Posted on 08/20/2009 9:14:42 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
Review the hours you spend responding to posts on free republic and see if it your prayer time matches or exceeds the time spent on free republic.
I remember distinctly reading about Lutheran hermeneutics on the Web, and the page made the distinction: that the epistles spell out doctrines while the Gospels with their anecdotes and parables are less useful. Something along the lines that theology cannot be taught from the parables, and that Jesus at times spoke to the Jews at the time exposing their misconceptions, rather than teaching us. You probably would agree that in the Parable of the Rich Young Man Jesus advises the man to give away all his possessions not because that is a way to Life Everlasting, but in order to show him the impossibility to obey the Commandments. You similarly would probably agree that in John 6 Jesus intended to expose the carnality of the Jews by tripping them over his words "my flesh is meat indeed", and He did not really mean that He will give us the Eucharist as His true body. So this line of thinking cannot be totally unheard of by you.
The Catohlic view, of course, is that in all these instances Jesus taught directly what He meant, and not hyperbolically.
“14 And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. 15 See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone. 16 Rejoice always, 17 pray without ceasing, 18 give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. 19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20Do not despise prophecies, 21 but test everything; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.”
Now then, lets talk about you. You have posted quite a bit - so how is your prayer life doing? Why are you permitted to post replies, but find evil if I do?
I spent a fair bit of time a few days back defending the integrity of scripture, and God’s providence. Why does that disturb you?
And why are you disturbed if someone posts information - and I’ve only posted a couple (2!) - on the development and integrity of the NT? What exactly is it that bothers you about the New Testament?
Jesus said His sheep would know His voice - which is essentially the Protestant theory of determining scripture. I agree with the Orthodox writer - I believe God has guided His people in knowing which were scripture and which were not.
Why are you disturbed by that?
Yes, that is the important point. We are all tolerant of even significant differences in the understanding of the Canon (in the West the Revelation is used like any other scripture; some pre-Chalcedon Oriental Churches have extra books) so long as the doctrines are compatible if not identical. That is because we all, East and West, view the Holy Scripture, as well as the patristic writings, not as the source of doctrine but as a consequence of it.
I wouldn’t fault anyone for starting a thoughtful conversation about the Scripture, especially since there is so much disagreement over its nature and veracity. I think Mr Rogers provided a very good, multidimensional view on the scripture, something from which we all can grow.
I suspect you would agree with this point of the Orthodox writer, which I edited out for space:
“The point of disagreement is, then, not on scripture’s role, but on the proper method of interpreting scripture. The differences comes not because one group studies scripture more carefully and respects it more. Commendable as such diligence is, careful and respectful study, while indispensable, is insufficient to discover the truths of the Christian faith if one comes to the Bible with the wrong set of assumptions. Most Orthodox and Protestant believers must admit that the Jehovah’s Witnesses study scripture more carefully than they do-the Jehovah’s Witnesses may even respect it more. However, like all of us, the Jehovah’s Witnesses come to scripture with a set of presuppositions-this cannot be avoided since
‘complete objectivity is impossible, even in perceiving the physical environment. What one knows already, one’s presuppositions and expectations will not only have a tremendous effect on what one sees and how one interprets but may even determine what one sees.’(67)
The Jehovah’s Witnesses provide a sobering warning that one’s devotion to scripture is not enough-the presuppositions of their tradition prevent them from seeing scripture clearly despite their devotion to it. It is also clear, for instance, that the presuppositions of an early Christian who grew up in a Judaism that was used to praying for the dead will be quite different from those of a twentieth century Protestant who grew up in a culture that has deplored prayer for the dead for over four-hundred years. Both would read the New Testament as justifying their status quo, but the status quo being justified would be quite different. However, it makes more sense to assume that the interpretations of the early church are correct; being closer to the founding of the faith, they share more of the presuppositions of Christ and the apostles, both in terms of general cultural assumptions and in terms of oral tradition.(68) Only scripture is ultimately authoritative for the defense of doctrine, but only with tradition can we obtain the correct presuppositions so that we can interpret scripture aright. Personal interpretation leads only to the chaos of literally tens of thousands of denominations-established because each founder, having his own personal presuppositions, taught a somewhat different gospel.”
I agree with the point of his argument, but not its direction. A few reasons:
1 - Personal interpretation of scripture is always wrong, as Calvin pointed out. We need the author, the Holy Spirit, to show us the meaning. I doubt Calvin or I differ from most Catholics or the Orthodox in that - but Calvin and I would put more emphasis on the Holy Spirit working in the believer, while the Catholic would put more emphasis on the Holy Spirit working in the Church.
2 - I’m not convinced that “...it makes more sense to assume that the interpretations of the early church are correct; being closer to the founding of the faith, they share more of the presuppositions of Christ and the apostles, both in terms of general cultural assumptions and in terms of oral tradition.” My reason is that the ‘early church’, as defined by the ‘church fathers’, generally lasts until around 600-700 AD. Most of the writing we have are from 300+ years later - as remote from the time of Jesus as the American Revolution is from us.
In addition, the culture of many of the church fathers was decidedly Greek or Roman, not Jewish. Given the wealth of resources we have now, and our ease of accessing them, we might WELL be able to understand the culture and thought of 30 AD better than an African writing in 380 AD.
3 - Part of the problem with reading church fathers is similar to reading scripture itself - it is easy to read our later doctrine into something written without any concept of our thought. When a church father writes about the wine being the blood and the bread being the body, was he talking about a spiritual sense, or transubstantiation?
When Augustine wrote, “The Hebrews, again, in their animal sacrifices, which they offered to God in many varied forms, suitably to the significance of the institution, typified the sacrifice offered by Christ. This sacrifice is also commemorated by Christians, in the sacred offering and participation of the body and blood of Christ...” - was he writing like a Protestant, a Catholic, or was he not thinking about our doctrinal disputes at all?
4 - A minor point, but the literally tens of thousands of denominations comes from a book that says the Roman Catholic Church has well over 2000 denominations in it...the author uses denomination in a very unique way.
But if we all look to the same source for truth, we will eventually all come to the same point - like spokes of a wheel.
I’d also point out that Sola Scriptura, as I understand it, means that if it is not discussed in scripture, then I need not be dogmatic about it. I find the idea of the assumption of Mary weird, but it isn’t discussed in Scripture, and I wasn’t there - so who am I to tell someone they are wrong?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
It's nothing compared to you over the last 2 weeks,check and see
I spent a fair bit of time a few days back defending the integrity of scripture, and God’s providence. Why does that disturb you?
It does not disturb me
You gave your opinions and Kosta 50 took you to the cleaners on using your so called scholars and wikipedia
Jesus said His sheep would know His voice - which is essentially the Protestant
Why is there no unity and thousands of protestant communities that don't agree with you?
Anything can be changed by Protestants ,even the divinity of Christ since there is no dogmatic teaching.Mormons and Jw's are protestants just like you
Ping for later (I shouldn't be surprised at who posted this, but I am).
Forgive me if I disagree with your analysis of the exchanges between kosta50 & I, although I’m glad you were interested enough to read them. Odd you worry about my making posts, yet reading them...I’ll still stick with FF Bruce over kosta50. Just me. I used Wikipedia to cover various papyri...don’t recall anyone showing the info was wrong.
There aren’t thousands of Protestant communities, anymore than there are thousands of Roman Catholic ones - which is what the guy says who is the basis for the tens of thousand denominations stuff.
“Mormons and Jw’s are protestants just like you”
Never talked to any JWs, but I’ve talked with lots of Mormons. They would disagree with your analysis, as do I. In fact, I believe the Catholic Church also disagrees with your analysis.
For any interested, the other thread I posted 5 days ago is “The New Testament Documents - Are They Reliable?” found at
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2316798/posts
The Jewish Church died in Jerusalem along with St. James, shortly after his death, I think c AD 64. What (Judaizing) remnants remained were suppressed by the hellenized (Pauline) Church. The mindset of that Church is porbably best understood by the Ebionite/Jehovah's Witnesses offshoots than by any one of us or Greco-Roman fathers.
Do you somehow think a Christian’s time should only be spent in prayer? I think Bible study, discussions with others on Bible doctrine and, even, yes, witnessing to the unsaved has just as much worth as prayer in a Christian’s life. You dis MrRogers because he posts to Free Republic on things relating to Religion? I, too, have spent time posting and reading other’s postings and receive many spiritual blessings, assurances, challenges that send me to my Bible AND time in prayer for those I only have come to know through FR.
This place is a blessing. I’m sorry some people can’t see it that way.
Calvin and I would put more emphasis on the Holy Spirit working in the believer, while the Catholic would put more emphasis on the Holy Spirit working in the Church
It is not a matter of mere emphasis. The claim of the dictation of the Holy Spirit contrary to the established mind of the Church is extraordinary. It therefore requires an extraordinary proof, or else it is not compelling. Surely if we are to reject individual interpretation we also must reject interpretation when the company of the Holy Spirit is claimed, but there is no evidence of unity with the fathers of the Church, who claim such divine company AND can demonstrate unity between themselves, AND with the scripture.
...the ‘early church’, as defined by the ‘church fathers’, generally lasts until around 600-700 AD. Most of the writing we have are from 300+ years later - as remote from the time of Jesus as the American Revolution is from us.
In addition, the culture of many of the church fathers was decidedly Greek or Roman, not Jewish. Given the wealth of resources we have now, and our ease of accessing them, we might WELL be able to understand the culture and thought of 30 AD better than an African writing in 380 AD.
Many, especially in the East would argue that indeed, the "African writing in 380 AD" -- St. Augustine -- represents a point of discontinuity with the early Church. While his influence on the Western thinking is enormous, the Catholic Church rejects Augustinism precisely where his teachings begin to inspire Calvin, on radical depravity of man and irresistibility of Grace.
It is also true that the specifically Jewish form of Christianity did not survive the rejection of Christ by the Hebrew council of Jamnia; but the demarkation lines between Judaism and Christianity were set in the Scripture itself, in the parable of the guests at the wedding, sermons of St. Peter and St. Stephen in Jerusalem and, most decidedly, by St. Paul in Galatians.
It is not true that doctrinal discontinuity exists between the Antiquity and the Medieval Church. The 2c fathers, for example, Sts Irenaeus and Ignatius sound just as Orthodox/Catholic as Pope St. Gregory I, and , as I never tire to point out, the scripture itself has an indelible Catholic stamp as it speaks of a sacramental, hierarchical, single-minded Church.
What is sometime seen as discontinuity, the pre-Nicean and post-Nicean periods are simply the change that came about with the end of the persecutions and emergence of Christianity as state religion soon after. It was not a doctrinal change.
When a church father writes about the wine being the blood and the bread being the body, was he talking about a spiritual sense, or transubstantiation?
I think, they all write of it as a mystery. What you won't find in the Early Church is the attitude like "It's just a cracker". Transubstantiation is a technical term that would not be comprehensible without scholastic philosophy of form and substance. The distinction between the spiritual, the symbolic, and the real would also not be as clear in the antique culture as they are to us. Here's a quote from St. Ignatius of Antioch:
Chapter 6. Unbelievers in the blood of Christ shall be condemned
Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Matthew 19:12 Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty.Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
Sola Scriptura, as I understand it, means that if it is not discussed in scripture, then I need not be dogmatic about it. I find the idea of the assumption of Mary weird, but it isn’t discussed in Scripture, and I wasn’t there - so who am I to tell someone they are wrong?
But the scripture also delegates dispute resolution to the Church. The Church then is obligated, when a controversy reaches to the level threatening a schism, to resolve the dispute definitively. The resolution might be that both views are allowable (like Molinism and Thomism, or like theistic evolution and strict creationism), but it may also fall on one side of the dispute. The Church will not contradict the scripture in these dogmatic deliberations, but they are not limited to what is expressly contained in the scripture.
That's not exactly right. I cite several well-kown biblical scholars. You just choose not to acknowledge them. I guess that's your prerogative, but don't present it as if kosta50 is pulling things out of thin air. I do my best to back up my opinions with available evidence rather than invoke divine guidance, like some do, in my interpretations.
I used Wikipedia to cover various papyri...don’t recall anyone showing the info was wrong
SFA's point was that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for serious research because anyone, including you, could be changing it as you wish and then quoting from it as an authoritative source. I have seen the version of the Nicene Creed changed several times, some being almost unrecongizable.
So, if you want to be taken seriously, quote reliable, official, sources. Wikipedia is a great tool to find a quick 'big picture' idea, but not as a predominant source of one's references, especially on controversial issues.
Doctrinally there is continuity as you suggest, but not dogmatically. The early fathers had only notions of the dogmatic pronoucements of the Church that were to come, and not all of them were in full agreement.
This can be see from your own quote of St. Ignatius to Smyrinians where he says "because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savor Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again."
Here you have both doctrinal agreement and dogmatic disagreement. The agreement is that the Eucharist is the "flesh of our Saviour," but the dogmatic disagreement is in the suggestion that it was the Father (God) who raised him up again [sic].
The Nicene Creed corrects this by stating that Christ rose (himself) on the third day in order to emphasize the equality of the Son with the Father in his divinity. The subordination of the Son is to be found in the NT and as a predominant teaching of early Christian writers which inevitably led to the emergence of Chriostological heresies over time.
By the way, I seriously doubt that the copy of St. Irenaeus's epistle which you quote is genuine since no one before Irenaeus (end of 2nd century) quotes from any of the NT books by author's name (and verse numbers were not used). So, while the words of Matthew 19:12 would be very likely in his writings, the reference reference is not.
You also have to understand that the authenticity of Ignatius' seven (ah, that magical number!) letters is based on the testimony of none other than Eusebius of Cesarea, the first Church historian whose credibility is questioned or affirmed by people pretty much as they feel on that day, and that all of St. Ignatius' letters are latter-day copies which have, like all ancient documents, been altered and redacted by copyists pretty much as they saw fit.
Another example of dogmatic issues among early fathers is St. Irenaeus, who called Mary advocata (based on the only surviving complete copy of his work being a Latin translation from AD 380). Translated back into Greek, it means Paraclete. I don't have to tell you what sorts of problems this invokes, especially knowing that many thought of the Holy Spirit as being feminine.
This unfortunate reference is naturally shoved under the carpet and not talked about when we speak of St. Irenaeus' orthodoxy in other matters.
“I cite several well-kown [sic] biblical scholars. You just choose not to acknowledge them.”
I found where you cited a few sentences from Andrew Gregory at Oxford, I believe. You also quote him quoting Kim Haines-Eitzen. According to Cornell’s website, she “is Associate Professor of early Christianity and early Judaism and Chair for the Department of Near Eastern Studies. Her Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature (Oxford University Press, 2000) is a social history of the scribes who copied Christian texts during the second and third centuries. She is currently working on another book that deals with the intersection of gender, text transmission, and literacy in early Christianity.” I can’t wait to see what she says about gender affecting text transmission in the early church...
Those were mentioned on the thread I posted on NT documents (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2316798/posts).
I had quoted FF Bruce & Sir Frederic Kenyon, and posted a link to an entire book written by FF Bruce, and you said “Protestant Bible scholars, whether real or Wikipedia types (who porbably [sic] write Wiki article so they can use them as reference!) will continue to create biblical straw men and perpetuate their myths.” (reply 34)
I had started that thread after our discussion on this thread (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2310615/posts?page=317#317) - Twelve Differences Between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches
On that thread, you posted 3 pictures of papyri - single pages - and made it seem as tho that was the entire papyri “Here is Papyrus 46. very ‘complete’ indeed/s.”
In comparison, using Wikipedia to point out these papyri were much more extensive is a minor intellectual fault. Yes, I often use wiki - it is, as you have said, fast, and I’m already being criticized for spending way too much time researching and responding on these issues. If what I’ve posted from Wiki is wrong, point it out - but I’m not writing a scholarly paper. I have a daughter I’m home-schooling, 3 dogs, 3 horses, and will be protesting Rep Gabby Giffords (Rep, AZ-8) later today. I’m buying way too many books from Amazon.com and falling behind in reading them all.
Wiki was correct - the papyri were much more extensive than your set of pictures indicated.
However, while we often disagree, I’m enjoying all that I’ve learned both from you and in responding to you. These threads have forced me to think long and hard about what and why I believe, and driven me to find and read many fascinating articles - so keep on jumping in my chili where you think I’m wrong!
And I’ll feel free to do likewise...
;>)
You both make interesting points...but I’m out of time today, and will be out of town tomorrow. I’ll think about them some, and try to figure out a response by next week.
I appreciate the ping, this will be my reading for the night.
Whether she has an agenda or not (who doesn't?) does not disqualify her credentials. After all, Origen was wrong on some things, but on many, most in fact, he was a brilliant orthodox theologian. You can't discredit someone's evidence based on their agenda. You can discredit how they use that evidence. I also mentioned Ehrman. You may have issues with him as well, but Ehrman is a rather respectable scholar. I should have used Robert M. Grant (U. of Chicago), a rather brilliant textual critic, however we are all on a clock and sometimes cut corners and sometimes are just plain lazy because we are not writing a doctoral dissertation.
At any rate, it is never just FF Bruce and kosta50.
As far as papyri are concerned, most papyri come as single sheets, or a portion of one, often if not usually damaged, or as several sheets, or quite often as shreds containing but a potion of a verse or two.
The pictures I used were certainly not representative of the codices and I clearly made a mistake.
However mistaken I was, your conclusion (that the early Church had for all practical purposes agreed on the canon) was equally mistaken because that agreement was basically on the titles of the books, not necessarily what was in them. Not only did these codices contain other books as part of their canon, but they were books that were later rejected as heretical or simply not inspired.
Even the NT books that everyone agreed on were not always doctrinally compatible with each other, or the ones ones used after the 4th century.
Considerable variation in the NT books continued in various parts of the Christendom as evidenced by the 5th century Codex Bezae, and as mentioned by Freeper Uncle Chip regarding versions of Luke 4:4 and countless other variants which indicate that the same-name NT books were also often doctrinally divergent and not identical, which sort of explains why heresies emerged and persisted.
Likewise, the case of Matthew 28:19 as mentioned by Eusebius is another strong indicator that variant NT books, with significant divergences in doctrine, existed and that their simple namesake agreement among various churches did not necessarily mean doctrinal agreement; the contents of the NT are hardly pristine or somehow protected by the HolySpirit from any corruption.
Doctrinally, even the current NT teaches subordination of the Son. This flies in the face of orthodox Trinitarian dogma, but it is so widespread that any attempt at removing such verses would decimate the NT! Being one with the Father and being equal to the Father are two different things, as evidenced by "Father is greater than I" (Jn 14:28). Most Chrsistological heresies came from the direct reading of the New Testament such as that one and, given variants, God only knows what else was in them! Current NT also has misquotes of the OT. As I commented to you, God doesn't misquote himself.
The Church teaches that the scriptures infallibly convey God's truth, not that they are free from any kind of corruption or that every word in it is God's own. Neither doctrine nor scriptures were in any way as we know them today. Catholic and Orthodox Church is a post-Nicene Church. They would like to think they are the same Church established in AD 33, but that would be difficult, if not impossible to prove. Apparently there was a faction of Christianity from the beginning that evolved and eventually won and became the "official" variant, claiming orthodox faith.
We all learn from each other. If we can stimulate each other to learn more, then it was all worth the effort (and aggravation sometimes). I learned that some of the papyri were actually extensive codices. That was rather eye-opening. While they point to the fact that early (end of 2nd century) Christians agreed on a lot of books (at least in name only), it turns out, the same codices also reinforced other evidence of a very doctrinally and canonically heterodox early Christianity. So, I thank you for making me aware of them and teaching me a valuable lesson with them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.