Hey Dave, thanks for the link. I appreciate your appreciation. I was especially tickled that you had to make sure to give me credit for the Calvin in flames picture.
This is the classic Sola Scriptora problem. How can we respect those who disagree with us and still be sure we are right? If both are teaching "clear" scripture you can't. Calvinists attempt to analyze the flaws in their Armenians brothers and Armenians do the same to the Calvinists. It has been going on for centuries.
The catholic answer is basically "we don't know." Sure they have condemned heresies that flow from the excesses of both positions but much freedom is allowed. It is ironic that us Catholics, who are suposedly told by Rome what to think every minute of the day, end up being the ones who are not dogmatic here.
Apart from that, there is definitely an uncharitable animus that emanates from the Calvinists that isn't nearly as prevalent among Arminian Protestants. This is a far bigger issue than sola Scriptura (though I wouldn't deny the truthfulness of your analysis).
Arminians often are treated much the same way that Catholics are (since these sorts of Calvinists often put us in the same boat as Semi-Pelagians or Pelagians). It's above all a sin against charity and Christian unity. The devil rejoices in that.
I don't have to lie about Christian brothers and sisters. I can critique and defend my view and pay proper respect to other Christians as sincere, committed followers of Christ without the ugliness and reading people out of the fold without adequate reason.
Randy, I would agree that there is an issue with Sola Scripture as it is played out here. I think it is interesting how literary theory in a postmodern age has been interacting with Biblical interpretation, especially in regards to Sola Scriptura. I must admit that there is an appealing aspect of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox understanding of the authority of the church. I would point out, however, that the Wesleyan-Methodist movement descends from the Anglican fellowship which was the "middle-way". Because of this and further Wesleyan thought we Methodists tend to think of things in a theological quadrilateral: Scripture, tradition, reason, experience, with Scripture being the utmost authority.
As far as Dave's comments about being charitable, I think that all traditions would benefit from this, and I continue to have my heart worked on by God's grace. I understand and appreciate both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church's contention that they are the "true" church. However, I have also experienced grace and a hand of fellowship from both, especially Roman Catholics (I've just encounter more of them). My faith has been enriched by both traditions, and I think if we can all disagree well we would all benefit. In the end it is Christ that will unite us, and I hope and trust that God's grace will cover my ignorance.
I appreciate the clarification Mofast. I do feel that the "middle way" is an illusion. You either have authority outside of yourself or you don't. That it is your view of scripture, your view of tradition, what is reasonable to you, what experience has taught you, etc. As long as you are trapped in private judgement then you have the choice between arrogance or impotence. You say you are CLEARLY right and everyone who disagrees has very bad private judgment. That makes you arrogant. Otherwise you can say the question is unclear. That difference of opinion is valid. That makes you impotent because you give people an easy out from the teaching.
On this question the impotent option is not bad. As I said, the Catholic church allows people to disagree on this matter. On many matters we need to have certainty of what God's truth is but not a certainty that comes from ourselves. We need it from someplace else.
"Romanolotry"...LOL
Was it just me or were you expecting him to define that as the way Catholics are "characterized" so often in those blogs just as he sees Arminans characterized?
I still like the definition he gave though.
I like the "theological house of cards that is the system of Calvinism contains no presuppositions or philosophical thought" comment because I and many others have noticed the same thing.
I do feel that the "middle way" is an illusion. You either have authority outside of yourself or you don't.
Sure, and I honestly don't mean this flippantly, that's why you side with Rome. However, your point is one that we need to address as Wesleyans. I submit myself to my bishop. I would also hold up the Apostles and Nicene Creeds as something that all Christians should be able to agree on (though we don't) as they both came before the splits.
I would say that the dichotomy between arrogance and ignorance is a false one. I suspect at the root of this disagreement is the disagreement we have as to what the definition of the true church is - and that is one where we will just respectfully disagree. I understand "tradition" to mean the voice of the Catholic (universal) Christian Church. Within this umbrella are teachings that would fall under the realm of orthodoxy. Calvinism and Arminianism are in this realm. However, there are things that are not - for example Christians believe that Christ was raised from the dead. While it is true that as I submit myself to Scripture and tradition as I see them, to an extent, I would also submit that I am not completely divorced from my Christian context, my Communion, and the Holy Spirit (again, this is probably where our different understandings of Church come in to play). Could it not also be said that Roman Catholics choose their views as well, but they just choose them in one lump sum when they become Roman Catholic?
I said that there was an element of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox view of the church's authority that I found appealing. I think that is because I agree with you that the Christian life involves submission to authority. There are times in my own denomination that I wish we had a clear teaching from our bishops so that we knew where we stood - because, as you have pointed out, when everyone begins interpreting Scripture "as I see it," things get messy. However, I really do believe that the Wesleyan appeal to the greater church tradition provides a way for submission. There are issues where I and other faithful and gifted Christians differ with Rome in their Biblical interpretation and ecclesiology. I am protestant. However, I do appreciate your point in regards to the importance of submission to the Church.
I'm rambling...
Feel free to ramble. That is what comment boxes are for! Yes, this is one of the core differences between protestants and Catholics. That does not mean we should not ponder these questions. We need to be unafraid to examine our foundational beliefs.
I understand "tradition" to mean the voice of the Catholic (universal) Christian Church
This must be skewed somehow. Otherwise it would seem to lead you to accept all ecumenical councils. At the very least the ones before the Orthodox split. There must be some sense of avoiding the really Catholic doctrines. I am not complaining but just trying to understand how you can take seriously the whole of Christian tradition and still reject tall the stuff protestants typically reject. I believe Methodists do reject those but you can confirm that as well.
There are issues where I and other faithful and gifted Christians differ with Rome in their Biblical interpretation and ecclesiology
Yes, the key sticking point is always private interpretation. I don't think it should be suspended entirely. I didn't. I had to dig into every issue before I converted. Still the idea that my opinion and my tradition would end up being the truth turned out to be mostly foolish pride. Why was I surprised?
"Yes, the key sticking point is always private interpretation. I don't think it should be suspended entirely. I didn't. I had to dig into every issue before I converted"
Exactly - everyone privately interprets to decide what church to join and authority to submit to. So this old canard by RC's about using private judgment kind of obscures the issue. I think the real issue is simply the need for *infallible* authority. RC's seem completely fine with a Protestant or EO interpreting history/scripture and coming to the RC conclusion and then leaving his church to join them, but if it's vice versa then forget it. Coming with that though is the need to drop any further private judgment that contradicts RC dogma given the claim of infallibility. It's just interesting that the very principle you use to join an EO or RC church is then supposed to be done away with. So really the question is not should/does the church have authority (everyone agrees it does) or how do you know (everyone is going to privately interpret scripture and tradition to come to their conclusion), but does it necessarily have to have infallible authority? If it doesn't, RC/EO have no epistemological advantage.
I replied to this common argument of Interlocutor, in a new paper (using mostly portions of old papers):
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...protestant.html
Commenting by HaloScan
