tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8974974341126150796..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Universalism/Inerrancy DiscussionRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53852719889870256692011-03-17T00:44:57.048-04:002011-03-17T00:44:57.048-04:00Jason,
Extremely helpful comments as usual!Jason,<br /><br />Extremely helpful comments as usual!Evan Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287475721156396697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-40700812101016869732011-03-16T20:04:08.503-04:002011-03-16T20:04:08.503-04:00(continued from above)
On early beliefs about Hel...(continued from above)<br /><br />On early beliefs about Hell, see <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/07/early-christian-belief-in-hell-of.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Note that my article on Hell just linked makes reference to the testimony of Celsus. He was a second-century critic of Christianity, and he spoke of belief in a Hell of eternal punishment as if it was the mainstream Christian view. Where's your opponent's comparable or better evidence for early belief in universalism? Regarding Origen, see the comments section of the thread <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/10/significance-of-origen.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />On the relation between scripture and Jesus' comments about the Holy Spirit in John 14-16, see <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/05/canonical-implications-in-johns-gospel.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />Regarding Ephesians, it should be noted that Ignatius patterns his letter to the Ephesians off of Paul's letter to that church, which suggests that the latter was well-known and highly regarded by both Ignatius and the Ephesian church by the early second century (Clayton N. Jefford, The Apostolic Fathers And The New Testament [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006], pp. 41-42). Polycarp cites Ephesians as scripture (Letter To The Philippians, 12). Given that the document claims Pauline authorship, and given <a href="http://christianthinktank.com/pseudox.html" rel="nofollow">early Christianity's opposition to pseudonymity</a>, the evidence I've mentioned from Ignatius and Polycarp suggests that the document was widely accepted as genuinely Pauline while contemporaries and disciples of the apostles were still alive. Ignatius was a bishop of a Pauline church and was writing to the Ephesian church itself, which would have been in a good position to judge the authorship of Ephesians. Polycarp was a disciple of multiple apostles, and he was writing to a Pauline church (Philippi).<br /><br />Keep in mind that your opponent sometimes appealed to the testimony of the patristic Christians himself. The patristic evidence would be significant even if he hadn’t done so, but it becomes even more significant in this context when he himself opened the door to the kind of evidence I've cited above.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-17168501977298252932011-03-16T20:03:52.278-04:002011-03-16T20:03:52.278-04:00You've made a lot of good points, Evan. I'...You've made a lot of good points, Evan. I'll add some of my own, including some that expand on what you've already said.<br /><br />Belief in a high degree of apostolic unity doesn't depend on a belief in inerrancy. Paul repeatedly writes of his unity with the other apostles (1 Corinthians 15:11, Ephesians 2:20), even when noting his disagreement with Peter on a lesser matter (Galatians 2:7-11). Such comments, which Paul and the other New Testament authors frequently make, are significant as historical evidence, even apart from any consideration of inerrancy. The early patristic sources who knew one or more of the apostles (Clement of Rome, Papias, and Polycarp) refer to a large degree of unity among the apostles. Similarly, other men who were contemporaries of the apostles write about the unity the apostles had and refer to them collectively as if they had taught the same doctrines. For example: Clement of Rome (First Clement 5, 42, 44); Ignatius (Letter to the Ephesians, 11; Letter to the Magnesians, 13; Letter to the Romans. 4); Aristides (Apology, 2); The Epistle of Barnabas (5); Papias (in Eusebius, Church History, 3:39:4); Polycarp (Letter To The Philippians, 9). The sort of apostolic errancy and disunity your opponent has suggested is highly inconsistent with the testimony of the apostles and those who knew them.<br /><br />Belief in the inerrancy of scripture and a Hell of eternal, conscious punishment were widespread among the early patristic Christians. On inerrancy, the patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly commented that:<br /><br />"This attitude was fairly widespread, and although some of the fathers elaborated it more than others, their general view was that Scripture was not only exempt from error but contained nothing that was superfluous." (Early Christian Doctrines [New York: Continuum, 2003], p. 61)<br /><br />The fathers don't often address the issue in the sort of depth we see in modern literature, but the general thrust was along the lines of what Kelly describes above. See, for example: Clement of Rome (First Clement, 45); Justin Martyr (Dialogue With Trypho, 65); Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 2:28:2-3); Clement of Alexandria (Exhortation To The Heathen, 9); Tertullian (A Treatise On The Soul, 21); Methodius (From The Discourse On The Resurrection, 1:9); Gregory Nazianzen (Oration 2:105); Augustine (Letter 82:1:3).<br /><br />(continued below)Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.com