quote:

---

Originally posted by Lothiriel:
It may be that schism is inevitable, and indeed it may be beneficial, in so far as the progressive (emergent?) way (and I mean this to include all aspects of Christian belief and practice, not just sexual matters) needs to be able to grow while the traditionalist view dies out (as I think it eventually will, but sadly it will continue to hurt and confuse a lot of people along the way). Maybe the progressive way needs to focus on teaching a radical redefinition of biblical authority -- I believe that the church cannot speak authentically to a postmodern world without this redefinition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
while the traditionalist view dies out (as I think it eventually will

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
while the traditionalist view dies out (as I think it eventually will

---

This is the assumption that precedes everything.

On what is it based? Anything more than wishful thinking?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I think it would make more sense to come up with the radical redefinition first, then propose it.

---

Yes. But I'm insufficiently creative or articulate on this point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

--------------
*Whatever the hell that means, beyond being a mere slur against people who think the Christian religion actually has content, and that that content is in large part derived from the Bible.

---

Are you saying the "progressive" or "postmodern" Christian doesn't believe the Christian religion has content and that that content is in a large part derived from the bible?

Um....this one does....

I concede we're playing with a minefield of obscure definitions tho...
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I didn't post that. I quoted it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I can be rather liberal in some ways, but I am having trouble with what the concept of redefining authority even means. I don't see how authority is something that can be subject to redefinition because it's not based on a definition to begin with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I didn't post that. I quoted it.

---

I realise that, but you quoted it in agreement and it hardly seemed fair to attribute it to Lothiriel since he didn't start this thread and may not even know his comments are on here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I think the authority of the bible is based on a definition; that being the infallible word of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I think the authority of the bible is based on a definition; that being the infallible word of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Your point?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I think the authority of the bible is based on a definition; that being the infallible word of God.

---

That seems more like a claim subject to scrutiny and challenge than a definition. I don't expect anyone to believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God simply because someone has defined it to be so. I would only expect them to believe it if they see the truth of it for themselves.

I can understand and sympathize with your goal, but because of the word 'redefinition' it starts to sound somewhat arbitrary to me. Finding a way to reach the postmodern world sounds like something that will take a lot of work and a lot of time from a lot of people, whereas finding a definition sounds relatively simple in the scheme of things. What is it you're hoping for?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
You've got to come up with a better reason than just 'I think we need to'. Why is it so important that we do this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
while the traditionalist view dies out (as I think it eventually will

---

This is the assumption that precedes everything.

On what is it based? Anything more than wishful thinking?

---

Erm, just to be clear, I didn't post that. I quoted it.

And even if it is a false assumption and the traditionalists don't die out, a radical redefinition for the "postmodern" Christian is still required in my opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The actual task is not to convince yourself of some source of authority, but to convince the ones you are arguing with to adopt the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

Maybe the progressive way needs to focus on discovering a radical new approach to understanding the Bible?

---

quote:

---

The growth of the church - the conservative church - around the world shows that people respect certainty and traditional views. Those who want to redefine Biblical authority - i.e. those who don't want to believe what the Bible clearly teaches, are in the dying western church. A church that is dying for want of belief in Biblical authority.
[/QB]

---

Now see this is where I believe you are essentially wrong Mudfrog.

In my opinion, "liberals" take the bible much more seriously than the "traditionalists".

We don't ignore the discrepancies, the contradictions and the influence of language, culture and history.

To do so is the easy way out.

And people are ever trying to find the easy way out.....

It's not what Jesus did.

[cross posted with Barnabas....ran out of time to check see if I'd talked to much about DH territory. sorry]

[ 10. February 2011, 07:17: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
This thread will do well to avoid morphing into the Dead Horse of biblical inerrancy. Some comment on inerrancy is inevitable, but please try to avoid that becoming the primary focus.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

Maybe the progressive way needs to focus on discovering a radical new approach to understanding the Bible?

---

Perhaps authority is the wrong word.....perhaps you are more correct in your statement above W Hyatt.

Not sure <mumble...mumble...>

---

I have to confess that I missed this aspect of W Hyatt's post before making my own. And I think I was trying to point out much the same thing, just in a less skilful way.

The reference to 'authority' came from the material you quoted in the OP, so I wouldn't chastise yourself for using it.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
PS Whether your idea of redefining 'authority', Evensong, and Lothiriel's idea of redefining it are anything alike is something we can't know unless Lothiriel comes to this thread.

I appreciate what you said about not ignoring the contradictions (or apparent contradictions ) and the influence of language, culture and history.

To me that seems a middle road. What bothers me is when some people go further, and take 'redefining authority' to mean that parts of the Bible can't possibly be true because, for example, miracles and resurrections can't happen. There's a big difference to me in attitudes between looking at difficulties, language, culture and history, and negating the text as soon as you don't like something about it.

The latter seems to deny the Bible any authority at all - it's entirely subservient to the reader's point of view. It's ruling out some of the range of possible meanings just because they're not acceptable.

[ 10. February 2011, 07:49: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 

---

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 

quote:

---

It's Mudfrog's ilk that believe they don't have a viewpoint, a way of understanding the bible, a hermeneutical premise.

---

That sounds rather like painting a picture of "the opposition" that you want to believe because it bolsters your position, not one that's accurate. At the very least you have a very broad brush in your hands there ...

There's no conflict between Mudfrog's position (as I read it) and a hermeutical approach. Indeed, hermeneutics is vital and central to supporting such an understanding/approach to the Bible. Unless you're equating having a high opinion of Biblical authority/sufficiency with a simplistic belief that it's all literally true in the "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" school. In which case you've got a problem, because the two are not inevitable, or even common, bedfellows in my experience.

[ETA: x-posted with orfeo]

[ 10. February 2011, 07:52: Message edited by: Snags ]
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
It doesn't do to caricature con-evo's as having no hermeneutic principles. I'm studying for a BA(Hons) in Theology and Ministry with York St John Uni, taught by The Salvation Army - and therefore catching up 20 years late on most of you and I can say that there is a strong element of hermeneutics.

It is true that there are those who take the Bible's verses at face value and read everything literally but in my experience as a Christian and as a minister for 23 years, there are not really very many...

...tangent, I knew a woman who thought the colour pictures in her Bible were just as inspired as the text! but there you go!...

...anyway! Most evangelicals will look at the historical background to the texts and derive great meaning. They will look at the author's intent, the context, the people to who the texts werew writeen, etc. And that is wonderfully inspiring.
Evangelicals will also ask, what does this say to me, what meaning do I bring, does my chiurch bring?
They will also ask what does it say to a different world today? How do we communicate this truth in a way that a child, a worker, a woman, a refugee, will understand.

All this is very much a part of evangelical theology - whilst retaining, of course, the inherant authority of the text as being of divine origiun and not mere human construct.

It seems to me that the evangelical has an edge, in some ways, to the liberal because the evo will look at so many aspects of the text and see that, for example, the historical situation explains and reveals so much truth that can then be used to clarify difficulties and alleged contradictions. My expoerience has been on occasion that sometimes it is the liberals who are the literalists and because they disagree with the literal reading, they no longer believe what truth lies behind it.

Evangelicals believe the text and the meaning behind it. And because we recognise its inherant authority we can find a way of applying it to every modern situation, either in principle of in its direct teaching.

In a 'post-modern' situation what must be realised by those who deny Scriptural authority, is that the world will not accept the meaning if the text is not believed to be authentic.

The obvious one - the elephant in the room - is the resurrection. Why would a modern world believe in Christ and his offer of life today if the resurrection is not as the Bible describes and as the church believed? The atheists are deliughted to use this as a weapon aganst us. They 'know' we don't believe Jesus walked out of the tomb, so, they say, you don't believe your own Bible - why should we!?
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 

quote:

---

Nobody can claim to be detached from traditions. In fact, one sure way to be swallowed up by traditions is to think that one is immune to it [...] The question, then, is not whether we have traditions, but whether our traditions conflict with the only absolute standard in these matters: Holy Scripture.

[...] All Christians are at once beneficiaries and victims of tradition - beneficiaries, who receive nurturing truth and wisdome from God's faithfulness in past generations; victims, who now take for granted things that need to be questioned, thus treating as divine absolutes patterns of belief and behaviour that should be seen as human, provisional, and relative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Mudfrog, I'm not sure that your use of 'the evangelical' and 'the liberal' is any less of a caricature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...tangent, I knew a woman who thought the colour pictures in her Bible were just as inspired as the text! but there you go!...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...tangent, I knew a woman who thought the colour pictures in her Bible were just as inspired as the text! but there you go!...

---

I know you labelled this as a tangent, but to me it's pretty pertinent as far as it shows a particular mindset.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What is the liberal view, in your experience?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I guess our arguments flow from whereabouts we sit in a truth triangle which has three apexes.

Truth revealed by Scripture
Truth revealed by Tradition
Truth revealed by Reason

---

1. God must exist because [philosophical reason X],
2. Christianity presents the most convincing description of God,
3. Therefore Christianity is true.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
IMHO the reason why people resist the watering down of biblical authority is because they suspect that those who do it either:-
a. want to excuse something that they want to do, but suspect they shouldn't, or
b. are trying to tone down the sort of commitment the Lord might be calling on them to make, so as to let themselves off the hook.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
About twenty years ago Tom Wright explored this question in a lecture delivered to what is now the London School of Theology and for the 1989 Griffith Thomas Lecture.

I think it attempts the kind of radical re-evaluation that is needed if a radical redefinition is to be achieved.

The major points (IMHO) are first that authority resides with God rather than with the scriptures, and secondly we need to be clear about what kind of thing the Bible is before we attempt to understand how it might be authoritative, rather than beginning with a view about what authority is and attempting to read the Bible so as to conform to that view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
This thread has made me dig out my old hermeneutical textbook and made me recall I personally am a mix of Schleiermacher and Bultmann in terms of my biblical approach.

---

What has that got to do with this?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Have you got a working definition that you believe speaks authentically to the postmodern world?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
The Evangelical and Liberal approaches to reading the scriptures are surely not the only methods available. Both strike me as related to the culture that those movements grew up in. Both have a habit of proof texting.

Catholics and Orthodox Christians have their own approaches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
In my own reading of Scripture I endeavour to read the text in conversation with other scriptural texts , and in conversation with those who have read it before. I seek an interpretation that makes sense of scripture rather than one that is based on particular proof texts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Edward Green:
[qb]In my own reading of Scripture I endeavour to read the text in conversation with other scriptural texts , and in conversation with those who have read it before. I seek an interpretation that makes sense of scripture rather than one that is based on particular proof texts.

---

ISTM that you've just defined an evangelical approach to scripture here.

---

That's what I was thinking too
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
I was thinking it was a Schleiermachian one.


 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
This thread has made me dig out my old hermeneutical textbook and made me recall I personally am a mix of Schleiermacher and Bultmann in terms of my biblical approach.

---

What has that got to do with this?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Have you got a working definition that you believe speaks authentically to the postmodern world?

---

If that is a serious question then your first step must be to chuck modernists like Schleiermacher and Bultmann in the bin.

---

You're questioning my use of the term postmodern I assume?

Technically quite right Johnny. Postmodern theology accepts no meaning but your own on the texts wot?

But nobody really lives like that.....Perhaps I should have said Modern.


Scheiermacher bases the authority of scripture on intent and religious "feeling" conveyed in the reading of scripture.

The Word is there behind the text.

The religious self consciousness is awakened. Some have a stronger "religious" feeling than others...

But historicity is not foremost because that is not where the Truth of the experience lies.

So actually, I think Scheiermacher has something to offer in his basis in pietism or the "experience" of religion or God.

Bultmann says such an awakening can be brought about only by God herself.

My trouble is, Bultmann was right in the begining but it's not cool to talk about revelation. People think you're nuts.

Schleiermacher's view nurtured the first in my case.

But I'm still stuck in talking about Jesus to all my non-christian friends.....I dunno where to start.....

The bible told me so I believe it doesn't wash anymore but like orfeo said....it's what most of my friends think I believe.


 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

While I hope there aren't too many people that go as far as your tangent, I suspect that the secular world's image of Christianity veers in that direction. Blind, unthinking obedience. Doesn't mean the image is accurate, but I think that's often what the image IS.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:

The major points (IMHO) are first that authority resides with God rather than with the scriptures, and secondly we need to be clear about what kind of thing the Bible is before we attempt to understand how it might be authoritative, rather than beginning with a view about what authority is and attempting to read the Bible so as to conform to that view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It doesn't do to caricature con-evo's as having no hermeneutic principles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:


The bible told me so I believe it doesn't wash anymore but like orfeo said....it's what most of my friends think I believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I guess our arguments flow from whereabouts we sit in a truth triangle which has three apexes.

Truth revealed by Scripture
Truth revealed by Tradition
Truth revealed by Reason

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It doesn't do to caricature con-evo's as having no hermeneutic principles.

---

The opposite is true. They probably think more about hermeneutics than any other branch of Christians. Its just that they come to currently unfashionable conclusions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I guess our arguments flow from whereabouts we sit in a truth triangle which has three apexes.

Truth revealed by Scripture
Truth revealed by Tradition
Truth revealed by Reason

---

I think you have to mean "experience" rather than "reason". "Reason" is how you think about both Scripture and Tradition, not an alternative to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gargantua:
I cannot in good conscience stand and recite any of the Creeds. I believe that almost any *thinking* Christian these days might make that same statement if pressed to the point of complete frankness and honesty. We are better educated, far more widely read, than the laity of the first millennium CE, or of the Middle Ages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I guess our arguments flow from whereabouts we sit in a truth triangle which has three apexes.

Truth revealed by Scripture
Truth revealed by Tradition
Truth revealed by Reason

---

I think you have to mean "experience" rather than "reason". "Reason" is how you think about both Scripture and Tradition, not an alternative to them.

---

Actually, it's not a truth triangle, but a quadrilateral (with unequal sides).

Ther sources of truth are
Scripture
Tradition
Reason
Experience

Of course, Scripture, at the top, has the longest side, being the one that the others defer to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

Catholics and Orthodox Christians have their own approaches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
In my own reading of Scripture I endeavour to read the text in conversation with other scriptural texts , and in conversation with those who have read it before. I seek an interpretation that makes sense of scripture rather than one that is based on particular proof texts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I think I must be sitting a long way away from 'Truth revealed by Tradition' and near the baseline between the other two. I have a quote from Cyprian on my office door (one of several quotes there):

"Custom without truth is the antiquity of error."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
... not because reason is, in itself, a source of truth, but because, without it, we are unable to perceive what truth, regardless of its source, actually is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm with ken here. Whether we are accessing tradition, or scripture, or experience, we are doing so by way of reason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Wesleyan Quadrilateral

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The idea that the Bible is infallible because slomeone has decided it should be isn't how I see it.
The Bible is 'wholly trustworthy' (my church's official definition) because it has proved itself to be. It carries within itself its own authority that cannot be gainsaid.

The church in the early centuries didn't

give the Biblical books their authority, they recognised their authority and therefore included them in the canon. It is not for the church or any council or individual to remove from those books the authority that is self-evident.

Once the church sees itself as above the Scriptures instead of subject to them, then we are in deep trouble. The final arbiter of authority is the Spirit-inspired Scriptures, not the Church, not tradition, and not any Western theologians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I can be rather liberal in some ways, but I am having trouble with what the concept of redefining authority even means. I don't see how authority is something that can be subject to redefinition because it's not based on a definition to begin with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lothiriel:
Oh my -- time to step in with a little clarification of the terminology. Out of its original context, it is open to misinterpretation.



Reading the bible without our Enlightenment glasses on means that we can perhaps understand better what the scriptures meant to the Jews and early Christians who wrote and heard or read them. We can see the evolving understanding of God that grows and develops from the story of creation, through God's speaking to Abraham, through the history and literature of the nation of Israel, to the culmination of the revelation in Jesus. God may not have changed over that time, but the picture of God in scripture certainly does.

[/i].

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pardoner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I can be rather liberal in some ways, but I am having trouble with what the concept of redefining authority even means. I don't see how authority is something that can be subject to redefinition because it's not based on a definition to begin with.

---

Well, they seem to be doing quite a good job of redefining authority in Egypt just now.

Authority, surely, is based on consent, whether in politics or in theology.

It seems to me that the 'authority' of the bible, and what that means (or how one defines it) is exactly the fault line dividing what for want of a better word we might call conservative or liberal approaches to Christianity.

I for one accept the authority of the Bible (but don't push me too hard on that!); but I don't for one minute accept the GAFCON-ish approach which sees the Bible as a straightforward document with a straightforward meaning.

That's how I understand there to be different views of authority

Pete

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pardoner:
Can someone explain to me how this can be achieved? I think it is both philosophically and practically impossible to divest myself of the conceptual spectacles through which I experience the world.
<snip>
And anyway, even if I could do that, why should the experience of someone from the ancient world be more authoritative or interesting or relevant than those of a modern person?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pardoner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lothiriel:
Oh my -- time to step in with a little clarification of the terminology. Out of its original context, it is open to misinterpretation.



Reading the bible without our Enlightenment glasses on means that we can perhaps understand better what the scriptures meant to the Jews and early Christians who wrote and heard or read them. We can see the evolving understanding of God that grows and develops from the story of creation, through God's speaking to Abraham, through the history and literature of the nation of Israel, to the culmination of the revelation in Jesus. God may not have changed over that time, but the picture of God in scripture certainly does.

[/i].

---

Can someone explain to me how this can be achieved? I think it is both philosophically and practically impossible to divest myself of the conceptual spectacles through which I experience the world. I am a fifty three year old white male living in the west in the twenty first century. I have a good job and am scientifically literature. I can't just 'pretend' that the enlightenment didn't happen, or somehow doesn't apply to me. I have no idea what it would mean to see and experience the world through Abraham's eyes, and never could have.

And anyway, even if I could do that, why should the experience of someone from the ancient world be more authoritative or interesting or relevant than those of a modern person?

Pete

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pardoner:
Authority, surely, is based on consent, whether in politics or in theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
You're questioning my use of the term postmodern I assume?

Technically quite right Johnny. Postmodern theology accepts no meaning but your own on the texts wot?

But nobody really lives like that.....Perhaps I should have said Modern.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
All authority comes from God. God comes before the Bible, and, we are informed by the incarnation and the resurrection...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
how does the incarnation lead to a belief in an unknowable God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
Oh dear, I smell deceased equine, but hey ho.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pardoner:
Authority, surely, is based on consent, whether in politics or in theology.

---

This idea is less than 300 years old.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pardoner:
Authority, surely, is based on consent, whether in politics or in theology.

---

This idea is less than 300 years old.

---

That doesn't make it wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
In theology, it's a pretty good indicator.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gargantua:
Be all that as it may, one participant in this dialogue, Hyatt, has links in his signature that I just followed, and was pleasantly surprised and intrigued to discover that they led to websites of the New Church (General Church of the New Jerusalem) -- of Swedenborgian persuasion. As I understand it from the New Church site (please correct me should I misapprehend, Hyatt), these particular Christians believe that certain writings of Emmanuel Swedenborg are also divinely inspired, scriptural in character like the books of the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Are you interested in serious discussion?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:


The bible told me so I believe it doesn't wash anymore but like orfeo said....it's what most of my friends think I believe.

---

So what you are looking for is a way to explain the authority of the Bible to people who aren't Christians, rather than a radical redfinition?

---

I'm not entirely sure what I'm after anymore.


The impossible perhaps; complete agreement on what the bible is and how it should be used.

A Grand Unifying Theory!!

No problem.

Or maybe that's my problem. I should accept God is multiform and not uniform and it's okay if we all interpret scripture differently.

Take the example of the bible itself I spose.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pardoner:
Authority, surely, is based on consent, whether in politics or in theology.

---

This idea is less than 300 years old.

---

That doesn't make it wrong.

---

In theology, it's a pretty good indicator.

---

That's got to be a seriously Orthodox thing to say.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Are you interested in serious discussion?

---

Yes - are you objecting to someone else using one-liners?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
That's got to be a seriously Orthodox thing to say.

---

Dang, am I that transparent?
 

---

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
Looking at responses to my earlier post, I shall clearly have to try harder(!) I think what I was trying to get at is the idea of the Bible as being uniquely "the word of God". If that title belongs to any entity, it belongs to Jesus Christ, the "living word". My view of the Bible in many respects resembles the description of John the Baptist given in John's gospel: it bears witness to the Word without itself being the Word. I take the phrase "the word of God" as referring to the expression of God's being, indeed of God himself. This is achieved through creation, the capacity to create being an essential part of God's nature as we have come to understand it, at least as much as it is through words: this is how I would defend the idea that the bible's authority is derived from those who turn to it as a witness, rather than vice versa. I shall leave it at that for now.

[ 11. February 2011, 07:02: Message edited by: FooloftheShip ]
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
ISTM that the man/woman in the street is totally unmoved by the nuances that theologians and church people put on this discussion of Biblical authority. Most of the stuff above is enough to make their eyes glaze over and encourage them to explore a different religion!

If you were to ask Joe Public about the Bible he would want to know 1 thing: "Is it true?" In other words, "did the stuff written about actually happen?" The authority he is looking for is not some 'truth' that comes through myths or through some sort of thrological Gnositicism that can only come through deep study and theologivcal reflection, a truth that is only apparent to people who read Bultmann and Schliermacher.

He wants to know if he can trust the Bible's authenticity without having to do mental gymnastics and read Greek philosophy and the early and mediaeval church fathers in order to understand.

For example.
He comes to you and asks "Did the resurrection happen?"

You must knowe that his reaction will depend on the answer you give.
If you say, "Yes, Jesus was raised from death and the tomb was empty as the Gospels describe, and appeared in bodily form to his disciples," then your questioner will know at least that you regard the Bible's testimony as authoritative - you believe it.

If however you prevaricate and say, 'well, we know something happened, but it may have been in the consciousness of the disciples and it doesn't matter where the body was and Paul doesn't mention it so it can't be important,' the man will immediately understand that you regard the Biblical account as having no authority and he will either want to argue that point or he will assume therefore that the Bible is not true, is a human construct and that the church has made it all up.

My basic point is this: to the man in the street, Biblical authority equates with historical reliability. Those passages, like Genesis, etc, we can with all reasonableness tell him are liturgical and poetic - that's fine. But when we start saying to the non-believer, no Jesus didn't say the sermon on the Mount, no he didn't really feed 5000 people, no he didn't really walk out of the tomb, then people will accuse you of 'explaining it all away', of 'not believing your own Bible', and will not be attracted by your 'wishy-washy' (weak) belief in your own holy book.

Thism suggest, is the source of frustration to many evangelicals - because we spend time, using scholarship, archaeology, etc, etc, to try to reveal the authenticity of the historical accounts of the Bible in order to defend what we say is true, present an 'apologia' or 'give a reason for the hope that is within us. When eb=vangelicals hear other Christians say that there was no virgin birth, no miracles, no sacrificial death, no bodily resurrection, then we see that those Christians are, in the eyes of the world, stripping away any authority from the text because we are apparently saying 'we do not believe these things because they did not happen and the Bible is historically wrong or at least apathetic.'

We can talk all we like about interpretation when we are in our ivory towers, but to the man in the street who has no theological background, all this talk is hogwash - he wants to know what are the historical foundation for our beliefs, and if the Bible has no authority in it's historical accounts, then there is no truth in Christianity.
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Someone whom I can tell from past experience is just having fun, or someone I'm not sure really takes discussion seriously?

---

Can't both be true? Stop being so binary.

If we are going to say that Jesus is THE Word in a way that scripture can only point to, then your comment about waiting 300 years for theology to be any good seems to mean that for the first few centuries Christians were mistaken.

The teaching and ministry of Jesus brought about a massive departure from Judaism. The disciples did not hang around for 300 years waiting to see if it was true or not. They were willing to die for it right from the beginning.
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
L I take the phrase "the word of God" as referring to the expression of God's being, indeed of God himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
If we are going to say that Jesus is THE Word in a way that scripture can only point to, then your comment about waiting 300 years for theology to be any good seems to mean that for the first few centuries Christians were mistaken.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Jesus can only be The Word if the Bible is authoritative, true, accurate and 'wholly trustworthy'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't mean that it takes 300 years for any theology to be good. I mean anything new in the last 300 years, i.e. from 1711 until now, is suspect. Actually I'd put it back farther than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
And I certainly can't see anything in the Bible or the church's tradition about theology requiring the consent of anybody: it is a quite new teaching and derives from John Locke, not the Scriptures.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Now, if the Bible is all those things, and it says Jesus is the Word, then it follows that he's the Word. But you're commiting a logical fallacy if you try to go in the other direction. (It's such a common fallacy that it even has a name: "Affirming the Consequent")

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But we only know that Jesus even existed from the writings of the Bible. If they are not authoritative, then there's no reason to believe he ever lived.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
Looking at responses to my earlier post, I shall clearly have to try harder(!) I think what I was trying to get at is the idea of the Bible as being uniquely "the word of God". If that title belongs to any entity, it belongs to Jesus Christ, the "living word". My view of the Bible in many respects resembles the description of John the Baptist given in John's gospel: it bears witness to the Word without itself being the Word. I take the phrase "the word of God" as referring to the expression of God's being, indeed of God himself. This is achieved through creation, the capacity to create being an essential part of God's nature as we have come to understand it, at least as much as it is through words: this is how I would defend the idea that the bible's authority is derived from those who turn to it as a witness, rather than vice versa. I shall leave it at that for now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
Mudfrog,

Firstly you are sounding anti-theological in general here.

Secondly it is not a simple choice between biblical literalism and the whole thing being a myth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

We can talk all we like about interpretation when we are in our ivory towers, but to the man in the street who has no theological background, all this talk is hogwash - he wants to know what are the historical foundation for our beliefs, and if the Bible has no authority in it's historical accounts, then there is no truth in Christianity.

---

You'd still have to explain to him why you think Genesis is not historically accurate and the Virgin Birth is.....

And you'd still have to explain how you know the writers of the New Testament also perceived truth to equal historical accuracy which equals objective reality. And how if this was the case, all the New Testament books say different things about the same thing.


You're not making alot of sense here.
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
We know that Jesus existed, and was Lord, from the teachings of the Church. She taught that before the NT was written, and if the NT as we know it had never been written the she would still be teaching that Jesus was the Word. It was by comparing the extant writings with the oral traditions of the Apostles' teaching that the Church decided which books were holy writ. THESE books, she decided, have the apostolic stamp; these other ones do not.

They didn't wait for somebody to write the Bible before they started proclaiming the good news. They didn't all sit around on their butts for 20 years and say, "If only we had a book that told us if Jesus was the Word or not. Then we could go evangelize."

---

quote:

---

It is not enough to say that the Church believed in the Word of God and would have done regardless of the writings. That may have been true in the first generation, but what would have happened at the turn of the 1st century had there not been the 4 Gospels and the epistles? The oral traditions would have been splintered, confused, contradictory and would have been increasingly fantastic and legendary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As far as the NT is concerned, the Church didn't write it

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As far as the NT is concerned, the Church didn't write it

---

By what authority are you excluding the Apostles from the Church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

We can talk all we like about interpretation when we are in our ivory towers, but to the man in the street who has no theological background, all this talk is hogwash - he wants to know what are the historical foundation for our beliefs, and if the Bible has no authority in it's historical accounts, then there is no truth in Christianity.

---

You'd still have to explain to him why you think Genesis is not historically accurate and the Virgin Birth is.....

And you'd still have to explain how you know the writers of the New Testament also perceived truth to equal historical accuracy which equals objective reality. And how if this was the case, all the New Testament books say different things about the same thing.


You're not making alot of sense here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:

quote:

---

It is not enough to say that the Church believed in the Word of God and would have done regardless of the writings. That may have been true in the first generation, but what would have happened at the turn of the 1st century had there not been the 4 Gospels and the epistles? The oral traditions would have been splintered, confused, contradictory and would have been increasingly fantastic and legendary.

---

Oddly enough I think that is what happened even with the written record

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As far as the NT is concerned, the Church didn't write it

---

By what authority are you excluding the Apostles from the Church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
neither did the Church give the writings they received their authority; the Church counciil merely recognised the authority that was inherent within them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As far as the NT is concerned, the Church didn't write it

---

By what authority are you excluding the Apostles from the Church?

---

And by what authority are you saying scripture is historically true and historical truth is the basis of reality?

And by what authority are you saying the presence of the Holy Spirit is stronger in the written word than in Apostolic succession and the presence of God within us?

*sigh*.....surely this is why we need a new radical definition.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
neither did the Church give the writings they received their authority; the Church counciil merely recognised the authority that was inherent within them.

---

In that's true, why then didn't the Church immediately recognise the 'inherent authority' of the Book of Revelation? Come to think of it, why didn't Marcion and other heretics recognise the 'inherent authority' of all the New Testament books?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
neither did the Church give the writings they received their authority; the Church counciil merely recognised the authority that was inherent within them.

---

In that's true, why then didn't the Church immediately recognise the 'inherent authority' of the Book of Revelation? Come to think of it, why didn't Marcion and other heretics recognise the 'inherent authority' of all the New Testament books?

---

It just shows that you can't always trust the judgment of men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
neither did the Church give the writings they received their authority; the Church counciil merely recognised the authority that was inherent within them.

---

In that's true, why then didn't the Church immediately recognise the 'inherent authority' of the Book of Revelation? Come to think of it, why didn't Marcion and other heretics recognise the 'inherent authority' of all the New Testament books?

---

It just shows that you can't always trust the judgment of men.

---

So, you admit that we are dependent on the correct judgement of men (i.e. the Church) and not on the 'inherent authority' of the written Word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The question was why did people not recognise inherent authority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
neither did the Church give the writings they received their authority; the Church counciil merely recognised the authority that was inherent within them.

---

In that's true, why then didn't the Church immediately recognise the 'inherent authority' of the Book of Revelation? Come to think of it, why didn't Marcion and other heretics recognise the 'inherent authority' of all the New Testament books?

---

It just shows that you can't always trust the judgment of men.

---

So, you admit that we are dependent on the correct judgement of men (i.e. the Church) and not on the 'inherent authority' of the written Word.

---

No.

The question was why did people not recognise inherant authority. Just because some people didn't or refused to (and still don't and still refuse to) recognise the authority of the books in the Bible doesn't mean they are not authoritative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gargantua:
We really are in dead horse territory now and I somewhat sadly suggest this at first promising thread should be moved there posthaste.

---

quote:

---

The Gospel of Thomas, particularly, should be taken quite seriously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by gargantua:

quote:

---

The Gospel of Thomas, particularly, should be taken quite seriously.

---

Really? In what sense?
It reads like a really bad new-age self help book.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by gargantua:

quote:

---

The Gospel of Thomas, particularly, should be taken quite seriously.

---

Really? In what sense?
It reads like a really bad new-age self help book.

---

I especially like the part where Mary can't go to heaven until she is turned into a man. That's just Jesus all over, don't you think?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gargantua:
<snip>
We do not possess the originals of these books, only copies. There are more than enough variant texts to make us admit that the copies are not necessarily accurate. Scholars and theologians are *still* arguing about who wrote various individual books -- most of them, the Gospels included, not just one or two. The books were admittedly not written at the time of the events in question; the earliest, considered to be certain of the Pauline epistles, are thought to have been written thirty years after the fact; the Gospels themselves are thought to have been written later.<snip>
The notion that there was a "Bible" -- an agreed canon of scripture -- from apostolic times is sheer fantasy, without historical foundation. For Clement of Rome, at the end of the first century, the Bible was the Old Testament, full stop. He knew no written "Gospel." He knew some of the Pauline epistles, and ascribed significance to them; but in his time there was no NT "scripture."

Arguments over the canon of biblical scripture continued until the Reformation and after. It was not until the seventeenth century that the Bible we now know was an established, agreed-upon reality.<snip>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gargantua:
Hyatt - Thank you for your post explaining the New Church doctrine concerning the writings of Swedenborg. It was like a breath of fresh air in this woolly, contentious discussion! You explained matters clearly, concisely and objectively, setting forth the facts and making them easily understood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gargantua:
<snip>
We do not possess the originals of these books, only copies. There are more than enough variant texts to make us admit that the copies are not necessarily accurate. Scholars and theologians are *still* arguing about who wrote various individual books -- most of them, the Gospels included, not just one or two. The books were admittedly not written at the time of the events in question; the earliest, considered to be certain of the Pauline epistles, are thought to have been written thirty years after the fact; the Gospels themselves are thought to have been written later.<snip>
The notion that there was a "Bible" -- an agreed canon of scripture -- from apostolic times is sheer fantasy, without historical foundation. For Clement of Rome, at the end of the first century, the Bible was the Old Testament, full stop. He knew no written "Gospel." He knew some of the Pauline epistles, and ascribed significance to them; but in his time there was no NT "scripture."

Arguments over the canon of biblical scripture continued until the Reformation and after. It was not until the seventeenth century that the Bible we now know was an established, agreed-upon reality.<snip>

---

I think you greatly overstate the problems associated with the NT texts, and the time it took to achieve a substantially agreed canon. To engage with these points would be very tangential to the question of biblical authority, so I am reluctant to do so here. The various arguments are also well-trodden ground on the Ship.

FWIW, however, the evidence IMHO is strong that a coherent package of Christian understanding of Jesus was already formed within twenty to twenty-five years of his death. The synoptic gospels at least can plausibly be dated to within forty to fifty years of Jesus death - in all likelihood based on a stable literary and oral pre-Gospel tradition.

As I am now of an age to be able to remember clearly many events from as far ago as forty years, I am reluctant to consider that they can't be a tolerably accurate portrayal of the events they describe - especially considering how important and seminal those events were for the producers of the gospels.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gargantua:
Ridicule and dismissiveness are, I believe, the hallmarks of closed minds. I fail to see how they are helpful or positive in rational discussion.

---

Ask me what I think about verbal diarrhea.
 

---

Posted by Gargantua (# 16205) on :
 
Mousethief - with 47,392 posts to your credit you can say that with a straight face?
 

---

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :
 
Lots of short posts may explain why mousethief gets more attention. You could learn a great deal from him, Gargantua.
 

---

Posted by Gargantua (# 16205) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
Lots of short posts may explain why mousethief gets more attention. You could learn a great deal from him, Gargantua.

---

I'm here to learn, ID! Can't do it without poking and prodding a bit, though. If the Hosts don't like my posts, I presume they can always shut me down.

We haven't learnt much from mousethief on this thread, though. Most of his contributions have sounded as if he seeks

...to prove his doctrine orthodox
With apostolic blows and knocks.



[ 11. February 2011, 22:41: Message edited by: Gargantua ]
 

---

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :
 
Whereas your contributions sound like someone

...whose chief devotion lies
In odd perverse antipathies;
In falling out with that or this,
And finding somewhat still amiss.


 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
You see, I've been here 11 years and probably haven't racked up as many words yet as some who have been here merely a fraction of that. Go and learn what this means: TLDR.
 

---

Posted by Gargantua (# 16205) on :
 
Point taken, mousethief. I shall try to do better, but my mind doesn't work in one-liners somehow.

But I'm still waiting to hear this mystery of 'inherent authority' explained -- how one particular collection of ancient texts, excluding all others, comes to be "inherently" authoritative and instantly recognisable as capital-T Truth.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gargantua:
But I'm still waiting to hear this mystery of 'inherent authority' explained -- how one particular collection of ancient texts, excluding all others, comes to be "inherently" authoritative and instantly recognisable as capital-T Truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So, which bits of the Gospel accounts are not historically true?

---

Correct me if I'm wrong but your basic premise for biblical authority seems to be that the gospels are accurate historical records because the four gospel writers were eyewitnesses.

Two problems with this

1) You assume the gospel writers see truth as objective reality as recorded by historical fact. This is a post enlightenment phenomenon that portrays a naive view of reality.

It is anachronistic in that you are saying the gospel writers see truth the same way a scientist would today (i.e. objective reality is perceivable through direct encounter of the "facts")

You can easily prove this false by the number of historical discrepancies in the gospels.

The easiest one to remember is in John, Jesus' ministry is 1 year while in the Synoptics it is 3.

Bit of a difference.

2) Biblical scholarship does not support the gospel writers as eyewitnesses. It is probably oral tradition passed on by eyewitnesses.


So at the end of the day, saying the bible has authority because it is completely historically accurate is insupportable.

If you told the man on the street the bible is true because it is historically accurate you would lying to him. And one day he would discover that and his faith would be shattered.

Your bad. Woe to you and stumbling blocks and all that.

Containing history, yes. Only history, no.

Which does really bring back the point Lothiriel made again actually.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lothiriel:


A lot of what I meant by 'redefinition' is getting over the Enlightenment and its true-false dichotomy. For most people schooled in modernity, such a shift in thinking is radical and means a major re-jigging of paradigm and worldview.

Reading the bible without our Enlightenment glasses on means that we can perhaps understand better what the scriptures meant to the Jews and early Christians who wrote and heard or read them. We can see the evolving understanding of God that grows and develops from the story of creation, through God's speaking to Abraham, through the history and literature of the nation of Israel, to the culmination of the revelation in Jesus. God may not have changed over that time, but the picture of God in scripture certainly does.

---

quote:

---

Much of modern criticism of Christianity and religion in general is based on he presupposition that, if the foundational texts of a religion do not reflect 'reality' adequately, then they are worthless. At the same time, modern fundamentalism is based on the same presupposition. If the revered texts are to be true, then they must describe objective reality accurately, and one must insist that they are absolutely reliable at the literal-historical level.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It's very similar to what Mousethief stated earlier; life from God above, grounded in the scriptures, known in Jesus Christ, lived through the Holy Spirit (apologies if I have misunderstood or misinterpreted you!). So instead of seeing scripture as a revelatory authority akin to the authority of God (or given to scripture by God), it is instead our starting point, in a sense an incarnational act; the ground of our being. Rather than being a top-down affair, it is the rock on which we stand - a shared solid earth that reveals a rich landscape of our response to God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I do not, and never have, understand/stood the notion that a book has 'authority'.

The Bible was written by different people over a long period of time. I believe myself to be in their community.

They wrote up their experiences. I have my experiences. The people to whom I witness - yes, I DO witness - have their experiences.

We can share our experiences but 'authority' is to be found in whatever life-changing, life-enhancing moves people make.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gargantua:

Help me out here, someone? Or would you all prefer just to snipe at me...

---

What happened to that unwritten rule that you're supposed to be nice to apprentices?
 

---

Posted by Gargantua (# 16205) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gargantua:
But I'm still waiting to hear this mystery of 'inherent authority' explained -- how one particular collection of ancient texts, excluding all others, comes to be "inherently" authoritative and instantly recognisable as capital-T Truth.

---

The instant recognizability doesn't sit with me either. I don't have this "the pages sparkle in the sunlight" kind of view of how the Scriptures were compiled.

<snip>

I don't think they waved their hands over stacks of papyrus and picked out the ones that made their fingers tingle. Which is a crude caricature but seems not too far off from the view some people have of the self-selecting ability of the canonical books. As if anybody who sat down with Romans and the Didache would automatically know --without knowing what the Church taught about their authorship-- that the one was The Real Thing and the other, although good, was not Skriptcha.

---

Well thanks, mousethief, for finally stating your understanding of the process. Not too different from my own, although I strongly suspect from some things I've read that certain of the Fathers rather considered themselves the Thought Police and that the selection process may not have been nearly as casual and friendly as you depict it.

But nowhere in your explanation do I find the genesis of 'inherent authority.'I have to conclude (provisionally, keeping my mind open to further explanations) that to account for that we are still stuck with the circular reasoning of (1) G-d inspired these books. (2) We KNOW that G-d inspired these books because the Church Fathers and the Oecumenical Councils selected these books. (3) The Fathers and Councils were guided by the Holy Spirit so they could not have erred. (4) Therefore these books are authoritative. (5)Also therefore we may use these books to prove whatever we need to prove about G-d, including His existence.

(The above sequence is mainly applicable to Anglicans and Orthodox. Fundies will omit steps (2) and (3) because they either know nothing about the Fathers and the Councils or because that's just more of that old Catholic stuff. Roman Catholics can forget all five steps and simply substitute (1) Believe what we say. (2) Because Pope Bledsoe said so.)

None of which is likely to help win the hearts and minds of the postmodern masses.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gargantua:

None of which is likely to help win the hearts and minds of the postmodern masses.

---

quote:

---

Jean-Francois Lyotard famously defined the postmodern as ‘incredulity towards meta-narratives’. This rejection of any kind of grand story about the whole of reality is mainly rooted in postmodernism’s critique of the idea of progress as an ideology of domination that has legitimated the exploitative exercise of power

---

Source here

So actually attempting to redefine or articulate a new biblical authority is a total waste of time...because postmodernists reject authority.
 

---

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gargantua:
One may, I hope, arguably state that if G-d wanted to publish the historical facts of his redemptive scheme, He would have done well to ensure less arguable origins for the documentary evidence.

---

Yes, it's almost as if God did not want to arrange for there to be no room for doubt, and that he may even have wanted people to have to think carefully for themselves about what they choose to believe.
 

---

Posted by Gargantua (# 16205) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gargantua:

None of which is likely to help win the hearts and minds of the postmodern masses.

---

Actually that's a good reminder and ties in with the OP.....

A big part of the postmodern mindset is the questioning of authority.

quote:

---

Jean-Francois Lyotard famously defined the postmodern as ‘incredulity towards meta-narratives’. This rejection of any kind of grand story about the whole of reality is mainly rooted in postmodernism’s critique of the idea of progress as an ideology of domination that has legitimated the exploitative exercise of power

---

Source here

So actually attempting to redefine or articulate a new biblical authority is a total waste of time...because postmodernists reject authority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pardoner:
Authority, surely, is based on consent, whether in politics or in theology.

---

This idea is less than 300 years old.

---

That doesn't make it wrong.

---

In theology, it's a pretty good indicator.

---

I vaguely recall reading a novel in which someone remarked that theology is the only academic discipline in which originality is a fault...but I think the protagonist was RC.

Quakers believe in progressive revelation, we don't buy the whole canon thing, sorry.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gargantua:
As part of our investigation of the radical redefinition of scriptural authority, perhaps what we really should be looking at is this: what is the essential minimum for Christian belief?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gargantua:
As part of our investigation of the radical redefinition of scriptural authority, perhaps what we really should be looking at is this: what is the essential minimum for Christian belief?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gargantua:
As part of our investigation of the radical redefinition of scriptural authority, perhaps what we really should be looking at is this: what is the essential minimum for Christian belief?

---

See, this is one of the things I find to be at the very core root of what's wrong with Protestantism: the "what's the least we can get away with?" meme. What's the least we can believe, what's the least we can do for our fellow man, what's the least we can do for God, and still be "saved"? How can we minimize worship, how can we minimize good works, how can we minimize everything that takes us away from whatever our culture at the moment says we should be spending our time and treasure on?

That's not a radical redefinition. Or if it is, it's one that happened 500 years ago.

---

 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gargantua:
As part of our investigation of the radical redefinition of scriptural authority, perhaps what we really should be looking at is this: what is the essential minimum for Christian belief?

---

See, this is one of the things I find to be at the very core root of what's wrong with Protestantism: the "what's the least we can get away with?" meme. What's the least we can believe, what's the least we can do for our fellow man, what's the least we can do for God, and still be "saved"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:
[ETA: what mousethief said!]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:
[ETA: what mousethief said!]

---

Apropos of the OP, I would add that one of the things I find to be at the very core root of what's right with Protestantism (as I understand it) is that it made the Bible available to the masses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[qb] So, which bits of the Gospel accounts are not historically true?

Containing history, yes. Only history, no.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gargantua:
As part of our investigation of the radical redefinition of scriptural authority, perhaps what we really should be looking at is this: what is the essential minimum for Christian belief?

---

See, this is one of the things I find to be at the very core root of what's wrong with Protestantism: the "what's the least we can get away with?" meme. What's the least we can believe, what's the least we can do for our fellow man, what's the least we can do for God, and still be "saved"? How can we minimize worship, how can we minimize good works, how can we minimize everything that takes us away from whatever our culture at the moment says we should be spending our time and treasure on?

That's not a radical redefinition. Or if it is, it's one that happened 500 years ago.

---

quote:

---

See, this is one of the things I find to be at the very core root of what's wrong with Protestantism: the "what's the least we can get away with?" meme. What's the least we can believe, what's the least we can do for our fellow man, what's the least we can do for God, and still be "saved"? How can we minimize worship, how can we minimize good works, how can we minimize everything that takes us away from whatever our culture at the moment says we should be spending our time and treasure on?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:

Quakers believe in progressive revelation, we don't buy the whole canon thing, sorry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

And getting back to the point that I keep making, but that no one seems to be grasping: Biblical authority, for the man in the street, rests on whether the historical accounts are reliable.

---

quote:

---

John 20.29:

Jesus said to him, ‘Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.’

---

quote:

---

Matthew 24.24:

For false messiahs* and false prophets will appear and produce great signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.

---

quote:

---

John 4.48:

Then Jesus said to him, ‘Unless you* see signs and wonders you will not believe.’

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gargantua:
As part of our investigation of the radical redefinition of scriptural authority, perhaps what we really should be looking at is this: what is the essential minimum for Christian belief?

---

See, this is one of the things I find to be at the very core root of what's wrong with Protestantism: the "what's the least we can get away with?" meme. What's the least we can believe, what's the least we can do for our fellow man, what's the least we can do for God, and still be "saved"?

---

I don't think that's the intent.

The intent is to try find common ground amongst Christians. Some kind of unity in all of the diversity.

Especially helpful so we might stop killing and lambasting each other.


But um, can we not go there? BTDT too many times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gargantua:

None of which is likely to help win the hearts and minds of the postmodern masses.

---

Actually that's a good reminder and ties in with the OP.....

A big part of the postmodern mindset is the questioning of authority.

quote:

---

Jean-Francois Lyotard famously defined the postmodern as ‘incredulity towards meta-narratives’. This rejection of any kind of grand story about the whole of reality is mainly rooted in postmodernism’s critique of the idea of progress as an ideology of domination that has legitimated the exploitative exercise of power

---

Source here

So actually attempting to redefine or articulate a new biblical authority is a total waste of time...because postmodernists reject authority.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 7:28-29 (NIV):
When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.

---

I don't offer this as a proof-text of any kind. What interests me about this passage is that both Jesus and the teachers of the law knew the Scriptures and considered them 'authoritative.' It was only Jesus, however, who spoke authoritatively. The teachers were nowhere.

So far, we've discussed the 'authority of Scripture' as if it were some static quality of the text as a whole. Arguing whether this quality is inherent in the text, or is given by the church or comes from God overlooks the dynamic nature of our encounter with the text, or, for that matter, with any life-giving word, whether written or spoken.

The context for this thought was the memory of having read about an Orthodox Elder who had spoken to a resolute skeptic. The skeptic came away from this encounter a changed man, whereas all the arguments and entreaties of his friends had failed to move him a single step towards faith. What the Elder said to him was not revealed, but the story illustrates for me something which I have seen time and again in christian experience, how God speaks through the Scriptures or through a holy person in a way which seems to undermine our notion of authority as something fixed and permanent, something 'there' in the text.

(At this point, I ought, perhaps, to reassure Gargantua that I am not suggesting that visiting an Orthodox priest will rend the fabric of his doubts - the chance that he will encounter an illumined Elder is statistically very small. But then again, who knows? )

With this thought, I am not implying that there is no value in looking at the authority of Scripture, nor confessing that I don't believe in such authority. What I am trying to do, perhaps too incoherently for a Saturday afternoon, is that the existence of an authoritative 'source' for theology (be it Scripture, Tradition, etc), however formally necessary, doesn't properly capture the real 'flavour' of our relationship with it, and the way God speaks to us (individually, collectively) through it. This has implications for the practice of systematic theology.

That's enough for now. It may be incomplete. If it strikes a chord with anyone, I can return later to effect repairs. If not, let it sink into the waters of Lethe.
 

---

Posted by Gargantua (# 16205) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Gargantua

I've been watching this thread quite closely and, given your Apprentice status, the following comments may help you.

1. Criticisms of your posts (e.g. on length or, more specifically, on the Gospel of Thomas by reference to the controversial verse 114) are not criticism of you and are therefore not covered by Commandments 3 or 4.

2. It's probably a good idea to look at Commandment 5. Regular posters here come from all over the Christian rainbow. Freely expressed criticisms of the beliefs of others, as expressed in posts, are a normal part of Ship life. You can do it, they can do it.

3. Sarcastic comments on the posts of others are allowable. At worst they imply "that post was stupid" which is not the same as saying "that poster is stupid".

4. Evensong is right to point out that we do normally give Apprentices (less than 50 posts) some leeway. You would be wrong to assume you aren't getting any.

I hope this is helpful. Discussions here can be very stimulating but it can be disconcerting at first to get used to how vigorous they can get. Our general standard is to let them run as "hot" as possible, consistent with the 10 Commandments and Purgatory Guidelines.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

---

These are indeed helpful clarifications. Thank you, Barnabas.
 

---

Posted by Gargantua (# 16205) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I vaguely recall reading a novel in which someone remarked that theology is the only academic discipline in which originality is a fault...but I think the protagonist was RC.

Quakers believe in progressive revelation, we don't buy the whole canon thing, sorry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gargantua:
As part of our investigation of the radical redefinition of scriptural authority, perhaps what we really should be looking at is this: what is the essential minimum for Christian belief?

---

See, this is one of the things I find to be at the very core root of what's wrong with Protestantism: the "what's the least we can get away with?" meme. What's the least we can believe, what's the least we can do for our fellow man, what's the least we can do for God, and still be "saved"? How can we minimize worship, how can we minimize good works, how can we minimize everything that takes us away from whatever our culture at the moment says we should be spending our time and treasure on?

That's not a radical redefinition. Or if it is, it's one that happened 500 years ago.

---

My goodness!
What a sour criticism of anything that's not your church!

Can you really, REALLY say that only your church worships, witnesses and serves adequately whilst the whole of non-Catholic (or is it non-Orthodox) Christianity is deficient in all these things?

What a mean-spirited and uninformed attitude.
Do you really want to tell The Salvation Army and many other Protestant denominations of the Church, that we minimize good works??

How on earth do we minimize worship? Do we reduce Jesus' status? Do we pray less, do we sing less, do we experience less grace? Do we love him less, honour him less?

I'm sorry, but your implied claim that only your church is the proper one is quite distasteful and actually, rather arrogant in the extreme.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And getting back to the point that I keep making, but that no one seems to be grasping: Biblical authority, for the man in the street, rests on whether the historical accounts are reliable. If ylou say to him 'well actually, Jesus didn't really heal the blind man or walk on water and no, Jesus didn't really leave the tomb on that Sunday morning', the unbeliever will dismiss the Gospels as fabrications therefore and our faith as being groundless.

---

It may seem like no one is grasping your point, but someone who understands and agrees with your point but has nothing to add to it will generally not post to that effect if they are not already posting. I think that for a lot of Christians (maybe even most of them?), Jesus' authority derives from the belief that he was and is God Incarnate and that the historical accounts of his miracles testify to that. It certainly is true for me.

@Isaac David: thanks for that post - an interesting way of looking at it.
 

---

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :
 
Further to my previous post, consider the following. If we say affirm the 'authority of Scripture', then what are we to make of 1 Chron 1-9? No need to read it to the end! Wright talks in his article about the problem of considering narrative an authoritative source of doctrine, but this is a narrative whose 'meaning' for us is rather opaque.

OTOH, consider Mark 10:17-21. This is easier to understand as 'authoritative' direction for living. The problem is, after St Anthony heard it read in church, he sold whatever he had, gave to the poor, took up the cross, and followed Jesus by going into the desert. The meaning and authority of this text appears to have been different for him than for us.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Inherent authority.
I have quoted below points from an article on this subject so that the argument is clearly presented.

"Because the Bible points beyond itself to God it has a conferred authority. Yet the Bible has a real authority in itself as the authentic embodiment of God's self-disclosure..."

"...An approach to the subject of Biblical authority must begin with God himself for in him all authority is finally located...he is his own authority...But what God is is made known in his self-disclosure since only in revelation can God be known. Revelation is therefore the key to God's authority.

The authority of the Bible is established by its own claims. It is the word of God....By his attitude to and use of the Old Testament Christ trule validated its divinity. With the same conviction of its divine authority the NT writers accepted and quoted it...

...Specifically is the gospel in its central content and many aspects, through the action of the Holy Spirit, brought into written form by Christ's appointees as God's authoritative word for the Church and in the world. Both testaments therefore belong together under the one designation 'the word of God'. As God's word the Bible consequently carries in itself God's authority."

HD McDonald
The Authority of the Bible
 

---

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Posted by Mudfrog

The authority of the Bible is established by its own claims. It is the word of God....By his attitude to and use of the Old Testament Christ trule validated its divinity. With the same conviction of its divine authority the NT writers accepted and quoted it...


I simply cannot accept this. You are saying that because the Bible says it is true therefore it must be true. A more circular argument I have seldom heard.

Jesus quoted the OT. But he did so selectively. And just because He quoted it says nothing about how he conceived of its authority in toto.
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
Doesn't the Authority of Scripture derive from the Authority of Christ?
Surely we aren't able to know an authentic Christ outside of the Christ we find in Scripture?
He and the Apostles certainly seemed to have a very high regard for the OT - they are always going on about Jesus fulfilling it and quoting it left, right and centre.
As far as the "Church creating the Bible" there is also a sense of the Bible or rather the Gospel (the message contained in the Bible) creating and feeding the Church: For example on the Day of Pentecost it was Peters Gospel message, explaining Jesus resurrection and the coming of the Spirit in the light of the OT (Psalms and Joel specifically) that led to 3000 baptisms and to these new believers devoting themselve to (among other things) the apostles doctrine - which is surely what eventualy became our NT.
Doesn't Paul talk of the Ephesians being included in Christ when they heared the gospel message? And didn't he commend the Ephesian Elders to the word of Gods Grace?
Admittedly this sounds more dynamic than talking about a certain black bound book but there is definitely a connection in my mind.
 

---

Posted by Gargantua (# 16205) on :
 
Twangist wrote:
Admittedly this sounds more dynamic than talking about a certain black bound book but there is definitely a connection in my mind.

I think this may turn out to be key to further progress in this discussion. Dynamic, yes. And if I took anything away from Bp. Wright's somewhat confusing lecture, it was a sense that the proper function of scripture in the interaction between G-d and the human seeker is as a dynamic link rather than as a static repository of Revealed Truth. At least, that's all I was able to make of it.

Mudfrog, I'm afraid that with great regret I have to agree with shamwari - circular reasoning, pure and simple. I think our misunderstanding here may lie in this: you (and several others) are speaking from the POV of the committed faithful; for you there is no logical contradiction in saying that the authority of the Bible derives from its manifest status as the word of God, that it is self-proving. That is integral to the belief that you have long since accepted and to which you are already committed.

What I'm looking for is something else entirely: an explanation of how the 'inherent authority' of the Bible is demonstrable to those who do not yet believe. Surely this is crucial to the work of evangelism? Now, if you say to me that the evangelist's task is simply to preach the Gospel, and that those who are foreordained to hear and believe will do so with no need of any such explanation or demonstration, that the simple power of G-d's truth will convict and convince them, then of course I can understand and accept that position. If *that* is what you mean by inherent authority - is it?

But if it is... perhaps it means that the rationalist is damned from the outset.

[ 12. February 2011, 20:18: Message edited by: Gargantua ]
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Who cares about rationalists?

I thought we were talking about authority for the postmodern masses not those still caught up in modernism.
 

---

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :
 
The key paragraph of Mudfrog's original article* contains the following assertions:

1. Authority may be bestowed or inherent.
2. As in the case of Christ in whom both aspects of authority, the bestowed and the inherent, combined, so is it with the Bible.
3. Because the Bible points beyond itself to God, it has a conferred authority.
4. The Bible has a real authority in itself as the authentic embodiment of God's self-disclosure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The simple question is this:

Does the Scripture have authority because the Church gave it that authority, or did the Church recognise the authority that was already there?

---

quote:

---

If the Church gave the authority, then how can we say the Scriptures are 'God-breathed'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Postmodernism is a rejection of metanarratives but not narratives. What you and Gargantua are missing from Lyotard is the equal focus on language games. Orthodox Christianity is a language game. It can't be objectively proven. Those who embrace it do so because they see the internal consistency of it and because it rings true to them. Once you accept it, you accept as authoritative the rules of the game.

Questions about objectivity have no place in postmodernism because postmodernism all but rejects objectivity. Rhetoric not science is postmodernism's queen of disciplines. In the market place of ideas, converts are won not by appealing to objectivity but in rhetorical appeals to what is the best system. I would argue that everything is rhetoric including everything we do and every word we say.

Modernism attacked the objectivity of Christianity and all other religions. Postmodernism helps religion by putting them on an equal footing with science by questioning objectivity. Arguments expecting objectivity are not modernism rather than postmodern.

It is clear why orthodox Christianity teaches what it teaches. You can disagree with that. You can say a religion based on the stuff discarded by orthodox Christianity would lead to a more fulfilling life and better world than that which it embraced. All fine and dandy. Problem is you have to then form your own narrative and convince others by positive words and actions that your way is better than orthodox Christianity. This is not done by constantly whining about the problems you see in orthodox Christianity and it's need to change because you are unhappy with it.

---

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!!


Thank you for this Beeswax. May I chuck this on my blog?
 

---

Posted by Gargantua (# 16205) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Who cares about rationalists?

I thought we were talking about authority for the postmodern masses not those still caught up in modernism.

---

Puh-leeze! I'm far too ancient to be considered postmodern. I do the best I can to keep up, but at best I suppose I'm transitional. I'm like the old guy in Chuck Berry's "Too Pooped to Pop"* -- I try to keep in time but the beat leaves me cold, lol.

*Tried to find a better vid of this, but this was the best I could do at short notice; lucky to find it at all, I guess.
 

---

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:

Quakers believe in progressive revelation, we don't buy the whole canon thing, sorry.

---

What place does the Bible have in the Quaker tradition?

What is the Bible to a Quaker?

---

quote:

---

They are only a declaration of the fountain, and not the fountain itself, therefore they are not to be esteemed the principal ground of all Truth and knowledge, nor yet the adequate primary rule of faith and manners. Yet because they give a true and faithful testimony of the first foundation, they are and may be esteemed a secondary rule, subordinate to the Spirit, from which they have all their excellency and certainty: for as by the inward testimony of the Spirit we do alone truly know them, so they testify, that the Spirit is that Guide by which the saints are led into all Truth; therefore, according to the Scriptures, the Spirit is the first and principal leader. Seeing then that we do therefore receive and believe the Scriptures because they proceeded from the Spirit, for the very same reason is the Spirit more originally and principally the rule...

---

There is a range of views among Friends, but the thing I think is shared by all is the belief that Christ did not stop teaching his people in 33 CE (or whatever date you choose). God continues to reveal himself, and it's not just a matter of passing on a truth that was definitively given 2000 years ago. We know more about God and God's will than Paul did (e.g., slavery, gender equality, etc.)
 

---

Posted by Gargantua (# 16205) on :
 
Listen! Wisdom! (As the eastern Orthodox would say.) I like it, Timothy; I like it. This is putting first things first.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The simple question is this:

Does the Scripture have authority because the Church gave it that authority, or did the Church recognise the authority that was already there?

---

And the simple answer is: yes.

quote:

---

If the Church gave the authority, then how can we say the Scriptures are 'God-breathed'?

---

Because the Church is God-breathed. It, not the Scriptures, is the pillar and ground of the Truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
There is a range of views among Friends, but the thing I think is shared by all is the belief that Christ did not stop teaching his people in 33 CE (or whatever date you choose). God continues to reveal himself, and it's not just a matter of passing on a truth that was definitively given 2000 years ago. We know more about God and God's will than Paul did (e.g., slavery, gender equality, etc.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
Posted by Mudfrog

The authority of the Bible is established by its own claims. It is the word of God....By his attitude to and use of the Old Testament Christ trule validated its divinity. With the same conviction of its divine authority the NT writers accepted and quoted it...


I simply cannot accept this. You are saying that because the Bible says it is true therefore it must be true. A more circular argument I have seldom heard.

Jesus quoted the OT. But he did so selectively. And just because He quoted it says nothing about how he conceived of its authority in toto.

---

Much as I sign on the dotted line as an Evangelical, I have to admit there is a circular argument here. The way in for me is the conviction of truth by the Holy Spirit at conversion, leading to the Scriptures then being authoritative as a record of what God has said in the past; in one sense they are there because we are too spiritually blind to be able to depend on hearing God for ourselves all the time. And given the inability of the church to agree on a lot of things, we have to be grateful that the scriptures do exist because otherwise we'd be even more divided...
 

---

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
To base the foundation of faith on historical fact is a shaky foundation indeed.

You seem to think that giving the bible authority means believing all it's supernatural elements and that this somehow proves God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
There really is no mystery, nor mystification, in saying that the Church determined the content of the canon, any more than there is in saying that the Church wrote it; the Apostles were the leaders of the Church then, and later leaders of the Church ensured that the books read during the liturgy were in keeping with the Apostolic deposit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The simple question is this:

Does the Scripture have authority because the Church gave it that authority, or did the Church recognise the authority that was already there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I can't see anyone disagreeing with this paragraph in principle but the implications of the paragraph are what are under discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
You are moving between church and apostles too quickly there ID.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mosuethief:
Because the Church is God-breathed. It, not the Scriptures, is the pillar and ground of the Truth.

---

Not. This is the gulf between us then.

---

quote:

---

The Scriptures themselves tell us the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. You're in a pickle.

---

I'd like to see an indisputable
proof text for that one

Which church anyway?
 

---

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
I'd like to see an indisputable
proof text for that one

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
1 Timothy 3 v 15 .. does not mean that the church is the origin of Truth

... We do not create it

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
To base the foundation of faith on historical fact is a shaky foundation indeed.

You seem to think that giving the bible authority means believing all it's supernatural elements and that this somehow proves God.

---

Paul would have disagreed with you.

I do to, as it happens. My faith is based on fact: If Jesus wasn't objectively raised, I just wasted an hour of my time by going to church this morning and I'd like that hour back please. If he was raised, he's the lord of life and I'd better check the consequences. I may not have a hotline to God and I may not have been around to see the stone rolled away, so I have to rely on what evidence I can gather. That's why I've got faith, not facts (c.f. Hebrews 11:1) but that faith hinges on facts about which I one day hope to be certain.

My belief isn't a crutch to make me feel nice, it's a belief that just after passover during the reign of Tiberius, a dead man rose to life, and if you can prove that didn't happen then I'm off to play sport on Sunday mornings. You can call me shaky, but I stand with Paul and I believe with historic Christianity on that one.

---

That's fine Dinghy Sailor. Whatever works for you.

That kind of approach just doesn't wash in the people I hang out with. I'm looking for new ideas.

But I think I've just discovered a new label for myself. Emergent Church. I'm past all that liberal vs conservative rubbish. Grown out of it.

I'm really grateful the western world has gone the way it has in it's philosophical and political outlook in terms of its relation to Christianity.

I'm convinced Jesus was a postmodernist.
 

---

Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :
 
Having had a major upheaval in my life this past week (I needn't get into it here), I haven't the wherewithal to fully digest this entire thread. I'm too exhausted. I do want to thank Timothy the Obscure, however, for introducing the Quaker position on this issue, which I personally think to be quite powerful. Historically, Quakers have been a Christ-centered lot, and at least the more orthodox of them have a healthy respect for the Biblical witness. But they do not, as Timothy pointed out, regard the canon as closed. God continues his self-revelation, which is determined by the Inner Light (the Holy Spirit within the individual) IN CONCERT WITH others who are seeking to know and do God's will. The aspect of community is essential. I think this falls fully in line with the genius of the Methodists' Wesleyan Quadrilateral: the Church being guided by Scripture, tradition, reason and experience. As an evangelical-turned-liberal, I've been very much influenced by Quaker thought.
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The Scriptures themselves tell us the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
Now that I've had my lunch, I can address this point. I'm not trying to minimise the distance between the Apostles and the church. Although there is evidence that a canon was in formation by the second century, it wasn't until the fourth century that a list of 27 books appear in any documents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Although I don't want to quite go as far as Mudfrog he is right to point to the difference in authority between (let's put it this way) the teaching of the apostles and the subsequent teaching of the church.

---

The problem with this and the doctrine of sola scriptura in general is the way it turns the truth into a relic. It puts me in mind of a man who thinks he can master a foreign language using only a grammar and a dictionary. Not even the most comprehensive grammar or dictionary can account for every usage available to a native speaker, but what she says will be consistent with their content.

The faith of the Apostles, which comes from God, not the Apostles, and is energized by the Holy Spirit, is what the church preserves and teaches; the Apostolic writings have a similar relation to the faith as the grammar and dictionary have to the language.

The real bone of contention, ISTM, is that we teach doctrines which are not consistent with the evangelical understanding of Scripture, in all senses of that word. I fear there may be little we can do to reconcile our different understandings.
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I'd just point out that our Lord did NOT say, "You are Petros and upon this rock I will found my Bible."

---

What difference does that make?
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
The problem with this and the doctrine of sola scriptura in general is the way it turns the truth into a relic. It puts me in mind of a man who thinks he can master a foreign language using only a grammar and a dictionary. Not even the most comprehensive grammar or dictionary can account for every usage available to a native speaker, but what she says will be consistent with their content.

The faith of the Apostles, which comes from God, not the Apostles, and is energized by the Holy Spirit, is what the church preserves and teaches; the Apostolic writings have a similar relation to the faith as the grammar and dictionary have to the language.

The real bone of contention, ISTM, is that we teach doctrines which are not consistent with the evangelical understanding of Scripture, in all senses of that word. I fear there may be little we can do to reconcile our different understandings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The problem with investing authority in the church rather than in the Scripture is that the church is a changing entity and can say whatever it likes.

---

If by 'the church' you mean a collective name for all people calling themselves Christians, then, yes, it does change, and some of them do seem to say whatever they like. Some of them don't do Baptism or the Eucharist, for example.

If, OTOH, you mean the early church, a convenient stand-in for the Orthodox Church (or the Roman Catholic Church, if you prefer), then I think the charge of having departed from the truth, of having changed and said whatever it liked, is a matter for debate.

And to say, as you do, that the church

quote:

---

must align its teaching with the revealed, authoritative truth as laid down in the Bible.

---

quote:

---

One only has to read the stuff that was written in the second century to see how far the Church - fallible, weak and prone to error - was moving away from the Biblical message.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
Johnny, it's only an analogy, not a parable. It might help to consider the relationship between a living language and its grammar/dictionary synchronically, rather than diachronically.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I'd just point out that our Lord did NOT say, "You are Petros and upon this rock I will found my Bible."

---

That's because Paul got that honor...

--Tom Clune
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
Johnny, it's only an analogy, not a parable. It might help to consider the relationship between a living language and its grammar/dictionary synchronically, rather than diachronically.

---

Go on then. I keep on asking what difference all this makes in practice and no one is willing to give an answer.

---

One is contextual for circa 45-110AD, the other, theoretically would be changing continuously with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, based on apostolic succession and limitations of language, culture, context, time, philosophy, etc.

Oh no wait, that'd be the Anglican Church.
 

---

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I keep on asking what difference all this makes in practice and no one is willing to give an answer.

---

It may depend on what you mean by 'in practice', but one difference would be around Baptism. Some Protestant groups baptise in the name of Jesus only, the Salvation Army doesn't baptise at all. Does it matter? Will the unbaptised person not be saved? After all, the thief on the cross would appear to have been OK. There are martyrs who don't seem to have been baptised before their deaths, because they converted in response to another martyr's death and were immediately executed. Can we base our Baptismal doctrine on these cases?

Does it matter whether you believe in the Divinity of Jesus? Arius and his followers argued from the Scriptures that the Son of God was a creature and not divine, but the church disagreed and it became orthodox doctrine. The issue has not gone away, and the old heresies keep coming back to haunt us.

I'm pushed for time, but I think that's enough to be going on with.

BTW, you're up late, Johnny - are you keeping Vigil?
 

---

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
Does it matter whether you believe in the Divinity of Jesus? Arius and his followers argued from the Scriptures that the Son of God was a creature and not divine, but the church disagreed and it became orthodox doctrine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
As near as I can tell, neither Arius nor his followers ever denied the divinity of Christ -- they just said that He was created by God the Father.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
On another note, it is instructive in the context of this thread to consider how thoroughly you have absorbed the postmodern metanarrative of power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
I'm not sure what "the postmodern metanarrative of power" is, but it sure makes me feel smart to have absorbed it!

---

The postmodern metanarrative of power = all truth claims are about power. Originating (so I've heard) with Nietzsche (Bless you!). Postmodernism supposedly eschews metanarratives, so it's an oxymoron, but since postmodernism is probably just an intellectually respectable label for adolescent apathy experienced by adults, I guess the appropriate attitude is not to care. And you might just as well have been absorbed by it for all I know.

Heavens! Have I just been rude?
 

---

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
Heavens! Have I just been rude?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Oh no wait, that'd be the Anglican Church.

---

And this is a good thing?
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
It may depend on what you mean by 'in practice', but one difference would be around Baptism. Some Protestant groups baptise in the name of Jesus only, the Salvation Army doesn't baptise at all. Does it matter? Will the unbaptised person not be saved? After all, the thief on the cross would appear to have been OK. There are martyrs who don't seem to have been baptised before their deaths, because they converted in response to another martyr's death and were immediately executed. Can we base our Baptismal doctrine on these cases?

Does it matter whether you believe in the Divinity of Jesus? Arius and his followers argued from the Scriptures that the Son of God was a creature and not divine, but the church disagreed and it became orthodox doctrine. The issue has not gone away, and the old heresies keep coming back to haunt us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:

BTW, you're up late, Johnny - are you keeping Vigil?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I don't find it rather ironic that if it wasn't for the Reformation it wouldn't really be possible for us to be discussing this on a Christian website.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
BTW, you're up late, Johnny - are you keeping Vigil?

---

I was asleep before you wrote this!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
Postmodernism is probably just an intellectually respectable label for adolescent apathy experienced by adults....

---

Definitely quotes file material.
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
We have no way of knowing what would have been possible by now without the Reformation. Drawing conclusions from contrafactuals is logically fallacious.

---

Quite - and it cuts both ways.

The claim that either the RC or the Orthodox church preserve the tradition of The church is extremely dubious since we have no way of knowing what it would have been like without the Reformation. Whether they like or not the RC and Orthodox churches are almost as much a product of the Reformation (often in reaction to it) as Protestant churches are.

I'm glad about this since it is a point that I've been making for some time. And now that we're agreed that any claim that the Orthodox are guarding the 'true' deposit of the faith is logically fallacious I think we can now make some progress.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
How on earth is anything in the Orthodox Church a "reaction to the Reformation"? That's nuts.
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
How on earth is anything in the Orthodox Church a "reaction to the Reformation"? That's nuts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S (quoting Pelikan):
It was the Reformation that brought out into the open the long standing tension between the Palestinian canon of the Tanakh (preferred by Jerome) and the longer list of the LXX and the Vulgate (preferred by Augustine). The decision of the Council of Trent has to be seen as, in part, a reaction to the Reformers.

---

quote:

---

I realise that the Orthodox were not part of this but then their nomenclature of deuterocanonical is a reference to a secondary authority which is the kind of distinction that I've been making anyway.

---

quote:

---

More generally the Orthodox frequently take pleasure in defining themselves in contrast to the West.

---

quote:

---

That has happened more than once on the Ship.

---

quote:

---

21st century Orthodoxy is just as much a reaction to the West as it is any attempt to hold onto the tradition of the Fathers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
I'm not sure what "the postmodern metanarrative of power" is, but it sure makes me feel smart to have absorbed it!

---

The postmodern metanarrative of power = all truth claims are about power.

---

quote:

---

Jean-Francois Lyotard famously defined the postmodern as ‘incredulity towards meta-narratives’. This rejection of any kind of grand story about the whole of reality is mainly rooted in postmodernism’s critique of the idea of progress as an ideology of domination that has legitimated the exploitative exercise of power: the domination of the West over the Third World, the affluent over the poor, even men over women. Through science, technology and education the West has imposed its own particular rationality and ideals on others. Economic globalisation is a new form of the same process. To the charge that the Christian meta-narrative has also served as justification for terror and oppression, including Christian collusion with western imperialism and the arrogance of modernity, the Christian response must be repentance.

---

The answer of course, is the non-dominating love of Jesus (and a few other things which I haven't quite worked out..... )
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Um, just because the Reformation brought it out into the open doesn't mean the Orthodox are reacting to the Reformation. Strike one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
An example from Pelikan's book with regard to the RC church:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
3. The term "deuterocanonical" doesn't mean "second authority" it means "second canon" and refers to the fact that these books were added to the canon later than the books which Jerome was able to find in Hebrew. Jerome wanted to place them in a secondary status, but the Church rejected this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Um, just because the Reformation brought it out into the open doesn't mean the Orthodox are reacting to the Reformation. Strike one.

---

Um, which part of this sentence did you not understand?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
An example from Pelikan's book with regard to the RC church:

---

There are other churches apart from the Orthodox you know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
how do you think the Church would answer the following question:

Why do you baptise the way you do?

Would the answer be:

a) Because the Church has decided this is the right way to do it.

or

b) Because the Church has decided that this the best way to reflect the teaching of the Apostles?

I'm pretty convinced that it would be the latter, and if so, it shows that it is the teaching of the Apostles that we are trying to live up to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I told him to type more softly, but did he listen? Oh noooo.

---

Forgive me, mousethief, but I couldn't possibly respond to such cuteness.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
The answer of course, is the non-dominating love of Jesus (and a few other things which I haven't quite worked out..... )

---

In The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth, Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart argues that the answer is the non-dominating beauty of the message of Jesus. Maybe if you read it, you might be able to work out those other things.....
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
In The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth, Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart argues that the answer is the non-dominating beauty of the message of Jesus. Maybe if you read it, you might be able to work out those other things.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Orthodox tend to be more premo than pomo. However, Orthodox theology can at times sound pomo. In a way, the Orthodox were postmodern before postmodernism was cool.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
It may depend on what you mean by 'in practice', but one difference would be around Baptism. Some Protestant groups baptise in the name of Jesus only, the Salvation Army doesn't baptise at all. Does it matter? Will the unbaptised person not be saved? After all, the thief on the cross would appear to have been OK. There are martyrs who don't seem to have been baptised before their deaths, because they converted in response to another martyr's death and were immediately executed. Can we base our Baptismal doctrine on these cases?

Does it matter whether you believe in the Divinity of Jesus? Arius and his followers argued from the Scriptures that the Son of God was a creature and not divine, but the church disagreed and it became orthodox doctrine. The issue has not gone away, and the old heresies keep coming back to haunt us.

---

Yes, this is a hard question - but it's one I want to finesse by going back to my assertion that what matters is the work of the Holy Spirit in a person. In a simple model, if He has been at work, then one can expect that person to come up with true doctrine, because they have heard from God for themselves. In practice they may have barriers to hearing right, and if their heart is truly turned towards God, then God, knowing His own, will accept them: they will be 'saved' on the last day.

In all that we are doing, we are seeking to reveal God's glory to the world. At times we need to discern whether a person has truly engaged with God, and for that purpose their doctrine may be a helpful guide, but it is in no way infallible; I have no doubt that the Cossacks of the Pogroms of Russia and the inquisitors of Europe could affirm the Nicene creed without reservation. Unfortunately the postmodern attitude is to assume, ultimately, that nothing can be known about God, so is not willing to see doctrine as a helpful guide to where a person is at with God. The result is total confusion of the mainstream denominations of the West and a generation that is ever less engaged with the church because they know in their heart that the church, as they experience it, doesn't really know anything.

Jesus, Paul and John all warn us against spiritual deceptions, but to respond by calling them what they are is largely now unacceptable, apart perhaps from the dismissal of the 'Prosperity Gospel' and certain 'politically incorrect' beliefs such as our dead horses herd... As a result the flock is being left largely unprotected
 

---

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar and mousethief:
the Orthodox were postmodern before (post)modernism was cool

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I have no doubt that the Cossacks of the Pogroms of Russia and the inquisitors of Europe could affirm the Nicene creed without reservation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Apparently you were talking about something entirely different, and thought it might be fun to use my post as a springboard into your entirely unrelated point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm still confused as to what difference it makes in practice. If the aim is to preserve the gospel of the Apostles and if everyone makes some distinction between the Protestant canon of scripture from other books then there seems to be a lot of common ground between all major Christian churches.

(The bit I still don't get - maybe ID can help me out - is why such a huge fuss is made over the apocrypha when everybody places them in a different category. Often it comes across as a distinction that isn't a distinction.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
But we don't place them in a different category. See this short article and, if you have the time (and patience) this long article.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Let me rephrase my questions ...

---

It's a bit late in the day for me (I'm too tired to keep Vigil tonight ), so I'll have to get back to you with answers, but I do have enough time to tell you that asking how the Orthodox 'cope' with certain difficulties is rather like asking fish how they cope with living in water.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
The only way that could possibly make sense would be if this thread was about the Orthodox. It isn't. A lot of the thread has turned on the Sola Scriptura position and it's birth place of the Reformation. I was trying to generalise about those traditions that do not come from this source. Obviously it is a major generalisation to make but by quoting a RC view I was just trying to illustrate that it is not quite as simple as you have made out. How else could there possibly be any progress on a definition of biblical authority without this kind of discussion? If you think there is no need for this discussion because the Orthodox already have the perfect one, then fine, but how is that helping this thread?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
If you say "Orthodox do X" and I ask you to demonstrate that this is indeed the case, what the Protestants or Catholics do is NOT RELEVANT. I'm not sure why this isn't as clear as Swarovski crystal. You made an unsupportable swipe at Orthodoxy, and when called to defend it, you blustered and changed the subject.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Orthodox tend to be more premo than pomo. However, Orthodox theology can at times sound pomo. In a way, the Orthodox were postmodern before postmodernism was cool.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Whether they like or not the RC and Orthodox churches are almost as much a product of the Reformation (often in reaction to it) as Protestant churches are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
We didn't start using a different set of books as our Bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Why don't you ask, then, instead of making absurd claims like "The Catholic and Orthodox churches are nearly as much a product of the Reformation as the Protestant churches"? Do you retract that, by the way?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
AFAIK the doctrine of scripture that the RC and Orthodox have today is just as much a reaction to the Reformation as it is building on to any tradition that proceeded it.

I may well be spectacularly wrong in that hypothesis

---

Yes you may well be. It is certainly the first time you've said it, however.

I've been looking for this evidence online that the EOC was up in the air about the canon of the OT before Jerusalem.

I also would question that the "deuterocanonicals" were of questionable acceptance before Trent. Jerome definitely wanted to throw out the deuts, but the RCC overruled him, and the Vulgate, the "common" bible of the RCC for a thousand years and then some, contains them. The exact list of which deuterocanonicals were in wiggled some, but at no point did the wiggle exclude them all. So I don't think you can say that Trent expanded or shrank the canon at all. It just cleaned up some messiness.

There is no denying that Trent was a reaction to the Reformation. But that's generally how the RCC promulgates dogma (at least up until 1870). They don't nail everything down until somebody denies long-standing tradition.

Even so, this is a much weaker claim than your original (outrageous and totally unsupportable) claim that, in YOUR OWN WORDS, "21st century Orthodoxy is just as much a reaction to the West as it is any attempt to hold onto the tradition of the Fathers."

But even with your greatly shifted goalposts, your claim is too strong. "Just as much a reaction to the Reformation as it is building on any tradition that preceded it"? Not hardly. The Orthodox Church has always accepted the books of the LXX. There were varying lists because there were varying textual traditions (I forget the precise term) for the LXX. This did not in the least change at Jerusalem. Their saying "we need to nail this down" was as much influence as they felt from the Reformation.

Did they throw out the deuts? Did they move over to the MT? Hardly. Their ultimate OT canon was based on the traditions that preceded them. I'd say it was you who had the burden of proof in your claim that the Reformation had "just as much" influence on the EOC OT canon as preceding tradition. Hell, the most recently Orthodox English translation held the LXX as definitive in places where it differs from the MT. That's a pretty basic, foundational translation principle that is 100% at odds with the Reformation. And it's not one that was different before Jerusalem. That's how the EOC has always translated the OT. Nothing changed there as a result of the Reformation.

Was there even one book of the deuts that they threw out, or added, as a result of / reaction to the Reformation? Find that, and I'll retract my absolute claim.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Unless Johnny and mousethief can figure out where their problem is I suspect this thread will soon die a natural death so I just wanted to say thank you all for contributing because you've all had a big impact on my thoughts.

I particularly appreciate those of you that wrote in your personal opinions and viewpoints, and those that expressed their denominational ones.

Thanks to Beeswax for helping me define postmodernism in the Christian narrative context too.

I was looking for a Grand New Idea to unify us all. But it's rather obvious that's impossible.

But that's cool, that's where postmodernism comes in!

And by the way, nobody mentioned the particularly Anglican understanding of biblical authority.

That the bible contains all things necessary for salvation.

It says everything and nothing at the same time.

Damn we're good.
 

---

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm not aware of any Ecumenical council that fixed the OT canon before this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
...absurd claims like "The Catholic and Orthodox churches are nearly as much a product of the Reformation as the Protestant churches"?

---

quote:

---

Both sides have inherited a different mix of things from the mediaeval western churches, but neither is identical to those churches, and its absurd to pretend that they are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
just give me the standard answers that must haven rehearsed for centuries.

---

I do sometimes feel a bit old these days, but I had that long to rehearse. As for the Orthodox Church having centuries of experience, there doesn't appear to be that much of it on the net. If it does exists, it's probably all in Greek and Russian and waiting to be translated.

However, I have been busy, and have traced some resources which may be of use:

Bible Research, a site compiled by a conservative Reformed Christian, contains a great deal of information from which I have culled specific items, but I think it is worth linking to the homepage so you can investigate the rest of the site at your leisure.

Disputed Books, from the same site (FTSS), contains a useful table of references to the so-called Apocrypha in various church documents.

The Council of Laodicea, FTSS, cites the first official list of OT and NT books from the Council of Laodicea, held in AD 363. The disputed books do not appear in this list.

However,
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Ken: your post shows two classic logical fallacies.

1. If I say ~( A & B ) it does NOT follow that I think ( ~A & ~B ). ~( A & B ) resolves to ( ~A v ~B ). (Leaving aside whether today's Catholic Church derives more of its makeup from the Reformation than from pre-Reformation Catholicism, which I this is plainly absurd, but that's a historical, not logical, question.)

2. The EOC went through a lot of changes at the time of the Reformation, therefore it is a product of the Reformation. Even allowing for all the obvious problems, is a case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
 

---

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :
 
Oops, hit the wrong button there! Onward:

However, The Council of Carthage, FTSS, dated AD 397, does list the disputed books, including 'five books of Solomon,' which a footnote says are 'Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus' (aka Wisdom of Sirach), according to St Augustine.

On Christian Doctrine, FTSS, contains the relevant quote from St Augustine concerning the 'five books of Solomon.' Also dated AD 397.

Innocent I, the last page FTSS, quotes from a letter of Innocent I, Bishop of Rome around AD 405, making the same point as the Council of Carthage.
 

---

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :
 
Sorry, did it again! Why is the 'Add Reply' button so close to the 'URL' button?

Next, The Synod of Jerusalem, from a different site now, contains the decisions of this Council, held in 1672, which promulgated the OT canon, including the disputed books. This is the one which could be asserted to be a response to the Reformation. To find the list, look for 'Question 3', about three-quarters of the way down.

The Synods of Jassy and Jerusalem is an extract, in PDF form, from a book on all the Orthodox Councils, giving some historical background to the two Synods, and explaining their authority.

Septuagint Notes is another general site containing some interesting info. LXXNotesFeb06.pdf, the second downloadable file listed on this page, comprises 190 pages of notes on the Septuagint, the most interesting for our purposes being Appendix F, a list of references to the disputed books in the NT, including the texts, beginning at page 174, and compiled using the references at the back of the Nestle-Aland Greek NT. This is useful for any argument about the NT writers' knowledge of the disputed books.

Finally, The Old Testament Canon, an article by a Catholic writer, arguing for the extended canon.

That's it for now, I may come back later to add further comment of my own. When I've had a rest.
 

---

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
The NT itself is not much help in this debate since it seems to quote all sorts of different versions (MT / LXX / Aramaic) of the OT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
I would be quite interested in knowing which NT passages are quotes from the MT

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
In the end, it's really rather a moot point. The books in the Alexandrian canon not in the Hebrew canon are considered worthy of reading and contemplation, but no doctrine is derived from them. So in essence the Hebrew canon in composition (but not necessarily in textual lineage), is considered the canon par excellence. All Old Testament content used in the cycle of publish worship uses the Alexandrian canon as its source, but does not include anything not found in the Hebrew canon. Which makes sense since this is the outward expression of the church's doctrine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

2. The EOC went through a lot of changes at the time of the Reformation, therefore it is a product of the Reformation. Even allowing for all the obvious problems, is a case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
The Council of Carthage, FTSS, dated AD 397, does list the disputed books, including 'five books of Solomon,' which a footnote says are 'Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus' (aka Wisdom of Sirach), according to St Augustine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:

Next, The Synod of Jerusalem, from a different site now, contains the decisions of this Council, held in 1672, which promulgated the OT canon, including the disputed books. This is the one which could be asserted to be a response to the Reformation. To find the list, look for 'Question 3', about three-quarters of the way down.

---

As you say, the paragraph under 'Question 3' does make it look very much that this was a reaction to the Reformation. Tidying up what was already established tradition maybe, but a reaction nonetheless.

In fact the tone (ISTM) pushes us towards Alt Wally's comments above. Adopting the Alexandrian canon was common place in parts of the EOC but by no means all (or even the majority) for the first 600 years of Christianity. The EOC, just like the RC and every Protestant sect, claim to be following the 'true' tradition though.

Before we do anything like the radical redefinition of the bible that Evensong is calling for I think progress could made on agreeing some kind of loose canon. And something like the RC approach of the canon and deuterocanonical seems to be a fair starting place. Again, I'm under no illusions that this could simply be adopted just because some shipmate posts it on the interweb thing, but at least I've found this all very helpful.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
It is not necessarily true that the changes the EOC went through at this time were due to the Reformation. However, the logic cuts both ways. On the question of the EOC doctrine of scripture and her canon you need to give some evidence to the contrary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
No. People making claims must prove them. You claim the Reformation affected the Orthodox decisions re. the biblical canon. You must prove it. It's not up to me to prove a negative.

---

What do you think all the discussion over the councils has been? Have you looked at any of ID's links?

There is evidence. It just doesn't support your POV.
 

---

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
There is evidence. It just doesn't support your POV.

---

That's strange, because I didn't think it supported your POV.
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
There is evidence. It just doesn't support your POV.

---

That's strange, because I didn't think it supported your POV.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
There is evidence. It just doesn't support your POV.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
Anyway here is a link which argues the Orthodox POV. Make of it what you will.

---

quote:

---

There is nothing in the canons (that is, official pronouncements) of Nicaea II that specifically affirms the canon of Carthage....

Modern Eastern Orthodox say all sorts of things. Not all EO's claim that the canon is undefined. Some consider themselves bound by Carthage. The reason that a lot of EO's claim that the canon is not defined is because the patriarchate of Antioch consistently failed to implement the Carthaginian canon, both before and after Nicaea II. Various Greek and Syrian churches in Syria, Palestine, and Iraq continued to read from 3 & 4 Maccabbes, the Prayer of Manasseh, and even 1 Clement to the Corinthians and the Epistle of Barnabas, at their liturgies well into modern times. Given that "canon" refers to the rule of usage in the Church's Liturgy, the Eastern Orthodox tend to consider themselves bound by this local usage, and so define the canon that way. They have forgotten about the Carthaginian canon, to which they, technically, used to be bound.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, the crucial point here is that I can only see the clear demarcation of the Orthodox canon as a reaction to the Reformation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
And I have asked what was changed, what book added that was not being read as scripture anywhere, or what book subtracted that was being read as scripture anywhere, because of the Reformation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Ken: your post shows two classic logical fallacies.

1. If I say ~( A & B ) it does NOT follow that I think ( ~A & ~B ). ~( A & B ) resolves to ( ~A v ~B ). (Leaving aside whether today's Catholic Church derives more of its makeup from the Reformation than from pre-Reformation Catholicism, which I this is plainly absurd, but that's a historical, not logical, question.)

2. The EOC went through a lot of changes at the time of the Reformation, therefore it is a product of the Reformation. Even allowing for all the obvious problems, is a case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

---

quote:

---

so the EOC came up with a doctrine of scripture that would distance them from the Protestants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
(The third alternative, that you read and uderstood it but chose to ignore it to make your point, ought not to be considered here)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
ISTM that the Reformation and the explicit formalizing of the canon have a common cause, rather than one being a reaction to the other. I have always imagined that the large social forces at work in that day led to both.

---

Although the debate does appear to have become unstable (I agree with Alt Wally), I also think it has been rather simplistic. There can be no single explanation for the Reformation; it's not only the social forces mentioned by Tom Clune which are implicated, but also the malaise in the RCC (priests were ineffective and the hierarchy was paralysed), the privatisation of theology (it is ironic that Protestantism tends to get blamed for this, as I think it was already under way in the monasteries, before the Reformation), the influence of the Renaissance, particularly the humanist call to return to the sources (ad fontes).

Since the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Orthodox Church had had to contend with a different mix of circumstances, including changed relations with the Roman Catholic Church. This is one reason why I think the evidence I linked to doesn't confirm Johnny S's argument. I think it is just as likely that the Council of Jerusalem's promulgation of the extended canon, while being a response to Cyril Lukaris's Confession (and even here, the context is not simple), was due to Roman Catholic influence, which was a factor, not only for the Greeks, but also in Russia.

The Council of Carthage, the opinion of St Augustine and the letter of Pope Innocent I suggest that the extended canon may have started in the Latin West. The Bible Research website concludes that the canonical listings found, for example, in St Gregory Nazianzen and St John of Damascus, imply a rejection of the disputed books, but it is just as likely that they were simply unaware of the extended canon being promulgated in the West.

That could confirm what I have said above, that the extended canon was a product of the Latin West, which later influenced the Orthodox Church through its complex relationship with the Roman Catholic Church (e.g. many Orthodox priest were trained in Catholic seminaries), producing the results seen in the Council of Jerusalem.

It could also be evidence for an alternative view, which is that the East eventually adopted the extended canon before the Schism of 1054, and that the Council was merely reflecting that long-established tradition.

The problem is, we don't have access to decisive evidence. For example, the article linked to by BroJames mentions clerical correspondence. It's just that sort of thing which makes the study of history so fascinating and informative, and some Ship debates so tedious.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Now, and this is the key bit, my understanding is that if this issue had arisen before the Reformation then the EOC would have argued about it a lot but there would have been no definitive position.

---

quote:

---

All of the EOC (pretty much) would have accepted these books but whether they would have been happy to describe them as some form of apocrypha as well is moot. (Some would, some wouldn't.)

---

quote:

---

At the present time any attempt to introduce this view of scripture would obviously be shouted down by the EOC.

---

quote:

---

And that is the point. The EOC doctrine of scripture today is largely a reaction to the Reformation.

---

quote:

---

Just as the Protestants increasingly came to define themselves in contrast to the RC, so the EOC came up with a doctrine of scripture that would distance them from the Protestants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not sure what you mean by "extended" canon

---

You can either take it to mean "extended" as compared with the canon set at the Council of Laodicea, or as compared with the MT/Protestant canon. Either way, it is intended as a way of referring to the canon which contains the books not found in the Hebrew canon. If you think it inappropriate, ugly, confusing, or whatever, you may write it off as another
 

---

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :
 
Oh that button again!

I meant to say: you can write it off as another monster from the ID.
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
This is hard work when all you guys insist on living on the bottom of the world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Jerusalem was a local council and was in many ways a reaction to incursions in the East by both confessional strains of Western Christendom. Having said that, it was itself a local council, so nothing in Jerusalem could be held to the level of doctrine and many people quibble with it because of the heavy Latin influence in much of the wording. It was certainly an attempt to state or re-state what the church has believed up to that point.

I'm probably not going to explain this well, but in Orthodoxy the idea of the Bible as a single end-to-end canonical text is not really all that important. That's why I think there was never really a major motivator to declare a single "canonical" text of the OT. The Septuagint was just the one people used and I don't think there was a lot of back and forth about it.

The importance of the texts as the church sees them are reflected in what it bases doctrine on and more importantly what composes the cycle of services that the church celebrates. Through this, the important elements are given primary status and much of the rest are given a somewhat secondary status. This is not officially defined anywhere that I'm aware of, the church has just discerned this over time. I mentioned the books of the Apocrypha don't have a place in doctrine formation or public worship, but are still worthy of reading and contemplation. The same is true however of for instance the Book of Ruth (in the OT) and Revelation (in the NT); you will never hear these read or chanted in the services.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
Since the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Orthodox Church had had to contend with a different mix of circumstances, including changed relations with the Roman Catholic Church. This is one reason why I think the evidence I linked to doesn't confirm Johnny S's argument. I think it is just as likely that the Council of Jerusalem's promulgation of the extended canon, while being a response to Cyril Lukaris's Confession (and even here, the context is not simple), was due to Roman Catholic influence, which was a factor, not only for the Greeks, but also in Russia.

---

I thought it was generally agreed that the formation of the RC canon at the council of Trent was a direct response to the Reformation.

So, if you are saying that the Council of Jerusalem came about due to RC influence then you are giving weight to my argument.
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
On what do you base this? Did the EOC never have a definitive position on anything before the Reformation? If it did, why would it not have had a definitive position on the OT canon? What makes that different?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Indeed. Why do you bring this up? I can't at all see what it has to do with the discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
What view of Scripture? By the way we're not using "apocrypha" the same way. Gospel of Thomas is apocryphal. Tobit is (if you must) deuterocanonical. BIG diff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
And what exactly is that "doctrine"? I thought we were talking about canon, not "doctrine of Scripture". What is this "doctrine" of which you speak?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

ID: I'm not sure what you mean by "extended" canon -- it's not like the 1st century church had the Masoretic Text (which didn't even exist at the time) and then later decided to cherry pick some books from the Septuagint to add in. The ancient church, once it became majority gentile, used the Septuagint because that's what was there. I doubt very much they discriminated between books due to there not being extant Hebrew manuscripts. That was Jerome's bailiwick and he was centuries later. They can't possibly have predicted what would end up in the MT. In what was is the current canon "extended"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I thought it was generally agreed that the formation of the RC canon at the council of Trent was a direct response to the Reformation.

So, if you are saying that the Council of Jerusalem came about due to RC influence then you are giving weight to my argument.

---

1. The extended canon may have been exclusive to the Latin West since the time of the Council of Carthage and the writings of St Augustine and Pope Innocent I. After 1453, contacts with the RCC may have introduced this canon to the EOC - before the Reformation, and therefore before the Councils of Trent and Jerusalem.
2. The extended canon may have already been adopted by the EOC any time between St John of Damascus and the Reformation, quite independently of contact with the RCC.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
On what do you base this? Did the EOC never have a definitive position on anything before the Reformation? If it did, why would it not have had a definitive position on the OT canon? What makes that different?

---

We've been through this several times already. There is no clear evidence of a EO canon before then (only the sort of 'well they didn't actually anathematise Carthage' type). And plenty of evidence that the Carthage canon was not enforced.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Indeed. Why do you bring this up? I can't at all see what it has to do with the discussion.

---

It has everything to do with the discussion. If the traditional position of the EOC on the OT canon has been rather laissez faire then why can't she do that now to Protestants and RC?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
By the way we're not using "apocrypha" the same way. Gospel of Thomas is apocryphal. Tobit is (if you must) deuterocanonical. BIG diff.

---

I know we are not using these terms in the same way. I took it for granted that you understood the collection of books that I was referring to though.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
And what exactly is that "doctrine"? I thought we were talking about canon, not "doctrine of Scripture". What is this "doctrine" of which you speak?

---

The doctrine of scripture that the EO used in coming to their decision about the canon.

---

WHICH IS?

quote:

---

The NT seems to quote the LXX, the MT and other things entirely. There was no one LXX that the early Christians used.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
]I think you should take to your bed immediately, as you seem to be suffering from a bad case of confirmation bias.

I was suggesting that the evidence I had linked to was capable of other interpretations than the one you seem keen on:

1. The extended canon may have been exclusive to the Latin West since the time of the Council of Carthage and the writings of St Augustine and Pope Innocent I. After 1453, contacts with the RCC may have introduced this canon to the EOC - before the Reformation, and therefore before the Councils of Trent and Jerusalem.
2. The extended canon may have already been adopted by the EOC any time between St John of Damascus and the Reformation, quite independently of contact with the RCC.

I believe interpretations 1 and 2 to be as consistent with the evidence as yours, but without further evidence we cannot regard any of them as proven.

As I think should be clear, interpretation 1 does not say that the RC decision to hold the Council of Trent influenced the EOC to hold the Council of Jerusalem, as you are suggesting. It may be that this (3rd) interpretation is as consistent with the evidence as the other two, but then it probably suffers from the same disadvantages too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, we have been through this, and I keep saying, yes, they didn't sit down and hammer out the canon we have now until the Jerusalem council. I keep saying that. I just said it again. I'm not saying that didn't happen. I'm saying the conclusions you draw from it do not, in fact, follow. This may be where we are not communicating, although I'd swear I said it already at least once.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Do what now? Your verbs and nouns aren't matching up. You mean be laissez-faire? They were laissez-faire about the canon and now you want them to be laissez-faire "to" the Prots and RCC?

Assuming you mean "continue being laissez-faire as regards the canon of the OT" (although I fail to see how that is "to" the P/RCC") I don't see why it applies to what you say. But we keep going round and round on this. You think that the fact that they sat down and hammered out a canon in part in reaction to the P's challenge to the traditional use of LXX books (note I did not say "THE" LXX books) somehow means that the current canon is just as much a product of the Reformation as of the theretofor traditions. You seem to be unable to distinguish between the fact that they have a (more or less) fixed and agreed-upon canon, and the contents of the canon. The former may well be a reaction to the Prots. The latter is certainly not, not in the least, not one iota.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

And again you ignore the point I made earlier about how dogma (or in our case, since we don't call this a dogma, official-teaching-of-the-church) is made. They didn't sit down in 70 AD and say, "Okay, what are all the truths we believe? Let's hammer it all out now, so nobody ever will have to rule on anything ever again." That's just not how it worked. The doctrine of the Trinity wasn't worked out until somebody pushed and somebody pushed back, and the emperor said, "You guys settle that, would you?" Similarly for other doctrines that were hammered out subsequently. They didn't get codified until somebody pushed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
But why use an incorrect and offensive label?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

Which I have already conceded. But it's irrelevant. The standard was the LXX. Different people may have had a different LXX. Hence different lists of books in different places. But never, no never, not ever, not one single second of time, not an iota of time, NEVER FUCKING NEVER was the standard the MT. I hope I'm not being ambiguous here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
What you are saying is that the evidence that the LXX used by the Orthodox church today even barely resembles the LXX used by the early Christians is zero, zilch, zip.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
NEVER FUCKING NEVER

---

quote:

---

And that is the irony of this latest tangent. I don't pick up any evidence that the EO of before Jerusalem being so offended by people who view these books as apocryphal. Strongly disagree, yes some would, but not this 'what did you call my mother?' type attitude.

It is this attitude (one of taking great offence at any discussion over the EO canon) that is what I mean as being a reaction to the Reformation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
unless ID can come up with some helpful comments on my questions I'm just going to drop it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
However, I note that having apologised to mousethief for offending him with your 'nazi' remark, you then compound the offence by impugning his motives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Actually your middle paragraph was what I was getting at Alt Wally. The idea of a single end-to-end canon is much more of a Protestant idea and therefore I thought my earlier comments about the Orthodox position being mostly a reaction to the Reformation was pretty uncontroversial.

---

quote:

---

From what you have said I don't see how the Orthodox could object to Protestants or RCs using their bibles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I think the difference is not really whether or not a canon exists, but the approach to the text itself. I know a number of links have been posted, but this one by Metropolitan Kallistos is probably worth a read.

http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/4.aspx

quote:

---

From what you have said I don't see how the Orthodox could object to Protestants or RCs using their bibles.

---

I would not object in the least. I would also encourage anyone unfamiliar with the formation of the canon, and in particular the differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint to read more about the subject.

---

quote:

---

It is the Church that tells us what is Scripture. A book is not part of Scripture because of any particular theory about its dating and authorship. Even if it could be proved, for example, that the Fourth Gospel was not actually written by John the beloved disciple of Christ, this would not alter the fact that we Orthodox accept the Fourth Gospel as Holy Scripture. Why? Because the Gospel of John is accepted by the Church and in the Church

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0