I got a lot of reaction from my last post. You said, among other things, that I sounded angry. You said in various ways that I was mischaracterizing your position. I love that one. 57.6% of the time, people don't feel the need to show how they have been misunderstood, they simply assert it. Frankly, when I see this, I often read it as, "I'm offended." Who cares? Well, I care. But not enough to refrain from taking the risk.
I feel I owe you an explanation. So, I'm going to restate everything I said in the last post as an explanation of what I was thinking to write it that way. Fair enough? If the tone got in the way of the point, I am sorry. But I'm not at all sorry that I view certain principles--cherished principles of the Reformation--as self-refuting nonsense that deserve nothing but mockery and disdain. Ahem. Onward!
Mere Christianity paragraph: I was trying to say that Catholics do not and cannot consent to being one viable option among many. If that sounds like news, I'm compelled to refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 815 and 816. Sooner or later, I was thinking, a person would defer to the authority of something outside the Bible (like a creed) to establish essentially two things: 1. This particular claim or interpretation is not new; and 2. I didn't make it up for myself. In other words, continuity and submission. One who does not originate, but receives. The type of person named here does neither one of these things. He cares neither for history, nor for listening to and submitting to anyone else. And I readily and enthusiastically grant that most people don't do this. But what if the very things or people with whom we desire to establish communion belong as gifts to those authorities we had rejected? I am gratified that you hold to the Christological definitions of the first 2 councils. Why? That outcome was far from certain at the time. To this very day, the Scriptures can be interpreted any number of ways, without violence to the historical-critical method itself. If we are to say that it does violence to the faith once delivered to all the saints, that raises an interesting question: How do we know that? Is the faith personified in these people, and what they're about to do? If there is truth there, it belongs to God; it is the essence of who He is. When you ask them about it, essentially they say, "We are specifically tasked in the Holy Spirit to articulate the faith in contrast to alternatives. You're either with us, or you have no part with Christ." That sounds like a visible Church to me. That sounds like divinely-sanctioned authority to me. It doesn't really matter what they decided, if they lack the jurisdiction to decide it. But if they do, then it matters profoundly. Make your choice. "Derivative authority" is a sham, a legal fiction. The creeds are the product of the duly appointed shepherds of the flock of Christ, assembled in an ecumenical council. They don't mean anything at all outside this context. They are just words. How is your "that's nice, but..." any different than Arius's? How can you accept one, and not another?
Invisible church ecclesiology, and its implications for dogmatic theology: As I wrote before, "An invisible Church cannot define itself, or what it believes." It is simply not reasonable to hold particular doctrine x over against doctrine y (and establish a community to defend it) if the "Church" considered in this way holds both with equal facility. To say that it holds both is to say that the doctrine in its particularity is not crucial to the truth of Christ. Are you ready to say that? So denominations are just discussion-clubs of non-crucial issues? Is that anywhere close to the historical reality of any ecclesial community in its purpose? If it were true, do you see how that would be confusing? Feel free to articulate what "really" matters; I'll try to muffle the screams of all the toes you just stepped on. Therefore, I want my toes stepped on, if the payoff is knowing the truth. [Digression Of A Personal Nature: The Rev. Russ Ramsey, a man I greatly respect and admire, sent me a message last night, expressing concerns about the tone and purpose of last night's post. This post is actually motivated by that message. Anyway, perhaps 10 years ago, I was talking to Russ about my desire for unity, and my friendship with a certain man who has that abiding passion. I will never forget what Russ said, essentially: Who is he to decide the terms of that unity? In that way, I respect the right of a person not to agree with me. But you have to do the same.] I have the right and the duty to have my toes stepped on if I am wrong, and more importantly, to know whether, and to what extent, the person doing the stepping speaks for Christ, and how to tell.
Access to truth: If I cannot know the truth, there is no purpose in talking about it. Communication is to either find the truth, or live in it together. I have no use for "my tradition," and "your tradition," as if what we hand on is but a part of the truth. In this way, the modern ecumenical is much like the theological progressive from decades prior.
This hermeneutical method is chaos: Obviously, it failed. And it couldn't be any other way. I don't have to accuse anyone of bad faith or lack of effort; it's the assumption of good faith that makes it more damning. I cannot be both the arbiter and receiver of divine truth at the same time. Dr. Mathison's fear of all things Catholic doesn't change the reality that he's inviting us to ride the hermeneutical spiral to nowhere. IF TRUE, great. But even if not, the Catholic paradigm is superior.
It comes back to the Three Things. I consider the evidence for those things clear, apart from conclusions. I did not become Catholic, and then go looking for evidence; I became Catholic as a result of the evidence. It's not my fault you don't believe me. The truth or falsehood of the matter is quite apart from your estimation of my intellectual honesty, dear commenter. This is all for now. Peace to you.
I feel I owe you an explanation. So, I'm going to restate everything I said in the last post as an explanation of what I was thinking to write it that way. Fair enough? If the tone got in the way of the point, I am sorry. But I'm not at all sorry that I view certain principles--cherished principles of the Reformation--as self-refuting nonsense that deserve nothing but mockery and disdain. Ahem. Onward!
Mere Christianity paragraph: I was trying to say that Catholics do not and cannot consent to being one viable option among many. If that sounds like news, I'm compelled to refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 815 and 816. Sooner or later, I was thinking, a person would defer to the authority of something outside the Bible (like a creed) to establish essentially two things: 1. This particular claim or interpretation is not new; and 2. I didn't make it up for myself. In other words, continuity and submission. One who does not originate, but receives. The type of person named here does neither one of these things. He cares neither for history, nor for listening to and submitting to anyone else. And I readily and enthusiastically grant that most people don't do this. But what if the very things or people with whom we desire to establish communion belong as gifts to those authorities we had rejected? I am gratified that you hold to the Christological definitions of the first 2 councils. Why? That outcome was far from certain at the time. To this very day, the Scriptures can be interpreted any number of ways, without violence to the historical-critical method itself. If we are to say that it does violence to the faith once delivered to all the saints, that raises an interesting question: How do we know that? Is the faith personified in these people, and what they're about to do? If there is truth there, it belongs to God; it is the essence of who He is. When you ask them about it, essentially they say, "We are specifically tasked in the Holy Spirit to articulate the faith in contrast to alternatives. You're either with us, or you have no part with Christ." That sounds like a visible Church to me. That sounds like divinely-sanctioned authority to me. It doesn't really matter what they decided, if they lack the jurisdiction to decide it. But if they do, then it matters profoundly. Make your choice. "Derivative authority" is a sham, a legal fiction. The creeds are the product of the duly appointed shepherds of the flock of Christ, assembled in an ecumenical council. They don't mean anything at all outside this context. They are just words. How is your "that's nice, but..." any different than Arius's? How can you accept one, and not another?
Invisible church ecclesiology, and its implications for dogmatic theology: As I wrote before, "An invisible Church cannot define itself, or what it believes." It is simply not reasonable to hold particular doctrine x over against doctrine y (and establish a community to defend it) if the "Church" considered in this way holds both with equal facility. To say that it holds both is to say that the doctrine in its particularity is not crucial to the truth of Christ. Are you ready to say that? So denominations are just discussion-clubs of non-crucial issues? Is that anywhere close to the historical reality of any ecclesial community in its purpose? If it were true, do you see how that would be confusing? Feel free to articulate what "really" matters; I'll try to muffle the screams of all the toes you just stepped on. Therefore, I want my toes stepped on, if the payoff is knowing the truth. [Digression Of A Personal Nature: The Rev. Russ Ramsey, a man I greatly respect and admire, sent me a message last night, expressing concerns about the tone and purpose of last night's post. This post is actually motivated by that message. Anyway, perhaps 10 years ago, I was talking to Russ about my desire for unity, and my friendship with a certain man who has that abiding passion. I will never forget what Russ said, essentially: Who is he to decide the terms of that unity? In that way, I respect the right of a person not to agree with me. But you have to do the same.] I have the right and the duty to have my toes stepped on if I am wrong, and more importantly, to know whether, and to what extent, the person doing the stepping speaks for Christ, and how to tell.
Access to truth: If I cannot know the truth, there is no purpose in talking about it. Communication is to either find the truth, or live in it together. I have no use for "my tradition," and "your tradition," as if what we hand on is but a part of the truth. In this way, the modern ecumenical is much like the theological progressive from decades prior.
This hermeneutical method is chaos: Obviously, it failed. And it couldn't be any other way. I don't have to accuse anyone of bad faith or lack of effort; it's the assumption of good faith that makes it more damning. I cannot be both the arbiter and receiver of divine truth at the same time. Dr. Mathison's fear of all things Catholic doesn't change the reality that he's inviting us to ride the hermeneutical spiral to nowhere. IF TRUE, great. But even if not, the Catholic paradigm is superior.
It comes back to the Three Things. I consider the evidence for those things clear, apart from conclusions. I did not become Catholic, and then go looking for evidence; I became Catholic as a result of the evidence. It's not my fault you don't believe me. The truth or falsehood of the matter is quite apart from your estimation of my intellectual honesty, dear commenter. This is all for now. Peace to you.
Comments
Rather than read Keith Mathison's book as *the* book on the Protestant view, why not interact with more and better Protestant theologians? I've not read this particular book by Mathison -- maybe I should -- but I don't have a great yearning to read more of his works. However, it appears he is building on the magnum opus of Heiko Oberman which I mentioned in my last post. That's considered a "must read" in the field of medieval and Reformation studies and would be far more interesting to debate.
You are ultimately working from a rather modern presupposition: "If I cannot know the truth, there is no purpose in talking about it." I don't think that's necessary or even the generally presumed view of the historical church. Yes, we know the truth in Christ. But, I see a much greater comfort with the gray of "this might be" on the details in church history than you assume is allowable. I don't need 100% certainty to proceed. I can live with Anselm's "Faith Seeking Understanding."
How can you discuss the quality of a book you have not read? Feel free to suggest another. More than free. I am more than willing to accept the reality of a dispute between two authorities as to the doctrine of God, but I do not accept that He cannot be known. The Incarnation is proof enough of that. If I am unenlightened for suggesting that "I don't know" is not sufficient grounds to separate from the People of God, so be it. In fact, Luther was very certain, and he rightly believed he had to be. Pointing out the reality of Sola Scriptura in even its most nuanced form isn't to beat up on you; it's to underscore how high the epistemic, and therefore theological stakes really were. I'm not chasing certainty; I'm chasing authentic divine revelation. Under your system, there is none that can be confidently held. But there are some ecclesiological knots to be untied.
That's part of my theory: if I'm going to hold something up as representative of someone else's theology, it ought to be *that* important. Mathison's work, frankly, is one I only hear CtC folks talking about. No one in any of my Reformed and Lutheran circles is talking about it. And it isn't the sort of thing that yells to be included in my research, either. We do talk about Oberman. A lot.
Sheesh, I'd read Philipp Melanchthon. Read a real reformer's really good theology. I can even dig up the title for an excellent monograph on his use of patristic sources.
I agree God can be known, but not to the level of certainty you seem to want. We can know God personally through his revelation in Christ, but we cannot know God beyond what he chooses to reveal. Yes, I sound Barthian. I'm OK with that -- and it fits well within the tradition of apophatic theology. Yes, I sound Eastern, too.
Note: I don't take this view from my hopelessness concerning theology. On the contrary, it comes from my own presupposition that knowledge cannot be known with certainty in a fallen world.
Luther, remember, didn't separate from the Church, the Church "separated" him. Whatever you think of his theology, who acted and who was acted upon is not a small detail. Luther's initial plan wasn't to start a new church. I agree with Luther's certainty, but he wouldn't pin a lot of things down all the same. Luther loved the mystery of God as much as anyone I've ever encountered.
There are things that merit automatic excommunication anyway; the competent ecclesiastical authority merely informs the party that the Church is aware of what has taken place. That is, the person excommunicates himself. Even if this is not one of those times, Luther got an extra 4 months to recant. Councils are *supposed* to cut off theological speculation at certain points, as are appointed authorities. Sorry. That's the breaks.