Adrian Teo wrote:
> Hello George,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: george murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
> > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 10:22 AM
> > To: Adrian Teo
> > Cc: 'Robert Schneider'; asa@calvin.edu
> > Subject: Re: Bear sacrifice
> > Luther's best known statement about the fallibility
> > of councils comes
> > from the Leipzig debate
> > of 1519, & he was referring especially to the Council of
> > Constance a century
> > earlier where Jan Hus was condemned. Among the articles that
> > that council had
> > condemned & which Luther had in mind was "The universal Holy
> > Church is one, as
> > the number of the elect is one", which is from Augustine.
>
> The actual article that was condemned states:
> 1. There is only one holy universal church, which is the total number of
> those predestined to salvation. It therefore follows that the universal holy
> church is only one, inasmuch as there is only one number of all those who
> are predestined to salvation.
>
> It was this "strong" notion of predestination that was condemned (because it
> would mean taht God predestined certain people to damnation), which IMO, is
> quite different from that of Augustine, who also strongly affirmed free
> will.
No, a strong statement of single predestination does not require one to
hold double predestination.
My point, however, was not to debate this particular thesis (though I
can) but to indicate the immediate object of Luther's statement about the
fallibility of councils.
> > Luther's positive attitude toward I Nicea, I
> > Constantinople, Ephesus & Chalcedon is shown in his
> > considerably later essay
> > "On the Councils and the Church" (LW 41). He does not indeed
> > say that they
> > were infallible but simply that their doctrinal decisions
> > were correct because
> > they were in accord with scripture.
>
> With all due respect, knowing that you are Lutheran, does this statement not
> seem to suggest that Luther is acting as the final arbiter of what is in
> accord with scripture and what isn't? I ask this question in the most
> respectful manner, and I pray that you will not misundertand me and feel
> offended.
Luther did have a pretty good opinion of himself as an expositor. He
was not, however, an advocate of the notion that every Christian is free to
interpret scripture as he or she wishes. Scripture is to be read with a
christological focus ("all scripture everywhere speaks only of Christ") & is to
be interpreted within the context of the church. The Lutheran tradition has
always taken seriously the church's tradition of interpretation - which is not
the same thing as accepting it as normative. (It does, however, mean that the
Fathers cannot be simply dismissed as a bunch of old dead guys, as Jim Eisele
does so charmingly in another post.)
But the point that the decisions of ecumenical councils are correct
because they are in accord with scripture is not a novelty. Athanasius, e.g.,
argues that the decision of Nicea is no novelty but simply a clear statement of
what scripture teaches when interpreted by the rule of faith.
> > It is also worth noting that III Constantinople
> > condemned Pope Honorius
> > as a heretic, so it is not easy to maintain the infallibility
> > of both popes and
> > councils.
>
> Pope St. Leo II was the one who condemned Pope Honorius I. But it was for
> *negligence of duty* in the face of the heresy of Sergius. Honorius had not
> spoken ex cathedra, so infallibility had not been involved.
He was also condemned by III Constantinople. I think it questionable to
treat his Monothelite views as merely private theological opinion & the
difference between his statement of them & speaking ex cathedra is something of
an anachronism. But this is something that Romans & Orthodox &
Protestants have
been arguing about for >1300 years now.
I'm happy to continue this discussion but it seems well outside the
science-religion area - & certainly has nothing to do anymore with "Bear
sacrifice"!
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 26 2002 - 18:49:12 EDT