Sola Scriptura, Watchmen & Deification, TEDS

Sola Scriptura
C. Michael Patton at Parchment and Pen just finished an excellent series, “In Defense of Sola Scriptura” (PDF version available here). It’s a ten-part series, and the PDF comes to 31 pages, but don’t let the length intimidate you; it has lots of pictures and charts for us dumb people. I think Patton does an outstanding job clarifying the doctrine of sola scriptura, taking care to distinguish it from the common misconception you’ll find among evangelicals, solo scriptura or nuda scriptura. He also offers an apologetic for difficult counter-arguments to sola scriptura, such as, if tradition is fallible, how do you know the biblical canon is infallible? Here is an excerpt from Part 6 — Apostolic Succession?:
It is agreed that Peter and the apostles were given authority and the guidance to teach the truth. Their authority and teaching continues today. But, from a Protestant perspective, this authority and teaching is not through an unbroken lineage of succession, but through their teaching contained in the Scripture. In other words, Protestant believe in apostolic succession, but believe that this succession is a succession in teaching, not necessarily person.
However, Protestants should recognize that a succession in person is a necessary part of the succession in teaching (this is why we still practice ordination).  It is not a guarantee of the proper succession and must be continually tested by a foundational source (Scripture). In fact, I think we as Protestants should deeply consider our attitude toward the doctrine of apostolic succession. The common free Protestant mentality is fueled by those who find no connection, no accountability, indeed, no knowledge of the faith that has gone before them. This is not to our credit. We need to find a way to reassess our position here. I would be a strong advocate of any movement to re-institute the norm of apostolic succession within the Evangelical church at large. Again, this would not involve some infallible guarantee, but it does connect us to the historic Christian faith rather than our own johnny-come-lately denominational bent.
His distinctions between the different positions on tradition & Scripture got me thinking: where does Mormonism fall on that scale? While all other Christian faiths make the case that Scripture is at least as authoritative as tradition, I think I would make the case that Mormonism is imprimis prophetis viventibus. That is, the teachings of the living prophets have the potential authority to supercede all, including past tradition & teaching as well as canonized scripture. Possibly another designation could be prima ecclesia. What do you guys think? (Updated to fix my crappy Latin.)
In any case, if you want to read a gentle and respectful argument for sola scriptura, this is it.
Does Watchmen present a Protestant worldview of humanity and deification?
I ran across an interesting post by Josh Larsen over at Think Christian on Watchmen and how it teaches a Protestant worldview of humanity. Larsen writes:
[I]ts superheroes are anything but saviors. The movie is adapted from the 1986 graphic novel by Alan Moore, which envisioned superheroes as little more than egotists, sociopaths and masochists who use their crime-fighting status to indulge in wanton violence.
…
Yet in its deconstruction of the superhero legend — in its stripping from these figures both their super and heroic qualities — the movie is, ironically, more closely aligned to a Christian view of the world than earlier, gentler comic-book extravaganzas. It’s an extension of the Icarus myth, really, in which man flies too high, trying to become a god.
What happens when we don masks and attempt to save ourselves, the movie asks? Cruelty, chaos — the usual sin, only dressed up in masks, capes and tights. “Superman,” “Spider-Man” — even “The Dark Knight,” to a degree — offer human saviors who redeem us from our worldly ways. “Watchmen” is hardly religious, but it at least recognizes that no human being can offer that sort of redemption.
Since superhero tales are, in essence, all about men as gods, this got me wondering if superhero movies could be seen as making a statement on our respective ideas of deification or, perhaps more accurately, Protestant glorification v. Mormon exaltation. While I certainly don’t believe Mormonism teaches deification is possible independently of God, I think it is safe to say that Mormonism accords a greater base potential for divinity to humanity at large in addition to a higher level of human participation in the process of exaltation. In Protestantism, the only potential humans have for divinity is that which is granted by God Himself through grace and as such we are completely hopeless without Him.
With that in mind, would it be safe to say that Superman, Spiderman & even Batman = Mormonism while Watchmen = Protestantism?
It seriously pains me to say that. I’m not letting go of Batman easily!
TEDS
Couple of interesting developments with TEDS. The MA — History of Christianity in America program was discontinued just last week due to lack of interest. Apparently no one has actually enrolled in it since it was implemented in 2002. Since I’ve already formally been accepted to the program, what they’ll do is enroll me in the broader MA — Church History program and tailor the requirements as if it were the old MA — HCA program. Same program of study as far as I’m concerned, different name.
Also, Paul and I had wanted to move in August and live on-campus if we go to TEDS. The on-campus housing office called me today and said that the latest they have an apartment coming open is July 18. I really can’t see Paul and I moving a month earlier, and paying an extra month of rent on an empty second apartment would be a huge burden, so I’m thinking we’ll just have to look into off-campus housing and hope an apartment becomes available by August.

Comments

Sola Scriptura, Watchmen & Deification, TEDS — 8 Comments

  1. I’d keep your app to Multnomah hot, just in case housing kills the deal.
    And imagine that: an insufficient number of American Evangelicals interested in history… You have your work cut out for you, ma’am.
  2. This can only be a good thing, in my opinion. A degree in Church History (theoretically) has the advantage of being broad enough to include histories of other places as well. I’m thinking of getting a degree in ecclesiastical history myself down the road.
    Also- “primae prophetae vivae?” Are those datives or genitives? :)
    I’d probably say “imprimis prophetis viventibus” (to follow the ablative of “sola scriptura.”
  3. Also- “primae prophetae vivae?” Are those datives or genitives?
    Nominatives, actually. I was thinking of prophets in the sense that it’s used in Matthew 11:13 in theVulgate, and the thought didn’t even occur to me to take sola scriptura as an ablative, but I should have seen that.
    I’m also seeing now that propheta is one of those weird words that is masculine even though it has traditionally feminine endings, so I really screwed it up. It would have been “primi prophetae vivi” for nominative, wouldn’t it?
    Ah well. I really am out of practice here. I think I’ll just switch it to yours and not say anything further. Did I mention that my last Latin class was in Fall 2003, and while I’ve done plenty with Greek and Hebrew since, I’ve pretty much ignored my Latin? *crawls under her desk and hides just the same*
  4. A couple of comments.
    If we assume the Protestant viewpoint re apostolic succession is in teaching not office, by what precedent do they do that? That is, if the example of the original Apostles was to fill in the vacancy of Judas, why did it stop? I’ll agree that the record isn’t clear enough to include as statement like “there must always be a replacement”, but that’s really a lack of evidence, and not a statement justifying the lack modern day apostles.
    Re; deification. I’m glad you recognize that Mormons neither save nor exalt themselves. I’d agree that Mormon theology requires a greater level of human participation in the process of exaltation. Yet at the same time, I can also agree with
    the only potential humans have for divinity is that which is granted by God Himself through grace and as such we are completely hopeless without Him.
    as long as we agree we are looking from the problem as the fallen humans. While I believe non-fallen creatures wouldn’t need to be redeemed, I don’t think any scripture in Mormonism could teach a belief that unfallen beings work to achieve exaltation by their own merits.
    In any event, I think the superhero viewpoint is missing one valid piece of data. Neither Superman or Spiderman became what they were of their own power. Superman was born an uebermensch, and Spiderman received powers through a freak accident of nature. An argument could even be placed that Bruce Wayne could not have down what he did without the legacy of riches left to him by his parents. And those facts certainly blur the distinction between what the superhero earned and what they were given. The viewpoint of unfallen-humanity as a Bruce Wayne, gifted because of their inheritance from their parents is still a far cry from self-exaltation. Besides, unfallen humanity doesn’t exist. So we revert back to the common belief of gods by grace.
  5. Did I mention that my last Latin class was in Fall 2003, and while I’ve done plenty with Greek and Hebrew since, I’ve pretty much ignored my Latin?
    Excuses, Excuses!
    J/k. I know no Latin, Little Hebrew, and less Greek. Give me a Hamiltonian and a wavefunction any day.
  6. I have to second PC’s question re: succession. I understand that Protestants say that authority comes through teaching, not office–but I guess I’m wondering where they got that idea, when for centuries it seems like it was the opposite. (I freely admit I know next to nothing about early Christian history, so if my perception is wrong, let me know.)
    I took Latin for 1.5 semesters in college. I liked it, but it seriously kicked my ass–which is why I dropped it after I took a Bulgarian test and had enough foreign language credits to graduate without it. Part of me wishes I’d kept with it, though. A very small part.
  7. PC ~ Regarding superheroes, remember that in Watchmen, not all of the heroes were mere humans. Dr. Manhattan got his powers from a freak accident just like Spiderman, but as Larsen points out, ultimately the humanity that remains in him foils his ability to offer salvation.
    None of these superhero movies are perfect analogies for either system because none allows for actual intervention from God, and like I said, I don’t want it to be taken that I’m implying Mormons believe in becoming gods on their own apart from God. I just think Superman, Spiderman, and Batman present a much more positive view of human potential than Watchmen.
    PC & Katie ~ If we’re talking about why men weren’t actually ordained to fill the literal office of apostle throughout church history, two reasons:
    1) I realize that Mormons like to cite the ordination of Matthias after Judas’s death as proof that the office of apostle was meant to continue, but that argument doesn’t look at all of the biblical evidence. The Apostle James died in 44-45 A.D. (Acts 12:2), several decades before the alleged universal apostasy would have been complete, yet Acts doesn’t record a replacement being ordained. I also don’t know of any Christian tradition which names a replacement, though my knowledge on that isn’t exhaustive. The lack of a replacement for James can just as easily be seen as an indication that the office of apostle was not meant to continue. It seems likely to me that they were simply moved by the Spirit to not continue the office.
    2) Paul makes it clear in 1 Corinthians 9:1 that one of the qualifications for being an apostle was having witnessed the resurrected Jesus Christ (“Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?”). Once there were no longer men around who had literally witnessed the resurrected Lord, there could not be any more apostles. Or in other words, we think the office of apostle ended because Jesus stopped making special appearances as He did with Paul.
    I can answer the broader question of why not have priesthood authority at all, but I’ll have to get back to you later today or tomorrow.
  8. re Sola: as I state over on that other blog, I don’t think LDS leaders have as much potential to supersede scripture as you think. For that to happen, their teaching would have to be canonized like the rest of our scripture—in which case it would be a case of scripture versus scripture (not unlike what already exists in scripture).
    re Supers: ” think it is safe to say that Mormonism accords a greater base potential for divinity to humanity at large in addition to a higher level of human participation in the process of exaltation.”How so? I don’t see any base potential difference, but there might be something to the participation part (but wouldn’t this get into Arminianism etc? and thus include other Christians?).
    re TEDS: don’t underestimate the value of living in graduate student housing, with neighbors who understand your (and your family’s) situation….
Categories:

Related Post:



0 коментарі:

Post a Comment

ClobberBlog | Mormonism, Evangelical Christianity