This post continues a conversation with Andrew down here. It is in response to his comment of 3/21/05, which you may want to read in order to better follow this one.
I recognize that those who reject sola scriptura posit the existence of a larger fabric of life that can be contained in the propositions of Scripture. As stated, I would agree with this. The point of contention is whether anything within the Church's life that is able to be described in propositional form is legitimate if such propositions are not directly from or necessary inferences of Scripture. Sola scriptura is not about limiting life, denying Church authority, or about replacing Christ as the proper foundation of the Church's life. It is about making Scripture the sole and final rule of faith and practice. The function of Scripture within the Church is to express what may or may not be believed or practiced. The "may" by statement or inference and the "may not" by statement against, inference from statements against, or lack of statements or inferences for. You claim that the function of Scripture "is not to be the prerequisite of the other parts of the Church’s life." In order that I can know just what you mean by this, would you provide some examples of the Church's life for which Scripture is not a prerequisite?
The statement, "We cannot read Scripture accurately or faithfully unless we accept every element of the Church’s life along with it," begs the question, "What out of all that happens within the visible church constitutes a legitimate element of the Church's life?" Other than that, I agree. You illustrate the problem yourself by speaking of both Catholics and Orthodox rejecting sola scriptura. But they differ on the specifics of their faith and practice. Where these differences occur, which, if any, is an example of ecclesiastical life? As to their objection to holding "Scripture up as an independent standard by which to judge the life of the Church," if this is the case, then they are objecting to a phantom, at least as far as the Reformed understanding of the term ( I realize that many Protestant individuals hold to this kind of view- I have no intention of defending them).
I'm having trouble making sense of the this statement, "An orthodox Catholic may very well argue that Scripture is formally sufficient – i.e. that every true doctrine is contained within or implied by the Scriptures, but the Catholics and Orthodox reject the idea that Scripture is actually sufficient." All that is meant by Scripture being sufficient is that every true doctrine is contained within or implied by it. As to an orthodox Catholic believing this, consider the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. Try inferring that one from Scripture. They do reject the idea that Scripture has all the answers. As to checking up on what the Church is teaching by going to the back of the book, that's one of reasons we have Scripture. As I noted in one of my earlier responses to Clifton on this topic, the Bereans are commended for double checking Paul against Scripture (Acts 17:11).
The purpose of revelation goes beyond communication. Revelation exists either for the salvation of those who accept it or for the greater condemnation of those who reject it. Revelation itself is effectual toward salvation. It is not about believing and apprehending a story. Revelation is the intersection of heaven into earth, culminating in the incarnation. Subjective apprehension is important, but it means nothing apart from the objective communication by means of certain events in history. Christ reveals nothing to the other persons of the Trinity. Revelation is a one way communication from heaven to earth.
"It is not the historical reality of Cana which is finally significant, but the eternal reality of Christ’s Being." This one's going to need some explaining. When you say "finally significant," are you saying this because you believe that the only sensible way to speak of revelation is "that which is being revealed (Christ) and the subjective apprehension of that which is being revealed"? This would mean that the historical reality of Cana is significant in its own right (it had to happen in order for the written revelation to be true and significant) but that, properly speaking, it is not revelation. In this case, we'd still have more to discuss since I am putting the focus of revelation on objective historical events. Nevertheless, your position would still be within the bounds of orthodoxy. Or, are you saying that the only finally significant thing is the subjective apprehension of the eternal reality of Christ's being? In this case, the written account is so sufficient in revealing Christ that the connection of the narrative to historical reality is irrelevant. Maybe it did happen, maybe it didn't. Either way, the eternal Christ has been revealed to me just as well. In this case, my objection will have to be a lot stronger. But I won't make any objection unless I have reason to believe you actually meant this.
I won't object to saying that my apprehension of Christ is in the reading and not in the event itself. That is, as long as "apprehension" implies no more than cognitive knowledge. I will object if you mean that such apprehension is sufficient to my union with Christ. The incarnation, wherein Christ takes on the same human nature that we have, is essential to our salvation. Furthermore, the incarnation is the revelation of Christ. The incarnate Christ, his person and work, are the final events of revelation. He is that to which the OT always pointed. He is the one who, coming into the world, brings salvation. The incarnate Christ is the whole reason for revelation and, ultimately, he is the revelation itself. Whenever I or anyone else apprehends Christ through reading Scripture, this must be understood of Christ incarnate. His identity as the eternal Word may anticipate his revelatory status through the incarnation, it may even make prophetic revelation of his salvific work possible. However, unless it is predicated on the incarnation , revelation is meaningless, if not impossible. The subjective apprehension of Christ cannot be of anything other that what was objectivley revealed in history and then recorded in Scripture.
The events of Christ's life do reveal more than was available at his nativity. It's not that the whole Christ wasn't born, but that the whole Christ can never be revealed. We do not possess such a capacity to comprehend him. The revelation of Christ does not come all at once. It is his person and work. The latter, by definition, must take place over a process of time. Revelation is necessary to salvation. No separation can be made between the salvific acts of Christ and the revelation of Christ. Consequently, if revelation is complete at the nativity, then so is redemption. Further redemptive events are superfluous. As far as our salvation goes, Herod could have had his way and that would be that. We could still be saved. Christ's post-nativity life and work is a great deal more than adding to our maturity and vision of Christ. It is about what Christ had to do for our redemption.
I offered the illustration of distinguishing between the functions of integrated canine body parts to show that different things having different functions does not destroy the overall unity. Sanctification and justification are both aspects of salvation, both are made possible by the work of Christ; however, in their own right, they do not perform the same function. They are necessary for the function of the larger whole. Your own counter-example of a partly grown partly embryonic dog is, indeed, a monstrosity; however, you have not shown how it is connected to the views that I have presented. The question of whether sanctification and justification are separate or distinct needs to be answered as a matter of perspective. If it is monergistic vs. synergistic works, then they are separate. If it is things that happen to the believer because of the death and resurrection of Christ, then they are distinct. If it is things that cannot fail to be true of saved people, then they are distinct. If it is things that contribute to my status as being saved, then they are separate. There are two ways in which sanctification can be used, positional and progressive. So far, this discussion has been about the latter. Justification is a legal verdict. It is a declaration based on my positional sanctification in Christ. Positional sanctification is a monergistic work whereby I am set apart into Christ. Consequently, when he is declared righteous, I am declared righteous in him. Progressive sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit whereby I am caused to conform in this life to my position in Christ. This conformity involves my own works and is, therefore, synergistic. Progressive sanctification is the evidence of positional sanctification. Lack of progressive sanctification does not mean that my position has changed again , but that I was never in Christ.
It may be the case that "any given moment stands in the same relation to the eternal as any other moment." However, we are not considering these matters from the perspective of eternity, but from our own. While there is temporal simultaneity between the state of justification and the state of being sanctified, there must be a temporally sequential relationship between the verdict of justification and the process of sanctification. In the same way, living in jail may be simultaneous with the state of having been found guilty, but the verdict itself was a one time declaration. Both justification and sanctification result from the grace of God, but the question of whether this is manifest as a declaration or a process is not one of origin but of specific intent and function.
Posted by kcourter at março 22, 2005 6:38 PMThe problem with modern Protestantism is that they are not embracing Sola Scriptura, but Solo Scriptura, or the belief that the Holy Scriptures, in the hand of the individual believer, are the ultimate authority-- thus they are 20,000 or so denominations and growing. Christ is returning for a bride, not a harem!
Scripture must be interpreted by the historical consensus of the faithful. In short, Holy Tradition is (or equals) Holy Scripture as it is rightly understood by the Church (and they devoted themselves to the Apostolic teaching...) There are other "traditions" and other "authorities" that have validity in the Church, but the synergy of Scripture and Apostolic interpretation of scripture (teaching) is the only inherantly infalliable one. The problem with modern Protestantism (I mean the local non-denominational church) is that it sets up an autonamous individual to be the Apostolic teacher. That would be kind of like me getting into my car with a gun and deciding to start pulling people over for traffic violations. What authority do I have to do so??
Gregory of Nyssa-- "Custom without truth is the antiquity of error."
I recognize that I am not a man of great intellect or ability, so please take it easy on me!
I pretty much agree with you. Solo scriptura is a problem, which is made all the more so because advocates thereof and opponents of sola scriptura often are unable to distinguish between the two. It is not my intent to defend the former. As to denominations, they can be started for ridiculous reasons, but this is not always the case. And I don't see denominations as a necessarily bad thing dividing the body of Christ (though, again, they can). That the Church has one Lord, one faith, and one baptism is true despite the denominational differences. If such a difference is such that this is no longer the case, then said denomination is no longer a part of Christ's bride.
I agree on your views of scriptural interpretation. And if Holy Tradition is, as you say, "Holy Scripture as it is rightly understand by the Church," then I have no problem with it. My argument is not that sola scriptura denies the Church the right of interpretation, but that it denies anyone, individual or churches, to add to what may be interpreted. On your claim that there are other traditions and authorities that have validity in the Church, I need some examples before I'm able to respond either way. I fully see your problem with modern Protestant churches setting up autonymous leaders. I belonged to a few of them before becoming Reformed. Some were so autonymous that they even refused to be called Protestants. This system of church polity is wrong. That being said, I'm not convinced that an error in polity must necessarily cancel a church's authority. More important than internal structure or being non-denominational is whether a church is being faithful in preaching, administering the Sacraments, and exercising discipline.
I'm inclined to like the Gregory of Nyssa quote, but would prefer to see it in context. Do you know where he wrote this?
Posted by: Kevin at março 23, 2005 10:16 PMWhy don't you see denominations as a bad thing? I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from....Are there denominations in the Church triumphant(in Heaven)? I sure hope that I'm not seated in the Baptist section...:)
Shouldn't the church militant (on earth today) be striving for the unity that exists in heaven and to be an icon of unity in a divided and fallen world???
Posted by: Deacon Kevin at março 24, 2005 7:31 AMSorry! The quote was NOT Gregory of Nyssa, but Cyprian....oops! Here it is in context from epistle 73...
"2. Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written must be done, God witnesses and admonishes, saying to Joshua the son of Nun: ‘The book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.'" ... "3. what obstinacy is that, or what presumption, to prefer human tradition to divine ordinance, and not to observe that God is indignant and angry as often as human tradition relaxes and passes by the divine precepts, as He cries out, and says by Isaiah the prophet, "This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching the doctrines and commandments of men." Also the Lord in the Gospel, similarly rebuking and reproving, utters and says, "Ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." Mindful of which precept, the blessed Apostle Paul himself also warns and instructs, saying, "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to His doctrine, he is proud, knowing nothing: from such withdraw thyself." ... "8. Deservedly thus do heresies and schisms arise day by day, more frequently and more fruitfully grow up, and with serpents' locks shoot forth and cast out against the Church of God with greater force the poison of their venom; whilst, by the advocacy of some, both authority and support are afforded them; whilst their baptism is defended, whilst faith, whilst truth, is betrayed; whilst that which is done without against the Church is defended within in the very Church itself." ... "9. "Nor ought custom, which had crept in among some, to prevent the truth from prevailing and conquering; for custom without truth is the antiquity of error. On which account, let us forsake the error and follow the truth" (Cyprian, Epistle 73:2,3,8,9, of Pope Stephen’s false teaching on baptism)
I’m sorry it has taken me so long to respond, Kevin. I hope I'm not interfering with your conversation with Deacon Kevin by commenting now.
First, soteriology. I think I’m beginning to get the idea. I think I was making my previous criticisms of your position from a mistaken understanding of what you intended to say by calling sanctification “synergistic.”
I think there is a certain symmetry between the Reformed doctrine and the Catholic doctrine. As Catholics see it, Christ pours out the grace of the cross in which all of the work of salvation is potential. In the life of the believer, there is a moment of monergistic action in which Christ makes him part of the covenant (i.e baptism). Then, the potential of grace becomes actual through a synergistic process of sanctification and justification ending finally in glorification.
The Reformed view seems to differ mainly in that the grace of the cross is immediately actual instead of potential. Thus, the monergistic work which brings us into union with Christ connects us with an actual energy rather than a potential energy. Thus, in the first moment, you are as righteous as you will ever be. The synergistic process of sactification, then, makes you no more holy in reality (that is, in the sight of God) but merely manifests that holiness. An analogy might be found in David, who was king the moment he was anointed and was no more a king when he was crowned than when he was anointed. Only, the crowning was the natural consequence of the anointing.
I will acknowledge that this much is quite consistent (though you will have to tell me if it's accurate or not).
I will point out, however, that the David analogy works just as well for the Catholic view. David was anointed king, but he was not king until he sat on the throne of Israel because that kingship is essentially the possession of actual power rather than the mere possession of authority.
It seems to me that the difference between the Catholic view and the Reformed view stems from a difference of emphasis concerning the nature of God’s salvific will. (This is a hazy impression in my mind. I’ll do my best to flesh it out.) The Reformed idea seems to stress the image of God taking a people unto Himself. He desires us and therefore secures us. His will is best accomplished through irresistible grace. The Catholic view would likely see the level of emphasis on this image as encroaching upon the impassability of God, and would rather focus on the image of God’s salvific desire being a desire to give Himself to human beings. In this case, it is rather better that the self-giving be open-ended. If human beings may reject God, then someone who does not reject Him is responding to God in kind. God’s self-giving inspires a reciprocal self-giving, which is, itself, more of God’s self-giving. Since God’s purpose is primarily to give of Himself, His purpose is better served than if He only did what was necessary to secure a people for Himself.
Now, I think both central images here (taking a people and divine self-giving) are acceptable to all parties concerned. As I say, it is merely a matter of emphasis. I would say that the level of emphasis displayed by the Reformed tradition on God taking a people for himself is unacceptable to the Catholic tradition because the Catholic tradition conceives of desire as a force exerted upon the desiring by the desired. Thus, to say that God desires a people for himself and to mean it in a way that creates a close analogy with human desire is to suggest that human beings exert a force upon God which He responds to. And this is not in keeping with God’s omnipotent, all-originative nature.
Now, revelation.
“As to checking up on what the Church is teaching by going to the back of the book, that's one of reasons we have Scripture. As I noted in one of my earlier responses to Clifton on this topic, the Bereans are commended for double checking Paul against Scripture (Acts 17:11).”
I disagree with your interpretation of this Scripture. We are not in the same relation to the Church as the Berean Jews were, and our responsibilities are not the same. They are commended for double-checking Paul because their brethren in other cities simply tried to kill him. They were good Jews. That does not mean that good members of the New Covenant should act the same way.
It has to do with Church order. When Paul came to the Bereans, he came as a missionary. The people to whom he spoke were not members of the New Covenant, and they did not have any responsibilities toward Paul save those demanded by ordinary human decency. They showed him ordinary human decency, and they were commended for it.
We, on the other hand, being members of the New Covenant, don’t have the option of double-checking Paul. If we go back to the Old Testament and come away thinking that it contradicts Paul, then we are wrong and if we persist in our error, we are heretics. The Bereans had the option of accepting or rejecting Pauls message according to their own consciences and their own readings of Scripture. We do not have that option. We are bound by Paul’s words. We don’t have the option of double-checking his words against the words of Moses – nor did the Christians of that day. If Paul set out a doctrine for the churches, he expected them to accept it willingly and wholeheartedly.
The same thing holds true in our current situation. We do not have the option of breaking communion with our brethren if their interpretations of Scripture don’t match ours. Nor do we have the option of resisting the judgements of those who have been placed in authority to teach the Church. And yet this is exactly how the Protestant Reformation was effected. Luther was excommunicated because he refused to obey his pastors. He berated and belittled those who disagreed with him. He pulled up stakes, broke oaths of loyalty, and generally jettisoned his responsibilities within the communion of the believers. Those who came after him did no less, though Calvin restored a certain amount of order within the separated churches.
Now, if a Catholic wishes to form his own opinions about the Scriptures, he is free to do so, but in this matter as in every other matter, he must submit himself to the brethren.
“…consider the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. Try inferring that one from Scripture.”
It has been done. The line of inference is not the sort you would have a taste for, I imagine, but it has been done. You would be very surprised at how thoroughly Marianists pepper their writings with Scripture.
I think the problem is that you have a very definite idea of what constitutes an inference from Scripture, and it doesn’t include things like allegorical interpretation and mystical theology. Might I ask what it does include?
Furthermore, for an orthodox Catholic to hold to the formal sufficiency of Scripture, he must acknowledge that the fullness of doctrine contained in the Scriptures may only be accessed by reading it in the light of the rest of Sacred Tradition. (Scripture may be held as formally sufficient but not as actually sufficient). If he wishes to contend that all of doctrine is in the Bible, he must hedge that statement with the acknowledgement that the individual believer can never touch the fullness of that doctrine except with the help of the Catholic Church’s teachings.
Reading the Scriptures is a communal effort, and it must be carried out according to the regular order of the covenant community. In other words, we must respect the opinions of those in authority over us as binding upon us, and we must accept the interpretations made by our brethren as equal to our own. We may not shout them down if they disagree with us or rebel against our pastors if they call on us to recant what they consider to be heretical. We may seek to persuade other members of the covenant, and we may appeal to other pastors, but we may not go it alone as Martin Luther did.
” The statement, "We cannot read Scripture accurately or faithfully unless we accept every element of the Church’s life along with it," begs the question, "What out of all that happens within the visible church constitutes a legitimate element of the Church's life?" Other than that, I agree.”
Very good. Then it seems we are approaching an understanding. My assertion is that when the Catholic Church says Scripture is part of Tradition, this is the principle that is implied. We must read Scripture in the light of St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Councils, and the liturgy, and the whole history of orthodox thought because these are the manifestations of the life of the Church.
It seems you would agree to this in principle, but would disagree with me over what constitutes the whole history of orthodox thought.
I probably go too far for you, however, when I say that Aquinas’s writings are of the same essence as the Scriptures. I contend that they are both manifestations of the Church’s life. The Scriptures are devoid of error and magnitudes upon magnitudes higher in dignity than the Summa Theologica, but the Bible and the Summa are two members of the same set, as I see it. I would appreciate it if you would address this point, and also answer your own question as to how we determine what constitutes a legitimate element of the Church’s life.
” You claim that the function of Scripture "is not to be the prerequisite of the other parts of the Church’s life." In order that I can know just what you mean by this, would you provide some examples of the Church's life for which Scripture is not a prerequisite?”
The first example that comes to mind is prayer. We address God and meditate upon His mysteries. Scripture is an integral element of prayer, but it is not a prerequisite. We need to know only that God exists in order to pray, and we may obtain this information from numerous sources other than Scripture – our parents, for instance.
Andrew- Don't worry about it and you're not interfering with anything. I'd like to respond to the other comments I've been getting in order, so it's going to take a bit longer to get to this one.
Posted by: Kevin at março 24, 2005 1:48 PMThat's fine. It's a very interesting conversation.
Incidentally, you seem to be returning to the Catholic view of original sin as the lack of original grace when you say that man became fallen not by a change in his nature but by the departure of the Holy Spirit. Of course, you add in the idea of irresistible grace, which makes the redeemed under the New Covenant different from pre-Fall Adam, but otherwise, it seems you side with Catholicism against Reformed theology on this one. Might want to rethink how your view fits in with Reformism.
I would like to point out, furthermore, that Clifton's account of the will is more in keeping with Patristic thought. The Fathers conceived of nature according to a Platonic/Aristotelian model. Thus, every human being has the same nature. If the will proceeded simply from the nature, every human being would have the same will. But we don't because, though we have the same nature, we are different persons. The will proceeds from the person, which proceeds from the nature.
I'm just making a tangential comment. If you want to respond to something I say, please respond to the above, and not to this.
Speaking of which, I neglect to address something above which I ought to.
""It is not the historical reality of Cana which is finally significant, but the eternal reality of Christ’s Being." This one's going to need some explaining. When you say "finally significant," are you saying this because you believe that the only sensible way to speak of revelation is "that which is being revealed (Christ) and the subjective apprehension of that which is being revealed"? This would mean that the historical reality of Cana is significant in its own right (it had to happen in order for the written revelation to be true and significant) but that, properly speaking, it is not revelation."
Close, but I would say it is properly speaking revelation, but that it is no more truly a revelation than the revelation that occurs when you read the account. It may be more perfectly revelatory, but the essence of revelation is present in both events.
Again, this goes back to my statement that there is an objective revelation, which is Christ Himself, and many subjective revelations which are the events of apprehension in which Christ becomes known by a human being. There is no more Revelation in the sense that no more can be said about Christ than has already been said in the Incarnation but the subjective apprehension of that which has been said is continually renewed. In the (subjective) sense, the Scriptures are a new revelation and so is the reading of the Scriptures.
You seem to be trying to focus on the medium as a third sort of revelation, and I don't think that will fly. The miracle at Cana was revelation in the sense that people witnessing the miracle saw Christ and beheld an aspect of His nature which was previously hidden from them. Had Christ performed the same miracle without witnesses, it would not have been revelation in the terms I am using. Thus, the medium (the miracle), is not properly called revelation.
Scripture, then, is only revelation when it is in the minds and hearts of the faithful. As an unread book, the Bible is not revelation in any sense.
"Or, are you saying that the only finally significant thing is the subjective apprehension of the eternal reality of Christ's being? In this case, the written account is so sufficient in revealing Christ that the connection of the narrative to historical reality is irrelevant. Maybe it did happen, maybe it didn't. Either way, the eternal Christ has been revealed to me just as well. In this case, my objection will have to be a lot stronger. But I won't make any objection unless I have reason to believe you actually meant this."
I am saying that subjective apprehension and the eternal reality of Christ are the only finally significant things in the sense that they are the things which define what is and is not revelatory. The mediums are definitive only in the sense that there must be a medium for the subjective apprehension to take place. However, the definition of revelation does not require us to posit any particular medium. If we leave it at that, then, a dead rat may be as good as the Bible. We should obviously not leave it at that, however.
Other things do require us to posit particular media. For instance, the Truthfulness of God requires us to posit the truthfulness of the Scriptures, and the necessity of our adherence to the Church requires us to adhere also to the Scriptures. Contrariwise, the necessity of our adherence to the Scriptures requires our adherence to the Church. In the interactions between media, there is no one medium which is foundational. Rather, they fit together like parts of the body.
Posted by: Andrew at março 25, 2005 8:03 AMSorry. I meant that the conversation you're having with Clifton presently in an interesting one (forgot to indicate context there). And I proceeded to comment.
Also, I don't know if I made it clear in what sense I consider the miracle at Cana to be revelation.
Posted by: Andrew at março 25, 2005 8:16 AMDeacon Kevin- The vision of a single church without denominations is, as I see it, an unrealistic ideal. It will be realized in Heaven, but then, there are certain things about Heaven that just don't obtain down here. Serious attempts at making a denominationally undivided church a priority will always result in something artificial. At the most, it would be unity based on outward appearance. We could have slogans like, "Love unites, doctrine divides." And then we just hope that when our doctrinal convictions are subordinated to being loving that the truth doesn't get thrown away too. How about some crusades? We could convert people to a single denomination on pain of death or other unpleasantries. The problem with striving for visible unity is that success will be at the expense of what should really unite us. Our unity is based in Christ. It should express itself both in love and truth, not in one over the other; otherwise, we end up losing both.
There are denominations that exist for stupid and petty reasons; there are denominations whose people display a lack of love for those in other denominations; there are denominations that are so wrong in their doctrine so as to be false expressions of the true church. However, it would be a mistake to conclude from this that denominations themselves are a bad thing to be cured at all costs.
On the other hand, the church should strive to be united both in love and in truth. Love is a choice. There is nothing to stop us from loving across denominational boundaries. Since this is the case, then denominational boundaries are not, in themselves, any hindrance to this kind of unity. Might it be more difficult to love those in other denominations, with whom we don't see eye to eye? Of course, but then real love is rarely as effortless as a natural disposition for chocolate.
As to unity in the truth, the obvious solution would be for everyone to see the error of his ways and join the OPC. It's not likely to happen, though, and I doubt it's because all those people sticking to their own denominations know that we're right and just don't care. Yes, there are people who couldn't care less about truth. But there are also those who do, who dilegently study the Word, who pay attention to the teaching within their church, and who are genuinely convinced that their church's teaching is in line with Scripture. Should we make them practice the faith in a manner against their conscience just so we can have a single denomination?
I'm not saying that it's possible to believe anything and still be a part of the Church. There is a core of faith and practice that is essential to the gospel. Yet, even this, though the substance is the same, can be expressed in ways that might seem foreign to those in a different Christian tradition. Truth is truth and heresy is heresy, but neither one will always be understood in the same way. Part of loving beyond denominatinal boundaries is going to be found in the attempt to decipher which is which. Just because we don't understand people in other churches doesn't mean that they're wrong. On the other hand, it doesn't mean that they're right. There are times to question other beliefs, often by a clear articulation of our own (and we shouldn't be too proud and sure of ourselves to accept reciprocation).
As to the unity that exists in heaven, this is not based on a lack of denominations, but on union with Christ. We, the elect of God, already have that unity here on Earth. Even though the conditions of this life may conspire against a full manifestation thereof, our unity is an underlyng fact of our existence as the people of God. There is one Lord; there is one faith; there is one baptism. For those who are united to Christ, this is reality, not a goal.
Thank you for putting Cyprian in context. I was able to read the entire epistle and I still like the quote. Cyprian displays a high regard both for the authority and necessity of the Church in salvation, and for the sufficiency of Scripture for matters of faith and practice. The two positions need not be held in tension. But then, having said that, the Western Church, at least, has determined that he was wrong on the specific point he was defending. I have to agree.
Posted by: Kevin at março 26, 2005 8:33 PMKevin-
I think I probably did not articulate my point very well.
Your post, while being both articulate and specific, seemed to outline the reality of division in the Church, and the fact that re-establishing unity would necessitate some other forms of evil, such as coercive acts or ultra-inclusion. I firmly agree with you here.
I disagree with your point in your first post (or perhaps just with the wording of it) which states that you "don't see denominations as a necessarily bad thing dividing the body of Christ (though, again, they can)."
Denominations are, by definition, a division in the Church. This is intrinsically evil, regardless of the heresy that caused it, or the seemingly impossible route to unity. It is Christ's prayer (and command) that we all may be one, as Him and the Father are one. There is one faith, one hope, one Baptism, one God and Father of all. One.
I also agree that there still exists One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church regardless of denominational divisions. I'm not trying to be triumphal.....nevertheless-- a denomination is a division.
I did not suggest that denominational differences should be wiped out at all costs...my writing is often ineffective. The damage has already been done. I do believe strongly that the idea of having different denominations as a way of settling disputes or doctrinal or yes, even cultural differences is definately not the form of government that Christ instituted.
Posted by: Deacon Kevin at março 27, 2005 12:25 PMAndrew- I have responded up here.
Posted by: Kevin at março 29, 2005 11:46 PM