Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Cosmos The In Lost

Home
Catholic
Biblical Authority After Babel Cannot Be Built Upon Mere Protestant Christianity

Biblical Authority After Babel Cannot Be Built Upon Mere Protestant Christianity

Last updated on: May 9, 2017 at 10:17 am by Guest Contributor

Biblical Authority After Babel Cannot Be Built Upon Mere Protestant Christianity 2017-05-09T10:17:21-07:00 Guest Contributor

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

(5) Biblical Authority after Babel proposes a distinction of importance among doctrines, so that not every doctrinal difference need produce a schism or a division among Protestant churches. Level-one teachings, dogmas, which a follower of Jesus always has to believe, have to do with “identifying the main persons of the gospel story” (p. 205). Level-one doctrines answer questions of who and what, whereas level-two doctrines “typically respond to questions of how” various parts of the gospel story were accomplished (p. 206). But this distinction seems difficult to maintain on these terms. Trinity is a level-one doctrine, according to Vanhoozer. But why should it be? Why can’t a person admit that salvation is a work of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit while not subscribing to the trinitarian metaphysics of Nicaea? Wouldn’t the Nicene creed sooner fall into the domain of “how”, namely how these three figures are involved in our salvation, or how they relate to each other, etc.? This invites unitarians and others into the fold of mere Protestant Christianity, radically disjointing Protestant unity. On the other hand, he lists questions of atonement theology (“How does Jesus’s death on the cross save sinners?”) as a level-two doctrine. But can you affirm that there was an act of salvation at all without specifying what the danger was and how it was avoided? This pulls atonement theology into level-one, once again making mere Protestant Christianity ripe for schism.

(6) Vanhoozer speaks about Trinitarian theology throughout his book as if it were an obvious conclusion to come to by simply reading the Scripture. He doesn’t justify Trinitarian theology; it is a maxim. Likewise, he treats Scripture as a complete object, the word of God, Old and New Testaments included, without paying any attention the causal origins of the Scripture and its inextricable connection to the Church that produced it. It comes off like trying to change the rules in the middle of the game to one’s advantage: traditions and councils and the rest are now fallible, even if valuable; Scripture alone is the ultimate authority, and I (Luther, Calvin, whoever) am aware that the Catholic Church has been misreading it very badly. What of unitarians who do not think that trinitarianism is the conclusion you come to by a close reading of Scripture? They have an answer for every prooftext you bring up. Or how do you know what books count as Scripture at all? The Bible didn’t come with a table of contents. Some source outside of the text had to recognize what was Scripture and what wasn’t; why is that source no longer infallible when it comes to interpreting the texts it assembled and recognized as Scripture?

(7) I think the issue of baptism produces a significant problem for Vanhoozer’s project. Is the baptism of infants valid or not? Are adults who were baptized as infants incorporated into the body of Christ or not? Should they be admitted to partake of the Lord’s Supper? If baptism requires faith on the part of the person being baptized, and if baptism actually incorporates us into the body of Christ as Scripture teaches, then Baptists cannot admit Presbyterians, Catholics, and the rest as fully incorporated into the body of Christ. Presbyterians should be baptized again as adults if they are really to be part of the body of Christ. On the other hand, if they are incorporated, then this requires a rethinking of the mechanics of baptism — and the exegetical case for infant baptism is a far cry from the kind of explicit, black-on-white proof that most Protestants seem to require in defense of some doctrine or practice. The Romanian Pentecostal churches in which I grew up require that Orthodox, Catholics, and others who were baptized as infants be rebaptized as adults before they are admitted to participate in eucharistic fellowship. Are they being sectarian, or is this a first-level issue that has to be resolved? And how could it be resolved in any satisfactory way, except by appeal to tradition: this is what the Church has always done, and refusing the validity of infant baptism consigns to the outer darkness innumerable generations of Christians? Now tradition is being admitted as an authority again, and this time an apparently quite weighty one

For these reasons, then, I am not convinced by Vanhoozer’s retrieval of the solas in Biblical Authority after Babel

Steven Nemes teaches philosophy as an adjunct professor at Grand Canyon University. He completed a B.A. in Philosophy at Arizona State University and M.Div. at Fuller Theological Seminary. In September 2017 he will be beginning his Ph.D. at Fuller Theological Seminary, studying under Oliver Crisp.

For more on biblical hermeneutics see: Jesus Didn’t Call God Daddy

Please also make a donation to this blog through the button on the upper right side of this page to help keep it going.

Stay in touch! Like Cosmos the in Lost on Facebook:

Cosmos the in Lost

Biblical Authority after Babel

mere protestant christianity

theology

Previous Post

May 4, 2017

Atheists Have "National Day of Reason," But American Atheism is Irrational

Next Post

May 19, 2017 Publicity Campaign Freudian Slip: Planned Parenthood Wants You to "Slay" With Them

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category #WhyRemainCatholic Abortion Advent Anti-Catholicism Arts Atheism Beauty Benedict XVI Bible Book Review Catholic Cinema Comedy Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey Czesław Miłosz Dariusz Karłowicz Devil Easter Eastern Orthodoxy Economics Environment Family Famous Atheists Who Weren't Atheists Guest Post Hans Urs von Balthasar HHS Mandate History Imagination Interview Islam Jean-Luc Marion John Paul II Judaism Just War Lent Literature Little Sisters of the Poor Liturgy Martyrdom Music News Paganism Patristics Phenomenology Philosophy Pierre Hadot Poetry Poland Pop Culture Pope Francis Poverty Prayer Protestantism Rabelais Race Remi Brague Rene Girard Russia Sam Rocha Science & Religion SCOTUS Secularization Sexual Abuse Sexuality Silence Solidarity Stratford Caldecott Synod14 Terrorism Top 10 Uncategorized Walker Percy War Weakened Edition World War II World Youth Day WYD Krakow

Select a Month July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which book of the Bible contains the most direct prophecies about the Messiah?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Micah Zechariah Isaiah Psalms