Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

A sola scriptura approach would allow for the validity of the Arian reading.

Expand Messages
  • Christopher Orr
    I thought this had some interesting, related things to say to our recent discussion of sola Scriptura: Mark 13:32 Orthodox vs.
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      I thought this had some interesting, related things to say to our recent
      discussion of sola Scriptura:

      Mark 13:32 Orthodox vs.
      Arian<http://frontierorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/mark-1332-orthodox-vs-arian/>
      from Frontier Orthodoxy<http://www.google.com/reader/view/feed/http%3A%2F%2Ffrontierorthodoxy.wordpress.com%2Ffeed%2F>
      by
      Fr. Oliver Herbel

      Ok, so the title of this is nothing like the Atari �Alien vs. Predator� game
      that a dorm floor mate had my freshman year of college, but here it goes.

      In the previous post on this, I mentioned how biblical interpretation has to
      occur within the context of tradition. I had noted how thus far, the only
      interpretation of St. Paul�s vision in 2 Corinthians 12 that I have seen
      from the fathers have all attributed the vision of the third heaven to St.
      Paul himself. I haven�t looked systematically into our hymnography, either,
      but it seems that is attested there as well. There are times when
      everything in the tradition points to a singular interpretation. That does
      not happen often, but when it does, we�d best note it.

      One key verse where this affects dogma (once delivered to the saints, so pay
      attention) is Mark 13:32. This verse, of course, is where Jesus is quoted
      as saying no one knows the hour of the last judgment, not even the Son of
      Man. You can probably imagine how Arians took this. For the Arians, this
      text showed precisely how the Son could not be said to be of one with the
      Father in any ontological sense. There had to be an ontological divide. It
      wasn�t the only verse they used this way, but they used it. It is also the
      verse that I personally think is the most obvious one to cite in their favor
      (from a �sola scriptura� perspective).

      One way of dealing with this is to try to say that revelation was revealed
      sequentially. A better way is to remember that there is a �scope� to the
      Scriptures, which is the double account of the One Christ, or to say it
      another way, the One Christ in two natures.

      �Now the scope and character of the Scripture, as we have often said, is
      this�that there is in it a double account concerning the Savior: that he was
      ever God, and is the Son, being the Word and Radiance and Wisdom of the
      Father; and that afterwards, taking flesh from the Virgin, Mary the
      Theotokos, he became man. And this [scope] is to be found indicated
      throughout the inspired Scripture, as the Lord himself has said, �Search the
      Scriptures, for it is they that testify to me� (John 5.39).� [*Orations
      Against the Arians* 3.29.1; translation taken from John Behr, *The Nicene
      Faith* (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir�s Seminary Press, 2004)]* *

      To get at a passage, we need to know the time, person, and subject matter.

      A similar approach was taken by St. Ambrose [Expositio Evangelii secundum
      Lucam, 8.34]. For St. Ambrose, the humanity of Christ was ignorant, but the
      divinity was not. This is not St. Ambrose�s only answer, but it is
      consistent with St. Athanasios of Alexandria. In *De Trinitate *[Book one,
      chapter twelve] St. Augustine made a similar move, though he had given some
      other rationales elsewhere.

      St. Ambrose and St. Jerome both also argued that Christ actually knew (St.
      Jerome found this clarified by noting that Jesus says it is not for the
      disciples to know what the Father has set by his own authority.

      This is a difficult text to address, but for my purposes here, at this
      point, the main thing I wish to note is that when reading this verse, we
      cannot accept an Arian interpretation. One must always keep in mind the
      double account. There simply are times when we have no other choices
      concerning biblical interpretation because of the overwhelming testimony of
      the tradition. A *sola scriptura *approach would allow for the validity of
      the Arian reading. Indeed, someone might even argue it is a much better
      reading. We, however, have a faith with a tradition, a faith that IS
      tradition. The Holy Spirit leads the Church into all Truth and it is the
      Church that is the pillar and ground of truth.

      For those interested in going beyond this post, read Kevin Madigan,
      �Christus Nesciens? Ignorant of the Day of Judgment? Arian and Orthodox
      Interpretation of Mark 13:32 in the Ancient Latin West,� *Harvard
      Theological Review *96:3 (2003): 255-78. Please also read Fr. John Behr�s
      treatment of St. Athanasios� arguments against the Arians.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.