rblinne@ncrwic.wichita.ncr.com (Richard Blinne) (06/15/89)
] ] Our fearless moderator: ] ]By the way, from all the reading I've done in the last year about ]these issues, I have to say that I do agree with Joe that the ]Reformation involved a change of axioms. The concepts of tradition, ]and the authority of bishops and the Pope started very quickly. I ]think the Reformation "sola scriptura" was genuinely a new thing. ]It's not right to say that it was invented by the Reformers in ]the 16th Cent, since there had been groups such as the Waldensians ]and Hussites that had held it before. But it's hard to find much ]suggestion of "sola scriptura" in the "mainstream" church, except ]possibly in the NT itself. Does anybody know of counterexamples? ] ]The Reformers implied that Papal claims were relatively recent. ]There's no question that the concentration of power in the Pope was ]progressive, as were a number of other things that Protestants regard ]as abuses. But it's hard to see the Reformation as being simply a ]return to, say the 8th Cent. ] I think it is very easy for those of us who have a traditional bent (Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and Presbyterians) to claim that we are going back to the original roots. The Catholics go "forward to the Middle Ages!" The Presbyterians go "forward to Augustine!" and the Anglicans "forward to Nicea!" (I think). But the moderator is right. The issue is not that simple. While we might look suspiciously at novelty, sometimes it can be truly there. I think the best example is the contribution of Anselm to the doctrine of the atonement. For the most part, the Church held that the atonement was a ransom payment to the devil. Anselm introduced the substitutionary/ legal satisfaction doctrine to the atonement. Anselm's arguments were/are strong enough to change the basic structure of atonement doctrine of both Roman Catholics and Protestants. In this case, theology moved forward because of something "new". Part of the problem is that a particular issue may or may not have been raised at a particular time in history. All during the high middle ages Papal and Concilliar Infallibility was debated. This was an either/or proposition. For the most part, it has a feel of a power struggle. Those who wanted the Papacy versus councils of Bishops to be strong were on one side and vice versa. This all came to a head when a monk thought he held to concilliar infallibility and lost a debate. When the Catholic Church brought in Eck to debate Luther they brought in a master of debate. Luther went into the debate claiming that he felt that councils were infallible and the Papacy was not. But Eck was a far better debater and showed (to even Luther's satisfaction) that Luther did not believe in the infallibility of councils. This drove Luther to the conclusion that, yes, councils and popes can err. In my opinion, this particular debate and not the 95 theses are the true start of the Reformation. So, yes, soli sciptura was new. But, it was new because until then it really wasn't an issue. I guess this is a warning to all of us who have a traditional bent. While I think we should still look suspiciously at novelty in theology, we should not rule out that somebody might have a better understanding of Scripture than those of our particular tradition. Rich Blinne, NCR E&M Wichita