of individual books. That is to say, no one ever assumed that precise agreement ought to be found in every detail of exegesis - the doctrine of perspicuity has never meant that - but the Reformed were supremely confident that God knows how to get his message across. And given we say the Creed in our church, I'd say 'Amen' to that! Without it, I'm not sure why I'd bother with church anymore?

Well Di, I agree that some bits are clearer - i.e. less prone to misunderstanding - than others. But Church History itself shows that the 'clarity principle' is at best eristic.

Hence the importance of holding to the apostolic tradition, and not adding to or subtracting from it.

Spot on!

Beautiful indeed. But, alas: the disputations and schisms over Scripture for upwards of 1900 years, as well as Christendom's diverse attitudes to 'tradition', demonstrate that God's Church 'has not heard Him clearly', hence innate 'Scriptural clarity' is something of a chimera.

Now, now Ian, no discordant notes - we were moving into beautiful harmony.

If by 'Scriptural clarity' we mean its all a laid down misere, I'll concede ground to you, but if you mean (our reading of) Scripture lacks clarity as to salvation and "how then should we live" then you are way off the mark - which being a traditionalist you should have known anyway..

@Michael, enjoyed the historical context in the article!

But, alas: the disputations and schisms over Scripture for upwards of 1900 years, as well as Christendom's diverse attitudes to 'tradition', demonstrate that God's Church 'has not heard Him clearly', hence innate 'Scriptural clarity' is something of a chimera.

Indeed! I appreciate the reformation doctrines insofar as they represent a return to sanity, but I think we, as humans, have a strange tendency to then let the pendulum swing too far the other way, and ironically end up enshrining reform which then becomes the new dogma requiring further reform, etc...

It creates a strange beast of a thing in the way we read the bible in the pews today -- we're so enthralled with the idea of sola (solo) scripture, and find the mere mention of the T word so on the nose, that we like to imply that you, average joe, can simply look at the text and come to understand propitiation, the trinity, or any other doctrine, however obscure, through your own careful study. It's kind of like those computer racing games, where you can drive anywhere, just so long as it's on the track.

That's not to say I have any affinity for tradition as custom -- tradition is a solution for which we've forgot the problem, after all -- but our treatment of our intellectual tradition is decidedly schizophrenic. It's a big deal in bible college, sure, and then it's dispensed with just as quickly in the pews.

I also think our clingyness with sola scripture goes some way to explain why we've been so asleep at the wheel with science. (We need a YECS law, like Godwin's law...)

It's been fascinating to me to observe how people who may notionally accept evolution use the language of design to describe all sorts of things (especially sex and relationships, with a heavy sprinkling of post-sexual revolution Western 'tradition', but I digress...), when the reality is far more complex.

Sola scripture (as it's currently held) to some extent lets people 'yadda yadda' what happens between 'God doing it' and where we are now, but the reality is just so different. But it's only in the last few years that evangelicals (world over) have started to take some tentative steps towards trying to understand it, mostly after being dragged there by the New Atheists.

And, of course, dare you colour outside the lines on other issues, you're branded a liberal (surely the most vile of terms!) and promptly marched outside the town gates... sola scripture!

Hey, David (#58):

I like discords (being a professional musician): all beautiful harmony has them!!! :-) [NB: harmony is from the Greek harmonia - a 'fitting together'.] Now seriously:

If by 'Scriptural clarity' we mean its all a laid down misere, I'll concede ground to you, but if you mean (our reading of) Scripture lacks clarity as to salvation and "how then should we live" then you are way off the mark - which being a traditionalist you should have known anyway.

Just to be absolutely unambiguous, I do mean the former and certainly not the latter. (Forgive my curmudgeonliness...)

@Luke, above. Right on, brother! (SydAng's Calvinists do seem a might sensitive to criticism. I'm expecting expulsion from the Diocese as we speak... [Thank God it's not 16th- or 17th-century England, or my punishment would be worse.])

I will stick with reverence. This is not a slavish reverence, not at all. It is a critical respect.

Michael, if this is what you mean by 'reverence', then it looks like we agree. (Let's add it to the list along with YECs ;-) )

Here's a quote I found from Calvin that I think is useful:

Hence the tradition of the fathers must be examined; and it is a mark of prudent discretion to observe what they contain, and whence they proceed. If we discover that they have no other tendency than to the pure worship of God, we may embrace them; but if they draw us away from the pure and simple worship of God, if they infect true and sincere religion by their own mixtures, we must utterly reject them.

(his commentary on Ezekiel 20:18, quoted by Bruce Gordon, Calvin, p.107).

But I think what we are still missing (possibly even in Calvin?) is a scriptural basis for this view of tradition. So we need to ask whether Calvin got it right, scripturally speaking.

Indeed, and this is precisely the usefulness of a Calvin, or any other figure in the tradition: do they illuminate Scripture for us? Do they help make us better readers of Scripture?

The Spirit of Jesus Christ is the illuminator of the word isn’t he? (John 16)

The Holy Spirit throws the spotlight onto us and our world, in such a way that we can know how to live wisely in fear and reverence of our Maker.

I would suggest that the problem of today is a serious ignorance, neglect and rejection of the Bible, not a serious ignorance of what past teachers have taught. And my hunch is that this would be the concern of a Luther and Calvin if they were knocking around today.


Deal bountifully with your servant,
that I may live and keep your word.
Open my eyes, that I may behold
wondrous things out of your law.
I am a sojourner on the earth;
hide not your commandments from me!
Psalm 119

Di

Interesting to note the Jerusalem Declaration's wording (that's Gafcon):

We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation. The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading.

I take it one can be respectful and disagree.

'Sola Scripture' would sometimes (many times??) cause men to declare that a traditional view is wrong, as did Luther and Calvin on many points.

Di

Well said, Di!

@Gordon (#62) & Michael (#63):

But I think what we are still missing (possibly even in Calvin?) is a scriptural basis for this view of tradition. So we need to ask whether Calvin got it right, scripturally speaking.

How about Matthew 15:3 - "... why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?" (NIV)? Interestingly, the gematria value of 'tradition', paradosis, here is precisely 'man's number' [Rev 13:18] - i.e., 666. (Just thought I'd throw that in to make a point...)

I would suggest that the problem of today is a serious ignorance, neglect and rejection of the Bible, not a serious ignorance of what past teachers have taught. And my hunch is that this would be the concern of a Luther and Calvin if they were knocking around today.

That's exactly so, Di, and it does feel odd to be discussing Sola Scriptura in such a way as to defend the use of tradition. One thing that I'm very confident of is that during the Reformation, the intention was to use the slogan to attack the use of (Roman) tradition.

In fact, the only tradition consistently defended by the Reformers (over and against Roman tradition) was the apostolic tradition, by which they meant the words of the apostles in the New Testament.

Even the mischievous Ian Shanahan rightly points us to

Matthew 15:3 - "... why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?"

which really sums up quite succinctly the Scriptural attitude to tradition. This is why I keep asking where Michael's attitude to tradition can be defended from Scripture (as opposed to GAFCON)? Perhaps it can be, but let's see it.

There seems to be two definitions of 'tradition' at work here - the Roman tradition, which the reformers attacked, and the 'tradition' that Michael originally described as:

What does this mean for evangelical Anglicans (and other inheritors of the Reformation) today? Scripture is the final authority to which all Christian thinking must be subject. However, it’s either arrogant or simply naive to imagine we are the first readers of Scripture, or that we can or should read it without reference to that tradition. And if a reading of Scripture is proposed that breaks with the witness of the tradition of faithful Christian readers down the two millennia of its being read, we do well to hear alarm bells ringing.

I find it hard to imagine anyone believes Roman tradition = good, tradition of reading the bible = bad, so I think any disagreement just comes from muddying the waters between the two.

One has to discuss Sola Scriptura in the context of a clarification about what it was and wasn't saying, since people will go round confusing the issue.

Gordon's citation is Christ's attitude to one form of tradition, and does not at all sum up succinctly or otherwise 'the Scriptural attitude'.

The very notion of Scripture itself is unthinkable without some idea of tradition - in precisely the way the Reformers framed it. That is: the church received and recognised and submitted itself to the enscripturated Word, which is how the canon came to be finalised. This does not mean, as the Church of Rome says, that the church stands over the Bible. But it does mean that the listening and obedient church hears its master's voice in the pages of the scriptures.

The pastoral epistles depict churches which engage teaching one another - and especially of the older teaching the younger. They are not merely reading the Bible out to one another. They are beginning a prectice of exhortation which will become a habit in Christian communities. In a sense, even 2 Tim 3:16 is the enshrining by Paul of a tradition of reading Scripture and submitting to its teaching - right?

Now, a small point of method. When Gordon says 'where can it be defended from Scripture' it is worth pausing just a little. Of course, direct comment on the issue from Scripture is decisive. But it may be - must be - granted that a principle can be derived from Scripture or inferred from Scripture. (ctd)

Gordon's citation is Christ's attitude to one form of tradition, and does not at all some up succinctly or otherwise 'the Scriptural attitude'.

Ian's citation.

But please defend this assertion. It's good to get some Bible into a discussion on the place of tradition, and this would be a fine starting point.

Our tradition of preaching in most Sydney diocese churches, for example - in style, content and method - is not something you can defend direct from scripture. You see very few examples of discourse like it in Scripture itself. But you can certainly infer from Scripture that it is a great habit to be in - even a scriptural one!

It's not hard to defend the assertion at all. Deuteronomy, for example, goes to great lengths to describe and encourage the practice of handing down and teaching the word of God generation to generation. Some of it is literal recital. Some of it is ceremonial. And some of it is more explanatory or reflective.

In 2 Thess 2:15 the paradoseis noun (ESV 'traditions'), used critically elsewhere is used positively. The Thessalonians are to hold on the traditions that Paul had passed on to them. Now, they aren't to invent new traditions- there is one clear source, right - the apostle. But it isn't Scripture he's talking about either. I don't think this means (as Catholics might assert) that we have here and from other verses evidence of an extra-biblical second source called 'tradition' - that's 'Tradition 2'. But we do have a practice of traditing.

Assertion defended!

Deuteronomy, for example, goes to great lengths to describe and encourage the practice of handing down and teaching the word of God generation to generation. Some of it is literal recital. Some of it is ceremonial. And some of it is more explanatory or reflective.

Hang on, though, those traditions are, as far as we're concerned some 3500 years later, identical with Scripture.

So you've managed to defend the idea of passing on tradition scripturally, which is excellent. But you've done it, in this case, by using only the bits of tradition that are contained inside Scripture itself. To which I say 'yay'; but my understanding is that in your original article you were trying to defend the use of extra-biblical tradition. NEXT!

In 2 Thess 2:15 the paradoseis noun (ESV 'traditions'), used critically elsewhere is used positively. The Thessalonians are to hold on the traditions that Paul had passed on to them. Now, they aren't to invent new traditions- there is one clear source, right - the apostle. But it isn't Scripture he's talking about either.

OK, we have one verse. I promise to go away and look at it. I would also promise to pray about it, but last time I did that publicly I got into a heap of trouble. ;-)

... But we do have a practice of traditing.

Out of curiosity, in which instances have we betrayed comrades due to fear of persecution?

Hang on, though, those traditions are, as far as we're concerned some 3500 years later, identical with Scripture.

Could a better test-case be the LXX Apocrypha?

Deuteronomy is telling us, at least in part, how to go about receiving the word of God in our time. It is not just making a point about its content, it is telling us how to live 'in' the Word of God. I think it is a worthy instance.

Oh, don't forget 1 Corinthians 11:2 -

"2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you."

Also: I am not defending 'extra-biblical' traditions other than those that involve the reading and receiving of Scripture.

This is not controversial, or somehow Catholicising. I recite the Nicene creed because not only does it tell what is in Scripture, but because it tells me how to read Scripture rightly. But its authority is derived from and subject to Scripture.

Actually, Di makes a very important point (64) about the relevance of the Spirit to this discussion. Not far from the assertion of 'sola scriptura' is what Calvin and his followers described as the 'internal testimony of the spirit' which assures the believer that the text is the living word of God. Sola Scriptura rests on this spirit given testimony, underwriting scripture's self-authenticating character and authority which rises above any assessment of tradition (e.g., such as the so-called 'internal' and 'external' arguments about the veracity of the text - as valid as they are). Distinct from but following the internal testimony is 'illumination' which is a process where the the Spirit guide us in our reading of the text. And given God's accommodation to human language which is - of course - contained within its own matrix of tradition, this process of illumination necessarily entails various instrumental means such as the use of reason, tradition and experience to understand the text. After all, we look up lexicons don't we? Yes, and we use the Creeds and a whole lot more! But none of this displaces the self-authenticating authority of the text assured alone by the testimonium internum spiritus sancti, a privilege he pours out on his people who would otherwise remain in darkness.

So, it would make sense to write one's article about the clarity of scripture before the article about sola scriptura then, right?
:-)

If you could write a PhD on it under the pseudonym 'Andrew Leslie', that would be even better :-)

In honesty, while we obviously we begin with scripture as the sole 'foundation of our knowing' (or do we begin with God?!), I do think that the coefficients of clarity and infallibility etc. are not far behind, and in many ways they can't be separated since we are talking about the word of the One, True God. I.e., the attributes of scripture, beginning with its authority, are all functions of affirmations we make about God. Anyway, authority doesn't make much sense without clarity! That said, I reckon the internal testimony of the Spirit is more to do with authority, and illumination with clarity.

Reference to the Holy Spirit as the arbiter of Scriptural truth can be fraught with danger. I read somewhere - I think it might have been David Bercot's Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up? - that in the US alone there are about 22,000 distinct Protestant denominations or sects alone, many of which uphold diametrically opposed doctrines while simultaneously asserting guidance by the Holy Spirit. Let me be clear: I am not denigrating the Holy Spirit, still less the Spirit's role in clarifying Scripture. What I am saying is that citing the Holy Spirit as one's doctrinal underwriter in itself proves nothing - anyone can do that, and other means are necessary to discern the truly Spirit-led from the misguided or deliberate deceivers.

One method, as I've written earlier, is to try to immerse oneself as much as possible into the culture and minds of the Biblical writers and their (near-)contemporaries, to tease out their intentions. Hard work, but necessary...

@Andrew - begin with God, or better, with the gospel! Otherwise it becomes terribly abstract....we begin with that word of his, the saving word. If we make any affirmations about God - and thus about Scripture - they had better be evangelical (in the sense of gospel) affirmations.

Ian, it is correct that there are over 22,000 Christian denominations, but not true that many of them have diametrically opposed doctrines.

I reckon the greatest area of difference would be in their teaching about who has the good oil. All too many of them would be saying

We are the precious, chosen few
Let all the rest be damned
There's only room for one or two:
We can't have heaven crammed

but even there what they say would often be pretty similar, except that their fingers would be pointing in a different direction.

Michael - don't worry, I entirely agree.

Ian - the internal testimony of the Spirit is not so much about the Holy Spirit 'clarifying' scripture; it's more about the author of scripture attesting to its authority.

Thanks Andrew - I take your point on board.

@David (#83): I'm thinking of (relatively peripheral) doctrines like whether the Sabbath/Lord's-Day should be on a Saturday or Sunday, for example. Moreover, bringing our friends the Roman Catholics into it now, they are of course diametrically opposed to us Protestants over transubstantiation. And yet I've heard of both sides seeking recourse to the authority of Divine guidance (the Holy Spirit). Both cannot be right, and so this method of 'proof' itself is unreliable.

Nice ditty, by the way.

In fact, Michael, what you are talking about is the scope or fundamental meaning of scripture, which takes us to the gospel of Christ. Scripture must never be divorced from the redemptive action of the Triune God, and specifically the prophetic office of Christ from whom the contents, authority, clarity, infallibility etc etc of scripture is derived via means of his Spirit (cf., 1 Pet 1.10-12).

Hi Ian. I'm just saying that there aren't 22,000 different points of view.

However as I read two of those books with different authors views on baptism, I can't help noticing how many different views there are on that subject. I think there are at least 8 competing views, though some of these agree on some parts of the topic.

Yes, David: you are of course right. Baptism is a far better example. You do see my point vis-a-vis recorse to the Holy Spirit...?

An interesting article by Wayne Grudem on the Clarity of Scripture is here

If the Bible is so clear, why are there at least eleven different Christian takes on baptism, and at least nine different views held by Evangelicals?

Please: before anyone makes the 'if the Bible is so clear, then...' comment again, please go back to the article on clarity from last week and see what the 'clarity of Scripture' is and isn't claiming.

If dolphins are so smart, why do they live in igloos?

--

Michael, would you agree/disagree that the method of revelation for such a clear/authoritative message is pretty, well, peculiar, to say the least?

I mean, we'd hardly be having these discussions if the bible was a single document which started with "This is God y'all, dictating my clear and authoritative message from on high, and if you don't understand, you best step off, yo."

(God picked up his street lingo by watching The Wire repeatedly.)

Yes, it IS peculiar. That's a great summary of 1 Corinthians 1-3. It is exactly what you wouldn't expect.

I don't know; I understand where you're coming from, but it seems like a pretty long bow to draw. It's also pretty meta - the idea that Paul writing about events was also (unbeknownst to him?) writing about his own writing seems like a stretch to me.

I guess I find the argument self-defeating, as it seems to require some liberal (hah! In the most generic sense) interpretations to construct a framework about scripture for which there seems to be scant evidence in scripture, all of which is supposed to attest to the clarity and authority of scripture!

Has anyone read Peter Adam's [url=http://www.ivpbooks.com/9781844742080]Written For Us? It looks interesting and is an exposition, chapter by chapter, of this statement:
Receiving God's Words
Written For His People
By His Spirit
About His Son

Re #89- thanks very much, Michael, for the link to Wayne Grudem's very recent Themelios paper. I think that is the best thing I have read for years on the topic, and as well as dealing with the "clarity" of Scripture it touches on a number of issues that have been noted here. In particular I was struck by this quote:

Historical background information can certainly enrich our understanding of individual passages of Scripture, making it more precise and more vivid. But I am unwilling to affirm that background information can ever be properly used to nullify or overturn something the text actually says. In addition, I am reluctant to affirm that additional historical background information is ever necessary for getting a proper sense of a text.

I am convinced he is right here. He goes on to make a number of important points about this, including that we may need to distinguish between "lexicographical" material (to allow translation) and other background material. But I think he has it just right. If we can't know the "truth" of the Bible without extensive research in extra-Biblical materials and (often speculative) historical reconstructions of "background", the Bible itself is not as clear as Jesus and the apostles clearly thought it was.

David @95 - thanks for pointing out this book - I hadn't heard of it previously. Having been a member of St Judes during Peter Adams's last year there, and having heard him preach on these themes a number of times, I am certain that it would be well worth reading.

@Neil in #96 - the Grudem quote:

no, No, NO!!! Consider Genesis 1-2, or Revelation (the 'peculiar' images therein). By Grudem's logic, we'd all have to be YECs, and awaiting the manifestation of fantastical-looking monsters - i.e. reading everything in the Bible absolutely literally. For example, in Luke 14:26 - you'd better hate your family, brother ... no excuses; never mind the fact that "historical background information" points to this verse embracing a literary device: hyperbole. ... You see?

Neil and Ian - perhaps the correct distinction is between literary background material (which is useful) and historical background material (which is not)...

Not a bad article at all, Michael.

Except... (there's always an except) for the needless slur against 'Anabaptists' - the term of course includes the students of Zwingli; and while a naive primitivism or else a mystic individualism can be found here or there among people who are lumped under the name, many or most were orthodox and did not reject tradition per se.

But historical background material may be useful. Just have to remember how speculative much of it is.

Remember the old chestnut about the 'eye of the needle' being a particular gate in Jerusalem? Turned out to be balderdash? Gotta watch that kinda thing.

You'll note Ian I put in a 'as far as we can tell'- the term 'anabaptist' is of course a vague one under which all kinds of sects were classified, and often by their opponents. Regardless of what the actual anabaptists believed, 'Tradition 0' was the position from which the Reformers sought to distinguish themselves.

Ian, re #98. Sorry mate, you don't convince me with your examples. In particular Revelation is a really good example of what I was saying- the only way to understand Revelation is to read it in the context of the rest of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. There may be the occasional subtle points that are illuminated from Roman politics in the 1st century, but the main story is the fulfillment of the promises of the Old Testament. Even Genesis 1 and 2 make perfect sense and can be interpeted as metaphorically as needed (I am not a "creationist" or YEC supporter) by reading them as part of the Bible as a whole. I do not need to read Enuma Eilish or other Babylonian sources to get the message.
Your examples confuse what Grudem (and I) are arguing for- reading the Bible in the context of the rest of the Bible- with some sort of wooden "literalism", which I am not advocating. Michael's example in #101 is a good example of how people in the past have read their own reconstructed background into the text.

Grudem is splitting hairs between "lexicographical resources" and "historical background information," and at that point his argument really approaches high farce. The necessity to construct such an arbitrary, abstract, and dare I say, intellectual framework to argue for the 'perspicuity' of the text is surely the biggest argument against such 'perspicuity' in the first place.

It's also incredibly odd to have to appeal to what "the text actually says" -- I thought the difficulty there was what the issue is all about!

"I am reluctant to affirm that additional historical background information is ever necessary for getting a proper sense of a text."

This is blatant nonsense, surely. My oh my...

Luke - I see the usefulness (or otherwise) of historical background information as being akin the use of Explanatory Memorandums as an aid to the interpretation of a piece of legislation. If at all possible, the first step is to try to make sense of the text on its own terms (including by interpreting the text of a particular subsection by placing it in the context of the Act as a whole).

Resort should only be had to EMs where the meaning still remains unclear, or to arbitrate between two competing possibilities, rather than as a means of identifying those possible meanings in the first place.

Thanks David, I see what you mean, I guess my problem is that to understand what something means requires, almost by definition, a common understanding of that meaning which is usually found outside the text.

Some simple examples: What is heaven? What is earth? What is water? What is <insert inanimate object here>? And that's before we get into anything conceptual!
So to then draw a line and say that's all fine, but beyond that there is information that is not "necessary for getting a proper sense of a text" seems completely arbitrary to me. It would make more sense if the bible made that distinction, but we have to bring it to the text ourselves, thus undoing the whole proposition.

I think (and I'm only guessing - plz shoot me down) this highlights the problem of establishing a reform as a dogma in itself.

At one end of the spectrum you have the existing dogma which the reform rejects, fine, everyone's happy. But then at the other end of the spectrum you have that reform as a dogma in and of itself, and coming at it from that end of the spectrum (as Grudem does), you have to push it to it's logical conclusions, where it inevitably falls apart.
That is, I guess the reform can (only?) be understood in opposition to something, but when it replaces what it opposes, its foundation for meaning is gone, it takes on a life of it's own, and then requires all these fanciful leaps of logic to sustain itself on its own, because its foundation is gone.

David- it warms my heart to see a contribution from a fellow lawyer! I like the analogy of legislative interpretation and Biblical interpretation. In fact I like it some much that I presented a paper on it earlier this year- see here for those who are interested. But I had never thought of this particular application of the principles. Good one!

Congrats MIchael, a centurian again.

Also thanks for alerting us to the latest Themelios - great that it survived thro' deserting print media for the electronic.

I mentioned earlier in the thread (#43,44) Luther (and Calvin's) two kingdom theology. This particular issue of Themelios has a interesting and helpful application of the two kingdom framework to the interpretation of Matt 5:38-42 re turning the cheek, etc in terms of separating out respective membership of the church community and of civil society.

Luke - in terms of biblical interpretation, I don't really see a problem with attempting to define "What is heaven? What is earth? What is water? What is <insert inanimate object here>?" by reference solely to the biblical text. At the very least, we would get a description / definition of these things that is sufficient for the bible's purposes.

Of course, it would be foolish of us to only define water, for example, by reference to biblical descriptions, as we would then miss out on additional knowledge (for example, that the chemical formula for water is H2O). For the purposes of biblical interpretation, however, this is very much a secondary (and often unnecessary) step.

@Neil in #103. OK. I agree with you that 'Scripture reading Scripture' is a valid hermeneutic. But ...

the only way to understand Revelation is to read it in the context of the rest of the Bible

[emphasis added]

... I think not.

Coincidentally, David Palmer mentions Matt 5:39 in #108 - a perfect example where knowledge of ancient customs is, I aver, necessary to elicit the text's full meaning. Let me explain:

If a Roman slapped another Roman (i.e. an 'equal') they apparently always used their right hand upon the other's left cheek - since the left hand was used for, to put it euphemistically, 'ablutionary purposes'. A non-Roman, such as an Israelite, was regarded as an inferior, and so copped it with the left hand. Seen in this light, Matt 5:39 is not meek-and-mildness, but its 'turning of the left cheek' towards the attacker is an act of passive defiance - an assertion of human equality before God. This fact is by no means perceptible from the text itself, and requires extra-biblical knowledge.

...if that's true. Sounds like the eye of the needle to me...

Michael, this Roman practice is apparently a fact - one I've read about time and again over the years in several texts by acknowledged scholars on Roman customs.

Sounds like the eye of the needle to me...

Why would you be naturally skeptical, given that the proposed reading is by no means heterodox?

Hence the expression cack-handed

Ian, re #110. I am tempted to let your comment speak for itself, but I really should respond.

Seen in this light, Matt 5:39 is not meek-and-mildness, but its 'turning of the left cheek' towards the attacker is an act of passive defiance - an assertion of human equality before God. This fact is by no means perceptible from the text itself, and requires extra-biblical knowledge.

So in the context of Jesus' teaching in Matt 5:38-42, usually understood to mean that Christians should not retaliate when evil is done to them (eg the beginning of v 39, "do not resist the one who is evil"), what Jesus is really saying is "show your passive resistance to the one who struck you" (which would seem to contradict everything else he is saying)?
With all due respect, that seems a perfect example of how relying on an apparent piece of cultural background effectively can undermine the plain meaning of the text itself.

<quote>You'll note Ian I put in a 'as far as we can tell'- the term 'anabaptist' is of course a vague one under which all kinds of sects were classified, and often by their opponents. Regardless of what the actual anabaptists believed, 'Tradition 0' was the position from which the Reformers sought to distinguish themselves./<quote>

We can still be friends. :-)

I'd say 'as far as we can tell' <b>some groups</b> among the so-called 'anabaptists' and 'spiritualists'.... etc etc

Your qualification here is a welcome and important one

Why would you be naturally skeptical, given that the proposed reading is by no means heterodox?

While I don't know about MPJ, my own initial suspicion stems more from a personal taste for parsimony in literary expression and an inkling of said explanation's Just So quality than any particular doctrinal or ethical implications it may have (which so far seem fair enough.) When something looks superlatively nice, I unfortunately tend to smell a rat.

@Neil in #114: Sorry, but I don't see any contradiction. What I described as "passive defiance" in asserting one's "human equality before God" in #112 is completely commensurate with this passage's usual reading (i.e. of not repaying evil for evil). Why could Jesus have not intended both interpretations? Hence your final paragraph is a non sequitur.

Ah, Michael (#116). My initial responses are the same as yours ... until I've verified it for myself!

At the risk of incurring the wrath of the Moore-College Calvinista posse: maybe you blokes need to put down your Bibles and Calvin's Institutes more often and read much more widely. ;-)

To paraphrase the German composer Hans Eisler (speaking originally about music): "Those who only know theology don't even know about that", and "Those who only know the Bible don't even know about that". Although one of you - Gordon - called me "mischievous", I am being totally serious here. As the British Prime-Minister Lloyd-George once exclaimed: "A Welsh coal-miner who speaks Latin is superior to one who does not". Who knows? You blokes might become (even) better theologians and gain hitherto-unimagined Biblical insights!

Goodnight to you all (3:12 AM, zzz...).

What I described as "passive defiance" in asserting one's "human equality before God" in #112 is completely commensurate with this passage's usual reading

As Nero Wolfe would say, "nuts!".

Have a look at the van Drunen article I referred you to in post #108. In Matt 5:38-42 Jesus is rejecting the Mosaic law of an eye for eye, including (passive) defiance for non retaliation in the life of the kingdom that he ushers in. van Drunen's 2K point is that it matters whether the Christian suffers as a follower of Jesus or as a citizen of the state, but read him (if you are interested).

I'm back on the question of how Michael's attitude to extra-biblical tradition, as expressed in the original article, can be defended out of Scripture.

#73 MPJ:

In 2 Thess 2:15 the paradoseis noun (ESV 'traditions'), used critically elsewhere is used positively. The Thessalonians are to hold on the traditions that Paul had passed on to them. Now, they aren't to invent new traditions- there is one clear source, right - the apostle. But it isn't Scripture he's talking about either.

#77 MPJ:

Oh, don't forget 1 Corinthians 11:2 -

"2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you."

The Roman Catholic church has traditionally ;-) made hay out of verses like these—and there aren't many—because it allows them to fill in the blanks with whatever more recent ideas they've dreamed up, such as transubstantion, purgatory, the immaculate conception of Mary...

You've chosen a more orthodox line and applied it to things like

the Nicene creed

(#77)

But an equally defensible conclusion (and one insisted on by various Reformers, I could add) is that these spoken traditions were written down by the apostles themselves, in the other letters of the New Testament. (Just as the traditions in Deuteronomy have been recorded in the Old Testament).

In any case, to use these 2 verses to argue the need for reverence for tradition is a stretch too far.

Back again...

As Nero Wolfe would say, "nuts!".

Actually, "nuts!" was most famously uttered by General McAuliffe in response to the Germans during the siege of Bastonne in the Battle of the Bulge (1944). When he heard of this, General Patton quipped that "a man that eloquent deserves to be relieved" - and then sent his Army north to fight off the German's Panzer divisions.

I'll check out the article, David. But I still see no contradiction (as yet)! And I would add that Jesus Himself 'defied' the Sanhedrin by remaining silent in response to some of their interregation ('turning the other cheek'). Similarly the early martyrs in refusing to recant their faith, unto death - heroic behaviour 'pouring ashes' on their persecutors' heads!

Not a stretch too far by any means. I was asked to provide references to tradition that weren't critical.

So is Gordon's position tradition 0? Must be.

MJ & GC: Really, why does this matter? You blokes come across like a pair of crotchety Mediaeval theologians arguing punctiliously over the number of angels that can dance on a pinhead! Convince me otherwise, please. What am I missing (if anything)?

Michael:

I was asked to provide [Bible] references to tradition that weren't critical.

I'm not sure who asked for that! But, speaking for myself, I was interested in verses from the Bible that support the positive view of extra-biblical tradition you're arguing for in your original post.

For what it's worth, I suggest here that to use the polemical slogan 'Sola Scriptura' as a jumping off point to defend extra-biblical tradition heads us off in a direction that the Reformers were not intending.

Isn't it the case that the Bible cannot answer every question (in that it's not some closed, 100% self-referential system), let alone every question about itself? For example ... divine inspiration of the whole Bible. 2 Tim 3:16 alone does not cut the mustard, since Paul is talking about the LXX + certain OT Apocrypha. So where did the concept of Holy-Spirit-authorship for the whole canon - specifically, the NT - come from? Ante-Nicene tradition methinks, with little, if any, internal Scriptural underwriting (show me the verses therein!).

Anyway, just because some Biblical proof-text cannot be found to support an idea does not imply that that idea must be necessarily jettisoned, particularly if there is hard extra-biblical (e.g. physical or archaeological) evidence to undergird it. Your thoughts MJ, GC, ...? (I don't mind being shot down in flames: that would mean I learn something and stand corrected.)

Isn't it the case that the Bible cannot answer every question

That's a self-evident truth, Ian. I doubt whether anyone really thinks the Bible answers every question, whether it's 'Where are your shoes, Lily?' or 'Who shot JFK?'

But for people who believe in the ultimate authority of Scripture, one of the questions you learn to ask early on is "What does the Bible say?"

If there is no direct answer, you then have to extrapolate from the principles you find, and sometimes that is easier than at other times. All I'm suggesting is that the overwhelming vibe of the Bible is somewhat negative about extra-biblical tradition—for example the useful verse you pointed us to earlier, Ian (ie Matthew 15:3 - "... why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?").

If people are not particularly fussed about the authority of Scripture, I suppose the question 'What does the Bible say?' (in this case, about extra-biblical tradition) would probably look a bit irrelevant.

But the question matters to me, and I assume to a reasonable number of people following the discussion. That's why I'm trying to push Michael a bit on it; the lack of scriptural evidence for his view seems to be an oversight in his argument in the original article, and I'm hoping he will keep addressing it in this discussion, or possibly even in a follow-up article.

Oh come on Gordo, I can't help thinking that you're being a we bit precious here. "Show me a proof text, show me a proof text...oh but not those ones." To belong to a group of people who ask, "Yes, but what do the Scriptures actually say?' is to be part of a tradition. Michael's point is that we take that seriously even when it means admitting that we have our own tradition.

Hi David,

The three texts Michael pointed to look like defences of the Old Testament and New Testament respectively. So I think they are great texts, just not to be pressed into defence of extra-biblical tradition.

I am a great lover of tradition of all sorts, I may even be slightly more positive about it than the Bible seeing as how I keep quoting Calvin and reading books about him. So don't hear me saying I am anti-tradition, (or even just a supporter of this newfangled Obermanesque Tradition 0 that Mike now thinks I am promoting!)

But nuancing 'Sola Scriptura' to make it mean that we should have a 'reverence' for tradition is a bit like trying to file off those nasty sharp points they used to put on clubs.

I may have more to say later (busy now). Suffice it to say, readers of this discussion should remember that Gordon's contention that the Reformers back him up on this one has been amply and repeatedly discredited with actual evidence on this very thread. He can persist saying that black is white (and I am afraid he will) but that doesn't make it so.

I should also point out that what I am saying is utterly uncontroversial from a Reformed Protestant point of view. That is, Christians who hold to the Bible as their sole authority have always understood it thus. It is worth restating this because in our contemporary context I often hear Sola Scriptura distorted and abused. This isn't 'nuancing' it: it is saying what it really meant, and means.

I'm now a bit puzzled as to what Michael thinks my view of the Reformers' view is.

The most balanced summary of the Reformation view of tradition is the quote I lifted from Bruce Gordon's Calvin biography way back in comment #62.

No need to scroll back, here's a repeat of Calvin being as wise as always:

Hence the tradition of the fathers must be examined; and it is a mark of prudent discretion to observe what they contain, and whence they proceed. If we discover that they have no other tendency than to the pure worship of God, we may embrace them; but if they draw us away from the pure and simple worship of God, if they infect true and sincere religion by their own mixtures, we must utterly reject them.

But this is old ground; I'd prefer to get on to what the Bible says about extra-biblical tradition—sorry for banging that drum again.

Gordon (#126). Thank you for your clear explanation, much appreciated. Like you, I, wherever possible, uphold Scripture as the ultimate authority. (Hey, agreement at last!) But, alas, it's not 100% self-supporting; and that's why sometimes one has to look elsewhere.

For YECs this is a problem erroneously resolved. They find a dissonance between Nature (i.e. science's take on cosmogony) and Scripture, and so simplistically reject the scientific evidence. I say there's no dissonance at all, but reject their literalist interpretation of the relevant Scripture (in Genesis) whilst maintaining Scripture's supremacy. God is, after all, the author of both.

Thanks again, and I apologise if I stirred you blokes overly much. (The image of long-bearded and berobed 'Calvinistas' riding on horse-back out of Moore College armed with heavy copies of the Institutes with which to smite their opponents does raise a smile.) :-)

Michael said:
However, it’s either arrogant or simply naive to imagine we are the first readers of Scripture, or that we can or should read it without reference to that tradition.

Does this passage say something different?
1 John 2
I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.

PS Not sure that those traditional creeds Michael mentioned declare justification by faith alone???

Cheers
Di

PS Not sure that those traditional creeds Michael mentioned declare justification by faith alone???

One sees something approaching it at the start and end of the 'Athanasian' Creed (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem: ... Haec est fides catholica, quam nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque crediderit, salvus esse non poterit.)

Hi Ian S,

Not sure why you do your anti Calvinist thing - for many of us taking note of his 500th anniversary it has been an absolute Calvinfest - most enlightening, enjoyable, even surprising.

I would have thought you would have appreciated The Institutes (BTW, have you read them?) given Calvin's continuous and discriminating exchanges with the church fathers, schoolmen, lutherans and anabaptists.

I would say that Calvin is a perfectly good example of both seeking to faithfully elucidate Scripture as God's Word for the Church's benefit,using all his acquired humanist tools, plain sense, commonm sense, faithfulness to the truth of God's Word, leading of God's Spirit, exchanges including arguments with fellow reformers, plus doing so all the while making use of a critical expropriation of all that seemed good in (y)our beloved church fathers, so that his finished result was not something new (though fresh!) but fell well within the cone of tradition spreading out from the NT writers.

Mind you, if you were an anabaptist and the subject in contention was the baptism of infants, you mightn't be so thrilled with this.

If these men had a particle of sound brain left, would they be blind to a thing so clear and obvious? (Institutes IV.xvi.30)

I think Calvin on (infant) baptism is brilliant but that's a subject for another day.

Let me finish here. Others may continue, but it is time for me to bow out - and write next week's piece.

What have I been arguing for?

1) sola scriptura, as any evangelical theological dictionary will tell you (and I have consulted several), is not a 'no-tradition' position. Quite the opposite: for the Reformers tradition has an ancillary role, subordinated to Scripture - and testable against it. Their attacks on 'tradition' were attacks on the Roman Catholic Church's use of tradition as a supplement to Scripture.

2) it is worth saying this - and not perverse to do so at all - because of an arrogant and often downright dangerous modern evangelical tendency to completely disregard tradition (which is as dangerous as the tendency to make it an idol)

3) in its best sense, tradition can be an invaluable aid and guide when the Scriptural witness has nothing or little to say directly on a matter. So, for example, the making of creeds - and the saying of them.

4) the Bible itself we only have in the form that we do because of a tradition of recognising it and receiving it as the word of God.

5) In the Bible itself (2 Tim 2:2 for example) you see the apostles setting up the practice of handing-on. They are not setting in train a body of knowledge separate to the witness of Scripture. They are inaugurating a practice of reading scripture in the church community, to be handed down from older to younger. Training, we might call it.

Hi Ian at #131

Since it's obviously very fashionable on this thread to disparage YECs (ie. young earth creationists) aka BBCs (ie. Bible-believing Christians), it's appropriate for me to identify myself as a YEC and contest a claim that you have made as follows in your post:

"For YECs this is a problem erroneously resolved. They find a dissonance between Nature (i.e. science's take on cosmogony) and Scripture, and so simplistically reject the scientific evidence."

My contention is simple. I don't find a dissonance between nature and Scripture, nor do I find a dissonance between scientific evidence and Scripture. However I do find a dissonance between unscientific evidence and Scripture.

Before you all jump down my throat saying, "We don't want to talk about this any further. Why are you raising this contentious issue? This is off-topic and threatens to derail the thread", all I'm going to say is that I didn't raise YEC, you guys did. If you don't want to talk about it, that's fine with me. It's going to keep appearing regularly in other threads so there'll be plenty of opportunity in the future.

Sorry Michael at #136, I didn't see your post, otherwise I wouldn't have posted at #137. It's just bad timing.

Nicely summed up, Michael.

100% agree.

Thanks for your work on the subject, Michael.

In the Bible itself (2 Tim 2:2 for example) you see the apostles setting up the practice of handing-on. They are not setting in train a body of knowledge separate to the witness of Scripture. They are inaugurating a practice of reading scripture in the church community, to be handed down from older to younger. Training, we might call it.

This is another excellent verse for defending the handing down of tradition—but not, it has to be noted again, the handing down of extra-biblical tradition. In 2 Timothy 1, the only tradition that Paul speaks of is the 'good deposit' that is the gospel itself. That gospel—and especially, the apostolic speaking of it—is contained entirely within the pages of the New Testament.

That's a really clear summary, Michael - thanks! - and all eminently reasonable...

@David (#134-5): I wouldn't describe myself as 'anti-Calvinist' per se at all; although I do cringe at being labelled a Calvinist, I stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you blokes against the forces attacking modern Reformed Evangelical Protestantism. So I'm no enemy...

My main issue is with the Reformed tradition, which is almost as blood-soaked as Roman Catholicism (NB: the 30-years war; the persecution of anabaptists etc.) - tainting Calvin himself personally - and culturally destructive (e.g. the English Puritans). I'm railing against the uncritical whitewashing of these inconvenient truths, so contrary to Christ's vision, which is why I prefer to align myself with the comparatively untainted tradition of the Ante-Nicenes (who are 'pure' and killed no-one).

I confess that I haven't read The Institutes cover-to-cover, only dipped into them, being too preoccupied with people like Clement Al., the Ante-Nicenes in general and my book on gematria (does Calvin have anything to say on that subject, I wonder?). But I promise to buy a hard-copy and read them!

You mention anabaptists. It looks like, from your quote, that I won't be harmonising with Calvin on that subject: I was baptised as a child, but chose to have it done again as a Christian adult - after reading some Tertullian. Technically, then, I am an anabaptist - very unSydAng! - but too late now.

OK?

Re #140: (is this not exactly what I have been saying? scratches head. goes away puzzled.)

Mutual head scratching. You scratch my head, I'll scratch yours. ;-)

Hi Andrew (@ #137). I'll be brief, as this is off-topic somewhat:

My contention is simple. I don't find a dissonance between nature and Scripture, nor do I find a dissonance between scientific evidence and Scripture. However I do find a dissonance between unscientific evidence and Scripture.

I 100% agree! But we'd probably part company over what evidence is unscientific. (Let's not go there right now.)

Nobody has disparaged YECs here, merely disagreed with them/you. However, I do take umbrage at the fact that you guys arrogate to yourselves the moniker, 'Bible-Believing Christians' - as if the rest of us are not! YEC is certainly more accurate. We simply disagree over Bible interpretation and intention; it comes back to a point I raised early, about trying to enter the mindset of the Bible-writers' times. You'll find that YEC literalism is decidedly modern; the Ancients' view of 'history' was completely different - e.g. the historically late letters from Jesus to King Abgar back ca.1500 years ago were regarded as authentic then, despite knowledge of the gap in time between the two characters!

Briefly on science: I'm yet to see a convincing YEC explanation (better than mainstream physicists') for the existence of heavy atomic elements, which the latter say come from 3rd-generation stars in a cosmological process spanning billions of years.

Anyway, acrimony over YEC issues is a sideshow dis/detracting from the central message of the Gospel. Yes?

Does this quote from #3 look familiar to you, Ian?

"Still, we must ever seek to avoid simplistic sola scriptura, idiotic fundamentalist autoliteralism as well as its opposite - an overexcess of poetics."

Query

I haven’t been following every twist and turn on this thread, but when we have been talking about tradition, I didn’t think we were on about "extra-biblical tradition" which Gordon refers to and which in my mind is apocryphal gospels and the like, but rather the tradition of interpretation of a) the Biblical texts (=commentaries, including, for Ian, the Ante-Nicene Fathers) and b) doctrine (=creeds) - both of which are then appropriated in a discriminating way as evidenced in Gordon’s beloved Calvin Institutes.

Anyway that’s the way I understand the tradition (the reformed tradition if you like), an entirely uncontroversial thing, not something to lose any sleep over.

@Gordon & Michael, above:

This is another excellent verse for defending the handing down of tradition—but not, it has to be noted again, the handing down of extra-biblical tradition.

I sense a difficulty here. Paul is historically prior to the idea of a NT canon (really kicked off by the heterodox Marcion during the 2nd century). So in 2 Tim, what is he talking about? Answer: the LXX and some OT Apocrypha, the latter of which we Protestants think of as extra-canonical.

Or have I missed something?

Hi Ian,

I don't know about being an anabaptist, so I'm not sure OK.

Left field perhaps.

Don't be too tough on the post reformation period, lot of factors as well as religion involved. The doctrine of original sin helps explain an awful lot.

I'm sure those ante-Nicenes got up to some hanky panky - probably didn't have the scope to do too much damage. Go forward a century and I don't think Cyril of Alexander and his monks could be certified as 'pure' and killed no-one.

@Andrew #146: Well, autoliteralism IS idiotic when applied to all Scripture, because at times it overrides writerly intent. No mention of YECs in #3, and not necessarily applicable to them...

David (#149):

The doctrine of original sin helps explain an awful lot.

This is another area that makes me squirm a bit: the post-Reformation adoption holus-bolus of Augustine's somewhat twisted take on original sin, at odds with the Ante-Nicene view. (Have a read of David Bercot's writings, I suggest.) Oh, I accept the concept of original sin completely (I'm no [semi]Pelagian!), just not its Augustinian interpretation.

No contest about Cyril of Alexandria - one of the early troublemakers, yes? But most Ante-Nicenes were pretty restricted by the ongoing Roman (and Jewish) persecutions.

Just happened to have Volume 2 of the eminent Richard Muller's Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics open on my desk, who says: 'It is...entirely anachronistic to view the sola scriptura of Luther and his contemporaries as a declaration that all of theology ought to be constructed anew, without reference to the church's tradition of interpretation, by the lonely exegete confronting the naked text....close study of the actual exegetical results of the Reformers manifests strong interpretive and doctrinal continuities with the exegetical results of the fathers and the medieval doctors' (pp., 63-4), and I could go on quoting...

I realise it doesn't prove anything other than what Michael is saying is hardly heterodox, nor a misrepresentation of the pre-eminent albeit carefully articulated role hued out for scripture at the time of the Reformation.

close study of the actual exegetical results of the Reformers manifests strong interpretive and doctrinal continuities with the exegetical results of the fathers and the medieval doctors' (pp., 63-4), and I could go on quoting...

Hopefully we can all be agreed on this now and await Michael's next post - slim pickings w/o him

Hello David @ #45

I was being a little contentious raising YEC, but it does illustrate the point I wanted to make, and I suppose the tenacity of YECs highlights my point - my experience of YECs is that if they find a supposedly orthodox Christian rejecting their position they become extremely toey, if not downright aggressive.

For which I apologise of course. Personally I think that YEC is so solidly Biblical that there's no need for any advocate to descend from serene masterly confidence. More on the "tenacity" thing below.

Whilst I have not read Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis, I do know that at most there would be only a couple of references in his Institutes to the (a young) age of the earth (III.xxi.4 is one example I know) – hardly the prominent place to the subject that YEC give it.

You certainly know Luther's justly famous and v. powerful quote about the need to fight the battle where it's at. YEC wasn't an issue back then - Calvin and his Roman, Socinian and Anabaptist adversaries all accepted it - but today that it's one of the burning issues, who will show some "tenacity" about it?

You put words in my month, in this case about my substituting general revelation for Genesis.

Actually it's you who've put them in mine, because I never said you do this. I did say that "many" talk in a way that appears to place "nature" before Scripture, but didn't say you did.

(TBC)

Please don't continue. YECS is off topic.

I’ll gloss over that and bounce back your question by asking whether you consult the Bible on how to clean your teeth or drive a car?

Do you understand the categorical difference between subjects the Bible says nothing about and ones it says a good deal about?

If we are to recommend books, I recommend you read Henri Blocher In the beginning and Anthony Hoekema’s Created in God’s Image.

I obtained Blocher's a year after it came out in 1984. My recommendation is 24 years more recent than that. Of many things one could say about his work I shall confine myself to this:

The following authors either promote or at least accept belief in millions of years: [eight names listed]. So do [fourteen more names]. So also do [nine further names and] Blocher. But none of these scholars interact with the Jesus AGE verses and most of them do not consider at all the New Testament teaching relevant to the correct interpretation of Genesis 1-11.

(Terry Mortenson in http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/jesus-and-the-age-of-earth)

The simple point being this: supposing the framework hypothesis to be correct and therefore that nothing chronological can be deduced from Genesis 1, it would still be Biblically certain that the world can't be millions of years old. Maybe in a later post I'll indicate some of the reasons why not.

(TBC)

Apologies Michael @ #155 - our posts crossed.

NB YEC was first raised by its opponents. Was there some earlier post where it was made OT that I hadn't read?

More to the point, how exactly is YEC OT to the subject of the opening article? To me and doubtless many other it's highly relevant and involved....

[One of the greatest and most enduring slogans of the Reformation is sola scriptura (‘scripture alone’).]

Of course 'sola scriptura' is itself a tradition of the (protestant) church. And the validity of 'sola scriptura' and what we mean by it like all traditions still needs to be checked against scripture. So if we grant 'sola scriptura' validity we are admitting that at least some traditions have merit ... yet of course this tradition points us to the bible ...

Hi Dan,

it would still be Biblically certain that the world can't be millions of years old.

This is my toothbrush point.

I don't believe the Bible sets out to prove the age of the earth, it is a scientific research, natural revelation matter - my point about Luther and Calvin's two kingdom theology.

how exactly is YEC OT to the subject of the opening article? To me and doubtless many other it's highly relevant and involved....

Couldn't agree more.

However, Michael has asked us to desist which I will do though I share your concern that it appears to be a deliberate policy of this website to steer clear of origins.

In the new year I hope to get my answering the atheists website up and running and I definitely want to have origins as a matter of debate - for the record I'm an "undogmatic old earth creationist who allows space for evolution at the micro level" - I have been deeply impacted by the philosopher, David Stove on this latter point.

Chiefly:

YECS discussions have been had on this website over and over again. People are simply unable to have the discussion in a civil or edifying way (not pointing the finger at either side). It acts as a cuckoo in the nest on any issue, and quickly takes over. And we never get anywhere.

And, in my opinion, it is boring.

@ #148:

I investigated this issue a while ago and became convinced that in 2 Tim 3:16 Paul is describing the characteristics of what 'Scripture' is rather than describing a particular corpus that already existed in its entirety. It is a 'trees are green' type of statement. It is therefore not inappropriate to apply this statement to any text once it is recognised as Scripture (e.g. 2 Peter 3:16).

Matthew, exactly, with possibly the proviso that the recognition of Scripture as Scripture isn't necessary for it to be Scripture—that is, it is God's word immediately God speaks it and doesn't need a Church council to vote it into divine status.

As for the rest, seeing as how Michael has left the room except to come back and quieten the students for talking about YECS, am I allowed to say that the latest post on my blog is the Youtube video of Obama's teleprompter failing during a family dinner?

No? Oh...OK, don't click on that link, folks.

I’d suggest that unlike any other text written there is a necessary ‘nakedness’ involved in reading scripture. ‘Today’ is always today. Scripture is a living and active word as God speaks now.

It addresses the hearts and minds of readers unlike any other text.

This sense of ‘nakedness’ is not a denial of ordinary influences in our reading, and it not saying we cannot learn from past teachers, but it is a recognition that the Bible can be read without reference to the traditions of men and sometimes it is even wise to do that in order that the Bible be clearly understood and to have our presuppositions overturned.

Di

Is YECS a kind of Christian Godwin's Law? :-)

Yes Gordon, I agree with #162. As I said, it is a 'trees are green' kind of statement. Trees are green before people see them, and scripture is scripture before a council 'officially' declares it to be such. It is about recognising what is in front of us for what it is.

Hi Michael at #155

There is only one reason why people such as myself comply with the following directive that you have issued:

"Please don't continue. YECS is off topic."

We don't want to get our blogging accounts permanently banned by Sydney Anglicans. The first infraction results in a two-week ban. The second infraction results in a permanent ban. Sydney Anglicans uses the very real prospect of having one's account permanently banned to control the debate on this site. This is not conducive to healthy discussion and it is not in the best, long-term interests of this website.

You have shut down legitimate debate about creationism because you think it is "boring" (#160). This is censorship. Many of us do not think it is boring but have legitimate interest in this subject that relates to the origin of sin for which Jesus Christ died on the cross.

You have taken it upon yourself to decide what is and what is not relevant to the discussion at hand in a manner similar to a government setting the terms of reference for an inquiry so as to exclude discussion that it wants to avoid.

You have shut down legitimate debate about creationism because you think it is "boring" (#160). This is censorship.

Insofar as Dr Jensen does not appear to wield administrative powers here, it is rather more in the nature of a fraternal exhortation. Moreover, some measure of censorship may at times and in various contexts be properly requisite to the promotion of civil discourse.

Hi Michael C. at #167

It is hardly necessary to shut down discussion of a subject if the discourse becomes uncivil which is what Michael J. is advocating at #160. The solution to such uncivility is to shut down the offending blogger, not the discussion of the subject at hand by others. To use the excuse of lack of civility to shut down discussion of a subject is tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is just a convenient excuse for avoiding a subject.

Andrew:

Over the years, this website, paid for and sponsored by the Sydney Diocese, has played host to a number of lengthy discussions of YECS. Plenty of air has been given to it.

It is almost always disgraceful and unedifying. I have to say the chief offenders are usually proponents of YECS - some of whom even began their own anti-Sydney diocese hate blog. You yourself had to be disciplined recently. It all has that 'here we go again' feeling. Oh, and in case anyone should ask, anti-YECS people have also been disciplined in the past.

No new ground is likely to be covered by having the discussion all over again. No-one is likely to be convinced to change position. I am unembarassed by accusations of ''censorship' - we have no obligation to play host to material that we think is detrimental and counterproductive.

Michael C. is right - I have no administrative power here, but since Anglican Media are very short staffed these days, why don't we save Jeremy the bother of having to say what I just said.

This is one baby I am happy to see tumble out of the bath along with the water.

Hi Michael at #169

I was not disciplined for being uncivil or even disciplined at all. I had my account suspended for talking about current affairs issues that this site clearly did not want discussed. It had nothing to do with YEC, nor was I being uncivil. I walk the line because I know how highly-controlled this website is. It is irresponsible for you to imply that I was disciplined for being uncivil during a discussion about YEC.

It is funny that you say, "I have to say the chief offenders are usually proponents of YECS". People like me who promote YEC are acutely aware that they had better not make one false move otherwise they will be shut down. I conduct myself accordingly.

Good! Let's keep it that way.

I don't endorse the tone of the comments against YECS here. Ian's comments in particular were just as rude to those he terms 'Calvinistas'.

And I thought a Calvinista was a Calvinist who makes really good coffee...

Whilst I agree that YECS is contentious and YECS proponents can be aggresive and lose perspective, nevertheless the issue is an important one and frankly Michael, your it is boring has more than a touch of adolescent petulance about it.

However aggravating, boring, annoying the topic is, it will not go away if only because of the great impetus given to it in the evangelical community through the agency of the christian and home schooling movements.

However, this thread is of Michael's making and I will refrain from saying anything more, instead looking forward to his next topic. Without his contribution the pickings are extremely thin (I do miss the old forum).

a Calvinista is a Calvinist who makes really good coffee...

Thanks for the reminder, the milk has been in the freezer for 2 hrs!

Hi Michael at #171

At the risk of prolonging this discussion unduly, I would like to make a few conciliatory points:

> It was not fair of me to use the word "highly" in my post at #170 when I said, "I know how highly-controlled this website is." In my experience, the overwhelming majority of the time, I have been granted ample opportunity by this website to make the points I have wanted to make. On many occasions I have pushed the boundaries hard and still been allowed to speak freely.

> I understand if this website has had young earth creationists come here in earlier years and be antagonistic, causing this site to develop a low tolerance to discussion of YEC. I have seen the "anti-Sydney diocese hate blog" that you refer to and I was not impressed. (Maybe they had their accounts here permanently banned. I don’t know.) They seemed to talk about the same thing over and over again. I do not believe that this is the way forward.

> Having only been on this site for a couple of months, it appears to me that the majority of posters are interested in pursuing truth rather than winning an argument to justify their ego even if they’re wrong. I would hope that the former is the motivation that I have displayed also.

> Many Christians in Sydney such as myself have been severely disenfranchised by the overwhelming superficiality of some charismatic churches we have attended (where misguided, unilateral, autocratic leadership was the order of the

Continued…

day) after formerly attending Anglican churches. Consequently, our level of trust in churches in general is extremely low and we are disinclined to accept many things at face value. This leads to a tendency for us to challenge ideas and seek discussion. I believe that such discussion and dialogue represents the way forward for the church in general to grow and become healthy. When I perceive that the culture of the church in Sydney has changed to an extent that discussion and dialogue (in place of unilateral communication) is seen as a healthy thing, then I will return to church.

I must admit that in previous posts I have made on this site, I have been guilty myself of posting at times in quite a unilateral, take-it or leave-it manner. Often this was because of the strength of my conviction in relation to the topic at hand and because I didn’t want to post things that could be shown to be false. However such an approach hardly lends itself to discussion and dialogue with other posters. I’ll try to keep this in mind for discussions in the future.

Good for you Andrew, but:

we are disinclined to accept many things at face value.

- except the Bible? :-) [Just a gentle stir...]

@Michael J (#171):

I don't endorse the tone of the comments against YECS here. Ian's comments in particular were just as rude to those he terms 'Calvinistas'.

Well it was not my intention to be rude - confronting, maybe - so I apologise to you and anybody else if I've caused any hurt. As for "Calvinistas", that was originally a typo(!) which I let stand, because I thought it funny (barista, fashionista, etc.) and conjoured up in my mind amusing images of Latin-American rebel groups (e.g. Sandinistas) in Western movies!!! (See #131, last paragraph.)

Returning to topic, about Scripture. In #2, I mentioned the 666 of Rev 13:18 and its variants, the canonicity of one reading (666) being decided extrabiblically. Surely, aside from obvious scribal errors (haplography), the multiplicity of variant texts precludes the idea of 'Scripture validating Scripture' invariably: Who decides what to reject? The Holy Spirit? (OK - if problematic on account of unverifiability.) Committees? (Yes.) Extrabiblical sources? (Definitely!) But perhaps not always Scripture itself, when we cannot agree what is kanonikos and what is not in the first place. Don't forget: Paul himself in certain of his Epistles relied upon OT Apocrypha/Pseudepigraph that the Reformers rejected... (grounds for their reinstatement?).

Briefly (and I do hope uncontentiously) off-topic and back to YECs:

My - and many others' - primary objection to YEC is that, being peripheral to Christianity's central topic of the Gospel, it is often a huge obstacle to evangelism - given the widespread acceptance of mainstream cosmology, palaeontology, archaeology, and literary criticism. YEC gives many a well-read, intelligent potential Christian the impression that they really must leave their brain outside the Church door in order to become a Christian. (I would expect that YECs in such cases would at least refer these people to other Christians for whom YEC is not a sine qua non.)

@Andrew - thankyou for your gracious remarks.
@Ian - not here, not now.

@Ian - not here, not now.

Michael, if you mean the YECs debate, then I will entirely desist from even mentioning it henceforth within this thread, as requested - for all of the very sensible reasons you previously noted (though I can't see you disagreeing with my observation in #178!). But if instead you're referring to the last paragraph of my #177 (which is utterly pertinent to your article and to the constellation of issues surrounding it), then I deeply hope that you or one of your expert-colleagues deigns to respond to it sometime - if not here-and-now, then elsewhere. Thank-you in advance!

PS: What's the (your?) record for the thread with the greatest number of posts? This one must come close...

@Matthew (re #148 & #162 etc., belatedly)

I investigated this issue a while ago and became convinced that in 2 Tim 3:16 Paul is describing the characteristics of what 'Scripture' is rather than describing a particular corpus that already existed in its entirety.

Would you care to elaborate upon how you reached this conclusion (with which I don't necessarily disagree)? Convince me!

A previous thread had 600 posts, as I recall. But that was in the good [and bad] old days of a forum where the plebs could initiate a thread.

Hi Michael,

You sure know how to pick the hot topics! The above discussion just goes to show how important Cranmer's Unwritten Verities chapter 1 - 10 are for Anglicans. I wish a local printing press would popularise and distribute as a classic Statement on the Anglican position of Sola Scripture. For those who have not read, I commend them as a most outstanding Anglican statement on the issue.

At the risk of wading into a crocodile infested river may I dare to contribute to this topic without getting eaten (theologically) by much sharper (and well trained minds than mine).

Tradition 0 (or nuda scriptura) was the position of the Radical Reformation, the ‘Anabaptists’ – who argued rather (as far as we can tell) that every individual had the right to interpret Scripture for him or herself.

As far as I understand Michael argues that there is a place for tradition going back to Augustine who only a few centuries after Jesus is relied on for how he interpreted scripture.
The Anabaptist however started from the position of scripture without tradition. Sure a few lunatics labelled "Anabaptists" gave them a bad name but they challenged the traditions of the church including the "magisterial reformers" by appealing to scripture to separate church and state. Luther, Calvin et al were happy to reform the church but did not want reform to its conclusion. The idea of a state church was still part of their reforming theology. Do Sydney Anglicans (and I am one presently) reaally accept QEII as the head of the Anglican Church? Fundamentalists who rely on the KJV of the bible would perhaps be shocked to realise that James I was a scoundrel. Can Anglicanism really rely on some traditions and how does it discern between good and bad traditions.
The Anabaptists - radical reformers sought to take the church to its biblical roots.
Sola Scripta

Eddie - as the 39 Articles show, Anglicans ought to subject their own traditions to Scripture.

The Queen is not the head of the Anglican Church in Australia, nor anywhere else other than in England.

Do Sydney Anglicans (and I am one presently) reaally accept QEII as the head of the Anglican Church?

Personally I do to some extent, albeit viewing the term "Supreme Governor" as spelling-out its niceties better (and far more so in Her English Capacity than Her New South Welsh or Australian ones.) Moreover, I'd contend that the secular supremacy of civil power concerning ecclesiastical affairs applies irrespective of a polity's apparent disinclination to exercise it.

Michael
Moreover, I'd contend that the secular supremacy of civil power concerning ecclesiastical affairs applies irrespective of a polity's apparent disinclination to exercise it.

The Anabaptists sought to separate the supremacy of secular supremacy over ecclesiastical affairs and were accommodated by various rulers during the Radical reformation. Surely a civil society as we have can accommodate churches managing their own affairs without state intervention?

In particular, said principle of civil supremacy was meant to guard against assertions by certain prelates and certain of their partisans at various times that said prelates, through quasi-judicial pronouncements, could arbitrarily depose rulers of territories and release subjects/citizens of their allegiance.

Surely a civil society as we have can accommodate churches managing their own affairs without state intervention?

To some extent (which seems a matter for prudential assessment from case to case.) Still, what we and others define as "our own affairs" has an unfortunate tendency to grow ever wider unless external parameters get set.

An intriguing take on the current English situation, Eddie, can be found here.

Some obvious misunderstandings and/or misrepresentation of what the Catholic Church teaches about Tradition and Scripture. Any tradition that is not part of the sacred deposit of faith is not binding. All revelation ceased when the last apostle died.

The CC does not hold to the view that she is above scripture, (as has been suggested here) thereby allowing her own doctrines to dominate or cancel what scripture may say. The bible is part of Sacred Tradition because the bible came after the Church. It's not either/or, it's both/and. So the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, gave us the bible - like it or not; and like it or not, protestants have accepted, mostly unaware, that a Church infallibly decreed it to be so. I accept that the Church thought the letter of Jude was God's Word and did not think that Clement's or Ignatius' writings were. When reading these two apostolic fathers, I often wonder why.
I'm pleased to see that there is some acknowledgement that "sola scriptura" is very much a tradition that protestants hold to. Unfortunately, most do not test it with what they claim to be the sole rule of faith - scripture.

I did have a laugh at Gordon in post 120 where he claims the CC "makes hay" of 2Thess to support their case for Tradition. So a Catholic uses scripture and you guys say we play unfair. I promise I won't use 2Thess (cause I can use many other passages to support my case) if you don't use 1Tim 3:15 anymore!

Donna: As a Protestant Christian, it's the extra- and contrabiblical stuff - e.g. the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary; praying to Saints; etc. - which is demanded of Catholics that I (and other Protestants) rail against. No acrimony intended ...

Ian,
Those doctrines you mention do not contradict scripture, although I would love to demonstrate this, I do not wish to railroad the thread.

My intention was to highlight erroneous views protestants have on Catholic doctrine. It is a commonly held belief by protestants that Catholics insist in traditions 't' as part of the deposit of faith. There is a distinction between Tradition and tradition. The latter has no place in official Catholic teaching. Tradition 'T' is that which has been handed down by the apostles and which ceased at the death of the last apostle. No further revelation /'t'radition is "demanded' upon Catholics.

The early Church fathers testify to all those doctrines mentioned above, so are part of the sacred deposit of faith.

My other point was to highlight the obvious (I guess to me only) irrationality behind the doctrine of sola scriptura. Scripture cannot validate this. How could it? Does the bible give us a list of books to be included? Why were some writings of the apostles not considered? Other non-biblical texts are mentioned in the writings of scripture, therefore, the writers themselves could not have believed this to be a doctrine. Authorship on some texts is still in question. Jesus Himself never wrote a thing nor required His apostles to do so. And so on.

cont.

The net result of sola scriptura is thousands of denominations. To brush this aside and say they are minor disagreements and not disagreements on the 'big' things is to be naive. Pentecostals say you guys don't have the Holy Spirit; some of you guys think Hillsong are not part of the body of Christ; and then the debate over baptism. Just a minor issue - I don't think so.

In order for Christian unity to have a chance we need to look at ourselves, not just at others. I believe the doctrine of sola scriptura has done more to dismantle the body of Christ than any inquisition could. Sometimes we have to swallow our pride and admit we could be wrong.

I know from reading this thread and being involved with others throughout the Anglican community and other Christian communities, most get it wrong on what Catholicism is all about.

I think you are right Donna. Often Protestants caricature RC's without taking time to listen to individual Catholics, (who, often aren't sure of the official Catholic position and don't believe it anyway - Many, Anglicans are the same when it comes to their 'Official' Anglican position).

However, the only chance of real Christian unity is by affirming the doctrine of sola scriptura, that is, that God addresses his people in and through the Scriptures. This means that he is supreme authority over the church - ie by the Holy Spirit God spoke through the prophets and apostles and speaks today through those words.

The RC position, affirmed by Vatican II, places The Church (RC) on an equal level as the Scriptures.

The Protestant position is that human reading and discussion about God and his word is flawed because we are not on an equal with God and all our musings are open to correction.

Doing away with the doctrine of sola scriptura ends conversations like this one. If only one Church has authority to decide doctrine there is no freedom. This is exactly what happened in the Medieval period of church life - inquisitions etc. It happens today in Protestant circles where 'so called' authorities set themselves over Scripture instead of humbly sitting under God's word and letting God be God.

Donna, the problem is not with Sola Scriptura, properly understood, but Solo Scriptura, as Michael said at the very beginning.

By the way, who writes the SMH crossword clues? Yesterday I was stumped by this clue "German religious heretic." Today I discover the answer is Luther! Tsk, tsk!

A previous thread had 600 posts, as I recall. But that was in the good [and bad] old days of a forum where the plebs could initiate a thread.

The longest thread I've seen anywhere is this one (which at over 158,000 posts has admittedly gone off-topic and risen to statistical game-manship æons ago.)

I need to stop reading and log off as I'm getting a headache. It's been "fun" though!

Donna,

A pleasure to see you back!

David

Peter
Unfortunately, sola scriptura is not supported by the bible. Whilst I don't want to go into a full blown explanation, there are a couple of examples that support that it is the church that is the ultimate authority (of course as Christ the head of the Church). 2Thess 2:15 - indicates that both oral tradition and written tradition stand side by side; Matt 18:17-18 gives us an example that the church must be listened to. 1Cor 11:2 indicates that Tradition is seen as essential; 2Peter 1:20 indicates that scripture is not open to private interpretation. So who decides? Go to the Church to settle it as Matthew tells us.

In all of this, I do not want to give the impression that the CC sees Tradition as over scripture. The very fact that the bible was given to us, by the Church, and declared the infallible word of God by the Church, indicates that this is part of the Tradition which Catholics refer to. Although the bible tells us that all scripture is profitable etc., this does not mean the bible alone. This verse is not an exclusive statement because in other parts of scripture, as indicated above, tradition also plays a part. So, by using the words of sacred scripture, one can come to the conclusion that sola scriptura is not within its pages. The irony!
You refer to freedom. The truth will set you free. I don't think all truth is found in thousands of denominations. Jesus never intended for His Church to be split.

David M
I do the SMH crosswords and did have a laugh. I must admit I felt a little uneasy writing his name.

David P
Thank you. I feel a little like a stalker. This page was sent to me for some reason, so just couldn't help myself.

Peter
Vatican II did not affirm that the Church was over scripture. In Dei Verbum the Council said there were two distinct modes of transmission of revelation. Firstly, sacred scripture - being the speech of God in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit and Secondly, Tradition which transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. The council also states in the same document that the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body (DV13).

This can hardly be seen as the Church seeing itself over the scriptures. I suggest, if you are interested, to take a look at the Catechism online and look at the articles on revelation and sacred scripture. The latest catechism is a great source of scripture references and references to the church fathers as well as references to various encyclicals etc.

Thanks D. for clarification. I am really interested. This has been one of the profound areas of disagreements for us.

In the Anglican trad' the church ever has the role of being a secondary witness to truth. For Anglicans, deciding matters of doctrine can never be an original undertaking, nor even can there be

another distinct mode of transmitting revelation

. You have nailed the profound difference between th RC and Protestant Churches with that sentence.

The RC believes in apostolic succession (ie that the bishops and priest trace their authority back to Peter). And therefore the Church (meaning the bishops and priest - the authorities) is able to be a transmitter of revelation. Is that right?

For Anglicans the church can only ever be the keeper of holy writ and not a mode of revelation.


For Protestants the Apostolic period ended when the first generation of apostles died hence the necessity to gather together God's word already written as the supreme authority. It was not the Church per se deciding the Scriptures, it was the apostolic word being recognised for what it already was - God's breathed out word.

Thus, God’s word written is not dependent on the pronouncements of the Church.

Peter
The CC teaches that the Word was transmitted two ways - orally and in writing (CCC Article 2 para 76); 2Thess2:15. That revelation ceased when the last apostle died. No new revelation exists within the CC.

Paragraph 80 of the CCC says "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal (DV). Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age" (Mt 28:20)

Para 81: Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the succesors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching."

The Church is more than a keeper of holy writ. The Church wrote the scriptures, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So it has the ability and responsibility to interpret. Acts 8:30-31 demonstrates the need for an authority to guide us to understand the scriptures.

cont.

cont.
Peter
In discussing the written Word of God, you state that "...the necessity to gather God's word already written as the supreme authority. It was not the Church per se deciding the Scriptures, it was the apostolic word...."

A couple of problems with this statement. Firstly, you must recognise that it was the Church who decided what was scripture and what was not. We have numerous letters Paul wrote which were not included in the canon. How about the other writings of the other apostles which are not included? Someone had to decide what writings were God's word and which were not. This process did not happen by osmosis. The Church gathered at a Council and definitively made the decision. Secondly, that decision was made in the 4th century. So the Church for over 300 hundred years existed without a formulated canon.

Perhaps I am not understanding your statement, however, it seems to me that you are ignoring the obvious.

It is not that God's word is dependent upon the Church's pronouncements, it is that the Church is the servant of God's word (received orally or in writing).

Hope this helps.

We have numerous letters Paul wrote which were not included in the canon. ... The Church gathered at a Council and definitively made the decision. Secondly, that decision was made in the 4th century. So the Church for over 300 hundred years existed without a formulated canon.

Hi again, Donna. I'm aware of other letters that Paul wrote (to the Corinthians and to the Laodiceans) which have been lost. But are you saying yet others are extant? Please enlighten me!

I think your view of canon formation is a little bit simplistic. The idea began with Marcion in the 2nd century, but many prominent Ante-Nicene Fathers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries made their own lists of kanonikoi, with significant overlaps. And Nicaea 325 AD was not the end of the matter by any means! I have read, for example, that Revelation was not fully accepted into the Western church unil the 10th century! [Source: Introductory Essay in Volume I of ed. Schneemelcher: New Testament Apocrypha.]

Hi Donna,

Thanks for answering so carefully. I think we agree that there is always going to be great difficulty in all of our human speaking about God's speech. What humility for God to condescend to our level and even allow us to ponder his mysteries!

What we do know is that our words are not equal in authority to God's words. The struggle for all is to work out how to speak and give due honour to his word over and above my words and the words of my tradition (holy, catholic and apostolic).

If the church is more than a keeper of Holy Writ does it not mean that the Church can add or subtract to the word of God. For example, if the church made an error of interpretation and was later overturned by another generation does this not imply that the church is fallible and the Scriptures infallible. Or, is the problem with the Scriptures.

"Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other".

For Anglicans, the movement is only one way. It looks like it is two way by the very nature of our discussion. Yes, Anglicans are free to question, discuss, debate and wrestle with God's word and must make decisions but the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles write fallibility into all of that human deliberation. The Articles are the Anglcan attempt to recognise that humans can get it wrong - but God's word cannot be wrong.

Hi Ian
I am well aware of the history surrounding the canon of scripture. The debate among various church fathers has not gone unnoticed by me. The church will always have debate about moral, social and doctrinal issues. However, when the church makes a definitive decision, as we see in the NT at the first church council, the matter is settled. Matt 18:17-18 tells us that if there is disagreement with your fellow christian, then you take that person to the church. If he doesn't listen to the church, treat him like a tax collector. Jesus gave the apostles power to bind and loose, which continues through to the successors. If we are not to take notice of the Church, then Jesus should have settled the matter for us before He died. No confusion then.

The very fact that debate was circling around about what was inspired, highlighted the need for the Church to settle the matter firstly at the Council of Rome in 382 (under Damasus 1) and then later ratified by the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419). The book of Revelation was definitely part of the canon set by these councils. Marcion may well have been the instigator of settling the canon, however, the authority lies with the councils.

Hi Peter
I agree 100% with your first two paragraphs. I guess your use of the word tradition is very different to mine. No tradition of man is part of Catholic Tradition. Only Sacred Tradition, that which has been handed down to us from the Apostles, is considered the Word of God.

The Church can never add or substract from Sacred Scripture. Please note that the bible never tells that the bible alone is the sole rule of faith.

I find the Anglican position one of lack of faith in Jesus' words that He would cause the apostles to remember all that He had taught them and that He would continue to pray for them that no error would enter. Being part of a church that says they are fallible and likely to make errors does not give me much assurance that I am on the right track. Of course humans can get it wrong, but when we know that the Holy Spirit is leading us to all truth, then the human element is replaced by something supernatural and it is not man but God who speaks through man.

Being part of a church that says they are fallible and likely to make errors does not give me much assurance that I am on the right track.

Quite the contrary. If my faith is in the church or the Sacred Tradition or whatever apart from Christ and his word then my faith wil be shaky because men (and women) err all the time. Ony if my trust is in the Word of God then I am on sure ground.

We agree that it is foolhardy and impossible to read the Scriptures in a vacuum. But if your faith is in the CC or any church over and above the Scriptures, then your faith is not in Christ alone and he alone is not sufficient for the Christian life. Yes, we are in fellowship with othe believers but that fellowships a consequence of being brought into the fellowship of believers by the Word of God, the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Is the nature of salvation by faith alone through Christ who brings me to himself by his word by the Holy Spirit. Or is it that the Christian life is lived by faith alone plus by trusing in the traditions of men. It all seems so circular but there is a profound difference. I accept the traditions only as long as they agree with the Scriptures. But I always accept the Scriptures as God's word. Even though I have difficulties and I err in my interpretation just as the CC does (and all so many down the ages), when we err it is our erring and not the Scriptures.

That's the whole point of the Anglican position. We get it wrong! God doesn't.

Sorry for jumping into the fray so late, but I noticed that Donna was around, so I thought I may as well participate.

I guess may initial reaction on the idea that Scripture is the supreme authority in the Protestant schema is "Who do you think you're kidding?" It may be one way to get around the obvious dilemma with the position Michael called "Solo Scriptura" and "Scriptura Nuda", but it seems to me that you still face the same type of problems.

Let me explain. If you reject one interpretation of a passage because of Church tradition, then isn't tradition the authority? Or if you reject a passage because one rendering of it seems illogical, isn't logic the authority? Or to the extent that both reason and tradition brought to bear on the way one comes to understand a passage, aren't they both authorities? Of course, truth be known, a better argument would be to suggest that Tradition, Reason and Scripture are appealled to as authorities.

The reality is that under the Protestant schema, the individual really is sovereign and Tradition, Reason and Scripture are merely the covers used to pretend that the individual simply chooses to interpret Scripture as they see fit. For instance, when Calvin interpreted the Scriptures, he would often appeal to some aspects of Augustine he liked, while disregarding others that had gained far greater acceptance in church tradition i.e. the intercession of the saints.

Continued ...

He would apply certain logic to the interpretation of some passages that was not applied to other passages. He would use interpretive principles in some passages that were neglected in other passages. And so, at the end of the day, Scripture was not the supreme authority. Indeed, nor could it be. The seemingly noble sentiment of Sola Scriptura was nothing more than a facade for Sola Calvinus.

Of course, the initial consideration, which I would think should concern any intellectually honest evangelical, is how Scripture could conceivably be the supreme authority. For a start, Scripture does not provide any real insight into divinely inspired, hermeneutic principles that can be guaranteed to be more than human constructs. Indeed, reading through Jesus' own interpretation of the Old Testament (which requires an interpretation from ourselves in the first place) seems to ask more questions than it provides answers.

Rather than respond to Joshua's arguments in toto, I proffer the following two observations:

1. Since all Christians are agreed that Scripture is divinely inspired, I would think that, because Jesus is Logos, logic itself must play a central interpretative role - even to the extent of deciding logically what kind of textual reading is intended.

... For a start, Scripture does not provide any real insight into divinely inspired, hermeneutic principles that can be guaranteed to be more than human constructs. ...

2. Well, I know something of at least one exegetical technique familiar to the Apostles and Early Fathers that is, arguably, beyond mere human artifice, since it resides within the realm of God-given 'number' hard-wired into the linguistic fabric of the Urtexte themselves - alphanumeric gematria. (And its derivative network of isopsephia is indeed a hermeneutical tool.)

Peter
A Catholic's faith is based on Christ alone. We believe that our salvation rests solely on His sacrifice which He made for all mankind. I think where we differ is the application of that sacrifice. Another difference is that you reduce God's word to what is written.I don't. Using your sola scriptura tool only leads me to believe that it is both what is written and what is handed orally or in practice by the apostles. Leaving out Tradition is to leave out part of what the written Word of God speaks of. The early Christians did not believe in sola scriptura. Sacred Tradition was the rule of faith. No canon, no sola scriptura.

Sacred Tradition gives us the scriptures so we can trust that the scriptures are inerrant because the Church says so. "Whatever you bind on earth...". The protestant says only scripture but Jesus never commands anyone to write scripture, yet He sets up a Church with an earthly head who has the power to bind and loose, and the protestant says the Church can teach error. Yet Jesus prays for the apostles and tells them that the gates of hell will not prevail over the Church. The Church is the bride of Christ. The Church is so intimately linked with Christ's body that it could not err.

To have faith in Christ's Church is not to add to Christ's work or to faith in Him alone. It is precisely because Jesus give us the Church that we can be confident in it.

Joshua
Nice to see you back.

We are warned in scripture, in Jude for example, that there are those within the church who are false and that there is a need for us to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

Not all in the church speak and live by the truth.

From a scripture perspective, in the light of the notion of justification by faith alone, it is a point of great contention for the protestant in regard to the Roman system of papacy, mass, penances, indulgences, purgatory, prayers to Mary, merits, invocation of the saints, prayers for the dead. Such things are so contrary to the glorious gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Di

I would suggest that two different hermeneutics are on display: one is ecclesial-based and the other gospel-based.

di

Hi all,
Just wanted to mention that it is our normal policy to keep commenting on an individual article open for a period of two weeks after it's posted.

That means commenting on this article will be switched off at midnight tonight.

Just thought I'd mention it for the newbies so I don't get accused of silencing debate :-)

Di
There is a difference between infallibility and impeccability. Infalliblity only applies to statements made ex-cathedra. A study of Isaiah and Matthew shows the same language used by Jesus when handing over the keys to Peter. I don't want to give a full blown exegesis of this here.

No-one in the CC is suggesting that the Pope is impeccible or that he never sins. How does the protestant see in his/her church the practice of binding and loosing? Who binds and looses in the protestant domain and is taken seriously?

I assume when your refer to "the Roman system of papacy.." you refer to the CC. If you referred to the Catholic system of papacy it would have been less offensive.

If the "scripture perspective" was taken seriously, justification by faith alone would be recognised as non-biblical. In fact, the only time alone is joined to the words justification is in James when it contradicts the protestant notion put forward.

All those other issues regarding mass, purgatory etc are not contrary to the gospel of Christ. An example would be to highlight that Paul certainly recognised that a purification process would take place after we died, and that, although we are saved, we still suffer some sort of loss, through fire (1 Cor 3:14-15). Catholics happen to call this purgatory, meaning purification. You can call it anything you like.

Donna -

Even RC exegetes admit that the traditional interpretation of Matt 16 isn't a good one. And Protestants see the clavis potentiae as residing in the preaching of the gospel.

Likewise, 1 Cor 3 is not now thought to provide an exegetical foundation for the doctrine of purgatory.

Combinations of words do not equate to the presence or the absence of doctrines, mind you.

I assume when your refer to "the Roman system of papacy.." you refer to the CC. If you referred to the Catholic system of papacy it would have been less offensive.

On the contrary, if anything papal claims to arbitrary power detract from their catholicity.

Michael
Perhaps you could enlighten me on which "RC exegetes" beg to differ. I've done a lot of reading and research and have not come across any orthodox scholars who would agree with you. I guess we don't read the same books. As for 1 Cor 3, this text does not stand alone to support the doctrine of purgatory. Bringing together other verses as well as the Jewish culture it is fair to say that the Jews believed in a place of purification (I have this firsthand from a Jew), which Paul continues to claim as real. Perhaps your personal exegesis on this verse would help me to understand what you think it means.

Do you also acknowledge that respected protestant bible scholars agree that Peter is the Rock which Jesus referred to? See Albright, Carson for starters on their commentaries regarding the Rock.

Whilst I tried to keep my comments on the topic of sola scriptura, I am having to defend other doctrines because these always crop up. It seems to me that the doctrine of sola scriptura is a hard one to defend and so, like all good protestants, they pull out the red herring and deflect debate; and if that doesn't work, we can always refer to theologians or bible scholars who have infinite wisdom and can now shed some light on the follies of the early church and their practice.

So Michael, whilst you may not have intentionally been patronising, don't assume that a Catholic and a woman to boot, is incapable of working out what is good exegesis and what is not:)

I wasn't being patronising in intent or in effect. You seem to give as good as you get anyhow! ;-)

My exegesis of the clavis potentiae passage will be in my forthcoming book! My info is second hand, granted. In his Matthew commentary Ulrich Luz mentions that the exegesis of this passage is now no longer the basis for the doctrine of the power of the keys and Petrine primacy.

"All those other issues regarding mass, purgatory etc are not contrary to the gospel of Christ. ....."

You know perfectly well Donna, these matters have been argued as contrary to the gospel of Christ for the past 500 years. Regarding purgatory, I rather like the Smalcald Articles verdict in speaking of purgatory as belonging to "the vermin brood of idolatry, begotten by the tail of the dragon". Of course I understand, we are more polite today, but the resistance to the notion on biblical grounds remains just as determined.

Further on purgatory, Calvin lays out the essential argument in Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III.v and deals with the texts you quote and also the question why it was that prayers for the dead appeared early amongst the church fathers. Calvin deals with the doctrine of the Mass in Book IV.xviii, though the previous chapter should also be read.

Donna (#214):

The Church is so intimately linked with Christ's body that it could not err.

The history of Roman Catholicism would suggest otherwise, regarding its proposed 'inerrancy':

1. Contradictory ex-cathedra papal pronouncements, despite their so-called 'inerrancy';
2. The simultaneous existence of up to 3 popes;
3. Doctrinal flip-flops - e.g. purgatory (just recently side-lined);
4. The amount of blood shed by the Church of Rome since the 5th century;
...

Need one say more?

Firstly to Michael
I thought as much. You can't blow me off like that and expect me to accept your word for it. I wonder if you have read any commentaries by scholars like Schaff, JND Kelly, RT France, Oscar Cullman, Ridderbos, Blomberg, WF Albright, CS Mann that support the Catholic position on the Petrine doctrines.

Whilst I was not being patronising, I was certainly being sarcastic:)

David

Yes David, I know perfectly well that this has been argued for 500 years. What I don't get is why you guys keep resisting the bleeding obvious:)

I know you have a tremendous respect for Calvin and do not wish to offend you. I have not read all the articles, however I have read quite a bit. While some of what he writes is not to be argued with, some of his doctrines are abominable. For example, does he not teach that babies who have not been baptised go to hell? His double predestination doctrine is also one I cannot accept as being part of a God who is love and full of mercy and compassion. So I guess, anything Calvin has to say on Catholicism is taken with a grain of salt by me.

Ian
Yes Ian you could have said more than just making accusations that have no basis.

Each of your 4 accusations are false and show how little you know of Catholicism and how much you are influenced by anti-Catholic propoganda. As I said in post 222, when the debate gets difficult, the red herring is thrown in.

Perhaps you could stay on track and debate with me how sola scriptura is supported in any small or large part by the bible itself.

Hi Donna
Calvin did not invent the teaching about predestination, admitted that he himself recoiled from it, but held to the same teaching that Augustine and Aquinas before him had subscribed to.

It is not Calvinism, but the teaching of the Bible itself.

Concerning unbaptised babies, Christians for hundreds and hundreds of years believed they were doomed, which surely was the reason for the rise of infant baptism and the teaching about limbus infantum.

If baptism regenerates, aren't unbaptised people unregenerate and doomed?

Well, yes, I have... and I wouldn't quite say 'support the Catholic postion on the Petrine doctrines!'

Dear Donna;
Let me take up the challenge in #228 briefly to summarise some scriptural evidence for sola scriptura, which I take to be the assertion, not that we never read anything else for any purpose, but that any doctrine which is taught as from God, and hence binding on the conscience of all believers, must be supported, not from post-Biblical tradition, but from within the Bible itself.
At the risk of everyone rolling their eyes at the obviousness of it, let me start with 2 Tim 3:16-17

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The "thorough" or "perfect" equipping of the godly person comes from inspired Scripture.
Jesus himself criticised the Pharisaical use of "human tradition" to undermine or elaborate on Biblical duties in Mark 7:9-13

And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!.. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down.

His response to challenge was to refer to the Old Testament, not to some tradition of the rabbis. Jesus' model, I would say, set the pattern for the church in basing ultimate authority in God's word as revealed in the Bible.
Regards
Neil

E.B. Pusey's Eirenicon hardly constitutes 'anti-Catholic propoganda', yet it substantiates most of Ian's assertions passim.

...and interestingly, the tradition of reading Mt 16 as refering to the papacy is rather late and not exactly unanimous. Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Cyprian, Hilary... were happy to link the Petrine declaration to his person, but did not see an office there established.

So - a tradition that isn't that traditional perhaps?

Hi David
This is certainly opening up a can of worms. I hold to a different position regarding Augustine teaching predestination in the Calvinistic form. I believe, on reading Augustine, that he did not believe in the double predestination form presented by Calvin.

Regarding unbaptised babies, the CCC states that we rely on the mercy of God as His intention is that all should be saved. We could also argue that those who have not even heard the gospel must, in some way, have the mercy of God on their side and so we would be wrong to say they go to hell because they have not accepted Jesus as their saviour.

For someone to be doomed, they have to willingly reject Christ. That is why we can't rely on the bible alone for these kind of issues because the bible is not explicit when dealing with unbaptised babies. The bible just tells us that baptism saves us and we should receive it for the forgiveness of sins.

Donna (#228):

Each of your 4 accusations are false and show how little you know of Catholicism and how much you are influenced by anti-Catholic propoganda. As I said ... when the debate gets difficult, the red herring is thrown in.

Well, I know a great deal more about Roman Catholicism than you think; and anyway, you introduced the red-herring in question. And the ad hominem attack...

My points 2 & 4 are universally accepted historical fact - you can't get around that. As for point 3, wasn't it the latest pope who relented on purgatory? But let's expand on point 1 - papal contradictions:

a. Popes Innocent III, Gregory XI, Clement IV, Hadrian VI, and Paul IV all disagreed with papal infallibility.
b. Eugene IV (1431) had Joan of Arc burnt alive as a witch; but later, Benedict (1919) declared her a saint.
c. Stephen VI (896) had the body of Pope Formosus (891-896) exhumed and mutilated.
d. Hadrian II (867) declared civil marriage to be valid; Pius VII declared it invalid.
e. The pope and Vatican advised the German Catholic Party to vote for Nazi candidates. In 1933, the Vatican and Hitler signed a Concordat, where the Catholic Church swore allegiance to the Nazi government. Later, when Hitler was losing WWII, Pius XI condemned him.

Such errors of judgement and papal contradictions surely blow apart the arrogant concept of papal infallibility. In which case, who gives a damn what Catholicism has to say about sola scriptura?

I believe, on reading Augustine, that he did not believe in the double predestination form presented by Calvin.

Did Calvin, for that matter?

MIchael
I find it hard to believe that you feel that those commentaries do not support the Catholic position. Let me quote Oscar Cullman "....the idea of the reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable..." Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.

Phillip Schaff in his "History of the Christian Church" makes reference to Clement of Rome's (AD95) letter to the Corinthians and the primacy which Clement supports (Vol 2, page 158).

The words of Augustine "I would not believe in the gospel had not the authority of the Catholic Church already told me" would seem to contradict your claim that he would read Matt 16 differently to how the Church does.

e. The pope and Vatican advised the German Catholic Party to vote for Nazi candidates. In 1933, the Vatican and Hitler signed a Concordat, where the Catholic Church swore allegiance to the Nazi government. Later, when Hitler was losing WWII, Pius XI condemned him.

On that note I'm prepared to cut the Vatican some slack along the lines that diplomatic agreements can be subject to exigencies of fortune (in any event, there were forceful arguments to the effect that the German Government violated said Concordat's terms.) A more glaring case would be the twists of Papal diplomacy in the War of the League of Cambrai.

Sure, Augustine is not anti-papal. But he doesn't read the crucial text the way you suggest (see his Retractiones).

The commentaries do not deny that the text is pointing to Peter, but do not either suggest that an office is being instituted in his line. So, no: not the Catholic position.

Ian
Show me where I have attacked anyone.

Your extensive explanation of your accusations only serve to show how uninformed you are about Catholicism.

Points 2 and 4 - universally accepted? By whom? Protestants, anti-Catholics.

Even if these accusations were true, all they serve to prove is that individuals within the church sin. Perhaps you could cite documentation that proves your accusations are "historical fact". Surely we would have some form of documentation that would shed light on these very important facts.

Are you asking me or stating the case that the latest Pope relented on the doctrine of purgatory? Funnily enough, as a Catholic who reads papal documents, I have not come across that one yet.

You obviously give a damn, otherwise you would not be so heated up about things.

Cullmann for example is ADAMANT that apostolic tradition is not to be connected with this text. Catholic position? Well, no!

Cyprian - brusque fellow - called the linking of this text with the papacy 'an obvious and manifest stupidity'. Origen and Tertullian likewise railed against it.

Among contemporary Catholic exegetes Mussner, Pesch, Gnilka and Hoffman concur that this text isn't talk about the institutional primacy of Peter in the 'traditional' sense.

And Walter Kasper, in a book edited by... one Joseph Ratzinger, no less... concludes that the 'papal primacy' reading of this text is a 'later re-reading of Scripture' in the light of RC experience.

Hi Donna,

You are always an opponent worthy of respect and a response!

While some of what he writes is not to be argued with, some of his doctrines are abominable. For example, does he not teach that babies who have not been baptised go to hell?

No you have got this one wrong - check out Institutes IV.xvi.26

His double predestination doctrine is also one I cannot accept as being part of a God who is love and full of mercy and compassion.

And yet it is part of Christian teaching, Catholic teaching I would have thought as well, that those shaking their fist at God, rejecting the offer of salvation through His Son endure eternally the wrath of God. Whilst I agree God is love and full of mercy and compassion, this by no means is all that can be said of God.

Donna (#240):

A great way to dismiss evidence - attack its provider as "uninformed" and "heated up" (which I was not), and then ignore said evidence. Try refuting my points a. to e. You obviously cannot... I find it risible - no, absolutely breath-taking - that you:

(a) Deny the existence of multiple papacies during the Middle Ages. Never heard of the Avignon Popes, eh? And don't try to squirm out of this by claiming that one or the other was an Anti-Pope: they all claimed to hold the Keys...

(b) Try to sweep under the carpet the millions of deaths at the hands of Roman Catholicism's minions. I suppose you think that the Inquisition and its torturers are a figment of my imagination; or that the death of about 100,000 Albigensian heretics in a single day (perhaps including Catholics: "Kill them all; God will know his own") never occurred?

Such are the works and ideas of antichristoi.

Roman Catholicism, with its chequered past and quaint unbiblical doctrines, remains the biggest obstacle to those wishing to come to Christ - who doubtless would repeat Matthew 23:13-16 to its leadership in the Vatican.

One scholarly source I refer you to is Sir Nicholas Cheetham's A History of the Popes. Read it and weep... (Oh, but since he isn't a Catholic this must therefore be "anti-Catholic propaganda". What a lovely closed system you Catholics have.)

PS: Hasn't Pope Benny declared that belief in Purgatory is optional? I thought there was some fuss in the media about this a year or so ago.

Yes, there was! I think he said something along the lines of, 'Ultimatly, we don't know what happens to children who arn't baptised die'.

Yes, there was! I think he said something along the lines of, 'Ultimatly, we don't know what happens to children who arn't baptised die'.

Not good enough Sheldon! Quote your source! Read Institutes IV.xvi.26. In fact read all all of IV.xvi. for a magnificent defence of infant baptism! A man's position is NEVER summed up in a one liner.

For myself I could never say all children go to heaven whether or not baptised. If that were so why baptise, why indeed share the Gospel for it only to be rejected? You really need to engage seriously with Roms 5:12f, Eph 1:3f, 2:1f and that's just for starters.

@ David: I think Sheldon is talking about the Pope, not Calvin...

@ Ian I think your comment @243 contravenes our posting policy. Given Donna is in a minority of one on this thread, I think some restraint of your tone is in order. I know she can well look after herself, but your sarcasm is a step too far.

Ian
I have no problem refuting the nonsense you put forward. Unfortunately, you do not provide any evidence, you just make claims with nothing to back up those claims.

a) The three popes myth. Whilst there is not room to give a thorough historical account, at the time of the Western Schism between 1378 - 1417, three claimed to be pope, however, the Church only recognised one.

b) The inquisition. I've heard numbers reaching in excess of 95 million murdered at the hands of the CC. Inquisitions did not exist in northern or eastern Europe, Scandinavia or England but were confined to southern France, Italy Spain and some parts of the Holy Roman Empire. So that number is impossible because those parts of Europe did not have that many to kill. The plague, which killed a third of Europe's population is credited with major changes in the social structure. The inquisition is credited with few changes. The inquisition was not carried out by the CC but by the state. Your point in bringing this into the debate can only mean that you think this somehow proves the CCs claim of infallibility can be proved wrong. As I have said before, infallibility is not defined by the impeccability of its members. Your memory must be selective, so I will remind you that Luther and Calvin thought it proper to protect society by purging false religion.
cont.

Hi David,

Sheldon, in an attempt to answer my PS from #243, is referring to something that Pope Benny is reported to have said regarding 'Purgatory'. (I can do no better vis-a-vis its source, alas.) Nothing to do with Calvin, whose views on infant baptism in any case I regard as claptrap (as you well know, mate!).

Donna, I think you'll find that Ian doesn't like Luther and Calvin either!

Ian,

Your tone is most uncharitable towards Donna. For a man who champions the truth, you ought to be able to discuss doctrine in a loving way else your words betray the true nature of your heart. You win no one to your point of view with your invective. Your tone suggests that you are the one who has erred. Ease up brother!

@Michael (#246) - No sarcasm intended. Numbers are irrelevant to the argument.

@Donna (#247) - I did provide one reputable source to back up my claims. Your response? Spin and denial, as expected... By the way, your population argument is akin to those of Holocaust-deniers who claim it never happened because there weren't 6,000,000 Jews in Europe at the time.

PS: If you read earlier posts on this thread you will see I haven't let the Reformed tradition off the hook either.

cont.
Ian
Please provide me with the source of "Kill them all..." and I will be more able to respond.

Much of the historical evidence can be gleaned from secular sources. I think you will find no historian could accept the charge that the CC was responsible for the deaths of millions of people.

Having said that, I do not wish to condone any behaviour on the part of the CC that is unChristian. We must not confuse doctrine with man's ability and willingness to sin.

The Pope has not made belief in purgatory optional. Did you read that in the Tele or perhaps ACA had an exclusive to Channel 9?


David P
I will check out the Institutes again. Perhaps I have misunderstood his intention. As you know I do not like to make statements that mislead, so I apologise if I have to some extent.

I think we may have our wires crossed on predestination.

Methinks it is time to close this thread off lest someone say something they later regret (if they haven't already).

I'm sure there will be another option to discuss the RCC/protestant divide again one day...and when we do lets keep cool heads :-)