I’ve encountered the claim that the Church of Rome acted infallibly, determining the contents of the canon of Scripture at the North African Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD). These councils were presided over by Augustine.I came across an interesting Augustine quote from a website run by Saint Magdalene Catholic Church. They quote Augustine as follows in their article, “Who decided what books are in the Bible?:
"Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority..(DE Doctrina Christiana II, 8, 120)"
Now, the article points out that “Saint Augustine is the one who first established the criteria for what is in the canon.” They also provide some interesting criteria used in determining authentic canonical books. They conclude though with the following statement: “Tertullian said that other people who don’t use the canonical list of our Church don’t belong to our Church.”
The added quote from Tertullian closes the deal: if you’re not using the canon as declared by the Roman Catholic Church, you don’t belong to the “Church”. What St. Magdalene Catholic Church should’ve done though, is quote what Augustine went on to say in the very next sentence:
“If, however, he should find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is be looked upon as equal” [Source: NPNF1, Vol. 2, Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 8].
This unquoted section sheds a whole new light on the modern concept of the Roman Church infallibly determining the canon at these early councils. Augustine doesn’t appear to have any notion of an “infallible list” from this quote, nor an infallible ability of either himself or a church council. It also puts Tertullian at odds with Augustine, and refutes the entire webpage put up by St. Magdalene Catholic Church. Here's a good overview of the Augustine quote:
“Here we see an implicit but nonetheless clear denial that the church acted infallibly with respect to the canon of Scripture. Augustine wrote that if various churches differed as to which books were to be included and which were to be rejected, their authority was to be regarded as ‘equal.’ The implication was that though respect was to be given to the greater number of churches, especially those believed to have been the seat of an apostle, if they disagreed over which books were canonical, their authority was to be regarded as equal. His view is incompatible with belief in an infallible determination of the canon” [Source: David T. King, Holy Scripture: The Ground And Pillar of Our Faith, Volume 1 (WA: Christian Resources Inc., 2001), 133].
Posts
23 comments:
James,
I'm afraid that your conclusions are of no consequence because your premise is wrong. The Catholic Church does not (and never has) taught that those early councils infallibly defined the canon. Rather, the RCC teaches that the issue was not finally (i.e., dogmatically) settled until the Council of Trent. What the early councils did was set the standard of including the deuterocanonical books in the canon (contra St. Jerome and others, but pro St. Augustine and others), but it was for Trent to finally settle the issue for Catholics. The 16th century even witnessed Catholics (such as Cardinal Cajetan) argue whether certain books should be included in the canon, but the council (Trent) settled the dispute by affirming those aformentioned early councils. Unfortunately, the Catholic parish you cited (St. Magdalene) has some of their facts wrong, so I would recommend contacting more reputable sources (such as The Catholic Encyclopedia at the New Advent website).
I should have mentioned (for those unfamiliar with Catholic dogmatics) that the reason the 4th century councils were not infallible is because they were only local councils, not ecumenical (like Trent). It requires a council of the whole Church to dogmatically define matters of faith and morals.
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for stopping by and commenting. I agree with you that for a Roman Catholic, the canon was not dogmatically defined until Trent. I have stated this often over the years:
The New Catholic Encyclopedia has honestly pointed out,“According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.”
Unfortunately, I rarely come across a Roman Catholic who will admit this. Most claim that the earlier councils defined the canon, and Trent simply "reaffirmed" the list.
Frank:
Amen.
Blessings,
James
Kevin:
should have mentioned (for those unfamiliar with Catholic dogmatics) that the reason the 4th century councils were not infallible is because they were only local councils, not ecumenical (like Trent). It requires a council of the whole Church to dogmatically define matters of faith and morals.
Same thing William Webster points out:
The CanonWhy the Roman Catholic Arguments for the Canon are Spurious
Both sides, Catholic and Protestant, recognize the flexibility of the canon until the Reformation. Jerome's understanding was certainly tenable, but so was Augustine's, as the Septuagint did indeed become the Bible of the Church with many assuming a full canonicity of all contained therein (of course, there were even differences among the versions of the Septuagint, hence the Easteran Orthodox OT canon differs from the Catholic one -- though they both reject the Jerome/Protestant thesis). Webster does not convince in proposing that the universal understanding of the canon was that the deuterocanonical books were not-quite-canonical (this is not the only time that I've had problems with Webster), but he does show the viability of the Protestant thesis. Of course, the problem that Catholics see is how the Protestant can affirm his/her canon as infallibly set, since the Jerome thesis was an opinion among competing alternatives. Catholics can look to an ecumenical council to settle the dispute (including exactly which deuterocanonical books to include), but Protestants must rely on their own Protestant tradition with admittedly no infallible ecclesial mechanism. As well, we cannot forget that the New Testament canon went through just as lively a struggle in the early church. Protestants affirm the decisions of the 4th/5th centuries in defining the NT canon, but with ecclesial infallibility ruled-out, how can one know that such-and-such books are Holy Writ. Is it for each Christian to read the ancient texts "with the Spirit" and determine which one he/she thinks is God's word -- the same can be said for determining the nature(s)/will(s)/person(s) of Christ and the relational being of the Trinity. The common Christian has a lot of studying to do -- or we can trust the binding authority of the Church to faithfully defend the deposit of faith received by the Apostles. Of course, this opens-up a plethora of other issues, but those are some of my musings for the moment.
The common Christian has a lot of studying to do -- or we can trust the binding authority of the Church to faithfully defend the deposit of faith received by the Apostles.
How did the average layman recognize Scripture in the 1st, 3rd, 8th, 12th, or 15th century without any 'infallible definition' to prevent the scandal of 'private judgement'? Further, how did the OT faithful recognize Sacred Scripture without the guidance of an 'infallible magesterium' to define what was and was not Scripture?
This entire argument is designed to defend Trent's definition but does nothing to address the lack of 'guidance' in previous centuries of Church history. A stock Catholic reply is that there was no scandal to 'correct', this can be easily disproven however. The history of Israel is rife with apostasy up to and including the losing of God's Word. Further, Kevin's reply identifies disagreement over the constitution of the NT canon. How was that resolved without recourse to 'magesterial definition'?
ea,
You bring-up the "plethora of other issues" that I assumed would be brought to the fore.
How did the average layman recognize Scripture in the 1st, 3rd, 8th, 12th, or 15th century without any 'infallible definition' to prevent the scandal of 'private judgement'? Further, how did the OT faithful recognize Sacred Scripture without the guidance of an 'infallible magesterium' to define what was and was not Scripture?
The average layman didn't have a bible in those centuries. It was the church that took the sacred writings of the Hebrew past and Christian present and used them for the service of God in the liturgy. For the OT, they used the Septuagint, but, since the Jews had not settled the canon (though all agreed on the divine inspiration of the Torah, Psalms, and other texts) prior to the revelation of Christ, the Church did not limit herself to the decisions of the rabbis in the post Jerusalem temple destruction years (they rejected the deuterocanonical books) since the Church has the binding authority. As for the NT canon, the various churches circulated the gospels, the writings of St. Paul, St. James, and others for the instruction of the faithful and liturgical use. It was the Church and her ministers, not the laity, who developed (and debated) the canon of sacred writings. The "scandal of private judgement" was not so much an issue with the laity but with those ministers who determined their own beliefs about the faith with support from the apostolic writings. Thus, we see Arius and Nestorius bringing their rationalist critiques (not unlike Bultmann and Tillich in the last century) to the nature of Christ and his relation to the Father and Holy Spirit. Thus, we also see Marcion rejecting the "warrior God" of the OT and certain unsundry matters in the NT (not unlike John Spong in our day). Naturally, these leaders led great numbers of the faithful astray, but it was with the authority of the Church that these issues were settled and the heresy dissipated (though only to be revived among Albigensians in the Middle Ages and Protestants in the more recent modern era).
This entire argument is designed to defend Trent's definition but does nothing to address the lack of 'guidance' in previous centuries of Church history. A stock Catholic reply is that there was no scandal to 'correct', this can be easily disproven however. The history of Israel is rife with apostasy up to and including the losing of God's Word.
I have just shown that there was no "lack of guidance" before Trent. Ever heard of Nicea or Chalcedon? As for the OT times, it is no argument against the authority of the Church if the Israelites lacked a similar authority. As the Church is founded by Christ, the Incarnate Son and True God, and is the body of Christ on earth, she has been given this charism (though not perfectly exhibited by the numerous sinners in her fold). If you want to get into the reasons for why God has done it this way, then I will not venture there with you.
Further, Kevin's reply identifies disagreement over the constitution of the NT canon. How was that resolved without recourse to 'magesterial definition'?
This was dogmatically resolved at Trent.
One more thought: It should be remembered that the dogmas of the Church, by and large, come about to settle a dispute and end schism for those who recognize the authority of the Church. The nature of Christ and his relation to the Father and Spirit were much disputed in the early church and thus the early councils focused largely on these issues (just as the relation of Judaic law to Christian belief and praxis was the issue for the Apostles in the first century and recorded in the NT). Issues of soteriology would come to the fore at the Reformation, causing schism, and thus had to be resolved at Trent, at which the canonical issue was likewise resolved.
Also, I hope one does not take my comments in this thread as an exhaustive presentation of the Catholic position. Take them as signposts to further reflection and study.
The Roman Catholic denomination wishes it has a monopoly on the term "catholic", but it does not.
Yeah, whatever. If you tell 99 in a hundred people (or 999 in a thousand) that you are Catholic, they know you follow the Catholic Church headed by the See of St. Peter in Rome. They do not think, "Hmm, I wonder if he is a Lutheran catholic, a Reformed catholic, an Anglican catholic, a Russian Orthodox catholic...or maybe even a free church catholic." You can protest about how you are the true catholic because you think Nicea is biblical, but the term, "Catholic," for the Church of Rome is here to stay. By the way, the fact that the Catholic Church is 1.1 billion strong in by far the greatest number of countries across the globe surely means that we are, at least, the most "catholic" in the literal sense of "universal."
Only those teachings which were not in accord with the Scriptures were rejected.
Yes, of course, we are back to the same argument of Protestants saying such-and-such is so obviously scriptural and such-and-such Romish accretions are so obviously not, and what-do-ya-know, Nicea, Chalcedon, and Ausburg (or maybe Westminster) got it right and thus this is the "catholic" faith. In other words, you are saying that "catholic" simply means true Christianity.
Well, we've reached a point where it is senseless to continue debating. You've basically challenged me to defend the Catholic faith in toto. If you want to know how Catholics defend Mary, there's numerous apologetics websites out there. The same can be said for our view of salvation, including the issue of salvation outside the church. And I'm sure that if I did continue the debate, we'd have to get into Transubstantiation, so I'll have to encourage you to look elsewhere for that too. Oh, and there's the issue of purgatory, but I guess that would fall under soteriology.
I want to assure that I do actually believe that all these teachings of the Catholic Church are true and can be sustained after a critical historical and systematic study. It is a shame that you lump Catholicism together with Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses. I was once a Protestant, but I never had Protestant lenses that thick. I am at least encouraged that Evangelicals like J.I. Packer and Billy Graham recognize the legitimacy of the Church of Rome as an authentic witness to Christian revelation. Evangelicals are increasingly dispensing with the "remnant mentality" and certainly with the notion that Catholics will only be saved if they "trust in Christ alone for their salvation" as if we do not do this already (by the way, indulgences, penance, purgatory and all that deal with sanctification, i.e. conforming ouselves to Christ, after his blood has saved us and brought us into the grace of God).
Also, I was simply following the early church fathers in connecting catholicity with both orthodoxy and the phenomenon of greater physical universality. It was the heresies that were limited to certain regions (though, with Arianism, this was a mighty huge region, namely, Byzantium) and often named after a certain person (Arius, Nestorius, Marcion, etc.). In the 16th century, this was seen once again with, for example, Lutheranism being named after Luther and Anglicanism being limited to England (and Scotland and N. Ireland by force). Of course, the Lutheran or Calvinist simply declared Lutheranism or Calvinism to be "biblical Christianity," so we're back to that whole issue. Of course, this was all before the Baptists came along and showed us who the real biblical Christians were.
Frank,
I did not mean to personally attack you, but when one attacks another's beliefs, it is hard not to be attacking the person. I made the "thick lenses" comment because I seriously believe this to be fundamental to your errors. I could say that you personally attacked me by basically calling me a Mary-worshipper and an ignorant minion of Rome by following all their "extra-biblical" (read: anti-biblical) traditions (oh if only I could read the Bible clearly...after all, what could be more obvious than Eph. 2:8-9). I have read the Bible, especially the NT and most-especially Romans and Galatians, multiple times, beginning from childhood, raised in a good Baptist home, attending a good Baptist school until 12th grade. I went to college, majored in Theology, and did my senior thesis on the "participatory language" (i.e., being in Christ, in the Spirit, or Christ in me) of Paul, focusing on Romans. That same year (my senior year) I entered the Catholic Church. About half of my close friends (going back to middle and high school) argue just as you do; the other half have tempered a bit and recognized that Christianity is bigger than a quasi-Reformed Baptist theology. I once again direct you to Catholic apologetics outlets (like Catholic Answers or Cor ad Cor Loquitur) because it would take much too long for me to argue why I think, for example, your synergism charges are misinformed.
As for the Pope and Islam, I believe Muslims do worship God insofar as they worship God at all. There certainly isn't a false, rival God in heaven that Muslims pray to. Insofar as God hears their prayers, they are praying to the one God. They indeed have some misguided notions of God, but I will not limit God to ignoring them. Now, if a Muslim is presented with the gospel of Christ and rejects it, he rejects God (for, to know the Son is to know the Father, to reject the Son is to reject the Father, and vice versa). And, I certainly wouldn't deny that some Muslims are great servants of Satan.
One more thing:
Your closing remarks concerning Baptists was an obvious attempt to marginalize my remarks as claiming each and every denomination claims to be the “real Christians”. This is not what I said....
I know that's not what you said. I was saying that each denomination believes themselves to be the most biblical, not "real Christians." I believe you misunderstood what I was saying (of course, I was saying it sarcastically).
Frank,
I have looked rather closely at Lutheranism, and I agree with you that it is too often over-looked in American Protestantism. It is actually my position that Lutheranism is the most coherent, biblical, and sane of the Protestant traditions (though, I would say the same for High Church Anglicanism, which shares much with Lutheranism). In fact, a major problem with American Protestantism (including its anti-intellectualist tendencies) is its failure to look to Continental Protestantism, which would include most-especially Lutheranism, but also a more sane Reformed tradition (of which Herman Bavinck and Karl Barth would be great examples). At almost every point in which the traditional Calvinist (of which, by the way, Barth was not) differs with confessional Lutherans, I think the Lutherans have it right. And the neglect of Chemnitz by American Calvinists is surely a mark of sectarian ignorance.
As for the anonymous Christian issue, I agree that Karl Rahner's construal of it has many problems, and these are the problems that Hans Urs von Balthasar had with the so-called "anonymous Christian" in Rahner's theology. One problem, at least when presented in a crude format, with Rahner's view is that it does not give enough of a place for grace as fundamental to any striving after God which is exhibited in certain actions of the individual. I encourage you to look into the Balthasar (and Ratzinger) critiques of the issue.
One more thing: I listened to one of the audio links you provided and the host mentioned that the doctrine of purgatory is saying that Christ did not quite do it all, so we have to finish it up. This is one of many examples of a gross misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. The doctrine of Purgatory is declaring the truth that Christ works through us to perfect sanctification. The individual is already saved by Christ and accounted a son of God and heir of God's Kingdom. But God does not leave us as we are; he wants to make us into a new creation -- fully putting off the "old man." All attachment to sin (which is a punishment of sin) must be purged, which is to say that our wills must be wholly conformed to God's.
For example, the Roman church uses this word as referring to a certain “power source” whereby God enables a person to live a more God-pleasing life of obedience to the will of God. The Holy Scriptures use the word as a description of the attitude of God towards men on account of the finished work of His Son on the cross.
Well, I couldn't disagree with you more. In fact, Catholics would say that grace is both a "power source" and God's attitude toward men on account of Christ's sacrifice. I guess this is yet another example of the Catholic both-and, contra the Protestant either-or. However, Catholics would say, in regard to grace being a "power source," that grace is fundamental to our whole relation to God. God calls us by grace and works through us to do good. No Christian can look at his good works and not see grace. Our whole life in Christ is a gift of God.
Now, if Grace is a “power source” as in Roman Catholicism, then this reads as follows: based upon the atonement of Christ for sins, men are saved due to the grace of God which is given to them in order to lead continually improved God-pleasing lives so that eventually they will be perfectly acceptable to God. The Scriptures say otherwise: men are saved solely based upon the Grace of God as shown in the incarnation, perfect life, suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ FOR them on their behalf as the Representative Man.
So, let me get this straight: Catholics say that we are saved (i.e., made acceptable to God) by being made perfect through living a holy life (albeit given by grace). Lutherans (and other right-thinking Protestants) say that we are saved by the sacrifice of Christ for our sins -- a gift received by faith. Once again, the Catholic actually says that both are correct. We are first and foremost saved by the sacrifice of Christ. Without the death and resurrection of Christ, sin and death would still reign (for sin and death were conquered by Christ's resurrection according to St. Paul). Christ then allows us to likewise conquer sin and death, this results in our coming into the graces of God in a shared sonship with Christ (we are joint heirs according to St. Paul). This union with Christ is fundamental to Catholic understanding (and St. Paul's: "I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live but Christ who lives within me."). Paul is insistent throughout his letters on the fact that we are born again, made into new creatures, wherein the works of the flesh are overcome (through Christ, because Christ conquered sin-death), to be replaced by works of the Spirit (also, see the warnings in Romans 2 and Galatians 5). Catholics, however, recognize a tension, just as do Lutherans, in the fact that we are not perfect, sinless creatures, but the Catholic says that we are being made into perfect, sinless creatures through sanctification (thus, we take holiness quite seriously). All attachment to sin must be purged. Catholics are not simply reasoning-out the salvation process and thus injecting a "common-sensical" notion of Purgatory, devoid of the need for Christ. As I've briefly shown, Christ's sacrifice is fundamental. It is the faulty hermeneutics of Lutherans (and other Protestants) that keep them from seeing the Catholic position as truly biblical and patristic.
Philosophical interjection here..
"Either a man is saved by the Graciousness of God through the atonement of His Son,or a man is saved by becoming perfect."
Response:
I'm pretty sure even James Swan and others will not concede this point since this is no contradiction, either logical or metaphysical. There may be a possible world where a man is saved by the gratuity of God through the atonement of His Son which makes it possible for man to become perfect. In other words, becoming perfect is none other than the application of the atonement of the Son. One might believe this is false, but it is possible nonetheless.
I won't comment on other statements because of time and we already went over this before, but I find this statement interesting:
"Roman Catholics are caught up in common sense reasoning which applies to the temporal kingdom, but not the kingdom of God."
Hmm..common sense does not apply to the kingdom of God. Makes me think Pope Benedict was right on target in his analysis on faith and reason in the great Regensburg address. We Catholics believe in faith and reason, God who is Logos, "reason," who gave us common sense. Grace through faith perfects reason and common sense, but it is not contrary to it nor is it simply for the temporal world. Actually, one might find my latest post as one of interest for you since it touches a bit on this.
As far as James Swan agreeing 100 percent with me, that is impossible since he is not Lutheran in his theology.The Scriptures say that by Grace through Faith in the atonement of Christ our sins are forgiven and we are forensically declared Not Guilty! by God. We are declared perfect,not made perfect.
There is nothing in this statement I would disagree with. The real disagreements between the Lutherans and the Reformed are more often over the understanding of the sacraments, and perhaps the extent of the atonement.
Even in our private discussion a week ago on law and gospel, I really don't see how or where we disagreed.
Blessings,
James
Okay, Frank, I urge you to drop the "it's not commensensical" statements. It does nothing for your argument. Afterall, we both agree that God becoming man and dying on a cross for our sins is quite beyond the bounds of commonsense. But back to the main point of our discussion, I can grant your disagreeing with me, but I (and Apolonio) do not see how you can claim it a contradiction to say that Christ died for our sins and allows us to be fully sanctified. You can say it is unbiblical, but to say it is a contradiction (or even undesirable on the part of God) can in no wise be granted. Now, as for the scriptural warrants of your position, I believe you were alluding to Romans 7 that you cited earlier. Let's take a look at the passage:
14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
As many commentators have noted, this passage is, at best, dubious about whether Paul is talking about his pre or post-gospel state. I think it is clear that Paul is talking about life under the law, where he is still "of the flesh, sold under sin." Paul is describing how, before his new life in Christ, he was bound to sin. Futhermore, the law came along and only condemned him since the law could not save. However, Christ, who conqured sin and death with his resurrection, has freed him from the law of sin and death. As Paul says in verse 6 of the same chapter, "But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit." Our saving relationship with Christ has replaced the law, which only condemned and had no power to free us from sin (and death). This is repeated over and over again by Paul in his letters, especially Romans and Galatians, yet you disparage it and, in true myopic fashion, focus only on the forgiveness of sins aspect. For Paul, union with Christ, transformation in Christ is key to the gospel message (indeed, it is good news that sin and death no longer reign). As well, Paul does not shy from stating that those who do "works of the flesh" are not saved, are not sons of God, are not brothers in Christ, joint heirs with Christ, and inheriters of the Kingdom of God. Romans 2 warns:
He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.
Also, in Galatians 5:
So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
The acts of the sinful nature [or, "works of the flesh"] are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
And, back to Romans, with chapter 8:
So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!" The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.
Frank and James,
My point was that I thought James was not going to concede that the statement:
"...a man is saved by the Graciousness of God through the atonement of His Son,or a man is saved by becoming perfect."
is a contradiction. There is no dichotomy here. It is certainly possible that both be true.
As I already said, to think that Paul was simply speaking of "Gospel vs. Law" as if everytime "law" is used it is condemned is anachronistic. Paul distinguishes between the works of the law and the law of the Spirit. The law of the Spirit is the Gospel. Robert K. Rappa has a nice book on works of the Torah. I'm working on writing a post on it. I'm currently studying the dead sea scrolls and one can see some connections to the words used.
Frank,
I would write a response, but I would just be re-wording what I've already written. As for Romans 7, I just read in The Oxford Bible Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 1097) the section on the relevant passage. It agrees with me in insisting that Paul is not talking about believers, for such is contrary to the context of both Romans and the entire Pauline corpus. I'd type the section out, but that would take too long. However, you can go to Amazon.com and do the "Search Inside" feature, put "1097" in the search field, click on "page 1097," and read the commentary. By the way, I highly recommend The Oxford Bible Commentary and not just because it often agrees with me but because it utilizes a lot of the best "post-critical" scholarship, hence avoiding a lot of the ridiculous speculative theories, hermeneutics of suspicion, and general disdain for the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Well, I guess this is where I will just part with you on this discussion. You have not said anything substantially new, so I will, once again, defer to my previous remarks. However, I can't resist just one reply: Paul is speaking of the old Adam in the present tense, and the aforementioned commentary gives good, compelling reasons for why this is so. I do find it interesting in how we have come to a classic example of how scripture ain't so easy to interpret, and how, without the Church (i.e., Catholic Church, i.e., Roman Catholic Church), denominationalism is inevitable. I choose to go with Rome and (co-incidentally in this case) with The Oxford Bible Commentary.
By the way, you do horrible injustice to Wesley and Arminius by lumping them together with modern televangelists. They both stood in the greater tradition of both the Reformation and the early Fathers. Televangelists are just uneducated bafoons, who stand in a crude, Baptistic dispensational premillenialism that Wesley/Arminius would find quite strange. Also, most televangelists are not so much concerned with holiness as they are with God granting them "favors." On another side note, it can be said that Arminius and Wesley stood in the greater Reformed tradition that was not necessarily delineated by the Canons of Dort (see Christ's Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism by Philip Benedict, Yale University Press, 2004).
Paul is speaking of himself and all those who were (and those who still are) in the old Adam, i.e., before the new Adam (Christ) is born in the person. As for why this is so, see the commentary (once again, which can be assessed via Amazon's search inside feature).
Post a Comment