![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]") |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
 Posted - June 02 2003 : 10:11:57 PM
|
This one's for you, Jim.
The Decline of Controversy
by Bishop Fulton Sheen
Once there were lost islands, but most of them have been found; once there were lost causes, but many of them have been retrieved; but there is one lost art that has not been definitely recovered, and without which no civilization can long survive, and that is the art of controversy. The hardest thing to find in the world today is an argument. Because so few are thinking, naturally there are found but few to argue. Prejudice there is in abundance and sentiment too, for these things are born of enthusiasms without the pain of labor. Thinking, on the contrary, is a difficult task; it is the hardest work a man can do--that is perhaps why so few indulge in it. Thought-saving devices have been invented that rival labor-saving devices in their ingenuity. Fine-sounding phrases like "Life is bigger than logic," or "Progress is the spirit of the age," go rattling by us like express-trains, carrying the burden of those who are too lazy to think for themselves.
Not even philosophers argue today; they only explain away. A book full of bad logic, advocating all manner of moral laxity, is not refuted by critics; it is merely called "bold, honest, and fearless." Even those periodicals which pride themselves upon their open-mindedness on all questions are far from practicing the lost art of controversy. Their pages contain no controversies, but only presentations of points of view; these never rise to the level of abstract thought in which argument clashes with argument like steel with steel, but rather they content themselves with the personal reflections of one who has lost his faith, writing against the sanctity of marriage, and of another who has kept his faith, writing in favor of it. Both sides are shooting off fire-crackers, making all the noise of an intellectual warfare and creating the illusion of conflict, but it is only a sham battle in which there are not casualties; there are plenty of explosions, but never an exploded argument.
The causes underlying this decline in the art of controversy are twofold: religious and philosophical. Modern religion has enunciated one great and fundamental dogma that is at the basis of all the other dogmas, and that is, that religion must be freed from dogmas. Creeds and confessions of faith are no longer the fashion; religious leaders have agreed not to disagree and those beliefs for which some of our ancestors would have died they have melted into a spineless Humanism. Like other Pilates they have turned their backs on the uniqueness of truth and have opened their arms wide to all the moods and fancies the hour might dictate. The passing of creeds and dogmas means the passing of controversies. Creeds and dogmas are social; prejudices are private. Believers bump into one another at a thousand different angles, but bigots keep out of one another's way, because prejudice is anti-social. I can imagine an old-fashioned Calvinist who holds that the word "damn" has a tremendous dogmatic significance, coming to intellectual blows with an old-fashioned Methodist who holds that it is only a curse word; but I cannot imagine a controversy if both decide to damn damnation, like our Modernists who no longer believe in Hell.
The second cause, which is philosophical, bases itself on that peculiar American philosophy called "Pragmatism," the aim of which is to prove that all proofs are useless. Hegel, of Germany, rationalized error; James, of America, derationalized truth. As a result, there has sprung up a disturbing indifference to truth, and a tendency to regard the useful as the true, and the impractical as the false. The man who can make up his mind when proofs are presented to him is looked upon as a bigot, and the man who ignores proofs and the search for truth is looked upon as broad-minded and tolerant.
Another evidence of this same disrespect for rational foundations is the general readiness of the mo
|
"Fides et Ratio" |
|
report to moderator
|
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 03 2003 : 1:04:26 PM
|
| Bishop Sheen was quite the philosopher.Part two? I'll be waiting. |
report to moderator  |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
|
|
Two Kettles
Colonial Settler
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
August 01 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 04 2003 : 12:07:33 PM
|
OK, I'll pick up the gauntlet!
While I have a lot of respect for the late Bishop, and feel he did an extraordinary job of making involved and challenging points of theology, philosophy, dogma, etc. understandable and even frequently entertaining, I think he may be dealing with Pandora's Box in this instance.
While I agree that the ability to argue and debate in a meaningful and healthy way in this society seems to be almost a lost art, especially in the public sphere, I'm not sure that the kind of debate Sheen seems to be advocating is entirely healthy either. Yes, many issues, especially regarding religious topics, do not bring on the type of disagreement they once did, and this is largely due to many people accepting a more relativist world view. But do we really want to go back to a time when we would engage in a heated argument over the word "damn" (to use Sheen's example)? Is it really a bad thing that "religious leaders have agreed not to disagree"? There is a real balancing act in being sincerely dedicated to a particular worldview, and being willing to argue and debate the merits of that view, and in respecting others with a different view. If today we are too relativist, is it because for centuries we were too intolerant?
Two Kettles |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 04 2003 : 12:49:07 PM
|
This is a very interesting article.
I agree with Two Kettles to a certain extent, that I would not wish to go backwards to a time when there was little tolerance. However, I think that the human race tends to go from one extreme to another - hence political correctness (something I can't abide!).
If I am right in my interpretation of the article, I think that the main point is NOT that one cannot agree to disagree, it is that one should use the grey cells to figure out what one believes/thinks and that not be afraid to stand up and defend those beliefs or thoughts. Having both sides of an issue presented to you is not always enough to allow you to form an opinion, you need it debated, questioned, argued, defended.
quote:
The man who can make up his mind when proofs are presented to him is looked upon as a bigot, and the man who ignores proofs and the search for truth is looked upon as broad-minded and tolerant.
Part of this problem is to do with the fact that we live in age where long held 'facts' are constantly being disproved. Nobody seems to know anymore what the facts are. Just when something conclusive comes along e.g. DNA testing, sure enough, something else will pop up to tell us that it ISN'T conclusive. People are afraid to defend a fact, when a few days, months, years down the line, they may be made to appear foolish!
How many times a day do you hear..."oh lets talk about anything but religion or politics"....why? Because people are AFRAID to say something controversial..to stand out..to go against the tide. They are afraid they will lose a friendship over a subject on which they disagree. But what kind of friendship is that, that doesn't allow you to have differing opinions?
Great article Lainey...I look forward to Part 2  |
| report to moderator |
|
|
CT•Ranger
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 14 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 04 2003 : 3:46:38 PM
|
"religious leaders have agreed not to disagree"
I think the above statement is true mainly in the political sphere. Where you get political figures addressing "religion" while trying not to offend anyone, and where the dying postmodern ideals of relativism and all encompassing tolerance are still practiced.
"Modern religion has enunciated one great and fundamental dogma that is at the basis of all the other dogmas, and that is, that religion must be freed from dogmas."
I would argue that it's modern secularism which has tried to banish dogmas, not religion. By "modern religion" I assume he's writing mainly of Christianity. It was modern secularism which infiltrated Christianity, resulting in extreme liberal Methodism for example, which did away with dogmas and "turned their backs on the uniqueness of truth and have opened their arms wide to all the moods and fancies the hour might dictate." Dogmas, as the Church Fathers understood them (that is doctrines and moral precepts taught by Christ and the Apostles and transmitted through the Scriptures) are still very much a part of Christianity.
"Creeds and confessions of faith are no longer the fashion"
Creeds and confessions are becoming "rediscovered," and or considered central by many Evangelical and new orthodox Christians (or classic orthodox christianity).
well that's all i have time for now, perhaps more thoughts later.
|
YMHS,
Connecticut•Ranger
Thomas Thacher
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 06 2003 : 05:06:02 AM
|
quote:
OK, I'll pick up the gauntlet!
While I have a lot of respect for the late Bishop, and feel he did an extraordinary job of making involved and challenging points of theology, philosophy, dogma, etc. understandable and even frequently entertaining, I think he may be dealing with Pandora's Box in this instance.
While I agree that the ability to argue and debate in a meaningful and healthy way in this society seems to be almost a lost art, especially in the public sphere, I'm not sure that the kind of debate Sheen seems to be advocating is entirely healthy either. Yes, many issues, especially regarding religious topics, do not bring on the type of disagreement they once did, and this is largely due to many people accepting a more relativist world view. But do we really want to go back to a time when we would engage in a heated argument over the word "damn" (to use Sheen's example)? Is it really a bad thing that "religious leaders have agreed not to disagree"? There is a real balancing act in being sincerely dedicated to a particular worldview, and being willing to argue and debate the merits of that view, and in respecting others with a different view. If today we are too relativist, is it because for centuries we were too intolerant?
Two Kettles
Thanks for running the gauntlet, Two Kettles! My turn ...
The kind of debate Sheen is advocating is the very kind, above all others, that ought to prompt disagreement and debate since it involves the questions most important to every man; why do we exist - how do we exist - what is our nature - is there eternity - how must we live to obtain that eternity - what is truth? If these questions don't warrant sincere queries, passionate dialogue/debate, & moral conviction upon which to stake one's life then nothing does. It is moral relativism that has diluted & denied that there is such a thing as absolute truth or absolute morality. Not only is relativism logically implausible & inconsistent ( based upon the principle that there is no principle, or the absolutist concept that there is no absolutism), it is dangerous in that it strikes at the moral virtues so necessary for civilization & its first casualty is truth itself. It's a deception of the worst sort. Modernism, the so-called 'age of reason' that brought us enlightenment, rationalism, relativism, & equality between truth & error, not only declared, 'god is dead,' but taught us to worship Tolerance upon the altars of Reason. Yet, it has proven to be one of the most intolerable ages ever.
For religious leaders to agree NOT to disagree is madness & cowardice wedded. It suggests those (supposedly learned & persons of conviction) who profess a particular faith & belief in an absolute truth are willing to say either there is no absolute truth, or that truth is unimportant. Certainly not worth defending &, therefore, worthless. How could that be true? There is a difference between arguing a belief & disrespecting another's right to hold a contrary belief. What we now call tolerance is nothing more than moral relativism's faulty declaration that truth is dead & error is tolerable, in practice. Or ... long live death.
Is it possible, Two Kettles, that moral relativism & its daughter Tolerance was the real Pandora's Box?
quote:
This is a very interesting article.
I agree with Two Kettles to a certain extent, that I would not wish to go backwards to a time when there was little tolerance. However, I think that the human race tends to go from one extreme to another - hence political correctness (something I can't abide!).
If I am right in my interpretation of the article, I think that the main poi |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 06 2003 : 10:52:36 AM
|
| Lainey,You always take the words right out of my mouth. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 06 2003 : 2:11:48 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lainey
People are most definitely afraid to go against the tide, Adele. Or to be *controversial* as if that equates to leprosy.
Do you think this might be the consequences of our love of *tolerance*? Is fellowship, the coveted reward of tolerance, given more value than truth or conviction?
I am not sure that it is the consequence of 'our love of tolerance', I think it is more the misinterpretation of tolerance. To me, tolerance is about allowing someone the right to have the right to do something that I do not agree with. The nation of the United States of America is founded upon tolerance....
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
However, in this age, it would appear that for someone to tolerate something, they must either agree with it, or stay silent. Not so.
If I were a US citizen, the US Constitution would give me the right to form an assembly and speak freely on a subject such as (just for example!!) the need to pass strict gun control laws. You may tolerate my doing that, but that doesn't mean to say that you could not or should not exercise YOUR rights to oppose everything I say and do.
I don't believe that tolerance necessarily promotes fellowship. I believe that the recognition of certain essential human qualities, the enjoyment of our differences, and the celebration of our rights to express our differences, are what promotes fellowship. Tolerance by todays definition promotes apathetic acceptance, lack of conviction and the devaluation of an enquiring mind. Not the kind of fellowship I would enjoy!
I am fortunate in having the perfect example of genuine tolerance in my family. My parents have been married 44 years, they have different religious beliefs, support different political parties, have opposite personalities, different hobbies and pasttimes, they have an above-average age difference, and most dangerous of all, they support arch enemy football teams! Any one of those things would be enough to split many couples apart, yet my parents, have the closest thing to what I consider a perfect union. And they managed it without either of them swaying in their own individual convictions.
Tolerance is not more valuable than truth or conviction. I can have tolerance, but if I have no sense of my own beliefs, where is my identity? Tolerance, among other things, should be a means to enable me to identify my own beliefs and solidify them. Because tolerance from me allows me to HEAR an opposing opinion and question my own, and tolerance from others allows me to express my own beliefs, and question others on theirs.
Main Entry: lem·ming
Pronunciation: 'le-mi[ng]
Function: noun
Etymology: Norwegian
Date: 1713
: any of various small short-tailed furry-footed rodents (as genera Lemmus and Dicrostonyx) of circumpolar distribution that are notable for the recurrent mass migrations of a European form (L. lemmus) which often continue into the sea where vast numbers are drowned.
- lem·ming·like /-"lIk/ adjective
I REALLY don't want to be a lemming, do you?!
HM |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 12 2003 : 10:50:19 AM
|
Still with me, Jim?
Adele, I agree with you. It is a misinterpretation of tolerance that has brought us to such a poor state regarding convictions, truth, controversy, etc. And our love of that misinterpreted tolerance has made us to compromise even in important matters in the interest of false fellowship.
One point ...
"The nation of the United States of America is founded upon tolerance...."
In theory, true. In practice, not true. That still remains the great challenge for the US - to be what it would seem to be.
"However, in this age, it would appear that for someone to tolerate something, they must either agree with it, or stay silent."
That's pretty much the idea.
No want to be a lemming. No.
|
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 12 2003 : 3:26:11 PM
|
| I'm still here. Just floating along.Philosophically phloating that is. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
CT•Ranger
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 14 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 16 2003 : 8:27:50 PM
|
"For those faiths that "rediscover" creeds, though, where do they rediscover them from?"
Over the last 150 years or so, many Evangelicals and other Christians have developed an incorrect definition of sola scriptura, which some have called solo scriptura. In this solo scriptura, the Bible is said to be the sole basis of authority, instead of the sole infallible authority. Many Evangelicals don't even know what a creed is. But some Christians have begun to realize that sola scriptura, as defined by the apostolic fathers and classical reformers does not completely rule out creeds, confessions, and tradition. Some Evangelicals have come to "rediscover" the importance of creeds, for example, the Roman Creed, later known as the Apostle's Creed. By the way, this incorrect solo scriptura, under the name of sola scriptura, is what is often debated against by Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists.
|
YMHS,
Connecticut•Ranger
Thomas Thacher
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 18 2003 : 04:33:23 AM
|
Good to see controversy is on the upswing again...
"Over the last 150 years or so, many Evangelicals and other Christians have developed an incorrect definition of sola scriptura, which some have called solo scriptura. In this solo scriptura, the Bible is said to be the sole basis of authority, instead of the sole infallible authority. Many Evangelicals don't even know what a creed is. But some Christians have begun to realize that sola scriptura, as defined by the apostolic fathers and classical reformers does not completely rule out creeds, confessions, and tradition. Some Evangelicals have come to "rediscover" the importance of creeds, for example, the Roman Creed, later known as the Apostle's Creed. By the way, this incorrect solo scriptura, under the name of sola scriptura, is what is often debated against by Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists."
----------------------------
"They have treated the Divine Scriptures recklessly and without fear. They have set aside the rule of the ancient faith; and Christ they have not known. They do not endeavor to learn what the Divine Scriptures declare, but strive laboriously after any form of syllogism which may be devised to sustain their impiety. And if any one brings before them a passage of Divine Scripture, they see whether a conjunctive or disjunctive form of syllogism can be made from it."
Eusebius/Church History, V:28:13
"Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough. But even if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: 'With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?" For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions."
Tertullian/Prescription Against the Heretics, 19
"The blessed Apostle approves of the Corinthians because, he says, 'ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you' (1 Cor. xi. 2); but they, as entertaining such views of their predecessors, will have the daring to say just the reverse to their flocks: 'We praise you not for remembering your fathers, but rather we make much of you, when you hold not their traditions.' And let them go on to accuse their own unfortunate birth, and say, 'We are sprung not of religious men but of heretics.' For such language, as I said before, is consistent in those who barter their Fathers' fame and their own salvation for Arianism, and fear not the words of the divine proverb, 'There is a generation that curseth their father' (Prov. xxx. 11; Ex. xxi. 17), and the threat lying in the Law against such. They then, from zeal for the heresy, are of this obstinate temper; you, however, be not troubled at it, nor take their audacity for truth. For they dissent from each other, and, whereas they have revolted from their Fathers, are not of one and the same mind, but float about with various and discordant changes."
Athanasius/De Synodis,14
"It is against us, they say, that they are preparing their engines and their snares; against us that they are shouting to one another, according to each one's strength or cunning, to come on. But the object of attack is faith. The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of 'sound doctrine' is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. So like the debtors,--of course bona fide debtors.--they cl |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
CT•Ranger
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 14 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 18 2003 : 8:10:10 PM
|
"Scripture has absolute authority; whatever it teaches is necessarily true, and woe betide him who accepts doctrines not discoverable in it." -Tertullian (ca. 155-220)
"If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add or take away from the written word."
-Tertullian (ca. 155-220)
"There is, bretheren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice froma any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Spcriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; andas the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to out own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them." -Hippolytus (Ca. 170-236)
"What obstinacy is that, or what presumption, to prefer human tradition to divine ordinance, and not to observe that God is indignant and angry as often as human tradition relaxes and passes by the divine precepts."
"Nor ought custom, which had crept in among some, to prevent the truth from prevailing and conquering; for custom without truth is the antiquity of error." Cyprian (ca. 200-258), Bishop of Carthage, (writing against pope Stephen of Rome)
I will pick this issue up again at a later date.
|
YMHS,
Connecticut•Ranger
Thomas Thacher
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 19 2003 : 11:56:44 AM
|
Here I see Erasmus, finger in the air, speaking slowly, with a nasal tone ... "Yeeessss .... Buuuutt ..."
(Have I got it, Ilse?)
"He, therefore, will not be a Christian who shall deny this doctrine which is confessed by Christians; denying it, moreover, on grounds which are adopted by a man who is not a Christian. Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone: they will then be unable to keep their ground."
Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh,
So says Tertullian as he definitively puts down sola scriptura. They will be unable to keep their ground.
And you quote Tertullian yourself in support of the Catholic position regarding Scripture;
"Scripture has absolute authority; whatever it teaches is necessarily true, and woe betide him who accepts doctrines not discoverable in it." -Tertullian (ca. 155-220)
Exactly. This is the Catholic position regarding the rule of faith. On this we agree. The rule of faith in the ancient Church (Roman Catholic) consisted of Scripture, Tradition and Church. Not a single Church Father interpreted Sacred Scripture in isolation or apart from the Traditional faith of the Church. To a man, the Fathers applied Tradition as a rule to interpret Scripture. The only ancients who interpreted Scripture apart from Tradition were ... tada! ... heretics.
What Tertullian says here is most Catholic; Scripture has absolute authority (he does not say 'sole authority'), its teachings are true, & in it are discovered all Catholic doctrines. This is material sufficiency. All the doctrines of the Catholic faith are discovered in the true gospels which were derived through the teachings of Christ, through His apostles, transmitted first through oral Tradition, & later by Tradition and Scripture. All doctrines of the Catholic faith are in Tradition as well as in Scripture. They are complementary coordinates from which the Church draws her teachings with absolute, SOLE authority.
Where the principle of sola scriptura errs is its application also of formal sufficiency to the written word. This view states scripture to be the sole authority of God's Word, declares it has perspecuity & needs no infallible interpretation, & in it are discovered the whole of God's truth & Christian revelation. This the Church rejects (as demonstrated in the words of the Fathers), Christ rejects (as demonstrated in His words recorded in Scripture), & Scripture rejects (as demonstrated by the Apostles as recorded in Scripture). Scripture has informal sufficiency, not formal.
Again: Not only is there no doctrine not found in Scripture, there is no doctrine not found in Tradition. All doctrines of the Catholic faith are in Tradition as well as in Scripture, not Scripture only. The writing, collating, & canonization of Scripture, possible only through Tradition & the Authority of the Church, did not cause Tradition or the Church to cease.
Christ, Church, Tradition, Scripture ... that is the chronology of our faith.
"Brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our Epistle." (2 Thess. 2,4)
"Protestants have built a new Church on the foundation of Scripture, first without understanding, then without the will to understand, that Scripture itself rests on nothing but Tradition." Credner, Protestant Biblical Scholar
Nowhere can we find Christ commanding His followers to write down His teachings; only to keep them & preach them.
"Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tr |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 19 2003 : 2:12:36 PM
|
| "If it is nowhere written,then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add or take away from the written word."- Tertullian ca.155-220. Ok,the words Trinity and Incarnation is nowhere written in the NT and all Christians must believe those Dogmas in order to be a real Orthodox Christian.Hmm,the words not in scripture,but still believed.I wonder who was behind that? |
| report to moderator |
|
|
CT•Ranger
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 14 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 22 2003 : 5:46:23 PM
|
"Our Lord promised to preserve his Church from fatal apostasy; He promised to send his Spirit to abide with his people, to teach them; He promised that He would be with them to the end of the world. But these promises were not made to any external, visible organization of professing Christians, whether Greek or Latin; nor did they imply that any such Church should be preserved from all error in faith or practice; much less do they imply that instructions not recorded by the dictation of the Spirit, should be preserved and transmitted from generation to generation. There is no such promise in the Word of God, and as such preservation and transmission without divine, supernatural interposition, would be impossible, tradition cannot be a trustworthy informant of what Christ taught." -Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology
"The intervention of God is simply assumed by Rome without any proof or justification other than the fact it is necessary to support an already existing concept of tradition. Again it is only on the authority of tradition that this divine intervention is taught, and yet the intervention is necessary in order to trust the tradition which teches it. Once more Rome finds herself arguing in a vicious logical circle." -Keith A. Mathison
"Romanists argue that such is the obscurity of the Scriptures, that not only the people, but the Church itself needs the aid of tradition in order to their being properly understood. But if the Bible, a comparatively plain book, in one portable volume, needs to be thus explained, what is to explain the hundreds of folios in which these traditions are recorded? Surely a guide to the interpretation of the latter must be far more needed than one for the Scriptures." -Hodge
"Man and his authority take the place of God. As this is the logical consequence of making tradition a rule of faith, so it is an historical fact that the Scriptures have been made of no account wherever the authority of tradition has been admitted. Our Lord said, that the Scribes and Pharisees made the word of God of no effect by their traditions; that they taught for doctrines the commandments of men. This is no less historically true of the Church of Rome. A great mass of doctrines, rites, ordinances, and institutions, of which the Scriptures know nothing has been imposed on the reason, conscience and life of the people." -Hodge
|
YMHS,
Connecticut•Ranger
Thomas Thacher
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 25 2003 : 04:21:43 AM
|
You started out by respectfully referencing the Church Fathers, but as "teachers" of Sola Scriptura. Now that the Church Fathers have been heard from, soundly refuting Sola Scriptura, or any interpretation apart from Sacred Tradition, & affirming in no uncertain terms the Apostolic Succession & the Visible Church founded by Christ, you offer post-reformation men of fallible opinion & questionable motive. To these Tertullian would say, "Who are you? When and whence did you come?"
"... we must point out the ways (of interpreting them) which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles."
Origen (A.D. 230)
Sacred Scripture, it must be remembered, came to us THROUGH Sacred Tradition, & is contained within it.
"Brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our Epistle." (2 Thess. 2,4) The written word, then, is within Sacred Tradition which preceded it.
Having already accepted the NT Canon of the Roman Catholic Church, you've already accepted both Tradition & the Authority of the Church. It is the ONLY way you could even know of Sacred Scripture, preserved incorrupt for 1500 years before it was subjected to the whims of revolution.
So, who are they? From whence & where did they come?
Charles Hodge, a 19th century Presbyterian who had a special fondness for all things uncatholic - all three quotes first mistate & then misinterpret Scripture simply to justify the religion of men. It's the inevitable folly of personal judgment. These excerpts are of no account other than to show the fruits of error. They contain nothing to refute the Church Fathers, as if they actually could, & are no more germaine to the issue than would be Ted Turner's refutation of the Ten Commandments. Hodge is what Queen Elizabeth (Head of the Anglican Church) would have dismissed as a "hedgehog," a man-made man of God. Quoting Hodge is as good as me citing me (I may still be a notch better as I at least appeal to the Church Fathers & keep counsel with the Church).
Then there's Mathison; a five point Calvinist of the partial preterist sect (as opposed to the five point Calvinists of full preterist sect). And what does he have to offer regarding tradition & scripture?
quote:
..."Interpreting the scripture outside of the boundaries of creedal orthodoxy does not lead merely to theological anarchy, and subjectivity, but to the complete overthrow of Christianity itself."
"If we do not believe that God providentially guided the church to establish a basic rule of faith (the creed), then there is no such thing as Christian orthodoxy."
He seems to be casting his lot with Tradition, against sola scriptura, & affirming (his own personal judgment, of course) the need of authoritative interpretation. Sounds Catholic.
And ...quote:
'Sola Scriptura means that the Bible in the context of Christian orthodoxy, is the sole, ultimate touchstone for faith and practice.' [Andrew Sandlin - quoted by Mathison.]
So says Mathison's authority, a fellow pro-credalist/partial preterist Calvinist. And Mathison again;
"One of the most serious weaknesses of full preterism is the almost hostile antagonism that some of its more vocal proponents express towards the more orthodox creeds of Christianity."
Who are the "hostile" antagonists against orthodox creeds these two Calvinists speak of? Fellow five point Calvinists!
And their counter-reply?
"Even if the creeds were to clearly and definiti |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
|
|
CT•Ranger
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 14 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 28 2003 : 11:03:44 AM
|
..."Interpreting the scripture outside of the boundaries of creedal orthodoxy does not lead merely to theological anarchy, and subjectivity, but to the complete overthrow of Christianity itself."
"If we do not believe that God providentially guided the church to establish a basic rule of faith (the creed), then there is no such thing as Christian orthodoxy."
"He seems to be casting his lot with Tradition, against sola scriptura, & affirming (his own personal judgment, of course) the need of authoritative interpretation. Sounds Catholic."
Actually he is casting his lot with sola scriptura, "...the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura, which is essentially nothing more than the early Church's doctrine of Scripture and tradition framed within a different historical context." And furthermore "The Church must affirm that scripture is the sole source of revelation. The Church must affirm that Scripture is the sole, final, and infallible norm of faith and practice. And the Church must affirm that Scripture is to be interpreted in and by the communion of saints within the theological context of the rule of faith."
"The Holy Spirit is the ultimate criterion of truth, but He bears witness to the truth through this reciprocal relationship between Christian Scripture, the Christian Church, and the Christian creed. Each of these three relates to the other two in a unique way. The Scripture is the Spirit-inspired Word of God that bears witness to the truth of the regula fidei and bears witness to the identity of the Church. The Creed provides the hermeneutical framework for the Church's interpretation of Scripture and serves as a means by which the true Church may be recognized. The Church bears witness to the Sheperd's voice in her recognition of the canon and her confession of the true kerygma in the creed.
Only sola scriptura, or Tradition I, does justice to the mystery involved in this intricate and balanced relationship. Only sola scriptura properly defines the unique role for each of these three while also maintaining the necessity of the proper relationship between them. If any of these three aspects of Christian authority are seperated entirely from the other two or related incorrectly, the whole of Christian authority is compromised. The usual result of such compromise is either insitutional autonomy [Roman Catholic Church] or individual autonomy. The doctrine of sola scriptura is not merely the best option out of several. Sola srciptura is the only doctrine that relates the Christian Scripture, the Christian Church, and the Christian creed in a way that does not rob God of the sovereignty that is properly His and His alone." -Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, brackets added.
|
YMHS,
Connecticut•Ranger
Thomas Thacher
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - July 03 2003 : 01:41:28 AM
|
You're still missing the point. You can quote Mathison's entire book & you could highlight all his claims of sola scriptura. That doesn't alter the fact that he's grasping for an amended understanding of sola scriptura that is far different than the Protestant Fathers (1500 years removed from the founding of the Apostolic Church through Christ with succession & tradition through His chosen head, Peter, that is today & always the Roman Catholic Church) because one can not really toss away tradition & church without complete religious anarchy. Luther began it all - this RADICAL DOCTRINE unheard of for 1500 years & unheeded by sound men - at the Diet of Worms. Bible Only - personal judgment - self-autonomy - unscriptural madness.
Sola Scriptura is NOT an Apostolic or sound doctrine. Period. |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
CT•Ranger
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 14 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 04 2003 : 8:44:50 PM
|
"Luther began it all - this RADICAL DOCTRINE unheard of for 1500 years & unheeded by sound men - at the Diet of Worms. Bible Only - personal judgment - self-autonomy - unscriptural madness."
You still have an incorrect understanding of what sola scriptura is. Yes, the version you and all the other Catholic apologists argue against, and some Evangelicals argue for, results in self-autonomy. But that is not true sola scriptura. And by the way, Roman Catholism and all her circular reasoning results in nothing but self-autonomy as well, institutional-autonomy. Maybe some day you'll realize that.
|
YMHS,
Connecticut•Ranger
Thomas Thacher
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 05 2003 : 2:34:52 PM
|
| The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth(1Tim 3:15). There is only one Church which is Catholic."I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so".(St.Augustine).No circular reasoning here,just Church authority which came before any written N.T.scripture.Very simple. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - July 08 2003 : 03:51:05 AM
|
quote:
"Luther began it all - this RADICAL DOCTRINE unheard of for 1500 years & unheeded by sound men - at the Diet of Worms. Bible Only - personal judgment - self-autonomy - unscriptural madness."
You still have an incorrect understanding of what sola scriptura is. Yes, the version you and all the other Catholic apologists argue against, and some Evangelicals argue for, results in self-autonomy. But that is not true sola scriptura. And by the way, Roman Catholism and all her circular reasoning results in nothing but self-autonomy as well, institutional-autonomy. Maybe some day you'll realize that.
It's not that I don't understand sola scriptura, nor that I'm oblivious to its innumerable sectarian variances & interpretative forms (a tell-tale consequence of its man made, anti-scriptural nature), it's that you don't really understand scripture itself - and so you cover your ears & keep traveling the long way home, following perishable crumbs tossed by the likes of John Calvin & Martin Luther. You are binding yourself to the traditions of men, men who granted unto themselves greater infallibilty & autonomy than ever dreamed of even by the early heretics, & whose religious concepts were crafted & formed not by Divine illumination or grace, but by their consuming hatred of the Catholic Church.
What can I say if you refuse to acknowledge that your assertions regarding the origins & nature of sola scriptura as an alleged doctrine have been proven incorrect? You ignore it & serve up more quotes that are irrelevant to the original charge of Apostolic or Patristic thought, more false charges against the Church (like self-autonomy & circular reasoning) that don't address the sola scriptura problem at all, & more 'explanations' by contemporary Reformists that are little more, no matter how articulately expressed, than a defense of lies. One could also quote Lucifer pontificating on the sanctity of hell - it hardly validates the claim.
"... the early Church's doctrine of Scripture and tradition framed within a different historical context." And furthermore "The Church must affirm that scripture is the sole source of revelation. The Church must affirm that Scripture is the sole, final, and infallible norm of faith and practice. And the Church must affirm that Scripture is to be interpreted in and by the communion of saints within the theological context of the rule of faith."
All good & well that this "true" version gives token homage to Tradition & Creed, but ultimately it means nothing more than a declaration that rebels from Christ's Church have the *infallible* right to interpret Scripture (which is a thing denied to the Pope by these extra-cathedra infallibists). A poor shadow of the Catholic Church's Regula Fidei or Rule of Faith. All these things the Protestant Fathers have counterfeited from the TRADITIONS of the Catholic Church.
No, the Church must NOT affirm Scripture to be the sole source of revelation because Scripture itself does not say such a thing. No, the Church must NOT affirm that Scripture is the sole, final, and infallible norm of faith and practice because Scripture itself does not say such a thing. No, the Church must NOT affirm that Scripture is to be interpreted in and by the communion of saints within the theological context of the rule of faith, because Scripture itself does not say such a thing. These statements, demands, are ALL non-scriptural rules imposed by men preaching scripture only.
So, I guess this brings us to the punchline - which is Luther himself, the father of sola scriptura.
-I do not admit that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, even by the angels. He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved.
-For inasmuch as I know for certain that I am right, I will b |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
CT•Ranger
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 14 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 08 2003 : 7:28:55 PM
|
"...and so you cover your ears & keep traveling the long way home, following perishable crumbs...You are binding yourself to the traditions of men, men who granted unto themselves greater infallibilty & autonomy than ever dreamed of even by the early heretics, & whose religious concepts were crafted & formed not by Divine illumination or grace..."
The same can easily be said of you Lainey. You have yet to seriously refute any charges brought against the Roman Catholic Church, instead you just explain them away as nonsense, since the "holy" Roman Catholic Church could never be wrong, and it would be wrong for good Roman Catholics to think for themselves, and actually, dare I say it,... question to Roman Catholic Church.
Luther certainly wasn't a moderate. Seriously now, I think you're giving Luther too much status here. Most Christians/Protestants/Evangelicals (whatever you want to call them) don't even pay that much attention to Luther, except of course Lutherans and Roman Catholics (who are still always trying to discredit him after all these years). He was just one outspoken reformer among many. His writings are not the ultimate definition of Protestantism or the Reformation. Neither is he the "the father of sola scriptura." He simply had the courage to stand up to the Roman Catholic Church, confidently, because he believed he had the backing of Scripture. No one would say he was right about everything, as no human or human institution is infallible. Thanks for posting these quotes Lainey. This one is my favorite:
"-Tell me, pope, from where do you have the power to claim ill-gotten goods? God himself, the creator of everything, will neither accept nor approve this. And you, God’s greatest slanderer, want to be more than God. You assume a higher power than God himself. You teach the people to destroy God’s commandment and to engage in theft, robbery, usury, and all unnatural works ..." 
As for "Saint" Thomas More (since you brought him up), "As C.S. Lewis once remarked, More was 'monotonously anxious to conquer...to show that every heretical book was wrong about everything' As a result, 'he loses himself in a wilderness of opprobrious adjectives,' and his grandiloquent rebukes always seemed to fail."
Here are examples:
"Since he [Luther] has written that he already has a prior right to bespatter and besmirch the royal crown with s**t will we not have the posterior right to proclaim the bes**tted tongue on this practitioner of posterioristics most fit to lick with his anterior the very posterior of a pissing she-mule." Response Against Luther
"Tyndale replied in 1531 to More's attack with a substantial rebuttal (Amswer unto Sir Thomas More), which brought forth from More in the following year a ponderous and sometimes hysterical work, Confutation of Tyndale, in which, among other things, he called his antagonist a 'beast,' discharging a 'filthy foam of blasphemies out of his brutish beastly mouth'; 'a shameful, shameless, unreasonable, railing ribald'; a 'hellhound' fit for 'the hogs of hell to feed upon'; and the son of the devil himself."
You see, I too can pick the worst quotes of a man, and try to claim they represent him and his thought.
Hmmm...More doesn't sound like much of a "saint" to me. "More's polemics raise issues of intellectual candor that are uncomfortable to consider in the life of a martyred saint."
|
YMHS,
Connecticut•Ranger
Thomas Thacher
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!] |
© 1997-2025 - Mohican Press |
|
|
| Current Mohicanland page raised in 1.14 seconds |
 |
|
The Decline of Controversy ... Part 1
)