Monday, April 16, 2007

In search of the true church

“The appeal to the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) as paradigmatic for church decision-making procedure is frequently made by those emphasizing the importance of the hierarchy in the process of defining the faith…seemingly a perfect example.”

“On closer examination, the example is problematical. Did the hierarchy really make the decision? First, Peter makes a speech and in it takes responsibility for the Gentile mission; but then James, the brother of the Lord, speaks and states, ‘I have reached a decision…’ Next, we find that ‘the apostles and the elders with the consent of the whole church decided…’ (v22); and again, when we read Paul’s account of what is ostensibly the same council (Gal 2:1-10), he states that he is the leader of the Gentile mission and the meeting in Jerusalem added nothing to his message or method.”

“Finally, the Council was not really about orthodoxy at all, but about orthopraxy: The decision did not involve theology (q.v.) or the content of the faith, but only whether circumcision and certain types of abstinence would be practiced,” M. Prokurat et al. Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church (Scarecrow Press 1996), 49-50.

“The appeal to ecumenical conciliarity (sobornost, in Russian) and the emperor are frequently taken as normative for the Eastern Church’s self-expression. Certainly the Seven Ecumenical Councils (q.v.) have unique authority in the East, and the emperor was looked upon as blessed by God to enforce secular, if not religious, justice.”

“The problem with the councils and the emperor, briefly put, is that terrible difficulties in the conciliar period began immediately with Constantine the Great (q.v.). Councils were convened that attributed ‘ecumenical authority’ to themselves, but which were subsequently judiciously overturned.”

Similarly, the emperor soon showed himself capable of being as much a hindrance to the faith as a help. Heretical laws were passed and enforced. The state inferred in the Church and itself created new martyrs (q.v.)—most recently with Soviet sovereignty.”

One of the worst conciliar debacles occurred with the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1439) wherein all the sitting hierarchs except Mark of Ephesus (q.v.) capitulated to Rome; and on returning to their dioceses they met any angry reception—and most swiftly recanted in order to hold their sees,” ibid. 50.

“The appeal to Holy Tradition (q.v.) (including Scripture and/or the Councils [qq.v.]) is recognized as of ultimate authority…The primary hurdle in appealing to Holy Tradition as an authority lies in the selection of appropriate sources, applicable to a given situation.

“Similarly, precedent is difficult to establish quickly, since the selection of sources itself is a matter of interpretation, and the question raised might not have been asked previously.”

“Everyone agrees that Holy Tradition is authoritative, but which beliefs and practices truly manifest Holy Tradition is open to a variety of interpretation,” ibid. 50-51.

“Various appeals to the authority of ancient patriarchates, especially Rome and Constantinople (qq.v.), have been made throughout history. During the later Ecumenical Councils (q.v.) the Roman Church had a remarkable record of protecting orthodoxy from heresy (q.v.), less so Constantinople.”

“Unfortunately, dominant heresies occurred in each of these centers; so, one finds Hippolytus’s papal adversaries and Honorius I in Rome, and Theodore of Mopsuestia and Cyril of Lukaris (qq.v.) in Constantinople, as notable, fallible examples,” ibid. 51.

“Holy Tradition (with a capital ‘T’) is to be distinguished from tradition (with a lower case ‘t’) or custom…The distinction is firm in theory, although its precise application in practice is often thorny,” ibid. 323.

20 comments:

  1. But, but... that guy's an idiot! And his grandma was a Babdist!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Do you think the Orthodox are ignorant of all these things? Hardly, you will find them referred to in any introductory book on Orthodoxy. Any council claiming to be presenting an accurate picture of the faith must submit itself to an even higher authority, the mind of the church, which is the standard of agreement that is stated to have occured in Acts 15.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Once again, Orthodox illustrates his invincible obtuseness. As Prokurat/Golitzin explain in this very entry, there is no hotline to the "mind of the church."

    Every possible port of entry is plagued by uncertainties.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have no idea what a hotline is, but I have no problem knowing what Orthodoxy teaches. Funny that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Earlier, in order to avoid having to document how he knows what is and isn't Eastern Orthodox Tradition, Orthodox told us that we need only ask any given Eastern Orthodox what that Tradition is, since they represent "the living tradition". Since then, however, we've seen Orthodox tell us that we can't trust what Origen said about praying to the deceased, since "we must assume Origen may not have been in unity with his brothers on this issue" (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/03/in-another-thread-orthodox-wrote.html). Orthodox tells us that we shouldn't trust what Epiphanius said about the veneration of images, since people like Epiphanius "were working from their personal interpretations and not the mind of the wider church" (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/unity-of-one-true-church.html). And, in response to comments Steve Hays and I have cited from modern Eastern Orthodox scholars, we've been told that these scholars are mistaken in their beliefs about church history and Eastern Orthodoxy. Regarding his own understanding of the church, in contrast to these mistaken church fathers and Eastern Orthodox scholars, Orthodox tells us that "I have no problem knowing what Orthodoxy teaches." Which Eastern Orthodox should we trust? Who represents "the mind of the church"?

    ReplyDelete
  6. orthodox said:

    "I have no idea what a hotline is, but I have no problem knowing what Orthodoxy teaches. Funny that."

    No, what's funny is that Prokurat/Golitzin systematically cut off any indisputable access to the mind of the church. They point out problems with the appeal to Acts 15, ecumenical councils, "Tradition," and apostolic sees respectively. That introduces uncertainty into every avenue which an Orthodox apologist like you might turn to.

    So, according to them, you can't be sure of what you believe as a member of the Orthodox church.

    ReplyDelete
  7. >Since then, however, we've seen Orthodox tell us
    >that we can't trust what Origen said about praying
    >to the deceased, since "we must assume Origen
    >may not have been in unity with his brothers on this
    >issue"

    Anachronism alert! This is like saying we can't know the canon in the 6th century because Origen didn't know it in the 3rd century. Of course Jason can't know the canon in any century because the historical method can't get more certain as time goes on, it can't know things certainly that were previously uncertain. Orthodoxy can assume that things get more certain over time because it assumes there is one church guided by the Spirit.

    >And, in response to comments Steve Hays and I
    >have cited from modern Eastern Orthodox
    >scholars, we've been told that these scholars are
    >mistaken in their beliefs about church history
    >and Eastern Orthodoxy.

    The details of church history is not dogma. I explained why both my viewpoint AND the viewpoint of cited scholars are BOTH quite Orthodox.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Orthodox writes:

    "Orthodoxy can assume that things get more certain over time because it assumes there is one church guided by the Spirit."

    Your belief in a Spirit-led Eastern Orthodoxy is unjustified, as we've seen, so you have no good reason for "assuming that things get more certain over time".

    You write:

    "The details of church history is not dogma. I explained why both my viewpoint AND the viewpoint of cited scholars are BOTH quite Orthodox."

    We've demonstrated that the church fathers sometimes disagreed with you about doctrine, such as praying to the deceased and the veneration of images. We've also given you examples of Eastern Orthodox disagreeing with each other on issues such as the canon of scripture and what is Tradition and what isn't. As Steve Hays' source at the beginning of this thread put it:

    "Everyone agrees that Holy Tradition is authoritative, but which beliefs and practices truly manifest Holy Tradition is open to a variety of interpretation...Holy Tradition (with a capital ‘T’) is to be distinguished from tradition (with a lower case ‘t’) or custom…The distinction is firm in theory, although its precise application in practice is often thorny"

    ReplyDelete
  9. >Your belief in a Spirit-led Eastern Orthodoxy is
    >unjustified, as we've seen, so you have no good
    >reason for "assuming that things get more
    >certain over time"

    Then you have no canon, since if the canon was uncertain in Origen's time it can most assuredly not have become more certain 18 centuries later.

    >The distinction is firm in theory, although its
    >precise application in practice is often thorny"

    What a bunch of hypocrisy to trot this out. If the precise application of Tradtion to some marginal areas is thorny, then the precise application of sola-scriptura to MAJOR issues is also thorny. If there's going to be any thornyness I'd rather it was about incidental issues than core issues, and I'd rather that they are clarified over time and not become vaguer over time.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Orthodox writes:

    "Then you have no canon, since if the canon was uncertain in Origen's time it can most assuredly not have become more certain 18 centuries later."

    As we've explained to you repeatedly, we don't make claims about our rule of faith that are comparable to the claims you make about yours. When we demonstrate that your claims about Eastern Orthodoxy are false, you often respond by arguing that Protestants also fail to meet up to those claims. But we don't make the same claims you do, so expecting us to meet up to your claims doesn't make sense. I haven't claimed that the canonicity of Hebrews, for example, is something always held by a worldwide denomination that every Christian of the first millennium belonged to. You have made such claims on issues like praying to the deceased and the veneration of images.

    And we don't need certainty when we make a historical case for a canon of scripture. A probability is sufficient, just as we rely on probabilities regarding other issues in life. Historical arguments involve probability, not certainty. If you were to make a historical case for the authority and meaning of ecumenical councils, for example, you would have to appeal to probability, not certainty.

    The fact that there were some disagreements over some books of the canon in Origen's time doesn't prevent us from arriving at a conclusion that a particular canon is probable. As I've told you before, canonical judgments aren't just a matter of looking for what a majority believed about a book, much less looking for unanimity.

    You write:

    "If the precise application of Tradtion to some marginal areas is thorny, then the precise application of sola-scriptura to MAJOR issues is also thorny. If there's going to be any thornyness I'd rather it was about incidental issues than core issues, and I'd rather that they are clarified over time and not become vaguer over time."

    Again, it's erroneous to respond to us by telling us that we don't meet up to your claims for Eastern Orthodoxy. We don't make the same claims for our belief system that you make for yours.

    In my first post in this thread, I linked to a previous thread in which you argued that Eastern Orthodox agree with each other on issues such as how to define particular words in a prayer to Mary that I quoted. And you've criticized Protestants for disagreeing over issues like how often to celebrate communion. As I've explained to you before, you have to include minor disagreements among Protestants in order to arrive at your claim that there are "thousands" of Protestant denominations. If you're going to claim that Eastern Orthodox agree with each other on issues such as how to define some particular words in a prayer to Mary, and you're going to criticize Protestants for disagreements that they consider minor, then you can't turn around and say that Eastern Orthodox should only be expected to agree on "major" or "dogmatic" issues. Protestants have made lower claims about the unity they have with each other, yet you're holding them to a higher standard.

    If the issues Eastern Orthodox disagree about are "incidental", then are you saying that your disagreement with Epiphanius about the veneration of images is "incidental"? So, the Second Council of Nicaea was addressing an "incidental" issue? What about the disagreements among Eastern Orthodox about the canon of scripture, which Steve Hays discussed earlier? If such canonical disagreements are "incidental", then why have you been making such an issue over Eastern Orthodoxy's supposedly settling the canon for us, and why have you been arguing that Protestant canonical disagreements would be significant? What about when Eastern Orthodox disagree with each other about what is Tradition and what isn't? Is that "incidental"?

    ReplyDelete
  11. >As we've explained to you repeatedly, we don't
    >make claims about our rule of faith that are
    >comparable to the claims you make about yours.

    Which is where your entire system breaks down. Without comparable claims, you have no rule of faith, all you have is an opinion of faith. Everyone having their own rule of faith is no rule at all.

    >When we demonstrate that your claims about
    >Eastern Orthodoxy are false, you often respond
    >by arguing that Protestants also fail to meet up
    >to those claims. But we don't make the same
    >claims you do, so expecting us to meet up to
    >your claims doesn't make sense.

    Except that protestant behaviour doesn't match your rhetoric. We don't find pastors prefixing their sermons with "I don't claim to really know what the canon is, but I think on the balance of probability, this book is probably God Breathed, so it might be, or rather is probable that you ought to obey this, but you're going to have to decide that yourself".

    >And we don't need certainty when we make a
    >historical case for a canon of scripture. A
    >probability is sufficient, just as we rely on
    >probabilities regarding other issues in life.

    It makes it easier when you don't like a verse. Just go back and double check the authenticity evidence for the book. One's own inner conviction plus a bit of doubt thrown in from the historical record, might combine to allow one to bypass anything difficult.

    >The fact that there were some disagreements
    >over some books of the canon in Origen's time
    >doesn't prevent us from arriving at a conclusion
    >that a particular canon is probable.

    No, you've got no right to conclude that a canon is probable. All you can do is conclude that individual books are probable. If there's only a 10% probability that each of James, 2 Peter, Jude, Revelation and 3 John are not in the canon, then there is a 50% probability that your canon is in error. But you won't know where. And that ignores the possibility you are ignoring other God-breathed books. Possibly some which promote veneration of icons.

    >Protestants have made lower claims about the
    >unity they have with each other, yet you're
    >holding them to a higher standard.

    I only want to hold you to the standard of unity that you yourselves set. You write documents like the Westminster Confession of faith that set a lot of standards like paedo-baptism, and the canon of scripture, but then you claim you have unity with those who disagree because none of that matters anyway, it is all a matter of opinion and probability. Either it matters or it doesn't matter. Make up your mind. Set a standard of unity and either let everyone who meets the standard into your congregations, or else don't pretend you have unity. Don't complain about the standards I want to put on you, but live out the standards your own denomination sets.

    >If the issues Eastern Orthodox disagree about
    >are "incidental", then are you saying that your
    >disagreement with Epiphanius about the
    >veneration of images is "incidental"?

    Presumably not since it seems to have caused some consternation for him. Which is why the Church solved the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  12. orthodox said:

    "What a bunch of hypocrisy to trot this out. If the precise application of Tradtion to some marginal areas is thorny, then the precise application of sola-scriptura to MAJOR issues is also thorny. If there's going to be any thornyness I'd rather it was about incidental issues than core issues, and I'd rather that they are clarified over time and not become vaguer over time."

    Orthodox is interpolating a restriction on the range of what Prokurat/Golitzin said (in the quoted material) which they did not, in fact, make.

    They did not limit "thorny" to "marginal," "incidental" issues.

    In the nature of the case, “Tradition” is a highly selective abstraction that generalizes by picking and choosing from various “traditions.” So there’s a vicious circularity in the process.

    Knowledge is cumulative. For example, due to Biblical archeology, we can interpret many passages of Scripture with more precision than in the past. So, yes, the historical method can attain increasing degrees of certainty.

    ReplyDelete
  13. >They did not limit "thorny" to "marginal,"
    >"incidental" issues.

    Whether they stated it or not, we all know which side of the fence can't agree on church polity, mode of baptism, presence of the Lord in communion, etc etc.

    >In the nature of the case, “Tradition” is a highly
    >selective abstraction that generalizes by picking >and choosing from various “traditions.” So
    >there’s a vicious circularity in the process.

    In the nature of the case, “Scripture” is a highly selective abstraction that generalizes by picking and choosing from various “writings.” So there’s a vicious circularity in the process.

    >Knowledge is cumulative. For example, due to
    >Biblical archeology, we can interpret many
    >passages of Scripture with more precision than
    >in the past. So, yes, the historical method can
    >attain increasing degrees of certainty.

    You can't know more than the Church Fathers, for whom it was a native language.

    ReplyDelete
  14. ORTHODOX SAID:

    “Whether they stated it or not, we all know which side of the fence can't agree on church polity, mode of baptism, presence of the Lord in communion, etc etc.”

    A transparent fallacy since you’re simply comparing one denomination (yours) with a number of other denominations.

    By definition, there is a certain level of agreement *within* any given denomination: that’s what makes it a denomination, and distinguishes it from other denominations.

    “In the nature of the case, ‘Scripture’ is a highly selective abstraction that generalizes by picking and choosing from various ‘writings’.”

    The Orthodox lack an official canon, remember?

    “You can't know more than the Church Fathers, for whom it was a native language.”

    So you’re a Marcionite. Your canon begins and ends with the NT.

    What about the OT? Was Hebrew the native language of the Greek Fathers?

    How much did the Greek Fathers know about Egytology or Assyriology?

    I can also think of a couple of Greek Orthodox scholars who disagree with your view of the historical method:

    “In many ways, certainly because of the discovery and availability of new information, we are currently in a position to do work with Scripture that was impossible even half a century ago,” Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church, 295.

    Who speaks for Orthodoxy? You or them?

    ReplyDelete
  15. >By definition, there is a certain level of agreement
    >*within* any given denomination: that’s what makes
    >it a denomination, and distinguishes it from other
    >denominations.

    I'm not the one claiming unity with denominations that disagree on core issues.

    >The Orthodox lack an official canon, remember?

    Protestants lack an official canon, remember?

    >“In many ways, certainly because of the discovery
    >and availability of new information, we are
    >currently in a position to do work with Scripture
    >that was impossible even half a century ago,”

    The efforts of scholarship ebb and wane. In one age more may be learnt. In another age, it may be all forgotten again. But the doctrine of the church is ever upwards. The Church doesn't forget its doctrine.

    This whole modern scholarship is all very well, but it has resulted in the standard position being things like 2 Peter was written in the late 2nd century. This is the marvel of modern scholarship when applied to the doctrine of the Church. It's led to the pastoral epistles being labelled as pseudo-Pauline. Again, the marvel of modern scholarship as an authority higher than the Church.

    Scholarship can dig up some obscure things that are amusing and interesting, but scholarship as a rule of faith has brought nothing but confusion and disagreement. Just the pride of every individual thinking they can know better than the rest of history combined and the Church as led by the Spirit.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Orthodox said:

    "Without comparable claims, you have no rule of faith, all you have is an opinion of faith. Everyone having their own rule of faith is no rule at all."

    What is your rule of faith if not your rule of faith? Nobody is making you be Eastern Orthodox. You choose to follow the Eastern Orthodox rule of faith. Just as I'm fallible in choosing a rule of faith, so are you.

    You write:

    "Except that protestant behaviour doesn't match your rhetoric. We don't find pastors prefixing their sermons with 'I don't claim to really know what the canon is, but I think on the balance of probability, this book is probably God Breathed, so it might be, or rather is probable that you ought to obey this, but you're going to have to decide that yourself'."

    As I told you earlier, people frequently refer to probabilities without using the language of probability. A historian will say "George Washington was the first President of the United States" without using the word "probably", even though such a historical judgment is a matter of probability. The fact that Protestant pastors don't always use the language of probability when referring to probability judgments doesn't prove that probabilities aren't involved or that the person doing the speaking is denying the involvement of probabilities.

    You write:

    "It makes it easier when you don't like a verse. Just go back and double check the authenticity evidence for the book. One's own inner conviction plus a bit of doubt thrown in from the historical record, might combine to allow one to bypass anything difficult."

    You haven't given a single example of me or any other person you're responding to doing what you describe, so how are your comments above relevant?

    You write:

    "No, you've got no right to conclude that a canon is probable. All you can do is conclude that individual books are probable."

    The combination of those books would be a canon. And people can have reasons to trust God's providence in a canonical consensus without believing in Eastern Orthodoxy. Again, Steve Hays, I, and others here have written on canonical issues at length. If you don't want to consult the archives, don't want to consult the scholarship we cite, and want to keep ignoring what we've told you about the canon in previous threads that you've left, then that's your problem, not ours.

    You write:

    "If there's only a 10% probability that each of James, 2 Peter, Jude, Revelation and 3 John are not in the canon, then there is a 50% probability that your canon is in error."

    Just as I don't trust your undocumented assertions about the Greek language, I also don't trust your undocumented assertions about probabilities. We could apply your absurd reasoning to many areas of life in order to arrive at ridiculous conclusions.

    Using your reasoning, historians shouldn't accept any large canon of an ancient figure's writings. Even if each item in the canon is highly likely to be authentic, we can just add up all of the possibilities of inauthenticity in order to come up with a high percentage.

    Similarly, there are many steps in any historical argument you would make for Eastern Orthodoxy. You would have to include many probability judgments concerning the existence of Jesus, whether He said and did things He's reported to have said and done, whether the words attributed to Him have the meaning you think they have, etc. If you appeal to a passage like 1 Timothy 3:15, as you've done elsewhere, then there would be a series of additional probabilities concerning whether Paul wrote the document, whether what he wrote has the relevant authority, what verse 15 of chapter 3 means, whether only Eastern Orthodoxy fulfills it, etc. Even if you claimed 90% probability for each step, we could just add up 10% for each step and come up with a high likelihood of error, as you do above. And if you want to try to avoid such a high percentage by disingenuously claiming something like 99.99999% probability for many steps or every step, then Protestants arguing for a canon can do the same.

    You write:

    "You write documents like the Westminster Confession of faith that set a lot of standards like paedo-baptism, and the canon of scripture, but then you claim you have unity with those who disagree because none of that matters anyway, it is all a matter of opinion and probability."

    Where have I said "none of that matters anyway, it is all a matter of opinion and probability"? I haven't. What I've said is that people can have unity on issues like the ones we read about in 1 Corinthians 15 and Galatians 1, even if they disagree about other issues. It doesn't therefore follow that I'm saying that the disagreements "don't matter". Similarly, you claim unity with Eastern Orthodox you disagree with on some issues.

    You write:

    "Set a standard of unity and either let everyone who meets the standard into your congregations, or else don't pretend you have unity."

    Congregational unity isn't the only type of unity that exists. Two people can be united in one context while not being united in another.

    You write:

    "Presumably not since it seems to have caused some consternation for him. Which is why the Church solved the issue."

    The fact that you think that "the Church solved the issue" doesn't change the fact that Epiphanius disagreed with you, and he disagreed with you on an issue that you don't consider minor. But, as I said before, you initially criticized Protestants for even minor disagreements. Yet, people you consider Eastern Orthodox have disagreed with each other about both minor and major issues.

    You write:

    "This whole modern scholarship is all very well, but it has resulted in the standard position being things like 2 Peter was written in the late 2nd century."

    Steve has already corrected you on that point, with documentation. Modern scholarship does not date 2 Peter to the late second century. Why do you keep repeating errors that have already been corrected?

    You write:

    "Scholarship can dig up some obscure things that are amusing and interesting, but scholarship as a rule of faith has brought nothing but confusion and disagreement. Just the pride of every individual thinking they can know better than the rest of history combined and the Church as led by the Spirit."

    How do you know what "history combined" is if you don't make historical judgments, which involved modern scholarship and probabilities? In another thread, you told me to consult a lexicon in order to find the meaning of a Greek word. Who do you think produces such lexicons? Modern scholars. And you've repeatedly used Bible translations produced by modern scholars, quoted patristic documents translated by modern scholars, etc. How do you know that there was an ecumenical council known as Second Nicaea, for example, without making a historical judgment based on probability and relying on document translations produced by modern sources?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thought many here might enjoy a latter-day example of the beautiful unity of thought enjoyed by educated, Internet-literate Eastern Orthodox.

    ReplyDelete
  18. >>"It makes it easier when you don't like a verse. Just
    >>go back and double check the authenticity
    >>evidence for the book. One's own inner conviction
    >>plus a bit of doubt thrown in from the historical
    >>record, might combine to allow one to bypass
    >>anything difficult."
    >
    >You haven't given a single example of me or any
    >other person you're responding to doing what you
    >describe, so how are your comments above
    >relevant?

    Luther did it. When presented with verses he didn't like in the deutero-canonicals, he threw them out. When presented with books he didn't like, like James and Revelation he disparaged them as "epistles of straw" and relegated them to 2nd class status. This is the origin of protestantism.

    "Without comparable claims, you have no rule of faith, all you have is an opinion of faith. Everyone having their own rule of faith is no rule at all."

    >What is your rule of faith if not your rule of faith?
    >Nobody is making you be Eastern Orthodox. You
    >choose to follow the Eastern Orthodox rule of
    >faith. Just as I'm fallible in choosing a rule of
    >faith, so are you.

    I follow a pre-existing rule of faith. You claim to be forming your own canon and rule of faith according to your own opinions. Individuals doing what they want is not a rule, even if they choose the same, because any time you can choose differently and not break any rule.

    >And people can have reasons to trust God's
    >providence in a canonical consensus without
    >believing in Eastern Orthodoxy.

    Now we're getting back to reality is that people are following a consensus. But before you can find a consensus and know what the bible is, you first have to know who the people of God are to see what their consensus is.

    >If you don't want to consult the archives, don't
    >want to consult the scholarship we cite, and want
    >to keep ignoring what we've told you about the
    >canon in previous threads that you've left, then
    >that's your problem, not ours.

    And if you choose to continually misunderstand and mischaracterize Orthodoxy, it's not my problem either, but it doesn't mean I may not come in here and correct you.

    >I also don't trust your undocumented assertions
    >about probabilities.

    Junior high school math.

    >We could apply your absurd reasoning to many
    >areas of life in order to arrive at ridiculous
    >conclusions.

    Nonsense. This is no refutation of basic math.

    >Using your reasoning, historians shouldn't
    >accept any large canon of an ancient figure's
    >writings.

    If there are measurable uncertainties in various books in an ancient figure's canon, then yes, historians will say that they aren't certain that the canon is correct. That doesn't matter much for most cases, but when you claim to base your whole life and religion on it, it's a major problem.

    >Similarly, there are many steps in any historical
    >argument you would make for Eastern
    >Orthodoxy.

    Whatever problems there are, I know I have to weigh it up and follow it all, or follow none. One in, all in. With your historical approach, you can legitimately pick and choose which bits or books suit yourself. Anybody can see that can't lead to unity in the Church.

    >Even if you claimed 90% probability for each
    >step, we could just add up 10% for each step and
    >come up with a high likelihood of error, as you
    >do above. And if you want to try to avoid such a
    >high percentage by disingenuously claiming
    >something like 99.99999% probability for many
    >steps or every step, then Protestants arguing for
    >a canon can do the same.

    No, because my question is not yours. My question is a single one: Does the Church have the fullness of truth? The answer is binary, yes or no. Your question is multifaceted: Is 2 Peter true? Is James true? Is Revelation true? Is Mark true? Because you won't be all in, you're prepared to be half in if that's where the evidence leads, you have to admit that you probably have the wrong canon somewhere along the line, you probably have the wrong theology somewhere.

    >What I've said is that people can have unity on
    >issues like the ones we read about in 1
    >Corinthians 15 and Galatians 1, even if they
    >disagree about other issues. It doesn't therefore
    >follow that I'm saying that the disagreements
    >"don't matter". Similarly, you claim unity with
    >Eastern Orthodox you disagree with on some
    >issues.

    Either it matters or it doesn't. What we say is that we have unity, or we work towards unity on everything that matters. You say you are content with disunity on things that matter. That is not the biblical command to be content in disunity.

    >Steve has already corrected you on that point,
    >with documentation. Modern scholarship does
    >not date 2 Peter to the late second century. Why
    >do you keep repeating errors that have already
    >been corrected?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Peter

    "the historical-critical method, on the other hand, generally consider the epistle to be the last-written book of the New Testament, written c 150"

    >Who do you think produces such lexicons?
    >Modern scholars.

    Which is fine, but we don't change the faith because of the latest opinion of lexicon writers or any scholars. We are not on tenterhooks wondering what part of the faith we will have to abandon according to the latest discovery, whether it be 2 Peter, dogma or anything in the faith.

    >How do you know that there was an ecumenical
    >council known as Second Nicaea, for example,
    >without making a historical judgment based on
    >probability and relying on document translations
    >produced by modern sources?

    The church has defined 2 Nicea to be authoritative. If scholarship came out tomorrow with some new opinion that 2 Nicea never took place, the dogmas of Nicea would still be authoritative.

    ReplyDelete
  19. >Thought many here might enjoy a latter-day
    >example of the beautiful unity of thought enjoyed
    >by educated, Internet-literate Eastern Orthodox

    Looks like agreement to me, just some rather zealous debates on which facet of dogma should be focused on.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Orthodox said:

    "Luther did it. When presented with verses he didn't like in the deutero-canonicals, he threw them out. When presented with books he didn't like, like James and Revelation he disparaged them as 'epistles of straw' and relegated them to 2nd class status. This is the origin of protestantism."

    You're assuming a motive that Luther had that you haven't demonstrated, and you've failed to show any significant connection between his actions and what anybody in this forum has advocated. Should I assume that men like Melito of Sardis and Athanasius held a different canon than you hold because they "didn't like" some books, then conclude that your belief system is unacceptable because you could do the same?

    You write:

    "I follow a pre-existing rule of faith."

    So do I. And that's not the argument you initially used. You're changing your argument in mid-discussion again. What should we conclude about somebody who so often changes his arguments?

    You write:

    "You claim to be forming your own canon and rule of faith according to your own opinions. Individuals doing what they want is not a rule, even if they choose the same, because any time you can choose differently and not break any rule."

    Again, you've chosen an Eastern Orthodox rule of faith based on your opinions. You could choose to reject that rule of faith in the future. Your argument defeats your own system.

    You write:

    "Now we're getting back to reality is that people are following a consensus. But before you can find a consensus and know what the bible is, you first have to know who the people of God are to see what their consensus is."

    Yes, and the people of God aren't defined by Eastern Orthodoxy, as we've demonstrated in multiple threads that you've left.

    You write:

    "If there are measurable uncertainties in various books in an ancient figure's canon, then yes, historians will say that they aren't certain that the canon is correct."

    The issue isn't certainty. I've repeatedly said that historical judgments are matters of probability. But saying that a judgment about a canon is uncertain isn't the same as saying that we should evaluate a canonical judgment by means of adding up percentages in the manner you did. As I explained earlier, your method of adding percentages would defeat your own historical argument for Eastern Orthodoxy.

    You write:

    "That doesn't matter much for most cases, but when you claim to base your whole life and religion on it, it's a major problem."

    If we rely on probability judgments every day of our lives (in marriage, in the workplace, etc.), then why should we think that doing so is unacceptable if we "base our whole life and religion on it"? You're making an assertion without any supporting argumentation. The fact that you don't want to rely on probability judgments doesn't prove that nobody else should.

    In a recent comment in another thread, you told me that you don't want to just go by what you think the Holy Spirit is leading you to believe. Rather, you want to be able to historically verify that your beliefs about Christianity are true by looking at how the Holy Spirit has led "the people of God". That's a historical judgment about historical individuals ("the people of God"). If you rely on examination of the historical record, then that involves probability. Yet, you're telling us that relying on probabilities is unacceptable. You keep contradicting yourself.

    You write:

    "Whatever problems there are, I know I have to weigh it up and follow it all, or follow none. One in, all in. With your historical approach, you can legitimately pick and choose which bits or books suit yourself. Anybody can see that can't lead to unity in the Church."

    Follow all of what? Just as you think you have all of "the church" (though Eastern Orthodox have disagreed with each other about what is Tradition and what isn't), I would claim to have all of scripture.

    And your unity argument is flawed, as we've explained to you repeatedly. You're assuming that the standard of unity is to be denominational, and you're comparing unity within one denomination (Eastern Orthodoxy) to unity in a movement that involves multiple denominations (Protestantism). You aren't comparing one denomination to another. Rather, you're comparing a denomination to a movement. One denomination has more unity within itself than multiple denominations in a larger movement have with each other. Why is that supposed to impress anybody? The fact that you keep making so much of the denominational unity your denomination has within itself reflects how shallowly you're thinking about these issues. Just as Eastern Orthodox have denominational unity with each other, so do Roman Catholics. And Southern Baptists. And United Methodists. Etc.

    But I wasn't addressing unity in the comments you were responding to. I was addressing the fact that there are many steps involved in making a historical case for Eastern Orthodoxy, and that each step would involve a probability judgment. For you to respond to such comments by discussing unity doesn't make sense. The issue is whether you rely on probability judgments in making your (erroneous) historical case for Eastern Orthodoxy. You do. Yet, you reject any historical case for my belief system if it relies on probability judgments. You're not being consistent.

    You write:

    "No, because my question is not yours. My question is a single one: Does the Church have the fullness of truth? The answer is binary, yes or no. Your question is multifaceted: Is 2 Peter true? Is James true? Is Revelation true? Is Mark true?"

    As I've explained to you many times now, you can't even get to "the Church" until you first make a series of judgments about history involving whether Jesus existed, what He said, what He did, what authority He had, whether He founded a church, etc. Phrases like "the Church" and "fulness of truth" can be defined in multiple ways. You would have to make probability judgments in arguing for your definitions. And just as I have to make judgments about which books are canonical, you have to make judgments about which traditions (small "t") are Tradition (capital "T") and which aren't. As Steve's initial post in this thread illustrates, Eastern Orthodox disagree with each other on such issues, and a lot is involved in making the relevant judgments. Your claim that you only have to make one judgment is absurd.

    You write:

    "Either it matters or it doesn't. What we say is that we have unity, or we work towards unity on everything that matters. You say you are content with disunity on things that matter. That is not the biblical command to be content in disunity."

    Where did I say that I'm "content in disunity"? I didn't. You can want matters of disagreement to be resolved, yet acknowledge that the people you're disagreeing with are Christians. That's what we see in Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8, and thousands of other circumstances in church history. Since you maintain denominational unity with Eastern Orthodox, despite disagreeing with some of them on issues like the canon of scripture, should I conclude that you're "content in disunity" about the canon? You can't claim that the canon "doesn't matter", since such a claim would be logically absurd and would fail to explain why so many Eastern Orthodox take the time and effort to compile a canon and discuss the subject. People don't usually give such attention to issues that "don't matter".

    You write:

    "'the historical-critical method, on the other hand, generally consider the epistle to be the last-written book of the New Testament, written c 150'"

    Why am I not surprised that you're relying on Wikipedia as your source? And why am I not surprised that you're so careless that you didn't notice that 150 is the middle of the second century, not "late second century"? I'm aware that some scholars date 2 Peter to the second century. The reason why I disputed your "late second century" claim is because I also know that those who argue for a second century date don't usually put it late in that century, contrary to what you claimed. For you to defend your claim about a late second century date by citing a Wikipedia comment about the middle of the second century doesn't make sense.

    D.A. Carson and Douglas Moo write:

    "Scholars who consider 2 Peter pseudonymous generally date the epistle in the early second century, claiming that it must postdate the apostolic generation and the collection of Paul's letters." (An Introduction To The New Testament [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005], p. 663)

    You write:

    "Which is fine, but we don't change the faith because of the latest opinion of lexicon writers or any scholars."

    You've repeatedly defended Eastern Orthodoxy on the basis of your assertions about the meanings of Greek words. You've also made your arguments based on modern Bible translations, modern editions of patristic documents, etc. You are relying on modern scholarship in making your judgments. Just as you can say that you don't expect any major aspect of Eastern Orthodoxy to change as a result of modern discoveries, I can say the same about scripture.

    You write:

    "The church has defined 2 Nicea to be authoritative. If scholarship came out tomorrow with some new opinion that 2 Nicea never took place, the dogmas of Nicea would still be authoritative."

    How do you demonstrate that "The church has defined 2 Nicea to be authoritative"? By making probability arguments about who Jesus is, that He founded a church, that the church in question has the authority you think it has, etc. Such historical arguments would be subject to historical criticism, including from modern scholarship.

    If, on the other hand, you want to make an appeal to something other than a historical case for Eastern Orthodoxy, then you're no longer discussing a parallel to my historical case for my rule of faith. If you're going to assert that you know on some non-historical basis that Second Nicaea's teachings are true, regardless of what the historical evidence suggests, then a Protestant can say the same about 2 Peter.

    ReplyDelete