In another thread, an anonymous poster writes:
"No one (and I mean no one) disputes the existence of Orthodoxy throughout the ages. An historical remnant is far less plausible (though, to be sure, not impossible)....If historical evidence alone is our guide, then there is far more evidence for the continuity of Romanism and Orthodoxy then there is for Protestantism. If, on the other hand, the argument is one that answers primarily to theological considerations, then what established theological criterion makes your position superior? And does the theological criterion have a *clear* basis in sola scripture?"
Those comments were directed to Steve Hays. But they're common sentiments, and I want to comment on the issues involved.
If the writer has Eastern Orthodoxy in mind when he refers to "Orthodoxy" in the first sentence, then I reject the concept that "No one (and I mean no one) disputes the existence of Orthodoxy throughout the ages". Any group outside of Eastern Orthodoxy that claims to be the true church, such as Roman Catholicism, would deny that Eastern Orthodoxy has existed throughout church history. They might acknowledge that Eastern Orthodoxy has some degree of continuity by means of a succession of bishops, for example, but they would maintain that the earliest bishops in such successions differed in their beliefs from the beliefs of modern Eastern Orthodoxy. They wouldn't call the earliest links in the chain "Eastern Orthodoxy". And just as Roman Catholics would make such an assessment of Eastern Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodox would say the same about Roman Catholicism. Neither group accepts the entirety of the other group's claims about its origins. Neither group can claim that its historical roots are undisputed. And the same is true of any other such group that professes to be the true church.
If the anonymous commenter wants to say that he's only referring to a group having a degree of continuity, such as the sort of succession of bishops I referred to above, then why did he only mention "Orthodoxy"? Eastern Orthodoxy isn't the only group that traces itself back to the apostles through something like a succession of bishops.
And why should we think much of such a succession? Successions are claimed by groups that contradict each other to a significant degree in their teachings. There are significant doctrinal contradictions within single lines of succession, and Roman Catholics, for example, disagree among themselves about which bishops of Rome have been legitimate and which haven't been. The fact that people in ancient times were interested in maintaining a church in the capital of the Roman empire isn't of much significance. Christians would want there to continually be a church in such a heavily populated area of the world, and there was some significance to the city in Christian memory (the martyrdom of Paul and Peter there, etc.). The location of the Roman church would attract a lot of esteem and wealth. It's not as if the continuing existence of a church in a city like Rome is something that should impress us as highly significant. Similarly, the fact that religions like Buddhism and Islam have survived for so long isn't something that ought to impress us much. There are multiple, doctrinally inconsistent (self-inconsistent and inconsistent with others) groups that claim a succession from the apostles.
When somebody like Steve Hays refers to theological reasons for thinking that God maintained a church since the time of the apostles, I would assume that he's making a judgment based on what scripture tells us about God and the church. He would justify his conclusion by appealing to the authority of scripture, and this blog has a lot of material arguing for that authority. The anonymous poster I've quoted above makes some comments (that I didn't quote) about how Steve's interpretations of scripture would be disputed by other people, but the fact that the interpretations are disputed doesn't prove that they're wrong or that Steve can't be confident about those interpretations.
The anonymous poster claims that "An historical remnant is far less plausible", but offers no argument that would lead us to that conclusion. To begin with, why would we think that we need documentation of each individual or group involved in the remnant for belief in that remnant to be plausible? There are periods of Old Testament history for which we have no historical records of anybody faithfully following God, yet it's plausible to think that God probably had some faithful followers known to Him, but not to us.
The issue isn't whether a denomination or a highly specified system of doctrine can be traced throughout church history. For example, while people identify Protestantism by sola scriptura, I don't know of any Protestant who maintains that belief in sola scriptura is necessary for salvation or was an appropriate belief for every Christian in history. I often cite the example of Papias. He apparently didn't believe in sola scriptura, but the form of extra-Biblical tradition he held wasn't Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, for example. He believed in some extra-Biblical traditions that he received through men like Aristion and John the Elder (probably the apostle John). His rejection of sola scriptura would prevent us from considering him Protestant. But we have no reason to consider him a Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Copt, etc. either. And he doesn't have to be considered a Protestant for it to be considered plausible that he was part of a remnant of Christians preserved by God. A Protestant could even consider it plausible that many Roman Catholics, Copts, etc. have been believers and, thus, part of the church God has maintained.
When people ask about identifying a church God has preserved since the time of the apostles, they often have in mind a church with a particular degree of verifiable presence in extant historical records, visibility, and doctrinal continuity. And those assumptions often aren't stated or defended. They're just assumed. But if such assumptions are false or unverifiable, why should we accept them? Nobody reading Jeremiah 31 could have known much, from that text alone, about how God would preserve Israel in accordance with His promises mentioned in that passage. If there are multiple ways that such promises could be fulfilled, we should acknowledge our uncertainty rather than claiming to know that the promises would have to be fulfilled as we'd prefer them to be fulfilled.
With respect to the church "headquartering" itself in Rome, one can see the same thing happening in virtually every other center of early Christianity. Constantinople is obviously an example, and I think it reasonable to assert that, without the moving of the Imperial capital to Constantinople, the patriarchate of that city would have been far less significant... perhaps Antioch or Alexandria would have retained more of their dominance. Likewise, in the East, the Nestorians had their own "headquarters" in the capital cities of the Persian empire, colocated w/ the political power. Ditto in China, I believe. Additionally, the Nestorians considered their patriarchate to be in communion with, but equal in stature and authority with (and thus independent of), the Western church.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, I believe one can see a tendency for this early tying of ecclesiastical power to political power to generally damage or compromise in some way the affected churches. (I'll leave it at that, yes, I know, a bald assertion. I'm not building a hypothesis here.)
>They might acknowledge that Eastern Orthodoxy
ReplyDelete>has some degree of continuity by means of a
>succession of bishops, for example, but they would
>maintain that the earliest bishops in such
>successions differed in their beliefs from the beliefs
>of modern Eastern Orthodoxy.
Of course, this claim has little in the way of direct proof. It's the same kind of speculative thesis that modernists use to say that Christology had developed in between the writing of the synoptic gospels and the gospel of John
>And why should we think much of such a
>succession?
Who else sees the irony? Jason says he believes that there were some true believers all along in history. So apparently he does think "much" of such a theory.
Orthodoxy doesn't claim any more or less. It doesn't claim that every group who can trace a succession has maintained the faith. Only that one of the groups who can trace succession has maintained the faith.
So the difference is that Orthodoxy can show evidence for what it claims, Jason cannot.
>The anonymous poster claims that "An historical >remnant is far less plausible", but offers no
>argument that would lead us to that conclusion.
>To begin with, why would we think that we need
>documentation of each individual or group
>involved in the remnant for belief in that
>remnant to be plausible? There are periods of
>Old Testament history for which we have no
>historical records of anybody faithfully following
>God, yet it's plausible to think that God probably
>had some faithful followers known to Him, but
>not to us.
Of course, the remaining evidence from much of the old testament era outside the bible is nearly non-existent. This is in great contrast to the history of the post-Christian era, where one has to be totally a-historical to claim that there was an unknown undocumented Christian group with continuity back to the early church.
>I don't know of any Protestant who maintains
>that belief in sola scriptura is necessary for
>salvation or was an appropriate belief for every
>Christian in history.
Of course, such a statement indicates that the writer doesn't believe in sola scriptura, since none of this is in scripture.
>A Protestant could even consider it plausible that
>many Roman Catholics, Copts, etc. have been
>believers and, thus, part of the church God has
>maintained.
Wow, damned with faint praise. It would be instructive for Jason to tell us all why, from his point of view, how he would evaluate which Catholics and Orthodox might be candidates for being part of his imagined true church.
>Nobody reading Jeremiah 31 could have known
>much, from that text alone, about how God
>would preserve Israel in accordance with His
>promises mentioned in that passage.
Wow. So you mean the Israelites of Jeremiah's time wouldn't be able to practice sola scriptura?
“If the anonymous commenter wants to say that he's only referring to a group having a degree of continuity, such as the sort of succession of bishops I referred to above, then why did he only mention "Orthodoxy"? Eastern Orthodoxy isn't the only group that traces itself back to the apostles through something like a succession of bishops.”
ReplyDeleteI don’t intend to uphold Orthodoxy against Romanism or vice versa, but merely to claim what is quite uncontroversial: both traditions manifest a continual presence in the historical record that Protestantism cannot claim for itself.
“And why should we think much of such a succession? Successions are claimed by groups that contradict each other to a significant degree in their teachings. There are significant doctrinal contradictions within single lines of succession, and Roman Catholics, for example, disagree among themselves about which bishops of Rome have been legitimate and which haven't been. The fact that people in ancient times were interested in maintaining a church in the capital of the Roman empire isn't of much significance. Christians would want there to continually be a church in such a heavily populated area of the world, and there was some significance to the city in Christian memory (the martyrdom of Paul and Peter there, etc.). The location of the Roman church would attract a lot of esteem and wealth. It's not as if the continuing existence of a church in a city like Rome is something that should impress us as highly significant. Similarly, the fact that religions like Buddhism and Islam have survived for so long isn't something that ought to impress us much. There are multiple, doctrinally inconsistent (self-inconsistent and inconsistent with others) groups that claim a succession from the apostles.”
That continuous succession is not an impressive selling point for a given faith tradition is *your* subjective valuation. I don’t share it. Millions concur.
“When somebody like Steve Hays refers to theological reasons for thinking that God maintained a church since the time of the apostles, I would assume that he's making a judgment based on what scripture tells us about God and the church. He would justify his conclusion by appealing to the authority of scripture, and this blog has a lot of material arguing for that authority. The anonymous poster I've quoted above makes some comments (that I didn't quote) about how Steve's interpretations of scripture would be disputed by other people, but the fact that the interpretations are disputed doesn't prove that they're wrong or that Steve can't be confident about those interpretations.”
Again, why does it matter what Steve (or anyone) finds convincing? If subjective plausibility is the best you have to offer, then you are no better positioned epistemologically than your Orthodox or Romanist counterparts (who assess the data quite differently).
“The anonymous poster claims that "An historical remnant is far less plausible", but offers no argument that would lead us to that conclusion. To begin with, why would we think that we need documentation of each individual or group involved in the remnant for belief in that remnant to be plausible? There are periods of Old Testament history for which we have no historical records of anybody faithfully following God, yet it's plausible to think that God probably had some faithful followers known to Him, but not to us.”
That God would leave little/no trace in the historical record to establish the reality of a remnant strikes me as implausible. That’s *my* subjective conclusion. Are you claiming that your conclusions to the contrary are, in contrast, objective? On what basis?
“The issue isn't whether a denomination or a highly specified system of doctrine can be traced throughout church history. For example, while people identify Protestantism by sola scriptura, I don't know of any Protestant who maintains that belief in sola scriptura is necessary for salvation or was an appropriate belief for every Christian in history. I often cite the example of Papias. He apparently didn't believe in sola scriptura, but the form of extra-Biblical tradition he held wasn't Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, for example. He believed in some extra-Biblical traditions that he received through men like Aristion and John the Elder (probably the apostle John). His rejection of sola scriptura would prevent us from considering him Protestant. But we have no reason to consider him a Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Copt, etc. either. And he doesn't have to be considered a Protestant for it to be considered plausible that he was part of a remnant of Christians preserved by God. A Protestant could even consider it plausible that many Roman Catholics, Copts, etc. have been believers and, thus, part of the church God has maintained.”
Jason, thanks for your open-mindedness here. I agree that God opens His arms wide.
“When people ask about identifying a church God has preserved since the time of the apostles, they often have in mind a church with a particular degree of verifiable presence in extant historical records, visibility, and doctrinal continuity. And those assumptions often aren't stated or defended. They're just assumed. But if such assumptions are false or unverifiable, why should we accept them? Nobody reading Jeremiah 31 could have known much, from that text alone, about how God would preserve Israel in accordance with His promises mentioned in that passage. If there are multiple ways that such promises could be fulfilled, we should acknowledge our uncertainty rather than claiming to know that the promises would have to be fulfilled as we'd prefer them to be fulfilled.”
Certainty is not in the cards. Plausibility is person-to-person variable. I find the continuity of Orthodoxy and Romanism quite well attested by the historical record, and that is a bonus for those traditions as far as I’m concerned. You demure, and you have that right, but eye rolling in the face of Romanist/Orthodox claims strikes me as hypocritical, given the subjective nature of the whole debate.
Orthodox writes:
ReplyDelete"Of course, this claim has little in the way of direct proof. It's the same kind of speculative thesis that modernists use to say that Christology had developed in between the writing of the synoptic gospels and the gospel of John"
I was addressing the assertion that nobody would dispute the presence of Orthodoxy throughout the ages. You can disagree with the reasons Roman Catholics give for disputing the early existence of Eastern Orthodoxy, but you can't deny that they do dispute it.
And your comparison to liberal claims about Christology is flawed. We can demonstrate that the view that Jesus is God predates John's gospel, as I've done at:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/jesus-deity-among-earliest-christians.html
Where's your evidence that the earliest bishops were Eastern Orthodox?
You write:
"Jason says he believes that there were some true believers all along in history. So apparently he does think 'much' of such a theory."
How does the fact that I think that there were believers throughout church history prove that we should "think much" of your authority claims based on apostolic succession? You're claiming a logical connection between the two without demonstrating it.
You write:
"Orthodoxy doesn't claim any more or less. It doesn't claim that every group who can trace a succession has maintained the faith. Only that one of the groups who can trace succession has maintained the faith."
I'm aware of that claim. The issue is whether we have reason to accept the claim. We don't.
You write:
"Of course, the remaining evidence from much of the old testament era outside the bible is nearly non-existent. This is in great contrast to the history of the post-Christian era, where one has to be totally a-historical to claim that there was an unknown undocumented Christian group with continuity back to the early church."
Apparently, you don't understand the position you're attempting to refute. As I explained in my original post, I'm not referring to "a group". If some Roman Catholics, some Copts, some Anglicans, etc. are Christians, then I would be including all of those individuals, even though they don't belong to one organization, such as a denomination.
You write:
"Of course, such a statement indicates that the writer doesn't believe in sola scriptura, since none of this is in scripture."
Apparently, you don't understand sola scriptura, in addition to your errant understanding of so many other issues you comment on. Scripture doesn't have to explicitly teach something in order for the concept to logically follow from scripture, and scripture allows us freedom on some issues. Just as you tell us that Eastern Orthodoxy "tolerates" differences of opinion among Eastern Orthodox individuals, scripture allows for differences of opinion on some issues.
You write:
"It would be instructive for Jason to tell us all why, from his point of view, how he would evaluate which Catholics and Orthodox might be candidates for being part of his imagined true church."
I would evaluate their status just as I would evaluate anybody else's. I would look for evidence of saving faith. But, as I explained in my original post, there would be no need for me to do it. It's not my responsibility to identify every believer who has existed throughout church history, nor do I have any good reason to try to identify some in Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy in response to your request.
You write:
"So you mean the Israelites of Jeremiah's time wouldn't be able to practice sola scriptura?"
Again, it seems that you don't have much of an understanding of sola scriptura. I didn't say anything about not being able to practice sola scriptura, so I see no reason for you to arrive at your conclusion above. And I never claimed that sola scriptura would be appropriate during a time of public revelation, such as when Jeremiah was alive. As I've told you before, your objection makes about as much sense as it would make for me to object to Eastern Orthodoxy by arguing that the Eastern Orthodox rule of faith wasn't practiced by Adam and Eve.
Anonymous writes:
ReplyDelete"I don’t intend to uphold Orthodoxy against Romanism or vice versa, but merely to claim what is quite uncontroversial: both traditions manifest a continual presence in the historical record that Protestantism cannot claim for itself."
That's not what you originally said. You initially claimed that nobody would dispute the existence of Orthodoxy throughout the ages. As I explained, the concept that Orthodoxy has existed throughout the ages is disputed.
Now you've changed your argument. Now you're claiming that Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have "a presence" that Protestantism doesn't have. As I explained in my original post, a group can have some degree of continuity ("a presence") while lacking continuity in other contexts. If Roman Catholicism, for example, claims a succession of bishops in Rome, yet Catholics disagree with each other about who makes up the succession and bishops within that line of succession held contradictory beliefs, then what significance does such a succession have? As I explained earlier, the continual presence of churches in a city like Rome isn't of much significance, just as there isn't a lot of significance to the continual existence of a religion like Buddhism or Islam. I don't know of any Christian, Protestant or otherwise, who denies that there have been Christians in and associated with the city of Rome since apostolic times. What Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and other professing Christians would deny is that the earliest Christians in and associated with Rome were Roman Catholics. Whether they were Roman Catholic would depend on an evaluation of their beliefs, not just whether there were professing Christians in or associated with Rome at the time.
You write:
"That continuous succession is not an impressive selling point for a given faith tradition is *your* subjective valuation. I don’t share it. Millions concur."
And your views are your "subjective valuations". Would you explain to us how "continuous succession" is "an impressive selling point"?
You write:
"Again, why does it matter what Steve (or anyone) finds convincing? If subjective plausibility is the best you have to offer, then you are no better positioned epistemologically than your Orthodox or Romanist counterparts (who assess the data quite differently)."
I didn't just refer to what Steve Hays believes. I also referred to the material at this web site that he's written in support of his beliefs.
You write:
"That God would leave little/no trace in the historical record to establish the reality of a remnant strikes me as implausible."
Then you must think it's implausible that God had a remnant throughout Old Testament history. And if He didn't have one then, why are we supposed to think that He's had one since then?
And why are we supposed to accept your assertion that there's "little/no trace in the historical record to establish the reality of a remnant"? Why would God need to leave a historical record that meets your standard of "establishment"? If you think that God has promised to maintain a church, then wouldn't that promise, considered in light of His proven trustworthiness, give you reason to trust Him?
Individual salvation is, by its nature, something that doesn't tend to leave as many traces in the historical record as something like a war or a famine would. The salvation of somebody like the thief on the cross or the Philippian jailer probably wouldn't be preserved in any extant historical records if a well known figure like Jesus or the apostle Paul wasn't involved. Still, the same gospel that led to the salvation of the thief and the jailer has been communicated to billions of people over many centuries and in many places. How much would you need to "trace in the historical record" to conclude that it's plausible that what happened with the thief and the jailer has happened with many other people as well?
You write:
"You demure, and you have that right, but eye rolling in the face of Romanist/Orthodox claims strikes me as hypocritical, given the subjective nature of the whole debate."
There's a major difference between:
1.) Claiming that your denomination is the true church, verifiable by means of a combination of scripture and extra-scriptural data, including a succession of your bishops going back to the time of the apostles.
2.) Claiming on the basis of scripture that the true church crosses denominational lines and is of such a nature that it isn't as easily identified as a succession of bishops would be.
The first position requires an argument for the reliability of scripture and for dubious interpretations of passages like Matthew 16 and John 16, appeals to extra-scriptural material that isn't supported by evidence comparable to what we have for scripture, and relies on dubious assumptions about the significance of successions of bishops. The second position, on the other hand, only requires an argument for the reliability of scripture and an argument for some sort of universal church, with different Protestants arguing for different features to that church.
I don't know how much material you've read from this blog. But we've written at length on Roman Catholic interpretations of Matthew 16, Eastern Orthodox beliefs about church history, apostolic succession, and other subjects related to the first position described above. We've also written at length about the reliability of scripture and a Protestant understanding of the church. You may not be convinced of all of our positions from reading one thread like this one, but this thread isn't all that we've written.
bv>We can demonstrate that the view that Jesus is God
ReplyDelete>predates John's gospel
Which is not the same as proving no Christological development.
>Where's your evidence that the earliest bishops
>were Eastern Orthodox?
Well you think they were protestants, I think they were Orthodox. But as soon as we start looking at the early writings we find things that are distinctly Orthodox and not protestant, like apostolic succession.
>How does the fact that I think that there were
>believers throughout church history prove that
>we should "think much" of your authority claims
>based on apostolic succession? You're claiming a
>logical connection between the two without
>demonstrating it.
You apparently have an inate desire to believe there were true believers throughout history, despite the total lack of evidence of any groups outside of the Orthodox/Catholic groups. So apparently your desire and need for this belief outweighs your adherance to the historical record. Your problem is that your traditions prevent you from considering the groups who do historically have such a claim.
>>I don't know of any Protestant who maintains
>>that belief in sola scriptura is necessary for
>>salvation or was an appropriate belief for every
>>Christian in history.
>
>Apparently, you don't understand sola scriptura,
>in addition to your errant understanding of so
>many other issues you comment on. Scripture
>doesn't have to explicitly teach something in
>order for the concept to logically follow from
>scripture, and scripture allows us freedom on
>some issues.
LOL, are you reading what you're writing? You say that sola scriptura wasn't an appropriate belief for all Christians in history. Then you go on to back that up by saying that non-adherance to sola scriptura must be either (a) implicit in scripture and (b) a matter of freedom. !!!
>I would evaluate their status just as I would
>evaluate anybody else's. I would look for
>evidence of saving faith.
That would make all Orthodox Christians who actually hold to that Faith as part of the true church then, right?
>Again, it seems that you don't have much of an
>understanding of sola scriptura. I didn't say
>anything about not being able to practice sola
>scriptura, so I see no reason for you to arrive at
>your conclusion above.
But you're claiming there was no scriptural statement about how those in the future should find God's people. Make's it hard to join God's people then.
>And I never claimed that sola scriptura would be
>appropriate during a time of public revelation,
>such as when Jeremiah was alive.
So how does this work? God's people pop in and out of sola scriptura every time a prophet arises or dies. How confusing!
Orthodox writes:
ReplyDelete"Which is not the same as proving no Christological development."
You've had two opportunities now to define what "Christological development" you have in mind, and you still haven't done it. Give us documentation. I want citations of these "modernists" and an explanation of how their arguments supposedly are problematic for Protestants. If these "modernists" you claim to know about agree that Jesus was viewed as God prior to the writing of John's gospel, then what is it in John's gospel that supposedly represents a "development" that's problematic for Protestants?
You write:
"Well you think they were protestants, I think they were Orthodox."
Did you read my post before responding to it? I explained that I wasn't arguing that the fathers were Protestants, and I used Papias as an example.
You write:
"But as soon as we start looking at the early writings we find things that are distinctly Orthodox and not protestant, like apostolic succession."
I've refuted your assertions about apostolic succession in another thread, and you ignored much of what I wrote there. Apostolic succession isn't "distinctly Orthodox". Multiple groups, not just Eastern Orthodoxy, claim a succession from the apostles. And the church fathers aren't the earliest bishops. There were bishops in the apostolic era as well. If you want us to accept your claim that the earliest bishops were Eastern Orthodox, then you need to begin with the apostolic era, you need to address more than apostolic succession, and you need to interact with the large amount of material I've already cited against your position (early absence of and opposition to prayers to the deceased, veneration of images, etc.).
You write:
"You apparently have an inate desire to believe there were true believers throughout history, despite the total lack of evidence of any groups outside of the Orthodox/Catholic groups."
In another thread, I gave you documentation of groups in the first millennium that you acknowledged to have been out of fellowship with what you consider Eastern Orthodoxy. You called some of the groups "schismatics", others you called "heretics", and some you attempted to minimize by saying that they desired unity with Eastern Orthodoxy, even though they didn't have it for a while. I gave you documentation from the writings of Hippolytus, Cyprian, and other sources. And I don't know of anybody who denies that there were groups like the Waldensians and Lollards in the Middle Ages. For you to claim that there's "total lack of evidence of any groups outside of the Orthodox/Catholic groups", and for you to say that just after we had a discussion in which I made you acknowledge the existence of such groups, is absurd.
And I have to ask, again, did you read my post before responding to it? I said that believers could be found in groups like Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, so arguing that those were the only two groups that existed for a while wouldn't refute my claim. Your objection is both wrong and irrelevant.
You write:
"LOL, are you reading what you're writing? You say that sola scriptura wasn't an appropriate belief for all Christians in history. Then you go on to back that up by saying that non-adherance to sola scriptura must be either (a) implicit in scripture and (b) a matter of freedom."
Again, if sola scriptura isn't applicable in times of public revelation, then it follows that there will be times of public revelation described in scripture during which sola scriptura would be inappropriate. Why is that supposed to be a problem for those who practice sola scriptura during a time when there is no ongoing public revelation?
You write:
"That would make all Orthodox Christians who actually hold to that Faith as part of the true church then, right?"
I was referring to the apostolic faith, not the Eastern Orthodox faith. I don't consider something like venerating images or praying to Mary to be evidence of saving faith. A person might be saved in spite of doing such things, but such activities aren't evidence of saving faith.
You write:
"But you're claiming there was no scriptural statement about how those in the future should find God's people."
No, I didn't say that. To the contrary, I've repeatedly given you examples of how the people of God can be identified (the standards of 1 Corinthians 15:1-19, Galatians 1:6-9, etc.).
You write:
"So how does this work? God's people pop in and out of sola scriptura every time a prophet arises or dies. How confusing!"
First of all, if you don't know "how it works", then why are you critiquing a system of belief that you so poorly understand? The fact that sola scriptura wouldn't apply during the public ministry of somebody like Jeremiah is so obvious, is such basic information to anybody significantly familiar with sola scriptura, that I have to wonder why you're engaging in public disputes about sola scriptura if you understand it so little.
I've already cited the illustration of Adam and Eve. Since they had no scriptures, no ecumenical councils, etc., do you conclude that we therefore shouldn't follow such things today? Do you consider it "confusing" that human beings have "popped in" to following the Eastern Orthodox rule of faith after not following it initially? Did Abraham follow ecumenical councils? Did David have your canon of scripture? Are you today capable of listening to Jesus teach with your own ears and watching Him perform miracles, as the people alive during His public ministry were able to do? Such changes in historical circumstances don't just affect the Protestant rule of faith. They also affect the Eastern Orthodox rule of faith. People like Adam, Abraham, Samson, Apollos, and Athanasius wouldn't have had everything that you consider part of your rule of faith today. That's true both in terms of the lesser details (Athanasius lived prior to most of the ecumenical councils) and in terms of broader categories (Adam had no ecumenical councils).
t>That is it in John's gospel that supposedly
ReplyDelete>represents a "development" that's problematic for
>Protestants?
You comprehension is in bad shape today, because I didn't say that. What I said was that Protestant claims that the church of the 300s had radically changed from the 1st century is just the kind of unbelief that modernists use to claim that John's gospel is a later development. An example are the many "I AM" statements in John. Because they aren't in Mt, Mk and Lk, so the modernist argument goes, Jesus never said these things, they are a later interpolation. This is parallel to your claim that half the stuff in the church of the 300s is a later addition.
>I explained that I wasn't arguing that the fathers
>were Protestants, and I used Papias as an
>example.
I thought you were claiming some fathers weren't protestants. Now you are conceeding that none were?
>Multiple groups, not just Eastern Orthodoxy,
>claim a succession from the apostles.
Yes, all the "original" churches believe in this doctrine!
>In another thread, I gave you documentation of
>groups in the first millennium that you
>acknowledged to have been out of fellowship
>with what you consider Eastern Orthodoxy.
We discusses some churches who were basically catholic in belief who had a political split. And we discussed radical heretics like Marcionites. But none of these are even vaguely protestant.
>And I don't know of anybody who denies that
>there were groups like the Waldensians and
>Lollards in the Middle Ages.
And most if not all of these were either Arian or Unitarian. Do you really want to be associated with them? And neither would these groups give you a church going all the way back to the 1st century.
>Why is that supposed to be a problem for those
>who practice sola scriptura during a time when
>there is no ongoing public revelation?
For a start, this theory is not in scripture. For a second thing, the cessation of revelation is not in scripture. For a third thing, you can never prove when revelation has ceased.
>I was referring to the apostolic faith, not the
>Eastern Orthodox faith. I don't consider
>something like venerating images or praying to
>Mary to be evidence of saving faith. A person
>might be saved in spite of doing such things, but
>such activities aren't evidence of saving faith.
Whoa, you're switching rafts in mid stream. Here's what you said:
> I would look for evidence of saving faith.
Nobody asked you to see evidence of saving faith in icons or Mary. What I asked you was:
"That would make all Orthodox Christians who actually hold to that Faith as part of the true church then, right?"
In other words, Orthodox Christians, who properly understand and follow that Faith, would be "saved" under your system, wouldn't they?
>Do you consider it "confusing" that human
>beings have "popped in" to following the Eastern
>Orthodox rule of faith after not following it
>initially?
LOL, not at all because the rule of faith hasn't changed which is the beliefs expressed in God's visible chosen people. Not like your on again off again sola scriptura.
Orthodox writes:
ReplyDelete"What I said was that Protestant claims that the church of the 300s had radically changed from the 1st century is just the kind of unbelief that modernists use to claim that John's gospel is a later development. An example are the many 'I AM' statements in John. Because they aren't in Mt, Mk and Lk, so the modernist argument goes, Jesus never said these things, they are a later interpolation. This is parallel to your claim that half the stuff in the church of the 300s is a later addition."
First of all, your initial claim about modernists and the gospel of John didn't specify the timeframe of "the 300s".
Second, even if it had, that would have been an irrelevant specification in the context of what you were responding to. Nothing I said suggested a timeframe of "the 300s".
Third, what you're now claiming to be arguing about the gospel of John is different from what you argued earlier. In a previous thread, you wrote:
"Most seem to date the Gospel of John to 90-100AD. But the Gospel of John is often considered to be the only clear, if not only certain and indisputable witness to the full deity of Jesus Christ. Without this witness, a hypothetical sola scriptura church in the year 70AD could be bogged down in theological arguments at best, or having an even lower Christology than Arius at worst." (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/03/sola-ecclesia.html)
Yet, now you claim to not be referring to whether Jesus is viewed as God in pre-John documents. You're now acting as if my documentation that Jesus was viewed as God prior to the writing of John's gospel is irrelevant.
Fourth, the number of relevant "I am" statements in John's gospel depends on which type of "I am" statements you're looking for and how the individual passages are being interpreted, and you aren't giving us any information along those lines. I asked you for citations of the "modernists" you supposedly have in mind, and you still haven't provided any documentation.
Fifth, "I am" statements aren't absent from the Synoptic gospels. If you want to claim that you weren't referring to the absence of such statements as a category, but rather the absence of the specific instances found in John's gospel, then what's the significance of such a difference? The gospels are four different biographies by four different authors. It would make no sense to expect all of them to include the same material, without any variations. If the "modernists" you claim to have in mind are objecting to John's inclusion of some statements that aren't included in the Synoptics, even though the Synoptics have Jesus saying similar things, then this "modernist" objection is weak. The objection to your claim that the earliest bishops of Christianity were Eastern Orthodox, on the other hand, isn't weak. If it was weak, you probably would have refuted it by now. Instead, you keep failing to provide documentation, even when repeatedly asked for it.
Sixth, conservative scholars have for a long time been giving plausible explanations for the larger emphasis on "I am" statements in John's gospel, as we see in the commentaries of Craig Blomberg, Craig Keener, etc. You've given us no reason to think that defending the larger emphasis on "I am" statements in John's gospel is comparable to arguing that the earliest bishops in Christianity were Eastern Orthodox. You made the comparison, but you never justified it.
Seventh, I haven't argued that "half the stuff in the church of the 300s is a later addition".
Eighth, you still haven't told us how you supposedly know that the earliest bishops were Eastern Orthodox. You cited early belief in apostolic succession, but I explained why citing apostolic succession isn't enough. I then asked you to tell us how you supposedly know that the earliest bishops were Eastern Orthodox. You still haven't answered the question.
Why do you keep getting so many things wrong? Why do you keep making so many assertions that you don't even attempt to justify?
You write:
"I thought you were claiming some fathers weren't protestants."
It seems that you're being dishonest again. You originally claimed that I view the early bishops in general, not just "some fathers", as Protestants. Now you're claiming that you thought I view "some fathers" as Protestant. In addition to misrepresenting what I said, you're changing your own argument in mid-discussion.
You write:
"Yes, all the 'original' churches believe in this doctrine!"
As I documented in another discussion with you, there are multiple definitions of apostolic succession. It's not "this doctrine" in the sense of involving only one concept. It's a general description that's applied to a variety of concepts that have some overlap and some differences.
And you don't tell us what "original churches" means or how you supposedly know that "all the 'original' churches believe in this doctrine". As usual, you're long on assertion and short on evidence.
You're also failing to explain why you initially cited apostolic succession in light of the fact that it doesn't single out Eastern Orthodoxy. Saying that apostolic succession proves that the earliest bishops were Eastern Orthodox is like saying that belief in the deity of Christ proves that they were Eastern Orthodox.
You write:
"We discusses some churches who were basically catholic in belief who had a political split. And we discussed radical heretics like Marcionites."
No, Firmilian was out of fellowship with Stephen on a doctrinal matter, some churches were out of fellowship with the Roman church after the Second Council of Constantinople over a doctrinal matter, etc. I gave you multiple examples of churches that were out of fellowship with each other, and they weren't out of fellowship because of "politics". You offered no documentation that all of the churches of the first millennium were Eastern Orthodox. You just asserted it over and over without evidence. You've given us no reason to agree with your conclusion.
You write:
"And most if not all of these were either Arian or Unitarian."
I realize that you've repeatedly failed to provide documentation, even when asked for it, but I'll ask again. I mentioned the Waldensians and Lollards. Where's your documentation that they were "Arian or Unitarian"?
You write:
"And neither would these groups give you a church going all the way back to the 1st century."
I didn't claim that they alone would. You aren't interacting with what I've said.
You write:
"For a start, this theory is not in scripture. For a second thing, the cessation of revelation is not in scripture. For a third thing, you can never prove when revelation has ceased."
I don't have to have a passage of scripture that tells me when revelation will cease in order to know that I'm not aware of any revelation outside of scripture. If you're going to argue that I have to know that there isn't any revelation in a place I'm unaware of, then you need to explain why such knowledge is necessary. And you'll need to explain how your objection wouldn't apply to your own belief system.
You write:
"In other words, Orthodox Christians, who properly understand and follow that Faith, would be 'saved' under your system, wouldn't they?"
Anybody who has saving faith would be saved. Faith is trust. You don't "properly understand and follow" trust. You either trust or you don't. I'm not referring to "faith" as a collection of beliefs. A person can hold to a collection of true doctrines, yet not trust in Christ for salvation. Saving faith involves doctrine, but it involves more than holding some doctrines.
You write:
"LOL, not at all because the rule of faith hasn't changed which is the beliefs expressed in God's visible chosen people. Not like your on again off again sola scriptura."
All that you're doing is defining your rule of faith in such a vague manner that it can include anybody you want to include, even people who had no scripture, no ecumenical councils, etc. But anybody can do that. I could claim that my rule of faith is something vague like "God's word", with sola scriptura as a description of how that word is preserved for us today. If your concept of "the beliefs expressed in God's visible chosen people" can change in content, so that Adam and Eve have no ecumenical councils, for example, while you do have such councils to follow, then I can similarly propose a concept like "God's word" that allows for people like Adam and Eve to have no scripture, while scripture alone is God's word for me today. Adam and Eve had "God's word" as a standard, and so do I.
If your standard is "the beliefs expressed in God's visible chosen people", then does that mean that Adam and Eve's belief that God was wrong about the tree in the Garden was part of God's revelation? Since Noah and his family were "God's visible chosen people", then should we conclude that whatever they believed on any subject (food, mathematics, music, etc.) was part of God's revelation? What about 2 Kings 22:8-13 and Nehemiah 8:13-17? When "God's visible chosen people" were wrong on an issue for such a long period of time, was that wrong belief part of God's revelation? Earlier, you argued from Ezekiel 11 that there was a change from the Old Testament era to this New Testament era regarding whether a general consensus of God's people could be wrong. Yet, now you're arguing that the beliefs of "God's visible chosen people" have always been the standard.
You're being arbitrary. You're also contradicting yourself. You give us no reason to believe that our standard should be "the beliefs expressed in God's visible chosen people". It's just another one of your assertions unaccompanied by evidence.
>"In other words, Orthodox Christians, who properly
ReplyDelete>understand and follow that Faith, would be 'saved'
>under your system, wouldn't they?"
>
>Anybody who has saving faith would be saved. Faith
>is trust. You don't "properly understand and follow"
>trust. You either trust or you don't. I'm not referring
>to "faith" as a collection of beliefs. A person can
>hold to a collection of true doctrines, yet not trust
>in Christ for salvation. Saving faith involves
>doctrine, but it involves more than holding some
>doctrines.
Nobody said anything about merely "holding to doctrines".
Orthodoxy teaches you to trust Christ for salvation. Thus if you follow the Orthodox teaching, you will be saved, correct?
Orthodox said:
ReplyDelete"Nobody said anything about merely 'holding to doctrines'."
As I explained in my last post, I was responding to your reference to "properly understanding and following that Faith". Faith is trust. You don't "properly understand and follow" trust. You either trust or you don't. I'm not referring to "faith" as a collection of beliefs. And faith, defined as trust, isn't normally capitalized. If you refer to how two friends trust each other, you don't normally capitalize the word "trust". Your capitalization of "Faith", along with your comments about "properly understanding and following", suggested that you were referring to a collection of doctrines. If you didn't intend to refer to a collection of doctrines, then your poor communication skills aren't my fault. I had good reason to offer a clarification in response to your comments.
You write:
"Orthodoxy teaches you to trust Christ for salvation. Thus if you follow the Orthodox teaching, you will be saved, correct?"
You're ignoring some qualifiers I mentioned earlier. I cited 1 Corinthians 15 and Galatians 1 as examples of passages that refer to foundational doctrines. Just as the term "Christ" must be properly defined, so that a Jehovah's Witness' definition would be inadequate, for example, the same is true of a phrase like "trust Christ for salvation". The Judaizers Paul responds to in Galatians are never criticized for arguing that Christ shouldn't be trusted as part of the process of attaining justification. Surely nobody or almost nobody who professes to be a Christian would deny that Christ is to be trusted. But if a person argues that trust alone isn't enough to be reconciled with God, and argues that works we do are part of the process as well, then more than "trusting Christ" is involved. Not only is more involved, but the nature of that trust is altered as well. Instead of trusting Christ alone to provide the work that's needed for justification, the person is looking to a combination between Christ's work and his own work in cooperation with Christ's.
Paul illustrates what he means in Galatians 3:2-9. The Galatian Christians were justified through believing response to the preached word (Galatians 3:2). Abraham was justified in the same manner, as reflected in Genesis 15:6 (Galatians 3:6-9), and all that Abraham did there was believe (sola fide). Abraham was later justified by his works, in the sense of vindication, the outworking of his faith. But his justification before God, his forgiveness and reconciliation with God, occurred through faith alone. There is no baptism, attendance at communion, giving of money to the poor, or any other good work in Genesis 15:6. Such works are significant, and they justify in the sense of vindication, but they don't justify in the sense Paul is addressing in Galatians.
If an individual Eastern Orthodox trusts in Christ in the manner Paul describes in Galatians, then, yes, he's saved. But given your earlier comments in opposition to justification through faith alone, I doubt that you're trusting in Christ in that sense.
What "earlier comments"? You mean where I quoted James sans any commentary, and which you disagreed with??
ReplyDeleteAnd still you're obfuscating. Does or does not Orthodoxy teach you to trust Christ in a salvific manner?
Orthodox wrote:
ReplyDelete"You mean where I quoted James sans any commentary, and which you disagreed with?? And still you're obfuscating. Does or does not Orthodoxy teach you to trust Christ in a salvific manner?"
You accuse me of "obfuscating" after you've ignored large portions of what I've written in response to you in this thread and others. Why should I keep answering your questions when you've repeatedly refused to answer mine?
I'm interacting with you, not with another Eastern Orthodox. You've repeatedly been asked for documentation of what you think comprises Eastern Orthodox Tradition. You've repeatedly refused to cite any such source, but instead have told us to look to "living tradition", to judge Eastern Orthodoxy by asking any given Eastern Orthodox what he believes. (You later added the qualifier that this Eastern Orthodox we speak with must be "in communion", but you never explained what that means.) So, I'm judging Eastern Orthodoxy, in my discussion with you, by your standards. You've told us what you believe about justification, and I supposedly can judge the entirety of Eastern Orthodoxy by seeing the "living tradition" as it's illustrated in your life.
I see. So because you are pretty much ignorant of Eastern Orthodoxy, and because I'm not going to run a night school for you to teach you, you choose to remain ignorant.
ReplyDeleteFine, but then you ought to stop posting your foolish mischaracterizations on this blog.
Orthodox writes:
ReplyDelete"So because you are pretty much ignorant of Eastern Orthodoxy, and because I'm not going to run a night school for you to teach you, you choose to remain ignorant."
No, I'm holding you to your own professed standards. And you're unwilling to abide by those standards, even though you professed to believe in them.