… can be found here.  I was struck by the author’s point that both Protestantism’s Sola Scriptura and modern Catholicism’s (post-Newman) doctrinal development denies the material sufficiency of the early and medieval church’s understanding of tradition.

Lane is saying that with Cardinal Henry Newman’s idea of the development of doctrine, tradition itself becomes materially insufficient because a new agent, a third agent (in addition to Scripture and Tradition), the contemporary church, becomes formally necessary to actualize tradition.  But there was a time in which the contemporary church sought the norm of interpretation in tradition (the ancient Catholic church), as opposed to finding in tradition a “seed” for contemporary practice (modern Roman Catholicism). The article details that prior to Newman’s idea, the locus of discussion was of determining the content of tradition as normative for interpretation (which, after listening to a podcast from an Orthodox priest, seems to be the Orthodox view–and the Orthodox criticize Rome just as much as Protestants do for their idea of the development of doctrine, which to them seems like an ex post facto justification for the triumph of any contemporary doctrine.)

I think Lane’s argument is that Rome’s argument from tradition has changed historically (in fact, “innovated” would be a more proper word given his argument) in tandem with arguments about tradition.  His very good insight is that there is equivocation in appeals to tradition at any given point in time (by the contemporary church) when that appeal is fashioned as essentially the same appeal as in 347 against the Arians, 1054 against the East, and in 1517 against Luther.  His names for each mode of the use of tradition were incredibly useful to me for distinguishing the relationship categories of Scripture and Tradition (and also his distinction between Apostolic and Ecclesiastical tradition, which was the subject of my previous post), and thus preventing their equivocation for polemics against the Reformers (even though the Reformers’ view of tradition was no longer Lane’s Coincidentalist view).

I think once you sort out historically that Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, et. al., were appealing to “oral tradition” as a coincidence of Scriptural content (because the deposit of faith was given in both written and oral forms), you must conclude that by nature there is a time-limited aspect about the Coincidental view… because the further removed in time we are from the immediate successors of the apostles who literally heard what they taught (e.g., Polycarp), the written tradition (Scripture) takes a preeminence because documentary evidence of a text preserves a message better than an oral tradition that degrades into hearsay (the authority of the Apostles continues in the Church not by their oral instruction — that should be obvious; the Apostles are dead! The authority of the Apostles continues in the Church through their teaching, through the deposit that they have passed to the Church. And the only way in which we now receive that deposit is in writing, in the Scriptures, which we take as the standard of our faith. On the fallibility of the process of oral tradition, even following from the mouth of Christ to the Apostles, consult John 21:20-24).

This is why sola scriptura is not articulated in the early church: sola scriptura only matters once a disparity occurs between the two forms by which the Gospel was communicated–when the oral tradition degrades–and that disparity only appears with time.  Thus the Ancillary view of Ecclesiastical tradition by the Reformers.

Tags: Nota Bene, Scripture, Theology, Tradition

Reading this:

The piety and devotion of Augustine is largely unquestioned by Orthodox theologians, but his conclusions on the Atonement are (Romanides, 2002). Augustine, by his own admission, did not properly learn to read Greek and this was a liability for him. He seems to have relied mostly on Latin translations of Greek texts (Augustine, 1956a,

p. 9). His misinterpretation of a key scriptural reference, Romans 5:12, is a case in point (Meyendorff, 1979). In Latin the Greek idiom eph ho which means because of was translated as in whom. Saying that all have sinned in Adam is quite different than saying that all sinned because of him. Augustine believed and taught that all humanity has sinned in Adam (Meyendorff, 1979, p. 144). The result is that guilt replaces death as the ancestral inheritance (Augustine, 1956b) Therefore the term original sin conveys the belief that Adam and Eve’s sin is the first and universal transgression in which all humanity participates.

Augustine famously debated Pelagius (c. 354-418) over the place the human will could play in salvation. Augustine took the position against him that only grace is able to save, sola gratis (Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints, 7)4. From this a doctrine of predestination developed (God gives grace to whom He will) which hardened in the 16th and 17th centuries into the doctrine of two-fold predestination (God in His sovereignty saves some and condemns others). The position of the Church of the first two centuries concerning the image and human freedom was abandoned.

The Roman idea of justice found prominence in Augustinian and later Western theology. The idea that Adam and Eve offended God’s infinite justice and honor made of death God’s method of retribution (Romanides, 2002). But this idea of justice deviates from Biblical thought. Kalomiros (1980) explains the meaning of justice in the original Greek of the New Testament:

The Greek word dikaiosuni ‘justice’, is a translation of the Hebrew word tsedaka. The word means ‘the divine energy which accomplishes man’s salvation.’ It is parallel and almost synonymous with the word hesed which means ‘mercy’, ‘compassion’, ‘love’, and to the word emeth which means ‘fidelity’, ‘truth’. This is entirely different from the juridical understanding of ‘justice’. (p. 31)

Reminded me of this:

Justification by faith itself is a second-order doctrine: to believe it is both to have assurance (believing that one will be vindicated on the last day [Rom. 5.1-5]) and to know that one belongs in the single family of God, called to share table-fellowship without distinction with all other believers (Gal. 2.11-21).”Justification” is thus the declaration of God, the just judge, that someone is (a) in the right, that their sins are forgiven, and (b) a true member of the covenant family, the people belonging to Abraham. That is how the word works in Paul’s writings. It doesn’t describe how people get in to God’s forgiven family; it declares that they are in. That may seem a small distinction, but in understanding what Paul is saying it is vital.

Tags: Anglicanism, Justification, Orthodoxy, Sin, Theology

It seems that scientists may finally be violating the public’s trust in their objectivity.  In a Washington Post-ABC poll (questions 30-32), respondents report a declining receptivity to what scientists have to say about the environment.  Of course, the prestige of science (or, environmental science at least) was bound to take a hit after the revelations of gross and unethical behaviour at the University of East Anglia.  This is a good thing, as science is a discipline built on skeptical empiricism, and the political push for a universal, dogmatic consensus on anthropogenic global warming is quite unscientific.

Tags: Science

The Ochlophobist, in responding to comments on a post elsewhere, has put up an excellent articulation of the orthodox Christian view of homosexuality, as well as insightful comments on its place in our culture. I concur in all he has to say; go check it out.

Tags: Christianity, Homosexuality, Nota Bene

This is a provoking–though hardly determinative–finding that suggests humans have by nature instincts for group cohesion, empathy, and morals.  Is this part of the natural law?

Tags: Biology, Conservatism, Natural Law, Nota Bene

The alleged clash of authority between Tradition and Scripture is the primary epistemological issue between Roman Catholics and Protestants.  For Protestants, the Scriptures and Tradition are identifiable.  For Roman Catholics, the Scriptures and Tradition are different.  For Roman Catholics, the issue is “Who has authority to interpret the Word of God?”  For Protestants, the issue is “Has the Word of God interpreted you yet?”  For Reformed Catholics, the Word of God is a living, breathing thing, a subject, not an object.  It has its own constitution.  Moreover, reality itself is a linguistic construction of God’s Word (I’m reading an intriguing book on this subject).  The world was created at the Word of God.   Our souls are regenerated by the Word of God.  The church is a people called from the world by the Word of God (”my sheep hear my voice”).  Consequently, we are creatures of the Word, and a people of the Word.  And there are two forms only by which we have heard God’s voice to the Church: the Word of God written (Holy Writ) and the Word of God incarnate (Jesus), both of which are God’s power.  But after the ascension and before the parousia, we live in a time of eschatological tension, where Jesus is at once really present with us, but also really absent from us.  Where is the human person, Jesus?  He is in heaven.  With the real absence of the Incarnate Word, we have in this age the living Word of God written, aided by the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit.  Yet the Holy Spirit does not embody an institution like a ghost in the machine, a zeitgeist haunting the halls of the Vatican or the pastor’s study, but breathes through the Word of God.  Fidelity to the Word of God written is the preeminent task for preserving the power of the Divine Voice, the divine message of the Gospel.  The Tradition is the Word of God written, and the Writ is the Tradition.  The Word of God written we hand down to our children and to posterity is the Tradition, and human application and extrapolation is always provisional and contingent.  Why?  Because our existence and our faith is contingent on the living Word of God, not the other way around.  This, it seems to me, is the doctrine of sola scriptura. Continue Reading »

Tags: Theology, Tradition

Well this is rather good news! Let’s hope we see a return to a real economy.

Tags: Craftmanship, Nota Bene

A pithy quote:

A similar point was made to me when I was 15 by Roger Scruton, who was addressing my school’s philosophy society. I sometimes think that Roger Scruton is the cleverest man in the country; then sometimes I think that Noel Malcolm is. Anyway, I remember asking Roger what he saw as the chief role of a conservative thinker. The professor blinked pensively behind his spectacles. Then, in that slightly diffident way he has, he replied: “The role of a conservative thinker is to reassure the people that their prejudices are true.” If there is a neater answer than that, I have yet to hear it.

Tags: Conservatism, Roger Scruton

This approach to life fits under the “Limits” umbrella of the “Place, Limits, Liberty” school of American republicanism.

Apropos the post below and the linked article, one of the things I dislike the most in arguments over the superiority/necessity of liturgy over and against non-liturgical or mega-church types is the crutch-like reliance on tradition.

What?! Mark, are you saying tradition doesn’t matter?!

Well, no. Obviously. I definitely think that the long and rich history of liturgical worship (and yes, I’m aware how many different things that includes) gives it significant weight. Even the mere existence of something for 2,000 years creates in anyone wishing to overturn or ignore it an obligation to give an accounting.

That being said, saying that liturgy is better because it’s older is lazy. Why can’t we talk about why liturgy is objectively excellent, beautiful, and conducive to deeper faith?