tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post8398932607431364348..comments2024-03-13T11:10:01.605-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: The Never Ending Canon DebateJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger109125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-83513006350809479322011-05-05T09:20:08.508-04:002011-05-05T09:20:08.508-04:00John,
You seem to be vacillating between faith a...John, <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-83603062025991400752011-05-05T08:47:08.564-04:002011-05-05T08:47:08.564-04:00Primacy in what sense? The Pope did have primacy.
...<i>Primacy in what sense? The Pope did have primacy.</i><br /><br />Okay, Papal Supremacy. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Best of luck to you, John.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-7047435387845970062011-05-05T08:38:20.998-04:002011-05-05T08:38:20.998-04:00No such thing in the Bible as an infallible Magist...No such thing in the Bible as an infallible Magisterium?<br /><br />I see you haven't read Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18, or the first half of Acts 15.<br /><br />(Where would Protestantism be without eisogesis?)Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10718509200941118736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-29648018757986121742011-05-05T01:36:49.701-04:002011-05-05T01:36:49.701-04:00"And I do consider the apostolic period uniqu..."And I do consider the apostolic period unique."<br />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.<br /><br />"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. "<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"If so, is this your opinion or the official teaching of the Eastern Orthodox?"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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. "<br /><br />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.<br /><br />If you're asking about the EO canon, this would help:<br />http://orthodoxstudybible.com/uploads/BibleBooksChart.pdfJohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-86168675415308286762011-05-05T01:36:17.468-04:002011-05-05T01:36:17.468-04:00"Do you agree that there can be a valid disti..."Do you agree that there can be a valid distinction between doctrine and practice/custom?"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Basil.. "If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right...."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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..."<br /><br />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...<br /><br />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'" <br />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.<br /><br />"I just finished reading On the Incarnation by Athanasius, and he says the divinity of Christ is clearly taught in the OT."<br /><br />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?<br /><br />"Sorry, I do not know what Granville Sharpe is."<br /><br />It's a Greek grammatical argument that certain verses teach the divinity of Christ.<br /><br />"Well, no…. again, the early Christians had the OT…and Paul commended (Bereans) for verifying the Christian message with the OT. "<br /><br />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.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-68528863433422803302011-05-05T01:35:13.496-04:002011-05-05T01:35:13.496-04:00"So, you even agree that deciphering where th..."So, you even agree that deciphering where the dividing line is, is not just a Protestant problem."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"But it does beg the question of how do I know what authority is true? Rome claims infallible authority...."<br /><br />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?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-26469672663714475992011-05-05T01:33:46.945-04:002011-05-05T01:33:46.945-04:00Joe: "why cannot Protestants have a successio...Joe: "why cannot Protestants have a succession of authority?"<br />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.<br />"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."<br />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.<br />"I hear him saying that we judge a person to be apostolic or not by the content of what he believes…succession of belief."<br />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.<br />"Right…how does this have any bearing?"<br />Because it shows Tertullian's argument is ecclesiastical. The church is synonymous with the true faith.<br />"Don't you even admit below, that it isn’t exactly clear?"<br />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.<br />"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?"<br />I only say where there is salvation, not where there isn't.<br />"What exactly do you mean by “succession of authority”."<br />The church has authorities, and they must have received their authority from someone who received it from the apostles.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-79782725247761797942011-05-04T23:13:31.875-04:002011-05-04T23:13:31.875-04:00cont...(sorry, I cut and paste at a bad spot)
Tha...cont...(sorry, I cut and paste at a bad spot)<br /><br />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. <br /><br />So my question still stands….does the church need to be incapable of error in order to establish what the canon of scripture is?<br /><br />You said, <i>Are you asking what the EO canon is?</i><br /><br />Yes John.<br /><br />I do appreciate your time into discussing the topic!<br /><br />In Him.<br /><br />JoeJoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18261351748058047837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-27080893266568953842011-05-04T23:12:29.844-04:002011-05-04T23:12:29.844-04:00cont...
You said, "What do you mean by neces...cont...<br /><br />You said, <i>"What do you mean by necessary?</i><br /><br />This was in response to my question if scripture was necessary to show the divinity of Christ from scripture.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />You said, <i> "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?</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />You said, <i>"Would it be necessary to carefully consider the Granville Sharpe construction and apply it to various epistles to confirm what you were already taught?</i><br /><br />Sorry, I do not know what Granville Sharpe is.<br /><br />You said, <i>"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?"</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />You said, <i>"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?</i><br /><br />Sorry, can you just rephrase this? Am having difficulty grasping your question.<br /><br />You said, <i>"Obviously quoting scripture lends weight to the teaching, especially if there is some dispute, but it wouldn't have been necessary."</i><br /><br />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?<br /><br />You said, <i>"Then you agree it is not necessary to quote scripture?"</i><br /><br />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. <br /><br />You said, <i>"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?</i><br /><br />cont...Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18261351748058047837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-68565487023648966312011-05-04T23:03:01.744-04:002011-05-04T23:03:01.744-04:00cont...
You said, "Which claims? I mean, are...cont...<br /><br />You said, <i>"Which claims? I mean, are you looking at doctrinal beliefs, picking the ones you like, then joining the church that agrees?"</i><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />You said, <i>"Or are you looking at authority claims and believing the doctrine that the authority tells you to believe?</i><br /><br />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. <br /><br />You said, <i>"Where are you going to divide the line between doctrine and practice?</i><br /><br />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:<br /><br />“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) <br /><br />You said, <i>"Is baptism doctrine or practice?"</i><br /><br />Doctrine...ditto with church leadership, and male leadership.<br /><br />You said,<i>"This is the train that eventually leads to liberalism, where everything is merely the practice of the ancients."</i><br /><br />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. <br /><br />cont..Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18261351748058047837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-35969579230421430562011-05-04T22:57:15.745-04:002011-05-04T22:57:15.745-04:00Hi John.
You said, "What if I believed every...Hi John.<br /><br />You said, <i>"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...<br /><br />There needs to be a succession of belief and a succession of authority to be the legitimate church."</i><br /><br />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?<br /><br />You said, <i>"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."</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />You said, <i>"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...</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />You said, <i>"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.”</i><br /><br />Right…how does this have any bearing?<br /><br />You said,<i>"'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?"</i><br /><br />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?<br /><br />You said, <i>"Its the only church (EO) that I feel sure has a clear succession of belief and authority."</i><br /><br />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”.<br /><br />You said, <i>"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.</i><br /><br />So, you even agree that deciphering where the dividing line is, is not just a Protestant problem. <br /><br />cont..Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18261351748058047837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-9959955165633678132011-05-04T20:00:08.386-04:002011-05-04T20:00:08.386-04:00Carrie: "If you're living in the 1000s wh...Carrie: "If you're living in the 1000s why would there be a reason to doubt the primacy of Rome?"<br /><br />Primacy in what sense? The Pope did have primacy.<br /><br />"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)."<br /><br />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?<br /><br />"Additionally, you are arguing like an atheist "<br /><br />Nonsense, it is you who argues like an atheist.<br /><br />"Mormons have an authority system to tell you what believe"<br /><br />Not all Mormons. Tons of splinter groups believe the Mormon canon without believing in the Utah authorities. They are the Mormon protestants.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-47054262450180726832011-05-04T19:50:56.840-04:002011-05-04T19:50:56.840-04:00"To make that more explicit, I did not claim ..."To make that more explicit, I did not claim that the Church is infallible, strictly speaking".<br /><br />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?<br /><br />"the Protestants here seem to have no trouble knowing what the church is"<br /><br />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.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-83612495682003070292011-05-04T19:48:38.845-04:002011-05-04T19:48:38.845-04:00"As for the question of the "deuteros&qu..."As for the question of the "deuteros", that is a question that was still not definitely settled in the 16th century. "<br /><br />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?<br /><br />"The same radical skepticism that prevented us from accepting our Christian faith would prevent us from accepting the Eastern Orthodox form of Christianity."<br /><br />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.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-32941843011580213872011-05-04T19:47:35.122-04:002011-05-04T19:47:35.122-04:00"To make that more explicit, I did not claim ..."To make that more explicit, I did not claim that the Church is infallible, strictly speaking".<br /><br />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?<br /><br />"the Protestants here seem to have no trouble knowing what the church is"<br /><br />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.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-3087052228652946282011-05-04T18:40:41.358-04:002011-05-04T18:40:41.358-04:00John,
Carrie said: "Additionally, you are a...John, <br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-46347806391406818822011-05-04T18:31:37.713-04:002011-05-04T18:31:37.713-04:00" you contradicted yourself."
I didn..." you contradicted yourself."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-79037564576076158332011-05-04T15:14:10.943-04:002011-05-04T15:14:10.943-04:00Nope. See Syrian Church as an example of smaller c...Nope. See Syrian Church as an example of smaller canon.<br /><br /><i> Do you mean the Jacobite Syrian church - Monophysite?<br /><br />or<br /><br />the Assyrian church of the East (Nestorian) (used the Peshitta and Syriac language, today called "Assyrian") <br /><br />If you are EO, then they are heretics, so they don't count, right? <br /><br /></i>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-25992291882808339662011-05-04T09:09:22.210-04:002011-05-04T09:09:22.210-04:00If you're living in the 1500s why would there ...<i>If you're living in the 1500s why would there be a reason to doubt the deuteros?</i><br /><br />If you're living in the 1000s why would there be a reason to doubt the primacy of Rome?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-8690811893990069462011-05-04T08:45:28.643-04:002011-05-04T08:45:28.643-04:00But you restrict your list to those who you agree ...<i>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> <br /><br />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. <br /><br /><i>Just because you agree with certain groups can't tell you if those groups have any authority to be telling you its right. </i><br /><br />Your assuming an earthly authority is necessary but have yet to prove that. <br /><br /><i>Mormons, Marcionites, Muslims, Montanists all claim to believe the gospel and believe in Christ.</i><br /><br />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.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-31379569333911194322011-05-04T01:57:25.427-04:002011-05-04T01:57:25.427-04:001. "self authenticating power"
Burning ...1. "self authenticating power"<br /><br />Burning the bosom. See Mormons. See Montanists.<br /><br />2. "apostolic authority"<br /><br />You have an apostle lying around to ask about that? <br /><br />3. "Divine internal quality"<br /><br />See (1).<br /><br />4. "universal acceptance"<br /><br />Nope. See Syrian Church as an example of smaller canon.<br /><br />5. "ancient external witness".<br /><br />See Marcionite, Montanists.<br /><br />6. "reality of history"<br /><br />Which means what? Rome has more members so Rome wins?<br /><br />"Good early external witnesses on the canon: Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, Athanasius, Jerome"<br /><br />Only Jerome can be cited for your canon, and even he is uncertain since he can be quoted as saying deuteros are holy scripture. <br /><br />Now why are you citing these folks and not Marcion?<br /><br />"no good reason to doubt anymore"<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-29476504582334145162011-05-04T01:28:16.330-04:002011-05-04T01:28:16.330-04:00John wrote:
And you know which is the true canon b...John wrote:<br />And you know which is the true canon because.... ?<br /><br /><i>self authenticating power <br />apostolic authority<br />Divine internal quality<br />universal acceptance<br />ancient external witness<br />reality of history<br /><br />Good early external witnesses on the canon: Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, Athanasius, Jerome on the OT - Apocrypha (Deutero-canonicals are not inspired/God-breathed/canon)<br /><br />no good reason to doubt anymore<br /><br />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.<br /><br /></i>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-82706954884693852682011-05-04T00:35:48.332-04:002011-05-04T00:35:48.332-04:00"And their "canons" are completely ..."And their "canons" are completely different. They all either add to or subtract from the true canon of 27 NT books. "<br /><br />And you know which is the true canon because.... ?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-41688522951441898892011-05-03T21:57:31.165-04:002011-05-03T21:57:31.165-04:00John wrote:
Mormons, Marcionites, Muslims, Montani...John wrote:<br />Mormons, Marcionites, Muslims, Montanists all claim to believe the gospel and believe in Christ. <br /><br /><i> The four "M"s !<br /><br />"claim" is the operative word here.<br /><br />And their "canons" are completely different. They all either add to or subtract from the true canon of 27 NT books. <br /><br />Mormons added to the canon, thus changing the message.<br />Muslims subtracted from the canon, claim that the original gospel was Islamic in theology.<br />Marcionites cut the gospels and canon "with a pen-knife". (Tertullian wrote that, I think)<br />Montanists add to the Scriptures by Charismatic type experiences.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Marcionites - cut out 3 gospels except Luke, etc. Jesus had not body; Gnosticism; different Jesus, hence heretics. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Hence, a different Jesus and false gospel. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. </i>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-65548743582033460572011-05-03T21:27:25.107-04:002011-05-03T21:27:25.107-04:00"This quote you provide from Tertullian sound..."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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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?"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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..."<br /><br />Then you agree it is not necessary to quote scripture?<br /><br />"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?"<br /><br />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?<br /><br />"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??"<br /><br />Are you asking what the EO canon is?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.com