This kid’s voice could make many people Christians.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< You do not read my words correctly. If it is bad religion, it is all bad religion (read: all the doctrine is to be assumed as false, as if one doctrine is wrong the Church is wrong, therefore none of its teachings have any authority). >>>[/quote] I agree… (KK does not, but that okay for now) with a further relatively short explanation that I will have to get to tonight. Good post overall BTW.
EDIT: I joyously embrace many of the doctrines you list there, but deny that they are the spiritual property of Rome.
@KK. I believe I’m gonna be onboard with that definition of the “rule of faith”. In short, the measure of orthodoxy.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Let me hasten to clarify, publicly, in front of all these fine people, that I have no illusions regarding my pale academic qualifications in light of your own. I will also go on record as saying that that IS NOT a disdainful jab as I suspect you MAY suspect. Truly. Absolutely not.
NASB[quote]65-And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” 66-As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.[/quote] This is the occurrence of His mentioning election that I was referring to. Not the one earlier in the dialog. The pronoun rendered as “this”,(NASB) as you know much better than I do, along with the preceding preposition, encompass the entire conversation to that point in my opinion. To paraphrase: “after hearing allll this (from then onward is also a reasonable rendering), many turned back and stopped following Him”. [/quote]
Yes, I realize you are talking about the second occurrence in 65. I’m sorry - mentioning the earlier statement in vs. 37 was part of my rather unclear attempt to point out that aside from the mention in 37 and 65 (the occurrences of which are perfectly explicable based on context) of election specifically, election is NOT the primary subject of Jesus’ speech. I’m sorry for not being clearer on that. While important, those statements serve more to illustrate Jesus’ knowledge (and through knowledge, control) of the situation; they demonstrate that the unbelief of the multitude was no surprise to Jesus, but something he fully expected and allowed. Consequently, since the few references to election play a subsidiary role in the conversation rather than serving as the primary focus, I think it would be more appropriate to read (as you now seem to be suggesting in the quoted portion above) “because of this” as encompassing the entirety of the discussion but emphasizing primarily Jesus’ “difficult” statements on cannibalism, not on election. My point was just that they turned away not because Jesus’ statements on election turned them off; rather, they were already turned away by his discussion of cannibalism, and “because of this” would thus refer to the conversation in general instead of specifically Jesus’ statements on election.
That’s a great question, and I think 61-64 are far away the most difficult verses in this section to make sense of. First of all, there is clear Exodus background to this entire section (6:23-71). Remember that Yahweh fed the people in the desert; here Jesus has already acted as Yahweh by feeding the people. It is because of that feeding that they approach him again. I am not totally certain about all the significance contained in that background yet, but by God’s grace, I am working on it 
I think of Paul’s discussion (not to say that John was dependent on Paul, but this theological strain may have predated both their writings) of the people in the wilderness who ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink, but with many of whom God was not pleased (1 Cor. 10). I think that, if the connection is genuine, it would reinforce my earlier point that John’s rhetorical goal in this passage is to force his audience to ask, “who are Jesus’ true disciples (i.e., WHO IS THE TRUE ISRAEL)?”
Returning to your excellent questions, sarx does function somewhat differently in different sections of John’s gospel, and entire dissertations have been written trying to figure out that particular issue. For now, I think your reading is certainly possible, but I am hesitant to read 63 as a mitigating explanation for three reasons. First of all, as you already noted, it is extremely cryptic; all we really have are some catchwords (sarx, for example). Secondly, it is possible that we are mislead by our own terminology - we tend to approach the interpretation of this passage differentiating between the “physical” and “spiritual” referents of Jesus’ statements. I am not sure Jesus is using pneuma to refer to “spiritual meaning” in this passage.
Thirdly, though Jesus does refer to “flesh” in verse 63, he does not add the possessive pronoun mou (“my”), suggesting he is talking about “flesh” in the abstract (see John 3:6 for another interesting and potentially relevant pneuma/sarx dichotomy). Furthermore, his statement is patently false if he is referring to HIS OWN FLESH, for he already declared that he is giving his flesh for the life of the world (51). Indeed, it is PRECISELY his flesh that gives life. And I think here again we are mislead by our own presuppositions - because of some parallels, we assume with our Catholic brethren that Jesus’ statements about the bread and drink refer to the Eucharist. However, I think we need to question that reading; it is equally (if not more) likely that despite some verbal parallels, Jesus is not referring to any specific practice (taking communion), but to belief in him. “Eating and drinking” would thus be metaphorical as well; by believing, we partake of the “body and blood of Christ” (i.e., his sacrifice) of eternal life. That’s why Jesus does not say “this bread is my flesh, with which I give life to the world,” but rather, “this bread is my flesh, WHICH I give FOR the life of the world” (6:51). That seems to me to be a pretty clear allusion to his sacrificial death; in that case, the entire discussion of eating and drinking his flesh and blood is NOT a veiled reference to Communion, but rather to belief in Jesus. Indeed, it is worth noting that the Eucharist is NOT of particular interest to John; his is the ONLY gospel that doesn’t even MENTION Jesus’ breaking the bread and serving the wine to his disciples and the accompanying covenantal words. Consequently, John 6 may have nothing to do with the Eucharist at all.
Indeed - literal consumption does not seem to be in view here.
Sorta rude ignorant question for you guys:
Do the Jehovah Witness’s that show up at my door to hand out booklets know how fucking rude it is to knock on my door, waking up my daughter?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:Sorta rude ignorant question for you guys: Do the Jehovah Witness’s that show up at my door to hand out booklets know how fucking rude it is to knock on my door, waking up my daughter?[/quote] Hijack Haven - Politics and World Issues - Forums - T Nation
This kind of dialog is so difficult to do online like this.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< election is NOT the primary subject of Jesus’ speech. I’m sorry for not being clearer on that. While important, those statements serve more to illustrate Jesus’ knowledge (and through knowledge, control) of the situation; they demonstrate that the unbelief of the multitude was no surprise to Jesus, but something he fully expected and allowed. Consequently, since the few references to election play a subsidiary role in the conversation rather than serving as the primary focus, I think it would be more appropriate to read (as you now seem to be suggesting in the quoted portion above) “because of this” as encompassing the entirety of the discussion but emphasizing primarily Jesus’ “difficult” statements on cannibalism, not on election. My point was just that they turned away not because Jesus’ statements on election turned them off; rather, they were already turned away by his discussion of cannibalism, and “because of this” would thus refer to the conversation in general instead of specifically Jesus’ statements on election. >>.[/quote]I will not disagree with this for two reasons. One: I actually don’t substantially disagree. I’m saying that election, or maybe more finely focused as His ongoing implied insistence on the NON-election of many in the immediate audience, was the last straw so to speak. I’ll concede your point on the lesser nature of election in the passage for now which brings me to my second reason. I do not want to turn this dialog into a debate between you and I on election. Wrong time, wrong place. No matter how hard I’m trying though, I cannot prevent myself from mentioning that Jesus continues with the general theme of divinely sovereign choice in verse 70. That’s not really a concession then is it? LOL! Hopefully we can save that for later.[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< That’s a great question, and I think 61-64 are far away the most difficult verses in this section to make sense of. First of all, there is clear Exodus background to this entire section (6:23-71). Remember that Yahweh fed the people in the desert; here Jesus has already acted as Yahweh by feeding the people. It is because of that feeding that they approach him again. I am not totally certain about all the significance contained in that background yet, but by God’s grace, I am working on it I think of Paul’s discussion (not to say that John was dependent on Paul, but this theological strain may have predated both their writings) of the people in the wilderness who ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink, but with many of whom God was not pleased (1 Cor. 10). I think that, if the connection is genuine, it would reinforce my earlier point that John’s rhetorical goal in this passage is to force his audience to ask, “who are Jesus’ true disciples (i.e., WHO IS THE TRUE ISRAEL)?” >>>[/quote]The typology (generally, not just to this passage) is clearly rich in the Egyptian captivity, the exodus and the subsequent wilderness wanderings. Well, the land of promise too obviously. There’s just no doubt about that. How far and what level of detail where, is what you are saying requires much prudent deliberation. Of course I agree. I see there to be substantive and fairly detailed type and antitype here. The Jews in the wilderness were starving physically. Sinners are starving spiritually. God supernaturally supplied the Jews with life giving food directly from His hand(heaven). Jesus says that now, in a different sense, but one directly analogous to the Jews in Moses’s time, HE is Himself that life giving bread and yes as Paul would later elucidate, spiritual drink. (Or earlier depending on whether were talking about the history or the literature as John’s gospel was probably written after Paul was already dead.)
As well, some of the Jews also grumbled at the food God was providing, albeit for different reasons and were judged for their ungrateful sniveling. (The 21st of the book of Numbers). In fact as I’m certain you know, John in Ch. 3 has Jesus equating Himself typologically with the life saving serpent in the wilderness from that very event in Numbers. And that to Nicodemus, a pharisee and “ruler of the Jews”. So yes there is much OT referencing going on here which in a synagogue especially makes perfect sense. “WHO IS THE TRUE ISRAEL” is a magnificent study I did years ago with the help of O. Palmer Robertson. No idea what you think of him, but “The Christ of the Covenants” was quite eye opening back in my early 20’s really helped me at least lay the groundwork for my understanding of the history of redemption.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Returning to your excellent questions, sarx does function somewhat differently in different sections of John’s gospel, and entire dissertations have been written trying to figure out that particular issue. For now, I think your reading is certainly possible, but I am hesitant to read 63 as a mitigating explanation for three reasons. First of all, as you already noted, it is extremely cryptic; all we really have are some catchwords (sarx, for example). Secondly, it is possible that we are mislead by our own terminology - we tend to approach the interpretation of this passage differentiating between the “physical” and “spiritual” referents of Jesus’ statements. I am not sure Jesus is using pneuma to refer to “spiritual meaning” in this passage. >>>[/quote]I don’t mean that He’s specifically and overtly stating that “what I’ve just been saying to you is to be understood spiritually”, but rather that “my words are themselves spirit and life and therefore by taking me to be commanding the literal consumption of my physical person here, you miss that” though the “missing that” part is not explicitly stated either. As I’m also certain you are well aware, sarx is highly nuanced in Paul as well and has also been the nucleus of centuries long debate. Romans seven is a real zinger for instance. (that’s another whole topic too)
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Thirdly, though Jesus does refer to “flesh” in verse 63, he does not add the possessive pronoun mou (“my”), suggesting he is talking about “flesh” in the abstract (see John 3:6 for another interesting and potentially relevant pneuma/sarx dichotomy). >>>[/quote]Agreed. Both points. [quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Furthermore, his statement is patently false if he is referring to HIS OWN FLESH, for he already declared that he is giving his flesh for the life of the world (51). Indeed, it is PRECISELY his flesh that gives life. >>>[/quote]Agreed again. “in the body of Him” is where our sins were borne as Peter proclaims and though that is “soma” there, I take the theological correlation as being unmistakable, yay unavoidable, Mr.“no systematic theology” so there =] [quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< And I think here again we are mislead by our own presuppositions - because of some parallels, we assume with our Catholic brethren that Jesus’ statements about the bread and drink refer to the Eucharist. >>>[/quote]I do not do that. You have very understandably misread my somewhat imprecise statement from the previous page. Which was: “I really believe that “know[ing] Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death”(Philippians 3:10) IS eating His flesh and drinking His blood which is signified in holy communion”. I don’t believe that communion is what is under discussion directly here at all in chapter 6. His bodily bloody sacrifice IS, which is partaken of by faith (hearing and believing His rhema which are zoe or give zoe) and certainly ALSO IS the focus of holy communion but that’s not what’s being declared here in John’s gospel. [quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< However, I think we need to question that reading; it is equally (if not more) likely that despite some verbal parallels, Jesus is not referring to any specific practice (taking communion), but to belief in him. “Eating and drinking” would thus be metaphorical as well; by believing, we partake of the “body and blood of Christ” (i.e., his sacrifice) of eternal life. That’s why Jesus does not say “this bread is my flesh, with which I give life to the world,” but rather, “this bread is my flesh, WHICH I give FOR the life of the world” (6:51). That seems to me to be a pretty clear allusion to his sacrificial death; in that case, the entire discussion of eating and drinking his flesh and blood is NOT a veiled reference to Communion, but rather to belief in Jesus. Indeed, it is worth noting that the Eucharist is NOT of particular interest to John; his is the ONLY gospel that doesn’t even MENTION Jesus’ breaking the bread and serving the wine to his disciples and the accompanying covenantal words. Consequently, John 6 may have nothing to do with the Eucharist at all. >>>[/quote]See above. I am happy to report that here is something we have essentially agreed on since before we met.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Indeed - literal consumption does not seem to be in view here.[/quote]Of course I do continue to concur with this, your concurrence with my previous statement denying that Jesus was demanding that anyone orally ingest His biological flesh and blood.
His Royal Higness wrote:[quote](not to say that John was dependent on Paul, but this theological strain may have predated both their writings)[/quote]I wasn’t gonna say nuthin, but I can’t help it LOL!!! I actually am sorry that I’ve made you feel like you have to do stuff like this. LOL!!! We’ll get there.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Shall we begin? No,
because 1) as much as I have tried to entertain the possibility of trying to figure out what Tirib believes, he seemingly shifts what parts of creeds he believes in or I for some reason do not understand the systematic theology of Calvinism that I studied devoutly for half a decade (though I admit, my Calvinism did lack the substantial anti-Catholicism) and 2) I am not aware of your creed in which you place your beliefs, which in turn form your world view. Further, you both (Tirib and KingKai) say that I have bad religion. I being a Christian am devoted to the truth, since only the truth will set me free. I ultimately desire to be free and filled with joy (which I define with prior knowledge as knowing and loving the Father). So, since I have bad religion, please show me the truth. I also seem to be your inferior in matters of scripture and history, this likely being caused de facto by my Catholic baptism, seemingly. Thus, because you are my superior in these matters, please, I wish you to show me the truth. Show me where I am wrong, because if I am wrong to believe one tenet of my creeds then I should remove myself from the Church in all its idolatry.
[/quote]
[quote]Pat wrote:
The interpretations presented aren’t significant because of who interpreted it. They are significant because of what they say. The only thing that counts is whether the interpretation is either true or false. One may disagree with the interpretation, but it’s a whole other thing to prove the interpretation false.
That being the case, there were scriptural authorities even in scripture. So to say it has no say so over anybody else isn’t exactly true either. Clearly, even in yourself, have more authoritative scriptural knowledge than somebody who has not put in the time, effort and study that you have. In the same way, the magisterial authority comes not from the person or institution alone, but that being apart of it means you have put in the time and effort that is formally recognized as being at an authoritative level.
Clearly, you cannot mean that anybody is free to interprate scripture anyway they want to and have just as much value as anybody else.
For instance, I am interested in science and I love it. But I am not as authoritative on the matter as say a doctor of physics. In the same way, the theologians of the magisterium have earned the authority. It was attained, not bestowed.
Not everybody’s interpretations of scripture are equal. [/quote]
I am going to reply to both Brother Chris’ statements and Pat’s right here, because there is a key point of overlap that requires discussion.
First of all, Brother Chris, I did not say that you have a bad religion. At no point have I said that. I don’t know if this is some sort of sarcastic rhetorical flourish on your part or a genuine accusation. Either way, it is ridiculous and unfair. I can say that I remain unconvinced by your church’s claims to special authority without saying it is a “bad religion.” I consider Catholicism one strand among many in the body of Christ. The fact that I disagree with many of your church’s interpretations of various passages doesn’t entail my hatred of your faith, any more than my disagreements with the Anabaptists lead me to believe they are not Christians themselves.
My fundamental issue with your church (over which Tiribulus and I are in sound agreement), the issue that keeps me from seeking communion, is best laid out like this…
- Your church claims unique authority over all who would rightly claim the name of Jesus Christ.
[/quote]
We have a unique history. It’s doesn’t claim authority for authority’s sake. There is a history and and succession that gives the institution it’s credibility. A credibility that was hard earned by the blood of many, many martyrs. Just like a university, the credibility of the church was earned over many years and over many bodies. I don’t think you can simply discount it. I think you have a mistaken interpretation of a theocratic lordship… The fact of the matter is that we are very interested in reaching out to others of faith and sharing it, not lording our authority over others. That is simply not happening.
More Protestant churches claim some ill-gotten authority to the point of declaring us evil and not even Christian.
I don’t see the problem with the church being an authority. Authority is every where. Certainly, I would expect you consider your professors an authority, no?
The apostolic succession is kind of important. And it certainly ties us in with the apostles. Don’t most Christians try to claim continuity with the Apostles? The Catholic church has the history to back it up.
Okay, so what in your mind determines who and what has authority over things? If not apostolic succession and extensive and deep study, then what?
Right, which is why they have been in constant study for 2000 years. Holy Scripture is the church’s constitution. I don’t dispute that. But I don’t see the significance of pointing it out.
Agree, which is why scholars study then in the original languages.
Like?
Specific example? This is to generic, we can discuss specific things and get much further.
I certainly don’t accuse you of such a thing. It’s a growth process. I don’t see the problem if you disagree with the dogmas of the church when you are not part of the church?? I don’t see the problem you are facing, because unlike many, many protestants, we(the Church) don’t condemn you for your beliefs or disagreements. We recognize your faith and love of God rise above all disagreements. That your journey to Christ is your own and you have to own it. We recognize you as a brother in Christ. No worse or better than us, we cannot judge because Christ is the king of hearts…
My only issue is with Protestants who think they are better than us. That selectively read the scriptures for self glory. Who strain to reason out things in scripture to force them into the round holes with their square pegs; which is what you are accusing us of doing ironically. For example, faith alone salvation… Something I believe was highly misinterpreted from the epistles. The point St. Paul was simply trying to make is that following the rules doesn’t really mean anything. That the new covenant is based on faith and love and that it must be lived. He clearly states in Romans and Corinthians that you are righteous by faith, but judged by works. Not works of the law, works of love. St. James clearly says that faith with out works is dead. It then begs the question, by who’s authority was ‘faith-alone’ salvation established, when the scriptures clearly disagree? I don’t think we can claim the language barrier here.
Now, I know you don’t think like that, I was just using it as an example of what you are claiming we do, but in reverse. I know where you stand here.
I disagree, you do have a right, a claim. You’ve certainly put in the time…
[quote]
Do you see the problem yet?[/quote]
So the fundamental question then is how is authority determined and who acquires it? What give somebody the right? Well, what do you think it takes?
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
Beyond all of this, there is a further problem. When the study of Scripture cannot adequately support a particular doctrine or practice, church leaders turn to the early Church Fathers for support. The problem, however, is that invariably the church fathers are also read ahistorically - their situatedness in particular times and places is virtually ignored. They are read as univocal witnesses to particular practices and doctrines, despite the fact that they often mean very different things by the same words. As Chris has done multiple times, for example, (and I am not singling him out, because this is a fairly common practice among those who turn to the church fathers for answers), witnesses from the second century A.D. are juxtaposed with witnesses from the sixth century A.D. to prove that a particular practice or doctrine was “very early” or “very common.” The problem, as you can surely see, is that (1) a doctrine or practice may be UNCOMMON in the second century A.D. and COMMON in the sixth, in which case only the earlier witness matters; the two are NOT dual witnesses. This is only one example of the many problems with the way people use the Church fathers. They are NOT a reliable resource when it comes to discerning first century A.D. (i.e., the church of the apostolic period, when the NT texts were composed) practices or doctrines.
So then, if the church does not handle its own “sources” with sufficient rigor and critical awareness, why should I trust it?[/quote]
It’s just going to be better if you pick a doctrine or dogma and we discuss that. I think trying to establish who has the right to do, or declare what ends up in a slippery slope. It can come to a point where nothing and nobody has any authority, which is chaos. In as much as a local Protestant pastor has put in the time, effort and study to become a pastor, a person with authority, like wise people in the church have put in the necessary efforts to derive some authority.
Who has the right? Everybody and nobody.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Sorta rude ignorant question for you guys:
Do the Jehovah Witness’s that show up at my door to hand out booklets know how fucking rude it is to knock on my door, waking up my daughter?
[/quote]
Yes, but they probably don’t know that you have a baby asleep. Just put a “baby sleeping, don’t knock” sign up when the baby is asleep. They’ll just leave the booklets at your door.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
His Royal Higness wrote:[quote](not to say that John was dependent on Paul, but this theological strain may have predated both their writings)[/quote]I wasn’t gonna say nuthin, but I can’t help it LOL!!! I actually am sorry that I’ve made you feel like you have to do stuff like this. LOL!!! We’ll get there.[/quote]
Haha take heart - it’s just an exegetical reflex at this point. Covering all your bases without straying too far from the conversation.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Seemingly rash and limp wrist-ed answer (the Church which with my faith is through…is bad, but my faith is good…does not make sense). It is not bad religion. Nor have you proven that it is a bad religion. You do not read my words correctly. If it is bad religion, it is all bad religion (read: all the doctrine is to be assumed as false, as if one doctrine is wrong the Church is wrong, therefore none of its teachings have any authority).
The annunciation, visitation to Elizabeth, nativity, consecration of the temple, finding at the temple, praying in the garden, purging at the pillar, crowning of thorns, carrying the cross, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, descension of the Holy Ghost, assumption, coronation, baptism of the Lord, wedding of Cana, proclamation of the kingdom, transfiguration, and the institute of the Eucharist. Trinity, Fatherhood, Priesthood, Baptism, Communion of Saints, &c. This also means the Canon of Scripture goes out the window and we lose the salvation narrative: From creation, the Covenant with Adam the fall, Cain and Abel, the Flood, Covenant with Noah, Covenant with Abraham, Jacob, Covenant with Moses, Desert wondering, Joshua, Judges, Covenant King David, King Solomon, temple, split kingdom, exile, Maccabean revolt, Jesus and his Church in the new Covenant. [/quote]
I take serious issue with such arguments, Chris. This is slippery-slope nonsense at best, and downright ethnocentric, ahistorical crap at worst. Were there no Scriptures before the church? Did God not work with an entire people for CENTURIES before the church existed? The children of Israel came first; to them belong the adoption of sonship, the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship, and the promises, and when Jesus and Paul and Peter spoke of Scripture, they had NOTHING in mind except the Hebrew Scriptures. God made his promises to THEM; they are the true heirs. You and I are only included in the covenant because of God’s mercy and his own incredible ability to finagle the boundaries of his promises. What is their’s by right you have been grafted in to receive. As far as the apostles were concerned, the OT Scriptures did not need replacement; the Hebrew Scriptures were the ones that were profitable for instruction, etc. The legitimacy of the canon of Jesus is in NO way predicated on the existence of the church.
Moreover, why does the falsehood of one doctrine destroy the truth value of others? I can understand that if the rest of your doctrines are deduced from one doctrine in systematic fashion (one of the MANY flaws in attempting to create a systematic theology) why the others would fall, but what is your primary doctrine? Does your systematic theology begin with the authority of the Roman Catholic church?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’d be interested in hearing what he says to this as well. For myself? I do not believe that anything outside of scripture can be “theopneustos”. I am however torn at times on the absolute nature of a closed canon. In other words, could there EVER be additional God breathed scripture found? I really REALLY doubt it, but have a hard time saying absolutely not.[/quote]
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
One issue at a time. So, you believe the Bible is the sole rule of faith. So, where is that in the Bible that the Bible is the sole rule of faith?[/quote]
Here’s the point - I don’t recognize the authority of the Scriptures because they were canonized. I recognize the authority of Scriptures which just so happen to have been canonized, and that, for me, means that (in theory) the New Testament canon is open. By that I mean that I have no problem with the idea that God could reveal another letter of Paul’s, which I believe would be worthy of inclusion because Paul was a witness to the risen Christ and was inspired. That being said, the fact is that the early church recognized the inspiration of Paul’s letters and the gospels VERY early on - within the first century, in fact, while witnesses to the risen Christ still lived - and sought to preserve them from the get-go. Consequently, I find it VERY unlikely that we would find such a letter. The reality is that the early Christians sought to preserve pretty much everything they could of their inspired, authoritative leaders’ writings. If we don’t have them, it’s very unlikely that further writings exist. That shouldn’t be surprising given the tedious and expensive business writing was in antiquity.
And as I have said before, there are legitimate HISTORICAL reasons for affirming the inspiration of just such texts as we have in the Old and New Testaments. On the one hand, (even though they didn’t call it a canon) the Hebrew canon was essentially set by Jesus’ time. And all of the New Testament texts were authored by apostles or other first church leaders in the first century. It is when the eyewitnesses to the risen Lord Jesus died, and the faith was handed to ignorant Gentiles like you and me, people without knowledge of or interest in Jesus and the apostles’ Jewish context, that some significant interpretive issues arose.
I don’t need the “Bible” (i.e., the canon) to tell me that it is the rule of faith. What the NT Scriptures provide is a glimpse into the first century world, allowing us to understand how the first Christians thought. By that we can measure how closely modern church doctrines cohere to the teachings of Jesus and his apostles. More than that, we can see the absolute lack of evidence for the Catholic church’s claims that its doctrines were either included among the apostles’ teachings or developed by implication from the apostles’ teachings. Lack of evidence isn’t necessarily evidence of absence; but if Paul never mentions something that Roman Catholics hold as central (such as the salvific power of the Eucharist - please don’t mince words with me over that statement), it is more than likely that it was NOT part of Paul’s teachings.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
Beyond all of this, there is a further problem. When the study of Scripture cannot adequately support a particular doctrine or practice, church leaders turn to the early Church Fathers for support. The problem, however, is that invariably the church fathers are also read ahistorically - their situatedness in particular times and places is virtually ignored. They are read as univocal witnesses to particular practices and doctrines, despite the fact that they often mean very different things by the same words. As Chris has done multiple times, for example, (and I am not singling him out, because this is a fairly common practice among those who turn to the church fathers for answers), witnesses from the second century A.D. are juxtaposed with witnesses from the sixth century A.D. to prove that a particular practice or doctrine was “very early” or “very common.” The problem, as you can surely see, is that (1) a doctrine or practice may be UNCOMMON in the second century A.D. and COMMON in the sixth, in which case only the earlier witness matters; the two are NOT dual witnesses. This is only one example of the many problems with the way people use the Church fathers. They are NOT a reliable resource when it comes to discerning first century A.D. (i.e., the church of the apostolic period, when the NT texts were composed) practices or doctrines.
So then, if the church does not handle its own “sources” with sufficient rigor and critical awareness, why should I trust it?[/quote]
It’s just going to be better if you pick a doctrine or dogma and we discuss that. I think trying to establish who has the right to do, or declare what ends up in a slippery slope. It can come to a point where nothing and nobody has any authority, which is chaos. In as much as a local Protestant pastor has put in the time, effort and study to become a pastor, a person with authority, like wise people in the church have put in the necessary efforts to derive some authority.
Who has the right? Everybody and nobody. [/quote]
I think that is a great idea, Pat, and I think we are moving in that direction. I do, however, think that you and I are talking about authority in two different ways. The authority of apostolic succession would of necessity be a different kind of authority than that of a scholar, and it is the authority of scholars that is at issue. For example, my pastor’s authority to shepherd his flock is very different from his status as an authority on doctrinal matters. As someone appointed by God, he has the authority to excommunicate a willfully sinful person from the church. That authority is his by function of anointed office. However, if my pastor is an excellent scholar, I wouldn’t call him an authority on doctrine in the sense that everything he says, I have to believe. When we call him (or scholars in general) an authority on doctrine, we mean “here is an individual who has sufficiently studied to provide you with a sound argument, and consequently, a likely answer.” I won’t just accept my pastor’s answer because HE said it; I’ll only accept it if I find it convincing. That is the nature of authority in scholarship. Remember that Scripture highlights the Bereans in Acts 17:11 for studying the Scriptures in order to DETERMINE THE TRUTH OF PAUL’S ARGUMENTS. If questioning and thinking through PAUL’S claims was considered praiseworthy, how much more questioning the definitive statements (however few they may be) of the episcopate?
Lol, ignorant gentile? Lol. I’ll have to tell my bubelah that one when I go visit her.
King, I’m a “descendant of Shem.” I’m no mere gentile.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Lol, ignorant gentile? Lol. I’ll have to tell my bubelah that one when I go visit her.
King, I’m a “descendant of Shem.” I’m no mere gentile. [/quote]
lol Then on what grounds do you act as if Scripture didn’t exist until the church said so?
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Lol, ignorant gentile? Lol. I’ll have to tell my bubelah that one when I go visit her.
King, I’m a “descendant of Shem.” I’m no mere gentile. [/quote]
lol Then on what grounds do you act as if Scripture didn’t exist until the church said so?[/quote]
Where did I say this?
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
Beyond all of this, there is a further problem. When the study of Scripture cannot adequately support a particular doctrine or practice, church leaders turn to the early Church Fathers for support. The problem, however, is that invariably the church fathers are also read ahistorically - their situatedness in particular times and places is virtually ignored. They are read as univocal witnesses to particular practices and doctrines, despite the fact that they often mean very different things by the same words. As Chris has done multiple times, for example, (and I am not singling him out, because this is a fairly common practice among those who turn to the church fathers for answers), witnesses from the second century A.D. are juxtaposed with witnesses from the sixth century A.D. to prove that a particular practice or doctrine was “very early” or “very common.” The problem, as you can surely see, is that (1) a doctrine or practice may be UNCOMMON in the second century A.D. and COMMON in the sixth, in which case only the earlier witness matters; the two are NOT dual witnesses. This is only one example of the many problems with the way people use the Church fathers. They are NOT a reliable resource when it comes to discerning first century A.D. (i.e., the church of the apostolic period, when the NT texts were composed) practices or doctrines.
So then, if the church does not handle its own “sources” with sufficient rigor and critical awareness, why should I trust it?[/quote]
It’s just going to be better if you pick a doctrine or dogma and we discuss that. I think trying to establish who has the right to do, or declare what ends up in a slippery slope. It can come to a point where nothing and nobody has any authority, which is chaos. In as much as a local Protestant pastor has put in the time, effort and study to become a pastor, a person with authority, like wise people in the church have put in the necessary efforts to derive some authority.
Who has the right? Everybody and nobody. [/quote]
I think that is a great idea, Pat, and I think we are moving in that direction. I do, however, think that you and I are talking about authority in two different ways. The authority of apostolic succession would of necessity be a different kind of authority than that of a scholar, and it is the authority of scholars that is at issue. For example, my pastor’s authority to shepherd his flock is very different from his status as an authority on doctrinal matters. As someone appointed by God, he has the authority to excommunicate a willfully sinful person from the church. That authority is his by function of anointed office. However, if my pastor is an excellent scholar, I wouldn’t call him an authority on doctrine in the sense that everything he says, I have to believe. When we call him (or scholars in general) an authority on doctrine, we mean “here is an individual who has sufficiently studied to provide you with a sound argument, and consequently, a likely answer.” I won’t just accept my pastor’s answer because HE said it; I’ll only accept it if I find it convincing. That is the nature of authority in scholarship. Remember that Scripture highlights the Bereans in Acts 17:11 for studying the Scriptures in order to DETERMINE THE TRUTH OF PAUL’S ARGUMENTS. If questioning and thinking through PAUL’S claims was considered praiseworthy, how much more questioning the definitive statements (however few they may be) of the episcopate?[/quote]
The authority of the church is both. The history of succession and scholarly. Certainly, you cannot mean there is no scholarly authority there?
It’s the same authority that allows you tor trust that the Holy Scriptures as assembled by the church is the same authority that is in charge of the other doctrines of the church. For if you dismantle the total authority of the church, then you dismantle your trust in the canon by which you are judging it, for then other manuscripts can be just as valid. For these were chosen by the Magisterium as the Holy Living word to the exclusion of other similar manuscripts.
The apostolic succession does appear in the scriptures too. Paul and Peter both choosing elders. Paul’s command to Timothy to choose Pastors to spread the word of God.
The problem is the slippery slope. The authority of the church is the glue of the Holy Bible. If you unbind the authority, then that same authority that bound the scriptures is unbound. Then by the measure you are using, ceases to exist as a measure for it is a measure because of the the binding of the magisterium.
It is disingenuous to say that “that was then and this is now”. The fact that factions broke off from the church, does not decrease it’s authority over doctrinal matters for the church. People who choose not to be a part of the church are not bound by the doctrines of the church.
However, if you lift of the Bible to say “Here is my authority”, it begs the question, by what authority was it written and assembled. For the assemblers of the scriptures where Catholics who traditions were already established before the bible cannon was formalized. It is by their authority, through the Holy Spirit that we say ‘the Bible is the ultimate authority’. But for the Bible to have authority and be authority, the authority by which is was created and assembled has to be valid, or then none of it is.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< The apostolic succession does appear in the scriptures too. Paul and Peter both choosing elders. Paul’s command to Timothy to choose Pastors to spread the word of God. >>>[/quote]This does not in any way equal the succession as propounded by the Catholic (big C) church. In fact, while their certainly was unity, tested thought it was at times, ecclesiastically speaking, Peter and Paul were loosely associated at best. [quote]pat wrote:<<< The authority of the church is the glue of the Holy Bible. If you unbind the authority, then that same authority that bound the scriptures is unbound. >>>[/quote]I deny this categorically. It’s been a while, but I’ve read many of the non canonical books alleging to be scripture. Hindsight is also 20/20, but it is not THAT tough to see why some books were accepted and some weren’t. Especially for those living in the times of the early church councils. There were challenges and some were tougher than others, like second Peter for example, but there were pretty common sense and above board ways of making these determinations. The content itself of many if not most of the rejected books is pretty clearly not in line with books accepted earliest on as well as yes, the oral tradition. I am extremely rusty in the details, but there were canons of some of the epistles and gospels floating around while John was still alive. The bottom line is that this exalted, inspired, mystical, authoritative canonization process was not nearly any of the things Rome claims for it. Not to mention that the very notion of what is today the Catholic(big C Christopher) church even being in actual existence then is open for debate. [quote]pat wrote:<<< People who choose not to be a part of the church are not bound by the doctrines of the church. >>>[/quote]Do you have any idea of the ultimately Unitarian and even Universalist logical implications of this? [quote]pat wrote:<<< Catholics who traditions were already established before the bible cannon was formalized. >>>[/quote]You’re kidding yourself Pat. The early church was awash in division and controversy over EVERYTHING. Including the nature of the Godhead, the incarnation and regeneration. To say nothing of the divergence in practice. Origen castrated himself for God’s sake! The councils settled some of that down and thank God for it, but this idea that there was all this established unified Catholic(big C Christopher) tradition that flowed into the 4th and 5th centuries is simply a fantasy. [quote]pat wrote:<<< But for the Bible to have authority and be authority, the authority by which is was created and assembled has to be valid, or then none of it is.[/quote]Which is exactly why what is now your church CANNOT be that authority.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Honestly, this is one of the most difficult issues in the history of early Christianity.
Pat, I agree that if you recognize the authority of the canon AS canon (i.e., as a divinely instituted assemblage of texts to which nothing can be added or subtracted) then there is no legitimate way to get around the necessary authority of the church that assembled it. The only option is special pleading - “yes, the church lacks authority, but the canon it assembled is authoritative.” Such arguments invariably resort to special pleading. And in truth, there were no canons before the late second century A.D., in the sense of a fixed corpus to which nothing could be added or subtracted (and the evidence for the existence of canons in the second century depends on a SINGLE example which, based on linguistic issues, is potentially from the fourth century A.D.).
That being said, its not the canon AS canon that I consider authoritative, but the texts contained therein, and those texts were considered authoritative Scripture LONG BEFORE they were officially canonized. There is evidence within the biblical texts themselves that the New Testament texts (specifically the gospels and the Pauline epistles) were considered Scripture while the apostles were still living. The inspiration and authority of the New Testament TEXTS exists independently of their recognition by the post-first century church. This is a very nuanced point, but its central to my point. Now as I said in a previous post, since I recognize the authority of the texts included in the canon without recognizing the canonization process itself as authoritative, I do not recognize the canon’s closure a priori. I don’t believe that we will find other letters of Paul or other gospels considered authoritative in the first century that somehow got lost; the earliest Christians did an excellent job of preserving those texts considered authoritative from the apostolic period (1st century A.D.). And the primary canonization criteria were apostolicity and antiquity (i.e., origin in the first century). Yes, a small number of texts were excluded because of theological problems, but many of those texts that were rejected presented no theological problems at all, certainly far fewer than James’ epistle. It was not “oddness” that kept most texts out of the canon, but their date of composition. Few texts were more formative for the church than the Shepherd of Hermas, for example, and yet it was excluded specifically because it was written in the mid-second century rather than the first. And I still wonder if the church made the right decision in rejecting 1 Enoch, which the Ethiopian church recognizes and which certainly had a formative influence on the Petrine epistles and Jude (though several church fathers cite 1 Enoch as Scripture, it was ultimately rejected despite its antiquity (3rd-2nd Century B.C.) because it was not included in the later Jewish canon (which purposefully excluded apocalyptic literature) or in the Septuagint).
I agree 100 % with the statement that the early church was divided over a lot of things, and that practices diverged. Look at the early arguments over the date of the death of Jesus (14th of Nisan, when the leaven was removed from the house, or the 15th of Nisan, the actual day of Passover). Both times found adherents in the second century church, and though celebrating on the 14th of Nisan was likely the earlier practice, it was really only the anti-semitism of church bishops and the convenience of having Easter at the same time every year that lead to the death of the celebration on the 14th of Nisan. In other words, you have a church practice (Easter sunday) that did not derive from apostolic decree, but from pragmatic and ethnocentric factors. That should give us pause when it comes to trusting the claims of the church fathers that a particular tradition CERTAINLY derived from the apostles; many times, church fathers didn’t know what they were talking about.
That being said, all the distinctive Catholic doctrines were there by the end of the first century/early second century, Tirib. All of them. The eucharist was described in the Didache, Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc. as a physical sacrifice; the veneration of Mary and the cult of the martyrs also predate the formation of the canon. The post-NT church was essentially the Catholic church.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< That being said, all the distinctive Catholic doctrines were there by the end of the first century/early second century, Tirib. All of them. The eucharist was described in the Didache, Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc. as a physical sacrifice; the veneration of Mary and the cult of the martyrs also predate the formation of the canon. The post-NT church was essentially the Catholic church. [/quote]Yes, I know. That can be a conundrum can’t it? I have a feeling that you are going to say, in a nutshell, that cultural influences foreign to the settings of the texts, had already begun to insinuate themselves into the young church/es. I was speaking more ecclesiastically than theologically, even up until even the fourth century. As far as the Catholic church we know today existing. I just got home folks. Midnight.