Hamalas
whippersnapper
Tony Woodlief attends our (PCA) church and recently posted this article on his blog, www.tonywoodlief.com
"Many of you know I write for a fine publication called WORLD, both their print magazine as well as Mondays and Fridays on their website. My colleague there, a very talented writer named Harrison Scott Key, recently posted some thoughts about the seeming willingness among Christians to support anyone who claims to be pro-life, even if she’s dumber than a box of rocks.
What fascinates me are the comments that followed, and especially one person who epitomizes what to me is the worst of Reformation thinking — the notion that Church history began when Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door in 1517, the belief that sola scriptura frees a man to decide for himself what the Bible (almost always an English translation) means, and the subsequent conviction that anything not specifically sanctioned by Scriptures is therefore a matter of conscience.
Thus does this commenter conclude that Church opposition to abortion is a Roman Catholic tradition, and hence suspect. Further, he says, since abortion is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, it’s not a Church matter. Even worse, he trots out the doctrine of Original Sin (how come nobody ever sola scripturas that repugnant — and utterly Catholic — teaching?) to argue that the babies slaughtered by abortion are in fact guilty as hell (read: it’s not like truly innocent blood is being shed here).
As many Christian Orthodox writers have observed, with sola scriptura the modern Christian rejects a single pope in order to establish thousands of little, relatively uneducated popes. Set aside the fact that sola scriptura is not itself specifically mentioned in the Bible, causing problems for someone who believes only what’s explicit is legitimate dogma. Set aside the fact that the Bible itself was assembled, necessarily, outside the boundaries of sola scriptura. Ignore as well that the modern Protestant who rejects early Church teaching thereby implicitly rejects the authority of the people he trusts to have assembled an unimpeachable canon.
All that aside, what most amazes me here is that someone can so intellectualize God that he believes the Holy Church ought to stand mute on the slaughter of unborn children. I wonder, how much stomping do you have to do on God’s head to fit him into that tight little scholastic, Aristotelian, Augustine-besotted Reformation box?
Plenty of Reformers are arguing with this fellow, but they start in the same bind. Many stand ready to condemn what their traditions tell them to dislike (e.g., incense, guitars in church, icons, contemplative prayer), and do so by noting that it isn’t explicitly mentioned in Scriptures. Yet in order to condemn abortion, they must engage in interpretation. This is allowed because my interpretation reveals its obviousness to me. But no, says a contradictory voice, my reading tells me different. Plus Augustine/Luther/Calvin/Piper says so. It’s a recipe for endless schism, and there you have the modern Protestant Church in a nutshell.
The reality is that the earliest Christians condemned abortion in no uncertain terms. Like it or not, this isn’t a matter of conscience, unless you want to assume that the people who were taught by and worshipped with the Apostles have no more ability to interpret Scriptures than some kid flipping through Strong’s Concordance. It makes more sense to me to believe that the people who formed Church teaching and traditions as a direct fruit of the Pentecost have a better knowledge of proper Church dogma. The truth is, I prefer St. John Chrysostom to John Calvin any day, and twice on Sundays.
I’m a bad Presbyterian."
Obviously he is being influenced by the Greek Orthodox/Doug Wilson stuff, and I just need to know how to approach this. What is a good starting point and what should I say? I would crave your prayers at this time brothers.
In Christ,
Ben
"Many of you know I write for a fine publication called WORLD, both their print magazine as well as Mondays and Fridays on their website. My colleague there, a very talented writer named Harrison Scott Key, recently posted some thoughts about the seeming willingness among Christians to support anyone who claims to be pro-life, even if she’s dumber than a box of rocks.
What fascinates me are the comments that followed, and especially one person who epitomizes what to me is the worst of Reformation thinking — the notion that Church history began when Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door in 1517, the belief that sola scriptura frees a man to decide for himself what the Bible (almost always an English translation) means, and the subsequent conviction that anything not specifically sanctioned by Scriptures is therefore a matter of conscience.
Thus does this commenter conclude that Church opposition to abortion is a Roman Catholic tradition, and hence suspect. Further, he says, since abortion is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, it’s not a Church matter. Even worse, he trots out the doctrine of Original Sin (how come nobody ever sola scripturas that repugnant — and utterly Catholic — teaching?) to argue that the babies slaughtered by abortion are in fact guilty as hell (read: it’s not like truly innocent blood is being shed here).
As many Christian Orthodox writers have observed, with sola scriptura the modern Christian rejects a single pope in order to establish thousands of little, relatively uneducated popes. Set aside the fact that sola scriptura is not itself specifically mentioned in the Bible, causing problems for someone who believes only what’s explicit is legitimate dogma. Set aside the fact that the Bible itself was assembled, necessarily, outside the boundaries of sola scriptura. Ignore as well that the modern Protestant who rejects early Church teaching thereby implicitly rejects the authority of the people he trusts to have assembled an unimpeachable canon.
All that aside, what most amazes me here is that someone can so intellectualize God that he believes the Holy Church ought to stand mute on the slaughter of unborn children. I wonder, how much stomping do you have to do on God’s head to fit him into that tight little scholastic, Aristotelian, Augustine-besotted Reformation box?
Plenty of Reformers are arguing with this fellow, but they start in the same bind. Many stand ready to condemn what their traditions tell them to dislike (e.g., incense, guitars in church, icons, contemplative prayer), and do so by noting that it isn’t explicitly mentioned in Scriptures. Yet in order to condemn abortion, they must engage in interpretation. This is allowed because my interpretation reveals its obviousness to me. But no, says a contradictory voice, my reading tells me different. Plus Augustine/Luther/Calvin/Piper says so. It’s a recipe for endless schism, and there you have the modern Protestant Church in a nutshell.
The reality is that the earliest Christians condemned abortion in no uncertain terms. Like it or not, this isn’t a matter of conscience, unless you want to assume that the people who were taught by and worshipped with the Apostles have no more ability to interpret Scriptures than some kid flipping through Strong’s Concordance. It makes more sense to me to believe that the people who formed Church teaching and traditions as a direct fruit of the Pentecost have a better knowledge of proper Church dogma. The truth is, I prefer St. John Chrysostom to John Calvin any day, and twice on Sundays.
I’m a bad Presbyterian."
Obviously he is being influenced by the Greek Orthodox/Doug Wilson stuff, and I just need to know how to approach this. What is a good starting point and what should I say? I would crave your prayers at this time brothers.
In Christ,
Ben
