| |
welcome!
I am Mike Noakes.
That is was my pipe.
This is my blog.
Welcome.
(about me)
My Bio... thus far
My Myspace
My Wishlist
Buy my books on Half.Com!
(thoughts)
"Before the beautiful-no, not really before but within the beautiful-the whole person quivers. He not only 'finds' the beautiful moving; rather, he experiences himself as being moved and possessed by it."
- Hans Urs von Balthasar
"Everywhere I go, I'm asked if I think the universities stifle writers. My opinion is that they don't stifle enough of them. There's many a best seller that could have been prevented by a good teacher."
- Flannery o'Connor
"Christians are called to leave behind, in the tomb of Jesus Christ, all that belongs to the brokenness and incompleteness of the present world. It is time, in the power of the Spirit, to take up our proper role, our fully human role, as agents, heralds, stewards of the new day that is dawning."
- NT Wright
"When we think our brother or sister has sinned against us, such an affront is not just against us but against the whole community. A community established as peaceful cannot afford to let us relish our sense of being wronged without exposing that wrong in the hopes of reconciliation."
- Stan Hauerwas
"Advertising treats all products with the reverence and the seriousness due to sacraments."
- Thomas Merton
"All the believers were of one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possesions was their own, but they shared everything that they had."
- Acts of the Apostles
"For evil men account those things alone evil which do not make men evil; neither do they blush to praise good things, and yet to remain evil among the good things they praise. It grieves them more to own a bad house than a bad life, as if it were man's greatest good to have everything good but himself."
- St. Augustine
(reading)
The Eucharist of the Early Christians
The Collected Short Stories, Flannery o'Connor
The Kingdom of God is Within You, Tolstoy
(have read)
Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul II
God is Near Us, Pope Benedict XVI
Heretics/Orthodoxy, GK Chesterton
Sonnets from the Portuguese, Elizabeth Barret Browning
(theology thinkers)
Bishop NT Wright
Stanley Hauerwas
Karl Barth
(spirituality)
Daily Prayer
Nutshell Christology
Patristic Resources
Renovare
Centering Prayer
Sacramental Theology
The Triune God
(site feed)
My Atom Feed
(good books)
| |
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Is the Bible REALLY the sole rule of faith and practice?
In my opinion, absolutely not. That is absurd and a little crazy. But there are those who obviously disagree with that idea (that is, the teaching of the Christian church for over 2,000 years!) that tradition and prayer/sacred listening are also on the SAME LEVEL as the books which became known as the "Holy Bible." Protestants hold to the view of Martin Luther's sola scriptura, or "scripture alone." This theory developed as a result of abuse of the apostolic authority in the middle ages. It is purely reactionary and has no internal evidence OR historical warrant for itself. That is not to say that the scripture (however many books that includes in each of our respective traditions) is without warrant itself, absolutely not! The holy writ has served generations of faithful God-followers, Jews, Christians, and even members of other faiths exceedingly well and has proven to be a sure comfort in tumultuous times. But, aside from its own divine-ness (God-breathed) and spiritual merit, it is not special in any sort of idolatrous sense. I won't say much here, but take a read: Catholic Answers - The RCC's point of view Greek Orthodox diocese of America - The EO's point of view PC(USA) theology 101 - The traditional Protestant Point of View What do you think?
Postscript: Any offensive or mean-spirited comments will not only be deleted, but future comments will be deleted as well. I am not joking around this time.
posted by -mike- at 11:14 AM
|
|
lauds | vespers | compline
Come, pray with us.
Hit Counters
|
|
18 Comments:
I think you're stupid, (but not in a mean spirited way) JK. I agree, for the most part.when people take this view of scripture, they get very egotistical misguided and almost worship the bible. they get egotistical because they are always right and win every arguement when they quote from the bible. they get misguide, and misinterpret the bible, and make the bible the Word, instead of Jesus. and they worship the bible by saying it's perfect, which the bible doesn't claim. it says it is the work of God, but not inerrant. they also trust the bible, but forget to trust Jesus. but, maybe I'm the misguided one.
I think that tradition encompasses scripture. The Orthodox Church does not see scripture and tradition as seperate, because what after all is the Bible except the Tradition of the Apostles and what they experienced and lived? What are the gospels besides testimony (read it: Tradition) of the earliest disciples of Jesus? What is the Didache, letters of Clement of Rome (first century), etc. Protestant Reductionism has unleashed enough havoc on the Christian world starting with Schleirmacher and his relegation of the Trinity to the back of his theology all the way to the semi-heretical emergent church and its "non-foundationalist" garbage in philosophy.
"Modern" theology is nothing but the ugly stepchild of protestant scholasticism and its method of proof text theology (ever wonder where the documentary hypothesis got its genesis?). There is only one holy and apostolic church that guards the faith and it is not the Protestant church, Brian Mclarenology, Catholics, or other schismatics. The Orthodox Church is the well of pure water of orthodox christian doctrine.
There is no Calvinistic nominalism, with its unbiblical view of God as unrestrained "arbitrary" will nor is there any talk of babies lining the walls of hell. There is no popes with funny white hats who sit on their throne as if they where Jesus Christ himself. There is no marginlized fundamentalist papish curia like they have at Southern Seminary with its pope-without-a-hat Al Mohler nor is there any Puppet Jimmy Scroggins to screw up the theology programs with Basketball teams and pizza parties.
And yet as someone who loves the Church (with a cap. C) I can say that i do not know if these other people are saved. All i can say is that I know where salvation is,but not where it isn't. This is a far cry from the Protestant fundamentalist who believe that if you do not believe in the "gracious" "decrees" of God that you are going to burn in hell, as if Paul said, it is "faith in Predestination" instead of "faith in Christ that saves you." I am done ranting there is my two cents.
Saint Athanasius
All I can say is that without a tradition or an "orthodoxy," Biblical Interpretation devolves to personal opinion. And I DON'T think that everyone's opinion is valid.
Robbie: I'd agree. The bible is the idol of many protestant churches, held above the mystical knowing of God. It is truly a sad thing...
Athanasius: I think I know who you are... I would like to email you and chit-chat. Drop me a line: "Potatocore@gmail.com" I would be interested in seeing how you have developed from what you were into what you are becoming.
Salongo: Agreed. I have this crazy idea that people ought not be allowed to eve read the bible until they have some information on church history under their belt. That is, if they are to teach in a "christian" tradition. If not, then do whatever you want, I guess...
Scripture is just one of many canons established within the historic Christian tradtion. It is not the only rule of faith and practice. Such a view could only arise via anachronism. Centuries ago there was no Bible as we conceive of it, to act as a foundationalist spring-board. But there was in every age a personal God and a personal Church and in this way the faith and our practices have emerged. Likewise, in this way faith and practice are sustained.
Hm. Saint Athanasius sounds like... Saint Athanasius, oddly enough.
Babies lining the walls of hell. That's exciting.
The Bible is the product of tradition and only mostly apostolic hands. That presents (in my rarely humble opinion!) a big problem to any theology that wants to go back to the Bible and read the Bible only. As soon as one starts pronouncing on things that aren't specifically in the canon, one moves away from that kind of popular notion anyway. I like the Anglican reformed bit that says the only thing ultimately binding on consciences is what's in the canon of Scripture. Which is the product of the tradition, ahem.
I think the "consensus of the Fathers" should carry a great deal of weight, but doesn't need to be completely beyond question. Some things I don't think the Church gets to change it's mind on, like the Trinity. I think that's divine revelation through tradition, baby.
Now what's tradition? It's not the arbitrary "opinions of men," but the history of the Church's reading of the Bible, which seeks in every generation to be deeper and more faithful.
Amen.
Ian: Very true. I think that if we are to understand the Christian faith, we need to recognize that so many solas don't help us very much. God doesn't do things in a manner that is so easy to grasp as we'd like to think. God works in mysterious ways...
Kyle: Strange thing is, last Athanasius who wrote in on my blog was an asshole who needed the name to support some kind of Kinist theory... this guy actually reminded me of an Apostolic Father who visited 21st century Christendom.
The "history of the Church's reading of the Bible." Good stuff. As a sub-point to that, not all of those readings agreed... That is the beauty of the matter, God ACTUALLY allows us to not know him in a purely academic matter, like you would study a state of matter or disect a frog. They're is a shroud of darkness we'll never see through... I like that.
Ian wrote," Centuries ago there was no Bible as we conceive of it, to act as a foundationalist spring-board. But there was in every age a personal God and a personal Church and in this way the faith and our practices have emerged. Likewise, in this way faith and practice are sustained."
Hmmm... No "foundationalist springboard", what would you call the rule of faith that the church used as a "foundation" for the laying down of the Canon of the New Testament? Or the Liturgy that made metaphysical statements, that where assumed to correspond to some extra physical reality, which the Church Fathers thought they could prove by reason and appeals to scripture. Or how about the fact that the Church Fathers all appeal to greek philosophy and the existence of God as a foundation? Sounds pretty foundational to me.
The church, and Judaism that it planted its roots in, have always been Narrative and Propositional (ie foundational) to get rid of narrative leaves only a dry theological system, to get rid of propostional truth you are stuck with some warmed over subjectivism that only talks within its own "communtiy" whatever the hell that means, since I am outside of your "community" I guess I do not understand. Both rationalist and irrationalist non-foundationalist need to realize that they are both wrong, and the only place for intellectual salvation lies in the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church.
Saint Athanasius
I also think that people miss the point that the Bible is part of tradition, but also is the only unquestioned authority along with the Seven Councils. There is room to disagree with the Church fathers. What matters is consensus, which is what the church has always used to determine doctrinal issues.
I don't like the idea of foundationalism. the way I look at it, we are trying to build, through propositions, a stairway to get us close enough to God so the jump into heaven doesn't look very far. every brick we lay brings us closer to God and understanding him, which I don't think is possible. He's an infinite God, and laying 500 or 5000 bricks does make a dent on the depth of his existence. However, I think attempting to understand him is good, as long as it brings us back to his mysterious, everpresent, allconsuming nature.
I know it's off topic and I'm sorry.
Robbie,
I do not think you understand foundationalism. Foundationalism is not just about God, per se, but is a whole theory of knowledge. For instance what is the foundation for Morals and Ethics? Is is subjective, or is there a foundation? this is Moral foundationalism or divine command, or again deontological ethics.
In epistemology philosophers like to say that knowledge must be coherent and correspond to the real world. Now people like Richard Rorty, carrying on the tradition of William James (my favorite philosopher of the modern era!) will say that knowledge does not reflect the world like a mirror and we need to abandon that. In effect what non-foundationalism says is that there IS NO foundation for any type of knowledge what so ever. I think we can see that this is a tad bit ridicoulous, because there are certain things we know take for granted as foundations such as the Law of non-contradiction, or 1+1=2, so I think it is very hard for one not to be a foundationalist of the modified.
Athanasius:Hmmm... No "foundationalist springboard", what would you call the rule of faith that the church used as a "foundation" for the laying down of the Canon of the New Testament? Or the Liturgy that made metaphysical statements, that where assumed to correspond to some extra physical reality, which the Church Fathers thought they could prove by reason and appeals to scripture. Or how about the fact that the Church Fathers all appeal to greek philosophy and the existence of God as a foundation? Sounds pretty foundational to me.
My response:
I agree. You must think I was making launching a frontal attack against foundationalism per se, but you're wrong.
You say: ....you are stuck with some warmed over subjectivism that only talks within its own "communtiy" whatever the hell that means, since I am outside of your "community" I guess I do not understand.
My response: Um...which 'community' am I in? You don't know me from Adam. Where did I personally ever deny propositional truth?
"Both rationalist and irrationalist non-foundationalist need to realize that they are both wrong, and the only place for intellectual salvation lies in the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church."
My response:
I agree.
I think the problem is more with classic Foundationalists than with the idea of a basis for rationality as such. I think that if we can have a kind of personalized foundationalism, in which reason rests upon Christ and his Bride the Church and subsequently the tradition disclosing Christ and recived by the Bride, we will be on unshakeably solid ground, so to speak.
The reason why I leveled a suspicious gaze earlier towards sola-scriptura as a foundation is because of its self-referential incoherence and the doctrines' lack of power. Scriptures are only one element, and they can appear deceptively impersonal, but if we receive them as Christological through and through (and the sacred writings of His people) we will resist any kind of naive realist arrogance as well as insipid idealism.
Sorry Ian, I hope that you take this apology as an appeal for you to forgive me for my overly abrasive langauge, and misrepresentation. I indeed ate crow, and now I am vomitting it up.
Blake (AKA athanasius)
No sweat. It happens.
I know foundationalism is a part of epistemology, or theory of knowledge. I just think it's absurd to apply it to knowing God, especially at first. People just kind of go and do some irrational thing, like sell all their belongings, cut a hole in a roof or quit their job when they fall in love with God. I had some really smart and sarcastic stuff to say too, but I decided not to cuz I don't think it will help me to love people better, and I felt bad after reading your comments. Peace brothers.
I found a great article by N.T. Wright dealing with this and the larger issue of Biblical authority. Jump over to my blog and check it out.
Post a Comment
<< Home