Clifton laments that I have "not quite taken the care necessary to address the actual substance of [his] previous replies." If this was done, then credit it to miscommunication on either side. There was no attempt to avoid anything and I thank him for noting the possibility. We agree about iconography being a tangential matter. I would, however, appreciate it if he would refrain from arguing my position for me. There may actually be a Kevin out there who rejects icons because "there is no Scripture that commands all Christians everywhere to venerate icons." This Kevin rejects icons based on his understanding, along with that of the Reformed Church and much of Protestantism, of the Second Commandment.
Clifton puts more words in my mouth concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. I said, "Scripture clearly teaches it." I did not say that the inference from the Scriptures is "clear and unequivocal." This adds a connotation and spin to my position that I never intended. It makes it sound as though I believe that any individual with a Bible could just come to the correct and well formulated conclusion. It is clear enough from Scripture to be simply believed without knowing how it all fits together; otherwise, what of all the believers before the Church's official judgment? Where the Church made an invaluable contribution was in stating it in such a way as to defend against heretical interpretations. I make no claim that I could have understood the Trinity (as if I completely do now) apart from the teaching of the Church. There were, indeed, wranglings over this doctrine at Nicea and afterwards. But if these suggest that Scripture was unclear, then they also suggest that whatever Tradition there was was unclear. If the Church has a history of infallible interpretation going back to the time of the Apostles, why not just state it? Why wrangle?
Clifton bring up three passages that I address "through tortured and tortuous exegesis." Considering what he thinks was said, I would agree. However, I do not recognize my own position in his restatements thereof. Perhaps he's responding to that other Kevin again.
Matthew 18: I did not say that this passage teaches that the Church exerecises discipline in terms of what is presently known by its revelation in Scripture. This miscontrual makes it sound as if "presently" refers to the time that Jesus spoke these words. It then allows Clifton to stress that the NT was not witten yet and that any connotation of Scripture has to be of the OT. The way I phrased it, "the will of Christ, presently known by its revelation in Scripture," does not require that Jesus was limiting disciplinary matters only to the extant Scripture of the time. I also had no intention of implying that this text itself requires that the will of Christ concerning matters of discipline ever be inscripturated. The immediate text does not settle the question one way or the other. We both agree that Church disipline must be in concert with the revelation of God. Since the focus, at least for now, seems to have shifted from the validity of extra-Biblical tradition to ecclesiastical infallibillity, whether or not this revelation is ever inscripturated is beside the current point. Still, the passage is not teaching that whatever the Church decides, without qualification, will automatically be in concert with the revelation of God. It is saying that when these decisions are in concert with the revelation of God, then they will reflect what is true in heaven. Something needs to be done with the phrase "in my name." The immediate context is of no help in defining the nature of the church. If it is true that the church is infallible, then the phrase functions as a description: the true church always acts in the name of Christ. If it is not true that the church is infallible, then the phrase functions as a qualifier: the church will be correct in its decisions only insofar as it has acted in the name of Christ. In short, the text itself does not address the issue of infallibility. Notions for or against must be imported into it.
Ephesians 4: Clifton's rendition of my argument that "speaking the truth in love is, in the end, only by the preaching and teaching of the Word," is ambiguous. If he means that the preaching and teaching of the Word, and only the Word, is necessary for the church to speak the truth in love, then that is what I said. If he means that the preaching and teaching of the Word defines the limits of speaking the truth in love, then he should blame the other Kevin. Speaking the truth in love is not possible apart from those ministries whereby the Word is preached and taught. But it goes beyond this. It defines a life and a practice of love. It is informed by the content of Scripture, but not limited thereto (which would constitute a caricature of sola scriptura). In building one another up, the members of the church must also think in terms of those unique lives and circumstances that surround them. We interpret the comtemporary in accordance with the preaching of the Word. Now to his mantra that any mention or implication of Scripture must be limited to the OT. In II Peter 3:15, 16, Peter mentions Paul's letters and compares them to the "other Scriptures." That is, there were some NT letters that had already been recognized as Scripture. I believe that more can be inferred from this, but I'll leave it at a minimum. "Scripture" is used in Scipture to refer to more than OT Scripture. Furthermore, there is a difference between direct reference and implication. When Paul says in II Timothy 3:16 that "All Scripture is breathed out by God," the direct reference can only be to whatever had been written at the time. However, by implication it must include all Scripture that was to be written thereafter. Either that or anything from a later date is less important. There is no textual reason for me to limit "Scripture" or "Word" to the OT when Scripture itself does not do this. My cessationist views concerning the offices of apostles and prophets were only brought up by way of negation in order to focus on the one (or two) office[s] concerning which there is no dispute. The more important point is found in what these offices have in common: they are all ministers of the Word.
I Timothy 3:15: So, Kevin actually thought that "pillar" and "ground" do not refer to the Church? What an idiot. But I said no such thing. Read the first sentence. "I could say...but I won't." I even put in a smiley face. How much more explicit should I have been to indicate that this was said in jest? I was alluding to Clifton's attempt to argue that to teleion in I Corinthians 13 could not refer to he graphe because it was in a different gender (which is all the more ridiculous since it appears that he would prefer to substitute the equally feminine he parousia). He agrees to take out the definite article but then puts it right back in when he writes, "he would have seen that contra his assertion the Church is indeed called the pillar and ground of the truth." But this misses the force of its absence in the original text. The passage is not teaching that the Church stands alone in this regard. The truth is also anchored in the guidance of the Holy Spirit and in the infallible Word. There is no need for the Church to be infallible when it is in such company.
John 16:13: I never actually dealt with this text. I did use the phrase, "The Holy Spirit will lead the Church into all truth," but I didn't have this text in mind. The fault is my own for the misunderstanding. This text, I believe, does imply a certain infallibility, but only for a specific purpose (my position is close, but significantly different than that of the gleeful other Kevin). I take this text as referring to the receiving of tradition (which I believe is eventually inscripturated, thus the necessity of an infallible element). The process of which I spoke was in reference to the Church's interpretation of Scripture. One may attempt to argue that the distinction is not valid, but there is no contradiction.
Hodegesei is not the aorist subjunctive of "to lead." It is the future indicative. I suspect that Clifton is confusing it with elthe, which is the aorist sunjunctive of "to come." "When the Spirit of truth comes [aorist subjunctive], he will lead [future indicative] you into all the truth." The coming of the Holy Spirit is a snapshot event fulfilled in Acts 2; the leading of the Holy Spirit can take place for an indefinite period of time after that event.
This Kevin also believes that the promise was made to the Apostles. But he does not believe that it was made towards the end of the inscripturating of apostolic tradition. That process hadn't even started yet. Jumping down to the part where Kevin would say that various places in which the Holy Spirit leads the church are only instances of Apostles, this one would not agree. James was not an apostle and I think it more likely that the Philip spoken of in Acts is the deacon (6:5) who also had the office of an evangelist (21:8). Now, I would say that the promise made in John 16:13 was not made to the Eleven as such, but as they represented the foundational offices of the church, which include both apostles and prophets. It extends to more than the Eleven, but it does not need to extend to the whole church. This promise concerns their role as the church's foundation. It is about the receiving and future inscripturation of tradition. While the Spirit does lead in other capacities, this verse does not address these and cannot be set in opposition to those passages that do.
The promise in John 16:13 applies to the formation of tradition, not to its subsequent interpretation. It need not be applied to anything beyond the foundational offices. I will agree that, in context, the truth refers to Jesus. But, just as we can go back to 14:6, we can also jump forward to 17:17 where the word is truth. John himself ties the two concepts together at the opening of his gospel, "In the beginning was the Word." There is a double referent. The Spirit will lead into the truth, which is Christ, who is fully revealed in the canons of Scripture. This verse was fulfilled in the completion of the Scriptures. But it does not follow that the Holy Spirit no longer leads into truth in other capacities. This would only be the case if this were the only passage from which such an activity could be inferred. Yet, even Clifton notes other passages that imply the leading of the Spirit as it relates to truth. But these were in reference to the members of the church. A verse about leading the foundation of the church into truth as it relates to the formation of tradition should not be confused with verses in which the members are led into truth as it relates to the interpretation of tradition.
Hermeneutics
Clifton notes, "if an interpretation can be as authoritative, or authoritative in the same way, as Scripture, then it begs the question as to why one must decide between such an authoritative interpretation and an uninterpreted Scripture." I'm wondering the same thing. What possible good is uninterpreted Scripture to the faith and practice of the church? This is not what sola scriptura means. It includes not only the written Word, but also the preached Word, which, by definition, is the Word interpreted. Both aspects are authoritative, but in different ways. The written Word is infallible. It establishes what the church may believe and what it may practice. But it is powerless on its own, or to put it another way, it is insufficient. The Word must also be preached. The preached Word is not infallible, yet, insofar as it accurately conveys the intent of the written Word, it is inerrant. And the reverse is also the case, to the extent that it does not convey the intent of the written Word, it is not inerrant. If the infallible written Word is the ultimate authority to which all preaching, confessions, and creeds must bow, then the fallible preached Word is the authority to which the members of the church must submit. This in no way suggests a blind submission. Rather, the people must study Scripture to see whether what was preached is so; the pastors must be under constant review of their peers; local churches must submit to larger bodies; confessions and creeds should be maintained. Authority does not imply that the one in authority is always right. Many disagreements between those in authority and those being led need to be resolved by submission. Nevertheless, it is also the case the Holy Spirit illumines the minds of individuals. We all stand under a dual authority: that of God and that of men and, forced into a decision, we ought always to obey God.
Clifton states that the only way that I can know that some people are teaching heresy is because they do not agree with my interpretation. As stated, this is both true and painfully obvious. Knowledge is not possible unless it is filtered through individual interpretation. This is how we were created. But Clifton means to deny this. He seeks to set up a false dilemma between individual interpretation and submission to an external infallible interpretation. This will not work, for, ultimately, interpretation must be internalized. Clifton asserts that only an infallible interpretor can settle disputes between intepretive options. There is a problem with this. The infallible interpretor is outside of the individual. Once it states its infallible interpretation, the relationship between this interpretation and the individual is the same as that which existed between the individual and the thing interpreted. The interpretation now needs to be interpreted. Add as large a regress of interpretation as you will, at some point, the individual will have to interpret what he has heard. And unless this final individual interpretation is also infallible, it begs the question of why a particular link in the interpretive chain had to be infallible. Whether my beliefs run contrary to what any other part of the church has ever said or whether, to the best of my ability, I follow the creeds and councils, it is, in the end, my interpretation that has decided the matter. Clifton is no different. He has chosen to follow Orthodoxy because, by his interpretation, it is the true religion. By his interpretation, infallibility is necessary. For each article of faith and practice in the Orthodox church, he chooses to agree with it because, by his interpretation, it is correct. Or if, failing to understand an article, he submits anyway, then, by his interpretation, this was the correct thing to do. In short, Clifton has not escaped the viscious interpretive circle either. He believes and practices all that he does because it agrees with his interpretation. The interpretive device that asks, "What does it mean to me?" such that objective truth is irrelevant, is, at all times, to be avoided. On the other hand, meaning is meaningless unless it means something to me. No one who has been created in the imago deican escape this.
Clifton writes, "For let us suppose that on any matter of interpretation, both Kevin and I put forward stellar biblical exegesis, each of us has a truckload of historical data, and more to the point, our arguments are logical, valid and for all intents and purpose unassailable. But we both make contradictory interpretations. How does Buridan's ass choose between the two?" The kindess thing would be to let the ass know that he has been presented with a false dilemma. For if conclusions drawn from the same premises are contradictory, then at least one of the arguments employed was not "logical, valid and for all intents and purpose unassailable." We do not need an infallible interpretor when it is possible to set our arguments up for scrutiny, both in the general public and, more importantly, in the body of Christ. Or if the same objective conclusion were drawn but then interpreted in contradictory fashion, then no external arbiter could settle the matter, for we would be just as likely to reach contradictory interpretations of the decision, ad infinitum.
Concerning my disparagment of the allegorical method, Clifton mentions Paul, who, in Galatians 4, uses the allegorical method. He writes, "Kevin will doubtless reply that when one is an inspired author of Scripture, one may do as one wishes..." Once again, he has the wrong Kevin in mind. This one thinks that when an inspired author of Scripture employs an interpretive method, then it is in his best interest to understand this method and adopt it for like biblical genres. Essentially, that method of interpretation commonly called allegorical and the method that Paul was practicing have nothing in common but the name. Common allegory is nothing more than overlaying one term on top of another, often with no regard for history or grammar. Paul's interpretation is not an overlay but arises from within the narrative. The idea is that Scripture is a grand narrative of redemption in Christ. It is filled with smaller narratives that each recapitulate this story. Matthew tells of Jesus being taken to Egypt as a child in order to escape Herod's slaughter. He says that it fulfills Hosea 11:1, "Out of Egypt I called my son." But, on an intial reading, Hosea is not talking about Christ but about the Exodus of Israel. We may either conclude that Matthew, an inspired author, can do as he pleases, which fundamentalists must do; or, we can push back along with Matthew and see that the Exodus of Israel, that Israel itself, was always a living prophecy to be fulfilled in the person of Christ. Note in Genesis 12 the remarkable parallels between the Exodus and Abram leaving Egypt after Pharaoh's house is afflicted with great plagues. The parallels between the Abrahamic narrative and that of Israel continue right on through Sinai as represented in Hagar and the New Jerusalem as represented in Sarah. Both narratives are, ultimately, the story of Christ.
Yes, I have made recourse to the Westminster Standards, often with ironic intent. But there is a great difference between this Reformed tradition and that of the Orthodox. The Westminster Standards are self-consciously intended as an interpretation of Scripture and secondary thereunto. They are not that which, being woven of the same fabric, stands alongside Scripture. They are fully in line with sola scriptura and, as such, are not extra-biblical in the consistent sense with which I have used the term.
Posted by kcourter at março 1, 2005 11:24 PMI have clarified/responded here.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at março 3, 2005 6:29 AM