Harley, I have a simple question for you and the people at CRI. If the Bible is both sufficient and "possesses final authority," why does an organization like CRI need to exist? CRI (I used to listen to the "The Bible Answer Man" as much as I could stand it) essentially sets themselves up as a Protestant magisterium, and anoints themselves the defenders of something they call "the historic Christian faith" (Who decides what that is? CRI, of course!).
But, according to their own doctrine, there should be no need for them to exist. If the Bible is perfectly sufficient, possesses final authority, and requires no authoritative human interpreter, then CRI's own doctrine precludes CRI's need to exist as much as it precludes the Pope's.
I'm pinging jude24 because he has some good insights on this.
OTOH, Campion... Perhaps you're the sort who requires an counter-signed Affidavit, in triplicate, from a General Synod of Royal Musicians... in order to know that the music of Beethoven is wonderful.
Best, OP
But, according to their own doctrine, there should be no need for them to exist. If the Bible is perfectly sufficient, possesses final authority, and requires no authoritative human interpreter, then CRI's own doctrine precludes CRI's need to exist as much as it precludes the Pope's.
That's like saying that since the Roman Church is the only authoritative interpreter of Scripture and Tradition there should be no need for something like "Catholic Answers". CRI isn't any more a "magesterium" than "Catholic Answers" is.
In turn, I have a simple question for you. After the Church comes up with some purportedly infallible interpretation, who then interprets that infallible interpretation for you?
Cordially,
This hit home for me with CRI. I was listening to one of Hank's shows on Calvinism where he had two speakers that were on opposite sides of the issue. They went at it hammer and tongs--respectfully of course, but Hank kept *stressing* amidst it all that, and I quote: "it was an in-house debate", and that both positions "were acceptable within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy." I am still a bit puzzled over this last statement. How is it that Hank is able to define what positions were permissible within Christian orthodoxy?
Campion, you hit on something here, namely that Hank defines *the historic Christian faith* by the fact that there have been both Calvinists and non-Calvinists within this loose amalgam of Protestant Christianity. Namely--if you want to put it this way--there were respected Protestant Fathers on both sides of the issue, therefore both positions were tolerable.
However, what made him choose only the Protestant Fathers for this analysis? Why Luther and Calvin, and not Cajetan and Bellarmine? And why stop at the 1500s instead of going back through the 15th, the 13th, the 9th, the 4th, all the way back to the Apostolic Age itself?
It is not a matter of tradition vs. no tradition. Rather, it is matter of selective tradition vs. universal tradition.