Let me back up a step. It always seemed like during my journey ["Streetlight...people, livin' just to find emotion..."--ed.] that theological discussions would quickly move to, "Calvin said..." or the Westminster Confession of Faith says..." and while that is not inherently problematic, even under a Sola Scriptura paradigm, it presumes that whomever we cite should be listened to and followed. One thing we always ignored was the fact that many of the people we cited as authorities worshipped God in different Christian communions separated from one another! And if we cited those people from the Reformed tradition, it still assumed that the Reformed tradition was correct.
Intellectual honesty demanded that I not assume anything. There was a powerful instinct and desire to get to the question behind the question: "Who sent you?" Why should I believe doctrine x and not doctrine y? I do charitably assume that any man or woman who proposes something I should believe does so because he wants me to know God. Moreover, I assume several more things: that a major figure in Christian theology and history has influence, defenders, and has said something true. I shouldn't have to say this.
If I may speak directly, it is unwise to assume that I have not read something because I disagree with you, who cite it as an authority. And I cannot short-circuit that question behind the question, restated: Did this person and his ideas come from God? If we want to have a discussion about Luther, or Calvin, Barth, Bucer, or whomever for awareness or education, that's fine. But I don't care what they said until they answer the first question, as a person seeking to know the will of God and do it. Mr. Carmack and Mr. Ford, take note.
I did this to the Catholic Church, too: I separated the early Church from the Catholic Church today; I did not assume anything. The only good reason to be Catholic is because you see that the Catholic Church today is organically one and the same with the Church of the New Testament, and the Church of the Fathers. Period. Save your smells and bells and psychoanalysis; I am Catholic because I had to be.
The very visible and tangible flesh of the Incarnate Word himself demands that the investigation of his doctrines be historical in nature. We are investigating His own faithfulness through time! Dare I suggest therefore that the Church he gave us be as visible and tangible as he?
Intellectual honesty demanded that I not assume anything. There was a powerful instinct and desire to get to the question behind the question: "Who sent you?" Why should I believe doctrine x and not doctrine y? I do charitably assume that any man or woman who proposes something I should believe does so because he wants me to know God. Moreover, I assume several more things: that a major figure in Christian theology and history has influence, defenders, and has said something true. I shouldn't have to say this.
If I may speak directly, it is unwise to assume that I have not read something because I disagree with you, who cite it as an authority. And I cannot short-circuit that question behind the question, restated: Did this person and his ideas come from God? If we want to have a discussion about Luther, or Calvin, Barth, Bucer, or whomever for awareness or education, that's fine. But I don't care what they said until they answer the first question, as a person seeking to know the will of God and do it. Mr. Carmack and Mr. Ford, take note.
I did this to the Catholic Church, too: I separated the early Church from the Catholic Church today; I did not assume anything. The only good reason to be Catholic is because you see that the Catholic Church today is organically one and the same with the Church of the New Testament, and the Church of the Fathers. Period. Save your smells and bells and psychoanalysis; I am Catholic because I had to be.
The very visible and tangible flesh of the Incarnate Word himself demands that the investigation of his doctrines be historical in nature. We are investigating His own faithfulness through time! Dare I suggest therefore that the Church he gave us be as visible and tangible as he?
Comments
Why should we be connected to the early Church by continuity of tradition rather than by the Holy Spirit and the doctrines of what Paul called The Way?
Why should we be connected to the early Church by continuity of tradition rather than by the Holy Spirit and the doctrines of what Paul called The Way?
Sin is institutional only insofar as it is personal. The existence of a failure to live out a gospel imperative does not thereby prove those imperatives--nor those who proposed them--false. When we also recall that the claim of both the medieval Catholic Church and the Reformers was the same--that they had more faithfully preserved the ancient faith--organic unity is precisely at issue. Appeal to the Holy Spirit is not dispositive in interpretation, because everyone appeals to Him. And there are learned experts on every side.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Thank you for this comment, and for your generous comments about the blog. I hope you and Brian are doing well.
Given the fact that both Catholicism and Orthodoxy base their claims to authority on the same thing--apostolic succession--you just have to see for yourself if Orthodoxy really did come first. (Short Answer: No.) But they have true sacraments and clergy, in the Catholic view.