"But the process did not cease with the completion of the New Testament Canon and the days of inspiration. The Holy Spirit came to God's people on the Day of Pentecost, to abide with them forever, John 14:16. He is no less present in the Church of the Nineteenth, than He was in the Church of the First Century. Under His leading and inner impulse, believing men have been ever brought to a clearer and fuller apprehension of the doctrines given once for all in Holy Scripture. All the products of this working of the Holy Spirit in the experience of the Church are to be carefully treasured and thankfully used. The Holy Scriptures afford the test whereby to discriminate a true from a false development. All that is not contrary to Holy Scripture in the life of the Church, belongs to the Providential development of its capacities, as the witness of the truth and the bearer of salvation." - Henry Eyster Jacobs, *Elements of Religion* p. 20
[This book is really a very fine volume; another gem of bygone years that we can now enjoy thanks to the unflagging zeal and vision of Pastor James Heiser, Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America, and Repristination Press]
7 comments:
William,
This is one thing:
"Under His leading and inner impulse, believing men have been ever brought to a clearer and fuller apprehension of the doctrines given once for all in Holy Scripture."
But this seems to be another:
" The Holy Scriptures afford the test whereby to discriminate a true from a false development. All that is not contrary to Holy Scripture in the life of the Church, belongs to the Providential development of its capacities"
So is it "Tradition" when the unchanging apostolic doctrines are passed on and preserved by the Spirit in the Church? Or is "Tradition" when the Spirit of God "developes" the truths of the faith over a period of history?
Rome's various doctrines owe their existence to "development" not to passing and preserving.
I think Schaaf felt that Protestantism was Spirit led "development" when he said the Reformation was "the greatest act of the Catholic Church." Yet "development" is obviously implied.
The Vincentian canon (everywhere, always and by all) would seem to deny development.
So, is our understanding becoming clearer? Or are we to "develope" the doctrines themselves?
Full of questions,
Darrin
Father,
I would have no problem with the understanding that the Holy Spirit guides the church to properly develop and even vocalize the apostolic doctrine, but I would agree with Darrin that if new doctrines are developed in the nineteenth century then something seems fishy about that doctrine unless it can be defended from Scripture relatively clearly or reasoned from the Scriptures.
I guess we must ponder in some ways what "the secrets of the kingdom" were that the apostles were told by the resurrected Christ and which did not seem to be illuminated in Scripture to us.
Pax Christi,
Chris Heren
Jacobs means not by "true or false development" a development of some part of the original apostolic deposit contained in the word.
I should have continued the quotation:
"Well-known as may be a passage or a series of passages of Scripture and abundant in consolation, a joyful discovery of riches hitherto unthought of hidden therein, often follows, when error seeks to pervert it; and the confusion which is threatened, forces the individual Christian, or Church communion to its most thorough study. For a time, the violence of controversy may be heard, and the fact deplored that Christian men instead of applying the word of Scripture to the wants of practical life should allow their energies to be dissipated by polemical zeal. But the rise of every error and the rage of every controversy point to an ultimate victory. Men are forced anew to the Word of God; arguments on the one side and on the other, are carefully balanced, the ardor of contestants only contributing more fully to the wealth of material that is gathered, and the wider outlook which the controverted passage or doctrine opens. The result is the formulation of numerous Scripture passages, and expressed in language so thoroughly guarded as to exclude the errors which threatened to enter under the garb of more general terms that had been hitherto used. Such a definition settling a controvery, and officially approved as a test of sound teaching, is called a dogma.
The dogmas, of officially approved definitions, of the Church are set forth in the Church's confessions of faith. They have their authority not from the Church, but from their agreement with the Holy Scripture. A pure dogma, therefore, combines two elements: its material is from the Holy Scriptures; its form has been determined by the Church's experience. It has, therefore, both a Scriptural and an historical side." (20, 21)
Ugh. Lose the "not" in the first sentence. Computer gremlins! ;)
That clears it up somewhat. And this should and did work quite well when the Church was undivided. But now we have to decide which "Tradition" correctly interprets scripture. For me, as a Baptist, I am torn in many directions here. I believe many things which a Baptist isn't supposed to believe:
That Mary should be called the Mother of God.
That we really participate in Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist (not sure how exactly).
That baptism has a strong and in some sense saving efficacy-- though for concience sake I would not baptize infants but delay baptism until confession is personally possible-- however if baptism in the Triune name occurred as an infant I disagree with re-baptising them later. Immersion to me is the best visible portrayal of the thing signified but pouring would be acceptable.
With infant baptism, you would as Lutherans defer to the tradition of the Western church, though scripture basically is silent on the matter.
Is the Lutheran view of Christ's presence in the Supper "traditional" or a "development"? How about the Baptist's view? I see some attractive things in Lutheranism like appreciation for the early Father's, strong sacramentally, liturgy, yet Christ is preached. The Eastern Orthodox have many of these things, but the free grace of Christ is sometimes obscured, though Stephen Freeman's blog is very good.
All this to say that it is a mess in Christendom and especially evangelicalism which is nearly barren of anything ancient and catholic.
Would to God the unity of John 17 would come to fruition visibly not just invisibly.
Darrin
Dear Darrin,
Amen to your last prayer! God grant it!!!
As to Baptism, remember that on the holy day of Pentecost, St. Peter preached God's law in such a way as to cause the people to cry out in terror: "What shall we do?"
He told them: "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. *The promise is for you AND FOR YOUR CHILDREN and for those who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call."
I have no doubt that among the 3,000 that day were children as well as adults, and all of them receive through Baptism forgiveness AND the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Father Stephen is something else. I really appreciate his insights, even when I do not always agree with him.
Oops, I left out of the quote:
"be baptized EVERYONE OF YOU"
Post a Comment