Discerning Truth Without Personal Interpretation

We spoke to Randy Alcorn's novel ideas on interpretation and I promised a follow up on a better way to understand the Scriptures without being at odds with 2 Peter 1:20. Here is a brief outline.

Many find the rule of discernment written centuries ago by a monk named Vincent who lived on an island of Lerins off the coast of France the most cogent and rational way to guard against error. We think the rule is a sturdy ship in a sea of contradicting theologies among thousands of denominations and independent churches. Such scandalizes the atheist, agnostic and pagan as well as many Christians with competing doctrines that turn God's word into an exercise in subjectivetivity akin to arguments between wine tasting snobs on bouquet and overtones of leather and cherry, etc. We think there should be an objective standard for us all to work from and Vincent, in our view, supplies the most logical and practical method
.

Vincent developed his rule in 434AD at St Honorat monestary in response to the controversies of his day. The rule is not for the theologian but rather for the layman to guard against wayward theologians adding or subtracting from the deposit of Revelation. Vincent understood that with the promise of the Holy Spirit one could strengthen their faith through the authority of Divine Law (Scripture) and the Tradition of the Church.

Before you freak out over the word "tradition" understand we are not talking about the tradition of Pharisees but that of the Apostles recieved from Jesus and stated clearly as such in 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thes 3:6; etc. These speak to the passing on of the New Covenent as promised by Jesus in John 14-- "I will bring you into all remembrance... I will send the Paraclete to guide you." A promise kept but how do we avail ourselves of it?

The Rule: Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, creditum est"

...meaning that which has been believed always, everywhere and by all is to be accepted as truly 'catholic'. Let's digress for a moment and define our terms. Classical Anglicanism is both Catholic and Pro-testant. How? Because we view Pro-testantism as the means to becoming rightly catholic. The word "Catholic" for us is not a denomination headed by the Pope- it is a standard of belief that must meet the tests of Antiquity, Universality, and Consensus. The Anglican Reformers used this standard, the foundation of Vincent's rule, as a means to test the Roman Church's innovations and found them not to be catholic. In other words the English Reformation was a restoration of what was found to be truly 'catholicke' not a re-forming of the faith once delivered. In order to restore what is 'catholic' one must be Pro-testant or in other words 'Pro- Testament.' If we were simply against Rome, as many were during the Continental Reformation, we would be rightly called "Con-testants". But for English Reformers the word Protestant means to place the final say with Scripture but interpreted through the Traditions of the Church and the Reasoning given by gift of the Holy Spirit. The Canon of the NT is in fact such Tradition. No man may be required to believe as dogma any doctrine not demonstrated within Scripture.

So here we have it- in order for a doctrine to be true it must be understood everywhere, always, and by all and in order to do that it must be ancient, consensual, and universally believed. The doctrine of the Trinity is such a doctrine that meets the test. On the other hand as example the popular doctrine of Rapture does not meet the test because it was invented by John Darby in the mid 1800's and no one had ever taught it prior. If you think this doctrine is orthodox you have a problem! Remember John 14 -- "I will bring you into all remembrance... I will send the Holy Spirit to guide you..." you see if John Darby is right and by his great intellect he discovered doctrine undetected by all those before him then Jesus didn't keep the promise! If Jesus couldn't keep the promise then he isn't who he said he was! Which horn would one prefer to impale themselves upon -- the horn that John Darby is a greater theologian than Jesus and his Apostles or the horn that Jesus couldn't kept his promise and therefore is not Divine? God cannot contradict Himself and he does not deliver a deposit of Revelation and then makes an adendum to it 1800 years later. "If any man or even an angel preaches a new gospel let them be anathama!" says the Bible and that has been believed everywhere, always and by all.

For further study of this rule we recommend Charles Grafton's essay at this link: http://anglicanhistory.org/grafton/v6/180.html

May the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

John Dixon
Warden,

Posted with Blogsy