Maybe I'm missing something here, but wasn't the entire reason for the Council of Nicea to interpret to the individual believer the meaning of the words "God" and "Christ" in such a way that if a believer were to disagree with Nicea the believer is understood to be wrong?It is the essence of Romanism that the authority of the living church interprets to the individual believer the meaning of the word 'God' and the word 'Christ.' What the Bible says to the individual is mediated through the declarative activity of the church which is assumed to be infallible.
- Cornelius Van Til
4 comments:
how the two points conflicted though - the paragraph gives the same idea of the infalliability of the church...
How do the two points conflict? Van Til understands the doctrine of the Church's ability to athoritatively interpret the words "God" and "Christ" as peculiarly "Romish," which in Van Til's understanding is synonymous with "corruption."
Whereas I understand the ability to interpret as necessary to even be considered the church.
Presterjosh,
I was just now saw this post of yours. Funny thing... as a Reformed Christian I would agree with you in criticism of Van Til. He is of the Princetonian school of the Reformed Church with regard to relation between Scripture and Tradition. Although I am deeply appreciative of Van Til's influence in many areas (I share his "presuppositional" apologetic approach), this is one area which I believe he had it all wrong. But then again, as an heir of Charles Hodge and B.B. Warfield I guess we could expect no less.
Post a Comment