tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8950217332002043122..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Flashcard apologeticsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-10669728983173595362014-11-25T22:32:19.199-05:002014-11-25T22:32:19.199-05:00"He probably is when you're debating a Ca..."He probably is when you're debating a Catholic."<br /><br />i) To begin with, I'm not debating a Catholic–I'm debating you. <br /><br />ii) Even if I were debating a Catholic, I'd hardly allow him to reduce the church to Peter. <br /><br />"Certainly is he a spokesman for the church."<br /><br />That's several steps removed from your original claim.<br /><br />"Scripture says nothing about supposed periods of public revelation nor of termination of said period."<br /><br />Sure it does. Prophecy is a special calling, not a regular office. Moreover, I just recently discussed why public revelation terminates with the NT. <br /><br />"If Pentecost is an example of an exception to Sola scriptura, because it occurs in a special case period, then don't claim that those events help your cause for the standard case."<br /><br />You have a bad habit of imputing your own framework to me, then alleging that I'm inconsistent. You need to acquire the mental discipline to distinguish your own position from your opponent's. <br /><br />I never said Pentecost was an exception to Sola scripture. During the era of public revelation, both oral and written revelation were operative. That's not an exception to the rule–for the rule was not in force at that stage. <br /><br />However, the underlying principle of revelation was in force. But the only source of public revelation now is Scripture–and has been for about 2000 years.<br /><br />"But there is no standard for sound hermeneutics, so it reduces to exactly the same thing."<br /><br />It only reduces to these same thing if you think all claims and counterclaims are equal–which would be self-defeating on your part. <br /><br />"If we look at apostolic hermeneutics, it includes such things as reference to the oral tradition, highly spiritual non literal speculation, points made through seemingly bad translations of the LXX and even things flat out contradictory to the OT. So who's going to set the standard?"<br /><br />Aside from exposing your infidelity, you're trotting out hackneyed objections that good exegetes routinely dispose of. <br /><br />"I highly doubt his listeners thought to themselves, gee I bet someone will recount this one day to a guy called Luke. He will write it down and one day will be recognised as scripture."<br /><br />Why not? How is that different than Baruch transcribing one of Jeremiah's oracles? stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-70948114318534828512014-11-25T01:23:09.922-05:002014-11-25T01:23:09.922-05:00"Peter is not the church."
He probably ..."Peter is not the church."<br /><br />He probably is when you're debating a Catholic. Certainly is he a spokesman for the church.<br /><br />"You fail to distinguish between the period of public revelation, when Scripture was still being given, and the termination of canonical inspiration."<br /><br />Scripture says nothing about supposed periods of public revelation nor of termination of said period. That's an extra scriptural supposition that protestants feel compelled to add to their rule of faith without scriptural warrant.<br /><br />In any case, you can't have it both ways. If Pentecost is an example of an exception to Sola scriptura, because it occurs in a special case period, then don't claim that those events help your cause for the standard case.<br /><br />"ii) Sola scripture doesn't mean interpreting Scripture as their conscience dictates. Their conscience is not the benchmark. Sound hermeneutics is the benchmark."<br /><br />But there is no standard for sound hermeneutics, so it reduces to exactly the same thing. <br /><br />If we look at apostolic hermeneutics, it includes such things as reference to the oral tradition, highly spiritual non literal speculation, points made through seemingly bad translations of the LXX and even things flat out contradictory to the OT. So who's going to set the standard?<br /><br />"Peter's sermon was oral Scripture. The spoken word of God, which became the written word of God when Luke inscripturated his sermon."<br /><br />I highly doubt his listeners thought to themselves, gee I bet someone will recount this one day to a guy called Luke. He will write it down and one day will be recognised as scripture. Hey, but maybe such thinking is sound hermeneutics in your world.<br />Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65774423657504665252014-11-25T00:44:36.513-05:002014-11-25T00:44:36.513-05:00"The distinction would be what?"
Peter ..."The distinction would be what?"<br /><br />Peter is not the church. <br /><br />"Sola scriptura would be dumping some scripture in their lap and telling them to interpret it as their conscience dictates."<br /><br />i) You fail to distinguish between the period of public revelation, when Scripture was still being given, and the termination of canonical inspiration. <br /><br />At the time of Pentecost, there was both Scripture (i.e. Joel) and apostolic exegesis (i.e. Peter's interpretation of Joel).<br /><br />ii) Sola scripture doesn't mean interpreting Scripture as their conscience dictates. Their conscience is not the benchmark. Sound hermeneutics is the benchmark.<br /><br />"Magisterial authority is telling you the truth with scriptural references being an optional nicety."<br /><br />What's the source of the truth? <br /><br />"Whether it be the admonition to be baptised, or the assertion that Jesus is in fact the messiah, we would have to say the sermon of Peter was magisterial, not Sola scriptural."<br /><br />Peter's sermon was oral Scripture. The spoken word of God, which became the written word of God when Luke inscripturated his sermon.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85642235171357763442014-11-25T00:10:39.279-05:002014-11-25T00:10:39.279-05:00"Except for the awkward little fact that &quo..."Except for the awkward little fact that "the Church" didn't tell them what to believe at Pentecost. Peter preached a sermon on that occasion."<br /><br />The distinction would be what?<br /><br />Sola scriptura would be dumping some scripture in their lap and telling them to interpret it as their conscience dictates. Magisterial authority is telling you the truth with scriptural references being an optional nicety. At Pentecost, it was the latter. Whether it be the admonition to be baptised, or the assertion that Jesus is in fact the messiah, we would have to say the sermon of Peter was magisterial, not Sola scriptural.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74652669055210020552014-11-24T21:06:50.161-05:002014-11-24T21:06:50.161-05:00"And since what happened at Pentecost was the..."And since what happened at Pentecost was the nascent Church told them what to believe."<br /><br />Except for the awkward little fact that "the Church" didn't tell them what to believe at Pentecost. Peter preached a sermon on that occasion. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7410311762783509442014-11-24T20:56:46.147-05:002014-11-24T20:56:46.147-05:00"Because the topic at hand is what they did a..."Because the topic at hand is what they did at Pentecost, and whether that pulls the rug out from under magisterial authority. And since what happened at Pentecost was the nascent Church told them what to believe, stuff that was in no scriptures…"<br /><br />You confuse not having the NT with not having scriptures. And you forget that at Pentecost, Peter was preaching from scripture. The OT scriptures. <br /><br />"…well this is contrary to Sola scriptura, and in favor of oral tradition."<br /><br />There's no "oral tradition" at Pentecost. There's Peter's firsthand knowledge of Christ. That isn't tradition. That hasn't been handed down. That's his direct experience. For instance, my memories of my late grandmother aren't "tradition" for me. <br /><br />Indeed, barely a month had passed since Jesus was still alive on earth. <br /><br />"The collective wisdom of the church was considered a revealed truth in the nascent Church."<br /><br />You mean, as viewed through the retrospective tinted lens of Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology? Clearly that doesn't cut any ice with me. <br /><br />"So childish whining about closeness really does not apply."<br /><br />Roman Catholic ecclesiology is a highly specified claim. It does't have interchangeable parts with other positions. It stands or falls as a unit.<br /><br />"Your claim was that Pentecost doesn't support a magisterial authority."<br /><br />Are you trying to be obtuse? The frame of reference is Roman Catholicism. Not some generic "magisterial authority," but Roman Catholicism. Try to follow the bouncing ball. <br /><br />"I just don't like stupid arguments put forward."<br /><br />In that case you should shut up. That would instantly reduce the number of stupid arguments put forward.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86285927980222929592014-11-24T19:59:28.973-05:002014-11-24T19:59:28.973-05:00"Why would I unequivocally go with "the ..."Why would I unequivocally go with "the church" telling me what are authentic traditions rather than inspired Scripture"<br /><br />Because the topic at hand is what they did at Pentecost, and whether that pulls the rug out from under magisterial authority. And since what happened at Pentecost was the nascent Church told them what to believe, stuff that was in no scriptures, well this is contrary to Sola scriptura, and in favor of oral tradition. Certainly there is nothing in the story of Pentecost to hurt magisterial authority and help the theory of Sola scriptura.<br /><br />"Christian theology is based on revealed truths."<br /><br />The collective wisdom of the church was considered a revealed truth in the nascent Church.<br /><br />""Closer" is a weasel word. Your statement is vitiated by the fallacy of equivocation."<br /><br />If you're making a claim about Pentecost destroying a particular viewpoint, and we then find your opposition is actually closer to the situation at Pentecost, then your argument is rather silly, no? Neither of us would claim our situation is EXACTLY that of Pentecost I would take It. So childish whining about closeness really does not apply.<br /><br />"You keep playing this bait-n-switch. The 12 Apostles are not the pope and the Roman episcopate. "<br /><br />That's a separate argument. Your claim was that Pentecost doesn't support a magisterial authority. Now you seem to be saying, well yes it does support a magisterial authority, it's just that the Roman episcopate is not that valid authority.<br /><br />"BTW, is there some reason that you, as an Orthodox apologist, keep defending Rome?"<br /><br />I just don't like stupid arguments put forward. I've been known to support the arguments of all sorts of enemies, when they have merit, without fear or favor. <br /><br />"What is that supposed to mean?"<br /><br />Perhaps I should have said new covenant to avoid ambiguity.<br />Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13136653040205389512014-11-24T18:02:01.377-05:002014-11-24T18:02:01.377-05:00 "If you had to compare doctrines filtered t... "If you had to compare doctrines filtered through the oral tradition of the church with either protestant style Sola scriptura where you write it down then interpret it as individuals, or a magisterial authority where the church tells you what are the authentic traditions, you would have to unequivocally go with the latter."<br /><br />Why would I unequivocally go with "the church" telling me what are authentic traditions rather than inspired Scripture? <br /><br />"That's before you even recognize that a lot of the apostolic teachings didn't come from Jesus…"<br /><br />Christian theology was never confined to the teachings of Jesus. Christian theology is based on revealed truths. "It's closer, which is why the argument stood out as without merit."<br /><br />"Closer" is a weasel word. Your statement is vitiated by the fallacy of equivocation.<br /><br />"Your argument was the rug was pulled out from Catholicism because there was no Roman magisterium. But there was at least a magisterium of the twelve…"<br /><br />You keep playing this bait-n-switch. The 12 Apostles are not the pope and the Roman episcopate. <br /><br />BTW, is there some reason that you, as an Orthodox apologist, keep defending Rome? Are you wavering in your commitment to Orthodoxy? Casting covetous eyes towards Rome?<br /><br />"…to give New testament doctrine with authority."<br /><br />What is that supposed to mean? Do you think NT itself does not confer authority on the doctrines which it enunciates?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26138468290353175702014-11-24T15:57:59.044-05:002014-11-24T15:57:59.044-05:00"What makes you think "the new covenant ..."What makes you think "the new covenant doctrines at Pentecost were coming from a non existent New testament"?"<br /><br />Errr I don't. That's kinda the point.<br /><br />"What makes you think the NT was "non existent"? For example, see Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. "<br /><br />If you had to compare doctrines filtered through the oral tradition of the church with either protestant style Sola scriptura where you write it down then interpret it as individuals, or a magisterial authority where the church tells you what are the authentic traditions, you would have to unequivocally go with the latter. That's before you even recognize that a lot of the apostolic teachings didn't come from Jesus, like for example the outcome of the Jerusalem council.<br /><br />"Some king of magisterial authority" is hardly equivalent to the Roman Magisterium."<br /><br />It's closer, which is why the argument stood out as without merit.<br /><br />"ii) Moreover, my argument wasn't predicated on new covenant documents issuing from the NT at Pentecost, so your comparison is irrelevant."<br /><br />Your argument was the rug was pulled out from Catholicism because there was no Roman magisterium. But there was at least a magisterium of the twelve to give New testament doctrine with authority, in contrast to protestants which need a New testament for new covenant authority and would hardly listen to any traditions being passed around as a substitute.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66462722174488793552014-11-24T11:58:33.658-05:002014-11-24T11:58:33.658-05:00i) John, you're equivocating. "Some king ...i) John, you're equivocating. "Some king of magisterial authority" is hardly equivalent to the Roman Magisterium. <br /><br />ii) Moreover, my argument wasn't predicated on new covenant documents issuing from the NT at Pentecost, so your comparison is irrelevant. <br /><br />stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-82779755485475969132014-11-24T08:54:29.486-05:002014-11-24T08:54:29.486-05:00@John
"If one was forced to nominate that th...@John<br /><br />"If one was forced to nominate that the new covenant doctrines at Pentecost were coming from a non existent New testament"<br /><br />What makes you think "the new covenant doctrines at Pentecost were coming from a non existent New testament"?<br /><br />What makes you think the NT was "non existent"? For example, see Richard Bauckham's <em>Jesus and the Eyewitnesses</em>. Not to mention the works of Larry Hurtado.<br /><br />"or from some kind of magisterial or apostolic authority, you'd have to go with the latter."<br /><br />Why would you "have to go with the latter"? You offer no argument.rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53914552798867675342014-11-24T07:13:04.593-05:002014-11-24T07:13:04.593-05:00"ii) 3,000 people converts added to the churc..."ii) 3,000 people converts added to the church on Pentecost before the Roman Magisterium ever existed. So that pulls the rug out from under Roman Catholicism."<br /><br />If one was forced to nominate that the new covenant doctrines at Pentecost were coming from a non existent New testament, or from some kind of magisterial or apostolic authority, you'd have to go with the latter.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-4075353672448845632014-11-20T21:06:48.175-05:002014-11-20T21:06:48.175-05:00Just a quick observation:
There's a treasure ...Just a quick observation:<br /><br />There's a treasure trove of helpful material responding to Catholicism in the Beggars All post including its combox, and in offsite posts which are linked to this post. Steve Hays has provided a plethora of intelligent responses against Guy Fawkes' arguments. Jason Engwer makes several perceptive comments here as well (among other places). Obviously so have several others (e.g. Lydia McGrew, James Swan).<br /><br />In this respect, Guy Fawkes makes for a very useful foil for many Protestants to advance all these excellent counterarguments against Catholicism. Of course, this isn't Guy's intention at all. Instead, Guy is more like Judas Iscariot in that he thinks he's doing one thing, whereas he's in fact playing right into a far grander scheme than he's presently aware of. In other words, Guy is an unwitting adversary to advance the truth.rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-62516551077160443782014-11-20T20:33:53.512-05:002014-11-20T20:33:53.512-05:00Funny, on my reading of the Bible I come away pers...Funny, on my reading of the Bible I come away persuaded that Jesus is Head of the universal church.CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03231394164372721485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56748007044561034702014-11-20T19:13:20.029-05:002014-11-20T19:13:20.029-05:00Regarding lists of apostles, the list that's f...Regarding lists of apostles, the list that's framed more in a context of church authority than any other list is the one in Galatians 2:9. Peter is named second there, after James.<br /><br />Concerning how often Peter is named in the New Testament, why only count names? Why not include identifiers like "I", "he", "my", etc.? Why not just count how often somebody is mentioned, regardless of whether the person's name is used? Paul would come out ahead of Peter in that sort of count. <br /><br />Letters like First Clement, in which one individual or group advises another about what to do in a given situation, were common in early Christianity (Ignatius' letter to Polycarp, Polycarp's letter to the Philippian church, etc.), and no jurisdictional superiority, much less papal authority, is implied by the sending of such a letter. To the contrary, First Clement is written in the name of the church of Rome, not the bishop of Rome, and the letter makes many appeals to various authorities (scripture, Jesus, the apostles, the Holy Spirit, etc.), but never to any papal authority. Thomas Halton comments:<br /><br />"Some scholars anachronistically saw in the epistle an assertion of Roman primacy, but nowadays a hermeneutic of collegiality is more widely accepted." (in Everett Ferguson, ed., Encyclopedia Of Early Christianity [New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999], 253)<br /><br />Rather than being evidence for papal authority, First Clement is evidence against it. A letter from the Roman church, advising another church on a disputed matter, is written in the name of the church of Rome rather than a monarchical bishop of Rome, and the letter appeals to a variety of authorities without ever mentioning a papacy. To read more about the early patristic evidence against a papacy, see <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/06/was-papacy-established-by-christ-part_24.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />For those interested in canonical issues, <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/06/new-testament-canon.html" rel="nofollow">here's</a> a series of posts in which I make a historical case for an Evangelical canon of scripture.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.com