Celsus, who wrote against Christianity in the late second century, criticizes Christians for their neglect of angels and other beings lower than God (Origen, Against Celsus, 8:63). Origen mentions prayer in his response to Celsus (8:64), so he seems to think that Celsus was referring at least partially to prayer. Elsewhere, he specifically mentions that Celsus included prayer in his criticism (8:25). Origen comments that though lesser beings like angels pray with us, we're only to "pray to", or "invoke", God (8:64). (For confirmation that the "demons" Celsus wanted Christians to pray to included good angels, see Origen's comments to that effect in 5:5. Celsus didn't define the term "demons" as we commonly do today.) Origen repeatedly says that Christians pray only to God. We pray "even" to Jesus (5:4), but not to created beings (5:12). It's sufficient to imitate the angels' devotion to God without invoking them (5:5). We should pray only to God, so that all answers to prayer come from Him (5:11). For the Christian, "every prayer" is offered to God (7:51).
And it can't be argued that Origen was merely using terms like "pray" and "prayer" in an unusual way, so that Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox prayers to the dead and to angels wouldn't be included. Origen uses a variety of terms to make these points I've just mentioned, not merely terms like "pray" and "prayer". And the comments of Celsus that he's responding to don't suggest that some unusual definition of prayer would be in mind.
Neither Celsus in the second century nor Origen in the third seems to think that mainstream Christianity prayed to the dead or to angels. Celsus criticizes Christians for their neglect of such practices, and Origen defends that Christian neglect. "Away with Celsus' advice when he says that 'we ought to pray to demons'. We ought not to pay the slightest attention to it. We ought to pray to the supreme God alone, and to pray besides to the only-begotten Logos of God" (8:26).
Also see Viisaus' comments in the thread here concerning other relevant material from Celsus and other early enemies of Christianity.
"Bless the LORD, you His angels, Who excel in strength, who do His word, Heeding the voice of His word." - Psalm 103:20
ReplyDeleteSo I guess the Holy Prophet David was an idolator? I think I'll choose David over you and Origen.
David,
ReplyDeleteYour response is problematic:
- Though this thread is about Origen and Celsus, I've also cited Biblical, other ante-Nicene, and later sources in support of my view of prayer.
- Origen's claim to be representing the mainstream Christian view of prayer should caution us against assuming that he only represents his own opinion. He could be mistaken in thinking he was representing mainstream Christian belief, but you haven't given us any reason to think he was wrong. And though he was a controversial figure in his day and in later generations, he also had supporters in his day, as well as later. He was part of the leadership of the Caesarean church when he wrote his treatise responding to Celsus.
- Celsus wrote before Origen was even born. Thus, when Celsus is addressing Christianity in general, and he agrees with Origen's view of how Christians view prayer, we have further confirmation that the view in question was widespread, not just something unique to Origen or limited to some other small percentage of professing Christians.
- I've already addressed the appeal to Psalm 103 elsewhere. Why did you stop at verse 20? Verse 22 refers to "all you works of His". Maybe you should pray to your dog or the maple tree in your front yard.
- If prayers to the dead and angels were viewed in Biblical times similar to how they're viewed in Catholicism and Orthodoxy today, we probably wouldn't have to go to a passage like Psalm 103 to find evidence of it while, at the same time, seeing it absent in hundreds of pages of historical narrative addressing thousands of years of history. What you're doing would be like ignoring Protestant treatises on prayer, ignoring Protestant denials that we believe in prayer to the dead and angels, and ignoring the absence of such prayers in so many contexts in our lives, then pointing to speech to the dead and angels on Protestant gravestones and in Protestant hymns and poems, as if such things prove that we believe in praying to the dead and angels. If you attend a Protestant church service when they're singing Angels From The Realms Of Glory, do you conclude that they believe in prayer to angels? If a Protestant tomb for a dead infant has an engraving that's phrased as if it's speaking to that infant, do you conclude that the Protestants involved believe in prayer to the dead? If an atheist poet writes as if he's speaking to a river or mountain, do you conclude that he believes in praying to rivers and mountains? You're ignoring the common use of such rhetorical devices among people who don't believe in praying to such entities. Your reasoning would lead to a lot of absurd conclusions if you applied it consistently. But you don't.
- I oppose both prayer to the dead and prayer to angels, but they are distinct. An argument for one isn't necessarily an argument for the other. Though I oppose both practices, prayer to angels isn't as objectionable. We have more evidence for angelic involvement in human affairs, the Biblical commandments against attempting to contact the deceased wouldn't apply to angels, etc. Citing Psalm 103:20 addresses angels, but it doesn't address deceased humans.
- Though this thread is about Origen and Celsus, I've also cited Biblical, other ante-Nicene, and later sources in support of my view of prayer.
ReplyDeleteI've a few of them and I find them all equally unconvincing. This just happened to be the one on which I decided to finally voice the most obvious problem.
- Origen's claim to be representing the mainstream Christian view of prayer should caution us against assuming that he only represents his own opinion.
Why? Tertullian, St. Augustine, and Origen often claimed to be representing mainstream Christian views, all while doing anything but.
He could be mistaken in thinking he was representing mainstream Christian belief, but you haven't given us any reason to think he was wrong.
Out side of the fact that he didn't not represent the Christian mainstream on much else, including central beliefs like soteriology and the Trinity?
And though he was a controversial figure in his day and in later generations, he also had supporters in his day, as well as later.
So did Basilides, Mani, and Marcion; it doesn't mean I should take their claims seriously.
He was part of the leadership of the Caesarean church when he wrote his treatise responding to Celsus.
Valentianian and Marcion were both very important figures in the Roman Church when they each began teaching their respective heresies. Nestorius was the Patriarch of Constantinople.
- Celsus wrote before Origen was even born. Thus, when Celsus is addressing Christianity in general, and he agrees with Origen's view of how Christians view prayer, we have further confirmation that the view in question was widespread, not just something unique to Origen or limited to some other small percentage of professing Christians.
Or are they both operating based on the pagan understanding of what it means to "pray to" and/or "invoke"? Do you think that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox "pray to" or "invoke" Saints and Angels in the way they do God? Do you think Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox "pray to" or "invoke" Saints and Angels in a manner similar to pagan practices?
Ask an Eastern Orthodox: No, I don't "pray to" nor "invoke" Saints and Angels. I implore the intercessions of all the people of God.
- I've already addressed the appeal to Psalm 103 elsewhere. Why did you stop at verse 20?
Because that was the verse I wanted to quote...
Verse 22 refers to "all you works of His". Maybe you should pray to your dog or the maple tree in your front yard.
What do you think the author's intent was? Do you think he though the created world praised God? I think yes...
- If prayers to the dead and angels were viewed in Biblical times similar to how they're viewed in Catholicism and Orthodoxy today, we probably wouldn't have to go to a passage like Psalm 103 to find evidence of it while, at the same time, seeing it absent in hundreds of pages of historical narrative addressing thousands of years of history.
ReplyDeleteYou mean like these?
http://orthodox-apologetics.blogspot.com/search/label/Intercession%20of%20the%20Saints
http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~testsm/Angels_Intermed.html
What you're doing would be like ignoring Protestant treatises on prayer, ignoring Protestant denials that we believe in prayer to the dead and angels, and ignoring the absence of such prayers in so many contexts in our lives, then pointing to speech to the dead and angels on Protestant gravestones and in Protestant hymns and poems, as if such things prove that we believe in praying to the dead and angels.
It sounds as if Protestants are ignoring their own treatises on prayer, denials, and absence of such prayers in other contexts in their lives.
If you attend a Protestant church service when they're singing Angels From The Realms Of Glory, do you conclude that they believe in prayer to angels?
I would not attend a Protestant "church" service, but: I would conclude that they are inconsistent which wouldn't surprise me given the rampant inconsistency in Protestant belief and practice.
If a Protestant tomb for a dead infant has an engraving that's phrased as if it's speaking to that infant, do you conclude that the Protestants involved believe in prayer to the dead?
No, I conclude that they are inconsistent and hypocritical.
If an atheist poet writes as if he's speaking to a river or mountain, do you conclude that he believes in praying to rivers and mountains? You're ignoring the common use of such rhetorical devices among people who don't believe in praying to such entities. Your reasoning would lead to a lot of absurd conclusions if you applied it consistently. But you don't.
If you're okay with hymns addressing angels and tombstones addressing dead infants, I think it is you who are being inconsistent and refusing to draw logical conclusions.
- I oppose both prayer to the dead and prayer to angels, but they are distinct.
Who prays to the dead? God is the God of the living and not of the dead.
An argument for one isn't necessarily an argument for the other. Though I oppose both practices, prayer to angels isn't as objectionable. We have more evidence for angelic involvement in human affairs, the Biblical commandments against attempting to contact the deceased wouldn't apply to angels, etc. Citing Psalm 103:20 addresses angels, but it doesn't address deceased humans.
And neither do I.
David wrote:
ReplyDelete"I've a few of them and I find them all equally unconvincing."
I've posted arguments for my position. Saying "I find them all equally unconvincing" doesn't give us any reason to think I'm wrong.
You write:
"Tertullian, St. Augustine, and Origen often claimed to be representing mainstream Christian views, all while doing anything but."
We don't begin with the assumption that a historical source was wrong about a subject he was in a good position to judge. The fact that sources are sometimes wrong doesn't give us reason to conclude that Origen probably was wrong in this instance. And if you want us to believe that the chances that Origen was correct are even, so that there is no probability in either direction, then you'll need to explain why. Given how many locations he lived in, how much he was in contact with people in other locations, how often a subject like prayer would manifest itself in so many contexts (church services, conversations, books about Christianity, etc.), and other relevant factors, I conclude that Origen was in a good position to judge such an issue. We still have to take other sources into account and weigh Origen's testimony in light of those other sources, and I've done that. A vague reference to how some patristic sources have been wrong when making such claims doesn't tell us much. You need to produce more of an argument than that.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"Out side of the fact that he didn't not represent the Christian mainstream on much else, including central beliefs like soteriology and the Trinity?"
That's an absurd claim. Origen agreed with mainstream Christianity on the large majority of issues. Maybe you'd realize that if you stopped focusing on your disagreements with him and gave more consideration to how he compares to an atheist or Muslim, for example. His errors are significant, but the claim that he "didn't represent the Christian mainstream on much" is ridiculous. Christianity involves a large number of beliefs, including beliefs about thousands of historical events the Bible reports that Origen affirmed and non-Christians frequently deny. That's part of the reason why so many church leaders, theologians, and other Christians supported him in his day and in later generations. See my post on the significance of Origen here. Notice that most of what I cite in that post comes from the work of the Eastern Orthodox patristic scholar John McGuckin, who speaks highly of Origen. My recent posts on Origen's view of prayer were initiated by one of your fellow Eastern Orthodox, Perry Robinson, who cited Origen to argue for his view of prayer. You didn't post any objections to Perry Robinson's appeal to Origen. But when an Evangelical appeals to the same source, you post a response objecting. If Origen didn't represent the mainstream on much, why do you think his writings were so widely used, he influenced so many mainstream Christians, and members of your own affiliation speak so highly of him?
Origen was criticized for various errors (sometimes accurately and sometimes inaccurately) in his day and in later generations. Did his contemporaries criticize him for being wrong about prayer to the dead and angels? No, they didn't. They criticized him on other points. Why should we think they also disagreed with him on those issues pertaining to prayer?
You write:
"Valentianian and Marcion were both very important figures in the Roman Church when they each began teaching their respective heresies. Nestorius was the Patriarch of Constantinople."
We know how contemporaries and later sources viewed the heretical beliefs of such men because of what those sources wrote about the issues in question and how they reacted to men like Marcion. If Justin Martyr criticizes Marcion for a particular belief, then we know that Justin disagreed with him on that issue. We don't assume that Justin therefore must also have disagreed with Marcion about the canonicity of 1 Thessalonians, for example. You haven't cited any evidence that Origen was criticized for his view of praying to the deceased and angels in his day. When prayer to the dead and angels was popularized in the post-Nicene era, there would have been disagreement with him at that point. But where's the evidence that he was condemned on these issues we're discussing by his contemporaries or even by people living just after his time?
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"Or are they both operating based on the pagan understanding of what it means to 'pray to' and/or 'invoke'? Do you think that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox 'pray to' or 'invoke' Saints and Angels in the way they do God?"
If you thought that was all Origen was referring to, then why did you reject Origen's view and associate it with mine?
I've cited several passages in Origen to establish my position. I've explained what's contained in the passages, and I've cited some of the language used. You aren't interacting with the passages, but instead you're just asking a vague question that you don't answer yourself.
Celsus didn't claim that Christians should pray to angels as if they're God. Rather, he says that the angels in question "belong to God" (Against Celsus, 8:25). And he criticized Christians for neglecting angels within their own belief system (5:4-5). He wasn't just criticizing them for neglecting the angels of non-Christian belief systems, in which angels are viewed as God. He criticizes them for neglecting angels even when angels are defined as Christianity defines them. Part of the neglect Celsus criticizes is the failure to pray to angels. In 8:63, he also mentions humans who are lower than the angels. He's arguing for prayer to beings who are acknowledged to be below God. The issue isn't whether the recipients of these prayers should be viewed as God. Rather, the issue is whether a being lower than God should be prayed to.
And if you want us to believe that every relevant term that was used in the passages in question has the meaning you're suggesting, then you need to argue for that conclusion rather than just asserting it. A term like "pray" or "invoke" doesn't inherently involve treating the recipient as God. That's why Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox documents frequently use such terms to describe attempts to communicate with the deceased and angels. See my citations of the Catechism Of The Catholic Church and Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII in the thread here. And see the Eastern Orthodox prayers to Mary I cited here. One of those Eastern Orthodox prayers I cited reads, "Accept this prayer which is offered to thee [Mary] from my impure lips". See the Eastern Orthodox prayer page here, which repeatedly refers to "Prayers to the Mother of God", "Prayers to the Guardian Angel", etc. If we aren't supposed to assume that "prayer" in such contexts has the meaning you're assigning to it in Celsus and Origen, then why should we think it has such a meaning in those two latter sources? If you want us to believe that terms like "prayer" and "invoke" carry with them a different meaning when used by Celsus and Origen, then you need to demonstrate that claim.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteAnd Origen didn't respond to Celsus with the qualifiers you describe above. He said that we shouldn't pray to the dead and angels. The qualifiers you're adding are coming from you, not from Origen.
How does your interpretation make sense of a passage like Against Celsus 5:5? The alternative that Origen offers to praying to angels isn't to pray to them as if they're lesser beings than God. Rather, he says that it's sufficient to imitate the angels without praying to them. He writes:
"In order that the holy angels of God may be gracious to us and that they may do all they can on our behalf, it is enough that our attitude to God, as far as possible for human nature, should be one of imitating their devotion"
In all of Origen's responses to Celsus, he never once proposes your Eastern Orthodox answer. He never argues that we should pray to the dead and angels, but should do so without treating them as God. Rather, he denies that we should pray to them, without the qualifiers you're adding. And he doesn't advocate prayer to the dead and angels elsewhere in his many writings, which would be unlikely if he meant what you're suggesting he meant in his response to Celsus. Do you think he also had some alternative meaning of terms like "pray" and "invoke" in mind when he wrote his treatise On Prayer, even though he wasn't responding to a pagan like Celsus? Do you just assume that Origen is departing from the normal meaning of terms anytime the normal meaning would suggest a contradiction of your view of prayer?
You write:
"Ask an Eastern Orthodox: No, I don't 'pray to' nor 'invoke' Saints and Angels."
See my documentation above concerning the use of such terms by Eastern Orthodox (and Roman Catholics). The only way you can deny that you pray to and invoke the dead and angels is by redefining those terms in order to use them differently than they're normally used. Why should we assume that men like Celsus and Origen only had such unusual definitions in mind when they seem to have disagreed with you?
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"What do you think the author's intent was? Do you think he though the created world praised God? I think yes..."
You're not addressing the issue at hand. Psalm 103:22 speaks to the works of God. Why don't you conclude, then, that the psalmist is praying to those works? You aren't applying the same reasoning to verse 22 that you applied to verse 20.
You write:
"You mean like these?"
You then posted links to two articles. The first article repeatedly refers to "prayer" to and "invocation" of the dead and angels, despite your denial that you do that.
Even though the comment I made that you're responding to is about prayer in the Biblical era, the first article you cited only mentions one passage from scripture, Revelation 8:3-4, and it mentions a passage in Tobit, which I don't consider scripture. But neither Revelation 8 nor the passage in Tobit is about prayer to the dead or angels. I discussed both passages in my recent discussion with Christine here. You can use the Ctrl F feature on your keyboard to find the relevant portions of the discussion.
The remaining passages cited in that first article you linked are from post-Biblical sources and are thus irrelevant to the point I was making. But even those post-Biblical sources are consistent with what I've been arguing about the post-Biblical era (with one potential exception, discussed below). As I explain in my discussion with Christine linked above, I don't deny that prayer to the dead is found in the church fathers from the fourth century onward.
The only passage that has the potential to contradict my position is the one labeled "Egyptian Liturgy for the Nativity of Christ". The article doesn't give us any defense of its alleged third-century dating. It's common for Catholics and Orthodox to assume that liturgies existed in their later form in earlier centuries. What evidence do we have that the liturgy in question existed in the form quoted in the third century? The quotes surrounding the quote from the liturgy have notes attached to them giving sources. But the liturgy quote doesn't have any note attached. Do you have any evidence that the passage quoted from the liturgy can be dated to the third century?
Thus, your first article does nothing to refute what I said about the Biblical data. Even as far as post-Biblical sources are concerned, the article only cites one post-Biblical source prior to the fourth century, a liturgy whose alleged dating isn't documented.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYour second article is about post-Biblical Jewish sources, which once again doesn't refute my argument about the Biblical era. And the article contradicts your position. See what I wrote about that article in the thread here. See, especially, my two posts at 8:27 P.M. on June 4.
In summary, then, you've cited two articles that do nothing to refute my argument that you were responding to. And your second article contradicts your position. The first article only cites one alleged ante-Nicene source, a liturgy, but without documentation for its alleged dating. Think about that. The Bible covers thousands of years of human history. Yet, you can't cite a single example of support for your view of prayer in scripture. Your earliest orthodox source for an alleged prayer to the dead or prayer to an angel is a questionably dated liturgy supposedly from the third century A.D. Why are we supposed to believe that thousands of pages of Biblical and patristic literature prior to that time would be silent about prayer to the dead and to angels, all the while mentioning prayer to God explicitly and frequently, even though the believers who lived during that time allegedly believed in praying to the dead and angels?
You write:
"It sounds as if Protestants are ignoring their own treatises on prayer, denials, and absence of such prayers in other contexts in their lives."
Is it your position, then, that there is no such thing as the rhetorical device I referred to? When an atheist poet addresses a river or mountain in his poem, he's expressing a belief in praying to that river or mountain? When the psalmists speak to the mountains, for example (Psalm 68:16, 114:6), do you conclude that they're praying to those mountains?
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteI mentioned the hymn Angels From The Realms Of Glory. Here's the first stanza:
Angels from the realms of glory,
Wing your flight o’er all the earth;
Ye who sang creation’s story
Now proclaim Messiah’s birth.
Do you want us to believe that Protestants expect the angels to hear them? Even though the angels being addressed are being told to do something that was already completed at the time of Jesus' birth?
To interpret such a hymn as evidence of Protestant belief in prayer to angels is ridiculous. It doesn't reflect well on how you're thinking through these issues. Can you cite any scholar of historical theology or any other relevant field who interprets such hymns as evidence that Protestants believe in prayer to angels?
You write:
"If you're okay with hymns addressing angels and tombstones addressing dead infants, I think it is you who are being inconsistent and refusing to draw logical conclusions."
What I'm "okay with" is using a rhetorical device that doesn't include the assumptions that are included in prayer. There's nothing inconsistent about addressing angels in a hymn, for example, without the expectation that they'll hear you and, at the same time, rejecting prayer to angels. How is that inconsistent?
On the other hand, it is inconsistent for you to take Psalm 103:20 as evidence of prayer to angels while not taking verse 22 of the same Psalm as evidence of prayer to all of God's works. If you're going to take Psalm 103:22 as the sort of rhetorical device I've referred to, then it makes no sense for you to turn around and take verse 20 as a prayer to angels and condemn Protestants for doing in their hymns and elsewhere what you think the psalmist did in Psalm 103:22. You're the one who's being inconsistent.
You write:
"Who prays to the dead? God is the God of the living and not of the dead."
I've already addressed that objection in my discussion with Christine linked above. I don't deny that deceased believers are spiritually alive in Heaven. They're also physically dead (John 11:14, 1 Corinthians 15:52, 1 Thessalonians 4:16). And since the Biblical commandments about not trying to contact the dead are about the physically dead, it's irrelevant to point out that those physically dead individuals are spiritually alive.
Jason: If you attend a Protestant church service when they're singing Angels From The Realms Of Glory, do you conclude that they believe in prayer to angels?
ReplyDeleteDavidW: I would not attend a Protestant "church" service, but: I would conclude that they are inconsistent which wouldn't surprise me given the rampant inconsistency in Protestant belief and practice.
Right, wouldn't want to extend the reasonable courtesy to an opponent to actually let them define their own position. Much better if you define it for him, right?
Who prays to the dead?
You do. There are dead people who are alive IN CHRIST but dead TO YOU, and there are alive people who are alive in Christ and alive to you.
"There are dead people who are alive IN CHRIST but dead TO YOU, and there are alive people who are alive in Christ and alive to you."
ReplyDeleteAnd conversely, there are people who are alive to us, but dead to Christ - like our unconverted loved ones.
Jason:
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty much done with this conversation. When someone so completely misses the point, repeats assertions that have already been shown as ridiculous, and refuses to look inward at their own inconsistency, the conversation can be nothing more than an exercise in futility. (Titus 3:10)
Rhology:
1. Were Moses and Elijah dead to Peter, John, and James? (Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:2-8, Luke 9:28-36)
2. How exactly does "a great cloud of witnesses" "surround" us if the entire cloud is dead to us? (Hebrews 12:1-2)
3. So the Saducees were right? (Mark 12:19-27)
1. Were Moses and Elijah dead to Peter, John, and James?
ReplyDeleteYes. That's why it was quite astonishing to see them in the miraculous Transfiguration cloud.
You know, 'cause Moses...died. And Elijah was taken up to Heaven, but didn't have contact with anyone since then.
How exactly does "a great cloud of witnesses" "surround" us if the entire cloud is dead to us?
How does sin so easily entangle us? Is sin made of hemp, or nylon?
It's a metaphor.
3. So the Saducees were right?
No. What is that supposed to mean? Has the Resurrection already happened? Are you a HyperPreterist/Hymenaean or something?
Oh, and I love how it's Jason who's missed the point, and yet you're asking me about the Sadducees. Riiighhhhttt.
David writes:
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty much done with this conversation.
You have a fairly strange definition of a "conversation." You come over to Triablogue, make a series of unsubstantiated assertions and then, when a substantive reply is made to these, you say you're "done" with the conversation. Tell me, how is this kind of hit-and-run commenting supposed to be an effective defense of Eastern Orthodox belief?
When someone so completely misses the point, repeats assertions that have already been shown as ridiculous, and refuses to look inward at their own inconsistency, the conversation can be nothing more than an exercise in futility. (Titus 3:10)
In other words, you don't have any answers to Jason's arguments. But instead of exercising some intellectual honesty or basic courtesy by admitting as much or simply not responding, you claim, without evidence, that Jason "completely misses the point, repeats assertions that have already been shown as ridiculous, and refuses to look inward at their own inconsistency." That's nothing more than empty rhetoric and will be rejected as such. Sometimes I'm amazed at how poor some of the responses to Triablogue are.
Then again, you do keep company with Jnorm888, John and Lvka over at Orthodox Apologetics, so I suppose this kind of poor, dishonest behavior is to be expected.
Just more blatant disrespect on your part, Lvka, repeatedly violating your ban at Triablogue. You are being such a fine witness for the One True Orthodox Church.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea why you keep posting here. Your comments are hidden, and even on those off times when blogger fails and I am able to see them, I still ignore them; my eyes skip the words and move on to unbanned commentators. I suspect I am not alone in this.
"Right, wouldn't want to extend the reasonable courtesy to an opponent to actually let them define their own position. Much better if you define it for him, right?"
ReplyDeleteHow many times have we seen Protestants (e.g. Webster) citing someone like Basil of Caesaria for Sola Scriptura, when Basil has written so clearly and plainly against Sola Scriptura in his writings? And when challenged, the only Protestant response is "oh well, the fathers were inconsistent".
Now the shoe is on the other foot. Ha!
Kim,
ReplyDeleteWhere's the evidence?
You made reference to Webster. If you have a particular example from him of such blatant inconsistency or erroneous reasoning, feel free to present it.
If you're at all familiar with Webster, he wrote a book of church father out-of-context quote mining to bolster sola scriptura, of church fathers who were elsewhere outspoken against sola scriptura. And that includes Basil.
ReplyDeleteI don't have Webster right in front of me this minute. if you want a specific reference to this nonsense, see Chap 11 of James White's scripture alone where he dishonestly cites Basil and others to bolster the notion that sola scriptura was believed in the early church. Compare Chaps 10, 27-30 of Basil's "On the Holy Spirit" for the most strident attack on sola scriptura in all the church fathers. Did White mention that when supposedly representing Basil? Nope. As Rhology said, wouldn't want to extend the reasonable courtesy to an opponent to actually let them define their own position. Much better if you define it for him, right?
“Time will fail me if I attempt to recount the unwritten mysteries of the Church. Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is the written source? If it be granted that, as we are baptized, so also under the obligation to believe, we make our confession in like terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism and in conformity with the principles of true religion, let our opponents grant us too the right to be as consistent in our ascription of glory as in our confession of faith. If they deprecate our doxology on the ground that it lacks written authority, let them give us the written evidence for the confession of our faith and the other matters which we have enumerated. While the unwritten traditions are so many, and their bearing on “the mystery of godliness is so important, can they refuse to allow us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers; — which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches; — a word for which the arguments are strong, and which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery?” - Basil, Ch 27, On the Holy Spirit
Kim writes:
ReplyDeleteIf you're at all familiar with Webster, he wrote a book of church father out-of-context quote mining to bolster sola scriptura, of church fathers who were elsewhere outspoken against sola scriptura. And that includes Basil.
What does my familiarity with Webster have to do with this discussion? Nothing, I imagine. You used Webster as an example. So far, you have no specific arguments or citations of his to demonstrate your criticisms, criticisms which neither stand nor fall on my knowledge of Webster's literary achievements.
However, I assume you're making reference to Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume III. The work is in the bookcase next to this computer. Whenever you want to move from vague, unsubstantiated rhetoric to concrete and examinable specifics, let me know.
I don't have Webster right in front of me this minute.
Then why use Webster as an example? Would this be the kind of "dishonest" approach to research you deplore?
if you want a specific reference to this nonsense, see Chap 11 of James White's scripture alone where he dishonestly cites Basil and others to bolster the notion that sola scriptura was believed in the early church.
How do you know it is dishonest? Is this the Catholic charity I often hear about, the kind that White supposedly doesn't practice but Catholic apologists do?
Why don't you quote the particular reference White uses and show how it is not really in support of Sola Scriptura? That would be more helpful than just citing a chapter of his work and dismissing it as "dishonest."
Compare Chaps 10, 27-30 of Basil's "On the Holy Spirit" for the most strident attack on sola scriptura in all the church fathers.
I reviewed your quotation from Basil. It's not obvious how you think that qualifies as "the most strident attack" on Sola Scriptura. You're going to have to explain how the passage does so in more detail.
What, are you trying to obfuscate?
ReplyDeleteYou've got Webster: does Webster quote the fathers in an attempt to show the Fathers supported sola scriptura? Yes or No?
Does Webster and White cite Basil? Yes or No.
Did you read chapters 10, 27-30 from Basil? Does Basil support sola scriptura, yes or no?
I think the answers to these questions are amazingly obvious, and thus the dishonesty of Webster and White are correspondingly dishonest. Where you find fault with this isn't clear. But if you answer these questions the source of your dispute would be made known.
Kim writes:
ReplyDeleteWhat, are you trying to obfuscate?
Asking you to demonstrate how Webster's (and White's) quotations from Basil don't support Sola Scriptura and how your quotations from Basil militate against Sola Scriptura is not obfuscation. It's the opposite; I want you to explain yourself more clearly and issue more explicit arguments so I can issue a response. I am not going to spend the effort trying to anticipate what you have in mind from those passages, only to have you say that the particular argument(s) I'm critiquing isn't really what you'd say regarding Basil.
But if all you want to do is simply repeat that Webster and White are "dishonest" because, according to you, the matter is so "amazingly obvious," then there's nothing more to say.
Kim,
ReplyDeleteYou need to read this.
You want me to explain how the most strident attack on Sola Scriptura in the Fathers is what it so clearly is? Amazing. You haven't read Basil have you? Seriously, be honest now.
ReplyDelete“Is answer to the objection that the doxology in the form “with the Spirit” has no written authority, we maintain that if there is no other instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be received. But if the greater number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without written authority, then, in company with the many others, let us receive this one. For I hold it apostolic to abide also by the unwritten traditions."
“Time will fail me if I attempt to recount the unwritten mysteries of the Church. Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is the written source? If it be granted that, as we are baptized, so also under the obligation to believe, we make our confession in like terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism and in conformity with the principles of true religion, let our opponents grant us too the right to be as consistent in our ascription of glory as in our confession of faith. If they deprecate our doxology on the ground that it lacks written authority, let them give us the written evidence for the confession of our faith and the other matters which we have enumerated. While the unwritten traditions are so many, and their bearing on “the mystery of godliness is so important, can they refuse to allow us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers; — which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches; — a word for which the arguments are strong, and which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery?”
“In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity.”
“The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of “sound doctrine”is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. So like the debtors, — of course bona fide debtors. — they clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers.”
“Had I not so done, it would truly have been terrible that the blasphemers of the Spirit should so easily be emboldened in their attack upon true religion, and that we, with so mighty an ally and supporter at our side, should shrink from the service of that doctrine, which by the tradition of the Fathers has been preserved by an unbroken sequence of memory to our own day.”
Rhology, a quote from that interaction you linked to: "Congratulations, yes, you showed me that they were inconsistent"
ReplyDeleteLOL, hypocrite! You just got busted doing the very thing you decry. Need I remind you what you just said:
---------
DavidW: I would conclude that they are inconsistent which wouldn't surprise me
Rhology: Right, wouldn't want to extend the reasonable courtesy to an opponent to actually let them define their own position. Much better if you define it for him, right?
---------
Kim:
ReplyDeleteFriendly advice: don't waste your time. There's a reason I dropped out of this. I've gone round and round with Rhology on the silliness of his claim. No, he hasn't read the Fathers. But he'll tell you all day that he knows more about them than you do (or than Jaroslav Pelikan or JND Kelley or Vladimir Losskey or pretty much any other knowledgeable, respected Patristics scholar). And when you finally demonstrate just how ridiculous that post of his that he's been flouting for the last two years is he'll just do as you already said that Protestants all end up doing -- claiming "well, they're just inconsistent and contradictory anyway." He's even gone as far as to say that St. Athanasius completely contradicts himself within two sentences in a certain writing when I showed him why reading more than Webster and White's prooftexts is important. Then there's his (tactical) affirmation of the possibility that aliens used to rule the earth (no, I'm not kidding). Kim, you are walking amongst the "strong delusion" that the Scriptures warn us about.
Kim writes:
ReplyDeleteYou want me to explain how the most strident attack on Sola Scriptura in the Fathers is what it so clearly is?
It's not “clear” (in the sense you’re using the term), at least not to anyone familiar with scholarship on Basil's passages from On the Holy Spirit.
And you’re still not demonstrating that Webster and White have taken Basil out of context. Why did you level criticisms of them if you’re not willing to quote and interact with their material?
Amazing. You haven't read Basil have you? Seriously, be honest now.
I’m familiar with the passages you’re citing and the greater context. What’s not obvious is how you think they contradict Sola Scriptura.
If you want to play chicken, you’re going to lose. You should consider Keith Mathison’s treatment of On the Holy Spirit in The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001), p. 33-35. He quotes at length from Eastern Orthodox scholar Georges Florovsky, demonstrating that On the Holy Spirit can’t possibly be taken as the most “amazingly obvious” “most strident attack on sola scriptura in all the church fathers”:
In any case, one should not be embarrassed by the contention of St. Basil that dogmata were delivered or handed down by the Apostles, en musterio. It would be a flagrant mistranslation if we render it as “in secret.” The only accurate rendering is: “by the way of mysteries,” that is—under the form of rites and (liturgical) usages, or “habits.” In fact, it is precisely what St. Basil says himself: ta pleista ton mustikon agraphos hemin empoliteuetai. [Most of the mysteries are communicated to us by an unwritten way]. The term ta mustika refers here, obviously to the writes of Baptism and Eucharist, which are, for St. Basil, of “Apostolic” origin….Indeed, all instances quoted by St. Basil in this connection are of ritual or liturgical nature.
Florovsky also notes that “[t]his ‘silent’ and ‘mystical’ tradition, ‘which has not been made public,’is not an esoteric doctrine, reserved for some particular elite”:
St. Basil is referring here to what is now denoted as disciplina arcani. [The discipline of secrecy]. In the fourth century this “discipline” was in wide use, was formally imposed and advocated in the Church. It was related to the institution of the Catechumenate and had primarily an educational and didactic purpose. On the other hand, as St. Basil says himself, certain “traditions” had to be kept “unwritten” in order to prevent profanation at the hands of the infidel. This remark obvious refers to rites and usages. It may be recalled at this point that, in the practice of the Fourth century, the Creed (and also the Dominical Prayer) were a part of this “discipline of secrecy” and could not be disclosed to the noninitiated. The Creed was reserved for the candidates for Baptism, at the last stage of their instruction, after they had been solemnly enrolled and approved. The Creed was communicated, or “traditioned,” to them by the bishop orally and they had to recite it by memory before him….The Catechumens were strongly urged not to divulge the Creed to outsiders and not to commit it to writing. It had to be inscribed in their hearts.
(Continued)
Florovsky continues:
ReplyDeleteThe only difference between dogma and kerygma was in the manner of their transmission: dogma is kept “in silence” and kerygma are “publicized”….But their intent is identical: they convey the same faith, if in different manners….Thus, they “unwritten tradition,” in rites and symbols, does not actually add anything to the content of the scriptural faith: it only puts this faith in focus….St. Basil’s appeal to “unwritten tradition” was actually an appeal to the faith of the Church….He pleaded that, apart from this “unwritten” rule of faith, it was impossible to grasp the true intention and teaching of the Scripture itself. St. Basil was strictly scriptural in his theology: Scripture was for him the supreme criterion of doctrine.
This is why I asked you to draw out your arguments. The passage is really not that obviously against Sola Scriptura, if it is at all. For all your pretense of being knowledgeable on this matter and your insinuations of gross ignorance on my part, you do not seem to be familiar with how Basil defines the terms and concepts you seem to rely on for your argument.
As for David, I wouldn’t take any comfort from his words. He has shown a great deal of unreasonableness in this thread already. He’s all rhetoric, no substance. He couldn’t make any sort of response to Jason’s evisceration of his position, so he just held up his nose and ran away. It’s just the dismissive handwaving I’ve come to expect from the charitable, godly, holy members of the One, True, Apostolic Church he claims to defend.
(The quotes from Florovsky were taken from Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View [Buchervertriebsanstalt, 1987], 86-89.)
ReplyDelete"You’re still not demonstrating that Webster and White have taken Basil out of context."
ReplyDeleteI don't have to show that to prove my contention - that being the hypocrisy of Rhology's comment, that we should let people define their own position rather than jumping to the conclusion of inconsistency. All I have to show is that Basil decried sola scriptura. If Basil decries sola scriptura then it is dishonest to quote him as if he was a supporter of your position. I'll bet White or Webster wouldn't want me to take a sentence or two out of their writings and have them supporting something they would never support.
"The only accurate rendering is: “by the way of mysteries,” that is—under the form of rites and (liturgical) usages, or “habits.”
Absolutely. Lex orandi, lex credendi.This doesn't help your case one bit. Yes, it was passed down in rites, liturgy and so forth.
Attempting to draw a heavy distinction between doctrine and practice, doesn't help you because they are so intimately connected, secondly because its not like Protestants accept the importance of apostolic tradition for practice, rites and liturgy anyway, so the dispute remains, and thirdly because Basil himself refers to doctrine.
"The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of “sound doctrine” is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. So like the debtors, — of course bona fide debtors. — they clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers. But we will not slacken in our defence of the truth. We will not cowardly abandon the cause. The Lord has delivered to us as a necessary and saving doctrine that the Holy Spirit is to be ranked with the Father. Our opponents think differently, and see fit to divide and rend asunder, and relegate Him to the nature of a ministering spirit. "
This is a doctrinal issue Basil is addressing. He defends his stance as an appeal to the faith passed down by the fathers. Basil says you need to understand things a certain way because that is what the Fathers handed down in the Church. He decries those who ask for written proof for this doctrinal issue. That makes tradition a rule of faith.
"He pleaded that, apart from this “unwritten” rule of faith, it was impossible to grasp the true intention and teaching of the Scripture itself."
Well Hallelujah, we have confirmation - Basil was no sola scripturaist. Now if only White and Webster can be persuaded to stop representing him as such. Now why do you pass me a quote that proves what I said, and then complain?
Hello Jason,
ReplyDeleteYour invocation of Origen on the issue of prayer has reminded me of something he wrote in a work that seems to be ignored by most Romanists and Genevanists:
“If we understand what prayer really is, we shall know that we may never pray to anything generated—not even to Christ—but only to God and the Father of all, to whom even Our Saviour Himself prayed, as we have already said and teaches us to pray, He does not teach how to pray to Himself, but to the Father…” (Origen, Prayer, chapter 15, English trans. John L. O’Meara, Ancient Christian Writers, Vol. 19. p. 57.)
Origen, whose mother tongue was Greek, and who produced more commentaries on the Bible in Greek than any other individual I am aware of, not only restricted prayer to the Father alone (albeit through the Son), but also restricted the term autotheos to the Father alone, as well as the phrase “The God”. He also called the Son/Logos “deuteros theos”, noting that only the Father is termed “the one God”.
Personally, I have never been much of a ‘fan’ of selective quotes from CFs when the general thrust of their theology is contrary to ones own paradigm.
Grace and peace,
David
P.S.
Given that you have written a considerable amount on the issue of baptismal regeneration, you may be interested in THIS RECENT THREAD at Called to Communion.
David Waltz wrote:
ReplyDelete"Your invocation of Origen on the issue of prayer has reminded me of something he wrote in a work that seems to be ignored by most Romanists and Genevanists...Origen, whose mother tongue was Greek, and who produced more commentaries on the Bible in Greek than any other individual I am aware of, not only restricted prayer to the Father alone (albeit through the Son), but also restricted the term autotheos to the Father alone, as well as the phrase 'The God'. He also called the Son/Logos 'deuteros theos', noting that only the Father is termed 'the one God'. Personally, I have never been much of a ‘fan’ of selective quotes from CFs when the general thrust of their theology is contrary to ones own paradigm."
First of all, I'm not a Calvinist, if that's what you mean by "Genevanist".
Second, I've already discussed the issue you're referring to, regarding prayer to the Son, in the thread here.
Third, Origen seems to have changed his view on this issue over time, as I and one of the scholars I cited in the thread above have noted. If you're going to accuse Catholics and Calvinists of "ignoring" what Origen believed on the subject, then should we accuse you of "ignoring" what Origen said on the subject elsewhere? Should we accuse you of being a "fan" of "selective quotes from CFs"?
Fourth, my recent posts on prayer have been focused on what Protestants and Catholics and Orthodox disagree about, particularly prayer to the dead and, to a lesser extent, prayer to angels. I'm not under any obligation to also discuss other types of prayer in the process. There's nothing wrongly "selective" about citing what Origen said about prayer to the dead, for example, without also citing what he said about prayer to the Son, if prayer to the dead is the issue under consideration.
Fifth, the views of Origen and other ancient sources are relevant to Catholic and Orthodox historical claims, even if the Protestant criticizing those historical claims disagrees with the view of somebody like Origen. For example, if a Catholic were to claim that nobody in the early centuries of church history held belief X, and I were to cite Origen's affirmation of belief X, the fact that I reject belief X myself (or reject belief Y, which Origen also held), doesn't prove that I'm doing anything wrong.
You write:
"Given that you have written a considerable amount on the issue of baptismal regeneration, you may be interested in THIS RECENT THREAD at Called to Communion."
I've already had a lengthy discussion on the subject (both Biblical and patristic evidence) at that blog. See here.
Kim:
ReplyDeleteLOL, hypocrite! You just got busted doing the very thing you decry. Need I remind you what you just said:
Methinks you misunderstand. My point is precisely that many CFs are inconsistent. That's what I am saying.
that being the hypocrisy of Rhology's comment, that we should let people define their own position rather than jumping to the conclusion of inconsistency
And when they define it one way one time, and then another contradictory way another time...what do we do?
All I have to show is that Basil decried sola scriptura.
Here I'll argue like you:
Nuh UH!!! All *I* have to do is show that Basil TAUGHT Sola Scriptura!
See, we have BOTH in these guys' writings. So we have to figure what to do with that. My post is the only answer I can think of.
David:
No, he hasn't read the Fathers.
You mean, he hasn't read ALL the Fathers. I've read SOME. How well does it serve your cause to misrepresent ppl like that? Have you read ALL the Fathers? Obviously not, b/c a good portion of their writings are still not translated into EN. So I guess YOU haven't "read the Fathers" either. So maybe you should qualify that kind of statement, no?
besides, we've discussed the circular reasoning behind your labelling people "Fathers" and while you may think you had a good answer... you didn't.
Kim writes:
ReplyDeleteI don't have to show that to prove my contention - that being the hypocrisy of Rhology's comment, that we should let people define their own position rather than jumping to the conclusion of inconsistency.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Rhology is wrong and being a hypocrite. What does that have to do with me? Nothing. It's just a convenient way to avoid dealing with the passages that White and Webster do cite to support their positions, passages you still refuse to interact with.
All I have to show is that Basil decried sola scriptura. If Basil decries sola scriptura then it is dishonest to quote him as if he was a supporter of your position.
All I have to do is show that Basil supported Sola Scriptura. If Basil supports Sola Scriptura then it is dishonest to quote him as if he was a supporter of your position.
I'll bet White or Webster wouldn't want me to take a sentence or two out of their writings and have them supporting something they would never support.
Which is a fine way of begging the question. It's also quite the characterization, as if White and Webster only took "a sentence or two" from Basil to support their positions.
Attempting to draw a heavy distinction between doctrine and practice, doesn't help you because they are so intimately connected,
That's not an argument. Of course they are intimately connected. That's what Flovosky says. He also says how they are intimately connected, but you just ignore that and claim that I'm trying to make some "heavy distinction" between them, as if that overturns the material I presented.
secondly because its not like Protestants accept the importance of apostolic tradition for practice, rites and liturgy anyway, so the dispute remains,
You're being vague and evasive, refusing to bring specifics to your argument, as usual. What do you mean by "accept the importance" of them? What level of "importance" do you have in mind? It seems fine to say we accept them as Basil does, since he thinks, as I quoted to you from Florovsky, that this tradition, unwritten or not, and its rites, symbols, etc. is merely the same as the content of Scripture, but expressed differently. As a Protestant, I have no problem with creeds and other traditions to the extent that they accurately reflect the content of Scripture; in that sense, they are very much expressing the same content of Scripture, but in a different manner, and become "important."
and thirdly because Basil himself refers to doctrine.
...
This is a doctrinal issue Basil is addressing. He defends his stance as an appeal to the faith passed down by the fathers. Basil says you need to understand things a certain way because that is what the Fathers handed down in the Church. He decries those who ask for written proof for this doctrinal issue. That makes tradition a rule of faith.
Except that Florovsky explains what Basil meant by the "unwritten" traditions, outlines the rather qualified sense in which they are "handed down" (a sense incompatible with what I assume to be your argument against Sola Scriptura) and how they do not act as an additional, equally infallible rule of faith--since tradition is merely the same in content as Scripture, but expressed differently--and then explicitly says: "St. Basil was strictly scriptural in his theology: Scripture was for him the supreme criterion of doctrine."
So you need to either practice some reading comprehension or some honesty. As it stands, you've failed to address much of anything I've quoted from Florovsky. I can't tell if that's because you genuinely didn't read the material or because you are being dishonest and can't deal with its content.
Hello again Jason,
ReplyDeleteThanks for responding; you posted:
>>First of all, I'm not a Calvinist, if that's what you mean by "Genevanist".>>
Me: First, I never said that YOU are either a “Romanist” or a "Genevanist"; second, I recall that you have already noted on at least one prior occasion that YOU are not a Calvinist.
>>Second, I've already discussed the issue you're referring to, regarding prayer to the Son, in the thread here.>>
Me: Will try to get through the 135 comments soon, but it will probably be tomorrow before I can do so.
>>Third, Origen seems to have changed his view on this issue over time, as I and one of the scholars I cited in the thread above have noted. If you're going to accuse Catholics and Calvinists of "ignoring" what Origen believed on the subject, then should we accuse you of "ignoring" what Origen said on the subject elsewhere? Should we accuse you of being a "fan" of "selective quotes from CFs"?>>
Me: It would be nice if you could link to the comment were you mentioned “one of the scholars I cited”. As for “ignoring” what Origen believed on the subject, was not attempting to present a scholarly piece on everything he wrote on the subject (as well as the very important issue concerning the purity of his extant corpus), but rather, wanted to introduce the readers of this particular thread to the ‘otherside’ of the issue. As for accusing me of being “selective”, since I was merely pointing out the ‘otherside’, I was purposely selective, and was not being polemical in doing so—I have ‘no dog in this fight’.
>>Fourth, my recent posts on prayer have been focused on what Protestants and Catholics and Orthodox disagree about, particularly prayer to the dead and, to a lesser extent, prayer to angels. I'm not under any obligation to also discuss other types of prayer in the process. There's nothing wrongly "selective" about citing what Origen said about prayer to the dead, for example, without also citing what he said about prayer to the Son, if prayer to the dead is the issue under consideration.>>
Me: Fair enough; I sincerely appreciate the clarificaton.
As for the new thread at Called To Communion, are you saying that you have addressed all the issues raised in this new thread in the older thread on justification?
Grace and peace,
David
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"It would be nice if you could link to the comment were you mentioned 'one of the scholars I cited'. As for 'ignoring' what Origen believed on the subject, was not attempting to present a scholarly piece on everything he wrote on the subject (as well as the very important issue concerning the purity of his extant corpus), but rather, wanted to introduce the readers of this particular thread to the ‘otherside’ of the issue. As for accusing me of being 'selective', since I was merely pointing out the ‘otherside’, I was purposely selective, and was not being polemical in doing so—I have ‘no dog in this fight’."
Prayer to Jesus wasn't the subject of this thread, so you were presenting one side of an issue not being discussed.
The post I was referring to in the other thread is my 9:36 P.M. post on June 6.
You wrote:
"As for the new thread at Called To Communion, are you saying that you have addressed all the issues raised in this new thread in the older thread on justification?"
No, that's not what I was saying. I haven't read the one you linked. I don't know how much new ground it covers, if any. I spent about three weeks discussing a wide range of issues related to the Biblical and patristic evidence in the thread I linked. You suggested in the past that you had read that discussion. Do you think the new thread makes a significantly different argument?
"My point is precisely that many CFs are inconsistent. That's what I am saying. "
ReplyDeleteAnd David's point was that he finds Protestants inconsistent. That is all he was saying.
Get the hypocrisy now?
"Nuh UH!!! All *I* have to do is show that Basil TAUGHT Sola Scriptura!"
You and your brethren seem to think that if an ECF says something about how Scripture can solve disputes, that indicates sola scriptura. Nuh UH. Claims about SOLA XYZ are debunked by coming up with the 2nd instance of an XYZ. Again, letting people define their own position instead of arrogantly assuming everyone in the world but yourself can't define their own position.
"You mean, he hasn't read ALL the Fathers. I've read SOME."
Great, so what percentage of the fathers, have you read?
And David's point was that he finds Protestants inconsistent. That is all he was saying.
ReplyDeleteHow are Protestants inconsistent?
More specifically, how are WE inconsistent?
You and your brethren seem to think that if an ECF says something about how Scripture can solve disputes, that indicates sola scriptura.
As if that's the highest praise that so-called ECFs give the Scr. Why not really represent the issue at hand?
A small %. Of what import is that?
"Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Rhology is wrong and being a hypocrite. What does that have to do with me?"
ReplyDeleteHow would I know? I commented on Rhology's hypocrisy, and you saw fit to butt in.
"It's just a convenient way to avoid dealing with the passages that White and Webster do cite to support their positions, passages you still refuse to interact with."
You want me to deal with a a particular passage? Fine. White and Webster cite this:
“I must not press the authority of Nicaea against you, nor you that of Ariminum against me; I do not acknowledge the one, as you do not the other; but let us come to ground that is common to both—the testimony of the Holy Scriptures.”
Of course there is no sola scriptura here. All we have is Augustine agreeing to use common ground to resolve a dispute about things that are not common.
Then we have Augustine saying this:
“As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils” Augustine, Letter 54.
So we have Protestants unwilling to allow ECFs to define their own position, but rather forcing their own world view on them, and quoting them selectively in order to trump up a contradiction that does not exist.
"as I quoted to you from Florovsky, that this tradition, unwritten or not, and its rites, symbols, etc. is merely the same as the content of Scripture, but expressed differently"
And he clarifies what he means by "content of Scripture" as being "But their intent is identical". And how do we determine the intent of scripture? Through careful Protestant style exegesis perhaps? " apart from this “unwritten” rule of faith, it was impossible to grasp the true intention and teaching of the Scripture itself."
"St. Basil’s appeal to "unwritten tradition" was actually an appeal to the faith of the Church, to her sensus catholicus, to the (φρονιμα εκκλησιατικον) fronima ekklisiatikon [Ecclesiastical mind]"
Is this sounding like sola scriptura?
"Scripture must be read in the light of faith, and also in the community of the faithful. For that reason Tradition, the tradition of faith as handed down through generations, was for St. Basil an indispensable guide and companion in the study and interpretation of the Holy Writ. At this point he was following in the steps of St. Irenaeus and St. Athanasius. In the similar way Tradition, and especially the liturgical witness, of the Church was used by St. Augustine"
No sola scriptura here.
Do you feel good having misrepresented the Fathers that you have now even taken to misrepresenting those who comment on the Fathers? Where will the misrepresentations end?
" What do you mean by "accept the importance" of them? What level of "importance" do you have in mind? "
ReplyDeleteSince you've taken to quoting Flovsky:
" Indeed, all instances quoted by St. Basil in this connection are of ritual or liturgical nature: the use of the sign of the Cross in the rite of admission of Catechumens; the orientation toward East at prayer; the habit to keep standing at worship on Sundays; the epiclesis in the Eucharistic rite; the blessing of water and oil, the renunciation of Satan and his pomp, the triple immersion, in the rite of Baptism. There are many other "unwritten mysteries of the Church," says St. Basil: τα αγραφα της εκκλησιας μυστηρια (c. 66 and 67). They are not mentioned in the Scripture. But they are of great authority and significance. They are indispensable for the preservation of right faith."
i.e. all the things Protestants have abandoned are “indispensible”.
"As a Protestant, I have no problem with creeds and other traditions to the extent that they accurately reflect the content of Scripture"
A blunt attempt to change the terms of the debate. A sola-scriptura position is to "have no problem" with certain extra-scriptural practices. The non-sola-scriptura position is that these things "are indispensable for the preservation of right faith."
That's why Basil was no sola scripturaist, and why it is so offensive to see him forced into that pigeon hole.
Kim writes:
ReplyDeleteHow would I know? I commented on Rhology's hypocrisy, and you saw fit to butt in.
Your stated reason for refusing to demonstrate to me that Webster and White have taken Basil out of context was because of the hypocrisy you believe Rhology is engaging in. I think you need to do a better job keeping track of the exchange.
You want me to deal with a a particular passage?
No, I'd much prefer to read vacuous rhetoric.
Fine. White and Webster cite this:
I specifically said those passages that White and Webster adduce to demonstrate that Basil believed in Sola Scriptura. Again, you are either suffering reading incomprehension or engaging in dishonesty. We weren't discussing Augustine. We were discussing Basil, a father you specifically mentioned as one that Webster and White misrepresented; indeed, you started this conversation asserting that Webster misrepresented Basil and continued that claim, broadening it to include White, as the conversation continued. Is this a tacit admission that you can't argue against or explain away their quotations from Basil?
Is this sounding like sola scriptura?
As usual, you assert vaguely. I suspect it is because you have no concrete arguments, and hope that something in what you write or quote succeeds in sticking.
If you think Basil's use of unwritten tradition refutes Sola Scriptura in the the most “amazingly obvious” “most strident attack on sola scriptura in all the church fathers," you need to show as much while, at the same time, addressing what I've already quoted from Florovsky on the subject.
No sola scriptura here.
If you think Sola Scriptura is against interpreting Scripture within the confines of the Church or is dismissive of historical theology, you are getting your definition of Sola Scriptura from Catholic Answers tracts and are not really qualified to critique the principle.
I really have no problem affirming what you've quoted here. What the community of saints has said about Holy Scripture is an "indispensable guide and companion" when looking to interpret Scripture. Sola Scriptura does not operate in a theological vacuum. It does not operate under strict individualism, even if all interpretations are ultimately still subject to Scripture.
Indeed, I don't see how any what you quoted even changes or modifies anything I quoted from Florovsky. And remember what I quoted earlier:
St. Basil was strictly scriptural in his theology: Scripture was for him the supreme criterion of doctrine.
So you have to, at the very least, interpret Florovsky's comments in light of this one. And I don't see how that's compatible with your supposedly devastating quotations from Basil against Sola Scriptura.
(Continued)
i.e. all the things Protestants have abandoned are “indispensible”.
ReplyDeleteA blunt attempt to change the terms of the debate. A sola-scriptura position is to "have no problem" with certain extra-scriptural practices. The non-sola-scriptura position is that these things "are indispensable for the preservation of right faith."
You're confusing the outworking of a rule of faith with the rule itself. The question is not what Basil found to be true using his rule of faith. The question is whether the rule of faith he used is different from what Protestants use.
In other words, all you're doing is equivocating on the term "indispensable." Basil's understanding of how these things are "indispensable" has already been quoted to you above. One part of that understanding was as follows, from the same section you're drawing your additional quotes:
Thus, the “unwritten tradition,” in rites and symbols, does not actually add anything to the content of the scriptural faith: it only puts this faith in focus
Yet you are trying to suggest that Florovsky says something really is added in content at the same, binding level of Scripture.
That's why Basil was no sola scripturaist, and why it is so offensive to see him forced into that pigeon hole.
Given the scorn you heap on your opponents, I suspect it is really just that someone would dare challenge your interpretations of church history. We've seen this before with the Pharisees; they did the same when anyone dared to challenge their interpretations of the Old Testament and their "traditions." It was a matter of personal pride, not a righteous defense of God.
You're asking me to prove something I didn't claim - that White and Webster took Basil out of context. No doubt they did that, but that's not the contention I'm relying on.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm saying is that White and Webster, and Rhology and many others, quote Basil in the context of supporting sola scriptura, without properly representing the entirety of his position. Then when you point out the full explanation of his position and the other things he said, they fall back into throwing up their hands and crying inconsistency, which is the very thing Rhology railed against here. And yes, that is dishonestly. Quoting Basil as if he is some kind of sola scriptura proponent whilst ignoring his full position, is like quoting one sentence from White that sounds antithetical to his fully expounded position, and then crying inconsistency. White doesn't like it when it is done to him, and I don't like it when it is done to Basil.
"If you think Basil's use of unwritten tradition refutes Sola Scriptura in the the most “amazingly obvious”...
I didn't say it refutes sola scriptura, I'm saying it is anti-sola scriptura. But I won't repay in kind and accuse you of dishonesty like you do to everyone else.
"If you think Sola Scriptura is against interpreting Scripture within the confines of the Church..."
Again with the attempt to subtly shift the argument.
Since you appeal to Florovsky, do you think when he talks about Basil's reference to "the faith of the Church, to her sensus catholicus", he is referring to the vague notion of interpreting within a notionally Christian local body? Of course not. You and I know what he means by the "sensus catholicus", and you know full well this is not sola scriptura. You're on record many times rejecting the sensus catholicus based on your interpretation of scripture.
"...or is dismissive of historical theology..."
Another attempt to subtly change the terms of the debate. Basil's position is not that he is merely not "dismissive of historical theology". Basil's position is that historical theology is authoritative. i.e. not sola scriptura.
Let nobody say Protestants have lost the art of bait and switch.
"What the community of saints has said about Holy Scripture is an "indispensable guide and companion"
Another attempt to soften the blow. Let's get the quote right shall we:
"The Apostolic Tradition of faith was the indispensable guide in the understanding of Scripture AND THE ULTIMATE WARRANT OF RIGHT INTERPRETATION."
You feeling sorry yet you brought up Florovsky?
"St. Basil was strictly scriptural in his theology: Scripture was for him the supreme criterion of doctrine."
ReplyDeleteEven this quote all by itself is a rejection of sola scriptura. Supreme is not the same as sola.
Obviously, Protestants are going to want to obfuscate and launch into discussions about secondary authorities, but Protestant secondary authorities (if such a concept has any meaning at all, which I would question), do not function as Florovsky here describes, as being the "ultimate warrant of right interpretation".
Again, despite your best attempts to obfuscate the issues, Basil does not accept the sola scriptura conception of truth.
"The question is not what Basil found to be true using his rule of faith. The question is whether the rule of faith he used is different from what Protestants use."
If there were question marks about where he got the things listed, you could throw this argument into the mix. But the things mentioned in that quote: "the use of the sign of the Cross in the rite of admission of Catechumens; the orientation toward East at prayer; the habit to keep standing at worship on Sundays; the epiclesis in the Eucharistic rite; the blessing of water and oil, the renunciation of Satan and his pomp, the triple immersion, in the rite of Baptism." don't have any plausible scriptural support as a compulsory practice. Do you seriously wish to advance the proposition that a person holding to sola scriptura could potentially hold the necessity of Churches to face East as a necessary part of the faith? If so, you are so deep into obfuscation,it'll take BP's deep drilling rig to extricate you.
And in any case, Basil tells us where they came from, “ the unwritten mysteries of the Church”.
"Thus, the “unwritten tradition,” in rites and symbols, does not actually add anything to the content of the scriptural faith: it only puts this faith in focus"
But these things are "indispensable" to putting this faith in focus. i.e. not sola scriptura.
"And he pleaded that, apart from this "unwritten" rule of faith, it was impossible to grasp the true intention and teaching of the Scripture itself. St. Basil was strictly scriptural in his theology" - Florovsky
That's the context of this Florovsky quote. Does that sound like sola scriptura that scripture cannot be rightly interpreted other than in the context of the unwritten traditions? Didn't think so. You but you tried to make it sound so by again lifting quotes out of their context to try and make them say the opposite of what they intended.
"Yet you are trying to suggest that Florovsky says something really is added in content at the same, binding level of Scripture."
Sounds like an argument for material sufficiency then. But material sufficiency is not sola scriptura. Material sufficiency is the position that sola scriptura is generally warring against.
Quoting Basil as if he is some kind of sola scriptura proponent whilst ignoring his full position, is like quoting one sentence from White that sounds antithetical to his fully expounded position, and then crying inconsistency.
ReplyDeleteIt's not OUR fault when Basil says sthg that supports Sola Scr one time and not-Sola-Scr another time. Don't blame us; blame him.
I note also you didn't answer my question, Kim.
Kim writes:
ReplyDeleteYou're asking me to prove something I didn't claim - that White and Webster took Basil out of context. No doubt they did that, but that's not the contention I'm relying on.
Try to remember what you've already written in these conversations. Earlier you wrote:
If you're at all familiar with Webster, he wrote a book of church father out-of-context quote mining to bolster sola scriptura, of church fathers who were elsewhere outspoken against sola scriptura. And that includes Basil.
Then, because you didn't have Webster on hand, you cited White as an example of this "out-of-context quote mining...that includes Basil."
What I'm saying is that White and Webster, and Rhology and many others, quote Basil in the context of supporting sola scriptura, without properly representing the entirety of his position. Then when you point out the full explanation of his position and the other things he said, they fall back into throwing up their hands and crying inconsistency, which is the very thing Rhology railed against here.
You need to demonstrate that the quotes White and Webster use do not entail or teach Sola Scriptura by themselves and that they can be supplemented by other quotes from Basil. All you're doing at this stage is assuming a charage of inconsistency is an inappropriate response.
You're also assuming, without warrant since you keep refusing to address the material from Webster and White, that the situation is not reversed, that it might be you who have quoted Basil incompletely, and what White and Webster quote supply the complete and proper view of Basil and demonstrate that Basil held to Sola Scriptura. It's just one big exercise in begging the question with you.
I didn't say it refutes sola scriptura, I'm saying it is anti-sola scriptura.
A distinction without a difference. And you said it was much more than just anti-Sola Scriptura. You attached very strong language to how "anti" you think Basil's position is (the most of any church father), calling it "the most strident attack on sola scriptura in all the church fathers." You will be held to that burden of proof.
But I won't repay in kind and accuse you of dishonesty like you do to everyone else.
Not "everyone else," but those who I believe deserve it. Just like you repeatedly call White and Webster's actions "dishonest." Just like you accuse me of obfuscation, a term that implies dishonesty. Just like you suggest I've deliberately and repeatedly lifted Florovsky out of context to suit my own agenda. So spare me the sanctimony.
I haven't accused you of dishonesty. The question was whether you have been engaging in reading incomprehension or dishonesty.
But at least in this case it's obviously the former.
Basil's position is that historical theology is authoritative. i.e. not sola scriptura.
We've been over this. I have no problem asserting it as "authoritative" in the sense Basil thinks it's authoritative. Try to argue for your interpretation of his terms.
You and I know what he means by the "sensus catholicus",
You habitually assume, without argument, that certain concepts are in favor of your position and against Sola Scriptura. No, I don't know what you think he means by "sensus catholicus" or how that supposedly militates against Sola Scriptura
I keeping having to guess what your specific arguments are over these terms. It's coming to the point where the definitions might just be whatever goes against Sola Scriptura.
and you know full well this is not sola scriptura.
And you know full well this is Sola Scriptura. See how easy that is.
And would this be an example of how you don't "repay in kind and accuse" of "dishonesty"?
(Continued)
You're on record many times rejecting the sensus catholicus based on your interpretation of scripture.
ReplyDeleteReally now. Feel free to produce that record.
You feeling sorry yet you brought up Florovsky?
No. You feeling sorry yet you brought up Augustine when the discussion was Basil? You have a double-standard when it comes to invoking shame for perceived errors.
Obviously, Protestants are going to want to obfuscate and launch into discussions about secondary authorities, but Protestant secondary authorities (if such a concept has any meaning at all, which I would question), do not function as Florovsky here describes, as being the "ultimate warrant of right interpretation".
Ultimate in what sense? Please try to issue an argument this time instead of just begging the question.
Do you seriously wish to advance the proposition that a person holding to sola scriptura could potentially hold the necessity of Churches to face East as a necessary part of the faith?
Incredulity isn't an argument.
You're not objecting to me, Kim. I've already quoted what Florovsky has to say about what Basil thought about these items, that they were merely Scriptural faith expressed in a different manner. If you think it incredible that Basil would find these concepts Scriptural, then save your incredulous rhetoric for him and for a relevant context; the distinction between the rule of faith and the expression of that rule of faith remains untouched.
But these things are "indispensable" to putting this faith in focus. i.e. not sola scriptura.
We've been over this. In what sense are they indispensable? For example, I find certain Creeds to be "indispensable" for the faith given how accurately they reflect Scriptural theology. It would be absurd to toss them out, to consider them worthless, or to fail to consult them in the proper, normal course of theological studies. Why do you think this sense of indispensible cannot be reconciled with the sense Basil uses?
Does that sound like sola scriptura that scripture cannot be rightly interpreted other than in the context of the unwritten traditions? Didn't think so.
We've been over how Basil defines "unwritten tradition." It is the same in content as Scripture. If you think that's somehow devastatingly against Sola Scriptura, you're going to have to make an argument demonstrating as much. And, no, supplying loaded questions with equally loaded answers does not count.
None of the White or Webster Basil quotes support sola scriptura. A blog comment is hardly the place analyse the lot of them, but feel free to bring one up for discussion if you disagree.
ReplyDelete"All you're doing at this stage is assuming a charage of inconsistency is an inappropriate response."
Just because I'm not posting a 100 page analysis of the books in question doesn't mean I'm assuming anything.
" I have no problem asserting it as "authoritative" in the sense Basil thinks it's authoritative. "
Err, and what sense might that be? Some non-authoritative authoritative sense? Meh.
" No, I don't know what you think he means by "sensus catholicus" or how that supposedly militates against Sola Scriptura"
I hardly matters what the sensus catholicus is, since it is an authority that is not scripture. Define it any way you like, and you still lose.
"Ultimate in what sense?"
Seriously? That's like discussing an ECF who says God is eternal and asking "eternal in what sense"?. Eternal is eternal. Ultimate is ultimate.
"In what sense are they indispensable? For example, I find certain Creeds to be "indispensable" for the faith given how accurately they reflect Scriptural theology."
And are these creeds "indispensable for the preservation of right faith." in sola scriptura? You simply cannot preserve right faith without them? Come now, you're not fooling anyone.
"It is the same in content as Scripture. "
Irrelevant! If there is an authority outside scripture, then sola scriptura fails, no matter what its content. And if that other authority is a requirement to "preserve" and "interpret" scripture, then scripture is not self-sufficient. Its a part of a larger package which has to be taken altogether to be used.
RHOLOGY: It's not OUR fault when Protestants say sthg that supports prayer to angels one time and not-prayer -to-angels another time. Don't blame us; blame you.
ReplyDeleteIt's not OUR fault when Protestants say sthg that supports prayer to angels one time and not-prayer -to-angels another time.
ReplyDeleteGot a specific example?
Remember - we don't accept "ECF"s as authoritative. How about some Scripture?