i) One problem for Catholic apologists is the fact that there was no equivalent to the Roman Magisterium in OT times or the Intertestamental period. But how can a Magisterium be essential to the new covenant community when it was inessential to the old covenant community?
Some Catholic apologists bite the bullet and say OT religion was inferior in that respect. Yet that fails to explain how Jews could even know what the Bible was, if a Magisterium is so indispensable.
Other Catholic apologists claim there was a Jewish Magisterium. They have two prooftexts: Mt 23:1-3 and Jn 11:51.
i) A general problem is the Catholic conundrum of proving Catholicism from Scripture. Except in the handful of cases where the Magisterium has given its "infallible" interpretation of this or that verse of Scripture, a Catholic apologist who ventures to prove Catholicism from Scripture must tacitly endorse the right of private judgment. The Catholic apologist is offering his personal interpretation of his prooftexts. But unless Scripture is perspicuous, and he has the right to exercise private judgment on the meaning of Scripture, he's conceding Protestant epistemology and hermeneutics. It's a self-defeating exercise. Frankly, it stalls at that point. There's nothing more we need to discuss.
But for the sake of completeness, let's consider the two prooftexts:
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice (Mt 23:1-3).
ii) Catholics take this to mean the scribes and Pharisees taught with the same authority as Moses. However, a glaring problem that interpretation is that Jesus frequently critiques the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees. Indeed, in this very discourse, he calls them "blind guides." It would be wildly inconsistent for him to issue them a blank check.
iii) As a result, commentators like France and Carson think the statement is a sarcastic set-up for what follows. And that's a reasonable interpretation.
iv) Nolland offers a different explanation. At a time and place, when literacy spotty and most Jews and Christians didn't own private copies of Scripture, the scribes and Pharisees were "walking copies" of the Torah. They had committed large portions of the OT to memory.
If you wanted to know what the OT said, consult a scribe or Pharisee. That's distinct from their understanding of what it meant–or how to apply it. And I think that's a reasonable interpretation.
49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. 50 Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” 51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation (Jn 11:49-51).
What's the significance of his high priesthood in relation to his oracle? What's the intended link?
i) Some Catholic apologists take this to mean that Caiaphas was prophetic by virtue of his office. Prophetic inspiraton came with the office.
A problem with that claim is that there's no evidence that prophetic inspiraton was associated with the high priesthood in general. At best, some individual high priests were credited with the gift of prophecy.
Moreover, we must make allowance for our sources. Josephus was, himself, a priest–with prophetic pretensions–so he's biased. We'd expect him to make exaggerated claims about his own profession.
ii) In context, the link is ironic and topical. As chief priest, Caiaphas is Christ's highest ranking religious opponent. Yet he is, unwittingly, vouching for the mission of Christ.
There's a double irony. He's prescient, but blind to his own prescience. And he's corroborating the claims of Jesus.
David King and I cited some patristic commentary on the Moses' seat passage in a thread here about a decade ago. And here are a couple of other passages:
ReplyDelete"The Lord, too, does not do away with this [God], when He shows that the law was not derived from another God, expressing Himself as follows to those who were being instructed by Him, to the multitude and to His disciples: 'The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. All, therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens, and lay them upon men's shoulders; but they themselves will not so much as move them with a finger.' He therefore did not throw blame upon that law which was given by Moses, when He exhorted it to be observed, Jerusalem being as yet in safety; but He did throw blame upon those persons, because they repeated indeed the words of the law, yet were without love. And for this reason were they held as being unrighteous as respects God, and as respects their neighbours. As also Isaiah says: 'This people honours Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me: howbeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching the doctrines and the commandments of men.' He does not call the law given by Moses commandments of men, but the traditions of the elders themselves which they had invented, and in upholding which they made the law of God of none effect, and were on this account also not subject to His Word." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:12:4)
"Now, as for what he says: 'The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat,' by 'seat' he is pointing to the learning of the Law." (Jerome, in Thomas Scheck, trans., St. Jerome: Commentary On Matthew [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University Of America Press, 2008], 258)
This entry addressees the Roman reasoning seen in this on going thread (join in Jason), in which the premise is that without the infallible magisterium of Rome, we cannot even know what the Bible consists of, as well as what it assuredly means. And among other things, what it means to the RC is that supremacy translates into infallibility, preserved thru historical descent of office, a logic which is able to leap tall buildings of evidence to the contrary in a single bound.
ReplyDeleteAccordingly, as pointed out, 1st century souls should have submitted to those who sat in the seat of Moses, while souls who discerned itinerant preachers as being of God, but whom the magisterium rejected, were deceived. But which preachers and their leader established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) versus the premise of assured veracity of a perpetual office.
And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? (Mark 11:28)
The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the [protoRC] Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:46-49)
We need to remember how the NT even began, and seek more to establish veracity as apostles did, though i certainly do not claim their of level of virtue or office.
But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:4-7)
Great point to link the ecclesiastical structure of the Mosaic Law to the structure of the RCC. It appears that the Jews followed it fairly closely. There wasn't provision for synagogs per se, but they were a natural result of communities gathering together to worship. Rabbis were the purveyors and homogenizers of the faith from community to community. This is perhaps part of the reason why such as the Midrash and the Talmud were written. Those could be argued to form a parallel to the magisterium of the RCC and indeed they do form a practical parallel. However, Jesus' treatment of the material in those OT non-canonical works should prove a strong warning against the magisterium.
ReplyDelete"a Catholic apologist who ventures to prove Catholicism from Scripture must tacitly endorse the right of private judgment."
ReplyDeleteAnd a protestant who quotes scripture, assuming it as an authority, tacitly assumes communal judgment that these books are authoritative.
"The Catholic apologist is offering his personal interpretation of his prooftexts."
He might not be. He might be offering the viewpoint of the church fathers. That's not personal.
"But unless Scripture is perspicuous, and he has the right to exercise private judgment on the meaning of Scripture, he's conceding Protestant epistemology and hermeneutics."
Every time a Protestant opens their mouth to make an argument, they are assuming the meaning and interpretation is debatable.
Perhaps a Catholic only has to offer up another view and plausible alternative to demonstrate that a tie breaker hermeneutic is a necessity.
How can Protestants keep pushing the perspicuous cart when Protestants can't agree on what it means?
"And a protestant who quotes scripture, assuming it as an authority, tacitly assumes communal judgment that these books are authoritative."
DeleteWhy? A communal judgment doesn't make it true. One person can be right. Addition doesn't make it more right–or wrong.
"He might be offering the viewpoint of the church fathers. That's not personal."
That pushes the same issue back two steps. His personal interpretation of their personal interpretation.
"Every time a Protestant opens their mouth to make an argument, they are assuming the meaning and interpretation is debatable."
i) Even if that were true, which it's not, that's a disanalogous comparison.
ii) "Debatable" is another weasel word. Anything can be debated. That doesn't mean every interpretation is equally valid.
iii) You have a self-defeating habit of resorting to alethic relativism to attack Protestant hermeneutics. But the weapon you deploy against Protestant hermeneutics will relativize Orthodoxy as well. You can't start with alethic relativism and end with alethic realism.
"Perhaps a Catholic only has to offer up another view and plausible alternative to demonstrate that a tie breaker hermeneutic is a necessity."
Insofar as he is laboring to prooftext his tiebreaker from Scripture, that would be viciously circular.
"How can Protestants keep pushing the perspicuous cart when Protestants can't agree on what it means?"
i) I haven't been pushing that cart in this post, or my recent interactions at Beggars All.
ii) Moreover, people often disagree with an interpretation because they don't like the consequences–even though it's the best interpretation.
iii) The church fathers require interpretation. Church councils require interpretation. Your line of argument backfires.
"Why? A communal judgment doesn't make it true. "
DeleteBecause if you quote me a scripture, it assumes as a starting point we have a common (communal) agreement on what scripture is, despite the fact, you can't actually demonstrate that it is scripture. Its veracity as an argument depends on the starting proposition of a communal agreement. The communal agreement is the undemonstrated foundation for conversation.
"That pushes the same issue back two steps. His personal interpretation of their personal interpretation.,"
No, because all but the most perverse person must admit that there are some things clear in scripture, and some things unclear. The agreements between protestants and Catholics demonstrate the former, and the differences between protestants demonstrate the latter. It's the latter things that are the problem, not the former.
But the range of unclear things is significantly reduced if the church fathers are added to the equation. Interpretations that are possible from scripture alone, might be impossible in the fathers. More data reduces the possible range of ambiguity.
"Every time a Protestant opens their mouth to make an argument, they are assuming the meaning and interpretation is debatable."
i) Even if that were true, which it's not, that's a disanalogous comparison."
I think it's quite analogous. You're claiming that merely making a Catholic argument assumes the protestant high ground of Private interpretation. I'm saying that a protestant taking serious time to respond to a Catholic interpretation assumes the Catholic high ground that these issues are debatable and needs a tie breaker to resolve
"ii) "Debatable" is another weasel word. Anything can be debated. That doesn't mean every interpretation is equally valid."
1. They are equally enough valid that protestants, claiming the same epistemological and hermeneutical methodology reach opposite conclusions.
2. This is not mathematics. Equally valid interpretations are notoriously hard to measure and compare.
3. Even under a basic protestant grammatical historical interpretive framework, there is no standard for evaluating competing considerations. ( emg. What takes precedence, grammatical our historical considerations?)
4. If after struggling with all that the most "valid" interpretation of a verse is one way, and the most valid interpretation of another verse is the opposite, there is no standard and agreed upon method to resolve that.
"iii) You have a self-defeating habit of resorting to alethic relativism to attack Protestant hermeneutics. But the weapon you deploy against Protestant hermeneutics will relativize Orthodoxy as well. You can't start with alethic relativism and end with alethic realism."
DeleteThat would only be so if the Protestant hermeneutic led to the same level of certainty as the Orthodox one. Empirical evidence of the disagreements between Protestants with their hermeneutic compared to Orthodox points to this not even being close.
"Perhaps a Catholic only has to offer up another view and plausible alternative to demonstrate that a tie breaker hermeneutic is a necessity."
Insofar as he is laboring to prooftext his tiebreaker from Scripture, that would be viciously circular."
That would depend how clear the prooftexting is, because I don’t accept the contention that everything is unclear, anymore than you would. You seem to want to propose a worldview where everything is either clear, or everything is mud. That’s not rational.
"i) I haven't been pushing that cart in this post, or my recent interactions at Beggars All."
Do you ride in this cart?
"ii) Moreover, people often disagree with an interpretation because they don't like the consequences–even though it's the best interpretation."
One presumes people wouldn’t consciously do that, because people aren’t terribly good at lying to themselves. But if you admit people do it unconsciously, it hardly helps your case, because nobody can be sure who is the smartest or who has the least prejudices when they are specifically unconscious. So we’re still back to the insufficiency of scripture.
"iii) The church fathers require interpretation. Church councils require interpretation. Your line of argument backfires."
Hardly. Few people would attempt the contortions of saying the Nicean creed supports Arianism for example, even though there is a long history of interpreting the bible that way.
"Because if you quote me a scripture, it assumes as a starting point we have a common (communal) agreement on what scripture is, despite the fact, you can't actually demonstrate that it is scripture."
DeletePeople like you have a retarded apologetic. You always raise the same schoolboy objections. I've made a detailed case for the Protestant canon. Try raising an objection I haven't already addressed. You can keep acting like you repeated first grade by reiterating the same wornout objections, but don't pretend that you caught me off-guard.
"No, because all but the most perverse person must admit that there are some things clear in scripture, and some things unclear."
Which applies, mutatis mutandis, to church fathers, church councils, &c.
"But the range of unclear things is significantly reduced if the church fathers are added to the equation."
To the contrary, that just generates a whole new set of interpretive questions. Another layer to be exegeted.
"Interpretations that are possible from scripture alone, might be impossible in the fathers. More data reduces the possible range of ambiguity."
That's only a virtue if, in fact, the church fathers know what Scripture really means. But, of course, that's one of the very issues in dispute.
"You're claiming that merely making a Catholic argument assumes the protestant high ground of Private interpretation. I'm saying that a protestant taking serious time to respond to a Catholic interpretation assumes the Catholic high ground that these issues are debatable and needs a tie breaker to resolve."
That's like saying that if I respond to an atheist, then he must have a valid point. But that doesn't follow. Bare ability to raise manufactured objections doesn't carry any presumption that the objections have merit.
"They are equally enough valid that protestants, claiming the same epistemological and hermeneutical methodology reach opposite conclusions."
You replace one weasel word "debatable" for another weasel word: equally "enough." How much is enough?
"there is no standard and agreed upon method to resolve that."
i) You're miscasting the issue, as if there's an abstract, fact-free "standard" or "tiebreaker." But in the nature of the case, exegesis deals must deal with the specifics of a particular passage. What the words mean. Syntax. Context. Literary allusions. Background information. Your alternative is a make-believe arbiter that flies at 40,000 altitude. But exegesis is unavoidably down-to-earth.
ii) Moreover, it's not the duty of an exegete to make a passage clearer than it is. It's ultimately up to God what level of ambiguity he inspires. It's not a failure on the part of a commentator if he can't arrive at certainty in cases where the passage is, in fact, uncertain to some degree. We must take revelation as it comes to us.
"That would only be so if the Protestant hermeneutic led to the same level of certainty as the Orthodox one."
Deletei) What you're pleased to call "certainty" is the circular consensus of a self-selected subculture. Likeminded people tend to agree. Likeminded people tend to associate with their own kind. Even more so when they suppress dissent.
You might as well appeal to the "same level of certainty" as Jehovah's Witnesses. Pretty cohesive. So what?
Naturally one theological tradition has a fair amount of consensus. That's not a real comparison, because it's internal to one particular tradition.
ii) Moreover, consensus in error is not an intellectual or theological virtue. Groupthink is not the touchstone of truth. There's bad agreement as well as good agreement.
"You seem to want to propose a worldview where everything is either clear, or everything is mud."
I notice you don't quote me saying that.
"One presumes people wouldn’t consciously do that, because people aren’t terribly good at lying to themselves."
To the contrary, many theological opponents are quite open about it, viz. Randal Rauser, Roger Olson, Jerry Walls.
"So we’re still back to the insufficiency of scripture."
Scripture is only insufficient if you measure it against your stimulative yardstick of sufficiency. But the problem lies, not with the insufficiency of Scripture, but the insufficiency of your presumptuous, arrogant yardstick. You refuse to accept divine revelation on its own terms. You demand more from God than he has chosen to give.
"You always raise the same schoolboy objections."
DeleteOh dear, I had no idea I was "objecting". This very blog after all, says we can identify that
"the book could be accepted because it was part of a canon of scripture that was agreed upon by most of the Jewish people", aka "consensus".
And I note that this is the only method listed in that article that at least conceivably might identify the entire canon. So here I was thinking I was agreeing with you, but even when I agree, you want to argue.
"Which applies, mutatis mutandis, to church fathers, church councils, &c."
No doubt, but the extra uncertainties from the fathers are of a lesser order. Like if there is legislation, the case law clarifies it. The case law might raise further questions, but nevertheless has an overall clarifying effect on the situation. You don't hear lawyers saying, forget the case law, because it only raises further questions.
"That's only a virtue if, in fact, the church fathers know what Scripture really means."
1. Even if we accept that objection, it still obliterates your objection that a catholic is relying on private interpretation. You've just conceded they aren't relying on private interpretation, you don't accept the source of interpretation.
2. Perhaps the fathers were wrong, but if men of high moral character, living in the correct historical and language setting, immersed in the relevant culture, at least conceivably inheritors of an apostolic interpretive tradition, and oftentimes in agreement with their fellow churchmen can't get it right, why would we think we could do better? Only by pride.
"That's like saying that if I respond to an atheist, then he must have a valid point. "
Perhaps, but by the same token, your objection is like saying that just because a catholic raises the issue of ambiguous scriptures that need a tie breaker, he must thereby admit that all scripture must never have private interpretation.
"You replace one weasel word "debatable" for another weasel word: equally "enough." How much is enough?"
Apparently equal enough that debating protestants don't object to each other's hermeneutic, only their personal application thereof.
"But in the nature of the case, exegesis deals must deal with the specifics of a particular passage. What the words mean. Syntax. Context. Literary allusions. Background information."
All competing considerations that could lead to differing results. Sometimes the bare words might lead one way, the context a different way, possible alleged allusions a third way, and background information another way again. There is no possible basis for saying which of these considerations should trump the other. That exactly is the problem.
"Your alternative is a make-believe arbiter that flies at 40,000 altitude. But exegesis is unavoidably down-to-earth. "
There is nothing 40,000 feet about the church fathers. If anything they almost certainly were flying at a lower altitude than you are.
"It's ultimately up to God what level of ambiguity he inspires."
Indeed. But when God says the church should be one, and then we see Protestants and their hermeneutic are not one, simple logic would dictate that Protestants are missing some of God's revelation.
@John
Delete"Oh dear, I had no idea I was "objecting". This very blog after all, says we can identify that "the book could be accepted because it was part of a canon of scripture that was agreed upon by most of the Jewish people", aka "consensus"."
Steve Hays isn't Jason Engwer. The latter posted the article to which you've linked using an Australian URL.
"And I note that this is the only method listed in that article that at least conceivably might identify the entire canon."
The article isn't exhaustive.
"No doubt, but the extra uncertainties from the fathers are of a lesser order. Like if there is legislation, the case law clarifies it. The case law might raise further questions, but nevertheless has an overall clarifying effect on the situation. You don't hear lawyers saying, forget the case law, because it only raises further questions."
Your point about case law is neither here nor there; it's not responsive to Steve's point.
"1. Even if we accept that objection, it still obliterates your objection that a catholic is relying on private interpretation. You've just conceded they aren't relying on private interpretation, you don't accept the source of interpretation."
But you fail to connect the dots.
"2. Perhaps the fathers were wrong, but if men of high moral character"
Does "high moral character" matter so much if someone believes or teaches poor or wrong doctrine (e.g. Philo whom Jerome lists as a church father, Origen whom some likewise argue is a church father)?
"living in the correct historical and language setting, immersed in the relevant culture"
What makes you think all the church fathers lived in "the correct historical and language setting, immersed in the relevant culture"? For example, unlike his Latin, Augustine's Greek wasn't anything to write home about.
"at least conceivably inheritors of an apostolic interpretive tradition"
Your use of "conceivably" is another weasel word, for "conceivably" could be the difference between fact and fiction here.
"and oftentimes in agreement with their fellow churchmen"
See the Arian controversy. Most of Athanasius' "fellow churchmen" happened to side with Arius, not Athanasius, even though Athanasius was on the side of truth.
By the way, if everyone jumped off of a cliff, would you jump off of a cliff too?
"can't get it right, why would we think we could do better? Only by pride."
Your view of the church fathers might have a modicum of traction if you hadn't been peering through rose-colored glasses.
"just because a catholic raises the issue of ambiguous scriptures that need a tie breaker, he must thereby admit that all scripture must never have private interpretation."
DeleteIn which case one could simply challenge the Catholic's premise.
"Apparently equal enough that debating protestants don't object to each other's hermeneutic, only their personal application thereof. All competing considerations that could lead to differing results. Sometimes the bare words might lead one way, the context a different way, possible alleged allusions a third way, and background information another way again. There is no possible basis for saying which of these considerations should trump the other. That exactly is the problem."
What's funny is none of this is "exact." You're again just speaking vaguely when in the nature of the case you need to provide concrete examples.
"There is nothing 40,000 feet about the church fathers. If anything they almost certainly were flying at a lower altitude than you are."
Take some of Augustine's highly allegorized commentaries for example. Not to mention he often relied more heavily on the Latin translation of the Bible than the original Hebrew or Greek.
"But when God says the church should be one, and then we see Protestants and their hermeneutic are not one, simple logic would dictate that Protestants are missing some of God's revelation."
But when God says the church should be one, and then we see Roman Catholics and their hermeneutic are not one, simple logic would dictate that Roman Catholics are missing some of God's revelation.
John
Delete"Oh dear, I had no idea I was 'objecting.'"
Don't try to be clever unless you are.
"And I note that this is the only method listed in that article that at least conceivably might identify the entire canon. So here I was thinking I was agreeing with you, but even when I agree, you want to argue."
i) When you try to be clever, it ruins the effect if you mess it up with blunders like that.
ii) Jason doesn't blindly appeal to consensus. He carefully sifts testimonial evidence.
"No doubt, but the extra uncertainties from the fathers are of a lesser order. Like if there is legislation, the case law clarifies it."
i) You tendentiously assert that the church fathers clarify Scripture. Saying so doesn't make it so.
ii) Moreover, as an Orthodox apologist, do you think the Latin Fathers (e.g. Augustine) necessarily clarify Scripture?
"You've just conceded they aren't relying on private interpretation."
Are you just dense? I said precisely the opposite. It's private interpretation multiplied: your private interpretation of a church father's private interpretation of Scripture.
"...living in the correct historical and language setting, immersed in the relevant culture, at least conceivably inheritors of an apostolic interpretive tradition, and oftentimes in agreement with their fellow churchmen can't get it right, why would we think we could do better?"
How many church fathers were immersed in 1C Palestine?
"All competing considerations that could lead to differing results. Sometimes the bare words might lead one way, the context a different way, possible alleged allusions a third way, and background information another way again. There is no possible basis for saying which of these considerations should trump the other. That exactly is the problem."
i) If that's the case, then appeal to church fathers or church councils merely relocates the same problem. All the same interpretive difficulties apply.
ii) Moreover, your statement is silly. The point is not to construe these in isolation, but according to a consistent overall interpretation.
"There is nothing 40,000 feet about the church fathers."
The church fathers are not a "method." Rather, you need a method to interpret the church fathers. Once again, your solution relocates the same problem.
"But when God says the church should be one."
God doesn't say the Eastern Orthodox constitute one church.
Several Christians have wrangled with John the Orthodox apologist before (e.g. here, here, here).
ReplyDeleteBased on these past and current threads, it's apparent John can't follow a simple train of thought. It's like trying to talk to someone with ADHD. He can't keep his mind focused on a single thing at a time. Instead, he often just blurts out whatever tangentially related notion happens to cross his mind at the time.
In addition, John uses buzzwords to feign comprehension. But buzzwords don't replace reasoned arguments.
As I've mentioned in the past, John purports to be an apologist for Eastern Orthodoxy, but if he can't even follow basic logic, including the "logic" of his own arguments, then what sort of "apologist" is he?
More disconcerting is the fact that John isn't a genuine Christian but rather an infidel. He professes faithfulness to the God of the Bible, but his own words betray him.
"What you're pleased to call "certainty" is the circular consensus of a self-selected subculture."
ReplyDelete1. Any atheist could make the exact same objection about your rule of faith, the new testament, as just an agreement to believe in books as the circular consensus of a self-selected subculture.
When your own objection obliterates your entire rule of faith, maybe you should rethink it.
2. At least the certainty of a so-called circular consensus, whatever the supposed problems that might entail, is at least a logically defensible source of certainty. When your alternative is lacking sufficient certainty to result in one church with your fellow sola-scriptura source of truth advocates, this alternative circular source of truth doesn't seem very likely to be true, nor attractive.
"Likeminded people tend to agree. Likeminded people tend to associate with their own kind."
Furthermore, labelling the historic church, the one which in the early centuries labelled itself "catholic" to designate its universality in the world, in contrast to various heretical sects that inevitably tended to exist in only one city or one place, and the historic church, oftentimes the only church in existence as a mere self-selected group of like minded people, comparable with the Jehoavah's witnesses, seems incredibly disingenuous to me.
Furthermore, it undermines the aforementioned blog article which regards consensus as a possible source of knowledge of the canon, for if any old self selected group of believers in agreement has equal status, then any proclaimed canon has equal status.
"Scripture is only insufficient if you measure it against your stimulative yardstick of sufficiency."
It's not my personal or arbitrary yardstick to observe that God says the church should be one. When I see people with a particular hermeneutic not one, in contravention of their very own revelations, I notice their inconsistency. And inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.
@John
Delete"Any atheist could make the exact same objection about your rule of faith, the new testament, as just an agreement to believe in books as the circular consensus of a self-selected subculture."
Yet in the case of the Orthodox, this would actually be true.
"When your own objection obliterates your entire rule of faith, maybe you should rethink it."
You haven't so much as lifted a finger in an effort to demonstrate this. Protip: If you present an argument, people may begin to take you seriously.
"At least the certainty of a so-called circular consensus, whatever the supposed problems that might entail, is at least a logically defensible source of certainty."
Works for me: John is unreasonable. Therefore, John is unreasonable.
"When your alternative is lacking sufficient certainty to result in one church with your fellow sola-scriptura source of truth advocates,"
You're tacitly placing a higher value on unity than on truth.
You're assuming a deficiency in sola Scriptura is the cause of disunity when it could be other factors.
It's not as if Catholics or the Orthodox are perfectly united except nominally.
"Furthermore, labelling the historic church, the one which in the early centuries labelled itself 'catholic' to designate its universality in the world, in contrast to various heretical sects that inevitably tended to exist in only one city or one place, and the historic church, oftentimes the only church in existence as a mere self-selected group of like minded people, comparable with the Jehoavah's witnesses, seems incredibly disingenuous to me."
You often tell people what you think or how you feel, but you rarely ever attempt to justify why you think or feel as you do.
"for if any old self selected group of believers in agreement has equal status, then any proclaimed canon has equal status."
It's quite obvious you don't understand that which you criticize. For starters, check out Steve's book titled God's Canon as well as the sources he cites in his book.
"It's not my personal or arbitrary yardstick to observe that God says the church should be one."
Moving the goalposts again, are we?
"When I see people with a particular hermeneutic not one, in contravention of their very own revelations, I notice their inconsistency. And inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument."
If so, then you should apply this to everything you've written on Triablogue.
John :
Delete"Any atheist could make the exact same objection about your rule of faith, the new testament, as just an agreement to believe in books as the circular consensus of a self-selected subculture."
i) Your tu quoque fails. I'm responding to you on your own terms.
ii) I don't attempt to ground certainty the way you do. So the parallel falls apart.
"At least the certainty of a so-called circular consensus, whatever the supposed problems that might entail, is at least a logically defensible source of certainty."
Saying it's defensible and defending it are two different things.
"When your alternative is lacking sufficient certainty to result in one church with your fellow sola-scriptura source of truth advocates, this alternative circular source of truth doesn't seem very likely to be true, nor attractive."
You haven't shown that that Orthodox constitute one church or that evangelical believers constitute more than one church. So you fail on both counts.
"Labelling the historic church…"
The Orthodox church is not "the historic church." It's an offshoot of the church.
"the one which in the early centuries labelled itself 'catholic' to designate its universality in the world"
A self-serving label. That's called propaganda.
"in contrast to various heretical sects…"
Not every "sect" that disagreed with the church of Rome or Orthodox church was heretical.
"It's not my personal or arbitrary yardstick to observe that God says the church should be one"
Where does the Bible say "the church should be one"?
There are passages which speak of the church *as* one. And that's in reference to the NT church. That's not something it should be, as if that's a goal. Rather, that's something it already is.
Are you alluding to Jn 17:21? If so, that doesn't designate "the church" as the referent.
And it doesn't say they "should" be one. Rather, it's a prayer to the Father to make them one.
John claims:
ReplyDelete"This very blog after all, says we can identify that
'the book could be accepted because it was part of a canon of scripture that was agreed upon by most of the Jewish people', aka 'consensus'. And I note that this is the only method listed in that article that at least conceivably might identify the entire canon."
No, I provided more than one method. And as I explain in my series on the canon, we wouldn't have to identify the whole canon collectively by one means in order to have a canon. I discussed multiple means of identifying a canon, and I gave examples of church fathers advocating a variety of approaches. You're ignoring most of what I said.
And you're misrepresenting the small portion you've cited. You stopped your quotation just before I added the qualifier "and accepted by Jesus and the apostles". I wasn't saying that a Jewish consensus by itself is sufficient. I've argued for why we should accept such a consensus, unlike your failure to argue for an Eastern Orthodox consensus on the canon and other issues. If I argue that we should accept consensus X for reason Y, whereas you assert that we should accept consensus Z without providing any reason for us to do so, then it's insufficient for you to try to justify your approach by pointing out that I appeal to a consensus also. I'm appealing to a different consensus, and I've offered justification for my appeal to a consensus, whereas you haven't offered any for yours. As other posters here have mentioned, you keep committing such errors in reasoning over and over again, even after having been corrected many times.
Furthermore, you need to explain how your unsupported appeal to consensus can be reconciled with the widespread absence or contradiction of some Eastern Orthodox beliefs among the early Christians. I've given many examples in the past, like in some of the posts here.
Here's Hilary of Poitiers on the seat of Moses:
ReplyDelete"Because the latter [the Pharisees] sit in the seat of Moses, the Lord told the crowd and his disciples to obey all the commandments of the Law, while abstaining from the Pharisees' deeds and works lest their human customs and unbelief nullify the teaching of the Law." (D.H. Williams, trans., Commentary On Matthew [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2012], 240)