Cessationists apparently have the reputation of not believing in miracles after the apostolic age:
No issue has been more controversial among Protestants in the past 40 years than the charismatic gifts and the role of miracles in the post-apostolic age. The issue was controversial in previous eras of Protestant history, too, although theological lines were not usually drawn as hard and fast as they are between “cessationists” and “continuationists” today.
In the 1700s and 1800s, suspicion of claimed miracles was connected to anti-Catholicism. Protestant critics saw the Catholic tradition as riddled with fake claims of miracles. Ridiculing the fake miracle claims of Catholics (such as icons bleeding a liquid that turned out to be cherry juice) became a staple of Reformed polemics against the Catholic Church. So when seemingly miraculous events happened in Protestant churches, even sympathetic observers warned against the threat of bogus miracles.
Odd, but the cessationists I know all affirm the ongoing reality of miracles. How could you ever believe in people lost in sin becoming regenerate without resorting to the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit?
The real problem comes with the “gift” of speaking in tongues. Why do we need ongoing revelations from God if scripture is sufficient?
1. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased. (CofF 1.1 emphasis added)
6. 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: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. (CofF 1.6 emphasis added)
Continuationists who want to defend tongues are in the same predicament as Roman Catholics who defend the continuing infallible teaching of the magisterium and the authority of tradition. Does God’s word have all we need for salvation and godliness? Or do we need ongoing revelations for becoming right with God? If you make an infallible pope or a Spirit-filled Christian the arbiter of Christianity, you deny the sufficiency of Scripture.
Selah.
Old Life 
@Ali Two questions for you:
1. What did circumcision do?
2. What does it mean for a sign to be a seal?
LikeLike
Amen Jeff.
What then is the positive meaning of baptism? In all the discussion over the mode of baptism and the disputes over its meaning, it is easy for Christians to lose sight of the significance and beauty of baptism and to disregard the tremendous blessing that accompanies the ceremony. The amazing truths of passing through the waters of judgment safely, of dying and rising with Christ, and of having our sins washed away, are truths of momentous and eternal proportions and ought to be an occasion for giving greet glory and praise to God. If churches would teach these truths more clearly, baptism would be the occasion of much more blessing in the church. (from Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem)
LikeLike
Ali,
“Susan – listened to first 3 minutes of the 1 ¼ hour video you link. That was enough.
“Mary has a crucial role as the mother of Jesus in the connection between the old and the new covenants, Israel and the church. Mary is at one and the same time the perfect order of Zion and the mother of the church precisely by being the mother of the Messiah. So Mary knits together the Old Testament and the New, the old covenant and the new. She’s the fulcrum.
no.”
Well, what can I say. You have your blinders on because all of it is fully scriptural, orthodox, historical Christianity. Those women in the OT are definitely typological for Mary.
LikeLike
“Those women in the OT are definitely typological for Mary.”
Why did all of the epistles miss this…especially the one to the Hebrews?
LikeLike
Ali – don’t be so dismissive without analyzing Susan’s position – that’s not helpful to anyone, especially you in your understanding of these issues. Catholics have an exegetical basis for claiming OT women (most notably Bathsheba) are types of Mary. The basis for their beliefs is the idea of queen mothers in the OT and their role as queens in the OT Kingdom of Israel. They point out that Bathsheba serves as an intercessor on behalf of the people to her son, Solomon, the way Mary serves as an intercessor to Christ on behalf of the Church. It seems like a bit of a stretch to me, but they also note the way Matthew repeatedly refers to the intimate relationship of Mary and Jesus in his infancy, again underscoring her role in the Kingdom – another of Matthew’s major themes.
The problem, of course, is sdb’s point: there is no clear Scriptural support for any of this. Catholics of course appeal to Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium for most of their Marian doctrine, which is problematic for those of us who reject the Magisterium. We’ve been ’round this block with Susan before.
In my view the problem isn’t so much the veneration of Mary as it is the idolatry that follows among your average lay Catholic, especially those who are inclined to superstition. The claims about a statue of Mary crying blood or other such nonsense only underscores how the object of their worship has become Christ’s mother, rather than Christ Himself. If miracles occur (and I believe they do), they point directly to God, not to another person or a statue of that person.
LikeLike
v says Mary serves as an intercessor to Christ on behalf of the Church.
Vv says The problem, of course, is sdb’s point: there is no clear Scriptural support for any of this.
another no.
and exactly.
and what would be the point of a lecture like this one about the” ‘fulcrum’ Mary who knits together the Old Testament and the New, the old covenant and the new.” As sdb says the only ‘fulcrum’ is:
Hebrews 1 ‘God’s Final Word in His Son’
1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high
There is only One worthy. Revelation 5: “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing.”13 And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.”
We are given clear calibration by Jesus of any misunderstanding about Mary : Luke 11:27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” 28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”
Not that the Lord didn’t say Matthew :11 Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Also for Susan – saw this post this am:
https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B171115
LikeLike
Susan,
The historical position is that Christ is the fulcrum of the Scriptures. I believe that good RC theology would say that Christ is the fulcrum and Mary participates in that insofar as she is the Theotokos and the mother of Jesus, but just the bare statement “Mary is the fulcrum” seems awfully problematic even from orthodox RC theology.
The statement does illustrate what happens in Mariology, however. The more exalted one’s view of Mary, the more she ends up eclipsing Christ in at least popular piety.
LikeLike
Ali – I didn’t say that Mary serves as an intercessor to Christ on our behalf – that’s the position of the RCC, and I was simply stating their views, not mine. That said, is it possible Mary has a special role – including an intercessory role of sorts – in the Kingdom? Sure, it’s possible, but not defensible from Scripture. It certainly isn’t dogma the way the RCC makes it out to be.
Robert – exactly right.
LikeLike
Robert,
“The historical position is that Christ is the fulcrum of the Scriptures. I believe that good RC theology would say that Christ is the fulcrum and Mary participates in that insofar as she is the Theotokos and the mother of Jesus, but just the bare statement “Mary is the fulcrum” seems awfully problematic even from orthodox RC theology.”
Boy, are you a stickler for precision:)
Of course if you listened to the whole thing you’d hear the reasons why he referred to Mary as the fulcrum. He explains the why( ark of the new covenant being one big one) behind Mariology, thereby making sense of the OT types.
I was a protestant for 27 years and my only understanding about women like say, for instance, Esther, was that she saved her people from the machinations of Haman. I didn’t see a parallel between queen Esther and Mary. There simply is no stretching of scripture involved in this interpretation. I fact, since it is the way scripture has always been interpreted and it harmonizes with both Catholicism and the EO’s reverence for Mary, it seems that the burden of proof against such a reading is on your side.
I’m not trying to be argumentative my friend, just trying to get you to see that if you believe a hermeneutic bias is coloring the Catholic and EO interpretation, the resistance to this interpretation can just as easily be asserted of your hermeneutic.
For instance, how do you know when and where typology is being employed and does your interpretation jive with tradition?
“The statement does illustrate what happens in Mariology, however. The more exalted one’s view of Mary, the more she ends up eclipsing Christ in at least popular piety.”
Actually, the more scripturally is elucidated, the more exalted one’s view of Mary. This, at least, is what I’ve found.
https://udayton.edu/imri/mary/o/old-testament-types-of-mary.php#anchor5
@ Ali
Hi Ali, you must be good at reading scripture in the morning because you often post what you’ve read “this am”
That’s very good of you; I could stand to have more discipline in this area.
I want to let you know that I’m going to bow out of this conversation now since I see that we got stuck once again. My oldest daughter is expecting her first child the end of this month, so I’m going to be crazy busy:)
Of your charity, pray for her and her baby girl. She’s a beautiful evangelical young woman.
God bless!
Susan
LikeLike
Susan,
If you believe a hermeneutic bias is coloring the Catholic and EO interpretation, the resistance to this interpretation can just as easily be asserted of your hermeneutic.
Sure. We can all be biased. Even us Protestants.
For instance, how do you know when and where typology is being employed and does your interpretation jive with tradition?
It’s a case by case basis, but I’d give two basic rules for helping to discern where it is being used properly:
1. If the typology is leading to something that the Bible explicitly denies, then the typology isn’t there.
2. If the suggested typology is found across many different theological traditions, then the likelihood that it’s being used rightly is stronger than if the typology is not found across many different theological traditions.
The problem I see with a lot of the suggested Mary typology is not that there can’t be any types of Mary in the OT but that that Mary is really not very prominent in the New Testament. Yes she has a key role as the Theotokos, but for someone who is supposed to play the role she does in RCism and the EO church, why do we not hear anything about her outside of the birth narratives, the crucifixion and resurrection, and a passing reference to her in Acts? I’ll even give you the woman in Revelation. That’s it. There just isn’t any evidence from the Apostolic era that she was afforded the role while the Apostles were alive that she has later come to have in church history. We get a ton about Jesus, obviously. We read a lot about Peter and Paul. But hardly anything about Mary.
I don’t want to minimize her; it’s just that the NT doesn’t seem to maximize her the way later theology has.
LikeLike
Hi Robert,
Thanks for your response, and I’m sure that you don’t intend to minimize her role.
So do you think that there is enough typological evidence to call Mary “The Ark of the New Covenant”? In other words, do you think there are parallels between the ark of the covenant that contained manna; Aaron’s rod; and two tablets of the law written with the finger of God, and Mary containing the bread of heaven; the priest after the order of Melcezadich, and the fulfillment of the law?
To me, that is a remarkable parallel.
LikeLike
Melchizedek… I never could spell that word:)
LikeLike
b. jones, neither 1 nor 2. My point was we have no need for ongoing revelation. Scripture is sufficient.
LikeLike
Petros, you left out seals. Reformed don’t talk about sacraments as symbols. Seals.
LikeLike
Susan, if you believe in transubstantiation, the wafer becomes the body of Christ irrespective of your faith. It depends on the priest, not you.
Stop thinking like a Protestant. What’s faith got to do with it?
LikeLike
Brett, wikipedia?
LikeLike
Petros, just so you know you reject the Shorter Catechism:
LikeLike
Susan, I’ve recently heard someone say that with transubstantiation, grace destroys nature. It’s no longer bread. It’s the body of the god-man.
LikeLike
b. jones, sympathetic to charismatic gifts and Rome.
See?
LikeLike
b jones, cessationists may be saying we have knowledge we don’t have, but at least we’re not gullible.
LikeLike
Jeff, notice that Petros agrees with Keller but not with you.
LikeLike
Susan, “Of course if you listened to the whole thing you’d hear the reasons why he referred to Mary as the fulcrum.”
There you go again, denying the sufficiency of Christ.
LikeLike
@ DGH re Petros:
No biggie. It took me 8 years to transition from Southern Baptist to Presby, and infant baptism was the last issue for me to be convinced on.
LikeLike
Robert: I don’t want to minimize her; it’s just that the NT doesn’t seem to maximize her the way later theology has.
Ali: We are given clear calibration by Jesus of any misunderstanding about Mary : Luke 11:27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” 28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”
Ding, ding.
LikeLike
Susan says I was a protestant for 27 years
Susan says My oldest daughter is expecting her first child the end of this month, so I’m going to be crazy busy:) Of your charity, pray for her and her baby girl. She’s a beautiful evangelical young woman.God bless ! Susan
Susan, wow, 27 year and then you left. Well, I’m pretty sure we all (most!?) here want for each other the same – eternal life- and John 17:3 This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent!.
Congratulations on your grandchild! We are in the same place- we await our first too in a few months – what a miracle and I know for us both – 3 John 1:4 I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children (and grandchildren) walking in the truth.
Take care.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Susan, also forgot to add – as I understand – a type is always identified as such in the New Testament. Typology is determined by Scripture. The Holy Spirit inspired the use of types. Illustrations and analogies are the result of man’s study.
LikeLike
Ali!
You’re gonna be grandma too!
Is it a son or a daughter who is awaiting their child?
Btw, I’ve wondered, is your name shortened from Allison? I had a caregiver when I was around 5 whose name was Allie( She’s now 100 yrs old), and a cousin named Allison. Never completely understood the lyrics, but as a child of the 80’s theirs that pretty ballad by Elvis Costello, ‘Alison’. Anyways, it’s a beautiful name:)
To your question: “Susan, also forgot to add – as I understand – a type is always identified as such in the New Testament. Typology is determined by Scripture. The Holy Spirit inspired the use of types. Illustrations and analogies are the result of man’s study.”
Typology is a literary technique, of course, that is used by an author to foreshadow a person or event. So since God is the author of history He caused those events and people in the OT to come to pass in the NT. So, typology is certainly present in scripture, but not everyone can find the parallels. But when man discovers a typological parallel ( and it is a parallel) there is nothing subjective about it, even if it isn’t a point-by-point mirror image of the OT type.
For instance, there are parallels between Joseph of the OT and Joseph in the NT. While there are differences, there are similarities for some reason( that I don’t understand, but I know that scripture is the work of the best literary artist and poet…..God).
Joseph in the Old Testament, Joseph in the New Testament
Both had fathers named Jacob.
Both received messages in dreams.
Both went to Egypt under duress.
Both returned from Egypt later on (http://www.catholicbible101.com/biblicaltypology.htm).
Congratulations to you and your family, Ai!
I will keep you all in my prayers:)
LikeLike
Hi Jeff,
You said, “Robert: I don’t want to minimize her; it’s just that the NT doesn’t seem to maximize her the way later theology has.
Ali: We are given clear calibration by Jesus of any misunderstanding about Mary : Luke 11:27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” 28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”
Ding, ding.”
For your attention, because yours and Robert’s( and anyone else for that matter) interpretation of Luke 11:27,28 contradicts tradition.
1) “Mary is more blessed in receiving the faith of Christ, than in conceiving the flesh of Christ. … For his brothers, his relatives according to the flesh who did not believe in him, of what advantage is that relationship? Even her maternal relationship would have done Mary no good unless she had borne Christ more happily in her heart than in her flesh.” (Of Holy Virginity -3 – St. Augustine).
2) In His answer, He did not disgrace His mother, but showed that His birth would have profited her nothing, had she not been really fruitful in works and faith. – St. Chrysostom
3) She was the mother of God, and therefore indeed blessed, in that she was made the temporal minister of the Word becoming incarnate; yet therefore much more blessed that she remained the eternal keeper of the same ever to be beloved Word. – St. Bede
LikeLike
Hey Susan,
I dunno, it seems to me that Catholic doctrines of Mary contradict your quotes from tradition more than Robert does.
For if Mary was blessed for receiving the faith in Christ and for being fruitful in works in faith (both of which Robert and I would affirm), then she has the same blessedness as you or I would have.
Where then is there room for exalting her as Jesus’ mother? That role is inferior, according to Augustine, to receiving Christ by faith.
—
But about types and antitypes: It’s easy to see connections where none is intended. That’s why Chrysostom veered away from the allegorical interpretations of Origen.
A non-biblical example: people sometimes want to read The Lord of the Rings as an allegory for WWII. Look at all the connections! An evil leader (Hitler) threatens the entire world (WWII) from his kingdom in the east (Germany) while searching for a weapon of vast power (atom bomb) that will ensure his dominance by wiping out the free races. It’s all right there.
Except: Tolkien hated allegory and thought none should be written; and he explicitly denied in a letter that LOTR was allegory; and the beginnings of LOTR were written prior to the rise of Hitler
Oops.
The moral is that not all connections that glitter are exegetical gold.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I’m I wrong or were you not saying that Jesus was contradicting( or scolding)the woman who called out? Was he or wasn’t He is the answer I’m looking for from your side.
No one is denying that it’ easy to see types where none are intended, but you seem to be denying the ones that tradition has uncovered( or maybe you missed the examples that I included). If you missed the examples above, I would be happy to give them to you again.
About Tolkien’s use of symbols and theme’s; he had a sacramental view and saw the archetype of good vs. evil in the world and put it to use in his Catholic imagination. So anyone who would construe TLOR as being about WWII would be missing JRRT’s Catholicism. Of course though, since he experienced war, he could express the pathos of destruction and death in his stories, but other than that general analogy the story is a modern-day myth( mythopoeia) full of a Catholic view of the world.
But for the purpose of our discussion, do you agree with tradition’s exegesis about the Ark of the Covenant in the OT prefiguring Mary? If not, why?
LikeLike
Susan: I’m I wrong or were you not saying that Jesus was contradicting( or scolding)the woman who called out?
Scolding? No.
Contradicting? In the narrow sense that Augustine also contradicts the woman, yes.
Jesus is not saying that Mary is not blessed. He is rather saying that she is blessed along with all those who hear and believe the word. She is not blessed because she bore Jesus, but because she believed the word of the Lord.
Susan: But for the purpose of our discussion, do you agree with tradition’s exegesis about the Ark of the Covenant in the OT prefiguring Mary? If not, why?
Disagree, but not as strongly as I disagree with “Mary as second Eve.”
Yes, one can find parallels between Mary and the ark of the covenant (no, I didn’t miss your examples above). As mentioned in the Tolkien example, the mere existence of parallels does not show that they were intended by the author. There needs to be a control on the method; in the case of Scriptural exegesis, we can only *know* that a parallelism is intended if God Himself says so.
So we have warrant for thinking that Israel the nation is a type of Christ because Matthew says so under the inspiration of the Spirit.
Speaking of general literary method, we might *suspect* that parallels are intended, and the more strongly that those parallels tie into the main themes of the story, the more likely they are to be intended.
In this case, the ark held the word of God and was placed in the Holy of Holies in order that God’s presence might dwell there within the temple.
Mary contained the Word of God … for nine months. And then, nothing. She is not given a place within the new temple of God, the church, in order for God to dwell there, because God dwells now among His people by His Spirit (Eph 2; Jer 31).
The parallel simply falls off, and it goes nowhere within the story told in the New Testament.
All of the Marian doctrines that came about within the church were viewed as necessitated by the parallelism; but the parallelism is incomplete without those doctrines. So there is circular reasoning (of a rather egregious sort) that says that the ark is “clearly intended” as a type of Mary: the stories of the ark and of Mary diverge, and the ark is given a prominence in the OT that Mary does not have in the NT.
So I disagree with the exegetical method on the “ark = Mary” point.
On the “Eve = Mary” point, I have a much stronger disagreement. Literary parallels that get crossed in their details are no parallel at all. In this case, Jesus is most definitely the second Adam (Rom 5). Adam’s *wife*, not mother, is Eve. To posit that Eve is a type of Mary is to demand, by parallel, that Mary should be Jesus’ spouse and not mother. That would just be wrong.
So I hope you can understand that I have a much stronger objection to the Eve typology than I do to the ark typology.
LikeLike
Susan,
Tradition can err. Consider the traditional teaching on women by Augustine that women only bear the image of God when united to a man, Tertullian’s view of women in his work on modesty, and Magnus and Aquinas on women as misbegotten men. I would think most RCs would say this may be part of their tradition, but not of *S*acred tradition. So where are the threads of tradition that comprise the magisterium distinguished from the threads that are potentially errant? The reason I ask is that you already concede that the existence of a parallel does not guarantee a type. It is of course the more general problem of determining causation from correlation.
So we are stuck with a few questions:
1)What is the value of an exegetical method that cannot reliably ever draw a conclusion?
2) What do I gain from the parallels if I just need to go to (an I’ll defined) sacred tradition anyway?
3) what new knowledge do I get from the parallels? The aren’t identical, so one must be careful about illegitimate conclusions from spurious details. What’s the criterion? Scripture doesn’t tell us.
We do have examples of new revelation reveling types. It isn’t clear to me that this is provided as an exegetical tool though.
LikeLike
Susan, and nowhere else do Peter and Paul talk about Mary’s significance. Odd.
LikeLike
Susan,
I’d echo most of what Jeff and SDB said. The question for me about some of your examples is the “So what, question?” Let’s say that a typology points to Mary as the ark of the new covenant. What then? And if Mary is the ark, why is Jesus described as the mercy seat (the key part of the ark for atonement)?
And like Jeff, I have a bigger problem with Mary as the new Eve than with her as an ark. Jesus is clearly paralleled with Adam, whose wife is Eve. Who is Jesus’ wife? Scripture very plainly says Jesus’ wife is the church. So maybe Mary is the new Eve insofar as she is part of the church, but then so am I, Jeff, SDB, Darryl, Susan, etc., etc. If we want to be consistent, the metaphor should actually have the opposite effect and bring Mary “down” more to our level.
LikeLike
Robert,
Well, the way I see it is that since God is the author who created the parallels then those parallels have spiritual import.
If the parallels can be drawn then they have to have significance. This was one of the hints that I got that when scripture spoke of ‘the church” it wasn’t meaning it in the way Protestantism believed.
What I mean is, I was reading a Catholic author( can’t remember who now) and they showed the scripture references for Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant and Mary as the new Eve and thought to myself, ” If Protestant scholars missed this then they are either unaware, or they are denying scripture that because it doesn’t conform to their theology. Because if you become aware you are forced to relate to it in some way. If you stick it under the bed, so to speak, you( and I don’t mean you) are being disingenuous or to the truth and to the notion that scripture is sufficient.
Further, imagine that on the face of the earth there is no visible apostolic church, in the Catholic sense, and some guy, at any point in the timeline of history after the death of the apostles discovers the parallels and brings his findings to the attention of his pastor. Should he stick to his guns believing that he has uncovered something of importance that nobody in his tradition knows, and go start a new church based on what he’s discovered, or does he adapt his findings because his pastor doesn’t see( or doesn’t admit) the significance?
“And like Jeff, I have a bigger problem with Mary as the new Eve than with her as an ark. Jesus is clearly paralleled with Adam, whose wife is Eve. Who is Jesus’ wife? Scripture very plainly says Jesus’ wife is the church. So maybe Mary is the new Eve insofar as she is part of the church, but then so am I, Jeff, SDB, Darryl, Susan, etc., etc. ”
With all due respect, that any of us have a “problem” with biblical typology is beside the point. The parallels do not have to be 100% the same. I see your argument but my mind thinks, “Well, okay, but what do I do with the scripture that does easily lend itself to the Catholic interpretation?” I clearly have the “woman” in the garden. And right after Adam and Eve disobeyed and were handed their respective curses, the serpent( Satan) got his and it was that he would be at enmity with the woman. What woman? Not Eve, but the ‘woman” whose offspring would crush the serpent’s head. When did this crushing take place and who was there? It took place on a “tree” right after the woman offspring was in a ‘garden’ What did he call this female who participated in His obedience? “Woman”.
Again, I need to scoot! Take care!
LikeLike
sdb,
“Susan,
Tradition can err. ”
History can err. Church approved theological tradition can’t.
LikeLike
History is just the story about what happened. Since the ordinary magisterium is fallible and part of your tradition, tradition can be errant. Sacred tradition is something else. But who declares what is and isn’t part of sacred tradition? As far as I can tell the extraordinary magisterium consists of the pope speaking “ex cathedra” and universal councils speaking in unison with the pope.
Was there a council that established the proper hermeneutic for determining types from spurious parallels?
LikeLike
sdb,
I cannot presuppose that everything that belongs to the truth of Christianity is written in scripture(Scripture doesn’t tell me to do that). However, I profess that everything that written in scripture is the truth. So the church is the institution that has the scriptures and anything else that was passed on from Jesus thus supporting 2 Thessalonians 2:15:
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter [a]from us( 2Thess. 2:15).
“But who declares what is and isn’t part of sacred tradition?”
Doctrinal purity has to be a mainstay in the church or else the gates of hell prevailed against her.
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth( 1 Tim:15).
LikeLike
Susan, “I cannot presuppose that everything that belongs to the truth of Christianity is written in scripture”
So how do you know Christ gave the keys to Peter and his successors?
Sometimes, prooftexts come in handy.
LikeLike
Susan: Well, the way I see it is that since God is the author who created the parallels then those parallels have spiritual import.
OR
We humans are finding patterns that weren’t in God’s intent to begin with.
You kinda pulled a fast one here: First, you conceded that people can find false parallels; then you confidently assert that God is the author of the parallels that may be false.
LikeLike
Susan,
Well, the way I see it is that since God is the author who created the parallels then those parallels have spiritual import.
If the parallels can be drawn then they have to have significance.
Okay, but what is the significance here. Mary is the ark of the covenant, so what? And then, if Mary is the ark, why is Jesus the mercy seat (hilasterion). Are they both the ark?
If Protestant scholars missed this then they are either unaware, or they are denying scripture that because it doesn’t conform to their theology.
What about the possibility that the parallel really isn’t there? There are lots of parallels and allegories that people are sure they have found throughout church history that Rome would not endorse.
Further, imagine that on the face of the earth there is no visible apostolic church, in the Catholic sense, and some guy, at any point in the timeline of history after the death of the apostles discovers the parallels and brings his findings to the attention of his pastor. Should he stick to his guns believing that he has uncovered something of importance that nobody in his tradition knows, and go start a new church based on what he’s discovered, or does he adapt his findings because his pastor doesn’t see( or doesn’t admit) the significance?
Well, it depends on the finding. Christians are free to believe that they’ve found all sorts of things in the Bible provided they don’t force their views on others when their views have not gained ecclesiastical approval and/or are directly contrary to the commands of Scripture.
The parallels do not have to be 100% the same.
Agreed. If they were 100% the same, you wouldn’t have a typology but the same event.
I see your argument but my mind thinks, “Well, okay, but what do I do with the scripture that does easily lend itself to the Catholic interpretation?” I clearly have the “woman” in the garden. And right after Adam and Eve disobeyed and were handed their respective curses, the serpent( Satan) got his and it was that he would be at enmity with the woman. What woman? Not Eve, but the ‘woman” whose offspring would crush the serpent’s head. When did this crushing take place and who was there? It took place on a “tree” right after the woman offspring was in a ‘garden’ What did he call this female who participated in His obedience? “Woman”.
But what if Scripture doesn’t easily lend itself to that. That’s kind of my point. The whole idea of Mary as the new Eve would seem to be rendered invalid by the Christ-church relationship if Christ is the new Adam. At best, for Mary, we could call here the new Eve insofar as she is a member of the church but that, in reality, it’s the church that’s the new Eve.
What has done with Mary as the new Eve is also problematic. For example, read the literature on her as the new Eve and its very common to get the sense that all of redemptive history was dependent on her libertarian free decision to become the Theotokos. That if she said no, all would have been lost. In that respect, it’s Mary who functionally becomes responsible for our salvation. That’s very idolatrous in practice even if not intended that way theologically.
LikeLike
Susan says: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us( 2Thess. 2:15).
Susan, thanks for the reminder to read 2 Thessalonians 2. It’s a timely prompt, as I read this am :”Russian Church Says ‘End Of History’ Is Near by Newsweek
excerpt: “The leader of the Russian Orthodox Church said Monday the world is on the brink of slipping into “the abyss of the end of history,” according to a state-run news agency. The apocalypse “is already visible to the naked eye,” Patriarch Kirill told congregants after a service at the Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow, reported RIA Novosti .He said there could be a saving grace for the world -society uniting.”
Society uniting is the savior?
It would have been a good opportunity to talk about JESUS.
and JESUS is exacting who Paul talks about in 2 Thessalonians 2. I read this sermon this am. https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/53-12/the-coming-man-of-sin-part-6
Which you might enjoy reading, since it is such an encouraging proclamation of the gospel of our LORD JESUS CHRIST – as Mac Arthur says there “You have the theology of salvation here in a microcosm” in v13-17,
and that is the ‘so’ context of v15 – the clarity of JESUS
As Mac Arthur says there:
“Now today for us the apostolic message handed down is in this book. As I said, in the gospels and Acts we have the record of what was spoken. In the epistles we have what was written. And this is the once for all delivered to the saints faith. This is, Paul told Timothy in 1 Timothy 6:20, he said, this, Timothy, is what you must guard. “Oh Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you.” And then in the 2nd epistle of Timothy, chapter 1 verse 14, “Guard through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us the treasure which has been entrusted to you.” It is the tradition that came down, that was handed down from God to the apostles to the church. Now he says if you do this, you stand firm and hold onto the word of the living God which you’ve been given, you’re not going to waver and be confused and ignorant and insecure.”
LikeLike
It is a necessary consequence of Jesus’s method. Of course, the real issue is what is God’s Word. What are the non-inscripturated bits. Unwritten apostolic teaching is fine to claim, but I always get crickets when I ask what doctrines come from this. Further, even if we allow for noninscripturated apostolic tradition, this does not account for novel doctrines that developed in the post-apostolic era.
Of course, that oral tradition is what was eventually turned into the gospels (which came after Paul’s epistles were written). The assertions that everything written in scripture is truth and that not all the truth of Christianity is inscripturated does not entail that “the church is the institution that has the scriptures and anything else that was passed on from Jesus”.
The gates of hell did not prevail against the church in the old covenant either. When Elijah was in despair, God pointed out that there were still 1000’s that hadn’t bowed the knee to Baal. Jesus promises that there were always be worshipers even if that means the rocks have to cry out. Institutional fidelity is not what Jesus has in mind here as we see this thread of the gates of hell not prevailing throughout the old and new testament. But all that being said, avoided the question – how does one know what is part of sacred tradition and what is not? Who says, and what is the content of that sacred tradition? This all is hotly disputed among theologians in the RCC. There are plenty of theological controversies (past and present). You continue to assert that truth must out to maintain the coherence of your system, but it seems to me that you are left in the very same epistemological boat as we poor sola scriptura reformed protestants (though your boat may have better art and architecture).
LikeLike
SDB said:
But all that being said, avoided the question – how does one know what is part of sacred tradition and what is not? Who says, and what is the content of that sacred tradition?
It’s the million dollar question, especially since Rome hasn’t defined the content of tradition.
LikeLike
sdb – “But all that being said, avoided the question – how does one know what is part of sacred tradition and what is not? Who says, and what is the content of that sacred tradition? This all is hotly disputed among theologians in the RCC. There are plenty of theological controversies (past and present).”
Exactly! This is also concerning because of the similarity to Islamic theology. Most Islamic beliefs are derived from the ahadith, or extra-Koranic writings, most of which are of disputed authenticity and were written centuries after Mohammed. Islamic theologians have always quarreled over those the way Catholic theologians have quarreled over what should be included in Sacred Tradition.
Going back to a discussion we had months ago, Susan, it still boggles my mind that you had an epistemological crisis, and decided to resolve that by embracing Tradition and the Magisterium of the RCC. You are an intelligent person, but this seems irrational to me.
LikeLike
Robert, sdb:
It’s no secret. The content of sacred tradition is what is there presently in the Catholic and EO church today.
LikeLike
“It’s no secret. The content of sacred tradition is what is there presently in the Catholic and EO church today.”
But the Catholic and the EO disagree on lots of things and come to opposite conclusions about what sacred tradition teaches on matters such as the papacy, the Eucharist, and other such things. The EO aren’t all that keen on Augustine, but the RC would think that he represents sacred tradition on a great many things.
So what is the sacred tradition?
LikeLike
VV,
Most Islamic beliefs are derived from the ahadith, or extra-Koranic writings, most of which are of disputed authenticity and were written centuries after Mohammed. Islamic theologians have always quarreled over those the way Catholic theologians have quarreled over what should be included in Sacred Tradition.
Exactly. I would say, however, that at least the Muslims have made some attempt to collect and evaluate what is an authentic tradition and what isn’t. I’m not aware of anything similar among Roman Catholicism. Effectively, tradition for the RCC seems to be “Tradition is what the Magisterium says is tradition, but we’re not going to pin ourselves down with anything approaching a canon of tradition.”
Islamic legal scholars will disagree on which hadith collections are reliable, but they’ll be able to point you to sacred tradition in some kind of definitional way. I don’t see Roman Catholics doing that. The best they’ll do is maybe the ecumenical councils and papal decrees, but as far as I understand it, sacred tradition for Rome is much more than that.
LikeLike
Vae victis (@masonmandy) says: You are an intelligent person, but this seems irrational to me.
All who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
He who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
“Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in the councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience “ Martin Luther
Susan:
just as this below is sorrowful (that is, that what should be in parenthesis is JESUS)
dgh’s tweet by @oldlife do you believe in magic? http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/rosary-brings-miraculous-help-for-family-in-napa-wildfire …
-And they credit (the Blessed Mother, the Rosary and St. Joseph) for their safety.
-The (Rosary) has always been my comfort, working through any challenge that came up.”
-Kenny believes his house was saved (by the Rosary), too.
-She recounted her family’s devotion (to St. Joseph) as well as “always being close to the (Blessed Virgin Mary).”
So too, is sorrowful, if you were to replace the testimony of the Spirit of the Lord which is in you with the below:
Susan says Robert, sdb: It’s no secret. The content of sacred tradition is what is there presently in the Catholic and EO church today.
LikeLike
@Susan
That is inconsistent with what your church teaches. Not everything that the Catholic Church teaches at any given time is part of sacred tradition. There is a difference between the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium.
LikeLike