Their teachers and priests WERE the Early Church Fathers.
Posted on 01/07/2006 8:11:15 AM PST by jude24
Excellent point!
"to study the Bible... and obey..."
Study + Obey. Not study alone.
"To understand how to put Biblical Teaching into Practice, one reads the Early Church Fathers."
Then how did the first Christians ever figure it out???
“The doctrinal statement of Wheaton College, reaffirmed annually by its Board of Trustees, faculty, and staff, provides a summary of biblical doctrine that is consonant with evangelical Christianity. The statement accordingly reaffirms salient features of the historic Christian creeds, thereby identifying the College not only with the Scriptures but also with the reformers and the evangelical movement of recent years.”
Wheaton College is an evangelical college identified with the reformed and evangelical tradition as its doctrinal statement affirms. Its statements of faith are interpreted according to that tradition.
WE BELIEVE that God has revealed Himself and His truth in the created order, in the Scriptures, and supremely in Jesus Christ; and that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are verbally inspired by God and inerrant in the original writing, so that they are fully trustworthy and of supreme and final authority in all they say.
WE BELIEVE that the Holy Spirit indwells and gives life to believers, enables them to understand the Scriptures, empowers them for godly living, and equips them for service and witness.
Those are classic evangelical statements concerning the perspicuity of the Scriptures and that the individual believer with the illumination of the Holy Spirit is the final interpreter of the Scriptures. He/she might use creeds and commentaries to assist but they are not the authoritative interpreters. Anyone familiar with the reformed/evangelical tradition would understand this.
When you say, “Now, of course we Catholics believe, in addition to our belief that Scripture is the final authority, that the bishops in apostolic succession are the authoritative interpreters of that final authority.” That statement directly contradicts the Wheaton doctrinal statement. The statement of faith does not leave the question of who interprets Scripture unspecified since it is interpreted according to the reformed/evangelical tradition. It does not have to specifically exclude Roman Catholic tradition since it was meant to be interpreted by Wheaton’s constituency.
Wheaton’s statement concerning original sin is all encompassing with only one exception; Jesus Christ. All means all, not the Clintonesque “depends on what your definition if is, is”. Anyone familiar with the reformed/evangelical tradition understands “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God” and “there is none righteous, no not one”.
WE BELIEVE that our first parents sinned by rebelling against God's revealed will and thereby incurred both physical and spiritual death, and that as a result all human beings are born with a sinful nature that leads them to sin in thought, word, and deed
When you say “Regarding all human beings born with a sinful nature--we believe that. We believe Mary and Christ are the exceptions.” That contradicts the Wheaton doctrinal statement. Then you say “The statement takes no position one way or the other on whether "all" admits of exceptions.” when in fact, the Wheaton statement does give one exception and only one; Jesus Christ.
WE BELIEVE that Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, and was true God and true man, existing in one person and without sin; and we believe in the resurrection of the crucified body of our Lord, in His ascension into heaven, and in His present life there for us as Lord of all, High Priest, and Advocate.
According to the reformed/evangelical tradition the “one, holy, universal Church” is made up of all who have trusted Christ for their salvation i.e.”Christ’s people”.
WE BELIEVE that the one, holy, universal Church is the body of Christ and is composed of the communities of Christ's people. The task of Christ's people in this world is to be God's redeemed community, embodying His love by worshipping God with confession, prayer, and praise; by proclaiming the gospel of God's redemptive love through our Lord Jesus Christ to the ends of the earth by word and deed; by caring for all of God's creation and actively seeking the good of everyone, especially the poor and needy.
You on the other hand identify the “one, holy, universal Church” as the Roman Catholic Church and all others, with the exception maybe of the Orthodox Church, being schismatic and false, especially the reformed and evangelical churches. That is contrary to Wheaton’s statement of faith.
When you stated “I'm sure a lot of people at Wheaton think like you do. ……… and they are so bound up in their own forms of organization and their own beliefs that they read a statement like this and think the only interpretation possible is theirs.” you are right since the document is to be interpreted according to the reformed/evangelical tradition, not just any tradition. The statement of faith was meant, like any statement of faith, to let everyone know what its position is concerning its fundamental beliefs according to its tradition. If one is going to convert to a different tradition the ethical thing to do is resign or offer an expanded interpretation of the statement of faith that explains the new position and let the powers at Wheaton decide whether to keep him/her on. In this case they didn’t accept changes.
As I said, I don’t see how you could affirm this statement of faith without reservations or why you would want to knowing how it is intended to be interpreted.
I think that the school has the right to determine who teaches there.
It is a protestant school, I would expect that is a natural response and one that should have been expected by the professor. How many Calvinists teach in the theology department of Catholic theology programs preparing men for the priesthood? ?
Some boundaries make sense. This is one of them
"Their teachers and priests WERE the Early Church Fathers."
Actually their teachers were the Apostles and disciples of Christ. The earliest Church Fathers were disciples of disciples of Jesus.
Would you rather hear the words of Jesus and his disciples or the words of someone several hundred years removed (as many of the early Church Fathers were).
Not that the ECF aren't edifying, but the words of Christ and his disciples are on a whole different level. They are inspired and forever authoritative.
"2.) Why throw in the word "obey"? "
Because without it, no one can understand the Bible. Period.
"one very quickly finds that the Church has always been Catholic in its beliefs."
I don't read of the immaculate conception, infallibility of the Pope and other such novelties in the ECF.
I don't think it does. The Wheaton statement said that the Bible is the final authority, and left open the question of who decides what the Bible means when there is disagreement. (There's a good reason for doing that, of course. Protestants have no solution for that problem, except "go start your own church if you don't like it here".)
The statement of faith does not leave the question of who interprets Scripture unspecified since it is interpreted according to the reformed/evangelical tradition.
Which reformed/evangelical tradition?
By the way, since "it is interpreted according to the reformed/evangelical tradition," what authoritative interpreter does the interpreting according to that tradition?
I think D. is raising an important point here. The least common doctrinal denominator of evangelicalism is so watered down that an orthodox Catholic can accept it.
But you do read of Apostolic succession, an ordained presbyteral priesthood, bishops teaching authoritatively in councils, and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. At least I hope you do.
And there's a long list of Protestant fads and novelties you won't read there, too. You won't find much "health and wellness gospel" or much -- what is it called? -- "open theology" or much dispensationalism, etc.
"Those are classic evangelical statements concerning the perspicuity of the Scriptures and that the individual believer with the illumination of the Holy Spirit is the final interpreter of the Scriptures. He/she might use creeds and commentaries to assist but they are not the authoritative interpreters. Anyone familiar with the reformed/evangelical tradition would understand this."
I think I answered the question. The final interpreter is still the individual believer with the illumination of the Holy Spirit. That is the reformed/evangelical position.
Can you affirm that?
Can you affirm that Mary was born in sin just like all of humanity excepting Jesus Christ?
Can you affirm that the Roman Catholic Church is not "the one, holy, universal Church" but "the one, holy, universal Church" is made up of all those who have trusted Christ for their salvation?
That is what the doctrinal statement affirms.
Most of the points you make about what most Evangelical Protestants believe are accurate. The problem is that these specific points are not in the doctrinal statement. You have glossed it, explaining in greater detail than the statement does, what the phrase "consonant with evangelical Christianity" in the preamble means.
You tried a move that Litfin employed and that many of the early posters on this thread appealed to--the preamble states that Wheaton is an evangelical school and as such reserves the right to hire only evangelical teachers.
Fine. I have no objection to this. But how does one define "evangelical"? That's the question Hochschild was raising when he said, "heck, I'm an evangelical too. Catholics are evangelical." The answer surprised a lot of people because Evangelical Protestants think only they can claim the title "Evangelical." Frankly, that's insulting to us Catholics and to the Orthodox, who have proclaimed the Gospel and suffered for it for centuries.
Notice carefully: the preamble does not say "Evangelical Protestant." It says "Evangelical Christinianity." I don't know if that was an oversight or intentional (so as not to exclude Anglo-Catholics who don't like to call themselves Protestant?) but it leaves things open to Catholics and Orthodox.
When one turns to the document Wheaton uses to define what being an Evangelical school is, the document has nothing that excludes Catholics unless one first glosses it the way you have done in your posting.
But you miss the real point entirely. You did exactly what Dr. Litfin did: when Hochschild said, the statement as written can be signed without reservation by a Catholic, Litfin started to gloss it to explain what certain phrases, "really meant." But any lawyer will tell you that you can't get away with that. If you want to prevent a phrase of a document from being interpreted in a specific way, you have to specify that in the language of the document. The statement itself does not do that specifying.
You just added the specifics. If your glosses (or Litfin's) had been included in the document, then neither Hochschild nor I would say that we can sign it.
But if the statement by itself is not clear and requires your (or Dr. Litfin's glossing) in order to make clear that Catholics are excluded, why can't Catholics gloss it in a different way? If you want to exclude our way of glossing it (Hochschild's glossing), then you have to write into the document itself specific interpretations that exclude a Catholic glossing and permit a Protestant glossing.
If the preamble had included the word "Protestant" to gloss "evangelical" one could on the basis of that single word, argue for exclusion of Catholics. But as written, the preamble does not exclude Catholics who are evangelical Catholics rather than liberal pseudo-Catholics.
You start with a premise: Evangelicals and Catholics don't believe the same things. This premise is true. But the document does not cover the places where Evangelicals and Catholics disagree. It only covers places where they agree. For that reason, it can be signed in good faith by a Catholic.
This was certainly not the intention of the board of trustees when they drafted this document. They assumed that no Catholic could or would want to sign it. They assumed that a document stating their Evangelical beliefs could not be signed in good faith by a Catholic. This would be true if the document were a complete and thorough and specific statement of all evangelical beliefs. But the document is not that specific and the reason it is not is because some Evangelicals agree with Catholics on some things that other Evangelicals disagree with Catholics on. In other words, Evangelicals disagree among themselves about baptism, the Eucharist, the authority of denominational government structures etc. So the document dare not specify these things if it wishes to be open to all Evangelicals. Yet baptism, Eucharist, church government reach into the areas where Catholics and many (not all) Evangelicals disagree. So the statement ignores those issues because of Evangelical disagreements over these.
The document is badly written if it's intention was to exclude Catholics. In fact, it's primary intention was to exclude Protestant Liberals. If you look at what it includes, these are precisely the issues where all Evangelicals disagree with all Liberals. It so happens that faithful Catholics (those who obey the doctrines of the Church as enunciated in the Catechism) also disagree with Liberal Protestants on these issues. (They also disagree with Liberal so-called Catholics.)
I'm sorry you wasted so much time glossing the Wheaton statement so as to exclude Catholics. I made that point in my earliest postings. I'm sorry you either did not read them or did not understand them.
I know you want to see Catholics excluded from teaching at Wheaton. So does the board of trustees and the president, though not all faculty do. But if that is their goal and your goal, then you need to revise the statement so that your glosses become part of the document.
It's really not that hard to understand.
I do note from the WSJ article that Litfin appealed to a Wheaton policy that excludes both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. The WSJ reporter interviewed a professor in the Economics department who said there was a Greek Orthodox economist they would dearly love to hire but cannot because of this policy.
This implies that there is a separate policy excluding Catholics regardless of whether they can sign the doctrinal statement. I have inquired of the administration at Wheaton for clarification: is this policy in writing or is it an informal but well-known policy. I suspect it may be the latter. If so, then Wheaton, like us Catholics, have in place an unwritten magisterial ruling that glosses the doctrinal statement beyond what the doctrinal statement itself includes. And the doctrinal statement is itself a gloss upon Scripture, a form of magisterium. So the very thing that Wheaton claims prevents a Catholic from signing the doctrinal statement in good faith, namely, extra-biblical sources of authority is present at Wheaton in two forms: a doctrinal creed that glosses and interprets Scripture and a teaching magisterium whose (written or unwritten) policy excludes Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
Sounds a tad bit like human additions to Scripture to me. Indeed, I've concluded that Wheaton is not a very biblical place at all.
I meant who interprets the doctrinal statement, not who interprets the Bible. You're citing a "reformed/evangelical tradition" as though everyone agreed on exactly what that means. They don't.
Please show me where in the Wheaton doctrinal statement or its preamble that it states that the statement is intended to be interpreted in the "reformed/evangelical tradition"? I don't see that specified. They can't specify "reformed" because that would exclude Wesleyans and free-will Baptists and Pentecostals. Unless, of course, by "reformed" you don't mean Westminster Confession-type "Reformed".
Do you see the problem? Even the term "reformed" can mean at least three different things:
1. Swiss/French/Calvinist/Scots Protestantism as distinct from Lutheranism since the early 1500s
2. a general term for Protestants (but that would include liberal Protestants, which Wheaton surely does not want to include)
3. a general term for awakened, gospel-preaching Christians, which could include Catholics who have had their own reforms over the centuries.
Now, by adding "evangelical" to "reformed" it might seem to clarify things--that would eliminate Liberals whether Protestant or Catholic liberals. But "evangelical" can also mean more than one thing. Anyone who preaches the Gospel is an evangelical. Usually the term is capitalized to refer to the historic "Evangelical" movement of the 1800s and 1900s. But even that needs further clarification. The initial "Evangelical" movement was within confessional denominations, led by Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians who opposed liberalism in their denominations. But that meaning is rarely used today. Today capital E Evangelicalism usually refers precisely to the non-confessional, para-denominational groups that arose after 1900 as part of Fundamentalism. From Fundamentalism, (Neo)Evangelicalism emerged after 1947 when Carl F. H. Henry wrote his book disowning Fundamentalism and trying to mark out a new path so that Evangelicals wouldn't be disdained so badly (which they had been after the Scopes trial discredited Fundamentalism for mainstream media--you may not believe it but there was a time when Fundamentalism was highly respectable, before Scopes).
So which of the mmeanings of "evangelical" and "reformed" do you have in mind? And whatever you may have in mind by that, how do you know what the framers of the Wheaton statement meant when they wrote "evangelical Christianity" (note the lower-case e)? Who gives you the right to gloss the Wheaton statement by adding "reformed"? And what do you mean by "reformed".
As far as I can see, "reformed" and "Protestant" are never spelled out in the statement or its preamble. They stayed with "evangelical Christianity" and that's exactly the problem. Under that label, Catholicism fits. If they don't want to be open to Catholic teachers, then they need to revise the statement. And for you to on your own magisterial authority to offer the "true gloss" of the statement as meaning "reformed/evangelical tradition" sounds suspiciously like adding a "human interpretation" to the statement.
And finally, where do you get off with using the word "tradition?" What became of your sola scriptura? We tell you that the statement as written can be signed in good faith by a Catholic and what is your response?
No it can't because it was intended to be interpreted according to the reformed/evangelical tradition. Apart from the fact that the statement does not say that, how is your adding of a guiding interpretative tradition different from our Catholic claim that we interpret Scripture according to the tradition of the Church as handed down from Christ to the apostles to our bishops? You have just given away the store. You have acknowledged that the only guarantee of reading this statement of supposedly hyper-biblical belief depends on reading it according to an extra-biblical tradition that you call "reformed/evangelical"--a name which itself means different things to different people.
Your posting totally undermines your position.
For background, about half of my family is Catholic, but I am not.
However, it is my understanding from them that under the Catholic theology the Pope is the vicar of Christ on earth and that official Catholic tradition holds equal authority with Scripture.
Is that correct? And if so, then wouldn't a statement that Scripture is the highest authority (at Wheaton) be in conflict with it?
Quite frankly, how you or Hochschild or I interpret the statement isn't really important. What is important is how those that make the decisions at Wheaton and ultimately their constituents interpret the document that counts.While this may be true as a practical matter, a longstanding rule of contractual interpretation states that a contract should be analyzed by its "four corners"--the plain meaning of its language. Further, ambiguous language is construed against the party that did not draft the contract. So Hochschild's understanding would be very relevant.
" So Hochschild's understanding would be very relevant."
You assume there are ambiguous terms. The terms have defined meaning within the reformed and evangelical movement. They probably do appear ambiguous or have a different meaning to someone outside of the intended circle. That does not mean they will be construed according to the outsiders understanding.
Granted that most Catholic schools would have no problem with Protestant faculty (though I doubt any would be Fundamentalists), but Catholic schools are considerably more liberal.
You assume there are ambiguous terms. The terms have defined meaning within the reformed and evangelical movement. They probably do appear ambiguous or have a different meaning to someone outside of the intended circle. That does not mean they will be construed according to the outsiders understanding.Well, Wheaton should make that argument in front of the judge and see if he buys it. If this goes that far.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.