Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

This evening I wrote an email to Evangelical Christian talk show host Marty Minto. I anxiously await his response. In the meantime, I’d love for my Protestant readers to give me their take.

Marty,

I mean the following as a serious question, not just some anti-"sola scriptura" taunt. I honestly want your answer to this, so please be open minded to it.

You repeatedly make reference to "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:16) If there is a right way, there must also be a wrong way. My concern is that there seem to be so many ways. For nearly every belief you hold and defend with Scripture, I can find someone else who holds an opposing belief that they can defend with Scripture.

All who claim Scriptural support believe that theirs is the "right division" of the Word. Obviously, someone must be wrong. In fact, several must be. Is one necessarily right? Unless God’s Word returns void, there must be. Who is it? How can we know? When many reputable and born-again faithful hold differing interpretations of Scripture, who is to be trusted and believed? Does majority rule? Does one person or group hold the authoritative interpretation?

The Catholic and Orthodox churches believe that apostolic succession places interpretive authority with patriarchs (the bishop of Rome being the head patriarch according to Catholics). When the apostles, including Paul, were alive, they acted as supreme earthly authorities in disputes among the faithful. Before they died, they appointed successors to hold that authority. Until the Reformation, that succession of leaders was unbroken. Even the split between East and West did not break that. Once the Reformation began, it did not take long before very disparate interpretations and teachings arose. One need not be a trained scholar of the Reformation to know some of the differences between Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Wesley, and Fox, to name but a few. In the 400 years since that pivotal century, the number of denominations has grown exponentially. As soon as someone disagrees with the beliefs held by the majority of a denomination, they leave, often forming splinter groups of their own, where the process can repeat itself. While there are some constants between at least the mainline denominations, there are almost as many Evangelical interpretations and teachings as there are Evangelicals. With no central authority to appeal to, everyone can say theirs is the right reading of Scripture. Even among the mainlines, there are major disagreements and there is no final authority for them to appeal to. So I cannot help but ask this question of you:

Why should anyone trust your interpretations of Scripture over others? Perhaps you could answer this during Theological Thursday.

Eric

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on by .

About Funky Dung

Who is Funky Dung? 29-year-old grad student in Intelligent Systems (A.I.) at the University of Pittsburgh. I consider myself to be politically moderate and independent and somewhere between a traditional and neo-traditional Catholic. I was raised Lutheran, spent a number of years as an agnostic, and joined the Catholic Church at the 2000 Easter Vigil. Why Funky Dung? I haven't been asked this question nearly as many times as you or I might expect. Funky Dung is a reference to an obscure Pink Floyd song. On the album Atom Heart Mother, there is a track called Atom Heart Mother Suite. It's broken up into movements, like a symphony, and one of the movements is called Funky Dung. I picked that nickname a long time ago (while I was still in high school I think), shortly after getting an internet connection for the first time. To me it means "cool/neat/groovy/spiffy stuff/crap/shiznit", as in "That's some cool stuff, dude!" Whence Ales Rarus? I used to enjoy making people guess what this means, but I've decided to relent and make it known to all. Ales Rarus is a Latin play on words. "Avis rarus" means "a rare bird" and carries similar meaning to "an odd fellow". "Ales" is another Latin word for bird that carries connotations of omens, signs of the times, and/or augery. If you want to get technical, both "avis" and "ales" are feminine (requiring "rara", but they can be made masculine in poetry (which tends to breaks lots of rules). I decided I'd rather have a masculine name in Latin. ;) Yeah, I'm a nerd. So what? :-P Wherefore blog? It is my intention to "teach in order to lead others to faith" by being always "on the lookout for occasions of announcing Christ by word, either to unbelievers . . . or to the faithful" through the "use of the communications media". I also act knowing that I "have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors [my] opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and [I] have a right to make [my] opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward [my and their] pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons." (adapted from CCC 904-907) Statement of Faith I have been baptized and confirmed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I, therefore, renounce Satan; I renounce all his works; I renounce all his allurements. I hold and profess all that is contained in the Apostles' Creed, the Niceno- Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. Having been buried with Christ unto death and raised up with him unto a new life, I promise to live no longer for myself or for that world which is the enemy of God but for him who died for me and rose again, serving God, my heavenly Father, faithfully and unto death in the holy Catholic Church. I am obedient to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. That is, I promote and defend authentic Catholic Teaching and Faith in union with Christ and His Church and in union with the Holy Father, the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter. Thanks be unto Thee, O my God, for all Thy infinite goodness, and, especially, for the love Thou hast shown unto me at my Confirmation. I Give Thee thanks that Thou didst then send down Thy Holy Spirit unto my soul with all His gifts and graces. May He take full possession of me for ever. May His divine unction cause my face to shine. May His heavenly wisdom reign in my heart. May His understanding enlighten my darkness. May His counsel guide me. May His knowledge instruct me. May His piety make me fervent. May His divine fear keep me from all evil. Drive from my soul, O Lord, all that may defile it. Give me grace to be Thy faithful soldier, that having fought the good fight of faith, I may be brought to the crown of everlasting life, through the merits of Thy dearly beloved Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen. Behind the Curtain: an Interview With Funky Dung (Thursday, March 03, 2005) I try to avoid most memes that make their way 'round the blogosphere (We really do need a better name, don't we?), but some are worth participating in. Take for instance the "interview game" that's the talk o' the 'sphere. I think it's a great way to get to know the people in neighborhood. Who are the people in your neighborhood? In your neighborhod? In your neigh-bor-hoo-ood...*smack* Sorry, Sesame Street flashback. Anyhow, I saw Jeff "Curt Jester" Miller's answers and figured since he's a regular reader of mine he'd be a good interviewer. Without further ado, here are my answers to his questions. 1. Being that your pseudonym Funky Dung was chosen from a Pink Floyd track on Atom Heart Mother, what is you favorite Pink Floyd song and why? Wow. That's a tuffy. It's hard to pick out a single favorite. Pink Floyd isn't really a band known for singles. They mostly did album rock and my appreciation of them is mostly of a gestalt nature. If I had to pick one, though, it'd be "Comfortably Numb". I get chills up my spine every time I hear it and if it's been long enough since the last time, I get midty-eyed. I really don't know why. That's a rather unsatisfying answer for an interview, so here are the lyrics to a Rush song. It's not their best piece of music, but the lyrics describe me pretty well.

New World Man He's a rebel and a runner He's a signal turning green He's a restless young romantic Wants to run the big machine He's got a problem with his poisons But you know he'll find a cure He's cleaning up his systems To keep his nature pure Learning to match the beat of the old world man Learning to catch the heat of the third world man He's got to make his own mistakes And learn to mend the mess he makes He's old enough to know what's right But young enough not to choose it He's noble enough to win the world But weak enough to lose it --- He's a new world man... He's a radio receiver Tuned to factories and farms He's a writer and arranger And a young boy bearing arms He's got a problem with his power With weapons on patrol He's got to walk a fine line And keep his self-control Trying to save the day for the old world man Trying to pave the way for the third world man He's not concerned with yesterday He knows constant change is here today He's noble enough to know what's right But weak enough not to choose it He's wise enough to win the world But fool enough to lose it --- He's a new world man...
2. What do you consider your most important turning point from agnosticism to the Catholic Church. At some point in '99, I started attending RCIA at the Pittsburgh Oratory. I mostly went to ask a lot of obnoxious Protestant questions. Or at least that's what I told myself. I think deep down I wanted desperately to have faith again. At that point I think I'd decided that if any variety of Christianity had the Truth, the Catholic Church did. Protestantism's wholesale rejection of 1500 years of tradition didn't sit well with me, even as a former Lutheran. During class one week, Sister Bernadette Young (who runs the program) passed out thin booklet called "Handbook for Today's Catholic". One paragraph in that book spoke to me and I nearly cried as I read it.
"A person who is seeking deeper insight into reality may sometimes have doubts, even about God himself. Such doubts do not necessarily indicate lack of faith. They may be just the opposite - a sign of growing faith. Faith is alive and dynamic. It seeks, through grace, to penetrate into the very mystery of God. If a particular doctrine of faith no longer 'makes sense' to a person, the person should go right on seeking. To know what a doctrine says is one thing. To gain insight into its meaning through the gift of understanding is something else. When in doubt, 'Seek and you will find.' The person who seeks y reading, discussing, thinking, or praying eventually sees the light. The person who talks to God even when God is 'not there' is alive with faith."
At the end of class I told Sr. Bernadette that I wanted to enter the Church at the next Easter vigil. 3. If you were a tree what kind of, oh sorry about that .. what is the PODest thing you have ever done? I set up WikiIndex, a clearinghouse for reviews of theological books, good, bad, and ugly. It has a long way to go, but it'll be cool when it's finished. :) 4. What is your favorite quote from Venerable John Henry Newman? "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt." 5. If you could ban one hymn from existence, what would it be? That's a tough one. As a member of the Society for a Moratorium on the Music of Marty Haugen and David Haas, there are obviously a lot of songs that grate on my nerves. If I had to pick one, though, I'd probably pick "Sing of the Lord's Goodness" by Ernie Sands.

24 thoughts on “Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

  1. theomorph

    “I’m not sure what you’re referring to. What part of the Big Two Creeds was disputed in the 1st century?”

    Well, no part was disputed because neither of the “Big Two Creeds” existed in the first century (except as speculation or “tradition” by people who came after the first century). But in another way, every part was disputed (if you want to take the view that all the tenets of the creeds existed, just hadn’t been codified into the creeds we know). This is where Christians of all stripes make the mistake of seeing history as only what pertains to the Church.

    Just as “orthodox” Christianity (which probably did not really exist at the time, but has been read back historically) was not without challenges from other kinds of Christians, Christianity was not a religion without competition. There were Jews who rejected Christianity (remember, Christianity started within Judaism), and pagans and Romans who rejected both.

    As for establishing the authorship of the gospels, I suppose if you want to trust the century-late guess by Irenaeus you can do that, but there is no contemporary evidence, no signed documents, no nothing that establishes an unquestionable link between Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the gospels that now bear their names. It’s all well and good for Catholics to trust the word of their own traditional beliefs, but why should non-Catholics accept something that is without documentary evidence?

    The long and short of it is that Christian beliefs (be they Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant) are not compelling enough to preclude the existence of alternative perspectives. There are still Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and a whole host of other, smaller religions. Oh yeah, and atheists, too. 😉 Why are all these alternative perspectives still around if Christianity is so unassailably correct? Do you have to take the Michael Moore tack and say that the rest of us are just too ignorant and/or stupid to see that you are right?

  2. theomorph

    “If one does believe in Jesus as the Savior, and starts investigating the historical documents with that belief, it may be possible to come up with a more definite answer.”

    Yes, this is old news. The only way to believe the “Truth” of the documents is to assume the alleged “Truth” a priori. So who needs the documents? If the “relationship with Jesus” has to be there before a person can find any real meaning in the documents that attest to the existence and meaning of this Jesus, what is the experience of the relationship, anyway? Why insist that this “relationship” must have as its object some entity with by the name of “Jesus”? How can anyone say whether or not my subjective experience of life is in fact analogous to your subjective “relationship with Jesus,” even though we don’t apply the same linguistic categories? Is this Jesus so small and narrow that his existence and relating quality can only be described, administered, and accessed via the language and rituals of the Catholic or Orthodox Churches?

  3. theomorph

    “When the apostles, including Paul, were alive, they acted as supreme earthly authorities in disputes among the faithful. Before they died, they appointed successors to hold that authority. . . . Once the Reformation began, it did not take long before very disparate interpretations and teachings arose.”

    I think you’re doing a bit of historical myth-making there. Do you mean to imply that before the Reformation there were not “very disparate interpretations and teachings”? What exactly were “the apostles, including Paul” responding to?

    Furthermore, you’re setting up an odd situation where the only people who can correctly read the scriptures are people who already follow the belief system those scriptures allegedly promote. Put another way, this means that the scriptures are not only not clear about what they are supposed to be communicating, but that they require interpretation, and further that they can only be interpreted by interpreters favorable to the belief system whose tenets are derived from their particular interpretation.

    The scriptures are, in short, closed to anyone who does not have the requisite theological fealty. Of course, that plays right into the hands of hierarchical Catholicism, but it leaves one (such as myself) to wonder what is so mysterious about these texts. Ah, but I have seen them myself and know that they aren’t mysterious at all. But according to Catholics and Protestants alike, because I do not already believe as they do (however they do), I cannot read, interpret, or even comprehend the scriptures. This seems strange to me, as I read, interpret, and comprehend the scriptures quite frequently.

  4. theomorph

    “Where the Orthodox and Catholics have a peculiar advantage is that we peg key doctrines not just to the Scriptures, but also their interpretation by the earliest Christians…”

    Just as the Bible is public, so are the early interpretations. Protestant scholars read those, too. They just disagree with them, or see them in a different light. So they have the same advantage, only they use it differently.

    Even I, a lowly atheist, can read these things. I can also read the mounds of psuedepigrapha and apocryphal writings floating around, contemporary documents from other sources, evidence from archaeology, and so on.

    So how do the O/C Christians have an “advantage,” unless (as the conspiracy theorists* suspect) they are keeping some secret manuscript somewhere? The only way an advantage could be derived from this situation is if the O/C Christians are going to apply the principle that an earlier interpretation is inherently better.

    But that doesn’t work out to greater “Truth” for the O/C Christians, just longer institutional integrity. So they have really old rituals and they’ve been saying the same things for a long, long time. Big deal. Equating that to greater “Truth” means you have to buy into the proposition that older knowledge is better knowledge. Maybe you think that’s obvious or self-evident (a lot of people sure seem to), but I don’t.

    *Although I have not to my knowledge accused anyone of being “on crack,” for such conspiracy theorists, I am willing to break that precedent. 😉

  5. Jerry

    And no, you don’t assume the truth a priori. Mark Shea had his own experiences and perspective leading him to believe in Jesus, and when he saw how those beliefs in the veracity of the Bible etc. came from the workings of the Catholic Church’s Councils and traditions, he was led to the Church. This comes down to the issue of axioms: what are you assumptions? Assumptions may be based off of personal experience, of course, and they may change over time (e.g., a loss or gain of religious affiliation or belief), but one sometimes must grant, at least provisionally, that ones holds X to be true. Steve did a good job of explaining that, and it actually was something I was trying to drive at (if unclearly) when I was arguing that all people do have an implicit philosophy, though they may vary with how sophisticated or explicitly thought out they are.

  6. Jerry Nora

    Augustine declared heretical during the Jansenist heresy? Am I reading that correctly, Mr. Pierce? If so, I’d be curious to hear more!

  7. steve

    Funky:

    I’m not privy to the specifics of the semantical disagreement about “the Communion of Saints” in the Athanasian Creed. But no matter what it involves, it cannot possibly rise to the level of disagreement over the existence of the trinity or its supposed membership.

    We should try to keep our “Set of Uncompromisable Axioms, Which, if You Don’t Believe, You’ll Goto Hell” as small as possible. I believe such a set must exist, because the division between those who believe & obey and those who don’t is not imaginary. But among those who believe and follow Jesus Christ, there should be some diversity of opinion allowed on the not-so-clear (from Scripture/Reason/Experience) matters. [I guess that sounds like a Protestant talking… well, hey, at least I’m a Catholic-Sympathizer…]

    Like I said, I think praying to Mary is great. I’ve even done it. We all agree that she is perfectly sanctified. Do we absolutely have to agree on when or how Christ’s righteous was imputed to her? We all agree she’s in Heaven. Do we absolutely have to agree on how she got there? We all believe there is one universal (catholic) people of God. Do we absolutely have to agree that this implies physical or institutional unity?

    Cheers

  8. steve

    I see that the volume on this thread has abated, and that I therefore risk my comments going unnoticed. However, I would like to make the following observations.

    First, I think both Catholics & Protestants (and Funky) over-rate this issue of Sola Scriptura as a reason that divides us. We both (along with our Eastern brothers) hold to an historically consistent and orthodox faith. We both give wholehearted assent to the first two major (Apostles & Nicean) creeds of Christianity. We both believe that these creeds are unambiguously supported by the plain reading of Scripture.

    Similarly, Protestants (at least the orthodox ones) don’t believe that any ol’ person can interpret Scripture however the heck they want (a practice which is iself proscribed in Scripture). Protestants recognize the need to “interpret” Scripture in “community.” Moreover, we recognize that Scripture must be interpreted in view of itself when possible, and we recognize the role of reason in so doing. Most importantly, Protestants recognize that no interpretation of Scripture which contradicts the essential core of our Faith (e.g., those 2 creeds) should be considered valid.

    Most Protestants have no objection to tradition in principle. What Protestants object to is traditions that have no (or extremely dubious) support in Scripture. More specifically, traditions that rise to level of dogma. This is especially true of the various Marian doctrines, the supremacy of Rome, and proscription against intentionally emitting semen anywhere but in a vagina. I think we believe that, since the scriptures are not absolutely clear on these issues, there should be some diversity of opinion allowed in the Church (and yes, I would like nothing better for that to be construed as One institutional Church).

    I mean I think Mary is great, certainly one of the best examples of Godliness we can name, and I find nothing offensive about praying to her (or any other Saint). But to be required to actually believe that she was conceived immaculately and was assumed supernaturally at death–it just so… well… unnecessary (at least when you start out with the presupposition that those first two or three Creeds represent the sine qua non of Christian Faith).

    The absolute supremacy of Rome is very dubious from Scripture. I mean I support the Pope and 99% of what he teaches. He’s a great guy, and I hope the next Pope is just like him. But to ascribe to him (in cathedra) infallibility is just too much. I can’t back this up right quick, but my impression is that at the time of the Reformation, there was diversity of opinion in the Catholic Church as to whether infallibility was Papal or Conciliar. That’s the problem with the Reformation–it reduced the diversity of opinion on this and other matters within the church. That is always the fundamental problem with schism, and surely one reason why our Lord prayed against it.

    And as to emitting

  9. Funky Dung

    I’ll be raising the contraception/oral sex/NFP issue to the level of a full post some day soon.

    I may have pointed this out before, but I’ll repeat. Orthodox accept the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds. Catholics and Protestants accept the Apostles’ and Niceno-Constantinopolitan creeds. I could be wrong, but I think all also accept the poorly-named Athanacian Creed. Anyhow, Orthodox/Catholics and Protestants disagree on what some of the elements of the creeds really mean. Take the communion of saints for instance. Using the same formula (syntax) is not enough. You have to have the same meaning (semantics). I think Mormons use the trinitarian formula for baptism, but their concept of the Trinity is entirely heretical, so their baptisms are invalid.

  10. steve

    It is more than fair to say that the Apostles’ Creed existed nearly in its present form in the 1st century.

    – Since you’re willing to accept early Pauline authorship, let us consider only First Corinthians of Paul’s writings.

    – No honest reader of Luke/Acts could possibly think these were originally written after 70 (or after the death of Paul for that matter).

    – No one thinks Luke/Acts came before Mark.

    What interpretation of these 4 books could be made that would cast doubt on the Apostles’ or Nicean Creeds? Furthermore, what doctrine found in one of these 4 books is significantly modified by any of the other 23 NT books?

    So first I would say, that the “problematic gap” of which you speak appears to be about 20-30 years. Paul says himself in I Cor. 15 that most of the witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection are still around. And this was one of Paul’s earliest writings and one of the one’s most universally attributed to him. This doesn’t sound very big or problematic (esp. in days before hi-speed internet access).

    Second, even if there was a big, problematic gap, there is still very little in the NT (especially in our particularly reliable 4 book set) that contradicts that basic understanding of the Christian Faith expressed in the early creeds (or the Didache for that matter). And that’s really all I was trying to say in the first place.

    But as to:

    Perhaps more problematic, especially for the “Apostolic” churches, is that none of the original apostles can be reliably linked with any of the New Testament writings as authors.

    Bovine excrement! Unless you mean “reliably linked by revisionist scholars.” Or unless you mean by “original” not to include Paul… which doesn’t make him any less of an Apostle (as he himself strenuously noted).

    As to:

    But then, those “foundational tenets” have been disputed from day one, haven’t they?

    I’m not sure what you’re referring to. What part of the Big Two Creeds was disputed in the 1st century? I know that Nicaea was called to answer the question of Jesus’ nature. But these heresies seemed to have arisen quite a bit later than “day one.”

    Cheers!

  11. Funky Dung

    Lutheranism is still a heresy. Lutherans themselves may or may not be heretics, depending on how well informed they are. Heresy is a mortal sin. There are three neccessary components to mortal sin. If any one of them is lacking, the sin is venial.

    1) serious matter
    2) fulll consent of the will
    3) sufficient reflection

    Those raised a Lutherans (or any other Protestant flavor) are raised with so much loathing for and misinformation the Church that it is doubtful they meet both of the last two requirements. Protestant theologians and apologeticists may be another story for all I know.

    The sale of indulgences was (so far as I know) neither a wide-spread problem, nor an official teaching of the Church. Also, indulgences themselves still exist and are valid teachings of the Church, though they are largely forgotten in the post-Vatican II Church.

    I’m not aware of Augustine or his teachings ever being labeled heretical.

    No, having a central authority at one time doesn’t guarantee a lack of diversity in perspectives, but it does create stability. Also, the development of doctrine in the Church has been, in most cases and at most times, organic rather than revolutionary.

    Scripture has indeed been a constant measuring rod throughout Church history, however, solo interpretations of Scripture have produced an exponential explosion of heterodoxy. Please read this post and comment. I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts.

  12. Jerry

    No, Jesus Himself told the apostles not to discourage some people who were preaching in Jesus’ name, yet were not of the apostles’ main group. I consider this a plea for charity towards those outside of the apostolic churches. Likewise, the charismatic movement points to how the Spirit can touch lives outside formal sacraments.

    Tradition, however, can prove a handy guide. The moral theology of the Church has proved a useful reference in matters concerning healthcare ethics, giving us at least tentative frameworks for approaching new problems. Likewise, it helps check what could be a sort of spritual solipsism, a spirituality driven purely by feelings. Like a young man drunk on romantic love, a person driven solely by a purely emotional experience of God may wind up being a little foolish here or there! Or that when the early flush of a new relationship with God has seemingly become “old”, a little guidance helps one stay the course, whereas if one had only onself, and not Scripture or Tradition to lend the perspectives of other people, one may be tempted to just give up.

  13. steve

    Oh man in all the spleen venting I completely forgot about this:

    Why are all these alternative perspectives still around if Christianity is so unassailably correct? Do you have to take the Michael Moore tack and say that the rest of us are just too ignorant and/or stupid to see that you are right?

    Christianity is not unassailably correct. But I’m convinced it is rationally compelling on a number of fronts, the majority of which I’m sure the local athiest audience is aware. I’ll therefore not enumerate them here.

    Reason may be the “schoolmaster” that leads some to Christ (just as the Law was for St. Paul). That was certainly the case with Lewis. But most (as many as 99% of the vast unwashed mass of folks who have ever lived) don’t… err… possess high function in the reason department. These people either believe what they’re told (which may or may not be too great), or they believe whatever the hell their self-serving “bellies” want to believe (which is almost always pretty stupid). So even if Christianity was a logistical slam dunk, that doesn’t mean very many would follow it, especially given the fact that it makes so many “unreasonable” (difficult) demands on its adherents.

    So no, we don’t have to take the Michael Moore tack? Who’s doing that? If I find ’em, I’ll quote them out of context, add some innuendo, and rack up and whole boatload of muck against ’em!!

    Cheers!!

  14. Jeremy Pierce

    One thing that you need to keep in mind here is that Catholic teaching, even if monolithic at one time (which is debatably not so at the moment with regard to the recent statement about Lutherans no longer being called heretics) is so varied across time. Presumably, if Catholic authority is the one to go by, then we enter the realm of truth relativism. The counter-reformation basically admitted Luther was right on most of the things Luther was most passionate about and wrong about a couple that Luther still saw as crucial. The indulgences, for example, had been authorized all along but now no longer. People have been declared heretics and then made saints and vice versa (or at least their doctrines have been declared heretical, as happened with Augustine when the Jansenists were declared heretics). The disagreements within Protestantism have been there all along. Having a central authority at one time doesn’t guarantee a lack of diversity in perspectives. It just silences the ones not currently in favor for that time. Scripture, on the other hand, remains throughout the entirety of church history as a measuring rod for all.

  15. theomorph

    Steve–

    Yeah, I’m familiar with the problems surrounding the interpretation scripture. I did have as a requirement at my Christian university (*sigh*) a long list of classes on Biblical literature and interpretation. I’ve also got a close relative with a PhD in New Testament Literature, and we’ve talked about this stuff at length. So I’m not ignorant of the issues.

    But I don’t see how your explication counters what I said.

    For instance…

    “3) (and this is the real problem) could contradict the foundational tenets of the Christian faith (as reliably handed down by the Apostles… who by and large were authors of the very passages in question).”

    So the requirement here for “correct” interpretation would be that you assent to those “foundational tenets.” (Or, as I think I put it, that you have the requisite theological fealty.) But then, those “foundational tenets” have been disputed from day one, haven’t they?

    The part about the Apostles has two problems. First, when you put in that word “reliably” you’re making a pretty big historiographical decision without a lot of weight behind it. How do you know the foundational tenets were reliably handed down?

    Second, when you say that the Apostles were “by and large were authors of the very passages in question,” you’re going up against lots of history, archaeology, and textual analysis which suggest otherwise. The only Apostle whose writings incontestably appear in the New Testament is Paul, who, interestingly, claimed never to have met Jesus himself, and who appears to have written his contributions long before any of the others were written. He is thought to have written in the 50s, and I think the first gospel (Mark) showed up after the Jewish war in 70. (Or, according to conservative scholars, in the early 60s.) Of course, not a single gospel manuscript can be physically dated to the first century. Then, during the first half the second century, no known Christian writings refer to any of the gospels, although there is evidence of a rich oral tradition. So all those dates are speculative anyway, regardless of which side you take.

    That’s not to say there’s no true foundation for Christianity as an institution. It certainly sprang up in the first century and developed through the second and third centuries into the Church that was finally codified at Nicaea. But there’s a big, problematic gap between the time of Jesus’ ministry and when written evidence of it enters the record. Perhaps more problematic, especially for the “Apostolic” churches, is that none of the original apostles can be reliably linked with any of the New Testament writings as authors.

  16. Funky Dung

    Thanks for the assistance, Jer. 🙂

    Theo,

    You have inadvertently highlighted my primary beef with sola scriptura. Were there “very disparate interpretations and teachings” before the Reformation? Yes. Were they all officially taught by the Church? No. Look at Protestant teachings. For every denomination, or in some cases for every community, there is a different set of teachings.

    The Deposit of Faith is not limited to Scripture. I do not have faith in Scripture because Scripture tells me to. What holy book doesn’t? I have faith in Scripture because the Church tells me to. Why do I trust the Church? Because she has handed down what was taught by the Apostles. They were the eye witnesses. If Tradition and an interpretation of Scripture disagree, Tradition wins. That rankles Protestants, but it makes a lot more sense. I’m sure you’ll ask why we should trust the Apostles and why we should trust the Church to faithfully transmit the teachings of the Apostles, but that’s a separate argument.

  17. steve

    That alleged caricature (perhaps that was a strong word, but I had do something to pique curiosity 😉 without spending more of Lucent’s valuable man-hours on it… like I’m doing now) had to do with this bit back in the very first follow-up…

    Furthermore, you’re setting up an odd situation where the only people who can correctly read the scriptures are people who already follow the belief system those scriptures allegedly promote. Put another way, this means that the scriptures are not only not clear about what they are supposed to be communicating, but that they require interpretation, and further that they can only be interpreted by interpreters favorable to the belief system whose tenets are derived from their particular interpretation.

    In my opinion, this paints a picture which grossly exaggerates the reality. Yes, you’re absolutely correct that disputes arose in the early (very early) church. The dirty laundry about Paul’s conflict with the “Judaizers” is aired in Acts, Galatians, and possibly elsewhere. I’m certain that Funky didn’t mean to imply that disputes only began to arise at the Reformation. (Or did he?) Though it could be argued that the Reformation allowed disputes to grow more or less unchecked into (apparently) permanent divisions within the church… and that kinda sucks.

    But, yes you are also correct in noting Scripture is accessible, and may be read and interpreted by individuals. Moreover, its plain meaning is usually the correct interpretation. It’s just that there is a whole lotta Scripture and there are a few caveats:

    The plain meaining of one passage

    1) might be construed to contradict something Scripture says somewhere else; or

    2) could be construed to contradict reason or experience; or

    3) (and this is the real problem) could contradict the foundational tenets of the Christian faith (as reliably handed down by the Apostles… who by and large were authors of the very passages in question).

    In the case of (1), we might just choose to believe one passage versus the other. But if we take it on faith that both passages are inspired by God, we could (maybe should) search for an interpretation which avoids the contradiction.

    In the case of (2), we might opt for an interpretation that allows for reason and experience, or come up with a reason to discout reason and experience.

    The case of (3) is the rub (that is if you’re looking for Scripture to mean anything want it to). But I guess the point here is that you’re not really going to be able to intepret scripture in an objectively fair way and get it to mean something that contradicts this minimal “deposit of faith” as reflected for example in the Apostles or Nicean Creeds. It would be tantamount to intepreting Homer to mean that Space Aliens would invade our nostrils in 2007. I mean it’s an interpretation… just not a very good one.

    So no, the scriptures are not terribly opaque. And no, interpretation of th

  18. steve

    Theo,

    But you had said:

    But then, those “foundational tenets” have been disputed from day one, haven’t they?

    The implication to me was there was a diversity of opinion within Christianity. Okay, so there were not (to your knowledge) people calling themselves Christians in the first century who disputed the tenets of what came to codified in the Apostles’ and Nicaean Creeds. Sure there were Pagans and Jews and Buddhists that disputed them… had they cared. But these were not the sort of folks lining up for the Conference on the Orthodox Way of Interpreting Christian Scipture, were they?

    Yes diversity arose especially as it became in certain regions during certain periods less deadly to be a Christian. In fact heresies arose. And thus Nicaea.

    However, what originally seemed to me to be the point of contention was that you objected to this idea that one could not be permitted to interpret Scripture in a way that violated certain Axioms, which we have for convenience sketched out as consisting of the 1st two major Creeds of Christianity.

    We (if I can speak for us, Christians) are perfectly happy having folks interpret Scripture any ol’ however way they want. But if you manage to come up with an interpretation that conflicts with or substantially modifies the “Axioms,” then don’t call yourself Christian. Moreover, my contention remains unchallenged that such an interpretation would also be the rough equivalent of finding from Homer that “Space Aliens would invade our nostrils in 2007.” The bottom line is you get Orthodox Christianity from the Orthodox Bible. No suprise there.

    As to:

    As for establishing the authorship of the gospels, I suppose if you want to trust the century-late guess by Irenaeus you can do that, but there is no contemporary evidence, no signed documents, no nothing that establishes an unquestionable link between Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the gospels that now bear their names.

    Theo, you’re sidestepping. History being what it was, what with most of the Apostles (and their intellectual decendants) being routinely imprisoned, tortured, and executed, I suppose record-keeping may have taken a bit of a back seat. But, you have not answered my contention that 1 Cor was penned in the 50’s CE, that Luke/Acts must have been completed prior to 70, and that Mark preceded Luke/Acts. Can any honest reader of Luke/Acts actually think they were penned after 70? That someone deleted the last 3 chapters or so that tell of Paul’s martyrdom, the sacking of Jerusalem and all the apocalyptic prophecies that would have gone along with it? Just leave us hanging like that? Deleted it all just to fool us 21st century folks into thinking it was written before 70 CE to make it seem more credible? Not plausible!

    Cheers!

  19. Jerry Nora

    There are different senses of Scripture Theomorph; I don’t see how the historical sense of Scripture (e.g., David or Jesus did X at time Y) could be closed to anyone. And I’m a Catholic, and according to your above post, thereby privileged over you, O lowly atheist ;). So accept my authority, darn it! 🙂

    The Scriptures are to a great extent open–people develop their own devotions or particular interests. Where the Orthodox and Catholics have a peculiar advantage is that we peg key doctrines not just to the Scriptures, but also their interpretation by the earliest Christians and also by Christians who helped develop the canon in the first place. Therefore, we have a more refined insight into what the Bible said. We also learn of positions that the Church had on issues not explicitly raised in the Scriptures, and how that reasoning went (e.g., abortion).

    The Bible is a means to grace, one of the most important, and in reading it and interpreting it, non-Christians have converted as a result of the Bible speaking to them. Not everyone does, of course. But the value of the Bible is that it is open to the public eye, and while there is plenty that is open to interpretation, it gives people a place to start their exploration and discussions. And of course, it gives the Church a fixed point of reference as well, as being the source telling us what Jesus actually did and said (again, the historical side).

    So people differ on their opinions regarding the Bible. Woo hoo. They differ on everything everything else; it doesn’t mean that they cannot know God, it doesn’t mean that they are going to Hell. It doesn’t mean that some common understandings between the various Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants can’t happen either.

    And if the Church says some interpretations are incorrect, so what? Mr. Theomorph, you have no problems telling people when you think they’re on crack; it’s part of taking part in an exchange of ideas.

  20. Jerry Nora

    Well, it ultimately comes down a relationship with Jesus, Theo! I think a lot of your objections on Funky’s religious posts will come down to that.

    If one does believe in Jesus as the Savior, and starts investigating the historical documents with that belief, it may be possible to come up with a more definite answer. Mark Shea wrote an excellent book, “By What Authority?”, on how he converted to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism by examining the origins of the Bible and the early Christians. That was within the framework of a believing Christian. As an atheist, of course, I can readily see how you would find the theological debates irrelevant, just as I would see the debates between the Theravada and Mahayana divisions of Buddhism in a more detached light than a Tibetan or Thai Buddhist would.

  21. steve

    [Geez ran out of ascii chars again…]

    And no, interpretation of the scriptures is not a practice restricted to the “illuminati” running the show. Some interpretations are simply “better” (objectively defensible) than others.

    My $0.02

  22. steve

    [guess there are at least two conversations going on here… so… GGGRRRIND… switching gears…]

    Funky,

    You say:

    here are three neccessary components to mortal sin….

    1) serious matter
    2) fulll consent of the will
    3) sufficient reflection

    Now this is not surprising to me since I’ve seen it before. But this is extremely troubling since I, as a card-carrying Catholic Sympathizer, have given serious attention and reflection to the RCC’s teachings, and therefore meet all 3 of these criteria in rejection of (or in some cases, agnosticism regarding) a select few of the RCC’s dogmatic teachings.

    Are you saying it would be better (in a hell-fire sorta way) for me to not understand RCC teaching? If so, is it wise to invite discussion of such things with your Protestant brothers, since elucidation to them could mean [drag index finger across thoat and make hacking sound]! Moreover, am I putting my Protestant brethren (and my children for that matter) at greater risk of damnation by sharing what knowledge I have of the Church’s precise teaching on these matters?

    I mean this is really counterintuitive, since, if it turns out I’m wrong and the RCC’s right, I would think friendship/sympathy/broad agreement with the RCC would “count” for more (not less) in the economy of eternity.

    So this is really troublesome, since I don’t absolutely know I’m right on these few seemingly (to me) non-essential issues. Perhaps it would be better for me to return to my bible-thumping, ignorant, bigoted, Catholicophobic upbringing if only to save my soul, as well as those of others. But could that really be?

    I guess I would rather think of myself to be in imperfect communion with the RCC in the same way that you all are in imperfect communion with the Protestant Evangelical Church (well.. at least if there was One ;-). The communion may be imperfect, but it shouldn’t mean that God’s work can’t go on thru us, and it certainly shouldn’t mean that we can’t work together in a substantial bit of it…

    Cheers!

  23. steve

    [Zoinks, it seems even Ales Rarus has its limits… here’s the rest]

    … semen anywhere other than a vagina. Scripture is far, far, very far from clear on this issue. Yes, the pill is abortaficent so should be opposed by all Christians. Yes, abortion and IUD (and IVF for that matter) destroy unique human organisms and so should be opposed by all Christians. But barrier methods of contraception are the moral equivalent of oral sex. Why should they (barrier methods or oral sex) be prohibited? How do these fundamentally differ from NFP?

    Sorry for the rant, but the situation here has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura per se’. Rather, it has to do with what the alternative (reliance on tradition even when not supported by scripture) brings us, viz., these controversial topics that divide us. Save for these, I would whole-heartedly return to Rome.

    Now as to Theomorph’s caricature… well that’s another rant!

    Cheers!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *