Replies

But ultimately, my approach is rooted in a disbelief in the complete perspecuity of the Scriptures (rather, believing that all things pertaining to salvation are clearly found within; the rest is subject to interpretation - by the Magisterium.

In and of itself, I don't see that much to which I would strongly object in Jude's statement.

On the one hand, the Scriptures do endorse the Protestant contention of Sola Scriptura, the doctrine that the Bible Alone contains within itself all teaching necessary for a Finite Man to attain a perfectly-rightful (albeit Finite) understanding of the things of God:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timonthy 3:16-17)

On the other hand, however -- Jesus and His Apostles organized the Church as a Social and Presbyterically-supervised Organization, and the Scriptures themselves also reject the notion of a completely-individualistic approach to the reading and understanding of Scripture (For myself, Jude, I don't know if I can justify "a disbelief in the complete perspecuity of the Scriptures"; just to make the point, I suspect that the Scriptures were "completely perspicacious" to at least one Man, Jesus of Nazareth. However, I can certainly believe in any individual Fallen Man's propensity -- even once he is Redeemed -- to get things wrong from time to time) :

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Hebrews 5:12-14)

The notion that "two heads are better than one", is, we might say, enshrined in Scripture:

(This passage is often interpreted, due to verse 19, exclusively in context to Prayer; but in context of verse 18 and before, it applies generally to the operations of the Church)

So God has ordained that we are supposed to understand God's Word as the only infallible rule of Faith; but God has also ordained that we are supposed to reason together, and with the help of an Under-Shepherd of Christ (i.e., a Presbyter).

The accumulation of this "Reasoning Together, under ordained Presbyters", over the centuries, constitutes the "Magisterium" -- and if you've ever taken Notes of a Pastor's Sermon, you're engaging in a Magisterial sort of practice. Nothing wrong with that; we're supposed to glean wisdom from those who have gone before us.

However, I think Jude probably would differ from the Romanists on at least three points:

One, I suspect that Jude would reject the "one head is better than two" Papist approach to reading Scripture and the Magisterium, favoring instead the Presbyterian-Conciliar approach ordained in Scripture itself;
Two, I suspect that Jude would agree with John Knox that the Reformation generally, and Calvinism in particular, produced amongst Christendom "the best school of Christ since the Apostles", affirming the Protestant contention that the Reformation (warts and all) was indeed a Work of the Holy Spirit;
And Three, while Jude might (on the principle of stare decisis) say that the longer and more-universally a Creed or Confession has become accepted amongst Bible-believing Christians, any Magisterial Teaching is always subject to the possibility of proper revision or clarification under the "Constitutional" bar of Sola Scriptura -- albeit according to Scriptural Rules of Order regarding the conduct of such disputations within the Church, etc.

Unless I am mistaken (and Jude, correct me if you disagree with any of those statements, but I'm fairly confident that you agree), that would place Jude soundly within the mainstream of Magisterial Protestantism -- and certainly no Romanist Trojan Horse within our gates (grin).

Best, OP

Hmmmmm...those are interesting points you bring up OP. Not being familiar with the customs and habits of the Presbyterian church I find it rather interesting.

I'll grant you, your "two headed" approach is correct and certainly within keeping of scripture. But what happens when there are conflicts with what you are reading and with what the Magisterium is saying to be true? Does your understanding of scripture override the Magisterium? Luther said so. Should the Magisterium interpretation of the scripture be honored? The Catholic Church stated so.

The issue boils down to what has the higher authority. Our Catholic brethren believes the Magisterium overrides the scriptures and they have their reasons. Protestantism, OTOH, was built on the concept that scripture takes precedence over the Magisterium.

To be sure within Protestantism there are a wide interpretation as to how closely one should follow the Magisterium. BUT, if one wants to relinquish ALL authority to the Magisterium, then I would submit this is Catholic thinking and was never the intent of Protestantism or any original Protestant Magisterium thinking.

Jude, correct me if you disagree with any of those statements, but I'm fairly confident that you agree

You're 95% right.

[T]he Scriptures do endorse the Protestant contention of Sola Scriptura, the doctrine that the Bible Alone contains within itself all teaching necessary for a Finite Man to attain a perfectly-rightful (albeit Finite) understanding of the things of God:

The phraseology I prefer is that the Bible, properly intepreted, is the only infallible rule of faith and of life.

can certainly believe in any individual Fallen Man's propensity -- even once he is Redeemed -- to get things wrong from time to time

Even the best of us - even titans of the Faith like St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas - have a tendancy to prejudice our interpretations by projecting our own experiences against the words of the text. It is simply impossible to strip all that away.

Jude would reject the "one head is better than two" Papist approach to reading Scripture and the Magisterium, favoring instead the Presbyterian-Conciliar approach ordained in Scripture itself;.

I don't subscribe to Papal infallibility, but especially this current Pope has a lot of credibility with me. He seems to recognize the most serious threat to modern Christianity is secular post-modernism. So I'll listen to him, just like I'll listen to any church leader with whom I share my disagreements.

Jude would agree with John Knox that the Reformation generally, and Calvinism in particular, produced amongst Christendom "the best school of Christ since the Apostles", affirming the Protestant contention that the Reformation (warts and all) was indeed a Work of the Holy Spirit;

I agree with Reformed theology, and believe it to be the most accurate, but there are a lot of warts there - and the resulting schism is something to be lamented. It may have been necessary, but if so, it is like chemotherapy - a radical treatment that is in fact poisonous itself.

that the longer and more-universally a Creed or Confession has become accepted amongst Bible-believing Christians, any Magisterial Teaching is always subject to the possibility of proper revision or clarification under the "Constitutional" bar of Sola Scriptura

That's certainly true in the case of the later early church father's like Augustine, or the monastics like Aquinas. I would argue, however, that the Creeds and the early writings like the Didache are the lens through which the New Testament must be interpreted, because the canon was not crystallized until after they were written, and these were unquestionably orthodox. Those writings are binding authorities on the interpretation of the Scripture.