To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; RnMomof7
Being advised by Timothy that Scripture Alone can thoroughly furnish a Believer unto Perfect Understanding, I intend to continue reading Scripture and speaking my understanding (albeit under the Authority of my Ordained Presbyters, which is also of course commanded in Scripture). Which is exactly what I do. I, too, subject myself to the authority of the ordained presbyters in my church and the authority of the ecumenical councils and the Early Church Fathers and the Creeds.
I do this because I do not trust my own interpretations of Scripture standing in isolation. My own prejudices, misconceptions, and errors are read into the text; by using the framework of the Presbyters, the Councils, the Fathers, and the Creeds, that is mitigated. I'll even call this group the Magisterium - and so call myself a Magesterial Protestant.
I think my statements on this approach could have been more clear, because right now RnMomof7 is absolutely convinced I don't believe in absolute truth (I do, I just observe that even the most naked fact requires that we interpret it through the lens of our experiences.). 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.
86 posted on
01/20/2006 6:24:12 AM PST by
jude24
("Thy law is written on the hearts of men, which iniquity itself effaces not." - St. Augustine)
To: jude24; OrthodoxPresbyterian; AnalogReigns; HarleyD; Dr. Eckleburg
I think my statements on this approach could have been more clear, because right now RnMomof7 is absolutely convinced I don't believe in absolute truth (I do, I just observe that even the most naked fact requires that we interpret it through the lens of our experiences.). 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.Ask the pastor Jude.
If you can not trust your own reading of the word, how do you know that you can trust your judgment in who you have interpret it for you?
Perhaps the Watchtower would be good . You just can not be sure can you, because your own judgment is so clouded. Perhaps prayer for discernment would help.
110 posted on
01/20/2006 1:05:51 PM PST by
RnMomof7
("Sola Scriptura,Sola Christus,Sola Gratia,Sola Fide,Soli Deo Gloria)
To: jude24; RnMomof7; HarleyD; Dr. Eckleburg
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:
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:20) (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
144 posted on
01/23/2006 5:00:25 AM PST by
OrthodoxPresbyterian
(We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson