tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post2141061723826190532..comments2024-03-24T05:54:23.612-05:00Comments on Weedon's Blog: It strikes meWilliam Weedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comBlogger144125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-73364644190183170832009-02-03T19:32:00.000-06:002009-02-03T19:32:00.000-06:00The standard St. Paul was urging is that witnessed...The standard St. Paul was urging is that witnessed in Gal 1 - the Gospel he preached, which Gospel was written down for us by the Holy Spirit, so that, as St. Ireaneaus would say:<BR/><BR/>Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, John 14:6 and that no lie is in Him. -- St. Irenaeus, Ad. Haer. 3.5.1<BR/><BR/>Or as St. John of Damascus could similarly say:<BR/><BR/>"It is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments." St. John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith, Book I, Chapter 2William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-32164292226461915232009-02-03T19:29:00.000-06:002009-02-03T19:29:00.000-06:00It sounds like a denial of private judgment to you...It sounds like a denial of private judgment to you because you do not confess that the normative form of Tradition IS the Sacred Scriptures, which either authenticate or prove false whatever else goes under the name Tradition.William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-2791180078306282972009-02-03T19:01:00.000-06:002009-02-03T19:01:00.000-06:00You wrote:“Or again, St. Gregory of Nyssa, when he...You wrote:<BR/><BR/>“Or again, St. Gregory of Nyssa, when he wrote:<BR/><BR/>"Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." <BR/><BR/>The passive "are found to agree" sounds to me as though he were inviting his hearers to judge whether or not the teaching he was presenting accorded with the Divine Words of the inspired Scripture.”<BR/><BR/>Again, do you think Gregory would deny the divine authority of hierarchs? Or that he would be okay if we hold something contrary to the inherited oral tradition of biblical interpretation that the Church keeps, based on our own ideas about how to interpret the Scriptures? Or that the interpretation of the Bible that is presented by the Ecumenical Councils does not bind our consciences, based on the fact that it is a manifestation of the chrism of truth given to the Apostles' successors? Or that the Church doesn't set the canon?<BR/><BR/>Unless you think Gregory would deny *all* of this, then you can't say he believes in private judgment. Whatever this quote means, it can't contradict Gregory's other beliefs, right?<BR/><BR/>It seems to me this quote is easy to interpret as teaching private judgment if read out of context. But lets take a look at what he says. St. Gregory is opposing people he keeps referring to as “they”. “They” are not members of the Church. They are “our enemies”—Trinitarian heretics:<BR/><BR/>“Now they charge us with innovation, and frame their complaint against us in this way:—They allege that while we confess three Persons we say that there is one goodness, and one power, and one Godhead. And in this assertion they do not go beyond the truth; for we do say so. But the ground of their complaint is that their custom does not admit this, and Scripture does not support it. What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.” <BR/><BR/>St. Gregory of Nyssa, On The Holy Trinity http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.viii.iv.html<BR/><BR/>When we read the section as a whole, we see that the reason he only tries to appeal to Scripture is because he is abiding by the rules of persuasion. You don't appeal to authorities your audience is unwilling to accept if you are trying to persuade them of something. The heretics wouldn't accept the councils' rulings on their teachings, so of course Gregory wouldn't want to let councils be the umpire. This would be an illegitimate appeal to authority. Instead he makes an appeal to authority that is legitimate: he appeals to an authority that is recognized *in common*. This is Scripture—something that these heretics about the Holy Trinity would actually accept. So because they will accept Scriptural proof, he appeals to inspired Scripture to be our umpire to judge the dogmas of heretics.<BR/><BR/>But notice that he thinks that both he and the heretics have dogmas. They both have teachings distinct from Scripture that they consider to be authoritative. Because Gregory submits to the authority of the Catholic Church, he considers the dogmas of the Church to be dogmas. In fact, he apparently thinks that both he and his opponents would try to say that their customs are the kinds of laws or rules that can bind those who are members of their respective communions.<BR/><BR/>http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.viii.iv.html<BR/><BR/>Also, consider this quote:<BR/><BR/>“[S]eeing, I say, that the Church teaches this in plain language, that the Only-begotten is essentially God, very God of the essence of the very God, how ought one who opposes her decisions to overthrow the preconceived opinion... And let no one interrupt me, by saying that what we confess should also be confirmed by constructive reasoning: for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our Fathers, handled on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them.”<BR/><BR/>That sounds like a denial of private judgment to me. It sure seems like the tradition (=right interpretation of Scripture) that has been handed down is inherently authoritative.MGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11961603927935499412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-56530620975176496152009-02-03T18:56:00.001-06:002009-02-03T18:56:00.001-06:00You wrote:“Or better than St. Cyril, when the Apos...You wrote:<BR/><BR/>“Or better than St. Cyril, when the Apostle Paul urged the Christians of Thessalonika:<BR/><BR/>"Test all things; hold fast to what is good."<BR/><BR/>How is this not an urging to use private judgment?”<BR/><BR/>What standard is he asking them to test things by?MGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11961603927935499412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-5225664431709711102009-02-03T18:56:00.000-06:002009-02-03T18:56:00.000-06:00I have posted the following points elsewhere on yo...I have posted the following points elsewhere on your blog as well ( http://weedon.blogspot.com/2009/01/on-that-private-judgment-thingy.html ) but considering you have brought these quotes up in multiple places, I will respond here too:<BR/><BR/>Pr Weedon—<BR/><BR/>you wrote:<BR/><BR/>“St. Cyril of Jerusalem urged his catechumens:<BR/><BR/>"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures."<BR/><BR/>How is this not an urging to use private judgment?”<BR/><BR/>Do you think that in this quote, Cyril is denying the divine authority of hierarchs? Or that he would be okay if we hold something contrary to the inherited oral tradition of biblical interpretation that the Church keeps, based on our own ideas about how to interpret the Scriptures? Or that the interpretation of the Bible that is presented by the Ecumenical Councils does not bind our consciences, based on the fact that it is a manifestation of the chrism of truth given to the Apostles' successors? Or that the Church doesn't set the canon?<BR/><BR/>Unless you think Cyril would deny *all* of this, then you can't say he believes in private judgment. Whatever this quote means, it can't contradict his other beliefs, right?<BR/><BR/>Notice that he says people should not give him “absolute credence”. But one can deny the theory of private judgment and still think that we are not obligated to give absolute credence to what some particular hierarch says. Authority can come in degrees, and some degrees of authority may not be sufficient to completely bind someone's conscience.<BR/><BR/>Also, notice that he doesn't say that the judgment of the Church as a whole is not infallible. He is just talking about himself as a particular heirarch. But that doesn't mean he would deny that the Church as a whole is infallible.<BR/><BR/>Consider these quotes:<BR/><BR/>"But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures....Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your heart." <BR/><BR/>“[The Church] is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly… for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church;' that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated.”<BR/><BR/>"Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testaments, and what those of the New." <BR/><BR/>Doesn't this seem to be an endorsement of the inherent authority of the Church?MGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11961603927935499412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-22786024272914717832009-02-03T18:50:00.000-06:002009-02-03T18:50:00.000-06:00You wrote:“P.S. On Irenaeus, if Lutherans did not ...You wrote:<BR/><BR/>“P.S. On Irenaeus, if Lutherans did not regard "past interpretative decisions" as authoritative, why do you think we recite the Creeds, have the Book of Concord, and study the writings of the fathers? It is because we recognize, in our parlance, in them a norma normata - a normed norm, which is normative vis a vis all Lutherans, but which is normed itself by the norma normans - the norm that norms, the Sacred Scripture.”<BR/><BR/>One explanation for why you might recite the Creeds, have the Book of Concord, and study the writings of the fathers is because your private judgment leads you to accept what the Creeds say, what the Book of Concord says, and what some of the Fathers say. But that doesn't make them authorities necessarily. They may not be any more authoritative than an atheist is authoritative if he were to accurately interpret a Bible verse, if you saw his interpretation was correct, and you were therefore bound to behave a certain way because you recognized its correctness. There is nothing about the atheist himself that is authoritative; he just so happens to get things right. He is accurate, and you recognize this, and are bound by his verifiably accurate interpretation of an authority.<BR/> <BR/>So do the interpretive decisions of the Fathers decide how we ought to interpret the Scriptures, or not? Or should we only agree with them when our own private judgment (as defined above) leads us to accept what they say about the Scriptures? Notice that I'm not disputing the primacy of the authority of Scripture. I am just asking whose interpretations of the ultimate authority are authoritative—if any.MGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11961603927935499412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-69248796014445261482009-02-03T18:48:00.000-06:002009-02-03T18:48:00.000-06:00You wrote:“You believe that they speak against "pr...You wrote:<BR/><BR/>“You believe that they speak against "private judgment" but I'd refer you especially to the citation of St. Cyril of Jerusalem up above, which he gave to the Catechumens, urging them not even to believe HIM as he taught unless they received the proof from the Sacred Scriptures. Thus do all the true teachers of the Church speak: they never ask us to repose faith in the Church per se (for what is meant here by Church?), but in what the Word of God teaches. Even an Orthodox admits that bishops can err, councils can err, and yet you say "the Church" does not err. It is interesting that St. Vincent of Lerins thought that the time might indeed come when the Church had widespread and great error: "What if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty." Thus a catholic Christian by the exercise of private judgement may turn from widespread error in the body of the Church to the ancients and their testimony of the Scriptural truth and cleave to it against those who plead "the Church! the Church!" <BR/><BR/>Are you cradle Orthodox or convert? Either way, the point came at which you by an act of private judgment chose to submit yourself to what you believe is "the Church's" infallibility. But on the Last Day, your Lord will ask about the exercise of your private judgement, for to you he has said: "Test all things; hold fast what is good" and "Beware false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruit." Both call for judgment on your part, a judgment you cannot escape.”<BR/><BR/>What you describe as an exercise of “private judgment” in rejecting the present consensus of the Church on some issue is precisely what is *not* meant by private judgment. Private judgment is a specific understanding of the role of an individual in relation to the Church in the process of assenting to doctrines. Everyone makes personal, individual decisions to believe things (in some sense—depending on the degree to which we think we have control over our beliefs). That's not in dispute, and that's not what I mean by private judgment. There is always a necessity of trying to be accurate in our attempts to understand what Christian doctrine is.<BR/><BR/>But authority and accuracy are distinct. The following is an excerpt from a blog I wrote on this subject awhile back:<BR/><BR/>“Accuracy is an intellectual disposition where one tends to validly infer information from data (data could be deductive argument or sensory input or something else). To say that some mechanism for belief-formation is accurate is the same as saying the beliefs produced by this mechanism tend to be true. Similarly, to say that a person is accurate is to say that they tend to get things right.<BR/><BR/>Authority is a normative power. It is the ability to directly morally bind human consciences to believe and do certain things. To say that someone is an authority means that when they command that something ought to be done or believed, we ought to agree and follow through if possible.<BR/><BR/>On the contrary, to indirectly bind human conscience to believe or do something would involve a speaker using persuasion and appeals to reasons that the audience should accept. If someone who hears the speaker grasps the intellectual force of the appeals being made, then they might be bound to believe or do what the speaker suggests. But they are not bound to believe or do what the speaker said *based on the fact that it was the speaker talking*; in other words, they are not directly morally bound to believe or do something. Rather, they are bound because they had independent motivations (other than “the speaker says so”) that they accurately recognized as valid. The speaker just brought these motivations to mind. This is the difference between *suggestion* and *command*. Suggestion appeals to the accuracy of the hearer to discern the accuracy of the speaker and the verifiable validity of his reasons. Command appeals to the authority of the speaker as a reason.<BR/><BR/>So with respect to adjudicating authoritative decisions, we might say that it is our obligation to accurately discern where authority is. And when we discern it, we ought to obey it.”<BR/><BR/>(From my post http://wellofquestions.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/accuracy-authority-and-the-visibility-of-the-church/ )<BR/><BR/>Now, keeping all of the above in mind, private judgment *as I am defining it* is the idea that there is no inherent authority behind the interpretive decisions of the Church throughout the ages. We are not bound to believe in the consensus of the Church about the interpretation of the Scriptures. This doesn't mean the Church got it wrong—it just means that any individual with a Bible is not obligated to assent to the interpretive decisions of any past Christian(s) as being inherently binding.<BR/><BR/>To give an analogy, if we were allowed to exercise private judgment with respect to whether or not a teaching of the Bible was *true* (not just how to interpret its true teachings) then we would not be in any sense morally bound to believe “x” just because the Bible says “x”. The Bible could still be perfectly accurate—it could be right about everything. But we would not be bound to believe anything it says *in virtue of the fact that it said so*; we would need independent grounds for affirming what it says.<BR/><BR/>Now that this has been cleared up, it is obvious that what St. Vincent is suggesting is not private judgment at all. He is suggesting that we judge the present opinions of the Church—true. But he is asking us to accurately apply an authoritative standard to the present opinions of the Church—the past authoritative consensus of the Church. He doesn't say that we can just take the Bible, interpret it by ourselves and that this would be sufficient to settle the doctrinal correctness of the present day (or future, I guess) Church. Sure, one can accurately conclude that the teachings of a particular bishop or council as false; but the standard by which they can be judged is the consensus of the Church in the past.MGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11961603927935499412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-4332984594188010722009-02-03T18:47:00.000-06:002009-02-03T18:47:00.000-06:00You wrote:“To us, there is no inconsistency in reg...You wrote:<BR/><BR/>“To us, there is no inconsistency in regards to the canon, because we accept and rejoice in the ancient father's witness to the Scriptures as the Word of God; their correctness on this does not lead to us making them infallible on all points. Rather, the same men who teach us the list of the Biblical books also tell us NOT to believe what they teach unless it can be shown to be in accord WITH those books.”<BR/><BR/>The question is what kind of significance their witness has. *Why* are we supposed to believe what they say about the canon? What is it about their witness that makes it the kind of thing we *should* believe?<BR/><BR/>Also, I would dispute that they “tell us NOT to believe what they teach unless it can be shown to be in accord WITH those books” in the sense that you mean this. I will attempt to answer your patristic arguments (below and elsewhere) specifically in some comments in a little while.MGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11961603927935499412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-69474378247601641102009-02-03T18:46:00.000-06:002009-02-03T18:46:00.000-06:00Pr Weedon—you wrote:Dear MG,“Your last point does ...Pr Weedon—<BR/><BR/>you wrote:<BR/><BR/>Dear MG,<BR/><BR/>“Your last point does not take into consideration the limitations of human reason since the fall. When I said that Lutheranism was not concerned to produce a logically coherent system, but to faithfully produce the Scriptural teaching, I meant that there are mysteries revealed in Scripture which to human nature seem irreconcilable, the classic instance being the universality of grace and divine monergism in salvation. Lutherans do not seek to explain away either end, but to faithfully teach, in line with the Sacred Scriptures, that He is your entire salvation and that if you are lost, the fault lies entirely with you.”<BR/><BR/>Before dropping common sense principles like “A and ~A can't be true at the same time in the same way” I think it would be good to review the evidence for monergism; I've found it lacking, personally. Unfortunately this would take us way too far away from the intent of this discussion. But if there's no reason to drop the common sense, then we probably shouldn't though, right? Its not virtuous to *try* and make Christianity sound and seem intellectually untenable as much as possible, even if Scripture doesn't demand it, right?<BR/><BR/>Also, would you say that this is an actual contradiction? Or just an apparent one?MGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11961603927935499412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-42696387573923458632009-02-01T14:33:00.000-06:002009-02-01T14:33:00.000-06:00"The Christian hope is guided and sustained by the..."The Christian hope is guided and sustained by the inspired Old Testament prophetic word, now made more sure by the apostolic witness to the majesty of Christ, the fulfillment of that prophecy." Franzmann, _The Word of the Lord Grows_, p. 228Fr. Gregory Hogghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01829108455227450650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-65132767084196167042009-02-01T14:30:00.000-06:002009-02-01T14:30:00.000-06:00"Similarly in 2 Pt. 1:19 the _profetikos logos_ is..."Similarly in 2 Pt. 1:19 the _profetikos logos_ is _bebaios_, i.e., sure, reliable, but also valid; its declarations are fulfilled for faith by their enactment. Here a _logos_ is _bebaios_, not in so far as it maintains an insight, but in so far as it shows itself to be grounded in an event." TDNT I.602<BR/><BR/>Ver. 19. _bebaioteron_. Originally a legal term. See note v. 10; cf Phil. 1.7, 2 Cor 1.21. _ton profetikon logon_, i.e. all in the O.T. scriptures that points to the Coming of the Messiah. The prophecy is now supported by its partial fulfilment in the Transfiguration." Expositor's Greek Testament V.131.Fr. Gregory Hogghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01829108455227450650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-14230197491616039582009-02-01T11:56:00.000-06:002009-02-01T11:56:00.000-06:00Dear Gregory:It's interesting that the commenter m...Dear Gregory:<BR/><BR/>It's interesting that the commenter makes his argument ultimately based on human reason ("how inappropriate it would be...") - even given the fact that the word is grammatically a comparative and makes the most grammatical sense in a way he finds "inappropriate." <BR/><BR/>There are some translations, however, who agree and don't render it as a comparative of "sure" (i.e. "more sure"), such as the Jerusalem Bible, the NAB, and the NRSV (the NKJV translates it not as a comparative (i.e. "confirmed"), but hedges its bets in the footnotes - "more sure").<BR/><BR/>The KJV, Douay, RSV, ESV, NASB, as well as the Vulgate, French, German (Luther), and Swedish translations, however, all translate it as a comparative version of the adjective "sure."Rev. Larry Beanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705910892752648940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-39022424139122179372009-02-01T05:28:00.000-06:002009-02-01T05:28:00.000-06:00H.A.W. Meyer ad loc 2 Peter 1:19--"De Wette's view...H.A.W. Meyer ad loc 2 Peter 1:19--<BR/><BR/>"De Wette's view is more suitable. According to it, the comparative is put with reference to the event mentioned in vv. 17,18, so that the thought would be, 'and the prophetic words is more stable to us (now) from the fact that we saw and heard that' (thus, too, Schmidt, II. p. 213, Brueckner, Dietlein, Schott)...It is incorrect to take the comparative here as implying that the word of prophecy is placed higher than something else, for this could only be that event mentioned in vv. 16, 17. But the very stress laid on it and on the _epoptai genehthentes tes ekeinou megaleiotetos_, is opposed to this view. How inappropriate would it be, if in comparison with it the word of prophecy should be brought prominently forward as more stable and sure!" (p. 394)Fr. Gregory Hogghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01829108455227450650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-34913763430214468272009-02-01T00:04:00.000-06:002009-02-01T00:04:00.000-06:00"It struck me" while studying the texts for Transf..."It struck me" while studying the texts for Transfiguration that St. Peter makes the argument that the Scriptures are "more sure" than even his own eyewitness of the Transfiguration. <BR/><BR/>See 2 Peter 1:16-21, especially verse 19, where Scripture is called "something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention." In the next verse, Peter makes it clear that in this context, he means "Scripture."Rev. Larry Beanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705910892752648940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-79502776579224034362009-01-31T08:59:00.000-06:002009-01-31T08:59:00.000-06:00P.S. On Irenaeus, if Lutherans did not regard "pa...P.S. On Irenaeus, if Lutherans did not regard "past interpretative decisions" as authoritative, why do you think we recite the Creeds, have the Book of Concord, and study the writings of the fathers? It is because we recognize, in our parlance, in them a norma normata - a normed norm, which is normative vis a vis all Lutherans, but which is normed itself by the norma normans - the norm that norms, the Sacred Scripture.William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-2706374861684663602009-01-31T08:48:00.000-06:002009-01-31T08:48:00.000-06:00Dear MG,Your last point does not take into conside...Dear MG,<BR/><BR/>Your last point does not take into consideration the limitations of human reason since the fall. When I said that Lutheranism was not concerned to produce a logically coherent system, but to faithfully produce the Scriptural teaching, I meant that there are mysteries revealed in Scripture which to human nature seem irreconcilable, the classic instance being the universality of grace and divine monergism in salvation. Lutherans do not seek to explain away either end, but to faithfully teach, in line with the Sacred Scriptures, that He is your entire salvation and that if you are lost, the fault lies entirely with you. <BR/><BR/>To us, there is no inconsistency in regards to the canon, because we accept and rejoice in the ancient father's witness to the Scriptures as the Word of God; their correctness on this does not lead to us making them infallible on all points. Rather, the same men who teach us the list of the Biblical books also tell us NOT to believe what they teach unless it can be shown to be in accord WITH those books.<BR/><BR/>You believe that they speak against "private judgment" but I'd refer you especially to the citation of St. Cyril of Jerusalem up above, which he gave to the Catechumens, urging them not even to believe HIM as he taught unless they received the proof from the Sacred Scriptures. Thus do all the true teachers of the Church speak: they never ask us to repose faith in the Church per se (for what is meant here by Church?), but in what the Word of God teaches. Even an Orthodox admits that bishops can err, councils can err, and yet you say "the Church" does not err. It is interesting that St. Vincent of Lerins thought that the time might indeed come when the Church had widespread and great error: "What if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty." Thus a catholic Christian by the exercise of private judgement may turn from widespread error in the body of the Church to the ancients and their testimony of the Scriptural truth and cleave to it against those who plead "the Church! the Church!" <BR/><BR/>Are you cradle Orthodox or convert? Either way, the point came at which you by an act of private judgment chose to submit yourself to what you believe is "the Church's" infallibility. But on the Last Day, your Lord will ask about the exercise of your private judgement, for to you he has said: "Test all things; hold fast what is good" and "Beware false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruit." Both call for judgment on your part, a judgment you cannot escape.William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-21661029530615907762009-01-31T00:34:00.000-06:002009-01-31T00:34:00.000-06:00Also, hate to badger, but I wrote the following ab...Also, hate to badger, but I wrote the following above and would still be interested in a response:<BR/><BR/>If consistency does not matter, then we can be inconsistent with our application of the principle that “we ought to believe what has been revealed in the Scriptures as most certainly true”. So it seems like we don't actually have to believe anything that is revealed in the Scriptures as most certainly true, if you're right.<BR/><BR/>I am all for mystery, but contradiction is another story, and I see it as a sign of the collapse of a theological system.MGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11961603927935499412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-30612416622191487102009-01-31T00:31:00.000-06:002009-01-31T00:31:00.000-06:00Pr Weedon—You quoted Fr Behr:"'Tradition' for the ...Pr Weedon—<BR/><BR/>You quoted Fr Behr:<BR/><BR/>"'Tradition' for the early Church is, as Florovsky put it, 'Scripture rightly understood.' Irenaeus' appeal to tradition is thus fundamentally different to that of his opponents. While they appealed to tradition precisely for what was not in Scripture, or for principles which would legitimize their interpretation of Scripture, Irenaeus, in his appeal to tradition, was not appealing to anything else that was not also in Scripture. Thus Irenaeus can appeal to tradition, to establish his case, and at the same time maintain that Scripture cannot be understood except on the basis of Scripture itself, using its own hypothesis and canon.... Scripture, as written, is fixed, and though the tradition maintained by the succession of presbyters is similarly fixed in principle, in practice it is much less secure, and, in any case, it can never be, for Irenaeus, a point of reference apart from Scripture." John Behr *The Way to Nicea* (SVP 2001) p. 45 <BR/><BR/>Fr Behr's quote definitely shows both the similarity between Irenaeus' approach and Sola Scriptura, as well as the irreconcilable gap between them. Surely Irenaeus thinks that the content of theological teaching is all contained in the Bible. This is very Orthodox; and it is something that Lutherans and other Christian groups that came out of the Reformation can likewise agree with.<BR/><BR/>But the difference between Irenaeus and Sola Scriptura consists in the fact that Irenaeus thinks that the interpretive decisions of the Church, including past interpretive decisions that he inherited from his teachers, are normative for how the Scriptures should be understood. These past interpretive decisions can override the private judgment of individuals, whose interpretations would be set up against the hierarchy of the Church and its past interpretive decisions. There is something about the Church's judgments that is Spirit-infused, and carries with it divine authority that members of the Church must submit to. For, as he says, (paraphrase) “In the Church is found the Holy Spirit; but the Spirit is truth.”MGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11961603927935499412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-51601910760539644862009-01-31T00:09:00.000-06:002009-01-31T00:09:00.000-06:00Pr Weedon—You wrote:On the canon, Franzmann gives ...Pr Weedon—<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/><BR/>On the canon, Franzmann gives this helpful summary:<BR/><BR/>"Only a God who is the Lord of all history could risk bringing His written into history in the way in which the New Testament was actually brought in. Only a God who who by His Spirit rules sovereignly over His people could lead His weak, embattled, and persecuted churches to ask the right questions concerning the books that made their claim upon God's people and to find the right answers: to fix with Spirit-guided instinct on that which was genuinely apostolic (whether written directly by an apostle or not) and therefore genuinely authoritative. Only God Himself could make men see that public reading in the churches was a sure clue to canonicity; only the Spirit of God could make men see that a word which commands the obedience of God's people thereby established itself as God's word and must inevitably remove all other claimants from the scene. This the 27-book canon [of the NT] did.... ***The question of the limits of the canon may be theoretically open; but the history of the church indicates that it is for practical purposes closed.*** The 27 books are THERE in the church, at work in the church. They are what Athanasius called them, "the wellsprings of salvation" for all Christendom. And in the last analysis, the church of God can become convinced and remain assured that they are indeed the wellsprings of salvation only by drinking from them." [The Word of the Lord Grows, pp. 294,295]<BR/><BR/>Thus Lutherans confess a theoretically open canon; a practically closed one; and a self-authenticating canon. The Church did not ESTABLISH it so much as RECOGNIZE it.”<BR/><BR/>But if the Church does not have some kind of intrinsic authority, it doesn't seem like the fact that the Church stated “we recognize x” really indicates much of anything. If the Church's authority just consists in its ability to repeat what is stated in the Bible, then the fact that the Church recognized the canon has no inherent importance. It doesn't imply anything about the canon other than “these books have been recognized by fallible men”. It certainly doesn't mean that the Church's act of recognition implies we should agree with the thing she recognized.<BR/><BR/>It seems like you (and Franzmann) want to say that in some sense the Church's recognition of the canon has settled the issue of what the canon is—at least it has settled what *can't be removed* even if it hasn't settled what, if anything, *can be added*. So the Church's decision has some kind of normative quality to it. It sets up a rule that we can't violate. It is unrevisable, at least in terms of subtraction. And here I would agree with you—there might be more stuff that needs to be added, but there certainly isn't stuff that can be taken out.<BR/><BR/>But this is just to say that the Church is infallible. For if we are bound to not violate the rule (canon) that the Church's act of recognition imposed, then it must be a rule with divine authority behind it. And this would mean that Sola Scriptura is false.MGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11961603927935499412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-35785595167113647512009-01-30T23:12:00.000-06:002009-01-30T23:12:00.000-06:00Amen, Fr. Beane.Anastasia:"'Tradition' for the ear...Amen, Fr. Beane.<BR/><BR/>Anastasia:<BR/><BR/>"'Tradition' for the early Church is, as Florovsky put it, 'Scripture rightly understood.' Irenaeus' appeal to tradition is thus fundamentally different to that of his opponents. While they appealed to tradition precisely for what was not in Scripture, or for principles which would legitimize their interpretation of Scripture, Irenaeus, in his appeal to tradition, was not appealing to anything else that was not also in Scripture. Thus Irenaeus can appeal to tradition, to establish his case, and at the same time maintain that Scripture cannot be understood except on the basis of Scripture itself, using its own hypothesis and canon.... Scripture, as written, is fixed, and though the tradition maintained by the succession of presbyters is similarly fixed in principle, in practice it is much less secure, and, in any case, it can never be, for Irenaeus, a point of reference apart from Scripture." John Behr *The Way to Nicea* (SVP 2001) p. 45William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-35740796131004545252009-01-30T21:19:00.000-06:002009-01-30T21:19:00.000-06:00Dear Anastasia:You wrote:"The Holy Spirit 'deliver...Dear Anastasia:<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/><BR/>"The Holy Spirit 'delivers Christ.' With or without the Book."<BR/><BR/>I'm surprised to hear an EO say this - as it sounds a little more along the lines of Quakerism. The way you're wording this almost sounds as if the Holy Scriptures are optional, if not a luxury, but hardly necessary.<BR/><BR/>Were the ancient Greek fathers ever so dismissive of the Scriptures?<BR/><BR/>Your assertion also implies that the Church can well exist "without the book" - which it can't. For the Church without the book is the Church without the liturgy. The Church without the book is the Church without the Words of institution - for even if you have them only in an oral format, such as how Paul got them (paradidomi), you still have "the book" even if orally.<BR/><BR/>Books are the words, not the ink and paper. And these words are God's "theopneumatos" words (2 Tim 3:16). It just doesn't seem right to shrug them off with a "meh."<BR/><BR/>Again, making Scripture sound so unimportant to the Holy Spirit's work of revelation to the Church sounds more along the lines of Quakerism than Eastern Orthodoxy.<BR/><BR/>And, historically speaking, the Church has never been "without the book" - even before the NT had been written, the Church had the OT. She has always had the written oracles that the Lord intended her to have at that time, and the people of God were encouraged to internalize the Scriptures (Prov. 7:3).<BR/><BR/>And, for the Church to be "without the book" is to render our Lord a liar, since we have His promise that this will never happen (Matt 24:35).<BR/><BR/>To speak of the Church "without the book" is like speaking of fingers without a hand. I don't even see how it is possible to see a Church without the Holy Scriptures even as theoretical.Rev. Larry Beanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705910892752648940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-77561959030382034582009-01-30T20:36:00.000-06:002009-01-30T20:36:00.000-06:00Christ is infinite, the bible is finite. The Holy...Christ is infinite, the bible is finite. The Holy Spirit "delivers Christ." With or without the Book.<BR/><BR/>No, I don't think "more spacious than the heavens" applies to the Bible. It applies to Christ and Christ alone, and it's not right to put the Bible on any equal footing with Christ.<BR/><BR/>The Gnostics held to that which was *not* in Holy Tradition. That's why St. Irenaeus referred them to the Church.Anastasia Theodoridishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16092531121989260111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-27315851056301632992009-01-30T17:22:00.000-06:002009-01-30T17:22:00.000-06:00By "there" I mean it in the same sense that St. Ir...By "there" I mean it in the same sense that St. Irenaeus would argue that the mark of authentic tradition is that it delivers nothing to you but what's in the apostles' writing. It was his opponents, the gnostics, who argued for holding to that in tradition which couldn't be demonstrated from the Scriptures...William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-5424180908357442052009-01-30T17:14:00.000-06:002009-01-30T17:14:00.000-06:00About the Bible and infinite, think of the icon "m...About the Bible and infinite, think of the icon "more spacious than the heavens." There was in Mary's womb that which was bigger than the whole universe outside it. That same one, by the working of the self same Spirit, is present to us in His holy Words and thus the Words too are "more spacious than the heavens" for they deliver Him to us.William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-33934396504615544972009-01-30T17:12:00.000-06:002009-01-30T17:12:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.com