Adult or child? (fwd)

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>From another list/justification of trinity doctrine...

Forwarded message:
Date:         Tue, 24 Oct 1995 09:54:17 CDT
From: Dave Wagle <dave@ARIES.UTHSCSA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Adult or child?

>>>>> "LCDR" == LCDR Dale M Courtney <dmcourtn@NPS.NAVY.MIL> writes:

    >> saying that there are a great many doctrines which are
    >> essential to the faith (such as the Trinity) which are not
    >> clear from scripture, and which can not be shown to be true
    >> without bringing in ideas and concepts and language constructs
    >> that our outside of Scripture.

    LCDR>     We will simply have to disagree on this, Dave.  There
    LCDR> are *many* systematic theology books available which do not
    LCDR> rely on church history to define orthodoxy but rather on the
    LCDR> Bible.  They show where and how the councils came to this

The number of linguistical a priori assumptions needed to do this is
remarkable. The writtings of the Patristics, and prominent heretics of
the early Church show that there was simply no consensus on how to
understand many passages of the Bible, particularly Christological and
Trinitarian passages! It was not until the development of
extra-Biblical metaphysical language acceptable to those who held what
was considered to be orthodox faith that systematic theology was even
possible.

How could the "councils [come] to this understanding by wrestling with
the Word," when councils had to formulate the Canon in the first
place? Circular arguments to not a convincing position make . . .

    LCDR>     There is a big difference between the church recognizing
    LCDR> the writings that had Apostolic authority and what you are
    LCDR> trying to say by the Magesterium defining Scripture.  One
    LCDR> can look at the level of writing of the early church
    LCDR> (revelation of Peter, Wisdom of Solomon, Shepherd of Hermas,
    LCDR> Letter of Barnabas, Teaching of Twelve, etc, etc, etc) and
    LCDR> see what was apostolic in authority.  I'm not naively saying
    LCDR> that there weren't struggles or differences, but that does
    LCDR> not require the Magesteruim to "define" Scripture, merely to
    LCDR> recognize it. *Big* difference.

Fine, but what gives the Magesterium the authority to proclaim what is
definitively Scripture? After all, they must have gotten it right, as
last I checked, evey major Protestant denomination has kept the NT
Canon. So, by what authority have the Protestants accepted this
Tradition?

Peace,

Dave