Some Basic Theological Principles (to be discussed later)
1) The starting point of theology is faith seeking understanding, not understanding seeking faith.
2) Current theological disagreements must be addressed theologically, not in terms of alien criteria, whether those criteria be philosophical, political or sociological.
3) In the current theological crisis, the fundamental theological division has to do with the doctrine of the atonement. Specifically, is the person and work of Jesus Christ constitutive of a salvation that can be found nowhere else, and, accordingly, are the Scriptures as the authoritative witness to that salvation constitutive for our understanding of that salvation, or, conversely, are the person and work of Jesus Christ illustrative of a salvation that can be found elsewhere (or perhaps everywhere) as well, and the Scriptures accordingly illustrative of such a generally available salvation, and thus correctable in the light of it?
4) Reality is prior to the word, not the word to reality (Hilary of Poitiers). Put differently, the extra nos precedes the pro me.
5) Scripture is inherently referential, and points beyond itself to its inherently intelligible subject matter. The principle of Christological subversion means that the meaning of the metaphors and narratives of Scripture must be interpreted in light of the subject matter to which they refer, and not in light of the normal common sense meaning of the terms. So, for example, the word "Father" as applied to God is not to be understood in terms of a general meaning of the term "Father" as it might have been used in ancient Near Eastern patriarchal culture, or in light of its contemporary usage, but in light of how Jesus used Father to refer to God in his relation as Son. Similarly, the notion of God as judge is to be understood in the light of the cross of Jesus, rather than in terms of broad forensic categories. In the person of Jesus, God takes on our judgment in the cross.
6) God is in Himself Who He is in His revelation. Accordingly, if God has revealed himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the history of Israel, Jesus Christ and the apostolic Church, then God must be Triune in himself.
7) Theology derives its intelligibility from the inherent intelligibility of its subject matter, which is witnessed to in the canonical Scriptures. Accordingly, the Scriptures are not merely materially but formally sufficient for salvation.
8) On the question of doctrinal development, the fundamental choice is between Newman's and Barth's understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. The issue of continuity between (1) God's revelation in the history of Israel, Christ, the apostolic Church: (2) the canonical Scriptures; and (3) the post-apostolic Church, must be decided theologically, in terms of the inherent intelligibility of the subject matter of revelation, not by alien philosophical criteria rooted in such historical conundrums as the relation between the one and the many, or problems of epistemological scepticism.
9) The question of the authority of Scripture is that of the relationship between the second century Church and that of the apostles. In recognizing a canon of Scripture, the second century Church placed itself under that authority. It did not create it. In the words of Kierkegaard, an apostle is not a genius.
10) The Church has a historic hermeneutic for deciding which biblical admonitions are authoritative for today, and which have only historical relevance. This hermeneutic is found in the distinctions between doctrinal, moral, ritual, civil, and ecclesial law, developed in the Patristic Church by theologians like Irenaeus and Augustine, formulated definitively by Thomas Aquinas, and re-affirmed in Reformation writings such as Richard Hooker's Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, The 39 Articles, and the Lutheran Confessions. This hermeneutic is not an imposition on Scripture, but a consistent development of decisions made by the apostolic Church, and witnessed to in the New Testament.
11) The ordo essendi (order of being) is the opposite of the ordo cognoscendi (order of knowing). In terms of our understanding of revelation, there are three levels of knowledge: 1) The symbols and narratives of Scripture point beyond themselves to actual historical events; 2) The actual historical events to which the narratives refer point beyond themselves to intelligible realities; 3) The intelligible ontological realities that lie behind the narratives.
In terms of knowledge, the economic Trinity precedes the immanent Trinity; in terms of ontology, the ontological precedes the historical.
12) The doctrine of creation (the relation and distinction between God and the world) provides the crucial background for other theological distinctions as well. It is fundamental for understanding not only Christology (the Son is Creator, not creature), but soteriology (redemption is not only pardon, but re-creation), grace (grace perfects nature; it does not destroy it) , the sacraments (created means of uniting humanity and divinity), and eschatology (God's final goal for creation) as well.
http://www.willgwitt.org/blog/trackback.cfm?75076B7D-9027-6AB4-9522E6A1672E4FE5
Is that where we started to go all wrong?
Just thinking . . .
On your third point, I must disagree. The fundamental issue is not the atonement, but authority. In other words, it is epistemological, not soteriological. To what (or to whom) to we submit ourselves, our wills, out intellects? If in the end it is ourselves (Newman's "private judgment"), then Christianity as a revealed religion is at an end. If it is to another, then what is that other, and how do we hear its (his?) voice.
I think the ontological and epistemological questions are closely related. This is why point (4) about the priority of reality to the word follows point (3) on the atonement. However, as I also point out in point (2), these issues need to be addressed theologically, not in terms of general philosophical categories, and I think Newman's "private judgment" critique is just such an imposition of alien philosophical categories. The generic issue of "authority" is not a properly theological category in that it does not flow from the subject matter of Christian faith.
Where I see the connection between atonement and epistemology is in a common Pelagianism. Epistemologically, the insistence that only those matters of revelation are acceptable to me that already accord with my "self-understanding" is a form of intellectual self-salvation.
On the Anselm vs. Descartes question, I think Descartes does indeed mark a shift, particularly (1) his methodology of doubt, and (2) the epistemological turn to the self as the starting point rather than submitting to the priority of the known object.
At the same time, I think the epistemological turn to the self is an inherent danger in all Platonically inspired epistemologies. Newman, unfortunately, does not escape this. His critique of "private judgment" simply shifts the focus of authority from one knowing self (the private individual) to another knowing self (the magisterium of the church). In both cases, intelligibility is being situated in the knowing subject rather than the known object. Thus my point two (which is also the motto of my blog and website--Non sermoni res, sed rei sermo subjectus est)--Reality is prior to the word, not the word to reality.
Hmmm . . . someday you are going to have to explain that, particularly what you mean by "generic." To give but two examples: 1) The Articles speak more than once about "authority," in respect to both Scripture and the Church, and 2) Anglicans and Roman Catholics spent a lot of time in ARCIC coming up with "The Gift of Authority," even though this did not fly well with the Vatican. So how "authority" is not a theological category escapes me.
There are vast differences between the notion of authority in late Medieval Nominalist voluntarism, post-Tridentine Catholicism, Lutheran law/gospel scenarios, the Thomistic notion of the Gospel as the New Law, or Barth's notion of the Word. When I say that authority needs to be spelled out in terms of the subject matter of Christian faith, I mean precisely that subject matter summarized in the Creeds. Apart from that specific context, authority becomes just another name for law, and, as St. Paul reminds us, the law kills.