The pointing finger

[Stanley Anderson]

[Mary]

[Mary]

[Jservic2]

[Josh]

Stanley,

I have a couple of thoughts concerning your comments, the first of which I feel more strongly about than the second.

I do not agree that scripture, on the whole, points to the Church. It points to Jesus Christ. We can find a handful of verses here and there from the gospels that refer to the Church, and we can read stories in Acts concerning an early church that bore almost no resemblance to what the Church became 200 years later, but scripture does not refer to the Church as the culmination of the teachings and stories contained therein. The focal point of the story is the incarnate God, not the human-controlled Church. It is the role both of scripture and the Church to point us to God, not to point at one another.

Secondly, the "Church" that is to be the Bride of Christ is not an organization, a church structure, or a ruling establishment in Rome. It is the covenant people of God. A covenant believer may wear any label (e.g., Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Episcopaleon, Jewish), but the label cannot make him any less a covenant believer. The catholic Church, therefore, is not a religious organization. It's a brotherhood of believers, and it is ecumenical in nature.

As for Tradition, most protestant denominations do not reject it. Roman churches are not the only church bodies reciting the Apostles or Nicene Creed on Sunday morning. They're not the only churches studying the church fathers or learning catechisms. In fact, as a general rule, the elements of Tradition that protestants tend to reject are the ones that do not find firm grounding in scripture, the ones to which scripture does not seem to "point."

An interesting sidenote about Transposition: The book that we now call Weight of Glory, in its first English printing, was titled Transposition and contained the Weight of Glory sermon.

[alecto]

[Stanley Anderson]

[Josh]

[Kolbitar]

::We're in a fallen world, and an honest onlooker would conclude that we, the people of the Church, are fallen with it. To say that the primary purpose of scripture is to point to us seems to me a gross misservice to scripture.

Hi Josh. I'm tired right now so I hope I've sufficiently grasped what I've but taken a cursory glance over in order to ask this series of question. I apologize if I'm merely adding confusion.

I guess I'd first ask, what's the problem with Scripture pointing to us in so far as we accurately embody Scripture? In that sense we're Living Scripture for others, we're making Scripture more visible. If there's no real problem with this idea, then what's the problem with the Scripture pointing to us in so far as we accurately embody the role the Catholic Church claims Christ has given Her the authority to carry out, which is defined in Her dogmas?

You see, if Scripture is not to blame for Protestant abuses and atrocities, then why is Catholic dogma, which reflects Scripture (though it does develope it), to blame for Catholic abuses and atrocities?

[Josh]

[Kolbitar]

[Josh]

[Pete]

Stan, you make it sound like Tradition isn't important in Protestant Churches...where does that idea come from? As far as I've seen (and I have worshipped in a variety of different Protestant Churches) that suggestion would be far from the truth...

[Stanley Anderson]

[Kolbitar]

::Why not? Because it's special pleading. "All our good deeds are of our Godly natures. Ignore the bad stuff; that really wasn't us anyway."

Hi Josh. Well, remember, I was talking specifically about living Scripture (scripture made alive), Scripture manifesting through us. So I guess I'd ask you then, which is it? When we aren't living godly lives are we manifesting Scripture? or when we are living Christ like lives are we not living Scripture?

::How can a non-churchgoer decipher that? I'm a churchgoer, and I can't decipher it. Looks like a church with a split personality to me.

Simple, you provided the answer already, "I don't trust those sinful people. I trust the Holy Spirit who inspired the words they wrote." The same principle applies to Catholics, and it' is, I believe, what Stanley is saying.

::I don't trust those sinful people. I trust the Holy Spirit who inspired the words they wrote.

Ah; this, I think, is what Stanley is getting at. Note (as he reminds us in his last post), he talks about Tradition and Authority; in his first post he writes, "And this is what I tend to see as the primary difficulty with people who mistrust "Tradition" and "Authority" in the Church, as though it is something that takes the place of Scripture rather than being the thing that it "points" to as Scripture's means of being manifested in the world."

Now, Christ promised His Spirit would lead us into all truth, and Scripture itself says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Therefore, just as you believe the Spirit used sinful men to communicate revelation through Scripture, so does the Catholic believe the Spirit still uses sinful men to communicate truth (a proper understanding of revelation) through *Tradition and Authority, which act via Council and Papal decree to produce dogma (truth). In addition the Catholic believes the Spirit is still with us using particles of matter to communicate grace through the Sacraments. We too trust the Holy Spirit and not sinful men.

*Please note, Tradition and Authority are inherent to the notion of a Bible which was put together by the Church centuries later. Scripture was carried by the Church; this is nothing other than saying was carried by Tradition. True, the Holy Spirit guided it through the Church, but that's what Tradition IS. If the Holy Spirit worked through the Church guiding and protecting Scripture, then the Church is where Authority, certainly to this extent, is found. The difference is that the Protestant thinks the vehicles through which the Holy Spirit worked to bring us Scripture broke down at that point. That, however, begs the question -- for it's not Scriptural to assume that.

::::I do believe you contradict yourself here. You say Sola Scriptura is the only reliable way to define what we believe, but that is not found in Sola Scriptura -- so it cannot be a reliable way to define what we believe according to your own logic.

::No. Nice try, though. I did not say that all truth comes from scripture, where no truth exists or can be known apart from it. If I said that, and scripture itself did not attest to it, then I'd be in trouble. That's the trap of atheistic existentialism and materialism. But I can make a truth statement--scripture is inspired and is the only reliable source of non-natural revelation (i.e., knowledge that is not the product of reason or observation)--and not have to cite evidence for that truth statement in scripture itself. In other words, I can rely on what scripture says about itself (i.e., its purpose), experience (the things that happen to the Church, for example, when it departs from scripture), and reason in making a truth statement concerning the efficacy of scripture and, more importantly perhaps, the unreliability of other means of non-natural revelation.

I’m afraid I’m not going to let you off that easy, my friend. You wrote, “It (Sola Scriptura) is the only reliable way to define what we believe. All of Tradition should be checked against scripture, not against what the church tells me that scripture says or means.” In the first sentence of the aforementioned quote you’re talking about revelation – I understand that. You say that Scripture Alone is the only way to define what we believe; that statement, however, places what you believe about Scripture Alone OUTSIDE of the realm of revelation.

Catholics are constantly told that they rely on the traditions of men, and not God’s word, but you admit, by the implicit logic of your statement, that the second sentence “All of Tradition should be checked against scripture, not against what the church tells me that scripture says or means”, is not necessarily (certainly not solely) trusting God’s word to define what you believe about this issue.

You’re very standard, therefore, is a tradition of man; thus Sola Scriptura, not being defined by Sola Scriptura, rests on the reasoning of fallen men: not on revelation (I’m not saying the reasoning is false because it came from fallen men, I’m simply calling it like it is). It’s like a group of people getting together saying “I’m only going to accept the book of James as Scripture alone,” and we’ll call it, just as whimsically (ignoring the rules of grammar which I don’t specifically understand, so I’ll just forget about them) Sola Jamesola. “You’re Sola Scriptura standard violates our Sola Jamesola standard (which is the extent to which I believe the word of God exists), so yours is a tradition of man.” You see, if someone actually pulled that on you, you might want to pull out your hair, rend your garments and put on sackcloth and ashes (or maybe I should just speak for myself :-), for it merely begs the question; it tacitly assumes the very same logical ground that it rejects.

So, once we’re honest (and I’m not saying you’re not -- though I’ll judge by your response:-) that we’re operating on a principle which is extra-biblical, then we can go on to see which principle is the most compelling. I’ve attempted to do that in another thread (http://cslewis.drzeus.net/forums/viewto ... sc&start=0) where we can carry on this discussion if you’d prefer…

Thanks,

Jesse