You're basing this all off the writings of those whom later history would see as the true church or catholic church or whatever term you might want to use. Later history approved of these folks, so it preserved their writings and continued that lineage. If the writings of the non-"orthodox" church groups were taken into account, the view could be very different.
So you have to sit in the lap of a "catholic" church, in order to slap its face....
Origen and Tertullian were in the catholic church, which is the point. They are a witness to that tradition, and not any of the many other "Christian" groups that existed at the time.
And the lap he is sitting in, is the idea that there was one catholic church which was the ark of truth. If or where that ark may continue today is another separate question. But those fathers appealed to the practice of that church, over and above other "Christian" groups, as decisive in the Canon.
For Jason to then appeal to the unity of _only_ people in that one religious community, whose self-proclaimed foundation was apostolic succession, whilst denying that very foundation that gave them an objective differentiator from those other groups, is to do what I said: to sit in a catholic lap to slap a catholic face.
Now if you want to deny the existence of an apostolic succession through to today, then don't pretend to appeal to a consensus of fathers whose commonality was that very belief in one catholic church. You're going to have to instead throw in every weird heretical, gnostic, marcionite and whatever group into the mix.
Below is my response to David, for the sake of those who aren't following the original thread.
David,
Aside from the fact that you're making assertions that you don't even attempt to support, you're misrepresenting my position and you're raising objections we've addressed in previous threads.
In my last post in this series on the canon, which I've linked above, I cited the example of Donatist agreement with the twenty-seven-book canon. I haven't just appealed to the church fathers or those who are generally considered part of the mainstream of the ancient church. In other threads, I've discussed corroboration of the authorship, and thus by implication canonicity, of some of the New Testament books by various heretical and non-Christian individuals and groups. See, for example, here and the post here along with the other posts linked within it. I've often discussed corroboration of the New Testament canon from heretical and non-Christian sources, and I intend to discuss that issue again later in this series. I neither said nor suggested that this post you're responding to represents the entirety of my case for the New Testament canon.
You write:
"And the lap he is sitting in, is the idea that there was one catholic church which was the ark of truth."
Where did I say that I'm "sitting in that lap"? I appeal to the testimony of the fathers and other people you consider part of the "one catholic church" as one line of evidence among others. Even if we limit ourselves to those sources from what you call the "catholic church" for the moment, I don't accept their testimony just because they were part of a church that was "the ark of truth". Their participation in the church, which I don't define as you define it, has some relevance, but these sources are credible for other reasons as well. A person can be credible for more than one reason. A Christian of the second century, for example, can be credible to me because he's a Christian, but also because of other factors, such as when he lived, what sources he had access to, etc.
Steve's citation of Tertullian and Origen is correct, and your response to his comments needs to be argued, not just asserted. As a Montanist, Tertullian was a critic of what Roman Catholics and others would consider the catholic church of that day. Though Tertullian and Origen had some supporters among mainstream Christians, they also had some critics who sometimes referred to them as schismatics or heretics. For example, Jerome writes of Tertullian, "Of Tertullian I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church." (The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary, Against Helvidius, 19) Regarding Origen's treatment by some of his critics, I give some examples here. In light of your claim that "Later history approved of these folks, so it preserved their writings", you may want to take note of the comments, in that post I just linked, concerning the condemnation and destruction of Origen's writings.
Similar observations could be made about other fathers. Hippolytus wrote of a Roman bishop, Callistus, and those who followed him:
"The impostor Callistus, having ventured on such opinions, established a school of theology in antagonism to the Church, adopting the foregoing system of instruction. And he first invented the device of conniving with men in regard of their indulgence in sensual pleasures, saying that all had their sins forgiven by himself. For he who is in the habit of attending the congregation of any one else, and is called a Christian, should he commit any transgression; the sin, they say, is not reckoned unto him, provided only he hurries off and attaches himself to the school of Callistus. And many persons were gratified with his regulation, as being stricken in conscience, and at the same time having been rejected by numerous sects; while also some of them, in accordance with our condemnatory sentence, had been by us forcibly ejected from the Church....And withal, after such audacious acts, they, lost to all shame, attempt to call themselves a Catholic Church!" (The Refutation Of All Heresies, 9:7)
In that same section of the work cited above, Hippolytus tells us that Callistus used the analogy of Noah's ark that you're appealing to: "he affirmed that the ark of Noe was made for a symbol of the Church, in which were both dogs, and wolves, and ravens, and all things clean and unclean; and so he alleges that the case should stand in like manner with the Church" (The Refutation Of All Heresies, 9:7). He rejects Callistus' definition of how the church is like the ark. Men like Hippolytus and Callistus can agree that there's one church, and agree that the church is comparable to Noah's ark in some manner, for example, without considering each other part of the same church and without agreeing with every implication you're drawing from their ecclesiology.
For another example, read Cyprian's Letter 74 to see how much unity Firmilian thought he had with the Roman bishop Stephen.
It's possible to classify all of these men as Christians and as part of the same hierarchical church, but not by using their standards. And if you can accept some of their standards on such issues while rejecting other standards they held, why can't we do the same?
You tell us that Tertullian and Origen "are a witness to that tradition", the tradition of the catholic church as you define it. But they, and others, like Irenaeus, were also witnesses to the beliefs of other individuals and other groups. As Augustine refers to Donatist agreement with the mainstream New Testament canon, so also men like Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen refer to corroboration of various parts of the New Testament canon by heretics and non-Christians. The church fathers aren't just witnesses to mainstream church tradition. They're also witnesses to less popular opinions within the church and the beliefs of those outside the church. Even when they witness to mainstream church tradition, one doesn't have to agree with everything that church believed, or even consider himself part of that church, in order to accept that testimony as historical evidence. I can accept the testimony of Roman Catholic individuals regarding the authorship of a Roman Catholic document, such as a papal decree, without agreeing with all that Roman Catholicism teaches and without being a Roman Catholic myself. Must you be an atheist to accept the testimony of an atheist regarding a historical issue, such as who authored a particular document?
I've addressed apostolic succession and other issues pertaining to the identity of the ancient church elsewhere. You tell us that "those fathers appealed to the practice of that church, over and above other 'Christian' groups, as decisive in the Canon", but different fathers defined the church in different ways, the fathers cited other lines of evidence for the canon as well, and I haven't denied that the church has been involved in the canonical process.
Furthermore, it's not as though every source I've cited makes the appeal to the church that you're attributing to them. Rather, you're referring to what some patristic sources said about some of the evidence for the canon, and you're reading your definition of terms like "church" into what they said, in addition to assuming that they were correct and that I must agree with them on that issue in order to accept their testimony on another issue. If Origen makes a comment along the lines of what you're attributing to the fathers, why should I believe that he's defining the church as you define it, that other fathers, like Justin Martyr and Jerome, agreed with him, and that I must accept his assessment on that issue in order to accept his testimony on other issues related to the canon?
Many of the sources who give us evidence for the canon advocated some form of apostolic succession. But not all of them did. And those who did defined the concept of apostolic succession in a variety of ways. Not everybody who advocated some type of apostolic succession claimed that it was foundational in the manner you're claiming it is. Even if a given source did so, I can consider him credible on some matters without considering him credible about everything. We're all selective in what we do and don't believe in historical sources. Bart Ehrman can believe Clement of Rome's and Irenaeus' testimony about the Pauline authorship of 1 Corinthians without also accepting their beliefs about apostolic succession. Non-Christian scholars frequently accept the testimony of ancient Christians pertaining to issues relevant to the canon, as well as other issues, without agreeing with those sources about apostolic succession and other matters.
The Donatists were a disagreement that came out of the catholic church and was substantially within the catholic church, which is a different thing to groups essentially outside the catholic church.
ReplyDeleteIf all you've documented is when other groups agreed with the catholic church, then you've got a whole lot more documenting left to do.
Your criteria for who in the 2nd century is credible has more to do with them agreeing with you, than any objective measure of credibility.
I don't understand the point about Tertullian. He was at one time in the church, and then he left the church. That Jerome says as much only indicates Jerome's strong sense of there being one catholic church, and does nothing to help your case. And whether Origen's beliefs had problems or not is really nothing to do with the topic at hand as well. And if some of Origen's works were destroyed, thanks for proving my point. They history you read in the fathers is in large part the subset of works that the later church wants you to read. Those who belonged to other sects and groups are in large part not preserved.
"Hippolytus and Callistus can agree that there's one church, and agree that the church is comparable to Noah's ark in some manner, for example, without considering each other part of the same church and without agreeing with every implication you're drawing from their ecclesiology."
Are you having fun proving my points for me?
"For another example, read Cyprian's Letter 74 to see how much unity Firmilian thought he had with the Roman bishop Stephen."
In Letter 74 Cyprian discusses a concept called "the unity of the catholic church". Whatever Cyprian thought of Stephen, there was always a greater issue at stake which was the unity of the catholic church. That was the issue being struggled with, and that was the foundation of their faith. From the same letter 74 "as they who were not in the ark with Noah not only were not purged and saved by water, but at once perished in that deluge; so now also, whoever are not in the Church with Christ will perish outside"
Have you actually read letter 74? You're not seriously going to claim that Cyprian has some kind of protestant ecclesiology surely? If not, what was your point?
"And if you can accept some of their standards on such issues while rejecting other standards they held, why can't we do the same?"
I don't know that I reject the overall thrust of their standards. And isn't the issue the canon? In which case you are advocating that anybody can accept bits of the canon as they see fit as well.
" The church fathers aren't just witnesses to mainstream church tradition. They're also witnesses to less popular opinions within the church and the beliefs of those outside the church."
The point being what? Yes they sometimes give clues about what others think, but people are a far better witness to their own beliefs.
"I can accept the testimony of Roman Catholic individuals regarding the authorship of a Roman Catholic document, such as a papal decree, without agreeing with all that Roman Catholicism teaches and without being a Roman Catholic myself."
Were that the issue only about authorship, but that is only a tiny part of the question. The real question is what is the word of God, and authorship does not answer that question.
"different fathers defined the church in different ways"
And all those ways were consistent with there being one visible church in communion.
"the fathers cited other lines of evidence for the canon as well"
Yes they did, but you've got no basis for saying that those other basis are actually valid criteria. Besides which the main criteria was always the usage in the catholic church. Even their other criteria such as authorship was in reality based on the prevailing belief in the church concerning authorship rather than actual documentary evidence of who wrote it.
"I haven't denied that the church has been involved in the canonical process."
And the canonical process was done with a belief in one church. Churches looked at the books other churches had if they were catholic. They didn't look to what non-catholic groups were doing. The existence of such a visible organisation provided the basis for a canonical process. Without a fairly sharp delineation between the true church and non-true churches based on a concept of unity, the canonical process could not take place.
"why should I believe that he's defining the church as you define it, that other fathers, like Justin Martyr and Jerome, agreed with him, and that I must accept his assessment on that issue in order to accept his testimony on other issues related to the canon?"
If one particular father doesn't comment on one particular issue, it seems reasonable to assume he believed what his contemporaries believed, absent some other evidence. What you're saying is a bit like assuming Jude didn't believe in the resurrection because he didn't specifically mention that in his epistle.
"Many of the sources who give us evidence for the canon advocated some form of apostolic succession. But not all of them did."
And Jude doesn't mention the resurrection. Whatever.
"Not everybody who advocated some type of apostolic succession claimed that it was foundational in the manner you're claiming it is."
Jude doesn't mention the resurrection as foundational. Whatever. But whether you want it to be foundational, it IS the foundation of the canonical process. Thus your need to sit in a catholic lap to slap it.
"Yes they did, but you've got no basis for saying that those other basis are actually valid criteria. Besides which the main criteria was always the usage in the catholic church. Even their other criteria such as authorship was in reality based on the prevailing belief in the church concerning authorship rather than actual documentary evidence of who wrote it."
ReplyDeleteOf course, even if we accept your characterization, that only pushes the problem back a step. What are the criteria for the true church?
Any criteria for the true church must be independent of the church. For rival churches would supply rival criteria. Even if the true church supplied criteria for the true church, you'd have to know it was the true church to know it supplied the true criteria, and not vice versa. And how could you know the identity of the true church apart from the requisite criteria?
Well, you could push the problem back ad-infinitum into radical skepticism, but in the judeo-christian tradition, there was an identifiable visible people of God whose collective wisdom identified truth and canon.
ReplyDeleteJust as we can have an idea of what the Jewish nation was, and their succession from the time of Moses, and what their canon was, we can have an idea of what the Church was, and their succession was from Jesus.
Did every Jew decide for themselves whether the next prophetic book should be understood as canon? Or did they do it in some collective way? I think the latter. Did that collective mechanism include anybody and everybody, or just those part of the visible Jewish community? Again, the latter. Does that require a criteria for the visible community? Sure, but back then this was considered too obvious to enunciate fully.
One thing that the catholic church shared with the Jewish nation was this understanding of community and the one people of God as a special visible chosen people with authority to make binding observations about the nature of the faith. This was something that distinguished the catholic church from the other sects, who may well have had their own criteria, but it wasn't the criteria of continuity, catholicity and community. This was the great strength that allowed the catholic church to emerge above the splintered sects that faded into obscurity.
But to fail to recognise the legitimacy of the very differentiator and criteria that could be used as a basis for the canonical process, and yet to use that basis as your evidence for that canon, is to be schizophrenic. To bring up the objection you do here is merely to cast doubt on the entire judeo-christian tradition and ethos and stare down over the edge of radical skepticism.
David wrote:
ReplyDelete"The Donatists were a disagreement that came out of the catholic church and was substantially within the catholic church, which is a different thing to groups essentially outside the catholic church."
That's an assertion, not an argument. Would you explain why you claim that Tertullian "left the church", yet the Donatists are to be considered part of the church? I'm asking for an argument for the validity of your distinction, not just a statement of what you believe.
You write:
"If all you've documented is when other groups agreed with the catholic church, then you've got a whole lot more documenting left to do."
I was addressing sources who agreed with my twenty-seven-book canon, which you identify as the canon of "the catholic church". Why would I have documented sources disagreeing with that canon in such a context?
And when are we going to get documentation for your assertions?
You write:
"Your criteria for who in the 2nd century is credible has more to do with them agreeing with you, than any objective measure of credibility."
That's another assertion you've made without any accompanying argumentation. And it's another assertion that ignores what I've provided in other contexts on this blog. Have you read much, if any, of my interaction with non-Christians in other threads? Explain why you think my arguments don't have a sufficient "objective measure of credibility". And explain how you supposedly know that "my criteria for who in the 2nd century is credible have more to do with them agreeing with me". I haven't said that my criteria have more to do with that. Since I haven't said any such thing, how do you supposedly know that it's true?
You write:
"I don't understand the point about Tertullian. He was at one time in the church, and then he left the church. That Jerome says as much only indicates Jerome's strong sense of there being one catholic church, and does nothing to help your case."
If Tertullian "left the church", then you were wrong to say that "Origen and Tertullian were in the catholic church". For example, my post, which you were responding to, cited Tertullian's comments in his treatise On Modesty. That treatise was written after he became a Montanist. If he had "left the church", as you now say, prior to writing the document I cited, then why would you respond to my post by arguing that I was citing sources "in the church"?
You write:
"And whether Origen's beliefs had problems or not is really nothing to do with the topic at hand as well. And if some of Origen's works were destroyed, thanks for proving my point. They history you read in the fathers is in large part the subset of works that the later church wants you to read. Those who belonged to other sects and groups are in large part not preserved."
I didn't just say that "Origen's beliefs had problems". I provided a link to a post in which there's a discussion about the condemnation of Origen and his writings by people within what you consider the catholic church. As I explained in my post above, if you're going to argue that people like Origen and those who condemned him, destroyed his documents, etc. had unity with one another within the catholic church, because "history", as you put it, considers them to have such unity, then you're not judging the issue by the standards of Origen and those who condemned him. Rather, you're judging them by a later standard that you call "history". The fact that people commonly consider Origen to be within the church today doesn't prove that people in the past who classified him as a schismatic or heretic, destroyed his writings, etc. held the same view. If you're going to judge such individuals by a later definition of the church, then why can't I do the same? Why do I have to accept the view of apostolic succession that you claim the ancient Christians held, yet you don't have to accept the ancient Christians' beliefs about the definition of the church, who's part of it and who isn't, etc.?
And you were the one who brought up the preservation of a person's writings. You said that "Later history approved of these folks, so it preserved their writings". In response, I cited the fact that Christians of the past had condemned what Origen wrote and had attempted to destroy the documents.
You write:
"Are you having fun proving my points for me?"
Asking that question doesn't address the argument I made.
You write:
"In Letter 74 Cyprian discusses a concept called 'the unity of the catholic church'. Whatever Cyprian thought of Stephen, there was always a greater issue at stake which was the unity of the catholic church. That was the issue being struggled with, and that was the foundation of their faith."
Letter 74 is a work of Firmilian, preserved in the writings of Cyprian. It's not a work of Cyprian.
And you're missing the point again. Firmilian didn't think he had the unity with Stephen that you claim the two of them had. For an explanation of why that fact is relevant, see my comments above regarding Origen.
You write:
"Have you actually read letter 74? You're not seriously going to claim that Cyprian has some kind of protestant ecclesiology surely? If not, what was your point?"
Yes, I've read Letter 74. That's how I knew that it was written by Firmilian, not Cyprian, which you apparently didn't realize. And you apparently missed my explanation of "my point" in my first response to you above. I didn't suggest that "Cyprian [Firmilian] has some kind of Protestant ecclesiology". The point is that Firmilian didn't have Stephen's ecclesiology and didn't have yours, yet you consider Firmilian and Stephen to be part of the catholic church along with you. You reject the ecclesiology of ancient Christians like Firmilian while claiming that I must agree with a view of apostolic succession that you attribute to them. You haven't yet explained why you can disagree with them on the one issue, whereas I can't on the other.
You write:
"I don't know that I reject the overall thrust of their standards."
You keep making assertions without any accompanying argumentation. Why should we think that we have to agree with the "overall thrust" of the ecclesiology of these sources? Roman Catholicism claims that the papacy is the foundation of the church, for example. How can somebody like Cyprian or Firmilian reject the papacy, yet still be considered somebody who had the "overall thrust" of Roman Catholic ecclesiology? Just as you can claim to agree with some aspects of their ecclesiology while rejecting other aspects, I can claim to agree with some aspects of the various patristic concepts of apostolic succession while rejecting other aspects.
You write:
"And isn't the issue the canon? In which case you are advocating that anybody can accept bits of the canon as they see fit as well."
All of us accept "what we see fit". By following the canon taught by an organization such as Roman Catholicism, you just shift the discussion from why you see fit to accept a particular canon to why you see fit to accept a particular organization.
You write:
"Yes they sometimes give clues about what others think, but people are a far better witness to their own beliefs."
The fact that somebody is "far better" at doing one thing than another doesn't change the fact that he does both.
You write:
"Were that the issue only about authorship, but that is only a tiny part of the question. The real question is what is the word of God, and authorship does not answer that question."
A case has to first be made for the authority of an author, but once that case has been made, authorship is more than "tiny". As J.N.D. Kelly notes, "the criterion which ultimately came to prevail was apostolicity. Unless a book could be shown to come from the pen of an apostle, or at least to have the authority of an apostle behind it, it was peremptorily rejected, however edifying or popular with the faithful it might be." (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 60) In discussions among professing Christians, the authority of the apostles is often assumed without a case having first been made. Thus, if you appeal to apostolic teaching to argue for the authority of the church, say 1 Timothy 3:15, a professing Christian probably isn't going to respond by making a comment like yours above. Both sides will agree that Paul was an apostle delivering a revelation from God. (The authority of the church can't be appealed to here, since the issue under discussion would be whether the church has such authority.)
You write:
"And all those ways were consistent with there being one visible church in communion."
An Evangelical could agree with that definition. It's too vague to exclude those you want to exclude. You would have to add more qualifiers. I've been over this ground before. See here and here, for example.
You write:
"Yes they did, but you've got no basis for saying that those other basis are actually valid criteria. Besides which the main criteria was always the usage in the catholic church. Even their other criteria such as authorship was in reality based on the prevailing belief in the church concerning authorship rather than actual documentary evidence of who wrote it."
See my citation of J.N.D. Kelly above. I expect to be discussing this issue further in a future post, but Kelly's comments are sufficient for now.
The "usage in the catholic church" doesn't explain why the documents were used in the first place. And the "prevailing belief in the church concerning authorship" came from somewhere. A fourth-century source wouldn't have access to as much evidence as a second-century source, but second-century sources would influence those who followed them in the fourth century. Later sources were concerned with evidence, even though they didn't have as much access to the evidence as earlier generations did. Even in later generations, we see discussions about how the writing style of one document attributed to John compares to the writing style of another, the possible use of an amanuensis in the writing of 2 Peter, the testimony of Papias and other early sources, etc. We don't just see appeals to church usage.
You write:
"And the canonical process was done with a belief in one church. Churches looked at the books other churches had if they were catholic. They didn't look to what non-catholic groups were doing."
As if Evangelicals deny that there's one church? Again, see my previous discussions of ecclesiology linked above.
And you're mistaken about "looking to what non-catholic groups were doing". Irenaeus, for example, points to the fact that even heretics largely accept the scriptures (Against Heresies, 3:11:7, 3:12:12). That sort of appeal to hostile corroboration is common in the church fathers. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen appeal to government records and other non-Christian sources to corroborate events narrated by the gospels, for example. Irenaeus appeals to eyewitnesses (3:3:3-4) and other forms of evidence. His appeal to the church is accompanied by other arguments, and the church's significance is largely grounded in historical reasoning. As Everett Ferguson explains:
"Irenaeus of Lyons drew on the idea of the succession of bishops to formulate an orthodox response to the Gnostic claim of a secret tradition going back to the apostles. Irenaeus argued that if the apostles had had any secrets to teach, they would have delivered them to those men to whom they committed the leadership of the churches. A person could go to the churches founded by apostles, Irenaeus contended, and determine what was taught in those churches by the succession of teachers since the days of the apostles. The constancy of this teaching was guaranteed by its public nature; any change could have been detected, since the teaching was open. The accuracy of the teaching in each church was confirmed by its agreement with what was taught in other churches. One and the same faith had been taught in all the churches since the time of the apostles. Irenaeus's succession was collective rather than individual. He spoke of the succession of the presbyters (Haer. 3.2.2), or of the presbyters and bishops (4.26.2), as well as of the bishops (3.3.1). To be in the succession was not itself sufficient to guarantee correct doctrine." (Encyclopedia Of Early Christianity [New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999], p. 94)
Papias lived earlier than Irenaeus, and he makes his appeal directly to individuals, not churches. He appeals to those who had met the apostles, and he attributes his view of the gospel of Mark to an individual he identifies as "the elder", probably the apostle John (Eusebius, Church History, 3:39). Similar appeals to individuals, including on issues of New Testament authorship, are made by other fathers, such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Appeals are made to individual churches or the churches collectively, but other arguments are made as well.
You write:
"What you're saying is a bit like assuming Jude didn't believe in the resurrection because he didn't specifically mention that in his epistle."
We know that the resurrection was a foundational belief from 1 Corinthians 15 and other sources. We have reason to trust what a source like Paul tells us about the subject. We've argued for the reliability of the apostles. Where's your argument for what you want us to believe about apostolic succession? I cited the example of assuming what Justin Martyr and Jerome believed on the basis of what Origen believed. Why don't you document that Origen agreed with you about apostolic succession, then explain why it logically follows that we should assume that Justin Martyr and Jerome held the same view? Then explain why I must accept what they said about apostolic succession in order to accept what they said about the canon.
DAVID SAID:
ReplyDelete“Well, you could push the problem back ad-infinitum into radical skepticism.”
You were the one who introduced the issue of criteria. You don’t get to abruptly abandon your logic as soon as it becomes inconvenient for your own position. It’s not as if you logic only holds for my position, but not for yours. If it holds for either, it holds for both.
“But in the judeo-christian tradition, there was an identifiable visible people of God whose collective wisdom identified truth and canon.”
i) Simplistic since we also use the canon to identify the people of God. How much would you know about OT Jews or NT Christians apart from the OT canon or NT canon?
ii) To speak of an identifiable visible people of God begs the question of how you identify them. Are you still using criteria? Or do you treat their identity as a self-evident phenomenon?
“Just as we can have an idea of what the Jewish nation was, and their succession from the time of Moses, and what their canon was, we can have an idea of what the Church was, and their succession was from Jesus.”
i) That analogy actually undermines your case. How do we know about the history of the Jewish nation from its Mosaic foundations? From the OT canon itself. So your appeal presupposes the existence of the OT canon. It’s an argument from the canon, not an argument to or for the canon. Try again.
ii) You’re also resorting to vagaries about “succession.” In the OT we also have OT prophets who challenge the religious establishment. Individual prophets who have no immediate predecessors or successors. Rather, they have a direct divine vocation.
iii) But if you want to bring up succession, fine. How do you verify apostolic succession? During the Great Schism, which pope was the true pope, and which pope was the antipope?
“Did every Jew decide for themselves whether the next prophetic book should be understood as canon? Or did they do it in some collective way? I think the latter. Did that collective mechanism include anybody and everybody, or just those part of the visible Jewish community? Again, the latter.”
You’re spinning just-so stories in lieu of actual evidence. What corporate Jewish mechanism canonized the OT? Name it. Date it.
Like so many Catholics, you appeal to history in the abstract, but are strangely silent on the specifics.
“Does that require a criteria for the visible community?”
What were the criteria for the covenant community? The covenant. But that, at a minimum, presupposes the Pentateuchal canon.
“One thing that the catholic church shared with the Jewish nation was this understanding of community and the one people of God as a special visible chosen people with authority to make binding observations about the nature of the faith.”
Where does the OT say the community of faith can make binding observations about the nature of faith? Show me.
Thus far you’re flinging around a lot of armchair assertions without a smidgeon of documentary evidence.
“This was something that distinguished the catholic church from the other sects, who may well have had their own criteria, but it wasn't the criteria of continuity, catholicity and community.”
If that criterion validates Catholicism, does it also validate Islam?
For that matter, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Oriental Orthodoxy all lay claim to continuity, catholicity, and community. So your criteria are pretty indiscriminate.
“This was the great strength that allowed the catholic church to emerge above the splintered sects that faded into obscurity.”
Actually, some of these “sects” are still around, viz. monophysites.
And the Protestant “sect” hasn’t faded into obscurity in the last 500 years either.
On the other hand, Catholicism is fading in Europe and Quebec.
“But to fail to recognise the legitimacy of the very differentiator and criteria that could be used as a basis for the canonical process, and yet to use that basis as your evidence for that canon, is to be schizophrenic.”
Jason isn’t using the same criterion. He’s using the criterion of testimonial evidence. That’s not the same thing as “continuity, catholicity, and community.”
I see the Donatists as different to Tertullian is that the Donatists came from a catholic tradition with catholic congregations but then took a different approach to a particular practical problem of the persecutions. However Montanism came from the new teachings of Montanus who went around preaching his new teachings and forming new congregations of followers. That makes the Donatists an internal problem and Montanism an external problem.
ReplyDelete"Why would I have documented sources disagreeing with that canon in such a context?"
Well, what's the title of the article? It is "the significance of OTHER New Testament canons. Apparently all this documenting of your canon is supposed to be implied by the reader as telling us the significance of OTHER canons. Of course, if you want to admit that the entire article tells us nothing about what you were purporting to be telling us...
"Explain why you think my arguments don't have a sufficient "objective measure of credibility".
Well for one thing, you seem to be taking the position that you are more certain of the canon than the fathers you quote. This is one large exercise in defending your certainty of a 27 book canon, but those fathers much closer to Jesus and the eyewitnesses than you had quite a few disagreements about a number of books. Do you agree with particular points of view because of their inherent credibility, or do you agree with all the opinions that agree with the tradition you happen to have inherited? It seems all too coincidental to me that every time a father disagrees with your canon they are not credible, but when they agree they are credible. The fathers who disagree with you are not more stupid or ignorant than you.
"If Tertullian "left the church", then you were wrong to say that "Origen and Tertullian were in the catholic church".
I don't see the contradiction. You can be in it then leave it.
"If he had "left the church", as you now say, prior to writing the document I cited, then why would you respond to my post by arguing that I was citing sources "in the church"?"
Having spent a lot of time in the church, Tertullian is still a witness to the catholic church. Tertullian is almost unique in that his writings were preserved despite leaving the church. Presumably they are preserved because at one time he was in the church. I wouldn't go pointing to the exception as if it were the rule.
"The fact that people commonly consider Origen to be within the church today doesn't prove that people in the past who classified him as a schismatic or heretic, destroyed his writings, etc. held the same view."
You've totally lost me in the significance of your argument. Whether Origen is or isn't a heretic, or was or wasn't considered such at various points in history, the point is that what you know about anything in history is at the mercy of later generations who preserved history. That opinions of Origen flip flopped means his works are substantially, but not fully preserved. Those who history takes a dimmer view of are far less, if at all preserved. The winners write history. You are at the mercy of the winners. You have to accept the perspective of the winners or else condemn yourself to no perspective at all. You can't accept the perspective of the fathers whilst eating away at the foundation they built it on. The perspective they built it on was that the books the church accepted, and the facts the church believed about the books they accepted were correct, essentially on the say-so of the church because it was the one church.
"If you're going to judge such individuals by a later definition of the church, then why can't I do the same?"
I never said anything about judging individuals by later definitions. What I was saying is your knowledge of individuals is affected by the judgment of later individuals, because they preserved history.
"Why do I have to accept the view of apostolic succession that you claim the ancient Christians held, yet you don't have to accept the ancient Christians' beliefs about the definition of the church, who's part of it and who isn't, etc.?"
I don't know what you are referring to about me not accepting ancient Christian beliefs.
"In response, I cited the fact that Christians of the past had condemned what Origen wrote and had attempted to destroy the documents."
Right, so your knowledge of Origen is slightly constrained by the opinions of intervening generations. Knowledge of others fully outside the church are infinitely more constrained still.
"The point is that Firmilian didn't have Stephen's ecclesiology and didn't have yours, yet you consider Firmilian and Stephen to be part of the catholic church along with you. "
You haven't developed your thesis enough to know what you are talking about.
"By following the canon taught by an organization such as Roman Catholicism, you just shift the discussion from why you see fit to accept a particular canon to why you see fit to accept a particular organization."
Apparently you've done this anyway since the entire article was about quoting people who were in that organisation, and doing very little of quoting people in other organisations. Since you are totally reliant on that organisation _anyway_, all you've done is insert your own foibles into an already difficult historical process.
"The fact that somebody is "far better" at doing one thing than another doesn't change the fact that he does both."
Well we await your documentation listing every single heretical group and the exact canon that they held to.
" As J.N.D. Kelly notes, "the criterion which ultimately came to prevail was apostolicity."
The key words here are "CAME TO PREVAIL". But you have no way of showing that what "came to prevail" is in fact the correct criteria. Exactly as I said, it ultimately comes down to the tradition of the catholic church.
"In discussions among professing Christians, the authority of the apostles is often assumed without a case having first been made."
Firstly, assumptions of any kind about the rule of faith are insufficient when you claim sola scriptura. Secondly, authority is not equivalent to the word of God. John may have commanded authority in his dealings with the churches, but that's not equivalent to saying that everything he wrote down is scripture. That part of the faith comes from the tradition of the church. Thirdly, what makes something "apostolic" is not obvious, given that not all the NT was written by apostles.
"The authority of the church can't be appealed to here, since the issue under discussion would be whether the church has such authority."
If the church and the NT can't be appealed to, then I would appeal to the practice of the Jews. They had very little recourse in assessing whether a book was the word of God other than the general practice of the community. They couldn't prove who wrote a book, and it wouldn't do them much good if they could. About all they could do is look to the community, and in doing that they had to form an opinion of where the bona fide community was.
""And all those ways were consistent with there being one visible church in communion."
An Evangelical could agree with that definition. It's too vague to exclude those you want to exclude."
Not if you interpret those words the way the early church did and the way they were intended. Being in communion was a formal affair, not just having warm feelings about particular groups. That's why they were writing back and forwards because of the way they perceived their unity. As much as you might want to try and lay some seeds of doubt and confusion about what the early church believed about unity, one thing it was certainly not is protestant.
"The "usage in the catholic church" doesn't explain why the documents were used in the first place."
OK, and the same could be said for a number of catholic and orthodox practices that are documented from the 2nd century, but which protestants ignore. All I am pleading for is consistency.
"And the "prevailing belief in the church concerning authorship" came from somewhere".
Right, so do we assume it came from somewhere legitimate or not? Again, consistency.
"A fourth-century source wouldn't have access to as much evidence as a second-century source, but second-century sources would influence those who followed them in the fourth century."
Sounds like you trust Tradition!
"Even in later generations, we see discussions about how the writing style of one document attributed to John compares to the writing style of another, the possible use of an amanuensis in the writing of 2 Peter. We don't just see appeals to church usage."
Those sound like ways of justifying and apologising for church usage in the face of the difficulties of the internal evidence.
"As if Evangelicals deny that there's one church?"
Evangelicals don't define the one church the way the early church did. If the early church had defined the church the way evangelicals do, some groups that were in would be out, and some who were out would be in, and I have every expectation that a different tradition would have given rise to a different canon. Again, you are dependent on the history written by the winners, but won't accept the foundations that hold it up.
"Irenaeus, for example, points to the fact that even heretics largely accept the scriptures (Against Heresies, 3:11:7, 3:12:12). "
3:11:7 immediately goes onto say that the Ebionites ONLY use Matthew, and then alludes to groups that only use Luke, only Mark or John. 3:12:12 specifically mentions Marcion as totally rejecting a number of books.
So that seems to have backfired on you. And you must be aware of the many apocryphal gospels and epistles that existed back then.
"Papias lived earlier than Irenaeus, and he makes his appeal directly to individuals, not churches. "
Is this an attempt to set up some kind of contradiction? I don't see the contradiction. If you're a first or second generation it makes sense to appeal to individuals who personally knew the apostles. As time rolls on, it doesn't make sense to put excessive emphasis on individuals, but rather the overall consensus of the received tradition.
"We know that the resurrection was a foundational belief from 1 Corinthians 15 and other sources. "
And you ASSUME that Jude agrees. Yet I am denied the privilege.
" Why don't you document that Origen agreed with you about apostolic succession, then explain why it logically follows that we should assume that Justin Martyr and Jerome held the same view?"
Again, I'm not in the business of saying Jude didn't believe in the resurrection because he didn't mention it.
What I notice is that there is no contradiction between what Origen, Jerome and Justin say, but there is an obvious contradiction to what Protestants say.
" yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles, and remaining in the Churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition." - Origen, de Prinipillis.
"what appears to us, who observe things by a right way of understanding, to be the standard and discipline delivered to the apostles by Jesus Christ, and which they handed down in succession to their posterity, the teachers of the holy Church. " ibid
"we must point out the ways (of interpreting them) which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles. " ibid.
So Origen believes in a "succession from the apostles", and this preservation of the succession, and this succession is intimately linked with the concept of where to find the truth and where the true church is.
Jerome believes in the apostolic succession: "All [bishops] alike are successors of the apostles." Jerome, To Evangelus, Epistle 146:1.
"Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians" (Letters 14:8 [A.D. 396]).
Certainly its easy to show that Jerome differentiates between the catholics, and heretical groups. I don't know that I have a quote which specifically links the need for succession with catholicity, but I see no need to assume he believes different to Origen and Irenaeus and Cyprian who are more explicit in linking the succession of the church from the apostles with its legitimacy.
Justin Martyr talks about the Christian teachers, teach "as if with one mouth and one tongue, they have in succession, and in harmony with one another, taught us both concerning God, and the creation of the world, and the formation of man, and concerning the immortality of the human soul, and the judgment which is to be after this life, and concerning all things which it is needful for us to know, and thus in divers times and places have afforded us the divine instruction."
So for Justin, the distinguishing features of Christian teachers is their succession from those before, and their unity with one another. I can't think of a better definition of the core idea of apostolic succession.
I see no reason to see any difference in their beliefs unless I were to have a perverse desire to WANT to see a difference.
Why should you accept what they said? Well you gave us one reason: the "prevailing belief in the church concerning authorship" came from somewhere." so you argued.
But accept or don't accept it... but if you don't accept it, there is little reason to accept what they say about the canon. What they say about authorship amounts to little more than the argument of "the "prevailing belief in the church concerning authorship" came from somewhere.", that you can presume they passed on the tradition unhindered. But if you are going to accept such a presumption, be consistent in it.
“Do you agree with particular points of view because of their inherent credibility, or do you agree with all the opinions that agree with the tradition you happen to have inherited? It seems all too coincidental to me that every time a father disagrees with your canon they are not credible, but when they agree they are credible. The fathers who disagree with you are not more stupid or ignorant than you.”
ReplyDeleteIt seems all too coincidental to me that every time an early theologian (e.g. Marcion, Arius, Valentinus) disagrees with your Catholic theology they are not credible, but when they agree they are credible.
“You are at the mercy of the winners. You have to accept the perspective of the winners or else condemn yourself to no perspective at all.”
The winners would include Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox. But you only submit to one subset of winners.
“The perspective they built it on was that the books the church accepted, and the facts the church believed about the books they accepted were correct, essentially on the say-so of the church because it was the one church.”
The church of Rome didn’t formally define the canon until the Council of Trent. And during their conciliar debates, the Tridentine Fathers disagreed over the scope of the canon.
“Well we await your documentation listing every single heretical group and the exact canon that they held to.”
And we await your documentation for apostolic succession. Since apostolic succession is only as good as its weakest link, we await your documentation for every link in the chain.
We also await your documentation for the consensus patrum.
“That part of the faith comes from the tradition of the church.”
Which tradition of which church?
“Evangelicals don't define the one church the way the early church did.”
Vatican II doesn’t define tradition the way Vatican I did.
“As time rolls on, it doesn't make sense to put excessive emphasis on individuals, but rather the overall consensus of the received tradition.”
Consensus based on what?
“I can't think of a better definition of the core idea of apostolic succession.”
Even if you could succeed in documenting the “idea” of apostolic succession, that’s totally different than documenting the reality of apostolic succession. If true, apostolic succession is a historical process consisting of interlocking events. You need to document the validity of each ordination in the series. You need to document the validity of each papal election. And so on and so forth.
David,
ReplyDeleteLet’s go through a few of your many errors. You write:
"Well, what's the title of the article? It is ‘the significance of OTHER New Testament canons."
My citation of the Donatists was in the previous post, the one about the twenty-seven-book New Testament canon before Athanasius. You took my comment out of context, and you’re still misinterpreting it after having been corrected.
You write:
"Having spent a lot of time in the church, Tertullian is still a witness to the catholic church."
I was addressing your claim that I only cited sources within what you consider the catholic church. The fact that Tertullian “spent a lot of time in the church” doesn’t tell us whether he was in the church at the time when he wrote the document I cited. Your earlier claim that I only cited sources that you consider part of the church was wrong, and you keep trying to avoid admitting it.
You write:
"Whether Origen is or isn't a heretic, or was or wasn't considered such at various points in history, the point is that what you know about anything in history is at the mercy of later generations who preserved history."
If Origen was a heretic, then you were wrong to say that I only cited sources within what you consider the catholic church. The fact that Marcion was part of the mainstream church earlier in life doesn’t mean that it would be reasonable to claim that somebody who cites his later beliefs is citing a mainstream source.
We’ve addressed the concept that winners write history elsewhere. The post just linked is Steve’s, and I added a post of my own on the subject in the comments section.
You write:
"I don't know what you are referring to about me not accepting ancient Christian beliefs."
I cited examples of Hippolytus disagreeing with Callistus about the definition of the church and Firmilian disagreeing with Stephen. I repeatedly explained the significance of those examples.
I also gave you a link to a post linking other articles in which we document widespread patristic opposition to the doctrines of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
You write:
"Not if you interpret those words the way the early church did and the way they were intended. Being in communion was a formal affair, not just having warm feelings about particular groups. That's why they were writing back and forwards because of the way they perceived their unity. As much as you might want to try and lay some seeds of doubt and confusion about what the early church believed about unity, one thing it was certainly not is protestant."
Aside from the fact that you offer no documentation, you’ve already been given examples of the fathers themselves denying that they had unity with one another. Hippolytus refers to Callistus as an imposter and his followers as a false church. Firmilian wrote:
"they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles...But with respect to the refutation of custom which they [the Roman church] seem to oppose to the truth, who is so foolish as to prefer custom to truth, or when he sees the light, not to forsake the darkness?...And this indeed you Africans are able to say against Stephen [bishop of Rome], that when you knew the truth you forsook the error of custom. But we join custom to truth, and to the Romans' custom we oppose custom, but the custom of truth; holding from the beginning that which was delivered by Christ and the apostles....But indeed you [Stephen] are worse than all heretics....Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all...But as far as he [Stephen] is concerned, let us leave him...And yet Stephen is not ashamed to afford patronage to such in opposition to the Church, and for the sake of maintaining heretics to divide the brotherhood and in addition, to call Cyprian 'a false Christ and a false apostle, and a deceitful worker.' And he, conscious that all these characters are in himself, has been in advance of you, by falsely objecting to another those things which he himself ought deservedly to hear." (Cyprian's Letter 74:6, 74:19, 74:23-24, 74:26)
That's some unity.
I haven’t claimed that the early church is Protestant. What I’ve claimed is that the early church provides us with evidence for the twenty-seven-book canon, and I’ve claimed that the early church wasn’t what you say it was. You haven’t refuted either position.
I could go on, but these examples are sufficient to illustrate the unreasonable nature of your post. You’ve once again failed to document the large majority of your disputed historical claims, and some of the documentation you provide near the end of your post is only partial. I could find the passages on my own, but it would take a while. It’s your responsibility to provide documentation for your claims. Simply referring to the work of Origen you’re quoting, without any section within it specified, then quoting Justin Martyr without even citing a work, is ridiculous. You gave the wrong name for the work of Origen that you quoted, and you include a date with one quote while not including dates with others. Some of what you posted looks like it was lifted from another source that you don’t identify. I doubt that you know much about the passages you quoted. Your posts have a lot of problems, but providing better documentation is one of the easier ones to notice and resolve. If you want people to interact more fully with your posts, and you want to keep posting here, provide the documentation that you haven’t so far.
If you had read my material on apostolic succession that I linked earlier, you should know that none of what you’ve quoted refutes what I’ve argued. A description of apostolic succession and the handing down of tradition in the ancient church isn’t equivalent to a claim that all churches must have a succession throughout church history and will always faithfully hand down what they received. To repeat an example I cite in one of the other threads I linked earlier, which you apparently haven’t read, it would be unreasonable to take Irenaeus’ assessment of the churches of Ephesus and Smyrna in his day as references to the necessity of always consulting those churches and as references to the certainty that those churches will always faithfully hand down what they received from the apostles. As I document in that other thread, Irenaeus, like other fathers, adds qualifications to his comments on apostolic succession. He tells Christians to separate from bishops and other church leaders who fail to meet apostolic doctrinal and moral standards. The fact that a church like Smyrna was doctrinally and morally sound in the second century doesn’t suggest that it will be in all later generations. You aren’t even attempting to interact with the nature of Irenaeus’ argument, as explained by Everett Ferguson. You tell us that “I don't know that I have a quote which specifically links the need for succession with catholicity”, but, if you had read my material on apostolic succession and had given these issues more thought, you would realize that you need to demonstrate that sort of link. I don’t deny that men like Irenaeus and Jerome believed in apostolic succession. I don’t deny that such a succession was an evidential advantage over groups like the Gnostics. But much of what these sources said about apostolic succession depended on the context of their day, a context significantly different from ours, and they added qualifications that you aren’t addressing.
If David is right about Tradition, then we should all have to become Rabbinic Jews since they are the "successors" of the Levites and the prophets who formed the OT canon.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the Christian interpretation of the OT cannot be found anywhere in Jewish Tradition (i.e. the Targums and the later Talmud and Mishnah, etc.), and therefore, the Christian interpretation must be false.
David's standards prove too much.
"If Origen was a heretic, then you were wrong to say that I only cited sources within what you consider the catholic church. "
ReplyDeleteBeing a heretic and being in the catholic church are not mutually exclusive categories.
"I cited examples of Hippolytus disagreeing with Callistus about the definition of the church and Firmilian disagreeing with Stephen. "
I read the Hippolytus quote and I simply don't see whatever it is you see (but you won't expand upon apparently, since you deign to assume everyone automatically sees things your way). The same goes for Firmilian which as I pointed out, has a very catholic and non-protestant notion of the church and unity.
"I also gave you a link to a post linking other articles in which we document widespread patristic opposition to the doctrines of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy."
Errr...
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/eucharist-in-ignatius-and-other-fathers.html
All I see here is an argument that Ignatius can be interpreted in a non-catholic manner. That's a far cry from "patristic opposition".
http://www.triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/03/history-of-infant-baptism.html
Here you argue it is "plausible" that infant baptism goes back to apostolic times. A far cry from "patristic opposition".
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/02/alleged-catholicity-of-infant-baptism.html
This says that it cannot be excluded that infant baptism goes to apostolic times.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/did-apostles-require-that-all-churches.html
This does not mention any patristic who is "opposed" to the episcopate.
In any case, this all misses the point. We can quote all day the fathers who are "opposed" to the protestant canon. Yet protestants for some reason don't worry much about that, always conveniently siding with later church decisions than with fathers who disagree with their canon. How convenient.
"Hippolytus refers to Callistus as an imposter and his followers as a false church. "
There's got to actually be one holy catholic church before you have people like Hippolytus accusing someone of having apostatised from it. How this helps you I don't know, but obviously it means something to you, what I don't know.
"What I’ve claimed is that the early church provides us with evidence for the twenty-seven-book canon"
One of the early churches does. For some reason you're almost exclusively citing the catholic church.
"I’ve claimed that the early church wasn’t what you say it was."
Quote me the exact claim I made which you claim to have shown it was not. All I've said is that you have to have a non-protestant ecclesiology to have a basis for quoting the catholic fathers as an argument, because their canonical basis assumed a catholic unity of the church.
"Simply referring to the work of Origen you’re quoting, without any section within it specified, then quoting Justin Martyr without even citing a work, is ridiculous."
Origen de Prinipillis. Preface.2
ibid, IV.9
ibid, from the Greek.
Justin's Hortatory to the Greeks, VIII
"Some of what you posted looks like it was lifted from another source that you don’t identify."
Well it wasn't, it came directly from the ante-nicean fathers edition. It's what most people quote from, and if you had an electronic edition you could find it very easily.
"A description of apostolic succession and the handing down of tradition in the ancient church isn’t equivalent to a claim that all churches must have a succession throughout church history and will always faithfully hand down what they received. "
Apostolic succession is not a claim that "all churches.... will always faithfully hand down what they received".
"All church history" is a bit of a debate tactic. The church back then believed at that time that succession was a necessity. That they didn't mention anything about "all church history" as if they they had to comment on every doctrine not only applies now, but applies next week, next year, next century and next millenium is an unreasonable desire. You've shown nothing at all so far to show that the early church was not united in their belief in the need for succession.
"t would be unreasonable to take Irenaeus’ assessment of the churches of Ephesus and Smyrna in his day as references to the necessity of always consulting those churches and as references to the certainty that those churches will always faithfully hand down what they received from the apostles."
It may be unreasonable to assume Irenaeus could foresee the specific status of Ephesus and Smyrna into the far future, but it's certainly not unreasonable to assume that he saw a continuing need for succession as a means of discerning who has the real truth. And in any case, the issue is not whether you can insert some loophole into one church father, the issue is that the fathers were united in their testimony of the need for succession. What you think Irenaeus did or did not foresee doesn't alter the fact of the existence of this fundamental foundation to patristic thinking.
"Irenaeus, like other fathers, adds qualifications to his comments on apostolic succession. He tells Christians to separate from bishops and other church leaders who fail to meet apostolic doctrinal and moral standards."
Naturally. Nothing shocking here.
"You aren’t even attempting to interact with the nature of Irenaeus’ argument, as explained by Everett Ferguson."
I'm perfectly content with what Ferguson said, and Irenaeus, as summarised by Ferguson, has a catholic and not protestant ecclesiology.
"You tell us that “I don't know that I have a quote which specifically links the need for succession with catholicity”, but, if you had read my material on apostolic succession and had given these issues more thought, you would realize that you need to demonstrate that sort of link."
What I said is I don't have such a quote FOR JEROME. Not every father's works draws every link in the chain. Origen draws that link, but in Jerome it is implied rather than explicit. Your approach seems to be that if you can find a gap in one father, you can fill that gap with protestantism. If you fill every gap in the writings of every father you can make them as protestant as you wish. My approach is that the occasional gaps in a particular father are better filled by the teachings of their contemporaries.
"But much of what these sources said about apostolic succession depended on the context of their day, a context significantly different from ours, and they added qualifications that you aren’t addressing."
I don't need to address their qualifications because I'm perfectly happy with them. As for their context and ours, it's a total assumption on your part that there is something about their context that they would have seen as different to ours. Right, wrong or indifferent you're dependent on their presuppositions as the foundation of your canon. You can't quote them on the canon without tacitly accepting their presuppositions.
"It seems all too coincidental to me that every time an early theologian (e.g. Marcion, Arius, Valentinus) disagrees with your Catholic theology they are not credible, but when they agree they are credible. "
ReplyDeleteI don't claim coincidence. You do, or presumably you do.
"The winners would include Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox. But you only submit to one subset of winners."
The winners in the context of what I said are those who preserved history. That you could submit to the history of the early church as preserved by all three groups is not of necessity impossible.
"And we await your documentation for apostolic succession. Since apostolic succession is only as good as its weakest link, we await your documentation for every link in the chain."
It's not clear what documentation you think is required or that you might be unaware of.
"We also await your documentation for the consensus patrum."
About apostolic succession? The fathers have been quoted. None have been quoted contrary to apostolic succession. Thus we have a consensus patrum. That is what a consensus patrum is.
"Which tradition of which church?"
Apparently the one that is being quote here, and not all the gnostic and heretical ones that are not being quoted.
"Consensus based on what?"
Which part of "the received tradition" is confusing to you?
"Even if you could succeed in documenting the “idea” of apostolic succession, that’s totally different than documenting the reality of apostolic succession."
Which brings us back to my original comment, that if you don't accept the premise, most of the quoting of the fathers in support of the canon is in vain.
"If true, apostolic succession is a historical process consisting of interlocking events. You need to document the validity of each ordination in the series."
No I don't, because the fathers don't enunciate such a requirement. You are interposing your distorted protestant notions of succession into the mix, whereas I am content with the patristic version. Succession is primarily a function of the church, not some kind of mechanistic notion of ordination.
"If David is right about Tradition, then we should all have to become Rabbinic Jews since they are the "successors" of the Levites and the prophets who formed the OT canon."
ReplyDeleteNo they aren't. No Christian could argue such a position.
"Also, the Christian interpretation of the OT cannot be found anywhere in Jewish Tradition (i.e. the Targums and the later Talmud and Mishnah, etc.), and therefore, the Christian interpretation must be false."
Therefore, those who wrote the Talmud are not the successors.
DAVID SAID:
ReplyDelete“I don't claim coincidence. You do, or presumably you do.”
The logic cuts both ways. If selective agreement is coincidental for Engwer, then it’s coincidental for you. Try again.
“The winners in the context of what I said are those who preserved history. That you could submit to the history of the early church as preserved by all three groups is not of necessity impossible.”
That evades the question of which competing group (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox) faithfully represents ancient tradition. Try again.
“It's not clear what documentation you think is required or that you might be unaware of.”
Document the validity of every episcopal ordination. Document the validity of every papal election.
“About apostolic succession? The fathers have been quoted. None have been quoted contrary to apostolic succession. Thus we have a consensus patrum. That is what a consensus patrum is.”
Where have you quoted everything every church father ever said on apostolic succession?
“Apparently the one that is being quote here, and not all the gnostic and heretical ones that are not being quoted.”
The question is not what Jason is quoting. The question is what you are quoting. How do you verify that your church is the true church?
“Which part of ‘the received tradition’ is confusing to you?”
Which part of “begging the question” is confusing to you?
“Which brings us back to my original comment, that if you don't accept the premise, most of the quoting of the fathers in support of the canon is in vain.”
Justin Martyr doesn’t have to be an apostolic successor to be a historic witness to the canon. Indeed, since Justin was not a bishop, he was never in the alleged succession.
“No I don't, because the fathers don't enunciate such a requirement. You are interposing your distorted protestant notions of succession into the mix, whereas I am content with the patristic version. Succession is primarily a function of the church, not some kind of mechanistic notion of ordination.”
You talk as though you just fell off the turnip truck. For starters, read Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae to see the internal connection between valid ordination and apostolic succession–as well as the need to document such connections on a case-by-case basis.
i) It’s viciously circular invoke the church to validate apostolic succession, for, on your view, it’s apostolic succession that validates the church. Therefore, you need evidence which is independent of the church to validate apostolic succession. Then, and only then, can you use apostolic succession to validate or invalidate an ecclesiastical claimant. It’s not as if Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox all agree in the correct lines of apostolic succession.
ii) Moreover, it doesn’t matter what the church fathers did or did not enunciate. Apostolic succession asserts a historical phenomenon. That’s a historical truth-claim which requires historical evidence to validate the claim. Absent suitable evidence, you’re in no position to know if the claim is true or false.
And, a that risk of stating the obvious, a 5C church father is in no position for vouch for whether Nicholas IV was the true successor to Honorius IV, who was the true successor to Martin IV, who was the true successor to Nicholas III, and so on and so forth, up and down the line.
David said:
ReplyDelete"No they aren't. No Christian could argue such a position."
Me:
Exactly. That's because modern Rabbinic Jews argue that very position. The point is that if you were to take your own standards to their logical conclusion, it would not only defeat Protestant theology, it would also defeat Christianity as a whole.
Your shooting through the deck of your own ship in order to hit the submarine.
David said:
"Therefore, those who wrote the Talmud are not the successors."
Me:
But that begs the question against the Rabbinist a priori.
The modern Rabbis trace the lineage of their tradition back from themselves to the ancient Rabbis to Ezra and Nehemiah to the prophets and the Levites and to Kings Solomon and David and even to Moses himself.
There is a direct correlation between their claims of Tradition, succession, and standards of Biblical interpretation and those of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
There's only one difference:
They trace their tradition back further than you can trace yours.
Your theology is a 'historic novelty' to them, and thus, it must be false by your own standards.
In reality, Christianity as a whole is a religion of complete novelty in regard to historical theology.
Those Rabbis throughout the ages misinterpreted the OT, and Jesus came along hundreds of years after them and gave a Biblical interpretation which was a historic novelty.
...
Kind of sounds like Martin Luther and the book of Romans. :)
David wrote:
ReplyDelete"Being a heretic and being in the catholic church are not mutually exclusive categories."
You've made a lot of misleading and inconsistent claims in these discussions, and your comment above is another example. Here's what you said earlier, here and elsewhere, about Tertullian, Origen, the Montanists, the Donatists, and the nature of the church:
"Origen and Tertullian were in the catholic church, which is the point. They are a witness to that tradition, and not any of the many other 'Christian' groups that existed at the time....He [Tertullian] was at one time in the church, and then he left the church....One thing that the catholic church shared with the Jewish nation was this understanding of community and the one people of God as a special visible chosen people with authority to make binding observations about the nature of the faith. This was something that distinguished the catholic church from the other sects, who may well have had their own criteria, but it wasn't the criteria of continuity, catholicity and community. This was the great strength that allowed the catholic church to emerge above the splintered sects that faded into obscurity....I see the Donatists as different to Tertullian is that the Donatists came from a catholic tradition with catholic congregations but then took a different approach to a particular practical problem of the persecutions. However Montanism came from the new teachings of Montanus who went around preaching his new teachings and forming new congregations of followers. That makes the Donatists an internal problem and Montanism an external problem....[Jason Engwer's] entire article was about quoting people who were in that organisation, and doing very little of quoting people in other organisations....Being in communion was a formal affair"
You say that Tertullian was in the church. Then you say he left the church. First you say that I only cited sources within the church. Then you say that I cited people outside of the church, but only to a "very little" extent. You say at times that "being in communion was a formal affair", and you criticize "splintered sects", yet you tell us that the Donatists were part of the catholic church. But the Donatists set up rival churches and rival bishops and held their own councils. They also disagreed with the mainstream Christianity of their day on some theological matters, such as ecclesiology. John McGuckin writes:
"By the latter half of the fourth century Donatism probably represented the majority of churches in north Africa, but it was always regarded as a very 'local' schism between the 'Catholics' and the Donatists....Between 399 and 415, he [Augustine] wrote a series of treatises against the Donatists, which inestimably advanced the looser ecclesiologies that had hitherto been operating. Augustine isolated as the chief points of his argument first that the initial charge against Caecilian [a bishop involved in the controversy] had been wrong; second, that the Donatist movement was a local sect, obviously not in communion with the rest of the Christian world, and thus could not lay claim to catholicity (universality), which was a fundamental mark of the true Church; and third, that they had lapsed into heresy by insisting on the rebaptism of converts from the Catholic church (a practice instituted by Donatus, who rebaptized clergy who had lapsed in the Great Persecution) knowing that baptism is unrepeatable. In 405 Augustine and Aurelius of Carthage succeeded in persuading the emperor Honorius to ban the Donatists as heretics, and strong pressure began to be inflicted on them. They were forced to attend a conference at Carthage in 411 (286 Catholic hierarchs and 284 Donatist), after which the imperial tribune issued a decree condemning them as a separate hierarchy....The Donatists generally regarded the church as the society of the pure elite. If serious sin was manifested it denoted a lapse from membership of the church. Clergy who lapsed rendered all their sacraments void." (The Westminster Handbook To Patristic Theology [Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004], p. 107)
Notice the many contradictions of what David has argued.
David distinguishes between "sects" and the catholic church. Augustine describes the Donatists as a sect, which implies that they wouldn't meet David's standard. Yet, David includes them as part of the catholic church.
David refers to "communion" and "catholicity" as identifying marks of the catholic church. McGuckin refers to the Donatists' lack of communion with mainstream Christianity and Augustine's denial that they had catholicity.
David keeps pointing to organizational unity as a defining mark of the church, even saying that Origen could be a heretic, yet still be part of the catholic church if he was part of the organization. Yet, the Donatists were regarded as schismatics in the ancient church, and they had their own churches, bishops, and councils that rivaled those of mainstream Christianity. Why does he allow the Donatists to have such organizational disunity, yet still be considered part of the catholic church?
David criticizes the Montanists for "new teachings", but tells us that Origen can be a heretic and remain in the catholic church. If what places the Montanists outside of the church is their organizational disunity, not their teachings, then why did David mention their teachings when discussing why they shouldn't be considered part of the catholic church? Why did he distinguish between the Donatists and Montanists on the (false) basis that the Donatists had "practical" differences with mainstream Christianity rather than "new teachings"? The Donatists had doctrinal disagreements with mainstream Christianity as well, such as their ecclesiology. If "new teachings" exclude the Montanists, then why wouldn't Origen's heresies and the false ecclesiology of the Donatists, for example, exclude them?
He goes on:
"I read the Hippolytus quote and I simply don't see whatever it is you see (but you won't expand upon apparently, since you deign to assume everyone automatically sees things your way). The same goes for Firmilian which as I pointed out, has a very catholic and non-protestant notion of the church and unity."
There are two problems with that response. First, I have explained what's significant about my citations of Hippolytus and Firmilian, repeatedly. I've emphasized Hippolytus' use of terms like "imposter" and "call themselves a Catholic Church". And I explained the significance of Firmilian's comments, though no explanation should have been needed. He refers to the Roman church as those who "do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles". He says that "to the Romans' custom we oppose custom", meaning that his theology opposes the theology of the Romans. He refers to the Roman bishop Stephen as "worse than all heretics". He tells Stephen that "you cut yourself off from so many flocks". He refers to Stephen as "really the schismatic" and "an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity". He tells him "you have excommunicated yourself alone from all". He goes on to say that Stephen can be described as "'a false Christ and a false apostle, and a deceitful worker".
You need somebody to explain to you why such comments from Firmilian are significant? You've claimed that these men were all part of one catholic church defined by organizational unity and a lack of "new teachings". You've suggested that I can't cite the testimony of such men as evidence for my canon of scripture, since I disagree with their ecclesiology. Yet, you disagree with the ecclesiology of men like Hippolytus and Firmilian, but cite such men for your own purposes and consider them members of your catholic church. Firmilian criticizes Stephen and the Roman church for new teachings, and he describes Stephen as somebody who is a schismatic, excommunicated, cut off from ecclesiastical unity, etc. That's a significantly different ecclesiology than Stephen's. You could agree with one of them, but not both.
You write:
"All I see here is an argument that Ignatius can be interpreted in a non-catholic manner."
Here we have another instance in which you claim to not understand my point, even though the point is obvious. In the thread you're referring to, I do more than make "an argument that Ignatius can be interpreted in a non-catholic manner". I discuss some of the relevant Biblical data, cite Philip Schaff's material on the patristic data, and discuss some of the relevant material in Augustine.
And since my post was addressing whether Ignatius advocated transubstantiation, are you equating transubstantiation with the "catholic" view of the eucharist? If so, that's another indication of your ignorance of historical theology. If not, then it's another example of your carelessness in how you communicate. Which is it? Were you being ignorant or careless?
You write:
"Here you argue it is 'plausible' that infant baptism goes back to apostolic times. A far cry from 'patristic opposition'....This says that it cannot be excluded that infant baptism goes to apostolic times."
Historical conclusions are about probability, not what "cannot be excluded". In the two articles you're referring to, I argued that it's probable that infant baptism isn't apostolic. To respond by saying that I allow for the possibility that it's apostolic is evasive. And I cited examples of opposition to infant baptism after the time of the apostles. You aren't offering much of an interaction with what I argued.
You write:
"This does not mention any patristic who is 'opposed' to the episcopate."
The article you're referring to is about changes in how the episcopate was viewed and whether the apostles required a monarchical episcopate. It's not about "opposition to the episcopate". You keep misrepresenting what these articles I've written are about, in addition to failing to interact much with what I said in those articles.
I linked you to a lot of other articles as well, which document widespread patristic opposition to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox beliefs on many issues. You've ignored the large majority of that material, and your responses to the rest are insufficient.
You write:
"In any case, this all misses the point. We can quote all day the fathers who are 'opposed' to the protestant canon."
You're the one who's missing the point. Protestants don't make claims about church history comparable to yours or comparable to those of Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox in general. We make different claims, so patristic disagreements with our beliefs have different implications for us than patristic disagreements with your beliefs have for you.
And though some patristic sources opposed my New Testament canon, many agreed with it. Some of the beliefs of Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox seem to have been widely contradicted for centuries, with few Christians or none advocating them. (See here.) My New Testament canon, on the other hand, though not advocated in the earliest generations, is advocated from the third century onward, and is plausible in light of the data that comes before that advocacy. There isn't the sort of prior widespread opposition and inconsistency with apostolic teaching that we see with something like prayers to the dead or the sinlessness of Mary.
A canon is different than a historical claim that Mary was bodily assumed or a belief that we can pray to the deceased, for example. We would expect it to take significant time to sort through documents written over a few decades by several authors in order to arrive at a canon. There is no comparable complexity involved with something like whether Mary was bodily assumed or whether we can pray to the dead. Expecting a canon to be discerned and popularized as easily as something like praying to the dead doesn't make sense. It would be like expecting post-Chalcedonian Trinitarianism to be discerned and popularized as easily as monotheism.
Another difference is that I can make a historical case for my canon, which I'm in the process of doing, and that can't be said for something like prayers to the dead, the sinlessness of Mary, the Assumption of Mary, or Purgatory. With some of these doctrines, like the sinlessness of Mary and Purgatory, they don't even meet the initial requirement of being consistent with apostolic teaching. If you want us to believe that my New Testament canon is in the same category as such beliefs, you can explain why and interact with my articles on those subjects, which I've linked above.
You write:
"Yet protestants for some reason don't worry much about that, always conveniently siding with later church decisions than with fathers who disagree with their canon. How convenient."
You keep suggesting that it's suspiciously "convenient" for Protestants to cite sources they agree with to support their conclusions. You don't explain why it's allegedly suspicious. Do you "side with" historical sources that contradict your beliefs? No, you don't. Nobody does that.
What you seem to have in mind, though you communicate it poorly, is the notion that Protestants aren't concerned with the evidence, but instead just assume that any historical source that agrees with their beliefs is correct. But you've given us no reason to agree with that assessment. How do you supposedly know that Protestants aren't concerned with evidence? Even if a Protestant initially believes in the twenty-seven-book canon for insufficient reasons, in terms of objective argumentation, he could have sufficient reasons later in life. How would you know that an individual, like me, is unconcerned with the evidence? You don't know that.
You write:
"All I've said is that you have to have a non-protestant ecclesiology to have a basis for quoting the catholic fathers as an argument, because their canonical basis assumed a catholic unity of the church."
You've said that, but you haven't demonstrated it. You're long on assertion and short on argumentation.
Again, I cite the church fathers as one line of evidence among others. The fathers themselves appealed to multiple lines of evidence when arguing for the canonicity of a book. The credibility of their testimony on such issues doesn't depend on the correctness of the aspects of their ecclesiology that you're singling out. You're misrepresenting their ecclesiology. They often contradict your ecclesiology, including on matters of high significance, yet you accept their claims on other issues. Etc. I've been over these issues with you before. But you keep repeating insufficient, vague assertions, like the one above.
You write:
"Origen de Prinipillis. Preface.2 ibid, IV.9 ibid, from the Greek. Justin's Hortatory to the Greeks, VIII"
You still have the wrong name for Origen's work, but I know what you're referring to. The work you're attributing to Justin Martyr wasn't written by him (Sara Parvis and Paul Foster, edd., Justin Martyr And His Worlds [Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2007], p. xv).
Some think that the work you're attributing to Justin might have been a Jewish work originally. That would explain why the section you've cited begins by referring to how the teachers in question predate the teachers of the Greeks. That can't be said of apostolic successors. The next section (Hortatory Address To The Greeks, 9), just after what you quoted, cites the example of Moses. Is Moses part of the apostolic succession you're advocating? No, he isn't. The work you've cited isn't Justin's, and even if Justin had written it, it doesn't say what you've suggested.
You've made many false and misleading claims about church history. You've confused Firmilian with Cyprian. You've quoted patristic sources without documentation or with the wrong documentation. You've attributed a work to Justin Martyr that he didn't write. Given that your posts consist so much of historical claims that you don't support, why should anybody trust what you're telling us about church history?
You write:
"It's what most people quote from, and if you had an electronic edition you could find it very easily."
I have a version on CD, and I could search online editions with the Ctrl F feature on my keyboard. But I shouldn't have to do that. You should be providing documentation of the works you're quoting.
You write:
"Apostolic succession is not a claim that 'all churches.... will always faithfully hand down what they received'."
I know. But some of your quotes include comments on the reliability of what's taught by the successors to the apostles.
You write:
"The church back then believed at that time that succession was a necessity. That they didn't mention anything about 'all church history' as if they they had to comment on every doctrine not only applies now, but applies next week, next year, next century and next millenium is an unreasonable desire."
You keep making assertions that go beyond the evidence you've offered. Whether the patristic sources believed that "succession was a necessity" depends on what sort of succession is in view. Did they believe that apostolic teaching on particular issues had been handed down faithfully since the time of the apostles? Yes, many of them said that. Did they therefore believe that there were teachers in each generation that handed down such doctrines? Yes. But not all teachers are bishops, as illustrated by your misuse of a passage that includes pre-Christian Jewish teachers in a work you've falsely attributed to Justin Martyr. The fact that you can cite a passage about pre-Christian teachers, and equate it with a later concept involving Christian bishops, tells us something about the overly vague nature of your argument. And the fact that a man like Irenaeus expects people to agree with what bishops taught in his day, because those teachings had been handed down from the apostles, doesn't imply that only churches with bishops who have such a succession are valid or that future bishops will be similarly faithful to apostolic teaching.
When Irenaeus discusses the apostolic faith agreed upon by the churches, he mentions doctrines such as monotheism, the virgin birth, and the resurrection (Against Heresies, 1:10:1). I believe that such teachings have been handed down in unbroken succession since the time of the apostles. I believe that such an unbroken succession is evidence against groups that postdate the apostles, like the Gnostics and Mormons. I can claim to agree with the "overall thrust" of what Irenaeus said, despite any disagreements I have with some details, just as you've said the same regarding your disagreements with patristic ecclesiology.
You write:
"It may be unreasonable to assume Irenaeus could foresee the specific status of Ephesus and Smyrna into the far future, but it's certainly not unreasonable to assume that he saw a continuing need for succession as a means of discerning who has the real truth. And in any case, the issue is not whether you can insert some loophole into one church father, the issue is that the fathers were united in their testimony of the need for succession. What you think Irenaeus did or did not foresee doesn't alter the fact of the existence of this fundamental foundation to patristic thinking."
I'm not "inserting some loophole". I've documented that Irenaeus and other patristic sources said that bishops must meet moral and doctrinal requirements. Irenaeus' comments on the bishops of his day depended on the assumption that the bishops met those requirements. That's not something I'm reading into the text. Irenaeus says it. Similarly, the temporary nature of his assessment of churches like Ephesus and Smyrna isn't something I'm reading into the text. That's why you agree with me in not applying his comments about such churches to later generations. Are you guilty of "inserting some loophole"? Irenaeus' argument is one that, by its nature, loses force with the passing of time. Modern churches aren't as close to the time of the apostles as the churches of Irenaeus' day. Modern churches, even those claiming an apostolic succession, often have bishops who don't meet the moral and doctrinal requirements Irenaeus mentions.
Where does Irenaeus say that future generations will have a "need for succession as a means of discerning who has the real truth"? The fact that a succession helped distinguish orthodoxy from the errors of groups like the Gnostics in Irenaeus' day doesn't imply that a succession is necessary to do so, much less that it will be necessary a hundred or a thousand years later. You keep reading assumptions into these sources that they neither stated nor implied.
"I'm perfectly content with what Ferguson said, and Irenaeus, as summarised by Ferguson, has a catholic and not protestant ecclesiology."
That's an assertion, not an argument.
Explain how Irenaeus' ecclesiology, as summarized by Ferguson, disallows Protestant ecclesiology. Ferguson refers to Irenaeus' appeal, against the Gnostics, to a succession of teaching since the time of the apostles. Ferguson also refers to Irenaeus' appeal to the agreement of the churches. I don't deny that a succession of teaching from the apostles is evidence against Gnosticism. And I don't deny that there was widespread agreement among the churches of Irenaeus' day on the issues Irenaeus cited (monotheism, the virgin birth, etc.). But churches claiming apostolic succession today also teach a lot of other things (the papacy, prayers to the dead, the assumption of Mary, etc.), and they disagree among themselves on some of those issues. Protestants aren't Gnostics. They accept the doctrines Irenaeus describes as held by all the churches. My citation of Ferguson doesn't say anything about a need for a succession that Protestants don't have, which is what you've advocated.
As Ferguson explains, Irenaeus appeals to the historical continuity and widespread agreement among the churches about doctrines like monotheism and the resurrection. I agree with Irenaeus about that. But there is no such historical continuity and widespread agreement for the papacy, the assumption of Mary, Purgatory, prayers to the dead, etc. Most of the churches today claiming apostolic succession have failed to meet apostolic moral and doctrinal standards. Even if I could find, say, a local Anglican church that claims apostolic succession and meets apostolic standards, why can't I join some other church that meets apostolic standards, one that doesn't claim an apostolic succession? Ferguson notes that "[In Tertullian] Churches were apostolic that agreed in the same faith, even if not founded by apostles." (Encyclopedia Of Early Christianity [New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999], p. 95) Why must I attend the local Anglican church, if some local church not claiming a succession of bishops has the apostolic faith?
In the Ferguson quote you claim to agree with, he says that Irenaeus applies succession to presbyters, not just bishops. Do you hold the same view?
Ferguson goes on:
"A holy life and sound teaching were also required of true leaders (4.26.5). The succession pertained to faith and life rather than to the transmission of special gifts. The 'gift of truth' (charisma veritatis) received with the office of teaching (4.26.2) was not a gift guaranteeing that what was taught would be true, but was the truth itself as a gift. Each holder of the teaching chair in the church received the apostolic doctrine as a deposit to be faithfully transmitted to the church. Apostolic succession as formulated by Irenaeus was from one holder of the teaching chair in a church to the next and not from ordainer to ordained, as it became....[In Tertullian] Churches were apostolic that agreed in the same faith, even if not founded by apostles. Apostolic succession arose in a polemical situation as an effective argument for the truth of Catholic tradition against Gnostic teachings. As so often happens to successful arguments, it came to be regarded as an article of faith, not just a defense of the truth but a part of truth itself. Hippolytus is apparently the first for whom the bishops were not simply in the succession from the apostles but were themselves successors of the apostles (Haer., praef.). When Eusebius of Caesarea used the lists of bishops as the framework for his Church History, he did not count the apostles in the episcopal lists. Cyprian, however, made an identification of the episcopate and the apostolate (Ep. 64.3; 66.4; cf. Sent. epp. 79 and Socrates, H.E. 6.8)....The sacramental understanding of ordination that grew up in the fourth and fifth centuries shifted the emphasis to a succession from ordainer to ordained, but the earlier historical type of succession was preserved in the lists of local bishops....Election by the people was one of the methods of appointment known to Origen (Hom. 13 in Num. 4)....The will of the populace could prevail over clerical opposition (Sulpicius Severus, V. Mart. 9)." (Encyclopedia Of Early Christianity [New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999], pp. 94-95, 366-367)
Do you agree that such changes occurred? If so, which views were the correct ones?
You write:
"Origen draws that link, but in Jerome it is implied rather than explicit."
Again, you need to demonstrate that claim rather than just asserting it. In what sense do such sources allegedly refer to the necessity of a succession? How is such a need supposedly inconsistent with Protestantism? So much depends on how succession is being defined and the context in which it's said to be needed. You keep assuming that your concept of apostolic succession is in view when the sources in question don't say so in any of the quotes you provide. You've even quoted a passage about a succession of teachers that includes men like Moses. How is that "apostolic succession"? Moses lived before the apostles. And what Protestant denies that there have been teachers, including men like Moses, who have handed down teachings like monotheism through the centuries? A Protestant can affirm that sort of succession.
While we're on the subject of Gnosticism, it's worth pointing out that Catholicism did absorb a degree of Gnosticism into its Mariology. According to Catholic doctrine, Mary was virgo intacta even after she gave birth to Jesus. That has its basis in Gnostic theology. Hence, Catholicism elevated a Gnostic heresy to dogmatic status.
ReplyDeleteDavid wrote:
ReplyDelete"Succession is primarily a function of the church, not some kind of mechanistic notion of ordination."
You ought to tell us what church you belong to. Give us a name, such as Anglican, Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox.
Then give us more details about how succession allegedly occurs. If succession is about "the church, not some kind of mechanistic notion of ordination", then why isn't it sufficient for Protestants to believe that there's one church that's existed since the time of the apostles? Most Protestants believe that. And they believe that the one church has been manifested in some physical ways. A Protestant could believe that there's been a visible church since the time of the apostles, though it manifests itself in different locations, different denominations, etc. under different circumstances, without needing a line of bishops since the time of the apostles in each of those locations. Men like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the Anglican reformers came out of Roman Catholicism. Why can't they be considered successors of the church that existed within Roman Catholicism prior to that time, the church consisting of those Christians who held the essential doctrines Irenaeus refers to, for example (monotheism, the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc.)?
After all, you've said that you only need to agree with the "overall thrust" of patristic ecclesiology. Why isn't it enough for a Protestant to have a concept of apostolic succession that's vaguely similar to the patristic concepts, yet differs in some details? How do you know that your disagreements with the details of patristic ecclesiology are acceptable, whereas the Protestant disagreements aren't?
Tell us more specifically what your standards are and how Protestants supposedly fail to meet those standards. Are you criticizing all Protestants or just some?
"If selective agreement is coincidental for Engwer, then it’s coincidental for you. Try again."
ReplyDeleteHow can it be coincidental for me when I'm consciously following the result of the canonical process within the Church? It's coincidental for you because you don't acknowledge the authority of the Church, even though you follow the decisions anyway.
"That evades the question of which competing group..."
It's not the topic at hand. Were it to be the topic, then I might say something.
"Document the validity of every episcopal ordination."
That doesn't need to be documented. None of the fathers needed such a thing to recognise a succession. I'm not going to fabricate an un-patristic version of succession to satisfy your peculiar requirements.
"Where have you quoted everything every church father ever said on apostolic succession?"
Here: http://ccel.org :-)
"How do you verify that your church is the true church?"
That's not the current topic. The current topic is the necessity of one component which is succession, without which you cannot meaningfully quote the opinion of the early church.
"Justin Martyr doesn’t have to be an apostolic successor to be a historic witness to the canon. Indeed, since Justin was not a bishop, he was never in the alleged succession."
He doesn't have to be, so long as he is a member of the church with succession. Succession of the bishops is really only the formality that underscores the succession of the churches.
"It’s viciously circular invoke the church to validate apostolic succession, for, on your view, it’s apostolic succession that validates the church."
Didn't this exchange come out of Triablogue invoking the church fathers as a validation of the canon of scripture? Yet you would see scripture as validating the church.
The succession is the passing on of the apostolic deposit of faith. You recognise it well enough when it was a scribe sitting with his quill and parchment. I recognise something more expansive than that. Neither one is inherently more circular.
"The point is that if you were to take your own standards to their logical conclusion, it would not only defeat Protestant theology, it would also defeat Christianity as a whole."
ReplyDeleteYou haven't explained why it is a logical conclusion that rabbanic Jews have some better claim than the Church to be the people of God.
If you could come up with a reason, you would be
"shooting through the deck of your own ship in order to hit the submarine."
"There is a direct correlation between their claims of Tradition, succession, and standards of Biblical interpretation and those of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy."
So you admit that the Church inherits Semitic thinking about succession. This does not bode well for the legitimacy of the world view born out of 16th century Germany and Switzerland.
It's an inherent part of Christianity that it abandons the idea of the Jews being the sole people of God. You do not escape the problems of this break with the old religion. The Law says to do X, but the NT says not to do X.....
"They trace their tradition back further than you can trace yours."
... but they trace their scriptures back further than you trace yours. Sola scriptura doesn't help you deal with that.
"Jesus came along hundreds of years after them and gave a Biblical interpretation which was a historic novelty."
Let's see the documentation for that claim before we discuss it further.
"You say that Tertullian was in the church. Then you say he left the church."
ReplyDeleteYes that's a fact. Do you dispute it?
"First you say that I only cited sources within the church. Then you say that I cited people outside of the church, but only to a "very little" extent."
Yes, do you deny it?
"You say at times that "being in communion was a formal affair", and you criticize "splintered sects", yet you tell us that the Donatists were part of the catholic church. But the Donatists set up rival churches and rival bishops and held their own councils."
No, I said that the Donatists "came out of" the catholic church. Most of your response is misdirected through failure to carefully read this point. They were a group that came from schism rather than a group set up from scratch. There is a difference between schisms and plain and simple heretical groups.
"They also disagreed with the mainstream Christianity of their day on some theological matters..."
naturally, or there wouldn't be much of a schism. Nevertheless, they substantially inherited the catholic tradition, not the gnostic tradition or marcionite tradition or montanist traditon, etc etc.
"tells us that Origen can be a heretic and remain in the catholic church"
He wasn't a formal heretic.
"If what places the Montanists outside of the church is their organizational disunity, not their teachings, then why did David mention their teachings when discussing why they shouldn't be considered part of the catholic church?"
A good part of what gives you organizational unity is inheriting the apostolic deposit of faith from your forebears, acknowledging that there is such a deposit of faith, and holding to that deposit of faith, as best as you are able. Organizational unity and teachings are very intertwined.
"Why did he distinguish between the Donatists and Montanists on the (false) basis that the Donatists had "practical" differences with mainstream Christianity rather than "new teachings"?"
The Donatists weren't consciously creating a new deposit of faith. The Montanists were. The Donatists didn't come up with teachings, then make a religion out of it. Rather they were churches that went a different direction in reponse to a problem. Yes, that direction had doctrinal components, but you can't compare the canon of a group that came out of the catholic church with the canon of groups that are non-catholic from the beginning.
I hope other readers can see the futility of trying to equate the Donatists with say the gnostics when it comes to the canon. That's called a debate tactic.
"I've emphasized Hippolytus' use of terms like "imposter" and "call themselves a Catholic Church".
So you "emphasized" these things. But why should I be alarmed, that is what I want to know. These things have happened throughout history, all without apparently anybody noticing what you notice.
"He refers to the Roman bishop Stephen as "worse than all heretics". He tells Stephen that "you cut yourself off from so many flocks". He refers to Stephen as "really the schismatic" and "an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity". He tells him "you have excommunicated yourself alone from all". He goes on to say that Stephen can be described as "'a false Christ and a false apostle, and a deceitful worker".
Yes.... and what is your point exactly? That anybody who criticises a pope must be a closet protestant or something? I really don't see the point.
"You've claimed that these men were all part of one catholic church defined by organizational unity and a lack of "new teachings".
I don't need to claim that any specific man or men in particular are part of the one catholic church. I can let Origen be, or not be a heretic.
Here, let me point out the obvious: (1) these fathers believed in the necessity of succession. (2) these fathers believed in a unity of a visible one holy catholic church. (3) these fathers sometimes said nasty things about particular bishops, even perhaps sometimes rejecting their catholicity, and sometimes even breaking formal communion.
Apparently back then they were able to hold all three propositions as true, and I don't see why I should be unable to. You apparently see a problem that I don't see and they didn't see. Merely pointing out what the fathers believed is hardly a methodology to condemn what they believed.
"Yet, you disagree with the ecclesiology of men like Hippolytus and Firmilian"
Do I? How so?
"Firmilian criticizes Stephen and the Roman church for new teachings, and he describes Stephen as somebody who is a schismatic, excommunicated, cut off from ecclesiastical unity, etc. That's a significantly different ecclesiology than Stephen's."
Are you saying Stephen does not believe in the possibility that bishops can become schismatics and cut off from unity? If not, how do we see a different ecclesiology?
" In the thread you're referring to, I do more than make "an argument that Ignatius can be interpreted in a non-catholic manner". I discuss some of the relevant Biblical data, cite Philip Schaff's material on the patristic data, and discuss some of the relevant material in Augustine."
Really? I can't see a single mention of Augustine in the article. Or am I supposed to read the comment thread as well, as if your references aren't scattergun enough already....
There is a few comments later on, whose interpretation of Augustine I disagree with.
"And since my post was addressing whether Ignatius advocated transubstantiation, are you equating transubstantiation with the "catholic" view of the eucharist? If so, that's another indication of your ignorance of historical theology. If not, then it's another example of your carelessness in how you communicate. Which is it? Were you being ignorant or careless?"
Neither careless nor ignorant. Your claim was... and I quote: "widespread patristic opposition to the doctrines of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy". That was the standard of proof I was holding you to, no more, no less.
"Historical conclusions are about probability, not what "cannot be excluded".
Are you ignorant, or just careless about how you communicate? Your claim was not about historical probabilities but about a claim of documented factual widespread patristic OPPOSITION.
And I don't see a single documented case in this article.
"The article you're referring to is about changes in how the episcopate was viewed and whether the apostles required a monarchical episcopate. It's not about "opposition to the episcopate". You keep misrepresenting what these articles I've written are about, in addition to failing to interact much with what I said in those articles."
So are you now ready do admit you submitted these articles under false pretences? Again, the claim made was that here are a bunch of articles that document "widespread patristic opposition". If you are now saying they are "not about opposition", then I may as well take that as a retraction of the entire argument.
"Some of the beliefs of Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox seem to have been widely contradicted for centuries, with few Christians or none advocating them. (See here."
I can't see in this article any such claim about a particular belief. You seem to be just throwing out articles scattergun that have nothing to do with the issue. What I did notice in the article though is this: "Every major tenet of the Reformation had considerable support in the catholic tradition."
One tenet of the reformation that has no catholic support is ecclesiology. And that is the issue at hand here.
"My New Testament canon, on the other hand, though not advocated in the earliest generations, is advocated from the third century onward".
The issue is not that there are supporters. The issue is that you have to selectively quote the supporters and reject the dissenters based on the visible catholic Church, all while pretending that Church has no formal or provable standing over and against other groups.
" There isn't the sort of prior widespread opposition and inconsistency with apostolic teaching that we see with something like prayers to the .."
How so? Opposition to a number of NT books was widespread, long and consistent from some quarters.
"A canon is different than a historical claim that Mary was bodily assumed or a belief that we can pray to the deceased, for example. We would expect it to take significant time to sort through documents written over a few decades by several authors in order to arrive at a canon."
Why is sorting through documents different to sorting through doctrinal teachings? Why is an historical claim that John the apostle wrote the Apocalypse different to an historical claim about Mary? You seem to be comparing apples and oranges in comparing a canon list with individual doctrines, instead of comparing individual books with individual doctrines. In any case,
"Expecting a canon to be discerned and popularized as easily as something like praying to the dead doesn't make sense."
So you expect that prayer to the dead should be easily popularized, and wasn't? Or easily popularized and was such? I haven't noticed many things in any area in the religious world that I would regard as "easily popularized". But that's the problem of making theological arguments about what one "expects".
"Another difference is that I can make a historical case for my canon, which I'm in the process of doing, and that can't be said for something like prayers to the dead, the sinlessness of Mary, the Assumption of Mary, or Purgatory."
It would be interesting to hear your historical case for Adam and Eve. Presumably if you can't make an historical case that the author of Genesis witnessed or at least had first hand witnesses to the events noted, then Genesis would fail as a-historical.
Some of the New Testament we can only pin down with certainty as existing at the beginning of the 3rd century. We have Methodius petitioning the Virgin about a hundred years later. That seems like mere degrees of provability rather than one case being historical and the other not.
"You keep suggesting that it's suspiciously "convenient" for Protestants to cite sources they agree with to support their conclusions. You don't explain why it's allegedly suspicious. Do you "side with" historical sources that contradict your beliefs? No, you don't. Nobody does that."
The judgement of later centuries is an explicit part of my epistemological footing, so quoting who I agree with makes sense for me. For you, who you agree with is of little consequence.
"What you seem to have in mind, though you communicate it poorly, is the notion that Protestants aren't concerned with the evidence, but instead just assume that any historical source that agrees with their beliefs is correct. "
No, that would be a charicature of what I am saying. What I am saying is that the proportional concern you have for evidence is proportional to whether that evidence comes from the catholic church. Given that protestants do not hold as valid the distinctions that the early church made to distinguish between the catholic church and other groups, the focus of your attention on a group that distinguished itself by criteria you do not accept is contradictory.
"The credibility of their testimony on such issues doesn't depend on the correctness of the aspects of their ecclesiology that you're singling out."
You have to start out with the assumption that the "issues" the fathers discussed were in fact the right criteria to be discussed with regard to canon. If their criteria aren't even right to begin with, then their accuracy, such as it might be is moot. Again, you have to get up on the catholic lap to either kiss its face or slap it. You basically accept without question the criteria of the fathers, and you are left with little recourse to accept their judgement too.
"Is Moses part of the apostolic succession you're advocating? No, he isn't."
He isn't part of the apostolic succession per se, but he is part of the succession. The author believes in the necessity of the succession. If you want to say it is Jewish and not Justin, that only pushes back the doctrine of succession even further, back to pre-Christian times, and that can't be good if you're hoping to claim it as a later development.
"You've attributed a work to Justin Martyr that he didn't write."
You've made a CLAIM that Justin MIGHT not have written it. If "some think" is a such a great argument, then who should listen to your claims about the canon? We could fill books about what "some think" about authorship of the New Testament. If that represents refutation, then your canon just went up the chute.
"But some of your quotes include comments on the reliability of what's taught by the successors to the apostles."
Yes... and? The test I would apply is if someone modern and catholic could make both statements without anyone raising an eyebrow, then your attempt to find a contradiction has failed.
"The fact that you can cite a passage about pre-Christian teachers, and equate it with a later concept involving Christian bishops, tells us something about the overly vague nature of your argument."
How continuity with Judaism makes the argument vague, I cannot imagine. Judaism continues on in Christianity, except where explicitly modified by the apostles. If the Jews understood succession as a necessity, I wouldn't be expecting any movement.
"And the fact that a man like Irenaeus expects people to agree with what bishops taught in his day, because those teachings had been handed down from the apostles, doesn't imply that only churches with bishops who have such a succession are valid or that future bishops will be similarly faithful to apostolic teaching."
Here we are again where you want to insert your hopes and dreams into every gap, instead of filling the gaps with what is explicit in contemporaries.
Irenaeus is very careful about succession. "Cerdo was one who took his system from the followers of Simon, and came to live at Rome in the time of Hyginus, who held the ninth place in the episcopal succession from the apostles downwards. " (Against Heresies XXVII).
Mentioning "9th place in the episcopal succession from the apostles", sounds to me like the idea has much deeper significance than an off handed thought about who seems to be faithful in his day.
Whether you like it or not, or think it matters or not, bishops count how many places they are in the succession from the apostles. That's why people read the church fathers and abandon protestantism - because what Irenaeus did is still done. Whether you think it should be done, or have an argument over whether it matters, it is done now how it was always done, your opinion be damned.
"But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters" Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.II.2
Tradition is preserved BY MEANS OF succession of presbyters in the churches. Doesn't sound to me like Irenaeus was just saying something off hand about his own time when he specifically says that preservation of the faith is by means of the succession.
"To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth." ibid III.3
Listing the successors for Irenaeus is "the most abundant proof" of the preservation of the faith. You may be desperate to insert a loophole in here whereby maybe Irenaeus was a closet protestant whose mentions of the succession are merely offhanded, but to anyone wanting to actually examine the evidence, it is nothing of the kind.
"When Irenaeus discusses the apostolic faith agreed upon by the churches, he mentions doctrines such as monotheism, the virgin birth, and the resurrection (Against Heresies, 1:10:1). I believe that such teachings have been handed down in unbroken succession since the time of the apostles. I believe that such an unbroken succession is evidence against groups that postdate the apostles, like the Gnostics and Mormons. I can claim to agree with the "overall thrust" of what Irenaeus said"
What Irenaeus said is that the succession in the churches is the most abundant proof in the one faith preserved from the apostles. You can only half-heartedly endorse what Irenaeus says with weasel words, whereas I can fully endorse it.
" I've documented that Irenaeus and other patristic sources said that bishops must meet moral and doctrinal requirements. Irenaeus' comments on the bishops of his day depended on the assumption that the bishops met those requirements. That's not something I'm reading into the text. Irenaeus says it. "
That's fine with me. That's the bit of the half you can endorse, whereas I endorse all of it.
"That's why you agree with me in not applying his comments about such churches to later generations. Are you guilty of "inserting some loophole"?"
I think there's a fundamental difference between endorsing his statement that succession is the MOST ABUNDANT proof of the one faith, and making extrapolations of particular cities into the infinite future. If you can't see the difference, good luck with your expertise in cheap debate tactics.
"Where does Irenaeus say that future generations will have a "need for succession as a means of discerning who has the real truth"?"
How would it become less necessary over time?
"The fact that a succession helped distinguish orthodoxy from the errors of groups like the Gnostics in Irenaeus' day doesn't imply that a succession is necessary to do so"
If succession is the MOST abundant proof, it sounds pretty necessary to me.
"Explain how Irenaeus' ecclesiology, as summarized by Ferguson, disallows Protestant ecclesiology."
Oh boy. If you can't see it from all these Irenaeus quotes about the necessity of succession...
"Protestants aren't Gnostics. They accept the doctrines Irenaeus describes as held by all the churches."
Even if we accept this proposition at face value, protestants are not the only ones in the world in need of refutation.
"But there is no such historical continuity and widespread agreement for the papacy, the assumption of Mary, Purgatory, prayers to the dead, etc."
According to Irenaeus, the existence of historical continuity is judged by the existence of the succession, at least in part.
"Even if I could find, say, a local Anglican church that claims apostolic succession and meets apostolic standards, why can't I join some other church that meets apostolic standards, one that doesn't claim an apostolic succession?"
A number of reasons, but to name one, those who don't claim apostolic succession are certainly morphing at a far accelerated rate than those who do. Anglicans who claim apostolic succession would be probably recognizable to their forebears. Anglicans who do not claim it are in Shelby Spong land, or else moving there (or somewhere else) rapidly. One of the main benefits of apostolic succession is the mindset of conservatism that it engenders. The same goes for modern day baptists. A baptist from 300 years ago would not recognise many typical modern day baptist church services. As a matter of reality, the exit door of non-apostolic succession believing anglicans is spinning fast, and that would be a reason not to join them.
"Ferguson notes that "[In Tertullian] Churches were apostolic that agreed in the same faith, even if not founded by apostles." (Encyclopedia Of Early Christianity [New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999], p. 95)"
Give me the source reference in Tertullian so we can discuss it, oh pedantic citation mogul.
"In the Ferguson quote you claim to agree with, he says that Irenaeus applies succession to presbyters, not just bishops. Do you hold the same view?"
I'm sympathetic to that view, although presbyters in this day tend to be forbidden from appointing new presbyters on their own, which is beneficial for good order.
"Apostolic succession as formulated by Irenaeus was from one holder of the teaching chair in a church to the next and not from ordainer to ordained, as it became."
Succession lists have always included the teaching chair. For example, papal lists include popes, not who ordained the popes.
"When Eusebius of Caesarea used the lists of bishops as the framework for his Church History, he did not count the apostles in the episcopal lists."
I don't see anything of great significance in this.
"Election by the people was one of the methods of appointment known to Origen (Hom. 13 in Num. 4)....The will of the populace could prevail over clerical opposition (Sulpicius Severus, V. Mart. 9)."
As far as I know, this is still the practice in some ethnic groups. In fact, the will of the people is often more influential than many suppose.
"Do you agree that such changes occurred?"
No, not really.
"In what sense do such sources allegedly refer to the necessity of a succession?"
There is a whole range of reasons given in the fathers, and I wouldn't want to dismiss any of them. Since we are talking about Origen, the quote I gave indicated that the orderly succession from the apostles is a prerequisite for what "alone is to be accepted as truth". Irenaeus said the same thing when he said it is the "the most abundant proof" of the one faith. There's too many fathers saying the same thing for you to dismiss it as mere off hand comments.
"And what Protestant denies that there have been teachers, including men like Moses, who have handed down teachings like monotheism through the centuries? "
What distinguishes succession in the Judeo-Christian tradition is a continual succession of a community. Without that one community, the Hindu scriptures have as much claim to be scripture as Jewish prophets.
As usual, most of David's response consists of disputed assertions that he doesn't even attempt to support. I suggest that readers compare his latest claims to his previous claims about the Donatists, the unity he allegedly has with the church fathers (including men like Hippolytus and Firmilian), etc. I'm satisfied with letting the discussion of most of these issues stand as it is now. David's latest assertions don't change the discussion much.
ReplyDeleteAnd he still hasn't told us what church he belongs to, which would help us in judging how similar his ecclesiology is to that of the fathers. If he's a Roman Catholic, then it would follow that he should think that men like Cyprian and Firmilian were foundationally wrong in their ecclesiology. Roman Catholicism considers the papacy the foundation of the church. If he's Eastern Orthodox, then it would follow that he should think that men like Stephen and Leo were foundationally wrong in their ecclesiology. Etc. Why doesn't David want to identify what church he belongs to?
He brought up a passage from Irenaeus that he kept returning to, and I want to address it:
"To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth." (Against Heresies, 3:3:3)
David then repeatedly makes claims such as the following, in which he inserts the word "the" where Irenaeus didn't include it:
"Listing the successors for Irenaeus is 'the most abundant proof' of the preservation of the faith. You may be desperate to insert a loophole in here whereby maybe Irenaeus was a closet protestant whose mentions of the succession are merely offhanded, but to anyone wanting to actually examine the evidence, it is nothing of the kind."
In addition to his insertion of "the" where his own quotation of Irenaeus doesn't have it, a misrepresentation he repeats later in his post, notice that he once again misrepresents the position he's responding to by suggesting that I would argue that Irenaeus was a "closet Protestant". I haven't stated or implied such a thing. I've said, repeatedly, that Irenaeus and other such sources weren't Protestant, just as they weren't Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.
Even if Irenaeus had included "the" in the passage in question, would David's interpretation follow? No. If somebody who saw the risen Christ says that his seeing Jesus risen from the dead is "the most abundant proof" of the resurrection, it doesn't follow that such proof is always needed, will be possessed by other people in every future generation of church history, etc.
Repeatedly in his writings, Irenaeus refers to an unbroken succession of teaching passed down by an unbroken succession of bishops in Rome and elsewhere. As I've explained to David repeatedly, I don't deny that such a succession has evidential significance. But doctrines like the assumption of Mary, the papacy, and prayers to the dead can't be shown to have that sort of unbroken succession.
Again, I've been over these issues repeatedly. David keeps repeating erroneous claims and ignoring much of what's written in response to him.
If he wants to keep posting here, he needs to improve the quality of his posts. He needs to make more of an effort to argue for his claims, including providing documentation, and to accurately represent the beliefs of his opponents. If he doesn't do so, we may ban him and/or delete his posts. I'm not doing either at this point, but I'm giving him a warning.
DAVID SAID:
ReplyDelete“How can it be coincidental for me when I'm consciously following the result of the canonical process within the Church?”
Which is selective on your part. You agree with early “catholic” writers, and disagree with early non-“catholic” writers.
Your “catholic” beliefs select for which early theological writers you agree with.
“It's coincidental for you because you don't acknowledge the authority of the Church, even though you follow the decisions anyway.”
You’ve been repeatedly corrected on this. When you repeat the same falsehood after repeated correction, what this indicates is that you have a set of pat answers to pat objections. Once your pat answers have been shot down, you don’t have anything in reserve, so all you can do is to repeat the same discredited rejoinders.
i) Jason and I don’t have the same canon as the “catholic” church. We have the same NT canon, but not the same OT canon. The Protestant OT canon is not the same as the Catholic OT canon, or Orthodox Eastern OT canon, Or Orthodox Oriental canon.
So it’s false to say we follow the decisions of “the Church” while rejecting its authority.
ii) Moreover, Jason is discussing evidence from the patristic era. “The Church” didn’t decide the scope of the canon in the patristic era. The Church of Rome didn’t formalize the canon until the Council of Trent. And the exact extent of the Eastern Orthodox canon is still in flux. Hence, there would be no formal decision during the patristic era for Jason to reject–as per the canon.
iii) One can treat an early writer as a historical witness without treating him as an authority. And some historical witnesses are more credible than others. There’s nothing “coincidental” about that. Rather, that’s the nature of testimonial evidence. It’s obtuse of you to suggest otherwise.
iv) You are not entitled to invoke “the Church,” since you fail to even identify what constitutes “the Church,” much less defend your identification.
“It's not the topic at hand. Were it to be the topic, then I might say something.”
To the contrary, when you speak of “the Church,” which you set in contrast to what is not “the Church,” the question of how you identify “the Church” in light of rival claimants to the title is quite topical.
You’re being evasive because you can’t give good answers to fundamental questions.
“That doesn't need to be documented. None of the fathers needed such a thing to recognise a succession. I'm not going to fabricate an un-patristic version of succession to satisfy your peculiar requirements.”
Once again, you’re ducking the question. Every time you do this it’s a tacit admission that your own position is indefensible.
To say they didn’t need such a thing to recognize succession is a tendentious assertion rather than a credible argument.
Rival groups had rival successions. How do you determine which line of succession is legitimate?
In addition, if you’re Roman Catholic, then that commits you to Catholic requirements for valid ordination, which undergirds apostolic succession.
For bishop B to succeed bishop A, there must be a valid ordination or consecration. That requires right intent on the part of both the ordinand and the officiate. Yet right intent is unverifiable.
“That's not the current topic.”
To the contrary, you’re the one who keeps appealing to “the Church.” Therefore, the question of how you identify the true church is quite topical. I’m addressing you on your own stated grounds. When I do so, you run away.
Every time you dodge an issue that you yourself put forward, that’s a backdoor admission that your own position is indefensible.
“The current topic is the necessity of one component which is succession, without which you cannot meaningfully quote the opinion of the early church.”
In Catholic ecclesiology, apostolic succession and the identity of the true church are intimately interrelated. Only the true church preserves apostolic succession. Apostolic succession is a criterion of the true church.
“He doesn't have to be, so long as he is a member of the church with succession.”
That’s irrelevant to someone’s credentials as a historical witness.
“Didn't this exchange come out of Triablogue invoking the church fathers as a validation of the canon of scripture?”
Jason didn’t limit himself to church fathers. And he didn’t cite church fathers because they were church fathers. Rather, he cited some early Christian writers who happen to be church fathers. He cited them, not because they are church fathers, but because, depending on how early they wrote, they function as historical witnesses.
“The succession is the passing on of the apostolic deposit of faith.”
i) There’s far more to the doctrine of apostolic succession than textual transmission. Rather, it involves transmission of an office, which is bound up with a sacramental concept of office. That’s hardly the same thing as scribal activity. Try again.
ii) Moreover, you’re trying to evade the question by punting the question back into the Protestant court. But shifting the burden of proof is not a rational way of discharging your own burden of proof. It’s just a diversionary tactic.
You have yet to explain how your own position can avoid the charge of vicious circularity. Try again.
David said:
ReplyDelete"You haven't explained why it is a logical conclusion that rabbanic Jews have some better claim than the Church to be the people of God."
Me:
That's your job, not mine. You're the one who made these claims for 'Tradition,' and it is your job to show that the standard which you are putting forth would not defeat Christianity as a whole when it is applied to Jewish Tradition.
David said:
"So you admit that the Church inherits Semitic thinking about succession. This does not bode well for the legitimacy of the world view born out of 16th century Germany and Switzerland."
Me:
Yes, that IS the point. It was the so-called 'successors' that Jesus denied the sole right to interpret the Bible using their tradition.
Following Jesus, I do the same by denying the so-called 'successors' of the apostles the sole right to interpret the Bible using 'Sacred' Tradition.
David said:
"It's an inherent part of Christianity that it abandons the idea of the Jews being the sole people of God."
Me:
Again, that begs the question against the Rabbinic claim. You're begging the question against the claims of their 'authoritative' 'Sacred Tradition'.
David said:
"... but they trace their scriptures back further than you trace yours. Sola scriptura doesn't help you deal with that."
Me:
Again, I'm doing an internal critique of your system. I frankly don't care about how far any Tradition can be traced back. Rather, I'm holding you to your own standard.
David:
"Let's see the documentation for that claim before we discuss it further."
Me:
Read the Targums (the Aramaic paraphrase of the OT) or the Talmud (the authoritative interpetation of the OT by the ancient Rabbis) or the Mishnah (the authoritative interpretation of the Talmud).
None of them interpret the Messianic passages as referring to a Divine Messiah (even though I could fairly easily prove that from the OT alone).
By ***your own standard*** that you are trying to use against us, Christianity must be false (i.e. that would be the logical conclusion of YOUR standard, not mine).
Unfortunately, it's becoming quite clear that David is not a critical thinker, and so, I'd suggest that everyone here not waste any more time.
ReplyDeleteDAVID SAID:
ReplyDelete“Yes, I'm selective. All discerning people are. But I have an objective basis for being selective.”
i) You haven’t show that you have an objective basis for being selective. Rather, you fall back on lame statements about how you’re “content” with the church fathers. That’s a subjective appeal, not an objective appeal.
ii) Conversely, you haven’t shown that Jason lacks an objective basis for being selective.
“The topic is the NT canon. I'm well aware of what you don't accept.”
Once again, you’re playing dodge ball.
“Lack of a concilliar statement is not the same as a lack of decision.”
You made this a question of rejecting authority. Even on Catholic ecclesiology, there’s nothing inherently authoritative about the “decisions” of local councils. Catholicism rejects the authority of many local councils, viz. Arian councils.
“And if you want to argue there was no decision of any kind, even informal, then (a) you've just rebutted the thrust of the blog article (b) Your basis for having a canon is even more shaky.”
Actually, church councils are pretty irrelevant to establishing the canon. Such councils are too late to have much evidentiary value.
“NONE of the patristic witnesses provide evidence as to what God said should be in the canon, unless you consider the tradition of the catholic church to be evidence of God's will, which you don't. The patristics are evidence as to what their church believed about the canon. Either their church is objectively led by the Holy Spirit, or its just an opinion about what they think should be in the canon.”
That’s a false representation of what the church fathers discuss. Among other things, they discuss the authorship of various NT books. Authorship is quite germane to canonicity.
“This is a patristic topic, and I'm defending a patristic understanding of the church. Nice try to distract attention from the actual issue. Making some argument about the later church doesn't actually refute the fundamental epistemological failing of your own argument. Try defending the actual proposition you are arguing rather than running off to some other topic.”
I realize that since you don’t have any good answers to fundamental challenges to your own position, that you desperately need to artificially limit the logical implications of your own position. However, you are the one who made a big issue of criteria. You are the one who was harping on apostolic succession and the authority of “the Church.”
Therefore, it’s incumbent on you to defend your own categories. You don’t get to back out as soon as it becomes inconvenient for you.
“You think you are the first one to think up your objections? The succession is in large part a mystical topic. Obviously you are ill prepared to think in those terms which is why you make school boy objections against giant intellects found in the fathers.”
If they’re “school boy objections,” then refute them. That should be easy.
Since, however, you don’t have an actual counterargument to offer, you resort to empty rhetoric to camouflage your indefensible position.
“The succession is not everything. The succession is one prerequisite. Since you are apparently surviving without the succession, you've obviously discovered at least one or more other criteria.”
Instead of answering the question of how you determined legitimate lines of succession, you duck the question. Nice to see you bluff your way through this debate.
“In the current topic, the church is the one the fathers were in whom you quote. Wandering off into what church I'm in is a distraction from fundamental flaw in your argument.”
To the contrary, it’s answering you on your own grounds. You accuse Jason of rejecting the authority of “the Church.” Which church is he rejecting? On what basis do you ascribe authority to that church?
“If you can't defend your own arguments on their own merits without trying to stab another, it shows its inherent weakness.”
There’s nothing to defend since you have yet to attack Jason’s actual position. What you’ve done instead is to attack a staw man. You try to recast the issue as a debate over church authority rather than historical testimony. You then impute that framework to Jason.
“You don't think any contemporary church is the ancient catholic church?”
That’s a question you need to answer, not me.
“It's irrelevant to the spectacle of you stabbing and knifing the ancient church, whilst propping up the dead corpse just enough to make it mouth a canon.”
You’re the one who’s been harping on apostolic succession. So which church authentically represents apostolic succession?
“All they witness to is that somebody agreed with something he agrees with.”
That’s patently false. They also witness to authorship–among other things.
“I was comparing your recognition of a succession of manuscripts with the apostolic succession. You can't prove there wasn't a break and forgery in the middle of the textual transmission process other than appealing to the consistency of the surviving texts. In the same way I recognise the consistency of the apostolic churches as evidence of what was there at the beginning.”
That’s a totally inept comparison:
i) Textual transmission does not depend on our having an unbroken succession of MSS. Indeed, textual critics aren’t interested in later MMS in the textual tradition. They skip over the later MSS and go straight to early MSS.
ii) In addition, textual criticism has a number of methods and criteria to verify the process of transmission. They date MSS. Compare and contrast MSS from different geographical regions. Compare and contrast MSS to patristic citations and versional evidence. Classify types of scribal errors or alterations–most of which are easy to spot.
iii) Likewise, evidence for the provenance of a document isn’t based on a succession of witnesses. Indeed, the very idea of successive historical witnesses is oxymoronic.
There are two potential lines of evidence for the provenance of a document:
a) Internal evidence. The document itself may state or imply its provenance.
That line of evidence does not depend on a succession of witnesses. Rather, it turns on the self-witness of the document.
b) External evidence. Testimonial evidence.
That line of evidence doesn’t depend on a succession of witnesses since–by definition–the further down the line you go, the further removed you are from the time of the event.
iv) By contrast, apostolic succession depends on subjective conditions which are inherently unverifiable. The intent of the officiate or ordinand.
“I showed that if your circularity argument is valid, then it defeats your own position. That is enough to show its poverty.”
When you constantly resort to the tu quoque tactic, that’s a backdoor admission that you can’t defend your own position. And since you can’t defend your own position, your only recourse is to attack the opposing position.
But when, by your evasive maneuvers, you concede the indefensibility of your own position, you thereby eliminate your own position from the contention. That ceases to be a live option. You yourself have disqualified that position from further consideration. Knocked it out of the running.
So the only outstanding issue is a review of the remaining alternatives.
Gosh, what did he say? Did he use profanity? Now I'm curious. What I'm reading from him so far doesn't seem so "ban"-worthy.
ReplyDeleteYou should at least give an explanation. Nothing perks up the curiosity so much as "so-and-so has been banned."
Well, if you must know, he uttered a string of profanities, levitated in bed, spat green vomit, and rotated his head 360º. And that was just the warming-up exercise.
ReplyDeleteEd,
ReplyDeleteI explained why he might be banned in my warning above. I also explained, in my post about the banning, that he continued in the same sort of behavior.
If you want a forum where posters are allowed to keep misrepresenting other people's views, keep making false claims about history, keep making assertions they don't attempt to support, keep refusing to explain and defend their own views when asked, etc., without consequences for their posting privileges, so that they can take up space in multiple threads with such behavior, then you can start your own blog. There are several people we've banned who might be interested in posting there. We could send them your way, and you could spend your time reading their posts and interacting with them.
Or you could decide to manage your time and your readers' time more wisely. It's your choice.
We choose the environment for our blog. We think David takes more away from that environment than he adds, much like people who post links to pornography or advertisements for a product they're selling.