| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Digression, Rant, Near-Troll |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gregory Morris, 8/4/08 1:17:31 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After reading and discussing a bit about the historical aspects of scripture, as we know it, I found myself writing a response that was quite a digression from the discussion at hand. Being that I tend to criticize protestants, and since I was diving head-first into that territory with this discussion, I decided to move my somewhat off-topic comments back to my blog.
Anyway, the discussion over at The Whited Sepulcre deals with the recent public availability of of the Codex Sinaiticus... which is generally believed to be the oldest copy of what we understand to be "The Bible" in existence. The discussion there, and in many other places, has shifted from "cool, old bible!" to "wait a minute, why isn't this identical to my bible?!?" I'll leave that conversation with WS, but post my tangent here. If you are a Protestant or Catholic who is easily offended, I'd suggest not clicking on "read more". If you are open to debate, and interested in theology, by all means, keep reading.
I find it strange that protestants would concern themselves so much with the actual history and tradition of the holy scripture...
It is clear that post-reformation protestantism has allowed the once-unified church to disintegrate into infinitesimal factions. I've always wondered why Luther and Calvin never made their way _back_ to Orthodoxy... It seems their biggest beefs with the Pope and the Catholic Church would have been handily addressed in this manner.
Actually, there was a minor attempt in Germany to re-unite the eastern church with the anti-papist reformers, but ultimately it failed because protestantism, in an effort to resolve their conflict with Rome had shifted too far away from Orthodoxy. They threw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.
The doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" fuels the disjoint nature of Protestantism, and in my opinion wasn't a necessary result of the reformation. It was a knee-jerk. All that was necessary to address their concerns was to cast off the burdern of papal rule, and the idea that the church stood between a man and god, as well as the non-orthodox political quagmire that the Catholic church had become. Note: I'm not saying the Byzantine-centered Eastern Orthodox Church was perfect, by any means, just that a European Orthodox Patriarchate would have given the reformers equal footing with the rest of the Christian world.
It seems to me that Protestants divide themselves based on what they disagree about, whereas members of the Orthodox Church (or Catholic Church for that matter) unify themselves based on they agree upon.
I've found that most modern protestants fail to understand that Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church is more of an interpretive tool than a set of rules or dogma such as you'll find in among Catholics. It gives a clear and inspired frame of reference for understanding scripture. I find that navigating scripture, absent its history tradition, is not only a hopeless task, but a nearly meaningless one. Of course, Protestants don't really do this... they attempt to explain their pre-scriptural beliefs in terms of both history and word, rather than allow the history and tradition of the scripture define their beliefs. In taking this tact, they merely provide an ever-moving goalpost for the spiritual understanding they strive for.
End Rant.
Update:
Bump. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | [Comments are closed after a month.] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| < "Coal Gasification" | | "Hat Tip WBGV" > |
|
|
|
|
