Clarification On What I Consider "Biblical Evidence"
* * * * *
Hi Tim,
Good to hear from you.
Dave, in light of Jonathan’s posts about his purposes, perhaps you could spell out your “theory of evidence.”
I don’t think it is all that different from anyone else’s here, with regard to how biblical texts are used to support one’s position. As I keep pointing out, anyone who does systematic theology at all does this. If you read Vatican II or papal encyclicals you’ll see Catholics citing many Scriptures in passing (in parentheses) or whole passages, that corroborate the point of view being presented. All Christians do this. As for the principles of exegesis, again I wouldn’t differ very much from my Protestant friends; the main difference being that the Catholic must not come to doctrinal conclusions at variance with those of the Church.
But I have often argued that even that isn’t very different from, say, a Reformed pastor, who isn’t “allowed” to see Arminian interpretations in the usual TULIP proof texts. We are all “limited” by affiliation, unless we have none at all. Yet all we ever hear about, it seems, is how Catholics have to ask permission of the pope to blow their nose or decide what color socks to wear on Thursdays.
It’s not really all that helpful to talk about “biblical evidence for Catholicism” here,
Well, I was trying to present what I thought was “biblical evidence for apostolic succession” but no one wanted to discuss that, even though it seemed to me to clearly be one of the main topics of the original post. The fact that there is this huge discussion about method because I dared to interpret a few texts in a Catholic (also Anglican / Orthodox fashion, excepting the papacy) should cause people to ponder why it must be that way? Why can’t we just have a simple discussion of comparative exegesis without flying off into 100 tangents?
because I don’t think anbody here holds the sorts of views you chronicle from guys like Engwer.
Many Protestants (not just anti-Catholics ones) hold a sort of “Pauline primacy” view. F.F. Bruce even called himself a “Paulinist”. I certainly would have thought this myself when I was a Protestant. That argument of Jason’s was by no means one that only an anti-Catholic would present.
“Evidence” is not an uninterpreted given; as Norman Geisler puts it in his Christian Apologetics, “all facts are interprafacts,” and as Ronald Nash puts it in his Faith and Reason, “proofs are person-relative.”
I agree. Geisler has long been one of my favorite Protestant apologists. I can’t say that I have worked up a super-nuanced, philosophical theory of biblical exegesis. I simply argue exegesis concerning particular texts with whoever likes to do the same. I love to discuss Scripture (Luther said anyone ought to be able to do so, right?). Basically, I would accept the usual historico-grammatical method, with a few Catholic modifications.
Issues of a person having a Fundamentalist background or not aside, there just isn’t any such thing as “evidence” for a position that stands on its own.
So you’re saying that no one can present what they feel is evidence for some theological tenet, with Bible passages, without it necessarily descending into a huge philosophical discussion of what biblical “evidence” or support is?
As you know, being an apologist for as long as you have been, many other considerations come into play, particularly criteria for what is or is not considered “evidence” and various standards by which “evidence” once identified as such are weighed and arranged within a broader scheme of thought. I don’t fancy I’m telling you something you don’t know; I’m just saying maybe it would help if you’d spell out your theory of “evidence.”
Insofar as I have one at all, it wouldn’t differ much at all (except in certain dogmatic respects) from something like D.A. Carson’s book, Exegetical Fallacies or Bernard Ramm’s Protestant Biblical Interpretation. Obviously, we reserve a place for authoritative Tradition and the Church as well, because we think they can be infallible as well as Scripture. Since Protestants deny that, Church and Tradition are only (basically) utilized in an “advisory capacity.”
That ain’t how the Church fathers looked at it. For them, a more or less unanimous tradition passed down, was decisive. Catholics are merely following patristic method with regard to apostolic succession. It is the so-called “Reformation” which radically departed from that.
Getting back to my earlier argument: y’all can believe whatever you like, but unless you can back it up from the Bible, I don’t see that it has any authority to speak of. Why should anyone accept Calvin’s or Luther’s or Chemnitz’s or any of these people’s word just because they say so? Obviously they have to back themselves up with the Bible and (preferably) some semblance of Tradition. Chemnitz and Calvin claimed to have demonstrated a substantial identity of Protestant positions with the patristic heritage. I don’t think they succeed in that, but I agree that they at least tried to do it.
Therefore, the most sensible thing to do in Catholic-Protestant discussion that means anything; that accomplishes anything, is to discuss Scripture primarily and some sense of traditional Christianity secondly. Since Scripture is regarded as infallible by Protestants, whereas Tradition is not, I stick mostly to Scripture in my argumentation.
