The Pontificator in a recent post cites Anglican John Stott on a ubiquitous rule in Protestantism:
In his book Evangelical Truth (2002), John Stott states the popular rule: "Whenever equally biblical Christians, who are equally anxious to understand the teaching of Scripture and to submit to its authority, reach different conclusions, we should deduce that evidently Scripture is not crystal clear in this matter, and therefore we can afford to give one another liberty."
The Pontificator is narrowly considering the purported catholicity of Anglicanism. I, however, want to leapfrog from Stott's comment to the Protestant dogma of sola scriptura and its primary problem and fallacy: private interpretation.
We read in 2 Peter 1:20:
Knowing this first, that every prophecy of Scripture cometh not out of private explanation
While this verse is used to prohibit idiosyncratic interpretations of the Scriptures, it is important to keep in mind the context of this verse:
For we did not follow fables which have been cleverly devised, but we became eyewitnesses of that One's majesty and made kn own to ou the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. For having received from God the Father honor and glory, there was borne along by the magnificent glory such a voice to Him, "This is My Son, the Beloved, in Whom I am well pleased." And we heard this voice which was borne along from out of heaven, when we were with Him in the mount, the holy one. And we have this prophetic word made more sure, to which ye do well to take heed, as to a lamp shining in a squalid place, until the day should dawn and the morning start should arise in your hearts. Knowing this first, that every prophecy of Scripture cometh not out of private explanation, for prophecy was not brought about at any time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke while borne along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:16-21)
That is to say, the Gospel is not something received individually, nor just from any source. The Gospel is always already received only from the apostolic witness, which witness itself was communal. St. Peter was not alone in witnessing the Transfiguration. The prophecies of Scripture which spoke of Christ were explained, not on the basis of individual interpretation of the events of Christ's life, but by the communal apostolic witness of that life.
Scripture is always framed and interpreted by the apostolic witness, not only the Old Testament, but the New Testament as well. As St. Peter goes on to write in this epistle:
But false prophets arose among the people, as also there shall be false teachers among you, who shall introduce privily heresies of destruction, even denying the Master Who bought them, and bring upon themselves swift desctruction. (2 Peter 2:1)
And:
This second epistle, beloved, I now write to you, in which I stir up your sincere mind to be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior . . . . and be deeming that the long-suffering of the Lord is salvation, even as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom which was given to him, wrote to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them concerning these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable twist, as they do also the rest of Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:1, 15-16)
That is to say, the private, or even secret, teachings interpreted from the Scriptures that do not conform to the apostolic exegesis, are to be rejected. Biblical hermeneutics is a public, communal and apostolic exercise. There is an historical witness to such an exegesis. And when we substitute our own judgment of what Scripture means for that public apostolic witness, we violate this Petrine norm.
In part, Protestants must advocate for private interpretation because their dogma of sola scriptura requires it. If all belief and practice must be justified or substantited from the Scriptures, then necessarily Tradition is either eliminated altogether or it is relegated to a position not only beneath Scripture but also beneath that of the individual interpreter.
But if the individual interpreter is, ultimately, the final arbiter of the meaning of Scripture, then it necessarily follows that the Scriptures must be perspicacious, that is to say, the individual interpreter must be able to clearly understand all those things it is necessary to understand (cf. the Westminster Confession I.VII).
However, note, if you will, the account of the Ethiopian eunuch:
And Philip ran up and heard him reading the Prophet Esias, and said, "So then dost thou really understand what thou readest?" But he said, "No. How can I, unless someone should guide me?" And he besought Philip to come up and sit with him. (Acts 8:30-31)
Or, recall, if you will, Apollos:
And a certain Jew, by name Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came down to Ephesus, being mighty in the Scriptures. This man, having been instructed in the way of the Lord, and being fervent i nspirit, was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And this one began to speak boldly in the synagogue. And after Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him to themselves, and set forth the way of God to him more accurately. (Acts 18:24-26)
Indeed, not even the Apostles themselves, relied on their own interpretations of the Scriptures:
And He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that it is needful for all the things to be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning Me." Then He thoroughly opened their mind to understand the Scriptures. (Luke 24:44-45)
We can see that proper interpretation of Scripture is necessary for those converting, for the converted, and for the Apostles. We can also see that such a proper interpretation comes down from Christ himself, to the community of his apostles and the Church, in a communal witness. Being regenerate does not guarantee one any more certainty or clarity of private interpretation than it does of the unregenerate. St. Apollos needed his private interpretation on baptism corrected so that it conformed to the apostolic witness from St. Paul guarded and kept by Sts. Priscilla and Aquila. But even being an Apostle does not guarantee one certainty and clarity of private interpretation. Even the apostolic witness is a communal enterprise. As St. Paul writes:
But even if we, or an angel from out of heaven, should preach a gospel to you besides that Gospel we preached to you, let such a one be anathema. As we have said before, and now again I say, if anyone preach a gospel to you besides what ye received, let such a one be anathema. (Galatians 1:8-9)
The point of all this has been to demonstrate that the elevation of private interpretation of the Scriptures to an authority greater than that of the communal apostolic witness is contrary to the life of the Church, and to the explicit Scripture itself. The point has not been to eliminate individual reading, wrestling and coming to understand the Scripture. These are indispensable to the life of the Christian. But such individual reading, wrestling and coming to understand the Scriptures must be bounded and shaped by the apostolic tradition. There is a public record throughout these two thousand years of what the Church has received from the Apostles. If our private interpretations do not conform to that record of Faith, then we must abandon such private interpretations for the fullness of the apostolic tradition.
This is where the "rule" that Stott expresses above runs to ground. For perspicacity will always ultimately be in the eye of the interpreter. To determine that in Scripture which is or is not clear on salvific matters is not for the individual to make. Take a look at Protestantism and the matter of baptism. If there ought be anything so clear, in matters of salvation, to the individual, it ought be baptism. But there is no unanimity among Protestants on the matter. Liberty then becomes not freedom but slavery. One might posit something like the liberty of conscience, but such freedom is bought at the price of bondage to ignorance. The circle of perspicacity grows ever smaller as the Gospel is whittled down to nothing more than personal preference. Though the rule Stott expresses might have enjoyed a certain plausibility, even among evangelicals, earlier in the prior century, surely the last few decades have witnessed the utter incompetency of this rule to do anything so important as witness to let alone establish a common faith.
No, we need something far less frail, far less prejudiced and far less prone to the passions than the individual interpreter. We need, bluntly, Tradition to set us right.
Nor is it a matter of setting the Tradition over against the Scripture. Sola scriptura advocates like to pull this rhetorical move. They will accuse Orthodox of making Tradition more authoritative than the Scripture. On the contrary, quite the opposite. For Orthodox the Scripture has all the authority and esteem that Protestants give to it. Orthodox too understand the Bible to be infallible, the written revelation of God. They too understand that all dogmatic pronouncements must be consonant with Scripture. Nor do they think Tradition to have a higher place than Scripture--because the Scripture is Tradition. It is not the whole of it, but it is Tradition, that which has been received and passed on.
No, the primary difference between sola scriptura advocates and Orthodox is not their views on Scripture, it is not their views on Tradition, even though there are admittedly some important distinctions between those views. Rather, the primary difference between Orthodox and sola scriptura advocates is their views on the individual interpreter. Sola scriptura advocates hold the individual interpreter to a level of competency and authority that we do not. Which is ironic. For many sola scriptura advocates will heartily set forth the total depravity of man, and criticize the Tradition as being founded on human (fallible) tradition. Yet they reserve to the individual interpreter all the authority and inspiration of the original apostles. The individual Christian is better able to interpet the Scripture, they will claim, than the inherited interpretations of the apostolic community over two millennia. For sola scriptura advocates, the individual interpeter is, indeed, god-like in his ability to interpret the written revelation of God.
Orthodox don't think so. Rejecting total depravity, affirming the human capacity for synergy with the work of God, Orthodox yet hold a rather dim view of the individual interpreter's ability to accurately interpret the Scriptures. Best always to submit one's interpetation to the canon of the Tradition. For as St. Peter clearly indicates in his epistle, when individual teachings depart from that of the apostolic witness, heresies result. There have been enough heresies through the centuries. No need to add any more.
Posted by Clifton at November 5, 2005 02:54 PM | TrackBackHey Clifton, I really appreciate the time and effort you put into this site. I think it is certainly a site, and not a blog. You write very in depth.
As I am reading, I am writing a paper on Authority of Scripture. My basic premis is that Authority and the Church Tradition must work together and hold each other in check. So, I popped onto your site and voila...
Anyway, I am wondering what heresy you might be able to point to within the restoration movement... Could you say that Private Interpretation is a heresy?
Posted by: John at November 5, 2005 06:05 PM
John:
Thanks for the compliment. By the way, I pray regularly for you and your family, and the wee one on the way.
Since, as you well know, the RM has no creed and individual RM'er beliefs can run a fairly wide gamut and still be within the RM boundaries, I'm not sure I can claim that all of the RM is tainted by a particular heresy, if any. The most that one can say about RM coherence is that it is a methodology more than it is a circumscribed set of beliefs. At least that's my view.
Having said that, though, I think if there were any distinctive heresy the RM might be charged with would be the prevailing tendency to downplay the Personhood of the Holy Spirit and the confining of the Spirit within the pages of the Scriptures.
Having said that, though, I well recognize that maybe only one or two of my Ozark professors could have been correctly designated with that criticism. The rest were definitely Trinitarian.
The RM shares with the rest of Protestantism a tendency toward Nestorianism (dividing the human and divine Persons of Jesus from one another) and Gnosticism (downplaying the full ramifications of the Incarnation). But these are more logical extensions of explicit beliefs than they are explicit beliefs themselves.
In short, I do not think, on the whole, the RM holds positively any actual heresy (aside from the one on the HS, and that is more the older RM folks). They just, in my opinion, lack the fullness of the New Testament faith.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at November 5, 2005 07:58 PMThanks Clifton for your reply.
I have to admit that this issue of hermeneutical relativism is clearly a weakness amongst Protestantism. And something I am struggling through.
However, I am a Protestant, and I am a big fan of Tradition. In fact, I think that we hold to Tradition more than we actually admit. In reality, we are part of a stream that has tended to react more toward "traditions" than Tradition. And when I say "traditions" I mean the dead faith of the living, not the living faith of the dead. (We also have our "traditions" as well that are becoming reason for correction...) traditions that seem to add so much to the faith that the original meaning is lost or obscured.
I also think that one of the greatest differences between Sola Scriptura folks and Orthodox folks is the eschewing of the sacraments and the communion with the historical church. It's a pendulum swing too far to the other end of the spectrum. I would classify Orthodox and Sola Scriptura groups at both ends of the extremes.
Here is my conclusion as of late, and I am sure you will have good insight on this.
Scripture and Tradition work together, like right and left hands work together. Neither is above the other, and each needs each other if it is to pick up anything sizeable. The pressure from both sides allows a faith to actually be held. Both Tradition and Scripture have their source in the body of Christ. The problem arrises when you have an imbalance or an atrophy or injury on either side.
The classic example is the Medeival Catholic Church going outside of the bounds of Scripture in many ways. The other example I think is what we see today, ie. the fragmentation of protestantism due to biblical relatavism and no sense of Tradition or connection or obligation to the past.
I do think that Protestants can take hold of Tradition in a balanced way that shapes our Hermeneutic of scripture so that it is consistent within the history of the Orthodox church.
But, even if this is accomplished, from what I gather, it still is not enough to achieve the goods of Orthodoxy. Why? Because the grace of God resides within the sacrament, and not the faith (however correct) of the individual.
Would you say this is correct?
Posted by: John at November 5, 2005 09:06 PM
Excuse me for jumping in here. Having grown up in a RM context and later coming to a more orthodox view and lately to Holy Orthodoxy, I would agree with Clifton that there is far too wide a range of beliefs among the RM churches to really be lobbing the word 'heresy' indiscriminately.
However, I think the chief deficiency of the RM is a failed ecclesiological understanding, which leads to other issues - incomplete sacramental understanding, impaired understanding of the action of the Holy Spirit in the Church, and the role of Holy Tradition and the place of Scripture within that tradition.
Campbell said: "Christians must regard the church, or body of Christ, as one community . . . Hence, there must be such an understanding and agreement between [the] particular congregations as will suffice to a recognition and approval of their several acts; so that the members, or the measures of one community shall be treated with the respect due to them at home, in whatever community they may happen to be presented."
So far so good - in fact it sounds extraordinarily like the organization of the Orthodox Church, the Bishop surrounded by his flock, and in communion with the other dioceses in unity of faith.
However, Campbell's ecclesiology was tainted by a conflation or substitution of the scriptures with the apostolic faith: "the church is 'built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, and on Jesus the Messiah, himself the chief corner stone,' and therefore _on the Christian Scriptures alone._" [Emphasis in original]. Campbell substituted the scriptures as the 'pillar and ground of Truth' for the real pillar and ground, the Church. 1 Tim. 3:15.
Thus the RM ecclesiological understanding won't, because of it's mis-applied grounding in sola scriptura, accept the historical teachings of the ancient Church; which teaching, I believe reveals that the Orthodox Church is not at the 'extreme'. For example, read St. Cyril of Jerusalem's lectures to catechumens, available at www.ccel.org for a good picture of post-Nicene era praxis and belief . . . the faith of those who preserved for us the very New Testament canon.
My (feeble) understanding of Orthodoxy would suggest Orthodoxy isn't simply about laying hold of Tradition, even though this would be a step in the right direction for RM churches. If I may attempt to put it this way: Orthdoxy is about the manifestation of the incarnate Christ and the mystery of the Holy Spirit in the world - grace resides in the sacraments because the Holy Spirit abides with Christ, and therefore in the Body (Bride [one flesh], Branches of the True Vine) of Christ - the Church, which is one because Christ is NOT divided.
No one individual can say with certainty that anyone is a member, or branch such that he won't be in the end unfruitful individually and find himself in the pruning stack. [that's a horribly constructed statement, sorry]; thus a life of repentance and humility and love is apropos, with wonder and hope in the knowledge that "the steadfast love of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon those who fear Him, and his righteousness to children's children, to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments."
Thus at every Divine Liturgy the presbyter, in the context of the mystery, says: "In faith and love, draw near!"
- Pray for me
Posted by: Eric at November 6, 2005 12:10 AMEric, I appreciate your comments.
I have two questions for clarity sake...
you say...
"Thus the RM ecclesiological understanding won't, because of it's mis-applied grounding in sola scriptura, accept the historical teachings of the ancient Church; which teaching, I believe reveals that the Orthodox Church is not at the 'extreme'."
1. Are the historical teachings of the ancient church that RM churches don't accept in your mind the "ecclesiological understanding, which leads to other issues - incomplete sacramental understanding, impaired understanding of the action of the Holy Spirit in the Church?"
2. Isn't it fair for Christians this side of the historical divisions to work with what they have been given? I mean, the safe, trustworthy place to start with developing one's faith in Christ is the scriptures that have been passed on. The church has in many people's opinion, and sometimes fact, distorted the clear message of scripture, and added many elements to the faith that aren't within the pages of Scripture, ie; much of the disciplines of the Fathers. And for people who's starting place is scripture, this is a red flag. They just aren't sure which Tradition is legitimate because they are coming in from the outside. Granted, the place where Christians throughout the centuries have started is with Tradition and Scripture, but today however, we are in a pickle! Yet, it is still clear that the Holy Spirit is at work in amazing ways around our globe in the lives of many Sola Scriptura people, leading thousands of people to Christ. And often times, to martyrdom for that faith.
I just wonder if God isn't a little more patient and understanding with us and our awful place in church history than we realize.
John:
I think there are two approaches to the issues you raise.
First, let us acknowledge that whatever one may say about the thousands of schisms among those claiming Christ's name, it is an inescapable fact that so many groups believe so many things that are in direct contradiction to so many other groups, which beliefs are described by their adherents and fundamental and/or non-negotiable aspects of the faith of the apostles. (For example, put a Southern Baptist and an RM Christian in the same room to discuss the question as to whether baptism is essential for salvation.) They cannot both be right. Yet if one is right, the other necessarily either preaches a Gospel of salvation by works or an incomplete Gospel. It could be that both are wrong, in which case neither of them preaches the apostolic Gospel.
All the sincerity and good feeling in the world will not eliminate this fundamental reality. Schism is a reality in the current Christian world. And since the Scripture clearly teaches the unity of the Church, all of these groups cannot be the Church, for the Church is indivisible (that is, unless the unity of the Holy Trinity or the Person of Jesus can be divided).
One approach to this situation is to presume equivalence: the RM and (in our specific case) the Orthodox stand on equal footing, in terms of claims (vis a vis, Scriptures, Tradition, their ecclesial status), and one simply evaluates the arguments. This would serve to reduce the tensions, but it would also likely serve to just confirm everyone in their own opinions.
The other approach is for each side to assume the correctness of its position, agree on a common set of evaluative tools, and then examine one another's case.
For example, since RM and Orthodox both accept the Scriptures as the infallible written revelation of God, we could simply examine the RM on its own terms using its own Scriptures. Having myself done this, I can say the RM will not come out the better for it. If one then goes on to examine the RM in terms of the Tradition, then it's game, set, match in my view.
For example, let's simply look at the fundamental basis of authority in the RM: sola scriptura. What does the Scripture have to say about sola scriptura? About Tradition? The evidence is not pretty for sola scriptura.
But one can also take up the Orthodox position and examine it in light of Scripture. Here there will admittedly be things the Orthodox espouse that are not evidence in Scripture: such as icons. But if one carefully examines the Scriptures far from prohibiting icons, minimally the Scriptures will allow them. And since Scripture itself enjoins the Tradition upon Christians, icons became a fact of life.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at November 7, 2005 09:07 AMJohn - Clifton has a tremendous amount of good material on this site that, in one way or another addresses your questions to me.
I might also suggest you find a copy of Oswin Craton's Journey of Fear and Joy. He is a former RM Protestant.
I have written some of my opinions at hilariusfool.blogspot.com and probably ought not expound more. But for the sake of answering your question, my opinion is that being true to the ecclesiology of the Church found in the New Testament writings does not allow for a divided Church. The writings of the early Fathers, which the RM congregations seem to ignore, illuminate and confirm that the early Christians up through the period where the NT canon became settled understood the Church this way, and understood the role of tradition differently than the RM congregations in which I was raised.
St. Basil the Great wrote (in On the Holy Spirit) in the post-Nicene era (c. 374 A.D.):
"Concerning the teachings of the Church, whether publicly proclaimed (kerygma) or reserved to members of the household of faith (dogmata), we have received some from written sources, while others have been given to us secretly, through apostolic tradition. Both sources have equal force in true religion. No one would deny either source -- no one, at any rate, who is even slightly familiar with the ordinances of the Church. If we attacked unwritten customs, claiming them to be of little importance, we would fatally mutilate the Gospel, no matter what our intentions -- or rather would reduce the Gospel teachings to bare words . . .”
John, if we accept the New Testament canon as correct, which is but a declaration of the undivided Church as to those writings which, by Holy Tradition, were received as apostolic teaching and divinely inspired, why do we not accept or at least seriously consider the faith of the men and women who brought that canon to us? Why do we not look at the understanding of the Fathers up through at least the end of the 4th century, by which time the NT canon was largely (although not entirely) settled?
May you seek and find Him, Jesus Christ, who fills all in all.
-e
Posted by: Eric at November 7, 2005 11:30 AMJohn:
To check out some of the posts I've submitted here on Scripture and Tradition, go to this link:
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at November 7, 2005 01:01 PMClifton, John and Eric--I am really enjoying this discussion. I am a RM guy myself who is set to be chrismated into Holy Orthodoxy on November 19th. Clifton's recommendation of Craton's book is a good one. I found the book helpful, as have RM friends who are journeying to Orthodoxy. In reading through your dialogue, two thoughts come to mind. First, in my experience in RM churches, worship was often centered on scripture, rather than Christ. Certainly this wasn't true everywhere, but it was so in my small rural Southern congregation. I recall from innumerable classes the comment of one of our elderly matriarchs, "we've got to get back to the word!" and then she would peck her finger on her Bible for emphasis. The point here, was to quite literally "get back to" scripture itself rather than the One to whom scripture bears witness. This leads to my second observation: namely that one of the main differences between RM churches and Orthodoxy is that the life in the former--unity, if you will--is all "propositional," while the latter is "experiential"--the whole "Life in Christ" thing. I realize I am painting with a broad brush here, because Orthodoxy is not without its propostions--the Creed, for example. Still, I found in the RM that unity was maintained as long as we all believed the same about the "essentials." The problem, obviously, was that everyone had a slightly different list of essentials, which leads back to the dilemma of private interpretation that Clifton noted. I have concluded that, in the long haul, the RM methodology simply doesn't work, and won't last. Orthodoxy meanwhile, suffers and sturggles, yet endures as it has for nearly 2000 years.
Posted by: Terry Cowan at November 7, 2005 02:41 PMFirst of all, let me say that I really appreciate the spirit and tone of this conversation. Thank you for the resources and help you are providing for me.
I also don't want to hijack Clifton's blog... So I hope this doesn't seem to be that. This however, has simply been my bane topic over the last year and a half!
Clifton, I am familiar with the argument about how self contradictory certain protestant groups can seem. This is used as an argument to show how clear it is that they are wrong... But, if I were to ask the question that you posed, "whether baptism is essential for salvation" to an Orthodox believer, what would the answer be? To my understanding, it would be the wrong question altogether. Many of the questions that protestants ask, and often have divided over to their shame, are simply the Wrong questions altogether. This doesn't prove to me that the groups are wrong, but simply that the questions themselves don't compute... thus rendering the whole argument an unrelevant, non-issue in the eyes of the Orthodox. It all takes place in the realm of the unknowable and hypothetical. The real shame is that churches have fallen into the sin of schism and allowed these questions to divide them. However, Paul even acknowledges the necessity of division within the Corinthian Church so that those who are right will be recognized. It's not so that those who are wrong can be anathematized. And I think that if any person thinks differntly along certain lines, that too God will make clear. We simply need to live up to what we have already attained.
Also, my point about RM churches is that their basis isn't really Sola Scriptura because Sola Scriptura is an oxymoron. Nobody practices that in reality! We all get our hermeneutics from somewhere... As a church history student at Lincoln, I know the great respect for Tradition that our hermeneutics departments hold. Church history is an essential component to any hermeneutic, especially in RM church theology. Where we part from Tradition is where we see that Tradition parting from Scripture... Now, I will give you credit in the areas of the Eucharist scriptures being exegeted inconsistently with how we view baptism scriptures... but at what point does one's view on the Eucharist become heresy?
Eric,
thanks for the recommended read in Oswin Craton. I will certainly check that out, as well as your site. I have certainly found much of Clifton's writings to be helpful as you have mentioned...
Regarding our view (I am an RM guy as well) of the Church Fathers... Even the Orthodox church does not subscribe to all the Fathers all the time in every way... They divide the wheat from the chaff, as rightly they should. This is simply what the RM churches do. What they see as being consistent with Scripture, they accept, (although I am sure that much is seen as consistent but not binding) but those things which are different or completely foreign to scripture are held as nonessentials and as matters that should not be divided over. You can practice them if you like, but those things should never be a test of fellowship. They weren't at the time when they were written, during their generation, why should they be now?
Regarding Basil's quote... Are you alluding that there are secret oral teachings within the Orthodox church that are passed on which the rest of the church does not know about, thus rendering them incomplete?
What about St.Athanasius statement: "The holy and divinely-inspired Scriptures are of themselves sufficient to the enunciation of the Truth" (Contra Gentes, 1.) or of Cyril of Jerusalem "With regard to the divine and saving mysteries of faith no doctrine, however trivial, may be taught without the backing of the divine Scriptures... For our saving faith derives its force, not from capricious reasonings, but from what may be proved out of the Bible"
It seems that Scripture is sufficient for salvation, but not for a completeness of the faith that many Orthodox speak of...
Posted by: John at November 7, 2005 02:57 PMClifton, you confirm my suspicion...
the differences between Orthodox and Sola scriptura are not necessarily propositional, but experiential.
That was what I was trying to communicate in my second comment about the eschewing of the sacramental nature of Orthodoxy...for that is where the goods are.
But, if this is the case, this simply results from a different understanding of the nature of grace... Is grace available in the sacrament itself, or because of the faith of the person participating in the sacrament?
Posted by: John at November 7, 2005 03:09 PMJohn:
The difference between Orthodox and RM is located precisely in your comment to me: RM decides where Tradition fits Scriture or not. Where does the RM get this authority? How can a movement, separated by 1700 and more years, by continents and oceans, historcially and geographically, linguistically and culturally, have a better idea what the New Testament Church taught than, say St. Ignatios of Antioch?
You, yourself, admitted the manifest inconsistency on the interpretation of the texts on baptism and the Lord's Supper. So why is the the RM right--the Lord's Supper is only a memorial--and St. Ignatios wrong--the Lord's Supper is the sacrament of the His Body and blood?
You are right about the sifting: both the RM and the Orthodox do it. But on what bases? If one examines that, one will see the manifest ecclesial difference between the two.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at November 7, 2005 03:10 PMThe grace, since it is the energetic presence of God, is objectively real, regardless of the faith, or not, of the human participant. But only by faith is such grace incorporated and subjectively realized.
It is the synergetic reality of grace's working.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at November 7, 2005 03:13 PMNow we are getting somewhere...
Where does anyone determine where Tradition fits scripture or not... by reading Scripture! If it is inconsistent with Scripture, shouldn't that be a red flag?
Regarding the Lord's Supper. We might well be wrong. but if as you say in the next comment that the sacrament isn't based on the person's faith,or understanding for that matter, but on the sacrament itself, isn't the fact that we practice the sacrament of the Lord's Supper every week sufficient for us to receive the Lord's grace?
Posted by: John at November 7, 2005 03:21 PMJohn:
Actually, it's not whether Tradition is consistent with Scripture, but whether Tradition is consistent with an intepretation of Scripture? Why does the RM reject most of the Tradition? Because they think their interpretation is better. I ask again: on what basis do that claim this? What is their authority?
The grace of the Lord's Supper is more than just the elements plus God's energies. That grace is energized in Christ' Body, the Church. I can't just throw out some bread and wine and "make Eucharist." Nor do I have any reason to suspect that just because I do it, God will make it real by his grace. As St. Paul says in 1 Cor 10-11: the Church is an essential element as well as the Bread and Wine. None of it happens without God's grace, yes. But God's grace works itself out through his Body (cf. Ephesians 4).
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at November 7, 2005 03:27 PMYou say that the RM rejects most of the Tradition. Do they? or do they reject much of the traditions of the Orthodox and Catholic faith which are unbinding?
To answer your question of "By what authority do Restoration churches have to evaluate things to discern whether they are truth or not."
First, through humility
Second, through taking into consideration the historical witness of the Church throughout history, ie, the activity of the Holy Spirit, ie: Tradition and speaking with its voice
Third, by making sure that whatever interpretation of scripture is made, it is done so that that it doesn't contradict other areas of scripture, thus speaking with Scripture's voice, ie: tradition and the voice of those who wrote it, (i mean seriously, we aren't Marcionites!)
And lastly because we are a part of the Church that bears witness to a resurrected Savior, Jesus
(though maybe the weird Uncle's first cousin's step sister) we are in the family, and a part of the living witness of the Holy Spirit in the world
today, like it or not. We worship the same Jesus, and his Holy Spirit lives and works with us. This is the authority we claim. The same way Paul did at first, because of his interaction with the Christ who does not hide himself from any who call on his name.
And back to the Lord's Supper thing... When the jews celebrated the Passover, what role did the elements play? Were they done in rememberance of the past, or were they recreations of the past's presence in their midst? I would submit the former. The bitter herbs helped them remember.
That is how I would view the elements of the Last Supper, the same way Jesus did. He is the fulfillment of those elements.
John:
You ask, "You say that the RM rejects most of the Tradition. Do they? or do they reject much of the traditions of the Orthodox and Catholic faith which are unbinding?"
I ask you again, "How do you know? And on what authority do you make this claim?"
You write further, in part,
Second, through taking into consideration the historical witness of the Church throughout history, ie, the activity of the Holy Spirit, ie: Tradition and speaking with its voiceThird, by making sure that whatever interpretation of scripture is made, it is done so that that it doesn't contradict other areas of scripture, thus speaking with Scripture's voice, ie: tradition and the voice of those who wrote it, (i mean seriously, we aren't Marcionites!)
I can't judge the humility part, and moving on to who is and isn't the Church at this point would be futile. So, with regard to "second"--which part of the historical witness do you take into account? Why that part and not another? By what measure do you discern the Spirit's activity? Whence does that measure derive? How do you know the voice of Tradition?
With regard to "third"--how do you know which Scritures to align with which other Scriptures, and how can you discern whether or not it is a contradiction or your (RM) own misunderstanding? How do you know which is and isn't Scripture? Why doesn't the Didache get considered while the Revelation does? Why Hebrews and not Hermas? How do you know which part of the Tradition to use and which to reject?
I don't mean to be cantankerous or belligerent, but my point with these questions is to point at that you will necessarily be forced to admit that it is the interpreter which has the final authority. On your description it is the interpreter who discerns the voice of the Spirit, which part of the Tradition is genuine and which not. Why does your interpreter trump the entire history of the Church?
This is what I was trying to point out in my post. It ultimately will come down to the authority issue. Why should we trust the god-like interpreter over the historic communal witness of the Church?
(And now I'm off to teach my ethics class.)
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at November 7, 2005 05:39 PMJohn - as to setting up St. Cyril of Jerusalem up against St. Basil, regarding tradition, by citing his Catechical lectures, I would gently suggest this is a misreading. If you read ALL of the lectures, it is well apparent that the whole process (40 days of fasting before Pascha and reception), the reference to baptismal exorcisms, is full of the tradition and praxis of the Church; which tradition, I think the Orthodox can proudly say, they continue to observe faithfully.
One of the examples that St. Basil notes (but I did not quote) is the making of the sign of the cross. Surely this is not explicitly in the New Testament. Another is worship towards the East.
St. Cyril, of whom you quote, says in the very same series of lectures: "Let us, therefore, not be ashamed of the Cross of Christ; but though another hide it, do thou openly seal it upon thy forehead, that the devils may behold the royal sign and flee trembling far away. Make then this sign at eating and drinking, at sitting, at lying down, at rising up, at speaking, at walking: in a word, at every act." In another place he talks about worship towards the East.
[BTW - for a good read on the passage of oral liturgical traditions and the Jewish Temple roots of Christian worship: http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/roots]
If you read Church history, one reason for 'secrecy' of certain traditions, still true during St. Basil's time, was that some things could get you killed by a mob. Look up the martyrs of Lyons in the 200's for example.
With respect to the Eucharist, it is a hard saying but one upon which the undivided Church agreed for over 1,000, and which the East, Rome, the Copts, and I daresay the Syrian and Assyrian churches, all believed (and believe) in the real presence, even if the full medieval view of Rome is not accepted.
St. Hilary of Poitiers, Doctor of the Roman communion and Saint in Eastern Orthodoxy, said "What we say concerning the reality of Christ's nature within us would be foolish ad impious were we not taught by His very words . . . . There is no room left for doubt about the reality of His flesh and blood, because we have both the witness of His words and our own faith. Thus, when we eat and drink these elements we are in Christ and Christ is in us." On the Trinity, Book VIII.
As to relying on any one Father, you are right, but that is what the Ecumenical Councils are for, as we see in the Council at Jerusalem in Acts. Even St. Peter, after receiving the illumination of the Spirit, wasn't always right.
These are difficult issues, I know. I've been moving on a track towards Orthodoxy all my life, and I'm still not really there and have much to unlearn. I've had 'scripture interprets scripture' and 'where the scriptures speak, we speak; where silent, we are silent' and such things pounded at me all of my formative years. One nice thing, though, is I learned to be able to look scriptures up pretty well.
In the end, it is a matter of faith; perhaps that is why the Creed includes the statement of belief in 'one holy catholic and apostolic Church' - St. Hilary said the Church only becomes comprehensible once you've adopted it. If the faith of the Fathers isn't convincing enough, it's unlikely that I can persuade you. If you are convinced by them, you have no need of me except to be your fellow on the Way!
- May the peace of God abound with you, John.
Posted by: Eric at November 7, 2005 05:46 PMJohn,
Sorry, but your RM experience is alien to me! While I can believe that a few professors in RM associated colleges may take a broader view of tradition, they are certainly in the minority of the broader population. However, I can only speak of the conservative churches of Christ.
It is without a doubt that the foundations of the RM in Alexander Campbell's teachings are antithetical to what you are posting. In other words, RM Christians can only move towards the Great Tradition by rejecting the RM foundations.
Posted by: Ken at November 7, 2005 09:56 PMClifton, 2 responses:
1. I asked a question about whether on not we are rejecting Tradition with a capital T or traditions, with a lower case t. That's a question and not an authority statement... I was just curious, because for the majority, I believe we are pretty in line with the living witness of the Holy Spirit's work in the Church. I make room on the Eucharist; that's a clear rejection. Although I am not sure why we do that...
I ask out of curiosity more than trying to put you on the defensive.
This part seems interesting though...
"which part of the historical witness do you take into account? Why that part and not another? By what measure do you discern the Spirit's activity? Whence does that measure derive? How do you know the voice of Tradition? How do you know which is and isn't Scripture? Why doesn't the Didache get considered while the Revelation does? Why Hebrews and not Hermas? How do you know which part of the Tradition to use and which to reject? I don't mean to be cantankerous or belligerent, but my point with these questions is to point at that you will necessarily be forced to admit that it is the interpreter which has the final authority."
Don't the Orthodox ultimately have each interpreter as the final authority as well? I am pretty sure that there isn't a pope to make these decisions for everything in the Orthodox church... How else would you know the answers to the questions you ask? Ultimately the Orthodox are doing the same thing as the Sola Scriptura people, but simply from within the 'church circle.' They may have some boundaries that they work with, but there has never been a consolidated work called, "This is what we believe to be the Orthodox Faith." There is a lot of room to work there, and ultimately, individual authority to choose. As long as the priest agrees.
Eric,
Thanks again for the resources. I am going to have to time out of this conversation to read it all! Thanks also for the context of St. Cyril.
Ken, You are right, I guess I am not so RM as I think! Good point. I would get kicked out of many RM churches for even mentioning that Jesus might possibly be present in the elements. Or maybe not since it's not really a test of fellowship... Anyway, good point. However, nowhere is there an all inclusive set of "what we believe."
I also think I have come through some of the more progressive churches as opposed to you guys.
John:
I'm sorry if my tone came off defensive, I meant my question regarding the discernment of Tradition and traditions as a most serious one, since it formed the background to your claim that the RM rejected traditions, and affirmed (at least the most important aspects of) the Tradition. My question was: on what basis can one decide that distinction? My contention is that ultimately either one relies on the Tradition to outline what is and isn't Tradition, or one relies on the god-like individual interprer.
You then go on to ask whether or not the Orthodox Church does the same thing that I'm claiming Protestants do: offering their private interpretation. The answer is no, and there are two reasons why.
The first reason you will likely dimiss: the Orthodox Church is the New Testament Church and has the right and authority to make that determination.
The second reason is that the objective witness of history demonstrates that the Orthodox Church has kept the ancient Faith (and Tradition) of the New Testament Church, without addition (Roman Catholicism) or subtraction (Protestants). Sunday Worship, sacraments, episcopal polity, icons, the sign of the cross, etc., have been believed and practiced from the beginning.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at November 8, 2005 10:04 AM