Jon Zens has written some helpful materials on organic church, particularly his rebuttals to critiques by Ben Witherington and others of Frank Viola's and George Barna's book "Pagan Christianity" (which is a lousy title for a fine book). He calls himself an "itinerant encourager of relational communities", which I can appreciate. And as I spend more time thinking about being the church and what that is supposed to look like, I find myself spending time in, say, Facebook groups of people who have left institutional churches, either to join or start an organic church or to become that which seems best described as "lone-wolf Christians" (in some cases, revealing that they hold to heretical doctrine). As I watch the way many of such people talk and the things they say, it would appear that the reason many of such people have left churches is because they cannot stomach biblical theology or serious study of God's Word. This strikes seriously against how things ought to go.
Adding to the noise is an article by Zens to which I was directed in one of these groups. I am alarmed at the poor grasp of of the relevant issues that it exhibits, so I'd like to bring forth a response here and urge those who are disgruntled with or who have left institutional churches to cling tenaciously to and contend for the faith once delivered for the saints (Jude 3). We should be the church in the way that God has commanded and exemplified in His Word and as a result when our local churches assemble together, we ought to obey Scripture.
However, if you jettison Sola Scriptura, you are left rudderless, relying on nothing more or less than human tradition at every single turn, and you have no way to adjudicate between competing proposed traditions. The result could be a group of people that may or may not describe themselves using the word "church" but that does sort of resemble a gathering of people whose professions are at least sort of Bible-y, but it could also be further down the spectrum toward someone who says "I'm a Christian" and yet affirms child sacrifice and sexual immorality (hey, as long as "the Spirit leads", right?) and disaffirms the Trinity and/or the doctrine of Hell or of the severity of sin. Or you could have the Roman Catholic, Mormon, or Oriental Conciliarist (aka the "Eastern Orthodox") church or the Watchtower or the Branch Davidians or Aum Shinrikyo or Unity Church or Christian Science or Seventh Day Adventism or...
Imagine with me a hypothetical - two men meet each other and begin discussing religious ideas. One believes it is obligatory to affirm that Jesus is God and uncreated. The other believes it is obligatory to DISaffirm those statements. Each of them claims that God spiritually led him to say what he says. Each of them accuses the other of quenching the Spirit (which the New Testament commands people not to do) (as if we're bound to obey Pauline writings or something).
Which of them is right? Is there a way to know which is right? They both claim to be Spirit-led.
Showing posts with label sola scriptura. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sola scriptura. Show all posts
Saturday, January 10, 2015
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Picking and choosing from history
A comment I left on John Bugay's post about the similarities between Orwellian visions of rewriting the past and the way Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy rewrite church history:
And that is precisely what the practice of bestowing the title "Church Father" and "Doctor of the Church" does as well - it artificially inflates the early author of Christendom to a more exalted status, such that now Rome (or Eastern Orthodoxy, which does this just as flagrantly) can appeal back to that man as support for its Sacred Apostolic Tradition.
In reality, if you want to know what early Christians believed, it's pretty hard since we have an infinitesimally small % of people writing compared to the total population of Christians at the time, and out of those writers an underwhelming % of their writings are extant. As Steve Hays likes to say: Show me the survey data.
All this illustrates the impossibility of any rational appeal to "tradition" to found a prescription for doctrine. We must stick with God's revealed Word, not what a modern organisation picks and chooses out of history.
And that is precisely what the practice of bestowing the title "Church Father" and "Doctor of the Church" does as well - it artificially inflates the early author of Christendom to a more exalted status, such that now Rome (or Eastern Orthodoxy, which does this just as flagrantly) can appeal back to that man as support for its Sacred Apostolic Tradition.
In reality, if you want to know what early Christians believed, it's pretty hard since we have an infinitesimally small % of people writing compared to the total population of Christians at the time, and out of those writers an underwhelming % of their writings are extant. As Steve Hays likes to say: Show me the survey data.
All this illustrates the impossibility of any rational appeal to "tradition" to found a prescription for doctrine. We must stick with God's revealed Word, not what a modern organisation picks and chooses out of history.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Look, the "unity" argument just doesn't work
Let me try to give a fuller explanation of the point of my last post with respect to what David B has said starting here.
First and foremost, nothing in this post is intended to put forward a Sola Scripturist position. The point is to rebut a very common Sola Ecclesia-ist argument, and nothing more. SEists like to rip Sola Scr b/c it produces all these denominations. I'm just showing another way (to say nothing of what's already been said that this is a terribly stupid argument to use.
David B says that the GOC have excommunicated themselves.
This is not excommunication, at least not biblically. Biblical excommunication/church discipline is an action taken by the church. Of course there's room biblically for them to go "out from us" (1 John 2), but that's not the same thing. So when I said "So excommunicate them" and David B said "Already done", this is not precise. It would have been far more precise and informative, apparently, to say "We can't; they already left", although apparently some of these GOC-ers, the priest in question included, see themselves as "resisting from within". Within what, if not EOC?
Along those lines, I'd asked for an "authoritative church statement", and didn't get one. I'd still like to know whether that exists, or whether this is David B's private, fallible interpretation of history. (Not that this is a big deal to me, but I say that to mock still others who use the "private fallible interpretation" argument, which is, if possible, even stupider.) (I do not recall David B ever using said argument, fortunately.)
Now, we turn to this comment:
the main reason I see the calendar as NOT part of tradition and NOT reason for schism is that it was simply the civil (and pagan!) calendar of Julian's day...
That sounds an awful lot like "the main reason I see the question of Presbyterian infant baptism as NOT part of the essentials and NOT reason for schism is that it is simply the outworking of Presby covenant theology and has nothing to do with the question of the Gospel", doesn't it? Yet do we Sola Scripturists ever get a pass from our Sola Ecclesia friends when we say that? Nope.
So when we see "The Orthodox Church is internally divided over the issue of the Church calendar. A minority of Orthodox churches worldwide, beginning in 1923, decided to follow the so-called 'New' (Gregorian) Calendar." (Source), I don't see a good reason not to doubt this kind of "we have unity, and you don't, so haha" argument. David B's church is in the minority.
He or other EOx might respond:
But we are in communion with most of the Old Calendarists who aren't schismatics!
I'm a Reformed Baptist, and I'm in communion with all sortsa people - Presbyterians, not-Reformed Baptists, Assemblies of God, charismatics, Pentecostals...
But y'all don't go to the same church!
Neither do y'all.
And you don't earn any points for fudging on the definition of "denomination" either. Your not-denomination denominations, in which you disagree with each other about certain things, are the same situation as the one in which I find myself today among Sola Scripturists.
But we have the same name!
No, you don't. ROCOR, Russian Orthodox, OCA, GOA...
Those are just ethnic divisions for convenience' sake!
1) Then why do some of you differ on, for example, the calendar?
2) So it's better that y'all hold to the same doctrine and just squabble amongst yourselves like you do on the basis of racial dislikes? Nice.
But you're not in communion at all with other Protestants!
You mean so-called Protestants? Those with whom I'm not in communion have excommunicated themselves by denying the Gospel or another essential of the faith.
And you're not in communion with other Orthodox.
You mean so-called Orthodox?
Yep, that's precisely what I mean. Why do you get to play the "they've schismed" game while I don't? Where's your consistency?
It would appear that this is a case of "they're in communion with us unless they're not". I shouldn't have to remind anyone that this is a tautology, and yet that is what's behind any appeal to this "unity" argument.
But we have a way to tell which tradition is right!
So do we - the Scripture. Which doesn't keep writing itself with every new church pronouncement, BTW. And which is far less question-begging.
Having said all that, one has to ask how David B knows that OCA is part of The True Orthodox Church, whereas those who've kept to the ostensibly older tradition of the Old Calendar aren't the ones holding firm in the face of innovation, a new calendar, ecumenism,getting all liberal-soft on baby murder, but by God making sure that everyone knows that the EOC is really serious about being green. Nnnoooo, none of that is suspicious!
You know, for a while it sure seemed like the Arians were going to win the struggle in the 4th century, and anathemas had been flung about. If David B had been alive that day, how would he know that the party of Athanasius was correct? Appeal to "the Fathers"? Each side had their own "Fathers". Besides, a mere individual man like David doesn't get to define who is a Father and who isn't. And since the typical Sola Ecclesia interp of Matthew 16:18 tells us that the church will never go largely down into heresy, the only way to be sure would be to wait and see who'd win the struggle.
How is that helpful for the believer at the time whose very soul is at stake?
How is that a good guide for the believer who wants to further the cause of good and of God? How can he know where to direct his efforts?
Easy - he can't know, b/c individual interpretation of the Scripture is not available to him, and Apostolic Tradition hasn't been defined yet, and can't be by any one man.
(Please leave any comments at the Beggars All post.)
First and foremost, nothing in this post is intended to put forward a Sola Scripturist position. The point is to rebut a very common Sola Ecclesia-ist argument, and nothing more. SEists like to rip Sola Scr b/c it produces all these denominations. I'm just showing another way (to say nothing of what's already been said that this is a terribly stupid argument to use.
David B says that the GOC have excommunicated themselves.
This is not excommunication, at least not biblically. Biblical excommunication/church discipline is an action taken by the church. Of course there's room biblically for them to go "out from us" (1 John 2), but that's not the same thing. So when I said "So excommunicate them" and David B said "Already done", this is not precise. It would have been far more precise and informative, apparently, to say "We can't; they already left", although apparently some of these GOC-ers, the priest in question included, see themselves as "resisting from within". Within what, if not EOC?
Along those lines, I'd asked for an "authoritative church statement", and didn't get one. I'd still like to know whether that exists, or whether this is David B's private, fallible interpretation of history. (Not that this is a big deal to me, but I say that to mock still others who use the "private fallible interpretation" argument, which is, if possible, even stupider.) (I do not recall David B ever using said argument, fortunately.)
Now, we turn to this comment:
the main reason I see the calendar as NOT part of tradition and NOT reason for schism is that it was simply the civil (and pagan!) calendar of Julian's day...
That sounds an awful lot like "the main reason I see the question of Presbyterian infant baptism as NOT part of the essentials and NOT reason for schism is that it is simply the outworking of Presby covenant theology and has nothing to do with the question of the Gospel", doesn't it? Yet do we Sola Scripturists ever get a pass from our Sola Ecclesia friends when we say that? Nope.
So when we see "The Orthodox Church is internally divided over the issue of the Church calendar. A minority of Orthodox churches worldwide, beginning in 1923, decided to follow the so-called 'New' (Gregorian) Calendar." (Source), I don't see a good reason not to doubt this kind of "we have unity, and you don't, so haha" argument. David B's church is in the minority.
He or other EOx might respond:
But we are in communion with most of the Old Calendarists who aren't schismatics!
I'm a Reformed Baptist, and I'm in communion with all sortsa people - Presbyterians, not-Reformed Baptists, Assemblies of God, charismatics, Pentecostals...
But y'all don't go to the same church!
Neither do y'all.
And you don't earn any points for fudging on the definition of "denomination" either. Your not-denomination denominations, in which you disagree with each other about certain things, are the same situation as the one in which I find myself today among Sola Scripturists.
But we have the same name!
No, you don't. ROCOR, Russian Orthodox, OCA, GOA...
Those are just ethnic divisions for convenience' sake!
1) Then why do some of you differ on, for example, the calendar?
2) So it's better that y'all hold to the same doctrine and just squabble amongst yourselves like you do on the basis of racial dislikes? Nice.
But you're not in communion at all with other Protestants!
You mean so-called Protestants? Those with whom I'm not in communion have excommunicated themselves by denying the Gospel or another essential of the faith.
And you're not in communion with other Orthodox.
You mean so-called Orthodox?
Yep, that's precisely what I mean. Why do you get to play the "they've schismed" game while I don't? Where's your consistency?
It would appear that this is a case of "they're in communion with us unless they're not". I shouldn't have to remind anyone that this is a tautology, and yet that is what's behind any appeal to this "unity" argument.
But we have a way to tell which tradition is right!
So do we - the Scripture. Which doesn't keep writing itself with every new church pronouncement, BTW. And which is far less question-begging.
Having said all that, one has to ask how David B knows that OCA is part of The True Orthodox Church, whereas those who've kept to the ostensibly older tradition of the Old Calendar aren't the ones holding firm in the face of innovation, a new calendar, ecumenism,getting all liberal-soft on baby murder, but by God making sure that everyone knows that the EOC is really serious about being green. Nnnoooo, none of that is suspicious!
You know, for a while it sure seemed like the Arians were going to win the struggle in the 4th century, and anathemas had been flung about. If David B had been alive that day, how would he know that the party of Athanasius was correct? Appeal to "the Fathers"? Each side had their own "Fathers". Besides, a mere individual man like David doesn't get to define who is a Father and who isn't. And since the typical Sola Ecclesia interp of Matthew 16:18 tells us that the church will never go largely down into heresy, the only way to be sure would be to wait and see who'd win the struggle.
How is that helpful for the believer at the time whose very soul is at stake?
How is that a good guide for the believer who wants to further the cause of good and of God? How can he know where to direct his efforts?
Easy - he can't know, b/c individual interpretation of the Scripture is not available to him, and Apostolic Tradition hasn't been defined yet, and can't be by any one man.
(Please leave any comments at the Beggars All post.)
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Continuing with DavidW, icons, and EOx' question-begging authority claims
In answer to this comment from DavidW and the one after it:
If someone is departing from the Apostolic Faith, thereby becoming a heretic, why should we accept his teachings?
B/c saying "he's departing from the Ap Faith" is circular. Who decided that? The same Church that then looks back on what it has identified as "Ap Faith" to derive its authority to look back and identify that which is "Ap Faith"?
Or shall we test everythg by what we know that God has revealed - the Scripture?
That's why I'd hate to be in your position.
Why should we accept the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Ebionites, the Arians, etc?
*I* would say it's b/c their doctrine doesn't match the Scr.
Give me a non-circular way, under your position, to know why not.
the false teachers are always exposed and expelled.
Yup, but maybe you were expelled from the true Church.
Give me a non-circular way, under your position, to know why not.
I certainly can define my canon of Scripture and my canon of Tradition.
Give me the list. Let me know also how you know it's authoritative.
If you can do neither, you've got nothing. "By all, everywhere, at all times" is useless - be specific. Or else y'all can quit badgering me about a specific Canon too. I'll just respond the same way - "By all, everywhere, at all times", and that statement means whatever I want it to mean, whenever I want it to mean it.
The fact that you've gotten salvation totally wrong and add works to it.
Then you must expunge the Epistle of St. James from your New Testament immediately.
Fail.
The fact that you think it's OK to worship pictures.
Come on, now -- you know that this is a strawman.
What precisely sets your practice apart from worship of those images?
Let's look at it with an analogy. Two men strike their wives with the exact same level of force. The one did so b/c he was angry and wanted her to be hurt and to shut up. The other didn't mean to hurt her at all, meant it as a joke but had a bad sense of humor. Is the latter action commendable b/c his motivation was not to hurt?
To reject images is, in the end, to adopt a docetic christology.
Please prove it. You say that all the time. Make it its own post, I want to see your argument.
Now, you ask Jnorm how you can test our Faith: test it off the Faith of the early Church.
1) Early writers disagreed about certain things and you don't accept just ANYthing an early writer said.
2) Nor do you accept every writer.
3) Nor can you prove, apparently, that these early church writers represented the beliefs of the early church laity, though I keep asking you for the proof.
So, will you engage those challenges, or will you keep repeating yourself?
I challenge you to find any way in which we've departed from the Faith held by the earliest Christians.
I've found multiple ways in which you beg the question on this tendentious characterisation.
I have also shown you before numerous things that early church writers (even "F"athers) have written that contradict your position. You choose simply to ignore them, but that's not my fault.
Our God would not abandon his people to heresy and idolatry for 1600+ years.
1) How do you know that?
2) How do you know He DID abandon His church, given my position?
3) How valid would that objection be during Elijah's time?
They were not Reformed Baptists in any sense; they were Orthodox.
Actually, they were who they were, nothing else. But I get to properly represent them b/c what they blvd holds very little importance for a Sola Scripturist, in terms of authority and backup for what I believe.
1. Consuming the Eucharist is an act of worshiping Christ through an "image" of Him -- or a symbol, in your belief. Would it be okay to kiss the chalice/cup containing the Eucharist as a way to honor it as well as to consume it?
1) The Scr knows nothing of this practice. Jesus never mentioned anythg close. So there's certainly no obligation to.
2) Which demands that one ask the question - why would one do that?
Same for questions #2 and 3.
4. You seem to think that the Orthodox Church invented its Apostolic Succession and picked and chose amongst ancient authors at some relatively recent date. Can you give a round number at least for when this happened?
1) If you can give an approx date and location for the remnant that God preserved for Himself in 1 and 2 Kings.
2) It's not that "I seem to think" it. I've proven it numerous times, that you choose among what early writers blvd and ignore other parts b/c "those things that they wrote didn't line up with Apostolic Faith". This is not up for question, it is clear and evident.
5. Do you ever prostrate yourself in prayer at all?
Yes. To God.
6. Are all forms of prostration acts of worship?
No. You're committing the same error that all those EOx at Perry's blog are.
You tell me that it’s OK to do all of the above:
1) Kiss their image. While they’re not there.
2) Burn incense and light candles to their image. While they’re not there.
3) Set up that image in church. You know, the place where religious activity frequently takes place. While they’re not there.
4) Pray inaudibly to them and expect them to read your thoughts and carry the prayer to God. While they’re not there. And you can’t say it audibly to their ears since the dead don’t hear with their physical ears.
Why divorce the one action (bowing down) when it’s never alone in real practice? Unless you were trying to hide something or commit the fallacy of division?
7. Did Christ redeem the material world when he assumed material flesh?
1) Please be more specific, specifically with reference to "redeem" and "the material world".
2) Please also give us a reason to think this is relevant to bowing down and talking inaudibly, asking religious, pious requests and favors and grace, from pictures of dead people.
8. Do you really think that the earliest Christians were like the Reformed Baptists in their beliefs and practices?
I don't know how many times I have to tell you that they were who they were, neither modern EOx nor modern Reformed Baptists. I suggest you check your attitude - when someone has to explain his position over and over again and you keep going back to the same questions, that says something about you.
If someone is departing from the Apostolic Faith, thereby becoming a heretic, why should we accept his teachings?
B/c saying "he's departing from the Ap Faith" is circular. Who decided that? The same Church that then looks back on what it has identified as "Ap Faith" to derive its authority to look back and identify that which is "Ap Faith"?
Or shall we test everythg by what we know that God has revealed - the Scripture?
That's why I'd hate to be in your position.
Why should we accept the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Ebionites, the Arians, etc?
*I* would say it's b/c their doctrine doesn't match the Scr.
Give me a non-circular way, under your position, to know why not.
the false teachers are always exposed and expelled.
Yup, but maybe you were expelled from the true Church.
Give me a non-circular way, under your position, to know why not.
I certainly can define my canon of Scripture and my canon of Tradition.
Give me the list. Let me know also how you know it's authoritative.
If you can do neither, you've got nothing. "By all, everywhere, at all times" is useless - be specific. Or else y'all can quit badgering me about a specific Canon too. I'll just respond the same way - "By all, everywhere, at all times", and that statement means whatever I want it to mean, whenever I want it to mean it.
The fact that you've gotten salvation totally wrong and add works to it.
Then you must expunge the Epistle of St. James from your New Testament immediately.
Fail.
The fact that you think it's OK to worship pictures.
Come on, now -- you know that this is a strawman.
What precisely sets your practice apart from worship of those images?
Let's look at it with an analogy. Two men strike their wives with the exact same level of force. The one did so b/c he was angry and wanted her to be hurt and to shut up. The other didn't mean to hurt her at all, meant it as a joke but had a bad sense of humor. Is the latter action commendable b/c his motivation was not to hurt?
To reject images is, in the end, to adopt a docetic christology.
Please prove it. You say that all the time. Make it its own post, I want to see your argument.
Now, you ask Jnorm how you can test our Faith: test it off the Faith of the early Church.
1) Early writers disagreed about certain things and you don't accept just ANYthing an early writer said.
2) Nor do you accept every writer.
3) Nor can you prove, apparently, that these early church writers represented the beliefs of the early church laity, though I keep asking you for the proof.
So, will you engage those challenges, or will you keep repeating yourself?
I challenge you to find any way in which we've departed from the Faith held by the earliest Christians.
I've found multiple ways in which you beg the question on this tendentious characterisation.
I have also shown you before numerous things that early church writers (even "F"athers) have written that contradict your position. You choose simply to ignore them, but that's not my fault.
Our God would not abandon his people to heresy and idolatry for 1600+ years.
1) How do you know that?
2) How do you know He DID abandon His church, given my position?
3) How valid would that objection be during Elijah's time?
They were not Reformed Baptists in any sense; they were Orthodox.
Actually, they were who they were, nothing else. But I get to properly represent them b/c what they blvd holds very little importance for a Sola Scripturist, in terms of authority and backup for what I believe.
1. Consuming the Eucharist is an act of worshiping Christ through an "image" of Him -- or a symbol, in your belief. Would it be okay to kiss the chalice/cup containing the Eucharist as a way to honor it as well as to consume it?
1) The Scr knows nothing of this practice. Jesus never mentioned anythg close. So there's certainly no obligation to.
2) Which demands that one ask the question - why would one do that?
Same for questions #2 and 3.
4. You seem to think that the Orthodox Church invented its Apostolic Succession and picked and chose amongst ancient authors at some relatively recent date. Can you give a round number at least for when this happened?
1) If you can give an approx date and location for the remnant that God preserved for Himself in 1 and 2 Kings.
2) It's not that "I seem to think" it. I've proven it numerous times, that you choose among what early writers blvd and ignore other parts b/c "those things that they wrote didn't line up with Apostolic Faith". This is not up for question, it is clear and evident.
5. Do you ever prostrate yourself in prayer at all?
Yes. To God.
6. Are all forms of prostration acts of worship?
No. You're committing the same error that all those EOx at Perry's blog are.
You tell me that it’s OK to do all of the above:
1) Kiss their image. While they’re not there.
2) Burn incense and light candles to their image. While they’re not there.
3) Set up that image in church. You know, the place where religious activity frequently takes place. While they’re not there.
4) Pray inaudibly to them and expect them to read your thoughts and carry the prayer to God. While they’re not there. And you can’t say it audibly to their ears since the dead don’t hear with their physical ears.
Why divorce the one action (bowing down) when it’s never alone in real practice? Unless you were trying to hide something or commit the fallacy of division?
7. Did Christ redeem the material world when he assumed material flesh?
1) Please be more specific, specifically with reference to "redeem" and "the material world".
2) Please also give us a reason to think this is relevant to bowing down and talking inaudibly, asking religious, pious requests and favors and grace, from pictures of dead people.
8. Do you really think that the earliest Christians were like the Reformed Baptists in their beliefs and practices?
I don't know how many times I have to tell you that they were who they were, neither modern EOx nor modern Reformed Baptists. I suggest you check your attitude - when someone has to explain his position over and over again and you keep going back to the same questions, that says something about you.
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
So that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work
At the Beggars All blog, James Swan discusses a part of a book that I like alot. Catholic Nick commented with some bad exegesis, and I decided to respond.
Here are my comments.
I'll take a stab at your comments, though of course James can speak for himself.
By this admission, Sola Scriptura was not practiced during Apostolic times. Further, this means at no time could the Apostles be instructing Christians to engage in SS
I don't see why that follows at all - are you saying that the apostles had no idea that God might be giving Scr during their lifetimes? What evidence do you have for that claim?
Further, why couldn't the apostles use a little foresight? Even heed prophecies of the future?
Paul couldn't be instructing Timothy to engage in SS in 2 Tim 3:16f.
Except the text says what it says. And of course Timothy had the OT!
If that's your "argument," then you've fallen into a logically fallacy.
Your post is flawed, since the Scr presents only one source for divine communication to man, and especially only one source for AUTHORITATIVE and CERTAIN divine revelation - Scr. Scr DOES teach Sola Scr. Now, where's your competition?
It does not state nor necessitate Scripture *alone* thoroughly equips, much less "a believer" in general.
It's the only thing Paul points Tim to. Like we keep asking, bring forth your competition.
Note Eph 6:11-18, esp v17, and how this can be seen as a parallel to Paul's instructions to Timothy.
Sorry, but isn't Eph 6 IN SCRIPTURE? How else would anyone know it except it's IN SCRIPTURE?
how does "17Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of Go" help your case?
I don't recall any requirements (esp in Scripture) where something must be explicitly said to be "God Breathed" to be inspired and authoritative.
Oh, so it's perfectly OK to say that something that DIDN'T come from God to receive the label "inspired and authoritative"? I don't think you've thought this thru.
So, if you have sthg that IS from God and sthg that IS NOT from God, by which one will you judge the other? Please let us know, thanks.
The Apostle's oral Teaching is explicitly called the "Word of God"
Yep, the apostles' teaching. See any apostles around today?
Further, it simply begs the question to assert that their oral teaching was substantively diff from what was eventually inscripturated.
Ultimately, that doesn't matter ...counter-argument is fallacious.
Let the reader judge, but this doesn't even merit a reply.
Starting with the last sentence, that claim is bogus because what what Sungenis would have apart from Scripture is irrelevant.
Oh, so let's take away Scr. Now please demonstrate how you know your assertion.
Or is this an example of your "non-God-breathed and yet inspired and authoritative teaching"? How do you know it is?
The point is Scripture itself says other means are used to accomplish or ready the man for "every good work,"
On your shallow level, sure it does. I guess we should all be thankful there's better exegesis in the post than you're providing.
Sungenis goes to Scripture alone because Scripture is the only thing the Protestant will accept.
how do you know that? Did you ask him?
So what is the other source?
According to the Bible, the only thing capable of being sufficient for making man equipped for every good work is Grace - 2 Cor 9:8.
Ah, more out of context citations. Keep 'em comin'!
Here are my comments.
I'll take a stab at your comments, though of course James can speak for himself.
By this admission, Sola Scriptura was not practiced during Apostolic times. Further, this means at no time could the Apostles be instructing Christians to engage in SS
I don't see why that follows at all - are you saying that the apostles had no idea that God might be giving Scr during their lifetimes? What evidence do you have for that claim?
Further, why couldn't the apostles use a little foresight? Even heed prophecies of the future?
Paul couldn't be instructing Timothy to engage in SS in 2 Tim 3:16f.
Except the text says what it says. And of course Timothy had the OT!
If that's your "argument," then you've fallen into a logically fallacy.
Your post is flawed, since the Scr presents only one source for divine communication to man, and especially only one source for AUTHORITATIVE and CERTAIN divine revelation - Scr. Scr DOES teach Sola Scr. Now, where's your competition?
It does not state nor necessitate Scripture *alone* thoroughly equips, much less "a believer" in general.
It's the only thing Paul points Tim to. Like we keep asking, bring forth your competition.
Note Eph 6:11-18, esp v17, and how this can be seen as a parallel to Paul's instructions to Timothy.
Sorry, but isn't Eph 6 IN SCRIPTURE? How else would anyone know it except it's IN SCRIPTURE?
how does "17Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of Go" help your case?
I don't recall any requirements (esp in Scripture) where something must be explicitly said to be "God Breathed" to be inspired and authoritative.
Oh, so it's perfectly OK to say that something that DIDN'T come from God to receive the label "inspired and authoritative"? I don't think you've thought this thru.
So, if you have sthg that IS from God and sthg that IS NOT from God, by which one will you judge the other? Please let us know, thanks.
The Apostle's oral Teaching is explicitly called the "Word of God"
Yep, the apostles' teaching. See any apostles around today?
Further, it simply begs the question to assert that their oral teaching was substantively diff from what was eventually inscripturated.
Ultimately, that doesn't matter ...counter-argument is fallacious.
Let the reader judge, but this doesn't even merit a reply.
Starting with the last sentence, that claim is bogus because what what Sungenis would have apart from Scripture is irrelevant.
Oh, so let's take away Scr. Now please demonstrate how you know your assertion.
Or is this an example of your "non-God-breathed and yet inspired and authoritative teaching"? How do you know it is?
The point is Scripture itself says other means are used to accomplish or ready the man for "every good work,"
On your shallow level, sure it does. I guess we should all be thankful there's better exegesis in the post than you're providing.
Sungenis goes to Scripture alone because Scripture is the only thing the Protestant will accept.
how do you know that? Did you ask him?
So what is the other source?
According to the Bible, the only thing capable of being sufficient for making man equipped for every good work is Grace - 2 Cor 9:8.
Ah, more out of context citations. Keep 'em comin'!
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Reflection on the Sola Scriptura Debate #1
From John, EO commenter:
What could this possibly mean? It is amazing how Sola Ecclesia-ists like John don't get it. Is John a cradle EO who has simply never troubled himself to peer with any degree of depth into the way Sola Scripturists live and do church? Has he never read any blog like Al Mohler's blog? Kevin DeYoung's blog? Green Baggins? TeamPyro? Bueller?
What about Josh Harris' books about the church? 9Marks books? John MacArthur's books? What about catechist resources such as the Westminster Shorter Catechism? Even the Baptist Faith and Message 2000? Maybe my pastor's book on church discipline would be a good place to start. ANYthing, really.
Or perhaps John is a convert who turned to EOC b/c he saw the illusion of greener grass on the other side. He never saw the way that people who really for real believe the Scripture operate to find out just who is approved, but he figured that those guys in EOC who talk a good line about never having problems with unity, never fighting amongst themselves or going into schism over a tiny little issue like what calendar one uses or whether one uses leavened or unleavened bread in the Eucharist, never squabbling over church land or finances. None of that - all that stuff is restricted to the Protestant world. Those idiots, those guys who just split and call each other heretics at the drop of a hat!
See, the EO has to choose which way he wants to take the objection. If he wants to make it "Eastern Orthodoxy vs Protestantism", he's making a category mistake, comparing one church to hundreds. Of course that one church is going to look better, just as if I compared United Methodist unity to that of Rome, the Copts, Maronites, Eastern Orthodoxy, Nestorians, etc.
If he wants to make it "Eastern Orthodoxy vs Reformed Baptists", then how does his church come out a clear victor in the unity department? Again, visible unity which faces occasional division, just like EOC. If he wants to make it "Sola Scriptura churches vs non-Sola Scriptura churches"... never mind, he doesn't want to do that.
So, how is it actually done? Read the Bible with understanding, interpret it properly, and subject any and all teaching, tradition, action, etc, to it. To help with boiling it all down to bite-size chunks, the easier to examine and keep all in one place, use helpful documents like catechisms, confessions of faith, etc (which you subject to the Scripture at all times, if there's a question). To quote John from above, when we resolve disputes it does in fact tell us something because we recognise the one unity - the unity is SPIRITUAL, in the Gospel, and that spiritual unity is imperfectly but still substantially represented and reflected in the visible church.
The objector might challenge us that the Scripture is insufficiently clear for this. Why? B/c of the "33000 denominations" problem. Fail. What he really means is that he doesn't understand the role of the Scripture and the role of the church. If the Scr is unclear, then so is any other text. Why single out the Scripture for your challenges of insufficient clarity? I've read some church writers from the 2nd and 3rd centuries - they're LESS clear than the Scripture most of the time. I've read some John Cassian, read some John Damascene, some other stuff here and there. Why are they magically easier to understand and more conducive to unity among believers than God-inspired Scripture? I certainly didn't think they were.
The answer, of course, is not that when God breathes something out, it's automagically obscure and beyond understanding. The answer is that the Scripture convicts our EO friends of sin and disobedience, and instead of facing up to that fact, they throw out the "it's unclear!" smokescreen.
Rhology, in my final statement: Also sounds alot like Reformed Baptists - visible unity which faces occasional division. Does David display any recognition of this fairly-obvious fact?
John, commenter: Its not clear to our side how disputes within Reformed baptists could show "who are approved may become evident'. When we resolve disputes it does in fact tell us something because we recognise the one unity. (sic) (source)
What could this possibly mean? It is amazing how Sola Ecclesia-ists like John don't get it. Is John a cradle EO who has simply never troubled himself to peer with any degree of depth into the way Sola Scripturists live and do church? Has he never read any blog like Al Mohler's blog? Kevin DeYoung's blog? Green Baggins? TeamPyro? Bueller?
What about Josh Harris' books about the church? 9Marks books? John MacArthur's books? What about catechist resources such as the Westminster Shorter Catechism? Even the Baptist Faith and Message 2000? Maybe my pastor's book on church discipline would be a good place to start. ANYthing, really.
Or perhaps John is a convert who turned to EOC b/c he saw the illusion of greener grass on the other side. He never saw the way that people who really for real believe the Scripture operate to find out just who is approved, but he figured that those guys in EOC who talk a good line about never having problems with unity, never fighting amongst themselves or going into schism over a tiny little issue like what calendar one uses or whether one uses leavened or unleavened bread in the Eucharist, never squabbling over church land or finances. None of that - all that stuff is restricted to the Protestant world. Those idiots, those guys who just split and call each other heretics at the drop of a hat!
See, the EO has to choose which way he wants to take the objection. If he wants to make it "Eastern Orthodoxy vs Protestantism", he's making a category mistake, comparing one church to hundreds. Of course that one church is going to look better, just as if I compared United Methodist unity to that of Rome, the Copts, Maronites, Eastern Orthodoxy, Nestorians, etc.
If he wants to make it "Eastern Orthodoxy vs Reformed Baptists", then how does his church come out a clear victor in the unity department? Again, visible unity which faces occasional division, just like EOC. If he wants to make it "Sola Scriptura churches vs non-Sola Scriptura churches"... never mind, he doesn't want to do that.
So, how is it actually done? Read the Bible with understanding, interpret it properly, and subject any and all teaching, tradition, action, etc, to it. To help with boiling it all down to bite-size chunks, the easier to examine and keep all in one place, use helpful documents like catechisms, confessions of faith, etc (which you subject to the Scripture at all times, if there's a question). To quote John from above, when we resolve disputes it does in fact tell us something because we recognise the one unity - the unity is SPIRITUAL, in the Gospel, and that spiritual unity is imperfectly but still substantially represented and reflected in the visible church.
The objector might challenge us that the Scripture is insufficiently clear for this. Why? B/c of the "33000 denominations" problem. Fail. What he really means is that he doesn't understand the role of the Scripture and the role of the church. If the Scr is unclear, then so is any other text. Why single out the Scripture for your challenges of insufficient clarity? I've read some church writers from the 2nd and 3rd centuries - they're LESS clear than the Scripture most of the time. I've read some John Cassian, read some John Damascene, some other stuff here and there. Why are they magically easier to understand and more conducive to unity among believers than God-inspired Scripture? I certainly didn't think they were.
The answer, of course, is not that when God breathes something out, it's automagically obscure and beyond understanding. The answer is that the Scripture convicts our EO friends of sin and disobedience, and instead of facing up to that fact, they throw out the "it's unclear!" smokescreen.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Believing Jesus
Me: 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. "
John, anonymous Eastern Orthodox commenter who apparently sees fit to speak for Orthodoxy: 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.
Me: 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).
John: 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.
Me: 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.
John: If Jesus said to worship pink unicorns, I guess you will stick with that too.
John, anonymous Eastern Orthodox commenter who apparently sees fit to speak for Orthodoxy: 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.
Me: 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).
John: 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.
Me: 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.
John: If Jesus said to worship pink unicorns, I guess you will stick with that too.
Monday, December 07, 2009
Not just a problem for Sola Scriptura part 2
-
Multiplying authors simply makes mutual consistency that much more difficult.
Absolutely agreed; which is why I consider the mutual consistency of the Fathers nothing short of miraculous, and a sign of Christ's fulfilled promise that the gates of hades would not prevail against the Chruch and that the Holy Spirit would guide it.
That's precisely what you were getting at when we were discussing the sign over Christ's Cross.
I've read this and other attempts at harmonizing the signs as reported by the evangelists. I find them unconvincing; too desperate.
No. They held to the deity of Christ. Monotheism. Baptism. An as-yet unrealised Eschaton.
They also held to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the visibility and unity of the One True Church founded by the Apostles, Apostolic Succession in said Church, and a belief in Theosis -- all of which you reject. So, the question remains: were they all simultaneously mistaken, but agreement with each other, as to the message of the Apostles OR did they conspire together to distort said message?
The shared beliefs far outweigh the differences.
100% agreed.
the majority of CFs held to Sola Scriptura.
That's the very thing I'm exploring in my series on the issue -- and I'm finding the exact opposite of Mr. Webster, as everyone who actually takes the time to read the writings of the Fathers tends to do.
1 Clement contains a very clear endorsement of justification by grace alone thru faith alone.
I've read St. Clement's letter several times and never seen such an endorsement. Perhaps you could provide me with the quote or at least verse number so I can read it for myself?
Infant baptism was inconsistently held.
I think the Protestants are skewing the evidence on this one. It's a topic I investigated quite a bit, because I had my own doubts about it initially (even having been baptized as an infant myself). St. Gregory Nazianzen's objections are rather late in the early Church -- and not quite what the guy at this blog is trying to make of them (read it for yourself). The inscriptions, paintings, and fathers of the first, second, and third centuries are pretty clear on the issue. Later, beginning in about the 3rd century, some began to delay baptism into adulthood in order to assure that all previous sins were washed away -- this practice was later condemned by the Church for being what it was: an attempt to evade living a Christian life.
Kinda puts the kibosh on the whole "everywhere by all at all times".
St. Vincent, whose canon you're quoting here, addresses that very thing in the paragraph following that quote; and I've addressed it several times to you as well.
I take the CFs' mutual and internal inconsistencies and count them as 100% expected - they were MEN. ... especially since on many issues they were jumbled and thus useless as a prescriptive authority.
You've made this allegations many times in the past, but you have yet to present a single issue upon which this was the case. I'd love to see one, especially on an essential matter of faith or practice.
1) Which claim of course begs the question in favor of the EOC.
Insofar as the Orthodox Church is the One True Church founded by the Apostles and preserving the Faith thereof, yes, it does; it can't help but. No other Christian organization or church has a legitimate claim. The closest to having a decent claim are the Roman Catholics and the Assyrian Church of the East, as they both possess at least a physical link with the Apostles (via laying on of hands) -- but both have clear points of departure from the early Church, which can be quite easily named and dated. - DavidW said...
-
Since the OT was the Bible of the earliest church
But not the Bible alone, else we'd all be Jewish.
and then the NT served in large measure to inform and correct churches in their error
Exactly -- for the most part, they were written to correct problems in the churches already founded. Which calls into question how they could have ever been intended as all-encompassing -- as standing alone. Correcting errors is not explicating the entirety of the Gospel.
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.
I never claimed they were "more useful." They are necessary to Scripture, as they teach us the correct interpretation thereof.
Not to mention "the Faith of the Church", whatever that is.
The Faith of the Church is the Scriptures and the Councils, speaking in terms of dogma. More correctly, though, the Faith of the Church is our worship -- if one were able to attend every Church service in an entire year, he'd have heard the entirety of the Orthodox Faith explained -- it's the same standard the Fathers used in determining what belonged in Scripture hundreds and hundreds of years ago: the Liturgy. - Rhology said...
-
which is why I consider the mutual consistency of the Fathers nothing short of miraculous
It's only by willful blindness that anyone could consider the Fathers mutually consistent. You're inviting us to Patristic FantasyLand, but I prefer reality.
I've read this and other attempts at harmonizing the signs as reported by the evangelists. I find them unconvincing; too desperate.
What cracks me up is your willingness to ignore the obvious wrt mutual patristic inconsistencies, but find "desperate" my friend Seth's harmony of the Cross inscriptions. Again, let the reader judge.
They also held to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the visibility and unity of the One True Church founded by the Apostles, Apostolic Succession in said Church, and a belief in Theosis -- all of which you reject
You're missing the point. Congrats, you came up with three issues on which I'd largely disagree with at least your characterisation of their position, but there are far more with which they and I *are* in agreement. Just b/c the disagreements are more visible b/c we're always debating them doesn't mean that the disagreements are more numerous than the agreements. So again, your argument fails.
As for how they ended up mistaken, we can see that at work already in the NT churches, the addressees of most of the epistles and the 7 letters in Revelation 1-3. I've said that many times to you; when are you going to take that fact into acct?
I'm finding the exact opposite of Mr. Webster, as everyone who actually takes the time to read the writings of the Fathers tends to do.
Rdr DavidB once told me sthg that an EO priest with whom he used to meet when considering conversion to EOC told him: EOdoxy is found in the Bible, just in the places less often quoted by evangelicals. That would apparently be the case for SS and the CFs. Maybe you should expand your reading and take a look at what Webster and King have found.
Later, beginning in about the 3rd century, some began to delay baptism into adulthood in order to assure that all previous sins were washed away
Next you're going to tell me that this fits in perfectly with Vincent de Lérins' aphorism and your rule of faith.
You've made this allegations many times in the past, but you have yet to present a single issue upon which this was the case.
Cyprian vs Pope Stephen on the issue of the baptism of heretics is a great place to start.
Council of Hieria vs 2nd Nicaea.
Insofar as the Orthodox Church is the One True Church founded by the Apostles and preserving the Faith thereof, yes, it does; it can't help but.
yes, that's exactly my point. EOC says it's the OneTrueChurch, you've made the choice to switch your brain off when it comes to testing that claim, and so the circularity doesn't bother you. You have no way to test it, but you don't care to.
Exactly -- for the most part, they were written to correct problems in the churches already founded.
Exactly.
Which calls into question how they could have ever been intended as all-encompassing -- as standing alone.
1) the NT epistles were not meant to stand alone.
2) You're assuming w/o proof that the oral msg delivered to the churches covered material found outside the Bible.
3) The churches, standing alone, didn't do so hot either. So... what's the answer?
Friday, December 04, 2009
Not just a problem for Sola Scriptura
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.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Stripes
I've been commenting again at Dr James McGrath's blog and he asked a very good question, and I thought I'd go ahead and share my initial reaction to it here.
Question:
I guess I'd have to say it depends on the level of knowledge one has. One can be a very simple, unsophisticated believer (a farmboy, to use the Reformation-era example) and believe that he has done bad things and that Jesus alone can save him from them, and God saves him. Or one can be a super-prof of theology and be responsible for much, much more. One can be a sorta-well-read layman who struggles against pride, like me, and be responsible for quite a bit as well - what to do with the knowledge I have, how to understand it, and what not to reject when I'm corrected. So I'd say for me, I couldn't in good conscience reject either proposition. But start removing education and intellectual prowess (not that I have a lot to begin with), and somewhere in there (God knows where) it's simply enough to believe murder is wrong, and perhaps even further, our simple farmboy might not have ever even thought about it. But we trust the Holy Spirit to make that good in the life of the believer, from the simplest to the most erudite, and thank God.
Question:
I'm tempted at this point to ask which is essential for a Christian viewpoint: to believe that murder is wrong, or to believe that we can be philosophically certain that murder is wrong?
I guess I'd have to say it depends on the level of knowledge one has. One can be a very simple, unsophisticated believer (a farmboy, to use the Reformation-era example) and believe that he has done bad things and that Jesus alone can save him from them, and God saves him. Or one can be a super-prof of theology and be responsible for much, much more. One can be a sorta-well-read layman who struggles against pride, like me, and be responsible for quite a bit as well - what to do with the knowledge I have, how to understand it, and what not to reject when I'm corrected. So I'd say for me, I couldn't in good conscience reject either proposition. But start removing education and intellectual prowess (not that I have a lot to begin with), and somewhere in there (God knows where) it's simply enough to believe murder is wrong, and perhaps even further, our simple farmboy might not have ever even thought about it. But we trust the Holy Spirit to make that good in the life of the believer, from the simplest to the most erudite, and thank God.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
So disingenuous but so funny!
Saw this here while reading thru the other interactions with it here and here.
The logical problems w/ it are manifold (including, but not limited to, the fact that even if the Roman Catholic Magisterium is infallible, you the private individual still have to interpret the maze of Canon law and Church decrees and encyclicals, and you are very fallible) but the picture is really funny. Click on it and it'll take you to the one of the original posts in the conversation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)