Thread: Where does loving the word stop and Bibliolatry start? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025229
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on
:
The kind of Church circles I move in are usually reformed conservative (just the type we all love on SoF!)
As you may have seen from my recent threads, I'm starting to take another look at this way of church and one area I'm thinking about is the academic in depth study of the word that prevails. We seem to have to wring every last bit of mystery, joy and awe out of it and boil it down to it's component theology - eg: Last week we had the 'textbook' answer of why there is suffering in the world, but I felt sorry for anyone who was suffering that morning as there wasn't much practical help!
The Word is analysed to extreme degrees about what it means, what it says and what it implies, but it feels a bit like this is at the expense of encouraging and teaching us to have a Godly walk.
What would your thoughts or opinions be?
[ 26. March 2013, 21:39: Message edited by: Stoker ]
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
In-depth exegesis can be helpful to our understanding and reflection of a text, but I agree with you that it should not be at the expense of encouragement to enjoy the scriptures. Both should help us on our Godly walk. We need challenge as well as affirmation so that we'll grow in faith, and we need to use our minds as well as our hearts so that we'll love God with both (and our souls and strength).
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
The kind of Church circles I move in are usually reformed conservative (just the type we all love on SoF!)
As you may have seen from my recent threads, I'm starting to take another look at this way of church and one area I'm thinking about is the academic in depth study of the word that prevails. We seem to have to wring every last bit of mystery, joy and awe out of it and boil it down to it's component theology - eg: Last week we had the 'textbook' answer of why there is suffering in the world, but I felt sorry for anyone who was suffering that morning as there wasn't much practical help!
The Word is analysed to extreme degrees about what it means, what it says and what it implies, but it feels a bit like this is at the expense of encouraging and teaching us to have a Godly walk.
What would your thoughts or opinions be?
We used to be that way, and we still are. But I think we are realizing more and more what it is to live it out. I know it can seem like being at a auto repair shop with no cars to work on. Just talking shop. As time has gone on, though, it does seem more and more suffering has come along. Either that, or I just got older and noticed it more. It does seem we've stepped up and are being much more down to business. Do you have people there who are really up against it? Do they think they can talk about it?
Last summer on Wednesday nights, and I think we might do it again, we had a series based on the I Am Second series. We would watch a video from I Am Second, then a voluntary member of the congregation would sit before us and talked about things they have gone through in life or are going through, still, and maybe take a few questions. It turns out lots of us have storms in our lives and we have learned we can talk about it. And things were talked about that many of us thought would not have been talked about, but they were, and I think we have learned we can trust our brothers and sisters to love us.
All that said, no one can take your joy. Maybe you could ask questions that cause folks to think beyond the pew, what it means for rest of time you are living. Maybe you should look at your own life, find something you are going through, and talk to someone there about it. Give them a chance.
Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on
:
Well, you know you are in the presence of a Bibliolator when you hear the phrase "the Bible says it, so I believe it" in the face of some rational appeal or scientific evidence. As long as the Bible is being studied (not just slavishly followed) then you might find worship a bit dry, but not idolatrous in my opinion.
I have noticed a greater desire for indepth Bile study in newer Christians, presumably because they feel the need to "catch up" on the knowledge more seasoned believers seem to have at their fingertips. Whereas, the desire for greater intimacy (with one another and with God), action and encouragement seems to prevail amongst people who have been in the faith for longer.
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on
:
YMMV but I've found the analogy of the Bible being like a menu helpful. The menu tells you all about the food but you don't eat the menu itself rather you eat what it describes and points you towards.
What Mere Nick touches on about reality and honesty is very important. I well remember a conversation I had when I was a student about the church I'd recently joined with another new member who'd recently moved to the area - "this is a very unusual church - they've all got problems" ... "maybe they are just more honest".
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
What would your thoughts or opinions be?
I don't know. I've seen this sort of thing in the past, but these days most of the very conservative churches I know are also deeply pastoral in their approach to people's problems.
I think perhaps in the past there was a natural reaction away from such things due to fear of being a 'social gospel' church - but such extremes have been largely corrected.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Where does loving the word stop and Bibliolatry start?
I think Bibliolatry starts when "The Bible says..." is the end of the conversation, not the start of it.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
If the Bible is an "idol" for the "bible-believing" type of christian, then are reason, tradition, or "The One True Church" (which one of them is open for debate...) idols for other types of christians? For each christian has to base their faith decisions in something. Sayng that you believe in something because your churchīs tradition teaches so doesnīt sound less "idolatrous" to me then Bible-believing.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
Bibliolatry starts when we forget that the Word of God is Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone. The Word did not become book, the Word became flesh. That we happen to have some very, very good books about said flesh is a wonderful thing; but they should not be confused with the Word himself.
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
I spend several months each year at a uniting church where the minister has made efforts to bring her flock into the 21st century with stuies such as Living the Questions. Last year's group responded enthusiastically but some have moved away and this year we have a couple of core members who rejected every course suggested; they want Bible Study pure and simple; they bring big fat bibles with lots of footnotes and sidebars, and when I left they were clamouring for a study on Revelation (Rev and I when it had cropped up both said "it was written in code for people suffering persecution" she was planning to do a great deal of study before she tackled it!)
What really distressed me was that the one woman who is great at sharing both her Christian love and her meagre goods with those in need, described herself as a 'dirty rag' (Isaiah 64:6). What has been done to use the bible to frighten her? The other bibliolater (as I think they are) used the same expression she who is the mainstay of the Messy Church programme.
My reaction at the time was to tell the first woman that she is a loved child of God.
GG
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
I don't think any Christians are not bible-believing, so I find the implied criticism in using that phrase arrogant.
RealLivePreacher makes a good point about Bibliolaters in There's Something About the Way You Use the Bible quote:
Somehow you have come to think that the bible is like everything else in your life. You think it is something to master and something you can own. The more you know about the bible, the more power you hope to gain. The more verses you can quote, the closer to God you hope to be.
The bible is your prop and your flag. You wave it around and make sure that it is seen. You highlight it and talk about it and make wild claims about its truth and fight over it and win with it and boast about how you believe every word of it. It is your way and your truth and your life.
He seems to be saying that Bibliolater are not loving the word but the power they can get from it.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
Last week we had the 'textbook' answer of why there is suffering in the world,
The answer to why there is suffering in the world.
Wow.
They were able to collapse the Psalms, Job, sacrifice, retribution, apocalypticism, Jesus' suffering, and all the rest into one tidy little textbook answer? Neat trick.
quote:
At Galloping Granny's bible study:
...they bring big fat bibles with lots of footnotes and sidebars...
In my meager experience leading bible study, I insist that no one read any of the commentary, footnotes, or what-have-you, until we are able to tell the story or retell the text in our own words as a group. If anyone wanders off into Theology-Land during this retelling of the text, I redirect them back to listening to what the text is saying to them—not as they have heard it said.
This usually takes the first third of the allotted time. Then, we talk about what we think the text may mean. Only after all that, and only if there is time, do we pay any attention to the commentary, footnotes, and what-have-you.
I take as my guide Eramus's plea that the farmer at his plow and the weaver with his shuttle—even women and the Scots and Irish—sing the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles.
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Bibliolatry starts when we forget that the Word of God is Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone. The Word did not become book, the Word became flesh. That we happen to have some very, very good books about said flesh is a wonderful thing; but they should not be confused with the Word himself.
Well said. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I think Pope Benedict XVI once said that exegesis had its place, but there's been done about enough of it, and one ought not forget the importance of reading the gospel with one's heart.
The Monastics have a nice way of reading the Gospel, known as 'Lectio Divina'.
Carmelite take on it here and
Cistercian lectio site here.
I have been close to the Lay Cistercian movement for some years and still practice the Lectio that way. I find it keeps a nice balance between over-exalted flights of spiritual fancy and bibliolatry.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Bibliolatry starts when we forget that the Word of God is Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone. The Word did not become book, the Word became flesh. That we happen to have some very, very good books about said flesh is a wonderful thing; but they should not be confused with the Word himself.
Yep, I agree wholeheartedly with that too.
As ex-shipmate ChristinaMarie ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
memorably said of the Bible here long ago, "it's the map, not the terrain". Or as Jesus said (John 5:39-40):
quote:
You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I believe I'm right to say that some (British) Baptist Churches refused to adopt Statements of Faith which begin with phrases like "Our supreme and divine Authority is the Bible, as originally given ..." on the grounds that our Authority is God himself, albeit revealed through the Bible. They were right to do so.
Whether Baptist churches should adopt Statements of Faith is another question entirely ...
We had a meeting with members of our local Mosque a year or two back, and it was interesting to hear them explaining their approach to the Qu'ran. In many ways it sounded as if it married the rigidly textual approach of conservative Christians with the historical-commentaries approach of the Talmud. What it conspicuously seemed to lack was any sense of the Holy Spirt bringing "fresh light and truth" to the words.
Let me say (a) that this is not a particularly conservative group of Muslims and (b) that was my impression of wat they said; I might have got it wrong.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'd second what Desert Daughter said. I was long involved in a tradition which valued personal Bible reading and the ability to memorise and quote the scriptures highly.
I used to be proud of the fact that I could turn up an obscure text or passage that the preacher was going to speak on whilst many others were fumbling to find it.
I was pleased that I could pepper my extemporary prayers with scriptural quotations, that I had a verse for every occasion, that I could reel off chapter and verse at the drop of a hat.
I used to preen myself inwardly whenever I was referred to as 'a man of the word' ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
This was in a very charismatic setting, so we did have a sense of the vatic and the numinous and a very highly developed sense of personal piety almost to the point of illuminism ...
I'm not knocking it entirely. A lot of it was good. We had strong Brethren and Baptist influences and so this gave some ballast and stability to what would otherwise have become highly subjective and heebie-geebie.
We were probably in a mid-point position between some of the more chewing-a-brick Puritan approaches within the independent conservative evangelical scene and the often scripture-lite fluffily charismatic outfits.
I've moved on from this now but value the emphasis we had on the scriptures - if not always the approach we took.
In more recent years I've discovered 'lectio divina' and have recently attended a Lenten study group with our local RCs using this approach. I have to say, I find it a lot more 'three-dimensional' somehow than the often 'proof-texting' approach we used to adopt ... and the focus has been devotional rather than doctrinal - if it's possible to make a distinction.
In the course of these sessions I never once heard anything 'flakey' or any odd-ball or individualised interpretation that sat at odds with what we might all agree to be the broad thrust of the passages in question.
The last time I attended that RC study group - about three years ago - a charismatic Anglican lady also attended and every single session would come out with something that either wasn't in the passage or else was a highly subjective - and sometimes flakey - spin from it. I got the impression that whatever the Gospel reading would be she'd turn it around to some hobby-horse or other.
At one time I'd have been aghast if you'd told me that we could take a leaf out of the RC's book when it came to Bible-study and reflection yet here I am saying so.
That said, when it comes to exegesis I still think that some of the more Protestant traditions do excel - and if there were ways of merging the two approaches I think we'd all benefit.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That said, when it comes to exegesis I still think that some of the more Protestant traditions do excel - and if there were ways of merging the two approaches I think we'd all benefit.
I totally agree. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Lectio Divina is awesome. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
A very rich stream to tap into.
I for one greatly value the spiritual disciplines of my evangelical upbringing. Having a daily 'Quiet Time', to use classic evangelical jargon, and memorising Scripture are excellent spiritual disciplines to cultivate.
I get frustrated by more conservative evangelical brethren (or sistren) whose approach to the Bible can be quite cerebral - too cerebral - and almost put God in a box. I got very fed up with some of the stuff produced by one famous conservative evangelical outfit: their Bible study materials were so clearly designed to elicit the 'right' answer. Digging into the Word is one thing. Often we have to wrestle with it too. The Bible is powerful, and certainly not always easy to interpret or understand. Hence the wisdom of drawing on traditions older than ourselves, which go way back to very wise men and women.
I do believe that Scripture contains 'the very words of God'. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't bother being a Christian. We don't worship the Bible, but neither can we do without it ... or, rather, perhaps it's better to say that we cannot do without the powerful truth it contains. People do come to faith without having access to a Bible ... I'm thinking of Muslims who encounter Jesus in their dreams, for example.
Orthodox Jews and Muslims take their Scriptures seriously. So should we.
[ 27. March 2013, 11:13: Message edited by: Laurelin ]
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I believe I'm right to say that some (British) Baptist Churches refused to adopt Statements of Faith which begin with phrases like "Our supreme and divine Authority is the Bible, as originally given ..." on the grounds that our Authority is God himself, albeit revealed through the Bible. They were right to do so.
Really? I'd like to meet these guys, I thought it was just me. Do you have any links?
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
What I really resent is the suggestion - mainly explicitly - that if you don't apply scripture in the way certain people apply it and if you don't believe in a 6 day creation and that Noah really did build an ark (etc), that you therefore are contemptuous of scripture. It's such a terrible misunderstanding, and sadly, a refusal to listen or even attempt to understand anothers' perspective on something they consider holy.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
What I really resent is the suggestion - mainly explicitly - that if you don't apply scripture in the way certain people apply it and if you don't believe in a 6 day creation and that Noah really did build an ark (etc), that you therefore are contemptuous of scripture. It's such a terrible misunderstanding, and sadly, a refusal to listen or even attempt to understand anothers' perspective on something they consider holy.
I agree. Being evangelical doesn't make me a strict literalist in every single respect.
I've heard interpretations of the Bible's 'inerrancy' to mean that the Bible is perfect in what it teaches. I wouldn't argue with that. As it still doesn't mean you have to be a strict literalist about absolutely everything in Scripture.
Discussion recently in a preachers' meeting, we were about to launch a teaching series on Jonah. Fellow lay minister said he very much took the line that Jonah was a story. I said I believed it was based on real events. My vicar (a lovely charo-evangelical guy) said, "Very diplomatic." ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I wasn't really being diplomatic though. I do take the Old Testament accounts very seriously. I don't dismiss them as myth. Again ... that doesn't make me a strict literalist. E.g. I do think Job is a story.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Q. Where does loving the word stop and Bibliolatry start?
A. When reading the bible (or hearing a man publicly explaining it) is considered to be the only means of encounter with God.
[ 27. March 2013, 13:01: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on
:
Thanks folks, all really helpful.
Hardcore exegesis can certainly get tiring in a Bible study/ discussion. I think Pastors get so caught up in it sometimes that they forget that us mere mortals don't have the amount of time they do to mull over the scriptures.
FC - I agree with you on this (despite past skirmishes) - I recently was told that God created dinosaur fossils. I kept a straight face but didn't know wether to laugh or cry.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I'd go along with that, daronmedway - and I think there are some other more subtle pitfalls too ...
@Laurelin, I keep getting outraged responses from friends in my former restorationist setting when I suggest that Job (or Jonah) isn't necessarily to be taken literally ... I mean, are the comments of the Comforters an actual transcription of real conversations? ... in poetry?
I'd be happy to accept that there is an historical background and context to the story of Jonah, for instance - but I'd still understand it as myth - myth in the C S Lewis sense.
I keep being asked why I might take one story as allegorical/mythical and not another - so, for instance, why do I accept that the resurrection actually happened, but I'm quite happy to take some of the stories about Elijah and Elisha in more mythical terms ...
I don't have any cut and dried answer for that. I wondered what your responses might be in such circumstances?
Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Where does loving the word stop and Bibliolatry start?
I think Bibliolatry starts when "The Bible says..." is the end of the conversation, not the start of it.
This with bells & whistles attached.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
In some ways, Stoker, you (and I?) are in something of a cleft stick ... on the one hand I'm tempted to suggest that you should count yourself lucky that there is still detailed exegesis and analysis going on in the circles in which you move ... much popular evangelicalism seems to be dumbing itself down, it seems to me.
The megachurches and so on are probably almost entirely bereft of scholarship and exegesis - but I might be wrong ...
The other part of me is tempted to say, 'What the heck are you doing there? Run away ... run away ...'
But then, I sometimes think I ought to apply that to myself at times.
In fairness, most UK evangelicalism doesn't fall into the overly literal trap - God creating dinosaur fossils to fool us and so on - but I've come across some UK evangelicals who hold those kind of views.
I can't speak for where you are.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I'd go along with that, daronmedway - and I think there are some other more subtle pitfalls too ...
@Laurelin, I keep getting outraged responses from friends in my former restorationist setting when I suggest that Job (or Jonah) isn't necessarily to be taken literally ... I mean, are the comments of the Comforters an actual transcription of real conversations? ... in poetry?
I'd be happy to accept that there is an historical background and context to the story of Jonah, for instance - but I'd still understand it as myth - myth in the C S Lewis sense.
I keep being asked why I might take one story as allegorical/mythical and not another - so, for instance, why do I accept that the resurrection actually happened, but I'm quite happy to take some of the stories about Elijah and Elisha in more mythical terms ...
I don't have any cut and dried answer for that. I wondered what your responses might be in such circumstances?
Whereas I suspect that when the "book of the Law" was "found" during Temple "spring cleaning" the ink was suspiciously wet.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I keep being asked why I might take one story as allegorical/mythical and not another - so, for instance, why do I accept that the resurrection actually happened, but I'm quite happy to take some of the stories about Elijah and Elisha in more mythical terms ...
I don't have any cut and dried answer for that. I wondered what your responses might be in such circumstances?
Yeah, it's a fair enough question ...
Perhaps one way to approach it is to say that believing in a literal Resurrection is a foundational, salvation 'thing', one which all Christians of all persuasions confess, whereas Elijah taken up to heaven in a fiery chariot is not a salvation 'thing'. I doubt that answer would satisfy the critics, but I can live with that.
I don't doubt the miracles, actually. Either in the OT or NT. I believe that God can supernaturally intervene, and has done so. I believe He answers prayer. But believing in a miracle doesn't always mean taking it in a strictly literal way. The parting of the Red Sea can possibly be explained scientifically. It's just that God's timing was spot-on ...
The Biblical writers didn't have a modernist POV, let alone a post-modern one. That doesn't make them unreliable or untruthful. It does mean that a rigidly literalistic interpretation doesn't always work.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Bibliolatry starts when we forget that the Word of God is Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone. The Word did not become book, the Word became flesh. That we happen to have some very, very good books about said flesh is a wonderful thing; but they should not be confused with the Word himself.
This idea is often bandied about the ship but I'm beginning to see it as more Barth than Bible. Jesus is described as God's word in John 1, but I think most people are agreed that word isn't a brilliant translation of logos. Whereas "this is the word of the Lord" or "thus says the Lord" is used directly of many of the words of Scripture other than those about Jesus.
I could go with "the revelation of God is Jesus Christ" but I think that's somewhat different.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I keep being asked why I might take one story as allegorical/mythical and not another - so, for instance, why do I accept that the resurrection actually happened, but I'm quite happy to take some of the stories about Elijah and Elisha in more mythical terms ...
I don't have any cut and dried answer for that. I wondered what your responses might be in such circumstances?
Yeah, it's a fair enough question ...
Perhaps one way to approach it is to say that believing in a literal Resurrection is a foundational, salvation 'thing'
Oh dear. It is the cosmic grill thing for me then.
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Bibliolatry starts when we forget that the Word of God is Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone. The Word did not become book, the Word became flesh. That we happen to have some very, very good books about said flesh is a wonderful thing; but they should not be confused with the Word himself.
This idea is often bandied about the ship but I'm beginning to see it as more Barth than Bible. Jesus is described as God's word in John 1, but I think most people are agreed that word isn't a brilliant translation of logos. Whereas "this is the word of the Lord" or "thus says the Lord" is used directly of many of the words of Scripture other than those about Jesus.
I could go with "the revelation of God is Jesus Christ" but I think that's somewhat different.
I too find this distinction suspiciously neat and tidy. I'm not sure how one can (if indeed one would want to) disentangle the Word from the word as it were.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Laurelin:
quote:
I don't dismiss them as myth.
See, this is a perfect example of hat I mean. Who is dismissing it?
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
You shouldn't dismiss myths. They're truer than most truths.
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
What I really resent is the suggestion - mainly explicitly - that if you don't apply scripture in the way certain people apply it and if you don't believe in a 6 day creation and that Noah really did build an ark (etc), that you therefore are contemptuous of scripture. It's such a terrible misunderstanding, and sadly, a refusal to listen or even attempt to understand anothers' perspective on something they consider holy.
That can (and often does) work both ways.
Bibliolatry can be an irregular verb - I take scripture seriously (with whatever party nuances) whereas you are a Bibliolater...
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Q. Where does loving the word stop and Bibliolatry start?
A. When reading the bible (or hearing a man publicly explaining it) is considered to be the only means of encounter with God.
I'd sign up for that
[ 27. March 2013, 15:01: Message edited by: Twangist ]
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Bibliolatry starts when we forget that the Word of God is Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone. The Word did not become book, the Word became flesh. That we happen to have some very, very good books about said flesh is a wonderful thing; but they should not be confused with the Word himself.
This idea is often bandied about the ship but I'm beginning to see it as more Barth than Bible. Jesus is described as God's word in John 1, but I think most people are agreed that word isn't a brilliant translation of logos. Whereas "this is the word of the Lord" or "thus says the Lord" is used directly of many of the words of Scripture other than those about Jesus.
I could go with "the revelation of God is Jesus Christ" but I think that's somewhat different.
Surely, how we read Revelation 19:13 is key to this particular debate? However, I agree with Lep that it isn't a simple either/or issue. There's more of a both/and issue going on I think.
For my part I think Rev 19:13 should be read as saying that Jesus is the gospel.
[ 27. March 2013, 15:02: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Oh dear. It is the cosmic grill thing for me then.
I'm not talking about putting anyone on a cosmic grill.
But if the Resurrection isn't a real event - if Jesus has not truly arisen from the dead - then Christianity is rendered null and void.
IMO.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Oh dear. It is the cosmic grill thing for me then.
I'm not talking about putting anyone on a cosmic grill.
But if the Resurrection isn't a real event - if Jesus has not truly arisen from the dead - then Christianity is rendered null and void.
IMO.
Oh, I think it can be a real event without it being literally factually true. Essentially I'm rather more sure that Jesus is alive now (not amazingly sure, but relatively more sure) than that he literally rose from the dead in the dead body gets up and starts being alive again sense which "literal" usually implies.
I'm not sure that either of them are true, or not true, but I'm rather more sure (or, conversely, even less sure) of one than the other.
[ 27. March 2013, 15:24: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok - and perhaps this is getting into Dead Horse 'inerrancy' territory, Laurelin, do we actually have to accept the Red Sea story in Exodus as a literal historical event?
I mean, I've heard some people connect it with the earthquake and tsunami that ended the Minoan civilisation and which would have been contemporaneous for some of the dates given for the Exodus, thereby giving it a scientific and historical basis.
But do we really have to do this? Do we really have to posit a literal parting of the Red Sea for the 'myth' to have weight and have effect?
I'd fight shy of applying the same logic to the resurrection though, for reasons similar to yours ... but when we have, say, no archaeological evidence for walls of Jericho or for the Hebrew 'invasions' of Palestine happening in the way they've traditionally been understood, are we within our rights to consider that they might not be 'historical' in the modern sense.
I agree with you, though, about the miraculous and answered prayer and so on ... although I wouldn't go around making hard and fast claims about some of these things in the way I might have done in my more full on charismatic evangelical days.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok - and perhaps this is getting into Dead Horse 'inerrancy' territory, Laurelin, do we actually have to accept the Red Sea story in Exodus as a literal historical event?
Definitely is. Let's not.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
quote:
But if the Resurrection isn't a real event - if Jesus has not truly arisen from the dead - then Christianity is rendered null and void.
I don't know that I would say that. Reduced significantly, yes; null and void, no.
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Bibliolatry starts when we forget that the Word of God is Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone. The Word did not become book, the Word became flesh. That we happen to have some very, very good books about said flesh is a wonderful thing; but they should not be confused with the Word himself.
Yes--there's not a single verse of Scripture (in my opinion) that states "Word of God" = "Bible."
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
I recently was told that God created dinosaur fossils.
Sounds about right to me. He is the Existing One, who created all things.
He started with amino acids and ended up with rock, the ancestors to birds a short stop along the way.
Clever guy, that I AM WHO I AM.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Jesus is described as God's word in John 1, but I think most people are agreed that word isn't a brilliant translation of logos
Who are these "most people"? And if logos doesn't mean "word", what does it mean?
I think most if not all of the bits in the Bible referred to as the "word of the LORD (YHWH)" are, within the genre, supposedly spoken directly by God, whether it's OT prophecies or the Pentateuch.
Besides, what about Hebrews 1 for instance? Sounds pretty much like the Son is God's, um, last Word to me. And 2 Corinthians 3 makes a good case for the Scriptures being about as much use as the back of a cereal packet unless "in Christ" our understanding is enlightened by the work of the Spirit. Christ is the Word. The Scriptures are a medium. An important one, to be sure, but useless unless God chooses to speak through them. Jesus makes a similar point in John 5 as alluded to above.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Jesus is described as God's word in John 1, but I think most people are agreed that word isn't a brilliant translation of logos
Who are these "most people"? And if logos doesn't mean "word", what does it mean?
You've got the wrong end of the stick. He didn't say logos was a bad translation of word, but that word is a bad translation of logos.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Jesus is described as God's word in John 1, but I think most people are agreed that word isn't a brilliant translation of logos
Who are these "most people"? And if logos doesn't mean "word", what does it mean?
You've got the wrong end of the stick. He didn't say logos was a bad translation of word, but that word is a bad translation of logos.
How are "word is a bad translation of logos" and "logos doesn't mean word" different? There may be a confusion here.
To Leprechaun: Of course there are plenty of God's words in the Bible, in both testaments, but that isn't the question. The question is whether the Bible, taken as a whole, is the Word of God. And my answer remains that the Bible is the best record we have of the Word of God, but should not be confused with Him.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd be happy to accept that there is an historical background and context to the story of Jonah, for instance - but I'd still understand it as myth - myth in the C S Lewis sense.
Agreed. Perhaps bibliolatry wants to ignore context and historical background, and treat the Bible as a monolith with every word speaking directly across the ages to the contemporary reader. It seems to be a blinkered approach to me.
Take, for example, Jesus's advice "when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." A naive reading could easily conclude that litanies, for example, are not just wrongheaded but of the devil.
A reader open to context and history, however, would be curious as to what the heathen do. It's been years since I studied this passage, but as I recall from The Interpreter's Bible, they often assumed that God was very impressed with titles. Hence their prayers were full of effusive and formal flattery (somewhat as a 17th-century commoner would be careful to insert in a letter to a prince). Some believed that God would not hear a prayer unless they managed to get His name exactly right, and since they weren't certain what that name was, they tried lots of them.
I would think, then, that this information would imply a caution to anyone insisting that only a prayer in Jesus's name would be heard. What does it mean to pray in Jesus' name? Would it work if someone used it after merely overhearing someone else use it in the street? Wouldn't one need to know something about who Jesus was? How much knowledge would be enough? I've asked this question before. The most sensible answer I've received is that it isn't the name itself that matters at all, but a humble yet intimite spirit behind the prayer. Dare we imagine that Christians have a monopoly on that?
This is just a simple example, of course. The point is that the Bible was not originally one book, and it was not dictated to zombies in a vacuum.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
How are "word is a bad translation of logos" and "logos doesn't mean word" different? There may be a confusion here.
We want the words of our translation to mean what the original said. We're not using logos to translate English so the question of whether logos means word is irrelevant.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Bibliolatry starts when we forget that the Word of God is Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone. The Word did not become book, the Word became flesh. That we happen to have some very, very good books about said flesh is a wonderful thing; but they should not be confused with the Word himself.
I donīt know of anyone who profess that the Bible is an incarnated God, though I know many who believe Jesus to be the Word of God because the Bible tells them so. It is not necessary to put the scriptures down, for what they are, in order to elevate Jesus. And matter of fact, theologians who dismiss the scriptures usually also have a very low view of Jesusīs divineship.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
How are "word is a bad translation of logos" and "logos doesn't mean word" different? There may be a confusion here.
We want the words of our translation to mean what the original said. We're not using logos to translate English so the question of whether logos means word is irrelevant.
Well there's certainly confusion on my part. I know you are usually quite precise with your words, mousethief, but I'm failing to see the point you're making here.
The equivalence of meaning between "logos" and "word" is not entirely reflexive, but isn't it somewhat reflexive? "Logos" does not mean "cat" and "cat" does not mean "logos" because there is no overlap in the ranges of their respective meanings. I assume you are referring to the fact that if I translate "logos" in Greek into "word" in English, that would not necessarily mean that the converse is true: I would not necessarily also translate "word" in English into "logos" in Greek.
But if I do translate "logos" in Greek into "word" in English, presumably it's because there is some overlap in meaning, and therefore there would be a reasonable discussion to be had about whether "word" in English could or should be translated as "logos" in Greek. In contrast, it's clear that neither "cat" nor "logos" would ever be a good translation of the other because they mean completely different things. Doesn't saying that "logos" does not mean "word" imply a similar relationship (albeit more weakly than in my "cat" example)?
I'm struggling to understand why you would say the question is irrelevant. Yes, the two questions are not equivalent, but they are related. How can the one be irrelevant to the other?
To Leprechaun (and/or Bostonman): I'd be interested to know why "word" is not a good translation of "logos."
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
It is not necessary to put the scriptures down, for what they are, in order to elevate Jesus.
I agree, and I would add that elevating Scripture and calling it the Word of God does not detract from Jesus being God Incarnate and the Word made flesh. There is more involved in those ideas than equating Jesus with a book written in human language.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
How are "word is a bad translation of logos" and "logos doesn't mean word" different? There may be a confusion here.
We want the words of our translation to mean what the original said. We're not using logos to translate English so the question of whether logos means word is irrelevant.
I don't think we're disagreeing about anything, but maybe there's some nuance of what you're saying that I'm missing.
I'm saying: We read "In the beginning was the logos" and we ask, how should we translate "logos"? We can say "logos means word," or we can say "logos means cat," or we can say "logos means the universal principle of reason" or whatever. This is the way that the verb "means" is used, in my experience; "tiger" means "a big striped orange and black cat." I agree that we are not using "logos" to translate English, we are looking for the appropriate English translation of the word "logos." So the question, "what does logos mean?" is entirely appropriate.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
The Bible is effectively the DNA of the entire objective cosmos?
Or is it just the necessary DNA for the subjective cosmos of the True Christian?
[ 28. March 2013, 03:29: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
Logos is multivalent. Among other things, cribbing from BDAG, which devotes five columns to the word, it can mean 'a communication whereby the mind finds expression', 'word', 'reason', 'cause', 'accounting', 'inner logic,' as well as 'independent personification of God.'
So, no. 'Word' doesn't nearly do either Logos nor logos justice.
[ 28. March 2013, 04:29: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
'Word' doesn't nearly do either justice, but is there a better way to translate it?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
An Orthodox monk suggests, "In the beginning was the Tao, and the Tao was with God, and the Tao was God." But I suppose that's not to everybody's taste.
----
On the translation thing, I may be overegging my custard (if that's the right metaphor) but my point is that we have to look at the word Logos, and suss out its meanings and connotations, and then pick a word or phrase in English to translate it into. We mustn't start with "word" (the English word) but with "logos" (the Greek word). Which no doubt we all agree on.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
While all the English translators have chosen to translate John 1:1 using "Word," it's good to keep the other meanings firmly in mind.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Yes, well, translation is my day job (although not from Greek to English).
TSA's posts are helpful.
The point here for me is that if people use the same term for the Scriptures as for Jesus, they tend to end up seeing the Scriptures as the logos of God (on a quick glance through my dog-eared copy of Young's, I really can't see a good case for that).
Once they start thinking that, they often seem to think that if they "diligently study the Scriptures", they have a good grip on the logos, and start behaving as if their use of the contents bears the divine weight of authority without considering the role of the Spirit in properly bringing the Scriptures to life (and the reader down to size).
In response to gorpo, they might not confess the Bible as an incarnated God, but that's what it can amount to.
Also in response to gorpo, my experience is that people who consistently use "the Word of God" as longhand for "the Bible" are quite likely to have a low functional view of Jesus' divinity - in much the same way as Jesus' hearers in John 5.
[ 28. March 2013, 06:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
To Leprechaun (and/or Bostonman): I'd be interested to know why "word" is not a good translation of "logos."
The Silent Acolyte has pointed out that logos has a range of meanings, that are not usually included in what people mean when they say "word". (IME, it may be totally different in this discussion.)
Hebrews 1 doesn't actually say that Jesus is God's word, but rather he has "spoken to us by him". The descriptors are then about his reflection of what God is like.
Anyhow, I'm not disagreeing with the premise that the Bible is only of use if it is to lead us to Jesus, merely that glibly saying "Jesus is the word of God" is theologically sloppy because logos means much more than we usually mean by word.
And that the phrase "these are God's words" or something like it, is actually used within the Bible for actual words we would call words, on quite a number of occasions.
I think "The Bible is the word of God" - ie the Bible contains words God wants to say to us, is more accurate than "Jesus is the word of God" - "Jesus is the logos of God" I can deal with - but it sounds rather pretentious to start dropping Greek words into conversations in English. "The Bible is the logos of God" is clearly nonsense.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think "The Bible is the word of God" - ie the Bible contains words God wants to say to us
That gloss on what you mean by "The Bible is the word of God" is already quite some way beyond the pale for some people. In fact it sounds quite Barthian to me ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think "The Bible is the word of God" - ie the Bible contains words God wants to say to us
That gloss on what you mean by "The Bible is the word of God" is already quite some way beyond the pale for some people. In fact it sounds quite Barthian to me
Ha! Gets everywhere doesn't he!?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Now now. We wouldn't want to throw the baby out with the barthwater.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Oh dear. It is the cosmic grill thing for me then.
I'm not talking about putting anyone on a cosmic grill.
But if the Resurrection isn't a real event - if Jesus has not truly arisen from the dead - then Christianity is rendered null and void.
IMO.
Yep. As per I Cor 15
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
It is also important to bear in mind that this multivalency occurs on the English side of the equation as well as on the Greek.
So, grabbing Merriam-Webster's Tenth Collegiate because I'm in a hurry and it's close to hand, we have these English meanings, in etymological order, for 'word':
quote:
'something said,' 'speech sounds...that symbolize and communicate meaning,' 'order, command,' 'Logos', 'Gospel', 'news, information,' 'the act of speaking,' 'saying, proverb,' 'promise,' 'quarrelsome utterance,' 'verbal signal.'
The several resonances in the Greek are able to induce a variety of apt, or imperfect, resonances in the English translation, and all these can vary over time as the meanings for the chosen word in the target language age and shift.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
It's far more accurate to say the Bible contains some of God's words. Some of the words in it are explicitly NOT God's words. (For instance, those directly attributed to humans or angels or Satan, or those places where Paul says that an opinion he is giving is his own personal opinion, and not God's.) Thus calling the Bible as a whole God's Word is a tremendous fudge and requires more footnotes than it's worth.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's far more accurate to say the Bible contains some of God's words. Some of the words in it are explicitly NOT God's words. (For instance, those directly attributed to humans or angels or Satan, or those places where Paul says that an opinion he is giving is his own personal opinion, and not God's.) Thus calling the Bible as a whole God's Word is a tremendous fudge and requires more footnotes than it's worth.
Not to mention the bits where on the face of it we have God's words but you've got to really, really wonder...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Not to mention the bits where on the face of it we have God's words but you've got to really, really wonder...
No pushback here. Although I was giving those spots the benefit of the doubt for sake of argument. And this is all before you take into account the act of interpreting what it means and how and whether it applies to you or the world around you.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
The problem with some christians believing in some sort of authority from the Scriptures is that this might lead them to have ideas that somehow differs from yours - and that obviously means they are idolatrous and completely wrong! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
How dare them!!!
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
The problem with some christians believing in some sort of authority from the Scriptures is that this might lead them to have ideas that somehow differs from yours - and that obviously means they are idolatrous and completely wrong! How dare them!!!
More accurately, it leads every man (or woman) to think his interpretation is just as good as the next guys, which results in theology being a free-for-all, and Christianity losing any coherence at all. We're not there yet, but that's the direction. Without something definitive saying what interpretations are out of bounds, perforce no intepretations are out of bounds and it's catch-as-catch-can. A sola scriptura believer has no standing whatever to condemn Arians or Mary Baker Eddy.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
The problem with some christians believing in some sort of authority from the Scriptures is that this might lead them to have ideas that somehow differs from yours - and that obviously means they are idolatrous and completely wrong! How dare them!!!
More accurately, it leads every man (or woman) to think his interpretation is just as good as the next guys, which results in theology being a free-for-all, and Christianity losing any coherence at all. We're not there yet, but that's the direction. Without something definitive saying what interpretations are out of bounds, perforce no intepretations are out of bounds and it's catch-as-catch-can. A sola scriptura believer has no standing whatever to condemn Arians or Mary Baker Eddy.
On the other hand it could lead them into throwing their ideas into the pot of opinions for debate without the arogance which says either my way is the only way that's right or my tradition is the only way that's right.
This can only be a good thing.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
And how would that debate resolve the problem I raise? You could get some of the people at the table to agree on some things. Would those things be Christianity and their opposites not?
I think using the word "arrogance" for the flow of the teachings of the church universal is problematic. I am not arrogating Biblical interpretation to myself. I am relying on 2000 years of tradition of biblical interpretation. It is the "Jesus, the Bible and me" types who are arrogant in thinking that they are going to come up with the one true interpretation where 2000 years of other Christians have failed.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
A sola scriptura believer has no standing whatever to condemn Arians or Mary Baker Eddy.
I'm not sure I want to condemn Arians or Mary Baker Eddy; let theological ideas stand or fall on their merits. Should any person or institution have the right to label an idea as heretical? I'd rather we entirely avoid words like 'condemn' and 'heretical', I think.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
The problem with some christians believing in some sort of authority from the Scriptures is that this might lead them to have ideas that somehow differs from yours - and that obviously means they are idolatrous and completely wrong! How dare them!!!
More accurately, it leads every man (or woman) to think his interpretation is just as good as the next guys, which results in theology being a free-for-all, and Christianity losing any coherence at all. We're not there yet, but that's the direction. Without something definitive saying what interpretations are out of bounds, perforce no intepretations are out of bounds and it's catch-as-catch-can. A sola scriptura believer has no standing whatever to condemn Arians or Mary Baker Eddy.
Really? I'm one of those, and it would be easy enough to mount a textually based defense against either heresy. I suspect you mean something different by a sola scriptura believer than I or the others I know do. I don't see a lot of doctrinal craziness among our lot, anyway.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Why does your textually-based argument carry more weight than the "heretic"'s textually based argument?
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
The problem with some christians believing in some sort of authority from the Scriptures is that this might lead them to have ideas that somehow differs from yours - and that obviously means they are idolatrous and completely wrong! How dare them!!!
More accurately, it leads every man (or woman) to think his interpretation is just as good as the next guys, which results in theology being a free-for-all, and Christianity losing any coherence at all. We're not there yet, but that's the direction. Without something definitive saying what interpretations are out of bounds, perforce no intepretations are out of bounds and it's catch-as-catch-can. A sola scriptura believer has no standing whatever to condemn Arians or Mary Baker Eddy.
But whatīs that something definitive sayng which are the bounds of biblical interpretation? It might be the tradition of the One True Church, but first we have to find out which is the One True Church (as there are more then one claiming to be it, and having quite oposite views among themselves in some matters).Thus, a Roman Catholic who believes in Maryīs Immaculate Conception because of a papal dogma has no standing to condemn a Jeovah Witness who believes in anything because the Watchtower says so.
Of all the sources of authority for faith matters out there, I believe strongly that the Scriptures are the best and lead to healthier view of Christianity.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And how would that debate resolve the problem I raise? You could get some of the people at the table to agree on some things. Would those things be Christianity and their opposites not?
I think using the word "arrogance" for the flow of the teachings of the church universal is problematic. I am not arrogating Biblical interpretation to myself. I am relying on 2000 years of tradition of biblical interpretation. It is the "Jesus, the Bible and me" types who are arrogant in thinking that they are going to come up with the one true interpretation where 2000 years of other Christians have failed.
The only problem being thereīs no unanimous worldwide church tradition. Do you think the Orthodox Church to which not even 15% of all worldwide professed christians belong to is the "Church Worldwide"???? If being "old" is your criteria, then the Roman Church and the Nestorian Churches are as old as your Church. How do you resolve which one has the authority? In the end, youīll come up with the same argument as members of other denominations and cults would: "because mine is the one true church, and the others are sects". That sounds a lot more like idolatry then simply conceding the Bible itself has all information necessary for true christian faith and salvation.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
People splintering off of my church constitute no reason for me to think, "maybe there is no right answer to any of these questions" or "maybe there is no visible Church." Any more than if your garage collapsed you would think, "maybe this isn't really the house I bought."
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
People splintering off of my church constitute no reason for me to think, "maybe there is no right answer to any of these questions" or "maybe there is no visible Church." Any more than if your garage collapsed you would think, "maybe this isn't really the house I bought."
Why does your tradition-based argument carry more weight than the RC or Assyrian tradition-based argument?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
People splintering off of my church constitute no reason for me to think, "maybe there is no right answer to any of these questions" or "maybe there is no visible Church." Any more than if your garage collapsed you would think, "maybe this isn't really the house I bought."
Why does your tradition-based argument carry more weight than the RC or Assyrian tradition-based argument?
I don't recall that I said anything of the sort.
I know nothing about Assyrians. About the RCC, I have always said they can argue that they are the rock we flaked off, just as we can argue the same back; the arguments are very close, and a person of goodwill could, depending on what they decide is more important (Petrine authority or conciliarity), go either way. I would argue my side, of course, but will not deny that both churches have cause to claim they are the continuation of the apostolic church.
The Baptists or Lutherans or Presbyterians or even Anglicans aren't in the same conversation at all.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Except that we've all flaked off at various stages from a body that you have conceded may legitimately claim to embody a continuation of the apostolic legacy ...
It depends whether you are using a stone analogy or see it in more organic terms - like cells splitting off from an amoeba or something ...
Each time it splits it may get further and further away from the original parent but the DNA will still be there ...
I recognise there are difficulties with what I've just posted but there are equally a whole load of difficulties with the position you've adopted. I have a lot of sympathy for what you're saying though - all all nice and cuddly and Anglican that way ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
- but somewhere or other there's an overlap on the Venn Diagram that is Christendom.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
People splintering off of my church constitute no reason for me to think, "maybe there is no right answer to any of these questions" or "maybe there is no visible Church." Any more than if your garage collapsed you would think, "maybe this isn't really the house I bought."
Why does your tradition-based argument carry more weight than the RC or Assyrian tradition-based argument?
I don't recall that I said anything of the sort.
I know nothing about Assyrians. About the RCC, I have always said they can argue that they are the rock we flaked off, just as we can argue the same back; the arguments are very close, and a person of goodwill could, depending on what they decide is more important (Petrine authority or conciliarity), go either way. I would argue my side, of course, but will not deny that both churches have cause to claim they are the continuation of the apostolic church.
The Baptists or Lutherans or Presbyterians or even Anglicans aren't in the same conversation at all.
The discussion went something like this (apologies if I've misrepresented anyone's views):
1. mousethief: relying on scripture alone leads to an "every man for himself" approach, with nothing to adjudicate between competing scripture-based arguments; it means we can't argue against Arianism. Implication: therefore we need to rely on tradition, as well.
2. Lamb Chopped: there are plenty of scriptural arguments against Arianism.
3. mousethief: what makes your scriptural argument better than the Arian scriptural argument?
So the obvious counter-question is "what makes your traditional argument better than the Arian, or Nestorian (Assyrian), or the RC scriptural argument?" (Not to group these all together in any way other than that they're all groups whom you believe to have flaked off from your church at various points)
You say that you haven't said anything of that sort (i.e., that your traditional argument carries more weight), which seems to leave you in the same predicament you claim gorpo/Lamb Chopped are in.
So I repeat: what makes the traditional argument that condemns Arianism or Nestorianism stronger than the scriptural arguments against them? How does the traditional argument avoid the to-each-his-(denomination's)-own problem you (rightly) identified with regards to scriptural arguments?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
If that's what you wanted me to say, that's what you should have asked. I gave my answer vis-a-vis the RCC, which you ignored. I don't know what Assyrians have to do with anything. Is there a Christian group called Assyrians?
What you are now asking is for an apologia for rejecting Invisible Church ecclesiology, it would seem. Which brings us right back to what I had said before. Every time somebody thinks up a new thing, it's not encumbent upon the people in the older thing to argue AGAINST the new thing. When somebody proposes some new physical law or particle or exoplanet, it's not the other scientists' job to DISPROVE the new claim.
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on
:
quote:
A sola scriptura believer has no standing whatever to condemn Arians or Mary Baker Eddy.
MT, much as I respect you, this is rather a silly statement (IMHO)
The Arians were confounded by the fathers arguing their case from (duh duh DUH) .....the Bible.
Mary Baker Eddy had to make up a new book to justify her "theology".
(Christadelphians or some other cult might back your claim up more convincingly - altho' even the JW's (who would claim Scriptural support for their views) buttress their opinions with belief in what amounts to an extra-biblical Majesterium)
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
People splintering off of my church constitute no reason for me to think, "maybe there is no right answer to any of these questions" or "maybe there is no visible Church." Any more than if your garage collapsed you would think, "maybe this isn't really the house I bought."
See? Your argument is exactly what I predicted. A Roman Catholic would argue that YOUR church splitered off from theirs. So your ultimate authority in faith matters is YOUR church! That doesnīt sound any less fundamentalistic or idolatrous then conceding the whole authority to the scriptures. A protestant could argue, similarly, that people making ridiculous interpretations of the Bible doesnīt mean they have to think the Bible itself has no right answears.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
People splintering off of my church constitute no reason for me to think, "maybe there is no right answer to any of these questions" or "maybe there is no visible Church." Any more than if your garage collapsed you would think, "maybe this isn't really the house I bought."
Why does your tradition-based argument carry more weight than the RC or Assyrian tradition-based argument?
I don't recall that I said anything of the sort.
I know nothing about Assyrians. About the RCC, I have always said they can argue that they are the rock we flaked off, just as we can argue the same back; the arguments are very close, and a person of goodwill could, depending on what they decide is more important (Petrine authority or conciliarity), go either way. I would argue my side, of course, but will not deny that both churches have cause to claim they are the continuation of the apostolic church.
The Baptists or Lutherans or Presbyterians or even Anglicans aren't in the same conversation at all.
One wonders why the Russian Orthodox Church is a real continuation of the apostolic Church, while the much older Church Of England is not...??
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
See? Your argument is exactly what I predicted. A Roman Catholic would argue that YOUR church splitered off from theirs.
Why would you have to predict that when I stated it explicitly? I guess if you only "predict" things that are already a matter of public record, you're unlikely to go wrong.
quote:
So your ultimate authority in faith matters is YOUR church! That doesnīt sound any less fundamentalistic or idolatrous then conceding the whole authority to the scriptures.
To you, perhaps. In which case the problem devolves onto YOUR shoulders. What makes your belief in your own ability to determine what is fundamentalistic or idolatrous any better than my belief in my church? Now we've got turtles all the way down. Except my turtles go down to the Apostles. Yours don't.
quote:
A protestant could argue, similarly, that people making ridiculous interpretations of the Bible doesnīt mean they have to think the Bible itself has no right answears.
That's not really the issue. My church thinks the Bible itself has right answers. The question is, whose reading of the Bible has the right answers, and how can we tell?
quote:
One wonders why the Russian Orthodox Church is a real continuation of the apostolic Church, while the much older Church Of England is not...??
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Only if one mistakes age for apostolicity.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
One wonders why the Russian Orthodox Church is a real continuation of the apostolic Church, while the much older Church Of England is not...??
Only if one mistakes age for apostolicity.
So what do we do with organisations like the Jehovah's Witnesses who claim direct lineage from Jesus' first followers, even though they (the JWs) have only been around in their present form for 100 years or so? For those people who believe there is one true, apostolic church, on what basis do we decide which is that church?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
I don't like the word "Bibliolatry" at all - possibly because of my (all but brief) presbyterian past. It is a pejorative term usually aimed at evangelical bible-believing christians by others who don't take the Bible seriously at all, preferring the wisdom of men.
Sure, we can have the discussion, but why use words like "bibliolatry" which will only inflame people and create division?
One could imagine some using the term for Catholics (I mean all shades of) who parade the bible out to be read, bowing before it, kissing and incensing it...
We wouldn't see it as idolatry at all, of course, but you can imagine derogatory terms like "bibliolatry" wouldn't help christians of different shades to understand one another and be reconciled, would they?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
In answer to South Coast Kevin, the view that there is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church tends to be based on two things - longevity and apostolic succession.
The Jehovah's Witnesses can claim neither.
Both the RCs and the Orthodox can trace their lineage back to the earliest times. Everyone else has broken away from one or t'other of them at various points and stages and steps removed - save perhaps, for the equally ancient Copts and Syrians and yes, Assyrians too, who claim equally ancient lineage. The various Syriac Churches claim to the oldest, original and best because they still use Aramaic in their services so therefore must be closest to the original ...
There are several ways 'around' this, if one is so inclined.
One either takes the 'Baptist' view - which would be akin to that taken by your church, the Vineyard - which is that apostolic succession in a physical, tactile sense is unimportant and what matters is the passing on of the faith, the apostolic deposit - with scripture (however interpreted) as the final yardstick.
Or, one attempts to argue for unbroken apostolic succession for one's own communion - which is the stance that many Anglicans would take ie. they are the continuation (under new management) of the original Church that existed in these islands and which was later exported elsewhere around those parts of the world which had strong Anglo influence.
What strikes me about a lot of outfits and individuals who wouldn't countenance apostolic succession in the more 'catholic' sense is that they try to concoct their own version ... some Baptists and Brethren tried to do that with convoluted - and unhistorical - attempts to trace a lineage back to the earliest times through various splinter-groups. It doesn't work.
The JW claim to be some kind of descendant of early Arian groups would represent an extreme form of this viewpoint - and one that would be challenged vehemently by those more 'orthodox' (small o) or mainstream folks who'd argue in a similar way.
Which leads me onto a moot point ... which is that I don't believe that most outfits which claim to be 'sola scriptura' are in fact 'sola scriptura' in any full-on sense - because all of us who are Trinitarian Christians of any kind are inheritors/users of a broader tradition. Even loosely creedal groups like the Baptists belong to that same tradition.
Ok, that doesn't put us all in the same ecclesial basket - RCs, Orthodox and Protestant - but I would submit that it puts us within a common shared tradition of small o orthodoxy - that is an inherited Nicene/Chalcedonian form of a common Judeo-Christian tradition.
Why else would any of us use creedal formularies - even in broad-brush terms - if we didn't all derive from the same base?
I mean, take your church, the Vineyard. It's not formally creedal but I suspect that most pastors and leaders would use an informal mental check-list based on the Nicene Creed if they were sussing out whether to appoint someone to a public ministry role of some kind - even if they didn't put it in such specific terms.
I would also suggest - as Jengie Jon has I think - that the way 'sola scriptura' is applied by some groups that lay claim to that modus operandi isn't really what the original Magisterial Reformers had in mind. It was never meant to be an 'every man/woman for himself/herself' thing.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
So what do we do with organisations like the Jehovah's Witnesses who claim direct lineage from Jesus' first followers, even though they (the JWs) have only been around in their present form for 100 years or so? For those people who believe there is one true, apostolic church, on what basis do we decide which is that church?
We look at the JW's and see if their claim is true. It most patently is not; there were no JW's in 1st century Palestine.Nor can you trace an unbroken lineage of their Arian theology back; attempts to do so by citing pockets of Arianism in this or that century are ludicrous on the face. And if there were such an unbroken continuity, how come their list of 144,000 doesn't start back then and continue with members through every generation to the present? No, even they don't believe what they say.
To respond in part to Gamaliel, you make it sound like these people over here think continuity of bishops is enough, and those people over there think conformity to the theology of the Apostles is enough. Both are needed. One of the reasons the Orthodox reject the RCC claim is that they have left the faith given to the Apostles in various ways, most famously in the role they arrogate for the pope of Rome, and in the double procession of the Spirit.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I know that, Mousethief.
But it's not that clear cut, though, is it?
I mean, not all Western Christians believe in the 'double-procession of the Spirit' - and some RCs have very similar views to the Orthodox on this one. I think I do too - if I've understood these things correctly.
You'll have no doubt seen it argued by some RCs - possibly even here - that the filioque clause needn't be understood to imply a form of subordinationism. I'm sure I've seen RCs and others argue that it refers to the procession of the Spirit to His earthly ministry as it were - rather than His eternally proceeding forth from the Father.
These are huge theological agendas and I, for one, don't have my head around it all ...
I s'pose if I were being cheeky or flippant, I'd suggest that Apostolic Succession simply isn't important to certain forms of Protestant because they've seen a Church that is in Apostolic Succession ie. Rome - 'err' from their point of view.
Mind you, the Anglican 39 Articles had everybody else 'erring' at one time or other - Rome, Antioch, the Greeks, Alexandrians, the whole shooting match ...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Although most cuddly Anglicans would go ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
at that these days and it'd only be hardliners of one form or other who'd be un-Anglican enough to wag fingers at anyone else ...
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
One could imagine some using the term for Catholics (I mean all shades of) who parade the bible out to be read, bowing before it, kissing and incensing it...
I'm glad you said that. I have been thinking that every day since this thread stared.
We do that in my C of E tradition too.
And some free churches, notably the presbyterians, process in a huge bible and place it in the pulpit at the start of every service.
One could go wider and talk of Jews kissing the Torah scrolls, muslims kissing the Qur'an, too.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If that's what you wanted me to say, that's what you should have asked. I gave my answer vis-a-vis the RCC, which you ignored. I don't know what Assyrians have to do with anything. Is there a Christian group called Assyrians?
Oh, that explains part of the misunderstanding at least. I was talking about the Assyrian Church, also known as the "Church of the East," which has historically been associated with the heresy of Nestorianism, although its leadership has sometimes rejected that label.
You didn't really answer the point about the RCC at all. We were discussing competing interpretations of doctrine. There are competing interpretations within sola scriptura churches, and you convincingly argued that Tradition can help judge which interpretation is correct. I suggested that there are several churches that use both Scripture and Tradition but interpret them in competing ways (EO, RC, Coptic, Assyrian, arguably Anglican). The question is: How do you judge which interpretation of Scripture + Tradition is correct? You answered (in the case of the RCC) by saying that both sides can argue that they are correct.
Do you see how this means that sola scriptura churches and "Scripture + Tradition" churches are both prone to irresolvable controversies? That was the point have been trying to make. It may be that a church could not rely on scripture alone to argue against Arianism, but the it is equally true that a church could not rely on scripture + tradition to argue against Nestorianism.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I mean, not all Western Christians believe in the 'double-procession of the Spirit' - and some RCs have very similar views to the Orthodox on this one. I think I do too - if I've understood these things correctly.
That really wasn't the point of my post; this doesn't seem to be the place to go into a full-blown Orthodox versus Catholic apologetics slugfest.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I s'pose if I were being cheeky or flippant, I'd suggest that Apostolic Succession simply isn't important to certain forms of Protestant because they've seen a Church that is in Apostolic Succession ie. Rome - 'err' from their point of view.
I suppose if I wanted to be cheeky or flippant back, I'd say it isn't important to them because they haven't got it, and yet they need to justify their existence and churchness.
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
I suggested that there are several churches that use both Scripture and Tradition but interpret them in competing ways (EO, RC, Coptic, Assyrian, arguably Anglican). The question is: How do you judge which interpretation of Scripture + Tradition is correct? You answered (in the case of the RCC) by saying that both sides can argue that they are correct.
That's my answer. We won't really known on this side of the parousia which of the churches with a claim to Apostolic Succession has the right answers. But it's a quite different question to how churches that have cut themselves off from tradition can claim their interpretation of scriptures is the right one and opposing ones wrong. There's no ground beneath them.
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
It may be that a church could not rely on scripture alone to argue against Arianism, but the it is equally true that a church could not rely on scripture + tradition to argue against Nestorianism.
I don't see this at all. Which of the historic churches accepts Nestorianism? The fact that it has been debated and firmly decided against IS the argument against it. The idea is that the Holy Spirit speaks through the Tradition. Sometimes we get in the way, but in the end the right side comes out on top.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
So what do we do with organisations like the Jehovah's Witnesses who claim direct lineage from Jesus' first followers, even though they (the JWs) have only been around in their present form for 100 years or so? For those people who believe there is one true, apostolic church, on what basis do we decide which is that church?
We look at the JW's and see if their claim is true. It most patently is not; there were no JW's in 1st century Palestine.Nor can you trace an unbroken lineage of their Arian theology back; attempts to do so by citing pockets of Arianism in this or that century are ludicrous on the face. And if there were such an unbroken continuity, how come their list of 144,000 doesn't start back then and continue with members through every generation to the present? No, even they don't believe what they say.
I don't want to start defending the JWs, but I expect they could mount a defence of their apostolicity that would follow a similar line to the Orthodox or RC defence. I mean, just looking at the pre-Great Schism period, there have been breaks in doctrine and practice, haven't there? Popes teaching things now considered heretical, popes practising things now remembered with horror...
And on the 144,000 point, I think they very much do count ancient believers among that number; maybe even going back before Christ, I'm not sure.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I don't want to start defending the JWs, but I expect they could mount a defence of their apostolicity that would follow a similar line to the Orthodox or RC defence.
Let's hear it.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I don't like the word "Bibliolatry" at all - possibly because of my (all but brief) presbyterian past. It is a pejorative term usually aimed at evangelical bible-believing christians by others who don't take the Bible seriously at all, preferring the wisdom of men.
Sure, we can have the discussion, but why use words like "bibliolatry" which will only inflame people and create division?
One could imagine some using the term for Catholics (I mean all shades of) who parade the bible out to be read, bowing before it, kissing and incensing it...
We wouldn't see it as idolatry at all, of course, but you can imagine derogatory terms like "bibliolatry" wouldn't help christians of different shades to understand one another and be reconciled, would they?
There is a church linked to my university Christian Union that I would consider to be Bibliolatrous. Now, I know you probably don't agree but I do take the Bible seriously, but our evangelical uni chaplain also considers them to be Bibliolatrous - it's not an opinion shared by liberals only. They use the Bible completely out of context and do not consider the leading of the Spirit to be important. These are cessationist, double-predestination Calvinists by the way, not standard 'Bible-believing' (a misnomer imo*) evangelicals. I used to attend a conservative evangelical Anglican church, and whilst I disagree with them on a lot of things, I wouldn't consider them to be Bibliolatrous. For me at least, Bibliolatrous isn't a synonym for conservative.
*Liberals absolutely believe in the Bible. We just believe in it differently.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
So what do we do with organisations like the Jehovah's Witnesses who claim direct lineage from Jesus' first followers, even though they (the JWs) have only been around in their present form for 100 years or so? For those people who believe there is one true, apostolic church, on what basis do we decide which is that church?
We look at the JW's and see if their claim is true. It most patently is not; there were no JW's in 1st century Palestine.Nor can you trace an unbroken lineage of their Arian theology back; attempts to do so by citing pockets of Arianism in this or that century are ludicrous on the face. And if there were such an unbroken continuity, how come their list of 144,000 doesn't start back then and continue with members through every generation to the present? No, even they don't believe what they say.
I don't want to start defending the JWs, but I expect they could mount a defence of their apostolicity that would follow a similar line to the Orthodox or RC defence. I mean, just looking at the pre-Great Schism period, there have been breaks in doctrine and practice, haven't there? Popes teaching things now considered heretical, popes practising things now remembered with horror...
And on the 144,000 point, I think they very much do count ancient believers among that number; maybe even going back before Christ, I'm not sure.
I donīt know much about JWīs eclesiology, but considering their printed material which sometimes they bring here, I donīt think they claim an unbroken sucession since the apostolic days. More likely, they claim that the whole Church after Costantine has gone astray, and then came the Jeovahīs Witness to restore the true faith. Thatīs why theyīre called restorationists.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
One wonders why the Russian Orthodox Church is a real continuation of the apostolic Church, while the much older Church Of England is not...??
Only if one mistakes age for apostolicity. [/QB]
Donīt you notice that the argument is completely circular and non-sense? If age and an unbroken sucession from the apostolic days does not mean "apostolicity", then what it does? The teachings of the apostles? However, we do find more then one historical church claiming to have the true teaching of the apostles.
These teachings have to be tested by the scriptures... cause those texts are the closest we can get from what the apostles actually believed. A teaching that is firmly expressed in the scriptures is the purest form of "apostolicity", even if it is ultimately denied by one of the historical churches that claim to be "apostolic". Even tradition itself aknowledges the Scriptures as divinely inspired and the New Testament being handled by the Apostles and their communities. Why would the apostles deny themselves? To pass one teaching written down, and another in oral form? Donīt you think the writers of the New Testament knew better what the Apostles teached then theologians who lived centuries latter?
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We won't really known on this side of the parousia which of the churches with a claim to Apostolic Succession has the right answers. But it's a quite different question to how churches that have cut themselves off from tradition can claim their interpretation of scriptures is the right one and opposing ones wrong. There's no ground beneath them.
If you mean the protestant churches, I donīt think they have "cut themselves" off from tradition. More likely, they have came back to the older tradition of the church fathers and cut themselves from much more recent teaching that only claimed to be "tradition", while they were mostly stuff made up centuries later then the apostles. Thatīs how much Luther and the Book of Concord cite the church fathers (specially Augustine) and the first 5 councils of the Church. There is no contradiction between lutheran teachings about salvation and the first councils and the teachings of the Church fathers!
As for keeping an unbroken line of consecrated bishops, some lutheran churches did, others did not. But I donīt think that is important at all. After all, how is an average church goer supposed to be sure if the bishop of his diocese really is under a valid apostolic sucession? Claims of apostolic sucession are very controversial in all churches, and most likely they are cited to keep one particular denomination and clergyīs power and influence, and not for genuine interest for the flock. After all, if your bishop is teaching false doctrine what difference does it make if he was validly consecrated in apostolic sucession or not? The classical heresies of christology have all been firmly teached by bishops and even patriarchs in valid apostolic churches. So why does it matter if your bishop is in valid sucession or not? The teaching still has to be tested.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
If age and an unbroken sucession from the apostolic days does not mean "apostolicity", then what it does? The teachings of the apostles?
Here again you ask me a question I've already answered. I'll let you scroll up and find the answer.
quote:
A teaching that is firmly expressed in the scriptures is the purest form of "apostolicity",
Firmly expressed according to whom? Scripture isn't self-interpreting. That's what this whole argument is about.
quote:
Donīt you think the writers of the New Testament knew better what the Apostles teached then theologians who lived centuries latter?
Of course. But who knows better what the writers of the New Testament meant? I think people who lived in the same culture and spoke the same language as the Apostles are more likely to know what they teached [sic] than are people 1500+ years later trying to reconstruct a past they have no idea even existed.
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
More likely, they have came back to the older tradition of the church fathers and cut themselves from much more recent teaching that only claimed to be "tradition", while they were mostly stuff made up centuries later then the apostles.
Which of the church fathers had liturgy-free services in buildings with bare walls, taught the Sacrament wasn't the body and blood of Christ, or that there shouldn't be ordained clergy?
quote:
There is no contradiction between lutheran teachings about salvation and the first councils and the teachings of the Church fathers!
I think joke threads belong in Heaven or the Circus.
quote:
But I donīt think that is important at all.
Of course you don't! But what does what YOU think is important matter? Did the Church fathers toss out the historical continuity of the church, and teach that anybody can set out a shingle and call their group a church, regardless of its relationship with the Church Universal?
quote:
Claims of apostolic sucession are very controversial in all churches,
They are not in the least controversial in the Orthodox or Catholic churches.
quote:
The classical heresies of christology have all been firmly teached by bishops and even patriarchs in valid apostolic churches. So why does it matter if your bishop is in valid sucession or not? The teaching still has to be tested.
That's like saying, even parts that fit your car can break, so why bother buying parts that fit?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Gorpo, I'm still Protestant but I would concede that the RCs and Orthodox are right to point out that they, along with the other ancient churches which claim apostolic continuity, were the ones who canonised or 'recognised' the scriptures as being scriptural in the first place. The scriptures didn't drop down out of heaven ready formed like Joseph Smith's tablets.
The Orthodox would argue, of course, that if the original Lutherans wanted to rid themselves of medieval accretions they should have united themselves with the Orthodox Church rather than simply leaving the RCs and striking off on their own.
And there's some fascinating early dialogue between the Reformers and the Orthodox Patriarch.
The Lutherans - and their various Protestant successors - would say, of course, that the Orthodox Church itself had added all manner of accretions not found in scripture or consonant with it ... auricular confession, veneration of Saints, icons etc etc.
Some would argue that some of these practices were already there - if only in embryonic form - by the time the canon of the NT was agreed across the board.
It is interesting, though, how despite differences in approach, all the ancient Churches - Rome, the Eastern Orthodox, the Copts, Ethiopians, the Assyrians and so on - do share aspects of theology and practice in common. They all have ordained clergy, they all have icons, they all place a great deal of emphasis on the eucharist and believe in the Real Presence in some way.
The problem Protestants of various stripes are faced with is this - if these things are corruptions or accretions, at what point did the 'rot' (if rot it is) set in?
I know people who would claim that it all went haywire after the Book of Acts, and indeed, even during the timespan of the Book of Acts because you don't hear about so many miracles towards the end. To which I reply, 'Are you seriously suggesting that the only period of the Church worth bothering with is that during the lifetime of the actual Apostles?'
Somehow, these same people believe that God will restore the original purity and power and that the incidents we read about in Book of Acts will be repeated again ...
They're still waiting for that to happen.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Meanwhile, I would agree with Jade Constable that the term 'Bibliolatrous' has a particular application - in evangelical circles at least - to the style of church she's described. Hyper-hyper-Calvinist, ultra-cessationist, ultra-literalist and very, very, very dry.
I wouldn't put 'normal' conservative or charismatic evangelicals into that category. But equally, I might suggest that many of these are themselves unaware that they are actually interpreting the scriptures in the context of a particular tradition ...
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
It may be that a church could not rely on scripture alone to argue against Arianism, but the it is equally true that a church could not rely on scripture + tradition to argue against Nestorianism.
I don't see this at all. Which of the historic churches accepts Nestorianism? The fact that it has been debated and firmly decided against IS the argument against it. The idea is that the Holy Spirit speaks through the Tradition. Sometimes we get in the way, but in the end the right side comes out on top.
If by "historic churches" you mean "churches that accept the seven ecumenical councils," then that is true. But this is why I brought up the Assyrian Church in the first place! As Gamaliel noted above, the Assyrian Church of the East, Coptic Church, Greek Orthodox Church, Armenian Apostolic Church, and Roman Catholic Church were all at one time coexistent and in communion with one another. This was in the first few centuries. I'm going to assume that's enough to make them all "historic churches."
So:
1. Nestorianism: Assyrian Church of the East. Accepts only the first two councils (Niceaa and First Constantinople). Rejects Ephesus for its condemnation of Nestorianism and proclamation of Mary as Theotokos.
2. Monophysitism: Coptic Church and Armenian Apostolic Church. Accept only Nicaea I, Constantinople I and Ephesus I. Reject Chalcedonian creed for its Christology.
3. Filioque: Roman Catholic Church. We all know the story.
So here we have the various branches of the historic church, all of which are universally agreed to be in apostolic succession, disagreeing fundamentally about Christological and Trinitarian questions.
Now, I included all three stages to anticipate the response that Nestorianism was so far out that that "just didn't count." But there's a clear continuum, over the course of history and doctrine, on which the historic, Scripture + Tradition churches have disagreed in ways that would lead you to choose one interpretation over the others.
(Now how is that different from Lutherans arguing with JWs?)
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There is a church linked to my university Christian Union that I would consider to be Bibliolatrous. Now, I know you probably don't agree but I do take the Bible seriously, but our evangelical uni chaplain also considers them to be Bibliolatrous - it's not an opinion shared by liberals only. They use the Bible completely out of context and do not consider the leading of the Spirit to be important.
How does one use the Bible "out of context"? I am familiar with many groups who use Bible verses out of context.
Moo
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
So what do we do with organisations like the Jehovah's Witnesses who claim direct lineage from Jesus' first followers, even though they (the JWs) have only been around in their present form for 100 years or so? For those people who believe there is one true, apostolic church, on what basis do we decide which is that church?
We look at the JW's and see if their claim is true. It most patently is not; there were no JW's in 1st century Palestine.Nor can you trace an unbroken lineage of their Arian theology back; attempts to do so by citing pockets of Arianism in this or that century are ludicrous on the face. And if there were such an unbroken continuity, how come their list of 144,000 doesn't start back then and continue with members through every generation to the present? No, even they don't believe what they say.
I don't want to start defending the JWs, but I expect they could mount a defence of their apostolicity that would follow a similar line to the Orthodox or RC defence. I mean, just looking at the pre-Great Schism period, there have been breaks in doctrine and practice, haven't there? Popes teaching things now considered heretical, popes practising things now remembered with horror...
And on the 144,000 point, I think they very much do count ancient believers among that number; maybe even going back before Christ, I'm not sure.
I donīt know much about JWīs eclesiology, but considering their printed material which sometimes they bring here, I donīt think they claim an unbroken sucession since the apostolic days. More likely, they claim that the whole Church after Costantine has gone astray, and then came the Jeovahīs Witness to restore the true faith. Thatīs why theyīre called restorationists.
Mormons DO claim apostolic, tactile succession so the argument could stand using Mormons, instead of JWs, as an example.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There is a church linked to my university Christian Union that I would consider to be Bibliolatrous. Now, I know you probably don't agree but I do take the Bible seriously, but our evangelical uni chaplain also considers them to be Bibliolatrous - it's not an opinion shared by liberals only. They use the Bible completely out of context and do not consider the leading of the Spirit to be important.
How does one use the Bible "out of context"? I am familiar with many groups who use Bible verses out of context.
Moo
Bible verses out of context is what I meant, sorry.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Mormons DO claim apostolic, tactile succession so the argument could stand using Mormons, instead of JWs, as an example.
Is it continuous? My impression is that they believe Smith to have been an apostle, since Moroni appeared to him, and that the succession begins there. I don't really know very much about the issue though.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
2. Monophysitism: Coptic Church and Armenian Apostolic Church. Accept only Nicaea I, Constantinople I and Ephesus I. Reject Chalcedonian creed for its Christology.
Actually the Copts and Armenians (you forgot Ethiopians) reject Monophysitism; it is a mistake to label them as such.
quote:
(Now how is that different from Lutherans arguing with JWs?)
It rather isn't, so much as it's different from the Lutherans arguing with the Catholics. The historic churches you list have a claim to be The Church. Neither the Lutherans nor the JW's do.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, but don't they insist on the two-wills thing, rather than two-natures?
I understand that the Copts, Armenians and Ethiopians reject the Monophysite tag, and that it's probably all a question of semanitics, but I also get the impression that some of the Orthodox won't be bending over backwards to accommodate them anytime soon ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I don't think the Lutherans would claim to be THE Church ... but they would claim to be part of the Church Universal ...
The JWs would claim to be THE Church though ... and that the rest of us weren't.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, but don't they insist on the two-wills thing, rather than two-natures?
Two wills is orthodox. One will is heretical.
quote:
I understand that the Copts, Armenians and Ethiopians reject the Monophysite tag, and that it's probably all a question of semanitics, but I also get the impression that some of the Orthodox won't be bending over backwards to accommodate them anytime soon ...
Just means we have our share of reactionaries same as anybody else. Doesn't change the theological question.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't think the Lutherans would claim to be THE Church ... but they would claim to be part of the Church Universal ...
Of course. That's why the "invisible church" ecclesiology was invented.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Which of the church fathers had liturgy-free services in buildings with bare walls, taught the Sacrament wasn't the body and blood of Christ, or that there shouldn't be ordained clergy?
None, neither the lutheran doctrine teaches so.,
quote:
quote:
There is no contradiction between lutheran teachings about salvation and the first councils and the teachings of the Church fathers!
I think joke threads belong in Heaven or the Circus.
And I think you now started to act in a much, much more idolatrous way then those bible-believing christians you call "bibliolatars". I have no issue with you no agreeing with solo-scriptura. But I do have a problem with calling solo-scriptura belief as a form of idolatry... If solo-scriptura believes are "idolatrous" of a book, then you are idolatrous of your own Church and tradition. I see no difference.
quote:
quote:
But I donīt think that is important at all.
Of course you don't! But what does what YOU think is important matter? Did the Church fathers toss out the historical continuity of the church, and teach that anybody can set out a shingle and call their group a church, regardless of its relationship with the Church Universal?
Nope. But at the Church Fatherīs time there werenīt 2 or more churches claiming to be the "Church Universal". Your communion of a few small ethnic and national churches is not "The Church Universal".
If yours is the Church Universal, and contains the pure teaching of the Apostles, Iīd like you guys sending missionaries to convert those in the false churches... If you seriously believed what you say, youīd be doing so.
You happen to expect that 2 billion christians that are not in communion with your church to google and find out that there is only 1 real church... only to find out that there probably isnīt any temple or congregation of this 1 true church in their nearby, so that they have to travel miles and miles on a sunday to watch a service in a language they donīt even understand... in order to be in the right faith? Have a little more love for those in the "wrong faiths"...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Sola Scriptura is of course probably a subject for a whole 'nother thread. It's completely without foundation for it is not taught in the Scriptures. And if it were (which it's not), it would be a circular argument.
Nevertheless I don't think Sola Scriptura is in and of itself bibliolatry. So I'm not sure why you're pinning that on me. You seem to have gotten what I'm saying confused with some other threads going in the thread (so to speak).
If it's idolatry to believe that Christ founded a Church and it still exists today and is tangible and discoverable, then yes, call me an idolator. Weird definition though.
And yes my church right now is crappy on evangelism. I'm not proud of that. It however doesn't prove anything. If we judge which is the true church based on how well it evangelizes, then the Mormons are the true church. You join first.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
The Mormonīs intense evangelizing activity obviously does not prove their claims to be "The True Church", but it does prove that at least they sincerely believe their claims. Anyone who believes their community is the only real christian church and others are schismatics gone astray should make proselytizing a top priority. I get the feeling this is not the case with the Orthodox, cause the average Orthodox believer does not believe Catholics and other christians are not "true churches", regardless of this being officially accepted by their churches or not. Hence, the greek and russian orthodox communities in latin countries like Brazil are not stressed about the conversion of local Catholics, since they already think Catholics are true christians and share the same faith, and need no extra conversion. The doctrinal differences about Orthodox and Catholics are not even noticed by the average Catholic and Orthodox believers (I doubt any of the catholics I know outside of the internet knows what the "filioque" clause is).
As for sola-scriptura not being in the Scriptures... thatīs because itīs a pressuposition! Just like the authority of tradition is a pressuposition for those who believe in Holy Tradition! All systems of belief claim one source of authority for its teachings.
I know that not everything Christ teached on Earth is recorded in the scriptures, but I highly doubt that too much emphasis in Church hierarchy and the need to be in a valid cannonical jurisdiction, and the minucious definition of rites and clergy clothes is in harmony with what we get in the Scriptures. Otherwise, Jesus would have approved the disciples will to stop the preachers who were not "one of us" in Mark 9:38-39. Similarly, I donīt think the Orthodox should condemn an Assembly Of God, Catholic or Lutheran preacher who is not in communion with them, specially when heīs willing to make Christ known in places where the Orthodox are never going to be...
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
2. Monophysitism: Coptic Church and Armenian Apostolic Church. Accept only Nicaea I, Constantinople I and Ephesus I. Reject Chalcedonian creed for its Christology.
Actually the Copts and Armenians (you forgot Ethiopians) reject Monophysitism; it is a mistake to label them as such.
Well sure, but the Ethiopians only became "independent" in 1959, so I didn't want to confuse things by listing them as a "historic church." And point taken about Miaphysitism vs. Monophysitism, although the historical fact is still that the Oriental Orthodox churches were rejected as being Monophysite for most of their history.
I think the usefulness of this tangent has just about run out. The question, for me, was never whether Lutherans arguing against Catholics can give more or less definitive answers; it was whether Catholics arguing against Orthodox could give more definitive answers than Lutherans arguing against Jehovah's Witnesses could. The answer seems to be "no," and I'm perfectly comfortable with that.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok - my bad on the Monophysites ... I'd seen an Oriental Orthodox arguing the thing about the 'two wills' online with a bunch of Orthodox people ...
I got the wrong end of the stick because some of them weren't native English speakers ... although some of their English was pretty good so it might just have been me being daft.
Of course the two wills thing is orthodox. If I'd been thinking straight I'd have grasped that.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Mormons DO claim apostolic, tactile succession so the argument could stand using Mormons, instead of JWs, as an example.
Is it continuous? My impression is that they believe Smith to have been an apostle, since Moroni appeared to him, and that the succession begins there. I don't really know very much about the issue though.
Yes - Pater James and John appeared, supposedly, to Smith and conferred the priesthood of Melchizedek and the keys.
I remembered this because i got into an argument with some mormons at my front door, when i was a teenager, and i used apostolic succession as what I thought would be a clincher argument - to my amazement, they had an answer.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I wonder if the way Americans treat the flag is idolatry.
quote:
There is an extensive US Federal 'Code' (i.e. not a `law' and therefore not enforceable by punishment) that lists a number of guidelines regarding the proper display of the flag. Like anything sacred, there are proper ways to care for and be in relationship with it. Within the code are general guidelines such as not flying the flag at night without a light, and that no other flag should be flown above it. Along with these ritualistic codes of display are others: "The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever" and "The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing." Indeed, akin to Talmudic proscriptions regarding the life of a Torah scroll, the flag, when no longer usable, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning. Burning in a dignified way (though what this means is ambiguous) deconsecrates the material of the flag, ritualistically carrying it from the realm of the sacred to the realm of the profane. Burning the flag in an 'undignified' way would be mere desecration, an improper crossing from the sacred to the profane
Blasphemy: Art that Offends - S. Plate p. 164
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I wonder if the way Americans treat the flag is idolatry.
Many Americans think so. Which makes your sloppy use of "Americans" offensive.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Guilty as changed - apologies. Should have said 'many/some Americans'
[ 07. April 2013, 17:50: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Thank you.
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Guilty as changed - apologies. Should have said 'many/some Americans'
One thing I find strange is people who love the flag so much they fly it outside their home in all kinds of weather until it becomes tattered--contrary to the U.S. flag code!
I have my own possible definition of a "Bibliolater" that I'll throw out there: someone who, given a choice between the Bible and the Church, would go with the Bible. The sort who's got a "me and the Bible" attitude toward the Christian life.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
One thing I find strange is people who love the flag so much they fly it outside their home in all kinds of weather until it becomes tattered--contrary to the U.S. flag code!
Or use it as clothing, or fly it at night, or use it as a curtain in a window.... People who "love" the flag are the most likely to violate the flag code.
[fixed ubb code (no irony)]
[ 09. April 2013, 18:16: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Đ Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0