Thursday, July 05, 2012
Irenaeus confirms Michael Kruger on the "canonical core" of Scripture
I'm continuing to interact with the folks at Called to Communion.
Irenaeus is offered up as “direct evidence”. I question that evidence up above, especially his reporting of history, but citing Darrell Bock, who said that Irenaeus was a faithful reporter of the Gnostic heresies against which he was discoursing, I allowed that it may also be possible to allow that Irenaeus was a faithful reporter of what the church believed at the time.
In this vein, it is interesting that immediately before Irenaeus says anything about either “succession” or “Rome”, he talks about the Scriptures, and echoes these warnings from Matthew: the notion that the Apostles had a totally new message, that this message itself was the bearer of its own power, and that those who did not keep it properly were subject to “the worst calamity”:
Not the leftover teaching of the Jews. Per Cullmann, this is Paul’s paradosis “from the Lord” (1 Cor 11:23 etc).
So here, in the words of Irenaeus, before there is a promise of an “unbroken succession”, we have the Apostles carrying the message, and the message being written down, and what is written, to Irenaeus, is “the foundation and pillar of our faith”.
He continues:
That is, the apostles had “perfect knowledge” which they preached and set down. This speaks to Irenaeus’s understanding of “development”, too, as some [Gnostics] venture to say,
They had the message and it was written down. It is the written records that are “by God’s will transmitted to us”. Not “the succession”. Here, Irenaeus describes what Kruger called “the canonical core”. This, too, before any mention of “succession”:
Note, this is in contrast to the process that Joseph Ratzinger outlined in his work “Primacy, Episcopacy, and Successio Apostolica” (which I’ve cited above):
This notion is reproduced in CCC 83:
Note that Irenaeus here contrasts with both Ratzinger and the CCC at this point. Irenaeus provides us “direct evidence”, in K. Doran’s usage, that what the Apostles preached, and then what they “put down” was, actually, “the Scriptures” which “would be the foundation and pillar of our faith”.
Cullmann’s whole premise is to say that there is a sharp disjunction between the “oral transmission” of the message, and the need to write it down in a fixed, canonical form.
Irenaeus has said all of that before he talks about Rome. At this point, too, there is an echo of the warnings of Matthew 23:
What we have in Matthew 23 is echoed here in Irenaeus. It is not the promise of some future “unbroken succession, but as evidence that a faithful transmission has occurred to this point. It is a warning against “improving upon” the message (rather, the need to keep it faithfully” and also that warning (in the light of the destruction of the temple) that those, in the “succession”, “if they failed it would be the greatest calamity”.
This is not a promise for the future, but an echo of Matthew’s warning of destruction to church leadership that was not faithful.
Irenaeus is offered up as “direct evidence”. I question that evidence up above, especially his reporting of history, but citing Darrell Bock, who said that Irenaeus was a faithful reporter of the Gnostic heresies against which he was discoursing, I allowed that it may also be possible to allow that Irenaeus was a faithful reporter of what the church believed at the time.
In this vein, it is interesting that immediately before Irenaeus says anything about either “succession” or “Rome”, he talks about the Scriptures, and echoes these warnings from Matthew: the notion that the Apostles had a totally new message, that this message itself was the bearer of its own power, and that those who did not keep it properly were subject to “the worst calamity”:
The Lord of all gave his apostles the power of the Gospel, and by them we have known the truth, that is, the teaching of the Son of God.
Not the leftover teaching of the Jews. Per Cullmann, this is Paul’s paradosis “from the Lord” (1 Cor 11:23 etc).
To [the Apostles], the Lord said, “He who hears you hears me, and he who despises you despises Him who sent me”. For we have known the “economy” for our salvation only through those through whom the Gospel came to us [only through the Apostles]; and what they first preached they later, by God’s will transmitted to us in the Scriptures so that would be the foundation and pillar of our faith (“Against Heresies, 3 Pr.).”
So here, in the words of Irenaeus, before there is a promise of an “unbroken succession”, we have the Apostles carrying the message, and the message being written down, and what is written, to Irenaeus, is “the foundation and pillar of our faith”.
He continues:
It is not right to say that they preached before they had perfect knowledge …
That is, the apostles had “perfect knowledge” which they preached and set down. This speaks to Irenaeus’s understanding of “development”, too, as some [Gnostics] venture to say,
boasting that they are correctors of the apostles. For after our Lord arose from the dead and they were clad with power from on high by the coming of the Holy Spirit, they were filled concerning everything and had perfect knowledge. They went forth to the ends of the earth proclaiming the news [the message] of the good gifts to us from God and announcing heavenly peace to men. Collectively and individually they had the Gospel of God.
They had the message and it was written down. It is the written records that are “by God’s will transmitted to us”. Not “the succession”. Here, Irenaeus describes what Kruger called “the canonical core”. This, too, before any mention of “succession”:
Thus Matthew published among the Hebrews a gospel written in their language, at the time when Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and founding the church there. After their death Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself delivered to us in writing what had been announced [the message] by Peter. Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel preached by him. Later John the Lord’s disciple, who reclined on his bosom, himself published a Gospel while staying at Ephesus in Asia.
Note, this is in contrast to the process that Joseph Ratzinger outlined in his work “Primacy, Episcopacy, and Successio Apostolica” (which I’ve cited above):
“The concept of [apostolic] succession was clearly formulated, as von Campenhausen has impressively demonstrated, in the anti-Gnostic polemics of the second century; [and not in the first century] its purpose was to contrast the true apostolic tradition of the Church with the pseudo-apostolic tradition of Gnosis” (pgs 22-23).
The idea of a “New Testament” as “Scripture” is still quite inconceivable at this point—even when “office”, as the form of the paradosis, is already clearly taking shape” (Ratzinger 25).
We should not deceive ourselves: the existence of New Testament writings, recognized as being “apostolic”, does not yet imply the existence of a “New Testament” as “Scripture”—there is a long way from the writings to Scripture. It is well known, and should not be overlooked, that the New Testament does not anywhere understand itself as “Scripture”; “Scripture” is, for the New Testament, simply the Old Testament, while the message about Christ is precisely “spirit”, which teaches us how to understand Scripture.” The idea of a “New Testament” as “Scripture” is still quite inconceivable at this point—even when “office”, as the form of the paradosis, is already clearly taking shape” (Ratzinger, 25).
This open situation of the existence of recognized New Testament writings without the existence of any New Testament principle of Scripture or any clear notion of the canon lasted until well in the second century—right into the middle of the period of the conflict with Gnosticism. Before the idea of a “canon” of New Testament Scripture had been formulated, the Church had already developed a different concept of what was canonical; she had as her Scripture the Old Testament but this Scripture needed a canon of New Testament interpretation, which the Church saw as existing in the traditio guaranteed by the successio (Ratzinger, 25-26).
This notion is reproduced in CCC 83:
83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Note that Irenaeus here contrasts with both Ratzinger and the CCC at this point. Irenaeus provides us “direct evidence”, in K. Doran’s usage, that what the Apostles preached, and then what they “put down” was, actually, “the Scriptures” which “would be the foundation and pillar of our faith”.
Cullmann’s whole premise is to say that there is a sharp disjunction between the “oral transmission” of the message, and the need to write it down in a fixed, canonical form.
Irenaeus has said all of that before he talks about Rome. At this point, too, there is an echo of the warnings of Matthew 23:
Thus the tradition of the apostles [now written down as “Scriptures”] manifest in the whole world, is present in every church to be perceived by all who wish to see the truth. We can enumerate those who were appointed by the apostles as bishops in the churches as their successors even to our time, men who taught or knew nothing of the sort that [the Gnostics] madly imagine. If however the apostles had known secret mysteries that they would have taught secretly to the “perfect,” [as the Gnostics were teaching – those who could somehow improve on the Apostles’ message, perhaps through some process of “development”], they would certainly have transmitted them especially to those to whom they entrusted the churches. For they wanted those whom they left as successors, and to whom they transmitted their own position of teaching, to be perfect and blameless in every respect [1 Tim 3:2). If these men acted rightly it would be a great benefit, while if they failed it would be the greatest calamity.
What we have in Matthew 23 is echoed here in Irenaeus. It is not the promise of some future “unbroken succession, but as evidence that a faithful transmission has occurred to this point. It is a warning against “improving upon” the message (rather, the need to keep it faithfully” and also that warning (in the light of the destruction of the temple) that those, in the “succession”, “if they failed it would be the greatest calamity”.
This is not a promise for the future, but an echo of Matthew’s warning of destruction to church leadership that was not faithful.
Wednesday, July 04, 2012
Are crime rates higher in red states?
One popular atheist trope is to claim that crime rates are higher in red states and lower in blue states, which further correlates (so goes the argument) with higher or lower rates of religious adherence.
One problem with this comparison is the way it usually sakes over racial and socioeconomic demographics. But another problem is the question of how reliable crime stats are. For instance:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/nyregion/new-york-police-department-manipulates-crime-reports-study-finds.html?_r=2&ref=nyregion&pagewanted=print
One problem with this comparison is the way it usually sakes over racial and socioeconomic demographics. But another problem is the question of how reliable crime stats are. For instance:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/nyregion/new-york-police-department-manipulates-crime-reports-study-finds.html?_r=2&ref=nyregion&pagewanted=print
White men can't jump
I’m going to briefly discuss Drake Shelton’s rationalization for white supremacy. Why should I waste my time on a fruitloop like Drake? Because he’s a noisy Clarkian Scripturalist.
BTW, I wonder what fellow Clarkian Scripturalists like Vincent Cheung and Daniel Chew make of his position on race.
Now to the white supremacy thing. It depends what one means.
I do believe their is one human genus but three primary races: That of Shem, that of Japheth and that of Ham. God sovereignly had these three men born with their disticnt ethnic characteristics. The black Hamites with their clear physical superiority. The white Japhethites and Shemites with their clear mental superiorities. Each with their own distinct beauty, strengths and weaknesses. How these could have come about by climate change I will leave to the dark places of your mind Steve. The blacks have never built an empire or advanced civilization and if one simply looks at an anthology of black writers vs. white writers, the comparison is alarming. Clearly the white Japhethites have built the greatest civilizations and invented all of the fundamental parts of modern civilization. The blacks were selected by the early African slave traders to do be slaves specifically because they were the only group of people that could withstand all of the physical hardships of slavery and not fall into despair (See William O. Blake, Slavery and the Slave Trade, Ancient and Modern pages 95-96). So the idea that the differences between the races is only the color of their skin is ignorant Neoplatonic, monadic, rubbish
i) A basic internal problem with Drake’s Confederate eisegesis is that Gen 10 identifies Egyptians, Babylonians, and Assyrians as Hamites. For more background:
If (arguendo) we combine this with Drake’s claim that blacks are Hamites, that would mean blacks founded the great urban civilizations of the ANE. Hence his argument self-destructs.
So Drake has backed himself into a dilemma. If, on the one hand, he identifies blacks with Hamites, he must admit that blacks were the founders of ancient Near Eastern civilization. If, on the other hand, he denies the identification to avoid that implication, then he can’t invoke the curse of Ham over blacks.
ii) The Table of Nations (Gen 10) doesn’t attempt to address race or ethnicity in general. Rather, the scope of the document is confined to Israel’s neighbors. To the known world, taking the ANE as the frame of reference. That’s why it doesn’t cover East Indians, Chinese, sub-Saharan Africans, &c.
iii) Drake doesn’t bother to explain why physical differences between one race and another can’t be climatic adaptations.
iv) Races don’t invent anything. Gifted individuals are inventors.
v) Likewise, some “white” nations have made far greater contributions to the arts and sciences than other “white” nations. So it’s hard to make race the differential factor.
vi) The Bible is indifferent to interracial marriage, per se. Interracial marriage is only a Biblical issue when that coincides with interfaith marriage.
I believe that the most evil men in the world are white and the most righteous men in the world are white.
That’s simply heretical. One’s moral character is the result of common grace, special grace, and sin–not race or ethnicity.
Better to never be born
On the one hand:
Rogereolson says:
July 4, 2012 at 12:43 pm
God doesn’t love us because of our inherent worth; we have inherent worth because God loves us. I thought that was clear. But for us to have inherent worth, God must love all of us–not just some select group (“the elect”). And it won’t work to say God loves all people in some ways but only some people in all ways IF that means he has predestined some to hell. If that’s the case, then it would have been better for them never to have been born and they are robbed of any real dignity or worth. (As Wesley said, “That is such a love as makes the blood run cold.”)
Bev Mitchell says:
July 3, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Well said Roger! The great puzzle, for me and probably many, is how could anyone who reads the Bible miss what you say here in a few good words? Is there a good psychological analysis of this kind of blindness? Is it spiritual? Do we have a clue as to its source? It certainly is tenacious and has more lives than the proverbial cat.
On the other hand:
The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born (Mt 26:24).
Tuesday, July 03, 2012
Godless Or More Godless?
Baker books is set to publish a debate between two apostates (John Loftus, Randal Rauser). I haven't read the book yet (which is due out next April), but to judge by the two participants, it's a choice between lesser godlessness and greater godlessness.
Mormon missionaries
American Board missionary Titus Coan recalled meeting Mormons on the island of Hilo. “’You're a good man,’ said they, ‘and have done what you could; but we have come to teach you the way of God more perfectly, and if you will unite with us and come into this new light, your people will all soon be born again.’” After water baptism by immersion and the laying on of hands in prayer, they would then receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and all the “signs” would follow: exorcism of demons, speaking in tongues, healing the sick, and miracles. When Coan asked if they could speak in tongues, they responded, “Oh, yes, we can at Utah.” Then he queried, “And why not here, where you need the gift more? And why do you ask for a teacher of the native language”?
G. McGee, Miracles, Missions, & American Pentecostalism (Orbos Books 2010), 64.
C-notes
A contributor to Freethought blogs has commented on a post of mine:
It’s God’s love that gives you meaningIt’s God’s love that gives you worth
But I didn’t use that argument. What gives our existence worth or meaning is not, in the first instance, God’s love, but the fact that God made us. We are creatures of a wise Creator.
At the same time, the love of God makes a difference to our future fulfillment.
Isn’t it ironic–don’t ya think? Of course, a hundred dollar bill has no intrinsic value, either; the value it has is the value we have given it. We make our own worth; anyone who can watch children playing and only think they have worth if some supernatural entity bestows it on them, is doing it wrong.
So he’s comparing homosexuals to c-notes. He’s granting that, if atheism is true, then homosexuals have no intrinsic worth. Rather, homosexuals are worth as much or as little as society assigns to them, or they assign to themselves. Hence, he’s conceded the first part of my argument. According to atheism, homosexuals are inherently worthless. Doesn’t strike me as a very promising way to begin his counterargument.
Homosexuals are a tiny fraction of the population. What if the majority decides to turn them into dog food? What if society values pets more highly than sodomites? Is that wrong? But if the value they have is the value we give them, what if we value them for dog food?
He then brings up children at play. Children are valuable if we value them. Like c-notes.
Of course, in times of hyperinflation, c-notes are pretty worthless. It takes a wheelbarrow full of c-notes to buy a loaf of bread.
We make our own worth, he says. So what if I value my children, but I don’t value yours? What if I’m a schoolyard sniper? I go to a playground and pick off screaming kids with my rifle. Is that wrong?
By contrast, consider the Christian viewpoint. Instead of comparing human beings to c-notes, suppose we compare them to da Vinci paintings. The painting has both inherent and derivative value. Because da Vinci is a genius, a da Vinci painting exemplifies his genius. He transmits some of his genius to the painting. The painting is great because it participates in the greatness of the painter.
So lemme get this right. Christians, who believe that “homosexuals do have intrinsic worth”, are the ones leading the charge to deny them the status of equals. (No, not all Christians, of course.)
Well, that’s illogical. Equal worth doesn’t entail equal treatment. An arsonist and an army nurse have the same inherent human worth. That doesn’t mean the arsonist is entitled to the same treatment as the nurse. The nurse cares for wounded soldiers, whereas the arsonist maliciously destroys the livelihood and keepsakes of others.
Atheists, who believe that “no one has intrinsic value”, are the ones treating people as people.
But how does “treating people like people” imply treating them as “equals” if, by his own admission, people only have whatever value we give them? Why should I treat them equally unless I value them equally? And why should I value them equally unless they have intrinsic value?
These loving Christian bloggers, right in the title of the post, take their intrinsically worthy fellow human beings and reduce them to one aspect of behavior…
Homosexual activists define themselves by their homosexual identity. By their homosexual proclivities and activities.
On a day when Anderson Cooper’s low-key coming-out gives one more example illustrating the accepting attitude of the majority of Christians, the writers of this blog paint themselves into a smaller and smaller corner, facing the wrong way.
And what makes Anderson Cooper special? The fact that he’s a celebrity? What makes a celebrity more important than anyone else?
And how did he get to be a celebrity? He’s the son of a celebrity. The son of a famous American heiress and social butterfly. Derivative celebrity. Does that confer special worth on Anderson Cooper? What if you’re just a farm boy or a waitress? How does that rate?
BTW, was Anderson Cooper born homosexual? Or is his sexual identity confusion a reflection of his troubled youth? The fact that his father died when he was boy, his brother committed suicide, and his mother is a rich vapid socialite?
These christian bloggers offer them an imaginary afterlife, in exchange for the freedom to treat them as second-class citizens today.
So what’s wrong with treating them as second-class citizens? By his own yardstick, they are only worth as much or little as we impute to them.
Cuttlefish is a good example of an apostate who doesn’t think–he simply reacts.
Leadership structures in the earliest church
Garrison (#364):
You [JB] said:
“In Hurtado-style reconstructions of the Pauline world of ‘authority’, which analyze ‘all the data relevant data’, there is nothing that looks like Roman Catholicism in there.”
That assumes that Hurtado’s reconstructions are accurate and is, again, an argument from silence.
I don’t have any question that Hurtado’s reconstructions are accurate. Perhaps you’d care to interact with them on a point-by-point basis and show me where they’re not.
Anyhow, it’s not just Hurtado who’s writing about that period. Bryan cited F.F. Bruce, and I cite him extensively on the transistion from the Synagogue leadership structure to that found in the early church in the eastern half of the church, before the year 100. Notice that there’s not an “argument from silence” in these links, but rather, an analysis of what “Second Temple Judaism” held as a leadership structure, and how the early church picked that up (as evidenced within Paul’s letters and Acts, for example):
Elders Chairs Prologue Florilegia
Elders Teachers Chairs 1
Elders Teachers Chairs 2
Elders Teachers Chairs 3
Elders Teachers Chairs 4
This is all quite a different leadership model from that which was found in Rome, in the form of the Roman concept of paterfamilias and the household structure which is attested, again, throughout the New Testament and 1 Clement.
I wouldn’t expect you to read all of these links, but on the other hand, you’d learn a lot if you did.
Also, demonstrate *with direct evidence* from the NT and the Fathers how Hurtado’s synthesis of early Church worship, Christology, etc. is contradictory to Catholicism
Here is a summary that Hurtado produced on the topic of “worship in the New Testament church”, for “The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible”, ed. Katharine Doob Sakenfeld (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006-2009), 5: 910-23.
Andronicus, Peter, and “direct evidence” for church leadership in the earliest church in Rome
Garrison (#364):
You [JB] said:
“So ‘direct evidence’ in 100 AD or 150 AD seems a lot less important than what the New Testament can describe for us. Especially given that, during those years, there IS that dearth of direct evidence that you had mentioned. (A mention of Peter in 1 Clement, two mentions in Ignatius, another one about 60 years later – that does not seem all that convincing to me).”
It really doesn’t matter. Produce direct evidence that Peter was not, in fact, in Rome by showing that he was elsewhere. Otherwise, this is an argument from silence. As you yourself note, we have mentions of Peter being in Rome, but none to contradict them. Telling, no?
Of course not. I’ve noticed a pattern in your response. I don’t reproduce hundreds of pages of Protestant arguments here, and so when I come here and report their conclusions, you dismiss them as “an argument from silence”.
I’ve already noted, I wasn’t arguing that Peter wasn’t in Rome. I’m arguing that in Andronicus, we already have an apostolic presence in Rome [“outstanding among the apostles”], who was “in Christ before” Paul, who was the leader of a house church. That is real history. We are talking a period from, say, 30 to 49 AD, and perhaps beyond, someone “founding and establishing” a church at Rome.
To the contrary, Bryan said “During [Paul’s] time in Rome (four to five years) he undoubtedly taught those who were or would become the bishops/elders of the Church at Rome. And all of that is fully compatible with what St. Irenaeus says.”
Now, what Bryan says is speculative on two counts. It’s speculative as to what, precisely Paul was teaching them during that time. Bryan wants to assume it was Roman Catholic concepts (or such things in seed form) of episcopacy, hierarchy and priesthood. But that’s a mere assumption. “Not inconsistent” to be sure, but speculative.
It was also a matter of speculation that he was teaching them at that time. Robert Jewett’s commentary on Romans, for example, argues at length that Paul, upon being freed (at the end of Acts), then traveled further to Spain, before returning to Rome. And we also have Clement’s testimony that Paul traveled to Spain. It seems he was more interested in spreading the Gospel where it had not been heard before, than staying in Rome and “building on someone else’s foundation”. Look at what Paul says:
It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation. Rather, as it is written:
“Those who were not told about him will see,
and those who have not heard will understand.”
It seems far more likely, based on Paul’s own words, that (a) he doesn’t stay in Rome, and (b) in Romans 16 he is listing the actual “foundation” upon which he doesn’t want to build, in the form of 23 other individuals in Romans 16, none of whom is Peter, and among them, Andronicus, “outstanding among the apostles”. Isn’t it “speculative” to suggest that that’s Peter’s “foundation”, when Paul’s own words paint a different picture?
“Open up an acorn, and you can see a fully-formed tiny baby tree in there”
Garrison (#364):
You seem to suggest that the Roman Church sees herself as being born fully as she appears and exists in the current day like Athena from Zeus’ skull. That is not the truth, and I know of no one who seriously contends such a thing.
The Roman Church did teach that, all the way through the 17th century. At the very least, the Council of Trent, believed and taught such a thing. That’s what the phrase semper eadem was all about. It was only after the Reformation and the enlightenment began to point out certain discrepancies, that someone like Newman was required to address “certain apparent variations in teaching”, among other things. At one time, the Roman Church did see itself as being born fully, and in “essence”, Bryan and others here have argued that absolutely nothing was lacking in “the Church that Christ founded”. That’s what it means to say Christ “founded a visible church”. Open up an acorn, and you can see a fully-formed tiny baby tree in there, with all the things it will have as an adult tree.
You [JB] said:
“The canon of Scripture was the determining factor in ongoing ‘orthodoxy’ (beginning with Irenaeus and Tertullian, in the way that Cullmann explains it), and yes, ‘Scripture alone’ was God’s intended method for seeing to it that the gates of hell do not prevail against the church.”
An assertion so far without evidence.
It’s argued strenuously by Cullmann, whose entire work I have not reproduced here. If I could, I would. That is his conclusion. My first comment here was to recommend the work of Michael Kruger, Canon Revisited. I’ve placed Kruger’s conclusions in juxtaposition with the 1962 Joseph Ratzinger essay “Primacy, Episcopacy, and Successio Apostolica”, where then-theologian Ratzinger says, at some length:
We should not deceive ourselves: the existence of New Testament writings, recognized as being “apostolic”, does not yet imply the existence of a “New Testament” as “Scripture”—there is a long way from the writings to Scripture. It is well known, and should not be overlooked, that the New Testament does not anywhere understand itself as “Scripture”; “Scripture” is, for the New Testament, simply the Old Testament, while the message about Christ is precisely “spirit”, which teaches us how to understand Scripture.” The idea of a “New Testament” as “Scripture” is still quite inconceivable at this point—even when “office”, as the form of the paradosis, is already clearly taking shape” (Ratzinger, 25).
Kruger’s point, however, (which has been examined and confirmed from different viewpoints by such scholars as Oscar Cullmann and Richard Bauckham) is this (as I’ve summarized him):
“My Sheep Hear My Voice”. Thus, Kruger begins his chapter outlining what he calls the “Canon as Self-Authenticating” model. It is noteworthy that he re-affirms what Calvin said of Scripture in his Institutes. “God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word….Scripture is indeed self-authenticated.” (from Institutes 1.7.4-5). He cites also Reformed writers such as Francis Turretin and Herman Bavinck:
Herman Bavinck reminds us that the church fathers [who had no official certification from Rome] understood Scripture this way: “in the Church Fathers and the Scholastics … [Scripture] rested in itself, was trustworthy in and of itself (αὐτοπιστος), and the primary norm for church and theology” (Kruger, pg 90, citing Bavinck, “Reformed Dogmatics”, Vol 1, pg 452).
Kruger provides the definition of the term he is working with:
…for the purpose of this study, we shall be using the phrase self-authenticating in a broader fashion than was typical for the Reformers. We are not using it to refer only to the fact that canonical books bear divine qualities (although they do) but are using it to refer to the way the canon itself provides the necessary direction and guidance about how it is to be authenticated. In essence, to say that the canon is self-authenticating is simply to recognize that one cannot authenticate the canon without appealing to the canon. It sets the terms for its own validation and investigation. A self-authenticating canon is not just a canon that claims to have authority, nor is it simply a canon that bears internal evidence of authority, but one that guides and determines how that authority is to be established (91).
Of course he will look to external criteria as well. But as he says, “The canon, as God’s word, is not just true, but the criterion of truth. It is an ultimate authority … thus, for ultimate authorities to be ultimate authorities, they have to be the standard for their own authentication. You cannot account for them without using them” (91).
So, Sola Scriptura is in the Bible. Among other things, the New Testament canon “speaks for itself” (159).
Now, it takes him several hundred pages to make his case. I’ve gotten half way through the book, if you’re really interested in interacting with Kruger’s supposed “argument from silence”. Just because I haven’t reproduced the whole thing here doesn’t mean that it’s an argument that Roman Catholicism doesn’t have to contend with. And no, I’m not going to say that it’s a slam-dunk, but it definitely changes the terms of what has been a 500-year-old disagreement.
Physicists to announce they've found "Higgs boson", or "the God particle"
Caution: Language alert.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
More about that here.Monday, July 02, 2012
Pet cemetery
rogereolson says:
June 28, 2012 at 1:14 pm
I’ve talked about this quite a bit in the past. No Arminian I know denies that God ever interferes with free will. The Bible is full of it. The point is that in matters pertaining to salvation God does not decide for people. If he did, he’d save everyone. The issue is personal relationship. God cannot and will not over ride a person’s free will when what is at stake is his or her personal relationship with God of love. But God certainly can and does knock people off their horses (as with Saul). I think you are over interpreting Arminianism’s view of free will. Free will, as I have often said, is not the central issue. The central issue (and only reason we believe in free will) is the character of God including the nature of responsible relationality.
This raises a striking comparison. Many Christians had a beloved pet when they were younger. (Or sometimes when they were older.) Maybe a pet dog or pony. They loved their pet animal, and their pet animal loved them in return.
When they had their pet, it created a space in their heart. When the pet died, it left the space behind. Death never severed the emotional bond. The passage of time hasn’t diminished the emotional bond. They still miss their pet. They love their pet just as much today as the day they lost it, however many years ago.
Suppose they pray for their pet. They ask God to restore their pet to life in the world to come. They ask God to reunite them in the world to come.
The Bible doesn’t speak to that issue one way or the other. It doesn’t say God will answer a prayer for a lost pet. But then again, it doesn’t say he won’t. From what I can tell, a Christian has nothing to lose, and maybe something to gain, by offering that prayer. The Bible doesn’t contain any promise along those lines. But the Bible doesn’t contain any prohibition along those lines. So the petition seems to fall within what’s permissible to pray for. You pray, then wait and see.
Presumably, Olson doesn’t think there’s any impediment to praying for the salvation of your pet dog or pony. “Salvation” in the sense of restoring your pet to you in the world to come. Freewill is not an obstacle. Your pet would be delighted to see you again. The prayer is not an imposition on you pet.
Assuming that’s not a problem for Arminian theology, this means an Arminian can pray that God directly save his dog or pony, but an Arminian can’t pray the same thing for his mother or brother or best friend from high school. He can pray for a lost dog in a way that he can’t pray for a lost son. He can pray unreservedly for his old pony, but if he prays for his father or mother or daughter, he can only pray that God try to save them, and do so indirectly, by bringing circumstances into their lives that might (or might not) be conducive to conversion.
But isn’t there something out of whack when you can pray for a pet animal with fewer inhibitions than praying for a lost friend or relative. On a scale of values, which is more important?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)