The discussion here is conditioned by living in an atomized society rather than living within an historical tradition. Building upon its tradition of independence, America has become an atomized society, with individuals living out the biblical phrase, “every man did that which was right in his own eyes”. Sadly, this has infiltrated churches. Every exegete believes he is equal to every other exegete. Evangelicals consult contemporary commentaries, with a few reaching back to the 19th Century. I say this as an exemplary graduate of an anchor seminary. 40 years later, I’ve forgotten so much that when I read many passages of Scripture, I need help. Where do I go? To a contemporary source based on the understanding of contemporary thinkers, or to a source prior to 451 AD before the first major cleavage of the church? If I was a staunch Lutheran or Calvinist, I’d stretch back one quarter of the history of the Christian church …
Are the churches with ancient roots flawless? This is where I become a bad Roman Catholic, because my answer is no. There’s an equal chance that the OO and EO were right when they separated from the larger body. Has contemporary scholarship added and clarified? Of course. But on questions of core doctrine—especially the meaning and manner of worship—I’m sticking with the ancient principles.
The result of living within a historical tradition is that major storms may batter my church and I have no trouble clinging to Christ. When I relocate or visit another city, I don’t have to do a church search or watch my home church on the internet to make sure that I get correct teaching. And I feel complete continuity with the apostles (and saints).
"And, as if coming to my comments above about using only Scripture for such battles:
Inspired Scripture cannot mediate between these two, and apostolic traditions arbitrate the disputes that they have with each other.
Absent this, everyone becomes their own theologian. It is built on arrogance. "
I guess I would say several things about this. From my understandings there isn't 1 apostolic tradition a person can go to. There isn't an "answer key" that a believer can go to, to find which doctrine is true or false.
Inspired Scripture is the infallible source of information. So anyone who wants to know the truth has to go to the infallible source. Church theology can help along the way by comparing which theology best explains or conforms to ALL scripture. But there is no human standard that stands above God's Word telling us what to think about it. That kind of thinking creates its own source of arrogance. Anyone trying to learn the Bible can become arrogant and there are examples across all denominations.
My experience is that I am least arrogant when I 1) hold what the Bible says above any human explanation of it including my own, 2) submit myself to the commands in the Bible, judge myself by Biblical principles, focus on my own need for repentance and salvation, and 3) ask the Holy Spirit to lead me to truth but know that any attempt I will make will have some amount of error in it.
As I said above: For me, I hold that Scripture is the only infallible source, but this does not make it the only source.
I don't believe you and I have a disagreement.
I do agree that there are different "traditions" even within acceptable Christian theology. I do believe that it is arrogant to dismiss the wisdom of what came before us - even when there were disagreements among those whom the Church considers saints ( I am not saying you do this).
"Why do we not accept and teach Arianism? Those who were Arians had numerous proof-texts at their disposal, just as did those who taught orthodox Christology. Try having a proof-text debate with a Jehovah’s Witness; they are far better catechized than most Trinitarian Christians.
So, why one and not the other instead? It seems to me that we accept orthodox Christology and the Trinity because this is how the early Church understood what they were taught; it is how they were taught to interpret Scripture. More on this in the Epilogue below."
I would answer that the reason is that Scripture as a whole teaches one and rejects the other. You simply can't hold ALL of the Bible as true and believe in Arianism.
Proof texting comes when you take a verse out of its Biblical context and develop a new theology around it. The falsification comes with the "whole counsel of God's Word."
This doesn't work for me. Arianism had countless well-educated and Scripturally sound adherents (as did Nestorianism). We find the Scripture demonstrates the Trinity because this is the water we swim in. Are you sure that if we swam in 2000 years of Arian Christology that you wouldn't read and interpret Scripture in an Arian manner?
Even today and outside of the Christological question, there are way too many disagreements on doctrine and theology by well-meaning and well-taught "sola scriptura" Christians for me to find this to be valid in our human experience.
I think the Bible is clear that Jesus is God. The book of Colossians alone knocks that fact out of the park.
If my understanding is governed by the time and culture I grow up in, then objective epistemology is gone. I think objective truth and accurate Bibliology fit together like a glove. Some theologians are a help to us today because they did a good job of studying and explaining the Bible.
I also believe that some doctrinal variation is acceptable where the Bible isn't definitive. I would argue that on those issues, we should all accept the other, even as we discuss the differences we have.
Everyone regardless of the view they take, has their own understanding. That is the why human nature is and how an individual mind works. I think it is inescapable. Even if I say "I am going to go with church father X on this issue", I have still done that individually. If I didn't, then I have forfeited control over my own mind to someone else. I have become a mental slave to some other fallible human.
Great thoughts Bionic! The Unity of God, One in Three is the ultimate model of what Christ's church should be, but isn't. It is to me the most frustrating thing about "Christianity" today. I have experienced up close and personal in a vibrant rather small local church -- blown to bits, most scattered. I often ponder Ephesians 4:1-6. I believe if all truly believing Christians could act as one, the world would believe. John 17:20-21. But how?
The discussion here is conditioned by living in an atomized society rather than living within an historical tradition. Building upon its tradition of independence, America has become an atomized society, with individuals living out the biblical phrase, “every man did that which was right in his own eyes”. Sadly, this has infiltrated churches. Every exegete believes he is equal to every other exegete. Evangelicals consult contemporary commentaries, with a few reaching back to the 19th Century. I say this as an exemplary graduate of an anchor seminary. 40 years later, I’ve forgotten so much that when I read many passages of Scripture, I need help. Where do I go? To a contemporary source based on the understanding of contemporary thinkers, or to a source prior to 451 AD before the first major cleavage of the church? If I was a staunch Lutheran or Calvinist, I’d stretch back one quarter of the history of the Christian church …
Are the churches with ancient roots flawless? This is where I become a bad Roman Catholic, because my answer is no. There’s an equal chance that the OO and EO were right when they separated from the larger body. Has contemporary scholarship added and clarified? Of course. But on questions of core doctrine—especially the meaning and manner of worship—I’m sticking with the ancient principles.
The result of living within a historical tradition is that major storms may batter my church and I have no trouble clinging to Christ. When I relocate or visit another city, I don’t have to do a church search or watch my home church on the internet to make sure that I get correct teaching. And I feel complete continuity with the apostles (and saints).
"And, as if coming to my comments above about using only Scripture for such battles:
Inspired Scripture cannot mediate between these two, and apostolic traditions arbitrate the disputes that they have with each other.
Absent this, everyone becomes their own theologian. It is built on arrogance. "
I guess I would say several things about this. From my understandings there isn't 1 apostolic tradition a person can go to. There isn't an "answer key" that a believer can go to, to find which doctrine is true or false.
Inspired Scripture is the infallible source of information. So anyone who wants to know the truth has to go to the infallible source. Church theology can help along the way by comparing which theology best explains or conforms to ALL scripture. But there is no human standard that stands above God's Word telling us what to think about it. That kind of thinking creates its own source of arrogance. Anyone trying to learn the Bible can become arrogant and there are examples across all denominations.
My experience is that I am least arrogant when I 1) hold what the Bible says above any human explanation of it including my own, 2) submit myself to the commands in the Bible, judge myself by Biblical principles, focus on my own need for repentance and salvation, and 3) ask the Holy Spirit to lead me to truth but know that any attempt I will make will have some amount of error in it.
As I said above: For me, I hold that Scripture is the only infallible source, but this does not make it the only source.
I don't believe you and I have a disagreement.
I do agree that there are different "traditions" even within acceptable Christian theology. I do believe that it is arrogant to dismiss the wisdom of what came before us - even when there were disagreements among those whom the Church considers saints ( I am not saying you do this).
I agree.
"Why do we not accept and teach Arianism? Those who were Arians had numerous proof-texts at their disposal, just as did those who taught orthodox Christology. Try having a proof-text debate with a Jehovah’s Witness; they are far better catechized than most Trinitarian Christians.
So, why one and not the other instead? It seems to me that we accept orthodox Christology and the Trinity because this is how the early Church understood what they were taught; it is how they were taught to interpret Scripture. More on this in the Epilogue below."
I would answer that the reason is that Scripture as a whole teaches one and rejects the other. You simply can't hold ALL of the Bible as true and believe in Arianism.
Proof texting comes when you take a verse out of its Biblical context and develop a new theology around it. The falsification comes with the "whole counsel of God's Word."
This doesn't work for me. Arianism had countless well-educated and Scripturally sound adherents (as did Nestorianism). We find the Scripture demonstrates the Trinity because this is the water we swim in. Are you sure that if we swam in 2000 years of Arian Christology that you wouldn't read and interpret Scripture in an Arian manner?
Even today and outside of the Christological question, there are way too many disagreements on doctrine and theology by well-meaning and well-taught "sola scriptura" Christians for me to find this to be valid in our human experience.
I think the Bible is clear that Jesus is God. The book of Colossians alone knocks that fact out of the park.
If my understanding is governed by the time and culture I grow up in, then objective epistemology is gone. I think objective truth and accurate Bibliology fit together like a glove. Some theologians are a help to us today because they did a good job of studying and explaining the Bible.
I also believe that some doctrinal variation is acceptable where the Bible isn't definitive. I would argue that on those issues, we should all accept the other, even as we discuss the differences we have.
Everyone regardless of the view they take, has their own understanding. That is the why human nature is and how an individual mind works. I think it is inescapable. Even if I say "I am going to go with church father X on this issue", I have still done that individually. If I didn't, then I have forfeited control over my own mind to someone else. I have become a mental slave to some other fallible human.
Great thoughts Bionic! The Unity of God, One in Three is the ultimate model of what Christ's church should be, but isn't. It is to me the most frustrating thing about "Christianity" today. I have experienced up close and personal in a vibrant rather small local church -- blown to bits, most scattered. I often ponder Ephesians 4:1-6. I believe if all truly believing Christians could act as one, the world would believe. John 17:20-21. But how?
How? Hasn't really happened for many, many centuries. So all I can offer is to pray!
“Inspired Scripture cannot mediate between these two, and apostolic traditions arbitrate the disputes that they have with each other.” What a keeper!