So That We Might Keep Watch

Ephrem the Syrian, writing in the fourth century, made some of the same points I've made about early Christian eschatology. He doesn't limit the units of time that aren't known in Mark 13:32 to smaller ones, but takes them to include larger ones, like the generational timeframe, as well. He cites Acts 1:7 in the process, as I've often done. He refers to how Jesus is communicating the fact that all generations are to be on watch. He refers to how there are some general signs of the times that are in place in every generation, a point I've often made:

He also said, But, of that hour no one knows, not even the angels, nor the Son [Matthew 24:36], lest they question him as to the moment of his coming. It is not your business to know the days and the times. [Acts 1:7] He has hidden that [from us] so that we might keep watch, and that each of us might think that this coming would take place during our life. For, if the time of his coming were to be revealed, his coming would be in vain, and it would not have been desired by the nations and the ages in which it was to take place. He has indeed said that he will come [cf. Matthew 24:30], but he did not define when, and [thus] all generations and ages thirst for him. For, although he has given [an indication of] the signs of his coming, their end cannot be understood, since they have come and gone in a constant flux and yet they remain always....

Or perhaps he knew the time but the moment was hidden from him? But the time is a moment, and a moment is part of time....

He highlighted his signs so that, from the first day, all peoples and ages would think that his coming would take place in their day.

(Carmel McCarthy, trans., Saint Ephrem's Commentary On Tatian's Diatessaron [New York: Oxford University Press, 2000], 18:15-16; pp. 278-80)

The Many Biblical References To Baptism With No Baptismal Regeneration

When advocates of baptismal regeneration try to misframe discussions of the doctrine in the manner I discussed in my last post, they sometimes suggest that their opponents can't cite baptismal passages in support of their view. Supposedly, there aren't any Biblical passages about baptism that support justification apart from baptism. But the argumentation used elsewhere by advocates of baptismal regeneration suggests otherwise.

How Discussions Of Baptismal Regeneration Are Often Misframed

Advocates of baptismal regeneration often frame discussions of the subject with a small handful of Biblical passages that allegedly teach the doctrine. Supposedly, we should judge the issue primarily or solely on the basis of passages that discuss baptism.

Does the background to First Clement support a papacy?

First Clement opens with a reference to how the Corinthians had requested help from the Romans, how the document was being written to address "the points respecting which you consulted us" (1). It's sometimes suggested that papal authority is implied. Why did the Corinthians consult the Romans? Since there's a good chance that the apostle John was still alive, why didn't they consult him instead?

Loving God Whom You Don't See

"There is nothing finer, nothing sweeter, than God. Now you are going to tell me: I do not see Him; how am I to love one whom I do not see? Behold how you may learn to love one whom you do not see. I will show you how you may try to see what you cannot behold with these eyes. See, now, you love a friend; what do you love in him? You love him without any return. Perhaps that friend of yours, to omit other facts, is an old man; for you can have an old man as a friend. What do you love in the old man? A crooked body, a white head, the wrinkles on his forehead, his drawn jaw? If it is the body which you see, compared with old age nothing is so ugly; yet you love something, even if you do not love the body which you see because it is ugly. How do you see what you love? For if I were to ask you: Why do you love? you would answer me: The man is faithful. Therefore, you love fidelity. If you love fidelity, God is seen with the same eyes with which fidelity is perceived." (unknown source, in Mary Magdeleine Mueller, trans., St. Caesarius: Sermons, Volume I [1-80] [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2004], Sermon 21:4, p. 109)

Fulfilled Prophecy As A Down Payment

I've discussed the prophecies of Isaiah in some recent posts. Something that's significant about Isaiah is how it combines so many prophecies that have already been fulfilled and so many that haven't been. And they're often in close proximity.

The Assumption Of Mary Isn't Just Absent In The Earliest Sources

People often underestimate the evidence against an assumption of Mary and the evidence against the idea that her assumption is an apostolic tradition always held by the church. While it's true that the concept of an assumption of Mary is absent in the earliest generations of church history, the evidence against the concept goes far beyond that. See my posts here and here about how often the Biblical and extrabiblical sources discuss a wide range of topics relevant to an assumption of Mary, mentioning many individuals other than Mary in the process, without saying anything about an assumption that Mary experienced. Here's a post that discusses other contexts, like ancient Christian artwork, in which an assumption of Mary or other relevant events (e.g., her being raised from the dead) could have been included, but weren't. Again, keep in mind that many people other than Mary are included in such contexts, even though Mary isn't. There's also the fact that some patristic and medieval sources either expressed agnosticism about whether Mary was assumed (see here and here) or denied that she was assumed (see here and here). And here's a post about a medieval Pope who referred to belief in Mary's assumption as optional. On the problems with appealing to doctrinal development in support of an assumption of Mary, see here.

You can find many other posts with relevant material in our archives. See the list of posts under the Assumption of Mary label here, for example.

Notice Where Canon Discussions Begin

What assumptions are being made at the start of the discussion? For example, when somebody like Cameron Bertuzzi is assuming the truthfulness of Christianity, that certain individuals of past generations were Christians, what writings attributed to those individuals are genuine, etc., did he get to those conclusions by a means he's criticizing Protestants for utilizing? Cameron has made a series of canonical judgments, about canons other than the canon of scripture, before he begins his criticisms of Protestantism on canonical matters. How does he know which documents attributed to Athanasius or Augustine, for instance, are genuine and which aren't? What's the canon of Athanasius' writings or Augustine's, Jerome's, Innocent I's, and so forth? Cameron probably frequently relies on Protestant scholarship on patristic issues, much as he relies on other sources who aren't conservative Catholics on patristic issues and issues pertaining to the Bible, church history, and so on. That includes scholars who are highly antagonistic toward Christianity, like Bart Ehrman, a source Cameron recently cited on canonical issues. Ehrman not only has been a scholar in the field of New Testament textual criticism, but also has done work in related areas. His doctoral thesis was on textual issues in Didymus the Blind, a church father. So, Cameron's conclusions on matters related to the Bible, church history, the church fathers, church councils, etc. depend on fallible, probabilistic judgments derived largely from scholarship that isn't part of conservative Catholicism (moderate Catholics, liberal Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, atheists, agnostics, etc.).

When conservative Protestants are faulted for depending on sources they have significant disagreements with, keep in mind that conservative Catholics do the same. When conservative Protestants are faulted for relying on fallible, probabilistic judgments about controversial and complicated issues, keep in mind that conservative Catholics do the same. Etc.

Prepare Yourself For Canon Discussions

Over the past several days, I've been responding to Cameron Bertuzzi's recent videos about issues related to the New Testament canon. I responded to him on Facebook and on Triablogue here and here. These issues come up frequently, not just in the context of Roman Catholicism, but also in other contexts, like Bart Ehrman's recent comments in response to Wes Huff. But few people are well prepared to address these topics. That needs to change.

A good place for starting to prepare yourself for future discussions is an article I wrote in 2009 about the evidence for the acceptance of our 27-book New Testament canon before the time of Athanasius' Festal Letter 39 in 367. Read Athanasius' letter. Read the other sources involved, especially Origen's seventh homily on Joshua. Think through the issues. Prepare yourself for future discussions, and speak up. If you don't like how these things have been handled so far, and you shouldn't like it, one thing to do is to make better use of your own responsibilities and opportunities.

Problems With Appealing To Doctrinal Development In Support Of The Assumption Of Mary

One approach advocates of her assumption could take is to argue that the earliest Christians weren't aware of Mary's assumption, but that an understanding of it developed over time. It wasn't a new revelation, but rather is an implication of one or more aspects of the apostolic faith, an implication that wasn't recognized until sometime after the apostles.

There are some problems with that sort of approach, some of which I've discussed before. I want to repeat some points I've brought up in other discussions and add some that I don't think I've mentioned in the past.

Difficulties With The Papacy

One of my posts last week responded to a video by Cameron Bertuzzi about how Protestants view Hebrews, including its canonicity. Catholics often bring up the subject as an example of one or more problems with Protestantism, such as how difficult it is to justify the canonicity of Hebrews from a Protestant perspective. As my earlier post mentioned, there are similar issues in Catholicism, like Catholic disagreements over which papal teachings are infallible. See here for Trent Horn's comments on the subject in a debate he had with Gavin Ortlund, for example. When something like that Catholic disagreement over papal infallibility occurs in a Protestant context, it's often suggested that the disagreement over the subject is an unacceptable form of disunity, it proves that we need an infallible source to settle things for us, it's evidence that Protestantism is a blueprint for anarchy, and so forth. One of the things we're told is that the papacy is the solution. It brings about the clarity, unity, etc. that we need. But what if the papacy is what people are having difficulty with, are disagreeing about, and so on?

Another example was unintentionally alluded to in Cameron's video that I responded to in my earlier post. He refers to how some people have thought that Hebrews was written by the third Pope.

Did a Protestant pastor's daughter have a supernatural dream confirming the assumption of Mary?

A Protestant pastor, named Daniel, recently posted a video about a potentially supernatural experience he had with his daughter related to Mary's assumption. He was researching the assumption of Mary, asked God to reveal to him whether the assumption is historical, and was told by his daughter afterward that she'd had a dream in which she saw Mary going up to heaven.

The incident seems to have a lot of potential to be supernatural on its face. Before I get to possible explanations of the episode if it is supernatural, I want to address some reasons to be hesitant about concluding that there is anything supernatural that needs to be explained.

Why think Hebrews is canonical?

Cameron Bertuzzi recently posted a video asking Protestants a few questions about Hebrews. I've addressed the questions before, but I'll summarize my answers here and provide links to some of my older material on the issues involved and more recent updates.

Setting His Face To Go To Jerusalem

There's a prominent theme in the gospel of Luke about Jesus' determination to go to Jerusalem to complete what he came to earth to do. There's a verse that highlights what's referred to in other places in Luke as well:

"When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem." (9:51)

The third Servant Song in Isaiah uses similar language, about the setting of the face, when discussing the suffering Jesus was to undergo in Jerusalem:

"I have set my face like flint" (50:7)

Some of Jesus' fulfillments of the Servant Songs in the gospels are more explicit (e.g., Luke 22:37). There are some that are more subtle, though. Noticing the more subtle ones and the cumulative effect of all of the evidence is important.