Protestants using man-made tradition? Wright claims it is so.

I’ve started reading N.T. (“Tom”) Wright’s book called Justification, and I can hardly contain my excitement.

Why? Because Tom Wright, perhaps without knowing it, is cutting the legs out from underneath Protestantism with his (honest, sincere) endeavor to read St. Paul rightly on justification.

As I read through it, I plan to offer some insights in particular regarding how Wright is (unintentionally) making the case for the Catholic Church in his book. This post is focused on one aspect: Wright’s accusation that others are being wrongly influenced by (man-made) tradition and his claim that he is coming at Paul’s epistles without tradition (“fresh’).

Wright:

[T]he arguments I have been mounting…stand for fresh readings of Scripture. They are not the superimposition upon Scripture of theories culled from elsewhere. But the response [that he receives from his Protestant critics] is deeply conditioned by, and at critical points appeals to, tradition. Yes, human tradition–albeit from some extremely fine, devout, and learned human beings.

He later in this same passage claims that the Catholic Church responded to the Reformers by using tradition, implying that his Protestant opponents are acting like those Catholics in using man-made tradition to defend their doctrine on justification!

Wright claims he is reading Paul without the influence of a tradition and that in doing so he has come to a significantly different doctrine of justification than did the Reformers and their followers. He further claims that this is exactly what the Reformers would want him to do, that is, to read critically the Bible without appealing to Luther and Calvin as infallible teachers.

Wright is wrong in claiming he is not influenced by “tradition” of some sort–we all are–the only question is, which one? And is there a Tradition that is the true one, the one that is from God and not from man?

I don’t think his Protestant interlocutors will enjoy being accused of holding onto man-made tradition, but we Catholics have received that accusation for 500 years. The difference is, we admit that everyone has a tradition of some sort and claim that God has established an Apostolic Tradition in his Church, the form of which is Apostolic Succession, and that this Tradition with the Scriptures as expounded upon by the Magisterium is how God has chosen to infallibly communicate his saving truth to us.

You can read my lecture notes, check out additional links to resources, and listen to the podcast on my main site.

You can also subscribe to all the podcasts via iTunes or subscribe with Google reader or another feed service.

You can listen to the podcast here as well:

Direct link to this mp3

“I gave him the language. He came back a little while later and said, ‘But we want to pay for abortions.’ I said, ‘Mr. Chairman, that’s — we disagree. We don’t do it now, we’re not going to start’

“But we think should” Stupak said Waxman told him.

via FOXNews.com – Stupak Claims Committee Chairman Wants Government to Fund Abortions.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches speak in unison about so many things. That we differ on important matters like the nature of the episcopacy, particularly the successor of Peter, is worthy of reflection for Catholics, Orthodox and those Protestants who see our common message. But despite our differences, we are so close. We make the same call to communion with the Church Fathers. We venerate the Holy Mother of Our God on this note, I want to parenthetically state that devotion to the Blessed Virgin is more full and flowering in the East than the West in terms of during the liturgical services, but my point is that Protestants should feel less at home in an Orthodox or Eastern Catholic Parish than they would in a Roman Catholic service, if Marian devotion is troubling. We beseech our Lord and King to have mercy on the souls of those who have gone to their eternal Rest.

via Two Rights Declare a Wrong-on Appeals to Orthodoxy | Called to Communion.

We’ve been talking about the canon of Scripture, and in the discussion are: a Catholic (me) and three Protestants (one churches of Christ turned Quaker turned Episcopal, one Presbyterian (PCA), and one non-denominational (with Pentecostal leanings)). I won’t give away who anyone is and everyone who comments can do so under their own pseudonym, but I think it’s helpful to see the variety of Christian traditions represented.

Jumping right into it. I responded to a tu quoque objection with links to Called to Communion:

Why are the Catholic reasons for the canon consistent and not ad hoc, as Tom Brown (and I) claim that the Protestant position is? Here are Tom’s responses:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/the-canon-question/#comment-6190
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/the-canon-question/#comment-6264

Friend 1 added on:

When these guys [Called to Communion guys] say the “Protestant” position, they are referring to Sola Scriptura specifically.  I think the point is that “scripture alone” is not enough to determine what scripture is.  So Catholics and Protestants are left with the need to define by what authority you use to determine the canon, and the interpretation.

The difference is that Catholics explicitly define what criteria they use to determine the canon.  (it was defined by the Magisterium of the Church).  Protestants use some other authority to determine the canon, generally Martin Luther.  They’re also “inconsistent”, because they claim sola scriptura, but to be consistent, a Protestant must believe sola scripture “plus” the testimony of <someone making some historical argument>.

Protestants who have used the “historicity” approach are generally trying to do one of two things:

1.  Look at history and look for evidence that supports a preconceived conclusion (the 66-book Luther Bible).
2.  Look at history to come up with “original” conclusions on scripture (e.g. the Jesus Seminar and their 5 gospels).  I don’t like their conclusion, but if we don’t believe God guided the Church in the selection of scripture, then their approach might as well be the right one.

as opposed to the Catholic argument that:

3.  God guided the Church (through the Magisterium) in the true determination of the canon.

Friend 2 (who originally made the tu quoque) responded:

I agree that something outside the Bible must give it it’s validity. I rely on the apostle’s letters as acknowledged by those immediately after them (church fathers). However, the Catholic response is then “why do you only accept part of the early church father’s testimonies and not all their teachings”.

And then Devin broadened it to not really be the teaching of the church fathers but rather the teachings of the church. I would argue that the church has been influenced by the early church fathers so that at least in some cases what the fathers believed is what the church taught (this is an assumption because I don’t know a lot of church history).

Some of the church fathers taught error (and therefore the church taught error), but a catholic would say, “never on issues of faith and morals”, to which I reply “why do you only accept part of the early church father’s testimonies and not all their teachings”.

I don’t think that the attached article answers this question because it’s main point it to prove that the Bible needs external “witness”, and I agree with that.

I plan to respond to Friend 2’s reiteration of his objection in the comments. It may take me a day or two, so in the meantime, anyone feel free to chime in.

To tip my hand a bit, I think the reason this tu quoque doesn’t work is that we each have to answer the question of how we can know the canon with certainty within our own respective systems: he as a Protestant must explain how he is not contradicting or being inconsistent with sola Scriptura while I as a Catholic must demonstrate how my reasons are consistent with my beliefs.

I totally understand their discomfort.  It seems to me that we ought to feel just the same about our adopted and bio children, and I wish I had the same natural emotions.  I don’t, however, feel naturally the same way toward Adele as I do Edmund.  Nevertheless, I choose to behave the same way toward them both, giving love with patience and gentle mercy.  But, it’s easier to feel affection for Edmund.  Now, perhaps, every mother, biological or adoptive, would say that it’s easier to love a newborn than a two-year old.  Maybe this is totally normal, even disregarding the fact that I’ve only been Adele’s mother for 4 months.

Adoption is difficult.  It’s hard to become a family of mixed skin colors and ages and DNA.  I often ask Mother Mary to pray for me for the grace of a mother’s heart toward each of my children and not just those who I am naturally inclined to accept.  I want to feel a fierce protective love for each of my children.  And, I trust that, in time, it will grow.

Becoming a family is not easy, but it is so very worth it.  Devin and I receive the most incredible joy when we see glimpses of the sweet Adele who so often hides behind her angry face.  And, as for the twins, well, they are the cutest and sweetest boys and best boys; they are gaining expansive vocabularies and learning new skills and we are eager to see the men they will become.

Do any of our readers have mixed adoptive/biological families?  I wonder how long it takes other mothers to feel like their adopted children are really theirs.  And, I wonder if other mothers would say that they eventually came to feel the same natural affection for all their children.

I look forward to the day when we feel like we are really a family, when we feel like we know each other and are safe together and would rather be together than anywhere else.  I have moments of that feeling more and more, and it is fantastic.

I had plans, good ones. The world was a mess, I was 25 years old, and I was going to help fix it.

I had seen much of the world, through travels in Honduras, India, and Bosnia, and wanted to pour myself out to ease the pain that I saw on so many faces. It seemed to me that I needed a graduate degree for this work, so that I would have the credentials to organize large-scale efforts to bring Christ and His healing to a world so full of despair.

It is with a heavy heart that I bring my latest update on Michael. We have learned that his cancer is too advanced and too aggressive to expect any sort of remission. Our oncologist estimates that with continued treatment Michael most likely has somewhere between six months and a year to live.

via Michael Spencer Update, 3/9/2010 | internetmonk.com.

And, now, we want to become lobbyists who work at the UN to push the UNFPA to actually provide funding for obstetric physicians for African, not for abortionists.

We, also, both want to become physicians and move to Ethiopia.

And, we want to adopt many more children.  It looks like Our Lord will have to give us the gift of bilocation.  And lots and lots of money.

Holy Mary, Mother of All Orphans and Widows, please pray for us.

Fathers for Good

My second article is up on Fathers for Good.

I share our experience with fertility problems, how we decided to begin the adoption process through the state’s foster care system, and the reservations that I had about adopting children with “problems.”

I think it will be helpful to husbands who are reluctant to consider adoption, since it explains how, by God’s grace, I overcame my fear of welcoming children into our home in this extra-ordinary way.

So check it out and share it with your friends on facebook!

Past articles:

Through the Eyes of a Convert

]]> http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2010/03/08/fathers-for-good-adoption-and-fertility/feed/ 3