Here is my first response. I've gone point by point on this one, trying not to miss anything, but if you find this format too choppy and difficult to read, let me know and I can go back to paragraph form.
With the reformers though, I say that the Bible is the ultimate and authoritative rule of faith - and that any tradition that we find in accordance with that is useful and beneficial.
From what source of faith do you receive the teaching that Scripture is the ultimate and authoritative rule of faith?
I find these things to be useful and valid, but must be checked by Scripture, the testimony of the apostles and prophets and the Lord Christ himself.
Hmm. The church does not receive every teaching advanced by the Fathers, nor does she hold any Father or even the consensus patrum as superior to Scripture -- since the Bible is the inspired word of God while the early writers obviously are not. As a Catholic I would say that sacred tradition (which includes but is not synonymous with the Fathers) is coordinate with Scripture, since they both derive from the one deposit of faith and revelation which Christ delivered to His church. But without defending that assertion yet (which has its fullest exposition in Dei Verbum), can you tell me whether you think there are divinely revealed truths outside of Scripture? Or, to ask that another way, does the Bible contain the whole revelation of God in Christ? Are there truths or words which Christ delivered that are not recorded in Scripture but which still shall never fail?
Nor is there any room for the cavil, that though the Church derives her first beginning from thence, it still remains doubtful what writings are to be attributed to the apostles and prophets, until her judgment is imposed.
It is one thing for a scholar or theologian, after research, to be certain of this or that point; it is quite another for the average lay person to be certain. I think the argument here is that the certainty found in the mind of the laity is and ought to be derived from the judgment of the church, which in turn is supported but not determined by the decisions of her theologians and scholars. For most of human history - and today is no exception - the average Christian does not have the resources available (education, libraries, time, etc.) to make an informed decision about which books are inspired and which not. We rely instead on the authority of the church. God could hardly expect every Christian to do years of research to answer this question for himself or herself (not to mention all the other theological questions); so instead He provided for His people an authority on which they could rely. (Also, I do not see how this is a trivial objection, as Calvin claims.)
Nothing, therefore, can be more absurd than the fiction, that the power of judging Scripture is in the Church, and that on her nod its certainty depends.
Of course, the church did not create the Scriptures - as if the same texts were at one moment not inspired and then (after the judgment of the church) inspired! Rather, the same Spirit who inspired Scripture lead the church, according to Christ's promise, into the truth of which books were canonical, causing her to recognize and approve only what He had already inspired.
"On her nod its certainty depends." I cannot understand what Calvin means by "its certainty." When Calvin speaks of Scripture's certainty, does he mean the certainty of people about Scripture or does he mean the certainty of the book itself? Certainty can only exist within the human mind, not within a book. Once we know which books constitute Scripture, we may accept those books without any uncertainty as divinely inspired - but isn't the question, "Which ones do we accept?"
When the Church receives it, and gives it the stamp of her authority, she does not make that authentic which was otherwise doubtful or controverted, but acknowledging it as the truth of God, she, as in duty bound, shows her reverence by an unhesitating assent.
I agree! The church did not make Scripture authentic; instead, she removes doubts and uncertainties by testifying to the truth of what God revealed.
As to the question, How shall we be persuaded that it came from God without recurring to a decree of the Church? it is just the same as if it were asked, How shall we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black do of their colour, sweet and bitter of their taste"
A thing can be self-evident in two ways: first in itself, and then to us. A proposition is self-evident in itself when the predicate is contained in the subject. For example, the propositions "God exists" and "An angel is an immaterial substance" are self-evident in themselves since each predicate is contained within the subject. But neither proposition is self-evident to every man and woman on this planet, since some deny it. If I were to say "Scripture is the word of God," that would be a self-evident statement, and once someone understood the subject they would grant the predicate. Or again if I said "All Scripture comes from God," that too would be a self-evident statement. And once we understand what is Scripture we can acknowledge that it comes from God.
But Calvin changes the sense of the question "How shall we be persuaded that it came from God without recurring to a decree of the Church?" The question here is not about the predicate but about the subject. The question is not "Does Scripture come from God?" but "how shall we be persuaded that this or that book (considered individually) is Scripture without the judgment of the church?" Obviously all Scripture is from God but the question is "Which books constitute Scripture?"
And which books constitute Scripture is a question that is not self-evident, either in itself or to all Christians. (Although we may be certain at least of the New Testament). Since there is no inspired list of canonical books, what constitutes Scripture is not self-evident in itself. Since there is still disagreement about the canon, what constitutes Scripture is not self-evident to Christians. Origen and Eusebius list the Epistle of James, Second and Third John, Second Peter, and the Epistle of Jude as disputed books. If only the Protestant canon is inspired, then the whole Scriptures were not self-evident to Augustine, who receives that those books and more as canonical. Furthermore, the question "Has it always been self-evident?" is a question of history not of theory. It does not answer the question, then, to assert they have always been self-evident -- especially when the historical fact of disagreements, uncertainties, and controversies directly refutes that assertion. Disputed questions are not self-evident (in the second sense).
Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit.
So because Augustine accepts different books as canonical he did not receive Scripture with the testimony of the Spirit? That seems to be the necessary conclusion of Calvin's bold statement, but I may not be understanding what he means.
To gather everything together, I think we agree on the following points:
- The inspired books were in fact Scripture before the church determined the canon;
- The Holy Spirit lead the church to gather into the canon only the inspired books;
- The apostles and prophets are the foundation of the church.
- The certainty in the mind of the lay person rests on the judgment of the church; (me for, you against)
- The Bible contains the complete revelation of God in Christ and there is no such thing as extra-Biblical truths which are divinely revealed; (me against, you for)
- Which books constitute Scripture is not self-evident, either in itself or to all Christians; (me for, you and Calvin against)
Peace, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment