Guy Davies has posted an excellent critique of one of Francis Beckwith's chief reasons for leaving the baptist tradition and returning to Rome. Here's an excerpt:
Increasingly Beckwith struggled with the Protestant teaching of sola scriptura, finding the Catholic teaching where God reveals himself through Holy Scripture and the traditions of the Church more appealing. Of course, if Church teaching is a source of continuing revelation alongside Scripture, then it doesn't matter that certain Catholic dogmas can't be found in the Bible. On that basis the primacy of the Pope, purgatory, the Marian doctrines and so on may be accepted simply as the authoritative dogmas of the Church. The fact that they have no evident biblical foundation is beside the point. The Church has infallibly pronounced that these dogmas must be accepted by the faithful and that's that. However, it might be objected that Beckwith has not properly understood what the Reformers meant by sola scriptura. He seems to have had a rather biblicist understanding of the doctrine that excludes the role of the church as reader and teacher of Holy Scripture. By sola scriptura, the Reformers did not mean to separate the Bible from the Church. Rather they insisted that the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture is the supreme authority in the Church. The Church has ministerial authority to interpret and bear witness to the message of the Bible, but the Church and her traditions remain under the critical authority of God's written Word. The Church may restate the teaching of Scripture using other than biblical language in order to make its message plain, but she cannot add to God's self-revelation in Holy Scripture (emphasis mine).
More on this in the comments under this post.
7 comments:
I've found interesting on the other side a few posts by this guy:
http://deregnochristi.org/2009/10/27/genevan-catholicism/
Interesting quote/thought:
"Geneva is closer to Rome than it is to Wheaton"
By the Way, that definition of biblicism is helpful. To the degree that I understand the difference between deduction and induction, I think this is truly a large difference between doing true Biblical Theology and being a dispensationalist :) Deduction would allow a rich sermonic experience with the living word, while mere induction would be a cold discession of a dead text.
Thanks for alerting me to this Davies post!!
The problem seems to be that the Reformers denied the authority of any 'human' authority (including their own churches) to teach 'human' dogma instead of the biblical truth. This works if everyone reads the bible the same. So you speak of understanding Scripture through the reading of the Church. But which Church? that has always been the question. With the doctrine of the invisible church, you leave us wondering which Reformed Church is correct. Because the Reformed Churches are not in agreement, and what about the Lutheran Churches or the others. It's all well and good to pretend "Sola Scriptura" lit. Scripture Only really means "Prima Scriptura" Scripture first. But where do you find any agreement on the tradition you are allegedly reading scripture through?
I assume you would have to take a position such as The Westminster Confession of Faith is the infallible version which all others partially participate in, or deny anyone has fully understood the bible.
Andrew,
I confess:
"The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation" (WCF 25.2).
I would not say we understand Scripture through the reading of the church. I would say the church (As defined above) interprets Scripture as she wrestles with questions from within and without.
The being of the visible church is based on its confession of the Apostolic faith, "the faith once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). In other words, the basis of the church's being is doctrinal minimalism.
The well being of the visible church is based on the fullness and precision of its confession of the Apostolic faith (1 Cor. 13:12). In other words, the basis of the church's well being is doctrinal maximalism.
So when you ask the question, "Who's right?" you should also ask "about what?" The concept of degrees of doctrinal importance necessarily follows from doctrinal minimalism (otherwise there's no distinction from which to set apart minima).
So, when you say Reformed churches are not in agreement, I ask, "About what?" About essentials of the Reformed tradition? That's not possible if language is to remain meaningful. (I understand revisionists abound in all groups who for some reason want to cling to old labels, but we all know that's just trying to "have your cake.") To be Reformed means to hold to the reformed confessions.
Or perhaps we could pull back a bit and say "Protestant churches" are not in agreement. Again. I would ask "about what?" To be protestant means to confess certain doctrines. Again, I know revisionists abound who muck up our definitions, but if language is to have meaning we must recognize their inconsistencies and juts admit that they really aren't "[Fill in the blank] churches" at all. They're something else entirely.
So, I think the question you've raised is a good one: "What is the church?"
Hope that's helpful Andrew.
Jay
The Eucharist, Baptism, and Church Government. There's three.
With respect to what?
Differences between these doctrines occur between Protestant traditions, but do not necessarily undermine Protestant (or Christian) affiliation.
Nonetheless, I would argue that all Reformed churches fundamentally agree on these issues, given that the label Reformed means confessing one of the confessions of the Reformed tradition (i.e. the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminster Standards, et al.).
Post a Comment