Are you an Originalist or a Modernist?

[TER]

How do you interpret the Scriptures?

What we call the 'Scriptures' is a collection of books written by men and inspired by the Holy Spirit of God. It did not fall out of the sky, as it was created through the work of men who took pen to parchment and produced it using their knowledge of linguistics and, at that time, the Greek language. It was the work of men through the grace of the Holy Spirit when it was decided which of the available and circulated writings were authentic and most beneficial for the faithful in Christ.

This, however, took literally centuries before it was finalized as a collection and an established canon was ordained as a measuring stick to the Christian teachings. Until then, there was no collection of books as an authority and there were no mass produced King James Bibles which we find today in most homes and inns. In fact, for the majority of Christians living under the spiritual guidance of their local Bishop, there was oral tradition and liturgical prayer. There were sermons and epistles and hymns of worship. Before the Bible, there was the Church which is the living vessel of the Holy Spirit in the world. Not the only living vessel of the Holy Spirit, for He is in all places and in all things. But it was ordained the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ, the authoritative communion of holy believers who have held on to the apostolic deposit of faith. The Church was and remains the 'pillar and foundation' for truth and of the faith.
This was the belief of those early Christians gathering in homes and celebrating the Eucharist on the Lord's Day (the Eighth and Eternal Day of the New Aeon in the Kingdom of Heaven).

These Christians, the first generations of Christians, did not refer to a Bible to get the correct interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures simply because there was no Bible! They sought to find those prophets, bishops, deacons, priests, and teachers who had been ordained by the Holy Spirit in apostolic succession in order to get the correct interpretation of the Scriptures. And they learned by the oral preachings and teachings, those things the Apostole taught us to hold on to and carry down to the next generation as the deposit of faith.

It was through the lens of the Risen Christ whereby these Saints gave their witness to. And their wisdom and knowledge from learning from the fathers of the faith, the Holy Apostles commissioned by Christ. Above all, the grace imparted on the them by the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost whereby the hidden meanings and truths of the Old Testament could be perceived and understood. Through the personal experience and wisdom of a living holy body of believers could the reliable and correct exegesis of the words of the Prophets be received. And they did so through their worship in assembly, for it is in the worship of the Church, in her prayer, whereby you will find the faith of the Church, lex orandi, lex credendi.

How do we today get the correct understanding of the New Testament books? To whose interpretation and experience do we open our minds to help shape and form our own?

Do we place value in what the Christians believed and how they worshiped? Does this have any worth in our own understandings of the Christian faith?

And if we say that some do and some don't, then we ask, who is making that decision? Who is the authority who is determining which teachings are true and authoratative and which are not?

I think you can see where I am going.

If I want to know the original intent of the US Constitution I would believe that the writings of Samual Adams would give more truthful interpretation regarding the original intent than a two-time Obama voting liberal who is giving interpretations which would make Thomas Jefferson's grave spin.

I would read the writings of the Founders of this Nation to get the most truthful information about what the essential meanings and interpretations are of this Nation's Constitution.

Likewise, for the truths of the Christian faith, I will seek to learn from those who compiled, transcribed, and passed down for centuries the Scriptures before there was even a 'Bible'. John Calvin has some new ideas? Really? But St. Ignatius the Bishop of Antioch and student of St. John, who became head of the most populace Church of the first century in around 60's AD at a time when most of the Apostles were still living, he confesses to a teaching and interpretation MUCH different from John Calvin.

Why would I chose the innovative teaching of someone from the 16, 17, 18, 19, 20th century over what St. Ignatius taught, a brother of the Apostles in the greatest Church in the middle of the first century?

And the only reason why we even remember this man is because it was the CHURCH, that is, the VOICE OF THE PEOPLE, the Amen ! and affirmation of the believers spread everywhere which have memoralized him for speaking the truthful and Spirit-filled teachings of the "faith which was once delivered unto the saints'.

[TER]

If a student of history wishes to learn the original intent and epistemological meanings of the US Constitution, how would be the best way they should start their study?

[heavenlyboy34]

Even the more cynical scholars like Dr Ehrman agree that Mark (the first written gospel) was not recorded until ~70 A.D.! It is truly a miracle that the gospels have been preserved so extremely well and accurately. It couldn't have happened without the efforts and love of the members of the Orthodox Church.

[TER]

Even the more cynical scholars like Dr Ehrman agree that Mark (the first written gospel) was not recorded until ~70 A.D.! It is truly a miracle that the gospels have been preserved so extremely well and accurately. It couldn't have happened without the efforts and love of the members of the Orthodox Church.

And with much sacrifice and suffering they went through in order to fulfill the commandment of Christ and preach to all nations!!! In the great scheme of things, and in 20 centuries, the Orthodox Church is only now beginning to become noticed and considered on this side of the pond thanks in part to the internet and because of the work and ministry of the great Saints of America such as Saint Herman of Alaska, St. Raphael of Brooklyn, and St. John of San Francisco. The Church is still in its infancy here, and in a thousand years (whether in this world or the next!), the same Church will still commemorate these Apostles of the New World and concelebrate with them in the Kingdom of Heaven the glory and worship of God, together with all the Saints going back to the beginning. It is indeed a remarkable time to be an Orthodox Christian in America.

[Kevin007]

If a student of history wishes to learn the original intent and epistemological meanings of the US Constitution, how would be the best way they should start their study?

by reading the original for themselves.

[Terry1]

And with much sacrifice and suffering they went through in order to fulfill the commandment of Christ and preach to all nations!!! In the great scheme of things, and in 20 centuries, the Orthodox Church is only now beginning to become noticed and considered on this side of the pond thanks in part to the internet and because of the work and ministry of the great Saints of America such as Saint Herman of Alaska, St. Raphael of Brooklyn, and St. John of San Francisco. The Church is still in its infancy here, and in a thousand years (whether in this world or the next!), the same Church will still commemorate these Apostles of the New World and concelebrate with them in the Kingdom of Heaven the glory and worship of God, together with all the Saints going back to the beginning. It is indeed a remarkable time to be an Orthodox Christian in America.

This in part could be due to the times we're living in now. I think we're very close to the fulfillment of prophecy with regard to so many being drawn to the true Gospel of Christ and coming out of the false beliefs that have held them captive for so long. The harvesting is in process--the lost sheep are being brought back into the fold.

[jmdrake]

False choice fallacy is false. Textualism isn't even mentioned as an option. And many modernist take great comfort in using legislative history to interpret (misinterpret?) the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism

Textualism is a formalist theory of statutory interpretation, holding that a statute's ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislature in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive questions of the justice and rectitude of the law.
“ Textualist judges have contended, with much practical impact, that courts should not treat committee reports or sponsors' statements as authoritative evidence of legislative intent. These judges base their resistance to that interpretive practice on two major premises: first, that a 535-member legislature has no "genuine" collective intent concerning the proper resolution of statutory ambiguity (and that, even if it did, there would be no reliable basis for equating the views of a committee or sponsor with the "intent" of Congress as a whole); second, that giving weight to legislative history offends the constitutionally mandated process of bicameralism and presentment. ”

— John F. Manning, "Textualism as a Nondelegation Doctrine", 97 Colum. L. Rev. 673, 1997, JSTOR 1123360

The textualist will "look at the statutory structure and hear the words as they would sound in the mind of a skilled, objectively reasonable user of words."[1] The textualist thus does not give weight to legislative history materials when attempting to ascertain the meaning of a text. Textualism is often erroneously conflated with originalism, and is advocated by Supreme Court Justices such as Hugo Black and Antonin Scalia, who staked out his claim in his 1997 Tanner Lecture: "[it] is the law that governs, not the intent of the lawgiver." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., although not a textualist himself, well-captured the philosophy, and its rejection of intentionalism: "We ask, not what this man meant, but what those words would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English, using them in the circumstances in which they were used ... We do not inquire what the legislature meant; we ask only what the statutes mean."[2]

Strict constructionism is often misused by laypersons and critics as a synonym for textualism. Nevertheless, although a textualist can be a strict constructionist, they are separate views: Justice Scalia, for example, warns that "[t]extualism should not be confused with so-called strict constructionism, a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute. I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be.... A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."[3] Similarly, textualism should not be confused with the "plain meaning" approach, a simpler theory used prominently by the Burger Court in cases such as Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, which looked to the dictionary definitions of words, without reference to common public understanding or context.

Heavenlyboy. I seem to recall that you and I debated a while back on Lincoln and the civil war. Are now prepared to say that everything Lincoln did during that war was actually constitutional? Because I don't think that was your position. And to you, TER and Terry. Do you think that the Alien and Sedition Acts passed by John Adams were constitutional or unconstitutional? How about the internment of Japanese during WW II? Constitutional or unconstitutional? Really, you may not realize it, but you've just make the case for sola scriptura better than I ever could.

[fisharmor]

If a student of history wishes to learn the original intent and epistemological meanings of the US Constitution, how would be the best way they should start their study?

I see the intended connection but I disagree with the analogy.
The united states constitution was written for the express purpose of doing the exact opposite of what most people think it was for. It was a federal power grab. They even teach this to grade school children - they use different words, like "the articles of confederation weren't functioning in a way that allowed for much control over the individual states" - but that's exactly what the articles were supposed to do, and exactly what the constitution was meant to do away with.

So comparing the constitution to Scripture invites a comparison that I don't believe is appropriate. There's ample evidence that the constitution was a power grab and an intentional move toward a different system of governance. But there's no evidence that the authors of Scripture were writing it down for the express purpose of changing everything.
Sure, there's an argument that this is what happened, based on the existence of Gnostic texts, but it doesn't hold a lot of water.

[heavenlyboy34]

False choice fallacy is false. Textualism isn't even mentioned as an option. And many modernist take great comfort in using legislative history to interpret (misinterpret?) the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism

Textualism is a formalist theory of statutory interpretation, holding that a statute's ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislature in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive questions of the justice and rectitude of the law.
“ Textualist judges have contended, with much practical impact, that courts should not treat committee reports or sponsors' statements as authoritative evidence of legislative intent. These judges base their resistance to that interpretive practice on two major premises: first, that a 535-member legislature has no "genuine" collective intent concerning the proper resolution of statutory ambiguity (and that, even if it did, there would be no reliable basis for equating the views of a committee or sponsor with the "intent" of Congress as a whole); second, that giving weight to legislative history offends the constitutionally mandated process of bicameralism and presentment. ”

— John F. Manning, "Textualism as a Nondelegation Doctrine", 97 Colum. L. Rev. 673, 1997, JSTOR 1123360

The textualist will "look at the statutory structure and hear the words as they would sound in the mind of a skilled, objectively reasonable user of words."[1] The textualist thus does not give weight to legislative history materials when attempting to ascertain the meaning of a text. Textualism is often erroneously conflated with originalism, and is advocated by Supreme Court Justices such as Hugo Black and Antonin Scalia, who staked out his claim in his 1997 Tanner Lecture: "[it] is the law that governs, not the intent of the lawgiver." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., although not a textualist himself, well-captured the philosophy, and its rejection of intentionalism: "We ask, not what this man meant, but what those words would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English, using them in the circumstances in which they were used ... We do not inquire what the legislature meant; we ask only what the statutes mean."[2]

Strict constructionism is often misused by laypersons and critics as a synonym for textualism. Nevertheless, although a textualist can be a strict constructionist, they are separate views: Justice Scalia, for example, warns that "[t]extualism should not be confused with so-called strict constructionism, a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute. I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be.... A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."[3] Similarly, textualism should not be confused with the "plain meaning" approach, a simpler theory used prominently by the Burger Court in cases such as Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, which looked to the dictionary definitions of words, without reference to common public understanding or context.

Heavenlyboy. I seem to recall that you and I debated a while back on Lincoln and the civil war. Are now prepared to say that everything Lincoln did during that war was actually constitutional? Because I don't think that was your position. And to you, TER and Terry. Do you think that the Alien and Sedition Acts passed by John Adams were constitutional or unconstitutional? How about the internment of Japanese during WW II? Constitutional or unconstitutional? Really, you may not realize it, but you've just make the case for sola scriptura better than I ever could.

Not according to the definitions you've given. Adherents to Sola Scriptura don't agree with interpreting scripture with the aid of the Church. I don't agree with that at all. And as fish said, the analogy is flawed. I withdraw my previous comment.

It was late and I was tired when I responded the other day. I should've waited till toady. :/

[jmdrake]

I see the intended connection but I disagree with the analogy.
The united states constitution was written for the express purpose of doing the exact opposite of what most people think it was for. It was a federal power grab. They even teach this to grade school children - they use different words, like "the articles of confederation weren't functioning in a way that allowed for much control over the individual states" - but that's exactly what the articles were supposed to do, and exactly what the constitution was meant to do away with.

So comparing the constitution to Scripture invites a comparison that I don't believe is appropriate. There's ample evidence that the constitution was a power grab and an intentional move toward a different system of governance. But there's no evidence that the authors of Scripture were writing it down for the express purpose of changing everything.
Sure, there's an argument that this is what happened, based on the existence of Gnostic texts, but it doesn't hold a lot of water.

Ah fisharmour you're spoiling my fun! I was wanting to see how far TER et al would dig themselves into the pit they dug for someone else. I would say more, but I'm still interested in seeing the responses first.

[jmdrake]

Not according to the definitions you've given. Adherents to Sola Scriptura don't agree with interpreting scripture with the aid of the Church. I don't agree with that at all. And as fish said, the analogy is flawed. I withdraw my previous comment.

It was late and I was tired when I responded the other day. I should've waited till toady. :/

Textualists don't agree with interpreting the constitution and/or legislation with the aid of legislative history. Sola Scripture doesn't agree with interpreting scripture based on church history. Sounds like the analogy works perfectly but just not in the way TER intended. If we look at how John Adams interpreted the U.S. constitution not long after it was written or how Abraham Lincoln interpreted it while the country was < 100 years old, I think you would agree that incorporating that history into the meaning of the U.S. constitution might not be a good thing. And that's how the sola scriptura crowd feels about use "oral tradition" that's even 1 century removed from the Bible as the basis for interpreting the Bible. Note that sola scriptura doesn't mean that history can't ever help in understanding the Bible or validating the Bible. It's certainly nice to know the ultimate fate of Paul for instance since he's still alive at the end of Acts. Further, even the "history" is open for interpretation. Was St. Clement saying that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when talking about the bread and wine? It sure seems that way. But I'm certain you and TER will interpret his words differently.

[TER]

Ah fisharmour you're spoiling my fun! I was wanting to see how far TER et al would dig themselves into the pit they dug for someone else. I would say more, but I'm still interested in seeing the responses first.

My response is this my friend. My intention of this thread was not to compare the documents particularly, that is, this is not a Scriptures versus US Constitution thread. Choosing the Constitution was arbritary. Pick any document you wish! Let's say the original charter for the New York Knickerbockers?

My point is, how do we find the true intent and spirit of the document? Who are our authorities and teachers in learning the true intent?

Kevin brought up the important suggestion to read the original writings ourselves. That is very good! That sometimes is the best way to start! However, not all the time. In fact, unless you know Koine Greek and the nuances of the language, you really are not reading the original. You are ready a translation of the original, and, well, things get lost in translation all the time.

Interestingly, there is a reason why when you pick up a book on the US Constitution, there is an introduction on the first several pages. That is because in many instances, if you wish gain more insight into the document and the true and original meaning and intent, it is good to be informed. The original writings are vitally important, but to understand and appreciate the fullness and intent and feeling of the words, it helps much more to have knowledge about certain historical truths.

The weight of historical evidence in many genre of writings, especially creedal or didactic, have much more value closer to the time they were written then something hundreds (if not thousands) of years later. So a writing of St. Ignatius gives much more insight and revelation to the dogmatic truths of the apostolic Church then a person posting something completely contradictory on RPF in the year 2014. This is historical scholarship 101.

This is not to mean that they are necessarily 100% the truth. Of course not. But when there begins to arise an undeniable pattern of such similar teachings spread far and wide, in a confession and creed approaching unanimity, not only over long distances but over time, and back to the very first writings which were written, then the rational, logic, thinking man must begun to question some assertions they have decided to hold up as truth which pit them squarely against objective and undeniable historical truths. Of course, they can deny, but then by pretending to be a prophet in their own minds they will begin to look like a fool.

Why is it that so many people who with regards to politics and morality think traditionally and are conservatives, but in their Christian faith they are actually progressives and modernists espousing an MSNBC-like Christianity? Metaphorically, it is the raising up of Roger Ailes and Bill Clinton and in doing so puting down George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. A similar thing happens when a Protestant puts up John Calvin and Martin Luther and so putting down St. Ignatius and St. Basil. It is the very anti-conservative approach to the Christian faith.

But I am very encouraged because there seems to be an awakening, and this by the grace of God. Just as many political left-wing modernists are beginning put more value in the history of classical liberalism and seek to learn the originalist understanding of this nation's foundational writings, likewise modernist Christians are beginning to look back to find the original foundations of the faith and the understandings and doctrines of the teachings passed down by the apostles and the early Church. This is very good news for the future of this nation.

[jmdrake]

TER, the problem with your entire thesis is that you aren't merely wishing to look at the men who authored the original documents, but also men 100 and 200 years later. Once you get 200 years past the U.S. constitution are any of the "authorities" on the U.S. constitution better to read to get an understanding of the constitution than the constitution itself? You'd trust the interpretation of the U.S. constitution to LBJ or FDR? Or just 100 years, you'd trust Lincoln? Now frankly I don't mind hearing what someone today has to say about the Constitution. I think Tom Woods brings some good ideas to the table for instance. But I don't let him do my thinking or interpreting for me. The problem isn't that people are reading the constitution themselves. The problem is most Americans haven't read the constitution at all! And that's the problem with the Bible and Christianity. Most Christians haven't read the Bible. That's true across all sects of Christianity. So Kevin's right. You want to understand an original document? Any original document? Go back and read the entire document. After that you can read what are known as "secondary sources". Nothing wrong with that. But the secondary sources are not authoritative. They are merely helpful. And even then there's debate over what the secondary sources mean.

And for the record Protestants have always used commentaries of some sort of another. Whether it's Calvin or Wesley or Huss or Luther or whoever. As much as I disagree with Calvinism, I've found Calvin to have some very good insights. And I'll read Catholic commentaries as well. (Why do you think I was able to find the sources on St. Clement at Newadvent.org so fast?) But I don't put any of those secondary sources over the other and none of them do I put on par with the Bible.

Edit: And for the record, the Bill Clinton's of the world are taking your approach. You would have to actually spend time studying constitutional law to understand this. One of the early constitutional cases was Maubury versus Madison. The result of that case is that the Supreme Court became the sole body with the power to determine what the constitution means. That case was decided in 1789. So it doesn't matter if the plain reading of the U.S. Constitution is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". If the a 5-4 vote decides otherwise, that's it. Same for abortion. Same for the first amendment. If a 5-4 votes ever states that the free exercise clause doesn't mean the IRS can't go after churches that speak out on issues like abortion or gay marriage or war than that's all that matters. The plain reading of the constitution be damned. Freedom is having the common sense to know that a 5-4 decision (or even a 9-0 decision) doesn't mean the constitution really has been re-written.