Could the Philosophical & Interpretive Approach of Reformed Protestantism lead out of Christianity?

[JM]

And lets visit Tolls Houses at some point. You know the creepy doctrine that teaches after death we STILL tempted by demons on our way to heaven. People need to know just how far from the simply of scripture and the early church the Eastern Orthodox truly are.

 

[JM]

"What has been revealed" in scripture, at least at face value, is that that the ritual bread is Christ's body and that saints' objects sometimes are involved in healings. These principles however have been denied through "negation" by Calvinism. Per Calvin, Christ absolutely cannot be present in the Eucharistic bread, because for Calvin, His body can only be stuck up in heaven. Likewise, for Calvin, relics' miracles are also negated as "superstition". Thus, what we find at face value in scripture is denied through Calvin's negation of it.

It's not "as per Calvin, it is as per scripture. Reformed Christians do not "follow" Calvin. In fact, I find John Gill to have gone further and expressed Reformed theology better but he was only one in a long line of Protestantism that helped us return to a more simply faith and this faith is based on scripture.

 

[AMR]

I have specifically in mind cases where people touch a holy person's bones and get healed or revived, people touch a holy man's garments and get healed, the saint gives out his garments for healing, or people try to even just get near a saint or his shadow for healing. It seems to me that in all these cases, the Reformed view would be quite cynical and look down on these incidents and claims.

I know of no writings by the ECF that speak to this (healing via relics) specifically. Most of the ECF were quite vocal about denouncing the veneration of objects, which seems to me to import this specific as an understood given. I am not sure why you would think absence of evidence is evidence of absence about the matter. When I speak of the ECF, I do not include men like Basil, John of Damascus, and others claimed by the Eastern churches who clearly were vocal about how these relics are to be cherished and were means of grace for healings.

Based on the Reformed premise of sola scriptura, it doesn't technically matter if anyone in the last 2000 years has agreed with us. If we can show that our view from Scripture, it doesn't matter what Irenaeus, Polycarp, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, or for that matter Luther, Calvin, and Owen thought. I yet remain wanting to see an argument put for from proper exegesis of Holy Writ that supports the notion that relics with healing powers are something for the church militant.

 

[AMR]

Dear AMR,
I think that Tradition must have some authority in itself, because Christian Tradition existed before the Scripture did. If you were a Christian in 70 AD, there would still be a crucial authority for your beliefs, they just wouldn't be written down yet, and hence were as yet independent of scripture.

For purposes of discussion I could concede that Tradition lacks authority if divorced from scripture. The issues that we are discussing in this thread are at an intersection of both. So I think that to understand the early Christian mindset and the meaning of the passages, it's very important to consult Tradition.

Traditions have always existed. Christian tradition existed before 70 AD. Inscripturated tradition lived in the OT long beforehand and flowed with amendment thereto into a more perfect understanding with the close of the NT canon. So, yes we should consult with traditional understandings such that we can understand the writings of men who were men of their times, and avoid the usual anachronistic importation of what they actually said and meant into what we think they actually said and meant. Rome is a champion player at misreading the ECF for their own mythological notions of their own history.

Just because one appeals to something as a very important authority doesn't entail that one will consider it infallible or inerrant. Besides, in Orthodoxy, and I imagine in Catholicism, scripture is put foremost before other writings, so it is hard to say that the rest of tradition is on the same level.

I am wondering wherein I have intimated that tradition is actually infallible or inerrant that would give rise to this statement. Further, Scripture is but a parallel infallible source to Tradition for Rome (who would add Papal infallibility to the mix) and the East, all of which leads to quite an odd turn of reasoning.

In other words, when all is said done, is Rome and Constantinople's primary way of establishing this other infallible authority simply an appeal to Scripture alone? If this is the case, it appears to me to get a wee bit circular. The testimony of the Scriptures proves the infallible authority of the Rome and Constantinople's church, but then the they say the authority of the Scriptures is proved by their church.

Of course you could say infallible sacred tradition establishes the other infallible authority, but well, that's a bit like appealing to unicorns, as it can't really be pointed to ostensibly. It is this murky thing, that depending on which Roman Catholic or EO person one talks to, means different things. Then the question becomes similarly, how do you prove infallible sacred tradition without appealing to Scripture? It goes round and round in the same circular way: sacred tradition proves the infallibility of the church, but the church determines what is sacred tradition.

On the other hand, if you just want to say you begin with a basic presupposition (a faith claim) that both Scripture and the Rome or Constantinople are infallible, well, there's really no point for anyone to have a discussion with you. You say it's multiple infallible authorities, we Reformed say it's one.

I assume that perhaps there's an answer you may have that I haven't considered. I've always kind of thought that persons who abandon sola scriptura will ultimately simply just decide to to take on another infallible authority, sort of like how someone converting to the LDS gets a burning in the bosom.

When all is said a done, any appeals you make to Scripture to establish your other infallible authorities requires a lot to be read in to verses from Scripture that will be offered up. You can continually say that the Scripture evidence provided to you do not establish sola scriptura, but using Scripture in response to say it somehow clearly establishes other infallible rules of faith doesn't quite cut it, for the conclusions do not follow from the premises. The Church is indeed given authority: but it is a derivative authority, one based upon fidelity to the truth, not upon any inherent characteristic of the Church.

To Rome and others I must ask why must the Church be infallible to speak with authority? One does not have to be infallible to have authority. The authority of the proclamation of the Christian Church comes from the message that is preached, not from the nature of the messenger. I readily grant, per Paul, the Church is indeed the pillar and foundation of the truth. However, a pillar and a foundation support something else. Pillars rest on foundations; foundations and pillars together support structures. The Church supports and upholds the truth. That does not make the Church the truth itself. Such thinking is but a hopeless confusion of categories. Clearly then, in seeking to establish sola ecclesia (the church alone) the only option is to attack sola scriptura, for to persuade someone of the necessity of the Church's sufficiency, one must deny the Scripture's sufficiency. And this is exactly is where the battle rages onward.

 

[rakovsky]

Hello, JM.

Let's please see if we can be more specific about it and the cases I mentioned - using saints' robes for miracles, the possibility of bones' involvement in healings, a saints' healing presence.​

Again, you are seeking carnal, fleshy, tangible evidences for faith. Who is being overly rational? Who is seeking to point us to the temporal and not to Jesus Christ? Scripture does not tell us to seek miracles and signs or look for healing power in saints relics or bones.

OK, so your criticism of the involvement of holy objects in healing is that it is bad because it is carnal, seeking tangible evidences. Therefore, based on Reformed principles, it should not be done.
This will be relevant when we discuss Acts 19.

Scripture is the earliest record we have of the church and is sufficient, "Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." Scripture alone is described as "inspired" or theopneustos, thay-AH-noo-stos. Tradition is never said to be "God breathed."

2 Thessalonians 2:15 (So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us)
Back in 40-70 AD they did not have the full Christian scriptures written down. They did have the unwritten traditions of what Jesus said and how they, the apostles understood theology as Paul was still laying out in his epistles. Back in the 1st century, the scriptures formed the key part of the Christians' written traditions. To juxtapose scripture vs. all Tradition is theoretically incorrect.

Both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism steam from the same corrupt root. Blaming one who has gone astray doesn't relieve the guilt of the other who has gone equally astray. Jesus correct the scribes and pharisees for having traditions that nullified the word of God.

Actually the early Christians did not reject all traditions that were outside our strict Old Testament. They occasionally cited the Old Testament apocrypha in the New Testament.

Since the Reformed cannot resort to _totally obvious_ Traditions passed down and agreed on by the Christian community for the last 1600-2000 years or so like the Councils, they essentially cut out their own legs in discussions with the new sects that appear.

This is a highly biased reading of the Reformed Confessions and theology. Even secularists believe Luther and Calvin were both Augustinian and therefore within the tradition of Western theology. We are well within the stream of Western tradition but this tradition is subservient to scripture. What is hidden in your presupposition is a learned dislike for anything Western which is why you keep bleating, "four legs good, two legs bad/Western theology is rational and therefore bad." (see what I did there, a ref to Animal Farm hehe)

Just because someone comes out of the broad tradition of Western theology does not mean that they treated it like a crucial authority in deciding what the Bible meant. And since they don't agree on Christian traditions for the last 1900 years as being a major authority, each sect can and in real life often does "go it alone" and decide on whatever they are convinced the Bible "really" says - Christian Zionism, anti-Zionism, etc.

if we care about tradition, the tradition can be an anchor, preventing new falsehoods.
You have already seen this but for the reader, it is will demonstrate how tradition was ruled by wicked men and women, for political means and ill gotten gains.

For almost 200 years the Greek State church argued over the use of images, specifically Icons and their purpose in the church…if they had any purpose at all. Many Western Christians are not familiar with this debate, at least not in detail, so I hope to give a very brief outline highlighting a few of the more interesting facts. Make no bones about it, I am unable to find any scriptural reason for the use of images, so the best I can try to do is be honest with the particulars as I have come to understand them. The debate took place between what modern historians call Iconoclasts and Iconophiles or those who rejected religious images often resulting in their destruction and those who believe religious images have a place in the Christian religion. This debate seemed bound to happen as the revelation of God in scripture came into contact with Greek culture and religion. The former rejects the use of images of the Divine and the latter wholeheartedly encourages images, statues and the like. Some Christians in both the East and West believed it was acceptable to create representations of Christ and the Trinity but there was also a group of Christians that denied any need for them. The Iconophiles believed icons were useful and even essential to worship while the Iconoclasts believed it was against the second commandment to do so. William R. Cannon points out, “A custom which primitive Christianity looked upon as idolatry was common practice in the eight century. Consequently what in ancient times had been an innovation was considered during this period as tradition.” (page 105)

If you are correct, then Tradition would still be a good argument from this. If the early Tradition was clearly against ikons, then you could use that to argue against introducing it as a new practice. If the Bible did not speak against ikons clearly and the proponents of ikons said they were not using them as idols, then without resort to tradition, no one could figure out the answer. Meanwhile, if a Tradition is established, it doesn't mean in Orthodoxy that it is infallible.

So Tradition is a useful authority to understand theology, and although it is not considered infallible, once it is considered of no import, then whatever fake "scriptural" innovation comes up can more easily make headway, breaking a church into hundreds of sects, as has happened among Reformed.

Diarmaid MacCulloch calls this rub of Hebrew and Greek culture the “fault line” for the old covenant forbids images of God in any sense while Greek paganism encouraged it. A similar debate can be found in the history of the Western church but it has not had the same impact on history as it had in the East. Some historians have suggested the numbering of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) might have contributed to the use of statues by Roman Catholics who, following Augustine of Hippo neatly tuck the First and Second Commandment into one and separated the Tenth into Nine and Ten. Lutherans use Augustine’s numbering of the Decalogue and take no issue with images either. I’m not sure if this really effects the views expressed by each group considering the Eastern Orthodox use the same numbering system as Judaism and Protestantism but it was mentioned a few times by different authors so I mention it here. When you take a closer look at the details of the “controversy” it soon becomes apparent that matters of theology were passed from the Byzantine Emperor to the Patriarch of Constantinople. If the verdict was contrary to the wishes of the Emperor it was likely the Patriarch would be replaced. This happened more than a few times over the course of Byzantine history. From my reading on the subject it seems Leo (III) the Isaurian, Byzantine Emperor (717 – 741), saw a growing devotion and power ascribed to religious images. He believed this was mere superstition and tried to rid the empire of religious iconography with a series of edicts (726 – 729) forbidding the use of images in worship. Leo the III was not immune to superstition. It seems likely that Leo, having fought Islamic armies, believed that removing of images might lead to military victories. Whatever the reason behind the Controversy and it was always a political issue.

(Hagia Eirene Church, Iconoclast. Notice the lack of adornment.)

The Iconophiles found a champion in John of Damascus (645/676 – 749) who offered a polemic for the use of images. Cannon describes John as one of the few strong theologians of the 8th century, not in the same class as Augustine of Hippo, but without equal in the West for the time period. Using a philosophical framework of categories and causes borrowed from Aristotle John of Damascus argued the Second Commandment was abrogated by the Incarnation of Christ. “If one accepted this vocabulary and Aristotelian framework, then devotion to visual images in Christianity was safe.” (MacCulloch, page 448) The Greek church essentially changed the language which framed the debate over images from art to theology. Skipping ahead the matter came to close as Irene of Athens, former regent and now Empress after having her sons blinded and imprisoned, assumed the throne. She was in favour of Icons and had a layman who was also in favour of Icons consecrated Patriarch. Patriarch Tarasios, with help from the State, held what was deemed an “Ecumenical Conclave” in 787 or what is often called the Second Council of Nicaea which effectively restored the use of images in worship. Some further political proclamations against Icons were made but Empress Theodora (843) restored again the use of images in worship. This last proclamation of the State church “effectively closed down the possibility of alternative forms of worship in Orthodox tradition.” (McCulloch, page 452) It soon becomes apparent the debate was heated and very political. Icons and other images had a cult following that garnered the support of the State. Ultimately it wasn’t the Bible that settled the issue for the church but two Empresses backing the Iconophiles. The idea that you could reach God through images is foreign to scripture. God “calls us back and withdraws us from petty carnal observances, which our stupid minds, crassly conceiving of God, are wont to devise.” (Calvin) Some are quick to point to the Second Council of Nicaea as a historical point of reference but we cannot forget the polemics against the use of images that predate the Reformation such as the works of Claudius of Turin, the Council of Frankfurt and Libri Carolini. With the Reformers cry of “scripture alone” and “all of scripture” the debate was reopened in the West during the Reformation. John Calvin is masterful in the Institutes on this subject and I have quoted pertinent sections below for your further reading. He rightly calls Empress Irene “a wicked Proserpine named Irene” in his French edition.

Semper Reformanda,

jm

from Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1: 14. Enough, I believe, would have been said on this subject, were I not in a manner arrested by the Council of Nice; not the celebrated Council which Constantine the Great assembled, but one which was held eight hundred years ago by the orders and under the auspices of the Empress Irene. This Council decreed not only that images were to be used in churches, but also that they were to be worshipped. Every thing, therefore, that I have said, is in danger of suffering great prejudice from the authority of this Synod. To confess the truth, however, I am not so much moved by this consideration, as by a wish to make my readers aware of the lengths to which the infatuation has been carried by those who had a greater fondness for images than became Christians. But let us first dispose of this matter. Those who defend the use of images appeal to that Synod for support. But there is a refutation extant which bears the name of Charlemagne, and which is proved by its style to be a production of that period. It gives the opinions delivered by the bishops who were present, and the arguments by which they supported them. John, deputy of the Eastern Churches, said, “God created man in his own image,” and thence inferred that images ought to be used. He also thought there was a recommendation of images in the following passage, “Show me thy face, for it is beautiful.” Another, in order to prove that images ought to be placed on altars, quoted the passage, “No man, when he has lighted a candle, putteth it under a bushel.” Another, to show the utility of looking at images, quoted a verse of the Psalms “The light of thy countenance, O Lord, has shone upon us.” Another laid hold of this similitude: As the Patriarchs used the sacrifices of the Gentiles, so ought Christians to use the images of saints instead of the idols of the Gentiles. They also twisted to the same effect the words, “Lord, I have loved the beauty of thy house.” But the most ingenious interpretation was the following, “As we have heard, so also have we seen;” therefore, God is known not merely by the hearing of the word, but also by the seeing of images. Bishop Theodore was equally acute: “God,” says he, “is to be admired in his saints;” and it is elsewhere said, “To the saints who are on earth;” therefore this must refer to images. In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them.

15. When they treat of adoration, great stress is laid on the worship of Pharaoh, the staff of Joseph, and the inscription which Jacob set up. In this last case they not only pervert the meaning of Scripture, but quote what is nowhere to be found. Then the passages, “Worship at his footstool”—“Worship in his holy mountain”—“The rulers of the people will worship before thy face,” seem to them very solid and apposite proofs. Were one, with the view of turning the defenders of images into ridicule, to put words into their mouths, could they be made to utter greater and grosser absurdities? But to put an end to all doubt on the subject of images, Theodosius Bishop of Mira confirms the propriety of worshipping them by the dreams of his archdeacon, which he adduces with as much gravity as if he were in possession of a response from heaven. Let the patrons of images now go and urge us with the decree of this Synod, as if the venerable Fathers did not bring themselves into utter discredit by handling Scripture so childishly, or wresting it so shamefully and profanely. 16. I come now to monstrous impieties, which it is strange they ventured to utter, and twice strange that all men did not protest against with the utmost detestation. It is right to expose this frantic and flagitious extravagance, and thereby deprive the worship of images of that gloss of antiquity in which Papists seek to deck it. Theodosius Bishop of Amora fires oft an anathema at all who object to the worship of images. Another attributes all the calamities of Greece and the East to the crime of not having worshipped them. Of what punishment then are the Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs worthy, in whose day no images existed? They afterwards add, that if the statue of the Emperor is met with odours and incense, much more are the images of saints entitled to the honour. Constantius, Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, professes to embrace images with reverence, and declares that he will pay them the respect which is due to the ever blessed Trinity: every person refusing to do the same thing he anathematises and classes with Marcionites and Manichees. Lest you should think this the private opinion of an individual, they all assent. Nay, John the Eastern legate, carried still farther by his zeal, declares it would be better to allow a city to be filled with brothels than be denied the worship of images. At last it is resolved with one consent that the Samaritans are the worst of all heretics, and that the enemies of images are worse than the Samaritans. But that the play may not pass off without the accustomed Plaudite, the whole thus concludes, “Rejoice and exult, ye who, having the image of Christ, offer sacrifice to it.” Where is now the distinction of λατρια and δυλια with which they would throw dust in all eyes, human and divine? The Council unreservedly relies as much on images as on the living God.

Sources:

A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years Diarmaid MacCulloch Penguin (2009) ISBN-13: 978-0141021898

History of Christianity in the Middle ages; From the Fall of Rome to the Fall of Constantinople William R. Cannon Abingdon Press (1960) ISBN: n/a

 

[rakovsky]

Demonstrate from scripture how the church is to adopt the practice. I'm interested. What evidences do we have of people seeking bones for healing or clothes in scripture?

I cited Acts 19 in my explanation of the Second Question. There are at least several other cases of this kind of thing though.

 

[rakovsky]

How often have you seen a little babushka holding her icon and filako, believing superstitiously, that they will heal by holding them? Or that praying to the Holy Theotokos got results because she is more merciful and holds a special place with Christ, therefore, she can make your wishes happen?

Yes, this is not the kind of thing I am asking about, but rather people holding on to saints' clothes or bones or just wanting to be in their physical presence. I think the Reformed would take a derisive view of all this just as you are in your post above.

 

[rakovsky]

Dear JM,

And lets visit Tolls Houses at some point. You know the creepy doctrine that teaches after death we STILL tempted by demons on our way to heaven. People need to know just how far from the simply of scripture and the early church the Eastern Orthodox truly are.

I don't really understand the idea of some Orthodox about tollhouses. It's a minority, debated view and is not clear or unanimous from Tradition. Its proponents don't seem to say the demons are tempting them though. I don't know why I would need to defend this idea if the Tradition doesn't clearly teach it and its a minority view. I wouldn't ascribe speaking in non-existent tongues to all Reformed either, although I can see how not caring about what we have been teaching about "tongues" for the last 1900 years could lead to that.

 

[rakovsky]

Dear JM,

Per Calvin, Christ absolutely cannot be present in the Eucharistic bread, because for Calvin, His body can only be stuck up in heaven.​

It's not "as per Calvin, it is the meaning of scripture. Reformed Christians do not "follow" Calvin. In fact, I find John Gill to have gone further and expressed Reformed theology better but he was only one in a long line of Protestantism that helped us return to a more simply faith and this faith is based on scripture.

Per Calvin it accords with the "real" meaning of scripture. I am not sure even Calvin said that the scripture stated that Christ absolutely cannot be present in the Eucharistic bread.
Calvin is "the" main founding figure of the Reformed movement, although there have been secondary ones like Zwingli. To say Reformed don't follow Calvin is like saying American democracy doesn't follow Thomas Jefferson.

I think when a movement starts with a Traditionless "simplification" of "Biblical" faith that says Jesus' presence is not in the Eucharist food and saints' objects can't be involved in miracles (the face value meaning of scripture to the contrary), the next natural step is a version of Quakerism (without the Pacifism) that considers our rituals needless or modern Reformed "critical scholarship" that is rather cynical of miracle "superstitions" in general, not just ones with relics.

 

[rakovsky]

Dear AMR,

I know of no writings by the ECF that speak to this (healing via relics) specifically. Most of the ECF were quite vocal about denouncing the veneration of objects, which seems to me to import this specific as an understood given. I am not sure why you would think absence of evidence is evidence of absence about the matter.

If early Christians are occasionally mentioned as having what Reformed would consider superstitions like having Eucharist on saints' graves or touching saints' clothes, and the early Church writings don't mention the Reformed concept of opposition to holy objects, then it seems like the early Christians were not in opposition to their own practices.

...material culture was important in Christianity from much earlier than [the third century]. The tombs and burial places of the early Christian martyrs became the central locations of Christian observance from the deaths of the first martyrs. On the anniversary of the martyrs' deaths, Christians met at the tombs to remember the dead, and to share a eucharistic meal. Thus tombs, and altars which came to be placed on or above tombs, were central to Christian practice from its very inception...
The Oxford Handbook of Medieval Christianity, edited by John Arnold,p. 63​

It's often been suggested that these were great hiding places, and the Christians would go down in the catacombs to worship during periods of persecution. But really there weren't that regular kinds of persecution going on, and even when we find larger rooms or chambers in the catacombs, they weren't used for regular worship. Churches didn't go down in there to hold Eucharist and assembly on a regular basis. So, what were these rooms used for? Why did they have benches lining the walls, what looked like places where you could hold eucharistic assembly? The answer is, they're holding meals for the dead. We know, in fact, from a number of sources, Christian and non-Christian alike, that the funerary meal, a kind of picnic with the dead, was something that most families practiced in the city of Rome. So, we have to imagine as part of their daily life, as part of their regular activity, Christians, just like their pagan neighbors, going down into the catacombs to hold memorial meals with dead members of their families.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/catacombs.html​

So it is not clear to me whether these were Eucharists held in the tombs or were funerary meals in the tombs, but either way, the Reformed would be unsympathetic to both.

When I speak of the ECF, I do not include men like Basil, John of Damascus, and others claimed by the Eastern churches who clearly were vocal about how these relics are to be cherished and were means of grace for healings.

Based on the Reformed premise of sola scriptura, it doesn't technically matter if anyone in the last 2000 years has agreed with us. If we can show that our view from Scripture, it doesn't matter what Irenaeus, Polycarp, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, or for that matter Luther, Calvin, and Owen thought.

Correct. In fact, if one could prove from scripture that saints' objects could not be involved in miracles, then Orthodox would theoretically agree to, because scripture has the primary authority among writings for Orthodox.

I yet remain wanting to see an argument put for from proper exegesis of Holy Writ that supports the notion that relics with healing powers are something for the church militant.

You could argue that Jesus, early believers, and apostles were involved in and approved of this per the NT, and that since we must model ourselves after them, then we should do this too.

However, in this thread I am not actually making that argument of what we should do. I am just asking in the Second Question if there are early writings against this, and if not, what is the Reformed reasoning for why relics can't be involved in miracles?

Then I wish to ask about applying the Reformed rule that says relics are superstition to the cases we find in scripture.

 

[rakovsky]

Dear AMR,

Traditions have always existed. Christian tradition existed before 70 AD. Inscripturated tradition lived in the OT long beforehand and flowed with amendment thereto into a more perfect understanding with the close of the NT canon. So, yes we should consult with traditional understandings such that we can understand the writings of men who were men of their times, and avoid the usual anachronistic importation of what they actually said and meant into what we think they actually said and meant.

In practice though, Reformed don't seem to care much about this. If a Reformed brings up some new controversy, like Christian Zionism, the two sides don't seem to care much about asking "What have Christians been thinking for the first 1000 years of their history about this kind of thing?" But they don't seem to care much that Christians in that time were non Zionist. Their hermeneutics just seem to focus on what are convinced the scripture is telling them, and the non-Zionist Reformed who debate them take the same tact, and the debate stays unresolved or grows worse.

Rome is a champion player at misreading the ECF for their own mythological notions of their own history.

"Just because one appeals to something as a very important authority doesn't entail that one will consider it infallible or inerrant."~Rakovsky​

I am wondering wherein I have intimated that tradition is actually infallible or inerrant that would give rise to this statement.

No, this was not something you said. Rather, for Orthodox, Tradition outside of scripture is not considered "infallible". The only possible exception, one that is debated, could be that the Creeds of councils are infallible if all the Church gets together and everyone confirms them. (eg. Nicene Creed)

This is why I said: "in Orthodoxy, and I imagine in Catholicism, scripture is put foremost before other writings, so it is hard to say that the rest of tradition is on the same level." Even the Creeds are not put on the same level as scripture.

Further, Scripture is but a parallel infallible source to Tradition for Rome (who would add Papal infallibility to the mix) and the East, all of which leads to quite an odd turn of reasoning. In other words, when all is said done, is Rome and Constantinople's primary way of establishing this other infallible authority simply an appeal to Scripture alone?

Like I said, they don't appear to teach Tradition outside of scripture is infallible.
As for scriptural infallibility, it isn't clear what this means. They teach that God inspired the Bible, and spoke through its authors, per the Nicene Creed. But they don't teach Biblical inerrancy in the rawest sense.

According to Hedrick, Calvin considered the Old Testament astronomical descriptions to not be literal or physically accurate, although Hedrick has not written back more about this, unfortunately.

If this is the case, it appears to me to get a wee bit circular. The testimony of the Scriptures proves the infallible authority of the Rome and Constantinople's church, but then the they say the authority of the Scriptures is proved by their church.

Of course you could say infallible sacred tradition establishes the other infallible authority, but well, that's a bit like appealing to unicorns, as it can't really be pointed to ostensibly. It is this murky thing, that depending on which Roman Catholic or EO person one talks to, means different things. Then the question becomes similarly, how do you prove infallible sacred tradition without appealing to Scripture? It goes round and round in the same circular way: sacred tradition proves the infallibility of the church, but the church determines what is sacred tradition.

On the other hand, if you just want to say you begin with a basic presupposition (a faith claim) that both Scripture and the Rome or Constantinople are infallible, well, there's really no point for anyone to have a discussion with you. You say it's multiple infallible authorities, we Reformed say it's one.

It's been an old misharacterization - Reformed say, wrongly, that we consider Tradition infallible. So based on this mischaracterization, Reformed commonly say we shouldn't treat Tradition like a crucial authority. Then they each propose their own private, mutually exclusive interpretations of major points of scripture.

Anyway, to answer your question about why treat Tradition like a crucial authority, this is only natural as you said in the beginning:
"we should consult with traditional understandings such that we can understand the writings of men who were men of their times".

Except that for Orthodox, understanding Tradition is not just about understanding Jesus, the apostles, and the Church fathers who decided the Biblical books and Nicene Creed as "men of their times". Rather, we use these early Christians' writings to reach the meaning of Christianity itself, look to them directly for spiritual inspiration, rather than just engaging in modern Reformed "critical scholarship".

Forgive me if I misunderstood your connotations when you talked about caring about Tradition insofar as it means understanding "men of their times". I thought that you inferred treating the Church fathers the same dry, very skeptical way that modern "Critical Scholarship" treats the Bible.

I assume that perhaps there's an answer you may have that I haven't considered. I've always kind of thought that persons who abandon sola scriptura will ultimately simply just decide to to take on another infallible authority, sort of like how someone converting to the LDS gets a burning in the bosom.

"Burning in the bosom" and "led by the Spirit" seems to be one of the ways Bible-only-as-I-read-it Reformed sometimes settle on their own interpretations of scripture.

When all is said a done, any appeals you make to Scripture to establish your other infallible authorities requires a lot to be read in to verses from Scripture that will be offered up. You can continually say that the Scripture evidence provided to you do not establish sola scriptura, but using Scripture in response to say it somehow clearly establishes other infallible rules of faith doesn't quite cut it, for the conclusions do not follow from the premises. The Church is indeed given authority: but it is a derivative authority, one based upon fidelity to the truth, not upon any inherent characteristic of the Church.

To Rome and others I must ask why must the Church be infallible to speak with authority? One does not have to be infallible to have authority. The authority of the proclamation of the Christian Church comes from the message that is preached, not from the nature of the messenger. I readily grant, per Paul, the Church is indeed the pillar and foundation of the truth. However, a pillar and a foundation support something else. Pillars rest on foundations; foundations and pillars together support structures. The Church supports and upholds the truth. That does not make the Church the truth itself. Such thinking is but a hopeless confusion of categories. Clearly then, in seeking to establish sola ecclesia (the church alone) the only option is to attack sola scriptura, for to persuade someone of the necessity of the Church's sufficiency, one must deny the Scripture's sufficiency. And this is exactly is where the battle rages onward.

Of course, I think theoretically scripture could be sufficient. That is, the scripture has certain meanings, and a person could theoretically read and understand those meanings.

Take for example Zechariah 12:
11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.

Now, without checking any sources outside the Bible, what exactly is the mourning of Hadadrimmon, what exactly does that mean, and what future event is this referring to? Perhaps you can check through all the instances of these words in the Bible and reach a good conclusion.

However, I think that there are even more "esoteric" passages in the Bible than this. Was Melchisedek a real king's name, or did the preincarnate Logos or someone else show up and get called Melchi-sedek? "Righteous king"?

Maybe your answer will be that neither are major doctrinal questions. But the same kind of problems arise when we do turn to major religious controversies.

Theoretically there are answers to all these controversies and a person can theoretically read all these passages and happen to "get it" because the Holy Spirit told him the answer.

But in practice there are millions of Christians who find themselves led by the Spirit and read passages and come to very different conclusions.

This is why in theory I think formal sufficiency could be considered logical, but in real life it disproves itself.

So Catholics settle on material sufficiency- the building blocks (material) really are there, but in practice it's crucial to respect on what Christians have been saying for the last 1900 years about these passages to get a solid sense of the meaning.

Putting aside the question of whether even the Catholic approach has guaranteed correct answers or not, the concept of material sufficiency is simply more realistic, considering the hundreds of divisions over scripture, whither absolute "formal sufficiency" has led.

Speaking of which, I would like now to move on to the thread's third main question, which I will better formulate next.

 

[rakovsky]

Let's move on to the third question:
(3) Could the" Reformed" approach to theology lead out of and away from mainstream Biblical Christianity?
This really has two parts: (A) Could the Reformed approach lead away from Biblical Christianity on the real presence in the Eucharistic food and on holy people's objects?
(B) Could the trajectory of the Reformed approach lead away from Biblical Christianity more generally?

Let's deal with (A) first.

In John 6, Jesus repeats many times in a plain fashion that believers must eat his body:

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
​

The plain meaning of this is that we must actually eat Jesus' body, which I could conceive as possible if his body transformed so that it was edible with the physical qualities of normal bread. Such a transformation would comport with the Lutheran (spiritual) or Catholic (physical) understanding of the presence in the bread.
It's also remarkable that in this passage Jesus compared himself to bread-like "manna", rather than to the fleshly lamb-meat eaten in the Passover. That is, when it came to the actual eating and repeated emphasis on this eating, he used a breadlike substance, which is used in the Communion ritual.

However, there were many disciples who rejected the idea of actually eating Jesus' flesh, because they found it a hard teaching, as it says: "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." The Evangelical website Credo House explains that rather than say that what they would physically eat was only a symbol, Jesus left them with their perceptions and they in turn left him:

If Christ was only speaking symbolically about feeding on His flesh and drinking His blood (as most Protestants believe), then it is not really a “hard saying,” just a misunderstood saying. According to the Catholic apologist, if Christ was speaking symbolically, Christ could have—indeed would have—corrected them and said, “This is not really hard. You must understand I am only speaking symbolically of eating my flesh and drinking my blood.” But He did not. He let them walk away.
While I ... believe this to be a good argument on the surface, I believe it is seriously flawed.
Why? ...Some naturally thought that [Jesus] was being literal about his statements. It is true, Christ did not correct them. But this is a common theme in the ministry of Christ. As Peter demonstrates, it is only those who stay with him that get the answers for eternal life (John 6:68). Often Christ would speak in parables and not tell any but those who were His true followers (Luke 8:10). The rest He let go in their ignorance since he knew all men and he was not committing himself to them.
We should understand by now that Christ is always being misunderstood by “outsiders.” They also know that sometimes Christ corrects the misunderstanding (especially with true followers) and sometimes he does not. (https://credohouse.org/blog/why-i-d...on-of-john-6-in-defense-of-transubstantiation)

So in real life there were "many disciples" of Jesus who thought he was being literal and he did not "correct" them to say that he was really just talking symbolically about this like Credo House and the Evangelicals think. So rather than keep would-be symbol-only Evangelicals, he let them go. This is a concrete example of how in real life an absolutist rejection of the plain meaning of Jesus' words led them to leave Christianity.

Had Jesus explicitly repeated over and over to 1st century would-be Calvinists that they must eat his body like their forefathers physically ate the manna, with no explanation that this was only a matter of the believer's spirit going to heaven and bonding with him there, it's likely that they could have found this a "hard saying" and left at this point too.

Then in 1 Corinthians 10-11, Jesus repeats that they must discern that the ritual bread itself is the body or the communion of the body.

10:15 I speak as to wise men; judge (discern/"krinate" in Greek) ye what I say.
10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?​

19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.​

Some [Corinthians] did not understand the Lord's Supper and its purpose or, while knowing the purpose, abused the Supper. This is brought out by several verses: 1 Corinthians 11:19-21 "No doubt there have to be differences (heresies) among you to show which of you have God's approval. When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk." ...[H]ad the Corinthians used the Supper for a means of grace, and took seriously the Real Presence of the body and blood of Jesus Christ they would have never treated their fellow members in such a shameful manner. They can satisfy their hunger and thirst at home (v.33). Such activities have no place in the Lord's Supper which has other purposes.
He begins by introducing this passage by complaining that there were heresies among them and that they treated the Communion like it was an ordinary meal for eating. Instead, he says that they need to discern the body in the bread. Of course any normal nonChristian discern that the bread "symbolizes" the body in the ritual, so that is not what Paul means. Instead, Paul means that Christians must observe a deeper discernment of Christ's presence in the bread.

Besides, under the Reformed view, interaction with Christ's actual body only occurs with faithful believers, since Christ's body is up in heaven only, in their view. This does not explain then how the nonChristians could actually be profaning Jesus' body if they partake. The commenter Haydock explains:

Guilty of the body, &c. not discerning the body, &c.

This demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, even to the unworthy communicant; who otherwise could not be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, or justly condemned for not discerning the Lord's body. (Challoner) --- The real presence in the sacrament is also proved by the enormity of the crime, in its profanation.

According to the Lutheran Tract "Discerning the Body":

Some [Corinthians] did not understand the Lord's Supper and its purpose or, while knowing the purpose, abused the Supper. This is brought out by several verses: 1 Corinthians 11:19-21 "No doubt there have to be differences (heresies) among you to show which of you have God's approval. When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk." ...[H]ad the Corinthians used the Supper for a means of grace, and took seriously the Real Presence of the body and blood of Jesus Christ they would have never treated their fellow members in such a shameful manner. They can satisfy their hunger and thirst at home (v.33). Such activities have no place in the Lord's Supper which has other purposes.

People also discern the signs of the sky: Matthew 16:2, "He replied, 'When evening comes, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,' and in the morning, 'Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times." This last reference is a good parallel to 1 Corinthians 11:29 as "DIAKRINO" is used in a sense to see something that is not obvious to the uninformed person. To the uninformed person all they see is a red sky, but to the informed they see more, what kind of day it will be. Likewise in the Supper there is more than meets the eye. There is more than simply bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ are present as we have been told in the Words of Institution. This understanding is reinforced in 1 Corinthians 10:15,16 where Paul uses the verb "KRINO" in connection with the Real Presence of the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Lord's Supper. In 1 Corinthians 10:15 Paul says, "I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?" Paul is asking people to judge, to discern, that there is more than bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. Though this is not evident to the eyes, it is evident by the Words of Institution which are accepted in faith.

Furthermore, "DIAKRINO" does not appear to be the appropriate verb to use if "SOMA" refers to the Church. If by "CHURCH", "PEOPLE" are meant, a word study on "DIAKRINO" shows that this is something that we are not to do in the Church i.e., to fellow believers. Some examples: Acts 15:9 "He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith."; 1 Corinthians 4:7 "For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?" James 2:4 "Have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?" The point is that we are not to discern, the body of Christ i.e., the Church. We are not to make distinctions and show discrimination among fellow believers. But this is precisely what Paul speaks against in verses 17-22 as Paul mentions the sin of despising and humiliating the Church. However, in v. 29 Paul says the opposite of this: He criticizes the Corinthians because they should be discerning the body, and they are not. This leads us to conclude, then, that Paul is not using the word "SOMA" refer to the Church, fellow believers. (http://old.messiahseattle.org/about/pastor/DiscerningTheBody.htm)

This is the second way how the Reformed view can lead away from Biblical Christianity - by failing to discern the body being in the bread itself beyond what a Buddhist or Mormon would - as a symbol used in Christian ritual.

As for the issue of relics' role in miracle working, it looks like Reformed take a disdainful view of it:
As JM wrote to me about "using saints' robes for miracles, the possibility of bones' involvement in healings, a saints' healing presence":

Again, you are seeking carnal, fleshy, tangible evidences for faith. Who is being overly rational? Who is seeking to point us to the temporal and not to Jesus Christ? Scripture does not tell us to seek miracles and signs or look for healing power in saints relics or bones.

So using saints' clothes in healings are basically something that Reformed are not supposed to do or believe in, because physical things from saints are "carnal tangible evidence" of truth, and that we should not look to "miracles and signs".

Calvin himself labeled using saints' objects in healings "superstition":

"it is necessary to consider what St Paul says, that every service of God invented by man, whatever appearance of wisdom it may have, is nothing better than vanity and foolishness, if it has no other foundation than our own devising. ... In short, the desire for relics is never without superstition, and what is worse, it is usually the parent of idolatry." http://www.godrules.net/library/calvin/176calvin4.htm (This isn't an actual quote by Paul and he didn't specifically this about relics.)

If one applies this Reformed mindset to incidents with saints' bones, clothes, and physical presence in the Bible, one could easily end up with the same cynical attitudes about them. In 2 Kings, it says:

21 And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.​

In Luke 8, it says:

43 And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, and though she had spent all her living on physicians, she could not be healed by anyone. 44 She came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, and immediately her discharge of blood ceased.​

In Acts 5,

people brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter's shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by.​

Then in Acts 19,

God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:
So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.
​

Naturally, would-be Calvinists living in the times when these events occurred would take a dim view of all of them. That is, if they heard that someone being buried revived after touching some prophet's bones, they would be cynical about this, just like they are with Catholic claims of healings. If they lived in the first year of Jesus' ministry and they heard that a traveling rabbi with amazing sermons caused someone's healing when they touched his robe, they would be pretty cynical about that too. They wouldn't imagine that some holy person's shadow, like Peter's, could heal a person, just as 1500 years later the new Reformed movement wouldn't care much about Peter's bones or clothes.

One objection that Reformed might make is that none of these instances involve idol worship of relics. However, that is to miss the point. Whether or not saints' bones and clothes were used for idol worship, the Reformed principles would be cynical of them being involved in healings and miracles.

This is the third way that the Reformed approach tends to lead people away from Biblical Christianity. The Bible lists these miracles with saints' objects, yet the Reformed principle is cynicism about these kinds of miracle claims. So I have seen Reformed make what you may agree are prevarications about these passages - saying that the person in 2 Kings was not really dead when he touched Elisha's bones, that Paul didn't intend for his clothes to be used for miracles, etc. When modernist "critical scholars", trained in the Reformed movement to "know" that relics aren't involved in miracleworking, look at these passages, where will their training guide them? To say that the miracles were real? Or maybe just "stories", nonmiraculous events, or "accidental miracles" wherein the apostles did not intend to violate Reformed principles against relics?

 

[JM]

rako, you are ignoring what AMR has posted and simply reposted it as rebuttals to my points. This is the kind of behavior that does get reported, is just plain rude, AMR has answered many of your statements. As for demonstrating from scripture a principle that is supposed to be universally applied to the church...citing Acts 19 doesn't cut it. That's called proof texting. I asked you to demonstrate from scripture how Acts 19 applies all believers today, as an example for us to follow, which you have not done. I have demonstrated from the NT that Paul's gift of healing faded in relation to the end of the Mosaic dispensation, the application of Joel 2 and the prophetic meaning used in Acts 2.

Yours in the Lord,

JeyEhm

 

[JM]

I don't really understand the idea of some Orthodox about tollhouses. It's a minority, debated view and is not clear or unanimous from Tradition. Its proponents don't seem to say the demons are tempting them though. I don't know why I would need to defend this idea if the Tradition doesn't clearly teach it and its a minority view. I wouldn't ascribe speaking in non-existent tongues to all Reformed either, although I can see how not caring about what we have been teaching about "tongues" for the last 1900 years could lead to that.

Toll houses are a prime example of Traditional tomfoolery and relevant when discussing Eastern Orthodox Tradition. We find no example in scripture. EO's were once largely against this weird doctrine (often associated with Egyptian religion of the soul wondering after death) but it seems it is now gaining ground. If it becomes more popular it will become doctrine for you. That's just how Tradition works.

jm

 

[rakovsky]

rako, you are ignoring what AMR has posted and simply reposted it as rebuttals to my points. This is the kind of behavior that does get reported, is just plain rude,

Please don't be offended, JM.
I think you may have misread my posts. Typically when I posted something from AMR in a message, that message was intended as a message to AMR.

Feel Free to go back and reply more fully to my messages to you when you get a chance.

Peace.

 

[AMR]

You could argue that Jesus, early believers, and apostles were involved in and approved of this per the NT, and that since we must model ourselves after them, then we should do this too.

This would be akin to what charismatics would appeal to in denying the apostolic gifts have ceased. I am a cessationist, as are the conservative Reformed.

However, in this thread I am not actually making that argument of what we should do. I am just asking in the Second Question if there are early writings against this, and if not, what is the Reformed reasoning for why relics can't be involved in miracles?

As I stated the majority of the ECF have denounced veneration of relics. I do not know of any that actually support it. I think "veneration" included the notion that these objects possessed some supernatural healing properties. This is reason number one. Reason number two, is that I do not see the healing gifts of the apostles as existing today.

 

[Albion]

rako, you are ignoring what AMR has posted and simply reposted it as rebuttals to my points. This is the kind of behavior that does get reported, is just plain rude, AMR has answered many of your statements.

He also doing exactly what I commented on quite a few posts back. Having posed the question about the Real Presence, and finding that the answer was NOT that Reformed theology rejected such a belief, he nevertheless continued on with his planned sequence of questions leading to a planned conclusion about Reformed theology allegedly "leading out of Christianity"... and basing that on his preconceived idea that Reformed theology is actually Anabaptist theology.

 

[AMR]

In practice though, Reformed don't seem to care much about this. If a Reformed brings up some new controversy, like Christian Zionism, the two sides don't seem to care much about asking "What have Christians been thinking for the first 1000 years of their history about this kind of thing?" But they don't seem to care much that Christians in that time were non Zionist. Their hermeneutics just seem to focus on what are convinced the scripture is telling them, and the non-Zionist Reformed who debate them take the same tact, and the debate stays unresolved or grows worse.

Reformed care deeply about this. Where exactly are you deriving these sweeping statements about what we believe? I would ask that you not presuppose what we believe, for what we believe is contained in the accurate summaries of Scripture contained in one of the historical confessions of the Reformation era (Second Helvetic Confession, the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism or the Westminster Standards). I know of no Reformed Zionists. I do know of some who believe national Israel (the Jews) have a special place in God's eyes, in that a remnant will be called from out of them as a people. This is a far cry from Zionism, and all the dispensationalist cavils that Reformed Theology is replacement theology (wherein the church supposedly replaces national Israel in the purposes of God). Rather, we do believe that there is one people of God, the elect. In the Old Testament most of the elect are members of the covenant line, culminating the formation of national Israel at Mt. Sinai–although there is some evidence of true believers outside the covenant people (Melchizedek and those who truly repented in Ninevah come to mind). Likewise, there is much biblical evidence that unbelievers are present within the national covenant, hence the distinction made between the visible and invisible church.

As soon as someone uses "Replacement Theology" when discussing covenantalism, it is a signal they don't know what they are talking about.

Covenantalists reject "replacement theology", and I don't think anyone can find a single covenantalist that would accept the term. Covenantalists follow grafted theology. One vine: Christ, one Israel, the people of God. From Ephesians 2:15, Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Persons tossing out the "replacement theology" term say so because they have already decided to keep the two distinct. Thus, you will read them saying, " Covenantalists have taken over the promises made to Israel". Error! They should be saying " Covenantalists have joined the true Israel, Christ, along with Old Testament believers, who were "of Israel"." (Romans 9:6).

Contrary to Paul's clear teachings, the persons who toss out "replacement theology" do not believe Christ is the goal of the law (Romans 10:4), that in Him it is finished. These same persons think the goals of the Old Testament have not been accomplished, that the Temple is returning, and that God has two intentions for different "peoples". For more, see: http://rscottclark.org/2003/09/the-israel-of-god/

According to Hedrick, Calvin considered the Old Testament astronomical descriptions to not be literal or physically accurate, although Hedrick has not written back more about this, unfortunately.

The person in question is a member of a mainline liberal church that we conservative Reformed consider to be well on its way to apostacy, with very few exceptions remaining in some conservative PC(USA) churches that actually take their confessional standards seriously. I would prefer to leave these sorts out of the discussion.

It's been an old misharacterization - Reformed say, wrongly, that we consider Tradition infallible. So based on this mischaracterization, Reformed commonly say we shouldn't treat Tradition like a crucial authority. Then they each propose their own private, mutually exclusive interpretations of major points of scripture.

Where is this evidence of private, mutually exclusive interpretation?

Anyway, to answer your question about why treat Tradition like a crucial authority, this is only natural as you said in the beginning:
"we should consult with traditional understandings such that we can understand the writings of men who were men of their times".

Tradition has authority only so long as it is inscripturated. Nothing more, nothing less.

Except that for Orthodox, understanding Tradition is not just about understanding Jesus, the apostles, and the Church fathers who decided the Biblical books and Nicene Creed as "men of their times". Rather, we use these early Christians' writings to reach the meaning of Christianity itself, look to them directly for spiritual inspiration, rather than just engaging in modern Reformed "critical scholarship".

Again, you make a grand statement implying the Reformed view these matters as critical scholarship. We do not, as my posts in this thread clearly demonstrate, yet you ignore. Sigh. We Reformed walk the old paths and generally view attempts at theological novelty, e.g., new perspectives, with much suspicion.

Forgive me if I misunderstood your connotations when you talked about caring about Tradition insofar as it means understanding "men of their times". I thought that you inferred treating the Church fathers the same dry, very skeptical way that modern "Critical Scholarship" treats the Bible.

My point is that misuse of the ECF abounds by those that would cavil about Reformed doctrine. The ECF generally use but the language of the Scriptures upon the topics before us, while they scarcely make any statements which afford us materials for deciding in what precise sense they understood these topics. They rightly leave the matter very much where Scripture leaves it, and where, but for the rise of errors needing to be contradicted and opposed, it might still have been left. As long as Rome's and EO's apologists are able to speak in grandiose and general terms of the ECF for their claims, they are able to make it appear to others as though their paradigms for ecclesiology is the answer to all ecclesiastical controversies. But once they try to offer specific examples, where such claims are represented by a particular case, their arguments are usually toppled by overt anachronistic readings of the ECF.

"Burning in the bosom" and "led by the Spirit" seems to be one of the ways Bible-only-as-I-read-it Reformed sometimes settle on their own interpretations of scripture.

Again, please support sweeping generalizations by actual evidence. I am not going to take the bait here and do the heavy lifting for you to demonstrate the error of your summarizations.

Of course, I think theoretically scripture could be sufficient. That is, the scripture has certain meanings, and a person could theoretically read and understand those meanings.

It is not a theoretical basis that the Scripture is sufficient. Scripture is self-attesting to its Author as is innately perspicuous.

Take for example Zechariah 12:
11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.

If you want to discuss exegesis of Scripture, perhaps another thread is in order. I fear that explaining the verse will only derail the discussion herein. Hadadrimmon was a neighboring town, or a part of that country in which was situated the plain of Megiddon. From 2 Chronicles 35:25, we know that an yearly lamentation (death of Josiah) was appointed as evidence of God's vengeful displeasure with his kingdom and people, which God had intended to be the type and image of the kingdom of Christ, had, as it were, ceased to exist. Hence the lamentation looks forward to the same for the death of Our Lord: that the lamentation in Jerusalem would be like that in Megiddon.

Maybe your answer will be that neither are major doctrinal questions. But the same kind of problems arise when we do turn to major religious controversies.

Theoretically there are answers to all these controversies and a person can theoretically read all these passages and happen to "get it" because the Holy Spirit told him the answer.

But in practice there are millions of Christians who find themselves led by the Spirit and read passages and come to very different conclusions.

This is why in theory I think formal sufficiency could be considered logical, but in real life it disproves itself.

No. This all denies that truth exists, made by a Truth Maker. That the faculty of some men's minds may be limited such that only approximations of truth is possible, is no warrant to appeal to "real life", counting noses notwithstanding.

So Catholics settle on material sufficiency- the building blocks (material) really are there, but in practice it's crucial to respect on what Christians have been saying for the last 1900 years about these passages to get a solid sense of the meaning.

They do to deny sola scriptura and place tradition at the level of Scripture. The battle rages herein as I have noted.

Putting aside the question of whether even the Catholic approach has guaranteed correct answers or not, the concept of material sufficiency is simply more realistic, considering the hundreds of divisions over scripture, whither absolute "formal sufficiency" has led.

So we cave to "real life" difficulties in favor of a methodology that corrupts Scripture? We are forced to accept tradition has a constitutive value, and not merely an explicative one? We are forced to answer in the affrmative the question "Are there revealed truths which can be known only through Tradition?"

May it never be.

 

[AMR]

Let's move on to the third question:
(3) Could the" Reformed" approach to theology lead out of and away from mainstream Biblical Christianity?

Asked and answered:
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ad-out-of-christianity.7931022/#post-69212842

 

[JM]

He also doing exactly what I commented on quite a few posts back. Having posed the question about the Real Presence, and finding that the answer was NOT that Reformed theology rejected such a belief, he nevertheless continued on with his planned sequence of questions leading to a planned conclusion about Reformed theology allegedly "leading out of Christianity"... and basing that on his preconceived idea that Reformed theology is actually Anabaptist theology.

I thought he said he was a Presbyterian before converting to Orthodoxy? Strange he doesn't know what Presby believe.

jm