But I agree that Shari’s language about Church and Scripture needs to be sharpened up. It is clearly false to say, for example, that “the Councils of the Church wrote and compiled Holy Scripture.” The Scriptures were not written by the councils of the Church. Shari surely knows this. On the other hand, she is indubitably correct when she states that “Christ did not write Scripture, Christ founded a Church who wrote and compiled Scripture instead.” Members of the Church wrote the books of the New Testament and members of the Church compiled these books together as the New Testament and united them with the Old Testament as one Bible. Is this controversial? Apparently it is.
Atwood has assigned himself the task of exposing the big Catholic lie that the Church “created” Scripture. In fairness to Catholic apologists, I would like to ask Atwood to provide citations from respected writers who have actually said this. (Shari, for example, does not use the word create in her article.) Perhaps this is a popular way of formulating the matter, but I have not run across it. I personally would not use the word create in this context, though I imagine it can be explained in a way that is perfectly acceptable. Also, why are Orthodox apologists exempted from Atwood’s big lie charge, since they too insist on the priority of the Church and Holy Tradition. As Georges Florovsky writes: “The Bible is the Word of God indeed, but the book stands by the testimony of the Church. The canon of the Bible is obviously established and authorized by the Church.”
Atwood succinctly states the issue:
If we define the church as including Christ and the apostles, then, sure, the church created the Scriptures. But that’s not the issue, is it? The issue is whether the church after the apostles, being built on the foundation of the apostles, created, compiled, or wrote the New Testament.
Atwood’s argument is simple. The Apostles spoke and wrote with self-authenticating divine authority. Their writings do not need to be attested in any way. Having been composed by Christ’s appointed messengers, under the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they can only be received as the Word of God. When the Church canonically confessed these writings as Holy Scripture it was simply acknowleding their divine authority as apostolic oracles of God.
Atwood’s argument is most convincing for the authentic writings of the Apostle Paul, who certainly understood himself as an Apostle of Christ and expected his authoritative teaching to be received as divine revelation (see Gal 1). But Atwood’s argument gets weaker when we come to those New Testament writings that were not written by Apostles. Mark and Luke, for example, were not Apostles. Their Gospels got into the canon because of alleged relationship to real Apostles (Mark/Peter; Luke/Paul). The anonymous author of Hebrews probably was not an Apostle. John of the Apocalypse probably was not John, son of Zebedee. And then we have to acknowledge the critical problem of pseudonymity. The Apostle Matthew may not have written the gospel attributed to him. The Apostle Paul may not have written Ephesians and the Pastorals. The Apostle Peter may not have written his two letters; etc. The question of authorship of many books of the New Testament is a hotly contested matter in scholarly circles. Surely Atwood knows all of this, but without mention.
The fact is, there is a real problem here, a problem made acute by Atwood putting all of his biblical eggs into the basket of unimpeachable, 24-carat apostolic authorship. Atwood wants to make it sound that the problem of “creating” the canon of the New Testament was simply a matter of historically authenticating who wrote what. If an Apostle wrote it, it’s in; if one didn’t, it’s out. Not only does this view not accurately represent what really went on in the process of canonization; but if we were to insist upon this understanding of canon, it would create insuperable problems for us today. The post-apostolic Church appears to have acknowledged writings as apostolic that may well not have been written by Apostles. By Atwood’s premises, we would therefore have to conclude that the Church made some serious canonical blunders and that the canon must now be revised. Now it may well be the case that the canon always remains theoretically open for Lutherans, open both to the exclusion of books now deemed spurious (perhaps finally we’ll get rid of the Epistle of James) and the inclusion of newly discovered apostolic writings (perhaps we will one day discover another genuine letter of Paul). But I doubt that either Orthodoxy or Catholicism would go along with such a project. For catholic Christianity, the canon of Scripture is irrevocably closed and beyond all second-guessing. (I do acknowledge, though, that the Orthodox Churches have not yet achieved unanamity on the Old Testament; but this doesn’t seem to have created any significant problems for them.)
The history of the formation of the canon is very interesting and controverted, and I lack the competence to debate the particulars. But one point needs to be iterated: The formation of the New Testament necessarily involved selection by bishops, both individually and in councils. Bishops judged which writings were inspired and which were not, which were apostolic and which were not, which were to be publicly read in the Eucharist of the Church and which were not. The Church, acting through her ordained leadership, determined which books were Scripture and which were not. This is simply a way of saying that the determination of the canon of Holy Scripture was a dogmatic decision of the Church. Whether this decision was made at the congregational/diocesan level or at a synodical level, the fact remains that a dogmatic decision was made.
The following passage from
F. F. Bruce,
from the article cited by Atwood, represents the classical Protestant
position:
The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and general apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa–at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397–but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities.
This is a distinction without a difference. Of course the Church did not think that by her canonical recognition of specific books as Scripture she was conferring upon them divine authority. If Orthodox or Catholic theologians have taught otherwise, though I am unaware of any that do, then they were wrong. But Bruce goes too far when he says that the synodical decisions about the biblical canon were merely codification of general practice. These decisions were certainly codifications, but they were also authoritative codifications, codifications ultimately “imposed” upon the ecumenical Church. The whole point of a bishop, pope, or council in identifying specific writings as Scripture was to normatively privilege these writings and distinguish them from other writings, whether orthodox or heretical in content. Dogmatic judgments were made. Thus the Decree of Damasus (A.D. 382) declared: “Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.”
Hence it is true to say both that the canon of Scripture imposed
itself on the Church and that the Church dogmatically imposed the canon.
Both are rightly attributed to the inspiration and guidance of the Holy
Spirit. Lutheran theologian Robert W. Jenson has seen all of this very
clearly:
Although the history is complex and its complexities are disputed, the canonical event can for theological purposes be very simply described: becoming aware that the apostles were gone, the community collected and certified documentary relics of the apostolic message. The church did this because she is to bring the same message she brought while the apostles guided her. Not all books in the canon were written or used by apostles. As the church gathered and commended apostolic writings, the criterion of apostolicity was simultaneously material and historical: a document was apostolic from which could be heard the teaching of the apostles. There is nothing viciously circular here; if the church had already forgotten the message of the apostles, she could not anyway have assembled a canon.
The foregoing should not be misunderstood. If indeed the Spirit creates the self-identity of the church through time, the process of canonization is also worked by the Spirit. There is thus a sense in which the church does not make the canon but rather receives it. But this does not contravene the more commonsensical point just here to be made.
It was the historical and already conflicted church that gathered and winnowed documentary relics of apostolic proclamation. The canon of Scripture, that is, a list of writings together with the instruction, “Take all these writings and none other as standard documents of the apostolic witness,” is thus a dogmatic decision of the church. If we allow no final authority to churchly dogma, or to the organs by which the church can enunciate dogma, there can be no canon of Scripture. The slogan sola scriptura, if by that is meant ‘apart from creed, teaching office, or authoritative liturgy,’ is an oxymoron…. The canonical list is a historically achieved commendation by the church as community to the church as association of persons: here are documents in which to see how the church spoke the gospel while the church’s reliance on the apostles was not yet problematic. (Systematic Theology, I:27-28)
And so we must reject Atwood’s insistence that the material content of the New Testament writings was irrelevant to their canonization as Scripture. Yes, the apostolic writings were inspired by God and are authoritative in and for the Church because they come from God–God is the final author of Holy Scripture–but the churchly discernment of this inspiration was not unrelated to the content of the writings. It wasn’t just a matter of authenticating apostolic authorship. If that were the case, not only would we have to conclude that the Church got it wrong in a number of cases, but we would have to conclude that there is in fact no functioning New Testament today.
The infallible recognition and reception of the canon was itself a mysterious work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church. Only by the Spirit can we recognize that which comes from the Spirit (1 Cor 2:10-16). It may well be that the Church was wrong in thinking that the Letter to the Hebrews, for example, was written by the Apostle Paul; but this does not mean that the tract is not inspired by God. Regardless of the “objective” reasons for its final inclusion in the canon, the Spirit led the Church to recognize it as Scripture–and so must be said for every book of the New Testament.
Did the Church “create” the Scripture? No, the Holy Spirit of God did–both in inspiring the biblical authors to compose the sacred texts and in inspiring the Church to recognize and authorize these texts as Scripture. The Bible cannot be divorced from the living voice of the Church. As Fr John Breck has written, “It is the work of the Spirit that enables the Church both to generate and to interpret her own canon or rule of truth.”
(cont)
February 20th, 2005 at 2:40 pm
Once again, Al, you’ve done us a service by writing succinctly and clearly. I did have some concerns, early on, of a clericized notion - or even an exclusively episcopal-synodical notion - of who the discerning Church was (and is), but the rest of the essay dispelled my concerns in that regard.
February 20th, 2005 at 2:41 pm
A suggestion from Orthodoxy - some of the difficulties encountered in this debate exist because things have been separated that do not belong separated. The Scripture cannot be separated from the Church, nor the Church from Scripture, nor either one from Holy Tradition. The categorizing of these things and comparing and contrasting create tensions that do not exist. There is no tension between Scripture and Church, nor between either and Tradition. All of them are manifestations of the One life of Christ, totus Christus, Caput et Corpus.
The objectification of Scripture over and against the Church as in a certain strain of Protestantism is a mistake. Otherwise the Word of God would be over and against the Word of God. St. Paul says of the Corinthians: “Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.” The Church is what Scripture (and Tradition) look like. Scripture and Tradition would be of little use were they not manifested as the life of the Church.
We can intellectually make these distinctions (Church, Scripture, Tradition) but we do them a disservice when we make them separable and at odds with each other. The authority of Scripture and the authority of the Church and the authority of Tradition are not three authorities, but one authority, because there can only be one authority. The Church recognizes the authority of Scripture and can recognize it because it is the Church’s own life. It is not contrary or foreign to the Church.
It is similar to St. Ignatius’ (or is it Irenaeus?) contention that “our doctrine agrees with the Eucharist and the Eucharist with our doctrine.”
If the Scriptures and their authority are separated from the Church then you get the strange phenomenon of the individual presuming to judge the body by his own private use of Scripture. This is not the teaching of the New Testament (or the Church or of Holy Tradition).
Fr. Stephen Freeman
February 20th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
One tension you don’t address here regards early church opinions of authorship, i.e., did the Nicene and pre-Nicene church leaders think that, e.g., all of the Johannine literature was written by the apostle, and what the relationship is between that thought, the canon, and modern scholarship. I don’t know much about this question myself, but I imagine it causes some grief in their faith in the canon. Thus if Paul the apostle did not write Ephesians (for the sake of argument), and the church included it in the canon on the basis of that faulty assumption, then is it still authoritative?
Like you, I take the position that the Holy Spirit moved in what we might call a unique way in bringing the scriptures together into the canon and don’t get too upset by authorship issues. Though on the other hand, I am very skepticle of much modern scholarship which seems to want to jettison traditional authorships on the slightest of pretexts.
February 20th, 2005 at 4:45 pm
I think we are frequently too literal in reading early Church literature. The Church had to confront tons of written material of a spurious nature that they disregarded despite claims to be by Peter, Nicodemus, etc. (also Paul). What they accepted into the canon wasn’t their “best guess” based on what they knew of history - but that they bore witness to the fact that this is the authentic apostolic voice of the Church. Whether Paul wrote Ephesians or not does not matter in the final analysis. In the canon, this is a Pauline epistle. If the Church had the same historical consciousness as modern Protestantism, they would never have had a council, but would have splintered into a thousand groups, none of them sure of anything. Modern historical consciousness does not work for us and it surely would not have worked for them.
Fr. Stephen Freeman
February 20th, 2005 at 4:53 pm
The Council of Trent spoke of the Bible books as “sacred and canonical”. But it didn’t use the word “authentic” which Luther wanted in order to accept a book as “inspired”.
(In fact, in Eusebius of Caesarea’s times it was already thought that the Letter to the Hebrews had not been written by the Apostle Paul)
“Authenticity” can not be a criterion to decide if a book was inspired or not. I think the answer is in Fr. Freeman comment. We must not separate the Scripture from the Church.
But in this issue, Catholics and Protestants have been speaking in two different languages for centuries.
February 20th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
#3: Thus if Paul the apostle did not write Ephesians (for the sake of argument), and the church included it in the canon on the basis of that faulty assumption, then is it still authoritative?
Yes, of course it is authoritative. I agree completely with Fr Stephen on this. Here historical criticism can only take us so far. It treats the New Testament books as historical artifacts and interprets them exclusively as such. But Christians only have a limited interest in historical criticism, precisely because these New Testament books are Scripture–they belong to that one book whose author is God and therefore can only be rightly interpreted within the context of the canon as a whole. I touched on this in my article How to Read Scripture.
Stanley Hauerwas states the matter in his usual provocative way:
“Once Paul’s letters become so constructed canonically, Paul becomes one interpreter among others of his letters. If Paul could appear among us today to tell us what he “really meant” when he wrote, for example 1 Corinthians 13, his view would not necessarily count more than Gregory’s or Luther’s account of Corinthians. There simply is no “real meaning” of Paul’s letters to the Corinthians once we understand that they are no longer Paul’s letters but rather the Church’s Scripture.”
February 20th, 2005 at 6:10 pm
#6 Pontificator, Sounds like Hauerwas channeling Stanley Fish.
Fr. Stephen Freeman
February 20th, 2005 at 8:42 pm
Over at Here We Stand, Dave Armstrong has brought to the attention of the brethren this article of his: The Canon of Scripture: Did the Catholic Church Create It Or Merely Authoritatively Acknowledge It? Compare his piece with mine, and let me know what you think.
February 20th, 2005 at 8:57 pm
I think this is very problematic - as stated in my comments in #2. The bifurcation of the Word of God and the Church sets up antagonisms that should not exist. Also the statement in the article:
“What needs to remain clear though is that God’s Word is what it is because by nature God made it to be so.”
Is he saying that Scripture has a nature? or that God (by his own nature) made the Scriptures to be what they are. Theologically this is just a wrong statement. The Word of God (as Scripture) should not be posited to have a “nature.” Indeed, if it has a nature then the nature is paper and ink. And to say that God made the Scriptures to be what they are according to His own nature would introduce the notion that somehow the Scriptures are part of the Divine Nature - a claim I can’t think of anyone ever saying.
If Catholics and Protestants agree on this understanding of Scripture (simply received by the Church), then I’ll readily admit that I think both are wrong - or are stating the relationship between Church and Scripture in such a way as to create difficulties that do not need to exist.
The notion implied here that Scripture is somehow greater than the Church would be absurd. How can anything be greater than the body of Christ. Is Scripture greater than Christ? Again, all this is avoided when we refuse to admit these distinctions between Church, Scripture and Tradition.
Fr. Stephen Freeman
February 21st, 2005 at 2:40 am
For a quite recent (2002) collection on canon issues all in one satisfyingly hefty tome, take a look at The Canon Debate, edited by Lee Martin MacDonald and James A. Sanders. Every chapter is educational.
Regarding authorship of the various NT books, while there is a scholarly majority who finds pseudepigrapha among them, there is a respected minority who maintain that all the canonical writings are indeed authentic, and present critiques the foundations on which the pseudepigraphy idea is assumed. Chief among them is E. Earle Ellis. His The Making of the New Testament Documents especially and History & Interpretation in New Testament Perspective (unfortunately not yet in paperback) in less detail present his views on the subject. Luke Timothy Johnson’s two volumes in the Anchor Bible series on First & Second Timothy and James both argue for authenticity. In the end, however, it is certainly not proven beyond any doubt that any of the NT books are pseudepigraphic. Among other things, the letter to the Ephesians is likely the letter to Laodicea mentioned in the end of Colossians, which identification explains their similarities, with them being written and sent simultaneously by the Apostle.
One thing that has become quite apparent over the past century is that Occam’s Razor is considered valid in all disciplines except modern Biblical Studies (e.g., the ridiculous complications involved in theories on Q, etc). Just because it’s all the rage doesn’t make it right!
February 21st, 2005 at 3:32 am
I’ve now issued a full response to these ludicrous contentions about Catholic apologists’ supposed beliefs about Scripture and the canon:
Reply to Christopher Atwood (Lutheran) Concerning Bogus Notions of the Catholic View of the Bible 47K
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ161.HTM
February 21st, 2005 at 8:49 am
#10: One thing for sure, Kevin, the “assured” results of biblical criticism are rarely assured.
February 21st, 2005 at 10:30 am
It’s all pretty simple. If the internet were not full, and I mean full, of Catholic and Orthodox converts from other communions, who attribute their conversion to the sudden realization that the Church wrote the scriptures in the manner that Clueless Christian seems to think then their would not be a need to respond this most obvious error as Chris Atwood did.
Perhaps he was too harsh in tone - but not content. The truth remains. You can only see falsehood repeated so many times before you address it and to be honest ti is really frustrating to see thoughful Protestants constantly berated and while this type of stuff is left floating around the internet without causing any type of internal conflict. As long as Catholic and Orthodox apologists let what they know to be false slide then criticizing those who actually address is kind of silly. In other words until Catholics and anyone else police their own when they know that falsehoods are being spread in their name, they should stop criticizing those who point it out and start critizing their own.
Better yet, make sure your own people are properly catechized and educated.
February 21st, 2005 at 11:01 am
Spent years studying the formation of Scripture and dont’ get to use it much. This article raises some good issues, and IMHO, is a good response to Canon VS Tradition. As usual, most distinctions about the Canon of Scripture are overdrawn and overwrought. What is the most disturbing about discussions around the Canon is that a lot of what is stated about the formation of the Canon is so purely theoretical that it is misleading to even quote some writers. C.S. Lewis’ lecture to Church of England clergy, printed in Christianity Today over 30 years ago is a good place to prepare the mind to study the formation of the Canon. J.B. Phillip’s comments in “The Ring of Truth” is another place to “work out” before the actual sport of New Testament criticism. Some observations:
1. The question of Apostolicity, as rightly noted, does not hinge on whether an Apostle actually wrote the particular document or not. The use of amenuenses in the first century a.c.e., the widespread occurrence of Koine Greek as a lingua franca (even among backwoods “Galileans”), and the place of “schools” around religious rabbis and others have all taken some of the punch out of critics and placed the question of “Apostolicity” in a wider context. Of course, folks like the Jesus Seminar just decide ahead of time whether something “really happened” or was “original to the figure depecited” or not. A hundred years of dispute over Oral Tradition, in my mind, has settled that the words and deeds of Jesus and his Apostles were roughly and broadly remembered accurately. The fact that most of the disputes of the first century (in regard to the Gospels), and the early heresies in the 2nd century (in regard to the Apostles) are NOT addressed as clearly as we would wish, IMHO, is a strong argument for accurate transmission of Tradition.
2. This leads to a futher point. The Canon is a Tradition, both in form and content. The New Testament was “traditioned” before it was gathered into an official “book”. There was a Church before there was a Canon.
3. The New Testament Canon had an early, consistent shape (some books added, some not there, in early lists) with the Gospels and Paul’s letters. This shape, again as noted, appears to have been taken for granted by most Christians across at least 400 years of the early Church. There only appears disputation when, FOR THE SAKE OF SECTARIAN THEOLOGY, minimizing lists appear. The Church, as with the creeds and succession and patriarchates, only “hardened” the specifics of the Canon after attacks on the Faith and misuse of Scripture by heretics.
4. The issue about Canon V.S. Tradition is NOT, again IMHO, a specious issue. As in the early centuries, people today are bringing forth Apocryphal writings purporting to set the record straight. In such a context, one must have a weighty defense for the Canon as Apostolic, since most people will not accept “because the Church says so”. Thus there is an apologetics issue here.
And, to speak from my corner of the kingdom, one wonders about apocryphal gospels that appear to be the basis of such “truths” as the names of Mary’s parents, the imacculate conception, etc. It is suspect to say that such information comes down from “tradition,” when it appears historically to derive from an apocryphal gospel that is late and not part of the Canon. One could plausibly suggest that the information is accepted though found in a heretical document. Or that the document is not heretical, or mistaken? Maybe a suprious document reflects a few historical “truths” as a novel depicting Franklin Roosevelt fighting space aliens might have the right name of his wife, the years he was president, and that he was president of the U.S.A.! Just realize that a lot of other Protestants, and some secularists, would not accept such a defense. I hope there’s a weightier one. And realize, that there was a LOT of nonsense purported to be true by old traditions; i.e. James the brother of John died in Spain, Joseph of Arimathea traveled to Great Britain, etc. A lot of documents produced have a lot of strange wonders, impossible “facts,” and historical inaccuracies. A lot of what is being said about Canon, Tradition, and Church comes from the reality of the numerous writings surrounding the New Testament.
I do not question the fact that, ultimately, that the Bible is the Church’s Book, and no one else. But we must recognize not every question is settled.
Prolixly,
Jon
February 21st, 2005 at 11:19 am
RE #13
“Better yet, make sure your own people are properly catechized and educated.”
Are you serious?! You’ve obviously lost the argument since you have no other response but personal attack–which is not even very cogently articulated.
February 21st, 2005 at 11:39 am
Re #15
Ken,
“Are you serious?! You’ve obviously lost the argument since you have no other response but personal attack–which is not even very cogently articulated.”
My typos and inarticulation aside, you think your response is any better? You manange to attack me while accusing me of attacking others *insert rolling eyes icon*. How about actually addressing my point? And who did I personally attack? I was addressing the attacks on those people, who some Catholics otherwise agree with, but consider fair game because of their communion - while letting the nonsense in their own communion slide.
Also, you have neither demonstrated that I lost the argument or that I attacked anyone personally. You cannot prove I lost an argument that you never even addressed based on my poor writing style and non-existent “personal attack”. Which logical fallacy is that? Anybody?
February 21st, 2005 at 11:45 am
“Better yet, make sure your own people are properly catechized and educated.”
Just to clarify that was a general statement not addressed to anyone in particular. But to a the internet apologetics movement, particularly Catholics e-pologists, who do not police their own on issues that make them look bad. It was merely constructive criticism.
February 21st, 2005 at 12:21 pm
Useful reading for thinking about Scripture, Church, etc. is Fr. Anthony Ugolnik’s The Illuminating Icon. Published in the late 80’s - I’ve hardly seen anything to improve on it since. His chapter on Word and Icon is a wonderful read all by itself.
Fr. Stephen Freeman
February 21st, 2005 at 12:25 pm
Dave, do you really think that the “Clueless Christian” became Catholic because she thinks the Roman Catholic Church “create” the Scripture?
February 21st, 2005 at 12:28 pm
I mean, in her article she insists in “the infallibility” of Magisterium.
February 21st, 2005 at 12:47 pm
Re: #’s 19 & 20
Eddie,
I have no doubt that this issue is not her only reason. But I have seen it used countless times by converts as one of the reasons. And since this was the only topic at hand, it was all I was discussing. I am sure that she (Clueless) is an otherwise thoughtful Christian, but in this instance she repeated, in a very lamentable manner a popular falsehood. Not that she herself was being dishonest. But it is clear that she, like so many others, has bought into this particular historical innacuracy.
There are many compelling arguments for Catholicism and Orthodoxy (I have considered both seriously) but the “Church wrote the Bible in 400AD” argument is not one of them. To be blunt it is a really stupid claim that obviously smart people should shun. I am certain it is a combination of trust and laziness that leads people to believe it. But a brief study of church history is sufficient to prove otherwise.
February 21st, 2005 at 12:58 pm
I thought I posted this but am not sure it got through: I have posted a reply to my critics here.
February 21st, 2005 at 1:05 pm
Dave, a couple of points I think should be made. First, Chris Atwood chose to attack someone whose only sin was imprecision of language. If Atwood wanted to take on the “big lie,” then he should have taken on one or more of the major internet apologists out there–Dave Armstrong, Mark Shea, and Jimmy Akins immediately come to mind–or maybe even Robert Sungenis, who seems to have gone off the deep end on some issues. These are the folks that folks read and who are exercising some influence. The point is, if the “big lie,” viz., that the Church “created” Scripture, thereby conferring upon it divine authority, is really being disseminated, then it should be fairly easy to document it among these influential writers. But so far I haven’t seen any such documentation. In other words, if there is a big lie, it is the lie that Chris Atwood and his supporters is spreading.
Secondly, Atwood and his supporters have a moral obligation to represent the Catholic and Orthodox understandings of Scripture, Tradition, and Church accurately. As far as I can tell, the only person over at “Here We Stand” who does understand these understandings is Chris Jones. He may disagree with both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but at least he is able to state their positions accurately.
Thirdly, it simply will not to ignore modern biblical scholarship and the questions that have been raised about authorship of the New Testament writings–unless, of course, one is simply willing to play the uncritical fundamentalist. If the only reason we can acknowledge a given NT book as canonical is because it is authored by an Apostle, then we are all in trouble.
Fourthly, the Bible didn’t fall out of the sky. It ain’t the Koran or the Book of Mormon. The Church did indeed pursue a discernment and selection process over a period of four or five centuries, finally deciding upon our present canon (with some disagreements regarding the OT still existing between East and West and East and East). How do we know the Church got it right? For both Orthodoxy and Catholicism there isn’t a problem: the Spirit guided the Church. But there will always be a problem for Protestantism precisely because of its rejection of an authoritative teaching office (as noted by Robert Jenson). This, of course, is the central theological point of contention. It has nothing to do with “lies”–it has everything to do with true theological disagreement. As I have made clear, I believe that Orthdoxy/Catholicism wins this argument hands down. Nothing I have read yet from the Protestant side has given me a moment’s pause. I have seen a lot of harsh polemic, but little substance so far. If folks wish to debate this, great. But let’s do so with substance, scholarship, and some civility, please.
February 21st, 2005 at 1:54 pm
Pontificator,
With all due respect you have simply ignored almost all of Chris’s arguments as if he never made them and ignored my entire point as well.
Chris also made clear in his initial post and his follow up that he was addressing “popular” beliefs by Catholics not the official Catholic teaching. Such things are fair game. If you wish to deny that their are Catholics all over the internet, as well as Orthodox, who make this particular argument you simply have your head in the sand (respectfully). Go over to Catholic Answers and count how many times this argument is made on their forums by Catholic apologists. It does no good for you to hand select a few high profile apologists. My entire point is that these same apologists do not correct this error among Catholic, likes CC, but have no problem attacking Protestants for addressing what they refuse too. Chris’s arguments were fair and have not yet be addressed.
Your captulation to higher criticism, as if it is the only legitimate scholarship is simply your choice. You have not proven it’s superiority simply by dismissing all other scholarship as if it were non existent or merely the works of backwater fundamentalists. I point out that by doing so you also dismiss fathers such as Augustine, Chrysostom, Gregory etc.
And your point about Catholics and Orhtodox differening on the canon does not help your criticism of Protestants since Orthodox and Cahtolics differ on the Canon as well. How is the Orthodox approach superior since they have no set canon. And why don’t catholics acknowledge all the deutero-canonicals as the Orthodox do? All fair questions that show both communions have no higher ground than any Anglican on this.
Lastly, we know that the Bible did not fall out of the sky. Talk about misreprenting a position. Use your own standards, please. You are simply dismissing legitimate arguments by trying to make those you disgree with look like fundamentalist Baptists. And the fact of the matter is Chris is right. 85% of the NT was in use in the church before there ws a set NT canon. The OT already existed. Most of the NT was already considered authoritative when it was read in local parishes, which it was for 300 years prior to the official recognition of the canon. And for crying out loud Apostolicity was a primary standard of the church in determing the few books that were in dispute at that point. Remember the overwhelming majority of the NT was not in dispute. Further the patristics disagree with your view of authorship. So how is you belief in such novel “scholarship” such as higher criticism more catholic than my view? I mean let’s be realistic no one here is a fundamentalist Baptist as far as I know. We all agree that the Bible is meaningless outside the context of the Church and we that the church interprets scripture.
You are simply being dismissive. Two seperate things are going on here: 1 - you don’t like Chris’s choice of blogs to engage - Clueless Christian’s. 2 -An argument has been made against a popular missunderstanding of the origins of the New Testament. An argument I might add that could have been made by a thoughtful Catholic or Orthodox person. Instead of engaging it you are setting up strawmen (I hate that term, but it’s true) and then knocking them down. This is simply out of character for you. You may not be moved by Protestant arguments, frankly neither am I depending on the argument, but you have not addressed Chris directly.
February 21st, 2005 at 3:46 pm
For the record, any ORTHODOX or ROMAN
February 21st, 2005 at 3:51 pm
Devine intervention–my last post was interrrupted!
Now for the record–any Orthodox or Roman Catholic Christian proclaiming that the Scripture was “created” by the Church is hereby admonished not to engage in “CREATIONISM!”
Now that that strawman is dead–on to the next one.
February 21st, 2005 at 3:55 pm
#24: Dave, I have no idea what you mean when you say I have not addressed Chris Atwood’s arguments. I wrote what I thought was a pretty good blog article in response to his piece. Atwood has one key argument: The Apostles are commissioned by God as speak faithfully communicate the divine revelation. Their writings were and are to be accepted as from God, apart from their material content, because of their apostolic origins. All the Church can do is to acknowledge the divine authority of these writings and receive them as Scripture. Have I missed anything? Atwood also has a secondary argument about how quickly consensus was achieved on a large bulk of the New Testament; but that is a historical argument that is debated by scholars and really does not affect the theological and ecclesiological questions being discussed. It really doesn’t matter how quickly the consensus was achieved; the fact remains that at some point churchly dogmatic decisions were made by the Church as to what was and was not Scripture.
As already pointed out, Atwood’s argument hinges completely on apostolic authorship. Raise serious questions about such authorship for any given book of the New Testament, and his whole canonical house of cards comes crumbling down. Now I do not have dog in this hunt. I think it would be great if critical scholarship could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1 Peter was written by Peter and the Gospel of John was written by John, etc. But the majority opinion is going the other way on many of these books. And this is a real problem for Atwood’s understanding of the canon. If Apostolic authorship is as critical as Atwood asserts, then the canon must be open to constant revision according to our historical knowledge of the matter. The mere fact that the second and third century Church believed that the Pastoral Epistles, for example, were written by the Apostle Paul doesn’t mean that they were. The evidence here is hardly conclusive.
Everyone today, of course, acknowledges that Hebrews was not composed by an Paul; but it is still acknowledged as Scripture. Even some of the Fathers questioned Pauline authorship. So how is it possible for Hebrews to be Scripture, according to Atwood’s thesis? Should it get thrown out? Is the canon up for grabs every generation? Do we introduce distinctions within the New Testament–really, really authentic; probably authentic, maybe authentic; not apostolic but may be read for devotional, not doctrinal, purposes (sort of like the way Anglicans treat the Apocrypha).
And what about the Gospels of Mark and Luke? They weren’t composed by Apostles either. The possibility that their authors enjoyed an association with real Apostles does not make Mark and Luke into Apostles themselves, nor do the Gospel texts themselves claim to have been approved by the Apostles. The manuscripts do not come with apostolic imprimaturs.
And then there is the whole possibility of pseudonymity. Everyone can line up scholars to argue one side or the other. Everyone has an opinion; but since we are mainly, perhaps almost exclusively, relying on evidence internal to the documents themselves, there’s probably no way to resolve the questions of authorship to everyone’s satisfaction. Does this mean that my confidence that 1 & 2 Peter, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Ephesians, etc., are truly the inspired Word of God is dependent upon popular scholarly opinion at any given moment?
No matter how you cut it, Atwood’s thesis simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
You state that I am being dismissive of Atwood. Actually, I think I took his article more seriously than it deserved. I think it was an insulting rant, and I believe he owes Shari an apology. (I note that Atwood has written a rejoinder. I have not read it yet. Perhaps he has already apologized. I hope so.) As far as all of these popular, nameless Catholic apologists who are running around out there misrepresenting the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church, big deal. There are an equal number of evangelical and Protestant apologists out there misrepresenting the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church, too. Do you and your friends run around confronting and correcting them on their blogs? Of course, not. We all have better things to do. What we can do, though, is control and discipline our own speech.
Dave, instead of worrying about whether I have engaged Atwood’s argument or not, why don’t you re-read my article and engage my argument! If you think my argument has weaknesses, show me what they are.
February 21st, 2005 at 4:02 pm
As far as I know, I have not seen any Orthodox catechized to believe that the Church produced the Scriptures in 400 a.d. or made them to be Scriptures in 400 a.d. But what I do see is a recognition - new by many - that the relationship between Church and Scripture is different than they were given to believe in popular protestantism. I think some people “flee” those mistated realtionships and find in Orthodoxy or Catholicism a use of Scripture that, strangely enough, seems liberating. For all of the authority and canons, etc. of either Catholicism or Orthodoxy, neither is as oppressive as the frequent practices of conservative evangelicalism. The problem with moving away from conservative evangelicalism is that “liberal” evangelicalism is entering into a freefall.
The Scriptures of the Old Testament, clearly predate the New Testament Church and were accepted as authoritative from the beginning, but only in the hermeneutic given by Christ. That hermeneutic is largely what the New Testament is: the Christian reading of the Old Testament. Church and Scripture exist and matured together, because they are both part of the one life - the life of Christ in His body. Historical moments, such as pronouncements of councils did not make Scripture authoritative, they simply stated that this is how the Church understood this part of its life. The largest factor in determining the “canonicity” of Scripture was whether they had been received and used by the Church consistently. The books that were rejected (after being seriously considered) were not accepted by most of the Christian community. Whether this was stated as “lacking Apostolic authority” is pretty much beside the point. That is simply how the Church described something that was not going to be part of the universally received canon. The books that made it in “by the skin of the teeth” had somewhat more acceptance. It is interesting to note that the Book of Revelation, part of the Canon, is still nowhere read in a service of the Orthodox Church. We don’t believe that makes it less a part of Scripture, but it does say something about it. I for one, wish it were not part of the canon of Evangelical Protestantism - along with Daniel and Ezekiel - only because of the rampant abuse those books receive at the hands of scandalous commentators.
Fr. Stephen Freeman
February 21st, 2005 at 4:14 pm
“No matter how you cut it, Atwood’s thesis simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.”
Just to pile on, I’ll note that Atwood’s contempt for pseudepigraphy as “dishonest” would cut just as deeply against the Council of Jamnia. One of the primary criteria offered for determining canonicity offered at Jamnia was that the books were written before the reign of Artaxerxes. The problem is that the traditional attribution of certain books to Solomon almost certainly put material in that range that was not actually written in that time period (particularly in the case of Proverbs). Consequently, the so-called “settled canon” of the Old Testament upon which Protestants rely was an instance of exactly the kind of “dishonesty turned into inerrancy” that Atwood considers to be so absurd.
February 21st, 2005 at 4:28 pm
Fr Al (#23):
While I appreciate your kind words about me in particular, I have no desire to be set apart from my fellow Lutherans at Here We Stand. I do try to be intellectually honest and fair in describing the views of others; but the others at Here We Stand (and Chris Atwood in particular) generally do also.
From my perspective each side of this debate is making its point in too strong a form. The RC side is right that the Scriptures came to be within the context of the existing, ongoing life of the Church, and that the authority of the Scriptures is not independent of the authority of the Church; but the Lutheran side is right that the authority of the Scriptures is not derivative of the authority of the Church, and that the position of the Scriptures is uniquely privileged because of its directly apostolic origin.
When RC writers intimate that the Councils of Hippo or Carthage, or Pope Damasus, bestowed on the books of the New Testament an authority that they did not previously possess, they make a grievous error. It is analogous to suggesting that when the fathers at Nicaea defined the homoousion, it became the Truth on their authority. But just as the definition of Nicaea bore witness to the Catholic faith which had been handed down and received, just so Hippo, Carthage, and Pope Damasus bore witness to the authenticity and authority of the canonical books. In both cases, the Church authoritatively recognized the Truth which she had received. But the Truth did not, in either case, depend on the Church for its truthfulness.
On the other hand, in my opinion my friend Chris Atwood is being too strong in claiming a “self-validating” character for the New Testament, and in devaluing the role of the Church in bearing witness to their authority. I see this as an epistemological issue: everything that we know of the Gospel comes from the testimony and proclamation of the Apostles; and everything that we know of the Apostles’ testimony depends on the fact that their testimony was preserved and handed down, both orally and in writing, by the Church. We should have no New Testament at all if the Church had not preserved it and handed it down to us. If the Church in every generation had not recognized these writings as sacred and authoritative, they would have been forgotten. For this reason, among many others, it will never do to separate and oppose Church and Scripture.
February 21st, 2005 at 5:18 pm
Re: 30
Now that is an excellent post, Chris. True on all counts.
February 21st, 2005 at 5:34 pm
Re: 27
Pontificator,
“As already pointed out, Atwood’s argument hinges completely on apostolic authorship. Raise serious questions about such authorship for any given book of the New Testament, and his whole canonical house of cards comes crumbling down. Now I do not have dog in this hunt. I think it would be great if critical scholarship could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1 Peter was written by Peter and the Gospel of John was written by John, etc. But the majority opinion is going the other way on many of these books.”
But this has already been answered. Your presuppositions are wrong here. You rely on one school of intepretation - the newest and most liberal one - the critical method. By “majority opinion” you can only mean the majority of modern, living liberal scholars. But with 2,000 years of church history and scholarship in the mix don’t you thing you are making a grave error by putting all of your hermeneutical eggs in this one enlightenment basket?
Have you considered that you rely to heavily on the liberalism of ECUSA regarding hermeneutics? You give no quarter to the superior historical-grammatical method and every other traditional approach to scripture. Why do you only rely on the views on sceptics in your hermeneutics? Do you perhpas make some sort of false association of conservative scholarship with unenlightened evangelicalism? I believe you have one more vestige of your denomination to shed.
I honestly mean this is all sincerity, but your hermeneutical leanings are going to cause lots of problems for you if you carry them out to their logical conclusions. You need to rework your starting point on scriptural interpretation by examining or re-examing other hermeneutical methods. Thankfully Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran and some more broadly Protestant scholarship in this area has some greatbiblical scholars who actually believe in the Christ of these scriptures.
February 21st, 2005 at 6:13 pm
It is not necessary for anybody to apologize to me
I have a tough hide, and an interest in both history and theology
(although only from the standpoint of an ordinary layman). As is (alas)
obvious, I am no theologian, merely someone who reads history, Scripture
and theology for pleasure. Actually, I’m interested in this discussion and
I am listening intently to the arguments.
Having said that, however, I still find it odd that my critics can be so adamant about the authority of Scripture, and so gelatinous about the Tradition of the church. Whoever “wrote” Scripture, the canon does appear to have been (what the the theologically correct phrasing?) “inspired of”…”affirmed by”…”born witness to”…or “authoritatively recognized”…(is that correct) by the Holy Fathers (also known as the “early church”).
Is there a reason that the “gospel of Thomas” or the “secret gospel of James” or for that matter “the gospel of Mary Magdalene” or any other gnostic work is not also considered “Holy Scripture” by Lutherans? My understanding is that we don’t think these works are Holy Scripture, because the early Church Fathers said they were not. However, they are certainly quite old, and if one did not have the testimony of the councils of the church, it would not be difficult to say that at least the gospel of Thomas and that of James were “uniquely priveleged because of [their] directly apostolic origin”.
Or have I missed something? I’m asking this seriously. It would not be difficult for me to have missed something. As Dr. McCoy likes to say in Star Trek, “D*m it Jim! I’m a doctor, not a theologian!”
Pax
Shari
February 21st, 2005 at 6:19 pm
Oh! I might add that I speak for nobody in the Catholic church, and therefore the Catholic church should not be judged by my errors. I am not a licensed catechist nor do I teach. I’m a parishoner, and I go to church to worship, that’s all.
Shari
February 21st, 2005 at 6:40 pm
Hi Shari,
First let me say that I agree with you that the Church and tradition are necessary. That being said scripture has primacy to use a Catholic term. Scripture without the church is like bullets without a gun.
As for the gnostic gospels, they were never accepted by the church since apostles teachings that weree clearly known repudiated such teachings. What was clearly known to be from the Apostles, like the Gospels and Paul’s letters were clearly at odds and of a different character than the 2nd and 3rd century gnostic writings which were also non existent early on so their later origin also made them suspect. As far as the type of writings the gnostic gospels are compared to the real ones it’s as if reading Reader’s Digest for 20 years all of a sudden someone hands you a Mad Magazine you are going to notice the difference.
Plus, I think Apostolic succession in the early church was indeed one of the safeguards in this manner. The successors to the Apostles was certainly important to maintain orthodoxy among Bishops. It was a practical way of passing on approved Apostolic teaching in the first few generations of the church. If Clement was reliable he was careful to pass along reliable teaching and to verify the primary sources.
Any orthodox Bishop in the early church would have been out of his Vulcan mind if he could not tell the difference between 1 Corinthians and the gsopel of Thomas.
February 21st, 2005 at 7:02 pm
Hi Dave:
I may be wrong of course. However I spent some time studying gnosticism (for my own education) and my understanding is that whatever a “orthodox bishop” in the early church might have thought, orthodox bishops were by no means universal until Nero’s persecutions ensured that _all_ bishops were either “orthodox” or invisible.
I understanding is that Gnosticism was extraordinarily popular in the early church, with Valentinus being particularly mainstream. As I understand it, Valentinus was never universally condemned as a heretic in his lifetime and was a respected member of the Christian community until his death. He was almost certainly a priest in the mainstream church and may even have been a bishop. He is said to have lost the election to the see of Peter by a close margin. Had he been elected bishop of Rome (and if as I understand it, you believe) that the see of Peter holds no particular charism that guards it from serious error in teaching, than it is not too much to believe that what is called “Holy Scripture” would look quite different from what we take it to be now.
However it seems to me that the see of Peter does in fact hold some charism against error. In the early church that “charism” appeared to manifest in the person of the Emperor Nero. I wrote an essay on the subject of gnosticism and its influence on the early church for whatever it is worth. But I wrote it as an Anglican, and again as a layman, and for my own edification, so please don’t blame the church (Catholic or Anglican) it you don’t like my thoughts.
http://www.faithwriters.com/article-details.php?id=8772
Pax
Shari
February 21st, 2005 at 7:58 pm
Shari,
I have not wish to dispute this history. I will only say that while gnosticism may have been popular the gnostic gospels were both written later and never enjoyed the universality of the majority of what we now call the New Testament.
Thanks for the link. I will be sure to read it. I actually go to an orthodox Anglican church so I am sure I will be able to appreciate it.
February 21st, 2005 at 8:26 pm
Dave H. wrote:
>It’s all pretty simple. If the internet were not full, and I mean full, of Catholic and Orthodox converts from other communions, who attribute their conversion to the sudden realization that the Church wrote the scriptures in the manner that Clueless Christian seems to think then their would not be a need to respond this most obvious error as Chris Atwood did.
If the Internet is so full of these people, then how come Chris could cite only one (recent) convert, and Pontificator (who is not a convert) and one Catholic apologist who said nothing like what he is criticizing. You repeat the same charge. The Internet is full of this, but no documentation. It may be, for all I know (I don’t do discussion boards or lists anymore), but I don’t believe things simply based on bald assertion.
>Perhaps he was too harsh in tone - but not content. The truth remains. You can only see falsehood repeated so many times before you address it and to be honest it is really frustrating to see thoughful Protestants constantly berated and while this type of stuff is left floating around the internet without causing any type of internal conflict.
I’m an “equal opportunity” apologist! On my website you will see pages devoted to correcting errors of liberal Catholics and “traditionalist” Catholics. I recently did a piece on a liberal Catholic on my blog. I correct error when I see it. I corrected “Clueless” on one inaccurate remark she made (so did Pontificator).
>As long as Catholic and Orthodox apologists let what they know to be false slide . . .
Why is it that you folks at Here We Stand always have to be so extreme in language? Now the charge is upped from laxity and sleepy patrolling of internal errors, to flat-out hypocrisy and ethically dubious irresponsibility. Do you try to be as uncharitable as possible, or does it just come naturally? It’s not just you; I’ve seen this also in Chris and Josh S. when it comes to Catholics. Not that it is surprising anymore, but there is this thing called Christian charity that we can all agree on, if nothing else.
>then criticizing those who actually address is kind of silly.
I agreed with the criticism of the wrong statement and belief. What I disagreed with was the exaggerations of making this to be commonplace among “apologists.” I also thought that Cleless’s words were taken out of context. She made one mistake in terminology. Big wow. Even that was clarified in context.
>In other words until Catholics and anyone else police their own when they know that falsehoods are being spread in their name, they should stop criticizing those who point it out and start critizing their own.
I’m totally in favor of that, which is why I do it (more on that below).
>Better yet, make sure your own people are properly catechized and educated.
Why do you think I am an apologist in the first place? Apologists are despised by so many (I was the subject of two huge threads on a big discussion board recently: it was almost all ad hominem nonsense), yet we hear this motif: that Catholics are so ignorant. So, which is it?: Apologists are big bad boogeymen, or useful to help educate an undercatechized laity, and to challenge a liberalized clergy (where that malady is present)?
>Just to clarify that was a general statement not addressed to anyone in particular. But to a the internet apologetics movement, particularly Catholics e-pologists, who do not police their own on issues that make them look bad. It was merely constructive criticism.
See, now this is what I object to. You guys insist on making general statements about “apologists” or “e-pologists.” I don’t object to the criticism itself (if it is true, it’s entirely fair game; even possibly a duty to point out). What I don’t like is the loose, nebulous definition of “apologist,” the double standards, and the inability or unwillingness to document claims.
How do you define a “Catholic apologist”? Any Catholic who has a website or blog? I agree that apologetics has a wide purview, and that many can and should do it (I would argue that every Christian is called to do it to some extent, based on 1 Peter 3:15), but it stands to reason that if you are to make a claim like this, you should at least find one or two professional full-time apologists like myself, from whom you can derive a damning statement two. We have folks like Hahn, Keating, Shea, Akin, Madrid, Ray out there (and yours truly), writing tons of stuff. Y’all can’t produce a single example of this gross laxity that has you so upset? Instead, you concentrate on a new convert who doesn’t even claim to be an apologist? And vague mentions of tons of such remarks on a Catholic forum?
You could claim that the non-professional, relatively “green” Catholic apologists (perhaps overzealous due to a recent converesion) do this, but when you make the claim general, you also include us professionals (who would have more of a responsibility to “police,” anyway). And so that includes me. But as I have shown, I am not guilty of this at all (it’s the exact opposite of the truth); nor do I think any other known, published Catholic apologist is, either.
Pontificator was exactly right, when he wrote:
“First, Chris Atwood chose to attack someone whose only sin was imprecision of language. If Atwood wanted to take on the “big lie,” then he should have taken on one or more of the major internet apologists out there–Dave Armstrong, Mark Shea, and Jimmy Akins [sic; it’s “Akin”] immediately come to mind–or maybe even Robert Sungenis, who seems to have gone off the deep end on some issues. These are the folks that folks read and who are exercising some influence. The point is, if the “big lie,” viz., that the Church “created” Scripture, thereby conferring upon it divine authority, is really being disseminated, then it should be fairly easy to document it among these influential writers. But so far I haven’t seen any such documentation. In other words, if there is a big lie, it is the lie that Chris Atwood and his supporters is spreading.”
>I am sure that she (Clueless) is an otherwise thoughtful Christian, but in this instance she repeated, in a very lamentable manner a popular falsehood. Not that she herself was being dishonest. But it is clear that she, like so many others, has bought into this particular historical innacuracy.
I don’t think she has, because I read her words in context, and exercised charity in interpreting them, unlike you and Chris and Josh.
>There are many compelling arguments for Catholicism and Orthodoxy (I have considered both seriously) but the “Church wrote the Bible in 400AD” argument is not one of them. To be blunt it is a really stupid claim that obviously smart people should shun. I am certain it is a combination of trust and laziness that leads people to believe it. But a brief study of church history is sufficient to prove otherwise.
Her words in context proved that she doesn’t think the Bible was literally written in 400 AD. If you doubt this, why don’t you ask her outright? Or would that put you out; it being a too-courteous act towards a fellow Christian? This is absolutely asinine. She used some imprecise language. Period. Great balls of fire! Look at the silly things Chris has written in his recent post and in his recent dialogue with me! He has made outrageous claims about Catholicism that were demonstrably false. And he really believes this stuff. You don’t have to twist his words and take them out of context to “force” him to believe something that he doesn’t accept. Nor does one have to generalize to a whole class of people (”apologists,” “Lutherans,” “LCMS,” etc.) to refute his spurious claims and illogical assertions.
Dave H. is now addressing Pontificator:
>With all due respect you have simply ignored almost all of Chris’s arguments as if he never made them and ignored my entire point as well.
I haven’t seen that. Pontificator has written at length. I have, too. You didn’t even mention me, but I wrote a very lengthy, detailed, comprehensive reply (as is my won’t: I even get mocked quite often for my verbosity). I looked over Chris’s counter-reply, and he scarcely dealt at all with the many arguments I made. Yet here you are complaining that your side is being ignored? What a joke!
>Chris also made clear in his initial post and his follow up that he was addressing “popular” beliefs by Catholics not the official Catholic teaching.
That’s fine; nevertheless, he (and you, and Josh) have insisted on generalizing to the class of “Catholic apologists” who supposedly are lax in correcting these errors. It amounts to saying that we either don’t know what our Church teaches, or we do and refuse to correct folks who are distorting it. The class of apologists includes full-time ones like myself. Or do you wish to exempt apologists who show that they know their stuff from the charge?
>Such things are fair game. If you wish to deny that their are Catholics all over the internet, as well as Orthodox, who make this particular argument you simply have your head in the sand (respectfully). Go over to Catholic Answers and count how many times this argument is made on their forums by Catholic apologists.
That gets back to what one means by “Catholic apologist” — one of my points above. You can always find people who are imprecise or mistaken about things. At what point does any writer on a board or blog become an “apologist”, though? You can say lots of folks “do apologetics,” but to describe them as an “apologist” implies to me a much higher level of education and ability and skill. If you say, “Protestant apologist,” for example (and I was one for ten years), I think of people like Josh McDowell, C.S. Lewis, Norman Geisler, John Warwick Montgomery; even William Lane Craig or Gary Habermas. I wouldn’t dream of calling anyone at all who defended some form of Protestantism on the Internet a “Protestant apologist.” So I find this imprecision of language an odd curiosity.
>It does no good for you to hand select a few high profile apologists.
Why? After all, we are part of that class of “Catholic e-pologists” on the Internet, are we not? Most of the best-known Catholic apologists have an active presence on the Internet (Scott Hahn would be one exception). It’s almost like you want to restrict the use of the term “Catholic apologist” to the relatively less-educated and effective people who do apologetics at all. This quickly becomes a double standard. You want to attack people who have some shortcoming, then illogically generalize to the entire class, and then complain when we reply that you have not noted any well-known apologists, or produced anything from them that shows this “widespread error” you are all up in arms about. It’s ludicrous.
>My entire point is that these same apologists do not correct this error among Catholic, likes CC, but have no problem attacking Protestants for addressing what they refuse too.
Case in point. This includes people like me. But I have already shown that I have done exactly this (I do it all the time). I even had an article published in This Rock which chastized Catholics), called, “Catholics Need to Read Their Bibles” (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp). I was praised by anti-Catholics in the CARM forum when I reproduced this in that venue. They loved it. I showed how I have addressed this very error, in my paper, “The Canon of Scripture: Did the Catholic Church Create It Or Merely Authoritatively Acknowledge It?” (http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004_07_25_socrates58_archive.html#109078148615080881) You obviously didn’t read that paper, because if you had, you would see that I did precisely what you are calling for: I disagreed with a Catholic friend of mine on my own blog, and agreed with the Reformed Protestant Kevin Johnson. I wrote, in my conclusion, responding to the Catholic:
“I don’t follow your logic here. Scripture is what it is. 1 Timothy and other passages clearly teach inerrancy and inspiration. Therefore, they are biblical doctrines, because they are books in the Bible. Period. The canon is a separate issue. I think you are unnecessarily confusing the two areas.
The Catholic Church simply acknowledges what is intrinsically Scripture; it doesn’t make it so (as my citations from VI and VII proved). At best you can only demonstrate a certain epistemological disconnect at some point in Protestantism vis-a-vis the Bible and Tradition and sola Scriptura (I’ve made that argument a hundred times myself), but you haven’t shown that Scripture itself doesn’t teach that Scripture is inspired and infallible and inerrant.
If you followed your logic consistently, you would end up with the absurdity of saying that no doctrine taught in the Bible is a biblical doctrine, because we can’t know for sure that any biblical book is in fact part of the Bible without non-biblical Tradition. Thus, by a reductio ad absurdum, this particular argument of yours collapses. It “proves too much.” ”
I also cited Vatican I and Vatican II, to give the true Catholic teaching:
—————————
You [Kevin] are absolutely correct. You want common ground; this is one. The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) from Vatican II, makes this clear:
“For Holy Mother Church relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that they were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn. 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:15-16), they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”
Was this something “new” in Vatican II? Hardly. It merely echoes an earlier statement from Vatican I (1870) — which in turn was not far from similar expressions in Trent —: Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, chapter II:
“These the Church holds to be sacred and canonical; not because . . . they were afterward approved by her authority . . . but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and have been delivered as such to the Church herself.”
Seems to me, Kevin, that this is quite sufficient to establish that we agree on this point. Any Catholic or Protestant who states otherwise simply doesn’t understand Catholic dogmatic teaching on the nature of the canon of Holy Scripture.
——————————–
But, of course, you don’t want to include ME in your criticisms. You just want to make sweeping claims about “Catholic apologists” without consulting the ones who work hardest at that endeavor, and devote their lives to it. That’s really fair, isn’t it? Exclude the ones who most reasonably can be expected to speak for the class of which they are a part, but reserve the right to bash the entire class (which includes those that you exclude from analysis). Very compelling methodology there . . .
>Chris’s arguments were fair and have not yet be addressed.
I addressed them point by point. Perhaps you weren’t aware of that. Now you are. As far as I am concerned, several of his points were pulverized. I think it is embarrassing for him, and that he should remove the paper, before he loses even more credibility than he already has.
>You are simply being dismissive.
And you and Chris and Josh are NOT doing that, of course . . . You want to say you aren’t doing it, too? Okay, then reply to my previous paper point-by-point, and this one, too. After all, I am the first professional Catholic apologist who has responded at length to your criticisms. What stops you?
>Two seperate things are going on here: 1 - you don’t like Chris’s choice of blogs to engage - Clueless Christian’s. 2 -An argument has been made against a popular missunderstanding of the origins of the New Testament. An argument I might add that could have been made by a thoughtful Catholic or Orthodox person.
Yeah, exactly. That’s why I have made it myself on more than one occasion. But then that puts the lie to your sweeping claims about Catholic apologists. It’s in your interest, then, to make out that said class is exceedingly ignorant, and to ignore or quickly dismiss people like me, who have done their homework, because it apparently is in your interest to deal with only shoddy Catholic apologetics. I take the exact opposite approach: I seek out the most able exponents of opposing positions: not the least (so I can make fun of those positions and mock them). I did this even with the anti-Catholics (a position I consider intellectual suicide). Thus I have taken on James White, Eric Svendsen, David T. King, Jason Engwer, and William Webster: the best and most “armed” proponents of a ludicrous position).
>Instead of engaging it you are setting up strawmen (I hate that term, but it’s true) and then knocking them down.
Wow. Talk about “pot kettle black” time . . .
>This is simply out of character for you. You may not be moved by Protestant arguments, frankly neither am I depending on the argument, but you have not addressed Chris directly.
I think Pontificator has; I certainly have . . . I await counter-replies. Soimething tells me I may be waiting a long time. But you never know . . . occasionally people are willing to actually defend their positions with some reasonable arguments.
February 21st, 2005 at 8:46 pm
Shari,
What would Nero’s persecutions have to do with it? Valentinus, and the heyday of “Gnosticism” generally, dates from the second century–long after Nero was dead. Are you sure you don’t mean Diocletian’s persecutions? But they fell on the orthodox at least as much as on heretics. I’m really not sure what point you are making here.
February 21st, 2005 at 8:49 pm
I wonder if centuries from now people will debate how the church today knew that the Book of Mormon and Dianetics were not scriptural. How is possible that Christians all over the planet, Catholic, Orthodox, and all flavors of Protestant, managed to reach agreement on them? It must be a miracle! Are we collectively infallible?
February 21st, 2005 at 10:38 pm
To answer Edwin’s question, I ask the boards patience with me. There are serious limitations to attempting to teach oneself history, theology, Scripture (and more recently Spanish) with nothing more than a library, and I have no doubt that I am making errors that would have been rapidly corrected were I able to study properly.
My point is exactly that the persecutions fell disproportionately upon the orthodox. The Gnostics simply sacrified to the Emperor, and therefore were relatively spared. However, because the orthodox were the only ones willing to die for Christ, orthodox bishops became identified with Christianity. The various Roman persecutions, in this sense gave us the authority of the Church.
My understanding is that the persecutions of Nero began in 64 AD and continued through 117 AD. While it is true that Gnosticism flourished in the second century, it seems clear that Gnosticism is far older than that. For example Menander, who lived in Antioch late in the first century, was a Gnostic who claimed that whoever believed in him would not die. Cerinthus was an early Gnostic who taught that Jesus escaped from the cross and the Romans crucified someone else in His place, thinking it was Him. Irenaeus recounts the story of the Apostle John fleeing from a bathhouse when he learned that Cerinthus “the enemy of truth is inside”. (Cerinthus was said to uphold the Docetic form of Gnosticism wherein Jesus was thought to be pure spirit). Thus, it seems clear that this early Gnostic at least was a contemporary of the “real apostles”.
(NB: Irenaeus does not comment on what state of dress the Apostle John “fled” in, and whether he fled in a fashion similar to the “young man” (The Apostle Mark?) at the Garden of Gethsemane [Mark 14:50-51]…Alas, I have always wondered!).
Although relatively few Gnostic writings survived later purgings, the Gospel of Thomas is one that did. It is thought to date from the middle of the first century to the middle of the second century. This is quite similar to some of the later writings of the Christian canon, for example the Second Epistle of Peter, is thought to date from around 150AD. This puts this fairly early Gnostic work well into the period of “truly apostolic” literature.
As to Valentinus, he was probably the most prominent of the Gnostics, but was by no means the first. He was safely tucked away in Alexandria during the first wave of Roman persecutions, but taught in Rome in between 135–160 AD (when it was comparatively safe). Gnosticism appears to flourish best in times that lack persecution. This is not surprising since Gnostics to a large extent, deny the suffering of Christ, and therefore see no reason to accept suffering for the sake of Christ. For this reason, I believe that it was precisely because the Nero persecutions had ended that Gnosticism could reach its full flower, and of course as soon as the persecutions of the Emperor Decius began in 250 the “golden age of gnosis” came to an end.
I should not have said “In a word, ‘Nero’”, though the word “Nero” conjures up to my imagination, a vision of Christian suffering which the words “Decius” or “Valerian” or “Diocletian” or “Galerius” do not. You must understand that I am/was not writing for a schoolteacher or for an audience, but for myself to better understand what I read. However my point was that the various heresies, Gnosticism in particular, forced the Church to crystallize her teachings. And because the (orthodox) church was willing to suffer for its beliefs, which Gnostics were not, the times of persecution were particularly rich times for the development of the authority of church leaders. When being bishop means that you have the right to be roasted to death over a slow fire, only the truly motivated apply for the job. The heresies forced the Church to codify her teachings (including the canon of Scripture). The persecutions gave orthodox Christian leaders the moral authority that has come down to us in the form of Tradition and the (early) Magisterium.
IMHO of course.
February 21st, 2005 at 10:49 pm
Chris Atwood has made a response on his blog (http://metalutheran.blogspot.com/2005/02/response-to-critics-of-my-post-below.html ), but alas, not directly to my paper at all. There is an interesting (most revealing in some respects) comments thread going on (javascript:HaloScan(’110900351716001692′); ). I responded to some of it that mentioned me (or possibly implied something about me, in BWL’s case):
——————–
Atwood wrote:
>Whatever you do, do NOT mention that debate you had in Dave Armstrong’s hearing. . . . He’s been ranting about this as my “bogus” argument born purely of anti-Catholic bigotry ever since.”
First of all, I haven’t been “ranting.” I’ve been “arguing.” There is a difference. But if merely disagreeing with something you said, and calling you on it, as ignorant and misinformed, is “ranting,” then so be it.
You are now resorting to making unnecessary and misleading personal comments at my expense on your blog. I think you are certainly capable of far better, as you are an educated and thoughtful man.
Secondly, to my knowledge, I have not classified you as an “anti-Catholic” (Jonathan Prejean described you in that way on my blog, but I did not). I asked you once if you regarded the Catholic Church as Christian or not. You didn’t reply, so I am exercising the charity of agnosticism as to your position, though I do confess that your present insolent tone is making it somewhat difficult (what IS your position on that, anyway, or is it some big secret?).
Thirdly, are you going to reply to my response or not? Or is that “raving” to inquire?
BWL wrote:
>But then again, maybe I’m just a raving anti-Catholic like you and don’t know anything.
IF by this you are implicating me and my non-judgment of Chris Atwood (as one might interpret your remarks in context, coming after Atwood’s), see my comments above. IF you are implying that I think this of you, that would be quite odd, seeing that I asked you about it, you said you accepted Catholics as Christians, and I commended you for that viewpoint.
Just to set the record straight for those who see my name above and get the false impression that I am prone to making knee-jerk accusations of “anti-Catholicism” . . . As I said, I don’t know what Chris’s position is, and I don’t think BWL is an anti-Catholic at all. In fact, I thought we had a decent recent dialogue on my blog (though we didn’t resolve anything).
Chris Atwood hasn’t replied to my paper, so there is nothing to counter-respond to; however, I may dispute that these citations he has come up with serve to provide evidence for his assertions. People have a way of seeing things in words that they want to see, when they are anxious to “prove” something. That’s where logic and due charity towards the writer provide a valuable service.
———————————
Gems such as the following can be found in the comments at Here I Stand:
1) I think the Pontificator’s comments show high claims of church authority over the Scriptures are getting vitally needed juice from critical scholarship’s attacks on the Bible. So much for claims of Catholic-Evangelical “co-belligerance” in defending the apostolic faith against Enlightenment. When it comes to the Bible we’re on our own.
Atwood | Email | 02.21.05 - 2:49 pm | #
2) The fact the some, such as the Pontificator, have been so infected by the liberalism of ECUSA even as he is trying to leave it is evident. Such people believe only in big Ivy League names as if a liberal Yale or Harvard professor approached scripture with any objectivity.
Dave H | Email | 02.21.05 - 5:18 pm | #
3) In fact the Grammatical-Historical method is much more reliable than higher criticism, which is extremely new and, again, universally a liberal school.
It is not wonder that some people need another authority - since enlightenment scepticism and pressupositions [sic] have so infected their thinking.
Dave H | Email | 02.21.05 - 5:20 pm | #
———————-
This is what passes for argument over at Here I Stand these days. Catholics and Anglicans hate the Bible, and Pontificator is a liberal. Next thing you know I will be a liberal too. If making biblical arguments leads to that charge (which is most of what I did in my reply), then I’m proudly guilty as charged!
February 21st, 2005 at 10:59 pm
Dave, Just briefly regarding your last sentence in this above post (I will do my best on your first. lengthy post tomorrow in between work as I can) The name of the church I attend is St. Paul’s Anglican Parish (AMiA).
I never said anyone hated the Bible. I merely addressed Pontificators preference for liberal Bible scholarship.
February 21st, 2005 at 11:02 pm
Shari,
Just to be clear I was not attacking you. I was addressing the broader issues here. It was never personal or even directly about what you wrote. I never engaged your specific words, just the general argument. I felt it necessary to clarify since some think I was “attacking” you. I found our only actual exchange (above) to be friendly.
February 21st, 2005 at 11:25 pm
It’s okay, Dave! I was entertained, stimulated, and certainly not offended. (Medical rounds tend to be very much harsher during training, and I learned to laugh through them a long time ago).
But then, I have never pretended to be “properly catechized and educated” in either Christianity or anything else!
(But I’m working on it).
Pax
Shari
February 22nd, 2005 at 12:11 am
Actually, the Protestants do not have scripture. Inasmuch as they took it upon themselves to alter the Canon by deleting certain accepted books from the Old Testament (the Deutero-Canonical books), they set aside the Canon of Scripture, and asserted their judgement as the final authority. Luther was the grandfather of Higher Criticism and the Jesus Seminar.
A modern Protestant theologian named Wayne Grudem even went as far as to claim that if a new Epistle were to be confirmed to have been written by an Apostle, then it would be scripture (obviously a very different understanding of what an apostle is from the Church’s Tradition, in which every bishop is an apostle). So now, the Canon, in his mind, is open, and could be subject to something no more spiritual than forensic evidence. Is that Paul’s handwriting?
Some Protestants, confused about the difference between the Received Text and the unfortunate Codex Sinaiticus, not being sure which is right, have said that the autographas were the real word of God, inerrant. Well, of course we have no autographas, which means that, for them, there really is no dependable and inerrant scripture. In the final analysis, it all depends upon the best scientific evidence.
For us of Catholic mind, the Canon of Scripture is fixed. It is because we have no sola to our scriptura that our faith in the Bible cannot be shaken.
February 22nd, 2005 at 2:02 am
Fr. Hart (#46), I had been under the impression that the Old Testament canon differed from Roman Catholic to Eastern Orthodox to Ethiopian Orthodox. And that the current RC canon was not definitively laid down until after Luther challenged the deuterocanonical books. Was I misled? What exactly is the OT canon that the whole catholic church accepts, and when was it first clearly listed?
February 22nd, 2005 at 3:00 am
I have now made a second response to Chris Atwood (despite the dire predictions of commenters at Here I Stand that everyone was “ignoring” poor Chris — with the implication that we were scared out of our wits of grappling with his profound factuality). Quite the contrary; he has almost totally ignored my first reply, and we’ll see what he does with this one:
2nd Reply to Chris Atwood on Catholic Apologists & the Biblical Canon
(http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005_02_20_socrates58_archive.html#110905722408453998 )
February 22nd, 2005 at 7:54 am
“These decisions were certainly codifications, but they were also authoritative codifications, codifications ultimately “imposed” upon the ecumenical Church.”
But what evidence can the Church produce that it did in fact possess an authority to act in such a way?
“If we allow no final authority to churchly dogma, or to the organs by which the church can enunciate dogma, there can be no canon of Scripture.”
No, Not at all.
The sovereign authority of the Scriptures derives from their Author Who is the Sovereign GOD
The idea that the religious institution possesses an intrinsic authority which it can exert as and when it pleases is a denial of the sovereign authority of Christ the Head of His Church.
The ruler of the Church is not the Church but Christ.
Any marriage in which the Bride rules instead of her Husband is an anarchy, and a place of confusion and rebellion.
.
GOD has ordained that Christ’s one true Church is the Bride of Christ, and the Scriptures declare that the Bride of Christ never exerts authority over her Lord and Head nor in equality with Him.
Instead, the Bride is to be always subject to her Head and Lord in all things. As it is written: “Therefore, just as the church is in submission to Christ, so also are wives to be in subjection to their husbands in every thing” [Ephesians 5:24].
None of God’s Prophets or Christ’s Apostles determined what was Scripture, but instead, they wrote as directed by GOD the Author of the Scriptures by His Spirit.
It was GOD the Author of the Scriptures Who determined the extent and content of His written self-Revelation.
GOD intended His Church to always be the submissive and obedient targeted audience and Recipient of His enScripturated revelation.
And it is patently obvious except to those that will not see or cannot see that an Audience and Recipient cannot be the Arbiter and Authority over that which is intended to purify it and edify it.
Ephesians 5:27 declares that the Church has had to be sanctified and cleansed by being washed with the Word of GOD (Ephesians 5:27).
Whenever “the Church” is described as being an “authority structure,” the inference is that “the Church” has become a law unto itself - which is the mark of rebellion - and that it is oblivious to its former abject unregenerate state.
Christ’s one true Church must never forget that it has had to be rescued at infinite cost from its former rebellious, corrupt, and morally-depraved state by the Saviour of the body.
Could it be that any “Church” which insists on its own intrinsic “authority” and the right to act as it itself shall decide, is not a Church according to the pattern ordained by Christ?
February 22nd, 2005 at 8:38 am
Re #49
Well, if your talking about “indulgences” I agree. But if your trying to say that what constitutes Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit hasn’t been determined by the authority of the Church your just plain wrong-logically, historically, theologically etc.
The Protestant Revolution was useful in identifiying abuses, maybe even heresies, that had crept into Western Christianity. But as a coherent system of religious thought and witness it has largely failed, which is why it is dying out, except at it’s most irrational extremes. The poor and the credulous are always with us!
February 22nd, 2005 at 9:00 am
Whenever “the Church” is described as being an “authority structure,” the inference is that “the Church” has become a law unto itself - which is the mark of rebellion - and that it is oblivious to its former abject unregenerate state.
Of course, no Catholic believes the Church’s authority trumps God’s authority, or the authority of Scripture. But for all of that, christians have always thought that there must be authority in the Church. I cannot imagine that you deny any exercise of authority, even congregational (do you)? Would your denomination throw out a teacher who contradicted its particular teachings — if so, how is that different from what the Catholic Church does? I am talking now in general, not about the tricky question of the precise role of the Church in preserving and codifying scripture.
February 22nd, 2005 at 9:45 am
Charles (#47) and others,
The OT canon (including the deuterocanonicals accepted as part of canonical scripture by both the Catholic and Orthodox churches) was settled by a series of local councils in both the Greek-speaking Eastern and the Latin-speaking Western regions of the Roman Empire (mostly in the latter) between 380 and 420. These, as I wrote, were local, not ecumenical, councils, and so one may argue that their authority is in a certain sense provisional. My impression is that that is how the Orthodox regard them, as authoritative but not final, which is why various Orthodox Churches include in their OTs various books in addition to those that the Catholic Church accepts as Scripture — books such as 3 & 4 Maccabees, 3 & 4 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Pslam 151 and the like. Not all Orthodox Churches include all of these books: some include some, others others. When one turns to the Non-Chalcedonian Eastern Churches, the picture is more complex still: the Ethiopian Church includes even more books, including the Book(s) of Enoch. I do not know whether these Oriental Orthodox Churches accept, or even include in their canonical traditions, those local councils between 380 and 420 which established the OT canon for the Eastern and Western churches.
For the Catholic Church, however, the OT Canon, inclusive of the deuterocanonical books, was established authoritatively and infallibly by the decree *Cantate Domino* by the Council of Florence in 1443. This was a decree of reunion between the Catholic Church and the Coptic Church of Egypt. I do not know why the decree took pains to define the canon, which was not a matter of dispute at the time, unless tacitly to reject those extra books which the Coptic Church included (and may, for all I know, still include) in its OT Canon. This OT canon was reaffirmed, this time to reject Protestant denials of the Scriptural status of the deuterocanonical books, by the Council of Trent in 1547. Thus, as it appears to me, while the OT Canon is settled and unalterable in the sight of the Catholic Church, it may not be quite so settled in the view of the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches. (Recently I read a newly-published book on the Septuagint by the German Lutheran scholar Martin Hengel, in the last chapter of which he quotes from an Orthodox/Lutheran ecumenical dialogue commission report from the 1980s, which he interprets as the Orthodox withdrawing from the decrees of their Council of Jerusalem of 1672 [which reaffirmed the canonical status of the deuterocanonical books] and adopting the Lutheran view, which, as he describes it, is that while these books are included in the OT, and may be read for purposes of individual edification, they are not to be used to establish doctrine. Would any of the Orthodox readers on this site have any comments on this?)
I know of no cogent defence of the sustainibility of the Protestant OT Canon in the light of our historical knowledge today, and in particular that the Jewish Scriptural Canon was not established until the Synod of Javneh/Jamnia sometime between 80 and 95 AD — the same rabbinical assembly that inserted the curse upon the “heretics and Nazoreans” into the great synagogue prayer, the Shemoneh Ezreh, the Eighteen Benedictions, as number eleven among the now-nineteen prayers. As the (Methodist) NT scholar Albert Sundberg demonstrated in his *The Old Testament Canon of the Early Church* (1964) and in two follow-up articles in the *Catholic Biblical Quarterly* in 1966 and 1968, the Jews divided Scripture into three categories, the Law, the Prophets and the Writings, and the last of these was not “closed” until Jamnia. Sundberg’s two articles show that the existence of the Synod of Javneh/Jamnia was wholly unknown to Christians until the 17th Century, and that from Origen’s time onwards early Christians thought that the entire OT Canon had been “closed” by the Jewish authorities in the Fifth Century BC, in the time of Ezra & Nehemiah. The result of this error of fact was that some early Christians, such as Origen and Augustine, who wished to defend the authoritative distinctiveness of the Christian OT Canon, had to have recourse to a “two canons” hypothesis, that of a Hebrew Canon for the Jews, and an Alexandrian, Greek canon for the diaspora and ultimately for the Church. Other Christians, such as St. Athanasius, who came to accpet the priority of the Hebrew Canon (under the same mistaken notion of its antiquity) tried to fit the deuterocanonical books, or at least some of them, into some of the Hebrew books (such as Lamentations and Baruch under Jeremiah) — although Sundberg shows that Athanasius continued, perhaps inconsistently, to refer to deuterocanonical books as “Scripture” throughout his works, the later ones as well as the earlier ones. It was St. Jerome alone who rejected the deuterocanonical books as essentially worthless, and although he acquiesced outwardly in the decisions of the local councils that endorsed the canonicity of thse books, Jerome (as J. N. D. Kelly demonstrates in his biography) continued privately to disparage and reject them.
So far as I am aware, most Protestant apologists have not been able to refute on historical grounds Sundberg’s conclusions. The only scholarly attempt to do so of which I am aware id *The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church* by Roger Beckwith (1986). I have read this book, but I am left at the end with the impression that Dr. Beckwith concludes more that the “New Testament Church” should have accepted as its OT Canon those books that Protestants and Jews accept today as such — but does not prove that it actually did any such thing.
I am, in general, bemused at the absence of any mention of the OT Canon from this discussion. If Protestants have been working since the Reformation with a mutilated and incomplete Bible, that seems to me to remove any credibility for the views that they would seek to establish on such an incomplete collection, as well as to illustrate the inherent absurdities of *sola scriptura* — a view which (in addition to its being a perfect novelty, unknown to the Church Fathers) would seek to found authority upon what R. C. Sproul described as “a fallible collection of infallible books.” In such a case, the authority devolves (as comment #49 so vividly illustrates) on the individual or the sect, who in asserting the absolute authority of Scriptura over, and separate from, the Church, at the same time establish themselves as its privileged interpreters.
February 22nd, 2005 at 10:06 am
What is the Augsburg Confession other than an “authority structure” imposed by the (Lutheran) church? Didn’t Luther encourage the expulsion of the Mennonites and Annabaptists because they refused to accept the Confessions, denied infant baptism, and felt that both Luther and Zwingli did not go “far enough” in returning the church to what they thought was the apostolic model?
The Anabaptists denied “real presence” and did not practice infant baptism. Where in Scripture are either upheld, that Luther used these deviations from the apostolic model to have them persecuted? They are deviant only from Holy Tradition, not Holy Scripture. By what right did Luther have the Anabaptists and Mennonites expelled?
Also, on what grounds did Luther strike the apocrapha from Holy Scripture, when it had been accepted as cannonical for a millenia? I can understand Lutherans asking “Who was Pope Damascus that he could side with Augustine against Jerome to include the apocrapha, when the councils failed to come to a conclusion?” However who was Luther to side with Jerome (one thousand years later) against Augustine to exclude it? Was Luther some sort of pope that he was given special infallibility in determining the canon of Scripture?
Shari
February 22nd, 2005 at 10:29 am
Richard B appears to deny the Augsburg Confession.
http://users.frii.com/gosplow/augsburg.html#augs-014
Richard writes “The sovereign authority of the Scriptures derives from their Author Who is the Sovereign GOD. The idea that the religious institution possesses an intrinsic authority which it can exert as and when it pleases is a denial of the sovereign authority of Christ the Head of His Church. The ruler of the Church is not the Church but Christ. Any marriage in which the Bride rules instead of her Husband is an anarchy, and a place of confusion and rebellion.”
This appears to violate the section on the Ministry of the Word which reads “When, therefore, the question is concerning the jurisdiction of bishops, civil authority must be distinguished from ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Again, according to the Gospel, or, as they say, by divine right, there belongs to the bishops as bishops, that is, to those to whom has been committed the ministry of the Word and Sacraments, no jurisdiction except to forgive sins, to judge doctrine, to reject doctrines contrary to the Gospel, and to exclude from the communion of the Church wicked men, whose wickedness is known, and this without human force, simply by the Word. Herein the congregation of necessity and by divine right must obey them, according to Luke 10, 16: He that heareth you heareth Me.”
“Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, it is said, belongs by divine right to those to whom the ministry of Word and Sacrament has been committed.
In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the power of jurisdiction is again laid on the public ministry.
“But we are speaking of a bishop according to the Gospel. And we are pleased with the ancient division of power into power of order and power of jurisdiction [that is the administration of the Sacraments and the exercise of spiritual jurisdiction]. Therefore the bishop has the power of the order, i.e.,the ministry of the Word and Sacraments; he has also the power of jurisdiction, i.e., the authority to excommunicate those guilty of open crimes, and again to absolve them if they are converted and seek absolution. But their power is not to be tyrannical, i.e., without a fixed law; nor regal, i.e., above law; but they have a fixed command and a fixed Word of God, according to which they ought to teach, and according to which they ought to exercise their jurisdiction. The power of order (potestas ordinis–the Word and Sacrament ministry) and the power of jurisdiction (potestas iurisdictionis–the authority to excommunicate and absolve) are here granted to bishops. Both forms of power, however, are to be exercised only according to the divine command.”
So much for “every man a priest”!
Shari
February 22nd, 2005 at 10:36 am
Hello Shari,
The idea is that the Augsberg Confession is a true exposition of Scripture, like the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed and the Apostles’ Creed. The confessions are true because they say what Scripture says. Thay do not have their own authority, nor are they over Scripture–they summarize Scripture.
Yes, Luther expelled the Anabaptists etc. I don’t see what this is supposed to prove.
“The Anabaptists denied ‘real presence’ and did not practice infant baptism. Where in Scripture are either upheld, that Luther used these deviations from the apostolic model to have them persecuted? They are deviant only from Holy Tradition, not Holy Scripture. By what right did Luther have the Anabaptists and Mennonites expelled?”
This is only true if you look for key-words to do doctrine, that is not how Lutherans operate. In any case, regarding the Real Presence, the doctrine is based on Christ’s own words. Regarding infant baptism, that is inferred from the state we are born in (sin, death), our total dependence on God for justification, and the fact that infants can believe, are in need of salvation just like others. When we see Christ’s command to go and baptize the nations, which include infants, that whole housholds were baptized, which typically include infants, and King David saying he believed in God while his mother fed him at her breasts, we can see the biblical outline quite clearly.
“Also, on what grounds did Luther strike the apocrapha from Holy Scripture, when it had been accepted as cannonical for a millenia? I can understand Lutherans asking “Who was Pope Damascus that he could side with Augustine against Jerome to include the apocrapha, when the councils failed to come to a conclusion?” However who was Luther to side with Jerome (one thousand years later) against Augustine to exclude it? Was Luther some sort of pope that he was given special infallibility in determining the canon of Scripture?”
Luther did not “strike” anything from the canon. There is not an official list of canonical books in the Book of Concord, but practically it is limited to the 66 books Protestants typically use (the canon is technically open though). It is also not unheard of to see the Deutero Canonical books read in Lutheran churches.
Please do not try and stick Lutherans in the typical “Evangelical” “Protestant” mold–we do not fit. And appeals to Tradition do not help yo utoo much, as there are different canons among even the “traditional” churches. It is not an open and shut case.
February 22nd, 2005 at 11:02 am
I have added updates to my two post, in which I state that on reconsideration I think the “big lie” (shades of Nazism, etc.) language was over the top and uncalled for. Sorry, Shari, for that excessive acrimony. But I still think that what you wrote is common, wrong, and worthy of refuting.
February 22nd, 2005 at 11:06 am
Dr. Tighe:
Please also note that Sundberg deals with Beckwith’s assertions in a later article, which may be found here:
http://department.monm.edu/classics/Speel_Festschrift/sundbergJr.htm
February 22nd, 2005 at 11:17 am
Re #38
Dave, I am going to attempt to be brief. You said alot and I don’t have time to respond point by point. I will ry to address everything you touched on.
1) I am sorry if you feel that only professional apologists can be criticised. I stand by what I wrote. The entire point was to address something that I and others have read many times over. I am not going to go searching for posts at forums or digging through blogs for something that was said two years ago or two weeks ago nor should I need to. As it is I mentioned Catholic Answers which is the largest Catholic forum on the internet and I have seen this issue many times there and I have never seen professional apologists correct it.
2) I am glad you are addressing these things. I stand corrected and appreciate your efforts. But you will forgive us who have not seen these addressed at places like CA. Not everyone is aware of your site or frequents it. If something is said somewhere and we see no Catholic response there is nothing illigitimate about saying there is a lack of “Catholic Answers” for errant catholics on certain forums and blog. Again, I am glad you challenge them but I have not seen you do so elsewhere - which is fine. You cannot be every where at once.
I never asked to believe what I say. But there was no bald assertion. Shari’s blog was an instance cited by Chris. And since we were blogging not writing official apologetic position papers we have every right to note or observations without citing every source. If you said Baptists often say ignorant things about the real presence I would not demand you cite sources. I would take your word for it since it rings true with most CHristians experience who believe in the real presence. You set up a standard that you live by as a professional apologists. We are not bound by these standards unless we are being unreasonable. But i suspect you know the assertion is true.
3) You complain of strong language but I find nothing in your post that makes you sound more charitable than me. I could quote several condecending words in your the same post I am responding to that goes being words like lazy. I did not attack anyone personally yet you seem to feel you were being attacked. I am sorry but I did not have you in mind at any point.
4) Back to the first point. Why do you insist we go to a select few apologists to address things others have said? If you said it then we should address you if we take issue with it. Since it was not you why should I address you if you were not involved? Are you going to come to me if you read something you disagree with on some Lutheran or Anglicans blog who I don’t even know? If I want to debate Cahtolic theology I will come to you or Jimmy Akin or Mark Shea or whoever. But that was not what was take place here. Why do you insist it all must come back to you.
5) I was using apologist more loosely than you. I never said professional apologist. And anyone who contends to defend the faith is an apologist in some sense. If they do a poor job they should be corrected. Frankly, I was not addressing apologists in general so you read far more into what I wrote than what I actually wrote.
6) You turned this entire discussion into an completely different issue. One about you and the fact that you are an apologist and therefore we must address you and not the ignorant masses. If I have the time to read something of yours I disagree with I will be sure to take it up with you. Until then if I am not addressing something you wrote I am not obliged to check with you first before I comment on what someone else has said.
7) It should be clear from what I wrote that I was not addressing Shari’s words specifically. I was discussing the larger issue of people who do say or imply that the church gave us the Bible in 400AD. I mean isn’t it pretty clear that I was not talking about any one person but a misconception by some converts? How many times do I have to say that.
8) You may have addressed Christ point by point. But in this thread and in the post it is in response to, many of the things Chris said in his two entries were ignored or dismissed. The were not specifically engaged. I am glad that you did, but again it was not you who I was referring to.
9) This is not me picking on Catholics. You will be hard pressed to find anything written by me that is particulalry harsh on Catholics. I have my criticisms of course. But I have much bigger problems will Baptists and pop-Evangelicalism than with orthodox Catholicism. In fact go back over to Here We stand and see who I am the toughest on. I think you will find my harshest criticisms are aimed at Lutherans. My mom is a lovely Catholic and I think she is a fine Christian.
10) Just being pre-emptive here - yes I believe the Roman Cathollic and the other 21 Catholic Churches are Christian churches. Until you deny the Creeds I am in no position to deny that other communions are Christian.
February 22nd, 2005 at 11:29 am
Shari (41), this is a fascinating theory. I’m not sure that the evidence is sufficient to support it, however. First of all, I”m not sure why you define “Nero’s persecution” as lasting till 117. Nero’s persecution was quite short-lived and limited to Rome. In general, persecution before Decius is usually seen as sporadic. I’m not sure what evidence there is that persecution largely ceased (as you suggest) between 117 and 250. Furthermore, you rightly singled out Valentinus as one of the major “Gnostic” figures, and someone who does seem to have been able to function to some extent within the mainstream.
That might simply mean that your theory needs to be shifted forward a couple hundred years. The big question, I think, is whether in fact “Gnostics” were willing to faace martyrdom. This is probably impossible to answer, since “Gnostic” can mean so many things. Certainly “Catholics” accused heretics of not being willing for martyrdom–but there are other texts in which orthodox writers have to explain why heretics who _are_ martyred are not really martyrs at all. That indicates that heretics _were_ going to the stake for their beliefs, in at least some instances. It may be that this was rare, but I’d like to see evidence for this that doesn’t come from orthodox polemic.
Still, you’ve given me some food for thought. Thanks!
February 22nd, 2005 at 11:34 am
I’m sure that this thread is finished, but I can’t sleep, so why not make a small addition?
To me, the issue comes down to how certain a person can be that any given document they hold in their hands is inspired. If they correctly identify it as inspired, then they can treat its content as such.
I think there is some common ground between those with competing views. God inspired certain texts. God wants us to know their identity. Their identity has been established. The issue appears to be the means by which humans are informed of the identity of those special documents that have been inspired.
So the matter then becomes not whether a certain class of inspired documents exist, but whether a certain document or set of documents belongs to that class.
I am not well read on epistemology, so when I talk of certainty or knowledge, I mean “the maximum certainty a person can reasonably have in the circumstances”.
It can be argued that the certainty with which we can treat the content of a particular document as inspired is related to our certainty that it has been correctly identified as an inspired document. It follows then that identification is not necessary to make the documents inspired, but is necessary to give their inspiration practical effect i.e. they cease to become some theoretical body of documents that you may or may not have before you and become the documents that you literally hold in you hands.
For either group, a process of discernment is involved. For Catholics/Orthodox its involves discerning the identity of the Church (the knowledge of the canon of Scripture flows from that choice). For Protestants, it involves discerning the identity of scripture through some other means. I guess it is a personal decision as to which results in the ‘maximal certainty’ possible of the identity of scripture. Given there is some personal choice involved at some point in either, it is not the killer blow against Protestantism that some believe it to be, but, in my view, does add greatly to the internal logic and coherence of Catholicism and Orthodox(y?) that they allow the canon of scripture to at some point be infallibly determined.
February 22nd, 2005 at 12:11 pm
Al, I think you’ve done a remarkable job of covering all the major issues here in fairly short compass. The notion that Scriptures are “self-authenticating”– a notion Mr. Atwood reiterates– is quite commonly voiced in various Protestant, particularly Reformed, circles. I know they taught that at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia when I attended there in the seventies. Like all those other ultimately subjectivist criteria (the “inner promptings of the Holy Spirit,” “what preaches Christ,” etc.), it ends up functioning as a wax nose that can be turned in nearly any direction the interpreter desires. Luther would have left out Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation, which Luther classified in the first edition of his Deutche Bibel as non-canonical books, along with the Deuterocanonicals. Most Protestants today would be rightly scandalized by a Bible that omitted Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. The one thing you didn’t address is the bizarre fact that most Protestants do, however, omit the Deuterocanonical books without batting an eye. I say “bizarre” because they typically cite St. Athanasius’ Easter encyclical of AD 367 as the first public record of the complete list of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament–as does the popular evangelical textbook by Walter A. Elwell and Robert W. Yarbrough, Encountering the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), p. 27–without batting an eye, either ignoring or ignorant of the fact that the same Athanasian list includes all of the Deuterocanonicals as well. It does them no help to cite the canon of ecclesiastical consensus at this point, because the consensus clearly recognized the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture. Greek was the lingua franca of the New Testament ethos, and the “Scripture” to which St. Paul referred in II Tim. 3:16 as “inspired,” and the “Scripture” to which other NT writers quoted and cited in their epistles and gospels was for all practical purposes the Septuagint (LXX), which included the Deuterocanonicals. I think it’s the Nestle-Alland edition of the Greek NT that contains the appendix listing the multitude of allusions in the NT to the Deuterocanonical books (worth checking out). Also every listing of the canonical books of the Bible in the Council of Rome (AD 382), Council of Carthage (AD 397), St. Innocent (405), and Council of Trent (AD 1546) includes all of the Deuterocanonicals, even though they are called by slightly different names (Link). This fact alone says something about how the process of canonization occurred and where the authority lies. To me it’s a safe truth that when the Apostle John declared that the “Spirit of truth will guide you into all truth” (John 14:6), he did not mean by “you” every Tom, Dick, or Harry who with his CD-ROM concordance at hand sets out to interpret the Bible by his own best lights (we have over 300 major denominatinal factions to attest to that: the Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion).
February 22nd, 2005 at 12:12 pm
Shari (#41), Edwin (#59) is right: the persecution of Nero was short-lived. That being said, however, it left as its legacy the illegality of Christianity and the liability of htose who, accused of being Christians, admitted the “crime” and refused to renounce their faith, liable to execution.
There was no formal, organized and empire-wide persecution until the reign of Decius in 259-51, which was followed up by another similar persecution under Valerian in the late 250s, and another under Diocletian from about 304 to 311. Before Decius, persecutions were local, unofficial and “spotaneous” — and “delators” who accused individuals of Christianity could themselves be subject to harsh punishments if the accusations proved false, and after Valerian was succeeded by his son Galienus, the latter stopped the persecution of Christians “unofficially” and so the Church enjoyed 40 years of peace.
My impression is that most of the Gnostic “schools” allowed for evasion of martyrdom by denial of the Christian Faith, but more “church-like” heretical groups such as the Marcionites and the Montanists did not, and so suffered martyrdom as well. The “Acts of Pionius the Presbyter” a genuine and likely contemporary account of the martyrdom of Pionius, a presbyter of the Church of Smyrna, and his companions in the Decian persecution in 250 (after the bishop had apostatized) records how Pionius and his companions turned their backs on the Marcionite (or Montanist) martyrs while both groups were being burned on crosses, and refused to pray with them.
You might wish to read, on these subjects: W. H. C. Frend, *Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church* (1966), George Edmundson, *The Church in Rome in the First Century* (1913), and (although an eccentric book, having a long section on the “Acts of Pionius”) Robin Lane Fox, *Pagans and Christians* (1987).
February 22nd, 2005 at 12:13 pm
The Marcionites (Gnostics by any count, and often seen as the most “classic” ones) had their own long roll of martyrs. Persecution was in one wave under Nero, another under Domitian, a local one under Trajan (Pliny’s famous letter), etc. It was not a regular, constant wholesale thing (more like being a Christian in Pakistan today, than like being a Christian under Stalin). The anabaptists were not “excluded” from the Augsburg Confession, they refused to join it. Lutherans believe the Real Presence and infant baptism are easily defendable from the Bible, etc., etc.
February 22nd, 2005 at 1:12 pm
Edward said “Yes, Luther expelled the Anabaptists etc. I don’t see what this is supposed to prove.”
It seems to contradict Richard’s assertion that “The idea that the religious institution possesses an intrinsic authority which it can exert as and when it pleases is a denial of the sovereign authority of Christ the Head of His Church.” Luther was not afraid to exert his authority any more than the Pope was.
Edward wrote: “Regarding infant baptism, that is inferred from the state we are born in (sin, death), our total dependence on God for justification, and the fact that infants can believe, are in need of salvation just like others. When we see Christ’s command to go and baptize the nations, which include infants, that whole housholds were baptized, which typically include infants, and King David saying he believed in God while his mother fed him at her breasts, we can see the biblical outline quite clearly.”
I agree that the outline of infant baptism is clear to us who have been _taught by the Tradition of the church_ to see this outline clearly. I take it you will agree that the Mennonites, Anabaptists, Methodists, Baptists etc. seem to see this outline less well? Do you think this is because they are less intelligent than we are or less faithful? I would say that it is neither. They do not see it, because they (more completely) reject the Tradition which taught us to see this outline than do Lutherans. When well meaning people can find such different messages in the “clear meaning of Scripture” it helps to be instructed by an authoratative Tradition. The very fact that Luther penned the Augsburg Confession makes clear that he too saw the importance of maintaining and authoritative Tradition.
Shari
February 22nd, 2005 at 1:17 pm
Adwood wrote: “The anabaptists were not “excluded” from the Augsburg Confession, they refused to join it. ”
No they were specifically condemned. Given the language used against them, it is hardly surprising that they “refused to join it”.
http://www.bookofconcord.org/augsburgdefense/7_baptism.html
Article IX: Of Baptism.
“51] The Ninth Article has been approved, in which we confess that Baptism is necessary to salvation, and that children are to be baptized, and that the baptism of children is not in vain, but is necessary and effectual to salvation. 52] And since the Gospel is taught among us purely and diligently, by God’s favor we receive also from it this fruit, that in our Churches no Anabaptists have arisen [have not gained ground in our Churches], because the people have been fortified by God’s Word against the wicked and seditious faction of these robbers. And as we condemn quite a number of other errors of the Anabaptists, we condemn this also, that they dispute that the baptism of little children is unprofitable. For it is very certain that the promise of salvation pertains also to little children [that the divine promises of grace and of the Holy Ghost belong not alone to the old, but also to children]. It does not, however, pertain to those who are outside of Christ’s Church, where there is neither Word nor Sacraments, because the kingdom of Christ exists only with the Word and Sacraments. Therefore it is necessary to baptize little children, that the promise of salvation may be applied to them, according to Christ’s command, Matt. 28, 19: Baptize all nations. Just as here salvation is offered to all, so Baptism is offered to all, to men, women, children, infants. It clearly follows, therefore, that infants are to be baptized, because with Baptism salvation [the universal grace and treasure of the Gospel] is offered. 53] Secondly, it is manifest that God approves of the baptism of little children. Therefore the Anabaptists, who condemn the baptism of little children, believe wickedly. That God, however, approves of the baptism of little children is shown by this, namely, that God gives the Holy Ghost to those thus baptized [to many who have been baptized in childhood]. For if this baptism would be in vain, the Holy Ghost would be given to none, none would be saved, and finally there would be no Church. [For there have been many holy men in the Church who have not been baptized otherwise.] This reason, even taken alone, can sufficiently establish good and godly minds against the godless and fanatical opinions of the Anabaptists.”
Shari
February 22nd, 2005 at 1:41 pm
Shari,
I don’t know what Richard B’s denominational loyalty or affiliation may be, but I see no particular reason to believe that he is a Lutheran. So it’s hardly surprising that there might be discrepancies between his views and the teachings of the Augsburg Confession.
The Augsburg Confession is not some kind of charter for Protestantism in general; it is a confession of the evangelical Lutheran Church in particular. The other Protestant bodies (the Reformed, Anglicans, etc.) have their own confessions which, to one degree or another, contradict the Lutheran Confessions.
The sort of “Church-less Christianity” that is commonly taught in modern-day evangelicalism, which Richard seems to represent, is not taught in the Augsburg Confession or any of the other Lutheran Confessions. I think his views are mistaken; but he can’t fairly be accused of inconsistency based on the Lutheran Confessions (unless, contrary to appearances, he is indeed a confessional Lutheran).
February 22nd, 2005 at 1:56 pm
Is Richard not a Lutheran? My mistake, I assumed based on his interjection that he was.
So Lutherans, we are agreed, agree that the church of necessity must have authority. Where does the Lutheran church get its authority to (among other things) expel the Mennonites, condemn heretics and to delete books from the cannon as being of dubious authority?
The Catholic and Orthodox church get their authority to engage in similar work from Holy Tradition. Where did Luther get his authority? Because it sure sounds to me that Luther got his authority from the same place that Zwingli or for that matter Spong or Griswold get their authority. What is the source of authority for the Lutheran church, since we are agreed that the Lutheran church accepts the concept of church based authority?
Shari
February 22nd, 2005 at 2:07 pm
Shari,
“The idea that the religious institution possesses an intrinsic authority which it can exert as and when it pleases is a denial of the sovereign authority of Christ the Head of His Church.” Luther was not afraid to exert his authority any more than the Pope was.”
Richard’s comments dealt with the idea that because the Church certifies a document, even a forged one, as authentic, the document has authority. No one asserts that the Church has no authority in matters of doctrine, which authority Luther was exercizing on behalf of the Church when he excluded the Anabaptists and “Reformed” because of their serious errors especially regarding the Lord’s Supper.
“I agree that the outline of infant baptism is clear to us who have been _taught by the Tradition of the church_ to see this outline clearly. I take it you will agree that the Mennonites, Anabaptists, Methodists, Baptists etc. seem to see this outline less well? Do you think this is because they are less intelligent than we are or less faithful? I would say that it is neither.”
I take it then that you believe Scripture is a very, very obscure source of doctrine? And I do think they see the passages in question “less well.” They have decided that faith requires knowledge, and that what is not commanded in Scripture is forbidden. Since they do not find the key-words “Infant Baptism” they conclude that the practice is forbidden. (This is on a popular level BTW) Those are hermeneutic and isagogic assumptions and do not have anything to do with whether or not infant Baptism is clearly tought in Scripture. If we believe infants are in need of salvation then infant baptism necessarily follows–and we also have the passages in Scripture I discussed earlier. It is certainly possible to arrive at these conclusions without the Magesterium; and multiple interpretations do not invalidate e.g. Lutheran interpretations of a particular passage. If multiple interpretations invalidate a particular interpretation you are in the same boat, because the Orthodox do not share all of Roman Catholic Tradition.
Also, you raised the point of the Real Presence before. What better example of refusing to abide by clear words in Scripture than to tell the Lord of Life than refusing to believe his clear words “This is my body…This is my blood…”? So it is true, they don’t know what they are reading.
“They do not see it, because they (more completely) reject the Tradition which taught us to see this outline than do Lutherans. When well meaning people can find such different messages in the “clear meaning of Scripture” it helps to be instructed by an authoratative Tradition. The very fact that Luther penned the Augsburg Confession makes clear that he too saw the importance of maintaining and authoritative Tradition.”
And I think you betray a misunderstanding of the role of Tradition in Lutheran theology here. Of course Scripture is to be interpreted by the Church, that is why the various creeds are containd in the Book of Concord, that is “Tradition.” But that Church is not free to re-define Tradition, e.g. Scripture, to suit its purposes at a particular time. What was once handed down from the Apostles we are to believe today. The difference is that for Lutherans Scripture is the Tradition without equal–all other traditions are subject to the canon of Scripture, and the Scriptures are about Christ, according to his own words. So the Tradition’s content is Jesus Christ–and so I would agree that the Anabaptists and Zwinglians reject the Tradition, because by denying Jesus’ very words they deny Christ, to whom the Tradition always points. The difference between you and me I think is that I do not accept what the Magesterium says Tradition is at face value because allegedly the Magisterium cannot err in matters of faith and morals; and so I am left with the writings of the Apostles or their close associates which I think is a much firmer footing.
February 22nd, 2005 at 2:30 pm
Shari (#67):
All I know of Richard B is the content of his one comment on this thread. Nothing in that comment sounds particularly Lutheran to me. Perhaps he would like to speak for himself as to whether or not he subscribes to the Lutheran Confessions.
The Church’s authority to bind and loose comes from Christ’s bestowal of the power of the keys on the Apostles. I would agree that this authority is handed down in the Church, like all of the elements of the Gospel, by tradition. But the basis of that authority is described in Scripture, which is, after all, the normative expression of the Holy Tradition. It’s not correct to say that the Church’s authority is given by tradition alone, as distinct from Scripture.
The evangelical Lutheran Church does not understand herself to be a “Protestant” Church or sect. She understands herself to be the Catholic and Apostolic Church, appropriately reformed. When reform of the Church became necessary, the Lutheran Reformers measured the tradition of the Church by the norm of Holy Scripture (which is, as I said, the normative expression of the tradition). The reforms which they carried out did not amount to the foundation of a new Church, nor did they touch the essential character of the Church. Therefore, the power of the keys which Christ had bestowed on His Church, and which the Church in the Reformers’ time still possessed, remained in the Church after it had been reformed. So in short, the Lutheran Church gets its authority from the same place that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches claim to get their authority: from the power of the keys given by Christ.
I realise that Catholics will not agree with this characterization of the Lutheran Church. But it is how confessional Lutherans see their Church and her origins.
February 22nd, 2005 at 2:49 pm
But, Chris (#69), both the Catholic and the Orthodox churches (as well as any and every church or “denomination” that predates the Reformation, save the Waldensians and the Moravians, both of which were heavly “protestantized” at that time) see the “Power of the Keys” transmitted from generation to generation in the Church by Christ through the apostolic episcopate by succession. “No bishop, no church” is a statement that they all would endorse. I have never, in both my teaching and my writing, treated Lutheranism as a kind of “Evangelical Protestantism” in the Anglo-American sense of the term. But I find it hard to understand how you can deny that Lutheranism is Protestant, since it embraced those two bedrock principles of the Reformation, Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. I see those two principles as both wholly unknown to the Fathers of the East and West alike; you would no doubt disagree with me in this. But it would, I think (under correction) be hard to maintain that a church without ministerial succession, or one with a presbyteral succession only, fails palbably to meet the Vincentian criterion of universality, antiquity and consent.
February 22nd, 2005 at 3:05 pm
Dr. Tighe (#52):
Have you read “The Oracles of God: The Old Testament Canon” by Andrew Steinmann? He addresses many of the points that you bring up. I don’t have it with me, but I do know that he argues that Jamnia is a red herring, based on some research others have done. He also talks about the divisions of the canon and its evolution. I found it all convincing, but it so far remains the first and only work I’ve read in this area. I would be interested in hearing your take on it.
The thing I got most out of it was the importance of reading things chronologically, and of resisting the often subconscious attempt to retroject later interpretations onto older material.
Mark
February 22nd, 2005 at 3:33 pm
Chris wrote: “So in short, the Lutheran Church gets its authority from the same place that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches claim to get their authority: from the power of the keys given by Christ.”
Why can’t Zwingli, or the Mennonites, or for that matter every other Protestant sect say that they too are the “real reformed apostolic church?” What proofs offered Luther for his departure from what had been accepted as Tradition for over a millenia? Certainly he did not have the consensus of the “Church” outside of his local community, which is the way that Tradition had traditionally accepted new understandings. Was Luther granted the grace of a “vision” as Peter was when the Gentiles were included without circumcision? Or was Luther simply a powerfully placed individual who, like Griswold, Spong and others, discerned that a thousand years of Tradition was wrong by the light of his own conscience?
I find it curious that Luther was so willing to exclude the Epistle of James (which contradicted his doctrine of salvation by faith alone [James 2:26] calling it “an epistle of straw” but denied the right to reinterpret Scripture to others. “Whoever teaches otherwise that I teach, condemns God, and must remain a child of hell.” (Saemmtliche Werke, XXVIII, p. 346) And again: “I can hear and endure noting which is against my teaching.” (Works, ed. Walch, VIII, 1974).
How was it made clear that Luther had the “authority of the keys” against a thousand years of tradition? My understanding is that most Lutheran bishops do not even have apostolic lineage (via laying on of hands). It seems to me that the main source of Luther’s authority was that he had the German princes on his side.
Shari
February 22nd, 2005 at 3:44 pm
It would be pointless to deny that the Lutheran Church is in some sense “Protestant”. It depends to some extent on what you see as the dividing line between Protestant and non-Protestant. To the extent that “Protestant” means “non-ecclesial and non-sacramental”, I contend that confessional Lutheranism is not Protestant. That’s the only point I was trying to make.
As you know, I feel the force of “no bishop, no Church”. But I don’t think the Reformers had either sound doctrine bequeathed to them, or very good choices available to them, in this matter. As I’ve often said, the Reformers made an entirely understandable mistake, which I wish we Lutherans could now repent of.
I actually agree with you that Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are pretty much unknown to the Fathers. But it seems to me that that is analogous to noting that the homoousion was unknown to the ante-Nicene Fathers. It did not arise because it was not a point at issue in those times.
I would say this about Sola Scriptura: any authoritative expression of the Holy Tradition is irreformable, be it the canon of Scripture, the Creed, or the definition of an ecumenical council. Such an authoritative expression becomes a measure by which other purported expressions of the Tradition may be measured. Thus, for example, any purported doctrine which is contrary to the Nicene Creed is to be excluded. Surely this applies a fortiori to the Holy Scriptures, the pre-eminent and normative expression of Holy Tradition. To the extent that Sola Scriptura means that all other expressions of the Tradition are to be measured by Holy Scripture, I think it is true and quite consistent with the teachings of the Fathers. To the extent that it means that Scripture is to be interpreted without reference to the Church and her Tradition, I don’t hold to it. And I think I am within the bounds of confessional Lutheranism in saying so.
February 22nd, 2005 at 3:46 pm
Edward wrote: “I take it then that you believe Scripture is a very, very obscure source of doctrine? And I do think they [Mennonites and Annabaptists] see the passages in question “less well.” They have decided that faith requires knowledge, and that what is not commanded in Scripture is forbidden”
I think some of Scripture can be obscure. Presumably Luther thought the Epistle of James was, if not obscure, at least in error since it did not support his theories regarding “Faith alone”. Presumbaly Luther also thought that the Epistle to the Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Revelation of John were “very, very obscure” since he tried to deep six these also. Possibly you could explain the Lutheran doctrine of “Predestination” by using the “clear meaning of Scripture? Feel free to pick and choose among the various books, but if you are going to use “Revelations” do remember that Luther “in no way detected the Holy Spirit in it”.
Shari
February 22nd, 2005 at 4:04 pm
Shari,
“I think some of Scripture can be obscure. Presumably Luther thought the Epistle of James was, if not obscure, at least in error since it did not support his theories regarding “Faith alone”.”
What Luther thought of individual parts of Scripture is not really the issue. We are not bound by his pronouncements in every detail.
Can some parts of Scripture be obscure? Of course, but not all, I would even say most of Scripture is not obscure. Also, it seems to me that in your effort to denigrate Sola Scriptura that you go too far in the opposite direction. In your view, of what use is reading Scripture to a layman? Why should lay people even bother to read Scripture if it is jujst confusing and not useful for teaching? Shouldn’t laypeople just study the distillation of Scripture from the Magesterium, since they are so much more qualified to interpret such an obscure book?
“Possibly you could explain the Lutheran doctrine of “Predestination” by using the “clear meaning of Scripture? Feel free to pick and choose among the various books, but if you are going to use “Revelations” do remember that Luther “in no way detected the Holy Spirit in it”.”
Again, what Luther thought is not the issue. It seems to me that you think Luther acts as a sort of Magesterium for Lutheans–he does not.
In any case, Luther did not even go as far as St. Augustine regarding predestination–St. Augustine sort of believed in double predestination–where God elects people to hell, so any critique of Luther on this issue is a critique of St. Augustine too. And Luther’s views are not necessarily equivalent to the Church’s views. I am not going to get into a biblical debate with you because you already assume that what the Magesterium says is ipso facto true. It would be pointless. The only thing I would say is that if you have a problem with “single sided” predestination it is because you insist that God’s divine perogatives must conform to our human reason. God did not reveal the process of election beyond the preaching of and about Jesus Christ and him crucified for the sins of the world, and the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion which for Lutherans is that same preaching and Jesus Christ united to water or bread and wine as the case may be according to his command and promise. We are not on firm footing when we go further than what God told the Church to do and what he revealed to us about what that same Church should to as a faithful servant of her Master.
February 22nd, 2005 at 4:12 pm
Re 73 Chris says: any authoritative expression of the Holy Tradition is irreformable
Is this right? I think of creedal (arguably Papal) ‘definitions’ as irreformable; but the great bulk of authoritative — even ‘infallible’ — Church teaching is not difinitional in the sense of Vatican I. Ceratinly, the Scripture cannot be contradicted, and the words of Scripture cannot be amended. If that is all you mean by irreformable, you are clearly right; but it seems an odd usage of the term. Maybe I am just showing my ignorance.
February 22nd, 2005 at 4:17 pm
No, Shari, no.
Scriptures are not obscure. Never. That’s impossible.
At least, for those things that are essential to our faith.
That’s why it is so easy to explain to the Jehova’s Witnesses (and others) that the Holy Spirit is God.
February 22nd, 2005 at 5:04 pm
Edward wrote: “It seems to me that you think Luther acts as a sort of Magesterium for Lutheans–he does not.”
Then why do you accept his rather uncannonical rearrangement of the canon of Scripture? It overturned a millenia of Tradition. Presumably Luther had the authority to do that. Where did that authority come from? Or was Luther mistaken or presumptious?
As to “what use is reading Scripture for a layman” Why I assume the same “use” reading Scripture is for a priest. It is a source of inspiration, enlightenment, and frankly pure joy. I only recently discovered the apocrapha and I can’t believe I missed out on all that good stuff hanging on to my King James Bible for so many years. All my priests have encouraged me to read Scripture, and most of them have pointed me to excellent histories, and other works (by the way thanks William, I will look into those volumes).
There is a difference between accepting the authority of the Magisterium on matters of essential doctrine and limiting one’s reading to the Catechism of the Catholic church, (although that too was really quite good, and I did enjoy reading through it). The Magisterium has spoken fairly briefly on what it considers the essentials of faith. All others points are left to the freedom of the faithful. Similarly, confessional Lutherans accept their various creeds and confessions, but proceed to read Scripture for their enlightenment, while falling short of denying the “Real Presence” even when their discernment leads them into forbidden territory. Or at least, I presume that if they find that their Scripture studies lead them to deny the infant baptism, or the Real Presence or whatever, they then go call themselves something other than Lutheran. Or is the the reading material of the Lutheran laity limited, lest the “unelect” stumble across an “unexpugated” edition of the Bible, and fail to become “properly educated and catechized?”
February 22nd, 2005 at 5:05 pm
“I’ve seen this also in Chris and Josh S. when it comes to Catholics.”
You’ll also see it in me when it comes to Calvinists, evangelicals, Democrats, basketball fans, women, Sony, Windows, Chrysler, people who think they’re post-modern, and people who don’t make their kids shut up in church. What can I say? I’m a cranky SOB.
February 22nd, 2005 at 6:28 pm
Shari,
“Then why do you accept his rather uncannonical rearrangement of the canon of Scripture? It overturned a millenia of Tradition. Presumably Luther had the authority to do that. Where did that authority come from? Or was Luther mistaken or presumptious?”
It is a bit more complicated than that. In the first place, Luther did not “overturn” a millenium of Tradition, there were different canons even in the Western Church until Trent. Nor was it unheard of to question the cannonicity of individual books in the Bible before Luther. You also fail to prove that I or any other Lutheran take Luther as some sort of Magesterium–you just assert it again which only confirms to me that you do not know too much about Lutheranism. You are simply wrong here.
And do you also accuse the Orthodox of “rearrangement” of the canon? The Copts, the Oriental Orthodox?
“As to “what use is reading Scripture for a layman” Why I assume the same “use” reading Scripture is for a priest.”
And I maintain my point that if it is not clear but obscure, neither you or any other layman or laywoman should be reding it unless the Magesterium distills its content for you. If it is sufficiently clear for laymen and laywomen to read without direct supervision (i.e. a representative of the Magerserium present to explain all the “difficulties’) then your main critique of Sola Scriptura, Scripture is not very clear, fails.
“Similarly, confessional Lutherans accept their various creeds and confessions, but proceed to read Scripture for their enlightenment, while falling short of denying the “Real Presence” even when their discernment leads them into forbidden territory.”
Once again, you utterly fail to understand what Lutherans do and say. In the first place we do not “fall short” of denying the Real Presence, it is an important doctrine in the Confessions and the life of the Church–also, if you place the Lutheran RP doctrine beside the Orthodox doctrine it is quite similar–the doctrine in the lutheran Church has an ancient pedegree. Older than Transsubstantiation in fact.
“Or at least, I presume that if they find that their Scripture studies lead them to deny the infant baptism, or the Real Presence or whatever, they then go call themselves something other than Lutheran.”
Yes, that would be denying the faith once handed down by the Apostles. Didn’t you see what I wrote Re: Tradition and authority as far as the Bible goes? That Tradition’s content is Jesus Christ, just like the Bible’s content is Jesus Christ? And that the Bible contains the teachings of the Apostles, which teaching is authoritative?
“Or is the the reading material of the Lutheran laity limited, lest the “unelect” stumble across an “unexpugated” edition of the Bible, and fail to become “properly educated and catechized?”"
Did you see where I stated that Lutherans do not have a closed canon? Nothing stops anyone from reading e.g. 1&2 Maccabees. And I am not the one saying that Scripture is so obscure we need a Magesterium to understand it, you are. So reading the Bible for Lutherans does not carry the same risks. And finally, catechization is practiced by every communion, RCC, Lutheran and EO. Properly catechizing parishoners is required by Christ himself.
February 22nd, 2005 at 7:02 pm
Hi Dave H:
>1) I am sorry if you feel that only professional apologists can be criticised.
When did I ever say that? In fact, I stated the exact opposite at one point. My point was, rather, that if you’re going to criticize an entire class (”Internet Catholic apologists”) you ought to go to the members of that class (at least part of the time) who are the most prepared to discuss the issue. It is the deliberate exclusion of those folks which I found odd (you stated — I believe it was you — that it was irrelevant to bring up well-known apologists). I happen to be the one who knows about this and is responding, so I merely referenced myself as an example of an “epologist” (something you seem to repeatedly not understand, in comments below).
>I stand by what I wrote. The entire point was to address something that I and others have read many times over. I am not going to go searching for posts at forums or digging through blogs for something that was said two years ago or two weeks ago nor should I need to. As it is I mentioned Catholic Answers which is the largest Catholic forum on the internet and I have seen this issue many times there and I have never seen professional apologists correct it.
That’s fine. I don’t deny your report; I only thought that if the charge was made, examples should be given. Chris did give examples, and I have examined them and found them wanting. I think there are misunderstandings here as to what Catholics usually mean when they speak this sort of language. In a nutshell, it is a matter of epistemology in our emphasis, and “ontology” in yours (Scripture is what it is). We agree with the latter (I cited Vatican I and Vatican II to prove that), but it is not contradictory to point out the former. You and Chris and Josh seem, however, to think that discussing the epistemology of knowing precisely what is Scripture and what isn’t (by means of Church authority) somehow contradicts the inherent inspiration and revelational status of Scripture. It does not. It’s a practical aid, to settle the matter, so there is no more dispute. So I believe a lot of this is needless clashing over apples and oranges. Catholics tend to overemphasize the Church in the canonization process and Protestants tend to minimize same and stress the self-authenticating nature of biblical books. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, and that we CAN achieve significant common ground on this, if we could only more accurately understand each other, and the differing ecclesiologies, rules of faith, and epistemologies.
>2) I am glad you are addressing these things. I stand corrected and appreciate your efforts.
Thank you; I apreciate it.
>But you will forgive us who have not seen these addressed at places like CA. Not everyone is aware of your site or frequents it. If something is said somewhere and we see no Catholic response there is nothing illigitimate about saying there is a lack of “Catholic Answers” for errant catholics on certain forums and blog. Again, I am glad you challenge them but I have not seen you do so elsewhere - which is fine. You cannot be every where at once.
Possibly, there has been some laxity there. If so, I would be with you on this: that it should be corrected. On the other hand, this may involve (at least partially) matters of epistemology. Since Catholics would better understand where other Catholics are coming from on this, the professional apologists over there (Keating, Akin, etc.) may not have felt that it was necessary to correct anything. Once a Protestant makes a critique, then there are issues that have to be resolved because of the different worldview and different ways of interpreting the same kind of statement.
>I never asked to believe what I say. But there was no bald assertion. Shari’s blog was an instance cited by Chris.
Again, I deny that she believes what you are attributing to her. I think context shows clearly what she believes. She made a sloppy statement. If others have spoken in this way and really meant it (in context and all) that’s one thing, but she shouldn’t be made the scapegoat for others. I think it is very unseemly.
>And since we were blogging not writing official apologetic position papers we have every right to note or observations without citing every source. If you said Baptists often say ignorant things about the real presence I would not demand you cite sources. I would take your word for it since it rings true with most CHristians experience who believe in the real presence. You set up a standard that you live by as a professional apologists. We are not bound by these standards unless we are being unreasonable. But i suspect you know the assertion is true.
I agree with most of this. I think it depends on the seriousness of the charge. You were starting to make this an ethical and honesty issue, by writing things like: “As long as Catholic and Orthodox apologists let what they know to be false slide . . . ” That implies an outright wrong. I’ve never operated in that way, myself. I correct any error that I see, according to my understanding of what Catholicism and Christianity in general teaches. And I don’t think other apologists like me are any different. It’s what we do. We’re sort of “doctrinal watchdogs.” So it was a very serious charge because it hit upon something central to our vocation. This also implies that the more credentialed and professional apologists had this duty to correct. It makes no sense to say that some green “apologist” should “correct what they know to be false” or suchlike.
>3) You complain of strong language but I find nothing in your post that makes you sound more charitable than me. I could quote several condecending words in your the same post I am responding to that goes being words like lazy. I did not attack anyone personally yet you seem to feel you were being attacked. I am sorry but I did not have you in mind at any point.
People always make this charge. It’s meaningless unless individual examples are given in context. Usually when I use “strong language” it is in response to some charge I believe to be false and unwarranted, and I ALWAYS try to stick to ideas and opinions in my critiques, as opposed to engaging in ad hominem attacks.
>4) Back to the first point. Why do you insist we go to a select few apologists to address things others have said?
I didn’t say “select few.” I said that if you insist on attacking the entire class, then at least let some of the more trained of that class reply (or prove that THEY are guilty of this shortcoming).
>If you said it then we should address you if we take issue with it. Since it was not you why should I address you if you were not involved?
I just explained it.
>Are you going to come to me if you read something you disagree with on some Lutheran or Anglicans blog who I don’t even know?
Are you a published Lutheran apologist? If so, then if I am critiquing “Lutheran epologists” for something, and you show up (as I have in this debate). It’s just common sense.
>If I want to debate Catholic theology I will come to you or Jimmy Akin or Mark Shea or whoever.
But you don’t understand that you have made a charge against my “group” (Catholic apologists) — one that I think is mostly unfair. As one of that group, I respond. But I have also shown that as one of that group, I have done the exact opposite of what you and Chris have charged. I also suggested that I don’t think any other published, professional apologists have made the mistake you object to. You can find lots of people doing apologetics (real or imagined) and find something to shoot down. Generally speaking, I think it is proper to seek out the best representatives of a viewpoint, not the least skilled.
>But that was not what was take place here. Why do you insist it all must come back to you.
See the above. This is not an accurate description of what I have been trying to do.
>5) I was using apologist more loosely than you. I never said professional apologist.
What you did was exclude the professionals from consideration. I maintain that they are the ones most relevant to your critique.
>And anyone who contends to defend the faith is an apologist in some sense. If they do a poor job they should be corrected.
Yes; no problem with that.
>Frankly, I was not addressing apologists in general so you read far more into what I wrote than what I actually wrote.
If you weren’t, then the following language is pretty odd:
“If the internet were not full, and I mean full, of Catholic and Orthodox converts from other communions, who attribute their conversion to the sudden realization that the Church wrote the scriptures in the manner that Clueless Christian seems to think then their would not be a need to respond this most obvious error as Chris Atwood did.”
>6) You turned this entire discussion into an completely different issue.
I responded as I saw fit.
>One about you and the fact that you are an apologist and therefore we must address you and not the ignorant masses.
I made the argument as to why you should include people like me. It’s not about ME; it’s about an illogical premise on your part. I just happen to be the one around.
>If I have the time to read something of yours I disagree with I will be sure to take it up with you. Until then if I am not addressing something you wrote I am not obliged to check with you first before I comment on what someone else has said.
Of course not, But that’s a red herring, as I never demanded this in the first place.
>7) It should be clear from what I wrote that I was not addressing Shari’s words specifically. I was discussing the larger issue of people who do say or imply that the church gave us the Bible in 400AD. I mean isn’t it pretty clear that I was not talking about any one person but a misconception by some converts? How many times do I have to say that.
That has no effect on my critique. I assumed you were talking about the class. That’s why I have been answering!
>8) You may have addressed Chris point by point. But in this thread and in the post it is in response to, many of the things Chris said in his two entries were ignored or dismissed. The were not specifically engaged. I am glad that you did, but again it was not you who I was referring to.
Silly comments were made at Here I stand about supposed fear of “facts” and of replying to Chris and the ignoring of Chris’s argument as “amazing.” So I have replied at length, only to hear this red herring of “it’s not about you, anyway.” Well, it IS (indirectly), because I am in the class of “Catholic epologists”! LOL I don’t think this is rocket science.
>9) This is not me picking on Catholics. You will be hard pressed to find anything written by me that is particulalry harsh on Catholics. I have my criticisms of course. But I have much bigger problems will Baptists and pop-Evangelicalism than with orthodox Catholicism. In fact go back over to Here We stand and see who I am the toughest on. I think you will find my harshest criticisms are aimed at Lutherans. My mom is a lovely Catholic and I think she is a fine Christian.
Glad to hear it. Others over there are not quite so irenic, but the more the merrier.
>10) Just being pre-emptive here - yes I believe the Roman Cathollic and the other 21 Catholic Churches are Christian churches. Until you deny the Creeds I am in no position to deny that other communions are Christian.
Excellent. I’m delighted to hear this. God bless you.
February 22nd, 2005 at 7:04 pm
Josh,
ROFL You said it, not I. LOL
February 22nd, 2005 at 7:10 pm
Edward says that “I maintain my point that if it is not clear but obscure, neither you or any other layman or laywoman should be reding it unless the Magesterium distills its content for you. If it is sufficiently clear for laymen and laywomen to read without direct supervision (i.e. a representative of the Magerserium present to explain all the “difficulties’) then your main critique of Sola Scriptura, Scripture is not very clear, fails.”
Scarcely. The Catholic church does not require that her members surrender their intellect, merely to obey. The church simply requires that her members accept the authority of the church when “difficulties” present, not that they have no “difficulties”. You are suggesting that if calculus proves difficult, then the solution is for the Catholic students to be kept on addition and subtraction, and for the Protestant students to agree that there is no “right answer” to any mathamatical formula.
However, the Catholic church believes that there are “right” answers to both mathamatical and theological questions. She expects that her flock “wrestle” like Israel, with Scripture, and come to understand and appreciate it. However, the church also believes that in some areas, where the church has spoken on a matter (and I have found that the Catholic church speaks rather less often and less forcefully than many Protestant preachers) what the laity may not understand, we simply accept on trust with obedience. I may not understand why my solution to a problem in calculus was at varience with my instructors. That doesn’t mean that my teacher is wrong. If I have trouble in calculus, what that means is I probably need to study harder to find my error.
For example, it took me a little while to understand the the church’s doctrine on the theology of the body. However, even before I understood this, I was content to accept the Church’s teaching on contraception on faith. Since then, after studying the matter further, I have come to understand and agree with the church’s position on contraception. That has not kept me from studying the science surrounding contraception, in fact it stimulated me to study this science. What was different was that I conformed to the teaching of my church while I studied.
That after all is what faith and obedience means. As Newman put it (On Faith and Private Judgement)
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/JUDGMENT.TXT
“Now, in the first place, what is faith? it is assenting to a doctrine as true, which we do not see, which we cannot prove, because God says it is true, who cannot lie. And further than this, since God says it is true, not with His own voice, but by the voice of His messengers, it is assenting to what man says, not simply viewed as a man, but to what he is commissioned to declare, as a messenger, prophet, or ambassador from God.”
“This is what faith was in the time of the Apostles, as no one can deny; and what it was then, it must be now, else it ceases to be the same thing. I say, it certainly was this in the Apostles’ time, for you know they preached to the world that Christ was the Son of God, that He preached to the world that Christ was the Son of God, that He was born of a Virgin, that He had ascended on high, that he would come again to judge all, the living and the dead. Could the world see all this? could it prove it? how then were men to receive it? why did so many embrace it? on the word of the Apostles, who were, as their powers showed, messengers from God. Men were told to submit their reason to a living authority. Moreover, whatever an Apostle said, his converts were bound to believe; when they entered the Church, they entered it in order to learn. The Church was their teacher; they did not come to argue, to examine, to pick and choose, but to accept whatever was put before them. No one doubts, no one can doubt this, of those primitive times. A Christian was bound to take without doubting all that the Apostles declared to be revealed; if the Apostles spoke, he had to yield an internal assent of his mind; it would not be enough to keep silence, it would not be enough not to oppose it: it was not allowable to credit in a measure; it was not allowable to doubt. No; if a convert had his own private thoughts of what was said, and only kept them to himself, if he made some secret opposition to the teaching, if he waited for further proof before he believed it, this would be a proof that he did not think the Apostles were sent from God to reveal His will; it would be a proof that he did not in any true sense believe at all. Immediate, implicit submission of the mind was, in the lifetime of the Apostles, the only, the necessary token of faith; then there was no room whatever for what is now called private judgement. No one could say: “I will choose my religion for myself, I will believe this, I will not believe that; I will pledge myself to nothing; I will believe just as long as I please, and no longer; what I believe to-day I will reject tomorrow, if I choose. I will believe what the Apostles have as yet said, but I will not believe what they shall say in time to come.” No; either the Apostles were from God, or they were not; if they were, everything that they preached was to be believed by their hearers; if they were not, there was nothing for their hearers to believe. To believe a little, to believe more or less, was impossible; it contradicted the very notion of believing: if one part was to be believed; it was an absurdity to believe one thing and not another; for the word of the Apostles, which made the one true, made the other true too; they were nothing in themselves, they were all things, they were an infallible authority, as coming from God. The world had either to become Christian, or to let it alone; there was no room for private tastes and fancies, no room for private judgement.”
February 22nd, 2005 at 7:12 pm
“And I maintain my point that if it is not clear but obscure, neither you or any other layman or laywoman should be reding it unless the Magesterium distills its content for you. If it is sufficiently clear for laymen and laywomen to read without direct supervision (i.e. a representative of the Magerserium present to explain all the ‘difficulties’) then your main critique of Sola Scriptura, Scripture is not very clear, fails.”
The presumption is that a Catholic reader is using Scripture for edification of existing faith, so that the ordinary interpretation will naturally harmonize with the Church’s teaching. In cases of error, the Catholic may also be corrected by someone in authority. I imagine we’d have an entirely different perspective on “clarity” if it were to be the final authority by which we judged all faith.
“Once again, you utterly fail to understand what Lutherans do and say. In the first place we do not ‘fall short’ of denying the Real Presence, it is an important doctrine in the Confessions and the life of the Church–also, if you place the Lutheran RP doctrine beside the Orthodox doctrine it is quite similar–the doctrine in the lutheran Church has an ancient pedegree. Older than Transsubstantiation in fact.”
Surely, you recognize that this is a highly controversial premise. From what I have read of Chemnitz, it appears that his account of the Real Presence is quite inconsistent with Chalcedonian theology. That is not to say that Lutherans consciously deny the Real Presence, but I have serious doubts about whether their metaphysical account of the sacrament can be coherently reconciled with Byzantine theology.
February 22nd, 2005 at 7:28 pm
Hello Johnathan (#84)
“The presumption is that a Catholic reader is using Scripture for edification of existing faith, so that the ordinary interpretation will naturally harmonize with the Church’s teaching. In cases of error, the Catholic may also be corrected by someone in authority. I imagine we’d have an entirely different perspective on “clarity” if it were to be the final authority by which we judged all faith.”
I don’t have a problem with that. What I was trying to point out is that pushing the “Scripture is obscure” point too far has problems of its own. I pointed this out because Shari seems to assume that Lutherans have a sort of “private interpretation” approach to Scripture which is not the case, and that would be the opposite pole of a hyper-magesterial approach to Scrpture.
“Surely, you recognize that this is a highly controversial premise. From what I have read of Chemnitz, it appears that his account of the Real Presence is quite inconsistent with Chalcedonian theology. That is not to say that Lutherans consciously deny the Real Presence, but I have serious doubts about whether their metaphysical account of the sacrament can be coherently reconciled with Byzantine theology.”
Controversial, yes–I do not claim an identity betwen the doctrines. But Lutherans and Orthodox hold to a ccommunion of attributes, so that e.g. God’s omnipresence is somehow shared by his human nature because of the personal union. This makes the Real Presence possible, though we do not say that is how it is accomplished.
I am not sure you are aware, but Lutherans, like the Orthodox, do not attempt to explain the Real Presence–i.e. we do not believe in “consubstantiation” just like we do not believe in “transsubstantiation.” We accept that the bread and wine is Jesus’ body and blood, yet St. Paul still refers to it as bread and wine and body and blood. How God accomplishes that is beyond our ken.
February 22nd, 2005 at 7:37 pm
Jonathan
Lutherans have no metaphysical account of the sacrament. We simply confess that the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper are the body and blood of the Savior. There is no metaphysical explanation of the fact; there is only the simple confession of it. A fair and careful reading of the Lutheran Confessions will show you that it is not possible to be a confessional Lutheran while denying (consciously or otherwise) the Real Presence.
In any case, expecting one’s doctrine of the Real Presence to be either consistent or inconsistent with Chalcedonian theology is a category error. The definition of Chalcedon deals with Christology, not sacramental theology. Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox differ over Chalcedon but have identical teachings concerning the Eucharist; which one is “consistent with Chalcedonian theology”?
February 22nd, 2005 at 7:45 pm
Hello again Shari,
I think our discussion is dying down, I hate to use the term, but “straw man” keeps comming up.
“The church simply requires that her members accept the authority of the church when “difficulties” present, not that they have no “difficulties”. You are suggesting that if calculus proves difficult, then the solution is for the Catholic students to be kept on addition and subtraction, and for the Protestant students to agree that there is no “right answer” to any mathamatical formula.”
Once again, it seems you don’t know much about what you critique. Where have I or any other Lutheran here said that Scripture does not have any right answers? And you once again lump Lutherans in with all the other Protestants–We are not like them (thoughthere are similarities between some confessions). I was not suggsting any solution, just pointing out that if Scripture is as obscure as you seem to imply that it should not be read by the laity.
“However, the Catholic church believes that there are “right” answers to both mathamatical and theological questions.”
Well, Lutherans do too. This does not mean everything is crystal clear, but we certainly think exposition of Scripture is edifying fo rindividuals and the Church.
“That doesn’t mean that my teacher is wrong. If I have trouble in calculus, what that means is I probably need to study harder to find my error.”
And implicit in this is that the instructor’s answer is always correct, so there is no way to correct the instructor because he is always right. That is fine, if yo ubelieve that about the Church. You may struggle, but you always know the answer beforehand. So if that is the case, then reading the Bible is in a manner of speaking just a means to prove to yourself, ultimately, that what the Church says is correct.
This approach is at least consistent, but I am not convinced it is correct.
And BTW, there is quite a bit of lattitude in Lutheranism too. It is called adaphora, a matter of indifference. And making cracks about “Protestand ministers” does not advance the discussion (we are having a discussion, correct?) In any institution of any decent size there will be problem cases; I am sure with a Google search I could come up with whoppers from Lutheran, EO and RCC ministers to “prove” how off their rockers the respective communions are.
February 22nd, 2005 at 8:12 pm
Edward (#80), re: the second paragraph in that particular posting of yours, I refer you to my #52 above. If I am in factual or historical error, correct me, but I know of no “different canons even in the Western Church until Trent.” The fact is, that all pre-Reformation churches accept at least the OT deuterocanonical books defined by Florence (1443) and reaffirmed by Trent (1547), although some of them add others to that canon. None of them reject any of those books, just as none of them reject or repudiate the local councils which, over a millenium before Florence and Trent, enumerated the books of the OT and included the deuterocanonicals among them. So the point remains, on what basis do Lutherans and other Protestants do so; and on what authority?
February 22nd, 2005 at 9:07 pm
William Tighe, (#88)
I read that the OT canon for the council of Carthage (345-419) incluides Ezra 1 (Greek Ezra), while Trent does not, hence my different canons. But after doing a little more reading, it seems that there is some confusion on my part as to the names of the books I, II and III Ezra (or Nehemiah), so I think I may be mistaken here–maybe Trent meant I Ezra as the canonical (for the Greeks, and West) II Ezra of the Greek canon, and not the canonical (for the East, but not the West) I Ezra.
“So the point remains, on what basis do Lutherans and other Protestants do so; and on what authority?”
Lutherans do not have a dogmatic statement as to what books are in the canon and what books are not.
February 22nd, 2005 at 9:21 pm
Dr. Tighe (#88):
Upon looking through Steinmann’s book (mentioned above), I see that many of the ancients (Melito, Origen, Athanasius, Cyril, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilochius, Hilary, Rufinus, and Jerome) do not give lists which agree with the Councils of Rome or Hippo (390’s). There is also the list from the Council of Laodicea, but that is disputed. In many of the above lists the deuterocanonicals are explicitly excluded from the canon. There are exceptions, such as the widespread inclusion of Baruch and the Letter with Jeremiah and Lamentations.
It seems to me, based on this evidence alone, nevermind the rest of Steinmann’s book, that your last question hasn’t been pushed back far enough in time. The burden, I would argue, is on those who want to add to the canon those books which were previously explicitly excluded from it, and by those whom one should not be quick to contradict. This is not to argue that these books were worthless; many of them were appointed to be read in the churches, but were in a separate category of ecclesiastical texts, rather than canonical texts. On what basis, and whose authority, can the Councils of Rome or Hippo, or anyone else, include those books which were previously rejected from the canon by many of the fathers?
I should be quick to add, though, that I don’t have a completely settled opinion on the matter, though it’s clear which way I lean.
Mark
February 22nd, 2005 at 9:58 pm
Let me throw in the following advice from St Augustine on the determination of the biblical canon:
“Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.” (On Christian Doctrine 2.8.12)
February 22nd, 2005 at 10:03 pm
RE: Post # 75
In any case, Luther did not even go as far as St. Augustine regarding predestination–St. Augustine sort of believed in double predestination–where God elects people to hell, so any critique of Luther on this issue is a critique of St. Augustine too.
Augustine explicitly taught the very opposite of this. Read The City of God. Calvin taught it, yes. Augustine did not.
February 22nd, 2005 at 10:19 pm
There is a certain amount of irony in making a point about the OT Canon on the basis of how long it took for a clear definition, at least as Rome recognized. The New Testament Canon was not clearly recognized before Nicea I. One thing that is clear about the Deutero-Canonical books: The East and West accepted at least all of the LXII, even though the East retained a few more (and the Ethopians even more still). Despite a few individual views, and small local councils of no ecumenical status, the so called Apocrypha was part of every Bible. When Protestants took upon themselves authority to cut out books, they placed their church in authority over the scriptures.
February 22nd, 2005 at 10:25 pm
#84: From what I have read of Chemnitz, it appears that his account of the Real Presence is quite inconsistent with Chalcedonian theology. That is not to say that Lutherans consciously deny the Real Presence, but I have serious doubts about whether their metaphysical account of the sacrament can be coherently reconciled with Byzantine theology.
Jon, I need to challenge you on this. It has been a while since I read Chemnitz on the Lord’s Supper, but I don’t recall anything that would contradict Chalcedonian christology. You need to explain what you mean and provide some documentation from Chemnitz’s writings. My recollection is that Chemnitz strongly asserts the real presence, while refusing to go along with Luther’s assertion of Christ’s bodily omnipresence.
February 22nd, 2005 at 10:53 pm
Re 89 — This is all news to me; but . . . how can a church simultaneously make Sola Scriptura its guiding principle, and view as adiophora what is (or is not) ‘Scriptura’ in the first place?
Really, Dr. Tighe asks a very good question; there must be a better answer than Edward’s.
February 22nd, 2005 at 11:38 pm
Mark Shane (#90), you wrote, “in many of the above lists the deuterocanonicals are explicitly excluded from the canon” and I would add, that in some of them, and in other roughly contemporaneous lists (such as those of Eusebius of Caesarea) books universally accepted as canonical today are either excluded or regarded as dubious (e.g., the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation). So what? Your account suffers from the usual assumption — an unfounded one in my view — that there was “a canon” (in other words, an established list of books) to which certain other books, originally “excluded,” were later added. In facxt, there was no such canon, only the custom of various local churches. If you really have read Sundberg’s book or articles — or the fascinating article hotherto unknown to me linked above at comment #57 — you will see that this idea simply cannot be maintained.
February 23rd, 2005 at 12:12 am
Mark (#95), your question is, as I take it, like mine, a query about how *sola scriptura* can possibly work if the canon is regarded, tacitly or explicitly, as a “fallible collection of infallible books.” Put differently, if in truth “Lutherans do not have a dogmatic statement as to what books are in the canon and what books are not” (cf. #89) — and do not have any authority to appeal for a determination — then it is not clear why they should bestow time and effort in exegeting books that may be “inspired” or, then again, may not be.
February 23rd, 2005 at 2:43 am
Dr. Tighe, (#96):
I will read Sundberg’s article, though by time I’m done, this thread will likely be lost in the archives. Similarly, I do encourage you to read Steinmann’s book. Afterwards, you will see that the existence of a de facto canon is not just possible, but probable. To equate “canon” merely with “list of books” and to apply that criterion to antiquity is anachronistic. Just because one cannot produce a list from Year A does not mean that there was no canon in Year A. The idea of canon-as-list does not exhaust the meaning of what it means to be canonical; but again, this is all in Steinmann’s book.
I believe my point still stands, which in the simplest terms, is this: It is easier to make the case that putting the deuterocanonicals on the same level as the protocanonicals, rather than keeping them separate, is the innovation.
Mark
February 23rd, 2005 at 8:14 am
I too think that the notion of “a fallible collection of infallible books” is quite odd (let us not forget, however, that that phrase is from a rock-ribbed Calvinist, not a Lutheran). But to say that Lutherans do not have a dogmatic statement as to what books are in the canon does not make that much of a practical difference; even among the Romans there was no dogmatic statement of ecumenical authority until Trent, and the Church somehow limped along all the same.
In my parish church there are Bibles in every pew. As a practical matter, the table of contents in those Bibles is the Lutheran canon, even without a dogmatic statement. It’s not the list I would have chosen, but the fulness of the Catholic faith is to be found in those Bibles even without the deuterocanonicals being there.
February 23rd, 2005 at 8:50 am
Chris, I don’t understand why it is necessarily the case that “the fullness of the Catholic faith” is to be found in Bibles that, arguably, do not have in them all the books that should be in them. It seems to me to be just as likely that it is not to be found in them.
And, really, why do people on this thread keep repeating the simple untruth that “the Romans” did not have a dogmatic statement about the Canon until Trent, when such a statement was promulgated at Florence over a century earlier, in 1443?
February 23rd, 2005 at 9:33 am
Bill (#100),
It’s not “necessarily the case”, but it is my opinion that it is the case. If you disagree, then cite an article of the faith which cannot be maintained without reference to the deuterocanonicals. I’ll make it easy for you: I’ll apply, arguendo, Pontificator’s First Law. Any doctrine common to Orthodoxy and Catholicism counts, even if it’s un-Lutheran.
Remember, BTW, that personally I’m on your side on the OT canon issue. For me the LXX defines the OT canon - and since there’s no dogmatic Lutheran statement to the contrary, I can do that.
why do people on this thread keep repeating the simple untruth …
In my case, simple ignorance. Looking back over the thread I see that you mentioned this in #52; this was the first I had heard of it. Was Florence 1443 another session of the same council as Florence 1439 (the failed reunion council)? If so, it is clearly of ecumenical authority for Roman Catholics, and I stand corrected.
February 23rd, 2005 at 9:48 am
Re: #94, thank goodness! Maybe I’ll finally get an answer to my question, because it appears to me that in answering the Sacramentarian objection (which i some ways parallels the Calvinist objection), Lutherans endorse a heretical concept of the communication idiomatum. After reading St. Maximus’s Disputation with Pyrrhus last night, I am all the more strongly convinced that this is the case.
Chemnitz says:
“On the basis of the doctrine of the personal union, therefore, this axiom is very true and sure, and all the gates of hell cannot overturn it, namely, that the Logos, can be present with His assumed human nature wherever, whenever, and however He wills, not only in some place with His essential attributes but also according to and on account of the secret and ineffable personal union of the humanity with deity. When He wishes His body or assumed nature to be present, sought, apprehended is to be decided and judged not by our own argumentation, although it may have the appearance of form of rational logic, but only on the basis of the sure Word of God revealed in Scripture.
For this presence of Christ’s assumed human nature, of which we are now speaking, is not a natural or essential presence, but a voluntary and wholly free presence which depends only on the will and power of the Son of God, that is, on His promises and assertions to us whereby with definite word He assures us of His will to be present with His human nature.”
This is echoed in the Formula of Concord:
“Even as many eminent ancient teachers, Justin, Cyprian, Augustine, Leo, Gelasius, Chrysostom and others, use this simile concerning the words of Christ’s testament: This is My body, that just as in Christ two distinct, unchanged natures are inseparably united, so in the Holy Supper the two substances, the natural bread and the true natural body of Christ, are present together here upon earth in the appointed administration of the Sacrament. 38] Although this union of the body and blood of Christ with the bread and wine is not a personal union, as that of the two natures in Christ, but as Dr. Luther and our theologians, in the frequently mentioned Articles of Agreement [Formula of Concord] in the year 1536 and in other places call it sacramentatem unionem, that is, a sacramental union, by which they wish to indicate that , although they also employ the formas: in pane, sub pane, cum pane, that is, these distinctive modes of speech: in the bread, under the bread, with the bread, yet they have received the words of Christ properly and as they read, and have understood the proposition, that is, the words of Christ’s testament: Hoc est corpus meum, This is My body, not as a figuratam propositionem, but inusitatam (that is, not as a figurative, allegorical expression or comment, but as an unusual expression).”
Now, the notion seems to be that the divine will can give the human nature, Christ’s Body, a kind of presence that it does not have naturally; namely, the voluntary or willed presence. That strikes me as a straight confusion or mixing of the natures, which can *never* happen under Chalcedon (viz., the fact that it happens only under the special circumstances of the sacrament doesn’t make it any more permissible than would be a temporary annihilation of the human nature). I think that the difficulty is fundamentally Christological because of the use of the patristic analogy drawn between the Eucharist and the hypostatic union, and in this case, it seems that the problem is Monothelete in character, since the divine will overrides even the properties of the human nature. But it could arguably be Nestorian instead (although I’d note that Nestorians also endorsed a form of monotheletism), since the “sacramental union” seems to be a reality formed from the natures being joined to one another but not fused with one another (Monophysitism). The monothelete hypothesis seems quite plausible to me for two reasons:
(1) As Josh S has explained it, Lutheran doctrine apparently holds that the both the divine and human wills act in communion in all acts of Christ, so that there cannot be acts purely of the divine will. That would suggest an impermissible confusion of the wills akin to monotheletism (and condemned by Constantinople), assuming he is correct. Moreover, this confusion appears to derive from exactly the Origenistic dialectic of opposition that St. Maximus rejects in rebutting monothelitism.
(2) The Lutherans seem to have had quite a poor understanding of the patristic concept of theosis, and in particular, their account of the deification of the will used to explain the aforementioned communion of the wills in all actions appears to flatly contradict St. Maximus’s account. This sloppy handling of the communicatio idiomatum with respect to the wills could certainly explain why they didn’t perceive the contradiction with the patristic writings in their account of the Lord’s Supper.
Now it’s certainly not an *obvious* problem, but I think it is an extremely serious problem. It truly appears that this concept of the Real Presence violates the Chalcedonian prohibition on the confusion of the natures.
February 23rd, 2005 at 10:04 am
To rebut the Lutheran responses thus far:
(#85) “But Lutherans and Orthodox hold to a ccommunion of attributes, so that e.g. God’s omnipresence is somehow shared by his human nature because of the personal union. This makes the Real Presence possible, though we do not say that is how it is accomplished.”
What you’ve stated about the communicatio idiomatum is complete heresy from the standpoint of Chalcedonian Christology as far as I can tell, and I certainly don’t think that any Orthodox Christians hold to such a thing. If they do, they are in error.
(#85) “We accept that the bread and wine is Jesus’ body and blood, yet St. Paul still refers to it as bread and wine and body and blood. How God accomplishes that is beyond our ken.”
That may well be, but the explanation given by Chemnitz and the Formula of Concord seems to say otherwise. And given that this was presented as an actual argument against both Sacramentarians and Calvinists, it would be hard for me to imagine that it does not carry at least some dogmatic weight.
(#86) “A fair and careful reading of the Lutheran Confessions will show you that it is not possible to be a confessional Lutheran while denying (consciously or otherwise) the Real Presence.”
What is the dogmatic status of the Formula of Concord? I am not familiar with such matters myself, but it would appear to be dogmatic. If it isn’t, I stand corrected on Lutheranism (although not on Chemnitz).
(#86) “In any case, expecting one’s doctrine of the Real Presence to be either consistent or inconsistent with Chalcedonian theology is a category error. The definition of Chalcedon deals with Christology, not sacramental theology. Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox differ over Chalcedon but have identical teachings concerning the Eucharist; which one is ‘consistent with Chalcedonian theology’?”
I completely disagree. In fact, I would say that they don’t have the same metaphysical concept of the Eucharist, although since there is no dogmatic definition in either communion, it might not be clear that this is the case. Error in Christology in this regard is inseparable from error in one’s account of the Eucharist, because you can’t agree on what the presence of the Body means if you don’t even agree on what the Body *is*. That’s not to say that the Oriental Orthodox don’t hold *a* doctrine of the Real Presence, but it is not a *Chalcedonian* doctrine of the Real Presence.
February 23rd, 2005 at 10:57 am
“Protestand ministers”
Did I say “Protestand ministers”? I can’t find it but if I did it was a typo. (But a good un
Must keep it in mind for later).
Pax
Shari (who will now get back to work, and to comporting herself in more seemly fashion given the penitential season.)
February 23rd, 2005 at 11:01 am
Jonathan nailed it.
Any communication of the properties of Christ’s divine nature to his human nature, from a Lutheran stand-point, is going to be a communication of the divine essence. A communication of the divine essence is one that the holy Fathers and Chalcedon exclude. This symptom bears out nicely, as Jonathan points out, that the mode of presence in the sacrament is going to be uniquely triumphed by the divine will–which is monenergism and predestinarian. It is precisely at this point that predestination is seen as a Christological and Triadological problem and not a philosophical or anthropological problem.
What we need to solve the problem is another metaphysical category to license such a communication of the divine nature to the human nature, “without confusion” and “without separation,” and to ensure the integrity of synergy in Christ.
Daniel
February 23rd, 2005 at 11:11 am
103
Jonathan,
I suggest you read Chemnitz “The Two Natures in Christ” then revisit this. You are honestly speaking a different lanuage (as Josh pointed out) you are inserting specifically Roman Catholic metaphysics into somehting that is nto coming froma that perspective at all. You need to critique something on it’s own terms. Again read the book you will see how thoroughly Chemitz draws on the father sof the church and how thoroughly Chalcedonian he is.
February 23rd, 2005 at 11:29 am
105
Daniel,
Unfortunately this does nothing with CHemnitz actual views. He is quite clear and thoroughly patiristic in The Two Nature.
Predestination is not a philosophical problem at all (how this is related I am not sure?) it is a neccesary and Biblical consequence of a sovereign God. In fact it is neccesary of a God who is omniscient period. You cannot ordain the end from the beggining with out being and actor in between. The fact that God uses the means of human will and action to acheive forordained results creates no problems at all. And it takes predestination squarely out the realm of “problem” at all the only problem is elevating the sovereignty of human will of the soveriegnty of the creator. One must necessarily be brought either down or up to the others level. But this is of topic. But I thought a brief response was warranted since you bring up a dillemna that is exist only in philosophy and not reality.
February 23rd, 2005 at 11:31 am
“I suggest you read Chemnitz ‘The Two Natures in Christ’ then revisit this.”
I suggest you read J.P. Farrell’s translation of St. Maximus’s Disputation with Pyrrhus and John Meyendorff’s Christ in Eastern Christian Thought and then revist whether that Eucharistic understanding would not break the rules.
“You are honestly speaking a different lanuage (as Josh pointed out) you are inserting specifically Roman Catholic metaphysics into somehting that is nto coming froma that perspective at all. You need to critique something on it’s own terms.”
Chemnitz can’t make the Chalcedonian decrees mean something other than what they do, no matter what his perspective is. If Chemnitz means something other than what I’m asserting, then say what it is. Otherwise, you’re not answering me.
“Again read the book you will see how thoroughly Chemitz draws on the father sof the church and how thoroughly Chalcedonian he is.”
My entire point is that he misinterpreted both the fathers and the decrees. The fact that he drew on them doesn’t mean that he did so in a manner consistent with their theology.
February 23rd, 2005 at 12:25 pm
Jonathan, he isn’t criticizing St. Maximos. You, on the other hand, _are_ criticizing Martin Chemnitz. So it won’t do for you to counter his “Read Chemnitz!” with your own “Read Maximos.” I’m sure it would be salutary to read the dialogue you mention, but you’re the one who is making accusations of heresy without having read the work in question.
February 23rd, 2005 at 12:37 pm
Re: 95 On the question of how the Lutheran Church could depend so much on _sola Scriptura_ without dogmatically defining the canon: As long as we are dealing with the books that all the churches recognize, and have recognized since earliest times, we’re sure we’re dealing with Scripture. And when we are not sure of a book, we still give it a hearing, but do not listen to it as to the words of God. Remember, _sola Scriptura_ doesn’t mean, “When making our theology, we consider only Scripture,” but rather, “When making our theology, we consider only Scripture to have absolute, infallible authority.”
February 23rd, 2005 at 12:38 pm
Jonathan
What is the dogmatic status of the Formula of Concord?
The Formula of Concord, of course, has the status of dogma for confessional Lutherans. If you are intimating that the Formula does not teach the orthodox doctrine of the Real Presence, then you are misreading it. It would appear that the reason for your misreading is your belief that in order for a doctrine to be orthodox, not only the doctrine itself, but a “correct” metaphysical explanation of the doctrine, must be confessed. This is not the case.
The fact that the Formula analogizes the sacramental union and the hypostatic union does not constitute a commitment to a particular metaphysical explanation (that is, to one which is in your view incorrect). It is there merely to indicate, against Sacramentarian objections that the Real Presence is somehow contrary to reason, that the doctrine is as worthy of our faith as is the hypostatic union. In other words, the use of an analogy does not by itself introduce a dependency.
they [the EO and the OO] don’t have the same metaphysical concept of the Eucharist.
I’ll admit that I’m no expert on the Oriental Orthodox, but I am conversant with Eastern Orthodoxy, having been Orthodox for 10 years and having had such formal theological training as I have under Orthodox auspices. In Orthodoxy there is no “metaphysical concept” of the Eucharist that has dogmatic status. In fact, there is no metaphysical concept that is characteristic of Eastern Christian thought on the matter. In Orthodoxy, the Real Presence is consistently confessed to be a mystery beyond the reach of human conceptualization. So your statement that they don’t have “the same” metaphysical concept is meaningless, because at least one of the parties has no metaphysical concept.
Metaphysics is simply not relevant to this discussion.
February 23rd, 2005 at 12:49 pm
Jonathan,
Until you actually read it you are not qualified to critique it. You are attacking a fiction of your own making. Chemnitz did an entire work, perhaps his best, on this subject. For you to attack a position without really knowing it or based on a single quote is pointless if you are really interested in the truth. As it is you seem to want to level a false charge at Lutheranism and you are going to stick with it for the sakle of discrediting it.
The problem is you will have to level the same charge at Orthodoxy since Chemnitz position in The Two Natures could have been written by an Orthodox theologian. His Christology is identical to Orthodox Christology. Until you deal with that you have not dealt with the cetral issue.
February 23rd, 2005 at 12:50 pm
Jonathan (#102):
Lutheran doctrine apparently holds that the both the divine and human wills act in communion in all acts of Christ
I was taught that orthodox dyotheletism holds that the human will in Christ (that is, the natural will pertaining to his human nature) is both distinct from His divine will and entirely free, and that His human will always freely obeys the divine will. First, have I somehow misunderstood the teaching of Constantinople II? and second, how is that different from asserting that the divine and human wills act in communion? I think that’s a distinction without a difference.
this confusion appears to derive from … the Origenistic dialectic of opposition
What possible basis in what Josh has written can you have for this speculation? I’ve heard a wide variety of charges against Lutheranism, but a charge of Origenism is novel, and quite a stretch in my opinion.
February 23rd, 2005 at 12:51 pm
Dave H,
I don’t see how Chemnitz or the Lutheran tradition can be consistent with Chalcedon on the two natures and a*real* hypostatic union because of a committment to a Neo-Platonic idea of God being an absolutely simple essence, Rome has the same problem mind you.
Predestination in the western tradition is a subheading above Triadology and Christology, which turns theology on its head and is in the words of Barth “ultimately a separation between God and Christ.” Barth can’t acquit his own charge but it is an apt observation nonetheless. They all start their systematic theologies from the absolutely simple God to the attributes of God (predestination being one of them) and then to Triadology and Christology.
From Maximus’ stand-point, predestination is a subset UNDER triadology and christology. The sovereignty of God and the apokatastasis is seen in God’s plan, purpose, power, and vindication for his creation (contra the devil). In other words, predestination is to nature and not to person. This is the point of John 6 that all THAT(neuter) the Father gives to Christ, that the Son loses nothing. And that all things are summed up in Christ as a microcosm and mediator of all creation (Eph 1:10). This requires a real metaphysical distinction between person and nature (which the West can’t maintain by thinking of persons as relations of an essence). But according to one’s hypostatic state (Ever-Ill-Being or Ever-Well-Being), is up to the personal employment of the will (or gnomie for created hypostasis).
Christ in Gethsemane and the saints in the Eschaton, is the proving ground for any theology that could be considered biblical for Saint Maximus. This is a theology from “above” for Maximus instead of a theology from “below” as the Augustinian tradition does. All the major Western doctors, from Anselm, Aquinas, Scotus, Luther, Calvin, etc. view Christ’s self-preservation in Gethsemane as in opposition to the divine will. In turn, the divine will has to monkey with the human will to get Christ to the cross. Libertarian free-will isn’t even had by the perfect, sinless Christ. Likewise, for the saints in the eschaton, personhood is obliterated since re-integration in the Good requires the cessation of temporal succession since the objects of willing and the good are absolutely simple and singular: the divine essence. All these notions have a common thread with monotheletism (Monergism): an absolutely simple essence–which is the reason Pyrrhus rooted the will in the hypostasis, since rooting the will in nature meant the divine will trumping the human will. Any other choice for Christ (in Gethsemane) or the Saints in the Eschaton is sin, since the good is absolutely singular and simple. This is why Augustinian theology is semi-Origenist in form. The latter wanted to tie in motion and kinesis in the Eschaton which meant a cycle of falls and redemptions, the former just excludes motion altogether to keep the Saints stable. This is why for Augustine instability in human nature is chalked up to man being created ex nihilo and mutible. The only way for him to remove that instability is to remove temporal succession (this seems to be the over-arching point in the City of God, that also underpins his project). Thus, in none of the Western theologians can libertarian free-will and alternate possibilities be maintained (not even in Christ or in God for that matter).
If you don’t think absolute simplicity is a problem or if you think you have a solution to skirt around the problem, take a look here: http://energies.coffeeconversations.com/archives/2005/01/perrys_logical.html
Daniel
February 23rd, 2005 at 1:11 pm
Daniel wrote,
“I don’t see how Chemnitz or the Lutheran tradition can be consistent with Chalcedon on the two natures and a*real* hypostatic union because of a committment to a Neo-Platonic idea of God being an absolutely simple essence…”
Dude… what ARE you talking about? Like the East, the Lutherans recognize a single Divine Physis (as Chalcedon says) and Ousia (as Nicaea says), and three distinct Divine Hypostases (as Nicaea and the Cappadocians say). On both His oneness and threeness, we are entirely orthodox. And if you are suggesting that there is multiplicity in the Ousia, rather than in the Hypostases, you are not.
February 23rd, 2005 at 1:21 pm
Daniel,
Given that the Lutheran reformers were to some extent selective in their acceptance of their mediaeval theological heritage, you can’t simply assume that because the mediaeval West plumped for absolute divine simplicity, the Lutherans remained committed to it as well. I don’t know whether they did or not; I’m not a scholar of Reformation theology. But if you’re going to assert a Lutheran committment to a Neo-Platonic idea of God being an absolutely simple essence, you have to show that from Lutheran sources, not simply attribute it to them because they are Western.
February 23rd, 2005 at 1:49 pm
Daniel,
What Chris said.
Also you greatly overstate the medieval catholic “problem” of siimplicity by overreaching with your conclusion. The real issue in what you wrote is common to the East:
1) Oversimplification of western theology pre and post schism by trying to reduce all all theology into philosphy ala Maximos. In doing so you cut off the value of the entire doctrinal development of the West.
2) This over emphasis on strict philosophical categories is a trap. In so doing you fall into the neo-palonism you are concerned with. Primarily because you like many eastern fathers excercised hebraic thought completely from theoligical thought replacing it entirely with hellenistic thought. This creates an imbalance that is plain to see. By going back to Plotinus or Aristotle and ignoring Moses and the Hebrew character of the New Testament scriptures you develop are premise that asks all the wrong questions.
3) All matters cannot be reduced to the simplicity or complexity of God or the Filioque. They are all worthy discussions but to much is made by way of conclusions. It is to simplistic even though it seems sophisticated.
4) All the the major historic heresies were born in the East. It is not a coincidence.
5) Again Predestination is founded soley in the unknowable mind of God which he of course works out through salvation History through the Incarnation. Anything esle beyond that falls squarely into the realm of anthro-centicism in theology. Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism were condemned at Orange. A council that took place long beofre the schsim. We are to be judged by God’s standard. He can never be judged by ours. Is it a mystery? Of course. God is sovereiign and man is free. Anything beyond this is sophistry.
Dave
February 23rd, 2005 at 2:06 pm
Chris Jones (#109):
“If you are intimating that the Formula does not teach the orthodox doctrine of the Real Presence, then you are misreading it. It would appear that the reason for your misreading is your belief that in order for a doctrine to be orthodox, not only the doctrine itself, but a ‘correct’ metaphysical explanation of the doctrine, must be confessed. This is not the case.”
I actually agree with that, and this is exactly why I don’t understand the degree of ire at my suggestion that it might be in error. My point is that it appears that Chemnitz is claiming patristic support for his view, and I don’t think he has it. That is to say, their arguments based on analogy to the hypostatic union would not support Chemnitz’s explanation. One would have to rely on a misreading of the church fathers to think that they support the specific proposition for which they are being cited.
“So your statement that they don’t have ‘the same’ metaphysical concept is meaningless, because at least one of the parties has no metaphysical concept.”
The statement “Christ’s Body becomes present” necessarily includes some metaphysical content, at the very least informing what Christ’s Body is. At least that minimal amount of content is sufficient to show a contradiction with other metaphysical statements and a difference in beliefs. My point vis-a-vis Chemnitz is that any statement of the form “(natural property of Christ) changes as a result of the divine will” is anti-Chalcedonian. Chemnitz says that the mode of presence depends on divine will and that statement standing *alone* is sufficient to contradict Chalcedon.
Dave H (#110):
“Until you actually read it you are not qualified to critique it. You are attacking a fiction of your own making. Chemnitz did an entire work, perhaps his best, on this subject. For you to attack a position without really knowing it or based on a single quote is pointless if you are really interested in the truth.”
For you to attack me ad hominem without explaining yourself or interacting with the argument is pointless if you are interested in the truth. If I am wrong, show me.
“As it is you seem to want to level a false charge at Lutheranism and you are going to stick with it for the sakle of discrediting it.”
Nonsense. I level the charge because I honestly think it is true.
“The problem is you will have to level the same charge at Orthodoxy since Chemnitz position in The Two Natures could have been written by an Orthodox theologian. His Christology is identical to Orthodox Christology. Until you deal with that you have not dealt with the cetral issue.”
Actually, my entire point is that it could NOT have been written by an Orthodox theologian, so the charge applies to Chemnitz uniquely rather than to both of them. I think that Chemnitz has an entirely un-Orthodox approach to this issue.
February 23rd, 2005 at 2:23 pm
Chris Jones (#113):
“I was taught that orthodox dyotheletism holds that the human will in Christ (that is, the natural will pertaining to his human nature) is both distinct from His divine will and entirely free, and that His human will always freely obeys the divine will. First, have I somehow misunderstood the teaching of Constantinople II? and second, how is that different from asserting that the divine and human wills act in communion? I think that’s a distinction without a difference.”
That’s true. The point is that not every act of Christ involves both the human will and the divine will, viz., the communion of the wills is not on an act by act basis. It’s the same communion as the communion of the natures: hypostatic.
“What possible basis in what Josh has written can you have for this speculation? I’ve heard a wide variety of charges against Lutheranism, but a charge of Origenism is novel, and quite a stretch in my opinion.”
It’s the notion that two different wills entails conflict, so that the human nature can’t will one thing and the divine nature another thing without breaking the communion.
February 23rd, 2005 at 2:38 pm
Jonanthan,
I never attacked you ad hominem! What’s to explain? You are critiquing Chemnitz without having read His work on the matter. How is that attacking your person? If I said “Jonathan you are a stupid morom Jerk-head” that would be an ad hominem attack. As it is I DO NOT think you are a stupid moron jerk-head. But unless I am wrong and you did read the work in question, then you are indeed attacking someone you are not familar with.
If I were to attack Trent having not read it that would make no sense. You can claim all you want about Chemnitz but until you read “The Two Natures” to know what he actually teaches how can you give an informed critique? It makes absolutely no sense at all.
How is it unfair to ask you to read something before you level charges against it. There is absolutely nothing to engage until you do so. The only conclusion, again if you have not read it, is that you are attacking a straw man. That’s not an attack on your person. It is a criticism of what you doing.
Have you or have you not read Chemnitz on this? Yes or no. If the answer is no then you have absolutely no way of knowing if Chemnitz is “entirely un-Orthodox approach to this issue”.
Dave
February 23rd, 2005 at 2:41 pm
J. Prejean writes:
“My point vis-a-vis Chemnitz is that any statement of the form ‘(natural property of Christ) changes as a result of the divine will’ is anti-Chalcedonian. Chemnitz says that the mode of presence depends on divine will and that statement standing *alone* is sufficient to contradict Chalcedon.”
Jonathan, where exactly did Chemnitz say that the FORM of Christ CHANGES as a result of the divine will? Didn’t we just agree over on HWS that presence is an _accident_? When Chemnitz says that the presence of the Body and Blood in the elements is worked by God’s will, he isn’t making a statement about _form_.
Also on HWS, I’ve pointed out to you 1) That your own Roman Catholic teaching also makes the Eucharistic Presence depend upon the will of God, and 2) That far from causing an anti-Chalcedonian glitch, the inclusion of the divine will in Chemnitz’s explanation actually _defends_ the orthodoxy of the statement by ruling out the possibility that Christ’s humanity has been _transformed_ in some Eutychian fashion into a divine-human alloy.
February 23rd, 2005 at 2:59 pm
Dave H,
#1 If you would like to show where I have oversimplifications or that I don’t understand Western Theology, perhaps you can prime my mental pump considering I have done graduate work on the side of Western theology. Granted, the west doesn’t see out these implications to their finality as Origen did, instead appeals to mystery are made. I find such appeals ad hoc and usually are indicators to when a theological model is running out of explanatory gas. In other words, implications should be owned up to eventually or abandoned altogether. If appeals to mystery are going to be maintained, we need a principled reason for doing so. Otherwise, a system is capricioius and arbitrary.
#2) Overemphasis on philosophical categories? Pehaps Pro-Nicenes were wrong in ousia, hypostasis, homoousion. I don’t have a problem with Neo-Platonism per se (everybody has some don’t they?). Basil, Maximos, Gregory are just as logic chopping as Anselm, Scotus, Aquinas.
#3) I’m pointing to the problem with your theological model, and that starts with theology proper. It sounds like you are being largely dismissive.
#4) All the major heresies were in the East that much is true. And almost every single one of those heresies can be pointed straight back to the Origenist problem and it’s forms of dialectic. The first 6 Ecumenical councils can historically be seen as a constant break-up of that dialectic. First of all, the east is where all the theology was mainly being done. Rome’s bastion of orthodoxy can be seen in a couple of ways a) she held to the true faith out of ignorance or instintively rather than a real understanding of the problem or, b) they did have a good grasp, but the suppression of the West Roman by the various Germanic tribes and their wielding of Augustinianism as par excellence of the patristic grid brought back the same dialectical problems. Take your pick, or demonstrate 3rd way that can rehabillitate the ethos of Augustinianism with the Councils. The East broke up the Origenist problem with the distinction between essence and energy. Without such a distinction Athanasius defense of the deity of Christ along with the free contingency of the world crumbles. Without such a distinction the Cappadocian defense of the Trinity crumbles as well in the face of Eunomian semi-Arianism, and on down we go to Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and Monenergism. This is where the East succeeded in breaking up that dialectic and the West did not (or lost it). Absolute simplicity is what consequently makes the filioque (persons as relations of the essence) POSSIBLE and subsequently IMPOSSIBLE since you can’t maintain the free contingency of the world with such a view. It’s not by accident that occasionalism arose in the West.
#5) Orange emphasized the primacy of grace, along with the fact that man can’t move himself to God on his own natural power. Orange, however, doesn’t give us an explication on what grace metaphysically IS or the mechanisms and categories of predstination, etc. This is where you see Augustine’s contribution of the distinction between nature and grace over against Pelagianism. However, that doesn’t fit too well with his view of simplicity, which means that nature and grace distinction should be viewed first and foremost under the lense of Theology proper and Christology–which means Augustine’s distinction is Orthodox given a Cappadocian view of God.
I do not find your theories on Predestination consistent with the 6th Council at Constantinople and Saint Maximus, and I think it starts with a deficient view and uncritical acceptance of Augustinianism of God being absolutely simple. In Augustinianism, God has to render a person’s acts and election (to heaven) inevitible to secure him. Augustine is a synergist as to the acquisition of justice, but he ends up being a monergist to secure such a status for election. Granted Augustine and Aquinas are far more ammenable then Luther (Bondage of the Will) or Calvin (the Institutes), but determinism is still determinism by any other name that you wish to call it and there is no better test than the eschaton where you have but one single object to will.
If you’d like a bibliography, I’d be happy to provide.
Daniel
February 23rd, 2005 at 3:03 pm
Eric Phillips,
God’s nature is wider than his essence. That is what I’m talking about. Cyril made a distinction between God’s essence and his energies (will).
Daniel
February 23rd, 2005 at 3:10 pm
Daniel,
The Essence-Energies divide isn’t a matter of _width_. God’s Energies are but expressions of His Essence. You know, to the extent that it makes sense to talk about His “Essence” in the first place. Let me say it another way: God is what He does, and does what He is. We just can’t see the “is.”
February 23rd, 2005 at 3:20 pm
Dave H (#120):
“I never attacked you ad hominem! What’s to explain? You are critiquing Chemnitz without having read His work on the matter. How is that attacking your person?”
You are attacking my own qualifications and not my argument. That is “to the man” (ad hominem). Arguments don’t depend on the person presenting them.
“If the answer is no then you have absolutely no way of knowing if Chemnitz is ‘entirely un-Orthodox approach to this issue’.”
Untrue. Someone could explain it to me, which is what I’ve been asking all along. I’m only “charging” Chemnitz with error based on the argument that I’ve presented. Anybody could respond to it if I am wrong.
Eric Phillips (#121):
“Jonathan, where exactly did Chemnitz say that the FORM of Christ CHANGES as a result of the divine will? Didn’t we just agree over on HWS that presence is an _accident_? When Chemnitz says that the presence of the Body and Blood in the elements is worked by God’s will, he isn’t making a statement about _form_.”
Reread what I said above. I said “statements of the form” (i.e., statements written according to this pattern), not “statements about form.”
“Also on HWS, I’ve pointed out to you 1) That your own Roman Catholic teaching also makes the Eucharistic Presence depend upon the will of God”
Not a problem. I’m just saying that it can’t depend on the will of God violating the integrity of His human nature.
“2) That far from causing an anti-Chalcedonian glitch, the inclusion of the divine will in Chemnitz’s explanation actually _defends_ the orthodoxy of the statement by ruling out the possibility that Christ’s humanity has been _transformed_ in some Eutychian fashion into a divine-human alloy.”
My point is that the human nature can’t EVER be violated, not even by divine will. I concur that some natural communication of attributes would obviously be confusing the natures, but God doesn’t even communicate attributes between the natures by *will*. Do you admit that Chemnitz allows for communication of attributes between natures by will?
February 23rd, 2005 at 3:27 pm
Eric,
I was not using the term “wider” to denote a category of being or measurement, but only to say that there is more to God than his essence. To put it in Platonic terms, it’s that “stuff” that’s spatially around ‘the One.’ God is fully present in each energy, but energy is not identical to essence nor is energy reducible to essence; just the same with Persons, the fullness of God is present in each person, but each person is not identical to the essence nor reducible to it. There is an assymetrical dependency between God’s essence and energy.
God is more than what he does, he transcends all of what he does. His essence is unknowable and incommunicable.
Thus, neither the uncreated goodness, nor the eternal glory, nor the divine life nor things akin to these are simply the superessential essence of God, for God transcends them all as Cause. But we say He is life, goodness and so forth, and give Him these names, because of the revelatory energies and powers of the Superessential. As Basil the Great says, “The guarantee of the existence of every essence is its natural energy which leads the mind to the nature.” (Ep. 139, 6-7) And according to St. Gregory of Nyssa and all the other Fathers, the natural energy is the power which manifests every essence, and only nonbeing is deprived of this power; for the being which participates in an essence will also surely participate in the power which naturally manifests that essence.
But since God is entirely present in each of the divine energies, we name Him from each of them, although it is clear that He transcends all of them. For, given the multitude of divine energies, how could God subsist entirely in each without any division at all; and how could each provide Him with a name and manifest Him entirely, thanks to indivisible and supernatural simplicity, if He did not transcend all these energies?
…The superessential essence of God is thus not to be identified with the energies, even with those without beginning [Palamas was previoiusly discussing the difference between energies that have a beginning and an end in time and those that do not]; from which it follows that it is not only transcendent to any energy whatsoever, but that it transcends them “to an infinite degree and an infinite number of times” (Cent. gnost. I.7), as the divine Maximus says. –Triads in defense of the holy Hesychasts III, ii, 7-8
Daniel
February 23rd, 2005 at 4:05 pm
122
Daniel,
We could engage scripture on this. How far are we going to push it? I could easily go back to St. Paul in ROmans and Ephesians to support Augustine. Can you do the same with Maximos?
You seemed to have dismissed my reference to Hebraic thought. And the fatc the philophical categories were used does not warrant the entire replacement of Biblical categories, such as Covenant, with stricly philosphical ones. Your master dies not mean you have mastered All aspects of non Eastern theology.
Eric point out quite acurrately the proper understanding of essence and energies. Which is another thing that is blown way out of proportion to it’s actual value regarding faiht and practice.
There is philosophy and reality. They often intersect - and one often intrudes on the other.
February 23rd, 2005 at 4:09 pm
Daniel,
It is interesting that you criticize mystery in the West but it is a foundational trump card in the East far more than the west. Apophatic theology sure seems to require a tremendous amoount of knowledge about God.
All I am saying it is pretty absurd to criticize Western Christianity for appealing to mystery when it is such a larger part of Eastern Christianity where seeming contradiction is admitted and embraced. It is interesting to observe a decidedly western approach to eastern thought.
February 23rd, 2005 at 4:09 pm
J. Prejean,
Your statements are fast losing coherence. First you protest that you aren’t accusing Chemnitz of saying that God alters the Form of Christ’s humanity, and then you turn around and accuse him of saying that “God violates the integrity of human nature.” Form and nature, I submit to you, are the same thing. They both have to do with essence, not accidents, and PRESENCE IS AN ACCIDENT.
Then you ask, “Do you admit that Chemnitz allows for communication of attributes between natures by will?”
What, do I think that Chemnitz believes in the communicatio idiomatum? Heck yes. Chemnitz, being an orthodox Christian, certainly believed in the communicatio idiomatum. Now, do you?
February 23rd, 2005 at 4:16 pm
Daniel,
I’m unclear as to what brought on that peroration about essence and energies. It’s only an expansion on what I had already said, and gets you no nearer to proving your point. And what’s this stuff about “’stuff’ that’s spatially around ‘the One’? You say those are Platonic terms? Well, “The One” is Platonic. The rest of it sure isn’t, though.
February 23rd, 2005 at 4:32 pm
“Your statements are fast losing coherence. First you protest that you aren’t accusing Chemnitz of saying that God alters the Form of Christ’s humanity, and then you turn around and accuse him of saying that “God violates the integrity of human nature.” Form and nature, I submit to you, are the same thing. They both have to do with essence, not accidents, and PRESENCE IS AN ACCIDENT.”
Yes, but bodily (local) presence is a proper accident of the human nature. If you screw around with a proper accident, so that the bodily presence is somehow “different,” then you are violating the integrity of the nature. Bodily presence can’t be communicated or otherwise modified from existing as a body. Chemnitz is talking as if bodily presence can be somehow moved around by action of the divine will despite the actual body itself remaining wherever it is, and that is manipulating a proper accident by divine will. It is making Christ’s Body not a human body, which violates the human nature.
“What, do I think that Chemnitz believes in the communicatio idiomatum? Heck yes. Chemnitz, being an orthodox Christian, certainly believed in the communicatio idiomatum. Now, do you?”
Communication of attributes between natures? Of course not. Heck, you could have just said that out of the gate, and we wouldn’t have had a problem.
February 23rd, 2005 at 5:00 pm
Dave H,
I have no problem going to the Bible on doctrine’s like predestination. As I indicated before, we can understand these references in Ephesians and Romans as personal election and end up with anthropological monotheletism or we can make the proper distinctions and come out with a better more robust doctrine. I don’t know about you but monotheletism is BAD. We can understand this predestination as all the logoi being recapitulated in the one Logos Christ in Ephesians 1:1-10. Try Joseph Fitzmeyer’s work on Romans, as most of the better modern exegetes do not read Romans 8-11 as a theory about personal predestination and reprobation. A good example is Acts 13 and Romans 11:28 where the Jews are called elect but reject Christ and enemies of the Gospel. Obviously the biblical term election is not being used in the sense of Augustinian terms. Election has a purpose to bring about Christ, and He recapitulates all the logoi and offers it up to the Father (Christ is a microcosm and mediator of all creation). God’s purpose/intention is to order these acts, whether good or bad, in fulfilling the end of the law which is Christ. This is where you see the determinism in Maximus, and it is as strong a determinism as you can get, human nature is saved from going off into non-being (annhilation) as a consequence of Adam’s sin by the Incarnation and the work of Christ–whether man resists this truth or not. Thus, Hell wasn’t even a possibility without the incarnation which is why it is even a form of being “saved,” since the damned have their source of life and being Christ. To say otherwise, is to have some form of dualism where the folks in Heaven have their being in Christ, and the damned have their esse in some Manichean evil god. We could even say that man’s will is even violated in such an act of the incarnation and resurrection. But this predestination is to NATURE. One’s hypostatic state (Heaven or Hell) is up to the personal employment of the will. Natures are determined by God, but persons are free. Unless you happen to think God’s nature determines His persons. Augustinian predestination isn’t possible without a commitment to absolute simplicity.
I also have no problem with Hebraic terms like covenant etc., but what covenant amounts to is going to be a function of your metaphysic. So swapping out a Scotistic/voluntarist ideas of covenant over against realist glosses doesn’t get you away from having to do metaphysics. Secondly, when we start to employ doctrines in soteriology that cut against Triadology and Christology, it should be an indicator that they need to be scrapped, or revisit some error you have in theology proper.
Eastern theology is called “mystical” because it is epistemically grounded in experience. That has nothing to do what I was talking about. I was referring to ad hoc appeals or some ideas being held in “great tension.” Such tensions are usually fudge factors for theologians that are holding on to some sloppy thinking.
Eric points out the understanding of essence/energy of exactly the Western view and not the Eastern view. His view amounts to a great equal sign about all the things we predicate of God. This can be seen by him saying that God is his what he does and does what he is. Thus, God’s existence is identical to his acts and will. His reading of Maximus would be the same as Fr. Juan Miquel-Garriques that the essence is “energetic,” which is not Maximus’ view. So let’s ask Eric this one: If God is absolutely simple, the act of will to create is identical to his essence. Since his essence is had by him necessarily, it follows by transitivity that the act of will to create is necessary as well.
What’s wrong with that argument Eric?
Daniel
February 23rd, 2005 at 5:38 pm
Eric,
I brought up the essence/energy stuff because the Lutheran view is Eutychian, plane and simple. The Reformed are correct in labeling as such, but their position is Nestorian. Both are just a symptom of absolute simplicity. The solution to license an communicatio idiomatum is to have another metaphysical category–which is the divine energy.
Since you are not familiar with Plotinus’s Eneads I presume, I guess I won’t waste too much time. Plotinus’s idea of the One was held in two distinct contradictory tensions. On one side, The One was wholly transcedent, beyond predication completely unknowable. On the other side he held the One to be identical to all predications. The former the Iamblichian school picked up on, and subsequently the essence/energy picks up on this as well. The latter Origen, Marius Victorinus, and Augustine pick up on.
Daniel
February 23rd, 2005 at 6:14 pm
My two cents on Chemnitz.
I think it has to be admitted that Luther, Chemnitz, and Brenz were truly “creative” in their christological reflections. They pushed the Chalcedonian envelope. In one sense they can be seen as recovering for the West the christology of Alexandria–but they also appear to have gone further than the Alexandrians in their formulation of the genus majestaticum.
It would be interesting indeed to read an Orthodox response to Chemnitz & Co. I suspect that it would be sympathetic but also critical.
One of the key factors driving the 16th century Lutheran christology was the Eucharist. It is because they were so profoundly convinced of Christ’s eucharistic presence in, with, and under the bread and wine that they needed to generate a christology that would make it possible for Christ to be so present (without recourse to transubstantiation). The Lutheran intent here is right–to get God deep into human flesh!
Is Chemnitz and his fellow Lutherans heretical? Certainly the Reformed Churches thought and said so, and the Lutherans responded by accusing Calvinists of Nestorianism.
I do not know if Catholicism has ever made any formal determinations on
this matter, but I suspect that Catholic theologians would have shared the
Calvinist concerns here.
Personally, I lean strongly toward Alexandria, so I welcome Chemnitz’s creativity here. I remember reading Chemnitz’s Two Natures of Christ back in the late 80’s under the guidance of Robert Jenson. I lapped it up. Pontifications readers might recall that I posted a long excerpt from Chemnitz back in July.
Jon, you might want to hold back on your charge of heresy. After you have finished reading Chemnitz’s Two Natures, then read through Meyendorff’s Christ in Eastern Christian Thought. I think you will see both similarities and differences. The Lutherans certainly believed that they were working within the dogma of Chalcedon. Their concern was to affirm, clearly and unequivocally, that Jesus of Nazareth IS God and that in his resurrected humanity he truly gives himself to us in the Eucharist. And so they were willing to think outside the inherited metaphysical box. I give them an A for effort.
February 23rd, 2005 at 6:29 pm
Daniel asks,
“So let’s ask Eric this one: If God is absolutely simple, the act of will to create is identical to his essence. Since his essence is had by him necessarily, it follows by transitivity that the act of will to create is necessary as well.
What’s wrong with that argument Eric?”
What’s wrong is that God doesn’t _have_ Essence. He is Beyond Being. He is what He wills, and He wills what He is. You don’t understand circular causation like that? Well, neither do I, but that’s no big surprise. Why should we expect to understand once we’re attempting to look Beyond Being? Reason, by very definition, doesn’t work in probing God Himself; that’s what makes the Trinity a mystery.
Besides, I already told you, with some asperity, that God _isn’t_ “absolutely simple.” He’s Triune. Remember? The Nicene Creed? Yeah, we Lutherans have that one too.
February 23rd, 2005 at 6:32 pm
Daniel writes,
“I brought up the essence/energy stuff because the Lutheran view is Eutychian, plane and simple.”
Oh, plain and simple? How silly of us to discuss it then. Rubbish. If you think it’s so plain and simple, how about a “plain and simple” demonstration?
“Since you are not familiar with Plotinus’s Eneads I presume…”
You know what they say about assuming…
February 23rd, 2005 at 6:43 pm
J. Prejean writes:
“Yes, but bodily (local) presence is a proper accident of the human nature.”
Okay, I see what you’re getting at. Presence, i.e. actual spatial location, is accidental, but presence, i.e. “to be present somewhere” is part of the nature of all bodies. Gotcha.
J. Prejean:
“If you screw around with a proper accident, so that the bodily presence is somehow ‘different,’ then you are violating the integrity of the nature.”
If that’s the case, then Theosis violates the heck out of human nature. Look, if it’s not a confusion of the natures for Jesus to enter sealed rooms, rise bodily up into heaven, be immortal, be present in the midst “whenever two or three are gathered together in my name,” and to be repeatedly consumed by the teeth of the faithful without physical diminution, then it sure isn’t a confusion of the natures for His body to be invisibly present in my Communion service and yours at the same time.
J. Prejean:
“[Do I believe in] Communication of attributes between natures? Of course not. ”
Wow. Well, I’m at a loss to communicate, then. What two things do you think are communicating with each other, if not the human and divine natures? That’s what the Communicatio Idiomatum is. I hope you haven’t made your own definition and kept the term…
February 23rd, 2005 at 6:51 pm
Eric,
Saying that God is Beyond Being–which is a position I adhere to or saying no being at all–is contradictory then to say that He is what He wills, and He wills what He is. That second part is a great big equal sign for all predications. Also I’d recommend reading Alvin Plantinga’s “Does God have a Nature?” Milwaukee: Marquette University Press. 1980.
Your position sounds similar to Muslism’s who claim that God is just pure will. He has no essence, which is a way they skirt around necessary creation for a simple monad.
Also, I think you aren’t owning up to your own theology on God being absolutely simple, which is a common [historic] thread of Protestants and Catholics committed to Augustinianism. The Western tradition pulls plurality out by Augustine via Aristotle’s category of relation, which is what a person is for Augustine. Relations don’t compromise God being absolutely simple. Have you not read De Trinitate?
Daniel
February 23rd, 2005 at 6:58 pm
Daniel,
It’s not contradictory; it’s kataphatic. Come on, man! Give me a _little_ credit.
My position could sound similar to “God is pure will” only if you stopped reading mid-sentence. And it was a freaking short sentence: “He is what He wills, and He wills what He is.”
Yes, I have read _De Trinitate_, so I can testify with first-hand knowledge that you’re seriously full of it if you think it teaches absolute divine simplicity. This is all about the filioque, isn’t it? What nonsense.
February 23rd, 2005 at 7:07 pm
I’m lovin’ it. Where else but on Pontifications can one knockdown-dragout debates on divine simplicity!
February 23rd, 2005 at 7:12 pm
Eric,
Good grief. You have no idea what you talk of. Nobody that I have ever met in my life, whether [informed] lay, priest, or prof, would DENY that Augustine believed in absolute simplicity, and by absolute simplicity I mean that simplicity operates as an equal sign (=) for all predications. Read Augustine:
We speak of God in many ways—as great, good, wise, blessed, true, and whatever else does not
seem unworthily said of him. Nonetheless, God is identical with his greatness, which is his
wisdom (since he is not great by virtue of quantity, but by virtue of power); and he is identical
with his goodness, which is his wisdom and his greatness; and he is identical with his truth, which
is all of these things. For in him it is not one thing to be blessed and another to be great, or wise,
or true, or to be good, or to be altogether himself. (De Trinitate 6.7.8)
since, in God, to be, is the same as to be wise. For what to be wise is to wisdom, and to be able is to power, and to be eternal is to eternity, and to be just to justice, and to be great to greatness, that being itself is to essence. And since in the Divine simplicity, to be wise is nothing else than to be, therefore wisdom there is the same as essence. (De Trinitate 7.1.2)
Other statements of this type are found in 7.1.2, 8.1.2, 7.6.11, 7.3.5, 15.27.47-48
Truly, unbelievable. I’ve heard it all now.
Daniel
February 23rd, 2005 at 7:25 pm
Daniel,
When you’re controlling the definitions, you can rig the game however you want it, can’t you.
Of course Augustine said all that, and I agree with Him 100%. What I object to is you slapping the label “absolute divine simplicity” on that, and going around saying that Augustine and the Western Tradition in general teach that “God is absolutely simple,” when you know very well, or SHOULD, that Augustine and the Western Tradition in general has always confessed the Trinity. And don’t protest that that’s not what you meant; it’s what the WORDS mean. If you’re just talking about Essence and Energies, find a new way to say it.
What’s more, none of those Augustine quotations conflicts with a proper distinction between Essence and Energies. The Essence is the One Beyond Being, Whom you don’t see except as a man, in the Person of Christ. The Energies are the One reaching into time and space, where we do see them, but as specific goods rather than as God Himself.
February 23rd, 2005 at 8:23 pm
Eric,
Go do some reading on any good Augustinian scholar like Rist, Teske, Gilson, Fitzgerald, O’Donnell, or Bonner.
Try looking at “Augustine through the Ages” edited by Fitzgerald and the entry on “God.” All these things I’ve said about Augustine believing in absolute divine simplicity is well documented and is no where contested.
There is no doubt that the Western Tradition confesses the Trinity or that Augustine believed the Trinity, that has nothing to do with what I’m saying. Augustine had a sophisticated view to mesh together plurality with God being absolutely simple. For Augustine God isn’t Beyond Being, He just IS Being. PURE Being and actus purus. You are correct to point out that I believe Augustine’s view of simplicity is not compatible with Niceae. I take his rather hesitancy, to say the least, to publish De Trinitate that he did not have a proper grasp of the problem, and his always unwavering attitude to being openly corrected by the Church as a sign of a Saint and his acquital. However, that’s not to say we should take his view and make it dogma as the Western Church did. Saint Photius was correct and the Carolingians were wrong (try Richard Haugh, Photius and the Carolingians).
If you have some other literature you can recommend, I’ll take it, but I think this discussion is coming to an end for me. Thanks, I’ll let you have the last word if you wish.
Daniel
February 23rd, 2005 at 9:08 pm
Pontificatorus Maximus (#134):
“Jon, you might want to hold back on your charge of heresy. After you have finished reading Chemnitz’s Two Natures, then read through Meyendorff’s Christ in Eastern Christian Thought. I think you will see both similarities and differences. The Lutherans certainly believed that they were working within the dogma of Chalcedon. Their concern was to affirm, clearly and unequivocally, that Jesus of Nazareth IS God and that in his resurrected humanity he truly gives himself to us in the Eucharist. And so they were willing to think outside the inherited metaphysical box. I give them an A for effort.”
Funny thing is that it’s exactly that book by Meyendorff that made me so suspicious of Chemnitz! LOL! But I wasn’t trying to take away from their sincerity; I think he just got it wrong upon the cooler-headed reflection of centuries later. “Heresy” is probably too strong a term; “error” is more like it (or as I put it simply earlier, non-Chalcedonian). Of course, after reading St. Maximus, it seems like a real tragedy that no one in the West had real access to Greek thought. You can’t help but wonder what a dose of Byzantine theology might have done.
Eric Phillips (#137):
“If that’s the case, then Theosis violates the heck out of human nature. Look, if it’s not a confusion of the natures for Jesus to enter sealed rooms, rise bodily up into heaven, be immortal, be present in the midst ‘whenever two or three are gathered together in my name,’ and to be repeatedly consumed by the teeth of the faithful without physical diminution, then it sure isn’t a confusion of the natures for His body to be invisibly present in my Communion service and yours at the same time.’
I’m pretty sure that the first three are true of all glorified bodies. In the case of the latter two, that’s exactly the point of the discussion, isn’t it?
“Wow. Well, I’m at a loss to communicate, then. What two things do you think are communicating with each other, if not the human and divine natures? That’s what the Communicatio Idiomatum is.”
Of course, but the communication isn’t of attributes between natures, which are entirely unlike in kind. As St. Maximus put it, the natures have nothing in common “save only the hypostasis between natures.” And again, “the exchange [of attributes] doth not concern one, but two, things, and different kinds of things. According to the exchange, the natural attributes of Christ are exchanged according to the ineffable union, without a change or mixture of the natural principles.” And yet again, “the same Person is not only perfect God and perfect man, but hath the properties concomitant with each perfection.” The notion that a nature could appropriate an attribute entirely alien to it by the communicatio idiomatum is plainly rejected. The communicatio is solely hypostatic, so that things may be said of the Person, but not of the nature. You seem to be using the uniquely Lutheran version, which is, as Pontificator noted, even farther than Alexandria went.
February 23rd, 2005 at 9:52 pm
Jonathan,
Could you clarify a little more? The scriptural account of the manifestation of the uncreated divine light in the humanity of Christ on Mount Tabor testifies to a predication of the divine energy to Christ’s human nature. I’d be surprised to read Meyendorff disagree. If there is no communication, then there is not a real union (and in that I’m thinking of a dependent relation), but just a contiguity.
Daniel
February 23rd, 2005 at 11:42 pm
Having read what everyone has said, I am now giving my judicatum.
The relation of Scripture to the church is fundamentally a Christological issue. How do the human and the divine relate? In Protestantism why can’t the authority of the Scriptures be the same as the authority of the Church? Because the Church is human and the scriptures are divine and never the twain shall meet. Of if they do meet then one swallows up the other so that the inspired content of Scripture is cashed out not in terms of any given text but how that text relates to the existential Gospel message, say of a division between Law and Gospel. Inspiration is not one act but a contiguity of two acts-divine and human. Likewise the one act of salvation can’t be both my act and God’s act so it is contiguity of acts. But since my acts are always sinful it can’t be a combination so it has to be completely an act of God to which I am nominally related to.
The problem with historical analysis is likewise Christological. Historical analysis will not give you the requisite necessity with the consequence that the canon is always in principle open to revision. The same goes for formal doctrinal statements since they are the products of human reason. Formal doctrines then lack a formal divine quality which is why you can’t have an infallible Pope or Ecumenical council. Those are on the “human” side of the divide. This is just to say that for Protestants the divine never really penetrates humanity and there never really is a genuine incarnation. This is why the divine working in the Church ceases with the Apostles because they are like exceptions to the rule. Another underlying problem here is the Protestant view of nature and grace. Nature just is grace so that when grace is lost nature loses any goodness or integrity. This is why there can’t be any infallible church because the church is purely human.
This is why you need the Church to have and exercise divine authority. The humanity of Christ is divinized and since the Church is the body of Christ it too can exercise divine authority of Christ. Without the belief in the Church as possessing divine authority, as being both human and divine in some sense the canon will be established on human authority alone and hence always open to revision. This is why the idea of the Church merely recognizing the canon bakes no bread because it pushes the question back. With what authority does the Church recognize it? If out of the heart the mouth speaks, out of what heart then does the Church speak in recognizing the Scriptures? Is the Church the body of Christ or the body of a man?
The Church exercising divine authority then is the necessary precondition for normatively identifying the canon. The argument is a kind of transcendental argument. The such and such are the inspired Word of God. The only way to unrevisably and normatively identify the Word of God in history is by the judgment of some agency with divine authority. Therefore there is some agency with divine authority that judges such and such to be the inspired Word of God. The second premise is supported by noting that attempts to normatively and unrevisably identify the inspired Word of God lead to subjectivism and skepticism thereby forming a kind of reductio ad absurdum. Kudos to Van Til. This is why I am bound by the judgment of the Church on doctrinal matters even if I don’t agree or understand the matter fully but I am not bound or obligated to adhere to anyone else’s judgment unless I understand and assent to it. This is why Luther’s judgment is just that-Luther’s judgment and that alone.
To reply to this argument that Scripture is somehow self authenticating is likewise lame and here is why. Can someone be wrong about some text being self authenticating? Yes. So the work that self authentication was supposed to do must be done by something else which implies that the appeal to self authentication was a bunch of hand waving. It is the same problem of appealing to “self evident” truths. Something can be self evident but not self evident *to me.* Likewise something can appear to be self evident or self authenticating and not be so. Is the book of Ruth for example self authenticating as inspired? Does it strike you that it is inspired Scripture when you read it? Do you seriously think that you would have thought it so had you never been told that it was inspired Scripture? I doubt it. The same can be said with respect to appeals to the “clear” teaching of Scripture. If the Bible is like a mirror, then you cannot have an ape looking in and an apostle looking out.
As to the OT canon I have no idea why Protestants appeal to the testimony of the Hebrews. Granting for the sake of argument that the Hebrews and Jews had a settled canon (which they did not) why is the appeal to Jewish tradition in principle better than an appeal to Church tradition? I can see no reason to see any difference. The only other options are to appeal to historical analysis or subjective liver shivers. Both of those answers are inadequate. No specific kind of historical analysis, whether the “liberal” historical-critical method or the “conservative” grammatical-historical method will ever produce results that are beyond revision. This is why blasting Prontificator as somehow liberal is ridiculous. It is quite simple really. The teaching of God is unrevisable. The reconstructions of scholars by the employment of reason are revisable. Therefore the latter can never be identified with the former. Therefore the reconstructions of scholars are not identical and in principle never could be with the teaching of God *as* the teaching of God. Take your pick-do you want the teachings of men or the teaching of God?
As to Gospels and Apostolicity, the fact of the matter is that we do not have any Gospel texts that designate their authors I believe before 250-300 AD. All of the names ascribed to the Gospels are known by the testimony of various Fathers.
Why do people convert from Protestantism to Orthodoxy or Catholicism with respect to the canon? These people understand however unclearly that the Protestant position jeopardizes the status of Christianity as a revealed religion. Protestantism is a religion of human construction and hence is always open to revision. This is why the argument gains traction among the masses. Conversion stories are pretty useless which is why I do not bother reading them unless of course they are written by someone who has considerable standing. If Protestants are tired of seeing every day people convert to Catholicism or Orthodoxy and then giving sloppy answers to precise theological problems, then perhaps they should stop proselytizing uneducated lay people in those bodies. One of my cousins has converted from Catholicism to some evangelical sect and has confused taking religion seriously with being an evangelical sectarian. If he had spent as much time learning about Catholicism as he has this sect’s teaching he likely never would have left. So Protestants who gripe about such individuals usually have only themselves to blame. Moreover, let us all just face the facts. The majority of people are never going to be theologians in an academic sense.
As to policing the convert e-pologists-as if Protestants policed anything. Take a look over at Eric Svendsen’s board where he blasts Catholics for thinking that Jesus is a divine person. Svendsen who supposedly holds a doctorate (from a diploma mill of sorts no doubt) thinks that the nous or intellect is what constitutes a person so that Catholics who claim that Jesus is a divine person with a human nature are guilty of Apollinarianism. A quick glance at any of the Reformed systematics will show that his criticism is flat out wrong because the intellect is a faculty of the nature, not a feature of a hypostasis. So far I have yet to see any Protestant e-pologists “policing” him, let alone anyone else. Face it, the Net is a free for all. There is no use in complaining about the air when there is nothing else to breath.
As to the source of higher Criticism, blame Plato in book 2-3 of the Republic where the stories of the Gods have to be edited. Next blame Porphyry for figuring out that Daniel wasn’t written in the era that it purports to be written in. Next blame Spinoza since he started the whole mess about Mosaic authorship.
As to the fixing of the Canon-generally the councils of Rome in 382 and Carthage in 397 are credited with fixing the canon. While these were not ecumenical, they did eventually receive eventual ecumenical recognition with respect to the canon I believe at 2nd Nicea. Gotta love them Icons.
Lutherans and the Canon-The reason why the Lutherans do not have a normative statement on the canon is that what is inspired is measured by the experience of law and gospel. You can’t make a private existential experience normative.
As to reading, one of the best books on the issue of authority on the matter I have ever read was a little book (152 pages!) by Rupert Davies, The Problem of Authority in the Continental Reformers.
February 23rd, 2005 at 11:51 pm
More Christology
As to Chemnitz and Chalcedon-Chemnitz accepts a view of divine simplicity and a notion of “attributes” which preclude the Orthodox view of energies. The energies are not attributes though they are communicated to the humanity of Christ. Attributes are judgments of our mind concerning a reality and energies are existing things independent of our judgments concerning them. The Orthodox and Lutheran views are not commensurable. Jonathan is exactly right to point out the voluntarism that motivates in part the Lutheran view of ubiquity that implies a kind of monothelitism. (sniff sniff…is that Occam I smell?) This is why Chemnitz’s work (which I have read) could never have been written from someone faithfully Orthodox. Believing in a single divine essence is not the same as believing that God is only the single essence or that God is metaphysically absolutely simple. As to the Lutheran adherence the Augustinian tradition of absolute simplicity, check out Preus’ Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics for an example. My problem with Chemnitz is not in the communication of something true of the divine to the humanity of Christ, but in the notion of an attribute and the notion of simplicity upon which it is built.
#117 Dave, we have heard this all before and anyone who has spent any time talking with Daniel and I and reading the scholarly literature on the problem (historical, philosophical and theological) either ends up agreeing with us or concedes that there is at least a serious problem with how western Christian traditions understand divine simplicity. James Barr pretty much killed the whole “Hebraic” verse “Greek” thought division. Moreover, to maintain such a hard and fast division only serves to show how “Greek” the Lutherans, not to mention Calvinists, are. Check out Muller’s Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics on the matter for example. Neo-Platonism abounds. Since every doctrine is measured against the doctrine of God and Christ, a serious error in those places is likely to “trickle down” to everything else. And everyone has a metaphysic lurking somewhere since there aren’t any non-metaphysical views to be had. God is clean out-I checked.
#124 Eric, you are glossing energies as attributes, which is exactly what they are not. Both what God does and is are deity, but this does not imply that they are the same objects or metaphysically identical. There is a difference between ousia and dunamis/energia and the difference is metaphysical, not mental or pragmatic.
#128 Dave, the easterners appeal to mystery because they have a principled reason when they do it. Since God is not a being all positive attributions to God ad intra fail. It is not that they fail because their mode of signification is inaccurate (contra Aquinas) but that they are completely not applicable to the divine essence. The appeals to mystery that Daniel is talking about appear arbitrary and not principled. The things we know of God we know by his activities and these give us true knowledge of God. Apophaticism doesn’t require a whole lot of knowledge about God but Cataphaticism does.
For an Anglican critique of the Lutheran view of the Eucharist try Robert Isaac Wilderforce, The Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, 1845. It’s an amazingly good read.
As to predestination not being a philosophical problem-Funny, I did my masters thesis on free will and determinism. Predestination has seen like just a manifestation of the wider philosophical debate on free will and determinism. Using Calvinist code words like “sovereign” are useless because every Christian believes God is king. Such words do not denote a specific theory of sovereignty such as Molinism, Thomism, Scotism, Occamism or Palamitism.
#135 Eric,
Essence and being are not identical. But if they were, your view sounds like an extreme form of Nominalism, similar to Islamic views of God where doesn’t have a nature. For Aquinas and the scholastics, God has a nature, it is just true that God is his nature though. But your view is more extreme in that God is so simple that he doesn’t even have an essence to be identical with. This is certainly consistent with an extreme voluntarism though it doesn’t seem very biblical.
And De Trinitate doesn’t teach absolute simplicity? Well I hate to prooftext but…Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 6,7): “God is truly and absolutely simple.”
February 24th, 2005 at 12:40 am
Daniel writes,
“All these things I’ve said about Augustine believing in absolute divine simplicity is well documented and is no where contested.”
Yeah, and it’s not being contested here, either, as you would realize if you’d read my last post more carefully. It’s your claim that Augustine taught “absolute divine simplicity” that’s way off, not your claim that he idetnified God with His Energies. And no, those two claims do not amount to the same thing.
Daniel again:
“For Augustine God isn’t Beyond Being, He just IS Being.”
Depending how the words are used, there’s no difference. If by “Being” the speaker means, “the principle of Being; that which makes things be,” then it is proper to call God “Being.” But if by “Being” the speaker means a substance, essence, or the realm of things that are, then God must be confessed to be “Beyond Being.”
February 24th, 2005 at 1:02 am
J. Prejean writes,
“I’m pretty sure that the first three are true of all glorified bodies. ”
Jonathan, is that supposed to be a point contra me? When I’m the one saying that Theosis involves a communicatio idiomatum?
J. Prejean:
“In the case of the latter two, that’s exactly the point of the discussion, isn’t it?”
Well, yeah. That’s why I brought it up. It is obviously a trait of bodily nature to be consumed by eating, but Christ’s body is not. So there’s one example where even you have to admit that by the will of God, the humanity of Christ is sharing in a divine prerogative in Communion. And to be present in the midst of any two or three gatghered together in His name is also, without question, beyond the ability of human nature, and therefore something that can be accomplished only via the communicatio idiomatum.
J Prejean quotes Maximus:
“the exchange [of attributes] doth not concern one, but two, things, and different kinds of things. According to the exchange, the natural attributes of Christ are exchanged according to the ineffable union, without a change or mixture of the natural principles.”
Yes, of course.
J Prejean:
“The notion that a nature could appropriate an attribute entirely alien to it by the communicatio idiomatum is plainly rejected.”
Rejected by Maximus, rejected by me, and rejected by Lutheran theology, yes. You aren’t paying close enough attention. The Natures APPROPRIATE nothing. They do not CHANGE. They do not do new things because of any ONTOLOGICAL change, but only because the Person to whom they belong starts doing new things–in Christ’s case because of the Hypostatic Union, and in our case because of our union to Christ in Holy Baptism.
Think of it this way. Immortality and Impeccability are not proper to human nature, or even to the angelic nature, as Lucifer’s fall testifies; they are rather properties of the divine nature. And yet Christ’s human soul and will are impeccable, and His body (now that He has risen again) is immortal. Is this because human nature has changed its identity so as to become impeccable and immortal? Well, no. We humans continue to sin, and all expect to die. It is because Christ is God as well as Man, and GOD is immortal and impeccable. So immortality has not become part of the human nature, but that doesn’t change the fact that CHRIST’S BODY IS NOT ABLE TO DIE AGAIN, and since we’re united to that Body, ours won’t be able to either. In like fashion, although Christ’s bodily nature has not been revised so as to include multi-presence or invisibility, it will nonetheless be present wherever Christ, who as God is not constrained to be unipresent, wishes to be present. And if He wishes to be invisible, it won’t be seen, either.
The Lutheran doctrine of the Real Presence is entirely hypostatic, Chalcedonian from first to last.
February 24th, 2005 at 6:39 am
Daniel Jones (#145):
“Could you clarify a little more? The scriptural account of the manifestation of the uncreated divine light in the humanity of Christ on Mount Tabor testifies to a predication of the divine energy to Christ’s human nature. I’d be surprised to read Meyendorff disagree. If there is no communication, then there is not a real union (and in that I’m thinking of a dependent relation), but just a contiguity.”
Sure. The point is that the communicability is by *virtue* of the nature, not contrary to it. The human nature is not altered in its essential properties in order to participate in the divine energies; that is the purpose for which it is made.
Eric Phillips (#147):
“It is obviously a trait of bodily nature to be consumed by eating, but Christ’s body is not. So there’s one example where even you have to admit that by the will of God, the humanity of Christ is sharing in a divine prerogative in Communion. And to be present in the midst of any two or three gatghered together in His name is also, without question, beyond the ability of human nature, and therefore something that can be accomplished only via the communicatio idiomatum.”
My point is exactly that this can be accomplished in a way other than the communicatio idiomatum; you’ve only asserted the contrary.
“They do not do new things because of any ONTOLOGICAL change, but only because the Person to whom they belong starts doing new things–in Christ’s case because of the Hypostatic Union, and in our case because of our union to Christ in Holy Baptism.”
Are you arguing that partaking of the divine nature is not ontological, or that a divine property must be communicated to a human nature to allow it to partake of the divine nature?
February 24th, 2005 at 9:27 am
Jonathan,
Good enough. You are right.
Daniel
February 24th, 2005 at 11:57 am
Re: 146 & 147
Perry,
Regarding your response to 117. I am sorry but you are basically saying anyone who is as educated as you and Daniel agrees with you - the rest of us are just ignorant. The problem is your presuppositions pour far too much “blame” into the simplicity issue. All your eggs are in one basket so to speak. Your scholarly pursuits have led you to scholars who support a particular thesis that you agree with; all others are inferior because they have different conclusions. Again reducing all of Christianity to the impractical world of philosophy, while making the Gospel so abstract that is pointless for your average Christian to bother trying. Of course Christ talked about little children being able to grasp it. You dismiss hundreds of years of scholarship and scripture itself, which, contrary to one of your first points, enjoys primacy in every tradition historically, no Orthodox Christian pre 20th century would have dared to so blend scripture into the rest of tradition as to obscure its primacy. You are simply wrong and influenced by scholars who enjoy no patristic support. Of course they believe scripture is a part of Holy Tradition but unlike you, it enjoys a unique and foundational place in that tradition.
Further, all theology is measured by God in Christ - we agree on this. But your unspoken assumption is that we can know Christ apart from Word (Scripture) and Sacrament. If you don’t have scripture you have no way of knowing Christ. And you cannot come back and say “Not true! We have the church!” Well look at every church’s liturgy, and particularly Catholic and Orthodox and tell me if any liturgy exists without the Holy Scriptures.
Your response to 128 and other things you wrote. Back to Scripture again - What we know of God is primarily revealed in Scripture. And the OT counts in this and is crucial since the Church began with a man named Abraham not at Pentecost. You simply cannot divorce Hebraic thought no matter how much you protest and cite scholars. I have ready plenty of arguments to the contrary and they are all frankly dismissive and shallow and show a great ignorance of the use of the OT canon by Christ and the Apostles. Ignorance of the Hebrew Scriptures the flow of salvation history beginning with Genesis is always abundantly clear by those who only find value in strict Hellenistic categories. And referring to those ancients who called certain things into question proves absolutely nothing. It just leads to more question begging which your post is, I mean no offense, replete with. And speaking of that OT canon the entire OT that is non-deutero-canonical was recognized in Jesus day so debates about a tiny portion that has always been view us carrying a degree less importance (thus the name deutero) does not really change anything. It merely serves to divert attention form the real issues. It is simply nonsense to pretend that the Jews of the first century did not have a really good idea of what was and was not scripture. The Torah was not in dispute. The Wisdom literature was not in dispute and the prophets were not in dispute. So why raise and issue as if they average Jew in the synagogues had any real issue?
The ivory tower sophistry is all great fun for our purposes but the Orthodox in the pew and the Anglican in the pew are not light years apart on the Trinity, the Incarnation, the passion and Resurrection. God’s simplicity or complexity will not touch, in any way the average Christians piety and/or Sanctification/Theosis. In other words to much Hellenistic philosophy and not enough Word and Sacrament WITHIN the context of the Church is not healthy for balanced Christianity. And plenty of Protestants have a high ecclesiology. The lumping together of all protestants is not helpful. As has been pointed out Lutherans are far more eastern in many respects than Calvinists and Catholics. The same can be said for many orthodox Anglicans.
What it all boils down to is that trying to boil everything down to a battle between east and west is simplistic no matter how sophisticated your terminology. You must assume that the Holy Spirit abandoned the majority of Christians for the past 1,000 or so years. That part of Christendom that has had far greater success of the in evangelism, positive cultural advancement (medicine, orphanages, science etc.) and defending against heathen invaders etc. Looking to the undivided church, East and West is a step in the right direction. Only acknowledging the ancient achievement of the east is a historically selective and shows an inability to harmonize different approaches to the same God and thus building a stronger church. At least the West has and is make an attempt in this area. It is certainly much easier to polarize and set up camp. But there is really nothing very scholarly about it. It is an intellectually immature approach because it involves cherry picking.
The Pontificator is a great example of one who would have both. He obviously gives ear to the east and the west without drawing unwarranted conclusions based on one or two particular scholars he happens to like. His is an example we should all follow.
February 24th, 2005 at 5:35 pm
“What it all boils down to is that trying to boil everything down to a battle between east and west is simplistic no matter how sophisticated your terminology. You must assume that the Holy Spirit abandoned the majority of Christians for the past 1,000 or so years.”
I think it’s also important to discern between a critique of the theology of a religion and an attack on people practicing the religion. Smart, good people can be wrong, and it isn’t a negative judgment on them to admit that they are fallible in some or another way, nor is it our place to take such a mistake as some kind of judgment from God. I don’t think that discussing these things, or even people being positive about their own religion or negative about others, is meant as a slight. JMHO, though.
February 24th, 2005 at 7:18 pm
Hi Jonanthan,
Fair enough - I can live with that.
February 24th, 2005 at 8:47 pm
Dave,
No, what I am saying is that months ago, Daniel and I had it out on this topic which started on this blog, which is where I met Daniel. Others joined in the scrap and I received the same kind of dismissive responses from them. Anyone who has spent some time looking into the problem though who was involved in that fracas either has ended up agreeing with the Orthodox side of the matter or at least recognizing that there is a genuine problem that is to be worked through. I take the fact that philosophers and theologians who have no knowledge of the Orthodox gripe on this point and have not been reading Orthodox polemicists think that there is a problem to be a mark of the problem being a real problem to be solved and not a semantical confusion to be disolved.
It is quite possible that the Western side of the argument could be quite right. There are learned people who are and always will be beyond my learning and competence who think that the Western view can someday answer the problem or that it already has done so in some way. That said, they also agree that it is a genuine problem to be solved. So far I haven’t seen any real engagement with the problem from you but complaints based on inferences you are drawing that do not necessarily follow from what I have written. I am not accustomed to granting that non-sequitors represent my thoughts so you will have to excuse me.
If all of my eggs are in one basket and if that basket is the Trinity and the Incarnation, I think that that is a pretty good basket to be in. After all, if we are going to explain the persistence and depth of the schism, it will be best explained by differences in these areas. Complaints about the “western mindset” of logic chopping and the “eastern mysticism” are non-sense and do not explain why the schism has persisted. The issues I am pointing at were the sticking points in the counciliar debates so I am not out on a limb here as you seem to suggest. My position in putting the locus of disagreement on the doctrine of God specifically is hardly precarious. The Origenistic dialectic is a problem that runs through Christian theology as we should expect from someone as infulential as Origen.
Essentially you have accused me of stacking the deck and only reading scholars who agree with me. That might be a fair criticism if such facts were in evidence. I have actually studied under one of the major contemporary defenders of the Thomistic view on ADS and she will probably be my dissertation chair (God willing). So I don’t think I have stacked the deck. You have essentially accused me of being intellectually vicious with no evidence given to support your claim or no prima facia reason to think that it is true.
I don’t take philosophy to be impractical and anyone who does is probably someone who is completely unacquainted with it. Given that practically all of the major disciplines from biology to physics to psychology grew out of philosophy that seems pretty darned practical to me. Moreover, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas, Scotus Suarez, Kant, Russell, et al all thought philosophy was very practical. I personally don’t understand how people get through their life without seeking answers to the most fundamental questions of life and how to grapple with the human condition. And since philosophy is the pursuit of truth and the love of wisdom every Christian should be philosophically minded. It is just because I think that the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation are so practical that they are not pointless which is why the differences here make all the difference. As to dismissing hundreds of years of scholarship, I would have to know who you think I am dismissing. Christ does say that we should be like children in some respects but he also says that we should be wise as serpents. Moreover, since all of the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ, eschewing knowledge or being precise conceptually doesn’t make one less holy. Given that wisdom and knowledge are perfections of intellectual faculties, I take learning to be a great good but perhaps you don’t.
February 24th, 2005 at 8:47 pm
Dave
I don’t dismiss Scripture itself but rather attempt to place Scripture in its appropriate place. My whole concern for example in adhering to the doctrine of apostolic succession is to preserve a reasonable basis for thinking that Scripture is God’s Word since in principle no historical analysis will warrant that conclusion and place it beyond revision. This was the locus of my conversion from Protestantism to Anglicanism. Plenty of Anglicans have made a similar case in the history of that tradition.
I will add that the doctrine of the Trinity appears very much pointless to the average Christian except as a prop to explain how it is that Jesus gets a whoppin’ from the Father at the crucifixion. I seriously doubt the average Christian in the English speaking world has a clue what an iota is or what significance homoousia has. That in no way detracts from its importance for “practical” Christianity it only detracts from the understanding of such individuals.
As to pre-20th century Orthodox Christians, from my reading they do not view Scripture as something over and above the Church but essentially the Church’s book. If “primacy” is code for some type of sola scriptura theory then pre-20th century Orthodox would not have thought scripture to be “primary.” I agree that Scripture as revelation has a foundational role to play but it just isn’t the foundational role that you seem to think it ought to have and as such I think I have a very high view of scripture. It is very interesting that you assert that I am influenced by scholars who enjoy no patristic support. Excuse me but I don’t think you have access to my library to know what I have or have not been influenced by.
My unspoken assumption is that the Word of God is not the highest form of knowledge of Christ nor is the only source. Paul speaks of things about God too wonderful to mention and Jesus himself makes clear that the Scriptures are a means to an end and not an end themselves. Paul for example makes clear that there are those who obey God apart from the law and have some knowledge of God and are justified according to that knowledge. The implication is that one is responsible, not necessarily saved by, the amount of knowledge one has and this is knowledge not had by reference to scripture.
Furthermore, even if it were true that Scripture is our primary means of knowing about Christ no specific theory of Sola Scriptura or a Protestant ecclesiological theory follows from this fact. I take Laud, Hammond, Thorndike, Crankenthorpe and other Caroline Divines to be perfect examples of this. They certainly made Scripture primary but the Puritans still thought they were heretics because that did not imply an adherence to sola scriptura. Here I think you are confusing formal with material primacy. You can make scripture as materially primary as you like and my transcendental argument regarding the canon still goes through just fine. I take it to be silly to think of Scripture as formally primary or sufficient because then we wouldn’t need formal theological statements to single out the meaning of Scriptural terms and phrases but since we obviously do, Scripture isn’t formally primary or sufficient. If Nicea taught us anything it taught us that semantics outruns syntax. If we are going to start the church, why not start it with the Trinity, which is “earlier” than Abram! I am not sure how relocating the church to some prior point in history helps since the Hebrews had no settled canon so I don’t see how Christ could have made use of something that did not exist. Make your body of choice early as you like-the problem still remains the same.
February 24th, 2005 at 8:48 pm
Dave,
My reference to James Barr was to point to the fact that there is no such thing as “Hebrew” psychology over against say Hellenistic psychology. Apart from your personal insults I have a hard time of figuring out where the argument is or even if there is one. Not all philosophical categories are Hellenistic and being Hellenistic doesn’t make those that are false or mistaken. Moreover, even if there were “Hebrew” categories they wouldn’t be somehow less or non-philosophical by virtue of being “Hebrew.” If they’re are categories, there is a metaphysic somewhere lurking in them.
As to the OT Canon, the Jews had a variety of canons. The Sadducees generally only recognized the Pentateuch while the Zealots and the Essenes recognized the law, the prophets, and a whole mess of the other writings. The Pharisees had no uniform collection either. And I am at a loss as to how Jewish agreement confers normative status. Perhaps you can explain that? How is it that Church tradition can’t confer normative status but Jewish tradition can? Some of the major prophets and the writings were disputed. For example Ezekiel, Ruth, Ezra, and Nehemiah were all in dispute more or less depending on the sect. But in any case, it doesn’t matter because even if the Jews were all in agreement on the canon, their agreement would not confer a normative status on their collection. If the Church can be fallible in it’s judgments why can’t the Jews? And if you think the Church started with Abraham, so much the more reason not to take the OT Church’s judgment as anything more than the NT Church’s judgment. Fallible is fallible is fallible, which means revisable is revisable is revisable.
I never claimed that Orthodox and (believing) Anglicans are light years apart on the core doctrinal matters. I did claim that the locus of the Great Schism is over the doctrine of God at a very fundamental level. It is out of an interest to preserve grace and sanctification that I am making the argument I am since what constitutes grace will turn on what the God is. It was on this very same basis that Palamas protested against Barlam. You seem to think that you can divorce theology from philosophy as if philosophy was something clear and distinctly different from theology. I tend to view philosophy as those thinkers did in Late Antiquity as not much different than theology. I am certainly not alone among contemporary philosophers in thinking this way. I am sure that Protestants take themselves to have high views of grace, high views of salvation and high views of the church but the spectrum is determined by their deformed theology. Such designations are more self congratulatory than indications of a common view across traditions.
I know it has been asserted that Lutherans are far more “eastern” in many respects than Calvinists and Catholics. Many people seem to have this desire to see themselves as being Orthodox while not being Orthodox. Lutherans often style themselves as being Catholic without being “Catholic.” These strike me as delusional and betray a deep dishonesty people have concerning their actual state. People yearn for the “undivided Church” when the fact of the matter is that the Church can never be divided because Christ cannot be divided. Secondly, Anglicans in peril have to come to grips with the way things are. They are like children of divorced parents-they want to live with both but they cannot. They stomp their feet and say they aren’t going to choose until they can have their way. But the fact of the matter is that they are going to have to choose unless of course they feel comfortable with worshipping Baal at their local Episcopal Church. I saw this as someone who has had to come to that realization and I know how hard it is to make. Moreover, you aren’t Orthodox unless you are in communion with the Orthodox Church and you aren’t Catholic unless you are in communion with the Catholic Church. Augustine makes this clear in his disputes with the Donatists. You can have as many Catholic doctrines as you like and be “eastern” as much as you like but if you don’t eat at our table, then you are not family.
February 24th, 2005 at 8:49 pm
Dave,
I don’t see the “evangelization” of Africa and South and North America as a move of the Spirit as much as a move of the Western powers to attain wealth. My view of the Orthodox Church as the true Church doesn’t mean that the Spirit abandons anyone. Schismatics and heretics abandon the Spirit. Protestants make no less serious claims concerning Orthodox and Catholics. I in no way deny that God works among other Christians but that in no way commits me to some nebulous theory of what constitutes the Church either. You castigate me for using philosophy to articulate the differences and then accuse me of being simplistic. Sorry but I don’t see how these aren’t mutually exclusive claims. And the western church has had much of the success it has by the communication of that “Hellenic” wisdom from refugees fleeing Islamic incursions into their homeland as well as Muslim scholars taught by the Romans. It is not as if Arab camel riders were building arches and domes, experimenting with optics and reading and commentating on Aristotle around the campfire. If western Europe has made advancements it is in no small amount due to the Roman (or “Byzantine” diffusion of such knowledge. Added to this can be advancements given to them or taken by them from the Chinese and other cultures.
I agree that looking to the undivided church is the right direction which is why I look to the Orthodox Church. You may disagree with me and that is fine. You can call yourself Orthodox till the cows come home and argue that Chemnitz confers an Orthodox Christology to Lutheranism until the Second Coming. But this makes no difference since you are not in communion with the Orthodox Church. Similar comments can be made for Catholicism. I in no way made any kind of selective historical claims regarding the east and as such I could not have failed to harmonize different approaches to the same God. Futhermore, your comments assume that we have the same concept of God and hence beg the question. You can call me immature or accuse me of all kinds of things but please do not mistake that for a demonstration of how the two views can be harmonized by giving some tertium quid that fills the logical space between the two. This is something you have not done. Numerous people have accused me of picking on some point just be different and nothing could be further from the truth. This is nothing more than a dodge to avoid the fact that there are real differences and if there is to be progress this is exactly where it needs to be made, if possible. As someone who works in philosophy I don’t read people because I “like” them. I hate Nietzsche for instance but I read a fair amount of the man. Likewise I detest Kant for similar reasons as well as Hume but I read them and enjoy their writings. As far as I know I have not given a bibliography out to you or anyone else here for quite some time. Nor were such lists that I did give exhaustive. I have not read everything, but when I held to the western view I looked in all the places one would look for a solution-Augustine, Anselm, Albert, Scotus, and Suarez. I also read just about everything among contemporary philosophers for the last 30 years on the problem. I am also working on articles for publication on the matter to and have attended a few conferences that discussed this or related matters. I do not know everything but I am certainly not some undergrad flunky either. You claim that my conclusions are unwarranted but repeatedly asserting claims doesn’t establish them. Blowing smoke up Pontificators rear (no offense Al) is no substitute for argument.
February 24th, 2005 at 10:01 pm
Perry,
First let me say I am sorry if I was too harsh on you. I will admit I have a visceral reaction when someone, rightly or wrongly, comes across as an ivory tower credential flasher. I know that is not fair. I am only saying this because that is how it seemed to me when I read your post. Where I live we are rich in academic folks who lose balance because their heads are constantly in books, and very rarely elsewhere in the real world. Frankly, I felt your tone was condescending and I was probably wrong and should have stepped back before responding. I always think of the bar seen in Good Will Hunting when I think someone is tossing around their academic status. Again, that’s not fair at all. The internet is terrible for communicating attitude. I am sure you are not what I peceived at first at all. I am sincerely sorry for responding with the tone I did. It’s no excuse but kids with the flu and the resulting lack of sleep, all during a stressful move, have made me more defensive than I normally am. I should not be on here at all right now.
I will do my best to address the substance (can’t right now though, as I have a move and work to worrry about). But just so you know where I am coming from, I was weeks away from converting to Orthodoxy after nearly eight years of study. I am not unfamiliar with the issues, but I am also aware of how too much head knowledge in this area can be overwhelming and impractical. I did not convert because I found the balance of Western and Eastern Christianity to be more real and more catholic than exclusivist claims that ignore the Orthodox church opf the west (pre schism) - there was something genuinely dishonest about it to me. And from what I understand of the schism, it seems to me that it had a lot more to do with cultural snobbery, hairsplitting (leavened vs. unleavened bread) and resentment than it did with theology. The filioque was a much bigger deal later than it was originally. And the Trinitarian problems were later developments that got bigger as time went on. For the record, I am on the side of the East as far as the filioque goes. But it does not change the fact that ancient squabbles are sometimes used as hammers to stay divided later on.
February 26th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
J. Prejean writes,
“My point is exactly that this can be accomplished in a way other than the communicatio idiomatum; you’ve only asserted the contrary.”
If that _were_ your point, we wouldn’t be debating in the first place. No, you haven’t been arguing, “There’s another explanation.” You’ve been arguing, “_Your_ explanation is heretical.”
“Are you arguing that partaking of the divine nature is not ontological, or that a divine property must be communicated to a human nature to allow it to partake of the divine nature?”
Most importantly, what I am doing is explaining to you why you are flat wrong when you assume that the Lutheran view of the Real Presence involves some Eutychian revision of the Human Nature. Please respond to that, and then maybe we can get back to the related but secondary issue of the connection between the Communicatio Idiomatum and Theosis.
February 26th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
“If that _were_ your point, we wouldn’t be debating in the first place. No, you haven’t been arguing, ‘There’s another explanation.’ You’ve been arguing, ‘_Your_ explanation is heretical.’”
I’m saying that the only argument you’ve given that your version of the communicatio idiomatum is NOT heretical is that theosis (glorification, everlasting life, etc.) demonstrates that the divine attributes must ne communicated. Isn’t it your obligation to prove that your version of the communicaio is orthodox? Your argument is basically “well, it just has to be or we couldn’t live eternally,” and that doesn’t strike me as being remotely cogent.
“Most importantly, what I am doing is explaining to you why you are flat wrong when you assume that the Lutheran view of the Real Presence involves some Eutychian revision of the Human Nature. Please respond to that, and then maybe we can get back to the related but secondary issue of the connection between the Communicatio Idiomatum and Theosis.”
I actually said that it was Monothelete in character, but the most basic explanation would be “impermissible communication of attributes between natures” (mixing or confusion of the nature. We can’t put aside the discussion on theosis, because Chemnitz’s explanation of the Real Presences relies on the same heretical concept of the communicatio. If you can’t explain to me in some way other than “it has to be because we live eternally,” I’ll pretty much have to conclude that I’m right.
February 27th, 2005 at 2:39 pm
For the sheer sake of avoiding redundancy on this thread (which no one but us appears to be reading), let’s just stick to the thread on my blog: http://crimsoncatholic.blogspot.com/2005/02/was-theodoret-of-cyrus-nestorian.html
February 28th, 2005 at 12:21 pm
JP:
“I actually said that it was Monothelete in character…”
Monothelitism is attenuated Eutychianism.
“If you can’t explain to me in some way other than ‘it has to be because we live eternally,’ I’ll pretty much have to conclude that I’m right.”
I can, and I have.
February 28th, 2005 at 12:57 pm
JP:
“let’s just stick to the thread on my blog”
Okay.
April 15th, 2005 at 8:27 pm
Perry Robinson - I read with interest your quite scholarly and interesting postings, partly out of philosophical interest and out of regard for Orthodoxy. I’m an orthodox Anglican of strong Catholic views, and still hold that in my church I have access to the objective means of grace, despite our current trouables. Accordingly, I was disappointed to see your remark about members of ECUSA worshipping Baal in your most recent posting in this series. Thx.