Another Padawan?
Young Padawan,
Who is this Trace character? My...name...is...Neo.
Jump in on brother Constantine's erudite comments on hell and such. I love the parable about Judas.
Where we can start girl padawan is the famous 'solas' of the Reformation. Let's start with sola scriptura. Where is that in scriptura? I know that Moody chicks think derive their doctrine from the 'Bible alone,' but do you?
Who is this Trace character? My...name...is...Neo.
Jump in on brother Constantine's erudite comments on hell and such. I love the parable about Judas.
Where we can start girl padawan is the famous 'solas' of the Reformation. Let's start with sola scriptura. Where is that in scriptura? I know that Moody chicks think derive their doctrine from the 'Bible alone,' but do you?
posted by fatherneo at 1:39 PM
Post a Comment
9 Comments:
Sola scriptura: "This doctrine means that Scripture alone is our only final authority because Scripture, due to its inspiration, uniquely preserves God's revelation to humanity," Dr. Finkbeiner, a Moody prof. Tradition (παραδοσις) needs to be subject to Scripture otherwise you'll be juked. It is true that tradition is found in Scriptura. Though, don't I remember the Pharisees being rebuked by Jesus for such things (see Mark 7:5)?
JHolder,
Thanks for your dialogue. Since sola scriptura is paradoxical, according to you because it is not backed up by a specific chapter and verse, you must equally believe that the Trinity is paradoxical. You may say, "Yes, but the doctrine of the Trinity is taught throughout Scripture"...but I would argue that sola scriptura is also taught throughout Scripture.
I believe you are mistaken as to the dates of NT writings. You said: "Remember also that as the canon evolved, scripture, specifically the Gospel, did not exist for the first Christians except as the Old Testament. Well, and what was witnessed to them via Holy Tradition by the Apostles. It was written in the 50-80 years following Christ's resurrection, and formally wasn't solidified into the canon we use today until the 300's. Who faithful transmitted this scripture to those who fixed the canon into place?"
The correct dates are 30-60 years after Christ's resurrection {equivalent to 60's AD (Gospels)-90's AD (John's Revelation)}. Those who faithfully transmitted the Scriptures that we now have in the canon were firsthand eyewitnesses, their disciples and so forth.
Let me ask you a question...what if all we had right now in 2005 was tradition (oral, not written)and no Scripture at all? Would you still believe what you believe?
You cannot have tradition without Scripture.
You also said: "Further, sola scriptura is a doctrine that could only have come about from the invention of the printing press onward. Not to mention that for such a doctrine to be effectual, it requires 100% literacy in the world, (if someone reads scripture to me, I can't trust it - I have to go to the source!) plus a distribution network so everyone can have a Bible."
That is a weak argument. It works both ways, jholder. How can I believe tradition because I wasn't a firsthand witness of the events?
BTW-my fiance thinks I'm not making myself clear, I apologize. I can clarify further if you would like.
PadowanNiece, I like your hutzpah! Here are a few thoughts from an unworthy opponent, namely me (Constantine the Heterodox). The Reformers had a circular reasoning problem as to Sola Scriptura (their faithful progeny happily take it up still). They wanted their cake and to eat it too, to steal second base and keep their foot on first. It is painfully obvious that what we now call Scripture (esp. the NT canon), for good and bad, came out of the early Church communities and not v.v. The Bible is a but a part, albeit an important one, maybe the most important, of the greater Tradition. It is a “secondary document.” And yet, the Reformers used Scripture to “deconstruct” what had been given them in order to fit their needs. It’s akin to the tail wagging the dog or biting the hand that feeds you. It’s a highly developed form of hypocrisy (though I don’t blame them entirely!!). Here’s how G.K. Chesterton puts it.
GKC speaking of the Reformation and other revolts against the Church (for him this meant exclusively Rome)…“the strangest story in the world; that men rushing in to wreck a temple, overturning the altar and driving out the priest, found there certain sacred volumes inscribed "Psalms" or "Gospels"; and (instead of throwing them on the fire with the rest) began to use them as infallible oracles rebuking all the other arrangements. If the sacred high altar was all wrong, why were the secondary sacred documents necessarily all right? If the priest had faked his Sacraments, why could he not have faked his Scriptures? Yet it was long before it even occurred to those who brandished this one piece of Church furniture to break up all the other Church furniture that anybody could be so profane as to examine this one fragment of furniture itself.”
“Any man who joins the Church can save his soul by it without ever opening [the Holy Bible]” (G.K. Chesterton).
PadowanNiece, I believe both of these GKC quotes are demonstrable in history and in the personal experience of many. My final thought is that Sola Scriptura is a bad idea all around, the absolute worst among the Sola slogans (I have reasons beyond just defending the Church/Tradition for saying this though).
So Padre Neo. I find myself a bit surprised at you. Running from my “deconstructionist” question relative to the “Solas” of the Reformation. Via Media must run strong and deep in you. That’s a good thing, a very good thing. But as a parting punch in the nose (sorry, I can’t help myself) amongst friends as we prepare to discard the anathemas of the Council of Trent as irrelevant consider this quote:
“It is perfectly true that we can find real wrongs, provoking rebellion, in the Roman Church just before the Reformation. What we cannot find is one of those real wrongs that the Reformation reformed” (G.K. Chesterton).
Okay, enough GKC from me for a while. And by the way, which is it: Padowan or Padawan?
It's Padowan. Fr. Neo gets it wrong saying "Padawan". Looks like I'll have to prepare a very interesting comeback...stay tuned!
jholder remarked: "I will concede that authenticating who carries the tradition is where it becomes difficult."
Would you be willing to elaborate some on this particular concession?
Very, very cool post jholder with the Matrix blue/red pill image!! I noticed that it follows you regardless of the particular post you’re viewing (you must be in cahoots with Padre Neo on this one or have special access to his Blog). Are you Morpheus the Forerunner in this Blog schema? :) God is like that. Always haunting you even when you don’t know it or want it for that matter (like St. Augustine says, “our hearts find no rest…”). The image, which is certainly apropos to the Blog, serves as a reminder of the choice that is ever present before us. It is a “choose you this day whom ye will serve” modern Icon if you will. Nice work. Awesome. It’s very arresting and subversive, even postmodern. I like it.
Now, as to the content of your response I have a few observations. You said, “For ultimately it rests on faith and trust.” In large part I agree (I trust the Tradition “grid” more than other means though with some reservations and caution), but nonetheless doesn’t that measure of subjectivity give you pause??? It does for me. It begs the question, which particular nuance of faith and how do you “authenticate” it? You mentioned that you were Anglican in your past. Certainly a “hazy” bunch—it’s like walking around in the fog with them, but that is their special appeal, even gift (curse at times too). This tradition intuits the immensity of God and knows His work and presence can not be confined to one time and place. I know I’m simplyfying here, but I suspect you get my drift. The kind of subjectivity that you implied is important, in that I believe that God is working always and everywhere to restore his creation and children (I kind of sound like a liberal here with their “Logos” notion, huh?). In His time (an oxymoron I suppose) and way He will make everything right. It’s His nature. He’s a Daddy. Or so the Nazarene said. Your comment as to “faith and trust” also sounds very postmodern jholder, leaving it to the gods (subjectivity) so to speak. I thought you didn’t care for that worldview?
As to “how deep the rabbit hole goes,” this is what I appreciate most about God’s method. Yes, the historic Church (and who holds this mantle today?) may indeed be at the root of this hole, BUT the “hole” in my estimation is very elaborate and byzantine (no pun intended here) and who knows how big. Who is a citizen of De Civitate Dei (read Zion here you Matrix folks)? That’s a tough question, and I believe one that can not be answered by a particular church membership. There are those, as I’m sure you are aware, that practice a more “historic” faith than many of the attendants of say Rome or Constantinople, even with their probable apostolic succession. The De Civitate Dei is invisible more than visible, and at various points on the path down the “rabbit hole,” who’s to say where a bloke may be at any given point. BUT, they remain in the “rabbit hole” nonetheless! Maybe the "rabbit hole" is Purgatory! Of course, my argument here is a double edged sword. When I think of the Fundamentalist Right and Left Behind ilk, I so very much want to say they are in an entirely different “rabbit hole!” But alas, that’s not for me to say, though I will keep a safe distance to be sure. Very safe!! The one thing that we can be certain of is that God is with all of us in the “rabbit hole,” even if hidden. Hell, he's with us when we are in the Matrix too! How else could we ever be rescued! I don’t know what the outcome will be for everyone this side of Holy Saturday, but as Padre Neo quoted Lady Julian some time back, “All will be well” in the final analysis. I’m not making a case for the chaos that is Protestant Christianity (God forbid!), but saying that our journeys are very complex and varied. We all need to receive the blessing “Vaya con Dios” because we’re going to need it.
My “hazy” comment was in reference to the Anglican tradition and their application of the “three-legged stool” methodology, not to mention their ever present intraChristian syncretism. You know, low and lazy, broad and hazy, and high and crazy. I happen to appreciate this approach.
When I said “begs the question” I was drawing a distinction (rather poorly I admit) between what I gather from some of your posts you take to be the “historic” faith, namely Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and everyone else; hence my comment, “which particular nuance of ‘faith’ and how do you ‘authenticate’ it?” The enormity of differences (I’m not speaking of diversity here), even schisms within the broader Church, are hard to miss by even the casual observer, and each “flavor” has its convinced apologists. If by “ultimately it rests on faith and trust” you meant something analogous to Lewis’ “mere Christianity” your comment makes sense to me, but if you meant your journey into E.O. I think it does indeed beg the question for everyone else, even those, myself included, who hold in high regard and esteem E.O. Consider how “faith” can be interpreted within our own house. Even if we reduce the Christian faith to three branches, which of course would be demonstrably ludicrous given the obvious, we find that the definition of “faith” becomes problematic. The classical Protestant churches of the Reformation have within their “tradition” a prevalent “sheep and goat” polarization. Luther said “sola fide” is “the article upon which the Church stands or falls,” and his junior partner so to speak, Calvin, reiterated latter that it (justification/sola fide) is the “main hinge on which religion turns.” By way of stark contrast, Rome began its counter (pun intended) with the Council of Trent and its attendant anathemas. This is why I asked Padre Neo a while back if the “solas” were akin to what he called liberal deconstructing. The whole intramural debate in the Latin West most probably confirmed to the E.O. in the know that their faith “once delivered” alone remained Apostolic. They have, as you know, no defined doctrine of justification to speak of, but rather Theosis as there center. Of course, the battlefields between Rome and E.O. are littered with carnage too. The 1054 Schism still stands practically speaking! This in spite of JP II attempts at uniting both “lungs” of the Church. He went so far as to extend the gesture to E.O. that he’d be willing to discuss the role of collegiality and the notion of primus inter pares (first among equals), but to no avail. Believe me, Benedict XVI ain’t going to entertain that question. Unless a monumental shift occurs he’ll maintain that he alone is the Vicar of Christ and alone holds the keys of Peter. The Russian Orthodox didn’t even want JP II coming around. So much for Christian charity and “by this all men will know that you are my disciples.” I would suggest that each group that maintains that their persuasion of “faith,” rigidly held with exclusive particularity, is the true faith, be it the rabid fundie or the Brown Scapular wearing Roman Catholic, et al, needs to answer the question as to “why their particular nuance of “faith” and more importantly how do you ‘authenticate’ it.”
By postmodern (pm) I was speaking of the smorgasbord of options before us and the subjective nature of many of our choices. Not only the broadly religious options from Druidism to Islam, but even within Christendom. That’s why I spoke to the issue of “which particular nuance of faith and how do you ‘authenticate’ it.” There is a simultaneous blessing and curse associated with pm. After the exaggerated and pervasive rationalism of the Enlightenment had its way with the culture at large, the twentieth century showed us how “sh** still happens,” so people are now more open to the realm of the spiritual but yet again. Our contemporary culture understands there’s more to our life than just a vapid scientism. That’s good. Of course, the various loons out there constitute the curse. And surprisingly, the loons are in our own camp, broadly speaking, on both the conservation and liberal side.
Hope this helps to clarify.
PN,
You misunderstand what we mean by 'Tradition.' Think, as St. Vincent said, "That which is believed at all times and in all places." Your comments (Truth is relative if we use tradition over Scripture!?) presuppose that Tradition is somehow "in flux," which would negate what we're getting at all together. Also, you said that we need some degree of Tradition to interpret Scripture--guess what? You just negated the "sola" in "Sola Scripture."
Fr. Neo,
I don't agree with you that I negated the "sola" in Sola Scriptura. You said I misunderstand what you mean by Tradition. Hmmm...I think we are talking past each other.
Post a Comment
<< Home