I should say that commenters should feel more than free to outline/articulate their own positions on a thing in the comments on any issue of interest, if something linked is judged to be unrepresentative. Let's do define terms, however.
Mathison, Redux: The only thing I could reasonably articulate when I read The Shape Of Sola Scriptura was:
1. Oberman's taxonomy would be damning if it were true;
2. I doubt Catholics conceive of the relation between Scripture and Tradition this way;
3. Even if I accepted it as true--which (2) would render uncharitable anyway, I have not learned anything Catholic that moves beyond the scope of Oberman's "Tradition-1." In fact, I related this all to Dr. Cross at the time.
N.B. I was not Catholic at the time, nor had I even read Mathison's Chapter 8 (if memory serves) where he expertly took down the "Solo Scriptura" position, and attempted to distinguish his position (Sola Scriptura) from that one. All that is to say, to say that Mathison has failed to distinguish them does not mean one is Catholic, nor that no other defense is possible.
But in fairness, I had already suspected that the ecclesiological-epistemic fig-leaf that is "derivative authority" was a distinction without a difference, in that the arbiter of the meaning and authority of the creeds was the individual. If that is true, its use as an ameliorative for the excesses of individualism in hermeneutics is cosmetic. Again, these conclusions have very little to do with the Catholic Church.
It only changes when one accepts the Creed/Council without qualification (without the implicit assumption that "Scripture" [according to you/me] governs its use) and traces both of those back to the episcopal college and its head, the Bishop of Rome. When one sees this, and accepts that the data of revelation must be mediated by him/them, and submits, then one is Catholic, and not before.
So, on a personal note, I don't think it's fair to claim that I must've decided to be Catholic, and that's why I'm so rough on Sola Scriptura or Mathison. And I'll try not to chuckle that you think your doctrine of Sola Scriptura is best represented by a Lutheran, rather than a Teaching Elder in your own tradition. Ahem.
Mathison, Redux: The only thing I could reasonably articulate when I read The Shape Of Sola Scriptura was:
1. Oberman's taxonomy would be damning if it were true;
2. I doubt Catholics conceive of the relation between Scripture and Tradition this way;
3. Even if I accepted it as true--which (2) would render uncharitable anyway, I have not learned anything Catholic that moves beyond the scope of Oberman's "Tradition-1." In fact, I related this all to Dr. Cross at the time.
N.B. I was not Catholic at the time, nor had I even read Mathison's Chapter 8 (if memory serves) where he expertly took down the "Solo Scriptura" position, and attempted to distinguish his position (Sola Scriptura) from that one. All that is to say, to say that Mathison has failed to distinguish them does not mean one is Catholic, nor that no other defense is possible.
But in fairness, I had already suspected that the ecclesiological-epistemic fig-leaf that is "derivative authority" was a distinction without a difference, in that the arbiter of the meaning and authority of the creeds was the individual. If that is true, its use as an ameliorative for the excesses of individualism in hermeneutics is cosmetic. Again, these conclusions have very little to do with the Catholic Church.
It only changes when one accepts the Creed/Council without qualification (without the implicit assumption that "Scripture" [according to you/me] governs its use) and traces both of those back to the episcopal college and its head, the Bishop of Rome. When one sees this, and accepts that the data of revelation must be mediated by him/them, and submits, then one is Catholic, and not before.
So, on a personal note, I don't think it's fair to claim that I must've decided to be Catholic, and that's why I'm so rough on Sola Scriptura or Mathison. And I'll try not to chuckle that you think your doctrine of Sola Scriptura is best represented by a Lutheran, rather than a Teaching Elder in your own tradition. Ahem.
Comments