Me Gustas Tu

hey, i've got that whole Manu Chao album...it's great. I must've gotten it from Fern. But it's all pretty light hearted even even when you understand the words. Chao uses (i think) 5 languages on his albums. Another guy you should check out is Seu Jorge, aka the Bowie-covering musician from Aquatic Life. He's Brazilian, and his songs are a lot of fun, too.

The difference, my philosophical son, is that WCF is based upon Scripture and Rome's tradition is based upon church council's, popes, etc.

Um, Rome's tradition isn't based on church councils and papal rulings, it is church councils and papal rulings. Which are, Rome could argue, based on Scripture. There's a strong case to be made even in Protestant circles that any interpretation of Scripture not sanctioned by the church is, at best, deeply suspect.

The point still stands though that the OPC and similar denominations tread the WCF etc. the same way that Rome treats its documents.

Ok, so the OPC uses the WCF (the OPC's tradition) like Rome uses its "Tradition", i.e. as an authority. The only difference is that the WCF is based on Scripture (and inversely, Rome's "traditions" are not). So the problem then isn't that Rome uses traditions and authorities outside of Scripture, they're just using one's that are wrong in content but not in method i.e. historical precedent, bulls, creeds, etc. is good and fine when you're right.

So my point would be then, the OPC in its method of using authority isn't actually different than the Roman Catholic Church, they just differ in conten, right? Then why all the hub-bub about "tradition" "Sola Scriptura" etc. when the real issue is that on specific points we just think they're wrong. Seems like the all that other stuff just obscures things.

Josiah:

To say that they are using the right method but coming to wrong conclusions b/c they come to conclusions not based on scripture implies a third criteria. Which is a problem if that 3rd criteria requires one of the previous two.

IF:
Scripture + (correct) church sanctioned interpretation = orthodox christianity

THEN you need to have some way of determining correct interpretation. Which comes from the church (whichever one you happen to claim is The Church). And the only way to do that is through the church as a collection of interpretive methods. [You could also claim your interpretive method comes from Scripture. But that leaves you with the same problem: how do you extract that method? Either way, one of the terms validates the other.]

This is some form of the hermeneutic circle. And the RCC as well as denominations like the OPC share this structure.

Of course, you could always take the tried and true American method: interpretive anarchy.

Paul, I think you know that I agree with you completely: that it is one big dang circle. Though I do believe i.e. "have Faith" in external causes such as the Holy Spirit. But of course, the Holy Spirit "helps" us know 'cause the Bible says so, and the Holy Spirit helps us know that, and on and on and on.

I purposefully didn't mention faith because it is that which comes outside (or before, or alongside, et al.) any hermeneutic. It is the thing that makes any of this make sense and the thing that too few of us talk about in a significant way.

And I know you agree with me on this one. I was trying to pull some possible implications from your previous comment.

Josiah, I also have questions/thoughts about how revered the WCF is in Reformed circles. I think it's a great study and helpful creed, but I wonder about how high it's been elevated to the point of making officers profess to it.
I thought you might like to know there is a book called John Calvin versus the Westminster Confession by Holmes Rolston III, the 2003 Templeton Prize winner and one of the fathers of environmental ethics. Honestly, I haven't read it yet, but the fact that a book like this is out there intrigues me. From the back cover, "Holmes Rolston calls on the Reformer himself to refute the oppresive legalism of the Calvinists and to free 20th-century man for responsible life with a gracious God...Though supposedly reflecting Calvin's mature thought, the Confession in fact abandon's Calvin's insistence on the primacy of grace and exchanges it for a primacy of law." Again, I haven't read it yet but I know there are many youngsters like myself who wonder what are the effects of clinging to any one particular creed too much.

I think it's because "You're wrong" somehow isn't as satisfying as "You don't believe the Bible".

I want to throw in another plug for Rome's side of things. The scholastics especially were serious about using wisdom wherever they found it. This is not something most Protestants can say. If the hierarchy elevated something to the position of canon, it was because they thought it to be consistent with the church's teachings on Scripture. I'm not arguing that Rome is right about everything, and I won't contest the fact that much that is included in Roman tradition is unscriptural, but I don't think that the basic idea is wrong.