I’m part way through my re-read of the Institutes and continue my view that Calvin was a lot more nuanced that the TULIP summary would lead you to believe. He was certainly Sola Scriptura though I think his definitions are rather different to those I quoted re Luther. And he certainly quotes some writings from the periods of the ecumenical councils.
Sola Scriptua is certainly an oxymoron because there is nobody who can read Scriprure without interpretation, whether it comes from their tradition or their own wit.
I’ve never heard it denied that Scripture needs interpretation; quite the contrary. The idea of sola scriptura never suggested otherwise, or at least wasn’t intended to. The claim it puts forth is simply that at the end of the day, Scripture trumps any other source we may look to and rely on.
Which is fine as far as it goes but begs the question as to what criteria we use to determine whether something is 'grounded in scripture' or not.
We ask basic questions like “where?”
What happens if I say something is grounded in scripture and you disagree, or vice-versa?
We either work it out or we don’t, we agree or we disagree.
But if we aren’t even talking about the same thing to start with, the criteria we use is pretty irrelevant. You’re talking about how to build the house when we don’t have a foundation yet.
What specifically are you talking about, GG, when you say sola scriptura? What exactly do you mean by that phrase?
Scripture does not stand alone. We receive and interpret it in community.
Again, I’ve never heard it claimed otherwise. Indeed, I was formed and have lived in an understanding that Scripture is only properly understood in community. The various Reformed confessions, I think, demonstrate if nothing else that interpreting and understanding the Scriptures is a community enterprise.
The Second Helvetic Confession (1561) makes clear that “the Holy Scriptures are not of private interpretation.” That confession and the Westminster Confession (1646) both make clear the value and proper role of councils as well as of the writings of the Church Fathers. Where they depart from a Roman Catholic or Orthodox standpoint is by saying it’s not sufficient to make a decision based only on the writings of Church Fathers, the decisions of Councils or the existence of long-standing practice. Rather, the question has to be asked whether those writings of Church Fathers, decisions of Councils or long-standing practices are grounded in or contrary to Scripture or not.
Now, if the discussion is how sola scriptura can fit with adoption of the canon to start with, I think that’s a valid challenge worthy of discussion.
But I’d also say it wasn’t what was on the Reformers’ mind when the slogan—and that’s what it is, so it functions as a memorable shorthand more than a precise formulation—came into use.
Specific targets, like Purgatory and the consequential indulgences, were asserted as unscriptural. And indulgences were seen, correctly, as a form of blackmail designed to extract money from the fearful.
So I think it was common ground amongst Protestants that something needed to be done about Catholic and in particular Papal authority claims. “Let’s put scripture above any human authority” they argued.
Yes, this is exactly what the slogan was/is getting at.
In the process some babies were thrown out with the bathwater. But it’s pretty hard to argue that they did not have a point about the bathwater.
Those are summaries by others from Luther’s writings. Again I’m not sure of the source.
They identify Luther as a sola scriptura believer who did not dismiss Tradition but saw it as subject to the test of the scriptures and reasons. He saw Tradition as self evidently fallible because of contradictions between the popes and the councils.
That’s the approach I'm familiar with in the Reformed tradition, and the approach reflected by the confessional citations above. (I had some quotes, but figured no one wanted to read long quotes.)
I’m part way through my re-read of the Institutes and continue my view that Calvin was a lot more nuanced that the TULIP summary would lead you to believe.
TULIP is, as I’ve said before, a British-American construct that purports to take decisions of the (Dutch) Synod of Dort (1618–19) and treat them as some sort of distillation of Calvin’s theology. The result is, at best, distortions.
Yes, I'm with you on Dort and its distortions. Calvin was certainly more nuanced than that but from an Orthodox perspective he's seen as very 'Scholastic' in the late-medieval sense, but that doesn't mean he doesn't ring true from time to time.
He's very Augustinian and juridical and we are far less influenced by the Blessed Augustine of Hippo than Western Christianity.
I'm not convinced the Orthodox would say that Creeds and conciliar decisions stand above and away from scripture. I think we'd generally insist that these things are based on or derive from scripture even if not always in a chapter and verse kind of way.
This is what I mean by dislocating scripture from the Church.
Yes, the Reformed tradition through its various Confessions does emphasise the interpretation of scripture in community, but dislocated to some extent from the community which canonised and handed down the scriptures in the first place.
It interprets scripture through a subset community as it were, for all its claims to be doing so within the context of the 'universal church.'
It isn't setting up scripture as the final authority but the Reformed interpretation of scripture as the final authority.
Pardon a mildly snarky cut and paste from a protestant, but this one struck me:
I could be cheeky and suggest that 'sola scriptura' means 'sola scriptura providing it accords with own particular group's interpretation
[...]
Scripture does not stand alone. We receive and interpret it in community.
This might be a little cheeky of me, but I'm not sure I see a lot of breathing room between "sola scriptura providing it according with one particular groups' interpretation" and "We receive and interpret it in community."
A community is, after all, a group.
We may agree in a sense about what's going on here, and maybe we're all sola scriptura after our own fashion. The real question is where the boundaries of "the community" are set. And that does fit my experience of churches as political creatures.
I’m part way through my re-read of the Institutes and continue my view that Calvin was a lot more nuanced that the TULIP summary would lead you to believe. He was certainly Sola Scriptura though I think his definitions are rather different to those I quoted re Luther. And he certainly quotes some writings from the periods of the ecumenical councils.
Still reading …..
That's also my recollection. TULIP came later, as Calvin's followers began trying to systematize his thoughts into a coherent doctrine. I once engaged with a caricature of the guy, and someone reminded me of that fact. Sometimes you can go too far in taking logical ideas to their hard conclusions.
[Calvin is] very Augustinian and juridical . . . .
This retired lawyer has often quipped among Presbyterians that “Calvin was not a priest or minister; he was a lawyer. And doesn’t that explain a lot?”
It isn't setting up scripture as the final authority but the Reformed interpretation of scripture as the final authority.
And that’s where we get to that other Reformed slogan—Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei (“The church reformed, always to be reformed according to the Word of God.) Part of the Reformed ethos is the idea that because people have a way of consistently screwing things up, going back to and measuring against Scripture is and will always be (this side of the New Creation, at least) an ongoing task. That has to include a willingness to consider the possibility that we’ve gotten it wrong, that even a long-standing Reformed interpretation may be wrong
Now, one could reasonably question how that has played out in practice. I’d say the results are mixed, but there certainly have been many examples of that ongoing reform, except perhaps in the most conservative of Reformed groups.
In any event, to dismiss Reformed understanding of sola scriptura on the grounds that it is really setting up the Reformed interpretation of Scripture as the final authority is to impose a foreign context on the Reformed understanding rather than considering it the context in which the Reformed would consider it. It’s like trying to analyze one language on the basis of the grammatical rules of a different language, or so it seems to me at least.
I’m part way through my re-read of the Institutes and continue my view that Calvin was a lot more nuanced that the TULIP summary would lead you to believe. He was certainly Sola Scriptura though I think his definitions are rather different to those I quoted re Luther. And he certainly quotes some writings from the periods of the ecumenical councils.
Still reading …..
That's also my recollection. TULIP came later, as Calvin's followers began trying to systematize his thoughts into a coherent doctrine. I once engaged with a caricature of the guy, and someone reminded me of that fact. Sometimes you can go too far in taking logical ideas to their hard conclusions.
Hmm - if P necessarily implies Q, then asserting P asserts Q, whether you yourself mention affirm the necessary implication or not.
1. All squares have four sides
2. Figure A is a square.
3. Figure A has four sides
It makes very little difference when I make assertions 1 and 2 whether I make assertion 3 as well.
I’m part way through my re-read of the Institutes and continue my view that Calvin was a lot more nuanced that the TULIP summary would lead you to believe. He was certainly Sola Scriptura though I think his definitions are rather different to those I quoted re Luther. And he certainly quotes some writings from the periods of the ecumenical councils.
Still reading …..
That's also my recollection. TULIP came later, as Calvin's followers began trying to systematize his thoughts into a coherent doctrine. I once engaged with a caricature of the guy, and someone reminded me of that fact. Sometimes you can go too far in taking logical ideas to their hard conclusions.
Hmm - if P necessarily implies Q, then asserting P asserts Q, whether you yourself mention affirm the necessary implication or not.
1. All squares have four sides
2. Figure A is a square.
3. Figure A has four sides
It makes very little difference when I make assertions 1 and 2 whether I make assertion 3 as well.
And that's a fair critique. I feel like theology as a field - given our "through a glass dimly" relationship with God - requires a certain fudginess around the details. We should probably aim more for accuracy than precision, and I've long held the impression that that's a problem with Calvinism in general. They get too logically locked down, very precisely hitting the wrong point on the target.
In theology there's a need to think about how you think before you do too much thinking. Keep a little humility. I think there's an arrogance to thinking we can logic out God like a square.
Mind, that might be my own desire to remain Christian in a world where Christianity really doesn't make much sense thinking...
That said, I don't think you're mistaken. At some point it's better to drop flawed logic than to try to build a fortress around it.
Pardon a mildly snarky cut and paste from a protestant, but this one struck me:
I could be cheeky and suggest that 'sola scriptura' means 'sola scriptura providing it accords with own particular group's interpretation
[...]
Scripture does not stand alone. We receive and interpret it in community.
This might be a little cheeky of me, but I'm not sure I see a lot of breathing room between "sola scriptura providing it according with one particular groups' interpretation" and "We receive and interpret it in community."
A community is, after all, a group.
We may agree in a sense about what's going on here, and maybe we're all sola scriptura after our own fashion. The real question is where the boundaries of "the community" are set. And that does fit my experience of churches as political creatures.
Of course.
But we aren't 'sola scriptura'. We just think we are ... 😉
@Nick Tamen sure, I can understand what you are saying of course and recognise that it's always hard to 'critique' another Christian tradition from the outside and without speaking all the lingo. And of course I know the semper reformanda tropes. More slogans.
😉
But we've still got this 'according to the Word of God' thing going on as if the Reformed tradition is setting itself up as the true arbiter and interpreter of scriptures it inherited from previous generations and whose T/traditions it rejects on the grounds that it knows best ... 😉
You don't appear to recognise the irony of this.
That's about as polemical as I become. That said, I do think many aspects of the Reformed tradition are pretty 😎 cool.
Whatever the case, I certainly think there's room for creative dialogue and interaction between Christian T/traditions on the relationship between scripture and T/tradition and much more besides.
@Nick Tamen sure, I can understand what you are saying of course and recognise that it's always hard to 'critique' another Christian tradition from the outside and without speaking all the lingo. And of course I know the semper reformanda tropes. More slogans.
😉
But we've still got this 'according to the Word of God' thing going on as if the Reformed tradition is setting itself up as the true arbiter and interpreter of scriptures it inherited from previous generations and whose T/traditions it rejects on the grounds that it knows best ... 😉
You don't appear to recognise the irony of this.
Trust me when I say I recognize the irony, and have done so long before this thread. But I think I also recognize a critique that strikes me as being more based on what you think we say and believe and do rather than how I have experienced over my lifetime what we say and believe and do, and of how this one thing fits into the grander scheme of things. I readily acknowledge that well may be due to my failure to adequately communicate the “insider” take.
In any event, I'm well aware of the weakness as well as the strengths of our approach. And I’m not threatened by challenges from other traditions, nor do I think I’m an anomaly in that regard. We—at least in my particular strand of the Reformed tradition—tend, I think, to spend a lot more time asking whether we are being faithful to Scripture than reveling in being the true arbiter and interpreter of Scripture. Indeed, part of the point of that “trope” is the belief that ultimately none of us can ever claim to be the true arbiter and interpreter of Scripture.
For the past few days I have been trying to come up with a response to the question of what is the Lutheran understanding of Scripture. Some have sited what Luther said in regards to Scripture, but the question should be where do Lutherans see scripture now.
Short answer: it's complicated.
The ELCA's constitution says
This (ELCA) church accepts the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its proclamation, faith, and life.
Just above that statement it says:
The canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the written Word of God. Inspired by God’s Spirit speaking through their authors, they record and announce God’s revelation centering in Jesus Christ. Through them God’s Spirit speaks to us to create and sustain Christian faith and fellowship for service in the world.
A phrase you will often hear around ELCA circles is "The Bible is the cradle on which the Living Word, Jesus Christ, rests."
On the other hand, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod says:
We teach that the Holy Scriptures differ from all other books in the world in that they are the Word of God. They are the Word of God because the holy men of God who wrote the Scriptures wrote only that which the Holy Ghost communicated to them by inspiration, 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21. We teach also that the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures is not a so-called "theological deduction," but that it is taught by direct statements of the Scriptures, 2 Tim. 3:16, John 10:35, Rom. 3:2; 1 Cor. 2:13. Since the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, it goes without saying that they contain no errors or contradictions, but that they are in all their parts and words the infallible truth, also in those parts which treat of historical, geographical, and other secular matters, John 10:35.
I would say the ELCA leans into a prima scriptura approach, the LCMS remains sola scriptura.
And all the other Lutheran bodies fall along a wide spectrum, bookended by the ELCA or the LCMS.
I often wonder, if Luther were still writing today where he would be on that spectrum. A hint might be in his defense at the Diet of Worms where he was called on to recant what he had written. He responded: "Unless someone can show me where I am wrong by Scripture and plain reason, I will not recant."
Luther largely reacted against the RC teaching regarding Purgatory, and the use of indulgences, and the abuse of the papal authority. I think this made him more of a sola scriptura person in his day; but given his struggles with Scripture, and the ensuing changes in rational thought and scientific discovery, he would likely have taken another look at the teachings of his day. He always viewed the Bible as a Living Word. He questioned parts of it, like the book of James and the Revelation of John.
In other words, take your pick. You will not be wrong.
Thanks Gramps49 . Hardly surprising that there’s some variation.
And worth remembering that Luther (and Calvin) wrote well before the later discoveries about scripture (lower criticism). Never mind the thinking behind various higher criticisms. Both have caused a proper reflection on the nature and meaning of scripture. Much as some people would prefer it to be different, both scripture itself and its related meanings are, properly, moving targets for understanding.
Pardon a mildly snarky cut and paste from a protestant, but this one struck me:
I could be cheeky and suggest that 'sola scriptura' means 'sola scriptura providing it accords with own particular group's interpretation
[...]
Scripture does not stand alone. We receive and interpret it in community.
This might be a little cheeky of me, but I'm not sure I see a lot of breathing room between "sola scriptura providing it according with one particular groups' interpretation" and "We receive and interpret it in community."
A community is, after all, a group.
We may agree in a sense about what's going on here, and maybe we're all sola scriptura after our own fashion. The real question is where the boundaries of "the community" are set. And that does fit my experience of churches as political creatures.
Of course.
But we aren't 'sola scriptura'. We just think we are ... 😉
I think that is exactly why I'm skeptical of the concept altogether.
A few thoughts on my re-read of Calvin’s Institutes. Apart from “Wow! He’s hard work!”
I think it was Nick Tamen who observed that he writes like a lawyer which makes any summarising dangerous. I re-read the chapters in Book One on the scriptures and Book Three of Church Governance. Here are my personal interpretations.
Firstly on scripture. In Book One Chapter 7, he emphasises that it is God given and therefore it is impious for the Church to assert that its credibility depends on the judgment and decisions of the Church. Instead he emphasises the vital role of the Holy Spirit. A telling phrase is this. “The authority of scripture is sealed in the hearts of believers by the testimony of the Holy Spirit.” So I think he places Scripture above both human reason and Church Authority. He seems to me to be saying that the authority and meaning of scripture is self evident to believers truly informed by the Holy Spirit. The implication of the surrounding chapters is that God is self evident in creation, self evident in scripture, but only to the pious. At the end of Chapter 7 there is another telling phrase.”Let us call to mind that none comprehend the mystery of God save those to whom it is given.” Chapter 7 on scripture is not reductionist.
It would be wrong for me to say I have fully absorbed all the other things he has to say about scripture, so this is probably an “in part” view. Suffice to say that based on Chapter 7 alone, his view of scripture is not simplistic.
@Nick Tamen, sure I believe you when you say you are aware of the 'irony' and am not accusing you of bad faith. Far from it.
It's simply that we all assume our own positions to be the default one. I remember meeting a very likeable Presbyterian minister from Nor'n Ir'n' at an ecumenical conference largely attended by Orthodox, RCs and Anglicans. He was delighted that something the late Metropolitan Kallistos Ware said accorded with his understanding of an aspect of Reformed soteriology.
I felt like asking him where the Reformed got this particular idea from.
I don't doubt that the Reformed spend more time asking themselves whether they are being true to scripture rather than considering themselves the arbiter and defender of the True FaithTM.
At the risk of simplifying things, in my both/and mind being true to scripture and true to Tradition are part of the same continuum. You can't divorce them from one another. Tradition gave us scripture. Scripture informs and shapes Tradition. There is a constant dialogue between them.
I attend an online Orthodox Bible study group.
The standard practice there is to read and examine the text, then look at some Patristic commentary on the particular verses then discuss our own insights or reactions.
This strikes me as a kind of Orthodox Capital Letter approach to what the Reformed and other Protestants do in a lower-case letter kind of way - if you follow my drift.
I can imagine a Reformed Bible study where they start with the scriptures then look at commentaries from within their own and other traditions (yes, and some Patristic material too) and also their own thoughts and intepretations in 'conversation' with the text.
We Orthodox of course are seen as less flexible and elastic but we would insist that ours is a Living Tradition not one set in concrete.
In terms of my own knowledge/apprehension of the Reformed tradition, I will concede that I've largely encountered it in its more brittle and 'neo-Calvinist' forms or in its more liberal United Reformed form as it were. That doesn't mean that I think of it exclusively in those terms nor that I am dismissive of Reformed scholarship per se.
@Gramps49 - I'm even less familiar with the Lutheran tradition but what you say does not surprise me and it's as I would imagine the Lutheran approach to scripture to be. The LCMS looks very fundamentalist to me, with as much stress on inerrancy and infallibility as one might expect from groups like the Southern Baptists. I'm sure there are more nuanced approaches there though.
Don't get me wrong. I hold to a very high view of scripture but find the way these things are framed by some conservative Protestant groups just as problematic as I find some uber-liberal and 'Higher Critical' (lower sceptical ) approaches.
I'm not a sola scriptura person obviously and agree with @Bullfrog that it isn't even a tenable position in the first place, for reasons I've tried to outline on this thread.
But for those who hold to it - or imagine they hold to it - I can see that it doesn't necessitate a woodenly literal approach.
When it comes to discussion and debate I'm more than happy to take a modified sola scriptura approach whilst appreciating that in reality that's not what I am doing at all.
To paraphrase Sir Walter Scott's Marmion, 'Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to believe'. Calvin, Luther, Aquinas etc, et al, all start and end with special pleading belief by the Spirit. Is there any way to God without it? Including the bias of 'lived experience'.
Pedantically, in mainstream Christian belief, the Spirit is not an “it”. But then you know that.
I don’t know if you’ve ever read Calvin’s Institutes. Purely for academic interest, of course. He was no mug. There’s a precise mind behind his writings and strong signs of his very extensive reading. As well as his strong beliefs.
I think his aim was to untangle webs. Historically, the Reformers were right about that. Catholic doctrine and practice had become very tangled.
It doesn’t really matter whether we think he failed, partially succeeded, or what. The sincerity with which he tried is very obvious.
It's simply that we all assume our own positions to be the default one.
We do until we learn better. And I learned better and a long, long time ago.
At the risk of simplifying things, in my both/and mind being true to scripture and true to Tradition are part of the same continuum. You can't divorce them from one another. Tradition gave us scripture. Scripture informs and shapes Tradition. There is a constant dialogue between them..
Yes, I understand the Orthodox take on that pretty well, GG. I really do.
And I haven’t been trying to argue against it. I’ve been trying to articulate the (a?) Reformed position and put that position in a larger context, and nothing more.
And I’ve been doing that because it’s my experience that if I’m going to really discuss what someone else believes, much less argue against it, the discussion is likely to be much more fruitful if I can first demonstrate that I have a good understanding of what they believe—not a superficial understanding, much less a caricature, but that I really get the experience of it along with the book-explanation of it.
And what I felt I was seeing in this thread was a lot of use of sola scriptura that didn’t reflect my experience of it.
But for those who hold to it - or imagine they hold to it - I can see that it doesn't necessitate a woodenly literal approach.
GG, I know you like a bit of humor and flippancy, and I would have known that’s what’s going on here even without the winkie emoji. But please trust me when I say, as a friend, that using that kind of flippancy really doesn’t work here. It comes across as a pat on the head of a silly child with a wink to the other adults, and it undercuts all of the times you’ve said “sure, I get it.”
A few thoughts on my re-read of Calvin’s Institutes. Apart from “Wow! He’s hard work!”
. . .
It would be wrong for me to say I have fully absorbed all the other things he has to say about scripture, so this is probably an “in part” view. Suffice to say that based on Chapter 7 alone, his view of scripture is not simplistic.
It strikes me that you’ve got a good take on him so far.
It may be a good time to mention that while Calvin is unquestionably a big figure, if not the big figure, in the Reformed tradition, he isn’t quite the only figure. Calvin is not to the Reformed tradition quite like Luther is—or at least, appears to me as a non-Lutheran—to be to Lutheranism. Calvin is generally an important word, but not the last word.
Apologies @Nick Tamen but my winking emojis are meant to be double-edged and aimed at myself as much - if not more - than anyone else.
Rather like the one you used upthread yourself when you riffed with the idea of being older and wiser and no longer regarding one's own position as the default option.
How come it's alright for you to use winking emojis but not me?
They aren't intended to undermine my 'sure, I get that' comments but rather to reinforce them in a self-deprecatory way.
It's called postmodernism.
Something like that ... 😉. Whoops, there's another one ...
As for caricaturing the Reformed position, I've made it clear several times now that most of my exposure to it comes from the more hardline 'neo-Calvinist' end or the more liberal URC end - which can fall into the opposite tendency and be somewhat wishy-washy. I have reiterated that I am sure there is much more to the Reformed tradition than those aspects of it I've been exposed to.
I can't see how I can state things clearer than that emojis or no emojis.
Apologies @Nick Tamen but my winking emojis are meant to be double-edged and aimed at myself as much - if not more - than anyone else.
Rather like the one you used upthread yourself when you riffed with the idea of being older and wiser and no longer regarding one's own position as the default option.
How come it's alright for you to use winking emojis but not me?
They aren't intended to undermine my 'sure, I get that' comments but rather to reinforce them in a self-deprecatory way.
It's called postmodernism.
Something like that ... 😉. Whoops, there's another one ...
As for caricaturing the Reformed position, I've made it clear several times now that most of my exposure to it comes from the more hardline 'neo-Calvinist' end or the more liberal URC end - which can fall into the opposite tendency and be somewhat wishy-washy. I have reiterated that I am sure there is much more to the Reformed tradition than those aspects of it I've been exposed to.
I can't see how I can state things clearer than that emojis or no emojis.
Apologies @Nick Tamen but my winking emojis are meant to be double-edged and aimed at myself as much - if not more - than anyone else.
Rather like the one you used upthread yourself when you riffed with the idea of being older and wiser and no longer regarding one's own position as the default option.
How come it's alright for you to use winking emojis but not me?
I didn’t say there was any problem at all with you using winkie emojis. I said that the use of the winkie emoji in that instance didn’t ameliorate how that particular bit of flippancy came across.
They aren't intended to undermine my 'sure, I get that' comments but rather to reinforce them in a self-deprecatory way.
I get that’s how they’re intended; I don’t assume otherwise. I’m trying to help you see that they may not be coming across as you intend.
And I didn’t accuse you of caricaturing. I referenced “caricature” in a reflection on my general experience of discussions such as this one. What I said about posts on this thread was “I felt I was seeing in this thread was a lot of use of sola scriptura that didn’t reflect my experience of it.”
Pedantically, in mainstream Christian belief, the Spirit is not an “it”. But then you know that.
I don’t know if you’ve ever read Calvin’s Institutes. Purely for academic interest, of course. He was no mug. There’s a precise mind behind his writings and strong signs of his very extensive reading. As well as his strong beliefs.
I think his aim was to untangle webs. Historically, the Reformers were right about that. Catholic doctrine and practice had become very tangled.
It doesn’t really matter whether we think he failed, partially succeeded, or what. The sincerity with which he tried is very obvious.
Indeed, the paraclete is masculine in Greek. In my insouciant ambiguity I meant the whole package of special pleading. The Institutes? No. And I never will : ) C. Baxter Kruger, an excellent neo-orthodox, trinitarian scholar, rated him. Barth hides his light under another tun. I would never doubt their sincerity. Good will to all I say.
Lest we forget, Calvin had Servetus murdered, nonetheless.
Apologies @Nick Tamen but my winking emojis are meant to be double-edged and aimed at myself as much - if not more - than anyone else.<snip>
I think a difference is that @Nick Tamen clearly aimed his emoji at himself and his own tradition. Whereas yours is clearly aimed at other people and another tradition — “those who hold to [sola scriptura] - or imagine they hold to it” The challenge of a text based medium is that the readers can’t hear the tone of voice which the writer is using, and that challenge is at best only partially mitigated by the use of inevitably polyvalent emojis.
A bit of defense of Martin referring to the Holy Spirit as "it."
In the Greek language, there are three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter. Each noun in Greek has a specific gender and—unlike in English—these genders don’t only apply exclusively to nouns referring to people, but also to nouns that refer to things or animals. Therefore, gender should be viewed as a grammatical attribute of a noun and not necessarily as the sex of a person, animal, or thing.
The Greek word for spirit, pneuma, is neuter. Therefore, the proper pronoun for pneuma is "it."
But if you really want to get down to it, the Hebrew word for Spirit of God is Ruach which is feminine.
Myself, I have gotten to the point where I prefer the feminine pronoun when I am referring specifically to the Holy Spirit, and will try to keep from using any pronoun when referring to God.
The GRAMMATICAL gender for the Holy Spirit in Hebrew is feminine (ruach), annd in Greek is neuter (pneuma). So if someone, particularly Jesus, refers to the Spirit using the grammatical gender pronoun, that tells you nothing. He might just be following the rules of the language.
But if he goes AGAINST grammar and chooses a gender not proper to the noun, that could fairly be considered to be his personal choice. And he does do that, exactly once that I've found so far--in the discourse the night before his death, John 13-17. I am late for a meeting and must dig it up later, but he chooses the masculine.
This is a tangent, and I'm not sure what it even is yet, but just this past Sunday we had this passage in the Gospel reading:
He came to Nazareth, where he had grown up, and went according to his custom into the synagogue on the sabbath day. He stood up to read and was handed a scroll of the prophet Isaiah. He unrolled the scroll and found the passage where it was written: / The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, / because he has anointed me / to bring glad tidings to the poor. / He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives / and recovery of sight to the blind, / to let the oppressed go free, / and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord. / Rolling up the scroll, he handed it back to the attendant and sat down, and the eyes of all in the synagogue looked intently at him. He said to them, “Today this Scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing.”
Jesus' own attitudes about and treatment of scripture was... interesting.
Apologies @Nick Tamen but my winking emojis are meant to be double-edged and aimed at myself as much - if not more - than anyone else.
Rather like the one you used upthread yourself when you riffed with the idea of being older and wiser and no longer regarding one's own position as the default option.
How come it's alright for you to use winking emojis but not me?
They aren't intended to undermine my 'sure, I get that' comments but rather to reinforce them in a self-deprecatory way.
It's called postmodernism.
Something like that ... 😉. Whoops, there's another one ...
As for caricaturing the Reformed position, I've made it clear several times now that most of my exposure to it comes from the more hardline 'neo-Calvinist' end or the more liberal URC end - which can fall into the opposite tendency and be somewhat wishy-washy. I have reiterated that I am sure there is much more to the Reformed tradition than those aspects of it I've been exposed to.
I can't see how I can state things clearer than that emojis or no emojis.
Apologies @Nick Tamen but my winking emojis are meant to be double-edged and aimed at myself as much - if not more - than anyone else.
Rather like the one you used upthread yourself when you riffed with the idea of being older and wiser and no longer regarding one's own position as the default option.
How come it's alright for you to use winking emojis but not me?
I didn’t say there was any problem at all with you using winkie emojis. I said that the use of the winkie emoji in that instance didn’t ameliorate how that particular bit of flippancy came across.
They aren't intended to undermine my 'sure, I get that' comments but rather to reinforce them in a self-deprecatory way.
I get that’s how they’re intended; I don’t assume otherwise. I’m trying to help you see that they may not be coming across as you intend.
And I didn’t accuse you of caricaturing. I referenced “caricature” in a reflection on my general experience of discussions such as this one. What I said about posts on this thread was “I felt I was seeing in this thread was a lot of use of sola scriptura that didn’t reflect my experience of it.”
Fair do's. Mea culpa. And yes, I fully accept that there are plenty of caricatured views of the Reformed tradition in circulation.
Likewise @BroJames. I will try to resist my besetting sin and do better next time.
@The_Riv - yes, Christ did have an interesting take on scripture. 'You have heard that it was said, but I say ...'
Of course, we can argue that as the Eternal Word he has every right to do interesting things with 'God's word written.'
There are times, of course, when he supports and endorses the religious status quo, 'Go show yourselves to the priest ...'
I'm sure it's a lot more complex than him riffing with the scriptures because he could - and I'm sure there is a lot of rabbinical midrash elements that we don't always pick up on.
Since the issue of conversational tone has been addressed - hopefully successfully - I'd like to address the content.
Gamma Gamaliel: it seems to me that you are taking a single slogan and looking at it in an anachronistic, reductive, and misguided way.
This is what I see you doing:
Christian slogan: Jesus is Lord.
Gamma Gamaliel: aha you think Jesus is a lord who rides around in a carriage and beats peasants with a stick, yur so rong and yur so dumb.
Shipmates: What? No!
GG: but you said you believe Jesus is a lord!
No one here is arguing what you think they are arguing. It feels like two non-intersecting monologues, with whatever you think Protestants (an extremely diverse group!) believe not being actually reflected in what some Protestant Shipmates are telling you they believe.
I would add to that that I don’t think—again, at least for Lutherans and the Reformed—that sola scriptura can be properly understood unless joined with the other solae—sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), solus Christus (Christ alone) and soli die gloria (the glory of God alone). They’re all part of a package, as it were.
Yes! Read, mark, digest everything Nick Tamen has been explaining to you.
And for the eleventy millionth time: some Protestants understand that Scripture emerged from early Church tradition. Thank you. We know. Windmills to tilt at are thataway.
The GRAMMATICAL gender for the Holy Spirit in Hebrew is feminine (ruach), annd in Greek is neuter (pneuma). So if someone, particularly Jesus, refers to the Spirit using the grammatical gender pronoun, that tells you nothing. He might just be following the rules of the language.
But if he goes AGAINST grammar and chooses a gender not proper to the noun, that could fairly be considered to be his personal choice. And he does do that, exactly once that I've found so far--in the discourse the night before his death, John 13-17. I am late for a meeting and must dig it up later, but he chooses the masculine.
Okay. Back from my meeting, and I think the verse I'm remembering is this one, John 14:26:
26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
You'll notice the neuter "to pneuma," "The Spirit", which grammatically should be followed by an "it." But no, in this verse, Jesus picks up with "ekeinos" (he) which is certainly masculine. He is breaking grammatical rules to do this, so I can't see it as anything other than his own choice.
As for me being back, I wouldn't bet on it. Trump just removed federal aid from about a zillion completely necessary programs that serve the refugees and immigrants I work with, and I'm even crabbier than before. Nobody needs to put up with that from me right now.
The GRAMMATICAL gender for the Holy Spirit in Hebrew is feminine (ruach), annd in Greek is neuter (pneuma). So if someone, particularly Jesus, refers to the Spirit using the grammatical gender pronoun, that tells you nothing. He might just be following the rules of the language.
But if he goes AGAINST grammar and chooses a gender not proper to the noun, that could fairly be considered to be his personal choice. And he does do that, exactly once that I've found so far--in the discourse the night before his death, John 13-17. I am late for a meeting and must dig it up later, but he chooses the masculine.
Okay. Back from my meeting, and I think the verse I'm remembering is this one, John 14:26:
26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
You'll notice the neuter "to pneuma," "The Spirit", which grammatically should be followed by an "it." But no, in this verse, Jesus picks up with "ekeinos" (he) which is certainly masculine. He is breaking grammatical rules to do this, so I can't see it as anything other than his own choice.
As for me being back, I wouldn't bet on it. Trump just removed federal aid from about a zillion completely necessary programs that serve the refugees and immigrants I work with, and I'm even crabbier than before. Nobody needs to put up with that from me right now.
What 'he' could possibly mean with regard to such an entity, is... meaningless.
The GRAMMATICAL gender for the Holy Spirit in Hebrew is feminine (ruach), annd in Greek is neuter (pneuma). So if someone, particularly Jesus, refers to the Spirit using the grammatical gender pronoun, that tells you nothing. He might just be following the rules of the language.
But if he goes AGAINST grammar and chooses a gender not proper to the noun, that could fairly be considered to be his personal choice. And he does do that, exactly once that I've found so far--in the discourse the night before his death, John 13-17. I am late for a meeting and must dig it up later, but he chooses the masculine.
Okay. Back from my meeting, and I think the verse I'm remembering is this one, John 14:26:
26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
You'll notice the neuter "to pneuma," "The Spirit", which grammatically should be followed by an "it." But no, in this verse, Jesus picks up with "ekeinos" (he) which is certainly masculine. He is breaking grammatical rules to do this, so I can't see it as anything other than his own choice.
As for me being back, I wouldn't bet on it. Trump just removed federal aid from about a zillion completely necessary programs that serve the refugees and immigrants I work with, and I'm even crabbier than before. Nobody needs to put up with that from me right now.
What 'he' could possibly mean with regard to such an entity, is... meaningless.
Martin, this is not a thread on whether God exists, whether the Holy Spirit exists or whether the Holy Trinity exists. Please, just stop trying to turn it into one. We most definitely know your position, and it is irrelevant to this thread.
Since the issue of conversational tone has been addressed - hopefully successfully - I'd like to address the content.
Gamma Gamaliel: it seems to me that you are taking a single slogan and looking at it in an anachronistic, reductive, and misguided way.
This is what I see you doing:
Christian slogan: Jesus is Lord.
Gamma Gamaliel: aha you think Jesus is a lord who rides around in a carriage and beats peasants with a stick, yur so rong and yur so dumb.
Shipmates: What? No!
GG: but you said you believe Jesus is a lord!
No one here is arguing what you think they are arguing. It feels like two non-intersecting monologues, with whatever you think Protestants (an extremely diverse group!) believe not being actually reflected in what some Protestant Shipmates are telling you they believe.
I would add to that that I don’t think—again, at least for Lutherans and the Reformed—that sola scriptura can be properly understood unless joined with the other solae—sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), solus Christus (Christ alone) and soli die gloria (the glory of God alone). They’re all part of a package, as it were.
Yes! Read, mark, digest everything Nick Tamen has been explaining to you.
And for the eleventy millionth time: some Protestants understand that Scripture emerged from early Church tradition. Thank you. We know. Windmills to tilt at are thataway.
Ok. Don't forget that I've been a Protestant Christian though and know whereof I speak to some extent. Certainly outwith the historic Protestant churches which I've repeatedly cited as more nuanced.
But as you rightly say, Protestantism is highly diverse and FWIW I have nothing but the utmost respect for @Nick Tamen and believe him to be an exemplary exponent of his particular Christian tradition.
If it makes amends in any way I was struck by a tribute to Barth I came across recently from a senior Orthodox source. I can't remember whether this was on the occasion of his death or when he received an award or accolade of some kind. I think the latter.
I also remember hearing an RC Cardinal cite him very approvingly in a talk I attended.
I'll also make an observation in relation to @Barnabas62's Baptist tradition. I remember reading that Baptist seminaries here in the UK developed a very standard of scholarship partly because they felt they had something to 'prove' to the somewhat supercilious Anglican Establishment. I don't doubt that. My great great grandfather was a prominent Baptist minister in South Wales and I'm sure well schooled theologically.
I also know someone who speaks Russian and who translated for a Russian Bishop at an international conference. 'The Baptists read the Bible better than we do and pray better than we do,' he said.
Anything I write on these boards, whether good, bad or indifferent has that kind or background, even if I wander off piste at times.
I do tend to riff and lark about on these boards and it does muddy the water. I will try to behave myself in future.
The GRAMMATICAL gender for the Holy Spirit in Hebrew is feminine (ruach), annd in Greek is neuter (pneuma). So if someone, particularly Jesus, refers to the Spirit using the grammatical gender pronoun, that tells you nothing. He might just be following the rules of the language.
But if he goes AGAINST grammar and chooses a gender not proper to the noun, that could fairly be considered to be his personal choice. And he does do that, exactly once that I've found so far--in the discourse the night before his death, John 13-17. I am late for a meeting and must dig it up later, but he chooses the masculine.
Okay. Back from my meeting, and I think the verse I'm remembering is this one, John 14:26:
26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
You'll notice the neuter "to pneuma," "The Spirit", which grammatically should be followed by an "it." But no, in this verse, Jesus picks up with "ekeinos" (he) which is certainly masculine. He is breaking grammatical rules to do this, so I can't see it as anything other than his own choice.
As for me being back, I wouldn't bet on it. Trump just removed federal aid from about a zillion completely necessary programs that serve the refugees and immigrants I work with, and I'm even crabbier than before. Nobody needs to put up with that from me right now.
What 'he' could possibly mean with regard to such an entity, is... meaningless.
I disagree and agree with @Lamb Chopped that there's a definite decision in the Greek to base the article on natural rather than grammatical gender.
He/She imply people. In Greek they could just imply a masc/fem noun. But the noun here is Neuter. The implications even from my rubbish Greek is that To Pneuma is to be taken as a title of a person. I don't think it means we have to think of the Spirit as *male* specifically, just we can't call him/her/them impersonal.
Absolutely. I’m not emotionally invested in the gender thing—it seems obvious to me that God is the source of all gender, and scripture uses feminine images as well as masculine ones, and I’m glad of that. But the personhood of the Spirit is incredibly important, and we miss out if we take him to be no more than an impersonal force.
Profound sympathies re the threat to your vocation.
While you have every reason to feel crabby I’m impressed as always by your civility and considered responses.
Whatever our differences in understand I am confident there is mutual respect. We’ve been exchanging views for twenty years and your contributions have always been of great value to me.
And I could not agree with you more about the need to confirm that the Holy Spirit is a Person, not an impersonal force.
You’re very kind! No need to worry about my vocation, my paid work won’t be affected. I’m just distressed for my community. Because you just know all the unmet needs are going to fall to the church, and we have such limited resources…
The GRAMMATICAL gender for the Holy Spirit in Hebrew is feminine (ruach), annd in Greek is neuter (pneuma). So if someone, particularly Jesus, refers to the Spirit using the grammatical gender pronoun, that tells you nothing. He might just be following the rules of the language.
But if he goes AGAINST grammar and chooses a gender not proper to the noun, that could fairly be considered to be his personal choice. And he does do that, exactly once that I've found so far--in the discourse the night before his death, John 13-17. I am late for a meeting and must dig it up later, but he chooses the masculine.
Okay. Back from my meeting, and I think the verse I'm remembering is this one, John 14:26:
26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
You'll notice the neuter "to pneuma," "The Spirit", which grammatically should be followed by an "it." But no, in this verse, Jesus picks up with "ekeinos" (he) which is certainly masculine. He is breaking grammatical rules to do this, so I can't see it as anything other than his own choice.
As for me being back, I wouldn't bet on it. Trump just removed federal aid from about a zillion completely necessary programs that serve the refugees and immigrants I work with, and I'm even crabbier than before. Nobody needs to put up with that from me right now.
What 'he' could possibly mean with regard to such an entity, is... meaningless.
Martin, this is not a thread on whether God exists, whether the Holy Spirit exists or whether the Holy Trinity exists. Please, just stop trying to turn it into one. We most definitely know your position, and it is irrelevant to this thread.
@Lamb Chopped, there aren’t words for what the crap you’re dealing with.
Well, there are . . . .
Nick. I'm not trying to turn it in to anything. I'm not questioning whether the Holy Spirit exists. Let alone the Holy Trinity. I'm questioning how an ultimate entity with four genders in two languages, two genders for one word, can actually have anything gender related. How gender can have any meaning beyond syntax. Even with Jesus deliberately choosing to use a pronoun counter to syntax. Which I wrongly used to establish the gender.
The GRAMMATICAL gender for the Holy Spirit in Hebrew is feminine (ruach), annd in Greek is neuter (pneuma). So if someone, particularly Jesus, refers to the Spirit using the grammatical gender pronoun, that tells you nothing. He might just be following the rules of the language.
But if he goes AGAINST grammar and chooses a gender not proper to the noun, that could fairly be considered to be his personal choice. And he does do that, exactly once that I've found so far--in the discourse the night before his death, John 13-17. I am late for a meeting and must dig it up later, but he chooses the masculine.
Okay. Back from my meeting, and I think the verse I'm remembering is this one, John 14:26:
26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
You'll notice the neuter "to pneuma," "The Spirit", which grammatically should be followed by an "it." But no, in this verse, Jesus picks up with "ekeinos" (he) which is certainly masculine. He is breaking grammatical rules to do this, so I can't see it as anything other than his own choice.
As for me being back, I wouldn't bet on it. Trump just removed federal aid from about a zillion completely necessary programs that serve the refugees and immigrants I work with, and I'm even crabbier than before. Nobody needs to put up with that from me right now.
What 'he' could possibly mean with regard to such an entity, is... meaningless.
Martin, this is not a thread on whether God exists, whether the Holy Spirit exists or whether the Holy Trinity exists. Please, just stop trying to turn it into one. We most definitely know your position, and it is irrelevant to this thread.
@Lamb Chopped, there aren’t words for what the crap you’re dealing with.
Well, there are . . . .
Nick. I'm not trying to turn it in to anything. I'm not questioning whether the Holy Spirit exists. Let alone the Holy Trinity. I'm questioning how an ultimate entity with four genders in two languages, two genders for one word, can actually have anything gender related. How gender can have any meaning beyond syntax. Even with Jesus deliberately choosing to use a pronoun counter to syntax. Which I wrongly used to establish the gender.
So why are you derailing the thread?
I’m not derailing the thread. And had you posted more than “What 'he' could possibly mean with regard to such an entity, is... meaningless,” actually saying what you meant or why, instead of leaving us once again to guess at your meaning, I might not have guessed incorrectly.
The GRAMMATICAL gender for the Holy Spirit in Hebrew is feminine (ruach), annd in Greek is neuter (pneuma). So if someone, particularly Jesus, refers to the Spirit using the grammatical gender pronoun, that tells you nothing. He might just be following the rules of the language.
But if he goes AGAINST grammar and chooses a gender not proper to the noun, that could fairly be considered to be his personal choice. And he does do that, exactly once that I've found so far--in the discourse the night before his death, John 13-17. I am late for a meeting and must dig it up later, but he chooses the masculine.
Okay. Back from my meeting, and I think the verse I'm remembering is this one, John 14:26:
26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
You'll notice the neuter "to pneuma," "The Spirit", which grammatically should be followed by an "it." But no, in this verse, Jesus picks up with "ekeinos" (he) which is certainly masculine. He is breaking grammatical rules to do this, so I can't see it as anything other than his own choice.
As for me being back, I wouldn't bet on it. Trump just removed federal aid from about a zillion completely necessary programs that serve the refugees and immigrants I work with, and I'm even crabbier than before. Nobody needs to put up with that from me right now.
What 'he' could possibly mean with regard to such an entity, is... meaningless.
Martin, this is not a thread on whether God exists, whether the Holy Spirit exists or whether the Holy Trinity exists. Please, just stop trying to turn it into one. We most definitely know your position, and it is irrelevant to this thread.
@Lamb Chopped, there aren’t words for what the crap you’re dealing with.
Well, there are . . . .
Nick. I'm not trying to turn it in to anything. I'm not questioning whether the Holy Spirit exists. Let alone the Holy Trinity. I'm questioning how an ultimate entity with four genders in two languages, two genders for one word, can actually have anything gender related. How gender can have any meaning beyond syntax. Even with Jesus deliberately choosing to use a pronoun counter to syntax. Which I wrongly used to establish the gender.
So why are you derailing the thread?
I’m not derailing the thread. And had you posted more than “What 'he' could possibly mean with regard to such an entity, is... meaningless,” actually saying what you meant or why, instead of leaving us once again to guess at your meaning, I might not have guessed incorrectly.
I wasn't guessing at my meaning. I meant what I said. I'm sorry if the meaning of that wasn't as clear to me in writing it as it was to you in parsing it. I still don't see the connection in what I said in any way to your making it about the existence of God and Their Persons. Sorry if it's obvious to you. But that meaning is not at all clear to me.
The GRAMMATICAL gender for the Holy Spirit in Hebrew is feminine (ruach), annd in Greek is neuter (pneuma). So if someone, particularly Jesus, refers to the Spirit using the grammatical gender pronoun, that tells you nothing. He might just be following the rules of the language.
But if he goes AGAINST grammar and chooses a gender not proper to the noun, that could fairly be considered to be his personal choice. And he does do that, exactly once that I've found so far--in the discourse the night before his death, John 13-17. I am late for a meeting and must dig it up later, but he chooses the masculine.
Okay. Back from my meeting, and I think the verse I'm remembering is this one, John 14:26:
26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
You'll notice the neuter "to pneuma," "The Spirit", which grammatically should be followed by an "it." But no, in this verse, Jesus picks up with "ekeinos" (he) which is certainly masculine. He is breaking grammatical rules to do this, so I can't see it as anything other than his own choice.
As for me being back, I wouldn't bet on it. Trump just removed federal aid from about a zillion completely necessary programs that serve the refugees and immigrants I work with, and I'm even crabbier than before. Nobody needs to put up with that from me right now.
What 'he' could possibly mean with regard to such an entity, is... meaningless.
Martin, this is not a thread on whether God exists, whether the Holy Spirit exists or whether the Holy Trinity exists. Please, just stop trying to turn it into one. We most definitely know your position, and it is irrelevant to this thread.
@Lamb Chopped, there aren’t words for what the crap you’re dealing with.
Well, there are . . . .
Nick. I'm not trying to turn it in to anything. I'm not questioning whether the Holy Spirit exists. Let alone the Holy Trinity. I'm questioning how an ultimate entity with four genders in two languages, two genders for one word, can actually have anything gender related. How gender can have any meaning beyond syntax. Even with Jesus deliberately choosing to use a pronoun counter to syntax. Which I wrongly used to establish the gender.
So why are you derailing the thread?
I’m not derailing the thread. And had you posted more than “What 'he' could possibly mean with regard to such an entity, is... meaningless,” actually saying what you meant or why, instead of leaving us once again to guess at your meaning, I might not have guessed incorrectly.
I wasn't guessing at my meaning.
I didn’t say you were. I said “leaving us once again to guess at your meaning.”
I still don't see the connection in what I said in any way to your making it about the existence of God and Their Persons. Sorry if it's obvious to you. But that meaning is not at all clear to me.
Martin, you have been known to make posts that boil down to some version of “it doesn’t matter how we talk about it because what we’re talking isn’t real.” This seemed to me to be another such post.
I apologize for misunderstanding and for assuming.
You’re very kind! No need to worry about my vocation, my paid work won’t be affected. I’m just distressed for my community. Because you just know all the unmet needs are going to fall to the church, and we have such limited resources…
You’re worth it. I appreciate that you walk the walk. How we talk the talk is important, but less than that.
God bless you and keep you in His love as you continue to serve Him.
The GRAMMATICAL gender for the Holy Spirit in Hebrew is feminine (ruach), annd in Greek is neuter (pneuma). So if someone, particularly Jesus, refers to the Spirit using the grammatical gender pronoun, that tells you nothing. He might just be following the rules of the language.
But if he goes AGAINST grammar and chooses a gender not proper to the noun, that could fairly be considered to be his personal choice. And he does do that, exactly once that I've found so far--in the discourse the night before his death, John 13-17. I am late for a meeting and must dig it up later, but he chooses the masculine.
Okay. Back from my meeting, and I think the verse I'm remembering is this one, John 14:26:
26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
You'll notice the neuter "to pneuma," "The Spirit", which grammatically should be followed by an "it." But no, in this verse, Jesus picks up with "ekeinos" (he) which is certainly masculine. He is breaking grammatical rules to do this, so I can't see it as anything other than his own choice.
As for me being back, I wouldn't bet on it. Trump just removed federal aid from about a zillion completely necessary programs that serve the refugees and immigrants I work with, and I'm even crabbier than before. Nobody needs to put up with that from me right now.
What 'he' could possibly mean with regard to such an entity, is... meaningless.
Martin, this is not a thread on whether God exists, whether the Holy Spirit exists or whether the Holy Trinity exists. Please, just stop trying to turn it into one. We most definitely know your position, and it is irrelevant to this thread.
@Lamb Chopped, there aren’t words for what the crap you’re dealing with.
Well, there are . . . .
Nick. I'm not trying to turn it in to anything. I'm not questioning whether the Holy Spirit exists. Let alone the Holy Trinity. I'm questioning how an ultimate entity with four genders in two languages, two genders for one word, can actually have anything gender related. How gender can have any meaning beyond syntax. Even with Jesus deliberately choosing to use a pronoun counter to syntax. Which I wrongly used to establish the gender.
So why are you derailing the thread?
I’m not derailing the thread. And had you posted more than “What 'he' could possibly mean with regard to such an entity, is... meaningless,” actually saying what you meant or why, instead of leaving us once again to guess at your meaning, I might not have guessed incorrectly.
I wasn't guessing at my meaning.
I didn’t say you were. I said “leaving us once again to guess at your meaning.”
I still don't see the connection in what I said in any way to your making it about the existence of God and Their Persons. Sorry if it's obvious to you. But that meaning is not at all clear to me.
Martin, you have been known to make posts that boil down to some version of “it doesn’t matter how we talk about it because what we’re talking isn’t real.” This seemed to me to be another such post.
I apologize for misunderstanding and for assuming.
Most gracious Nick. Your explanation is understandable. I've tried to move on from that and critique regardless of belief.
Comments
Still reading …..
Again, I’ve never heard it claimed otherwise. Indeed, I was formed and have lived in an understanding that Scripture is only properly understood in community. The various Reformed confessions, I think, demonstrate if nothing else that interpreting and understanding the Scriptures is a community enterprise.
The Second Helvetic Confession (1561) makes clear that “the Holy Scriptures are not of private interpretation.” That confession and the Westminster Confession (1646) both make clear the value and proper role of councils as well as of the writings of the Church Fathers. Where they depart from a Roman Catholic or Orthodox standpoint is by saying it’s not sufficient to make a decision based only on the writings of Church Fathers, the decisions of Councils or the existence of long-standing practice. Rather, the question has to be asked whether those writings of Church Fathers, decisions of Councils or long-standing practices are grounded in or contrary to Scripture or not.
Now, if the discussion is how sola scriptura can fit with adoption of the canon to start with, I think that’s a valid challenge worthy of discussion.
But I’d also say it wasn’t what was on the Reformers’ mind when the slogan—and that’s what it is, so it functions as a memorable shorthand more than a precise formulation—came into use.
Yes, this is exactly what the slogan was/is getting at.
And this is a valid critique.
That’s the approach I'm familiar with in the Reformed tradition, and the approach reflected by the confessional citations above. (I had some quotes, but figured no one wanted to read long quotes.)
TULIP is, as I’ve said before, a British-American construct that purports to take decisions of the (Dutch) Synod of Dort (1618–19) and treat them as some sort of distillation of Calvin’s theology. The result is, at best, distortions.
He's very Augustinian and juridical and we are far less influenced by the Blessed Augustine of Hippo than Western Christianity.
I'm not convinced the Orthodox would say that Creeds and conciliar decisions stand above and away from scripture. I think we'd generally insist that these things are based on or derive from scripture even if not always in a chapter and verse kind of way.
This is what I mean by dislocating scripture from the Church.
Yes, the Reformed tradition through its various Confessions does emphasise the interpretation of scripture in community, but dislocated to some extent from the community which canonised and handed down the scriptures in the first place.
It interprets scripture through a subset community as it were, for all its claims to be doing so within the context of the 'universal church.'
It isn't setting up scripture as the final authority but the Reformed interpretation of scripture as the final authority.
A community is, after all, a group.
We may agree in a sense about what's going on here, and maybe we're all sola scriptura after our own fashion. The real question is where the boundaries of "the community" are set. And that does fit my experience of churches as political creatures.
And that’s where we get to that other Reformed slogan—Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei (“The church reformed, always to be reformed according to the Word of God.) Part of the Reformed ethos is the idea that because people have a way of consistently screwing things up, going back to and measuring against Scripture is and will always be (this side of the New Creation, at least) an ongoing task. That has to include a willingness to consider the possibility that we’ve gotten it wrong, that even a long-standing Reformed interpretation may be wrong
Now, one could reasonably question how that has played out in practice. I’d say the results are mixed, but there certainly have been many examples of that ongoing reform, except perhaps in the most conservative of Reformed groups.
In any event, to dismiss Reformed understanding of sola scriptura on the grounds that it is really setting up the Reformed interpretation of Scripture as the final authority is to impose a foreign context on the Reformed understanding rather than considering it the context in which the Reformed would consider it. It’s like trying to analyze one language on the basis of the grammatical rules of a different language, or so it seems to me at least.
And it’s different from saying “okay, this is how you say this works in your system. Does experience really bear that out?”
Meanwhile, on the tangent of Calvin and TULIP, I think I’ve recommended this article before, but I’ll recommend it again: “Was Calvin a Calvinist? Or, Did Calvin (or Anyone Else in the Early Modern Era) Plant the ‘TULIP’?,” by Richard A. Muller.
Hmm - if P necessarily implies Q, then asserting P asserts Q, whether you yourself mention affirm the necessary implication or not.
1. All squares have four sides
2. Figure A is a square.
3. Figure A has four sides
It makes very little difference when I make assertions 1 and 2 whether I make assertion 3 as well.
A personal thank you for the way this thread is developing.
And that's a fair critique. I feel like theology as a field - given our "through a glass dimly" relationship with God - requires a certain fudginess around the details. We should probably aim more for accuracy than precision, and I've long held the impression that that's a problem with Calvinism in general. They get too logically locked down, very precisely hitting the wrong point on the target.
In theology there's a need to think about how you think before you do too much thinking. Keep a little humility. I think there's an arrogance to thinking we can logic out God like a square.
Mind, that might be my own desire to remain Christian in a world where Christianity really doesn't make much sense thinking...
That said, I don't think you're mistaken. At some point it's better to drop flawed logic than to try to build a fortress around it.
Of course.
But we aren't 'sola scriptura'. We just think we are ... 😉
😉
But we've still got this 'according to the Word of God' thing going on as if the Reformed tradition is setting itself up as the true arbiter and interpreter of scriptures it inherited from previous generations and whose T/traditions it rejects on the grounds that it knows best ... 😉
You don't appear to recognise the irony of this.
That's about as polemical as I become. That said, I do think many aspects of the Reformed tradition are pretty 😎 cool.
In any event, I'm well aware of the weakness as well as the strengths of our approach. And I’m not threatened by challenges from other traditions, nor do I think I’m an anomaly in that regard. We—at least in my particular strand of the Reformed tradition—tend, I think, to spend a lot more time asking whether we are being faithful to Scripture than reveling in being the true arbiter and interpreter of Scripture. Indeed, part of the point of that “trope” is the belief that ultimately none of us can ever claim to be the true arbiter and interpreter of Scripture.
Meanwhile, thank you, @Barnabas62.
Short answer: it's complicated.
The ELCA's constitution says
Just above that statement it says:
A phrase you will often hear around ELCA circles is "The Bible is the cradle on which the Living Word, Jesus Christ, rests."
On the other hand, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod says:
I would say the ELCA leans into a prima scriptura approach, the LCMS remains sola scriptura.
And all the other Lutheran bodies fall along a wide spectrum, bookended by the ELCA or the LCMS.
I often wonder, if Luther were still writing today where he would be on that spectrum. A hint might be in his defense at the Diet of Worms where he was called on to recant what he had written. He responded: "Unless someone can show me where I am wrong by Scripture and plain reason, I will not recant."
Luther largely reacted against the RC teaching regarding Purgatory, and the use of indulgences, and the abuse of the papal authority. I think this made him more of a sola scriptura person in his day; but given his struggles with Scripture, and the ensuing changes in rational thought and scientific discovery, he would likely have taken another look at the teachings of his day. He always viewed the Bible as a Living Word. He questioned parts of it, like the book of James and the Revelation of John.
In other words, take your pick. You will not be wrong.
And worth remembering that Luther (and Calvin) wrote well before the later discoveries about scripture (lower criticism). Never mind the thinking behind various higher criticisms. Both have caused a proper reflection on the nature and meaning of scripture. Much as some people would prefer it to be different, both scripture itself and its related meanings are, properly, moving targets for understanding.
I think that is exactly why I'm skeptical of the concept altogether.
I think it was Nick Tamen who observed that he writes like a lawyer which makes any summarising dangerous. I re-read the chapters in Book One on the scriptures and Book Three of Church Governance. Here are my personal interpretations.
Firstly on scripture. In Book One Chapter 7, he emphasises that it is God given and therefore it is impious for the Church to assert that its credibility depends on the judgment and decisions of the Church. Instead he emphasises the vital role of the Holy Spirit. A telling phrase is this. “The authority of scripture is sealed in the hearts of believers by the testimony of the Holy Spirit.” So I think he places Scripture above both human reason and Church Authority. He seems to me to be saying that the authority and meaning of scripture is self evident to believers truly informed by the Holy Spirit. The implication of the surrounding chapters is that God is self evident in creation, self evident in scripture, but only to the pious. At the end of Chapter 7 there is another telling phrase.”Let us call to mind that none comprehend the mystery of God save those to whom it is given.” Chapter 7 on scripture is not reductionist.
It would be wrong for me to say I have fully absorbed all the other things he has to say about scripture, so this is probably an “in part” view. Suffice to say that based on Chapter 7 alone, his view of scripture is not simplistic.
@Nick Tamen, sure I believe you when you say you are aware of the 'irony' and am not accusing you of bad faith. Far from it.
It's simply that we all assume our own positions to be the default one. I remember meeting a very likeable Presbyterian minister from Nor'n Ir'n' at an ecumenical conference largely attended by Orthodox, RCs and Anglicans. He was delighted that something the late Metropolitan Kallistos Ware said accorded with his understanding of an aspect of Reformed soteriology.
I felt like asking him where the Reformed got this particular idea from.
I don't doubt that the Reformed spend more time asking themselves whether they are being true to scripture rather than considering themselves the arbiter and defender of the True FaithTM.
At the risk of simplifying things, in my both/and mind being true to scripture and true to Tradition are part of the same continuum. You can't divorce them from one another. Tradition gave us scripture. Scripture informs and shapes Tradition. There is a constant dialogue between them.
I attend an online Orthodox Bible study group.
The standard practice there is to read and examine the text, then look at some Patristic commentary on the particular verses then discuss our own insights or reactions.
This strikes me as a kind of Orthodox Capital Letter approach to what the Reformed and other Protestants do in a lower-case letter kind of way - if you follow my drift.
I can imagine a Reformed Bible study where they start with the scriptures then look at commentaries from within their own and other traditions (yes, and some Patristic material too) and also their own thoughts and intepretations in 'conversation' with the text.
We Orthodox of course are seen as less flexible and elastic but we would insist that ours is a Living Tradition not one set in concrete.
In terms of my own knowledge/apprehension of the Reformed tradition, I will concede that I've largely encountered it in its more brittle and 'neo-Calvinist' forms or in its more liberal United Reformed form as it were. That doesn't mean that I think of it exclusively in those terms nor that I am dismissive of Reformed scholarship per se.
@Gramps49 - I'm even less familiar with the Lutheran tradition but what you say does not surprise me and it's as I would imagine the Lutheran approach to scripture to be. The LCMS looks very fundamentalist to me, with as much stress on inerrancy and infallibility as one might expect from groups like the Southern Baptists. I'm sure there are more nuanced approaches there though.
Don't get me wrong. I hold to a very high view of scripture but find the way these things are framed by some conservative Protestant groups just as problematic as I find some uber-liberal and 'Higher Critical' (lower sceptical
I'm not a sola scriptura person obviously and agree with @Bullfrog that it isn't even a tenable position in the first place, for reasons I've tried to outline on this thread.
But for those who hold to it - or imagine they hold to it
When it comes to discussion and debate I'm more than happy to take a modified sola scriptura approach whilst appreciating that in reality that's not what I am doing at all.
None of us are.
I don’t know if you’ve ever read Calvin’s Institutes. Purely for academic interest, of course. He was no mug. There’s a precise mind behind his writings and strong signs of his very extensive reading. As well as his strong beliefs.
I think his aim was to untangle webs. Historically, the Reformers were right about that. Catholic doctrine and practice had become very tangled.
It doesn’t really matter whether we think he failed, partially succeeded, or what. The sincerity with which he tried is very obvious.
Yes, I understand the Orthodox take on that pretty well, GG. I really do.
And I haven’t been trying to argue against it. I’ve been trying to articulate the (a?) Reformed position and put that position in a larger context, and nothing more.
And I’ve been doing that because it’s my experience that if I’m going to really discuss what someone else believes, much less argue against it, the discussion is likely to be much more fruitful if I can first demonstrate that I have a good understanding of what they believe—not a superficial understanding, much less a caricature, but that I really get the experience of it along with the book-explanation of it.
And what I felt I was seeing in this thread was a lot of use of sola scriptura that didn’t reflect my experience of it.
GG, I know you like a bit of humor and flippancy, and I would have known that’s what’s going on here even without the winkie emoji. But please trust me when I say, as a friend, that using that kind of flippancy really doesn’t work here. It comes across as a pat on the head of a silly child with a wink to the other adults, and it undercuts all of the times you’ve said “sure, I get it.”
It strikes me that you’ve got a good take on him so far.
It may be a good time to mention that while Calvin is unquestionably a big figure, if not the big figure, in the Reformed tradition, he isn’t quite the only figure. Calvin is not to the Reformed tradition quite like Luther is—or at least, appears to me as a non-Lutheran—to be to Lutheranism. Calvin is generally an important word, but not the last word.
If you want a hard read, try Barth.
I’m pretty neo-orthodox.
Rather like the one you used upthread yourself when you riffed with the idea of being older and wiser and no longer regarding one's own position as the default option.
How come it's alright for you to use winking emojis but not me?
They aren't intended to undermine my 'sure, I get that' comments but rather to reinforce them in a self-deprecatory way.
It's called postmodernism.
Something like that ... 😉. Whoops, there's another one ...
As for caricaturing the Reformed position, I've made it clear several times now that most of my exposure to it comes from the more hardline 'neo-Calvinist' end or the more liberal URC end - which can fall into the opposite tendency and be somewhat wishy-washy. I have reiterated that I am sure there is much more to the Reformed tradition than those aspects of it I've been exposed to.
I can't see how I can state things clearer than that emojis or no emojis.
Read my lips
I.am.sure.there.is.more.to.the.Reformed.tradition.than ...
You know that time you didn't know when to stop ripping the piss out of Tolkien and Prog Rock?
It's about then again.
I get that’s how they’re intended; I don’t assume otherwise. I’m trying to help you see that they may not be coming across as you intend.
And I didn’t accuse you of caricaturing. I referenced “caricature” in a reflection on my general experience of discussions such as this one. What I said about posts on this thread was “I felt I was seeing in this thread was a lot of use of sola scriptura that didn’t reflect my experience of it.”
Indeed, the paraclete is masculine in Greek. In my insouciant ambiguity I meant the whole package of special pleading. The Institutes? No. And I never will : ) C. Baxter Kruger, an excellent neo-orthodox, trinitarian scholar, rated him. Barth hides his light under another tun. I would never doubt their sincerity. Good will to all I say.
Lest we forget, Calvin had Servetus murdered, nonetheless.
In the Greek language, there are three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter. Each noun in Greek has a specific gender and—unlike in English—these genders don’t only apply exclusively to nouns referring to people, but also to nouns that refer to things or animals. Therefore, gender should be viewed as a grammatical attribute of a noun and not necessarily as the sex of a person, animal, or thing.
The Greek word for spirit, pneuma, is neuter. Therefore, the proper pronoun for pneuma is "it."
But if you really want to get down to it, the Hebrew word for Spirit of God is
Ruach which is feminine.
Myself, I have gotten to the point where I prefer the feminine pronoun when I am referring specifically to the Holy Spirit, and will try to keep from using any pronoun when referring to God.
The GRAMMATICAL gender for the Holy Spirit in Hebrew is feminine (ruach), annd in Greek is neuter (pneuma). So if someone, particularly Jesus, refers to the Spirit using the grammatical gender pronoun, that tells you nothing. He might just be following the rules of the language.
But if he goes AGAINST grammar and chooses a gender not proper to the noun, that could fairly be considered to be his personal choice. And he does do that, exactly once that I've found so far--in the discourse the night before his death, John 13-17. I am late for a meeting and must dig it up later, but he chooses the masculine.
He came to Nazareth, where he had grown up, and went according to his custom into the synagogue on the sabbath day. He stood up to read and was handed a scroll of the prophet Isaiah. He unrolled the scroll and found the passage where it was written: / The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, / because he has anointed me / to bring glad tidings to the poor. / He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives / and recovery of sight to the blind, / to let the oppressed go free, / and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord. / Rolling up the scroll, he handed it back to the attendant and sat down, and the eyes of all in the synagogue looked intently at him. He said to them, “Today this Scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing.”
Jesus' own attitudes about and treatment of scripture was... interesting.
One of my biggest mistakes aboard Ship. Being rude to Baptist Trainfan's wife was worse though.
I regret both.
Fair do's. Mea culpa. And yes, I fully accept that there are plenty of caricatured views of the Reformed tradition in circulation.
Likewise @BroJames. I will try to resist my besetting sin and do better next time.
@The_Riv - yes, Christ did have an interesting take on scripture. 'You have heard that it was said, but I say ...'
Of course, we can argue that as the Eternal Word he has every right to do interesting things with 'God's word written.'
There are times, of course, when he supports and endorses the religious status quo, 'Go show yourselves to the priest ...'
I'm sure it's a lot more complex than him riffing with the scriptures because he could - and I'm sure there is a lot of rabbinical midrash elements that we don't always pick up on.
Gamma Gamaliel: it seems to me that you are taking a single slogan and looking at it in an anachronistic, reductive, and misguided way.
This is what I see you doing:
Christian slogan: Jesus is Lord.
Gamma Gamaliel: aha you think Jesus is a lord who rides around in a carriage and beats peasants with a stick, yur so rong and yur so dumb.
Shipmates: What? No!
GG: but you said you believe Jesus is a lord!
No one here is arguing what you think they are arguing. It feels like two non-intersecting monologues, with whatever you think Protestants (an extremely diverse group!) believe not being actually reflected in what some Protestant Shipmates are telling you they believe.
Yes! Read, mark, digest everything Nick Tamen has been explaining to you.
And for the eleventy millionth time: some Protestants understand that Scripture emerged from early Church tradition. Thank you. We know. Windmills to tilt at are thataway.
Okay. Back from my meeting, and I think the verse I'm remembering is this one, John 14:26:
26 ὁ δὲ παράκλητος, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ὃ πέμψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα καὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν.
26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
You'll notice the neuter "to pneuma," "The Spirit", which grammatically should be followed by an "it." But no, in this verse, Jesus picks up with "ekeinos" (he) which is certainly masculine. He is breaking grammatical rules to do this, so I can't see it as anything other than his own choice.
As for me being back, I wouldn't bet on it. Trump just removed federal aid from about a zillion completely necessary programs that serve the refugees and immigrants I work with, and I'm even crabbier than before. Nobody needs to put up with that from me right now.
What 'he' could possibly mean with regard to such an entity, is... meaningless.
@Leaf, thank you!
@Lamb Chopped, there aren’t words for what the crap you’re dealing with.
Well, there are . . . .
Ok. Don't forget that I've been a Protestant Christian though and know whereof I speak to some extent. Certainly outwith the historic Protestant churches which I've repeatedly cited as more nuanced.
But as you rightly say, Protestantism is highly diverse and FWIW I have nothing but the utmost respect for @Nick Tamen and believe him to be an exemplary exponent of his particular Christian tradition.
If it makes amends in any way I was struck by a tribute to Barth I came across recently from a senior Orthodox source. I can't remember whether this was on the occasion of his death or when he received an award or accolade of some kind. I think the latter.
I also remember hearing an RC Cardinal cite him very approvingly in a talk I attended.
I'll also make an observation in relation to @Barnabas62's Baptist tradition. I remember reading that Baptist seminaries here in the UK developed a very standard of scholarship partly because they felt they had something to 'prove' to the somewhat supercilious Anglican Establishment. I don't doubt that. My great great grandfather was a prominent Baptist minister in South Wales and I'm sure well schooled theologically.
I also know someone who speaks Russian and who translated for a Russian Bishop at an international conference. 'The Baptists read the Bible better than we do and pray better than we do,' he said.
Anything I write on these boards, whether good, bad or indifferent has that kind or background, even if I wander off piste at times.
I do tend to riff and lark about on these boards and it does muddy the water. I will try to behave myself in future.
I disagree and agree with @Lamb Chopped that there's a definite decision in the Greek to base the article on natural rather than grammatical gender.
He/She imply people. In Greek they could just imply a masc/fem noun. But the noun here is Neuter. The implications even from my rubbish Greek is that To Pneuma is to be taken as a title of a person. I don't think it means we have to think of the Spirit as *male* specifically, just we can't call him/her/them impersonal.
Profound sympathies re the threat to your vocation.
While you have every reason to feel crabby I’m impressed as always by your civility and considered responses.
Whatever our differences in understand I am confident there is mutual respect. We’ve been exchanging views for twenty years and your contributions have always been of great value to me.
And I could not agree with you more about the need to confirm that the Holy Spirit is a Person, not an impersonal force.
(I’m a good Trinitarian).
Nick. I'm not trying to turn it in to anything. I'm not questioning whether the Holy Spirit exists. Let alone the Holy Trinity. I'm questioning how an ultimate entity with four genders in two languages, two genders for one word, can actually have anything gender related. How gender can have any meaning beyond syntax. Even with Jesus deliberately choosing to use a pronoun counter to syntax. Which I wrongly used to establish the gender.
So why are you derailing the thread?
Martin, you have been known to make posts that boil down to some version of “it doesn’t matter how we talk about it because what we’re talking isn’t real.” This seemed to me to be another such post.
I apologize for misunderstanding and for assuming.
God bless you and keep you in His love as you continue to serve Him.
And @Gamma Gamaliel, a nod to Barth is always appreciated for my part.
Most gracious Nick. Your explanation is understandable. I've tried to move on from that and critique regardless of belief.