Saturday, May 12, 2007

A few questions for Touchstone

The following quotations from Touchstone have been culled from a recent post. I follow-up with questions.



Touchstone, addressing an anonymous commenter, said:
and please note that I am answering your questions directly, off topic or no -- keep this in mind when you look at how T-Bloggers generally (don't) respond.
Yes, let's please keep this mind.

Now, just a few direct questions for Touchstone please:

1. Touchstone said:
Don't know much about Gene, but you Patrick entertain a good number of God-dishonoring ideas and doctrines.
Would Touchstone care to cite which specific God-dishonoring doctrines he has in mind?

2. Touchstone said:
No. The Trinity has always been a Truth, even before the world was created, but it was not orthodox teaching until it was affirmed by the episcopate.
a. Let's take an example. Would Touchstone propose that the deity of Christ is "not orthodox," say c. 5 AD, prior to any credal or confessional affirmation of his deity by an episcopate?

b. If a truth does not become orthodox teaching until it is affirmed by an episcopate, then Touchstone is suggesting that the episcopate is the final arbiter of orthodoxy. My question is, which episcopate(s)? And why not others?

3. Touchstone said:
It [doctrine] isn't orthodox because of it's age or historical status, but, as I've said several times now, because it represents the formal consensus of the catholic episcopate.
a. What happens when various church councils let alone churches themselves (as Peter points out in the post) disagree on a particular doctrine? Which council would Touchstone say is the "orthodox" one? Based on what?

b. In Touchstone's view, is what the Council of Trent decided for Christendom orthodox? Why or why not?

15 comments:

  1. Just to be ornery (and this question isn't applicable solely to Touchstone, but that's all I'll apply it to at the moment):

    When did any group of bishops get together and decide the definition of "orthodox" in the first place? Which creed defined "orthodox" as believing four specific creeds, for example? Is T-Stone using a definition of "orthodox" that is itself not orthodox by his own definition of "orthodox"?!?!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Patrick,

    1. Would Touchstone care to cite which specific God-dishonoring doctrines he has in mind?

    YEC.

    2a. Let's take an example. Would Touchstone propose that the deity of Christ is "not orthodox," say c. 5 AD, prior to any credal or confessional affirmation of his deity by an episcopate?

    Sure. "orthodox" is a certification process. It's not a transcendental value statement. The ecumenical councils may have got it wrong. But that deosn't speak to what "orthodox" certifies in its conventional understanding by church scholars and historians.

    Did you read the part I had written before about the Trinity on this very subject? I said:

    No. The Trinity has always been a Truth, even before the world was created, but it was not orthodox teaching until it was affirmed by the episcopate. So, the WCF may have nailed it theologically, but right now, it can't be called "orthodoxy", as it doesn't have the affirmation of the catholic episcopate. It may one day, but for now, it's not "orthodox" in the conventional understanding of the term.

    It's beyond me how you could ask what you did here, in light of my earlier response. The answer is the same, if helps you to hear it twice.

    2b. If a truth does not become orthodox teaching until it is affirmed by an episcopate, then Touchstone is suggesting that the episcopate is the final arbiter of orthodoxy. My question is, which episcopate(s)? And why not others?

    The First Council of Nicea in 325 brought together the eastern *and* western bishops -- hence the name 'ecumenical' -- giving it its universal (catholic) scope. Asking "which episcopate?" for the ancient creeds is a non-starter; there was only one episcopate, and it was defined by as those bishops with a valid consecration (please don't make me go into Apostolic succession here - try a Google search if you're stumped here).

    IIRC, the Assyrian Church was inaccessible for geo-political reasons and did not participate in the First Council of Nicea, and didn't "catch up" until somewhere around Chalcedon. Whatever the case, any absences are practical, not categorical; all the bishops make up the deliberative body that affirms canons that we call "orthodox".

    All of this, of course, assuming we're deferring to the traditional usage of the term in the business. I understand you have your own particular definition of "orthodox". To quote Lewis Carroll:

    'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'


    3a. What happens when various church councils let alone churches themselves (as Peter points out in the post) disagree on a particular doctrine? Which council would Touchstone say is the "orthodox" one? Based on what?

    Ack. Now you are just being intransigent. The "orthodoxy" is a certification of the affirmation of canons by a consensus of all consecrated bishops. (OK, in anticipation of pedantry in response, all *validly* consecrated bishops. That should be obvious, but I'll throw it in there to preempt more rabbit trails.)

    So, it's simple. For any question, any assertion at all, do you have the formal consensus affirmation of that assertion by the body of validly consecrated bishops? If yes, then we will understand clearly that you have in fact identified an "orthodox" position.

    If no, then you have not.

    Go ahead, ask me one more time. I'll even be willing to give you the same answer a fifth, six and seventh time. ;-)

    b. In Touchstone's view, is what the Council of Trent decided for Christendom orthodox? Why or why not?

    Decidedly not, even by Rome's own assessment. After Luther, orthodoxy and ecumenism ("ecumenism": Greek oikoumene => "the whole inhabited world") became historical terms in the universal sense -- there would be no more catholic orthodoxy. The Eastern Orthodox were not represented in the Council of Trent; like the First and Second Vatican Councils, it was exclusively Roman.

    So no, clearly not "orthodox" in the catholic sense, the sense that spanned more than a millenia and a half prior to Luther.

    Now, orthodoxy is also just another word for "authoritative". For example, Patrick Chan has orthodox beliefs because he's ultimately authoritative about what the Bible says for him, and in that context, that "universe", whatever Patrick chooses to believe and teach is his personal "orthodoxy". Choose your own granularity if you like: denominational orthodoxy, corporate orthodoxy (I business term I use regularly), "bible study group orthodoxy".

    That's fine, Humpty Dumpty would nod approvingly -- words mean whatever you want them to mean. But for a very long while and across a very diverse spectrum of Christianity, "orthodoxy" has been the label chosen for the consensus affirmations of the Christian bishops.

    All these questions from you Patrick, and still not an answer to my previous (one) question: How do *you* define "orthodoxy"?

    Maybe take a stab at trying to establish something yourself here, eh? Was I right in guessing:

    "The *Bible* is my orthodoxy!"

    ???

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  3. Peter,

    I don't think there was a *preparatory* decision for what creeds were "orthodox" or not. You have cause and effect reversed.

    Here's an example, from manufacturing: ISO 9000. What is ISO 9000 quality? Why, it is what ever has come out of the ISO 9000 certification process successfully. There's no deciding *beforehand* who and what will be certified ISO 9000. That designation is just a label to indicate the an organization's status as having proven that it has met the defined requirements.

    Similarly, nobody decided beforehand which creeds or canons would be "orthodox". "Orthodox" is simply a label we use to identify the canons and creeds that have receive consensus approval from the catholic bishops. If you can understand the idea of "ISO 9000 certified", you can understand this.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  4. "[Augustine] developed the Nicene dogma of the Trinity, in opposition to tritheism on the one hand, and Sabellianism on the other, but also with the doubtful addition of the Filioquie, and in opposition to the Greek, gave it the form in which it has ever since prevailed in the West. In this form the dogma received classical expression from his school in the falsely so called Athanasian Creed, which is not recognized by the Greek Church, and which better deserves the name of the Augustinian Creed."

    That's from the prologue to Augustine's Confessions in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers First Series, Vol 1 (p. 36-37), contained on "The John Calvin Collection" CD-ROM from Ages.

    I know, trivial Google searches are so much better.

    In any case, ignoring the copious question begging that T-Stone engages in (as well as the historical errors in his assuming all four Catholic creeds are ecumenical for the Orthodox Church when only the Nicean is; as well as the fact that the East/West split occured half a millenium before Trent, and thus there wasn't unity for 1500 years before Luther messed it all up), I have to ask the obvious. Assume T-Stone's definitions: So what?

    T-Stone's views on virtually everything we've disagreed on would be unorthodox. He as much as admits his view of theistic evolution is unorthodox, given A) the Early Church didn't know about it and B) the inability of a T-Stone approved ecumenical council to form today. As such, his views are impossible to be orthodox via his own criteria.

    So what difference does it make if something is orthodox or not to T-Stone? More to the point: Why waste the seven minutes you've spent Googling your answers, T-Stone, over an issue that couldn't possibly matter in your own theology?

    By the way, you mockingly state:
    ---
    "The *Bible* is my orthodoxy!"
    ---

    As Patrick's view.

    Patrick can answer for himself, but I have no problem stating that the Bible is my orthodoxy.

    I anticipate a host of objections from you on this, so allow me to cut some of them off at the front.

    You may say I have to interpret the Scriptures; 1) the Creeds are themselves interpretations of Scripture and 2) you still have to interpret the Councils and the Creeds to form your "orthodoxy." Interpretation doesn't go away, you see.

    You may say that I only have a written text; but that's all the Creeds are too. You may speak of Apostolic succession, but the Scriptures are the Apostolic sucession (they are the teachings of the Apostles handed down in written form for 2,000 years). Indeed, the earliest Creed you accept is still at least more than 200 years younger than the oldest book of Scripture.

    And ultimately, here's the clincher. The Scriptures were inspired by God; the Creeds were based on Scripture, but were not themselves inspired. There was no "stamp of infalliblity" placed on the Creeds. The Creeds are not "theopneustos" like Scripture is. In point of fact, the Apostle's Creed contains an erroneous, non-Biblical sentence ("He descended into Hell").

    I have no problem stating that Scripture is the determiner of orthodoxy, and I doubt the bishops at any of the Councils you speak of would have disagreed with my assessment.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 1. Wow. Touchstone's response speaks for itself. One phrase which came to mind while reading Touchstone's words: circular reasoning. Round and round Touchstone goes, where he'll stop, everybody knows! (That's right, he stops right back from where he started.) His own answers to my questions demonstrate his invincible illogicality -- which, phew, saves me the trouble! :-)

    2. I entirely concur with Peter's response to Touchstone.

    3. Finally, Touchstone said:

    All these questions from you Patrick, and still not an answer to my previous (one) question: How do *you* define "orthodoxy"?

    Maybe take a stab at trying to establish something yourself here, eh? Was I right in guessing:

    "The *Bible* is my orthodoxy!"

    ???

    -Touchstone


    a. Looks like Touchstone is still working on his elementary reading comprehension skills. Shall I quote what I wrote him in the previous post?

    Sigh. Touchstone has such a thick skull! How many times do I have to tell him before even a flicker of understanding begins to pass through the gray matter between his ears? Let's hope this will do it: faithful exegesis of Scripture.

    b. BTW, did Touchstone read the following (also from the previous post)?

    [Touchstone said:] If you are wondering what the members of the ecumenical councils based their views of doctrine on, they would be pointing to their interpretation of scripture, and their understanding of the interpretations of their peers and forebears.

    [I said:] Now, was that so hard, Touchstone? It took a few comments/posts to finally get you to admit this! But thanks for finally answering the question.

    Since you've admitted that the formation of the creeds is (ultimately) based on their interpretation of Scripture, though, and assuming we both agree that their interpretation is exegetically sound, how does this fundamentally differ from what Gene has been saying all along (e.g. sound "exegetical reasons" for the creeds)?

    And if it doesn't, then why do you take a slightly boastful posture towards Gene with comments such as:

    "just wait for it: 'The Bible is *my* orthodoxy!' I called it."

    and

    "As it is from your last comments, I'm fairly prepared to declare prognosticative victory and say your answer above, nets out to 'the *Bible* is my orthodoxy!'"


    After reading such choice words, it's not hard to picture Touchstone with his thumb to his nose and his other four fingers wiggling in the air as sticks out his tongue and jeers, "Nanny nanny boo boo!"

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oops, I almost forgot.

    I asked: 1. Would Touchstone care to cite which specific God-dishonoring doctrines he has in mind?

    Then Touchstone replied:

    YEC.

    a. Among other things, this not only assumes that YEC cannot be exegetically supported from Scripture, but that it is contrary to what Scripture teaches. In other words, this assumes that YEC is not merely neutral but in fact hostile to Scripture.

    To take the obvious case, let's assume for the moment YEC, OEC, and theistic evolution (TE) are all inconclusive on a faithful exegesis of Scripture. That any of them could be supported by Scripture, but none of them conclusively and exclusively. Would it therefore dishonor God to believe in one of them -- say, YEC? All things equal, it shouldn't, at least as far as I can see.

    For (all things equal) if a doctrine is inconclusive on a faithful exegesis of Scripture, then why would it dishonor God? (Maybe there is a good reason, but personally, I can't think of one.)

    So, at least as I tentatively understand, Touchstone must prove his case from Scripture that YEC is not only neutral but hostile to Scripture and sound doctrine, and thus "God-dishonoring."

    b. BTW, here's an exegetical problem for TE which I posted about a while back (Touchstone's response was less than stellar at that time, too):

    11. Or if we take it the other direction, according to evolution, why couldn't future man appear vastly different physically from present or modern man? Such that he no longer physically resembles man as we know him today? It's theoretically possible. It's possible that Jesus Christ Himself might one day no longer physically resemble man whom He came to redeem. Sure, future man would presumably still have a soul. But it does cause one to wonder why Jesus came in the body He did come in if future man's body will be quite different.

    Moreover, future man could also differ markedly from modern man in traits other than physicality. Future man could very well have a different psychological makeup, emotional life, etc., and thus undergo different temptations, sufferings, etc. than modern man.

    What I'm getting at is that Christ Himself would not have shared with future man what He has shared with modern man -- at least not to the same extent or degree. Christ would no longer be "one of us" in the sense that He could fully share in our humanity and human condition. This would have profound implications in Christology, soteriology, and many other areas of Christian theology.

    Yet, if it's possible for man to evolve into something different than he is today -- whether it's only a slight difference or whether it's as jarringly dissimilar as depicted in a movie like 2001: A Space Odyssey or TV show like Heroes -- then what would that make Christ in His incarnation as man? On the evolutionary tree of life, modern man -- and therefore Christ Himself since He came as a modern man -- could very well be to future man what an ape-man might be to us. Evolutionarily speaking, Christ in His incarnation would be a lesser being than future man. I'll not mince words: It's possible that the evolutionary equivalent of an ape-man would've died for your sins.

    All this would undercut Scripture (Heb. 2:14-18; 4:15-16).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Peter,

    You are quite mistaken if you think you are proceeding along just as old Athanasius did. The bishop certainly did rely on scripture, but not solely on scripture. The deliberation process depended on the idea of scripture and the traditions of the church being mutually interpretive.

    That's a fundamental difference between you and Athanasius, and one the old bishops, tracing back their lines to the original apostles would say helped them identify and resist heresies, heresies that might arise from an exegesis that is unconnected to church tradition.

    The Bible you read became "the Bible" through this process; it is what it is because of the Ecumenical Councils that you have the books in your Bible that you do. And that deliberation based on the traditions of the church.

    Scary for a guy like you, huh?

    You ask "So what?" about my definitions. I don't have a "what" -- these aren't definitions I created, and I'm not the one here who thinks this is particularly interesting or controversial. It's just basic labeling for dealing with church history.

    I've been the one *answering* questions in this process. If you're interested in the import of this (I can't think why this an important discussion either), maybe ask Patrick?

    But the bottom line is, when you say:


    I have no problem stating that Scripture is the determiner of orthodoxy, and I doubt the bishops at any of the Councils you speak of would have disagreed with my assessment.


    I think you couldn't be more wrong, if you were to suggest to them that scripture *alone* was the final arbiter for, say, old Athanasius. You're apparently thinking the bishops in congress at Nicea and elsewhere in those days operated under your convictions of sola scriptura. Manifestly, they did not, and in fact, to judge by the reactions of both western and eastern churches to Luther's advancement of sola scriptura, such a basis for establishing what is "right teaching" in the Church would be simply irrelevant (Eastern Orthodox) or heretical unto the point of being pronounced anathema (Roman).

    You operate on a very different set of deliberative principles than the historical episcopate. That's fine and your prerogative. Without prejudice as to which is ultimately wrong or right, or better or worse, I'm saying your approach to "right teaching" is profoundly different than theirs.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  8. Patrick,

    The reason I asked you again about your definition of orthodoxy is because your previous equivocation, which you've now gone to pains to repeat, doesn't explain or define anything.

    You said "faithful exegesis of Scripture" is your measure of orthodoxy, which is simply a beg to the question. Patrick, how do determine what is "faithful exegesis" here? You're just telling me that "right teaching" means teaching what is right. Thanks all the same, but the tautology doesn't go very far as a definition.

    Or, maybe I should ask this: If your Mormon neighbor has faith is his exegesis of scripture, is he now "orthodox" by your definition? If not, what is the criterion for "faithful"? What ever strikes *you* as faithful?

    How about a clear direct answer here, just for a change of pace?

    As for what's dishonoring about YEC, I don't suppose YEC or TE or points in between aren't all plausible interpretations in and of themselves. In a vacuum, no problem. The dis-honoring part comes from the positioning of YEC against God's natural world. If God made the world (roughly) spherical, and you insisted as a Christian it was a flat disk, with all the evidence we have in view, that would dishonor the handiwork of God, the creation He made. So too, for precisely the same reasons, YEC denies God's creation, the truth of His general revelation to us.

    A body is entitled to proclaim as a Christian that the world is flat, but he doesn't honor God in doing so.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  9. I wonder if Touchstone believes that Scripture has an objective meaning *by itself*. Did God mean sthg (or some thingS) when He wrote the Bible?

    Or did God not inspire the Bible? Or did He just inspire it but w/o any particular thrust of meaning?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rhology,

    Sure, no doubt about it, there is an authoritative *intent*, an intended meaning/message behind the the text. Some parts seem quite clear as to what the intended meaning is. Others, not so much. But that doesn't change the the *intention* of the message. Our interpretive errors and distortions don't change the intent of the message's Sender.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  11. Others, not so much.

    So those parts, God didn't intend to make as clear as the others?
    As understandable?
    Are some parts not understandable at all? What about at a "Whole Church" level? A local church level? An individual level?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rhology,

    So those parts, God didn't intend to make as clear as the others?

    That seems a fair conclusion. I don't have the complete mind of God in view, so I can only speculate, but that seems a reasonable way to look at it. When Jesus says things like "Let he who has ears to hear, let him hear", that suggests to me that parts of the message must be pursued diligently to to obtained, or obtained fully, and that those who aren't open to the message won't simply find it transparent and obvious on the page (or in the sermon).

    As understandable? Right. See above. Some parts are clearer than others, and since we work from the assumption that the Bible is rendered exactly as God intended, then this circumstacts reflects part of the design of the message.

    Are some parts not understandable at all?
    Don't know. I woudn't be surprised if are to learn one day there are clues and mysteries spoken of in scripture that we just didn't pick up on. Looking back, the OT is chock full of anticipation of Jesus. A fair number of Jews of Jesus day somehow missed this, and some of them where hardcore "Biblical types". Imagine that! That isn't to say we've missed the boat on the NT message as widely as many Jews did on the OT wrt to the Messiah, but it should underscore for you the practical possibilities in scripture for man to misunderstand what he reads, maybe just a little, or quite widely even.

    What about at a "Whole Church" level?
    Sure. I think there are functional parts of the ontology of the Trinity that are completely opaque to man here on earth. One day, we shall not be seeing "through a glass darkly", and I expect our capacity to understand some of what are the unfathomable mysteries of the Trinity will be much different. So the Trinity would be a concept that is rendered from scripture, but is rendered only to a coarse degree, constrained by our current limited faculties. Even the "whole church" is not able to plumb some of those depths in the here and now.

    A local church level?

    Same answer as above.

    An individual level?
    Unless you are a T-Blogger, I suggest there are mysteries touched on in scripture that you won't fully understand, or possibly *begin* to understand, in this lifetime.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  13. Touchstone said:

    You said "faithful exegesis of Scripture" is your measure of orthodoxy, which is simply a beg to the question. Patrick, how do determine what is "faithful exegesis" here? You're just telling me that "right teaching" means teaching what is right. Thanks all the same, but the tautology doesn't go very far as a definition.

    Or, maybe I should ask this: If your Mormon neighbor has faith is his exegesis of scripture, is he now "orthodox" by your definition? If not, what is the criterion for "faithful"? What ever strikes *you* as faithful?


    1. Let's assume Touchstone is right and I've given a tautological answer. If you go back and read Touchstone's comments (here, here, and here in the current post), ask yourself if Touchstone's answer to the question, "What is your measure or standard for orthodoxy?", is any less tautological than his claim about mine.

    For example:

    Touchstone said: It [doctrine] isn't orthodox because of it's age or historical status, but, as I've said several times now, because it represents the formal consensus of the catholic episcopate.

    Which Touchstone follows up with:

    The "orthodoxy" is a certification of the affirmation of canons by a consensus of all consecrated bishops. (OK, in anticipation of pedantry in response, all *validly* consecrated bishops. That should be obvious, but I'll throw it in there to preempt more rabbit trails.)

    So, it's simple. For any question, any assertion at all, do you have the formal consensus affirmation of that assertion by the body of validly consecrated bishops? If yes, then we will understand clearly that you have in fact identified an "orthodox" position.

    If no, then you have not.


    So instead of the criteria being Scripture, the criteria for Touchstone is "the formal consensus of the catholic episcopate." That is, "all *validly* consecrated bishops." But who "validates" the bishops? (Given that Touchstone claims to be an evangelical Christian, I would hope he finally does affirm Scripture at this point. I guess we'll see.)

    So is what Touchstone said a less tautological criteria than what I've said?

    And for me, once again, the answer would be that orthodoxy is ultimately derived from the Bible, rightly exegeted. Even the church, as the body of Christ, derives what authority it does have from the Bible, which is breathed out by God himself.

    2. There are several assumptions here. One of them is that Scripture is not perspicuous. That we can't understand what the Word of God teaches.

    3. Closely related to this, Touchstone is near to implying that no one's interpretation of the Bible is necessarily any better or more accurate than anyone else's interpretation of the Bible, because when it comes right down to it, it's all just this or that person's interpretation. That's just your interpretation of the Bible! How do you know you are right?

    First, I'd like to ask, does Touchstone believe there are such things as valid and invalid interpretations? For example, if we take the shortest verse in the Bible, John 11:35 which reads "Jesus wept," what is this communicating to Touchstone? Would it be a valid interpretation to interpret the statement as "Jesus laughed"?

    But maybe Touchstone thinks statements of fact are easily interpreted enough, but statements of faith are in a different category altogether. And that as far as (say) Mormon doctrine vs. Reformed Christian doctrine goes, the statement "Well, that's just your interpretation!" is still a valid response.

    Of course, why aren't statements of faith factual?

    In addition, how does Touchstone know that that's not simply his interpretation of my interpretation? How does Touchstone know he's answering the same question I originally asked him? In other words, Touchstone assumes he is correctly interpreting my view and that my view differs from his view on the matter.

    How about a clear direct answer here, just for a change of pace?

    Hm, and on Touchstone's side, how about simply changing the pace? At the very least, for entertainment's sake. You know, since Touchstone can't make an intelligent argument to save his life, at least make an interesting argument! That might spice things up a bit. But, alas, reading Touchstone is as monotonous and predictable as driving through Kansas or Nebraska (no offense to Kansas or Nebraska).

    More specifically, rather than trying to avalanche us with sheer data and information minus any coherent argument which makes use of the data and information, how about Touchstone tries to use a modicum of reason and logic and organize it into an argument or two?

    But that may be hoping for the impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  14. T-Stone said:
    ---
    You are quite mistaken if you think you are proceeding along just as old Athanasius did.
    ---

    Thank you for proving you didn't read what I wrote. I'm shocked--SHOCKED--by that discovery.

    I didn't mention Athanasius at all. I quoted the prologue to Augustine's Confessions wherein the author stated that the Athanasian Creed should be more properly called the Augustinian Creed. But Athanasius never entered into the equation. I never used him for an example of anything. I could have; but I did not, for that was not the point of my post.

    If I read as poorly as you did, T-Stone, I would be ashamed to respond to anything.

    T-Stone said:
    ---
    The bishop certainly did rely on scripture, but not solely on scripture. The deliberation process depended on the idea of scripture and the traditions of the church being mutually interpretive.
    ---

    A claim without supporting documentation. I'll presently ignore the fact that you're obviously Googling Roman Catholic sites to come up with your "responses." But if you're going to say that Athanasius relied on "the traditions of the church" in his doctrine, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate this.

    What traditions did Athanasius rely on that were not in the Scripture? Where is your evidence for this? Show me the historical documents that prove this was in his mind.

    Besides, given your fawning over the Councils:
    ---
    Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.

    (Athanasius, History of the Councils 1:6, quoted in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2nd Series, Vol. 4 p. 1084, found in the Ages CD-ROM, The Master Christian Library Version 8)
    ---

    Meanwhile, digest this:
    ---
    Now one might write at great length concerning these things, if one desired to go rate details respecting them; for the impiety and perverseness of heresies will appear to be manifold and various, and the craft of the deceivers to be very terrible. But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention, and for the sake of which principally I have written these things.

    (Athanasius, To the Bishops of Egypt Chapter 1:4, ibid. p. 639)
    ---

    By the way, Athanasius also thought it was possible for the layman to interpret Scripture without need of ecclesiastical oversight:

    ---
    But you, taking occasion by this,
    if you light upon the text of the Scriptures, by genuinely applying your mind to them, will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said.

    (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word 56, ibid, p. 343)
    ---

    T-Stone said:
    ---
    The Bible you read became "the Bible" through this process; it is what it is because of the Ecumenical Councils that you have the books in your Bible that you do.
    ---

    Wrong. The Bible exists because God only inspired some texts, not all texts. The books that God inspired are, by definition, the extent of the canon. The Church does not define the canon; inspiration does. The most the Church can do is recognize what the canon is. It can never form the canon, for the Church is not the inspirer of texts.

    Furthermore, this leaves you with several problems. 1) How would a Jew, before the New Testament Church held their councils, have known that Isaiah, or Genesis, or any other book of the Old Testament was inspired by God? Yet Jesus held the Pharises acountable for not knowing the Scriptures. 2) The Councils themselves do not agree on the canon of Scripture (we've already gone through this recently with the the issue of the various Esdras books; but again, you apparently don't have the sufficent reading capability to know this).

    T-Stone wrote:
    ---
    You're apparently thinking the bishops in congress at Nicea and elsewhere in those days operated under your convictions of sola scriptura. Manifestly, they did not, and in fact, to judge by the reactions of both western and eastern churches to Luther's advancement of sola scriptura, such a basis for establishing what is "right teaching" in the Church would be simply irrelevant (Eastern Orthodox) or heretical unto the point of being pronounced anathema (Roman).
    ---

    There is so much to correct in here I don't even know where to start.

    1) The RCC view during Trent is NOT the view of the early church (again, just read the quotes I provided of Athanasius above). Athanasius would never have agreed with the anathemas of Trent. Thus, to argue that the Roman Church's stance against Luther proved what the Early Church believed about Sola Scriptura not only begs the question that the Church remained the same, but it is also demonsterably false!

    2) I never said that all the Bishops belived in Sola Scriptura. There's been a variety of beliefs in the historical church on virtually every issue. However, the Early Church is not "stacked" against Sola Scriptura nearly as much as you seem to think. I recommend you pick up a copy of Webster & King's work, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith. There's an entire volume devoted to Early Church proponents of Sola Scriptura.

    Oh wait. That's another book, and you only do "trivial Google searches" for your doctrine. I keep forgetting that....

    ReplyDelete
  15. Patrick,

    You're equivocating again. That's no less tautologous than your previous answer. You said:

    And for me, once again, the answer would be that orthodoxy is ultimately derived from the Bible, rightly exegeted. Even the church, as the body of Christ, derives what authority it does have from the Bible, which is breathed out by God himself.

    Everything there hangs on the criterion for "rightly". How do you determine what is "rightly exegeted", and what is not, Patrick. All you've told us again is that "right teaching" proceeds from the "right teachings" of the Bible. You've swapped "rightly exegeted" in for "faithfully exegeted", but that doesn't add any more distinguishing value that "faithfully exegeted".

    How does one decide what is "rightly exegeted" and what is not, Patric, so that we may understand what is "orthodox" in your view. Without a way to determine who has "rightly exegeted" and who has not, your definition is useless.

    The definition I've offered for "orthodoxy" here is just descriptive -- whatever has passed been affirmed by the Ecumenical councils. It doesn't rely on arbitrary distinctions like "faithfully [or rightly] exegeted"; it simply applies a label to whatever comes out of the process. (and "valid" as applied to consecration of bishops is, again, not a transcendental value judgment, but a description of process the church uses to install bishops. "Valid" just means established according to the process and requirements of church law, not that the Bishop has some kind of transcendent correctness to him).


    As for spicy arguments, there's precious little here in your post to work with for arguments. This is all just back and forth over definitions, and what definitions I'm relying on here are understandings that existed long before I showed up on the scene, and will exist long after I'm gone. These understandings are simply historical facts unto themselves -- that is a conventional way for the term "Christian orthodoxy" to be construed.

    If you can't brook that, it's no problem for me. You are your own pope, and you define your own orthodoxy -- you are a canon unto yourself. That's fine, have at it. I don't have need to make any further arguments than to simply point out that that's your position. Anyone reading can make the appropriate conclusions from that themselves.

    And just so we're clear, I'm not a Catholic, or an Eastern Orthodox. I'm a Protestant, which makes me a pope unto myself just like you. I am the top-most earthly authority on what the Bible says to me. I can delegate whatever interepretational responsibilites to whatever theologians, denominations or snake oil salesman apologists I'd like, but it's still delegation. I begin with the authority, and ultimately retain it; if I don't think denomination XYZ is "rightly exegeting", I look elsewhere for "right exegesis", asserting myself as the final earthly authority on what Scripture says.

    That's all well and good, but the obvious and profound difference is that I'm *aware* that this is the situation, and you are not. Or, if you are aware, you are somehow unwilling or afraid to admit it.

    The Bible doesn't interpret itself - man must read and process the words in his heart and head (with the mediating influence of the Holy Spirit). The history of the church does not reveal the kind of "pope unto myself" understanding that I have and discuss freely and that you also have and either deny or remain ignorant of (or maybe simply just won't discuss). "Right teaching" was not, as a matter of history, an individual pursuit as it is for you and I. It was a reflection of the consensus of the entire leadership of the church for a very long while.

    And of course, just in case Mr. Pike is reading, it incorporated a pair of informing authorites -- scripture and church tradition, which were supposed to be mutually interpreting. Making the process for each individual bishop much different than the one you and I go through to determine our own little personal orthodoxies.

    Whether that is right or wrong, ultimately, is beside the point if we are trying to come to grips with church history and its understanding of terms like "orthodoxy". In the two-millenia view, my guess is you and I both would affirm the doctrinal assertions, the canons that proceeded out of Ecumentical councils 1-7. Peter Pike apparently would deny the Apostles creed for the "descent into hell" statement -- something I suspect is really due to a misunderstanding of the rendering of the creed into English than any substantial theological objection (But who knows? Maybe he is in opposition to the orthodox canon here.)

    All of the ideology that is the Reformation represents a deep split in the Christian Church, much deeper than the 1054 schism between Rome and the East. Once Luther split from Rome, there could be no more universal consensus across Christianity. So it's just a matter of consequence than that Reformation theology, to the extent it differed or extended from the canons that *were* affirmed by catholic consensus can't be considered "Christian Orthodoxy", any more than the Rome could make the same claim about the affirmations of the Council of Trent.

    So all that stuff is "not orthodox". Doesn't mean it's "anti-orthodox". It's not an admission of existential defeat to say your faith is built partly on orthodox understandings, but also partly on understandings that have not been affirmed by a catholic consensus. That's just the way it is. If it's right, it's right. If it's wrong it's wrong.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete