Replies

"There is enough of a peer review process that I don't think anyone would get away with skewing Divine revelation for very long."

Good point. Excellent point. That's why I have so much confidence in what some call the "Hermeneutic of Continuity." If such-and-such is what serious scholars thought it meant for the first 1500 years, I give that credibility at a significantly higher notch than I give to Joe Gyro's sincere best guesses a millennium-and-a-half later.

If such-and-such is what serious scholars thought it meant for the first 1500 years, I give that credibility at a significantly higher notch than I give to Joe Gyro's sincere best guesses a millennium-and-a-half later.

Remember that Lord Jesus Christ is the same always. God Our Father in Heaven never changes. God the Holy Spirit points to The Way in which we ought to walk and confirms in us that Jesus Christ is Lord and the Son of God.

The words Jesus spoke to us and recorded in the Holy Bible are Spirit and they are Life Eternal. Point being, He speaks personally to each of us who is blessed to hear His voice and His call throughout history.

“That’s why I have so much confidence in what some call the “Hermeneutic of Continuity.” If such-and-such is what serious scholars thought it meant for the first 1500 years, I give that credibility at a significantly higher notch than I give to Joe Gyro’s sincere best guesses a millennium-and-a-half later. “

I can understand your comfort by this, but hermeneutics are not based on if some or many believed something in the past.

Original language, history at the time, contemporary usage of language, comparison to other related passages, context within the scroll or book itself, etc. are what determines what the most likely meaning is via hermeneutics.

It may cast some light on a passage that someone believed something about it - particularly in the study of the History of Doctrine - but that is not a leading factor at all in knowing what a passage means. There are often underlying reasons why someone in an earlier time was bound by their current beliefs, understanding, ignorance, etc. Their understanding and beliefs never change what the passage means.

[To be frank, there are many passages in contention after centuries exactly because they are not clear. We know with certainty what they cannot mean. We know for certainty what the possibilities are. We do not know with absolute certainty which possibility is the correct meaning.]

Blessings.

The "Hermeneutic of Continuity" is only so good as the methods used to arrive at an interpretation. Those who relied upon Jerome's Latin Vulgate, for example, to study Scripture may have arrived at a false understanding of certain texts and that influenced doctrines they developed. I don't think the Roman Catholic church has the "unanimous consent of the fathers" on their side to defend certain doctrines only formally and officially decided within the last few centuries. I'm sure you've heard of:

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. (Commonitory ch. II, §6; NPNF Series II Vol. XI p. 132)

The word “canon” refers to a standard or measuring stick. It provides three criteria by which one can determine whether a doctrine was orthodox or heretical. Vincent did not invent the “canon” named after him. He summed up in elegant Latin the longstanding theological method used by the early Christians. (http://orthodoxbridge.com/defending-the-vincentian-canon-everywhere-always-and-by-all-a-response-to-outlaw-presbyterianism/

I agree with those who hold to a genuine continuity of doctrine and believe it a valid test of orthodoxy as long as it also is backed up by Scripture - which the early church fathers held as well.