In case some of you are wondering why I haven’t done much posting here lately, one reason is that I’ve been spending some time over at Josh Brisby’s blog, where he’s been debating Jay Dyer.
http://joshbrisby.blogspot.com/
So I’ve been busy in the combox over there. Paul Manata, as well as S&S, have also been making valuable contributions to the thread.
I’m going to take this occasion to comment on Dyer’s argument for the Orthodox OT canon, which he equates with the Septuagintal canon:
“Palestinian Jews rejected the DB, but the Septuagint, which is the Greek version of the OT composed in the 2nd-3rd century B.C. at Alexandria, Egypt by 70 or 72 Jewish scribes, was used by non-Palestinian Jews. It is a well known fact that the Septuagint (LXX) was both the Bible of the diaspora Jews and the Bible of all the early Christians, as will be proven below. Further, it’s also a fact that the LXX contained the DB, as will also be proven below.”
http://www.nicenetruth.com/home/2007/12/protestants-hav.html#more
This argument is both anachronistic and equivocal. The most charitable interpretation is that Dyer is simply ignorant of standard scholarship on the LXX.
However, I’ve also noticed, in my exchanges with him, that he has a habit of ignoring counterevidence. He continues to do this even after he has been corrected on his errors and omissions.
It isn’t possible to simply infer the canon of Diaspora Jews from our copies of the LXX, and this is why:
“No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of Scripture,” E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity (Baker 1992), 34-35.
“As we have seen, manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since, in the second century AD, the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin,” R. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Eerdmans 1986), 382.
“Nor is there agreement between the codices which of the Apocrypha t include. Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus all include Tobit, Judith, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, and integrate them into the body of the Old Testament, rather than appending them at the end; but Codex Vaticanus, unlike the other two, totally excludes the Books of Maccabees. Moreover, all three codices, according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt, yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, excluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. It seems, therefore, that the codices, with their less strict approach, do not reflect a definite canon so much as variable reading-habits; and the reading-habits would in the nature of the case be those of fourth and fifth-century Christians, which might not agree with those of first-century Jews,” ibid. 383.
“At this point we encounter the Greek Old Testament in the three great codices of the fourth and fifth centuries: Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus…All exceeded the scope of the Hebrew Bible…In Vaticanus, however, all four of the books of Maccabees are missing and in Sinaiticus, 2 and 3 Macabees, as well as 1 Ezra, Baruch and Letter of Jeremiah—presumably only the result of lacunae in the text. Codex Alexandrinus, approximately one century younger, is, in contrast, much more extensive; it includes the LXX as we know it in Rahlfs’ edition, with all four books of Maccabees and the fourteen Odes appended to Psalms. The Odes also include the Prayer of Manasseh, previously attested only in the Syria Didaskalia and the Apostolic Constitutions,” M. Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture (Baker 2004), 57-58.
“It should be considered, further, that the Odes (sometimes varied in number), attested from the fifth century in all Greek Psalm manuscripts, contain three New Testament ‘psalms’: the Magnificat, the Benedictus, the Nunc Dimittis from Luke’s birth narrative, and the conclusion of the hymn that begins with the ‘Gloria in Excelsis.’ This underlines the fact that the LXX, although, itself consisting of a collection of Jewish documents, wishes to be a Christian book. The relative openness of the Old Treatment portion of these oldest codices also corresponds to that of its ‘New Testament’: Sinaiticus contains Barnabas and Hermas, Alexandrinus 1 and 2 Clement,” ibid. 59.
Is it Dyer’s position that pre-Christian Jews included The Letter of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas, as well as excerpts from Luke’s Gospel, in their canon of the OT?
“At this point we encounter the Greek Old Testament in the three great codices of the fourth and fifth centuries: Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus…All exceeded the scope of the Hebrew Bible…In Vaticanus, however, all four of the books of Maccabees are missing and in Sinaiticus, 2 and 3 Macabees, as well as 1 Ezra, Baruch and Letter of Jeremiah—presumably only the result of lacunae in the text. Codex Alexandrinus, approximately one century younger, is, in contrast, much more extensive; it includes the LXX as we know it in Rahlfs’ edition, with all four books of Maccabees and the fourteen Odes appended to Psalms. The Odes also include the Prayer of Manasseh, previously attested only in the Syria Didaskalia and the Apostolic Constitutions,” M. Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture (Baker 2004), 57-58.
ReplyDeleteThis is the Orthodox canon, bro: we include the prayer of Mannaseh. We exceed the scope of the Hebrew canon. You, following wickewd Jews, do not.
And the previous author you quoted thinks that St. Athanasius or pseudo-Athanasius threw them out, even though I already pointed out to you in the James White article you posted shows that St. Athanasius' canon included Baruch, which you ignored when you posted that.
Fine: we are ignorant and stupid: you know all things: debate me via phone. Let your readers know that you have consistently shyed away from a real audio debate.
Why do you keep twisting my arguments? My argument was against Ian Paisely, who said that 1) the NT never qoutes the DB, and that 2) no Jews used the DB. The Bruce and MacDonald quotes in my first article show that to be entirely false.
My follow-up article on the canon noting further quotes by Bruce.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nicenetruth.com/home/2008/01/more-facts-on-t.html
Bruce goes on to note about the Church’s acceptance of the LXX (the Septuagint):
ReplyDelete“Indeed, so much did they make the Septuagint their own that, although it was originally a translation of the Hebrew into Greek for Greek-speaking Jews before the time of Christ, the Jews left the LXX to the Christians…” (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, pg. 26)
ou, following wickewd Jews, do not.
ReplyDeleteYou'd do well not to put on a white sheet and pointed hat to make your arguments. I realize you live in TN, perhaps the Klan is more active there than here in NC or in SC where Steve is located. Do you burn crosses at your church along with the incense?
And the previous author you quoted thinks that St. Athanasius or pseudo-Athanasius threw them out, even though I already pointed out to you in the James White article you posted shows that St. Athanasius' canon included Baruch, which you ignored when you posted that
Of course, what you neglected to mention is that, as Steve told you, asserting it and interacting with Dr. White are not convertible.
Fine: we are ignorant and stupid: you know all things: debate me via phone. Let your readers know that you have consistently shyed away from a real audio debate.
Of course, that would be a private conversation. As has already been pointed out to you, the public can't follow that conversation.
Perhaps, however, you'd like to call the Dividing Line and chat with Dr. White, since that is a recorded conversation we can hear.
All true enough.
ReplyDeleteBut....
by the same argument we could discuss the "Legendary Palestinian Canon", because all the sources and manuscripts and references even remotely close to the time of Christ differ in what books they include...
therefore, to throw stones at the Orthodox canon is to have them bounce off rain down upon your own glass house of the protestant canon.
At least Orthodox can appeal to the living authority of the church here and now. Protestants have no such fall back.
anonymous said...
ReplyDelete“All true enough. __But.... __by the same argument we could discuss the ‘Legendary Palestinian Canon’, because all the sources and manuscripts and references even remotely close to the time of Christ differ in what books they include...”
i) This is too vague to merit a response.
ii) Keep in mind that I’m responding to Dyer on his own grounds. He is appealing to the Septuagintal canon. So the question is what evidence he can offer to identify the pre-Christian LXX canon with the post-Christian LXX canon, and then identify the post-Christian LXX canon with the Orthodox canon.
He chose to frame the issue in such a way that he must discharge a commensurate burden of proof.
iii) It doesn’t follow that you can raise a parallel objection to the Palestinian canon, because I’m not making a case for the Palestinian canon at the moment. I’m merely responding to Dyer’s argument.
If I were making a case for the Palestinian canon, it wouldn’t be limited to external evidence.
“Therefore, to throw stones at the Orthodox canon is to have them bounce off rain down upon your own glass house of the protestant canon.”
i) That’s a flawed analogy. If you wish to be remain consistent with Dyer’s argument, then the correct analogy would be that Protestants and Orthodox both live in glass houses—not that your house is rock-proof.
ii) And, regardless of Dyer, when you personally try to construct a parallel argument against the Palestinian canon, then this implies that both the Alexandrian canon and the Palestinian canon are vulnerable to the same objections.
“At least Orthodox can appeal to the living authority of the church here and now. Protestants have no such fall back.”
You can do that by begging the question. Otherwise, you need to establish the living authority of the Orthodox church to invoke that institution as a fallback.
BTW, does the church authorize the canonical books, or do the canonical books authorize the church?
If the former, then you cannot appeal to any Scriptural promises or prooftexts regarding the church to establish that your church is the true church, or even that Christ instituted the church.
"i) This is too vague to merit a response."
ReplyDeleteTake your response and redirect it against the Palestinian canon. It all applies.
"He chose to frame the issue in such a way that he must discharge a commensurate burden of proof."
He probably did about as well or poorly as when protestants pretend that their canon is the same as the Palestinian canon.
"I’m not making a case for the Palestinian canon at the moment."
Just as well, because then your hypocrisy would be tangible.
"If I were making a case for the Palestinian canon, it wouldn’t be limited to external evidence. "
Too vague to merit a response.
"when you personally try to construct a parallel argument against the Palestinian canon, then this implies that both the Alexandrian canon and the Palestinian canon are vulnerable to the same objections."
Right, because they are if we are talking about evidence outside of an authoritative people of God.
"Otherwise, you need to establish the living authority of the Orthodox church to invoke that institution as a fallback."
Well, you'd better establish some church with such authority or admit your lack of canon.
"BTW, does the church authorize the canonical books, or do the canonical books authorize the church?"
The church authoritatively recognizes the canonical books.
"If the former, then you cannot appeal to any Scriptural promises or prooftexts regarding the church to establish that your church is the true church, or even that Christ instituted the church."
Not sure what you're getting at.
anonymous said...
ReplyDelete“Take your response and redirect it against the Palestinian canon. It all applies.”
So you lack the know-how to actually turn your allegation into a well-documented argument. Thanks for your admission of defeat.
“He probably did about as well or poorly as when protestants pretend that their canon is the same as the Palestinian canon.”
So you think that Dyer made a poor case for the Orthodox canon. That’s something we agree on.
“Just as well, because then your hypocrisy would be tangible.”
Now you’re flaunting your ignorance. I’ve made my case, just not here. Where’s your counterargument?
“Right, because they are if we are talking about evidence outside of an authoritative people of God.”
i) A presupposition in search of a supporting argument. You have yet to establish “an authoritative people of God.”
ii) Was the old covenant community an authoritative people of God? If so, you should accept the Jewish canon of the OT scriptures. Are you prepared to do that?
“Well, you'd better establish some church with such authority or admit your lack of canon.”
i) Another assertion in lieu of an argument.
ii) And you have yet to establish the claims of the Orthodox church.
iii) I’ve presented my argument (for example, my reply to Blosser). Where’s your counterargument?
“Not sure what you're getting at.”
Okay, so logic isn’t your strong suit. If the canon of Scripture isn’t authoritative apart from the recognition of the church, then you cannot use Scripture at all to make a case for the Orthodox church.
"So you lack the know-how to actually turn your allegation into a well-documented argument. Thanks for your admission of defeat."
ReplyDeleteTake your argument, do a global search and replace on Alexandrian->Palestinian, LXX->Hebrew. I'm sure you can manage.
"So you think that Dyer made a poor case for the Orthodox canon. That’s something we agree on."
Any argument outside of the authority of the church is bound to have limitations.
"Now you’re flaunting your ignorance. I’ve made my case, just not here. Where’s your counterargument?"
Uh, no you haven't made your case. You're whining about discrepencies in the LXX manuscript canons etc. Given the discrepencies in the Hebrew canon lists, PROVE that your exact canon is the correct one, no discrepencies. You haven't and you can't.
"i) A presupposition in search of a supporting argument. You have yet to establish “an authoritative people of God.”
What was that expression you used? "I’ve made my case, just not here." Ahh yes, that was the one.
"ii) Was the old covenant community an authoritative people of God? If so, you should accept the Jewish canon of the OT scriptures. Are you prepared to do that?"
1) There is no extant documentation on what the Jewish canon was contemporary with the old covenant community.
2) You assume there was some hard break between the old covenant community and the new covenant community. Since firm recognition of the canon takes centuries, I see no need to look for a settled canon in the 1st C community.
3) If you think (possibly mistakenly) that you are following the "old covenant community", you are inconsistent in not similarly recognizing a new covenant community that you can follow.
"Okay, so logic isn’t your strong suit. If the canon of Scripture isn’t authoritative apart from the recognition of the church, then you cannot use Scripture at all to make a case for the Orthodox church."
So... if Josephus isn't authoritative, we won't hear you trying to use him in any canon discussion, correct? Just wanting to make sure you are consistent in your rather odd hermeneutic.
anonymous said...
ReplyDelete“Take your argument, do a global search and replace on Alexandrian->Palestinian, LXX->Hebrew. I'm sure you can manage.”
It’s not my job to present your argument for you. Pull your own load.
Have you also hired someone to feed you, bathe you, burp you, dress you, tie your shoelaces and change your diapers?
“Uh, no you haven't made your case. You're whining about discrepencies in the LXX manuscript canons etc.”
I’m responding to Dyer on his own grounds. Sorry you’re too clueless to understand the art of argumentation.
“Given the discrepencies in the Hebrew canon lists, PROVE that your exact canon is the correct one, no discrepencies. You haven't and you can't.”
We sift the historical evidence, like other historical claim. See how Beckwith has done so in his monograph on the OT canon.
There’s nothing wrong with probabilistic arguments for historical claims. I make historical judgments using the historical evidence that God has chosen to preserve for posterity. If the evidence turns out to be unrepresentative, that’s not my problem.
I’m not accountable to some a priori standard of apodictic proof. I’m only responsible for dealing with the evidence that God has put at our disposal.
Some people think 9/11 was an inside job. Is the onus on me to disprove their wildly improbable claims? No. Not all probabilistic arguments are equally probable.
“What was that expression you used? ‘I’ve made my case, just not here.’ Ahh yes, that was the one.”
You don’t help your cause with these sophomoric rejoinders. If you’d actually been following the debate, you’d already know that I gave Dyer two links in which I lay out my basic case for the canon. You, by contrast, have offered nothing comparable.
“1) There is no extant documentation on what the Jewish canon was contemporary with the old covenant community.”
Once again you try to superimpose an a priori rule of evidence rather than dealing with the actual evidence we have, for and against an Alexandrian canon.
“You assume there was some hard break between the old covenant community and the new covenant community.”
To the contrary, I affirm continuity between the two covenant communities with respect to the OT canon. That should be pretty obvious.
“Since firm recognition of the canon takes centuries, I see no need to look for a settled canon in the 1st C community.”
How is this supposed to be germane to Dyer’s case for the Orthodox canon?
“If you think (possibly mistakenly) that you are following the ‘old covenant community’, you are inconsistent in not similarly recognizing a new covenant community that you can follow.”
I don’t follow communities. Rather, I sift historical testimony.
“So... if Josephus isn't authoritative, we won't hear you trying to use him in any canon discussion, correct? Just wanting to make sure you are consistent in your rather odd hermeneutic.”
All you’ve done here is to equivocate. Using Josephus is a historical source is not the same thing as treating him as an authority-figure, especially a magisterial authority-figure (e.g. the pope speaking ex cathedra).
"If the evidence turns out to be unrepresentative, that’s not my problem."
ReplyDeleteYour rule of faith then is completely beholden to whatever evidence you have access to. If something new is discovered, a document is found, a monastery is raided, the historical evidence could shift a little this way or that way and maybe the faith has to change. Maybe the evidence that John wrote 2 John shifts from 51% to 49% and you have to take the scissors to your bible.
In other words, maybe nobody in the whole world knows the truth and can tell you the truth.
"I’m not accountable to some a priori standard of apodictic proof."
By sifting history, you are admitting to the possibility that there is NO known source for the truth. That's a different proposition to merely arguing over who has the best standard of proof.
"Once again you try to superimpose an a priori rule of evidence rather than dealing with the actual evidence we have, for and against an Alexandrian canon."
If we're just dealing with the probabilities, then the "apocryphal" books in the LXX, their being aluded to by the apostles, their widespread use by the Greek speaking Jews of the time, very easily leads to the conclusion of an Alexandrian canon.
Your arguments against these points has been used by many scholars to argue against a Palestinian canon.
But you want it both ways.
"To the contrary, I affirm continuity between the two covenant communities with respect to the OT canon. That should be pretty obvious."
Then you must PROVE to us, that the Jews of the 1st C had finished agreeing to a settled canon. And that's before we even discuss what canon that might have been (which is disputed).
"I don’t follow communities. Rather, I sift historical testimony."
For what purpose do you sift testimony? Who gives a rip what some Jew thought, or some church father (who would be a heretic in your eyes anyway) thought? You may as well ask your cat.
"All you’ve done here is to equivocate. Using Josephus is a historical source is not the same thing as treating him as an authority-figure".
Even if Josephus stated the canon (which he does not), and even if we could trust him as an unbiased witness (which we cannot), his testimony as to what the community of Jews was using as a canon would apparently be irrelevant to you since you "don't follow communities".
At every turn, your hermeneutic runs up a blind alley, and when you are called on it, you keep running up a new alley with some high-fallutin scholarly nominclature, all the time getting no closer to the truth.
anonymous said...
ReplyDelete“Your rule of faith then is completely beholden to whatever evidence you have access to.”
i) It’s beholden to whatever evidence God has put at our fingertips. And it’s also beholden to where God has placed us in history. I trust God, you don’t. If, ex hypothesi, something goes wrong, that’s out of my hands.
ii) And it’s not as if you can offer any alternative. At most times and places, Christians simply accepted the regional version of the faith with which they were acquainted. It’s a historical accident that someone happened to be Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox, &c.
You cannot avoid the fact that our religious beliefs will always be affected by our limited access to whatever information comes our way. Human beings are historically-conditioned creatures. That’s the epistemic situation which God has put us in. Time and space are both barriers and media.
You are no exception. You are seeking a shortcut to religious certainly, but your preferred shortcut is, itself, a culture-bound option. It’s an option that happens to be available to you, at your time and place. If you were born at another time and places, you would have a different set of options—or only one.
“If something new is discovered, a document is found, a monastery is raided, the historical evidence could shift a little this way or that way and maybe the faith has to change. Maybe the evidence that John wrote 2 John shifts from 51% to 49% and you have to take the scissors to your bible.”
i) You can dream up hypothetical defeaters for the Protestant canon, but they remain just that: hypothetical. And I can dream up hypothetical defeaters for the Catholic canon or the Orthodox canon or the Ethiopian canon.
ii) In addition, I have the further advantage of actual defeaters for your canon.
“In other words, maybe nobody in the whole world knows the truth and can tell you the truth.”
i) Maybe you’re a brain in a vat. Maybe you’re trapped in the Matrix. The fact that you resort to hypothetical defeaters betrays the desperation of your own position. And the objection cuts both ways.
ii) There was no Magisterium in the OT. Or ecumenical councils. God guided his people into the truth without that ecclesiastical machinery.
I take my cue from divine precedent. From the way in which God has actually governed his community of faith, and not your armchair stipulations.
“By sifting history, you are admitting to the possibility that there is NO known source for the truth.”
i) No, I’m simply working with the materials which God has providentially left at our disposal.
ii) You keep appealing to the church, but the church is a historical phenomenon. And there are many rival claimants to the title of the true church. You are not exempt from historical analysis. You simply shut your eyes and pretend that your claimant happens to be the true claimant.
“If we're just dealing with the probabilities, then the ‘apocryphal’ books in the LXX, their being aluded to by the apostles, their widespread use by the Greek speaking Jews of the time, very easily leads to the conclusion of an Alexandrian canon.”
The arguments, pro and con, are not equally good.
“Your arguments against these points has been used by many scholars to argue against a Palestinian canon.”
And you are disregarding the counterarguments to their position.
“But you want it both ways.”
Now you’re retreating into radical scepticism, according to which all arguments are equally good. I don’t accept your simpleminded scepticism, that’s all.
If you’re going to stake out that position, then you can never argue for your own position.
“Then you must PROVE to us, that the Jews of the 1st C had finished agreeing to a settled canon.”
i) I don’t have to prove anything to you, especially when you assume such an anti-intellectual stance. It would be impossible to prove anything to the satisfaction of an irrationalist like yourself.
ii) In addition, there is internal as well as external attestation for the OT canon—as Waltke points out. The case for the canon doesn’t rise and fall on public recognition alone.
“For what purpose do you sift testimony? Who gives a rip what some Jew thought.”
Well, let’s see. Jesus was a Jews. All the OT writers were Jewish. All the apostles were Jewish. And, except for Luke, all the NT writers were Jewish.
So, yes, I happen to give a rip what some Jew thought. The fact that you are so dismissive says a lot about what passes for your Christian faith.
“Or some church father (who would be a heretic in your eyes anyway) thought?”
You don’t help yourself with these dumb, emotional tirades.
A church father can be reliable in some respects, and unreliable in others. It depends on what he was in a position to know.
“You may as well ask your cat.”
At this point my cat might well be a more reasonable conversation partner than you are.
“Even if Josephus stated the canon (which he does not).”
This is simpleminded. One can infer his canon from what he says.
“And even if we could trust him as an unbiased witness (which we cannot).”
Then you must regard the church fathers as equally untrustworthy since no one is unbiased.
“His testimony as to what the community of Jews was using as a canon would apparently be irrelevant to you since you ‘don't follow communities’.”
You’re being demagogical. There’s a difference between sifting evidence and following a community. Members of the Jewish community present prima facie evidence for the OT canon. That must still be evaluated.
"It’s beholden to whatever evidence God has put at our fingertips. And it’s also beholden to where God has placed us in history. I trust God, you don’t. If, ex hypothesi, something goes wrong, that’s out of my hands. "
ReplyDeleteYou apparently trust a God who gives every man a different place in history, and thus every man a different faith.
"And it’s not as if you can offer any alternative. At most times and places, Christians simply accepted the regional version of the faith with which they were acquainted."
It's a completely different proposition to say that the true faith was there if you cared to look in one of two or three major churches, compared to saying that the true faith exists somewhere waiting for it to be dug up and analysed by scholars.
"You cannot avoid the fact that our religious beliefs will always be affected by our limited access to whatever information comes our way."
Limited to hundreds of millions of Christians is rather different to being limited to zero Christians waiting to be dug up.
"i) You can dream up hypothetical defeaters for the Protestant canon, but they remain just that: hypothetical. And I can dream up hypothetical defeaters for the Catholic canon or the Orthodox canon or the Ethiopian canon."
They are not hypothetical. Scholars are chopping and changing their minds about these things all the time.
"ii) In addition, I have the further advantage of actual defeaters for your canon."
Whatever that means. We think we've got defeaters for yours too.
"i) Maybe you’re a brain in a vat. Maybe you’re trapped in the Matrix. The fact that you resort to hypothetical defeaters betrays the desperation of your own position. And the objection cuts both ways."
It's not comparable to a brain in a vat. Luther thought that nobody had the right canon and tried to construct his own, excluding Revelation etc. If the most famous reformer's opinion is equivilent to a brain in a vat, you've got a real problem.
"ii) There was no Magisterium in the OT. Or ecumenical councils. God guided his people into the truth without that ecclesiastical machinery."
You must be confusing me with a Roman Catholic.
"You are not exempt from historical analysis. You simply shut your eyes and pretend that your claimant happens to be the true claimant."
But I have the advantage of knowing there is a true claimant. Contrast Luther who tried to construct a canon that nobody else held to.
"The arguments, pro and con, are not equally good. "
Well, that's all the the mind of the beholder, and what relative weight he gives to arguments pro and con. In other words, protestantism can't lead to unity.
") I don’t have to prove anything to you, especially when you assume such an anti-intellectual stance. It would be impossible to prove anything to the satisfaction of an irrationalist like yourself."
Or in other words "My position just got completely refuted, but if I accuse him of being anti-intellectual, maybe I can avoid having to admit it".
"ii) In addition, there is internal as well as external attestation for the OT canon"
No there isn't. At least not in a way that would either include or exclude every individual book of the so-called apocrypha.
"Well, let’s see. Jesus was a Jews. All the OT writers were Jewish. All the apostles were Jewish. And, except for Luke, all the NT writers were Jewish.
So, yes, I happen to give a rip what some Jew thought."
But you don't care what the Church of God and all the Christians therein think. Complete inconsistency again.
"A church father can be reliable in some respects, and unreliable in others."
And you're going to set yourself up and judge and jury on that.
"This is simpleminded. One can infer his canon from what he says."
No you can't. There is zero basis for inferring the exact list of books he was referring to.
"Then you must regard the church fathers as equally untrustworthy since no one is unbiased."
If my ultimate authority was weighing one father against another, that would be so. But such is not the case.
"There’s a difference between sifting evidence and following a community. Members of the Jewish community present prima facie evidence for the OT canon. That must still be evaluated."
Great, so what the 2000 year old church of God thinks is the canon is prima facie evidence for the canon too. Since you don't acknowledge any hard break between old and new covenant communities.
anonymous said...
ReplyDelete“You apparently trust a God who gives every man a different place in history, and thus every man a different faith.”
That’s simply a fact of life. God gives every man a different place in history, and that, in turn, has a great deal to do with the faith he will embrace (or reject).
Whether a man is born in 3000 BC Sumer, or 6C BC India, or 1C AD Palestine, or 8C Constantinople, or 13C Rome, or 14C Tibet, or 14C Mesoamerica, or 10C Arabia, or 15C Ethiopia or 17C Spain, or 17C New England, or Red China, and so on and forth, has a great deal to do with the particular faith he will embrace, given his available options and peer pressure.
A practical way in which God either delivers or judges an individual is by where, when, and to whom he causes an individual to be born. It isn’t coincidental that the reprobate are generally born to live and die outside the pale of the gospel while the elect are brought into contact with the means of grace.
You take offense at the consequences of my position, but the difference is that I accept the world I live in. It’s ultimately God’s world. This is how he governs his world.
It comes down to God’s will for his people. Without a doctrine of providence, we’re all dead in the water.
“It's a completely different proposition to say that the true faith was there if you cared to look in one of two or three major churches, compared to saying that the true faith exists somewhere waiting for it to be dug up and analysed by scholars.”
i) This is a caricature of the Protestant position. It is not a case of uncovering the true Gospel, as if it’s hidden in scripture. No, the Gospel is plainly revealed. The problem is with high-churchmen who conceal the Gospel under layers of tradition.
ii) Anyway, you keeping complaining about the consequences of my position when these are factual consequences. It’s a fact that human beings are historically-conditioned. The Bible wasn’t written in my mother tongue. For that matter, the church fathers didn’t write in my mother tongue. My referential universe isn’t the same as Isaiah’s, or Paul’s or Chrysostom’s.
Due to certain cultural universals, we don’t need to know everything about another culture to find a port of entry. But there are also many things we need to learn.
These are truisms. You refuse to make allowance for these truisms. I’m dealing with the real life consequences of the world we live in. You, by contrast, shut your eyes, click your heels, and wish them away.
“Limited to hundreds of millions of Christians is rather different to being limited to zero Christians waiting to be dug up.”
Once again, you’re not making a serious attempt to accurately state, much less engage, the opposing position. You merely betray your self-reinforcing ignorance.
The remnant are saved in every generation. God brings his elect to a saving knowledge of the truth in every generation.
“They are not hypothetical. Scholars are chopping and changing their minds about these things all the time.”
i) This fails to distinguish between good and bad arguments. Liberal theology is faddish. So what?
ii) I’d add that the Catholic church has changed its mind over the centuries. And the more the Orthodox church shakes off its cultural isolation, the more vulnerable it becomes to contemporary trends.
“Luther thought that nobody had the right canon and tried to construct his own, excluding Revelation etc.”
Since I’m not a Lutheran, that’s irrelevant to my own case for the canon.
“You must be confusing me with a Roman Catholic.”
I also mentioned ecumenical councils.
“But I have the advantage of knowing there is a true claimant.”
That’s a question-begging assertion.
“Well, that's all the the mind of the beholder, and what relative weight he gives to arguments pro and con.”
In that event, we may safely dismiss any arguments you might offer in support of your own theological tradition. Scepticism is a double-edged sword.
“In other words, protestantism can't lead to unity.”
Unity is no criterion of truth.
“Or in other words ‘My position just got completely refuted, but if I accuse him of being anti-intellectual, maybe I can avoid having to admit it’.”
You haven’t lifted a finger to refute any of my specific arguments. You simply deny what you refuse to believe. A denial is not a refutation. Not even close.
“No there isn't. At least not in a way that would either include or exclude every individual book of the so-called apocrypha.”
Once again, instead of offering any counterargument, you retreat into fact-free denials.
“But you don't care what the Church of God and all the Christians therein think. Complete inconsistency again.”
Another question-begging assertion. You are incapable of defending your faith.
You have offered no argument to identify your church as the Church of God. You have offered no argument to limit all Christians to your particular communion.
All you do is to project a confident rhetorical tone in lieu of reason and evidence. You’re just another high-church fideist.
“And you're going to set yourself up and judge and jury on that.”
i) The NT commands us to distinguish between truth and false teachers as well as true and false doctrine. So I have both the right and responsibility to judge the church fathers.
ii) You have also rendered a value-judgment on the church fathers even though you deny yourself the right to evaluate them.
“No you can't. There is zero basis for inferring the exact list of books he was referring to.”
Another empty-headed denial in lieu of an actual argument. There are scholars who will walk you through the process. But in your self-reinforcing ignorance, you don’t know what you don’t want to know because you feel threatened by it. Behind the bold tone of voice you keep broadcasting your intellectual and spiritual insecurities. Dogs snarl and bark when they’re scared.
“If my ultimate authority was weighing one father against another, that would be so. But such is not the case.”
Now you’re retreating from your original objection, where you made the presence of personal bias a disqualification.
“Great, so what the 2000 year old church of God.”
i) You haven’t supplied me with 2000 years of continuous evidence for the continuous identity of your church.
ii) Since the present is continuous with the past, Protestantism ranges along the same historical continuum. You can trace any present-day outcome back into the past by a chain of historical causation which eventually terminates in Genesis 1.
“Is prima facie evidence for the canon too.”
Yes, and prima facie evidence must be scrutinized.
“Since you don't acknowledge any hard break between old and new covenant communities.”
i) If I were to identify your church with the new covenant community. But that assumes what you need to prove.
ii) I do not equate your church with the NT church. Indeed, you haven’t even come clean about your ecclesiastical commitments.
That’s simply a fact of life. God gives every man a different place in history, and that, in turn, has a great deal to do with the faith he will embrace (or reject).
ReplyDeleteExcept that you tell us there is nowhere on earth one can hope to find THE objective standard, and escape the limitations of our place in history. Instead, everyone is inevitably captive to their place in history.
You take offense at the consequences of my position, but the difference is that I accept the world I live in. It’s ultimately God’s world. This is how he governs his world.
No it isn't. You're living in an atheist's humanist's paradise.
It comes down to God’s will for his people. Without a doctrine of providence, we’re all dead in the water.
A providence where you can find no objective standard for truth is a pretty pathetic providence.
This is a caricature of the Protestant position. It is not a case of uncovering the true Gospel, as if it’s hidden in scripture.
And how wide is your definition of "Gospel"? Is it the bare basics, or the whole revealed truth? I think you're attempting a bait and switch to replace one with the other.
The problem is with high-churchmen who conceal the Gospel under layers of tradition.
Really. And how exactly is it concealed?
The Bible wasn’t written in my mother tongue.
Which is a problem, because...?
I’m dealing with the real life consequences of the world we live in. You, by contrast, shut your eyes, click your heels, and wish them away.
That's because I'm not beholden to looking for the faith in one particular culture in one particular place in time. You've got to get the scholars and archaeologists to work so you can understand 1st century Judea so that you can interpret the bible correctly. I know that the church has existed from then until now and preserves the true faith all over the world.
i) This fails to distinguish between good and bad arguments. Liberal theology is faddish. So what?
Is it liberal theology? It's hard for me to tell the difference between liberal and non-liberal protestants because they all doubt so much. For example, Bruce Metzger is described as a "conservative" by many protestants:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/02/18/in-memoriam-bruce-m-metzger-1914-2007/
And yet if you read his stuff it seems quite liberal.
What would Luther be, saying that Revelation is not apostolic? Liberal or conservative?
I also mentioned ecumenical councils.
Since the 7 ecumenical councils did not discuss the canon, fail to see the point.
In that event, we may safely dismiss any arguments you might offer in support of your own theological tradition. Scepticism is a double-edged sword.
Skepticism, and pointing out differing interpretations are not the same thing. The question is whether you have the humility to recognize the Spirit active in his church, or whether you are beholden to your own intellect and weighing probabilities.
Unity is no criterion of truth.
It is according to the bible.
John 17:21 that they may all be one .., so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
You haven’t lifted a finger to refute any of my specific arguments.
Neither have you, but resorting to ad-hominem won't fix that.
Once again, instead of offering any counterargument, you retreat into fact-free denials.
I can't counter an argument that hasn't actually been enunciated.
You have offered no argument to identify your church as the Church of God. You have offered no argument to limit all Christians to your particular communion.
And whenever you quote Josephus or whoever else you might care to quote in favour of your canon, you never offer any proof that he is a member of the true or valid or legitimate people of God.
i) The NT commands us to distinguish between truth and false teachers as well as true and false doctrine. So I have both the right and responsibility to judge the church fathers.
Not as an individual you don't. The bible says if you have a problem with a brother, to take it to the church to decide, not to decide all by yourself.
Another empty-headed denial in lieu of an actual argument. There are scholars who will walk you through the process.
No there isn't, because you scholar yourself all day long and it won't create a list where there is none, and it won't make all the lists agree when they do not.
Behind the bold tone of voice you keep broadcasting your intellectual and spiritual insecurities.
Ad-hominem is no argument. Neither will it look good on your resume on judgement day.
Since the present is continuous with the past, Protestantism ranges along the same historical continuum.
Protestantism broke the continuum by saying that all the people immediately prior to us, had got it wrong. That's a discontinuum.
ANONYMOUS SAID:
ReplyDelete“Except that you tell us there is nowhere on earth one can hope to find THE objective standard, and escape the limitations of our place in history. Instead, everyone is inevitably captive to their place in history.”
False. God places the elect where the means of grace coincide in space and time.
“And how wide is your definition of ‘Gospel’? Is it the bare basics, or the whole revealed truth.”
At a minimum, what is needed to come to a saving knowledge of God.
“Really. And how exactly is it concealed?”
I’ve been blogging on these issues for 4 years. I don’t have to reinvent the wheel every time a clueless commenter pops up in the combox. Consult the archives.
“Which is a problem, because...?”
Grammatico-historical methods are what make it possible to translate an ancient text into a modern language.
“You've got to get the scholars and archaeologists to work so you can understand 1st century Judea so that you can interpret the bible correctly.”
Scholarship is required to translate and interpret the Greek Fathers, ecumenical councils, &c.
“I know that the church has existed from then until now and preserves the true faith all over the world.”
That is just your childish, feel-good assertion. You might as well be a Scientologist.
“It's hard for me to tell the difference between liberal and non-liberal protestants because they all doubt so much.”
Where is your documentation?
“And yet if you read his stuff it seems quite liberal.”
What stuff in particular?
Anyway, you’re shifting gears. You originally said: “Scholars are chopping and changing their minds about these things all the time.”
To use your own example, document where Metzger was chopping and changing his mind about these things all the time.
“What would Luther be, saying that Revelation is not apostolic? Liberal or conservative?”
Since I’m not a Lutheran, that’s not my department.
“Since the 7 ecumenical councils did not discuss the canon, fail to see the point.”
Maybe because you don’t pay attention. This was stated in relation to the fact that OT Jews had no magisterium or ecumenical councils. God guided them without that ecclesiastical machinery.
“The question is whether you have the humility to recognize the Spirit active in his church, or whether you are beholden to your own intellect and weighing probabilities.”
Active in which church? Active in whose church? There’s nothing humble about your own value-judgment regarding which church you deem to be the true church. So you employ a double standard with respect to the role of one’s intellect and the weighing of probabilities.
“John 17:21 that they may all be one .., so that the world may believe that You sent Me.”
I see you don’t know the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition. Scripture speaks of evil unities as well.
Your appeal to Jn 17:21 falsifies your high-church ecclesiology. Has the world come to believe in Jesus by seeing the unity of, say, the Orthodox church? No.
“I can't counter an argument that hasn't actually been enunciated.”
As I told you before, I’ve enunciated my argument for the canon in answer to Blosser, among other places.
“And whenever you quote Josephus or whoever else you might care to quote in favour of your canon, you never offer any proof that he is a member of the true or valid or legitimate people of God.”
That’s not a criterion for a reliable historical witness.
“Not as an individual you don't. The bible says if you have a problem with a brother, to take it to the church to decide, not to decide all by yourself.”
Mt 18 has nothing to do with false teachers and nothing to do with church fathers.
“No there isn't, because you scholar yourself all day long and it won't create a list where there is none, and it won't make all the lists agree when they do not.”
There’s nothing for me to respond to because you’re too scared to actually acquaint yourself with the relevant literature. You don’t know what you don’t know. Ignorance is your shield.
“Protestantism broke the continuum by saying that all the people immediately prior to us, had got it wrong.”
That’s ignorant hyperbole on your part.
“That's a discontinuum.”
Not a historical discontinuum.
False. God places the elect where the means of grace coincide in space and time.
ReplyDeleteBut according to you not in conjunction with an objective standard of truth. You are elect - maybe, if your truth is close enough to the right one.
At a minimum, what is needed to come to a saving knowledge of God.
So that's the best you hope for, a minimal level of truth.
Grammatico-historical methods are what make it possible to translate an ancient text into a modern language.
So the scholars have got to get to work, or the truth will be lost!
Scholarship is required to translate and interpret the Greek Fathers, ecumenical councils, &c.
The faith is ever-present, we don't have to wait for someone to translate the fathers or councils.
That is just your childish, feel-good assertion. You might as well be a Scientologist.
That's what the atheists tell me too. You sound very similar.
What stuff in particular?
Anyway, you’re shifting gears. You originally said: “Scholars are chopping and changing their minds about these things all the time.
To use your own example, document where Metzger was chopping and changing his mind about these things all the time.
Well, I said that scholars as a whole are changing their minds, but the point is they are never agreeing. Metzger was also rather canny, prefacing almost everything he said by "scholars say". As in "most modern scholars think that this letter was drawn up in Peter’s name" (Readers Digest Condensed Bible). But he also put his editorial stamp of approval on the New Oxford Annotated Bible, "The tradition that this letter is the work of the apostle Peter was questioned in early times, and internal indications are almost decisive against it." I think it's a fair bet Metzger didn't start out his ecclesial life thinking these things.
Since I’m not a Lutheran, that’s not my department.
Apparently you can't even pass judgement on the liberalness of the most famous protestant of all time, but strangely you can pass judgement on everyone else. Odd.
This was stated in relation to the fact that OT Jews had no magisterium or ecumenical councils. God guided them without that ecclesiastical machinery.
Jews had a canon with no ecclesiastical "machinery". Orthodox church has a canon with no ecclesiastical "machinery". And the point is?
There’s nothing humble about your own value-judgment regarding which church you deem to be the true church.
Sure there is. I humbly submit to the true church, and I humbly tell others. According to you there is nothing humble about pointing to Jesus as the savior, over and above Buddha.
I see you don’t know the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition.
For you it is neither necessary NOR sufficient. Nobody claimed it is sufficient, that is a straw man.
Your appeal to Jn 17:21 falsifies your high-church ecclesiology. Has the world come to believe in Jesus by seeing the unity of, say, the Orthodox church?
World in what sense? Is this where I lecture you about the dozen meanings for "world"?
As I told you before, I’ve enunciated my argument for the canon in answer to Blosser, among other places.
In which you couldn't show what the 1st C Jew's canon was, because you had no documentation.
That’s not a criterion for a reliable historical witness.
A reliable historical witness to an heretical sect is worthless.
Mt 18 has nothing to do with false teachers and nothing to do with church fathers.
So preaching error is not a sin. Interesting.
There’s nothing for me to respond to because you’re too scared to actually acquaint yourself with the relevant literature. You don’t know what you don’t know. Ignorance is your shield.
The problem is I do know. I know, and I know that you have nothing. You're playing poker face with a pair of deuces.
anonymous said...
ReplyDelete“But according to you not in conjunction with an objective standard of truth.”
Quote me where I said that.
You keep making things up whole cloth. Divine revelation is the objective standard of truth. God brings the elect to a saving knowledge of his revelation.
What Protestant theologians or Bible scholars have you actually read. Name me some titles.
“So that's the best you hope for, a minimal level of truth.”
Are you trying to be stupid? I specifically limited the answer to saving faith.
“So the scholars have got to get to work, or the truth will be lost!”
You talk like a five-year-old in your backyard treehouse. Realty isn’t based on your utopian playground about how you think the world should be.
Yes, many truths depend on scholarship. Many truths are contained in ancient languages. Apart from scholarship, they are inaccessible.
“The faith is ever-present, we don't have to wait for someone to translate the fathers or councils.”
So you’re a Quaker. You have the inner light. You don’t need Scripture or councils or church fathers.
“I think it's a fair bet Metzger didn't start out his ecclesial life thinking these things.”
How is that a safe bet? Princeton had already gone liberal by the time he arrived.
And Metzger was well to the right of St. Vladimir’s Seminary when it comes to Bible criticism. Just compare Metzger to Paul Nadim Tarazi.
“Apparently you can't even pass judgement on the liberalness of the most famous protestant of all time, but strangely you can pass judgement on everyone else. Odd.”
Luther’s opinions are irrelevant to my theology. He’s not my rule of faith. He doesn’t represent my theological tradition. Why don’t you drop the red herrings.
“Jews had a canon with no ecclesiastical ‘machinery’. Orthodox church has a canon with no ecclesiastical ‘machinery’. And the point is?”
Are you admitting that the Orthodox have no official canon? Their canon is an open canon? Subject to addition or subtraction?
“I humbly submit to the true church, and I humbly tell others.”
Are you trying to be obtuse? Your claim to have identified the true church represents an exercise of private judgment on your part. There’s nothing humble about your dogmatic self-confidence.
“World in what sense? Is this where I lecture you about the dozen meanings for "world"?”
Define your terms. Show how you derive your definition from Johannine usage. Show how your appeal to Jn 17:21 singles out your church rather than, say, Evangelicalism.
“In which you couldn't show what the 1st C Jew's canon was, because you had no documentation.”
I’ve supplied plenty of documentation for my position. As usual, you substitute a fact-free denial for a point-by-point rebuttal.
“A reliable historical witness to an heretical sect is worthless.”
Another really stupid statement. A woman could make her living as a psychic but still be a reliable witness to a crime. Try to use that organ between your ears.
“So preaching error is not a sin. Interesting.”
You continue to cite Mt 18 out of context. It’s about one professing Christian wronging another. A personal offense. Not doctrinal error.
You twist and abuse Scripture, just like the standard issue high-churchman.
“The problem is I do know.”
You merely *say* that you know, just like a dutiful cult member who can recite his lines on cue.
Divine revelation is the objective standard of truth. God brings the elect to a saving knowledge of his revelation.
ReplyDeleteYou have no objective standard for saying what divine revelation is. If Luther says Revelation is spurious, and Calvin doesn't, there is no objective resolution to that problem, other than your own opinion. You can say that God gives you inner light, but that is not objective.
What Protestant theologians or Bible scholars have you actually read. Name me some titles.
What, on the topic of the canon? To name some, Canon of the New Testament by Metzger, McDonald's Formation of the Canon, Webster and King's Holy Scripture, White's Scripture Alone.
So you’re a Quaker. You have the inner light. You don’t need Scripture or councils or church fathers.
It's not inner light, it's the light of the living church. Councils and fathers are desirable, but not actually necessary.
How is that a safe bet? Princeton had already gone liberal by the time he arrived.
He didn't start his Christian life at Princeton.
To get back to the point, you now apparently conceed that Metzger is liberal. Since the folks at reclaimingthemind.org, Mounce, the editors of the NET bible must be liberal too since they think Metzger is conservative. It's not so easy for you to simply dismiss these differing scholars as the ramblings of liberals. Well, you can but not based on any objective standard. You don't want to hear opinions that this or that book may not be apostolic, because once you start revising your canon, you know that your whole rule of faith falls apart.
Luther’s opinions are irrelevant to my theology. He’s not my rule of faith.
You can't dismiss opinions as the ramblings of liberals, if you aren't even willing to stand up and define what makes you a liberal and judge a character as well documented as Luther.
Are you admitting that the Orthodox have no official canon?
How did "Orthodox has a canon", get interpreted by you as "Orthodox have no canon". You need to brush up on the comprehension.
Are you trying to be obtuse? Your claim to have identified the true church represents an exercise of private judgment on your part. There’s nothing humble about your dogmatic self-confidence.
You ignored my rejoinder. Would you be humble to tell a Buddhist about your "private judgement" that Christ is the only savior?
I’ve supplied plenty of documentation for my position. As usual, you substitute a fact-free denial for a point-by-point rebuttal.
Well, I haven't seen anything you're written that could be classified as "plenty of documentation", by the wildest stretch of the imaginiation. I don't know what I'm supposed to rebut.
Another really stupid statement. A woman could make her living as a psychic but still be a reliable witness to a crime. Try to use that organ between your ears.
You need to brush your comprehension again. Josephus could be a 100% accurate witness to an heretical sect of Jews. Being a witness to falsity is no help.
It’s about one professing Christian wronging another.
So preaching error does not wrong anyone. Interesting.
ANONYMOUS SAID:
ReplyDelete“You have no objective standard for saying what divine revelation is.”
I operate by the standards that God has given us. You, by contrast, resort to your make-believe standards because they made you feel more secure.
“If Luther says Revelation is spurious, and Calvin doesn't, there is no objective resolution to that problem, other than your own opinion.”
For those of us who, unlike you, study the actual arguments for the authorship of Revelation, there is objective evidence for the authenticity of Revelation.
If you wish to discount all that as nothing more than personal opinion, then I can equally dismiss any case that any Orthodox apologist would make for the identity of the Orthodox church as the true church. Your irrational scepticism cuts both ways.
“What, on the topic of the canon? To name some, Canon of the New Testament by Metzger, McDonald's Formation of the Canon, Webster and King's Holy Scripture, White's Scripture Alone.”
And are King and Webster and White changing their minds all the time?
“It's not inner light, it's the light of the living church.”
You haven’t given me or anyone else a single reason to believe your claim. You’re like a man on acid who points to his hallucination of pink rats as proof positive that pink rats exist. “See! See!” he exclaims? “Can’t you see the pink rats!”
“To get back to the point, you now apparently conceed that Metzger is liberal.”
I hadn’t said one way or the other. For the record, I’d classify him as a moderate. And my impression is that he moved to the right during his lifetime.
“Since the folks at reclaimingthemind.org, Mounce, the editors of the NET bible must be liberal too since they think Metzger is conservative.”
Now you’re indulging in guilt-by-association.
“It's not so easy for you to simply dismiss these differing scholars as the ramblings of liberals.”
And are they changing their minds all the time? Does Daniel Wallace change his mind every second Tuesday of the month?
I’d add that Eastern Orthodoxy is by no means immune to German higher criticism.
“You don't want to hear opinions that this or that book may not be apostolic, because once you start revising your canon, you know that your whole rule of faith falls apart.”
I’m conversant with liberal objections to the authorship of Scripture. Indeed, I’ve blogged on that topic before.
“You can't dismiss opinions as the ramblings of liberals, if you aren't even willing to stand up and define what makes you a liberal and judge a character as well documented as Luther.”
Since I’m not a liberal, I couldn’t very well define what makes me a liberal.
I’m also not going to play into your diversionary tactics.
“How did "Orthodox has a canon", get interpreted by you as ‘Orthodox have no canon’. You need to brush up on the comprehension.”
You need to brush up on the word “official.” Does the Orthodox church have an official canon of Scripture? If you deny that an ecumenical council spoke to this issue, then the Orthodox church has no official canon.
“You ignored my rejoinder. Would you be humble to tell a Buddhist about your "private judgement" that Christ is the only savior?”
To the contrary, I responded directly to your rejoinder. You speak with a forked tongue. You pretend to be modest and deplore the exercise of private judgment, yet you must exercise your private judgment when you judge your church to be the true church.
“Well, I haven't seen anything you're written that could be classified as ‘plenty of documentation’, by the wildest stretch of the imaginiation. I don't know what I'm supposed to rebut.”
Since you prefer to speak in vague generalities, I’ll leave you to your mental fog.
“You need to brush your comprehension again. Josephus could be a 100% accurate witness to an heretical sect of Jews. Being a witness to falsity is no help.”
The Pharisees were not uniformly heretical. And you have done nothing to establish that the Palestinian canon was a false canon.
“So preaching error does not wrong anyone. Interesting.”
Since you’re so slow on the uptake, I guess we’ll have to explain the obvious to you.
To say that erroneous preaching is wrong is not to say that every wrong is synonymous with erroneous preaching.
By your logic, if every horse is a quadruped, then every quadruped is a horse.
Is your undisciplined mind capable of rising to that elementary level of logical discernment, or must we explain it to you in more detail?
I operate by the standards that God has given us. You, by contrast, resort to your make-believe standards because they made you feel more secure.
ReplyDeleteThere is no verse in scripture laying out a standard for what is scripture, so if sola scriptura is true, you are the one living in make-believe land.
However, God has given us a church. That is both a biblical and historical reality.
Thus my rule of faith is based on something real and on God's word, whereas you are living in your own authority.
For those of us who, unlike you, study the actual arguments for the authorship of Revelation, there is objective evidence for the authenticity of Revelation.
Objective evidence is not the same as an objective fact. In a court case, both sides bring objective facts to the table, but assessing what truth the objective facts point to is subjective.
If you wish to discount all that as nothing more than personal opinion, then I can equally dismiss any case that any Orthodox apologist would make for the identity of the Orthodox church as the true church. Your irrational scepticism cuts both ways.
They are not comparable for a whole host of reasons, and I'll give you just one. If I had perfect historical knowledge of who wrote what book, it still wouldn't provide an objective basis for the canon, because there is no objective basis for deciding what is God-breathed outside of the tradition of the Church.
And are King and Webster and White changing their minds all the time?
Well, White always refers to "the author of Hebrews" all the time, indicating that he has no idea whatsoever who wrote the book, which is even worse than changing your mind, he is clueless.
You haven’t given me or anyone else a single reason to believe your claim. You’re like a man on acid who points to his hallucination of pink rats as proof positive that pink rats exist. “See! See!” he exclaims? “Can’t you see the pink rats!”
I have given you a reason, but you ignored it. The Orthodox church is the one which has not undergone a discontinuity where the church suddenly denies what it believed before. Since it is continuous, it is the Church.
At least I've got a theory, you have yet to even tell us the objective criteria for judging what is scripture.
Now you’re indulging in guilt-by-association.
Not mere association, they passed judgement on his theological position.
And are they changing their minds all the time? Does Daniel Wallace change his mind every second Tuesday of the month?
When it comes to Revelation, his web site talks about the 'balance of probability'
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1368
Sounds like a 51/49% thing from the way he puts it.
When it comes to Hebrews, he has no clue either, which is more useless than changing your mind.
I’d add that Eastern Orthodoxy is by no means immune to German higher criticism.
Just as well the faith is not based on the latest scholarship then.
Since I’m not a liberal, I couldn’t very well define what makes me a liberal.
I was using "you" as a reference to an indefinitely specified person. As in "You can't win them all". Try to read more carefully.
Does the Orthodox church have an official canon of Scripture? If you deny that an ecumenical council spoke to this issue, then the Orthodox church has no official canon.
Apparently, you don't have the least conception on how the Orthodox church works. That would be more forgivable if you didn't pretend to be an expert.
You speak with a forked tongue. You pretend to be modest and deplore the exercise of private judgment, yet you must exercise your private judgment when you judge your church to be the true church.
You're ignoring the basis on which I exercise that judgement, which is on the basis of catholic opinion. If the President measures public opinion and follows the people, you can't compare that to a despot who weighs his own judgement. The former is utilizing his judgement to find what everyone else wants, whereas the latter is utilizing his judgement to do whatever he damn well pleases. Anybody with an ounce of discernment can see that is like chalk and cheese.
ince you prefer to speak in vague generalities, I’ll leave you to your mental fog.
It's a fog you've generated. No doubt all your readers are in a fog about your vague references to evidence.
The Pharisees were not uniformly heretical. And you have done nothing to establish that the Palestinian canon was a false canon.
Oh, so some were heretical, and some weren't. And you via ESP know which group Josephus was a witness to. Amazing.
And you haven't even established that there was a Palestinian canon in the 1st C that corresponds to your conception of it.
To say that erroneous preaching is wrong is not to say that every wrong is synonymous with erroneous preaching.
Who said it was? I said that wrong preaching is a sin, and therefore can validly be approached with the Mt 18 principle. These irrelevant ramblings do nothing to refute that.
anonymous said...
ReplyDelete“There is no verse in scripture laying out a standard for what is scripture, so if sola scriptura is true, you are the one living in make-believe land.”
i) Actually, there are such criteria in Scripture.
ii) However, you’re also parroting the ignorant, schoolboy caricature of sola Scriptura which I’ve often had occasion to correct, such as I’ve done in my replies to Blosser. Try acquainting yourself with the opposing position for once so that you actually know what you’re talking about.
“However, God has given us a church. That is both a biblical and historical reality.”
You’re in no position to say that the church has Biblical reality since you cannot appeal to the Biblical witness to the church without begging the question in favor of your particular church as long as you deny access to the Bible apart from the church.
“Thus my rule of faith is based on something real and on God's word, whereas you are living in your own authority.”
You have never presented a supporting argument for your tendentious claim, and you consistently duck the counterarguments.
“Objective evidence is not the same as an objective fact. In a court case, both sides bring objective facts to the table, but assessing what truth the objective facts point to is subjective.”
Fine, then your assessment of your church as the true church is just as subjective as a Protestant evaluation.
“They are not comparable for a whole host of reasons, and I'll give you just one. If I had perfect historical knowledge of who wrote what book, it still wouldn't provide an objective basis for the canon, because there is no objective basis for deciding what is God-breathed outside of the tradition of the Church.”
i) As usual, you haven’t given a single reason for anyone to believe your claim the tradition of the church.
ii) The OT community of faith didn’t have the “tradition of the church” to decide what is God-breathed Scripture. Do you therefore take the position that the OT covenant community had no Bible? That God didn’t give his people the OT Scriptures. That he didn’t hold them to account for their obedience or disobedience to his Scriptures?
Instead of examining the way in which God has actually governed his people, you dream up a fictitious ideal of how you think things ought to be.
“Well, White always refers to ‘the author of Hebrews’ all the time, indicating that he has no idea whatsoever who wrote the book, which is even worse than changing your mind, he is clueless.”
i) Now you’re backpedaling from your original argument.
ii) Since the Book of Hebrews is anonymous, White’s position is a perfectly responsible position.
iii) What is the official position of the Orthodox church on the authorship of Hebrews? What ecumenical council spoke to this issue?
“I have given you a reason, but you ignored it. The Orthodox church is the one which has not undergone a discontinuity where the church suddenly denies what it believed before. Since it is continuous, it is the Church.”
Continuity does not imply truth. And what about historical divisions within Orthodoxy over iconoclasm and hesychasm, to take a couple of examples?
“At least I've got a theory, you have yet to even tell us the objective criteria for judging what is scripture.”
See above.
“Not mere association, they passed judgement on his theological position.”
Now you’re trying to be stupid. A general assessment of his overall outlook doesn’t connote detailed agreement with position he ever took.
Anyway, this is just a diversionary ploy on your part.
“When it comes to Revelation, his web site talks about the 'balance of probability'…Sounds like a 51/49% thing from the way he puts it.”
i) Did you get these percentages from Wallace? No.
ii) What is the official position of the Orthodox church on the authorship of Revelation? What ecumenical council spoke to this issue?
iii) It was an OE bishop (Dionysius, 3C bishop of Alexandria) who originally challenged the apostolic authorship of Revelation. Liberals have been quoting his influential arguments ever since. You need to put your own house in order.
“When it comes to Hebrews, he has no clue either, which is more useless than changing your mind.”
i) Which is backpedaling from your original argument.
ii) What is the official position of the Orthodox church on the authorship of Hebrews?
“Just as well the faith is not based on the latest scholarship then.”
You’re the one who is making a big deal about the authorship of various Biblical books. When we see the Orthodox church capitulating to German higher criticism, this directly undercuts your own argument. Try to be less ignorant of your adopted theological tradition.
“Try to read more carefully.”
Try to use English more carefully.
“Apparently, you don't have the least conception on how the Orthodox church works. That would be more forgivable if you didn't pretend to be an expert.”
You’re dodging the issue. How do you identify the true teaching of the true church? By what “objective” criteria? Spare me picturesque metaphor about the “light of the church.” That is not an objective standard. I’m waiting to see you make good on your rhetoric.
“You're ignoring the basis on which I exercise that judgement, which is on the basis of catholic opinion.”
It’s on the basis of what you individually and subjectively deem to be “catholic” opinion, which is a selective subset of opinion in church history. And you individually deem “catholic” opinion to be an index of truth, which also represents another subjective value-judgment on your part. You haven’t begun to escape from your individualism or subjectivity.
“It's a fog you've generated. No doubt all your readers are in a fog about your vague references to evidence.”
I see that you suffer from a mental block. I’ve given specific references to my materials. Follow the links.
“Oh, so some were heretical, and some weren't. And you via ESP know which group Josephus was a witness to. Amazing.”
Okay, since you’re so ignorant, I’ll have to connect the dots for you one more time. The issue is not whether some Pharisees were heretical, and others were not. The issue, rather, is whether parts of Pharisaic theology were heretical, and other parts were not.
Even a self-reinforcing ignoramus like you should be aware of the fact that in the NT, Jesus and the Apostles agreed with the Pharisees on some issues, but disagreed with them on others.
“And you haven't even established that there was a Palestinian canon in the 1st C that corresponds to your conception of it.”
Start with my replies to Blosser, or are you too dense to know what that means, even though I’ve brought this to your attention on several occasions now?
“Who said it was? I said that wrong preaching is a sin, and therefore can validly be approached with the Mt 18 principle. These irrelevant ramblings do nothing to refute that.”
Another stupid remark. If a preacher is a false teacher, then the proper form of discipline would simply be to defrock him.
Mt 18 is dealing with a specific ethical lapse, not a general doctrinal lapse, where one individual has committed some personal wrong against another individual.
You are not making a good-faith effort to interpret this passage in context. Rather, you are ripping the passage out of context to rubberstamp your make-believe theology. God will judge you for your contemptuous mishandling of his word.
You have now had many opportunities to offer a substantive reply to what I’ve written, and offer a substantive argument for your own position. You have passed up every opportunity.
Your modus operandi is to respond with tendentious, fact-free assertions and tendentious, fact-free denials. This is a waste of everyone’s time. Go away until you can begin to back up your empty claims with reason and evidence.