In the context, Chrysostom is complaining about people who can't be bothered hearing the scriptures because they claim they are too obscure. They will come to church to hear the letters of kings, but not to hear the letters of the apostles.
Well of course, Chrysostom is right. Anyone can listen to the bible and more or less understand what the apostle is talking about.
The problem comes when you start asking questions that go beyond what is directly addressed in the scripture.
What is the ordo-salutis? At what age ought one be baptised? What is the relationship between God's will and man's will?
Many verses have been pressed into service on the finer points of these questions, even though they were not written with the purpose of addressing these questions. One can easily say that these passages are clear enough at expressing the main point they were written to express. But whether they are clear when pressed into service at answering a more technical question, needed to complete one's systematic theology textbook is a lot trickier.
So Chrysostom is right, that no-one has an excuse to be not reading the scriptures on the basis that they are obscure.
Does this therefore mean, that because all Christians can glean the general surface meaning of scripture, and are therefore without excuse for avoiding reading scripture, that it is therefore implied that Chrysostom believes that the deeper meanings of scripture are therefore also plain?
"We are bidden to “search” the Scriptures, because most of the words, although at first sight easy, appear to have in their depth much hidden meaning." - Chrysostom, Homily LVII on John
There's the surface level meaning that is "at first sight easy", and which all can benefit from. Then there are the deeper meanings, where a verse refers indirectly to something, where disputes arise.
So then, are the scriptures plain in the sense of the way that they are pressed into service in... oh say the Westminster Confession? And were they so to Chrysostom's obstinate congregation if only they would read and listen? Well, clearly not, because the facts are in and very few Christians agree with many of the WC's use of proof texts.
Take as an example the proof texts given for the WC, XXVIII on Baptism:
III. "Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary"
Proof texts given are:
HEB 9:10 "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
ACT 2:41 "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."
ACT 16:33 "And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway."
MAR 7:4 "And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables."
Heb 9:10 has nothing to do with Christian baptism. It uses the word baptism without being clear what exactly it is referring to. Acts 2:41 and 16:33 seemingly don't address the question at all. Mark 7:4 is no doubt a lexical argument about the meaning of βαπτίζω, the usual argument being that tables would not be immersed. The trouble is, other than this obviously being a tenuous argument, is that this is a textual variant. The only certain things that Mark said were baptised are cups, pots and vessels, as one can see reading the NIV.
And balanced against these arguments are verses like Rom. 6:4 and Col. 2:12 which refer to being "buried with Him in baptism", which tradition sees as a reference to being placed under the water. (Not just Tradition, also many protestants). And these verses are actually addressing the topic at hand, which is more than can be said for the WC's proof texts.
The topic of this debate is whether sola scriptura is workable as to the contents of the Westminster Confession. The question is then whether as an example, the above set of proof texts found in the WC represent the clear teaching of scripture that Francis claims we can apply to finding the rule of faith for the church. I think anyone honest can see that these verses don't cut it, and therefore Francis' thesis fails.
However, as to Chrysostom's comment, no-one has cause for saying that they ought not read Heb 9:10, Acts 2:41, 16:33, Mark 7:4, Ro 6:4 or Col 2:12 on the basis that they are obscure, so Chrysostom's comment stands. Obviously they are clear enough as to their main point. But the deeper implications and meanings, well these are constantly debated.
Of course, there is an inherent problem in Francis' question. If he wants to imply that Chrysostom believed in sola scriptura, or something like it, why is Chrysostom so much the same as Eastern Orthodox and not like Presbyterians? If Chrysostom thinks the scriptures are clear in the sense Francis says, then either the scriptures clearly teach Eastern Orthodoxy, or Chrysostom (and Francis) are wrong in thinking them to be clear. Neither of these outcomes are helpful to my opponent.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Chrysostom and Scripture
Is John Chrysostom Your Father?
More specifically, on this particular point, do you agree with John Chrysostom:
From Homily III on 2 Thessalonians, allegedly by John Chrysostom:
"All things are clear and open that are in divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain."
What I'm looking for in an answer is one of these:
a) I agree;
b) I disagree; or
c) I cannot agree or disagree.
-Turretinfan
Dead Men Hold No Debates
O: “Protestants like to characterize tradition as an amorphous and constantly evolving set of innovations, that are a source of instability in doctrine.”
This really does not look like a cross-examination question windup. My previous response titled “chained to a wall” does not suggest that “Orthodoxy” is constantly evolving. In other words, this post seems to have set up a straw man.
In fact, previously in this debate I pointed out that “Orthodoxy” has not had an ecumenical council in well over a millennium. It may be amorphous and certain aspects of “Orthodoxy” may be changing, but “constantly evolving” is not the issue.
O: “But is that actually what it is like?”
Now, it appears, we are about to see the straw man chopped to pieces.
O: “Or is that just a presupposition based on an unbelieving heart?”
This seems to be coup de grace: if you reject Orthodox tradition you have an “unbelieving heart.” Whether this is arrogance or simply a fact the reader can determine for themselves.
O: “Listen to the Sunday, September 16, 2007 episode of The Illumined Heart Podcast from here:
From Wittenberg to Antioch”
This is a half-hour-long program, and it’s not really part of the question at all. It’s patently an argument from example, inviting the reader to make a hasty generalization based on the experience of one man, the man being interview.
For the readers of this debate, the program is an interview with a man who was raised Lutheran, briefly left Lutheranism because he did not like the liturgy. The man discovered that Presbyterians also have liturgy. The man read a convicting sermon by Jonathon Edwards and took refuge in a view that if one is baptized one is saved, that the man attributes to Luther. Thus, the man returned to Lutheranism, eventually becoming ordained.
Shortly after ordination, however, the man discovered that there were some odd things going on in the Lutheran church, such as laity being involved in ordinations, and a deaconess blessing newly ordained people.
There is a segment on the visible versus invisible church, with the Antiochian Orthodox host suggesting that his church believes the two are the same, and suggesting that the “invisible church” concept is a convenient excuse for many denominations. The subject came up because apparently the Lutheran church in which the man grew up claimed to be the true church. The man being interviewed corrects the host as to the origin of the “invisible church” concept be agrees that it is a source of comfort in the face of many denominations.
The man’s concern about identifying the true church allegedly springs from Jesus’ promise that the “gates of hell will not prevail against” the church. To be in the church, therefore, according to the man, is to be in the place where the promises of God have been kept.
Next, the conversation turns to an assertion that Lutheranism has divided itself its defining statement, the Augsburger Confession and related documents. The focus of discrepancies were the inappropriate roles in worship by laity, the use of non-liturgical worship, and the widespread denial (or at least doubt) of the perpetual virginity of Mary. The man who was being interviewed speculated that the reason is that “every plant that my heavenly father has not planted will be pulled up.” In other words, that Lutheranism is not part of the true church. The man also said that the problems in Lutheranism are genetic: (1) Lutheranism adopts sola scriptura (you see, there was something in the half hour about the topic of this debate), and (2) Lutheranism lacks bishops.
One interesting claim that man makes is that “the wheels came off the wagon very quickly.” There are Lutherans all over the place, almost 500 years after Luther nailed his 95 theses (in Latin) to the chapel door at Wittenburg. I haven’t bothered to get the exact numbers, but there must be at least hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Lutherans: especially in Germany. This is not like a 3rd century group of heretics that died out after a few generations.
The man who was being interviewed identified two primary triggers for leaving the Lutheran church: the first was a recognition that the people in his congregation would not necessarily hold his views after he was gone, and the second was a feeling that the gospel preached at a ROCOR outreach in someone’s garage was the purest gospel he had ever heard.
Interestingly, this man asserted that the gospel of Orthodoxy and the gospel of Lutheranism are the same. The man also suggested that Luther was closer to Theosis than to Lutheranism. Also interestingly, the man asserted that if someone leaves Lutheranism for
Fundamentally, the man seemed to be suggesting that the liturgy of Orthodoxy anchored in the Gospel so it could not be changed. Unfortunately, the man did not recognize that it anchors in both undesirable things, such as the use of icons, and desirable things, such as the breaking of bread, the baptism with water, and the singing of psalms.
Oddly, the man did not seem to recognize that the liturgy has evolved. Fewer and fewer “Orthodox” churches maintain the separation of the sexes to take one example, and more and more women are coming to pray in “Orthodox” churches with their heads uncovered.
O: “Then tell me why it is that the sola scriptura churches are constantly evolving and changing,”
O: “and tell me why this Presbyterian/ Lutheran couldn't find peace and stability until he became Orthodox.”
The sad answer to this question, based on the man’s own comments is that it is probably because he was convicted of sin by the preaching of the gospel in the Presbyterian church and recognized the lack of care for doctrine in the Lutheran churches with which he was affiliated. The former answer is gleaned from his comment regarding Edwards’ sermon, and the latter from his comment that his own views while he was a Lutheran were just considered eccentric, but no one really seemed to care.
O: “This seems to be a common theme for protestants becoming Orthodox.”
The same is also common for Protestants becoming Roman Catholic, though they do not make the comment this man made about the Reformation not going for enough.
O: “They've seen their own congregations "blow up", doctrinally a number of times and run out of options in protestant land, coming to see that sola scriptura doesn't work.”
So, they go to a place where the church has not made any official statements on doctrine in over a millennium. It is a place of peace, but they have overlooked something: there is no fighting in a cemetery. In other words, as illustrated by “Orthodox” previous “iceberg” analogy, sometimes the doctrinal debates and “blow ups” are a sign of health and life. A corpse never gets a fever: but a living body gets a fever as it fights off infection. When people stop caring, doctrinal disputes move to academia, and we have – more or less – the Roman Catholicism that set the stage for the Reformation.
O: “For all the theological back and forth in this debate, isn't it a fact that when it comes to actual real life, and in the field experience, tradition gives stability and sola scriptura, supposedly based on the unchanging word of God, leads to constant disputes and innovation?”
I’d rather drink from river than a swamp. The latter may be more calm, but the former is clean. The process of debate, discussion, and discourse brings heresies to the surface and exposes them for what they are. Vomiting is unpleasant, but it cleanses the stomach.
Furthermore, tradition does not give “stability” – the “tradition” based churches have undergone major division, most notably the “Great Schism” and the “Reformation.” The only way the appearance of stability is consistently maintained is by the way that “Orthodox” has done in this debate, namely by asserting that those who are not part of one’s sect are not the people of God. Of course, the problem is that it is easy to see that there are people of God outside the “Orthodox” churches. If that is so, it is clear that “Orthodoxy” has not maintained unity, but has grossly exaggerated sectarianism.
-TurretinfanFriday, October 26, 2007
From Wittenberg to Antioch
Protestants like to characterize tradition as an amorphous and constantly evolving set of innovations, that are a source of instability in doctrine.
But is that actually what it is like? Or is that just a presupposition based on an unbelieving heart?
Listen to the Sunday, September 16, 2007 episode of The Illumined Heart Podcast from here:
From Wittenberg to Antioch
Then tell me why it is that the sola scriptura churches are constantly evolving and changing, and tell me why this Presbyterian/ Lutheran couldn't find peace and stability until he became Orthodox. This seems to be a common theme for protestants becoming Orthodox. They've seen their own congregations "blow up", doctrinally a number of times and run out of options in protestant land, coming to see that sola scriptura doesn't work.
For all the theological back and forth in this debate, isn't it a fact that when it comes to actual real life, and in the field experience, tradition gives stability and sola scriptura, supposedly based on the unchanging word of God, leads to constant disputes and innovation?
Moderator Note: Reminder The End is Near
The end of the cross-examination period of the debate is near, that is. One round of Q&A left for each side (4 more posts) and then it's time for audience questions, some of which are more usable than others. If you're in the audience and you have a question, for either side, please ask it by commenting on any post on the debate blog.
Tradition and Basil
Icons (again)
Francis warns his readers before linking to an Orthodox site with "graphical attempted likeness of the Christ", aka an icon of Christ.
One wonders who Francis is warning since Presbyterians seem to have a great love of religious icons. So before getting down to serious business let's go on a very brief tour of Presbyterian imagery of Christ, courtesy of 2 minutes of Google searching....
http://www.foxchasechurch.org/StainedGlass.htm
http://www.cliftonpc.org/history/sgwindow.htm
http://museum.msu.edu/museum/msgc/jul06.html
http://www.standrewskw.com/wtour.htm
http://www.ettc.net/njarts/details.cfm?ID=1177
I find this ironic given the inordinate amount of time Francis has devoted to icons in this debate.
Tradition
Looking for sola scriptura among the Fathers is a fruitless exercise, and never more so than in the document Francis has quoted, "Oration on the Holy Spirit" by Basil the Great of Caesaria (bishop 365-379 AD).
I offer below some more quotes from the same document which I think truly speak for themselves:
"The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of “sound doctrine”is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. So like the debtors, — of course bona fide debtors. — they clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers." Basil the Great, Chapter X, Oration on the Holy Spirit,
"In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity." Chapter XXVII, ibid
"Time will fail me if I attempt to recount the unwritten mysteries of the Church. Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is the written source? If it be granted that, as we are baptized, so also under the obligation to believe, we make our confession in like terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism and in conformity with the principles of true religion, let our opponents grant us too the right to be as consistent in our ascription of glory as in our confession of faith. If they deprecate our doxology on the ground that it lacks written authority, let them give us the written evidence for the confession of our faith and the other matters which we have enumerated. While the unwritten traditions are so many, and their bearing on “the mystery of godliness is so important, can they refuse to allow us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers; — which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches; — a word for which the arguments are strong, and which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery?" ibid
"Is answer to the objection that the doxology in the form “with the Spirit” has no written authority, we maintain that if there is no other instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be received. But if the greater number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without written authority, then, in company with the many others, let us receive this one. For I hold it apostolic to abide also by the unwritten traditions. “I praise you,” it is said, “that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you;” and “Hold fast the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word, or our Epistle.” One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their successors, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time. If, as in a Court of Law, we were at a loss for documentary evidence, but were able to bring before you a large number of witnesses, would you not give your vote for our acquittal? I think so; for “at the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the matter be established.” And if we could prove clearly to you that a long period of time was in our favour, should we not have seemed to you to urge with reason that this suit ought not to be brought into court against us? For ancient dogmas inspire a certain sense of awe, venerable as they are with a hoary antiquity. I will therefore give you a list of the supporters of the word (and the time too must be taken into account in relation to what passes unquestioned). For it did not originate with us. How could it? We, in comparison with the time during which this word has been in vogue, are, to use the words of Job, “but of yesterday.” I myself, if I must speak of what concerns me individually, cherish this phrase as a legacy left me by my fathers. It was delivered to me by one who spent a long life in the service of God, and by him I was both baptized, and admitted to the ministry of the church. While examining, so far as I could, if any of the blessed men of old used the words to which objection is now made, I found many worthy of credit both on account of their early date, and also a characteristic in which they are unlike the men of today — because of the exactness of their knowledge. Of these some coupled the word in the doxology by the preposition, others by the conjunction, but were in no case supposed to be acting divergently, — at least so far as the right sense of true religion is concerned." - Chapter XXIX ibid
"Had I not so done, it would truly have been terrible that the blasphemers of the Spirit should so easily be emboldened in their attack upon true religion, and that we, with so mighty an ally and supporter at our side, should shrink from the service of that doctrine, which by the tradition of the Fathers has been preserved by an unbroken sequence of memory to our own day." Chapter XXX ibid
Of course, nobody is saying that "it is tradition, look no further", means that one can't look in scripture. After all, scripture IS tradition, as I have said many times, and which the apostle says also.
But if the question is whether Basil is prepared to say we need not look any further, if something is a tradition of the fathers, and yet not in the writings (aka scripture), then clearly Basil adopts that view, just the same as Chrysostom. I had thought of commenting on the above quotes from Basil, but they are so clear as to not warrant comment. It is tradition, look no further is fundamental to the whole Oration. Of course, "The Bible says, therefore I believe it” is a subset of "it is tradition, look no further". Holding to the latter does not negate the former. Looking for something in the Fathers does not prevent us looking in the scriptures. But neither did not finding something in the scriptures cause Basil to therefore think of it as anything less than apostolic and authoritative. He offered scripture, when it was available. And he unapologetically offered the tradition of the Fathers when it was not available.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Is Basil the Great Your Father?
Basil the Great wrote, in his “Oration on the Holy Spirit,” Chapter 7:
What our fathers said, the same say we, that the glory of the Father and of the Son is common; wherefore we offer the doxology to the Father with the Son. But we do not rest only on the fact that such is the tradition of the Fathers; for they too followed the sense of Scripture, and started from the evidence which, a few sentences back, I deduced from Scripture and laid before you.
(link) (to avoid accusations of bias in the translation, the source is an “Orthodox” web site – CAUTION – graphical attempted likeness of the Christ)
b) “The Bible says, therefore I believe it” (i.e. I deduced from Scripture, as did the fathers before us); or
c) Some other path?
P.S. Don’t get me wrong, Basil may very well have been quite willing to believe in the existence and apostilicity of various unwritten traditions such as triple baptism, praying to the East, praying standing, and so forth: Basil may not have been fully a Sola Scriptura kind of guy – at least not by modern standards. That’s not the question. The question is whether Basil rested on the traditions of the fathers, or whether Basil sought to deduce the doctrine from Scripture. Basil’s opponents in the debate demanded written proof. Did Basil turn to John Chrysostom’s maxim or to Scripture?
That is not a Law, which is Enjoined by Men
O: “My question is, can you prove absolutely from scripture alone that Jesus' commentary in the Mt15/Mark7 incident has anything to do with Jesus condemning oral teachings over and against praising written teachings, since scripture never connects the dots between tradition must equal oral tradition, and "word of God" must equal written teaching?”
Without regard to Orthodox’s comments beginning “since …” I can easily agree that the main point of Jesus’ comments in Matthew 15 and Mark 7 is not to distinguish between the mechanisms of oral versus written transmission of information, but to distinguish between Scripture and extra-Scriptural tradition.
O: “Can you prove that the traditions of men or the traditions of the elders, isn't differentiated from the word of God, not because of the oral/written distinction, but because of the distinction that these teachings weren't passed down and accepted by all the people of God as the authentic word of God, especially given that they are explicitely [sic] referred to as the traditions of the elders which implies they weren't accepted by all the people?”
Surely those traditions of the elders were not accepted by all the people, for there was always a faithful remnant that clung to the word of God. On the other hand, that is not the distinction that the passage is making, nor is it the reason that the traditions are termed the traditions of the elders. The term “elders” here is equivalent to “them of old time” (i.e. the ancient Jews). It’s a reference to the fact that these traditions (like those of modern Orthodoxy) are very old.
Furthermore, as noted above, it is not precisely the oral/written difference that is being made. Instead the difference is between the Scriptures and the extra-Scriptural Jewish traditions.
O: “Given that the passage doesn't actually say explicitely one way or the other, is it possible your understanding is coloured by your own protestant traditions?”
Actually, as noted above, the false dilemma is resolved by noting that the passage is teaching a third thing, not either of the two “Orthodox” provided. Protestant coloration does not come into it.
O: “Can you see how someone with different pre-suppositions regarding the distinction between the word of God and the traditions of men, could legitimately interpret this passage differently to protestants? (e.g. Athanasius).”
Athanasius discusses one of these passages in his “Homily 51.” (link) (This link has been provided from a Roman Catholic web site to free the link of any claim of Protestant bias.) His discussion is more or less the same as a modern Protestant’s discussion would be: the Jews invented traditions, and those invented traditions are contrasted by Jesus to Scripture, Athanasius goes so far as to point out that such human innovation was prohibited by Scripture: about as close to Sola Scriptura as one could ask for.
Indeed, Athanasius asserts essentially the same position set forth above, for he writes: “For of course that is not a law, which is enjoined by men (wherefore also He calls it "a tradition"), and especially by men that are transgressors of the law.” Our Rule of Faith is Scripture Alone, not the traditions of men.
Tradition and the Word of God
Tradition. Παράδοσις.
The word itself certainly doesn't imply either written, or not. In fact Paul in 1 Th 2:15 refers to both scripture and oral teachings as tradition.
In principle, oral and written tradition suffer from the same problems. Both are passed imperfectly from person to person. Both can suffer corruption during this process. Writings are more suitable for transmitting exact word for word teaching. By the same token, oral tradition has its own advantage in passing on certain kinds of shared understanding by virtue of its interactive nature.
The word παράδοσις is not used in the LXX with this meaning.
In the NT:
It is used negatively in the Mt 15 / parallel Mark 7 incident.
It is used positively at 1Cor. 11:2.
It is used neutrally at Gal. 1:14.
It is used negatively at Col. 2:8.
It is used positively at 2Th. 2:15.
It is used positively at 2Th. 3:6.
In the Mt 15/ Mk 7 incident, Jesus' criticism is that "the traditions of men" break the "commandment of God" and invalidates the "word of God".
The phrase ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ, "commandment of God", occurs 4 times in the LXX:
At Josh 5:6 it refers to the "voice of God" (non written).
It is used twice in 4 Maccabees where what it refers to is non-specific.
It is used in Psalm 119 where what it refers to is non-specific.
In the NT:
It is used in the Mt 15/7 incident.
It is used twice in Revelation where what it refers to is non-specific.
Other different phrases which are translated "commandments of God"
At 1Cor. 7:19 it sets up God's commandments in opposition to circumcision (even though circumcision is actually a scriptural command).
At 1Tim. 1:1 it refers to Paul's calling as a commandment of God. This is a non-scriptural command.
At Titus 1:3 it refers to Pauls calling again, which was a non-scriptural command.
The phrase λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, "word of God", occurs twice in the LXX.
At 2Sam. 16:23 it is non-specific.
At Jer. 1:2 it refers to non-written revelation.
The similar phrase λόγος τοῦ κυρίου occurs 5 times in the LXX.
2Sam. 14:17 refers to the oral words of a King.
1Esdr. 1:24 seems to be referring to something non-written.
Psa. 33:4 is non-specific.
Psa. 33:6 is not referring to scripture.
Ezek. 11:25 is not referring to scripture.
In the NT, λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, occurs about 34 times.
2 are the Mt 15/Mk 7 incident.
Luke 5:1 refers to oral teaching.
Luke 8:11,21 & 11:28 are non specific.
John 10:35 is non specific.
Acts 4:31 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 6:2 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 6:7 probably refers to oral teaching.
Acts 8:14 probably refers to oral teaching.
Acts 11:1 probably refers to oral teaching.
Acts 12:24 probably refers to oral teaching.
Acts 13:5 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 13:7 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 13:46 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 17:13 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 18:11 refers to oral teaching.
Rom. 9:6 is non specific.
1Cor. 14:36 probably refers to oral teaching.
2Cor. 2:17 is non specific.
2Cor. 4:2 is non specific.
Col. 1:25 refers to oral teaching.
2Tim. 2:9, Titus 2:5 and Heb. 4:12 are non specific.
Heb. 13:7 refers to oral teaching.
1John 2:14 refers to God's word "in" you, not scripture.
Rev. 1:2, 9, 6:9, 17:17 are non specific.
Rev 19:13 refers to Jesus as the word of God.
Rev. 20:4 is non-specific.
The similar phrase λόγος τοῦ κυρίου occurs 11 times in the NT.
Acts 8:25 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 13:44 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 13:48 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 13:49 is probably oral teaching.
Acts 15:35 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 15:36 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 16:32 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 19:10 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 20:35 makes reference to an oral tradition concerning Jesus.
1Th. 1:8 refers to oral teaching.
2Th. 3:1 is non-specific.
In my last answer I quoted Athanasius' application of the Mt 15 / parallel Mark 7 incidents, in his 2nd Festal letter of 330AD. In it, he applies those interpreting scripture outside the church as the group Jesus condemns as following the "traditions of men". He equates the "opinions of the saints" with the teachings of Paul and the apostles. i.e. the word of God.
My question is, can you prove absolutely from scripture alone that Jesus' commentary in the Mt15/Mark7 incident has anything to do with Jesus condemning oral teachings over and against praising written teachings, since scripture never connects the dots between tradition must equal oral tradition, and "word of God" must equal written teaching?
Can you prove that the traditions of men or the traditions of the elders, isn't differentiated from the word of God, not because of the oral/written distinction, but because of the distinction that these teachings weren't passed down and accepted by all the people of God as the authentic word of God, especially given that they are explicitely referred to as the traditions of the elders which implies they weren't accepted by all the people? If it does refer to this, it would exactly parallel the Orthodox doctrine that a teaching must be accepted by all the people, not just any sub-group, even if it is the leaders, in order to be authentic.
Given that the passage doesn't actually say explicitely one way or the other, is it possible your understanding is coloured by your own protestant traditions? Can you see how someone with different pre-suppositions regarding the distinction between the word of God and the traditions of men, could legitimately interpret this passage differently to protestants? (e.g. Athanasius).
Tradition and Athanasius
Certainly, nobody is arguing for a secret tradition. This was the tactic of heretics like the Arians.
Is Tradition exclusively in the writings of the Fathers, as Schaff seems to be saying here? I don't see any cause for thinking so.
I think Athanasius' own words speak for themselves:
"But after him and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power. Therefore Paul justly praises the Corinthians, because their opinions were in accordance with his traditions. And the Lord most righteously reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Wherefore do ye also transgress the commandments of God on account of your traditions.’ For they changed the commandments they received from God after their own understanding, preferring to observe the traditions of men. And about these, a little after, the blessed Paul again gave directions to the Galatians who were in danger thereof, writing to them, ‘If any man preach to you aught else than that ye have received, let him be accursed" - 2nd Festal Letter of 330 AD.
As we can see, Athanasius is referring to heretics who use the scriptures, but don't interpret it according to "the opinions of the saints" which they have "handed down". I think it's noteworthy that Athanasius refers to the Mark 7 episode with the Pharisees and the Galatians instruction not to deviate from the Gospel (i.e. two favourite protestant hobby horses) in order to argue that we SHOULD follow the "opinions of the saints" in opposition to "heretics who refer to the scriptures". The opinion of the saints is apostolic tradition. The interpretation of the scriptures by those outside the church is the traditions of men.
And Athanasius says that to say that these opinions of the saints are traditions of men is an "error". To say so is not to understand them or their power.
Were these opinions written down? I don't see any cause to think so, and I think the context would argue against, otherwise Athanasius would have more opportunity to quote specific saints than he actually does.
But I also fail to see what difference it makes. To what extent the apostolic traditions were or weren't committed to writing in the form of the writings of the fathers, seems to me to be a minor point.
"Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, who had denied the day before, but afterwards subscribed, sent to his Church a letter, saying that this was the Church’s faith, and the tradition of the Fathers; and made a public profession that they were before in error, and were rashly contending against the truth." - Athanasius, Defence of the Nicean definition, chapter 2.
I don't see any reason to think that this is not Athanasius' understanding of tradition: it is the "Church's faith" and the "tradition of the fathers". These are the standard against we measure error, the Church's faith and the tradition of the Fathers. While someone could undertake to try and write down what the church's faith is, actually, by its nature, not something written, but something that lives in the Church.
Concerning a παράδοσις ἄγραφος, and "unwritten tradition", there may well be some ambiguity here, since the word for scripture is "writings" or γραφος. Therefore is a παράδοσις ἄγραφος an unwritten tradition, or is it rather an extra-scriptural tradition?
The idea that Schnaff has special (unwritten?) knowledge about who came up with the idea of unwritten tradition, and passed it onto whom, is of course, pure fantasy. One wonders where other early writers unconnected with Origen came up with the idea.
"If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer... This instances, therefore, will make it sufficiently plain that you can vindicate the keeping of even unwritten tradition established by custom" - Tertullian, De Corona.
"Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth." - Tertullian, Prescription against heresies.
"When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?" - ibid
What we always find in the fathers, is that the true church, handing down the traditions, is the standard of truth.
"This is no Ecclesiastical Canon; nor have we had transmitted to us any such tradition from the Fathers, who in their turn received from the great and blessed Apostle Peter" - Athanasius, history of the Arians.
Speaking of having traditions of the Fathers "transmitted to us", would be an odd way of saying only that the Fathers didn't write a certain thing. It seems more naturally to say that such a thing was not transmitted by any means.
"Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord. Thus giving thanks unto Him, and being followers of the saints, ‘we shall make our praise in the Lord all the day,’ as the Psalmist says. So, when we rightly keep the feast, we shall be counted worthy of that joy which is in heaven. We begin the fast of forty days on the 13th of the month Phamenoth (Mar. 9)." - Athanasius, Festal Letter II.
Athanasius regards keeping the 40 day fast "in common" to be part of the "apostolic tradition". Since it's reasonable to assume no apostle wrote down anything concerning this 40 day fast, we would be forced to conclude that it was passed on orally.
So to summarise and answer your question, Tradition is all of these things at once, with no contradiction:
1) It is the apostolic tradition, passed down in some way from the apostles.
2) It is the "opinion of the saints" or the "Church's faith". Because the saints are the conduit for passing on the apostles' tradition, the opinion of the saints is thereby the same as the apostolic tradition.
3) It is the teachings of the Fathers. This is really just saying that it is not just the opinion of the saints today, but the opinion of the saints and fathers who preceded us.
4) It is NOT the traditions of men, or a deviation from the gospel.
All of this we gleaned from Athanasius. But we could just as easily got it from Chrysostom, Tertullian, Basil, or any of the other Fathers that we have been discussing, or for that matter from the apostle Paul who said to hold to the traditions that were passed onto you.
The one thing we don't find in any of the Fathers, even the earliest ones, is any teaching about sola scriptura. For all the proof texting that goes on about the Fathers' high view of scripture, all of them were also committed to the authority of the Church, and its tradition. If the apostles had actually taught sola scriptura, we would expect to find it taught by at least some of the Fathers. But then again Francis has already conceded that sola scriptura couldn't work in the time of the apostles, and therefore the apostles didn't teach it. So I guess it isn't surprising at all.
Is Athanasius your Father?
Noted Patristics Historian Philip Schaff wrote regarding Athanasius:
Moreover, tradition as distinct from Scripture is with Athanasius not a secret unwritten body of teaching handed down orally[FN94], but is to be found in the documents of antiquity and the writings of the Fathers, such as those to whom he appeals in de Decr., &c.
(94 The idea of a mysterious unwritten tradition is a legacy of Gnosticism to the Church. Irenæus, in order to meet the Gnostic appeal to a supposed unwritten Apostolic tradition, confronts it with the consistency of the public and normal teaching of the Churches everywhere, of which the Roman Church is a convenient microcosm or compendium. The idea of a παράδοσις ἄγραφος is adopted by Clement and Origen, and passes from the latter to Eusebius, and to the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil de Sp. S. 27, applies it only to practical details), Epiphanius, and later writers. Details in Harnack ii. 90, note, cf. Salmon, Infallibility, Lect. ix. On the somewhat different subject of the ‘Disciplina Arcani,’ see Herzog-Plitt. s.v. ‘Arkan-Disciplia’)(source)
When you say "it is a tradition" (which obviously is alleged to have been written by John Chrysostom) do you mean "tradition"
a) the way that Athanasius meant it (as per the authority of the noted historian Schaff);
b) the way that Athanasius meant it (as per the authority of your own historical research, please specify what the result of your historical research was);
c) with some meaning other than Athanasius used it?
-Turretinfan
P.S. Please note that this is not an endorsement of P. Schaff's work, or an assertion that P. Schaff was correct. P. Schaff is quoted because "Orthodox" seems to have indicated that historical investigation is necessary under the Vincentian canon, and it is hard to find any historian more widely respected for scholarly work than P. Schaff, even though he was fallible and made mistakes from time to time.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Chained to a Wall
"Orthodox"'s latest question asks what alternative someone can offer to someone like himself. The answer is freedom to believe the truth.
O: "Aren't I better off in the Orthodox Church?"
No.
O: "Isn't reading and understanding scripture with assistance of the consensus of Christians in the historic church better than just confusion?"
False dilemma. Being a member of the Orthodox Church (as you have described it) does not permit you to read and understand Scripture in any meaningful way. The "consensus of Christians" of your sect is not merely "assistance" it is dogma.
Likewise, reading Scripture without being bound to accept one's sect's "consensus" conclusion is not "just confusion." It is the historic Christian approach, as evidenced by the Bereans in Scripture.
O: "Isn't the supposed certainty most Protestants seem to have about their own interpretation, more to do with their own pride and self-assurance, than any real understanding?"
That's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. It is not "real understanding" simply to say "amen" to the consensus of one's sect. Furthermore, most Protestants are certain but yet qualify their certainty with fallibility, whereas "Orthodoxy" (as you have presented it) pridefully asserts the infallibility of the consensus of its sect.
O: "Since you are reformed and most protestants aren't, you would have to agree, wouldn't you?"
No.
One who has left the primary authority of Scripture itself for the primary authority of the consensus of one's sect has chained oneself to the wall. It may be a wall that moves (like the Roman Catholic wall) or a wall that stands still (as "Orthodox" assersts of his sect). It may be a wall with much detail (as is the Roman Catholic wall - and as "Orthodox" seems to think is the case of "Orthodoxy") or a wall with very little detail (as other Eastern Orthodox folks have said). But one is chained to the wall.
But by chaining oneself to the wall, one has exchanged truth for certainty. It's a bad bargain. Certainty is only valuable if it is attached to Truth, but the doctrines of Eastern Orthodoxy are not the Truth.
Chaining oneself to the wall is a defense mechanism: it prevents one from being blown about. But it is better to chain oneself to a more sure foundation than the traditions of men: chain oneself to the Word, to the Scripture. Make the Scripture your rule of faith, not the traditions of the men if your sect.
-Turretinfan
P.S. This assertion is both inaccurate and absurd: "As far as I can see, your advice is that I should go off and wait for the Holy Spirit to tell me the 66 book list, something he never did for Chrysostom." Actually, my advice is to accept the Bible as the Word of God on faith, as Chrysostom did. If the edges are fuzzy - the core is not.
So also, this assertion is inaccurate and absurd: "And then I should enter into the land of confusion between all these protestant exegetes. " No, then you should search the Scriptures and do what they say.
What alternative are you offering ME?
I'm an Orthodox Christian. I follow the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church. We have a 76 book canon. The Church is unified in its belief of who and when should receive the sacraments, and what that means. In fact, the Church has a unified and clear teaching on most things.
But I haven't received any special revelation of a 66 book list, a 76 book list, a 61 book list, or any other list.
I've witnessed debates between baptists and presbyterians over whether children should or shouldn't be baptised, and based purely on scripture I have no answer to this question.
I've seen a number of debates between Calvinists and Arminians, and I can understand exactly why each side says what they say.
I've seen debates on how Christians should approach law and gospel without being sure who the winner is.
I've seen different views on spirit baptism, views on Church government and on worship, on women in ministry.
Oh yes, and my favourite: different views on Eastern Orthodoxy.
As far as I can see, your advice is that I should go off and wait for the Holy Spirit to tell me the 66 book list, something he never did for Chrysostom. And then I should enter into the land of confusion between all these protestant exegetes. But the one thing I have learnt from reading these books and listening to these debates, is that I quite often DON'T know what the bible teaches based on scripture alone, despite witnessing the to and fro of the best minds out there.
I think any Orthodox Christians who see this debate would say that no matter whether your arguments are good, bad or indifferent, you don't offer any substitute. I could believe what you say about scripture and tradition, and all it would cause me to do is leave church in misery and despair, not knowing which church has the true canon, or which church has the true interpretation, worship, ecclesiology, eschatology, soteriology, pneumatology, or every other "ology". Unlike protestants, I'm honest enough to acknowledge I have a tradition. Without that tradition, I'm lost. I've tried to figure out this scripture alone thing, but I've failed.
Aren't I better off in the Orthodox Church? Isn't reading and understanding scripture with assistance of the consensus of Christians in the historic church better than just confusion?
Isn't the supposed certainty most Protestants seem to have about their own interpretation, more to do with their own pride and self-assurance, than any real understanding? Since you are reformed and most protestants aren't, you would have to agree, wouldn't you?
Never
This question was already answered with a careful reading of my quotation of St Vincent.
The answer is never. What difference does it make what the ratio of Orthodox to non-Orthodox? Did it matter that there were 12 Christians, 10 million pagans, 10 million buddhists in 30AD? Did it matter the ratio of those in the church of the apostles compared to the Montanists, Marcionites, Gnostics or Manicheans there were in the 1st century compared to those in the apostolic churches? Of course not.
You want to be able to do what the Marcionites did, which is to set up your own church and decide for yourself which parts of revelation seem to be inspired. No matter if you cut bits out or add bits in, as long as it seems good to you. We say no, the apostles set up a church and passed to it the traditions of the Christian faith. Where else are we to look for truth? You say the scriptures, but what scriptures? The Marcionite scriptures? You can't tell me which ones, all you advise is that the Holy Spirit will tell me which ones. Well, I put my hand up and say that by myself, I don't know which ones. I'm not receiving a 66 book list through the ether. Neither did Luther, neither did Chrysostom. If they didn't, why should I expect it? I'd rather see what the Holy Spirit is telling the Church as a whole.
I must also comment on a possible incorrect understanding. Ecumenical councils aren't as great a consequence as you seem to think. What matters is what the Church believes, council or no council. Councils are just a special opportunity for the people of God to pass judgment on a statement of the faith. Whether 3 or 3000 bishops attend is not the issue, as long as the people of God say "Amen, this is the apostolic faith". This is clearly did not happen for the council of 754.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
No Strength in Numbers
You claim that at the time of the "Great Schism" your denomination was bigger than Roman Catholics. Now Roman Catholicism is (according to typical estimates) three times larger and "Protestants" as a group are also larger (though only by 100 Million or so). Furthermore, "Orthodoxy" itself has not had any ecumenical councils in over 1200 years.
At what point will you admit that your "consensus of the people of God" is just "consensus of the people of God who agree with me": when the ratio of Non-Orthodox to Orthodox is 10/1, 100/1, 1000/1 or what? (Recall you claimed "consensus of the people of God" as the primary way that you divined that the unanimous voice of 300 bishops in the middle of the 8th century were wrong about their identification of the apostolic faith, while the voice of about the same number of bishops in the next generation saying the opposite thing were right.)
-Turretinfan
Two Shall be one Flesh
O: “From Orthodoxy's point of view, protestantism is altogether too individualistic.”
Perhaps that is because, as has been demonstrated in this debate, “Othodoxy” is full of misconceptions about “protestantism [sic].”
O: “But there is one area where you can't be individualistic: Marriage.”
Actually, that’s not true. One can be individualistic in that regard as well: Orthodoxy’s Origin’s self-castration comes to mind.
O: “Marriage affects the two people. It affects their parents. It affects their relatives. It affects their children. It affects the community. We can't have personal interpretation in this arena.”
We “can” (see above) the question is whether we “should.” Furthermore, it is inherent that we will make personal interpretations: because we are not mindless drones.
O: “Also, from Orthodoxy's point of view, many more things in protestantism are Tradition than protestants would care to admit.”
That’s because “Orthodoxy” doesn’t understand “protestantism [sic].”
First of all, “Protestantism” (correct capitalization) is a metonymous name for Protestants, not a system of doctrines. “Reformed” is a system of doctrines, and when in this response there is reference to “Orthodoxy” not understanding the other side, it is the Reformed set of doctrines that are in mind. After all it is the Reformed churches that hold to Sola Scriptura, whereas some Protestants do not.
Second, neither Sola Scriptura nor the Reformed churches deny the existence, use, or authority of traditions. That probably comes as a shock to some “Orthodox” and “Catholic” readers. Reformed churches, however, place the authority of the church on a lower level than the authority of the Bible.
O: “So it's interesting that the Westminster Confession has something to say about marriage: ‘I. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time.’ But this is just one interpretation.”
It’s “just one interpretation” in roughly the same sense that rejection of iconoclasm is “just one interpretation” of the 7th Ecumenical Council (the second one). In other words, it is an interpretation of Scripture (it’s not a quotation from Scripture), and it is one interpretation (not two interpretations). But it is also a correct and proper interpretation.
O: “Many have noted that the bible does not condemn polygamy.”
ERROR: This is the fallacy of argument from the masses. Appealing to the number of people who have shared one’s opinion (or in this case, shared a red herring, as one cannot believe that “Orthodox” believes polygamy ok) is fallacious, as there is no logical reason to accept a position simply because many other people have had that position. It’s the positive form of the ad hominem argument writ large.
O: “Many have felt that Paul's letters are carefully worded not to condemn polygamy.”
Same error as above.
O: “For example 1Cor 7:10 "The wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife". But it doesn't say the husband must remain unmarried. Perhaps that wouldn't make sense in the case of polygamy?”
ERROR: This is the fallacy of non sequitur. It says that a man should not put away his wife, and makes no positive provision in that verse for what he should do. In verse 27, though, Paul explains that if a man is loosed from a wife he should not seek a wife.
O: “Or 1Cor. 7:39 "A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord". Paul doesn't say a husband is bound.”
ERROR: This is the fallacy of equivocation. The woman is bound to obey her husband during marriage. After marriage she is a free woman. The man was never bound to obey his wife. Context is key.
O: “Some have seen in 1Tim. 3:2 "An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife", an admission that non-overseers may have multiple wives.”
ERROR: This is the fallacy of denial of the antecedent. In this case the objection is a bit absurd. Among the other qualifications for an overseer is that the man must not be a brawler or a drunkard, yet polygamists would surely not suggest that non-overseers may engage in those actions either. Their own self-inconsistency is an adequate rebuttal of their fallacious inference.
O: “Others have seen in Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery" permission to marry another provided you don't divorce the first.”
This is similarly the fallacy of denial of the antecedent.
O: “Lest one say this is creative interpretation, of course we have the precedent of the the patriarchs. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon practiced it.”
Contrary to the teachings of the Mormons (and apparently of “Orthodox”) Abraham did not practice it. Abraham was not married to Keturah until Sarah died. Abraham was never married to Hagar. David and especially Solomon did what they did both in violation of Deuteronomy 17:17’s specific prohibition.
O: “Purely on a sola-scriptura basis we've got an interpretation backed up by the hard evidence of the scriptural practice.”
That kind of comment demonstrates that “Orthodox” either has no idea what Sola Scriptura means, or has no desire to interact with Sola Scriptura as a position. Sola Scriptura is not imposing one’s view on Scripture, but learning from Scripture.
O: “And Deuteronomy 21:15-17 has explicit instructions for husbands with more than one wife. The laws of Deuteronomy are the law of God, not just a concession of Moses.”
Yes, Deuteronomy 21:15-17 does provide instructions for men with more than one wife, and the laws of Deuteronomy are the law of God. On the other hand, Jesus in the Gospels explains that some of the provisions of the law of Moses were concessions to human weakness: “for the hardness of your heart” on the very topic of marriage.
O: “But would any Christian in their right mind come to such a conclusion? Well, actually...”
There’s more than a dose of irony in the comment that follows this rhetorical question, for the group that “Orthodox” identifies are not “fully Christian” by his standard of Christianity.
O: “In the 1988 Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church, held in
And, of course, that is not a concession to polygamy (or an assertion that polygamy is acceptable): it’s a concession to human weakness. It is wrong to take a second wife, but it may also be wrong to divorce that second wife. What’s done is done. On the other hand, those polygamists cannot be overseers.
O: “We can grant the humanitarian argument, but the argument from scripture is instructive about how protestants interpret scripture.”
Actually the argument is not that instructive at all.
O: “In parts of
Marriage is not the center of Biblical Christianity. It is an important part of the life of Christians, but not the center of the gospel.
O: “The locals consider the Bible to be quite clear on the subject. Polygamy is fine in the Old Testament; and even in the New, it is only bishops who are required to be 'the husband of one wife.'”
The traditions of Islam is largely responsible for that misconception. The Gospel is clear on what proper marriage consists of.
O: “But would anyone not in this special situation advocate polygamy? Well, actually...”
Hmm … we must now be getting to the Luther quotation.
"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." -- Martin Luther, (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.) and "what is permitted in the Mosaic law, is not forbidden in the Gospel" (De Wette-Seidemann, VI, 239-244; "Corp. Ref.", III, 856-863)
Those citations are a bit odd. But let’s assume for the sake of the argument that Luther really said that.
O: “Philip the Magnanimous, took up Luther's advice and took a second wife. Philip lived with both wives, both of whom bore him children, causing a great scandal in the German church.”
Again, let’s suppose for the sake of the argument, that this is true.
O: “Also, some of the radical Anabaptists started practicing polygamy for the same reasons.”
Again, let’s suppose for the sake of the argument, again, that this is true.
O: “How is sola scriptura workable as a rule of faith FOR THE CHURCH, when the teaching of the Westminster Confession is that only monogamy is scriptural, but the founder of the reformation says that scripture has nothing to say against polygamy?”
First of all, neither Luther, nor “Philip the Magnanimous” nor the radical Anabaptists, were the “founder of the reformation.” Luther was a prominent reformer, but he built on the work of others who went before him.
Second, the question has ambiguity that should be immediately apparent: “for the church.” For which church? For the church that Luther ministered to? For the churches that hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith? For the collection of all believers now living? This problem has happened in “Orthodox”’s questions before, and so it is disappointing when it happens again.
Since it has not been clarified, the present author will address the most sensible meaning namely “the denomination” (or congregation in the case of non-denominational bodies). Sola Scriptura is workable as a rule of faith for the denomination, because the denomination can consider Luther’s view (if that really was his view) and the view of the Westminster divines and compare them to Scripture to determine the appropriate teaching to promulgate and the appropriate church discipline to exercise.
O: “If you conceed the bible hasn't a clear teaching, you conceed that sola scripture fails for the content of the WC, and you cede the debate.”
Scripture is clear, but no: the resolution is comparative. Thus, even if “Orthodox” could establish that Scripture was unclear on this doctrine, the question would still be open as to whether “tradition” were more, just as, or less workable than Scripture on that doctrine. Furthermore, the resolution is general. The resolution is not saying that Scripture is uniformly with respect to every possible doctrine in each case more workable, but generally.
O: “If you side with Luther, you have to explain how sola scriptura can be working if the very confession of your own church has got it wrong, and if you side with the WC you have to show where the bible is so clear in this teaching that all Christians can clearly understand it in opposition to the scriptural teaching that explicitely allows it and you have to explain how come you are contradicted by Luther and others.”
The explanation is easy: Luther was a man and made mistakes. Men do that.
O: “I might add that in the area of marriage, romance and relationships, people aren't going to accept any weak arguments to stand in the way of their affections.”
People reject the truth all the time. There is no surprise there.
O: “It's going to have to be rock solid to work this time. No obfuscation on this one.”
The obfuscation lies in challenging a view of marriage that one accepts. The obfuscation lies in challenging books of the Bible one accepts. The obfuscation lies in red herrings and misrepresentations. The obfuscation can even lie in asking ambiguous questions and then complaining that the answer was to something other than what was meant.
O: “Neither can you fall back to saying that marriage isn't an important issue.”
Marriage is less important than many other issues.
O: “Marriage isn't an obscure theological issue that we can ruminate on in our retirement years.”
Pure rhetoric. No further comment needed.
O: “Young hormone filled people with no theological training need clear authoritative teaching, and they need it now.”
Actually, young people need the truth. Authoritative teaching is only as good as it is true, and churches (i.e. denominations) do have the authority (by the mouth of the elders) to teach and the elders ought to do so. The elders should also exercise discipline against those who violate the law of God with respect to issues related to marriage.
But it’s not just young people who need teaching on this issue. Thousands (or is it tens of thousands) of Orthodox and Catholic Bishops and many more Catholic priests need instruction on the propriety of marriage and the impropriety of burning in celibacy.
The traditions of men have made the Word of God of practically no effect for both “Orthodoxy” and “Catholicism” – the former group permitting a rare married man to become bishop (though forbidding bishops to marry and commanding them to abstain from meats at various times of the year) and the latter group permitting married bishops only in extraordinary circumstances (such as to promote recapture of some previously separate body of “Catholics.”
O: “Which way do you want to jump? “
To the path illuminated by the Word. We walk in the Light of Scripture.
Who was right, Luther or Westminster?
From Orthodoxy's point of view, protestantism is altogether too individualistic. But there is one area where you can't be individualistic: Marriage. Marriage affects the two people. It affects their parents. It affects their relatives. It affects their children. It affects the community. We can't have personal interpretation in this arena.
Also, from Orthodoxy's point of view, many more things in protestantism are Tradition than protestants would care to admit.
So it's interesting that the Westminster Confession has something to say about marriage:
"I. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time."
But this is just one interpretation. Many have noted that the bible does not condemn polygamy.
Many have felt that Paul's letters are carefully worded not to condemn polygamy. For example 1Cor 7:10 "The wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife". But it doesn't say the husband must remain unmarried. Perhaps that wouldn't make sense in the case of polygamy?
Or 1Cor. 7:39 "A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord". Paul doesn't say a husband is bound.
Some have seen in 1Tim. 3:2 "An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife", an admission that non-overseers may have multiple wives.
Others have seen in Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery" permission to marry another provided you don't divorce the first.
Lest one say this is creative interpretation, of course we have the precedent of the the patriarchs. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon practiced it. Purely on a sola-scriptura basis we've got an interpretation backed up by the hard evidence of the scriptural practice. And Deuteronomy 21:15-17 has explicit instructions for husbands with more than one wife. The laws of Deuteronomy are the law of God, not just a concession of Moses.
But would any Christian in their right mind come to such a conclusion? Well, actually...
In the 1988 Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church, held in Canterbury England one of the African delegates proposed that polygamous Africans who converted to Christianity with their families should be allowed to retain their multiple wives. The reasons he gave was: (1) that it was a practice approved by the Old Testament; (2) that it is not specifically forbidden in the New Testament; and (3) that from a humanitarian point of view it would be unfair and cruel for the wives and children of such relationships to suddenly be made widows and fatherless, with no one to take care of them. The conference approved his proposal.
We can grant the humanitarian argument, but the argument from scripture is instructive about how protestants interpret scripture. In parts of Africa, the central missionary question is polygamy. The locals consider the Bible to be quite clear on the subject. Polygamy is fine in the Old Testament; and even in the New, it is only bishops who are required to be 'the husband of one wife.'
But would anyone not in this special situation advocate polygamy? Well, actually...
"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." -- Martin Luther, (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.) and "what is permitted in the Mosaic law, is not forbidden in the Gospel" (De Wette-Seidemann, VI, 239-244; "Corp. Ref.", III, 856-863)
Philip the Magnanimous, took up Luther's advice and took a second wife. Philip lived with both wives, both of whom bore him children, causing a great scandal in the German church.
Also, some of the radical Anabaptists started practicing polygamy for the same reasons.
How is sola scriptura workable as a rule of faith FOR THE CHURCH, when the teaching of the Westminster Confession is that only monogamy is scriptural, but the founder of the reformation says that scripture has nothing to say against polygamy? If you conceed the bible hasn't a clear teaching, you conceed that sola scripture fails for the content of the WC, and you cede the debate. If you side with Luther, you have to explain how sola scriptura can be working if the very confession of your own church has got it wrong, and if you side with the WC you have to show where the bible is so clear in this teaching that all Christians can clearly understand it in opposition to the scriptural teaching that explicitely allows it and you have to explain how come you are contradicted by Luther and others.
I might add that in the area of marriage, romance and relationships, people aren't going to accept any weak arguments to stand in the way of their affections. It's going to have to be rock solid to work this time. No obfuscation on this one.
Neither can you fall back to saying that marriage isn't an important issue. Marriage isn't an obscure theological issue that we can ruminate on in our retirement years. Young hormone filled people with no theological training need clear authoritative teaching, and they need it now.
Which way do you want to jump?
No Shortage of Reasons
How do I know the council of 754 was not ecumenical? How do I know 1 Clement is not scripture? Because the Spirit does not witness to His Church that it is so. You see, we can both talk about the witness of the Spirit, but when you talk about it, it's just your opinion. When I talk about it, it is the consensus of the people of God. What more do I need? That's 300 million times as good an authority as you have presented, which is 300 million orthodox Christians divided by one of you.
I can add other reasons, but it hardly ought be necessary:
1) There are no great iconoclastic fathers of the Church. I don't agree with your assessment that there is any lack of Fathers speaking for icons. Every Father speaking for icons, and without any objection in the Church until the 7th century, is an indication there was no controversy. Priests and bishops were reading Gregory of Nazianz, Basil, Meletius, Cyril, Chrysostom etc, and yet no controversy broke out to indicate any other opinion. Some might have suggested Origen, but he was already condemned a heretic centuries before for holding odd opinions that even protestants would find objectionable.
2) If they were right in 754 then the whole Church was in heresy from 787 until now. This is unacceptable. You may as well be a Mormon and say it was in heresy from the 1st century.
3) I say "until now", and not "until Luther", because the iconoclasts would be no friend of protestants. They were against all images. No protestant movies about Jesus. No cartoon figures in your Good News bible. No photography, no movies, no art. Nothing at all.
4) However they WERE in favour of veneration of other holy things. "The Iconoclasts venerated the Cross, and made no bones about it" (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974, p. 110). Again, no friends of protestants and the Church is STILL in heresy if they were right.
5) And they were in favour of seeking the intercession of the saints. They also anathematized all those who "shall not confess the holy ever-virgin Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God, to be higher than every creature whether visible or invisible, and does not with sincere faith seek her intercessions as one having confidence in her access to our God since she bare Him..." and they also anathematized anyone who "denies the profit of the invocation of the Saints..." (NPNF2, Vol. 14, p. 545f) If they were the true faith, where is the true church now?
6) The whole Church never accepted the council of 754. It was local to Byzantium. It did not include all the areas East which were now under Islam. Nor did it include the areas in the West and Latin areas. In fact it is instructive that the Church under the iconoclastic Islam was the staunch defender of icons.
7) Even in Byzantium, it was only an official policy, put in place by the Emperor. The common people, the monks and priests hid the icons and bided their time.
8) It was attended by no Patriarchs, who are representatives of the major jurisdictions of the Church. Not a single Patriarch, nor any of their representatives.
9) The whole iconoclast controversy in Byzantium started 3 years after Islam started an icon smashing exercise in Muslim controlled lands. It can't be a coincidence that iconoclasm in Christianity comes at the exact same time as a major heresy like Islam starts doing the same thing.
10) Everybody on both sides of the debate agrees that the council was a puppet of the Emperor. He apparently was either influenced by the Muslims or had some political motivation with regard to the Muslims.
11) The iconoclasts were heretics in other ways. They opposed monasticism, despite the fact that it had unquestionably been embraced by the Church since time immemorial. They were fond of robbing monks, taking their land, and forcing them to marry, eat meat, and attend public spectacles (and those who resisted often were the public spectacles).
12) Even Protestant historians are forced to concede that the holy men and women of the day were supporters of the veneration of Icons, and that the Iconoclasts were a rather immoral and ruthless lot.
"Much has been written, and truly written, of the superiority of the iconoclastic rulers; but when all has been said that can be, the fact still remains, that they were most of them but sorry Christians, and the justice of the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin's summing up of the matter will not be disputed by any impartial student. He says, "No one will deny that with rarest exceptions, all the religious earnestness, all which constituted the quickening power of a church, was ranged upon the other [i.e. the orthodox] side. Had the Iconoclasts triumphed, when their work showed itself at last in its true colours, it would have proved to be the triumph, not of faith in an invisible God, but of frivolous unbelief in an incarnate Saviour." (Trench. Mediaeval History, Chap. vii.) The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, trans H. R. Percival, in NPNF2, ed. P. Schaff and H. Wace, (repr. Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1955), XIV, p. 575, cf. 547f.
13) The iconoclasts, being opposed to all images without discernment, went against scripture's command to place images in the Temple.
14) The Quinisext council, which is understood by the Orthodox to be of the same authority as an ecumenical council, established a canon regarding what should be depicted in certain Icons, but hasn't the faintest hint of any controversy about Icons per se. Thus to give credence to the council of 754 would be to deny previous Tradition:
"In some of the paintings of the venerable Icons, a lamb is inscribed as being shown or pointed at by the Precursor's finger, which was taken to be a type of grace, suggesting beforehand through the law the true lamb to us Christ our God. Therefore, eagerly embracing the old types and shadows as symbols of the truth and preindications handed down to the Church, we prefer the grace, and accept it as the truth in fulfillment of the law. Since, therefore, that which is perfect even though it be but painted is imprinted in the faces of all, the Lamb who taketh away the sin of the world Christ our God, with respect to His human character, we decree that henceforth he shall be inscribed even in the Icons instead of the ancient lamb: through Him being enabled to comprehend the reason for the humiliation of the God Logos, and in memory of His life in the flesh and of His passion and of His soterial death being led by the hand, as it were, and of the redemption of the world which thence accrues" (Canon LXXXII of the Quinisext Council).
The Council of 754
In 754 there was a council of more than 300 bishops in Constantinople who referred to themselves as the seventh ecumenical council and unanimously ("The holy synod cried out: Thus we all believe, we all are of the same mind. We have all with one voice and voluntarily subscribed. This is the faith of the Apostles.") affirmed among other things:
(8) If anyone ventures to represent the divine image (
karakthr ) of the Word after the Incarnation with material colours, let him be anathema!(9) If anyone ventures to represent in human figures, by means of material colours, by reason of the incarnation, the substance or person (ousia or hypostasis) of the Word, which cannot be depicted, and does not rather confess that even after the Incarnation he [i.e., the Word] cannot be depicted, let him be anathema!
You clearly accept the testimony of a later council (which also called itself "the seventh ecumenical council") that held rather differently with respect to at least these two items.
We've already established the relative paucity of early priests and doctors affirming the use of icons in worship (you could only identify a small handful of alleged teachers of the doctrine, while you acknowledge that there were dozens of doctors and thousands upon thousands of priests). Now we've established a purported ecumenical and not Roman Catholic or Protestant council of bishops meeting in large numbers in the historic seat of "Orthodoxy" and denying a doctrine that has massive implications for the worship practice of virtually all Roman Catholics and Orthodox churches and congregants around the world.
How do you know that those 300 ancient bishops were all wrong and another group of bishops in the next generation were right: do you apply Vincent's Canon or some other test?
-Turretinfan
Mockery of Spirit's Testimony a Red Herring
O: “Francis, your consistent approach thus far has been that the Holy Spirit witnesses to individuals what God's word is.”
It is gratifying to see my consistency on the issue recognized.
O: “You were given the opportunity to provide something more objective, but you quite reasonably recognised that whether a book is God-breathed is not the kind of question that lends itself to say, historical investigation.”
Actually, I provided a number of objective considerations. Perhaps they were overlooked:
Sometimes the testimony is explicit.
For example, sometimes Scriptures attest to their own Scripture status:
1 Corinthians 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
Or to the Scripture status of other Scriptures:
Nehemiah 8:14 And they found written in the law which the LORD had commanded by Moses, that the children of
The testimony is self-consistent, for it has a single author: God.
The testimony has been providentially preserved.
O: “Thus you didn't have any kind of real argument why Esther or the Johannine epistles are God-breathed, or 1 Clement is not God-breathed beyond the witness of the Spirit.”
Actually, the reason for the presentation being short was “Orthodox” own request that: “Obviously we don't want a long essay, but just the brief facts on how you know they are scripture.” Thus, the question was for me to explain how I know, not to try to prove the authenticity of the canonical books and the non-authenticity of the non-canonical book.
Any proof would have to start from some common epistemological common ground. Unfortunately, however, “Orthodox” is apparently unwilling to consider the testimony of the Spirit as a valid epistemology. Accordingly, “Orthodox” is left with selecting among various non-revelatory epistemologies. The form of the contentious assertion that the present author did not provide “any kind of real argument” suggests the “Orthodox” would like to adopt some form of empiricism. On the other hand, “Orthodox” comment above that: “but you quite reasonably recognised that whether a book is God-breathed is not the kind of question that lends itself to say, historical investigation,” suggests that “Orthodox” recognizes that empiricism cannot provide answers, because the Spirit is supernatural, and empiricism is not equipped to deal with the supernatural.
Thus, of course, the previous presentation was not an “argument” aimed at “proof” of the canonical status of Esther and non-canonical status of 1 Clement.
With regard to the presentations above, Esther is self-consistent with the other Scriptures, as are 1st-3rd John. Esther and 1st-3rd John were providentially preserved, 1 Clement was not (whether or not 1 Clement is self-consistent with Scripture). Furthermore, correcting the numerous factual errors in the citation of an extraordinarily questionable source like any of the Anchor publications would require a treatise.
But all such disputations miss the point. Whether the investigation is over a book of the whole or the whole book, the question of whether the book is to be received is a question of faith, not a question of evidentiary proof.
O: “Orthodox [sic] on the other hand would say that there is an objectively discoverable reality of where God's people are.”
This assertion is somewhat ambiguous. We know the people of God by their fruits, but even true believers stumble, and God alone knows the heart. Whether people are elect or not is an objective reality, and it is discoverable. And, of course, determine WHO God’s people are is arguably a predicate to discovering WHERE God’s people are. We could also point out that God’s people will be in the churches of God, but to judge a church without reference to its members would be an odd sort of investigation. The term “objectively discoverable” makes little sense. Subjects discover objects. That something is an objective reality may be discoverable, but it is discoverable subjectively, because it is subjects that do discovering.
Of course, perhaps by “objectively” “Orthodox” just means empirically. As noted above, however, while we can try (and should try) to judge empirically, only God knows the heart. There are certainly definable attributes of true churches, but those attributes are few not many.
O: “God gives his revelation to his people.”
Indeed he does, but not only to them. The gospel is preached everywhere and to everyone.
O: “His people preserve it.”
Some do, some don’t, and some preserve it better than others. Scripture has been preserved, but not all revelation ever given has been preserved. Furthermore, sometimes those who are not God’s people preserve God’s word.
O: “Thus where his Word is, is objectively stated by where his people are, which is an historical, continuous, objectively tracable [sic] entity.”
This, of course, does not follow for several reasons. First, where God’s people are is a location, not an “entity.” Second, God’s people are everywhere, throughout the whole world. Third, the Word must be known before the people who believe the Word can be identified as the people of God using the Biblical criteria.
There is another option: trust an entity, and then take the entity’s word for it that what they say God’s word is, is. This is how one can be led into Mormonism or Islam, to take two examples. Their radical, rapid departure from Scripture is less obvious than the gradual departure from Scripture in Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Nevertheless, the “trust the institution” mindset is the same.
O: “You on the other hand say that God gave his revelation, but who might be preserving it cannot be stated as a prior principle.”
The Holy Spirit preserves the Scriptures providentially: sometimes by Christians, sometimes by infidels. We find heretics preserving Scriptures (with some attempting to manipulate Scriptures) as well as orthodox Christians preserving Scripture. Even with some deliberate mistranslations, the New World Translation (of the so-called Jehovah’s Witnesses) generally preserves the Scriptures, and the Mormons (though they add unreasonably marginal notes and extraneous, uninspired works) preserve Scriptures as well.
O: “You hope or assume that God has preserved it, hopefully somewhere reasonably accessable to you, but where one might look to find its authoritative form, one can't say.”
I don’t have to hope or assume those things. I know that God has preserved it, because I have heard it and read it. That’s how preaching works. If I were an heathen informed only by the light of nature, I might have that hope that God has revealed himself in written form. As a Christian who has believed the preached Word, I don’t have that problem.
O: “You just have to look, and wait for the Holy Spirit to inform whenever and whereever you happen to find it.”
Actually, no, God sends preachers who preach the gospel. That’s how I heard the Word, and that’s how most Christians have heard the Word. In some, the Holy Spirit persuades us that it is the Word of God, and not just the fables of men.
O: “This means you've cut yourself off from any way of knowing what God's word is that is rooted in space/time and the physical universe.”
Now, this seems to swing back to empiricism. Plenty more could be written on this topic, but empiricism is inherently fruitless. Facts require interpretation: interpretation requires presuppositions. Empiricisms usual presupposition (naturalism) would prevent any demonstration of what God’s word is, because God’s word is a supernatural phenomenon.
O: “Your first principle is what the Spirit witnesses to you, as an individual.”
Everyone is an individual, and everyone’s epistemology is individual or nonsensical. The question “How do you know?” is answered individually. On the other hand, I’m not the only one who uses the epistemology that I do.
O: “Questions:”
It’s worth pointing out that this presentation of numerous questions seems to abuse the alternating question format, but surely no abuse was intended. Hopefully with this nudge, we can return to the alternating question format.
O: “1) What does this witnessing feel like?”
It feels like persuasion, conviction of fact. Asking someone to describe a feeling is a challenging task (ask yourself how persuasion or conviction of fact feels, and you’ll see what I mean). Asking someone to describe the operation of the Spirit is asking for trouble. As Jesus put it:
John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
The action of the Spirit can be hard to describe, but the result is enormous and real.
O: “2) How do you know the feeling from (1) is the Holy Spirit and not your corrupt heart, a demon or other phenomenon?”
By faith.
O: “3) How does it differ to Mormon burning in the bosom (other than presumably yours is real and theirs isn't), and how do you know it differs? How does it differ to the Islamic idea that you read the book and it is obvious that there is no book ever written like the Koran?”
I’d hate to suggest that I’m an expert in either Mormon or Muslim views. There are many imitations, but only one God. Only the grace of God, and the operation of the Holy Spirit prevents me from being deluded like a Muslim or Mormon.
O: “4) Isn't the idea that the Spirit witnesses to every Christian a 66 book canon, objectively and empirically a lot of nonsense, given the number of better Christians than you or I who have held a smaller or larger canon?”
Obviously it is not “a lot of nonsense.” What makes it seem like nonsense is confusing the details with the big picture. Some things are more clear and some things are less clear. The canonicity of some books is more clear than others, not because a different spirit testifies to each, but because the Spirit testifies more clearly in some “Thus saith the Lord” and less clearly in others.
O: “5) How can you guard against a false witness of what the Spirit testifies to, given there have been so many false claims?”
Scripture provides the answer:
1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
It is essential to Christianity that we believe the preached Gospel, but faith in the true gospel is not the result of human achievement. The Holy Spirit regenerates man, opening his eyes to knowledge of the truth, so that he can see that God has revealed Himself in Scripture.
O: “6) How do you explain someone like John Chrysostom, who memorised the scriptures (at least his canon of scripture) from Genesis on forward, who tirelessly dedicated himself to the Church and to God, who wrote a commentary on nearly the whole bible, and yet he held to the shorter New Testament canon of the Syrians, despite the fact he was aware of the other books? Didn't the Spirit witness to him?”
The answers above should suffice. I would not take for granted the various accounts of Chrysostom, and we don’t really have the space to get into all the details of his life story here. Whatever the answer to the first question, the second question can modified to “Didn’t the Church witness to him?” or “Didn’t empiricism witness to him?” or whatever explanation one wishes to give for the way in which we come to know the canon. Or, if you believe Chrysostom got it right, then simply apply the same question to some other godly man who erred in thinking something was Scripture that was not, or thought something wasn’t Scripture that was. In other words, the examples prove nothing except that Christians have differed.
O: “7) How come the Spirit witnesses a 66 long list to every Christian, but he doesn't witness the 5 points of Calvinism, the correct understanding of infant/believer baptism, the correct understanding of the eucharist, or any of many more significant points? Isn't your theory rather arbitrary?”
The Spirit does testify to those truths. The primary way the Spirit does so is through Scripture, but again: some things more clearly and some things less clearly.
O: “8) Gnosticism has been defined as religious groups that believe in "an inferior material world, one needs gnosis, or esoteric spiritual knowledge available only to a learned elite." Isn't this yet more evidence (as if we needed any more) that protestants are gnostics, abandoning the idea that God provides all knowledge through revelation in the material world, whereas you believe in esoteric internal revelation?”
Gnosticism is the name of an early heresy. It has much more in common with a church predominated by “mystery” and which claims to have knowledge unavailable to the outside world. Sola Scriptura has a rather opposite claim: the important things are plain in Scripture for all to see: the Gospel is preached everywhere, and God’s word is disseminated and explained as much as possible to outsiders.
On the other hand, the truth of the Gospel is only recognized as truth and received with joy by those whom the Spirit of God prepares. It’s not a question of esoteric internal revelation of secret knowledge: it’s an issue of the Spirit enlightening men’s eyes, as Scripture says.
O: “9) If the Spirit witnesses that 14 verses of 3 John is scripture, what does that tell us about our approach to Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11, which are a similar size? Is it scripture if I believe the Spirit tells me it is scripture? Is that more than enough reason? When protestants come to discuss these passages, why is "what the Spirit witnesses", never on the agenda? What does the existance of Mark 16:9-20 in virtually every manuscript tell us about the Spirit's witness, and what does a consensus that is building in protestantism to exclude this passage on grounds other than the Spirit's witness tell us about what protestants really believe?”
The answer to (4) should resolve the five questions posed here. The God-breathed status of the Gospels of Mark and John are clearly revealed. The God-breathed status of particular words, phrases, or passages is less clearly revealed. Scripture’s scripture-status is an objective reality. Whether we recognize the truth of that reality is a different (though important) question.
We recognize that God uses means to preserve the Scriptures. Textual criticism is one of the tools that the Spirit uses to persuade us of the originality of the readings in those places. As a rule of thumb, the bigger the passage is the easier it is to apply textual criticism to determine whether the passage (in general) is original or not.
The Spirit could have left us without a reason for believing that the Scripture is Scripture. However, the Spirit did not do so.
The reason that “what the Spirit witnesses” is not on the agenda is that it is not a transitive measure.
O: “10) Does this mean you can't enforce church discipline if the relevant passage is denied by the person in question to be scripture? So if for example, someone agrees with the Syrian church or is sympathetic to the disparaging things that Martin Luther said about Revelation, are they entitled to just say in the Church "that doesn't apply to me, leave me alone"? Or conversely, can a leader as an individual decide that an extra book is scripture and enforce discipline on its basis? If not, what principle or authority stands in the way?”
As noted above, Scripture is an objective reality: if it is God-breathed it is Scripture. Persuasion of the truth of Scripture is a subjective reality. It appears that a confusion between those two things is the basis of this question. You have to work with what you have.
O: “11) Doesn't your epistemology make this entire debate futile? You have your "truth" that you think the Spirit witnesses to you, and I have my truth that I think the Spirit witnesses to the Church and to me, and that's really the end of the discussion?”
I don’t have to “think” that the Spirit testifies to Scripture: I can and do know it. That is not open for debate, and debate on that would be futile if the arguer’s object were to persuade me to deny a truth that I know. It might be helpful for such a person to re-read the resolution, which takes for granted that I know what the Bible is.
Furthermore, Orthodox himself does not deny that the Spirit witnesses to the Scripture, he simply (apparently) disagrees with me as to how the Spirit does so. In other words, the epistemological issue is a red herring. The canon of Scripture is a non-issue in the debate, and has been a non-issue since the resolution. The Bible may have fuzzy edges (and Orthodox may spend a lot of time, space, and questions on the fuzz) but everyone reading this has a pretty clear concept generally of what the Bible is, whether or not they can prove that the Bible is what they think it is.
We could spend our time demonstrating the absurdity of Orthodox’s attack: but it demonstrates its own absurdity. He attacks on issues where we agree! Furthermore, he attacks on issues that are not germane to the debate. His attack on how we know the Bible is a moot issue. We do know the Bible, and he knows that we know the Bible, and everyone in the world knows that we know the Bible.
It doesn’t really matter whether we know it by the way that the present author has explained it, or by stealing from the “Orthodox” monasteries. How we came by it is not the issue under debate it. We have it, and we can use and do use it: and using Scriptures rather than man’s tradition is a more workable rule of faith.
O: “12) Since Luther is on record as saying that Revelation is "neither apostolic nor prophetic" and stated that "Christ is neither taught nor known in it", and since you are on record as saying that the Holy Spirit dictates to Christians the 66 book canon, what does this say about Luther being a Christian, or alternatively, what does it say about your theory?”
It says nothing either way, as can be seen from the answers to (4) and (9) above.
