Sunday, May 23, 2010
Images of Jesus are in Violation of Sola Scriptura (Part 3)
The third argument is that images of Jesus are a clear violation of the biblical teaching of sola scriptura . Sola Scriptura is the Protestant doctrine that scripture alone is the only infallible authority for faith and practice . This principle is taught in 1 Corinthians 4:6 when Paul says “that you may learn by us the saying not to go beyond what is written”. The Greek word for “written” here is gegraptai and every time gegraptai is used in the Pauline epistles it always means the Old Testament scripture . Hence, this verse establishes the principle that whatever scripture we have we are not to go beyond it with respect to faith and practice. Clearly then things involving images of Jesus Christ is something concerning faith and practice. The problem is that there is nothing in scripture that suggests that we ought to believe that it is morally permissible to make pictures of Jesus. The burden of proof is on those who believe it is morally permissible to make, have, or endorse images of Jesus because they have to show where it teaches in scripture that people ought to believe such a practice is morally permissible. After all, if we allow pictures of Jesus into our faith and practice then how is this any different from allowing such theological belief’s as Mary Ascending into heaven before she died. It is hard to see how a belief about Mary Ascending into heaven is anymore warranted than a belief that pictures of Jesus are permissible to make, have, or endorse. Hence, if one wants to have a more consistently biblical Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura then they ought not to believe that it is morally permissible to hold to the pictures of Jesus position.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nate,
ReplyDeleteDo you think that the Eucharist is a representation of the body of Christ?
MG,
ReplyDeleteYes, I do.
God Bless,
NPT
Nate,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"The problem is that there is nothing in scripture that suggests that we ought to believe that it is morally permissible to make pictures of Jesus."
Given that Scripture commands us to give visual representation of the body of Christ in the Eucharist, how is this different from Scripture saying we ought to make pictures of Jesus?
There is nothing in Scripture that says it is permissible to cross the street, or drive a car, or use a computer, or believe in general relativity. How is this different?
ReplyDeleteIn other words, your formulation of Sola Scriptura is an implausibly strong one.
Hello Gentlemen,
ReplyDeleteI am writing a lots of sermons right now for my internship in Washington so I am pressed for time. The Sola Scriptura argument is the only reason I believe in this position (weakly I might add) as of now. So I will try to respond to the other arguments in two weeks time, but I will be arguing for the sake of arguing because I do not believe the other arguments are successful. MG, I believe that the only visual representation that the Bible commands is the bread and the wine in the Eucharist, but no other pictures of Jesus are permitted in scripture. Kenny Sola Scriptura is only with respect to faith and practice so it does not address the fields of inquiry you have brought up. So I do not know how you got that my view of SS was so strong, it is just the classical view. I will continue posting the other parts because it is from a paper I have already written. You two have a great summer!
God Bless,
NPT
Hi Nathanael,
ReplyDeleteI realize you may not have time to debate this point at the moment, but this isn't the classical formulation of SS. Here's the WCF:
"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture ... Nevertheless we acknowledge ... that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human action and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed." (1.6)
Now, I agree with you that the making of images of Christ is neither "set down in Scripture" nor deducible from Biblical teaching. But all that follows from that, according to the WCF formulation of SS, is that the making of images of Christ is not "necessary for [God's] glory, man's salvation, faith, and life." It doesn't follow that the making of images is prohibited. In fact, the last part of the quotation above seems to suggest that if the use of images is not prohibited by Scripture they could even be used in public worship. (It is not clear to me, though, how this is to be interpreted in light of sect. 21.1.) Now, it seems to me much more plausible to say that the Second Commandment prohibits the use of images in worship, than to say that it prohibits the making of images of Jesus, so it still might not be acceptable to use these images in public worship. However, the WCF formulation of SS plus the Bible's silence on images of Jesus is not enough to get the view that images of Jesus are prohibited. (Actually, it's also not enough to get the view that belief in the Assumption of Mary is prohibited either; all it gets you is that belief in the Assumption of Mary is unnecessary.)
Hello Kenny,
ReplyDeleteThe WCF is actually a later Reformed confession and I agree that it does not set forth SS as clearly as it should have (although everyone at the Westminster assembly to my knowledge held to SS as I so have defined). I am not ecclesiastically bound to the WCF either, but rather the three of unity. However, the Belgic which is a early document does so:
Article 5: The Authority of Scripture
* We receive all these books and these only as holy and canonical, for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith.
Article 32: The Order and Discipline of the Church
* We also believe that although it is useful and good for those who govern the churches to establish and set up a certain order among themselves for maintaining the body of the church, they ought always to guard against deviating from what Christ, our only Master, has ordained for us.
Therefore we reject all human innovations and all laws imposed on us, in our worship of God, which bind and force our consciences in any way.
All this to say: that the only canon or rule which regulates our faith and practice is scripture because as Matthew you teaches we ought to avoid the commandments and doctrines of Men (Matt. 15). So I think this clearly expresses the classical Reformed doctrine of SS.
God Bless,
NPT
Nathanael -
ReplyDeleteBe that as it may, it causes the same problem for your argument as the WCF version: all this establishes is that there cannot be a "law imposed on us" to require us to make/use images; it doesn't show that we can't make/use images. Matthew 15 describes a case where the leaders are using tradition to circumvent Biblical commandments. This isn't really what's at issue here. The question is, does the fact that the Bible doesn't say whether or not we can do some religious act show that we can't do it, and it seems to me that whether you take the WCF or the Belgic Confession or anything else, the answer is still no. You need to argue that the Bible tells us not to do it, not just that the Bible doesn't tell us to do it.
Kenny,
ReplyDeleteThe fact that a later Reformed confession disagrees with my assessment of Sola Scriptura is not really a problem for my argument because 1) my argument is a biblical argument from 1 Cor. 4:6, and 2) the Belgic confession endorses my understanding of SS. I just cited it and it says that the Bible is the only rule that regulates our faith (Article 5). My argument in the above post is sufficient to show that the bible by logical implication prohibits having images of Jesus. How would your view of SS deal with someone who thinks it is okay to believe in the fourth member of the trinity called the cousin? Matthew 15:8 seems to teach against the teachings of man by virtue of the fact that it is not God's teaching but mans. So I think the occasion for Jesus teaching this is because the religious leaders were making void God's word by the teachings of man, but it does not follow from that Jesus was teaching a broader Principe (as he does in verse 8) that we ought not to follow the teaching of man with respect to faith and practice.
God Bless,
NPT
But the Belgic Confession doesn't support your argument. Your interpretation of the Belgic Confession is right: "the only canon or rule which regulates our faith and practice is scripture." This means that whatever is commanded by Scripture we must do, and whatever is prohibited by Scripture we must not do. It also means (here's where the 'sola' comes in) that we are not bound by the 'commandments of men'. (Of course, the Reformers didn't intend a complete denial of all ecclesiastic authority, and such a denial would be unbiblical, but leave that aside for now.) But I can't for the life of me see how you get from that to your claim that we ought not to do anything that the Scripture doesn't tell us to do. In fact, it seems to imply just the opposite: it seems that when the scripture doesn't tell us not to do something, no mere man has the right to tell us not to do it. But isn't that just what you are doing here: telling us not to do something, when the Scripture doesn't say anything either way? This seems to me like imposing 'commandments of men.'
ReplyDeleteMatt. 15 and 1 Cor. 4:6 don't support your reading either. There is not a single word in Matt. 15 that tells us not to follow 'traditions of men' or 'commandments of men'; it only tells us not to use traditions or commandments of men to abrogate Scripture. Furthermore, we are elsewhere commanded to keep traditions and commandments, at least in certain circumstances (e.g. Matt. 23:2, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6). (This means that the claim that commandments and traditions of men do not bind the conscience will need to be qualified in some way, but this gets into complicated issues I would rather avoid right now.) So not only is your 'general principle' not to be found in Matt. 15, but it is actually contradicted by other parts of Scripture.
As to 1 Cor. 4:6, we should first not that this is one of the many phrases in 1 Cor. that some scholars believe to be a quotation of a popular proverb or a phrase from the Corinthians letter to Paul (HCSB puts it in quotation marks, for instance). Most of these phrases Paul treats as true in some sense, but he wants to guard against misinterpretations of them. It appears here that Paul's purpose is to guard Christian leaders from pride by prohibiting them from just making up whatever commandments they feel like. That is to say, the passage supports the form of SS given by both the Belgic Confession and the WCF: the view that Scripture alone has the authority to 'bind the conscience' of the believer, in a way that the believer is not bound to just any arbitrary command of a church leader.
As far as adding members to the Trinity, note first that the proper interpretation of SS would obviously prevent the teaching of this view in the church. In terms of private belief, we cannot merely say 'the Bible doesn't say that, so you can't believe it.' What one would like is to show that it is contradictory to Scripture, and this can probably be done. What is simpler is just to point out that this is not the sort of thing that human reason is equipped to discover, and therefore if it's not supernaturally revealed to us we can have no rational basis for believing in it, but Scripture is all the supernatural revelation we've got.
Hell Kenny,
ReplyDeleteIf the belgic is teaching that scripture is the only rule that regulates our faith and I believe something about my faith namely that I should have pictures of Jesus and this cannot be found in scripture then it follows that scripture alone is not the only things that is regulating my faith. So it seems on the belgics understanding of SS it would prohibit pictures of Jesus because the only way one could get is if the reject scripture as the only regulation of faith.
In verse 9 of Matthew 15 it speaks of the traditions of men in a negative fashion and so the natural inference there would to take the traditions of men as a negative things with respect to faith and practice. How is this contradicted by other scriptures?
The commentators that hold 1 Cor. 4:6 is not referring to scripture are mistaken because the Greek word for “written” here is gegraptai and every time gegraptai is used in the Pauline epistles it always means the Old Testament scripture. I do not see any reason to believe your reconstruction of how Paul was using this. I believe that my understanding of SS fits the preceding context better because in 1 Corinthians 1-3 Paul repeatedly condemns the wisdom of man in general and praises the wisdom of God which would suggest that the wisdom of man is something that we ought to avoid with respect to faith and practice. This would not be referring to the church leaders because in verse 4-5 seem to be referring to the Corinthians as whole. So the Corinthians were commanded as a whole not to go beyond scripture and so we ought not to do anything in terms of faith and practice that is not in scripture.
How does the fourth member the cousin contradict scripture? I could merely say that Romans 1:18-22 says that people can know things about God and I immediately intuitively know that there is a fourth person of the trinity called the cousin. Lastly, were does scripture say that we cannot discover things about God?
God Bless,
NPT
(1) Do you read the Belgic Confession as denying that there are any epistemic norms relevant to religious belief other than conformity to Scripture? If so, I have several questions: (a) How do you reconcile this with natural revelation, recognized in BC art. 2 and Rom. 1? (b) How do you justify the use of natural reason in the interpretation of Scripture (e.g. the use of logic to derive consequences from Scripture)? (c) How do you demarcate 'religious belief' from other belief? (d) How do you justify belief the SS principle itself (that sure seems like a religious belief)? (e) Finally, where do you see this in the text of the BC? I've looked through the sections whose headings looked relevant, and I can't find it. Certainly no such radical doctrine is taught in art. 5 or 32. Perhaps I have misunderstood you.
ReplyDelete(2) I cited a bunch of other Scriptures that speak positively about tradition. Second, it is simply not a sound inference to say 'Jesus here speaks negatively about x, therefore x is always bad.' Jesus speaks negatively about wealth, marriage, etc. in a number of places, but we can't draw conclusions of unlimited scope from this. We have to take the context of the passage into account. Matthew 15 points out a specific abuse of tradition by the Pharisees. This is surely compatible with tradition in general being bad, but it by no means entails it. Third, if tradition is always bad, why do you identify yourself with the Reformed tradition?
(3) I didn't say that 1 Cor. 4:6 didn't refer to the Scirptures. It clearly does. I said that some scholars believe that the phrase "nothing beyond what is written" (i.e. "nothing beyond the Scriptures") was either a common saying or a phrase from the Corinthians' letter to Paul, and Paul's comments are meant to explain the sense in which this saying is true. My view is that Paul's teaching here is that we are not to lay obligations on others which are not found in Scripture. This is applied especially to Christian leaders, because they are most prone to this error (and people are most hurt by their erring in this way), but it has application to everyone. This is Paul's consistent teaching. See, e.g., Romans 14. The 'faith and practice' restriction on which your interpretation depends is not to be found in 1 Cor. 4, and runs up against this very serious demarcation problem: what constitutes a 'practice'? For instance, is making an image of Jesus intended solely for artistic purposes (to be hung in a gallery, not a church) a 'practice' in the relevant sense? There is no guidance to be found in 1 Cor. 4 about how to draw this distinction. My interpretation has the advantage of not requiring such a distinction.
(4) Trinitarian theology and religious epistemology are both hard. But surely if SS means anything it means that we can't call a belief heterodox unless it contradicts Scripture. Sometimes it is hard to show that a belief (or practice) contradicts Scripture. Fortunately, we have a long tradition to draw on and can learn from the great theologians and Biblical commentators of the past how to derive doctrines, such as "three and only three", from Scripture. If there is no such derivation then, according to SS, "three and only three" cannot be a dogma of the faith.
I want to push the challenge Kenny raised earlier, which was about the Bible saying nothing about crossing the street, from which the burden would be on him to show why it is morally impressible, and that would be ridiculous. The response, in turn, was that burden holds only in matters of faith and practice. And, I take it, what the burden is (if there is a burden) is to show the moral permissibility of the act or otherwise refrain from the act.
ReplyDeleteSo, Nathanael, what would say about the following things I am considering doing, but cannot *show* that they are morally permissible:
(1) to first visit the church 5 miles south rather than 5 miles north; suppose I am looking for a church home.
(2) to write a check for my Sunday tithe rather than place cash in the bowl;
(3) to drink the wine at the Lord's table rather than bring it and the bread back to my seat before eating and drinking it.
Do these qualify as matters of faith and practice? If they don't, then I don't know what else possibly could! If you grant that they are, the next thing to notice is that I don't have any idea of how to show the moral permissibility of any of these acts. But then by your rule, it follows that I should refrain from, say, visiting the church five miles south before the one five miles north. And since I can replicate this for visiting the church five miles north rather than going south, and again for any new churches I consider, it follows that I shouldn't visit any new churches. Absurdity! Similar problems arise in the second and third cases raised.
How would you answer this objection?
Hello Kenny,
ReplyDeleteWith respect to 1: I would say that scripture teaches natural revelation so SS is compatible with that. I would say that scriptures encourages us to use natural reason in interpreting the scriptures so that this is compatible with SS. As for how I would separate religious belief from regular belief, I am not sure that I have a clear criteria for that but I do not see any reason for thinking that I need one. One could simply just know when seeing particular beliefs whether or not they are religious or not. I would justify SS by 1 Corinthians 4:6. Article 5 says that the only rule for our faith is scripture, so there is no other rule than that for faith and practice, that is what I have been advocating this entire time.
As for 2: I would say it like this if Jesus speaks badly about x then x is always bad unless scripture tells us otherwise. I think those qualifications should answer your concerns about wealth and marriage. I only agree with the Reformed tradition because I believe all of it is taught in scripture. Matthew 15 is talking about traditions that are not found in the scripture.
As for 3: I would say the context of 1 Corinthians 4 is concerning faith and practice so that is how I get that from the text. As for your art Gallery question it could be that art work of Jesus could be hung in a gallery and it not be a matter of faith and practice.
As for 4: Well I only think the trinity is a very hard view for your understanding of SS, but as for mine I would be very comfortable calling someone a heretic who adds things to nature of God without scriptural warrant.
God Bless,
NPT
Hello James,
ReplyDeleteI do not think that my view of SS has the outrageous consequences that you paint. The ethical code we have to live by is loving the Lord with all of heart mind, soul, and strength and we also have to follow the natural law which is our moral intuitions in Romans 1 through 2. So to all of your questions one would have to determine if doing or refraining all of those actions would be loving God with all your heart and in line with your natural law intuitions from these two perspectives one can answer those questions and hold to SS. As for 1 and 2 if both equally show your love for God then both are morally permissible. 3 is up to the wisdom of your elders and you are obligated to follow their instructions because the Bible gives them authority over you. So that is how I would respond to these objections.
God Bless,
NPT
Nathanael,
ReplyDeleteI apologize if I come on a little strong in what follows. I take it that, having had some exposure to analytic philosophy, you will understand that my criticisms of your position are made without any personal animosity. Also, it seems that I have to break this into two posts because it's too long; the first will deal with 1 Cor. 4, and the second with BC.
Let's get the text and context on the table.
1 Cor. 4:1-7 (HCSB)
A person should consider us in this way: as servants of Christ and managers of God's mysteries. In this regard, it is expected of managers that each one be found faithful. It is of little importance that I should be evaluated by you or by a human court. In fact, I don't even evaluate myself. For I am not conscious of anything against myself, but I am not justified by this. The One who evaluates me is the Lord. Therefore, don't judge anything prematurely, before the Lord comes, who will both bring to light what is hidden in darkness and reveal the intentions of the hears. And then praise will come to each one from God.
Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the saying: "Nothing beyond what is written." The purpose is that none of you will be inflated with pride in favor of one person over another. For who makes you so superior? What do you have that you didn't receive? If, in fact, you did receive it, why do you boast as if you hadn't received it?
Now, I don't think I understand your interpretation of this passage. My interpretation goes like this: vv. 1-5 apply the saying "Nothing beyond what is written" to two church leaders, namely Paul and Apollos. How is the saying applied? By commanding the Corinthians not to judge, Only God judges. If the fact that only God judges is to be relevant to the saying "nothing beyond what is written," then the interpretation must be that
"what is written", i.e. the Scripture, is God's judgment. The Corinthians are thus seen as applying an invalid standard of judgment to support their sectarianism, thinking Paul superior to Apollos or Apollos superior to Paul. Instead, they should stick to the saying, "nothing beyond what is written" and not apply extraneous standards of judgment. This means that as long as the life and teaching of Church leaders is consistent with Scripture, we have no grounds to criticize them. But you go farther: you say that we can criticize them whenever their "faith and practice" (whatever that is) is not actually commanded by Scripture. I don't see where you are getting that, unless by lifting v. 6 from its context.
(Actually it looks like I need three posts - sorry to be long-winded.)
ReplyDeleteBC Art. 5:
We receive all these books, and these only, as holy and canonical, for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith; believing, without any doubt, all things contained in them, not so much because the Church receives and approves them as such, but more especially because the Holy Ghost witnesseth in our hearts that they are from God, whereof they carry the evidence in themselves. For the very blind are able to perceive that the things foretold in them are fulfilling.
I don't see how you think this supports your reading at all. In fact, I'm not sure I would even call this a formulation of SS; it doesn't explicitly state that church authority is inferior to Biblical authority, for instance, it just says that no other BOOKS are "holy and canonical, for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith." You would do better to cite art. 7:
We believe that these Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation, is sufficiently taught therein. For since the whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an Apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures ... For since it is forbidden to add unto or take away any thing form the Word of God, it doth thereby evidently appear that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects. Neither may we compare any writings of men, though ever so holy, with those divine Scriptures; nor ought we to compare custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times or persons, or councils, decrees, or statutes, with the truth of God, for the truth is above all ... Therefore, we reject with all our hearts whatsoever doth not agree with this infallible rule...
Now that is a formulation of SS. It consists, I think, of three doctrines:
(1) That any teaching contrary to Scripture is to be rejected.
(2) That "whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation" and "the whole manner of worship which God requires of us" is to be found in Scripture.
(3) That all other norms to which one might appeal in any discussion of religious faith or practice are so inferior to Scripture as to be unworthy of comparison.
Now, all of this is compatible with the standard Protestant doctrine that whereas Scripture is the norma normans ("norming norm"), tradition, church authority, etc. are normae normatae ("normed norms"), i.e. that there are other valid authorities, but the validity of these is to be judged by their conformity with Scripture. Furthermore, note that in point (2) I have quoted the explicit language of the confession and it speaks of what one "ought" to believe and what one is "required" to practice. It says nothing of what one may believe or practice. This is in line with my interpretation of SS (also, as we have previously discussed, adopted by the WCF), according to which Scripture alone has the authority to "bind the conscience" of the believer - i.e. to lay obligations on us. (I would argue that Scripture lays on us a limited obligation to obey church and civil authority; the principle shouldn't be interpreted so as to exclude this possibility.)
You have not shown that your radical interpretation has any basis in Scripture or in the Protestant confessions. Furthermore, your "I know it when I see it" standard for what counts as "faith and practice" makes for radical subjectivism. Your answer to James renders it worthless anyway, since we can always claim that any action follows from loving God. This will, in the end, render your principle vacuous. Finally, I am still not convinced that your overall position is internally consistent. You have not answered my objection that the Scripture often speaks positively of tradition, so let me re-post my short list of citations: Matt. 23:2, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6. In order for your position to be internally consistent, you need to show (a) that none of these Scriptures amounts to allowing a positive role for tradition, and (b) that the Scripture actually teaches your position. (I have thus far found your repeated citations of 1 Cor. 4:6 unconvincing.) If you can do those two things, you will get internal consistency. However, even if that succeeds, there is still the problem of circular justification. BC 5 (like the WCF) says that we know that truth of the Scripture by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. But your principle does not seem to allow our 'faith' to be based on religious experience (or whatever the witness of the Holy Spirit might be). Thus it seems that not only are you in conflict with your confessions (again), but you can give no non-circular account of how we can be justified in believing the Scripture. SS is (IMO) a poor candidate for a 'properly basic belief' (if there even are such things), and even coherentists don't like such tight circles as "I believe the Bible is true because the Bible says so." The actual Reformed position, laid out by the Confessions, is much more plausible: it gives a primary role to the witness of the Holy Spirit (i.e. religious experience) and a secondary role to the witness of the Church in explaining how we have justified belief in the Scripture. That's a good view, but it's incompatible with your formulation of SS.
ReplyDeleteKenny,
ReplyDeleteDo not worry I am not offended by anything you have said. I am not that passionate about this issue so forgive my apathy (pictures of Jesus is the least of the things on my agenda, but my friend David N strongly who is on this blog encouraged me to post my paper after 30 minutes of persuading).
In 1 Corinthians 4:6 I would take it to mean that we are not to go beyond the scripture to be a prescription. The reason for this is because the text says that we should not go beyond the scriptures, but it seems to me that you want to localize to judgments of church leaders. So perhaps your read is something like this we should not go beyond the things that are written with respect to criticizing others. However, the text simply does not say that it just simply says in general do not go beyond what is written. Now the issue here is both my understanding of Scripture alone and your understanding would answer Paul's problem with the Corinthians as derived from the context. The problem is Paul seems to be teaching a more universalizable catch phrase to fix this problem whereas you are trying to localize it to judging church leaders. The reason why my interpretation is more preferable is because Paul does not qualify the catch phrase the way you do rather he just seems to be setting down a general rule or universal principle which is that we should not go beyond the scriptures and this is Paul's commandment which answers the localized concerns in the context. Therefore, I think the only way your understanding is correct is if Paul qualifies his principle, but Paul does not do that rather he just sets down this principle to fix this particular problem without qualification.
As for the Beligic Article 5 when it says canon that means rule and the text says that this is the only rule for the regulation of ones faith. So Christians according to the Beligic are only supposed to live by one rule for the regulation of their faith and that is by all the 66 books of the Bible which is scripture. I have said this numerous times and I am not sure why we are talking past each other here.
ReplyDeleteThe “I know when I see it standard” is not subjective at all because God has designed me to determine me to automatically categorize things and so in light of that I see no sufficient reason for thinking that in order for me to categorize things in to classes I have to give a complex philosophical criteria for it. This might be thought as necessary for people who are persuaded by internalistic intuitions, but obviously this argument is going to be wholly unpersuasive to one who accepts externalism (good luck trying to justify our beliefs about the external world, if you believe that). All of those texts you have cited referring to tradition is referring to a tradition that is in scripture specifically so I would say that scripture teaches us to pass on traditions that are biblical. The Matthew text is the exception and I would say said that because he believed the religious leaders were reliable because they read a lot of the scriptures. I would say that SS allows for no tradition that goes beyond the scriptures as I believe 1 Corinthians 4:6 clearly teaches if one does not put in qualifications that are not found in the Bible. As for it being vacuous, it would seem not since my position entails church discipline of those who believe in four members of the trinity whereas yours does not, that seems like a pretty substantial difference there. I would say that the inter testimony of the Holy Spirit and religious experience when one encounters the word of God is found in 1 Corinthians 2:10-16 and John 10.
God Bless,
NPT
Hello James,
ReplyDeleteThey would not be morally impermissible because scripture gives us a standard to judge whether or not actions are right or wrong in Matthew 22:37-38 37 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. This is clearly in scripture and it would not be incoherent with my understand of 1 Corinthians 4:6. It seems clear that 1-3 is morally permissible for faith and practice, whereas painting a picture of Jesus is unclear and because it is unclear doing it would be going beyond the things that are written just like believing that Mary went into Heaven before she died.
God Bless,
NPT
Nathanael - I agree that we seem to be talking past each other. Here's something I'm confused about: I earlier asked you whether you thought Scripture was the only epistemic and practical norm relevant to Christian faith and practice, and you didn't give me a direct answer. You note that the BC talks about Scripture being the only 'canon' and that a 'canon' is a rule. That is surely true. But generally rules tell us what we must and must not do, and your interpretation says that we can't do anything unless the rule says we can do it. If the BC meant this I think that it would be using language in a very unusual way, and it would differ radically from other Protestant confessions. What I want to know is: what kind of rule is Scripture? Any version of SS must say that Scripture is the only rule of its kind, and the BC clearly states this. (Surely Scripture is not the only rule, simpliciter; civil laws are rules, for instance.) I think Scripture is the only infallible revelation of God to mankind, including primarily practical direction, but also much important theoretical information. You seem to be trying to say something stronger than this, but I'm not sure what it is. (I have long since lost interest in the images question, but the SS question is far more interesting, don't you think?)
ReplyDeleteI should note that you also qualify Paul's 'catch phrase' - you says that it only applies to 'faith and practice', and then you won't tell me what 'faith and practice' are, other than to say that God created you in such a way as to be able to distinguish between them. As far as I can tell, God hasn't created me in such a way as to distinguish them. Furthermore, it seems to me that if I understand what 'faith and practice' means at all, then trying to determine what constitutes a matter of faith and practice, is a matter of faith and practice, so by relying on intuition to draw the distinction, you violate your formulation of SS. My qualification is this: I only apply Paul's claim to the subject he is concerned with in the context. This has the advantage that it takes Paul to be saying something here that he often says elsewhere. (Since his writings are all directed to different audiences, it is to be expected that he would repeat himself a lot.) I am not at all sure what motivates your qualification. If we don't qualify the saying at all, we are back to my original objection: we're not allowed to drive cars.
Also, I never said no one could be subject to church discipline for believing in a fourth member of the Trinity; what I said was that it is not easy to prove that someone can be rightly subject to church discipline for this. Those are very different claims. In fact, I think it can be shown that only the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity simultaneously preserves all of the doctrines taught in Scripture, but showing this is a long and arduous undertaking.
"whereas painting a picture of Jesus is unclear and because it is unclear doing it would be going beyond the things that are written just like believing that Mary went into Heaven before she died."
ReplyDeleteFalse. Believing that Mary was assumed into Heaven represents reality in a way that images of Jesus need not. Evidence: I paint Jesus with a crown of thorns. How many thorns in the painting? Let's say 10. Does anyone worth talking to seriously think Jesus' crown had exactly 10 thorns, and in that particular arrangement? Of course not. Likewise for lots of other elements of an image of Christ. Thus, images of Christ are not representational in the same way as 'beliefs that' are. If they are representational, they usually represent stories found in the Bible, and in the respect in which they are representational do not go beyond Scripture.
Hello Again Kenny,
ReplyDeleteWell it seems like the one thing we can agree on is that SS is much more interesting question than images of Jesus (I am mostly interested in the * Big questions * in philosophy and theology rather than being nit picky). To answer your question: I would agree that scripture is the only epistemic and practice norm for the Christian life. A rule is a standard for something or other. The scriptures then are the only standard that regulates or that guides the Christian life, if something is outside of that standard then that is a implicit rejection that is the only standard. I believe scripture is the only infallible revelation from God to mankind and this revelation is the sole guide to practical direction and theoretical information as it relates to faith and practice. I think the difference here is that I am saying it is the only guide for our Christian lives and so we are not suppose to guide our christian lives with anything else because that would be to reject it as the sole guide.
I would say that God has made me in his image and I able to distinguish between faith and practice and other things. I would say scripture implicitly teaches that we have to figure out what things are matter of faith and practice because knowing “what is” and “what is not” a matter of faith and practice has to do with how we should be training for righteousness which the Bible clearly teaches (2 Tim. 3:15-17). Also I would say the Law written on my heart tells me to think about these sorts of theological questions about what constitutes something a matter of faith and practice (2 Cor. 3:3; Rom. 2:15). The reason why I would qualify “nothing beyond what is written” is because scriptures teach that they are for faith and practice (2 Tim. 3:15-17) and the Bible never teaches that it is for science or math. So to think that it is for those things would be going beyond the scriptures.
Why would adding a fourth member of the trinity named the cousin who mysteriously ministers to us in heaven not preserve all the doctrines taught in scripture?
God Bless,
NPT
Hello James,
ReplyDeleteI think you missed my point. I am not arguing about the way we represent or do not represent Mary or pictures of Jesus matter. I am referring to whether or not we should believe that Mary ascended into heaven or should we believed that it is morally acceptable to make pictures of Jesus.
God Bless,
NPT
Well, it seems that we shouldn't believe that Mary ascended into heaven for the simple reason that there are no good reasons to believe it. Should we believe pictures of Jesus are morally acceptable? I don't see any reason to think that the following principle is true:
ReplyDeleteP: An act is morally acceptable --> (we can prove the act is morally acceptable OR the moral permissibility of the act is taught in Scripture).
P is not taught in Scripture, nor can it be inferred from 1 Cor. 4:6 without doing violence to the context. I just checked two commentaries, Hodge and Fee, and neither of them take your interpretation of the passage. And this is fortunate, for accepting P has drastic consequences, which is illustrated through 1 - 3. You initially responded by saying they are dealt with by considering whether acting in any of the ways relevant to 1 - 3 are the result of a loving heart toward God. I then point out that artists who have drawn Christ took themselves - without any reason to think otherwise - to be doing exactly the same thing. So it's not clear why painting a picture of Christ would be "going beyond Scripture" (in the bad sense), given that you allow yourself to make judgments about 1 - 3, which are also things obviously not discussed in Scripture (so "beyond Scripture" in the trivial sense). (Yes, you apply a general principle about loving God to make a decision about 1 - 3, but the same reason applies inter alia to painting a picture of Christ.) So it is still not clear how you can be consistent with your interpretation of sola scriptura while denouncing images but allowing judgments on 1 - 3.
Hello James,
ReplyDeleteI would disagree with Hodges and Fee's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 4:6 and I do not think it does violence to the context. I see no reason for believing that making a picture of Jesus is morally permissible, but I would see it morally permissible to do 1-3. I have moral intuitions for the moral permissibility of 1-3, but pictures of Jesus are still morally dubious for me do practice and for me would it be going beyond the things that are written. You have not really haven't shown that this incoherent. If you want to see my reasons for my exegesis look at my post or my arguments with Kenny.
God Bless,
NPT
OK. I just have one more question and then I am leaving this thread. I have looked at Calvin's commentary, in which he does not provide your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 4:6. I've also looked through all of Luther's work and John Owen's, through recent works on sola scriptura by David King, Keith Mathison, and much older: William Whitaker's Disputations on Holy Scripture. None of them even cite 1 Corinthians 4:6 in support of sola scriptura. The only Reformer I could find is Francis Turretin, volume 1, p.139. But the disputatio concerns what is necessary for salvation, which is irrelevant to your use here. The rest of my theological works are in boxes since I am moving soon and don't have access to those.
ReplyDeleteSo here is the question: besides what you take the three forms of unity to support (which people like Kim Riddlebarger, I believe, will not side with you on), are there any Reformed commentaries or theologians (besides Gordon Clark or anyone at the Trinity Foundation) who offer your interpretation of either sola scriptura or 1 Corinthians 4:6? If so, who and where? Thanks!
Hello James,
ReplyDeleteYes, there are many Reformed theologians that would take my interpretation of this verse: Greg Bahnsen in his debate with gerry matatics. Leon Morris in his commentary on 1 Corinthians. Robert Godfrey (the President of Westminster Seminary) in his article on Sola Scriptura. Garland in his commentary on 1 Corinthians. Michael Horton in his class lectures and in his up coming systematic theology section on Sola Scriptura. There are also numerous commentaries that agreed with me when I wrote my sermon, I would encourage you to go down to a Library at a seminary and check out all the commentaries on 1 Corinthians and you should get a number of interpreters that agree with me. And just for the record I am not a Clarkian.
God Bless,
NPT