Skip to main content

Rootedness Hits A Wall

Most Christians you meet are not arrogant enough to think all they need is themselves, the Holy Spirit, and the Bible; they are going to make an argument from history and the creeds at some point. This is why Mathison's attempted distinction between Sola Scriptura and "Solo Scriptura" is so popular, when faced with the Catholic challenge. It has a surface plausibility; the Reformation has persisted for almost 500 years; everyone you know would think 500 years is a long time. If you appeal to an idea or a doctrine that is at least 500 years old, give or take, most people would credit you with the rootedness and historical awareness that you desire to project.

The problem is with biting the bullet, and saying that the Reformation commitments were there from the very beginning. The result of that bold commitment is to essentially consign great luminaries like Augustine and Aquinas to a purgatory (metaphorical, of course) for questionable ecclesiology and soteriology. Which is fine, if you're willing to believe that Christ left His Church, against his promise on this very point. You cannot both appeal to them for a proof of continuity, and hold them in suspicion.

This makes sense, upon reflection. The claim of continuity is open to refutation, based on criteria established prior to the Reformation. Here's the delicious part: Every single well-formed Reformed-turned-Catholic is in this place because he or she took the Reformers' claim of continuity with the early Church seriously, and tested it.

Most people who are deeply-invested in the theology of the Reformation, that is, who believe it to be correct, are capable of reading the Fathers; they can see there is a discontinuity between them, and the Reformers, with respect to ecclesiology and soteriology. It has always been accepted; indeed, Calvinism has a ready-made explanation for any severe discontinuities: the elect are the "faithful remnant" who persevere amidst the rotting visible church structures of history.

The claim of continuity is an opportunity for conversion. A firm belief in the idea that the history is not a rotting husk eventually comes into direct conflict with the hermeneutic of rupture that the Reformation assumes. It's not a schism, if the Catholic Church is not the Church that Christ founded.

If the Reformation in substance were in fact a moral protest against the abuses of the Church of the time, there would be no need for a new methodology of receiving the faith once-delivered, and new dogmas which arose from its use. This is why Luther was asked if ecumenical councils could err. It was for the Catholic defenders to be able to say, "You're not Catholic, and you never were."

Reform from within is the desire of saints; reform from without is a contradiction.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un