 |
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
The Pope has nicer lips.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
The arrogance to believe man's reason is sufficient without God is what's irrational.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
There are people not too sure about our existance either...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Straybow
|
 |
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The problem is that the Catholics recognised this and made changes. The protestants just schism if there is disagreement. There is no incentive to maintain unity in the face of disagreements. |
No, the RCC refused to acknowledge the need for change, else Luther would never have split. It was the whole attitude of the RCC in keeping the people ignorant "for their own good."
Heck, even the Anglicans at first continued the longstanding RC policy of persecuting those who would translate the scriptures into the vulgar.
quote:
quote:
Yeah, I've heard Scott Hahn. Nothing new here, just a vastly oversimplified reading of sola scriptura compared to an equally oversimplified reading of RC tradition. |
I've given his argument here.
Perhaps you care to address it? |
quote:
Secondly, is the presentation by Scott Hahn as to the Catholic position of scripture and tradition, I found closer to my own beliefs than sola scriptura. I rejected that interpretation that each ought to be able to interpret scripture on their own without any tradition, because that leads to all sorts of problems, quite early on.
Also, scripture affirms the role of tradition in intepretation as well as the role of elders in assisting such interpretation. So if you believe the bible is the sole authority, then you are forced to cede that even the bible affirms the authority of tradition. |
The rub lies in two inherent fallacies of argument: "on their own without any tradition." Nobody is interpreting "on their own," nor is it possible in any scholarly study to be interpreting "without any tradition." There is always the natural comparison to the standing interpretation of the day and the many and varied traditions.
So what Hahn is really saying is that it is wrong to disagree with RC interpretation of scripture and official tradition. Why? Because they say so on the authority of their interpretation and tradition. Tautology and circular reasoning.
The Bible does not affirm the inerrancy of the elders or of tradition. It is therefore our place to weigh their input. The motives of particular elders and the accuracy of the knowledge available to them may be questioned without harm to the role of elders as teachers. The additions of neo-Aristotelian philosophy can be rejected as contemporizations of truths in the scripture without harm to the scriptures themselves or traditions that affirm them.
The real jewel in Scott Hahn's teaching is his projection of God, the institutional Church, and the Laity as Daddy, Mommy, and Siblings to the believer. I see it as an inability to embrace God as encompassing the role of Daddy and Mommy to the believer. It is almost as if he is afraid to be weaned from the teat and digest "strong meat" (Heb 5:12ff).
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-03-2005 05:10
Attachment: 
|
