Wednesday, April 27, 2011

The Never Ending Canon Debate

I recently found this blog entry critiquing something I posted a few months back: Sproul: "The Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books". In that entry, I sought to simply explain what's meant by that phrase. In his response, this particular blogger presents a long basketball analogy and then sums up my position on the collection of the canon saying, "The Church wasn't protected from missing, but in history managed to get the right answer." Does that sounds like something a Reformed person would say? Hardly. This blogger though provoked me to at least stop for a moment and ponder again, the never ending canon debate.

My actual position is that it is God’s sovereign power and providence which protects and  reveals His Word to His church, for His purposes, in the unfolding of history.  Think of it this way: God has providential control over His Word, to the last detail. He is the Divine Author.  A.A. Hodge notes,

God providentially produced the very man for the precise occasion, with the faculties, qualities, education, and gracious experience needed for the production of the intended writing, Moses, David, Isaiah, Paul, or John, genius and character, nature and grace, peasant, philosopher, or prince, the man, and with him each subtle personal accident, was providentially prepared at the proper moment as the necessary instrumental precondition of the work to be done. (Outlines of Theology, Libronix Electronic Version).

As creatures we are dependent on God's purposes in giving us His inspired Scriptures. God "providentially preserves the Scriptures and leads His people to a functional sufficient knowledge of the canon so as to fulfill His purposes in inspiring them" (James White, Scripture Alone, p. 103). For God to do this, His Church need not be infallible. It simply doesn't logically follow nor can it even be proven from Scripture itself that a stamp of approval from an infallible magisterium is needed. Rome thinks it is the true church and that her authority comes from God. It thinks church history is specifically her history.

God's people though have recognized God's Word long before any alleged infallible magisterium came along. Herman Bavinck points out:

As the various writings of the OT originated and became known, they were also recognized as authoritative. The laws of YHWH were deposited in the sanctuary (Exod. 25:22; 38:21; 40:20; Deut. 31:9, 26; Josh. 24:25f.; 1 Sam. 10:25). The poetic products were preserved (Deut. 31:19; Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18); at an early stage the Psalms were collected for use in the cult (Ps. 72:20); the men of Hezekiah made a second collection of the Proverbs (Prov. 25:1). The prophecies were widely read: Ezekiel knows Isaiah and Jeremiah; later prophets based themselves on earlier ones. Daniel (9:2) is already familiar with a collection of prophetic writings including Jeremiah. In the postexilic community the authority of the law and the prophets is certain and fixed, as is clear from Ezra, Haggai, and Zechariah. Jesus Sirach has a very high view of the law and the prophets (15:1-8; 24:23; 39:1f.; 44-49). In the preface his grandson mentions the three parts in which Scripture is divided. The LXX contains several apocryphal writings, but these themselves witness to the authority of the canonical books (1 Macc. 2:50; 2 Macc. 6:23; Wisdom 11:1; 18:4; Baruch 2:28; Tob. 1:6; 14:7; Sir. 1:5 [marg.]; 17:12; 24:23; 39:1; 46:15; etc.). Philo cites only the canonical books. The fourth book of Ezra ([= 2 Esdras] 14:18-47) knows of the division into 24 books. Josephus counts 22 books divided into three parts. In the opinion of all concerned, the OT canon of Philo and Josephus was identical with ours. [Reformed Dogmatics I, 393-394].

Greg Bahnsen argues the canon is self-establishing, not built on human authority. That is, "There is no created person or power which is in a position to judge or verify the word of God... men are not qualified or authorized to say what God might be expected to reveal or what can count as His communication... Only God can identify His own word. Thus God's word must attest to itself -- must witness to its own divine character and origin." Does this sound far-fetched? Bahnsen explains:

Those works which God gave to His people for their canon always received immediate recognition as inspired, at least by a portion of the church (e.g., Deut. 31:24-26; Josh. 24:25; I Sam. 10:25; Dan. 9:2; I Cor. 14:37; I Thess. 2:13; 5:27; II Thess. 3:14; II Peter 3:15-16), and God intended for those writings to receive recognition by the church as a whole (e.g., Col. 4:16; Rev. 1:4). The Spiritual discernment of inspired writings from God by the corporate church was, of course, sometimes a drawn-out process and struggle. This is due to the fact that the ancient world had slow means of communication and transportation (thus taking some time for epistles to circulate), coupled with the understandable caution of the church before the threat of false teachers (thus producing dialogue and debate along the way to achieving one mind).


Historical evidence indicates that, even with the difficulties mentioned above, the Old and New Testament canons were substantially recognized and already established in the Christian church by the end of the second century. However, there is adequate Biblical and theological reason to believe that the canon of Scripture was essentially settled even in the earliest days of the church.

Bahnsen argues that Christ ultimately establishes the canon through the apostles (the once and for all spokesmen for Jesus Christ). They were those who were given the authority to speak in God's name, and who spoke with the authority of Christ. It was they who ultimately imposed certain writings as the law of the church. In essence, since they spoke for God, they themselves "the Lord intended for the New Covenant church to be built upon the word of the apostles, coming thereby to recognize the canonical literature of the New Testament." The tradition of the apostles, which is the authority of Christ, was set down in writing so the Church could have their teaching once they died. This isn't simply a position that insists a book merely had to be written by an apostle to be the teaching of Christ. As B. B. Warfield points out,

Let it, however, be clearly understood that it was not exactly apostolic authorship which in the estimation of the earliest churches, constituted a book a portion of the "canon." Apostolic authorship was, indeed, early confounded with canonicity. It was doubt as to the apostolic authorship of Hebrews, in the West, and of James and Jude, apparently, which underlay the slowness of the inclusion of these books in the "canon" of certain churches. But from the beginning it was not so. The principle of canonicity was not apostolic authorship, but imposition by the apostles as "law." Hence Tertullian's name for the "canon" is "instrumentum"; and he speaks of the Old and New Instrument as we would of the Old and New Testament. That the apostles so imposed the Old Testament on the churches which they founded - as their "Instrument," or "Law," or "Canon" - can be denied by none. And in imposing new books on the same churches, by the same apostolical authority, they did not confine themselves to books of their own composition. It is the Gospel according to Luke, a man who was not an apostle, which Paul parallels in 1 Tim. 5:18 with Deuteronomy as equally "Scripture" with it, in the first extant quotation of a New Testament book as Scripture. The Gospels which constituted the first division of the New Books, - of "The Gospel and the Apostles," - Justin tells us were "written by the apostles and their companions." The authority of the apostles, as by divine appointment founders of the church was embodied in whatever books they imposed on the church as law not merely in those they themselves had written.


The early churches, in short, received, as we receive, into the New Testament all the books historically evinced to them as give by the apostles to the churches as their code of law; and we must not mistake the historical evidences of the slow circulation an authentication of these books over the widely-extended church, evidence of slowness of "canonization" of books by the authority or the taste of the church itself. [The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1970), 441-442].

Christ and the apostles intended the church to recognize the authority of the New Testament writings. Is this not the same process that God used for His Word previous to the New Testament?  Why then should it be assumed the infallible magisterium of the Roman Church is needed to settle the canon? Indeed, God gives His Word to His church. As Bahnsen points out, "Scripture teaches us that only God is adequate to witness to Himself. There is no created person or power which is in a position to judge or verify the word of God. Thus: 'when God made promise to Abraham, since He could swear by none greater, He swore by Himself...' (Heb. 6:13)."

Of interest on this subject  is this mp3 lecture from Greg Bahnsen on the canon.

109 comments:

John said...

You're trying to set up two opposing views, a canon established by "recognition of the church" as opposed to one recognised by a "magisterium". But in reality, there isn't much fundamental difference when you boil it down. If the canon is recognised by "the church" or "his people", then you have to first know where "the church" or "his people" are in order to ask them. And when you do come up with an answer to that question, and when you do ask them, you'll ask their leadership, or somebody who learnt the answer from their leadership. So you end up with an answer that is in substance not different at all.

And the problem is, this entire attempt and distinguishing these views is an attempt to disguise the massive hole, which is that all the grandiose talk about about recognition by "the church" or "his people" then leads you to ask "but where are his people?". Then the answer for a protestant just disappears like mist, since they can't answer that with any specificity without a great deal of circularity and assuming what you have to prove.

James Swan said...

You're trying to set up two opposing views, a canon established by "recognition of the church" as opposed to one recognised by a "magisterium". But in reality, there isn't much fundamental difference when you boil it down.

There is indeed. The church is biblical. An infallible magisterium is not.

If the canon is recognised by "the church" or "his people", then you have to first know where "the church" or "his people" are in order to ask them. And when you do come up with an answer to that question, and when you do ask them, you'll ask their leadership, or somebody who learnt the answer from their leadership. So you end up with an answer that is in substance not different at all.

It's true that the faith of the church is carried on from generation to generation. Hodge states,

Our Confession teaches that there is a collective body, comprising all the elect of God of all nations and generations, called the Church invisible. The fact that there is such a body must be believed by every person who believes that all men, of every age and nation since Adam, who received Christ and experienced the power of his redemption, are to be saved, and that all who reject him will be lost. That this entire body in its ideal completeness, not one true member wanting, not one false member marring its symmetry, has been constantly present to the mind of God from eternity, must be believed by all persons who acknowledge either or both the divine foreknowledge and foreordination.

Hodge, A., Hodge, C., & Hodge, A. (1996). The confession of faith : With questions for theological students and Bible classes. With an appendix on Presbyterianism by Charles Hodge. Index created by Christian Classics Foundation. (electronic ed. based on the 1992 Banner of Truth reprint.) (311). Simpsonville SC: Christian Classics Foundation.

And the problem is, this entire attempt and distinguishing these views is an attempt to disguise the massive hole, which is that all the grandiose talk about about recognition by "the church" or "his people" then leads you to ask "but where are his people?". Then the answer for a protestant just disappears like mist, since they can't answer that with any specificity without a great deal of circularity and assuming what you have to prove.

Actually, I could simply call up my pastor, or a number of folks I worship with every Sunday.

John said...

So could a Mormon "call up his pastor". So could a Catholic. So could an Orthodox. Does that mean he will get the right answer, or the same answer? How is your response any more than mist that evaporates when the light of the sun shines on it?

Jamie Donald said...

Mr Swan,

Thank you for your interaction with my article.

First, the analogy is not the summary of your original post. The summary (of a portion of your original) comes in the paragraph before the analogy. The intent of the analogy is to further illustrate the concept by example.

Having said that, your statement, "Does that sounds like something a Reformed person would say? Hardly," seems to indicate that I have incorrectly identified your thoughts in the original article. In short, I outlined your position on describing a "fallible collection of infallible books" as follows.

1. The early Church was fallible and thus could have erred in discerning the Scriptures. But you believe in spite of this possibility, the Church did not actually err. It correctly identified the Scripture.

2. The Church receives the Scriptures from God. Thus, the Church is below, not above the Scripture, nor does it create the Scripture.

3. The quality which makes the Scripture infallible comes from God, not the Church. Additionally, the process of revelation of what constitutes Scripture is the work of God, not of the Church.

4. You do not believe that an infallible church is required for the faithful to identify the Scriptures. You used the example of the early Christians or the faithful late Old Testament Jew (who may have lived 50 years before Christ) to make this point.

Since you imply that this is hardly the Reformed position, please identify on which point I've misrepresented you and/or the Reformed position. I ask this with sincerity. Prior to your original article, I had been perplexed on the concept of a "fallible collection of infallible books." You can ask Ken Temple. He and I have gone back and forth on this topic and I was still unable to see it from the Reformed point of view. After your original article, I thought I had understood where you were coming from. Thank you for writing it. I found it very illuminating. But after this more recent article, I am wondering what nuance I missed.

Jamie Donald said...

(continued)

Having said that, I have a couple of comments on the article to which this combox is attached.

You wrote, "God’s sovereign power and providence which protects and reveals His Word to His church, for His purposes, in the unfolding of history. Think of it this way: God has providential control over His Word, to the last detail." To which I reply, Amen! But let me ask you this. If God has complete control over his Word, to the last detail, then when He decides to reveal it to His Church, His Body, how is it possible for that Church to have incorrectly discerned that revelation? There are two possibilities. First, God's control to the last detail could leave the revelation still partially hidden, thus making it possible for the Church to be unable to correctly discern the hidden portions. But in that case, no one - not even the Church (nor you) - knows what is and is not still hidden. So you're still left without knowing what constitutes Scripture. The other means by which the Church would be able to incorrectly discern the Scriptures would be if, in His exercise of control to the last detail over His Word, God failed to adequately reveal it. But we both believe that God cannot fail. So this second "possibility" is not actually possible.

In short, your stated way of thinking of it posits that God controlled the revelation of Scripture to His Church and that the Church correctly received that revelation. But since God was in control, there was really no way the Church could fail at the reception. That is the definition of infalliblity. While you may disagree that the Catholic Church has this charism of infallibility today, your words very strongly suggest that at some point in time God controlled His (early) Church such that it could not fail and was, at least for a moment, infallible.

Other comments will have to wait. I'm already late for work. I do not know when I will have the time to comment again, but I will read your reply. I am truly curious as to which of the 4 points above you find misrepresentative.

May the Peace of Christ, our risen Lord, be with you.

Carrie said...

So could a Mormon "call up his pastor". So could a Catholic. So could an Orthodox. Does that mean he will get the right answer, or the same answer?

How does a Mormon or Catholic know infallibly that they have chosen the right church in the first place since they themselves are not infallible?

Since no one is claiming personal infallibility all that the Catholics have done is moved the canon decision back a step. Without personal infallibility to know that the magisterium is truly infallible, you are still left with the possibility of error in your quest.

This has been discussed so many times I don't understand why it is still misunderstood. At some point each person has to make a "leap of faith". Having the diving board a little closer to the pool doesn't change that.

John said...

It may be moving it back a step but.... (a) its moving it back to a point where there is a _rule_ of faith, and not just some individual decides for himself and (b) its moving it back to an authority which claims to have an authority and tangible link with the apostolic authority. Whether you accept that or not is one thing, but the point is it allows the authority to have a tangible source and not just what you decided when you woke up that morning.

If you can't see that its different, then you can't see the difference between scripture as a source of authority and just making up your religion as you see fit. You can see the difference between a rule of faith and just making an individual decision right?

Carrie said...

And the problem is, this entire attempt and distinguishing these views is an attempt to disguise the massive hole, which is that all the grandiose talk about about recognition by "the church" or "his people" then leads you to ask "but where are his people?".

You might have a point if Protestant denominations all had different canons, but they don't. Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and other Prots all have the same canon. Hardly a "massive hole".

John said...

"You might have a point if Protestant denominations all had different canons"

What is "Protestant" other than a word used to describe groups which happen to agree on certain things? You can't win this debate by appealing to the definition of some self-invented word. Anyone can invent a word that includes everyone they agree with and say "See, we all agree".

Carrie said...

and not just some individual decides for himself

You still had to decide for yourself who the true authority is, so the first decision is a fallible one. You fallibly chose RC/EO to find the canon, I fallibly chose the Protestant church to find the canon. Either of us could be wrong with that decision.

its moving it back to an authority which claims to have an authority and tangible link with the apostolic authority.

God and his Word have authority. The need for tangibility (I would argue) is a human flaw.

You can see the difference between a rule of faith and just making an individual decision right?

See my first answer.

John said...

There's a Protestant church? I didn't see that church in the phone book. Does it agree on anything other than the canon? If not, how did you discern it as an entity at all?

And did you choose this Protestant church based on some kind of a tangible link with an authority? If not, isn't your choice a mere arbitrary one, compared to someone who chooses a church based on a discernable link with apostolic authority?

Carrie said...

What is "Protestant" other than a word used to describe groups which happen to agree on certain things? You can't win this debate by appealing to the definition of some self-invented word. Anyone can invent a word that includes everyone they agree with and say "See, we all agree".

Groups of people with similar beliefs using a label to define themselves is pretty standard. Republicans, Democrats, Pro-lifers, etc. While two Republicans may not agree on each and every issue, they have certain key beliefs that they share that define them.

Again, the canon among people who call themselves Protestant is the same, so I don't see the issue even if you don't like the label of Protestant.

John said...

But what does it prove? All Calathumpians agree with me, and all other religious groups are hopelessly divided. See I win, you lost.

Carrie said...

If not, isn't your choice a mere arbitrary one, compared to someone who chooses a church based on a discernable link with apostolic authority?

There is no discernible link with apostolic authority unless you have Paul or Peter hiding in the back room.

We each decided who was "the church" based on certain personal experiences and fallible evidence. The fact that you chose a "church" that claims infallibility and apostolic authority doesn't make you more right in your decision.

John said...

There is a documented link, of a kind that the early church put stock in. i.e. A list of apostolic succession. You may reject it, but it is something in the empty space where you place yourself. Don't compare something with nothing.

James Swan said...

There is a documented link, of a kind that the early church put stock in. i.e

The early church put stock in... a whole lot of things. Talk about a group that expressed a lot of doctrinal differences.

James Swan said...

Thank you for your interaction with my article. First, the analogy is not the summary of your original post

I was planning on working through the bulk of your post, time allowing. The statement I focused on was the first summary statement you made, so re-read what I said:

In his response, this particular blogger presents a long basketball analogy and then sums up my position on the collection of the canon saying, "The Church wasn't protected from missing, but in history managed to get the right answer."

I admit, my wording wasn't clear. Regards, James

Carrie said...

There is a documented link, of a kind that the early church put stock in. i.e. A list of apostolic succession. You may reject it, but it is something in the empty space where you place yourself. Don't compare something with nothing.

You are the one using words like "discernible" and "tangible" and I say that the only way for you and I (who are fallible) to know for certain who has apostolic authority is to have a living apostle with us. Outside that, the documentation you speak of 1) could be bogus or 2) could be wrong. So you are still making a fallible decision to believe that documentation is true. I make the fallible decision to reject it. We are on the same playing field in that regard.

Brigitte said...

I think some here sound as if they have not meaningfully interacted with scripture.

There are logical problems with what both John and Carrie are saying, and even James S. Indeed, if I could phone up my pastor, priest, elder (Mormons don't have pastors and their elders are not "elders" either... another story), and have the "right" answer, we could get different answers.

Certainly, one can make many plausible arguments and thick books have been written on the canon, which shed much light (this is important), yet in the very end it comes down to justification by faith alone again.

James, the writer of the epistle, who we don't know who he is for sure and certainly is a lesser light than Paul, whom we know very well, has to made fit with Paul, not Paul with James. (And if he can't be made to fit, he might indeed be left aside.) And this simply also for this basic and plain as day reason: if I myself hope to be saved and similarly have any hope for you, it has to be by faith in God's gift and mercy.

I simply have no righteousness of my own. This is the fact I know for sure. It is as plain as the nose on my face.

From hence we get to kerygmatic criticism and speaking about the living word, which is the oral proclamation of salvation and forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ. Really the "word" is the word Jesus speaks to you through the preaching and witness (based on the prophetic and apostolic witness of scripture). And the truth has its own life. The truth is that I am hopelessly lost without God and he has done something about that. All glory belongs to him and this is how it should be.

steelikat said...

John,

No Protestant "defines" the church as consisting of those churches who agree on the OT canon. Protestants furthermore, do not define the universal church as consisting of Protestants exclusively.

We all agree on the NT canon, and for a millennium and a half we disagreed on the precise details of the OT canon without a problem. The Apocrypha question is a nonessential where disagreement is relatively harmless. You err in dogmatizing it.

Carrie said...

I think some here sound as if they have not meaningfully interacted with scripture.

I was just dealing with the epistemic argument that John was making to try and show him where his thinking is flawed. The authority argument seems to hold weight with a lot of RC/EOs so it is worthy of some discussion.

But in the end no one will be saved by the canon they believe in, I understand that.

Carrie said...

was making to try

Yikes, time for a break.

Change that to "was trying to make".

Jamie Donald said...

Mr Swan,

Per your request, I am refocusing on the specific line to which you directed me, The Church wasn't protected from missing, but in history managed to get the right answer.

You quote Kistler as saying, It is one thing to say that the church could have erred; ... . Since you quote him without qualification, I can only take your thoughts as being in complete agreement with his. This alone states that you think it possible for the early church to have erred or "missed" when discerning the Scripture. If the Church was able to err, then it was not protected from error as a protection from error would negate even the possibility of erring. But in addition to quoting Kistler, you state, Do I agree with the statement, “The Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books”? Yes, because the heart of the statement is only meant to point out that the church is not infallible. (emphasis yours). By definition, the lack of infallibility means that it is possible (was possible in history) for the church to have erred or "missed" on any number of topics, including the canon of Scripture. Simply put, your words mean that you believe that the Church had no special protection preventing it from incorrectly discerning the canon. It could have "missed."

The Kistler quote has a follow-on phrase; ... it is another thing to say that the church did err. While not directly stating it, this quote implies a belief that in this particular case - discernment of the canon - the Church did not actually err, or it "got the right answer." Your own wording, Does that therefore mean that I believe the bible contains a book it shouldn’t? No, is direct. You state a belief that in receiving the Scripture, the Church received and accepted the correct books.

Since these are the words you use, and since you are Reformed, I continue to be at a loss as to how this is hardly the description a Reformed person would use. Again, I ask, where have I misrepresented you?

I will also repeat that my desire to know where I'm misrepresenting you is sincere. While I may disagree with your conclusions, I desire to interact with what your position truly is, not a false argument which I have inadvertently made up on my own.

The Peace of Christ be with you.

John said...

Carrie:
" I say that the only way for you and I (who are fallible) to know for certain who has apostolic authority is to have a living apostle with us. Outside that, the documentation you speak of 1) could be bogus or 2) could be wrong."

You prove too much, since the same thing could be said of scripture.

steelikat :
"We all agree on the NT canon".

Who is "we"? Are you including the Ethiopian orthodox in that?

"The Apocrypha question is a nonessential where disagreement is relatively harmless. You err in dogmatizing it."

Is only one side erring in that regard, or both sides?

Bridgette: "James, the writer of the epistle, who we don't know who he is for sure and certainly is a lesser light than Paul, whom we know very well, has to made fit with Paul, not Paul with James."

Rather off topic Bridgette, but perhaps you could prove your hermeneutic from scripture, since it seems to be the foundation of your rule of faith.

Edward Reiss said...

John,

"You prove too much, since the same thing could be said of scripture."

The difference is that Carrie admits she is basing her belief on faith, while you make believe yours is based on reason--when it is really just another species of faith.

The fact is that we do not need epistemic certainty to believe things--another flaw in your approach. We just need sufficient grounds for believing things.

steelikat said...

John,

In regards to the Ethiopian Orthodox, is there a reason that you think that when I use the pronoun "we," I mean the Ethiopian Orthodox specifically?

If so, I can reassure you that nothing could be further from the truth. If you are telling me you are Ethiopian Orthodox I will revise my assumptions and try to respond accordingly.

One "side" in the western church, generally speaking, errs in over-dogmatizing. The apocrypha is a good example of that. Notice that one side insisted that an epistemological catastrophe would result unless somebody hurried up and issued "infallible" declarations on the question and anathematize half the faithful while the other side was happy to leave the question more-or-less open as it had harmlessly been left for many centuries without apparently creating a fatal epistemological crisis.

James Swan said...

Jamie,

Thanks for all your comments.

I disagreed with your basketball analogy because I'm Reformed, and this recent post expounds that. The reason why the canon is the way it is is because of God's providence. A church doesn't need to be infallible to help God out with keeping his books organized. In my post I specifically stated, "It is God’s sovereign power that reveals the canon to His church, for His purposes."

By the way, the post of mine you've commented on was written back in 2007:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/01/sproul-bible-is-fallible-collection-of.html

Looking back, I think the Gerstner / Sproul paradigm suffers by not highlighting God's providence enough. As I've re-read this old post, had I been writing it now, I would have emphasized more of the points I brought out in this recent post. I think the reason for the differences is that the Sproul / Gerstner camp espouse classical apologetics, whereas the view I espouse leans more towards presuppositionalism. While the views intersect, they probably aren't completely the same thing down the line. Fundamentally though, I think the the Sproul / Gerstner statement is sound if interpreted according to the way they mean it: the church is not infallible. I don't see blaring contradictions between my post from 2007, but I definitely think I would've written it differently in emphasis.

I'm very curious to hear any comments you might have on the mp3 link in this post.

John said...

Edward Reiss:
"The difference is that Carrie admits she is basing her belief on faith"

Faith and belief are the same thing, more or less. So she's basing it on nothing then?

"The fact is that we do not need epistemic certainty to believe things--another flaw in your approach. "

I don't remember advocating epistemic certainty.

steelkat:
" is there a reason that you think that when I use the pronoun "we," I mean the Ethiopian Orthodox specifically?"

Specifically? No. But neither do I know who you are or aren't arbitrarily including or excluding from this game.

"while the other side was happy to leave the question more-or-less open as it had harmlessly been left for many centuries "

I don't see the folks on this blog allowing the question to be "more or less open".

In any case, the issue is not merely one of apocrypha. The issue goes back to folks like Marcion who had a severly shortened canon, and extends into the present time when all sorts of scholars are trying to revise the "authentic" books of the NT. Why are either of them wrong to do so?

Edward Reiss said...

John,

"I don't remember advocating epistemic certainty."

You stated "But what does it prove? All Calathumpians agree with me, and all other religious groups are hopelessly divided. See I win, you lost."

That is close enough to an argument for epistemic certainty for me.

In addition, you have failed to respond to the point. You said "Faith and belief are the same thing, more or less. So she's basing it on nothing then?"

In the first place, you jump from a "more or less" statement to making a claim that my point works out to Carrie basing her belief on nothing. This is just a rhetorical game you are playing, and I suspect you are playing rhetorical games because you cannot give a good response to the point. The fact is that you have failed to explain why your private choice is better than Carrie's, except that a lot of people agree with you. If e.g. Carrie's faith is insufficient to determine the True Church (TM), why is yours? Why not the EOs? Why not the Hindus'? Both groups have lots of people who "agree" with them so why don't *they* "win"?

John said...

The comment about Calathumpians was a mockery of the argument that Protestants agree on the canon. It doesn't even touch on the topic of epistemic certainty.

"The fact is that you have failed to explain why your private choice is better than Carrie's, except that a lot of people agree with you."

I did explain why it is better. Recognising some kind of tangible authority to telling you what the canon is leads to a rule of faith, and not just a bunch of people who coincidently agree. Merely agreeing because you happen to choose this week to agree, doesn't actually put you under any authority. Maybe next week it will be inconvenient for you to believe in book XYZ because it interferes with your lifestyle, and you'll find a reason why some scholar thinks that book isn't authentic anyway. And if someone in your congregation comes to you with such a theory, you'll have nothing to respond with.

Jamie Donald said...

James,

I had tried to respond explaining the basketball analogy a little further and in a means that I hoped you'd find more palatable. But that response got lost (I don't think it's a spam filter issue). However, I think I understand your objection to the analogy. I'll leave it at that.

I've had the opportunity to read your article here, but have not had the time yet to listen to the .mp3 link. Lord willing, I will listen over the weekend.

I suspect that we are already to the point of talking past one another. So, other than giving my thoughts on the .mp3 (per your request), I think that my comments on this thread are at a close. Again, thank you for your interaction.

Peace of Christ be with you,

James Swan said...

I suspect that we are already to the point of talking past one another.

I thought the same thing, but didn't want to cause any offense.

Edward Reiss said...

John,

I will take care not to take your comments too seriously in the future.

"I did explain why it is better. Recognising some kind of tangible authority to telling you what the canon is leads to a rule of faith, and not just a bunch of people who coincidently agree. "

Stop right there. Your "tangible authority" is different from EOs "tangible authority. So why is your "tangible authority" better than theirs?

and if "tangible authority" is the end-all and be-all, how does one infallibly choose a "tangible authority"?

You see, John you really are no better off than a prot. Unfortunately for you, with "tangible authority" you merely slip in your own ecclesial definition of authority as the correct one. For what it is worth, for all the protestants I know, the Church is "tangible". So since we have a "tangible authority" too, your argument fails again--chiefly because I am not bound to your definition and choice of "tangible authority". (Neither are the EOs, Hindus etc.)

"Merely agreeing because you happen to choose this week to agree, doesn't actually put you under any authority. "

I do not accept the polemical, subjective, and erroneous description you are giving. If you want to convince people not already in your camp, you have to argue with them in such a way that they agree your characterization is accurate. This is simply apologetic boilerplate, nothing more.

"Maybe next week it will be inconvenient for you to believe in book XYZ because it interferes with your lifestyle, and you'll find a reason why some scholar thinks that book isn't authentic anyway."

From this comment it is apparent you don't know anything about me or my church. So it is safe to simply discard yet another uninformed polemical swipe by you. Do you have any actual reasons one should believe as you do or are you just going to produce RC polemic boilerplate?

John said...

I didn't say that choosing an authority was an infallible process, I alluded to the fact that having such an authority leads to a functioning body of Christ, because you then have a rule of faith.

You're playing the game of reducing everything down to our fallible choices, but the liberal can out-play you at this game. Why follow a particular set of scriptures, since choosing them was just your fallible choice, and you may have chosen the wrong ones? You may as well just do whatever you want to do in life based on your own best guesses, because relying on some set of books is merely your own decision making powers anyway.

Yeah, you can make that argument, but it doesn't lead to any kind of functioning body of Christ, unless you think wildly liberal denominations are functioning.

" For what it is worth, for all the protestants I know, the Church is "tangible".

Where are its boundaries then? And how did you determine its boundaries so that you could ask of it what books are God-inspired?

"From this comment it is apparent you don't know anything about me or my church. "

Waving your arms about that I don't understand, isn't actually an argument. Just because this hasn't happened to you or your church, doesn't explain what you would do about it if it did. In fact similar fates have befell most Protestant denominations, and complaining that it hasn't befell yours yet isn't a great argument.

"Do you have any actual reasons one should believe as you do..."

I don't know that we've even established that we believe differently, as far as the strict topic at hand. We both believe the church is where one goes to authoritatively find out the canon. Its just that one side can't fulfil their own claim when it comes down to examining the details.

steelikat said...

John,

In general I think you will eventually begin to realize than unless people are talking about a subject such as mathematics, you will fail to correctly understand them if you understand every assertion they make as if it were qualified by "absolutely all without a single exception..." or "there are in the history of mankind not a single instance of.." or any other such absolutist phraseology. No, I wasn't thinking of the ethiopian orthodox and I bet it would not have occurred to anyone but the Ethiopian orthodox themselves and you that when I seemed to be referring to Christians generally I was actually talking about that small denomination specifically.

The "issue" is the apocrypha as Christians generally agree on the Canon except for the apocrypha. More to the point, the "issue" is that Christians recognize the scripture without having to have the RC church point at it for them by anathematizing them. In fact presuming to anathematize them didn't solve any "issues" or problems it just created division and acrimony in the church and among the faithful. the purpose of trent's canon wasn't to help the marcionites, they died centuries before Trent and the faithful had gotten along for centuries, peacefully and lovingly, leaving the question of the apocrypha unsettled. Or at least when they weren't peaceful or loving the apocrypha wasn't the bone of contention.

steelikat said...

The fact is that we have received the canon from the church, except for the apocrypha, which we haven't received as definite settled canon. Only a contrary mary who isn't serious or a faithless fallen-away christian who doesn't trust in the Holy Spirit to protect that church would pretend that an ancient sect (the marcionites), generally recognized as heretical, with a different canon would call the received canon into question. Only someone who lacks a historical perspective would worry about dying hippy "liberal denominations" in that regard, if you are honest with yourself I think you will admit that those liberal groups will have as much significance in the long run for future generations of the faithful as the long-dead marcionites do.

On the one hand, you have those who accept the canon that was passed down to them from the apostles through the church that christ founded with them. On the other hand, you have those who accept the canon because one denomination, in order to separate itself from the rest of the western church and to harden and make official the schism and to prevent healing and forestall continued unity in diversity, made a long list of all the differences it could think of between the two sides in the dispute and anathematized anyone not on the "right" side. Why does the former seem to me like a better basis for a functioning body of christ, unified in love and the latter seem to me to be a very design for disunity and malfunction and a half-century of schism?

John said...

Nobody assumed you were "actually talking about that small denomination specifically". I just pointed out that your assertion was apparently or possibly false, by demonstrating Christian groups who disagree with you. They are not the only group I could have mentioned. I could have mentioned the history of the canon in Syrian Oriental Orthodox, but I happened to pick on them. Instead of interacting with the apparent falsity of your argument, you're claiming that I thought you were specifically talking about them when you made your comment, which is a non-sequitur.

Do Christians "generally agree" on the canon apart from the apocrypha? If disagreeing means generally agreeing, then whatever. But who are these "Christians" of whom you speak? Does it include the Mormons? Oh no you say, because they believe a bunch of stuff in that ghastly book of Mormon. But then you go circular in defining Christians as those people who "generally agree" with the things outlined in a set of books you think are inspired. Probably the first Mormon who appears on your doorstep will talk of a burning in the bosom, you won't have any response and you'll be roped in.

And nobody even mentioned Trent. Whether you like Trent or not doesn't actually help your own position.

"The fact is that we have received the canon from the church, except for the apocrypha, which we haven't received as definite settled canon."

Why is the apocrypha not definite settled, but oh say 2 Peter is settled? The far Eastern churches never really accepted it, as far as I know. This dates all the way from the early church fathers who expressed doubt about, through Chrysostom who never quotes it since he came from Syria, the Peshitta version of the bible which never contained it, and the long history of the oriental orthodox church which using the Peshitta never contained it.

Are you prepared to say it is also not definitely settled also? If not, why not? Just because your heritage comes from the west and not east?

It's all very well to accuse Catholics of dogmatizing something which should be left open, but are you willing to let 2 Peter be "open"?

steelikat said...

John,

" I just pointed out that your assertion was apparently or possibly false"

I'm quite sure my assertion is true, except to the sort of person who thinks a three-legged dog makes the assertion "dogs have four legs" untrue. To that sort of person, I have nothing to say except "I don't understand you."

The manifest fact of the matter is that the canon is something Christians agree on, except for the apocrypha. If you don't see that fact I won't waste my time trying to help you see it. You fail to see something so obvious I think you must have a strange way of thinking. You fail to see the forest for the trees in a way that I find unimaginable and that I can only hope is not a disability for you in your daily life.

Do Christians generally agree on the canon except for the apocrypha? Yes of course they do! It fills me with amazement that that agreement looks to you like disagreement. I cannot interact with you because you make no sense to me.

Carrie said...

You prove too much, since the same thing could be said of scripture.

John, I have not been trying to make a positive assertion for my own position but simply answering you on your own grounds. I am trying to show you where your own assertions are weak and/or incorrect.

You seem to think you have an epistemic advantage in knowing the canon because you believe in an infallible authority who can define it for you. I say that your decision to 1) believe in an infallible authority and 2) choose the right infallible authority are fallible decisions so you have no epistemic advantage.

That is the point I have been trying to make without getting caught up on the tangential stuff.

John said...

steelikat: So 40 million Ethiopian Orthodox have the status of a 3 legged dog. How obtuse and frankly, idiotic of you.

Carrie: You were busted undermining your own position, and now are turning a blind eye to it.

steelikat said...

John,

"How obtuse and frankly, idiotic of you..."

I'm sure I can assume that you are not merely being childishly rude and insulting but rather using "idiotic" in the older sense of the word. If that is so, you can appreciate how I see your point of view and why I don't think communication between us is possible. Regardless which of us has an idiosyncratic and unusual way of looking at things, as long as we don't have some common frame of reference to start from, dialog on this subject is impossible. We can only shake our heads in amazement at each other and cheerfully wish each other well.

Edward Reiss said...

John,

'Waving your arms about that I don't understand, isn't actually an argument."

Ypu don't understand, and I stand by my characterization of your arguments as merely apologist boilerplate.

Now, to prove me wrong, can you supply examples of what you say happen in my church? Can you supply examples of someone adding or removing things from the canon?

You cannot, because, as I said, you don;t even know about my church--yet you deign to speak with authority about it.

Edward Reiss said...

John,

"I don't know that we've even established that we believe differently, as far as the strict topic at hand. We both believe the church is where one goes to authoritatively find out the canon. Its just that one side can't fulfil their own claim when it comes down to examining the details."

Again, not an argument, but merely restating your opinion as if it is fact. I submit that on your own criteria, you cannot infallibly determine which church is "the" church, and so you have no advantage at all. This is the elephant in the room, and your lack of interaction with this point is why your arguments come across as pure rhetoric.

Carrie said...

Carrie: You were busted undermining your own position, and now are turning a blind eye to it.

Again, I am not arguing my position nor arguing how my position is superior. I have simply been trying to help you understand that your position does not have epistemic superiority as you have asserted here.

Ken said...

James was right on to title it, "the NEVER ENDING Canon Debate"

Ken said...

I have simply been trying to help you understand that your position does not have epistemic superiority as you have asserted here.

Good Carrie - once we all realize this, and keep it before our minds constantly; we can see clearly; then we can see clearly and not be fooled by the RCC apologetic of endless skepticism and the whole Newman/Hahn/Matatics/CtC thesis and it's historical appeal.

To give oneself over to the "canon argument" that RCC apologists make; and the trail it leads down is to shoot one's brains out and mangle the meaning of the Scriptures.

They never deal with the Marian dogmas or practices or mistakes of the Pope up front at that stage, when trying to persuade Protestant Evangelicals. Some say "that's not revelant to the topic" or even get mad when the Papal history of mistakes or obvious lack of early evidence or Marian pracitices or statues or Marian dogmas are also talked about at the same time. The former Protestants and Evangelicals got "drugged" and then they were forced to accept the other lies later; once they surrendered to the lie. Many of them always want to avoid the Mary and Pope stuff; they know it is death to their arguments.

steelikat said...

Here's a mental exercise for you: The Protestant, if he sees his tradition as historical and apostolic, can look back at, say, the 13th-14th centuries and say that he believes in the canon because the faithful received the canon from the western church at that time. He can trust that God providentially or otherwise preserved the canon for the faithful, he can accept the canon by Faith. Since we are talking about a time before the Reformation and the RC schism, the Roman Catholic can do the same thing. In other words, the Roman and the Protestant can believe in the canon on the authority of the Church and through faith in Christ--on the same basis.

The 20th century R.C. apologist says that's not good enough, implying that pre-reformation believers were fools for having such an irrational faith. "we've fixed that problem though..Now that the two Vatican councils have formally defined infallibility we can have faith in the council of Trent and trust in the canon for that reason!" That's far better than the irrational blind faith that the faithful had to rely on for 18 centuries until the church finally got around to fixing the problem.

....really??....

James Swan said...

Ken said...
James was right on to title it, "the NEVER ENDING Canon Debate"


Yes, I do get some things correct.

John said...

Edward: I was speaking hypothetically to illustrate that you don't have anything concrete to stop you running off the rails. Whether or not you, or your church has in fact done so yet, is not something that I claimed. Yet another arm waving and feigned insult exercise.

"I submit that on your own criteria, you cannot infallibly determine which church is "the" church"

As you so eloquently stated, infallibility is not a prerequisite for sufficient knowledge. You keep throwing out that argument against a claim I haven't made, and it keeps bouncing off.

Carrie: " I have simply been trying to help you understand that your position does not have epistemic superiority as you have asserted here. "

If we accept your argument, you have no epistemic advantage in understanding life, the universe and everything over a native in the jungle with no scripture. Do you really want to go there?

Nobody seems to want to see this elephant in the room. If you can't point to why your set of scriptures are the good ones, then you can't claim epistemic advantage over the native in the jungle.

BTW folks, I am not RC, so all whining about the pope or Trent is meaningless to me.

Edward Reiss said...

John,

"I was speaking hypothetically to illustrate that you don't have anything concrete to stop you running off the rails. Whether or not you, or your church has in fact done so yet, is not something that I claimed. Yet another arm waving and feigned insult exercise."

Your hypothetical, to have any force, has to have some basis in fact. Since it does not--you really don;t have knowledge of my church--but is merely a rhetorical ploy, it is safe to dispose of this typical RC "argument", it is but an assertion, and one not even tenuously connected to fact but on a mere "hypothetical".

"As you so eloquently stated, infallibility is not a prerequisite for sufficient knowledge. You keep throwing out that argument against a claim I haven't made, and it keeps bouncing off."

Then you have no argument, John. You have your opinion and I have mine. Why should anyone prefer yours? You also argue against yourself. Here is part of your OP:

"And the problem is, this entire attempt and distinguishing these views is an attempt to disguise the massive hole, which is that all the grandiose talk about about recognition by "the church" or "his people" then leads you to ask "but where are his people?". Then the answer for a protestant just disappears like mist, since they can't answer that with any specificity without a great deal of circularity and assuming what you have to prove."

You are just as "circular" because you cannot show your church is to be preferred over another. And you just admitted we don't need infallibility. Your whole argument here is either self refuting because it applies to you, too; or it is simply not forceful, because you have not shown that a non-RC has insufficient grounds for his beliefs. Mere assertion is not proof of anything.

John said...

Its hardly an outlandish hypothetical when most of mainline protestantism has in fact gone down this route. And if you can't tell me what stops your church from going down there, then you may as well be marking time waiting.

"You are just as "circular" because you cannot show your church is to be preferred over another."

Sure I can put forward such arguments. But the topic here is the canon, not how to choose a church. Shouldn't you defend your position on the topic at hand? Can you actually defend your canon without defending your choice of church anyway? Can you show your church is a better custodian of the canon than the Ethiopian Orthodox? There's no point trying to lead me down that route, when you won't take it yourself.

steelikat said...

John,

That won't work. The Protestant doesn't identify "his" church, his particular denomination, tradition, or local congregation, with the whole universal church. So he is likely to be happy to assume the Ethiopian orthodox is a true particular church is well, even if as you've guessed, it has deviated somewhat from the historical mainstream in regards to 2 Peter and Revelation.

And the fact of the matter is, it's easy to identify the mainstream Christian canon and recognize that rejecting 2 Peter puts one outside the mainstream. By discussing 2 Peter and talking about the Ethiopian Orthodox as if they deviated from the norm in regards to that book you've revealed that you recognize that as well, exposing your pretense. You've let the cat out of the bag.

steelikat said...

John,

"you don't have anything concrete to stop you running off the rails."

You haven't demonstrated that the universal church is not "concrete." Furthermore, history is surely concrete since it is written in stone. A hypothetical future that deviated from it, that rejected the faith and the doctrine that has been handed down to us, would be manifestly and obviously apostate unless it could find a way to erase that which is written in stone.

John said...

Just because its out of the norm in the circles in which I live doesn't mean it is in absolute terms. Is that really your best argument? Or if you're purely into a head count, then the so-called deuteros are clearly in, so did you really want to go there?

BTW, you've confused Ethiopian and Syrian Orthodox.

Carrie said...

Nobody seems to want to see this elephant in the room. If you can't point to why your set of scriptures are the good ones, then you can't claim epistemic advantage over the native in the jungle.

I can point to why my canon is good, but that wasn't the discussion. Your assertion here seems to be you can have more confidence in your canon b/c you have an infallible body to tell you what it is. To that I answered that you could be wrong in your choice of an infallible body so that step doesn't give you the advantage that you may think.

steelikat said...

John,

You are insisting that we have no way to know what the canon is, yet everyone here knows what the canon is. At some point you have to get out of your own head and let the light of reality shine on your pet theories. If some of them wither and die, just let it be. Yes I know you put a lot of time and intellectual work into them, but we are all pilgrims in this world whose labor and craftsmanship will inevitably sink into decay and rot and ruin, until that bright world to come when everything will be made new.

The manifest historically objective reality is that the Syrian orthodox are outside of the mainstream on this question and other questions. You know that, we know that, and everyone but the Syrian orthodox know it. And I don't think any of us doubt that the more well-informed of them know it as well.

John said...

Carrie: "I can point to why my canon is good, but that wasn't the discussion."

Were we to go down that path, all it would end up being is an appeal to church authority anyway. Such and such an important church father said such and such, or X number of Christians agree with me. The question is why you won't admit it in black and white. The reason is, that once you do it, you'd be forced to think harder about your ecclesiology and what authorities are worthy of listening to in the first place.

steelikat: "You are insisting that we have no way to know what the canon is, yet everyone here knows what the canon is."

Same comment for you. You claim to know what the canon is, and if you'd admit it, its because you put stock in the authority of the church. The trouble is you won't drill a bit deeper to think about how you know where the church is and when you know a church is worth listening to.

"The manifest historically objective reality is that the Syrian orthodox are outside of the mainstream on this question and other questions."

FIrstly there is no easily discernable "mainstream". Or at least, if you think there is, you'll have to tell us how you know it. East and west, north and south always had differing canons. Syrian and Coptic had less. Ethiopian had more. Byzantium evolved more than Syrian, less than Ethiopian and Rome. If mainstream is pure head count, then go with Rome because they seem to claim the biggest number of heads. But is pure head count the way you want to go or not?

Carrie said...

Were we to go down that path, all it would end up being is an appeal to church authority anyway.

No, it would be an appeal to the testimony of the church (guided by God) without having to make the church infallible.

The reason is, that once you do it, you'd be forced to think harder about your ecclesiology and what authorities are worthy of listening to in the first place.

Why? When I heard the gospel proclaimed in a Baptist church I believed it without checking the ecclesiastical pedigree of that church. And I recognized the people of God around me, who also believed the same gospel. That comes down to the testimony of the Holy Spirit, faith and God's providence.

In the end, your canon and my canon aren't all that different. And I assume that the parts you think I am missing aren't excluding some vital information to the peril of my own soul. So this discussion isn't really about the canon but about trying to convince Protestants that they aren't members of the "true church".

John said...

"No, it would be an appeal to the testimony of the church (guided by God) without having to make the church infallible."

Hey, I never mentioned the word infallible, you decided to throw that in. Anyway, you make the church functionally infallible, because you put its testimony beyond question. Are there legitimate question marks people could raise about various books in the bible like 2 Peter? Sure. Do you allow people to have various and differing canons because of them? No, because you make the church's testimony functionally infallible. So we are back to the thesis I raised in my opening post, that Protestants secretly harbour the same views, they are just too wrapped up in an illusion to face up to it.

"Why? When I heard the gospel proclaimed in a Baptist church I believed it without checking the ecclesiastical pedigree of that church."

Do you therefore always believe everything you hear in a Baptist church without checking it? Are you claiming to be so far over and above everything, that you can choose what to believe without any necessity to check up on it?

This was St Thomas Sunday in the church I go to. A lot of people talk of doubting Thomas as a negative about his behavior. But we talk about believing Thomas. Because just before Christ was crucified he gave the instructions Matt. 24:23 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Christ,’ or ‘There He is,’ do not believe him." So Thomas wasn't doubting, he was just checking as Christ had instructed him to do. There is an old Russian proverb, Доверяй, но проверяй. Trust but check.

steelikat said...

John,

"and if you'd admit it, its because you put stock in the authority of the church"

I do "admit" it. But you make it sound like it's an "admission" of defeat! Nonsense. It's victory. Christians win, the faithless like you (as far as I can tell from what you've been saying here-you seem to be trying unsuccessfully to challenge Christian faith) lose. We don't have to believe in infallibility to accept the canon on the authority of the historical universal church.

"when you know a church is worth listening to."

As I said, we don't have to listen to A CHURCH when it comes to the canon. THE Church has given us the canon and has treated the apocrypha as not absolutely essential--something different particular churches can have different traditions regarding. I know you are trying to cast doubt on that historical fact but you aren't succeeding. But I'll answer your question. A church is worth listening to when it is orthodox in the essentials--Christology and so on, the faith professed in the ancient creeds--and when it preaches the gospel and a Christ-centered faith. If it does both those things take it seriously--if it doesn't ignore it.

John said...

I'm supposed to be challenging the Christian faith? Where?

"A church is worth listening to when it is orthodox in the essentials--Christology and so on, the faith professed in the ancient creeds--and when it preaches the gospel and a Christ-centered faith."

Yeah, I wonder how many churches believe in the ancient creeds, as their authors understood them. One holy catholic church and so forth.

So have you done any kind of survey on what churches "preach the gospel with a Christ centrered faith"? How many persons in the United States in your estimation are represented in such churches? Do you have a mental list of which major denominations are represented in that? I mean, you need to have some ballpark ideas in your head about this since your approach boils down to head counting.

Joe said...

Hi John.

As one who is of the Lutheran tradition and has more started seriously questioning other viewpoints, and why I believe the things I believe...your comments are of interest to me.

So, I would like to clarify more what your exact point or argument is really. Sorry for my slowness of mind.

As I understand, Mr. Swan's original point was that we do not need an infallible magisterium or church to recognize and decipher what the script canon is. That God through mainly Providence/power reveals it through history. I do agree with this in the main, but can see where pleading to providence can run into trouble as one could ask how this providence plays out exactly...ie through Councils, Popes. If numbers, or head count as you say, is the standard, then one could argue that RC dogma is the most "Providential".

In your statements, it appears you as well do not think one needs an infallible entity to do this as well...so I am somewhat confused at what your overall point is really.

Your initial remarks were, "ou're trying to set up two opposing views, a canon established by "recognition of the church" as opposed to one recognised by a "magisterium". But in reality, there isn't much fundamental difference when you boil it down. If the canon is recognised by "the church" or "his people", then you have to first know where "the church" or "his people" are in order to ask them..."

"And the problem is, this entire attempt and distinguishing these views is an attempt to disguise the massive hole, which is that all the grandiose talk about about recognition by "the church" or "his people" then leads you to ask "but where are his people?". Then the answer for a protestant just disappears like mist, since they can't answer that with any specificity without a great deal of circularity and assuming what you have to prove."


I appreciate the comments about the difference between "magisterium and recognition of the church". It gives me something to ponder...as it appears there may not be much difference really. Unless of course, was one in fact infallible. But it appears you are not arguing for that anyhow.

However, if the early christians were already using the scriptures, and had mainly agreed upon them, ...why can't a Protestant do the same without the charge of a "massive hole".

Actually, it may be more helpful to me if I knew what tradition viewpoint you are coming from.

Are you East Orthodox?
Do you have an established script canon through your authority structure? If so, what is your canon?

Thanks.

In Him,

Joe

John said...

I think Joe, the difference between what an early Christian did in using the scriptures, and what a Protestant does, is that the early church had a very clear idea of the catholic, universal or official church, as opposed to a wide range of heretical, schismatic or otherwise outside of the mainstream churches. I mean, in the very earliest church of course, they had first hand witnesses of what was apostolic. Later they had the witness of the successors to those people. Later again they had the successors to those people. So someone like Tertullian would compare and contrast that "which has been kept as a sacred deposit in the churches of the apostles", with that which the heretical sects were proposing. The early Christians didn't just say "oh well, we think the Holy Spirit is telling us that these are the sacred books, so pound sand", no they appealed to that which was regarded as sacred in the apostolic churches in contra to the non-apostolic churches. So in order to do what the early Christians did, you have to have some kind of a tangible concept of "the apostolic churches", in opposition to just any old group who picks up some sacred texts, declares themself a church or to have the truth, and goes on from there. You certainly won't find in the church fathers something like Steelikat proposes, that anyone who believes the right thing (where you as an individual get to decide what that right thing is), can be regarded as an equal authority to the existing churches. So the hole as I see it, is that the landscape of protestant churches is too chaotic, and doesn't seem to allow any differentiation between the apostolic and non-apostolic churches. If just listing the churches that you agree with is a substitute, then the argument of the church fathers like Tertullian and many others, loses all of its teeth.

I am eastern Orthodox. I don't think the canon is as much of an issue for us as it is for Protestants, because we can't do what Protestants do, which is to find an individual interpretation in some text or other, and totally change the faith of the church. A few books more or less isn't such an issue in those circumstances. On the other hand, in Protestant-land, whole new doctrines can come into being or go out of existance based on what books are in or out. Whole church splits have happened over how to interpret Revelation, a book that has the most tenuous position in the canon.

Infallibility isn't a word we talk much about in Orthodoxy. I guess you could say we believe in it, but really no more or less than the Protestants here who are prepared to make the recognition of the canon in the church as a question beyond question, and in that sense, functionally infallible.

Carrie said...

Do you therefore always believe everything you hear in a Baptist church without checking it?

Did I say that?

Are you claiming to be so far over and above everything, that you can choose what to believe without any necessity to check up on it?

Didn't say that either.

You keep taking everything I say and expanding it to an absurd end. That really doesn't forward the conversation.

Hearing the gospel, believing the gospel, and being discipled by those who gave you the gospel is biblical. You seem to be asserting that I cannot not have any assurance of faith without tracking down "the one true church". But that is a bit backwards and unsupported by scripture.

Joe said...

Hi John.

Thanks for your response.

So someone like Tertullian would compare and contrast that "which has been kept as a sacred deposit in the churches of the apostles", with that which the heretical sects were proposing. The early Christians didn't just say "oh well, we think the Holy Spirit is telling us that these are the sacred books, so pound sand", no they appealed to that which was regarded as sacred in the apostolic churches in contra to the non-apostolic churches. So in order to do what the early Christians did, you have to have some kind of a tangible concept of "the apostolic churches", in opposition to just any old group who picks up some sacred texts, declares themself a church or to have the truth, and goes on from there.

I can agree with this, but many Protest churches do have a very high view of apostolic churches, tradition, teachings. As a Lutheran, we hold dear the apostles creed, Nicene Creed, Chalcedon, etc...and do hold that these teachings are a canon for what a true Christian church is.

More specific to this topic, we honor/respect the work that was done by the early Christians, leaders, and hiarchy of the church...to receive and establish the scriptural canon.

You certainly won't find in the church fathers something like Steelikat proposes, that anyone who believes the right thing (where you as an individual get to decide what that right thing is), can be regarded as an equal authority to the existing churches.

Well, I cannot speak for Steelikat, but it does not seem that he would propose this either. Specifically with regards to the topic at hand, he is not, from what I can tell, proposing a different canon than the one the apostolic churches have declared.

So the hole as I see it, is that the landscape of protestant churches is too chaotic, and doesn't seem to allow any differentiation between the apostolic and non-apostolic churches. If just listing the churches that you agree with is a substitute, then the argument of the church fathers like Tertullian and many others, loses all of its teeth.

Well, I would agree that Protestant Land is too chaotic. It has separated and divided itself at nauseum. It seems like there has been more emphasis on coming together in the last decade, but still obviously a mess in many regards. But it does seem, from my limited historical readings that the early church was chaotic on many levels...though without splintering like we do.

Again, along the lines of my earlier comments in this thread...Prot can and do claim to be apostolic churches. Most likely, there are different concepts of what qualifies as an apostolic church or apostolic succession.

This is probably going to expose my ignorance even further, but in your view, what does qualify a church to be an apostolic church??

..continued

Joe said...

continued...

I am eastern Orthodox. I don't think the canon is as much of an issue for us as it is for Protestants, because we can't do what Protestants do, which is to find an individual interpretation in some text or other, and totally change the faith of the church. A few books more or less isn't such an issue in those circumstances.

If EO does not need to find scriptural evidence for doctrine, then it would make sense you would not be as dependent on scripture that a Protest. But, did not the early church require scriptural proofs for doctrine? And does EO have an agreed upon canon? If so, what is it?

Infallibility isn't a word we talk much about in Orthodoxy. I guess you could say we believe in it, but really no more or less than the Protestants here who are prepared to make the recognition of the canon in the church as a question beyond question, and in that sense, functionally infallible.

Now John, as one who knows very little of EO, and is trying to learn, having you say that "I guess you could say that we believe in it (infalliblity)" and "no more or less like Protest"....does not help me to much to distinguish it from Protest or RC. :)

Okay, how about this...would you say that your view of infallibility is different from the RC view? And just to clarify now that you have me a little more confused on the infallibility issue. Do you think the Church needs to have the charisma/gift of infallibility to determine which books are God-breathed/scripture?

I do appreciate your time.

Thanks!

In Him,

Joe

steelikat said...

John,

"I'm supposed to be challenging the Christian faith? Where"

I'm sorry that this is so but if you don't know why your seeming radical skepticism made me think you might be attacking Christian faith you lack a normal human ability, the ability to put oneself in the other's shoes and to understand how he is likely to interpret your comments, which ability is necessary to dialog with another in love, brother-to-brother.

"Yeah, I wonder how many churches believe in the ancient creeds, as their authors understood them. One holy catholic church and so forth."

You and I both, brother. That's one of the things we can both weep over and must pray over.

"your approach boils down to head counting."

Only you mentioned "head counting" so it makes no sense to call it my approach. It appears to me to be an approach that you came into this discussion with the presumption your "opponents" would have, and that you were eager to refute. I don't want to be your opponent but I'm eager to have a friendly dialog.

Why don't you try to understand why you seemed to me to be an anti-Christian skeptic mounting a skeptical attack against the bible? I'll tell you how close you are to the truth. Regardless what you come up with, I won't take offense but if the best you can do is "you must be stupid" or "you're an idiot" I won't believe you really tried.

I can say that the canon is something we receive from the church and the apocrypha is a question where diversity of opinion in the church is tolerable because that is the state of affairs the Holy Spirit acting within the church has given us. In the eastern churches there are various canons and in the western church there are exactly two, differing in the apocrypha or deuterocanon.

steelikat said...

John,

I don't think the canon is as big an issue for most protestants as it is for you. I think a demonstration of this is the very comments to this post, where you keep trying to make it an issue and no one will take your bait.

The Protestants here don't think the apocrypha are canonical, but if we found out somehow that we were mistaken and the apocrypha are inspired, I daresay most of us could accept it calmly. I can testify that they are interesting to read and their contents edifying, for the most part. The book of Wisdom, for example, is something any Christian who wants to be wise would do well to read.

steelikat said...

"I guess you could say we believe in it, but really no more or less than the Protestants here who are prepared to make the recognition of the canon in the church as a question beyond question, and in that sense, functionally infallible."

I have always liked the term "functional infallibility" in the sense that there are some things we have received that we ought to treat as infallible, but doing that doesn't imply that you accept any kind of formal "dogma" of infallibility.

John said...

Carrie: "Hearing the gospel, believing the gospel, and being discipled by those who gave you the gospel is biblical."

A pity that isn't the topic at hand. The topic is how you can know the canon.

Joe: "but many Protest churches do have a very high view of apostolic churches, tradition, teachings. As a Lutheran, we hold dear the apostles creed, Nicene Creed, Chalcedon"

As I was saying, there is a difference between holding to the teachings of the apostolic church, and _being_ the apostolic church.

If a church says they hold to say Nicea, ok so what? Is that important just as a kind of head count thing that ok you and I agree on certain things and therefore that lends it some weight? Or it is important because the apostolic church has some authority, and therefore you recognise and yield to that authority? Because if its the latter, then you would need to take the next step and not just follow the authority of that church, but _join_ that church.

As a Lutheran, do you want to claim to be that church, and if so who do you count as in and out of that church and why?

"More specific to this topic, we honor/respect the work that was done by the early Christians, leaders, and hiarchy of the church...to receive and establish the scriptural canon."

Who are the early Christians? You've made a decision that the early Christians are those who identified themselves as the catholic church and not the Marcionites or Montanists or any number of other pseudo-Christian religion groups. But why? Why do you follow that group and not others? Because you happen to agree with their doctrine? Because they are more successful historically?

"Specifically with regards to the topic at hand, he is not, from what I can tell, proposing a different canon than the one the apostolic churches have declared."

That assumes there is an identifiable concept of an "apostolic church" right up until the time the canon is becoming settled, and that means right through to the 5th, 6th centuries and even beyond. That begs the question of what then is an apostolic church that distinguishes it from various other sects, and I don't see steelikat acknowledging such a concept.

John said...

"But it does seem, from my limited historical readings that the early church was chaotic on many levels..."

Sure churches are chaotic on many levels. But they had a concept of which churches they were definitely in communion with, and which ones they weren't. That is the issue.

"But, did not the early church require scriptural proofs for doctrine? "

“The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of “sound doctrine”is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. So like the debtors, — of course bona fide debtors. — they clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers.” Basil the Great, Chapter X, Oration on the Holy Spirit,

Tertullian had this to say: "After emerging from the baptismal font, we are anointed with a blessed oil just like the ancients were anointed for priesthood with the oil from the horn." Do you see that in scripture? But that's exactly what Orthodox have done from the beginning.

"Okay, how about this...would you say that your view of infallibility is different from the RC view?"

I think so, but it would be hard to actually spell it out.

"And just to clarify now that you have me a little more confused on the infallibility issue. Do you think the Church needs to have the charisma/gift of infallibility to determine which books are God-breathed/scripture?"

Like I said, I don't think its helpful to talk about some kind of "gift of infallibility". Rather the true church has the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Steelikat: " if you don't know why your seeming radical skepticism "

What radical skepticism? How is pointing out differing canons in other churches radical skepticism? This is very illustrative of your entire problem. Anything that disagrees with you is radical skepticism. Yet, you can't tell me why your sacred cows are in fact the sacred ones.

"I have always liked the term "functional infallibility" in the sense that there are some things we have received that we ought to treat as infallible, but doing that doesn't imply that you accept any kind of formal "dogma" of infallibility."

So you then admit that the church is functionally infallible?

steelikat said...

John,

"Anything that disagrees with you is radical skepticism."

You did not seem to me be "disagreeing with me," you seemed to me to be attacking the faith of Christians in the bible. Attacking the faith of Christians is what atheists do, so you seemed to have something in common with atheists. Since you don't seem to know what I'm talking about here I must assume I misunderstood you or that there are somehow two of you.

"So you then admit that the church is functionally infallible?"

No, what I'm saying is that there are some things we have received that we ought to effectively treat as infallible, but doing that doesn't imply that we accept any kind of "dogma of infallibility" or "charism of infallibility." We can trust that the the church has been guided by the Holy Spirit so that the faith will not be lost and we don't need to accept the Roman "charism of infallibility" to trust that the scriptures we have received are the word of God. We trust the canon because our faith in Christ.

John said...

So you effectively have a dogma that certain things should be treated as infallible, even though we shouldn't accept a "dogma of infallibility".

Sounds a bit contradictory to me. Sounds like I established my original thesis!

"We trust the canon because our faith in Christ."

We trust the church because of our faith in Christ. That's what you're effectively admitting. My work here is done.

Carrie said...

A pity that isn't the topic at hand. The topic is how you can know the canon.

Sorry, I should have spelled that out. Knowing the canon would fall under the discipling part.

Usually, you hear the gospel from a believer (member of the church), you believe it, and then that believer (member of the church) points you to God's Word (the bible) along with other discipling. The behind the scenes is the Holy Spirit bearing witness to both the gospel and God's Word.

John said...

Don't you think you could hear the gospel in a heretical sect Carrie? I mean, its not beyond possibility you could hear it in a JW kingdom hall is it? So what does hearing the gospel prove about who you heard it from, or their canon? Not much that I can see.

steelikat said...

John,

"Sounds a bit contradictory to me. Sounds like I established my original thesis"

I understand logic and I did not contradict myself. Furthermore, "contradictory" cannot be modified with "a bit." Contradiction is an all-or-nothing. You cannot mean that I contradicted myself, you must mean something else.

steelikat said...

I'm pretty sure I couldn't hear the gospel from a Jehovah's Witness, unless he had learned it outside his sect and was in a state of transition out of the jws. Also, I know I couldn't receive the sacraments in a Kingdom Hall.

That's why I think the JWs are not part of the church and the Eastern Orthodox churches are. The E.O. Faithful can receive the sacraments and have the gospel read and preached to them (I hope and assume) with their fellow believers in an E.O. Church.

Carrie said...

So what does hearing the gospel prove about who you heard it from, or their canon? Not much that I can see.

It doesn't prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I would say that hearing, believing and being discipled is the norm as far as the means that God uses to point people to His Word (based on experience and scripture). But you also seemed to miss the most important part of my comment, the third sentence about the Holy Spirit - that is where some assurance comes in.

That answer was made after going back to your very first comment where you imply that Protestants can't identify the "his people". But I say that "His people" are simply those who believe in Christ and most often than not are the ones who presented the Gospel to us in the first place. From there we can look for other signs of true believers if necessary, but I think that is more complicated than reality for most.

But to be honest, at this time, I'm not sure what your beef is with Protestants and the canon. Whether I was a Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, or Reformed I would have the same exact canon. But from what you have said, if I was Orthodox I would have a few different canon choices based on my region. Confusion around the nature of the canon seems to be a bigger issue for you than me. So perhaps I am missing your whole point.

Joe said...

Hi John.

"As I was saying, there is a difference between holding to the teachings of the apostolic church, and _being_ the apostolic church."

I guess I never thought of it this way. For argument sake then, if a church today, believed exactly the same as that of the apostolic time...you would not consider it an apostolic church?? It would help perhaps if you could tell me in your view what makes an apostolic church an authentic apostolic church.

"If a church says they hold to say Nicea, ok so what? Is that important just as a kind of head count thing that ok you and I agree on certain things and therefore that lends it some weight?"

No, I would say truth is not determined by head count. My point in bringing up Nicea, Apostles Creed, etc...is if a church today believes the same truths as those of the apostles, I would consider that church apostolic. "But what if a bishop, if a deacon, if a widow, if a virgin, if a doctor, if even a martyr, have fallen from the rule of faith, will heresies on that account appear to possess the truth? Do we prove the faith by the persons, or the persons by the faith?" (Prescription Against Heretics" - Tertullian)

"As a Lutheran, do you want to claim to be that church, and if so who do you count as in and out of that church and why?"

It appears that I think differently than you in terms of what the Church is, as I do not believe that I think there is one church that is THE church. At this point, I think that different denominations can be part of the whole Christian Church.

As you saying that the Eastern Orthodox church is the only legitamate Church?

"Who are the early Christians? You've made a decision that the early Christians are those who identified themselves as the catholic church and not the Marcionites or Montanists or any number of other pseudo-Christian religion groups. But why? Why do you follow that group and not others? Because you happen to agree with their doctrine?"

Yes...my christian pilgrimage thus far as been to seek true doctrine. So, yes on a fundamentl level, if my search is convinced of the truth of a doctrine, I will be a part of that church. Consequently, I am not convinced of the Marcionites claims...and therefore do not follow them.

"That begs the question of what then is an apostolic church that distinguishes it from various other sects, and I don't see steelikat acknowledging such a concept."

Well, yes, that is one question above I have towards you...what distinguishes an apostolic church (or even teaching) from heresy in your view?

cont..

Joe said...

cont..

"Tertullian had this to say: "After emerging from the baptismal font, we are anointed with a blessed oil just like the ancients were anointed for priesthood with the oil from the horn." Do you see that in scripture? But that's exactly what Orthodox have done from the beginning."

So the short answer is that you do not think scripture is necessary to prove doctrine. I am really not looking to get into an exchange with quoting early Christians...but could provide some if desired. This quote you provide from Tertullian sounds like a practice that really is not doctrinal in nature. I assume most churches have certain traditions/practices that are not found in scripture, but that is not my point really. I was looking for more doctrinal issues than practices. So, just so I am clear...you do not think that it was necessary for the early christians to show doctrine, say, the doctrine of the divinity of Christ from scripture???

The quote from Basil the Great may apply to this situation, but maybe not either...as I am not looking to level apostolic tradition to the ground. That was my very point of saying I believe the rule of faith, apostle-nicene creeds, etc...

"Like I said, I don't think its helpful to talk about some kind of "gift of infallibility". Rather the true church has the leading of the Holy Spirit."

So in essence, you agree with Mr. Swan's original post that the church does not need to be infallible in deciding what the canon of scripture is, right?

Also, if you believe that God via the Holy Spirit is leading the Eastern Orthodox church specifically, again, what has He lead the EO church to in terms of what the scriptural canon is??

Thanks.

In Him,

Joe

steelikat said...

John,

"Like I said, I don't think its helpful to talk about some kind of "gift of infallibility". Rather the true church has the leading of the Holy Spirit."

Well said! I agree.

John said...

steelikat: "I understand logic and I did not contradict myself. Furthermore, "contradictory" cannot be modified with "a bit." Contradiction is an all-or-nothing. You cannot mean that I contradicted myself, you must mean something else."

Sure you can contradict a bit of what you said without contradicting everything. But if you'd prefer a plainer statement, you contradicted yourself.

"I'm pretty sure I couldn't hear the gospel from a Jehovah's Witness, unless he had learned it outside his sect and was in a state of transition out of the jws."

Err, I'm pretty sure they read the bible in kingdom halls. Can't your gospel be found in the bible?

Carrie: "Whether I was a Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, or Reformed I would have the same exact canon."

But you restrict your list to those who you agree with. Anybody can point to everyone they agree with and say "See, we all agree!!!". But what does that prove? Just because you agree with certain groups can't tell you if those groups have any authority to be telling you its right.

"But I say that "His people" are simply those who believe in Christ and most often than not are the ones who presented the Gospel to us in the first place."

Mormons, Marcionites, Muslims, Montanists all claim to believe the gospel and believe in Christ.

James Swan said...

Mormons, Marcionites, Muslims, Montanists all claim to believe the gospel and believe in Christ.

Yes, even while the apostles were alive, heretical people claimed to believe the gospel and believe in Christ. The fact is, Christ's Church has His Word. The question to ask yourself, is if you are in Christ's Church.

John said...

"For argument sake then, if a church today, believed exactly the same as that of the apostolic time...you would not consider it an apostolic church??"

What if I believed everything taught at Pentacost, but then I ignored the decision made by the elders in Acts 16? I might still be a Christian, but I couldn't rightly be said to be part of the apostolic church. Similarly, if I believed the gospel, but then ignored what the elders of an official church taught to me concerning which books are part of the sacred texts, and decided I would make my own decisions about that, or follow some unofficial church like Marcion, then also I couldn't be part of the official church.

There needs to be a succession of belief and a succession of authority to be the legitimate church.

" My point in bringing up Nicea, Apostles Creed, etc...is if a church today believes the same truths as those of the apostles"

but why does belief in Nicea show that a church today believes the same as the apostles? Nicea occurred hundreds of years after the apostles. That only proves something if you believe in a distinct apostolic church.

"Do we prove the faith by the persons, or the persons by the faith?"

To me this says the opposite of what I think you want it to. Tertullian is saying that if some man of great respect should leave the official church and the official church's faith, then we judge them by the rule [of faith], and not the rule of faith by the man. And the rule of faith is the rule of the church. As Tertullian continues...

"We are surprised at seeing His churches forsaken by some men, although the things which we suffer after the example of Christ Himself, show us to be Christians. “They went out from us,” says (St. John,) “but they were not of us. If they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us.”

"At this point, I think that different denominations can be part of the whole Christian Church."

'Church' can refer to congregations or to the universal church, but that is not the issue. What congregations are part of the Christian Church? Where is the dividing line?

"As you saying that the Eastern Orthodox church is the only legitamate Church?"

Its the only church that I feel sure has a clear succession of belief and authority. Sometimes it isn't clear exactly where the dividing line is, and there are schisms like when Chrysostom was out of communion with Rome. But I don't see any legitimate succession of authority in Protestants.

"So, yes on a fundamentl level, if my search is convinced of the truth of a doctrine, I will be a part of that church. Consequently, I am not convinced of the Marcionites claims...and therefore do not follow them."

Which claims? I mean, are you looking at doctrinal beliefs, picking the ones you like, then joining the church that agrees? Or are you looking at authority claims and believing the doctrine that the authority tells you to believe? Obviously neither of us believes Marcion's "claims", but is it doctrinal or authority?

John said...

"This quote you provide from Tertullian sounds like a practice that really is not doctrinal in nature. I assume most churches have certain traditions/practices that are not found in scripture, but that is not my point really."

Well, when Tertullian says "we" he is talking about Christendom. He isn't talking about his local congregation. And this was the universal practice of Christendom until about the 12th century when Rome started to separate the chrismation from the baptism until an older age, and then many Protestants abandoned it altogether.

Where are you going to divide the line between doctrine and practice? Every time I've ever asked someone to make such a division, it ends up in a hopeless mess. Is baptism doctrine or practice? If its only practice, then Salvation Army are legitimised in their abandoning of it. And this is exactly the argument that they use. Is having church leadership and elders doctrine or practice? If only practice, then Quakers are legitimised in abandoning leadership. Is a male leadership doctrine or practice? This is the train that eventually leads to liberalism, where everything is merely the practice of the ancients.

"So, just so I am clear...you do not think that it was necessary for the early christians to show doctrine, say, the doctrine of the divinity of Christ from scripture?"

What do you mean by necessary? If the apostles themselves taught you the divinity of Christ, would it be necessary to wait for the Gospel of John to be written and come into your hands to confirm it? Would it be necessary to carefully consider the Granville Sharpe construction and apply it to various epistles to confirm what you were already taught? Would it be necessary to wait for the church to settle a canon of legitimate apostolic writings to know what the church already taught you? How would you be more certain of a doctrine because the church told you a book was legitimate, and believing the book compared to believing what the church told you about legitimate doctrines? Obviously quoting scripture lends weight to the teaching, especially if there is some dispute, but it wouldn't have been necessary.

"The quote from Basil the Great may apply to this situation, but maybe not either...as I am not looking to level apostolic tradition to the ground. That was my very point of saying I believe the rule of faith, apostle-nicene creeds, etc..."

Then you agree it is not necessary to quote scripture?

"So in essence, you agree with Mr. Swan's original post that the church does not need to be infallible in deciding what the canon of scripture is, right?"

Well, as steelikat seems to have conceded, even Protestants treat the church as functionally infallible. So what is the point trying to split a hair between infallible and functionally infallible?

"lso, if you believe that God via the Holy Spirit is leading the Eastern Orthodox church specifically, again, what has He lead the EO church to in terms of what the scriptural canon is??"

Are you asking what the EO canon is?

Ken said...

John wrote:
Mormons, Marcionites, Muslims, Montanists all claim to believe the gospel and believe in Christ.

The four "M"s !

"claim" is the operative word here.

And their "canons" are completely different. They all either add to or subtract from the true canon of 27 NT books.

Mormons added to the canon, thus changing the message.
Muslims subtracted from the canon, claim that the original gospel was Islamic in theology.
Marcionites cut the gospels and canon "with a pen-knife". (Tertullian wrote that, I think)
Montanists add to the Scriptures by Charismatic type experiences.

Mormons - different gospel - add works; added 3 more books to the KJV, and have a false Jesus (spirit brother of Lucifer); and believe in millions of gods. Different Jesus.

Marcionites - cut out 3 gospels except Luke, etc. Jesus had not body; Gnosticism; different Jesus, hence heretics.

Muslims - the Muslim claim is a real contradiction to command belief in the gospel ( Injeel) - Surah 10:94; 5:46-48; 68; 2:136; 29:46 Yet, say that all the gospels today are hopelessly corrupt; and say Jesus was not crucified (4:157); is not the Son of God is not God in the flesh; no resurrection, no atonement, etc.

Hence, a different Jesus and false gospel.

Montanists - this one is of a different category, it seems to me - they added to the Scriptures, but I don't know what their views of Christ and the gospel were.

Montanists - ? - From what I understand - they just wanted continuing revelation (Like modern Charismatics and Pentecostals) and ecstastic experiences and the "new prophesy" and more rigorous church discipline. Tertullian only liked the more rigorous church discipline; later became disillusioned with their ecstatic utterances and prophesies.

John said...

"And their "canons" are completely different. They all either add to or subtract from the true canon of 27 NT books. "

And you know which is the true canon because.... ?

Ken said...

John wrote:
And you know which is the true canon because.... ?

self authenticating power
apostolic authority
Divine internal quality
universal acceptance
ancient external witness
reality of history

Good early external witnesses on the canon: Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, Athanasius, Jerome on the OT - Apocrypha (Deutero-canonicals are not inspired/God-breathed/canon)

no good reason to doubt anymore

they were "canon" when the ink dried from 48-69 AD or to 96 AD; the historical process of discerning them as canon is common heritage to history of all the early catholic church. catholic, NOT Roman Catholic.

John said...

1. "self authenticating power"

Burning the bosom. See Mormons. See Montanists.

2. "apostolic authority"

You have an apostle lying around to ask about that?

3. "Divine internal quality"

See (1).

4. "universal acceptance"

Nope. See Syrian Church as an example of smaller canon.

5. "ancient external witness".

See Marcionite, Montanists.

6. "reality of history"

Which means what? Rome has more members so Rome wins?

"Good early external witnesses on the canon: Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, Athanasius, Jerome"

Only Jerome can be cited for your canon, and even he is uncertain since he can be quoted as saying deuteros are holy scripture.

Now why are you citing these folks and not Marcion?

"no good reason to doubt anymore"

If you're living in the 1500s why would there be a reason to doubt the deuteros? The Eastern Orthodox had accepted them, Rome had made pronouncement on them. They were in ALL copies of the scriptures, even newly printed Protestant bibles. So what gave those Protestants sufficient cause to put them out?

You see, you CLAIM that there is no reason to doubt anymore, but when a bunch of "reformers" in the 1500s decided they should be out, well they were just turfed out. Now why can't this happen again? Well, it is happening again in Protestantland, scholarship is turfing out many books as non-authentic. And you really can't say much against it, because your forebears in the 1500s did the same. When one of them says 2 Peter is not authentic, well they can quote ancient witnesses. They can quote early doubts. They can even quote late doubters in the Syrian church. You can quote late doubters for the deuteros, but the same can be done for 2 Peter.

Carrie said...

But you restrict your list to those who you agree with. Anybody can point to everyone they agree with and say "See, we all agree!!!". But what does that prove?

I was restricting myself to Protestant denominations b/c you keep acting like Protestants are in disarray. Yet amongst the various denoms, we all have the same canon.

Just because you agree with certain groups can't tell you if those groups have any authority to be telling you its right.

Your assuming an earthly authority is necessary but have yet to prove that.

Mormons, Marcionites, Muslims, Montanists all claim to believe the gospel and believe in Christ.

You do realize that claiming to believe the gospel or claiming to be a Christian doesn't make it true, right? Mormons have an authority system to tell you what believe, so why are you an EO and not a Mormon? I imagine because you are able to fallibly examine the various claims and come to a reasonable conclusion.

Carrie said...

If you're living in the 1500s why would there be a reason to doubt the deuteros?

If you're living in the 1000s why would there be a reason to doubt the primacy of Rome?

I suppose you could say that there were always disputes about who was in charge, but the same could be said of the deuteros (as far as differing opinions). East and West both make the same claims toward being truly apostolic, so which one is right? How do you know you chose correctly?

In all your answers to Ken you are just shooting yourself in the foot. That's fine as it just shows that you are no better off than I am at knowing where "the church" truly is, which is what I have been trying to get you to understand in the first place.

Additionally, you are arguing like an atheist and undercutting everyone in the process. With that kind of skepticism I'm not sure how you can believe in anything.

Ken said...

Nope. See Syrian Church as an example of smaller canon.

Do you mean the Jacobite Syrian church - Monophysite?

or

the Assyrian church of the East (Nestorian) (used the Peshitta and Syriac language, today called "Assyrian")

If you are EO, then they are heretics, so they don't count, right?

steelikat said...

" you contradicted yourself."

I didn't, honest--at least not where you quoted me and mentioned a bit of contradiction. Self-contradiction only exists when what one says can with logical and grammatical rigor be shown to imply both a proposition and it's negation.

To make that more explicit, I did not claim that the Church is infallible, strictly speaking, nor did I claim that the ordinary believer ought to treat the canon he has received from the Church as if it were a fallible canon. Either of those claims, had I made them or implied them, would have contradicted other claims that I did make.

Sorry to be nit-picky. I am not criticizing you or yelling at you, i'm just trying to help all of us stay clear and focused. It does seem like you have a point to make and I'd like to help you to state that point clearly and coherently if there is anything I can do to help.

We've definitely made some progress here. It does seem that we all agree that "it is not helpful to talk about some kind of 'gift of infallibility.' Rather the true church has the leading of the Holy Spirit."

From that basic agreement, how do we differ? As far as I can tell, the Protestants here seem to have no trouble knowing what the church is and don't think that it is too difficult to know what the church is (for her members, at least), whereas you take a more skeptical stance and view that as an unknowable thing (or at least exceedingly difficult to know). Is that right?

As for the question of the "deuteros", that is a question that was still not definitely settled in the 16th century. It is a question that remains just as unsettled today as it was a millennium and a half ago which is why it clearly is not one of the things that the Church must agree on or that is necessary for our salvation. Naturally, if it were so necessary, the Holy Spirit who will not fail to lead his church would have made sure that the canon was settled before 1054 AD.

steelikat said...

John,

Carrie said: "Additionally, you are arguing like an atheist and undercutting everyone in the process. With that kind of skepticism I'm not sure how you can believe in anything."

I've noticed that too. When I brought that up you seemed not to know what I was talking about. Let me put it this way, if hypothetically you succeeded in convincing us you were right, although it wouldn't make us atheists it seems to me we would cease to be Christians. The same radical skepticism that prevented us from accepting our Christian faith would prevent us from accepting the Eastern Orthodox form of Christianity.

John said...

"To make that more explicit, I did not claim that the Church is infallible, strictly speaking".

How so? Nobody of any persuasion says that the church is infallible in all circumstances. But you do seem to say the Church is infallible as a source of knowing the canon. I mean, you say that you know the canon from the testimony of the church, and that testimony cannot be questioned or contradicted, no matter what scholarly arguments might be put forward. How is that not treating the church as infallible? I mean, you can name it something else like "the leading of the infallible Holy Spirit", but it amounts to the same, right?

"the Protestants here seem to have no trouble knowing what the church is"

But the Protestant method seems a lot more circular to me. How does a Protestant know where the church is? Where there are people who believe the holy texts. What holy texts? The ones the church tells me. What church? The ones who believe the bible. And around and around. From my point of view this circularity is broken somewhat by looking at the historical continuity from Christ to the apostles to a visible church. You might claim the same thing in claiming knowledge of historical continuity in the scriptures, but I think you have to piggy back of our idea of one distinct catholic church which recognised these things, in opposition to various heretical groups that recognised other things. Some of these groups had the same scriptures but different beliefs. Some had different scriptures and different beliefs. The unanimity in the canon, such as it is, was due to the understanding of one catholic church, and the recognition that those churches had for each other, and the respect they had for each other as having apostolic succession. If they hadn't believed in apostolic succession, they wouldn't have had the common bond that led to the formation of the canon. Whenever churches had schisms, they tended to have different canons. The schisms interrupted the common respect that led to consensus. So Catholic, Orthodox, Nestorian, Ethiopian and Protestant churches have different canons. If the church had followed the Protestant model from the beginning, even the consensus we had now could not develop, because there would be no common bond from which it to develop. Everybody would ignore everybody else, since there would be no foundation from which to listen to them. The church in the next town has a book supposedly from Paul that we don't? Why should we believe them? Maybe they are heretics. Maybe they are deceived. Who knows? That's why the early church fathers said only the apostolic churches are legitimate. Without that safeguard there is no dividing line between one idea and another, and one "holy text" and another.

John said...

"As for the question of the "deuteros", that is a question that was still not definitely settled in the 16th century. "

How were the deuteros not definitely settled, but the NT canon is definitely settled, in respect of the Syrian churches still using the 22 book canon? The answer is, the Protestant reformers were ignorant of such things, but they were keen to put out some books which seemed to have some teachings that were too Roman in them. Yes there were doubts expressed about these books. Then again, there were doubts expressed about NT Books. Luther made the comment that Revelation is "neither apostolic nor prophetic" and stated that "Christ is neither taught nor known in it". In that he expressed reservations long expressed in Christendom, and presumably in the Syrian church which excluded it. So why was Revelation definitely settled, but deuteros are not? Just because a few folks express doubts, that would mean no canon is ever settled because there are always doubters. But ALL manuscripts in use, in I suspect the whole world contained the deuteros. All Latin manuscripts had them, as did all Greek, all Arabic, all Coptic. What gives you the right to doubt them and then accuse anybody who doubts Revelation of radical skepticism?

"The same radical skepticism that prevented us from accepting our Christian faith would prevent us from accepting the Eastern Orthodox form of Christianity."

I don't see where I'm advocating radical skepticism. Rather I'm pointing out that your radical skepticism is preventing you from seeing the existence of the apostolic church. I'm pointing out that this skepticism would, if you were consistent, see that it undercuts your own position.

John said...

"To make that more explicit, I did not claim that the Church is infallible, strictly speaking".

How so? Nobody of any persuasion says that the church is infallible in all circumstances. But you do seem to say the Church is infallible as a source of knowing the canon. I mean, you say that you know the canon from the testimony of the church, and that testimony cannot be questioned or contradicted, no matter what scholarly arguments might be put forward. How is that not treating the church as infallible? I mean, you can name it something else like "the leading of the infallible Holy Spirit", but it amounts to the same, right?

"the Protestants here seem to have no trouble knowing what the church is"

But the Protestant method seems a lot more circular to me. How does a Protestant know where the church is? Where there are people who believe the holy texts. What holy texts? The ones the church tells me. What church? The ones who believe the bible. And around and around. From my point of view this circularity is broken somewhat by looking at the historical continuity from Christ to the apostles to a visible church. You might claim the same thing in claiming knowledge of historical continuity in the scriptures, but I think you have to piggy back of our idea of one distinct catholic church which recognised these things, in opposition to various heretical groups that recognised other things. Some of these groups had the same scriptures but different beliefs. Some had different scriptures and different beliefs. The unanimity in the canon, such as it is, was due to the understanding of one catholic church, and the recognition that those churches had for each other, and the respect they had for each other as having apostolic succession. If they hadn't believed in apostolic succession, they wouldn't have had the common bond that led to the formation of the canon. Whenever churches had schisms, they tended to have different canons. The schisms interrupted the common respect that led to consensus. So Catholic, Orthodox, Nestorian, Ethiopian and Protestant churches have different canons. If the church had followed the Protestant model from the beginning, even the consensus we had now could not develop, because there would be no common bond from which it to develop. Everybody would ignore everybody else, since there would be no foundation from which to listen to them. The church in the next town has a book supposedly from Paul that we don't? Why should we believe them? Maybe they are heretics. Maybe they are deceived. Who knows? That's why the early church fathers said only the apostolic churches are legitimate. Without that safeguard there is no dividing line between one idea and another, and one "holy text" and another.

John said...

Carrie: "If you're living in the 1000s why would there be a reason to doubt the primacy of Rome?"

Primacy in what sense? The Pope did have primacy.

"I suppose you could say that there were always disputes about who was in charge, but the same could be said of the deuteros (as far as differing opinions)."

There's always another opinion, and its not limited to the deuteros. See comments from Luther on Revelation. Esther is a book conservative Protestants don't doubt, but it is a book which history casts doubt on constantly. Luther says Esther has less basis than any other apocryphal book to be regarded as canonical. Technically speaking he is correct. So why don't you get rid of it?

"Additionally, you are arguing like an atheist "

Nonsense, it is you who argues like an atheist.

"Mormons have an authority system to tell you what believe"

Not all Mormons. Tons of splinter groups believe the Mormon canon without believing in the Utah authorities. They are the Mormon protestants.

Joe said...

Hi John.

You said, "What if I believed everything taught at Pentacost, but then I ignored the decision made by the elders in Acts 16? I might still be a Christian, but I couldn't rightly be said to be part of the apostolic church...

There needs to be a succession of belief and a succession of authority to be the legitimate church."


Yea…at first glance I think I would agree with this, but probably need to flesh out what exactly you mean by “succession of authority”…and why cannot Protestants have a succession of authority?

You said, "but why does belief in Nicea show that a church today believes the same as the apostles? Nicea occurred hundreds of years after the apostles. That only proves something if you believe in a distinct apostolic church."

Sure, Nicea occurred hundreds of years after the apostles, so what? From my understanding you consider it authoritative, and I consider it apostolic because it reflects the view of the God-breathed apostolic witness, the scriptures. It is a succession of belief (at least in part), which you agree is needed.

You said, "To me this says the opposite of what I think you want it to. Tertullian is saying that if some man of great respect should leave the official church and the official church's faith, then we judge them by the rule [of faith], and not the rule of faith by the man. And the rule of faith is the rule of the church. As Tertullian continues...

Not sure how this is opposite of what I want it to. I hear him saying that we judge a person to be apostolic or not by the content of what he believes…succession of belief. Not succession because someone is the new leader of a Church.

You said, "We are surprised at seeing His churches forsaken by some men, although the things which we suffer after the example of Christ Himself, show us to be Christians. “They went out from us,” says (St. John,) “but they were not of us. If they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us.”

Right…how does this have any bearing?

You said,"'Church' can refer to congregations or to the universal church, but that is not the issue. What congregations are part of the Christian Church? Where is the dividing line?"

Yes, I am aware that church can be used in different ways. Well, this could be the subject of a massive book! :) I am certainly not trained enough to say exactly who is an who is not part of the Christian Church…but my initial stab, would be those that hold to the “rule of faith”, Apostles Creed, Nicea, Chalcedon. Don't you even admit below, that it isn’t exactly clear?

You said, "Its the only church (EO) that I feel sure has a clear succession of belief and authority."

So then, is this a yes, that the EO is the only true, legitimate church? If so, does that mean that there is no salvation outside of EO? Seems like you are basing how you decipher of truth at least partially on “belief”/doctrine as well. What exactly do you mean by “succession of authority”.

You said, "Sometimes it isn't clear exactly where the dividing line is, and there are schisms like when Chrysostom was out of communion with Rome. But I don't see any legitimate succession of authority in Protestants.

So, you even agree that deciphering where the dividing line is, is not just a Protestant problem.

cont..

Joe said...

cont...

You said, "Which claims? I mean, are you looking at doctrinal beliefs, picking the ones you like, then joining the church that agrees?"

In seeking truth, I do not just pick what I do and don’t like. Of course not. If that were the case I would not accept certain biblical teachings. For ex, it took me years to submit to the doctrine of predestination, since it seemed that if was in some way “wrong” for God to do (God forbid!). I did not like it and internally fought it for a while, but given the scriptural evidence, I do believe it is truth. But, yes, I do then try to be in communion with what I believe the truth to be. My personal history was raised Lutheran, then got involved with a non-denom church that was basically Baptist in theology, after studying the issue of infant baptism (after getting married and started having children) I was convinced of the truth of infant baptism and predestination, so transferred to a Reformed Church, then for non-doctrinal issues, transferred to my current Lutheran Church. But am currently researching Tradition and the Reformation in general…so who knows, perhaps I will find truth in the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Church and commune there.

I do not know how else to go about choosing one’s specific church other than to weigh the evidence for truth and responding accordingly. The other alternative is to blindly accept one’s claim to authority and hope they are correct, amidst other competing authorities.

You said, "Or are you looking at authority claims and believing the doctrine that the authority tells you to believe?

Well it would seem that every congregation has some type authority structure, so yes. But it does beg the question of how do I know what authority is true? Rome claims infallible authority and is the true Church, Orthodox claims as well to be infallible (by some anyway, realize you do not like that word) and is the true Church. I think Jehovah Witness claims to be infallible as well.

You said, "Where are you going to divide the line between doctrine and practice?

Again, this question could be the topic of a many volume book, so not sure how you are wanting me to respond in this format. Do you agree that there can be a valid distinction between doctrine and practice/custom? Here is an interesting quote from Basil that seems relevant:

“Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Script does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then is it certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore, let God-inspired Script decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will cast the vote of truth.” (Letters 189)

You said, "Is baptism doctrine or practice?"

Doctrine...ditto with church leadership, and male leadership.

You said,"This is the train that eventually leads to liberalism, where everything is merely the practice of the ancients."

Agree that if taken to the extreme, it does lead to liberalism..but I am not advocating thus. And having a distinction between custom and doctrine does not necessarily involve leading into liberalism. Just because it can, does not mean the distinction is faulty.

cont..

Joe said...

cont...

You said, "What do you mean by necessary?

This was in response to my question if scripture was necessary to show the divinity of Christ from scripture.

Necessary as in, "For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on the demonstration from the Holy Scriptures.” (Cyril of Jerusalem – Catechetical Lectures)

You said, "If the apostles themselves taught you the divinity of Christ, would it be necessary to wait for the Gospel of John to be written and come into your hands to confirm it?

No, but we do not have any apostles that were eyewitnesses that I can ask. Also, at least some of the early Christians expounded the Old Testament, the apostles included…to show the divinity of Christ. I just finished reading On the Incarnation by Athanasius, and he says the divinity of Christ is clearly taught in the OT.

You said, "Would it be necessary to carefully consider the Granville Sharpe construction and apply it to various epistles to confirm what you were already taught?

Sorry, I do not know what Granville Sharpe is.

You said, "Would it be necessary to wait for the church to settle a canon of legitimate apostolic writings to know what the church already taught you?"

Well, no…. again, the early Christians had the OT…and Paul commended (Bereans) for verifying the Christian message with the OT. The NT church was never without the scriptures. Sure the NT took years to canonize…but certainly most of the books were accepted and used very quickly. And I do consider the apostolic period unique. We obviously do not have the luxury of communicating with them any longer, so what may be true for Christians during their lifetime, is not the same as today.

You said, "How would you be more certain of a doctrine because the church told you a book was legitimate, and believing the book compared to believing what the church told you about legitimate doctrines?

Sorry, can you just rephrase this? Am having difficulty grasping your question.

You said, "Obviously quoting scripture lends weight to the teaching, especially if there is some dispute, but it wouldn't have been necessary."

So, just so I am clear, you are of the opinion that the early church, fathers, etc…thought that all quoting scripture does is “lend weight” to an argument…but essentially not all that important in deciphering truth. If you have scripture evidence, great…if not, then no big deal. If so, is this your opinion or the official teaching of the Eastern Orthodox?

You said, "Then you agree it is not necessary to quote scripture?"

No, I do believe to establish doctrine, it must be taught in scripture…to be binding on the Christian today. I am not an expert on Basil, or church history in general, so this one quote you offer, at this point in my pilgrimage, is not going to change my mind of the importance of scripture in establishing doctrine. There are so many other quotes that seem to teach the opposite of what you want Basil’s quote here to mean…even the quote from Basil I offered above.

You said, "Well, as steelikat seems to have conceded, even Protestants treat the church as functionally infallible. So what is the point trying to split a hair between infallible and functionally infallible?

cont...

Joe said...

cont...(sorry, I cut and paste at a bad spot)

That was not my question though…Steelikat, may or may not represent Mr. Swan’s, the Protestant, or just a generally good argument. On one level, it can be argued that there is little difference between infallible and functionally infallible…because both agree that an inerrant decision was made. But on another level, I do not think it is splitting hairs. As I understand, infallible simply means incapable of error. One may hold that a council, pope, synod or any authority structure…made an inerrant decision, but that is very different from saying that authority could not do anything but make the correct decision.

So my question still stands….does the church need to be incapable of error in order to establish what the canon of scripture is?

You said, Are you asking what the EO canon is?

Yes John.

I do appreciate your time into discussing the topic!

In Him.

Joe

John said...

Joe: "why cannot Protestants have a succession of authority?"
Well to have a succession you have to have continuity. So where would such continuous succession have come from? The only possible answer is from the Roman Catholic church. That means you would have to accept the authority of the Roman Catholic church. At the very barest minimum that would mean accepting the 7th ecumenical council, which I don't see any protestants doing.
"From my understanding you consider it authoritative, and I consider it apostolic because it reflects the view of the God-breathed apostolic witness, the scriptures. It is a succession of belief (at least in part), which you agree is needed."
But is it authoritative because the Church lends it authority, or is it the case rather than you personally decided what scriptures you would hold to be holy, then you decided personally how to interpret them, and then you personally looked at Nicea and made a judgement that it agrees with your interpretation of your set of holy texts? There's a big difference in those approaches.
"I hear him saying that we judge a person to be apostolic or not by the content of what he believes…succession of belief."
I don't hear him saying that about a succession of belief. I hear him saying that the person is to be judged against the Church's rule of faith, and not the Church's faith to be judged against the individual.
"Right…how does this have any bearing?"
Because it shows Tertullian's argument is ecclesiastical. The church is synonymous with the true faith.
"Don't you even admit below, that it isn’t exactly clear?"
That there is some lack of clarity does not warrant us to throw our hands up and give up, just like if in any age there is a lack of clarity about the canon, you would not advocate giving up and giving open slather to any book being a holy book.
"So then, is this a yes, that the EO is the only true, legitimate church? If so, does that mean that there is no salvation outside of EO?"
I only say where there is salvation, not where there isn't.
"What exactly do you mean by “succession of authority”."
The church has authorities, and they must have received their authority from someone who received it from the apostles.

John said...

"So, you even agree that deciphering where the dividing line is, is not just a Protestant problem."

Sure, but I feel like we've got something historically tangible to work with, whereas you don't. If you claim that you do in the scriptures, then the argument boils down to belief that there was an apostolic church which faithfully kept the knowledge of which books are apostolic, contra to other heretical and schismatic groups. In other words, you end up having to defend the unity of the one catholic church in opposition to non-catholic churches, and win the argument for us. If you just want to identify with the catholic church because they were the winners with the most members and therefore have God's providence, then Rome was winning in the 15th century (if not today as well), and your argument for a reformation crumbles.

"My personal history was raised Lutheran, then got involved with a non-denom church that was basically Baptist in theology, after studying the issue of infant baptism (after getting married and started having children) I was convinced of the truth of infant baptism and predestination, so transferred to a Reformed Church, then for non-doctrinal issues, transferred to my current Lutheran Church."

A long time ago I went down that path. Anglican, Baptist, pentacostal, etc etc. I went through probably a dozen denominations. Never could find one that agreed with my interpretation on everything. But then my opinions could change. The trouble is you see, I could understand all the points of view. I could even see the JW point of view on some topics, and if they weren't so fruity on some issues, I might have even tried them. The people in different Protestant groups aren't stupid. They often aren't even lacking in education. They just start with different presupposition. They emphasise different verses in scripture. I came to the conclusion that there can't be unity in Christendom with this approach, because it has no authority.

I hear people espouse a particular view of some theological topic. They cite a particular verse. When someone else cites a verse which seems to have a different view, they interpret it through the lens of the first, using the first as the bedrock of their theology. Then the other person does the opposite. Who is to say which verse should lay the foundation for the other? It's not always obvious. It's not always even possible when giving it utmost care. And that's for folks with the aptitude to even attempt it. The common person is not equipped to do so. Unity in Christendom can't come from exegesis.

"I do not know how else to go about choosing one’s specific church other than to weigh the evidence for truth and responding accordingly. The other alternative is to blindly accept one’s claim to authority and hope they are correct, amidst other competing authorities."

You've already blindly accepted an authority - the Protestant 66 books. Or if it wasn't "blindly", then you shouldn't put the label of "blindly" on people who accept other authorities.

"But it does beg the question of how do I know what authority is true? Rome claims infallible authority...."

Yet, you've already hitched your wagon to church authority, from whence you apparently derive your 66 books. So why disparage the exercise of looking for a church with authority, when you've already had to walk down that road yourself?

John said...

"Do you agree that there can be a valid distinction between doctrine and practice/custom?"

Well, there is eternal truth, and then there is practice. In practices there is universal practice and local practice. But this way of seeing things is obviously different to yours.

Basil.. "If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right...."

Of course, Basil was discussing the trinity - an eternal truth. Not customs in the sense of practices, local or otherwise. From our point of view, there is no distinction between a universal practice such as baptism and a universal practice such as chrismation. One is clearly in scripture, and one is not. But the only rational explanation for its universal acceptance in Christendom is its common source in the apostolic deposit of faith. If universal practice isn't evidence of apostolic teaching, why would universal acceptance of some book be evidence of apostolicity? It doesn't make sense. Its inconsistent. Either you trust the universal church, or you don't.

Cyril: "Necessary as in, "For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures..."

Well, as far as I see, what Cyril regards as having been delivered with the Holy Scriptures, is not the formal sufficiency that Protestants require. Since we've been discussing Christmation...

Cyril: "But we too have been anointed with oil, and by this anointing we have entered into fellowship with Christ and have received a share in His life. Beware of thinking that this holy oil is simply ordinary oil and nothing else. After the invocation of the Spirit it is no longer ordinary oil but the Gift of Christ, and by the presence of His Divinity it becomes the instrument through which we receive the Holy Spirit. While symbolically, on our foreheads and senses, our bodies are anointed with this oil that we see, our souls are sanctified by the Holy and Life-giving Spirit. The Holy Spirit gives us a new Divine life and, therefore, we profess Him to be the ‘Giver of Life'"
Now someone as well read in the scriptures as Cyril can't have been under any delusion that Chrismation is formally taught in the scriptures. Yet he has very clear and forthright teachings here about chrismation that go well beyond mere practice.

"I just finished reading On the Incarnation by Athanasius, and he says the divinity of Christ is clearly taught in the OT."

Well that goes to show what "clearly taught" means to an early church father. Not necessarily "clear" without the church's guidance!! Do you see any Jews who believe in a trinity, but don't believe in the NT?

"Sorry, I do not know what Granville Sharpe is."

It's a Greek grammatical argument that certain verses teach the divinity of Christ.

"Well, no…. again, the early Christians had the OT…and Paul commended (Bereans) for verifying the Christian message with the OT. "

Again, its an indication of what an apostle considers clearly taught. Did Paul expect the Bereans to accept baptism based on the OT scriptures? The answer must either be "no", or else that highly metaphorical interpretations as sufficient with the church's guidance.

John said...

"And I do consider the apostolic period unique."
It's impossible that the apostles taught sola scriptura, because in the period when they were writing scriptures, they hadn't finished writing them, and thus could not state that all doctrines were contained therein. If something was supposed to change later, prove it. You can't prove it from scripture for the aforementioned reason. If you prove it from outside scripture, you've contradicted sola scriptura.

"opinion that the early church, fathers, etc…thought that all quoting scripture does is “lend weight” to an argument…but essentially not all that important in deciphering truth. "

Here is the thing: the church isn't in the position that it needs to "decipher" the truth to get at it. The church has the truth, the church is the truth. Individuals may need to tackle deciphering the scriptures as a tool to acquiring the mind of the church. But the goal is to acquire the mind of the church, which is the mind of Christ. “But we have the mind of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 2:16). If the goal is to acquire the mind of Christ solely via a book, there is a problem that the book is not arranged systematically. It's not arranged as a "become Godly for Dummies" self help manual. Its often difficult to interpret, if the goal is systematic theology. Even talking about the mind of Christ seems a little intellectual, because the real goal is holiness, of which the scriptures are really an assistance.

"If so, is this your opinion or the official teaching of the Eastern Orthodox?"

The official teaching of the Eastern Orthodox is in the process of acquiring its mind which is only occasionally put in some document so that it can be presented to some outsider. It is sometimes called aquiring phronema. I can tell you its mind as best I can, but I only you can properly start on the journey.

"As I understand, infallible simply means incapable of error. One may hold that a council, pope, synod or any authority structure…made an inerrant decision, but that is very different from saying that authority could not do anything but make the correct decision. "

Well anyone can make an inerrant decision. You just have to be right. I don't think Protestants here are saying that the Church threw the dice and happened to be inerrant. I think they are saying it could not err because it was guided by the Holy Spirit, and therefore we can trust the canon. The word to use for "could not err" is infallible. Not inerrant, as if it could have got it wrong, but as luck would have it did not. Otherwise you could not trust the canon.

If you're asking about the EO canon, this would help:
http://orthodoxstudybible.com/uploads/BibleBooksChart.pdf

Kevin said...

No such thing in the Bible as an infallible Magisterium?

I see you haven't read Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18, or the first half of Acts 15.

(Where would Protestantism be without eisogesis?)

Carrie said...

Primacy in what sense? The Pope did have primacy.

Okay, Papal Supremacy.

Thanks for your time in discussing these matters but your latest round of answers tells me you are unwilling to engage in an honest discussion.

I make a reference to the period where East and West divided and you play semantics. I say Mormons have their own infallible authority and you say "well, not all Mormons". If I said the sky is blue you'd probably come back with some answer about light scatter to avoid directly agreeing with me.

Best of luck to you, John.

steelikat said...

John,

You seem to be vacillating between faith and a skepticism that attempts (quite unsuccessfully in my opinion) to call faith into question. I just dont understand you.

For what it's worth, I think you have a good point about the 7th ecumenical council. If someone is going to treat the imperial councils as authoritative he can't ignore the 7th.