Showing posts with label predestination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label predestination. Show all posts

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Ecclesiastical Interpretation


Vincentius (Vincent of Lérins) was an early church father who lived and wrote in Lérins, France. His contribution that deserves our attention is a work called the "Commonitory." It is often held that the Commonitory was a work by Vincentius meant to create a rubric where by the Christian might determine true Ecclesiastical Interpretation and Doctrine, from heresy. When one looks to address the Commonitory as a literary work it is by and large a refutation of Augustine's doctrine of Predestination. Most scholars would give a wide range of dates for the writing of the Commonitory, but the stream of thought that I want to present is that Vincentius wrote the Commonitory in 434, three years after the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus.


Now even as I said that the primary goal and purpose of the Commonitory is to refute the Augustinian doctrine of Predestination, his stance and verbage on searching out heresy is exceptional, and has now formed the foundation by which I view doctrine.


Vincentius would contest that due to the highly interpretive nature of Scripture, while complete and sufficient of itself, must be read through the lens of the Ecclesiastical Tradition. My theology professor Dr. Chris Bounds points out the ease with which an Evangelical discards the Tradition of the Church over time. The urging of Vincentius is to embrace the work done for us by those that have predated us. Outside of the Tradition one can easily diverge from Orthodoxy. It is nearly impossible for a person, independent of community, to arrive at an Orthodox understanding of scripture. I do not recall who said these words, but the effect was that "if we by chance see further than those that have gone before us it is because we have the privilege of standing on their shoulders." Thus, the collective work of the founders of our faith gives strength to our understanding, apart from which we would fall into heresy.


Vincentius also sets up a series of beautiful tools by which the Christian can check the authority of a doctrine. He states that we must look to the Universality of a doctrine. To see if it is accepted by Christians everywhere. Assuming, as we must, that there is one and only one faith that is true for all. Secondly we look to the Antiquity of a doctrine. It begs of a doctrine its authority based on its age. This is HUGE! There is a law within the pursuit of theology called the law of "Proximal Authority." It states that the closer a thought is to the chronological date of Christ, as Christ is the insertion of the ultimate authority on theology into time, the more weight it must hold in our hearts. That something said by Jesus is chief, followed closely by His disciples, then the Apostolic Church Fathers, followed then by the Greek and Roman Fathers and on down the line to the theologians of our day. Thus we are presented with our third rule which is the position of the Doctors of our faith.


Consensus within the Church on a doctrine can be arrived at by looking to the past. One must see everything through the eye of Consensual Theology. What has been agreed on over time? We must take great care, looking to see if any general or Ecumenical councils have been assembled over, or have spoken to the issue at hand. If not one must look to the collective wisdom of the fathers of our faith. I, in my naivety, fail to truly appreciate the severity of the nuances of doctrine. A statement that would send shutters down the spine of a more learned wise man, is uttered with total apathy from my lips. I, and those like me, must, absolutely must lean into, and run with fervency toward understanding, lest we truncate the essence of our Lord.


I will leave you with an image that Vincentius uses to speak to the progression of understanding of doctrine. He compares the evolution of doctrinal understanding to the growth of the human body. Canon lays the foundation in the womb of our understanding. The general anatomy of doctrine is forged in the sacred Scriptures, and through time theologians of old have formed and nurtured it. Growing it into a more mature understanding. Taking great care not to change an element of it, because we believe that it holds within it the capacity to grow to it intended state. It is logical that when one begins with a boy, it will become a man. Theologians then form doctrine within the constructs of Scripture arriving, in time, at holistic understanding. Articulating elements that were unclear in the text, and emphasizing those areas that require assertion. So now when one takes the cumulative works of Canon and the texts of the Traditions, one is able to experience the fullness of the understanding of God, and to that end we strive.

Thursday, March 06, 2008

Election

While Karl Barth has received more than widespread revocation from Calvinist theologians the world over, it is my humble opinion that his writings on the subject of election, as I have read them from his work Church Dogmatics, have great influence over the entire subject.
It is my understanding that the debate was begun by John Calvin, a mid to late 16th century theologian, and arguably one of the most important to date. Calvin believed that God chose some humans for salvation through Christ. This statement by all means would then logically imply that God also chose some to not receive salvation through Christ, or more directly, to chose some for eternal damnation. This has become known as “double predestination (see Westminster Confession of Faith).” I don’t want to get into the idea and theology of absolute decree, but it is my opinion that Calvin’s absolute decree takes away the fundamental Christian concept of human independence, the idea that God gave us the ability to chose, independent of external, divine, force.
Barth believed that the idea of absolute decree, as explained by Calvin, undermined God’s sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Pointing instead to His decree being the willful sacrifice of His son on the cross, an act that beckons human response. Barth maintains the doctrine of double predestination that is core to the Reformed teachings, but moves the center of absolute decree to be over the person of Jesus Christ, and salvation through Him. Thus, Jesus is the vessel for both dietous election, and divine reprobation.
As I have explored the heart of this debate, I have begun to realize something about theology as whole. It is not so much that there is two sides to every debate. That there is a line in the sand that one must stand on one or the other side, poised for attack of the other. It is much more that there are forces, pulling in dissimilar directions that keep the debate in tension. I like this analogy more because it doesn’t cause static. It keeps a great almost anxious heart to explore either direction. More deeply spurring the Christian mind to investigate these concepts. I am so deeply thankful for Barth dusting off this tired old theology, and giving it some new depth. While I do not claim to be so wise as to be able to make a decision on this, I believe that Barth’s understanding more closely matches the heart of God. That by giving people more choice, it more clearly shows His greatness.