Another concern (less empirical and more theological) is that despite all the talk of the noetic effects of sin, of self-deception, of voluntarism, of suppression of the truth in unrighteousness, and of overall human frailty (moral and epistemic), the Zrimian Calvinist position puts a lot more stock in the ability of unaided human reason than Catholics are comfortable with. This is typically masked behind rhetoric about the clarity of Scripture, but the mask seems to let a bit too much light through it. (Thus the practical contradiction I pointed out to Andrew M. in the Self-Authentication thread.)

Neal

There is no principled difference between following the Spirit when interpreting Scripture, and following the Spirit when not interpreting Scripture. We could call the former “being led by the Word” and the latter “being led by the Spirit.” But they are both forms of “private judgment.” And that’s why the proposed ‘middle position [between Catholicism and Radicalism] is no middle position at all, but just another form of private judgment.

The ready objection is that there is no need to listen to the Spirit when determining the interpretation of Scripture, because one can simply discern its plain meaning. But a quick glance around is always sufficient to nullify that objection. This week, for example, Scott Clark, John Piper, Doug Wilson and N.T. Wright cannot even agree on what is the Gospel. Clark calls Piper a brother. Piper calls Wilson a brother who preaches the gospel. Clark holds that Wilson is a heretic teaching another gospel, and [gently] rebukes Piper for calling Wilson a brother. Piper and Wright cannot agree on justification. Michael F. Bird then defends Piper and Wright, against Clark. These aren’t adiaphora here. This is the “Gospel” and “justification”; it doesn’t get much more essential than that. And even highly trained (and obviously Christ-loving) scholars can’t agree.

That’s why God gave the Church an enduring Magisterium, as Michael pointed out in comment #13, so His sheep need not be confused.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

Thanks for posting links to it. This will be helpful for the sequel to Return to Rome that I am going to begin working on in September. I’ve tentatively titled it, 49% Protestant: Further Reflections of an Evangelical Catholic.

It will be published by Ignatius Press.

Frank

Neal

(By the way, Hi. Been a while, Zrim. I get such a kick out of your blog posts.)

Good for Calvin. As a Catholic, I’d point out that all Cardinal Sadolet had to add to that is this: “and in order that the interpretation of the Word might not be vague and unstable, he annexed the Magisterium to the Word.”

Martin Luther famously referred to the Radicals of his time as those who had a taste for feathers:

“When we have heard or learned a few things about Holy Scripture, we think we are already doctors and have swallowed the Holy Ghost, feathers and all…This one will not hear of Baptism, that one denies the Sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ not God, some say this, some say that: there are about as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yoke is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet.”

In the July/August 1959 issue of Torch & Trumpet, Cornelius Van Til published his first article entitled “Calvin the Controversialist.” In it he paints a quick picture of life in Geneva up to the point at which “Calvin and his colleagues were ordered to leave the city.”

Cardinal Sadolet wastes no time trying to do damage control. He writes to the Genevan people that it seemed good “to the Holy Spirit and to me…to write somewhat to you…of the hope in Christ…the blessing of complete and perpetual salvation…by faith alone in God and in Jesus Christ…This [Catholic] Church hath regenerated us to God in Christ, hath nourished and confirmed us, instructed us what to think, what to believe, wherein to place our hope, and also taught us by what way we must tend towards heaven.”

He goes on to threaten the Day of Judgment against those who will not forsake these “modern novelties,” promising those who have returned to the church to meet the Day with confidence. Beza claims there is no one in Geneva who can answer Sadolet and beseeches Calvin to respond. As to this appeal Sadolet makes to the Spirit, Calvin says:

“What comes of the Word of the Lord, that clearest of all marks, and which the Lord himself, in pointing out the Church, so often recommends to us? For seeing how dangerous it would be to boast of the Spirit without the Word, he declared that the Church is indeed governed by the Holy Spirit; but in order that that government might not be vague and unstable, he annexed it to the Word.”

There are those today who seem to think that western Christianity is basically a story of Roman Catholicism and everybody else. If one is not Roman Catholic he must be a Protestant. They forget that the Radicals told Protestants they didn’t reform enough. This rusty history seems to be an equal opportunity afflication on the part of Catholics and Protestants alike. But just because two camps aren’t Catholic doesn’t mean they are both Protestant. And so for those who don’t seem to recall that the Reformation was indeed a battle on two fronts, which, among so many other things, was also a battle against two camps which claimed the Holy Spirit above the Word and descending like a dove on either the shoulder of the Church or into the heart of the Individual, Calvin reminds that:

“We are assailed by two sects, which seem to differ most widely from each other. For what similitude is there in appearance between the Pope and the Anabaptists? And yet, that you may see that Satan never transforms himself so cunningly, as not in some measure to betray himself, the principal weapon with which they both assail us is the same. For when they boast extravagantly of the Spirit, the tendency certainly is to sink and bury the Word of God, that they may make room for their own falsehoods. And you, Sadolet, by stumbling on the very threshold, have paid the penalty of that affront which you offered to the Holy Spirit, when you separated him from the Word.”

Phillips doesn’t consider that possibility because, in the sort of ecclesiology he represents, there is no such thing as a visible, unitary church that can be called “the” Church. Hence there is no such “Church” that can claim the teaching authority of Christ. Instead, visible churches are denominations with no real authority. They are bunches of individuals whose private judgment happens, for a time, to coincide, thus making it appear that the judgments in question are something more than just opinions.

Best,
Mike

http://examinelife.blogspot.com/2006/11/sola-scriptura-and-justification-sola.html
http://examinelife.blogspot.com/2006/12/just-what-is-principal-of-development.html
http://examinelife.blogspot.com/2007/09/pap.html
http://examinelife.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-privileging-private-judgment-is-sin.html
http://examinelife.blogspot.com/2007/10/scripture-meaning-and-interpretation.html
http://examinelife.blogspot.com/2007/10/authorial-intent.html
http://examinelife.blogspot.com/2007/10/witty-reading-of-history.html

sola scriptura:
http://examinelife.blogspot.com/2006/11/sola-scriptura-and-justification-sola.html
http://examinelife.blogspot.com/2006/12/just-what-is-principal-of-development.html
http://examinelife.blogspot.com/2007/09/pap.html

“plain meaning”:
http://examinelife.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-privileging-private-judgment-is-sin.html
http://examinelife.blogspot.com/2007/10/scripture-meaning-and-interpretation.html
http://examinelife.blogspot.com/2007/10/authorial-intent.html
http://examinelife.blogspot.com/2007/10/witty-reading-of-history.html