I had a dream last night. In it, I had died and gone to heaven, and was walking with the apostles. In fact, we were walking on water. The trouble is, in my dream, heaven was a sewage works - not the best place for walking on water! [I work as a civil engineer designing sewage works]
More seriously, I'm still perplexed by the contents of my previous post. Mrs was very dismissive, just laughing at me for taking it seriously at all. But if it was truly God and this was my Samuel in the temple moment, I can't dismiss it. Nor should I take any rash action, in case it was just a bizarre brain storm. Thinking theologically, I really couldn't make such an action now, there is just too much distance between me and Rome. I have read "Rome sweet Home" by Scott Hahn, and found it very challenging, but he still had fundamental flaws in his exegesis. (generally in the form of taking isolated scriptures and interpreting them without depth in a way suited to Rome rather than the rest of the Scriptures). I am a Sola Scriptura person: Tradition and Reason can help us (and hinder us) in the interpretation of Scripture and prevent "Judas went and hanged himself"..."Go and do thou likewise" episodes, but at the end of the day if there is any genuine conflict between the Scripture and the Tradition and the Reason, the Scripture has to win. Most of my formerly catholic friends cite discrepancies between scripture and RC tradition as being reasons why they reluctantly left.
And yet, theological perfection is unachievable. My church has errors. So if God told me to move from my original 'perfect' church to this flawed one, can he not also tell me to move to one that is even more flawed? Can I not be his messenger in that context? Can I remain true to my neo-anabaptist heart and say "I am a Roman Catholic?" Can I with integrity join a Roman Catholic church and subvert it with Sola Fides teaching?
Can I say to God "No, Lord, my theology prevents me from obeying you"?
I am in a mess on this one - the road is one I really don't want to travel, but if I am convinced it is comanded by God, what choice do I have?
I shall have to lay many fleeces, and take one step at a time.
Perhaps you could go have a chat with a knowledgeable Roman (or Anglo?) Catholic - they would tell you that Tradition is not considered a separate source of revelation that stands alongside the Scriptures, but rather is itself the Church's reading of the Bible through history. The Tradition is, simply put, a tradition of and about the Scriptures.
ReplyDeleteSee also my "Reading the Bible, V: No Such Thing as Sola Scriptura," and "They Knew That Innovation was Another Word for Heresy."
Thanks for your commenst Kyle, and I have had a brief look at your links.
ReplyDeleteI have not discouted tradition completely, I have said it must be subject to the Scriptures, but can help us to understand them. Of course the canonitself is a tradition.
My concern is that 'Tradition' is theology by chinese whispers. [I have referred you previously to the catholic encylopedia article on 'The christian Altar', which traces it's distortion form what paul wrote about] Yes, Luther regarded 'the fall of the church' as the middle ages, and I think I am right in saying that Zwingli thought that it occurred at the conversion of Constantine. My heritage is more through the moderate Anabaptist stream - and I recognise that this too is a tradition (in which Bible-based Christians have always been persecuted by the politicised State Church) traced by EH Broadbent in "The Pilgrim Church", Pickering, Basingstoke, Hants, UK (1985.http://www.amazon.com/Pilgrim-Church-E-H-Broadbent/dp/1579102425)
Looking at the Church fathers and all of Tradition, we find that all of them preached a mixture of really good stuff and really rubbish stuff, and contradicted each other left right and centre. [was it Origen or Tertullian that believed in reincarnation?] Hardly a reliable source for doctrine!
So, everything we need for Salvation is in the Scriptures. I have to look at them through the lens of one tradition or another, but I must recognise that the lens distorts at least as much as it iluminates. The search is for the least distorting lens.
And as I allways say, tongue in cheek of course, "I'm right and everybody else is wrong".