[quote]pat wrote: Do you take all scripture literally? [/quote] A funny question coming from someone who believes “take, eat, this is my body” is literal. I take it literally, unless it obviously shouldn’t be.
[/quote]
Now this is a real topic. So do you believe when Jesus said it to the disciples he was saying it figuratively?
How is it obvious that it shouldn’t be? St. Paul seemed to take it quite literally in 1 Cor 10:16.
Take it up with him.
Well get over it. It’s not substantive. It’s just a title.
Oh so your passing judgement on me now? But them later you are going to lie and say you didn’t?
By what reason do you think I don’t study the bible? Why, because I did not go painstakingly peruse through the historical books to find an instance of a King changing his name?
Mean while you brag about how much you read the bible, yet it seems to me, you don’t understand what it says.
[quote]
If you tack this kind of stuff on any more, I won’t answer for sure. As I said, if it’s petty, no need for you to say so, all will see it.[/quote]
You were being petty. Quit whining about being called out on it. If you are vociferously focusing on a title, while ignoring matters of real substance, you are being petty. I am asking you to stop and focus on things that matter, not things that don’t. The question was asked and was answered, there is no reason to be labor it. It does not substatiate your claim that the whole church is false, wrong, it’s doctrines are wrong, it’s history is wrong, that everything is wrong, because some people refer to the Pope as the holy father. Big whoop. That’s not going to change, you don’t have to like it. It’s not material. We got the fact that you don’t like is gotten. There are so much better things to talk about than that. We can talk about the Eucharist like you mentioned above.
But like it or not, I am not going to sit here and let you cut down my faith, call it names, or say it’s false. I am not going to tolerate that.
Look, you came in here acting like a jerk, telling us how false and fake we were and bragging about how very good you are. I don’t take to kindly to that.
You said the church had no historical precedent, you were wrong and it was proven.
You tried to say the church had no scriptural precedent, it took another Protestant to show in great detail, that you were wrong. Now your harping on the term ‘holy father’. You say it’s not in the bible… Well lots of things you practice aren’t in the Bible. You call you church leaders ‘Reverend’… Where is that in the Bible? Where is the practice of Wednesday and Sunday church in the bible? Where is preaching from the bible, in the bible? Where is the rule of not drinking alcohol in the Bible? Where is the act and ritual of being ‘saved’ in the Bible?
I am happy to discuss scripture and I will even apologize for being angry with you and dealing with you harshly, if you agree to drop the attitude and act like a man. That’s all I require.
I’d like to get past that and have real discussions. But that will be impossible if insist on insulting my faith; that’s a deal breaker.
[quote]pat wrote: Oh so your passing judgement on me now? But them later you are going to lie and say you didn’t?
By what reason do you think I don’t study the bible? Why, because I did not go painstakingly peruse through the historical books to find an instance of a King changing his name? [/quote]
I have not denied what I’ve said to you, although it seems I often must clarify because you don’t seem to be able to read well. Did you notice Br. Chris didn’t have any trouble going back and finding the instance from Isaiah? I went back and looked at every use of “holy” before I wrote my last post. You would call it painstaking, I would call it ENJOYABLE.
[quote]pat wrote: Oh so your passing judgement on me now? But them later you are going to lie and say you didn’t?
By what reason do you think I don’t study the bible? Why, because I did not go painstakingly peruse through the historical books to find an instance of a King changing his name? [/quote]
I have not denied what I’ve said to you, although it seems I often must clarify because you don’t seem to be able to read well. Did you notice Br. Chris didn’t have any trouble going back and finding the instance from Isaiah? I went back and looked at every use of “holy” before I wrote my last post. You would call it painstaking, I would call it ENJOYABLE.
You’re such whiner, and lazy to boot.
[/quote]
To Pat’s credit, I didn’t go back either. I already had it memorized.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Some more food for thought- In 2Pet 2:5 all christians are said to be part of a “holy priesthood”, yet no such practice of tacking on “holy” to everyone’s name exists, i.e. “Holy Bro. Chris”.[/quote]
No, but we are called saints on earth, which comes from the latin word that we get holy from (and sacred). Plenty of my separated brothers call me saint BC.[/quote]Not me. I call you pain in my @… uh I mean dearest Christopher =]=] BC must stand for Barbequed Calvinist in honor of my incinerated brethren.
[quote]pat wrote: Oh so your passing judgement on me now? But them later you are going to lie and say you didn’t?
By what reason do you think I don’t study the bible? Why, because I did not go painstakingly peruse through the historical books to find an instance of a King changing his name? [/quote]
I have not denied what I’ve said to you, although it seems I often must clarify because you don’t seem to be able to read well. Did you notice Br. Chris didn’t have any trouble going back and finding the instance from Isaiah? I went back and looked at every use of “holy” before I wrote my last post. You would call it painstaking, I would call it ENJOYABLE.
You’re such whiner, and lazy to boot.
[/quote]
To Pat’s credit, I didn’t go back either. I already had it memorized. [/quote]
It’s not to his credit, it’s to yours. You did the work ahead of time, and it served you well in later study.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Again, it makes sense to err on the side of being conservative. [/quote]
If we’re going to be conservative I have to resort to prejudice and prescription of old: The early Church Fathers and other authoritative ecclesiastical writers.
I do not see your specific objection of using the word father for title or affection. It seems that St. Jerome ( reports that in the monasteries the brethren call each other, Father.
Jerome makes it plain further down in his writings:
On the issue of humility, pseudo-Chrys. tells us the intention of the Lord here, “For He rebukes not those who recline in the highest place, but those who love such places, blaming the will not the deed.”
If we look to the early homilies, we can even see further the intention about your verse in question, “And again, Ã?¢??Call not, father,Ã?¢??13 not that they should not call, but they may know whom they ought to call Father, in the highest sense. For like as the master is not a master principally; so neither is the father. For He is cause of all, both of the masters, and of the fathers” - Chrysostom, Homily 72
So using prejudice and prescription, that which is conservative, the objection is not the deed, in calling a man Father, we even see the early monks called each other Father. So, the objection is to something else, it seems.[/quote]
Sorry Chris, I don’t at all follow what you’re getting at in this post.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote: On the issue of humility, pseudo-Chrys. tells us the intention of the Lord here, “For He rebukes not those who recline in the highest place, but those who love such places, blaming the will not the deed.”
[/quote]
I will raise an issue here. This is no exegesis at all. Nothing in the text suggests Christ’s words are limited to intention, and do not include a practical prohibition. If the 2nd sentence is fact, it still does not require his conclusion. You should show me why I should not take them at face value. It’s his private interpretation. See my last answer to Kingkai in regards to this verse.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Some more food for thought- In 2Pet 2:5 all christians are said to be part of a “holy priesthood”, yet no such practice of tacking on “holy” to everyone’s name exists, i.e. “Holy Bro. Chris”.[/quote]
No, but we are called saints on earth, which comes from the latin word that we get holy from (and sacred). Plenty of my separated brothers call me saint BC.[/quote]Not me. I call you pain in my @… uh I mean dearest Christopher =]=] BC must stand for Barbequed Calvinist in honor of my incinerated brethren.
[/quote]
No, Brother Francis de Sales, for all those Calvinist that tried to chase me out of their communities when I told the truth.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Again, it makes sense to err on the side of being conservative. [/quote]
If we’re going to be conservative I have to resort to prejudice and prescription of old: The early Church Fathers and other authoritative ecclesiastical writers.
I do not see your specific objection of using the word father for title or affection. It seems that St. Jerome ( reports that in the monasteries the brethren call each other, Father.
Jerome makes it plain further down in his writings:
On the issue of humility, pseudo-Chrys. tells us the intention of the Lord here, “For He rebukes not those who recline in the highest place, but those who love such places, blaming the will not the deed.”
If we look to the early homilies, we can even see further the intention about your verse in question, “And again, Ã??Ã?¢??Call not, father,Ã??Ã?¢??13 not that they should not call, but they may know whom they ought to call Father, in the highest sense. For like as the master is not a master principally; so neither is the father. For He is cause of all, both of the masters, and of the fathers” - Chrysostom, Homily 72
So using prejudice and prescription, that which is conservative, the objection is not the deed, in calling a man Father, we even see the early monks called each other Father. So, the objection is to something else, it seems.[/quote]
Sorry Chris, I don’t at all follow what you’re getting at in this post.[/quote]
You said be conservative, so I went and looked at what the Early Christians believed. They are all in line about Matthew 23:9.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Yes, and I think it should be enough to dissuade others.
[/quote]
I will respond to all four of the previous quotes here. I respect your right to read Scripture in a manner you consider responsible. However, you have publicly questioned the ethics of both Catholics in general and the pope himself on the basis of the use of a title. If you are going to accuse someone of moral failure (either implicitly or explicitly), it’s your duty to demonstrate that they are actually disobeying God. Since you had only a single, ambiguous witness to the testify against them (Matt. 23:9) when biblical mandates require at least two witnesses, I would say that your critique doesn’t have much foundation. Since the biblical witness on this particular issue is ambiguous at best, we are in the grey area of Christian freedom. If you wish to impose a limitation on someone else’s Christian freedom, it’s your responsibility to demonstrate why such a limitation is necessary. In other words, if there is insufficient biblical evidence to directly prohibit a particular course of action, but you still believe that other Christians would be morally culpable for pursuing that course of action, then you have the responsibility of demonstrating why pursuing such a course of action is wrong.
Now, based on your assumptions, the biblical canon presents us with a linguistic norm- we are bound to its terminology. The problem, however, is that no where within the canon itself does it prohibit linguistic deviation or expansion. There is, in other words, no passage in the New Testament that explicitly states, “when the 66 book canon is complete, you may only use the titles contained therein.” Consequently, since you as a Protestant maintain Scripture as the primary authority, you are left without an authoritative basis for assuming that the church must be limited to terminology contained within the Scriptures alone. In other words, without explicit biblical warrant for treating the canon as the guide to terminological norms, your treatment of the Bible as such a guide is, at best, a necessary ramification of YOUR OWN theology, and at worst, completely arbitrary. Either way, your view of the Bible’s function in this area is not binding on others and thus cannot sustain your accusations of ethical misconduct.
The only way your case could be supportable is if you could demonstrate that the Bible exclusively employs unique, non-culturally determined terminology, or at least that the biblical authors so thoroughly changed particular terms which they appropriated from the surrounding cultures that all connections of the terms to those cultures are severed. In reality, we find just the opposite - biblical authors often appropriate terms for no better reason than convenience. The use of the term “elders,” for example, was not used in the early church because the term had some sort of special theological significance, but rather because the church originated in Judaism, and Jewish community leaders were referred to as “elders.” The early Christians appropriated the term because they considered their sect part of Judaism; does that mean that we are perpetually bound to use this culturally-determined term today? As I’ve discussed with Tirib, the New Testament REFLECTS SOME of the practices and teaching of the early church; it does not CONTAIN ALL (the entire content) of the apostolic teaching. Consequently, arguments from silence such as those you have employed in your analysis don’t hold much water.
Based on what I have said so far, I would argue that you have every right to BELIEVE that Jesus intended to set a precedent by referring to God as Holy Father, such that no one else could ever be referred to by that juxtaposition of words. But that is a belief without explicit biblical warrant; it can only function to condemn someone else of wrongdoing in a content where the other person agrees that the Bible functions as an authoritative guide to the limits of Christian terminology. For a Catholic who doesn’t buy your arbitrary assumptions about how the canon functions, your accusations fall flat.
Again, on what grounds? Who are you to say so? Where is the biblical precedent? God didn’t tell Joseph to name the Christ child something unique; instead, God chose one of THE MOST COMMON JEWISH BOY NAMES in the first century, a form of the Hebrew yehoshua. If Latinos cannot name a boy child Jesus, neither should anyone use the name Joshua, or any other variant of Yehoshua.
This is all beside the point anyway, because once again, you are treating words as if they possess inherent meanings. Word meaning is a function of use, not etymology or other inherent factors. You are taking issue with the use of a form of a word, a mere grouping of letters, when that grouping is being used by Catholics in an entirely different fashion than Jesus used it.
Most importantly, Mr. Chen, you as a Protestant are displaying a tremendous spirit of legalism here, which is something I thought good baptists generally condemned the Catholic church for. You admit Catholics use the term differently than Jesus used it, i.e., that the words they utter are fundamentally different from the words Jesus uttered, filled with entirely different content, and yet you still condemn them for using the FORMS. You are straining a gnat and swallowing a camel.
Finally, Paul refers to himself as a spiritual father to the believers. Whether you like it or not, Paul also refers to Abraham in Romans as a spiritual father - you and I are not Abraham’s physical seed, but rather his spiritual seed through faith, and therefore he is our spiritual father. If you are trying to be faithful to Jesus’ objection in Matt. 23:9, you need to recognize that Jesus says, “call no one on earth YOUR father.” He doesn’t say, “don’t call anyone father,” but rather, “don’t call anyone YOUR father.” In other words, Jesus isn’t merely condemning direct address in verse 9 - he isn’t merely saying, “don’t add the title Father to someone’s name when you are addressing them directly.” Rather, he says, “don’t refer to anyone on earth as your father.” The addition of the 2nd person plural pronoun humon suggests that the verb kaleo is functioning in the sense of “consider” or “designate” rather than you merely “proclaim publicly.” Thus Jesus is emphasizing the private dimension, the heart issue - do not consider anyone other than God your spiritual father. The issue here is not direct address, but rather the position you assign someone in your heart. Despite that, Paul still calls himself the Corinthians spiritual father - based on your assumptions, is it not FAR more prideful for Paul to actually tell them “I AM your spiritual father?” Again, based on your assumptions, that would be much worse than simply allowing them to call him father, because Paul is actually assuming a unique authoritative role in their lives!
What is the issue God cares about, Mr. Chen? The use of a particular form, or the heart issue behind it? Is it really simply the act of addressing someone as Father that God condemns, or rather the act of assigning someone other than God final “Father-like” authority in your life? Is it the letter or the Spirit? If you argue that what God really cares about is the use of a particular term, how are you any different from a Catholic who argues for one specific way of taking the Lord’s supper?
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:but they are not synonymous. Was John the Baptist not called “righteous and holy” (Mk 6:20)? Does Paul not address believers directly as “holy ones” (Eph. 1:1)?
(Don’t you mean Eph 1:4?) In both cases, the word is used in an adjectival sense, not as an address, and certainly not as a title.
[/quote]
First of all, calling someone “Holy Father” is using holy in an adjectival sense. You are committing the fallacy of making a distinction without a difference. In the phrase “Holy Father,” holy is functioning as an adjective. Secondly, I meant Ephesians 1:1 - in the Greek, the passage reads, Paulus apostolos Christou Iesou dia thelematos theou (Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God) TOIS HAGIOIS (to the Holy Ones). In Greek, adjectives can function as substantives (i.e., nouns), but we need to add words in English to make sense of it. Thus a truly literal (though incorrect) rendering of tois hagiois would be “to the holies.” To render it properly in English, we must translate it “holy ones.” In other words, tois hagiois IS being used as a title - the believers are the Holy ones, or to go with the traditional term used in the KJV, “saints.” Perhaps that is why you didn’t realize I was referring to 1:1 rather than 1:4 - the KJV once again obscures its underlying Greek text. “Saints” is the KJV’s poor translation of the plural substantive adjective hagioi.
Finally, you were the one who questioned the legitimacy of applying the adjective “holy” to human beings at all. The point is, the New Testament authors do it ALL the time. Thus, by your logic of biblical precedents, we should be referring to people as holy MORE often
Also, thank you for focusing so intensely on the biblical text as well. I am sorry that your schedule is such that you are awake while the rest of us posters are asleep - usually we can respond and receive several responses a day haha. You have to wait several hours, and I would think that gets annoying sometimes.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Again, it makes sense to err on the side of being conservative. [/quote]
If we’re going to be conservative I have to resort to prejudice and prescription of old: The early Church Fathers and other authoritative ecclesiastical writers.
I do not see your specific objection of using the word father for title or affection. It seems that St. Jerome ( reports that in the monasteries the brethren call each other, Father.
Jerome makes it plain further down in his writings:
On the issue of humility, pseudo-Chrys. tells us the intention of the Lord here, “For He rebukes not those who recline in the highest place, but those who love such places, blaming the will not the deed.”
If we look to the early homilies, we can even see further the intention about your verse in question, “And again, Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??Call not, father,Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??13 not that they should not call, but they may know whom they ought to call Father, in the highest sense. For like as the master is not a master principally; so neither is the father. For He is cause of all, both of the masters, and of the fathers” - Chrysostom, Homily 72
So using prejudice and prescription, that which is conservative, the objection is not the deed, in calling a man Father, we even see the early monks called each other Father. So, the objection is to something else, it seems.[/quote]
Sorry Chris, I don’t at all follow what you’re getting at in this post.[/quote]
You said be conservative, so I went and looked at what the Early Christians believed. They are all in line about Matthew 23:9. [/quote]
Chris, to be completely honest, I think you could use a little more nuance in your argument here. You are treating primary sources from the 4th century A.D. (yes, I know my church fathers :)) as if they are a priori exceptional guides to first century thought. A lot of Catholics do this and it is extremely frustrating for those of us Protestants who want to find more common ground with our Catholic brethren but cannot stand their pervasive historical insensitivity. Doctrines, practices, rituals - all of these things developed over time. Treating a fourth century source as a reflection of Christian thought and practice in the New Testament era is irresponsible; it collapses history into a single epoch and denies the clear facts of development and change within the church in the first four centuries.
Moreover, when dealing with the church fathers, you have to realize that they are EXTREMELY HISTORICALLY INSENSITIVE. By that I mean they rarely recognize or admit the vast cultural and historical distance between their own late Greco-Roman milieu and the first century Palestinian Jewish context. Granted, you did choose, in addition to Jerome, Chrysostom, who came out of the rhetorical schools (which placed a much greater emphasis on what we call historical-critical concerns than the Alexandrian philosophical schools, which emphasized allegorical exegesis), but I would guess your choice was one of convenience rather than deriving from a desire to choose a more “modern-minded” ancient thinker. I could be wrong…
In any case, my point is that you aren’t going to convince Mr. Chen or any other Protestant about what a New Testament passage by using a 4th century source. For protestants, the “EARLY church” refers to the first century-VERY early second century church, i.e., prior to the death of the last of Jesus’ disciples. After that, the church’s reins were placed in the hands of Gentiles with little knowledge of Second Temple Judaism or 1st century Palestine, people who were BY DEFINITION ill-equipped to properly interpret the New Testament texts.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Again, it makes sense to err on the side of being conservative. [/quote]
If we’re going to be conservative I have to resort to prejudice and prescription of old: The early Church Fathers and other authoritative ecclesiastical writers.
I do not see your specific objection of using the word father for title or affection. It seems that St. Jerome ( reports that in the monasteries the brethren call each other, Father.
Jerome makes it plain further down in his writings:
On the issue of humility, pseudo-Chrys. tells us the intention of the Lord here, “For He rebukes not those who recline in the highest place, but those who love such places, blaming the will not the deed.”
If we look to the early homilies, we can even see further the intention about your verse in question, “And again, Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??Call not, father,Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??13 not that they should not call, but they may know whom they ought to call Father, in the highest sense. For like as the master is not a master principally; so neither is the father. For He is cause of all, both of the masters, and of the fathers” - Chrysostom, Homily 72
So using prejudice and prescription, that which is conservative, the objection is not the deed, in calling a man Father, we even see the early monks called each other Father. So, the objection is to something else, it seems.[/quote]
Sorry Chris, I don’t at all follow what you’re getting at in this post.[/quote]
You said be conservative, so I went and looked at what the Early Christians believed. They are all in line about Matthew 23:9. [/quote]
Chris, to be completely honest, I think you could use a little more nuance in your argument here. You are treating primary sources from the 4th century A.D. (yes, I know my church fathers :)) as if they are a priori exceptional guides to first century thought. A lot of Catholics do this and it is extremely frustrating for those of us Protestants who want to find more common ground with our Catholic brethren but cannot stand their pervasive historical insensitivity. Doctrines, practices, rituals - all of these things developed over time. Treating a fourth century source as a reflection of Christian thought and practice in the New Testament era is irresponsible; it collapses history into a single epoch and denies the clear facts of development and change within the church in the first four centuries.
Moreover, when dealing with the church fathers, you have to realize that they are EXTREMELY HISTORICALLY INSENSITIVE. By that I mean they rarely recognize or admit the vast cultural and historical distance between their own late Greco-Roman milieu and the first century Palestinian Jewish context. Granted, you did choose, in addition to Jerome, Chrysostom, who came out of the rhetorical schools (which placed a much greater emphasis on what we call historical-critical concerns than the Alexandrian philosophical schools, which emphasized allegorical exegesis), but I would guess your choice was one of convenience rather than deriving from a desire to choose a more “modern-minded” ancient thinker. I could be wrong…
In any case, my point is that you aren’t going to convince Mr. Chen or any other Protestant about what a New Testament passage by using a 4th century source. For protestants, the “EARLY church” refers to the first century-VERY early second century church, i.e., prior to the death of the last of Jesus’ disciples. After that, the church’s reins were placed in the hands of Gentiles with little knowledge of Second Temple Judaism or 1st century Palestine, people who were BY DEFINITION ill-equipped to properly interpret the New Testament texts. [/quote]
So is the canonization of the bible also excluded? Sort of late in the game to claim the authority to know what book or epistle accurately reflects Christ.
[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< So is the canonization of the bible also excluded? Sort of late in the game to claim the authority to know what book or epistle accurately reflects Christ. >>>[/quote]The canonization of the bible was/is God’s all wise anchor dropping ceremony to cleanup what had already gone astray, but most especially to erect a standard against what was coming in the next thousand years. Every strike of Luther’s hammer at Wittenburg was a testimony to that wisdom. In a pathetically oversimplified nutshell which is all I have time for at the moment, but which will come up again. (He can’t see this because he has me on ignore btw)
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
Chris, to be completely honest, I think you could use a little more nuance in your argument here. You are treating primary sources from the 4th century A.D. (yes, I know my church fathers :)) as if they are a priori exceptional guides to first century thought. [/quote]
[quote]pat wrote: Oh so your passing judgement on me now? But them later you are going to lie and say you didn’t?
By what reason do you think I don’t study the bible? Why, because I did not go painstakingly peruse through the historical books to find an instance of a King changing his name? [/quote]
I have not denied what I’ve said to you, although it seems I often must clarify because you don’t seem to be able to read well. Did you notice Br. Chris didn’t have any trouble going back and finding the instance from Isaiah? I went back and looked at every use of “holy” before I wrote my last post. You would call it painstaking, I would call it ENJOYABLE.
You’re such whiner, and lazy to boot.
[/quote]
You passed judgement on me. You bragged about how much more you read the bible than me, as if you know anything about my prayer and scripture life. Why? Because you did not have an answer for what I said. You have been wrong about almost everything you said and it’s been proven. If we have no common ground it’s because you have filled your heart with hate against me. I am trying to reach out to you, but your pride won’t let you do it.
Pride is an awful lonely state.
Let’s put our money where are mouths are. Let’s get totally real. I wish to reconcile with you, but I am unable to do such a thing unless you wish the same thing. Are you willing to reconcile and move forward?
I won’t address anyone as Reverend, even if he thinks he is. I would use Pastor, if he was one, or perhaps Bishop.
What days should we go to church Pat?
The subject of whether or not the bible prohibits drinking alcohol is a big topic. The bible does prohibit at least excessive drinking.
Being saved is ritualistic, but the Catholic mass is not?
Sorry Pat, we have no real common ground. I’ll not discuss any of the above with you.[/quote]
My point was merely that you are affronted by the fact that people call the pope ‘holy father’, because your line of reasoning was, that it wasn’t in the bible. The point of the above is to illustrate the fact you do and practice and use labels that aren’t in the bible as well. That is all, you don’t have to discuss the above topics, you just have to admit the rituals and labels you use are not in the bible either. So if you are going criticize the Catholics for calling the pope ‘holy father’ then you also cannot ignore your own a-scriptural practices.
I don’t call the Pope, the holy father, I just call him the pope.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Again, it makes sense to err on the side of being conservative. [/quote]
If we’re going to be conservative I have to resort to prejudice and prescription of old: The early Church Fathers and other authoritative ecclesiastical writers.
I do not see your specific objection of using the word father for title or affection. It seems that St. Jerome ( reports that in the monasteries the brethren call each other, Father.
Jerome makes it plain further down in his writings:
On the issue of humility, pseudo-Chrys. tells us the intention of the Lord here, “For He rebukes not those who recline in the highest place, but those who love such places, blaming the will not the deed.”
If we look to the early homilies, we can even see further the intention about your verse in question, “And again, Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??Call not, father,Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??13 not that they should not call, but they may know whom they ought to call Father, in the highest sense. For like as the master is not a master principally; so neither is the father. For He is cause of all, both of the masters, and of the fathers” - Chrysostom, Homily 72
So using prejudice and prescription, that which is conservative, the objection is not the deed, in calling a man Father, we even see the early monks called each other Father. So, the objection is to something else, it seems.[/quote]
Sorry Chris, I don’t at all follow what you’re getting at in this post.[/quote]
You said be conservative, so I went and looked at what the Early Christians believed. They are all in line about Matthew 23:9. [/quote]
Chris, to be completely honest, I think you could use a little more nuance in your argument here. You are treating primary sources from the 4th century A.D. (yes, I know my church fathers :)) as if they are a priori exceptional guides to first century thought. A lot of Catholics do this and it is extremely frustrating for those of us Protestants who want to find more common ground with our Catholic brethren but cannot stand their pervasive historical insensitivity. Doctrines, practices, rituals - all of these things developed over time. Treating a fourth century source as a reflection of Christian thought and practice in the New Testament era is irresponsible; it collapses history into a single epoch and denies the clear facts of development and change within the church in the first four centuries.
Moreover, when dealing with the church fathers, you have to realize that they are EXTREMELY HISTORICALLY INSENSITIVE. By that I mean they rarely recognize or admit the vast cultural and historical distance between their own late Greco-Roman milieu and the first century Palestinian Jewish context. Granted, you did choose, in addition to Jerome, Chrysostom, who came out of the rhetorical schools (which placed a much greater emphasis on what we call historical-critical concerns than the Alexandrian philosophical schools, which emphasized allegorical exegesis), but I would guess your choice was one of convenience rather than deriving from a desire to choose a more “modern-minded” ancient thinker. I could be wrong…
In any case, my point is that you aren’t going to convince Mr. Chen or any other Protestant about what a New Testament passage by using a 4th century source. For protestants, the “EARLY church” refers to the first century-VERY early second century church, i.e., prior to the death of the last of Jesus’ disciples. After that, the church’s reins were placed in the hands of Gentiles with little knowledge of Second Temple Judaism or 1st century Palestine, people who were BY DEFINITION ill-equipped to properly interpret the New Testament texts. [/quote]
So is the canonization of the bible also excluded? Sort of late in the game to claim the authority to know what book or epistle accurately reflects Christ.
[/quote]
That’s an absolutely fair question, one I have admitted most Protestants have no good answer for. However, I’ll offer myself up to public criticism by explaining how I answer that question.
Canonization was not a sudden or entirely unexpected event. Rather, it was a gradual process that began in the New Testament era itself, and though it reached its culmination in the 3rd-5th centuries, canonization was ultimately a recognition and codification of realizations that had taken place long before.
Let’s begin by distinguishing between Scripture and Canon. Scripture refers to a text possessing authority to govern faith and practice. Canon, on the other hand, refers to a closed corpus of authoritative texts (Scriptures) to which nothing can be added or subtracted. Depending on the time period in question, a text could be considered Scriptural without being canonical. You can have a Scriptural text without having a canon; a canon is ultimately a later organization of Scriptural texts.
Why is this relevant? Well, the majority of the New Testament texts were considered Scriptural before the end of the first century. Even though it is highly unlikely that the New Testament authors had any knowledge that their texts would eventually be included in a closed corpus, there is evidence that the New Testament authors already recognized many of each other’s texts as scriptural.
For example, scholars have long recognized that both Ignatius’ seven letters and the seven letters included in the Book of Revelation follow a precedent most likely established by the Pauline corpus - Paul wrote more than seven letters, but he wrote to seven churches total, and since seven was considered the number of perfection, Paul’s corpus of letters was assumed to be written for all Christians. The same thing occurs in Revelation - seven letters address seven particular, historical churches, but together they represent and apply to all churches. Based on certain other intertextual echoes, the evidence suggests that the Pauline corpus was already established and authoritative before the end of the first century AD. Moreover, the standard Pauline letter features, such as the uniquely Pauline greeting formula (“grace (chars) to you and peace,” rather than “greetings” (charein)), was already influential by the mid-first century (1 Peter 1:2).
The gospels provide another excellent example of this phenomenon. The early church Father Papias (c. 100 A.D.) referred to Mark’s gospel as containing Peter’s proclamations. Extensive studies on this issue have demonstrated the likelihood of Petrine influence in the composition of Mark’s gospel. A good case can be made for this history of composition - Matthew used Mark, and Luke used Mark and Matthew. What is interesting is that, though there are some differences, each subsequent author felt bound to more or less use the text(s) preceding them as authoritative sources. In other words, the synoptic tradition itself demonstrates the early Scriptural status of at least the Synoptic gospels.
There are numerous other examples that substantiate the claim that most of the New Testament texts were already recognized as Scriptural by the first century, though I don’t have time to go into more now. The point is, there are good historical reasons for assuming that, within the period of the composition of the New Testament documents themselves, many texts were already Scriptural. In other words, for a significant number of core texts, we don’t actually need the church to demonstrate or even affirm their authority. The texts do that themselves.
This doesn’t work for all of the texts, however, which is why we have to get into discussions of apostolic authority (something that I also don’t have much time for). Suffice it to say that, following Scriptural precedent, I believe inspiration is closely tied to authorship. In other words, part of the reason why I trust that Deuteronomy is inspired is because of how closely tied it is within the canon to Moses. The same is true of Luke’s gospel, or James’ epistle. Authoritative figures within the early church have, in my opinion and for various reasons, special claims to inspiration.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Again, it makes sense to err on the side of being conservative. [/quote]
If we’re going to be conservative I have to resort to prejudice and prescription of old: The early Church Fathers and other authoritative ecclesiastical writers.
I do not see your specific objection of using the word father for title or affection. It seems that St. Jerome ( reports that in the monasteries the brethren call each other, Father.
Jerome makes it plain further down in his writings:
On the issue of humility, pseudo-Chrys. tells us the intention of the Lord here, “For He rebukes not those who recline in the highest place, but those who love such places, blaming the will not the deed.”
If we look to the early homilies, we can even see further the intention about your verse in question, “And again, Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??Call not, father,Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??13 not that they should not call, but they may know whom they ought to call Father, in the highest sense. For like as the master is not a master principally; so neither is the father. For He is cause of all, both of the masters, and of the fathers” - Chrysostom, Homily 72
So using prejudice and prescription, that which is conservative, the objection is not the deed, in calling a man Father, we even see the early monks called each other Father. So, the objection is to something else, it seems.[/quote]
Sorry Chris, I don’t at all follow what you’re getting at in this post.[/quote]
You said be conservative, so I went and looked at what the Early Christians believed. They are all in line about Matthew 23:9. [/quote]
Chris, to be completely honest, I think you could use a little more nuance in your argument here. You are treating primary sources from the 4th century A.D. (yes, I know my church fathers :)) as if they are a priori exceptional guides to first century thought. A lot of Catholics do this and it is extremely frustrating for those of us Protestants who want to find more common ground with our Catholic brethren but cannot stand their pervasive historical insensitivity. Doctrines, practices, rituals - all of these things developed over time. Treating a fourth century source as a reflection of Christian thought and practice in the New Testament era is irresponsible; it collapses history into a single epoch and denies the clear facts of development and change within the church in the first four centuries.
Moreover, when dealing with the church fathers, you have to realize that they are EXTREMELY HISTORICALLY INSENSITIVE. By that I mean they rarely recognize or admit the vast cultural and historical distance between their own late Greco-Roman milieu and the first century Palestinian Jewish context. Granted, you did choose, in addition to Jerome, Chrysostom, who came out of the rhetorical schools (which placed a much greater emphasis on what we call historical-critical concerns than the Alexandrian philosophical schools, which emphasized allegorical exegesis), but I would guess your choice was one of convenience rather than deriving from a desire to choose a more “modern-minded” ancient thinker. I could be wrong…
In any case, my point is that you aren’t going to convince Mr. Chen or any other Protestant about what a New Testament passage by using a 4th century source. For protestants, the “EARLY church” refers to the first century-VERY early second century church, i.e., prior to the death of the last of Jesus’ disciples. After that, the church’s reins were placed in the hands of Gentiles with little knowledge of Second Temple Judaism or 1st century Palestine, people who were BY DEFINITION ill-equipped to properly interpret the New Testament texts. [/quote]
So is the canonization of the bible also excluded? Sort of late in the game to claim the authority to know what book or epistle accurately reflects Christ.
[/quote]
That’s an absolutely fair question, one I have admitted most Protestants have no good answer for. However, I’ll offer myself up to public criticism by explaining how I answer that question.
Canonization was not a sudden or entirely unexpected event. Rather, it was a gradual process that began in the New Testament era itself, and though it reached its culmination in the 3rd-5th centuries, canonization was ultimately a recognition and codification of realizations that had taken place long before.
Let’s begin by distinguishing between Scripture and Canon. Scripture refers to a text possessing authority to govern faith and practice. Canon, on the other hand, refers to a closed corpus of authoritative texts (Scriptures) to which nothing can be added or subtracted. Depending on the time period in question, a text could be considered Scriptural without being canonical. You can have a Scriptural text without having a canon; a canon is ultimately a later organization of Scriptural texts.
Why is this relevant? Well, the majority of the New Testament texts were considered Scriptural before the end of the first century. Even though it is highly unlikely that the New Testament authors had any knowledge that their texts would eventually be included in a closed corpus, there is evidence that the New Testament authors already recognized many of each other’s texts as scriptural.
For example, scholars have long recognized that both Ignatius’ seven letters and the seven letters included in the Book of Revelation follow a precedent most likely established by the Pauline corpus - Paul wrote more than seven letters, but he wrote to seven churches total, and since seven was considered the number of perfection, Paul’s corpus of letters was assumed to be written for all Christians. The same thing occurs in Revelation - seven letters address seven particular, historical churches, but together they represent and apply to all churches. Based on certain other intertextual echoes, the evidence suggests that the Pauline corpus was already established and authoritative before the end of the first century AD. Moreover, the standard Pauline letter features, such as the uniquely Pauline greeting formula (“grace (chars) to you and peace,” rather than “greetings” (charein)), was already influential by the mid-first century (1 Peter 1:2).
The gospels provide another excellent example of this phenomenon. The early church Father Papias (c. 100 A.D.) referred to Mark’s gospel as containing Peter’s proclamations. Extensive studies on this issue have demonstrated the likelihood of Petrine influence in the composition of Mark’s gospel. A good case can be made for this history of composition - Matthew used Mark, and Luke used Mark and Matthew. What is interesting is that, though there are some differences, each subsequent author felt bound to more or less use the text(s) preceding them as authoritative sources. In other words, the synoptic tradition itself demonstrates the early Scriptural status of at least the Synoptic gospels.
There are numerous other examples that substantiate the claim that most of the New Testament texts were already recognized as Scriptural by the first century, though I don’t have time to go into more now. The point is, there are good historical reasons for assuming that, within the period of the composition of the New Testament documents themselves, many texts were already Scriptural. In other words, for a significant number of core texts, we don’t actually need the church to demonstrate or even affirm their authority. The texts do that themselves.
This doesn’t work for all of the texts, however, which is why we have to get into discussions of apostolic authority (something that I also don’t have much time for). Suffice it to say that, following Scriptural precedent, I believe inspiration is closely tied to authorship. In other words, part of the reason why I trust that Deuteronomy is inspired is because of how closely tied it is within the canon to Moses. The same is true of Luke’s gospel, or James’ epistle. Authoritative figures within the early church have, in my opinion and for various reasons, special claims to inspiration. [/quote]
So, it is reasonable to assume that the phone game actually works in the Church, especially when dude’s write this stuff down? It’s safe to assume that when dudes agree almost unanimously it probably means that it is because that’s a definitive teaching?
