tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post5803228635058743643..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Oscar Cullmann on the relationship between oral tradition and the canon of the New Testament, part 1James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-32062261034703751652010-10-11T11:04:30.168-04:002010-10-11T11:04:30.168-04:00The main antecedents of the papacy in the classica...The main antecedents of the papacy in the classical tradition are the 7th-6th century tyrants of Greece and Julius / Augustus Caesar in Rome. The Greco-Roman concept of kingship (the basic theory on which the papacy is based) is complicated and not entirely negative in orientation, but for the most part the Greeks and Romans were highly suspicious of putting all power in the hands of one man. <br /><br />The Greco-Roman political thinkers are the ones who came up with the basic argument, still seen in papalists today, that government by the One is inherently more conserving of authority and often more powerful to resolve disputes in the short term. But they were also the ones who saw that government by the One, if not very carefully checked by other substantial powers, frequently devolves into base tyranny.<br /><br />So, the substantial antecedents I'm speaking of involve the Greco-Roman view of monarchy, and its corollary, tyranny - which is exactly why I said that these antecedents represent the worst aspects of Western thought about "authority," not the best. There's nothing wrong with monarchy per se, but long ages of experience have shown reflective men that to put all power in the hands of the One is to throw wide the door to tyranny and social destruction. <br /><br />Mid to Late Medieval thinkers reappropriated this Greco-Roman matrix of thought, and over the few centuries prior to the Reformation a widespread impression grew that the papacy had become a tyrant, and that other authorities in the Church (and State) had to reign it in. This, by the way, is precisely why the classically-trained Reformers all used the term "tyranny" of the pope. The word was deliberately chosen, and invoked in the mind of every educated person in the 16th century the last 2000 years of political thought.Tim Enloehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00496999199258689044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-22417946956512599212010-10-10T07:41:13.800-04:002010-10-10T07:41:13.800-04:00Tim, I understand you were speaking tongue-in-chee...Tim, I understand you were speaking tongue-in-cheek.<br /><br />On the one hand, I was giving it back to you; on the other hand, what makes for both good humor and good tragedy is the reality of the situation.<br /><br />What do you mean by "substantial antecedents" "in classical perspective"?John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-74465029589977878752010-10-09T22:21:19.951-04:002010-10-09T22:21:19.951-04:00I'm assuming you know my post three above was ...I'm assuming you know my post three above was tongue-in-cheek.....<br /><br />I agree there's no historical support for "divine institution" - few things are clearer to me than the fact that the papacy is a merely human contrivance born of specific socio-cultural circumstances and partaking of only one of several different strains of Western thought about "authority."<br /><br />And, I think that when that strain and the other strains are all set by each other and analyzed in great detail (complete with connecting the theories to the actual outworking of them in history), the papacy decidedly suffers a severe loss of credibility as to its developed pretensions to be either divinely instituted or necessary for unity.<br /><br />Don't know if I'll ever be able to get it done, but one of my projects right now is an extended analysis of the papacy "in classical perspective." I hope to show by the time I'm done that although there are substantial antecedents for the concept of the papacy (even in its developed form) in the classical and Medieval traditions, these antecedents represent the worst aspects of Western thought about "authority," not the best.Tim Enloehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00496999199258689044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-67078644114906766052010-10-09T20:31:30.824-04:002010-10-09T20:31:30.824-04:00Tim: It's not that the people who believe and...Tim: <i> It's not that the people who believe and defend it are these shameless liars,</i><br /><br />Not all of them are, of course. But some of them are. <br /><br /><i>nor is it that there is literally no historical support for anything that papalists say </i><br /><br />But I think there is "literally no support" for that which is most foundational to the most ardent of them, and that is the notion of a "divine institution" of the papacy. <br /><br />I can understand the need for someone to be "in charge"-- that's a natural development in any group. Or the occasional need for an appeal to a kind of final arbiter. But that never worked in practice. <br /><br />But I know what you are saying about history, and the need to deal with it credibly.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-62729399469642714612010-10-09T20:02:48.336-04:002010-10-09T20:02:48.336-04:00I don't doubt that at all, John.
History - th...I don't doubt that at all, John.<br /><br />History - that is, real historical discipline - has not been kind to Rome since the Renaissance. The Reformation continued what men like Valla started, and today, thanks to the great deal of Medieval material being translated and analyzed, it's possible to peer even deeper into the "historical" case for the papacy than ever before.<br /><br />It's not that the people who believe and defend it are these shameless liars, nor is it that there is literally no historical support for anything that papalists say. Rather, it's that as a general rule they either (a) don't handle history responsibly, or (b)they give privileged place to theological and philosophical and personal concerns that have been removed from examination by and accountability to historical analysis.<br /><br />The ones that do handle history responsibly and don't privilege extra-historical concerns as the master keys to interpreting history are the ones who get called "Liberals" by the "conservative" apologists, and, as said apologists run in superficial reaction from "the L word," they only make their own appeals to "history" less and less credible.Tim Enloehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00496999199258689044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-20867610574069554922010-10-09T19:28:25.368-04:002010-10-09T19:28:25.368-04:00Hi Tim; that was an ok process the first few times...Hi Tim; that was an ok process the first few times, but more and more things from that pre-packaged story didn't quite fit together. Like a loose thread that you start pulling on, then you pull more and more, and things start falling off the garment. <br /><br />The problem is that "the whole thing" is wrapped up so tightly, and there are layers and layers, and there are strings coming off all over the place. Eventually, you just want to get to the bottom of it, and so you start yanking strings and it's just amazing at how all of that is twisted together on the inside.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-48084067532243068932010-10-09T18:51:11.351-04:002010-10-09T18:51:11.351-04:00Just think, John - if you only had "faith&quo...Just think, John - if you only had "faith" (as the RC apologists often define it), you would not have to "piece together" <i>any</i> story.<br /><br />All you would have to do is submit to the Magisterium, confident that all stories have already been pieced together for you, and so all you must do is consult the Infallible Living Oracle whenever you have a question. Well, the Infallible Living Oracle <i>and</i> The Catholic Apologetics Organization of Your Choice, of course. <br /><br />"Piecing together" things sounds awfully like a fallible process to me, and it just isn't fitting that God would give us a Faith that we had to use our own brains on. It just makes sense that God would want to avoid misunderstandings by providing an Infallible Living Oracle. Otherwise, how would you ever really <i>know</i> that some scholar you were reading wasn't right about both his view of some item of mundane history and his criticism of an article of faith?<br /><br />This "Protestantism" thing you guys advocate here is just a recipe for pure human opinion, not God-honoring faith.Tim Enloehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00496999199258689044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-33721911359114566372010-10-09T18:11:21.787-04:002010-10-09T18:11:21.787-04:00Guys, think of me as an investigative reporter, tr...Guys, think of me as an investigative reporter, trying to piece together the story.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-41014310691226969872010-10-09T16:13:07.963-04:002010-10-09T16:13:07.963-04:00Hi natamllc,
Thanks for the response.
I'm so...Hi natamllc,<br /><br />Thanks for the response.<br /><br />I'm sorry for the delay here but my pc died. (We forget how dependent we are on the little buggers!) And it took me a while to "resurrect" it.<br /><br />Yes - wherever two or three are gathered, John must be right! So it is written.<br /><br />Peace.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00759432774174066023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-88383882393554365202010-10-09T15:09:21.984-04:002010-10-09T15:09:21.984-04:00What Cullman relates here is that the church (as r...<i>What Cullman relates here is that the church (as reported by Papias) had greatly valued the living voice of the Apostles. But they recognized the thing that we (Protestants) have all along been saying: the “living voice” is not a reliable transmitter, after a point. As with the game of “telephone,” where a message becomes badly distorted after being passed from person to person, the value of this “living tradition” had seriously degraded.</i><br /><br />We have here in Papias a very early example of why a 'living voice' just will not work. It's too bad that this valuable lesson didn't take root in what eventually became the RCC.James R. Polkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06398668552575076809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-81166568434753755962010-10-09T08:57:31.956-04:002010-10-09T08:57:31.956-04:00Hi David -- that's a great point about "e...Hi David -- that's a great point about "ear-witnesses". Have you heard that phrase anywhere else? But you're right, the teaching was communicated in words.<br /><br />As was mentioned here, Ridderbos and Kostenberger/Kruger present the same general information about the development of the NT canon. I've found all three of these works, and the confluence of their history, to be of tremendous help in responding to Roman critics.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-14892873151663993292010-10-09T00:40:54.852-04:002010-10-09T00:40:54.852-04:00I've had Cullmann's book since before the ...I've had Cullmann's book since before the turn of the century, and have read these chapters in view repeatedly, and found him very helpful in clarifying my thoughts though we come from very different theological backgrounds.<br /><br />One of the things that would have made his book even better, IMO, would be if he had, in addition to his emphasis on the apostles as eye-witnesses, stressed their unique position as ear-witnesses as well.dtkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08517142528948228472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-90033755460086151192010-10-08T18:51:07.771-04:002010-10-08T18:51:07.771-04:00Natamllc, as always, thank you for the Scriptural ...Natamllc, as always, thank you for the Scriptural perspective!John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-85095181867453550992010-10-08T18:45:40.212-04:002010-10-08T18:45:40.212-04:00John
who are you kidding? As I recall, by your ow...John<br /><br />who are you kidding? As I recall, by your own confession and mine, we are cut out of the same cloth! :)<br /><br /><b>Joh 2:24 But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people <br />Joh 2:25 and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.</b><br /><br />But, don't let that stop you! Edification is a Biblical principle:<br /><br /><i>Eph 4:15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, <br />Eph 4:16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.</i><br /><br />Especially when you too have passed from death to Life:<br /><br /><b><i>Luk 20:34 And Jesus said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, <br />Luk 20:35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, <br />Luk 20:36 for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. <br />Luk 20:37 But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. <br />Luk 20:38 Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him."</i></b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-66519646693127398772010-10-08T18:10:46.422-04:002010-10-08T18:10:46.422-04:00Constantine, Natamllc, you guys humble me. I pray ...Constantine, Natamllc, you guys humble me. I pray never to let you down.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-72467097240482842522010-10-08T17:00:56.981-04:002010-10-08T17:00:56.981-04:00Constantine,
I agree!
And guess what? When just ...Constantine,<br /><br />I agree!<br /><br />And guess what? When just two or three come together to agree on anything John produces, writes or says, ah, well, :)<br /><br />Ah, I am not willing to go any farther than that seeing final judgment must come after the final part? Or, would you not agree?? :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-40177430624829107932010-10-08T16:25:37.783-04:002010-10-08T16:25:37.783-04:00Hi John,
I don’t know how you do it, but another ...Hi John,<br /><br />I don’t know how you do it, but another great post!<br /><br />Greg Bahnsen did us all a favor in the area of analyzing what might properly be called “Tradition”. In order for capital T tradition to be what Roman Catholics assert it must meet the following criteria:<br /><br />It must be some ethical or doctrinal truth which is:<br /><br />i. Not already in Scripture.<br /><br />ii. Not contrary to Scripture.<br /><br />iii. Based upon as what is properly identified as “Tradition”<br /><br />iv. Is necessary to the Christian life and Church.<br /><br />v. Could not have been revealed during the days of the Apostles.<br /><br />If we can apply this framework to that discussion – with gentleness and respect – I think the matter is uncovered for what it is.<br /><br />More interestingly, John 21:20-24 is a Biblical example of why we should not rely on Oral Tradition. In this story, Jesus asks Peter a question which Peter misunderstands. Peter’s MIS-understanding results in the spread of speculative rumors – and not foundational truths.<br />Now, if the very first Pope, hearing the oral teaching of Christ Himself, got it wrong – what possible assurance is there the subsequent Popes got it right without Christ?<br /><br />"Do not go beyond what is written." (1 Cor. 4:6)<br /><br />Peace.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00759432774174066023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-81682975329111265862010-10-08T14:53:35.449-04:002010-10-08T14:53:35.449-04:00The Ridderbos quote is fascinating, and shows what...The Ridderbos quote is fascinating, and shows what REAL Protestant theology can produce (as opposed to the hack-quack Fundamentalist theology that most Catholic converts confuse with Reformation thought).<br /><br />From my conversations with Catholics, a huge problem is that they start by assuming something that their own Church doesn't even assume: namely, that Scripture is just a book, just like any other book. Perhaps someone can correct me, but I'm aware of no Magisterial statement that calls Scripture just another book, or even implies that it is just another book. <br /><br />However, the historic Christian witness is that Scripture isn't like any other book. By faith (which is not strictly "provable" by reason, though it is "in harmony with" reason) we CONFESS that this book is the Word of God. Once we already accept that (as Ridderbos says), we can take its internal declarations as the data from which to construct a theory of the shape and scope of revelation, and also of its meaning. <br /><br />The ever-popular "Who made the canon" argument is about the community RECOGNITION of Scripture, not the fundamental NATURE of Scripture. By confusing the true idea that "the Church" gave us the community RECOGNITION of Scripture with the false idea that no one can have any knowledge that something is BY NATURE Scripture apart from "the Church," the apologists miss the forest for the trees.<br /><br />Thanks for the Ridderbos quote, Ryan.Tim Enloehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00496999199258689044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-69309202667028028082010-10-08T13:36:47.845-04:002010-10-08T13:36:47.845-04:00From what meat I was able to stomach, I appreciate...From what meat I was able to stomach, I appreciated Ridderbos' candor and well-thought arguments. The following paragraph from his introduction, for example, so greatly coincides with my epistemological beliefs that I gave myself a mental check that this was a book I would need to read and reread:<br /><br />"Traditionally, theologians who have acknowledged Scripture's authority in terms of the church's confession cited above have determined that relationship by appealing to the so-called self-attestation, or self-witness, of Scripture. The manner in which the New testament speaks of the Old is especially important. Since the New Testament canon is not followed by a subsequent canonical addition, there is no such general witness to it. Nevertheless, besides the analogy with the Old testament, the self-attestation of the individual New Testament writing yields considerable relevant data. These formal pronouncements of Scripture's authority, however, are valid only to those who already accept the authority of the Bible. Logically speaking, that is a form of circular reasoning. Certainly, <i>every</i> appeal to Scripture is ultimately based on its binding authority for faith, no matter how exactly that authority is understood. Nevertheless, just those who confess that the Scriptures "are of God" feel the need for further reflection on their revelatory character. Obviously, the Bible is not a heavenly gift arrived all at once as a finished divine, revelatory entity. Scripture has a history. It is a product of God's revelatory activity in the history of redemption. Therefore the revelatory character of the Bible should not be separated in a mechanical fashion from he history of redemption in which it came into being, for its revelatory character is neither an isolated phenomenon nor derived only from formal statements of Scripture concerning its authority. Thus the significance of the Bible and the nature of its authority can be properly understood only be closely relating Scripture to the history of redemption. Again we must reason in a circle since the history of redemption is known solely from Scripture. Thus in this study we are not seeking an extrabiblical basis for faith. Rather, we are seeking to delineate the essence of Scripture and the nature of its authority from within the framework of the history of redemption; we are seeking to clarify <i>the relationship between the history of redemption and Scripture.</i>"<br /><br />- page ix (emphasis is Ridderbos')Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-38561121693978797552010-10-08T12:28:18.742-04:002010-10-08T12:28:18.742-04:00Ryan, that was about as hard a book as I've re...Ryan, that was about as hard a book as I've read. The gist of it was similar to what Cullman said, although Cullman was in an "ecumenical mood" ("We are in complete agreement with Catholic theology in its insistence on the fact that the Church itself made the canon.")<br /><br />And of course Ridderbos looked at this issue from a Reformed, Covenantal perspective. <br /><br />That's what I remember anyway.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-52959350736834408722010-10-08T12:15:32.223-04:002010-10-08T12:15:32.223-04:00"...and also to get a bit into Ridderbos'..."...and also to get a bit into Ridderbos's "Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures.""<br /><br />That's one of those books whose length is deceptive. I too am looking forward to your post on it.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-16111185615739966992010-10-08T07:46:23.849-04:002010-10-08T07:46:23.849-04:00Hi Truth -- So far there's one more, and it...Hi Truth -- So far there's one more, and it's scheduled to hit tomorrow (Saturday). <br /><br />My hope is to continue to to tie this Cullmann series in with Kostenberger/Kruger's "The Heresy of Orthodoxy," and also to get a bit into Ridderbos's "Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures." I've got a lot of that stuff down so far, I just haven't tied it all together.<br /><br />With these three, we have both the historical setting-out of facts, along with the historical reflection on them, from major theologians of a couple of different eras, to definitively address the "canon" objection that Roman apologists continue to throw out there (almost casually, as Nick had done and as I cited him at the top of this post).John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-79494906653032649052010-10-08T07:22:16.857-04:002010-10-08T07:22:16.857-04:00"The teaching office of the Church in itself ...<i>"The teaching office of the Church in itself did not suffice to preserve the purity of the gospel (88-90)." [Cullman]</i><br /><br />Hence, the Reformation.<br /><br />Very informative post. Looking forward to the rest of the series.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.com