Wednesday, May 23, 2007

The "White Question"

A question has been raised regarding the "White Question", which reads more or less as follows:

How did the pious Jewish man living in 50 BC know that Isaiah or 2 Chronicles were inspired Scripture, ie, were in the Canon of Scripture?


RCs and EOs criticise the Sola Scriptura (SS) position by questioning, as Orthodox just did, how SS-ers can have a Canon of Scr.
But SS-ers respond by pointing out the canonisation process of the OT. W/o an infallible authority that RCC and EOC posit, God brought His people to understand the Canon of the OT. Given the many epistemological problems inherent in the Sola Ecclesia/Infallible Interpreter model, it makes a ton more sense to see God handling the canonisation process of the NT in a similar way to the way He did the OT Canon - passively, subtlely leading the people of God to recognise it.

SE-ers will then splutter, "But, but, by what authority do you have the NT Canon?" as if the question were not just answered. We respond w/ the White Question - how did a pious Jewish man in 50 BC know that Isaiah or 2 Chronicles was inspired, ie, was in the Canon of Scripture?
Clearly, he knew it b/c God had mysteriously and passively led His people to recognise it. They had no infallible interper.
If you say they DID have one, then it ends up being the same "infall interper" who also taught the Corban Rule; they were not infall at all.
The White Question reveals that you don't have a good objection to the SS conception of how the NT Canon came about.

And RCC keeps saying that you need an infall interper to have an infall list of infall teachings. But Rome itself has no infall list of infall teachings. Besides the fact that Rome's 1st infall Canon of Scr is not until the 16th cent, they STILL have no infall list of all their infall teachings.
EOC is right behind - Orthodox is on record as completely unable to even give a Canon of Scr, much less a full Canon of his church's infall teachings.

So, SS-ers in the know are right to just laugh when presented w/ these lame arguments based on the unknowability of the Canon.

40 comments:

Salva said...

why do they call it that? 'The white question', I mean.

Rhology said...

B/c I think James White is the first one to ever think of it and ask it of Roman Catholic apologists.

orthodox said...

>it makes a ton more sense to see God handling the
>canonisation process of the NT in a similar way to
>the way He did the OT Canon - passively, subtlely
>leading the people of God to recognise it.

Uh, "God leading his people to understand XYZ" is the same thing as saying "God's people had a Holy Tradition".

This is why the White question leaves me scratching my head. The White question is self destructive to the protestant position which will dance all around the issue but never use the "T" word.

It is OUR position, the Catholic/Orthodox position that God leads his people into the truth. That's what Tradition is. That you would try and appropriate the position but dance around the T word, leaves me confused.

Rhology said...

Not really, if you're trying to make the Canon into a tradition. The Canon is a historical question, an artifact of revelation. The fact that God inspired only certain books and led His people passively to recognise those books signifies the Canon.

How is the WQ self-destructive? The WQ reveals that the OT Canon was known to the pious Jewish man in 50 BC WITHOUT the infallible interpreting authority that RCC and EOC postulate. It's death to your position on the necessity of the infall interper to tell us what the Canon is. Call it "tradition" if you want; it looks nothing like your Tradition does.

orthodox said...

>The Canon is a historical question, an artifact of
>revelation. The fact that God inspired only certain
>books and led His people passively to recognise
>those books signifies the Canon.

Holy Tradition / Apostolic Tradition is a historical question, an artifact of revelation. It is recognised by His people passively recognising those Traditions as revelation.

>How is the WQ self-destructive?

Because it is White telling us that the people of God in the OT recognized the canon via the Holy Tradition.

>The WQ reveals that the OT Canon was known to
>the pious Jewish man in 50 BC WITHOUT the
>infallible interpreting authority that RCC and EOC
>postulate.

????

The "infallible interpreting authority" of EOC (and RCC prior to Trent) is "His people passively recognising those books". In other words, the exact same thing you believe in, just phrased in different terms.

Let's break it down. When God passively led his people to recognise these books, did He do so fallible or infallibly? Wasn't God's leading an interpretation of the Divine command by the people? It's the same thing. Why you feel better about it by couching it differently, I don't know.

>Call it "tradition" if you want; it looks nothing
>like your Tradition does.

????

How does it look different? EO tradition is simply the understanding of the people about revelation.

Rhology said...

Holy Tradition / Apostolic Tradition is a historical question, an artifact of revelation. It is recognised by His people passively recognising those Traditions as revelation.

OK, so what is it? Where's the Canon of Apostolic Tradition?

Because it is White telling us that the people of God in the OT recognized the canon via the Holy Tradition.

OK. And who was the infallible interpreter telling them what was the Canon and what wasn't?

The "infallible interpreting authority" of EOC (and RCC prior to Trent) is "His people passively recognising those books"

That is total BS. Why then did Trent get all bent out of shape when Protestants didn't recognise the Apocrypha?

When God passively led his people to recognise these books, did He do so fallible or infallibly?

He did it infallibly (indeed, He does all things infallibly).

Wasn't God's leading an interpretation of the Divine command by the people?

The problem for you is that He didn't use an infallible interpreter model like you posit.

How does it look different? EO tradition is simply the understanding of the people about revelation.

That's what you say in your interactions w/ certain non-Orthodox. But when it gets down to the tough questions about ApTrad, we discover that it's not so innocent as you claim. I cite Irenaeus saying sthg w/ which you disagree and all of sudden what he said isn't big-H Holy big-T Tradition.
Sola Ecclesia.

orthodox said...

>OK, so what is it? Where's the Canon of Apostolic
>Tradition?

Why would I need one of those?

>OK. And who was the infallible interpreter telling
>them what was the Canon and what wasn't?

The people in the Church led into the truth.

>That is total BS. Why then did Trent get all bent
>out of shape when Protestants didn't recognise
>the Apocrypha?

That's a strange way of phrasing the question. Trent from a RCC perspective is listing the Church's position in a world where a schismatic group is making a counter claim.


>>When God passively led his people to recognise
>>these books, did He do so fallible or infallibly?
>
>He did it infallibly (indeed, He does all things
>infallibly).
>
>The problem for you is that He didn't use an
>infallible interpreter model like you posit.

Aren't you contradicting yourself? You conceeded that God infallibly led a people to recognize canon. But now you say there is no infallible interpreter. But you already conceeded that God's people infallibly have interpreted the canon by God's special leading.

????

>That's what you say in your interactions w/
>certain non-Orthodox. But when it gets down to
>the tough questions about ApTrad, we discover
>that it's not so innocent as you claim. I cite
>Irenaeus saying sthg w/ which you disagree and
>all of sudden what he said isn't big-H Holy big-T
>Tradition.

??????

You're lecturing us here that the people of God are led into the truth about the canon. So if I throw against you an ECF who lists a different canon, does that refute your thesis? Or is your overall thesis unaffected by aberations like that?

See, from my perspective, you're a hypocrite. You're willing to accept an overall consensus about the canon and believe this is God leading his people into truth, nevermind many people in history who had a different canon. On the other hand you want to condemn me because I reject one thing that Irenaeus said. It seems to me you both don't understand Tradition and you havn't analysed your own position.

Rhology said...

Why would I need one of those? (Canon of Tradition)

B/c you're all up on my back claiming I need an infall Canon of Scr, saying mine is no good w/o an infall interper (the Church). So in YOUR model, you have to present sthg better.
I know why you answered that way, though. Not only do you not have what I asked for, you don't even have a Canon of Scripture. Your position is bankrupt in this discussion. Monopoly money doesn't count.

The people in the Church led into the truth.

So... the entire church is the infall interper.
For themselves.
And you get that from "the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth".
Did I get that right?

Trent from a RCC perspective is listing the Church's position in a world where a schismatic group is making a counter claim.

Yes, making a counter claim, and (here's the important part) having formed a Canon of Scr. Which the RCC had NOT done beforehand. Trent is the 1st infall declaration of the Canon of Scr for the RCC.

Aren't you contradicting yourself?

No.

You conceeded that God infallibly led a people to recognize canon. But now you say there is no infallible interpreter. But you already conceeded that God's people infallibly have interpreted the canon by God's special leading.

That doesn't make the people infallible. It makes GOD infallible, yes. And we trust Him to do His will. And His will doesn't include making people infallible.

So if I throw against you an ECF who lists a different canon, does that refute your thesis?

No, but it would refute YOURS (except you ingeniously keep slipping your neck out of the noose by just claiming arbitrarily that that person is not really speaking Holy Tradition).
People making mistakes - why would that refute my thesis?

You're willing to accept an overall consensus about the canon and believe this is God leading his people into truth, nevermind many people in history who had a different canon.

Yes, how dare I trust God to do what He said He would do and at the same time recognise that He may just not have done what He didn't say He would do (ie, make someone infallible)!

On the other hand you want to condemn me because I reject one thing that Irenaeus said.

No, it's b/c you arbitrarily and thoughtlessly do so whenever Irenaeus says sthg that conflicts w/ your already-constructed position.
What is worse, you play fast and loose w/ God's holy Word and do the same thing. That is worth a great condemnation.

It seems to me you both don't understand Tradition and you havn't analysed your own position.

Right, right, I have no idea what anyone's talking about. Whatever.

orthodox said...

>>Why would I need one of those? (Canon of
>>Tradition)
>
>B/c you're all up on my back claiming I need an
>infall Canon of Scr, saying mine is no good w/o an
>infall interper (the Church). So in YOUR model, you
>have to present sthg better.

I have less need for canons because of my differing epistemology. We've got Jason in the Triablogues saying that he can toss out the ending of Mark because of 20th century scholarship. In theory then scholarship could lead you to toss out more books, or conversely the desert might cough up a new book that you are compelled to accept as scripture and which changes your whole perspective and theology. You don't know for sure if you have all the truth you need.

But when there's an identifiable people of God led by the Spirit, the very vagueness of some traditions in itself can be a part of revelation, indicating that it isn't too important. We know what is important and what isn't, and no "scholarship" is authoritative to say otherwise.

>>The people in the Church led into the truth.
>
>So... the entire church is the infall interper.
>For themselves.
>And you get that from "the church is the pillar
>and foundation of the truth".

???

The Church of God upholds the truth. That's what the bible says. It doesn't say they should hold up the truth, or ideally they uphold the truth, it says that it DOES uphold the truth. Whatever the church of God upholds, that is the truth.

>Yes, making a counter claim, and (here's the
>important part) having formed a Canon of Scr.
>Which the RCC had NOT done beforehand. Trent
>is the 1st infall declaration of the Canon of Scr
>for the RCC.

Yes well, the RCC seems to have developed a different understanding of authority since they imbibed from the forged Donation of Constantin.

But I would question that protestants "formed a canon of scripture". Where is the evidence? And if you want to say that a general consensus of protestants is "forming a canon", does that mean you include Mk 16 and Jn 8?

>>But you already conceeded that God's people
>>infallibly have interpreted the canon by God's
>>special leading.
>
>That doesn't make the people infallible. It makes
>GOD infallible, yes. And we trust Him to do His
>will. And His will doesn't include making people
>infallible.

I fail to see the functional difference between people being infallible and God infallibly bringing people to an infallible decision. It's the EXACT same thing just couched in different terms. The former couched polemically against Orthodoxy. The latter couched subtley for protestant consumption. But they are exactly the same. Nobody on our side is claiming that people are infallible in and of themselves. We say that the Spirit leads the people into the truth. He does so infallibly. That is what Holy Tradition is about. What is shocking to you is that you agree with us, but don't like the implications.

>>So if I throw against you an ECF who lists a
>>different canon, does that refute your thesis?
>
>No, but it would refute YOURS (except you
>ingeniously keep slipping your neck out of the
>noose by just claiming arbitrarily that that
>person is not really speaking Holy Tradition).
>People making mistakes - why would that refute
>my thesis?

How is my saying that an ECF speaking a falsehood is "not really speaking the Holy Tradition" different to you saying that such and such an ECF hadn't been fully led into the truth concerning the canon? Yes, people make mistakes, it doesn't refute your thesis. Neither does it refute mine. Do you think Orthodox for 2000 years are unaware of even canonised saints holding unorthodox positions? Of course we know that. If that refuted our position, we wouldn't be around to be promoting that position in the first place.

>Yes, how dare I trust God to do what He said He
>would do and at the same time recognise that He
>may just not have done what He didn't say He
>would do (ie, make someone infallible)!

Again, just spinning the fact we have a common belief by expressing it in different terms. Nobody here is claiming we are infallible in ourselves. Our beliefs are only infallible because we humbly acknowledge the leading of the Spirit in the body of Christ.

>No, it's b/c you arbitrarily and thoughtlessly do
>so whenever Irenaeus says sthg that conflicts w/
>your already-constructed position.

Arbitrary? Thoughtless? When someone like Metzger says that 2 Peter is pseudo-Peter, just how balanced and scholarly are you in responding to that? Do you without preconceived emotions just say hmm, we'd better find out if it is true? Do you give due weight to any ECFs who didn't accept this book? Or do you really accept the canon as your starting point, and then "arbitrarily and thoughtlessly" attempt to refute anything that differs with it? I reckon I know the answer, the question is whether you are honest enough to admit it.

>What is worse, you play fast and loose w/ God's
>holy Word and do the same thing. That is worth
>a great condemnation.

Are you prepared to back up that claim? Or is it just ad-hominem day today?

Rhology said...

I have less need for canons because of my differing epistemology.

If you say so, but it certainly doesn't inspire any confidence from me.
I mean, at least I have a Canon of my infallible teachings. You may call it uncertain or sthg but at least I have one.
You don't have that. You don't have even a Canon of Scr in which you can have confidence. So you have trouble.

We've got Jason in the Triablogues saying that he can toss out the ending of Mark because of 20th century scholarship.

He doesn't base his arguments on NOT having Mark 16 in the Canon. He just points out that it is questionable whether it was in the autograph.
But think about it - if it wasn't in the autographa, it's not in the Canon. Right?

In theory then scholarship could lead you to toss out more books

And in theory I could be kidnapped by space aliens in one minute.

conversely the desert might cough up a new book that you are compelled to accept as scripture and which changes your whole perspective and theology.

As if God would inspire a book that contradicted other inspired Scr.
See, once again you demonstrate your "blame Scripture first!" epistemology.

You don't know for sure if you have all the truth you need.

Yes I do.

But when there's an identifiable people of God led by the Spirit,

Which I believe there is (but it's not the EOC).

very vagueness of some traditions in itself can be a part of revelation, indicating that it isn't too important.

Very convenient. Tradition is to "clarify" Scr where Scr is too vague, but some Tradition is vague. That makes perfect sense.

The Church of God upholds the truth. That's what the bible says. It doesn't say they should hold up the truth, or ideally they uphold the truth, it says that it DOES uphold the truth. Whatever the church of God upholds, that is the truth.

No, it says it is the "pillar and foundation of the truth". There's a difference.
And if the "church" stops teaching God's Word, then the church is apostate, like in Revelation 1-3, Galatians, Colossians, 1 Corinthians, 1 John, and all thru the OT. There's plenty of precedent for that.

the RCC seems to have developed a different understanding of authority since they imbibed from the forged Donation of Constantin.

Agreed.

But I would question that protestants "formed a canon of scripture". Where is the evidence?

The very fact that Trent defined a Canon that included the Apocrypha and anathematised those that didn't hold to the Apocrypha should tell us sthg.

And if you want to say that a general consensus of protestants is "forming a canon", does that mean you include Mk 16 and Jn 8?

Sure, I'd have no problem saying that it includes Mark 16 and John 8.

I fail to see the functional difference between people being infallible and God infallibly bringing people to an infallible decision.

For the former, God is infallible and is sovereign and faithful to guide His people.
In the latter, your position, God makes the Church infallible, which He never said He would do. The truth is subtler than you think or than you apparently have patience for.

We say that the Spirit leads the people into the truth. He does so infallibly.

OK, but there's no promise that He'll do that ALL THE TIME. Or that He'll do so for people who reject His teaching as EOC has done. Learn from the example of the OT people of God - you are one of those who cry "the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord!"

How is my saying that an ECF speaking a falsehood is "not really speaking the Holy Tradition" different to you saying that such and such an ECF hadn't been fully led into the truth concerning the canon?

B/c you (I mean, collective "you" as in The EOC) tell me that "The Early Church Fathers say _____" all the time.
And then I quote you (y'all) some ECFs against your position and all of a sudden those ECFs aren't speaking Holy Tradition anymore. It's maddening.

Do you think Orthodox for 2000 years are unaware of even canonised saints holding unorthodox positions? Of course we know that. If that refuted our position, we wouldn't be around to be promoting that position in the first place.

You stand refuted for a long time. People's capacity for self-deception, however, is astounding.

When someone like Metzger says that 2 Peter is pseudo-Peter, just how balanced and scholarly are you in responding to that?

You mean me personally? I've never really encountered that argument before. I don't really buy it though, just off the top of my head.

Do you without preconceived emotions just say hmm, we'd better find out if it is true?

Given the intense epistemological problems that would be incurred for the world if 2 Peter were not written by Peter, I'm pretty confident in writing that objection off.
For example, if 2 Peter weren't written by Peter, it might provide support for a position like yours. But I know from dozens of other lines of evidence and argumentation that your position is bankrupt, so my confidence remains unshaken.

Do you give due weight to any ECFs who didn't accept this book?

I give them their due weight, yes. And if they don't accept it, their due weight is a few feathers.
Do you give due weight to ECFs when they speak of the primacy and perspicuity of Scr? That's a good question too.

Or do you really accept the canon as your starting point, and then "arbitrarily and thoughtlessly" attempt to refute anything that differs with it?

that's not how I started, but I've seen so much support for it that, yes, most of the time anymore it's a presupposition.

Are you prepared to back up that claim?

I just did. It doesn't give me pleasure, though. I hope beyond hope you'll repent.
Call it ad hominem if you like, and incur my fearsome chuckle of amusement.

orthodox said...

>I mean, at least I have a Canon of my infallible
>teachings. You may call it uncertain or sthg but at
>least I have one.
>You don't have that. You don't have even a Canon >of Scr in which you can have confidence. So you
>have trouble.

If having certainty about the boundaries of what you are certain of is more important than having a fuller knowledge of the truth but some fuzzyness at the boundaries, then may I commend to you agnosticism. You won't know much, but boy will you be certain about the little that you do know.

>But think about it - if it wasn't in the autographa,
>it's not in the Canon. Right?

Wrong.

>In theory then scholarship could lead you to toss
>out more books
>
>And in theory I could be kidnapped by space
>aliens in one minute.

It's not that unlikely. We've got Jason there doing it right now.

>As if God would inspire a book that contradicted
>other inspired Scr.

Contradicted according to whose opinion? Obviously I don't think EO contradicts scripture, but you do.

>You don't know for sure if you have all the truth
>you need.
>
>Yes I do.

How?

>But when there's an identifiable people of God
>led by the Spirit,
>
>Which I believe there is (but it's not the EOC).

Please identify this people of God.

>No, it says it is the "pillar and foundation of the
>truth". There's a difference.

What is the difference between a pillar of the truth and upholding the truth?

>And if the "church" stops teaching God's Word,
>then the church is apostate, like in Revelation
>1-3, Galatians, Colossians, 1 Corinthians, 1 John

If congregations stop teaching the truth. But God said the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. So the Church can't stop teaching the truth.

>and all thru the OT.

For all the problems of the OT, the people of God were always the people of God. There didn't cease to be the people of God in possession of the truth.

>The very fact that Trent defined a Canon that
>included the Apocrypha and anathematised
>those that didn't hold to the Apocrypha should
>tell us sthg.

You appeal to Trent as proof that protestants have a canon? That is very funny.

>Sure, I'd have no problem saying that it includes
>Mark 16 and John 8.

So now you are at odds with Jason in Triablogue? Is that because it is he or you that is not being guided by God into the canon? Or is it proof that protestants don't have a canon?

>For the former, God is infallible and is sovereign
>and faithful to guide His people.
>In the latter, your position, God makes the
>Church infallible, which He never said He would
>do.

And the functional difference is.... ?

>The truth is subtler than you think or than you
>apparently have patience for.

I disagree with your characterisation of our position to begin with. Saying the Church is infallible is your spin, not mine.

>We say that the Spirit leads the people into the
>truth. He does so infallibly.
>
>OK, but there's no promise that He'll do that ALL
>THE TIME.

Where exactly is the verse saying he will guide the church sometimes, but only when protestants say?

>Or that He'll do so for people who reject His
>teaching as EOC has done.

Assuming what you have yet to prove.

>Learn from the example of the OT people of God
>- you are one of those who cry "the Temple of
>the Lord, the Temple of the Lord!"

Do you accuse EOC of "oppress the alien, the (E)orphan, or the widow, and do not shed (F)innocent blood in this place, nor (G)walk after other gods "??

>B/c you (I mean, collective "you" as in The EOC)
>tell me that "The Early Church Fathers say _____"
>all the time.
>And then I quote you (y'all) some ECFs against
>your position and all of a sudden those ECFs
>aren't speaking Holy Tradition anymore. It's
>maddening.

Why is it maddening? If someone challenged the historicity of your canon, would you quote any ECFs? Is it ok if they quote some back at you and when you disagree they are maddened?

>>When someone like Metzger says that 2 Peter is
>>pseudo-Peter, just how balanced and scholarly
>>are you in responding to that?
>
>You mean me personally? I've never really
>encountered that argument before. I don't really
>buy it though, just off the top of my head.

LOL, that your answer comes "off the top of your head" answers the question.

>Given the intense epistemological problems that
>would be incurred for the world if 2 Peter were
>not written by Peter, I'm pretty confident in
>writing that objection off.

Tell us about these epistemological problems. I think they will prove most instructive.

>But I know from dozens of other lines of
>evidence and argumentation that your position is
>bankrupt

"Dozens" of lines. Hmm. That's a lot of lines. Are there any lines of argument that give you pause for thought about your own position?

>Do you give due weight to ECFs when they speak
>of the primacy and perspicuity of Scr? That's a
>good question too.

Do you take those comments in the context of the overall teaching of the ECFs who made them?

>that's not how I started, but I've seen so much
>support for it that, yes, most of the time
>anymore it's a presupposition.

Ok, so now days you arbitrarily and thoughtlessly dismiss any challenge to your canon. It doesn't seem good to accuse others of what you're doing does it?

Lucian said...

How did the pious Jewish man living in 50 BC know that Isaiah or 2 Chronicles were inspired Scripture?

err ... I don't think he did. (The Sadducees never accpeted "the deliria of the so-called Prophets").

Rhology said...

If having certainty about the boundaries of what you are certain of is more important than having a fuller knowledge of the truth but some fuzzyness at the boundaries, then may I commend to you agnosticism. You won't know much, but boy will you be certain about the little that you do know.

Haha, nice.
Many agnostics, just FYI, aren't certain about anythg except the fact that they're uncertain. It's a bit different for me.
And I don't accept either of those premises, so anyway...

RHOLOGY: if it wasn't in the autographa, it's not in the Canon. Right?
Wrong.

It should be obvious why that's a stupid thing to say, but I'll explain.
What God breathed out is what belongs in the Canon, since The Canon=the list of God's revelation.
Thus, a textual corruption DOESN'T belong. And nobody would argue there aren't any textual corruptions in the Scr at all.

It's not that unlikely. We've got Jason there doing it right now.

Your caricature of what he's doing is not appreciated or on target.

Contradicted according to whose opinion? Obviously I don't think EO contradicts scripture, but you do.

Uh oh, another sighting of the "that's just your interpretation!" conversation-killer. It's just what lib Prots do.
I'm only too willing to back up any interpretation of Scr to which I hold against its counterpart position on the EO side. All too often, once exegesis is engaged, the EO flees the field and appeals to "Holy Tradition".

How (are you sure you have all the truth you need)?

At its foundation it's similar to how YOU know as an EO, but I'm too lazy to go into it right now. The really short answer is that I trust God to reveal His plan and revelation sufficiently for it to be known.

Please identify this people of God.

All those who have faith in Jesus Christ and are His sheep (John 10).
W/ more detail, they are a mass of people throughout the centuries who have had saving faith. They're not all Baptists but there are many Baptists. They're not all Methodists but there are many Methodists. Etc. Conversely, there are no Buddhists. There are no Muslims. There are no atheists. There are no pagans. There might be a few people who during their lives called themselves "Roman Catholic" or "Orthodox" but who actually got hold of the true biblical msg by God's grace and believed it in spite of the official system of which they otherwise called themselves a mbr.

What is the difference between a pillar of the truth and upholding the truth?

One describes the CHURCH and the other describes the church's ACTIONS. It looks like you're assuming that the church has been guaranteed infallibility or perfection or sthg. Why do you believe that?

If congregations stop teaching the truth. But God said the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. So the Church can't stop teaching the truth.

Typical - you move on w/o interacting w/ what I said.
I'll repeat it: And if the "church" stops teaching God's Word, then the church is apostate, like in Revelation 1-3, Galatians, Colossians, 1 Corinthians, 1 John, etc.
But you just said that the church WON'T. And yet I pointed out that it DID. So, your point stands condemned.
And I don't believe the gates of hell DID prevail against the church; God preserves Himself a remnant during some times of history (like He did all thru the OT) and a larger portion in other times (like now).
Though one could easily make the argument that the church remains a remnant in any modern country.

For all the problems of the OT, the people of God were always the people of God. There didn't cease to be the people of God in possession of the truth.

Except when God rejected them and all but 2's bodies fell in the desert.
Except when God gave them over to do "what he saw right in his own eyes" (Judges).
Except when God gave them over to pagan worship and the use of high places.
Except when the Assyrians conquered the N Kingdom and most of Judah.
Except when Babylon conquered Judah.
All thru the OT there is the faithful remnant w/in the larger apostate population. Either you are clueless about the OT or the EO glasses you're wearing when reading it have a bad prescription.

You appeal to Trent as proof that protestants have a canon?

It's one thing.
Maybe I'm not following you - are you saying Protestants DON'T have any Canon of Scr at all?

So now you are at odds with Jason in Triablogue?

How does being not 100% sure that they belong in the Scr constitute a disagreement w/ him?

Is that because it is he or you that is not being guided by God into the canon? Or is it proof that protestants don't have a canon?

Neither. And we have a Canon. It's the one at the front of a Bible you can buy at Family Christian Stores.
And again, you don't have a Canon of Scripture even.

And the functional difference is.... ?

That the source is God.
And that He can do things infallibly w/o granting lasting and persistent infallibility to the people thru whom He works.
Not that He can't. But He never said He would or did, so I don't believe He did. It's just that simple.

Saying the Church is infallible is your spin, not mine.

Suuuuurrrreeeee, I'm the one saying the Church is infallible. No way I got that idea from you.

Where exactly is the verse saying he will guide the church sometimes, but only when protestants say?

Rather, what I'm saying is that God guides His people infallibly when He wants.
And it just so happens that when God said He would guide His people into the Canon, I believe He did.
And it just so happens that God never said that He would make the church always infallible. Thus, I believe He didn't. Don't make this harder than it is - it's quite simple.

Do you accuse EOC of "oppress the alien, the (E)orphan, or the widow, and do not shed (F)innocent blood in this place, nor (G)walk after other gods "??

No, rather I accuse you of "trust(ing) in deceptive words" (v.4) of not truly "practic(ing) justice" (v.5) (b/c you teach the damnable error of salvation by works and the blasphemy of talking to dead people) and often of "walk(ing) after other gods" (v.6) in the way that you render worshipful actions to beings other than God.

If someone challenged the historicity of your canon, would you quote any ECFs?

Sure I would, as part of my case.
But the problem is that you act like your position is superior to mine in questions of Canon and all that and that you're more in tune w/ the ECFs. And yet you don't even have a Canon, let alone one that even begins to agree w/ any ECF's Canon.

Is it ok if they quote some back at you and when you disagree they are maddened?

It only bolsters my case whenever someone like you quotes an ECF w/ a different opinion than the one I cited.
It demonstrates that your foundation, not being on the Scr, is on sinking sand.

that your answer comes "off the top of your head" answers the question.

OK, I apologise that I don't have a Ph.D in Bible history or church history. Hopefully you'll get over it.

Tell us about these epistemological problems.

For starters, I might well end up like you, w/o a Canon of Scr. And then I'd have a mess on my hands. I don't envy you your position.

"Dozens" of lines. Hmm. That's a lot of lines.

It sure is.

Are there any lines of argument that give you pause for thought about your own position?

There have been, yes. Interestingly, every one has ended up being overcome by the evidence, Scripture, and thinking about it a bit more deeply.

Do you take those comments in the context of the overall teaching of the ECFs who made them?

A few things:
1) No matter how much ECF writings I might cite, you won't believe it b/c you are a Sola Ecclesiaist. You only pretend allegiance to the ECFs.
2) The very fact that you ask that question demonstrates #1 clearly. Those quotes exist and you've already seen some of them multiple times while talking to Jason Engwer. But you don't care, and I know why.
3) The "overall context of the ECFs" is a mishmash - they espouse many many different views on a wide variety of topics.

Ok, so now days you arbitrarily and thoughtlessly dismiss any challenge to your canon. It doesn't seem good to accuse others of what you're doing does it?

Haha, no. You don't even HAVE a Canon. How could I accuse you of holding thoughtlessly to it?

Rhology said...

Lucian,

OK, so you're saying that the pious Jewish man of 50 BC did NOT know that Isaiah was inspired?

Just wanted to make sure - that's an important thing to know.

5 questions:
1) How were Jesus and the apostles able to quote Scripture (which was the OT at that point, of course) to their Jewish enemies? How did THEY know what was Scr?
2) How was Satan able to quote Scr to Jesus?
3) How were Jesus' Jewish enemies able to quote Scr to Jesus (occasionally)?
4) Why didn't those enemies have an answer when Jesus quoted Scr back at them?
5) Why didn't His enemies just respond "OK, but how do You know that is in Scripture?" when He quoted Scripture to them?

Lucian said...

The Saducees never accepted the Prophtets (4+12). Chronicles (along with Ezra-Nehemiah, Daniel & Esthera, Canticle & Ecclesiates) barely made it into the Jewish Canon.

The Jews even have a fast for the day the House of Hillel and that of Shammai fought (i.e., disputed -- among other things, the canonical status of afore-said books, Ezekiel included).

The Lord quotes the Torah while refuting the Pharisees ("I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob"), and it's from this verse that His argument draws strength: "the Lord is God of the living, not of the dead" [which verse, as a coincidence, we've also relatively recently talked about, or disputed].
This is because our Lord allways spoke to the people in a way that they could actually understand and approve of -- were He to cite, say, some of the Prophets, they wouldn't even listen to Him, and He would've been talking to the walls.

In case You haven't noticed, our Lord doesn't waste to much time talking to Saducees, and some of His disciples (Joseph, Gamaliel, Paul) are from the the sect of the Pharisees. I'm completely unaware of any of His disciples being from among the Saducees -- and I'm drawing my data from the entire pool of historical and hagiographical Tradition of the Church here ... not only from Scripture ...

He mostly talks to Pharisees and they didn't question the Prophets (Ezekiel excepted -- not that he "was totally unaccpeted" ... just that he "wasn't totally excepted", if You perceive the nuance) so...

I guess that would be all. (It's completely beyond me how an informed man, such as Mr. White, didn't think of these known facts prior ... or how his question even seems to endure).

Lucian said...

The Lord quotes the Torah while refuting the Pharisees

I meant Saducees -- SORRY !!!

Rhology said...

Lucian,

What is your evidence for the Canon of the Sadducees?

were He to cite, say, some of the Prophets, they wouldn't even listen to Him, and He would've been talking to the walls.

That's just a huge assumption, and I'm going to ask you to show me an example in the NT when the Lord DID quote an OT prophet and nobody listened to Him.

our Lord doesn't waste to much time talking to Saducees

I don't see what difference that makes.

(Ezekiel excepted -- not that he "was totally unaccpeted" ... just that he "wasn't totally accepted", if You perceive the nuance)

What is your proof for that?

Lucian said...

What is your proof for that?

The Talmud.

-----
Listen, Allan, the whole thing about the Saducees is besides the point. They were some sort of privileged, ruling class, and I don't think Your average Jew (50 BC or 50 AD) would've been part of their cast. (Shouldn't have even bought the whole thing up in the first place; sorry).

Rhology said...

The Talmud is more than 200 yrs after Christ.

But that's cool - the question remains unanswered.

Lucian said...

..., the Sadducees who rejected what the Hillelite Pharisees considered the basic beliefs of Judaism – the world to come and resurrection of the dead, the Priests who rejected the Books of Prophets, accepting only the Torah - in that way like the Samaritans, ... -- (www.moshereiss.org/christianity/02_tradition/02_tradition.htm).

Jesus appealed only to Moses in his encounter with the Sadducees because this religio-political sect acknowledged the validity of only the five so-called Books of Moses; they did not allow that the teachings of the prophets were admissible as a basis of doctrinal dogmas. -- (www.urantia.org/papers/paper174.html).

The Sadducees most likely did not accept Daniel as Dan 12:2 supports resurrection which they denied (Mark 12:18). Others, like Samaritans, accept only (their version of) Pentateuch as Scripture to this day. -- (media.isnet.org/off/Xtian/etc/canonold.html).

The Christian Fathers seem to confound them [the Sadducees] with the Samaritans, and the confusion is natural enough. -- (www.1911encyclopedia.org/Sadducees).

But why are they [the Sadducees] upset? Because Jesus has based his answer on the book of Exodus, which forms part of the Law, the only scriptures the Sadducees accept, in support of a doctrine that they claim those same scriptures reject. -- (www.anglican.fi/index.php?id=58&a_id=122).

The Sadducees didn't believe in resurrection from the dead, physically or spiritually. They did not believe in the power of God worked out in the life. They did not accept the judgment and believed that only the first five books of the Scripture were inspired. Among the Sadducees were some of Jesus' worst enemies. -- (www.tagnet.org/anotherviewpoint/GNBN/gnfp.htm).

Perhaps the Sadducees thought they could succeed where the Pharisees had failed. They did not accept any Scripture as authoritative except the first five books of the Bible (the Pentateuch); and they claimed that the resurrection is never taught in these five books. -- (www.proveallthings.org/?p=18).

The Sadducees were theologically and religiously conservative. In some ways they were challenging the Pharisaic openness to innovative ideas by insisting on seeing the Torah itself (Genesis through Deuteronomy) as the only infallible guide to theological and ethical belief. -- (parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2005/02/jesus_reasoning_6.html).

They only accepted the Written Torah as coming from the Almighty. -- (creationwiki.org/Judaism#Sadducees).

However there is evidence[1] that there was an internal schism among those called "Sadducees" - some who rejected Angels, the Soul, and Resurrection - and some which accepted these teachings and the entirety of the Hebrew Bible. -- (Wikipedia).

“as early as 151 BCE” Lipman writes, “The Sadducees ... came primarily from ... priestly families ... involved in the sacrificial cult of the Second Temple. ... The Sadducees recognized the authority of the written Torah ... -- (freemasonrywatch.org/robert_gillette_2.html).

Lucian said...

Allan,

WHY ON EARTH would the Jews, in 200 A.D., when their Canon was already established, make up all these stories about their ancestors arguing, fighting and strifing over whether EZEKIEL, Song, Ecclesiates, Daniel and Esther should be in, or not, in the Canon? What would be the point of that? (Undermining the confidence of their own believers in the by-then-already-established Canon of Scriptures? Or what?).

Rhology said...

Lucian,

One "l" in "Alan", BTW.

OK, let's see how you're doing as regards my 5 questions:
1) How were Jesus and the apostles able to quote Scripture (which was the OT at that point, of course) to their Jewish enemies? How did THEY know what was Scr?
2) How was Satan able to quote Scr to Jesus?
3) How were Jesus' Jewish enemies able to quote Scr to Jesus (occasionally)?
4) Why didn't those enemies have an answer when Jesus quoted Scr back at them?
5) Why didn't His enemies just respond "OK, but how do You know that is in Scripture?" when He quoted Scripture to them?


Your citations about the Sadducees would at best deal w/ #5. The problem is that since if the Sadducees held to the Torah, that means they had a Canon of Scr. And if they had a Canon of Scr (even though it was incorrect), then the White Question applies. HOW did those Sadducees know that the Torah was inspired?

Lucian said...

One "l" in "Alan", BTW.

Sorry for that.

1. They dealt almost exclusively with Pharisees. Neither had a problem with each-other's Scriptures. When addressing Sadducees, our Lord quoted from the Law.

2. Jesus had no problem with the Scriptures Satan quoted to Him.

3. Jesus had no problem with the Scriptures His adversaries quoted to Him.

4. Idunno.

5. He never quoted to them something they didn't believe in.

HOW did those Sadducees know that the Torah was inspired?

That wasn't White's question at all. Actually, he didn't even ask one. He just automatically assumed an implied thought -- and it seems that that particular thought isn't correct.

From where I'm standing, the answer to White's question is very simple and straight-forward : THEY DIDN'T. (IN THE SENSE THAT EACH OF THEM 'KNEW', BUT WHAT THEY KNEW DIDN'T COINCIDE:
a) PHARISEES: most of the present Jewish TaNaKh;
b) SADDUCEES: LAW only;
c) ESSENES: OT + some APOCRYPHA + ENOCH + other specifical books belonging only to this sect).

The Holy Books of pre-70 Judaism were those read and preserved in the Temple. That's why all the fuss about the canonicity appears only about AD 90, a generation after the Temple's destruction.

That's why the Chr. never had any canonicity problems at that time: what went for the Jew, went for them too ... but could the Jews ever accept the Gospels? No. (i.e., it didn't work the other way around also).

So, the pre-Rabbinical Rabbis :) had to act fast, in order to care for the pragmatical need of a list, since (1) the Temple housing the Books was no longer standing; and (2) to prevent honest Jews falling into the 'evil claws' of an emerging, fast-growing and rapidly-into-Diaspora-spreading Sect.

-----
P.S.: I knew that about the Sadducees from a TV-documentary which I've seen AGES ago, on Romanian television, I think. The fact about their rejection of the Prophets is common (general) knowledge. So is the problematical nature of Ezekiel among the early Rabbis.

Rhology said...

Lucian,

You have made several claims regarding what the canon of the Sadducees was. I asked you how you knew what their canon of Scr was. You have so far responded by citing the Talmud and a Discovery Channel special you saw. Please forgive me for pointing out (again) that the Talmud is at least 200 yrs after Christ and that the Discovery Channel is laughable.

Now for my 5 questions:

1. When addressing Sadducees, our Lord quoted from the Law.

Cool - as I have already asked at least twice, HOW did the Sadducees know that the Torah was canonical and not other books?

2. Jesus had no problem with the Scriptures Satan quoted to Him.
3. Jesus had no problem with the Scriptures His adversaries quoted to Him.


Exactly my point. How did Jesus Himself know what the Canon was?

4. Idunno (Why Jesus' enemies didn't have an answer when Jesus quoted Scr back at them).

Yes, I know that you don't have an answer. That's why I keep asking the question - it reveals your position is untenable.

5. He never quoted to them something they didn't believe in.

Cool - as I have already asked at least twice, HOW did the Sadducees know that the Torah was canonical and not other books?


That wasn't White's question at all. Actually, he didn't even ask one.

You may not like his question, but he definitely asked one. The question is: How did the pious Jewish man living in 50 BC know that Isaiah or 2 Chronicles were inspired Scripture, ie, were in the Canon of Scripture?

So your answer is: the pious Jewish man in 50 BC did not know the Canon of Scr.

And yet that answer is contradicted by your own admissions:
-that the Pharisees had a Canon
-that the Sadducees had a Canon
-that the Essenes had a Canon

Now, I don't necessarily grant that they were different, but for the sake of argument I will for now. The very fact that those guys DID know a Canon demonstrates that no infallible "church" was necessary to form a Canon of Scr.

You said:
The Holy Books of pre-70 Judaism were those read and preserved in the Temple. That's why all the fuss about the canonicity appears only about AD 90, a generation after the Temple's destruction.

Exactly, Lucian, exactly. Josephus, for one, tells us that there were 22 books in the Temple. Side note - those 22 correspond to my OT, not yours.
So your "information" about the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes is late info and irrelevant to my question of how a pious Jew in 50 BC knew whether Isaiah was inspired.
Clearly he did - the scroll was read in the synagogues and nobody jumped up to doubt aloud whether Isaiah was inspired of God. Jesus thought it was.

That's why the Chr. never had any canonicity problems at that time: what went for the Jew, went for them too

Yes, exactly. That's one of the reasons I accept the OT Canon that I do - it was the Jews' Canon of Scripture.
Now, you don't have a Canon of the OT but if you did, it would probably be different than that of the Jews of that time. Thus, it would be a wrong Canon.

Lucian said...

You have so far responded by citing the Talmud and a Discovery Channel special you saw

Do You have any eye-sight problems that I should know of?

Lucian said...

You may not like his question, but he definitely asked one. The question is: How did the pious Jewish man living in 50 BC know that Isaiah or 2 Chronicles were inspired Scripture, ie, were in the Canon of Scripture?

So your answer is: the pious Jewish man in 50 BC did not know the Canon of Scr.

And yet that answer is contradicted by your own admissions:
-that the Pharisees had a Canon
-that the Sadducees had a Canon
-that the Essenes had a Canon


Do You have a communication problem that I should know of?

Lucian said...

Now, I don't necessarily grant that they were different, but for the sake of argument I will for now.

Do You have a historical knowledge problem that I should be aware of?

Lucian said...

The very fact that those guys DID know a Canon demonstrates that no infallible "church" was necessary to form a Canon of Scr.

You said:
The Holy Books of pre-70 Judaism were those read and preserved in the Temple.

Exactly, Lucian


Do You have a self-contradiction problem that I should be aware of?

Lucian said...

Sadducees, and Essenes is late info and irrelevant to my question of how a pious Jew in 50 BC knew whether Isaiah was inspired.

???????????????????????????????????

Lucian said...

Clearly he did - the scroll was read in the synagogues and nobody jumped up to doubt aloud whether Isaiah was inspired of God. Jesus thought it was.

I'm glad to see that You embrace the point You've just repeatedly refuted in the SAME comment, and in the entire post also ...

Lucian said...

This guy over here, who's not too fond of National Geographic or The Discovery Channel either, as You can clearly see here:
www.odaiadesus.ro/ng.html

or here:
odaia.go.ro/genarro.html

also tells the same things with regards to the Sadducees, as You can see here:
odaia.go.ro/iudaism.html


---
Alan,

I need You to answer me as honestly and clearly as possible (a simple YES/NO answer would be great) a few questions, OK? Here they are:

(1). Do You deny that the Sadducees held only the Pentateuch as canonical ?
(2). Do You deny that the Essenes had also Pseudepigrapha like Enoch etc. in their canon ?
(3). Do You deny that the Sadducees existed from 2nd century BC to 1st century AD, being thus in existence in the year 50 BC?
(4). Do You deny that the Essenes existed from 2nd century BC to 1st century AD, being thus in existence in the year 50 BC?
(5). Do You deny that there ever was a dispute over Ezekiel, Daniel, Esther, Ecclesiates, Song etc. ?

I will not dispute You over Your answers to these 5 questions. I just need to know what You think. OK?

Rhology said...

Lucian,

I've answered you partly here.

As for your 5 questions:

1) I deny that we can know that w/ any certainty given that all your information is at least 200 yrs older than the period in question.
2) It is very possible that they did NOT have the Pseudepigrapha in their Canon. And I distinguish (per Roger Beckwith, Bruce Metzger, St. Jerome, etc) between books that are Canonical and considered inspired of God and other books that were considered very helpful and spiritually edifying and were included in the same codex or scroll but were not considered inspired.
3) I don't know, so I'll grant it. Probably they were.
4) I don't know, so I'll grant it. Probably they were.
5) No.

À propos question 5, there were many disputes over many books that eventually "made it" into the Canon, which fits neatly into the paradigm of the discovery/revelation of the Canon that I am defending.
And to top it off, the disputes continue TO THIS DAY for a few books among Eastern Orthodox. Like I said, you don't know what your own Canon is, so I don't know where you get off trying to criticise my position for not having any justification for the Canon. Your position has all the authority to justify the Canon (according to your thinking) and yet you can't even decide one.
The Roman Catholics couldn't get it figured out until the mid 16th century. What does that tell me about the Infallible Interpreter model of authority? An awful lot.

Lucian said...

I understand what You were trying to say at #2, but I was still left with the impression that 400 yrs (not to say 1900) is more than 200 ...

---
Define Your understanding of the word "Church".

Lucian said...

Read the next-to-last comment over here:

triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/multiple-canons-of-eastern-orthodox.html

Rhology said...

Lucian said:

I've downloaded the Greek Bible on my computer ages ago, from the official :) site of the Jerusalem Patriarchate, and, guess what? It also contains exactly the same books as the Romanian Bible (though, in a different order), and has only 4 Macc. in an appendix. (2 OD Churches down, 4 more to go). :)

That's good to know, not surprising, and hardly relevant.

400 yrs - I'm not sure what you refer to.
1900 yrs - that's not when my Canon of Scripture was "set". It was set from all eternity in the mind of God.

"Church" = the called-out ones
Universal church = all those who have been redeemed and regenerated by the Lord Jesus Christ by grace alone thru faith alone
Local church = a body of believers that meets together regularly in space and time in a local area to worship, teach, learn, fellowship, celebrate the Lord's Table, baptise, disciple, and otherwise "spur one another on towards love and good deeds" (Heb 10:25).

Lucian said...

400 AD - Jerome. 1900 AD - Roger Beckwith, Bruce Metzger. (You didn't believe something recorded 200 yrs after said event, but have no problem in accepting something much more recent -- which is totally OK ... it just seemed odd, that's all).

hardly relevant.

So the fact that the OD Church has a Canon has no bearing what-so-ever on Your (repeated) assertion that it doesn't.

---
God led His people gradually, passively, subtlely over time to understand the Canon. They did not have any Infallible Interpreter to TELL them what the Canon was.

The reason this is relevant is that EO-dox tell ME that I need The Church® to tell ME what the Canon is and *I* can't know it w/o their telling me. Thus, as a Protestant, denying that any such infallible interpreter exists, *I* don't have any justification for the Canon *I* do accept.


Could You please render the definition of the word "Church" more precisely, or explicitely -- I think "body of believers" would be a good one, don't You agree? [If so, then how excactly is Your doctrine different form the one You're trying to portray as untenable ?]. -- I mean no "pun", just that either You don't succede at making Yourself clear enough, or I don't catch what You're saying here ...

Please explain Your understanding of the words "they" and "them" used in afore-mentioned context.

Rhology said...

400, 1900, I see. I didn't catch the "400=Jerome" reference. Thank you.

The reason I doubt the at least 200 yrs after event is b/c it's a Jewish source. The same Jews that rejected the Messiah, you may recall. A bunch of the Mishnah is the Jews trying to reconcile the destruction of the Temple and their inability to continue sacrifices as laid out in the OT Law w/ the fact that Messiah hasn't come yet and they're all scattered about the world. The blindness is amazing, as I'm sure you'd agree.

Jerome, however, had access to the Hebrew Scriptures b/c he read Hebrew and hung out w/ Jews a lot.
Melito of Sardis, if memory serves, is another example - his Canon is radically different than the one usually put forward by EO-dox (even though, as noted, you don't have a Canon).

So the fact that the OD Church has a Canon has no bearing what-so-ever on Your (repeated) assertion that it doesn't.

Rather, it is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
I can go ask someone else in EOC and they'll give me a DIFFERENT Canon. Which one would be right?
Why don't you have the unity you use to beat me over the head with all the time?

Please define the church more precisely than the Bible does

I can't do as good a job as God did, so I think it's best to leave it alone like it is.
Out of Scripture, the church is:
-the sheep of The Shepherd, who hear His voice
-regenerated
-sealed w/ the Holy Spirit
-thus, inheritors of an eternal promise that cannot be lost (1 Peter 1:3) (that means Eternal Security, for those of you keeping score at home)
-those who have saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ
-the wheat in the field, as opposed to the tares
-those who will be in heaven

But the Universal Church is all over the place and is commanded to get together regularly to worship and act as a church.
But unbelievers and false brethren can and do sneak in to local churches (though they can't sneak into the Universal Church).
And we don't have a foolproof way to stop them from doing so, b/c though God knows they are false brethren He doesn't always reveal them as such.


The difference between us that I'm trying to express here (among many differences that we have) is that EOC believes that The Church® is the arbiter of what is and is not Scripture and what is and is not Tradition. Thus, it is the revelator of "What the Bible Is Really Saying" b/c I as an individual am incapable of figuring that out. Not even at all.
That is an infallible interpreter.
The OT People of God knew the OT Canon w/o any infallible interpreter.
Thus, why would I expect the NT People of God to require an infall interper to know the Canon (which is what you are claiming)?
A case could be made from history but since EOC has made many errors in doctrine and practice throughout history, that case is unmakeable.

Hopefully that helps clear it up. Please let me know if I can clarify better.

Lucian said...

When I was asking You about what You understand through "Church" I wasn't speaking 'theoretically', or 'theologically', and it wasn't my intention to go into theological debates with You ...

I was just asking for a clearer, more practical, or pragmatical, answer. ... Here's what I mean:

-- The difference between us is that EOC believes that The Church® is the arbiter of what is and is not Scripture --
-- The OT People of God knew the OT Canon w/o any infallible interpreter. --
-- Thus, why would I expect the NT People of God to require an infall interper to know the Canon?


... and the preceding one:

God led His people to understand the Canon. They did not have any Infallible Interpreter to TELL them what the Canon was. --
-- The reason this is relevant is that EO-dox tell ME that I need The Church® to tell ME what the Canon is and *I* can't know it w/o their telling ME.


What *EXACTLY* is "God's people"; "Church"; "they" in Your mind, or opinion? (That's what I don't quite understand here ... )

Rhology said...

Maybe I can break it down like this. I believe and will defend the position that:

EOC's position as arbiter of what Scripture and Tradition are and are not clashes w/ its self-alleged subservience to them.
The Sola Scripturist sees that God has revealed Scr over time gradually and passively, working w/ His people. His people = His sheep, who have been regenerated, sealed by the Holy Spirit, etc. They are in many places and form many local churches. They are not synonymous w/ an external visible body, like the EOC or the Southern Baptists.

EOC tells me that I must have EOC's infallible perspective to know what Scr is.
Scripture tells me that the OT people of God knew the Canon w/o the help of any infallible teaching authority like what EOC claims I need and claims to be.

EOC tells me that it defines which traditions are Holy Apostolic Tradition and which are not.
Scripture tells me that those traditions which are not in conflict w/ the Word of God are possibly profitable (though not all) and are up to the Christian's discernment and judgment. All traditions must be judged by the Word of God.

Lucian said...

OK ...

(1). They 'knew', but their 'knowledge' was lacking 'infallibility'. -- elaborate; I fail to understand it 'as is'.

(2). "They", ("The people", that is) determined Scriptures -- good.
"The Church" determines Scripture -- bad; VERY bad.
I fail to grasp the point You're trying to make here; in wait of further explanation/elaboration.

Thanks.