tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post6397223364591757759..comments2024-03-14T14:41:17.663-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Ecumenical cartomancyRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63110381904147296612007-08-15T14:34:00.000-04:002007-08-15T14:34:00.000-04:00mg said...“I was thinking of the biblical canon (s...mg said...<BR/><BR/>“I was thinking of the biblical canon (specifically the New Testament canon) and your belief that its divine authority is only revealed directly by God in the heart of the believer. The only way that its authority is declared to a person is by a private revelation inside the elect.”<BR/><BR/>i) You have a habit of substituting your terms for my terms, which skews the range of permissible answers.<BR/><BR/>ii) You’re fixated on authority, I’m not. I’m fixed on veracity rather than authority. Authority is a secondary principle.<BR/><BR/>Why is authority authoritative? Because it’s true. Truth is authoritative, and falsehood is not.<BR/><BR/>iii) I’m using regenerative categories rather than revelatory categories. Regeneration makes the mind receptive to the truth of God. When the regenerate mind is presented with the evidence of Scripture (not the evidence for Scripture), it is predisposed to believe the word of God as the word of God. It assents to the truths of Scripture. <BR/><BR/>Regeneration is not a revelatory category. God is not revealing anything to the human mind in the act of regeneration. <BR/><BR/>The revelation is contained in Scripture. Scripture supplies the revelatory object of faith for the regenerate mind.<BR/><BR/>“In virtue of the Bible's authority, it requires divine authority as backup which grounds its authority.”<BR/><BR/>i) Why? Do you also need a backup for the backup for the backup, ad infinitum? How do you avoid the regressive fallacy?<BR/><BR/>Why does the divine authority of Scripture need to be grounded in another divine authority? Where do the turtles come to an end?<BR/><BR/>ii) Anyway, that’s not how I’d frame the question. The real question is how can we know that Scripture is true. <BR/><BR/>“The accuracy of the Bible is publicly-accessible; we are agreed on this. But is the authority of the Bible publicly-accessible divine revelation?”<BR/><BR/>iii) I don’t care for your choice of adjectives. A better question is whether the truth of Scripture is accessible.<BR/><BR/>iv) In addition, your public/private dichotomy continues to duck the question (which I’ve raised before) of how an individual can personally appropriate the public evidence. You can’t sidestep the subjective element.<BR/><BR/>“As I have argued in my responses to you, these lines of evidence do not establish the authority of the entirety of the Bible, much less the biblical canon.”<BR/><BR/>Since I’ve given a number of arguments for the canon, you’re denial is too vague to elicit a response.<BR/><BR/>“Some of these lines of evidence help to establish the accuracy of the Bible; but accuracy is not sufficient for authority.”<BR/><BR/>i) Once again, you’re accuracy/authority framework is casting the question in a way that skews the range of permissible answers. <BR/><BR/>ii) You also don’t explain why you think the argument from prophecy merely establishes the “accuracy” of Scripture. Perhaps this is a semantic distinction.<BR/><BR/>As I’ve said on many other occasions, I regard the argument from prophecy as involving the parallel unfolding and eventual convergence of a whole host of theological motifs. It’s akin to the teleological argument. <BR/><BR/>They can only foreshadow the outcome if the author knows the end from the beginning. It’s like a writer who carries a draft around in his head. It’s already (mentally) finished before he commits it to writing. The earlier chapters have been shaped with a view the final chapters. <BR/><BR/>Dante’s a fairly good example. And the Commedia is the work of a single mind.<BR/><BR/>Now, the Bible was written over a period of about 1500 years by quite a number of different authors, writing at different times and place.<BR/><BR/>And yet the thematic coordination is a lot like Dante. The only explanation for this is if the Bible is divinely inspired. <BR/><BR/>There are many other arguments for Scripture. And this particular argument could be elaborated in great detail.<BR/><BR/>I’m just making the immediate point that there’s far more to the argument from prophecy than the mere accuracy of Scripture. Rather, there’s a preestablished harmony to the way in which the narrative unfolds and culminates in the Christ-event, with various books of the Bible documenting that emerging pattern.<BR/><BR/>It’s like the difference between sculpture and Petra. In the case of sculpture, the sculptor creates the image out of a marble slab. <BR/><BR/>In the case of Petra, sweeping away the sand dunes reveals a preexisting city. <BR/><BR/>Inspiration is like sweeping rather than sculpting. The process of revelation and inscripturation, century after century, uncovers a preexisting pattern. God has instantiated his plan in history, and inspired the Scriptures to document his plan. Word and deed move in tandem.<BR/><BR/>“Care to give an argument for this connection?”<BR/><BR/>E.g. 1 Cor 2:4; 1 Thes 1:5; 2 Thes 2:13.<BR/><BR/>Your remaining comments reiterate your controlling framework, which I reject.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31440899374992294532007-08-14T19:38:00.000-04:002007-08-14T19:38:00.000-04:00Steve--You wrote:"i) Your question is too compress...Steve--<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/><BR/>"i) Your question is too compressed to be entirely intelligible."<BR/><BR/>I was thinking of the biblical canon (specifically the New Testament canon) and your belief that its divine authority is only revealed directly by God in the heart of the believer. The only way that its authority is declared to a person is by a private revelation inside the elect.<BR/><BR/>"ii) Why should I cast the answer in terms of authority?"<BR/><BR/>In virtue of the Bible's authority, it requires divine authority as backup which grounds its authority. Accuracy is not the same as authority. The accuracy of the Bible is publicly-accessible; we are agreed on this. But is the authority of the Bible publicly-accessible divine revelation?<BR/><BR/>"iii) There are also external lines of evidence, viz. miracles, the argument from prophecy, &c."<BR/><BR/>As I have argued in my responses to you, these lines of evidence do not establish the authority of the entirety of the Bible, much less the biblical canon. Some of these lines of evidence help to establish the accuracy of the Bible; but accuracy is not sufficient for authority.<BR/><BR/>"iv) Ultimately, however, the elect exercise faith in God's word because they are regenerate."<BR/><BR/>I take it this is your ultimate explanation for how a Christian can recognize the authority of the Bible. Is this correct?<BR/><BR/>"I take this position because it's true, since that is how the Bible itself describes the relation between word, Spirit, and faith."<BR/><BR/>Care to give an argument for this connection?<BR/><BR/>Also, I don't think it would establish in a publicly-accessible way the authority of the New Testament canon.<BR/><BR/>"I don't have to recast it in terms of authority for this to be true. We could discuss it within an authoritarian framework, but that's inessential to the truth-claim."<BR/><BR/>Given the accuracy/authority distinction, is there any publicly-accessible divine authority that bridges the gap between accuracy and authority? I don't think this specific issue is just a "high churchy a priori". Sometimes high church folk will use a priori arguments about the criteria for a true church. But in this case, I think the status of Christian revelation as publicly-accessible truth (a commitment of most who claim faith in Christ) is severely threatened by Protestant theology.MGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11961603927935499412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-92113112073722154812007-08-14T09:41:00.000-04:002007-08-14T09:41:00.000-04:00MG said:"Do you consider the idea that the content...MG said:<BR/><BR/>"Do you consider the idea that the content of divine revelation is only privately and internally established as authoritative to be a pagan idea?"<BR/><BR/>i) Your question is too compressed to be entirely intelligible. <BR/><BR/>ii) Why should I cast the answer in terms of authority?<BR/><BR/>iii) There are also external lines of evidence, viz. miracles, the argument from prophecy, &c.<BR/><BR/>iv) Ultimately, however, the elect exercise faith in God's word because they are regenerate.<BR/><BR/>I take this position because it's true, since that is how the Bible itself describes the relation between word, Spirit, and faith.<BR/><BR/>I don't have to recast it in terms of authority for this to be true. We could discuss it within an authoritarian framework, but that's inessential to the truth-claim.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44418226797585594012007-08-13T21:15:00.000-04:002007-08-13T21:15:00.000-04:00Steve--Do you consider the idea that the content o...Steve--<BR/><BR/>Do you consider the idea that the content of divine revelation is only privately and internally established as authoritative to be a pagan idea?MGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11961603927935499412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-80860325902355093022007-08-11T19:46:00.000-04:002007-08-11T19:46:00.000-04:00ORTHODOX SAID:“How does ROCOR "accuse" anything? I...ORTHODOX SAID:<BR/><BR/>“How does ROCOR "accuse" anything? It makes as much sense as me saying that Reformed Baptists accuses something or other of heresy. What you probably mean is that someone in ROCOR accused somebody of something or other.”<BR/><BR/>What I mean was documented at length by extensive verbatim quotes straight from their website, which I posted not long ago. <BR/><BR/>Poor Orthodox is once again illustrating his senility. If you see him escape from the nursing home in his wheelchair, please notify the authorities for his own protection.<BR/><BR/>“Wasn't it you who just posited the question of why God allows it?”<BR/><BR/>I’ve presented my theodicy on many different occasion.<BR/><BR/> “So aren't you the one analogous to an atheist?”<BR/><BR/>Obviously not, since I don’t regard the Protestant Reformation as a gratuitous evil.<BR/><BR/>“The question is whether God wants it this way or if it is sin.”<BR/><BR/>So, according to Orthodox, the world isn’t the way God wanted it to be. Orthodox must be an open theist. He worships an impotent God rather than an omnipotent God. <BR/><BR/>“Protestantism says the body of Christ got it wrong for 2000 years.”<BR/><BR/>Is that what it says? Show us some quotes from major Evangelical theologians to back up your claim.<BR/><BR/>“Who's to say that the canon of scripture you inherited from us is the true one?”<BR/><BR/>We didn’t inherit our canon from you. We inherited our OT canon from the Jews. And the Orthodox church (actually a bunch of national churches) doesn’t hold the copyright to the NT canon.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85400862315630404732007-08-11T16:04:00.000-04:002007-08-11T16:04:00.000-04:00Why not try to learn about Orthodoxy as you would ...<I>Why not try to learn about Orthodoxy as you would want someone to try and learn about Calvinism?</I><BR/><BR/>Ever notice how Orthodox's internet representatives can't get their stories straight?<BR/><BR/>I pointed this out over at TTL. <BR/><BR/>Perry says we should try to learn about Orthodoxy the way we would want someone to learn about Calvinism.<BR/><BR/>This, of course, means cracking the books - which Perry, I've done I might add, in some detail - yet, on this blog, when we quote their own sources to them we're told that we have to become Orthodox, that those sources don't truly represent Orthodoxy, the sources represent those who are schismatics and not truly Orthodox, and all sorts of face saving maneuvers, so the representatives of Orthodoxy speak with a forked tongue. Forgive me, Perry, if I don't exactly see the merit of your encouragement.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.com