DavidW said...the Protestant "rule of faith" is "Bible + me" is correct. You're not really submitting yourself to your church, elders, pastor, teachers, etc.; you're following your own interpretations of the text, and, in the end, that's it.
You said that the words of Scripture have a meaning all their own apart from what you or I think -- I agree; but it must be awful hard to get at that meaning, considering the proliferation (whether hundreds or thousands doesn't matter -- it's a lot, more than ever before in Christian history) of Protestant organizations with significantly differing beliefs on every possible matter of disagreement.
And, so, in the end, we have to find ourselves an interpreter -- Scripture itself says so. Who's more likely to be able to tell us what a book really means: the authors' friends or a guy who lived over a thousand years after the authors and in a place thousands of miles from where the authors lived, and who had completely different cultural and linguistic influences? To me, the answer it obvious. I don't know what else to tell you.- December 3, 2009 4:39 PM
- Rhology said...
-
That's exactly why the Fathers are important
Which, of course, leads us to the question: how do we know we have the right interpretation of the Father?
Which, of course, leads us to the question: how do we know we have the right interpretation of the FatherS?
There's no escaping that question. It's both more fundamental and less problematic than you give it credit for.
I'd say the more innovative we get in our interpretations, the farther we are from what it really means
But more innovative FROM WHAT STANDARD?
YOU'RE the guy who's preferring later writings to the original Christian writings - the NT. Me, I stick with the ancient-est stuff out there, and conform my doctrine to what it says. EOC et al prefer the innovation.
in order to be a Protestant, you've got to assume that the Apostolic Fathers either completely misunderstood what the Apostles taught them
Now all of a sudden innovation, in which the CFs got away from the Scr, is a GOOD thing. See, I don't need to mess with all that. If the Scr was clear enough for the CFs to properly understand it, then it's clear enough for someone today to properly understand it. And it can easily be the INDIVIDUAL's fault for misunderstanding a given text, especially an infallible (or almost infallible, if we're talking about you) one.
Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists, and all of the other so-called "Reconstructionist"/"Restorationist" groups are natural outgrowths of Protestantism
JWs and LDS share a rule of faith with YOU, not me.
And it's hardly the Scr's fault that ppl misinterp it or neglect it or ignore it. Any more than it's the CFs fault that I don't "listen" to them.
This statement of yours is essentially a tacit admission that my charge that the Protestant "rule of faith" is "Bible + me" is correct.
Only if you agree that your rule of faith is "Vincent's aphorism + me." the problem of individual interpretation is not limited to Protestantism.
I agree; but it must be awful hard to get at that meaning, considering the proliferation (whether hundreds or thousands doesn't matter -- it's a lot, more than ever before in Christian history) of Protestant organizations with significantly differing beliefs on every possible matter of disagreement.
Listen to yourself, switch "Scripture" in there with "writings of Christian tradition", and then try to see it from the other angle. And then ask yourself why it's OK for you to charge God with garbling.
And, so, in the end, we have to find ourselves an interpreter -- Scripture itself says so.
And back around goes the circle. I thought you couldn't know what the Scr says without an interper.
Peace,
Rhology - December 4, 2009 7:58 AM
- David said...
-
Which, of course, leads us to the question: how do we know we have the right interpretation of the FatherS?
One of the great things about the Fathers is that there were so many of them, who said the same thing in different ways.
But more innovative FROM WHAT STANDARD?
From the standard of history, to begin with. If you're the first person in 2000 years to look at Scripture and see a certain thing -- there's probably a reason.
YOU'RE the guy who's preferring later writings to the original Christian writings - the NT. Me, I stick with the ancient-est stuff out there
Not that it's an important point, but some of the writings of the Fathers pre-date some of the writings in the New Testament.
Now all of a sudden innovation, in which the CFs got away from the Scr, is a GOOD thing.
So, are you admitting to holding what I charged that Protestants must hold? Did the Apostolic Fathers all misunderstand the Apostles' message and agree with each other in those ways in which they misunderstood it OR Did the Apostolic Fathers all conspire together to alter the message of the Apostles? By calling the Faith expressed in their writing "innovation" you are charging them with one of these things; I'd like to know which it is -- it would at least help me to understand your position.
If the Scr was clear enough for the CFs to properly understand it, then it's clear enough for someone today to properly understand it.
It definitely is -- but only within the context of the Church which produced and preserved it; as the Fathers, who themselves are the ones that put the NT as you and I know it together, made very clear.
I think it's also important to point out that one of the criteria, in fact probably the most important and most-used criteria, used by the Fathers in determining whether or not something was Scriptural is that it agreed with the Faith of the Church, especially as expressed in the Church's liturgical worship -- this means that the Faith of the Church comes first, then Scripture (logically and historically), and that the Fathers, in assembling the NT, worked with the assumption that the Faith taught by the Apostles was uniquely preserved in the Church.
Eusebius of Caesarea, in his "History of the Church," recounts one event that illustrates this point. A 3rd century Bishop (I apologize that I can't recall his name) found out that a book claiming to be a Gospel written by the Apostle Peter was in use in one of his churches. He read the book for himself and found in it things that disagreed with the Faith of the Church and so banned this church from using it any longer. He didn't do this because he had any historical reasons to doubt that the Gospel was written by the Apostle -- he did this because it didn't agree with the Faith of the Church. - December 4, 2009 10:48 AM
- David said...
-
the problem of individual interpretation is not limited to Protestantism.
I agree, but I would add also that it is an inevitable necessity for the Protestant, whereas, for the Orthodox, it is something to be avoided, as we seek to submit ourselves to the phronema, or mind/spirit, of the Church.
Listen to yourself, switch "Scripture" in there with "writings of Christian tradition", and then try to see it from the other angle.
I guess it comes down to this: is the Church the Church -- the one founded by Christ and the Apostles -- which Christ said the gates of hades would not prevail against. The Scriptures and the Fathers are both clear, I think, that there is a Church -- and anyone who stands outside of its visible walls is not in it. You don't find any of the Fathers saying that any of the Gnostics, Marcionites, and Ebionites are somehow "invisibly" part of the Church or that the Church can be divided at all -- they're clear -- you're in or you're out. So, now, we have to ask: did Christ lie? Did the gates of hades prevail against his Church? And I don't think that's possible. And so it comes to finding the True Church -- and I think that point is easily shown, honestly. And when one finds that Church, I think it's a necessity, as Scripture and the Fathers both say, for him to submit himself to it.
There were many things that I struggled with as I came into the Church. Ultimately, though, I knew that I had found the Church -- and was obligated to submit my own interpretations and suppositions to it. My time in the Church and my studies since then have done nothing but confirm my decision to do so.
This also brings up another important point. One of the main charges the Apostolic Fathers leveled against the various heterodox and heretical individuals and organizations was that their beliefs had a clear beginning point in their respective founders -- Marcion, Valentinus, Cerinthus, etc. where as the Church had its beginnings with the Apostles. That's why Orthodox use this same argument today against Protestants -- that the various sects had their beginnings with John Calvin, Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, etc. respectively. - December 4, 2009 10:49 AM
- David said...
-
Here's St. Irenaeus of Lyons, in Against Heresies, Book 3, chapter 4 (I highly recommend a reading of chapters 1-5 of the book -- Irenaeus' argument against the Gnostics is excellent, and applicable to Protestant organizations today):
"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? "
And then ask yourself why it's OK for you to charge God with garbling.
I don't mean to do that at all -- I don't mean to say that the Scriptures are not clear, but that they are not clear on their own; they are only clear within the context of the Church. You can't read any book and make sense of it outside of its context, and that includes Holy Scripture. And the context of Holy Scripture, as both the Scriptures themselves and the Fathers make clear (as well as logical reasoning), is the Church. - December 4, 2009 10:49 AM
- Rhology said...
-
One of the great things about the Fathers is that there were so many of them, who said the same thing in different ways.
1) And alot of Bible authors too.
2) Multiplying authors simply makes mutual consistency that much more difficult. That's precisely what you were getting at when we were discussing the sign over Christ's Cross. The consistency between biblical authors is one of the evidences of divine inspiration. Neither of us claim the Fathers were theopneustos.
From the standard of history, to begin with. If you're the first person in 2000 years to look at Scripture and see a certain thing -- there's probably a reason.
That's begging the question though, since the contention is that the BIBLICAL AUTHOR saw it.
Not that it's an important point, but some of the writings of the Fathers pre-date some of the writings in the New Testament.
A few, yes. Not very many.
Did the Apostolic Fathers all misunderstand the Apostles' message
No. They held to the deity of Christ. Monotheism. Baptism. An as-yet unrealised Eschaton. The shared beliefs far outweigh the differences.
To get more specific to the Reformed/EO disagreements, the majority of CFs held to Sola Scriptura. 1 Clement contains a very clear endorsement of justification by grace alone thru faith alone. Infant baptism was inconsistently held. Kinda puts the kibosh on the whole "everywhere by all at all times".
But fundamentally, what happened with the CFs makes little difference to me. I have good reason to trust God's self-revelation more than I trust the writings of mere men, good men though they may be. I take the CFs' mutual and internal inconsistencies and count them as 100% expected - they were MEN. I take them for who they were and what they believed, but not as any authority, especially since on many issues they were jumbled and thus useless as a prescriptive authority.
It definitely is -- but only within the context of the Church which produced and preserved it;
1) Which claim of course begs the question in favor of the EOC.
2) And you've forgotten the fact that you had to choose which church/infall interper, on your own, w/o the aid of an infall interper. Your choice was fallible. - December 4, 2009 11:22 AM
- Rhology said...
-
the Faith of the Church comes first, then Scripture (logically and historically)
Since the OT was the Bible of the earliest church (Acts 17, Bereans), and then the NT served in large measure to inform and correct churches in their error, I'd put the Scr at least the same level as "the Faith of the Church". But here we're talking authority, so it's not really all that relevant.
I agree, but I would add also that it is an inevitable necessity for the Protestant, whereas, for the Orthodox, it is something to be avoided, as we seek to submit ourselves to the phronema, or mind/spirit, of the Church.
It is no less an inevitable necessity for the EO. You may seek to submit yourselves to the phronema, or mind/spirit, of the Church, but you do so FALLIBLY.
Similarly, the Sola Scripturist seeks to submit himself to the Scripture. The same problem presents itself. Your framework doesn't solve the problem.
is the Church the Church -- the one founded by Christ and the Apostles -- which Christ said the gates of hades would not prevail against.
One would have to use one's fallible interpretation to figure that out, wouldn't one?
Let me be clear here - this is not an argument I use. I am refuting your attempted argument against SScrip here. It's a bad argument since it's a two-edged sword and bleeds your own position just as badly. I suggest you use another argument.
I don't mean to say that the Scriptures are not clear
That's a pretty disingenuous thing to say, since this whole time you've been making the CFs into at the very least a more useful tool. Not to mention "the Faith of the Church", whatever that is.
You can't read any book and make sense of it outside of its context
And how much truer that is for CF writings than of the Scr! Further, knowing the context doesn't help reconcile the irreconcilable in CF writings.
Obviously you don't hold to the ancientist stuff out there, otherwise you would toss out Paul, who was a Johnny come lately, and stick with the Gospels. Apparently you think Paul can guide you into understanding Jesus. Why? Wasn't Jesus easy enough by himself?
ReplyDeleteHow do we know we have the right interpretation of the Fathers? Well, we don't always. But when they are all saying the same thing in different ways, it is clear.
You see, protestants will micro-analyse one verse from the bible and build entire theologies on it, even though it could be a disputed interpretation. You're not going to have the same thing when lots of people are saying it in different words.
" If the Scr was clear enough for the CFs to properly understand it, then it's clear enough for someone today to properly understand it. "
That assumes that some random John Smith has equal spiritial and theological skills as the greatest minds in God's church which is led by the Holy Spirit. Quite an arrogant claim.
"JWs and LDS share a rule of faith with YOU, not me."
No they don't. Not any more than you share a rule of faith with Muslims.
"Since the OT was the Bible of the earliest church (Acts 17, Bereans)"
Why do protestants keep bringing up the Bereans? Did the Bereans learn about baptism, the eucharist from scripture?
" You may seek to submit yourselves to the phronema, or mind/spirit, of the Church, but you do so FALLIBLY. Similarly, the Sola Scripturist seeks to submit himself to the Scripture."
Except that the mind of the church can be interrogated here and now, and the mind of the church remains unified by that principle. The scripture alone doesn't let you test your thesis, so it ends up with you having a completely different theory to your neighbour.
John,
ReplyDeleteWell, gee, you know, I have other reasons for holding on to Paul, like the whole "in the Canon of Scr" thing. And he's still ancienter than "Sacred Tradition" you trot out. I think I missed where I said "I hold only to the oldest Christian writing. Just the one."
Yes, Jesus is easy enough by Himself, but God didn't see fit to leave us with only the Gospels, now did He?
Now, we move on to the testing of YOUR rule of faith. let's see if you give us any way to test it.
How do we know we have the right interpretation of the Fathers? Well, we don't always. But when they are all saying the same thing in different ways, it is clear.
How do you know that you are properly interping them when you claim "they are all saying the same thing in different ways"?
protestants will micro-analyse one verse from the bible and build entire theologies on it, even though it could be a disputed interpretation.
Example?
some random John Smith has equal spiritial and theological skills as the greatest minds in God's church
Wrong.
1) Assumes that God speaks sufficiently clearly.
2) And takes into acct the fact that we have responsibility assigned by Jesus to properly interp the word of God, and
3) to dismiss traditions of men that make void the word of God (Mark 7:1-10).
No they don't. Not any more than you share a rule of faith with Muslims.
JWs and LDS appeal to "Scripture and Tradition" with an infallible interpreter. That's YOUR rule of faith.
Muslims appeal to the Qur'an (if they're Shia) or the Qur'an + Had'ith (if Sunni). I don't appeal to either.
Look, it's not that hard, and it's not a strong bite against your position. Just stop using that argument. And come on, be proud of your rule of faith! Or else give it up.
Why do protestants keep bringing up the Bereans?
See the original post. I'd recommend reading the context.
Did the Bereans learn about baptism, the eucharist from scripture?
Why is that relevant?
Except that the mind of the church can be interrogated here and now,
1) How would one do that?
2) how do you define "interrogating the mind of the church"?
3) Who is "the church" to be interrogated?
4) How can one test the answers to that interrogation?
Scripture alone doesn't let you test your thesis
Um, speak for yourself. Lets me test any one of mine just fine.
I'd suggest spending a little more time reading it and less time ripping it.
"Yes, Jesus is easy enough by Himself"
ReplyDeleteReally. Do you think the Gospels contain the Gospel?
Would you be able to, for example, put together a coherent argument that Orthodoxy does not hold to the Gospel, based on say... Matthew?
"How do you know that you are properly interping them when you claim "they are all saying the same thing in different ways"?
Why would there be a problem?
If I'm not sure, I attempt to seek advice as widely as possible in the Church. When everyone does this, we end up with unity.
"protestants will micro-analyse one verse from the bible and build entire theologies on it, even though it could be a disputed interpretation.
Example?"
Like Ro 3:2 and the argument we have to find out from post-Christian Jews what the true canon is.
"1) Assumes that God speaks sufficiently clearly."
Sufficiently clearly for what??
Because Protestants have divided up their landscape based on a whole bunch of issues that supposedly aren't central. You can't have it both ways. If they are not central, stop the divided Christendom. If they are central, explain how come you are so divided.
" takes into acct the fact that we have responsibility assigned by Jesus to properly interp the word of God"
under a tree???
Of course you won't accept the me and my bible under a tree accusation, but you'll pull out this nonsense when I suggest you listen to greater saints.
" to dismiss traditions of men that make void the word of God"
And do you do this with you and your bible under a tree?
"JWs and LDS appeal to "Scripture and Tradition" with an infallible interpreter. That's YOUR rule of faith.
Muslims appeal to the Qur'an (if they're Shia) or the Qur'an + Had'ith (if Sunni). I don't appeal to either."
JWs appeal to the WT and WTBTS, and LDS appeal to the Quad, and to the 12 apostles of the LDS church. I don't appeal to either of those things. If you can equate the tradition of an heretical sect with the Apostolic Tradition, then I can equate the writings of an heretical sect with the holy writings.
This is a really bad argument, and its about time protestants gave it up.
"Did the Bereans learn about baptism, the eucharist from scripture?
Why is that relevant?"
Because obviously, the Bereans did NOT get all their doctrines from scripture. In which case, mentioning them all the time does zilch for sola scriptura.
"Except that the mind of the church can be interrogated here and now,
1) How would one do that?"
By consulting widely, among the saints, both living and dead.
"3) Who is "the church" to be interrogated?"
Of course, I would say the Orthodox church. But if you don't accept that, I would say consult first with the earliest fathers and work from there.
"4) How can one test the answers to that interrogation?"
By consulting even more widely.
"Scripture alone doesn't let you test your thesis
Um, speak for yourself. Lets me test any one of mine just fine. "
Really. So having made an interpretational decision about infant baptism, how are you going to test it?
Would you be able to, for example, put together a coherent argument that Orthodoxy does not hold to the Gospel, based on say... Matthew?
ReplyDeleteDone.
Why would there be a problem?
Fine, I'll just make that same reply to you when you ask me the same question about the Scripture.
Like Ro 3:2 and the argument we have to find out from post-Christian Jews what the true canon is.
That's not the only verse on that argument, you know.
And I forgot to ask: What's wrong with "microanalysing" a verse? Isn't that what you call "exegesis"?
Sufficiently clearly for what??
Um, communicating what He wanted to communicate, to His people. What else?
Because Protestants have divided up their landscape based on a whole bunch of issues that supposedly aren't central.
Like Old Calendarists vs non-?
Like monophysitism and the papacy of Shenouda?
Like the primacy of the Pope and whether Eucharistic hosts should be leavened?
Of course you won't accept the me and my bible under a tree accusation, but you'll pull out this nonsense when I suggest you listen to greater saints.
1) Maybe b/c that's a false dilemma. Just maybe.
2) If Jesus told us it was indeed me and my Bible under a tree, then I'm sticking with Him. Deal with what Jesus said.
JWs appeal to the WT and WTBTS, and LDS appeal to the Quad, and to the 12 apostles of the LDS church. I don't appeal to either of those things.
They are "the living voice of the church".
Dude, it's YOUR rule of faith! Be proud of it, not ashamed. Don't hide your light under a bushel.
Because obviously, the Bereans did NOT get all their doctrines from scripture.
Someone doesn't understand what it means that SS is the rule of faith for the church in her normative state, and that the Bereans were listening to a real live apostle.
And yet were still verifying his msg in the OT. Should tell you a little sthg. Why weren't they appealing to tradition of God's covenant community at the time? Why the radical disjunction in rules of faith after Jesus?
By consulting widely, among the saints, both living and dead.
What The Church® Says. Believe us, we're Orthodox. Circular, and very vague.
Of course, I would say the Orthodox church. But if you don't accept that, I would say consult first with the earliest fathers and work from there.
We're trying to figure out who has the right rule of faith, and your church defines what supports its rule of faith, which is just as circular as Rome, JW, LDS, Moonie. I don't see the difference. I can quote you a dissenting early church voice, and you dismiss it b/c "it's just an individual", but ANYone can do that.
Should be easy to see why I reject this rule of faith.
So having made an interpretational decision about infant baptism, how are you going to test it?
By Scripture, what else?
Example 1
Example 2
"Would you be able to, for example, put together a coherent argument that Orthodoxy does not hold to the Gospel, based on say... Matthew?
ReplyDeleteDone."
Err, so you contradict Mt 5:20, and claim that is a good argument that we don't hold to the gospel as outlined in Matthew? You've lost me on this one.
"Fine, I'll just make that same reply to you when you ask me the same question about the Scripture."
I don't think I'm likely to ask you how come you can interpret scripture when different authors say the same thing in different ways. You've lost me again.
"And I forgot to ask: What's wrong with "microanalysing" a verse? Isn't that what you call "exegesis"?
Did you miss the part about "even though it is a disputed interpretation"?
Nobody in the history of the church ever suspected that Ro 3:2 said what you think it does, much less whatever other verses you may have in mind.
"Sufficiently clearly for what??
Um, communicating what He wanted to communicate, to His people. "
The bible itself says some thing are hard to understand, so clearly they are not always sufficiently clear by themselves.
"Because Protestants have divided up their landscape based on a whole bunch of issues that supposedly aren't central.
Like Old Calendarists vs non-? "
No, not like that. I go to old calendar churches some weeks, other weeks I go to new calendar churches. Nobody Orthodox should be going to one or the other based on that. This is unlike baptists vs presbyterians, where people often go to one or the other because of their position on baptism.
"Like monophysitism and the papacy of Shenouda?
Like the primacy of the Pope and whether Eucharistic hosts should be leavened?"
No, because they are not Orthodox.
"2) If Jesus told us it was indeed me and my Bible under a tree, then I'm sticking with Him. Deal with what Jesus said. "
ReplyDeleteSo you advocate you and your bible under a tree as a valid path?
"1) Maybe b/c that's a false dilemma. Just maybe. "
You can't just claim it, you have to show it.
"They are "the living voice of the church".
Dude, it's YOUR rule of faith! Be proud of it, not ashamed. Don't hide your light under a bushel. "
(a) The WTBTS is not my rule of faith.
(b) Even you admit it was the rule of faith when the apostles walked around and there was no Christian scriptures. So you should be proud of it too.
(c) The voice of the church today is never in isolation from the voice of the church throughout time. That is a distinction from LDS that is so radical, it makes me further from LDS than you are from someone who holds Moby Dick as divine scripture.
"By consulting widely, among the saints, both living and dead.
What The Church® Says. Believe us, we're Orthodox. Circular, and very vague. "
(a) As vague as it supposedly is, it is lightyears ahead of any advice you could offer to someone who has wrestled with a scripture and not been able to decide the correct interpretation.
(b) On a pure practical level, human language itself is not an exact science. The best and most scientific explanation of what a string of words mean is what they mean to other human beings, preferably ones who spoke the same language and came from the same culture.
(c) On a further practical level, in point of fact people do not agree on what everything means, and that is especially so when people are approaching the text with all sorts of different presuppositions, cultural baggage and beliefs. You have to bring something to the text, so it might as well be the culture of the historical church and Fathers.
"I can quote you a dissenting early church voice, and you dismiss it b/c "it's just an individual""
Fairly rarely do I actually find someone who claims they can quote a dissenting voice, who actually can quote a dissenting voice. 98% of the time it is like you quoting Basil with your bogus claim he promotes sola scriptura, and then imagining I believe him to be a dissenting voice, when in fact he says nothing shocking to me. The small number of dissenting voices are so small, that I would hardly be tempted to abandon the historic church because of them, any more than you would abandon your canon of scripture because I point out dissenting voices about 2 Peter, Hebrews or Revelation.
And perhaps more to the point, rule of faith is in many ways a secondary topic, since first and foremost God set up a family called the church, and we are called into mystical union with Christ through his body which exists in all ages. Looking for the family God set up is equally a valid line of enquiry before investigating scholastic questions like rules of faith, which is a concept barely able to be discerned in scripture anyway, whereas union with the Church the apostles set up is very much front and centre.
so you contradict Mt 5:20
ReplyDeleteI guess anyone can read the thread and see if I did.
Demands the question, though, of whether EO theology provides any means of arriving at perfection.
Nobody in the history of the church ever suspected that Ro 3:2 said what you think it does, much less whatever other verses you may have in mind.
Um, I should think "nobody" is a pretty strong term.
And define "history". Of course, you'll define it in a self-serving way.
What do YOU think Rom 3:2 means?
The bible itself says some thing are hard to understand, so clearly they are not always sufficiently clear by themselves.
...And God meant to make those parts harder. And if some things are harder, then some things are EASIER, see?
I go to old calendar churches some weeks, other weeks I go to new calendar churches.
Wow, I'm so proud of you. And when I'm visiting my parents, I go to a Bible church.
This is unlike baptists vs presbyterians, where people often go to one or the other because of their position on baptism.
Saying "go to" is not a useful term. Are you a member of the new- or old-calendar church? Parish? Whatever the word is?
I wouldn't have a problem being a member of many Presby churches (I say "many" b/c some are liberal, so not those).
But I don't see what your point is. So what if I'm a mbr of a church with whose doctrine I agree? Doesn't mean I regard Presbys as unsaved or something.
No, because they are not Orthodox.
No, YOU'RE not Orthodox.
Now, prove they're wrong and you're right.
So you advocate you and your bible under a tree as a valid path?
If Jesus told us it was indeed me and my Bible under a tree, then I'm sticking with Him. Deal with what Jesus said.
(a) The WTBTS is not my rule of faith.
The living voice of the church is. That's what they say.
Even you admit it was the rule of faith when the apostles walked around and there was no Christian scriptures.
I AM proud of it, thanks, and the apostles told me to hold to Sola Scrip, so there you go.
(c) The voice of the church today is never in isolation from the voice of the church throughout time.
Except when it is. When I quote Athanasius endorsing a different canon of Scr and you ignore it.
(a) As vague as it supposedly is, it is lightyears ahead of any advice you could offer to someone who has wrestled with a scripture and not been able to decide the correct interpretation.
1) Pff. Let the reader judge whether looking at resources upon resources for help in biblical exegesis is comparable to the special pleading and self-serving amorphous limits of EO tradition.
2) Note how John makes God's Word so unclear. God couldn't help but garble; He's actually pretty incompetent when it comes to communication.
(b) On a pure practical level, human language itself is not an exact science. T
I'm sorry, I don't understand. Did you just call David Koresh your favorite fried pickle astronaut and Savior?
first and foremost God set up a family called the church
How do you know that? Is that more of your indulging in question-begging assumptions that you can understand human language? Surely you know that in point of fact people do not agree on what everything means, and that is especially so when people are approaching the text with all sorts of different presuppositions, cultural baggage and beliefs?
After all, on a pure practical level, human language itself is not an exact science. The best and most scientific explanation of what a string of words mean is what they mean to other human beings, preferably ones who spoke the same language and came from the same culture.
"I guess anyone can read the thread and see if I did."
ReplyDeleteYour favourite cop-out.
"Demands the question, though, of whether EO theology provides any means of arriving at perfection."
Where in Mt 5:20 does it mention perfection?
"What do YOU think Rom 3:2 means?"
It means that Jews had the scriptures, in opposition to any other race of peoples.
"And God meant to make those parts harder."
You said they are sufficiently clear for what God wanted to communicate. Did God want to communicate a position on paedo-baptism? Yes or no?
"I wouldn't have a problem being a member of many Presby churches"
So if there was a Presbyterian church next door to a Baptist church, and their other doctrine and other facilities and people were entirely equal, would you pick one over the other based on doctrine? Yes or no?
"No, YOU'RE not Orthodox.
Now, prove they're wrong and you're right."
So you can't speak to the issue of whether the Papacy was an Orthodox teaching throughout church history? Not much of a protestant then are you?
"If Jesus told us it was indeed me and my Bible under a tree, then I'm sticking with Him."
If Jesus said to worship pink unicorns, I guess you will stick with that too. But instead of copping out again, the question at hand is DID HE advocate you and your bible under a tree?
"Even you admit it was the rule of faith when the apostles walked around and there was no Christian scriptures.
I AM proud of it, thanks, and the apostles told me to hold to Sola Scrip, so there you go. "
So the apostles did NOT teach SS when they were walking around, but they DID teach YOU SS? Did they teach it after they died or something? Maybe you prayed to the saints and they appeared to you?
"The voice of the church today is never in isolation from the voice of the church throughout time.
Except when it is. When I quote Athanasius endorsing a different canon of Scr and you ignore it."
I ignore it precisely because I do NOT ignore the voice of the church THROUGHOUT TIME.
Why you don't follow Athanasius' canon by including Baruch is a much more interesting question that we are waiting on an answer for.
"1) Pff. Let the reader judge whether looking at resources upon resources for help in biblical exegesis is comparable to the special pleading and self-serving amorphous limits of EO tradition. "
Obviously it is not comparable. The former cannot lead you to a conclusion, so lets you wander from church to church in confusion.
"2) Note how John makes God's Word so unclear. God couldn't help but garble;"
It's plenty clear in the cultural context to which it was designed - i.e. the Church. Do you believe every single human being finds it clear? Obviously not. So why lay on the straw men so thick?
"first and foremost God set up a family called the church
How do you know that? Is that more of your indulging in question-begging assumptions that you can understand human language? "
Excuse me, but I didn't say language can't be understood. I said that it is not an EXACT science, and the best way to understand it is to ask the people in the cultural context to which the language belongs. Protestant exegetes acknowledge this, they are simply too stubborn to consistently apply it, otherwise they would look to the Church fathers to guide their interpretation of disputable matters.
Now enough with the straw men huh?
Where in Mt 5:20 does it mention perfection?
ReplyDeleteOops, I meant in v 48 - Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Same context.
It means that Jews had the scriptures, in opposition to any other race of peoples.
...And yet they didn't know which books were Scr and which weren't?
Did God want to communicate a position on paedo-baptism? Yes or no?
Yes, He wanted to communicate a position. The "No" position.
Why do you want to make it God's fault, or the Scr's fault, for when ppl disagree? Is it Basil's fault that I read him as Sola Scrip and you read him as Sola Ecclesia?
So if there was a Presbyterian church next door to a Baptist church, and their other doctrine and other facilities and people were entirely equal, would you pick one over the other based on doctrine? Yes or no?
Of course. Don't know what else you think I'd say.
"No, YOU'RE not Orthodox.
Now, prove they're wrong and you're right."
So you can't speak to the issue of whether the Papacy was an Orthodox teaching throughout church history? Not much of a protestant then are you?
That's what's called a thought experiment, in which I pretend to be a Copt for a moment, for the sake of argument.
Now please answer the question.
If Jesus said to worship pink unicorns, I guess you will stick with that too.
What a blasphemous, man-centered religionist you are. May God have mercy on you.
But instead of copping out again, the question at hand is DID HE advocate you and your bible under a tree?
He held men responsible for correctly interping the Scr. He also instituted a fallible church and commanded self-examination. Your false dilemmas get you nowhere.
So the apostles did NOT teach SS when they were walking around, but they DID teach YOU SS?
Divine revelation was their only rule of faith. They're dead. Scr is the only divine revelation we have.
I ignore it precisely because I do NOT ignore the voice of the church THROUGHOUT TIME.
I hate to break it to you, but Athanasius was part of the church. How do you know he was wrong?
Why you don't follow Athanasius' canon by including Baruch is a much more interesting question that we are waiting on an answer for.
Ask yourself if I have the same rule of faith you do.
The former cannot lead you to a conclusion, so lets you wander from church to church in confusion.
??? But it HAS led me to conclusions - many.
This again projects the fault for the error or disagreement onto the resource (the Scr), not the person. You worship man.
So why lay on the straw men so thick?
You are descending into incoherence at this point.
Excuse me, but I didn't say language can't be understood.
John said: Surely you know that in point of fact people do not agree on what everything means, and that is especially so when people are approaching the text with all sorts of different presuppositions, cultural baggage and beliefs?
I'm simply agreeing with you and letting it take you to the conclusion.
"Oops, I meant in v 48 - Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
ReplyDeleteOk, and where in v48 does it say "otherwise you are damned"?
Apparently your exegesis of this is that Christ's teaching is impossible, and therefore able to be ignored in favor of the snow covered dung hill thesis. But that is simply not in the context.
"And yet they didn't know which books were Scr and which weren't?"
Which Jews? If you've got some survey results I'd like to see them. All the disputed books were Jewish, not Greek or Roman or whatever.
"Why do you want to make it God's fault, or the Scr's fault, for when ppl disagree?."
Perhaps you don't understand the concept of "sufficiently clear". To be sufficiently clear it has to be sufficient to achieve the purpose for which it is intended. And since you say the purpose is to be a sole rule of faith in the church, it is not sufficient to do that, being as you have pastors who insist on baptising babies and who refuse to baptise babies.
"Is it Basil's fault that I read him as Sola Scrip and you read him as Sola Ecclesia?"
It's not an issue of fault. You want to make this to be either scripture is sufficient all by itself, or else there is somebody at fault. Obviously my position is neither of those, so that is a major straw man.
"Of course"
Exactly. So the churches you consider valid are divided along doctrinal lines just like I said.
"That's what's called a thought experiment, in which I pretend to be a Copt for a moment, for the sake of argument.
Now please answer the question."
The copts and us have agreed we both teach orthodox christianity.
"Divine revelation was their only rule of faith. They're dead. Scr is the only divine revelation we have."
A diversion from what you were asked.
"I hate to break it to you, but Athanasius was part of the church. How do you know he was wrong?"
Because I have to look more widely than one man to know the mind of the Church.
Now how do YOU know he was wrong?
"Ask yourself if I have the same rule of faith you do. "
What?? That's not an answer (again).
"But it HAS led me to conclusions - many."
Good for you. But I couldn't come to many conclusions based on scripture alone. I've listened to long and exhausting debates between Baptists and Presbyterians, and I couldn't come to a conclusion about who was right based on scripture alone. And the same on many other issues that divide protestantism.
"This again projects the fault for the error or disagreement onto the resource (the Scr), not the person. You worship man."
Then I guess the apostles worshipped man, since they went around preaching a religion that in large part couldn't be supported by the existing scriptures alone.
But again, I don't see the need to assign fault for something that was God's intention. You think God's intention was a divided Christendom between baptists and presbyterians who have good faith arguments for their positions. I don't think that's the case.
Ok, and where in v48 does it say "otherwise you are damned"?
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't expect it to, b/c the Sermon on the Mount is directed towards disciples, and the regenerate cannot be damned. God protects them from falling away.
However, your position has no such claim. Maybe it would be helpful if you could discuss how it's possible for an imperfect man to enter into the holy God's presence.
Apparently your exegesis of this is that Christ's teaching is impossible, and therefore able to be ignored in favor of the snow covered dung hill thesis.
I'm applying your position to what Christ said, given YOUR presuppositions. I'm responding to you on your own terms.
Which Jews? If you've got some survey results I'd like to see them. All the disputed books were Jewish
The Jews Jesus dealt with in the Gospels, who never disputed the extent of the Canon in debate with Him.
To be sufficiently clear it has to be sufficient to achieve the purpose for which it is intended. And since you say the purpose is to be a sole rule of faith in the church, it is not sufficient to do that, being as you have pastors who insist on baptising babies and who refuse to baptise babies.
That just begs the question in favor of your position. You have to ARGUE for that. Why is it the Scr's fault and not the pædobaptist pastor's fault?
You want to make this to be either scripture is sufficient all by itself, or else there is somebody at fault. Obviously my position is neither of those, so that is a major straw man.
So what is the truth? Make it clear.
So the churches you consider valid are divided along doctrinal lines just like I said.
Yes, I don't consider institutional unity a calling card for true churches, b/c that doesn't make any sense. That's YOUR position, not mine. Don't project it onto mine.
The copts and us have agreed we both teach orthodox christianity.
Chalcedon is thus not part of orthodoxy. Got it.
I guess Ephesus isn't either. So why hassle me about Nestorianism?
Because I have to look more widely than one man to know the mind of the Church.
You mean you have to ignore what he said to find substantiation for your modern ideas, picking and choosing what in history and tradition you'll appeal to for support of what you believe TODAY. This is beyond disingenuous.
Now how do YOU know he was wrong?
However I know it, it's far more consistent than the mishmash you're proposing.
In fact, he was mostly right, and wrongly considered that the Greek additions to the canonical OT books, such as Baruch, were actually supposed to be there originally. Taking it on a case by case basis like always, we discover those additions were not considered canonical by the ppl of God.
OTOH, that doesn't matter all that much when we're talking your position vs mine, since there's nothing in those additions that changes the biblical teaching away from my position. Nothing that would make the proper reading skew towards EOC.
But I couldn't come to many conclusions based on scripture alone.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's your problem, not necessarily anyone else's. And certainly not God's, or the Scr's. Your responsibility is to bow before God and His revelation, recognising it for what it transparently is and transparently claims to be, and let the chips fall where He's let them fall. Running off to inconsistent appeals to whatever you like in church history is not the answer.
Then I guess the apostles worshipped man, since they went around preaching a religion that in large part couldn't be supported by the existing scriptures alone.
ANOTHER complete misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura.
1) The apostles were preaching theopneustos stuff; they were the shaluach of Jesus Christ. The Lord was giving revelation at that time! He's not doing so anymore, though, so we appeal to that which has been given.
2) Note that the apostles did commAnd and commEnd checking what they said by existing Scr. Acts 17:11, Acts 20:32, 2 Tim 3:15-17.
You think God's intention was a divided Christendom between baptists and presbyterians who have good faith arguments for their positions. I don't think that's the case.
I believe that God's will is always done, that it is true that He "works all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph 1:11).
You believe that mere men can frustrate His will. that's yet another reason to identify your position as man-centered religion. You give glory to man. No wonder you waste time praying to men all the time!
"I wouldn't expect it to, b/c the Sermon on the Mount is directed towards disciples"
ReplyDeleteSo it doesn't help your case, you just tossed it it. I see.
"Maybe it would be helpful if you could discuss how it's possible for an imperfect man to enter into the holy God's presence."
Through the intercession of Jesus Christ. No tough questions today I see.
"The Jews Jesus dealt with in the Gospels, who never disputed the extent of the Canon in debate with Him."
Which doesn't help your case, unless they mentioned a list.
"Why is it the Scr's fault and not the pædobaptist pastor's fault?"
Because your claim is not that scripture is sufficient in some etherial theoretical sense, but that it is sufficient in reality for the purpose it is intended being a rule of faith in the Church. And 99.9% of Christendom doesn't interpret scripture concerning paedobaptism like you do. Therefore reality speaks for itself.
"So what is the truth? Make it clear."
Scripture must be interpreted by the Church, not by individuals.
"Yes, I don't consider institutional unity a calling card for true churches,"
Whoa, I accused you of being divided along doctrinal lines, and you responded "Yes". That's all I care about. We don't claim institutional unity, since we are not one institution.
"Chalcedon is thus not part of orthodoxy. Got it.
I guess Ephesus isn't either. So why hassle me about Nestorianism?"
That assumes you are in a better position than them in being able to claim mere misunderstanding of terminology, which is not the case.
"You mean you have to ignore what he said to find substantiation for your modern ideas, picking and choosing what in history and tradition you'll appeal to for support of what you believe TODAY. This is beyond disingenuous."
Nonsense. Bald accusations do not an argument make.
"However I know it, it's far more consistent than the mishmash you're proposing."
You don't know! So having NOTHING is more consistent than having something?! Please.
"Taking it on a case by case basis like always, we discover those additions were not considered canonical by the ppl of God."
You mean you have to ignore what he said to find substantiation for your modern ideas, picking and choosing what in history and tradition you'll appeal to for support of what you believe TODAY. This is beyond disingenuous
"And that's your problem, not necessarily anyone else's."
ReplyDeleteYes it is my problem, and I dealt with that problem. It is also the problem a lot of people encounter. You on the other hand have no solution to the problem, except to invent an etherial nonsense universe where scripture alone is suffient, but nobody in the real world knows what it means. Thanks a lot for that. NOT!
"Your responsibility is to bow before God and His revelation, recognising it for what it transparently is and transparently claims to be, and let the chips fall where He's let them fall."
That's what I'm doing. Join me.
"1) The apostles were preaching theopneustos stuff; "
So are we. Do I now get to accuse you of "ANOTHER complete misunderstanding of Orthodoxy"???
"Note that the apostles did commAnd and commEnd checking what they said by existing Scr. Acts 17:11, Acts 20:32, 2 Tim 3:15-17. "
BALONEY.
Did the Bereans check the OT's teaching on Baptism before obeying the Apostles? NO!
Did the people Paul was talking to in Acts 20 have a scripture to teach baptism before obeying? NO!
And 2 Tim 2:15-17 say what you claim? NO!