mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (05/29/90)
>I think the great mistake of the Reformers was that they decided to play >Scripture against Tradition, as if there could be a contradiction. This >has caused terrible problems, not least the damage incurred in many's >understanding of both Scripture and Tradition. Well, on the via media as I am, I see errors in all directions. Radical protestants try to get rid of tradition altogether, and since they can't, they either are controlled by their traditions, or they write new ones on the fly and thus fall into all sorts of heresies. Roman catholic theology fails to distinguish between scripture and tradition sufficiently, and thus the purpose of canon ceases to be truth and turns to discipline. (Also, I think that the roman definition is more narrowly drawn, with the drawback from my point of view that there is considerable confusion as to what is canonical and what is not.) >Once they did this, the progression to agnosticism in matters of faith >and morals became inevitable. Certainty does indeed become both >impossible and irrelevant if one's ancestors made big mistakes in >theological matters. For we could be just as wrong as they were. This is the *wildest* of speculations, and, I think, quite wrong. In the first place, the most conservative protestant churches on the subject of morals and conduct are those which are most against Tradition in the sense that the rmoan church uses it. Conversely, anglicans, while frequently even lovers of the archaic in terms of church practice, go in every direction on matters of morals. There has always been a strong streak of "Back to primitive christianity!" in protestantism-- and the 4th century is hardly far enough back for many of its proponents. I don't think time is the issue here. The question, really, is the functions of scripture and tradition. Scripture is supposed to be canonical. The big problem in liberal protestantism now is rather plainly that this is very much under attack-- just listen to John Spong. Tradition hardly plays a role in this fight at all; since the traditions all appeal directly to scripture, the attack on scriptural authority obviates any attack on tradition itself. -- C. Wingate + "The peace of God, it is no peace, + but strife closed in the sod. mangoe@cs.umd.edu + Yet let us pray for but one thing-- mimsy!mangoe + the marv'lous peace of God."
wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) (06/05/90)
I agree with C. Wingate; the problem with 'liberal' protestants is not that they have denied tradition, it is that they have abandoned 'Sola Scriptura' (Not to mention Sola Gratia and Sola (What's the word for faith? Fide?). Too msny are committing Adam's sin: substituting their own sense of 'right and wrong' for God's revelation. You can't criticize modern day advocates of the three Sola's (principally confessional Lutherans, IMHO) for the errors of those who have abandoned that confessional standard (including, regrettably, some who still call themselves Lutheran). How many churches are adding 'experience' to scripture? How many are implicitly adding 'science', or 'psychology'? How many pick and choose scripture to fit the fashion of the age? We might pose another question: what's wrong with tradition as a source of truth, and what gross errors has tradition led the Roman church into? Scripture actually warns us against substituting tradition for the revealed truth of God. Here are a few examples: Ezek. 20:18,19 : "Do not follow the statutes of your fathers or keep their laws or defile yourselves with their idols. I an the Lord your God; follow my decreees and be careful to keep my laws." Col 2:8,9 "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ" Col 2: 16,17 "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day." Matthew 15: 1-9 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat! Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: 'These people honor me with their lips, but thier hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' " What principle should we draw from this last passage? Don't nullify the Scriptures with tradition! Joe Buehler will claim that RC tradition does not nullify scripture. We might debate that. Certainly in Luther's day the church had pretty much forgotten scripture, the gospel, and grace. The whole religion of the church had degenerated into traditions and rules. In the Augsburg confession, Article 20, the Lutherans confessed: " Our teachers have been falsely accused of forbidding good works. Their writings on the Ten Commandments, and others of like import bear witness that they have taught to good purpose about all stations and duties of life, indicating what manners of life and what kinds of work are pleasing to God in the several callings. Concerning such things preachers used to teach little. Instead, they urged childish and needless works,such as particular holy days, prescribed fasts, brotherhoods, pilgrimages, services in honor of saints, rosaries, monasticism, and the like. Since our adversaries have been admonished about these things, they are now unlearning them and do not preach about such unprofitable works as much as formerly. They are even beginning to mention faith, about which there used to be marvelous silence. They teach that we are justified not by works only, but conjoining faith with works they say that we are justified by faith and works. This teaching is more tolerable than the former one, and it can afford more consolation than their old teaching." I suppose one could say that this only describes a departure from tradition, or a 'moral failure'; however Luther & co. clearly believed that this departure or failure resulted from relying on tradition and neglecting Scripture. When he tried to take corrective action, the church pounced on him, which certainly confirmed him in this belief. A tradition that says "We are right because we are the church, and we have always done things this way" and which then re-interprets scripture to fit the errors that tradition has propagated, is extremely dangerous. (I might add that all churches, yes, even Lutherans, are susceptible to to this error!) Yes, one can argue that no church council ever codified the worst moral and doctrinal failures of the church, and that Trent corrected the failures and returned the church to its proper tradition. But as Lutherans see it, Trent confirmed the church in a number of errors, and actually codified some that had not been codified previously. Particularly, I believe Trent was the first council to assert that church tradition was to be considered equally with scripture? But I'm not sure. "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth." 1 Tim 4: 1-3. "Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for [that day will not come] until the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He opposes and exalts himself over everything that is called God or is worshipped, and even sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God." 2 Thessalonians 3,4 I mention this last passage because it is clear evidence that the AntiChrist will (or has) appear(ed) within the church. Without pointing fingers, or trying to identify some person or institution as the AntiChrist, let us simply be warned that the voice of tradition might be the voice of AntiChrist. Observance of tradition can be a fine thing, but let us not bind consciences with it. Do not nullify the word of God with tradition. David H. Wagner A confessional Lutheran My opinions and beliefs are not likely to coincide with any held by The University of Houston
mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) (06/05/90)
In article <May.20.23.29.06.1990.4471@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu writes: >the middle. I have always had the feeling that basically the >Catholics and conservative Protestants are looking for the same thing: >a source of Truth that can be used immediately and unambiguously. This doesn't fit in at all with my own Catholicism. I think when you say "Catholicism" you mean Conservative Catholicism. To me the important thing about Catholicism is the emphasis on the role of the community - all Christians both living and dead - who together form the Church, and in whom the Holy Spirit is working. To take a "scripture alone" position is to cut oneself off from this community - to say "I know better than all of them". But most people are not strong enough to really take this position. In the place of the Universal Church as guide and teacher, they put their individual sect, pastor, or secular beliefs. Without the constraint of communion with the Universal Church, some pretty peculiar abberations can and have developed. To be a Catholic is to safeguard oneself against the power of self-delusion - believing one has found God when one has only found a reflection of oneself. The Catholic accepts that their is a body - the Church - which can tell him when he has strayed too far from the path of Christianity. That doesn't necessarily mean he sees the Church as giving immediate and unambiguous Truth. Matthew Huntbach
jhpb@garage.att.com (06/05/90)
Charley Wingate commented on something I wrote: > >Once they did this, the progression to agnosticism in matters of faith > >and morals became inevitable. Certainty does indeed become both > >impossible and irrelevant if one's ancestors made big mistakes in > >theological matters. For we could be just as wrong as they were. > > This is the *wildest* of speculations, and, I think, quite wrong. Well, here I have to disagree, of course. I think my comment was quite to the point, though perhaps exaggerated, as is my habit. Scripture gets quoted with free abandon here and in t.r.m, sometimes complete with Greek verb tenses, etc., but seldom is there any mention of the historical interpretation of the Church. For the most part, there seems to be great ignorance that there even is such a thing. Witness the recent discussions in this group. Why are the historical interpretations so ignored? I can name, say, a half dozen central doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church over which there is no dispute from the period of the Fathers until the Reformation. Say, 1000 years. I am not speaking of theological quibbles, but of fundamentals. Like, are we going to invoke the intercession of the Saints, or not? What model am I supposed to have of Church doctrine, if one can overturn fundamental doctrines? I see little left but a Modernist one: doctrines change to suit the needs of the times. To give a rough idea of what I'm talking about, what if we were to decide that Scripture was not a source of Revelation? This is akin to what the Reformers decided relative to Catholic doctrine. Joe Buehler
jkeys@orion.oac.uci.edu (Jerry Keys) (06/05/90)
The discussion of Catholic tradition and scripture, contrasted with the typical Protestant view of sola scriptura has been interesting, and I too feel "out of place" as our moderator said in his posting. It seems to me that Catholics and conservative Protestants struggle to attain certainty in all aspects of their spiritual, moral and psychological lives. For the Catholic the high status given to tradition provides a gradually increasing (more comprehensive) set of authoritative, unbreachable rules which progressively eliminate the need to decide what course of action to take in one's life--the individual's life becomes more prescribed, and hence the individual gains greater "clarity" and "certainty" about what he or she must do. The conservative Protestants seem to also strive for certainty by eliminating perceived sources of error (eg. Catholic tradition), "returning to the scriptures" as the only source of guidance and then insisting on a rigid interpretation of the scriptures that likewise prescribes as much as possible in life thereby providing the clarity and certainty. If the scriptures were so definitive about the issues (in this case the authority of tradition), then why can each side point to scripture and say "see, this is why I'm right...", and both sides claim that the other has misinterpreted or taken scripture out of context? I believe that each side honestly believes their point of view to be closer to the "truth" than the others (ie. I don't think that each side is playing a game). Both take positions that indicate they *know* what God wants from us, both generally and specifically -- but how do they know? Is one side being deceived and not the other? And how does each side know they aren't the ones being deceived? I'm convinced that Scripture is the word of God. At the same time I think that our understanding of it, and of what God wants us to know is part of a dynamic process, and will remain so as long as we are mortals. I don't believe that any individual or group can claim to have a *clear* understanding of all God wants us to know. Perhaps even the most peculiar mystic, babbling seemingly heretical statements may be sensitive to truths God wants us to know, but we have difficulty seeing because of our institutionalized faith. Sure, there can be, and are, some issues that we can be more clear about than others, but it seems to me that when we compile an ever growing set of prescriptions (be it based on scripture with authoritative traditions or based only on rigid interpretations of scripture) we are effectively creating a box that we put ourselves into (and allow the "authorities" to put us into). And the more structure there is to the box, the more static and rigid it becomes; and the more static and rigid our relationship becomes to the "truths" supposedly represented by the box. Is truth the same as law? To me it seems that the expression of, or practice of "authority from tradition", or the authority of the "only correct interpretation", tends to be more law than truth -- ie. coercion to live by the "truth" as understood by those in authority. If the "truths" illuminated by tradition or by a certain set of interpretations are indeed true then there should be no fear in allowing them to be tested by those who feel a need to test them -- if the traditions are "true" and the testers evaluate honestly, then the same conclusions should be arrived at. A tradition or interpretation is not sacred, and while I would argue that they are necessary in our spiritual journey they are only human symbols for something truly sacred: the relationship between God and humankind. We have been set free from the law, and I don't mean in a sense of spiritual anarchy, but more like spiritual responsibility. I don't believe there is actual individual responsibility if all behavior is completely prescribed. Sure, there is the responsibility to obey, but I don't think God is telling us that we *MUST* be like "such-and-such list", but that if we love Him, each other and all his creation then we will be as He wants us to be -- we will be truly alive and experiencing life to the fullest, as He originally intended for us (yes, only one Man has been this way -- I'm not trying to make a doctrinal point, only an illustration about the issue of behavior following the heart of a man, versus forcing a man's behavior to conform to certain criteria in order to affect his heart). Jerry Keys UC Irvine jkeys@orion.oac.uci.edu or, jkeys@vmsd.oac.uci.edu (I prefer to receive mail here) [There are certainly Catholics and conservative Protestants who deal with Tradition or Scripture legalistically, but to be fair, not all do. --clh]
mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) (06/07/90)
In article <Jun.4.23.22.14.1990.15524@athos.rutgers.edu> wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes: >Matthew 15: 1-9 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus >from Jerusalem and asked, "why do your disciples break the tradition of the >elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat! My reading of this, and many similar passages is that Jesus is asking the Pharisees to look beyond the narrow rules laid down in the Old Testament, and to consider the spirit behind them. Thus I see them as an argument AGAINST Sola Scriptura. If you take a scripture alone attitude, then you are almost forced to take a narrow Pharisee-like interpretation, because you have no higher authority. The Catholic Church, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, laid down what writings were to be considered Scripture, and with the Holy Spirit still working through it is the ultimate authority on the meaning of scripture. Thus protected from error by communion with the Church (or more properly, the threat of excommunication), the Catholic is free to take a more liberal interpretation of scripture than the Protestant. Matthew Huntbach
gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham) (06/09/90)
Joe Buehler writes:
----------------------------------------
What model am I supposed to have of Church doctrine, if one can
overturn fundamental doctrines? I see little left but a Modernist
one: doctrines change to suit the needs of the times.
To give a rough idea of what I'm talking about, what if we were to
decide that Scripture was not a source of Revelation? This is akin to
what the Reformers decided relative to Catholic doctrine.
----------------------------------------
The problem is, what do you do when the traditional interpretations
contradict scriptures? A previous poster quoted Jesus' rebuke to the
Pharisees, about how their traditions contradicted God's commands.
Obviously, the revelation from God has to have precedence. Otherwise,
one can turn your argument on its head: ``What model am I supposed to
have of Church doctrine, if the (institutional!) Church can overturn
fundamental doctrines?
Another point is the issue of the purpose of revelation. The intent
of revelation is not to produce a fixed certainty, but rather to point
to the one about whom it gives witness, Christ. On the other hand,
the temptation is to attempt to possess the revelation and sort of
nail it down so it won't move. This is a mistake. The revelation
(and the revealed one) does not change, but the situation in which the
they are found changes. As Paul said, ``I become all things to all
men, that by all means I may save some.'' His examples of this are
that to the Jews he became as one under the law, though not being
under the law, so that he could win those under the law, but to the
Greeks he became as one outside the law -- though not without law
towards God, but under the law of Christ. Obviously, the issue of
divine law was one he could treat flexibly.
The Reformers decided that the church as it stood was not faithful to
God. On what basis did they decide this? What mechanism was there to
call the church back to faithfulness? What point of view could speak
to the situation without being controlled by it? The Scriptures, in
their objectiveness, could do so, where popes and bishops and councils
could not, or at least, did not.
It is clear to me that institutions take on a life of their own after
a while, where the imperative of survival replaces the original
purpose for which the institution was created. For this reason,
institutions and organizations must be broken up periodically. The
false life must die so the true life can again show forth. From a
human perspective, this is terrifying. But from the perspective of
God, whose church it ultimately is, it is a necessary process. Unless
it happens, there is no room for him to say a new thing to us.
This process must happen in ``Protestant'' churches as well. The
plethora of Protestant denominations witnesses to the difficulty
everyone has in accepting the breaking up of their assumptions. The
new freedom of 50 years ago often becomes the new bondage of today.
How much worse when religious weight is put behind it, and people are
led to believe their immortal souls are in jeopardy if they try to
throw off the bondage.
The final point is that we must try not to arrange things so they work
without God. An institution faces an almost inescapable temptation to
do this. The institution will continue, things will get done, people
will get their salaries paid, even if God doesn't show up. Once this
happens, the life tends to go out of things. But it is not the
institution that is the point. God is the point. There is no reason
for the institution to function at all if God doesn't show up. A
polite response to God's failure to show up would be to disband. How
often do large scale institutions take this possibility seriously?
The Scriptures say,
For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do
not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
--
Fred Gilham gilham@csl.sri.com
Are Saturday morning cartoons proof that adults hate kids?
Answer: Yes. (From "Life in Hell")jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (06/27/90)
Darren: I am curious. What do you want to found society on? What should be the standard of what is good and evil, what is lawful and unlawful? Joe Buehler
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (07/02/90)
Joe Buehler writes, in part: >Arguing against the available historical evidence is self-defeating. It's >shooting oneself in the foot, because it means arguing that Christianity is >doctrinally Modernist. Something is revealed by God for 1500 years, then >suddenly it's an error: that's Modernism. That's the road to the AntiChrist. Obviously, Joe, one could just as well hold that it is a 1500-year old error. >Either we know what we're talking about, or we don't. But we can't know >what we're talking about for centuries, then suddenly figure out that we >didn't know what we were talking about. This model of thinking is wrong, wrong, wrong. We can *believe* we know what we're talking about for years-- centuries-- and then discover that we've been wrong all along. This happens all the time in other fields of inquiry. >You know, this talk of the AntiChrist brings up an interesting question. >How is the AntiChrist going to budge the Roman Catholic Church, given its >system of unchangeable Traditional dogma? Oh, I can see how this can happen quite easily enough. In the first place, the doctrine of the church can become so petrified and heartless that it can drive charity away. In the second, the continuing evolution of RC doctrine may very well take it further and further away from the Important Truth. In the third, the authority of the churc may be used at lower levels to promulgate local doctrines at variance with the Important Truth. >Since the AntiChrist can't argue with my beliefs (I would reject any >argument out of hand; these above listed things are not opinion, but >dogmas revealed by God -- excepting possibly one or two that are only >proximate to dogma), I must already be a follower of the AntiChrist. >After all, if he can't change my beliefs or my behavior, I must already >be his. You are assuming that following the AntiChrist is merely a matter of subscribing to the wrong doctrine. How can you be so sure? Perhaps it is your very rigidity that is the fatal error. -- C. Wingate + "I bind unto myself today the strong name of the Trinity + by invocation of the same mangoe@cs.umd.edu + the Three in One, and One in Three." mimsy!mangoe +
cathy@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Cathy Johnston) (07/02/90)
In article <Jun.27.00.55.38.1990.16461@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes: >Darren: I am curious. What do you want to found society on? What >should be the standard of what is good and evil, what is lawful and >unlawful? > >Joe Buehler Since kilroy is trying to get married and may or may not answer for a while, I thought I'd butt in with my $0.02... How about: Love God with all our hearts and minds and souls and strengths, and love our neighbors as we love ourselves. Oh, well, I always have had outrageous expectations... :-) -- Cathy Johnston cathy@gargoyle.uchicago.edu cathy@gargoyle.uchicago.bitnet "The Church and the World are jammed to the rafters these days with people willing to get involved, get their hands dirty, take risks, make sacrifices, hurl themselves at spears, lead the advance, inspire, illuminate, encourage, organize and manage great affairs. I find most such folks insufferable, even if they are my brothers and sisters in Christ. Where are the people willing to sit on the sidelines and find fault?" -- Michael O. Garvey
mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) (07/02/90)
Joe Buehler asks > Darren: I am curious. What do you want to found society on? What > should be the standard of what is good and evil, what is lawful and > unlawful? Not to answer for Darren, or anybody else, but we don't FOUND society on anything -- we FIND it. I mean this pun seriously. People who ask for the "foundation" of society are asking for a *theory* -- an explanation. Whether the answers you prefer are theological or not (maybe sociological or historical answers are more pertinent than the theological ones?) the answer has a different status than the reality. Even if we are talking practically, about the foundation of a new order of the world (a la revolutionary America) people necessarily bring to the task a whole culture's (or multiple cultures') worth of the ideas and presuppositions they grew up with -- possibly heavily overlain by revisions and criticisms or developments growing out of their personal committments. And these agendas do include theological ones, too. Insofar as we receive God's revelation in such matters, THAT enters as well -- whether as part of the criticism and revision or as a less revolutionary development. But human culture is the matrix in which all this happens, it is the vehicle through which we comprehend -- if we ever do at all -- divine revelation. Meaning -- even God's meaning -- can be conveyed to us only via human ways of understanding. That is not God's limit, of course -- it is our own, which we can never escape. Our nature is, we believe, given to us by God; let us not despise it: God apparently feels it is sufficient for us. I'm not at all sure that Joe does. -- Michael L. Siemon "O stand, stand at the window, m.siemon@ATT.COM As the tears scald and start; ...!att!sfsup!mls You shall love your crooked neighbor standard disclaimer With your crooked heart."