Not the same God?

[John_Paul_Jones]

You gladly avail yourself of this scholarly consensus when it suits your theological prejudices, while tossing it aside when it doesn’t–in another post you say that you think Hebrews was written by Paul, a view that is held by no credentialed modern scholar I know of.

“Modern” is a relative term, St Jerome and St Augustine of Hippo are more modern than lets say Plato or Aristotle. There are reasons for considering the Epistles of the Hebrews to be Pauline. The epistle could have been written for him or translated later.

 

[CMatt25]

Here’s my problem with kelman’s argument:

he is insisting that he is Sola Scriptura, yet he also acknowledges that he is submitting to the authority of “the early Christians” in their discernment of what belongs in the canon of Scripture.

That is decidedly NOT Sola Scriptura.

But PR, those first century Christians Kelman is submitting to, thermselves submitted to God. So God is the authority Kelman is submitting to. And once the inspired text is known, Kelman is sola scriptura.

I know you don’t like this because it can lead to different interpretations. But that’s faith.

 

[GKC]

Interesting, Edwin, very interesting, jokey icons notwithstanding.

What is keeping you from becoming Catholic, if I may be so bold?

Patience, PR. Just be patient.

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

Patience, PR. Just be patient.

GKC

Indeed.

Reminds me of a story regarding the production of the film “Into Great Silence”, (hated it! but if you haven’t seen it, GKC, it sounds like something right up your alley) in which the producer approached the Carthusian monks for permission to film a documentary of their lives. They replied that they would “think about it”. For 16 years they thought about it!

(A postscript to the film informs us that this permission came more than sixteen years after Gröning first approached the general prior with the proposal — an illuminating insight into the deliberateness of life in this world.)

I hope and pray Edwin is not that deliberate!

 

[PRmerger]

But PR, those first century Christians Kelman is submitting to, thermselves submitted to God.

No argument here. In the end, as the Church proclaims, we all submit to God.

So God is the authority Kelman is submitting to.

No doubt. But there is no dichotomy between saying kelman submits to the authority of God AND kelman submits to the authority of “the early Christians”. (What there is dichotomy, however, is with this: kelman sumbits to the authority of Scripture alone, when he actually submits to the authority of “the early Christians”)

Let’s take this analogy: I have authority over my children. No one argues that, right? But I submit to the authority of God, ultimately. So while it is correct for my children to say that they submit to me, in the end, it’s also correct to say that they submit to the authority of God.

And once the inspired text is known, Kelman is sola scriptura.

But, Matt, the ONLY way he knows what is considered to be inspired is because of the authority of something NOT Scripture. Thus, he is NOT Sola Scriptura, but Scripture PLUS something else, namely, the authority of “the early Christian” bishops.

Incidentally, can you please provide any examples of the 5th century, 10th century, 13th century Christians advocating SS?

 

[CMatt25]

Incidentally, can you please provide any examples of the 5th century, 10th century, 13th century Christians advocating SS?

PR, I didn’t know every Christian in those centuries. But I fail anyway to see what is so special about only the 5th, 10th, 13th. By the 16th there were Christians believing the Church had become in need of reform.

 

[PRmerger]

PR, I didn’t know every Christian in those centuries. But I fail anyway to see what is so special about only the 5th, 10th, 13th. By the 16th there were Christians believing the Church had become in need of reform.

Just wondering, then, since you’re uncertain here in this post, why you would proffer this:

PR, you continue to say this. But I’m not quite following your conclusion. One obviously could not have been NT sola scriptura until said Scripture became known. But once the early Christian inspired writings became known to those 1st century Christians, why could they not have been?

It would seem that you would have to have some sort of evidence that these early Christians were SS.

It’s like saying, “Why couldn’t Jesus have been an alien?” and someone saying, “Do you have any evidence that he was?” and you respond, “Well, since I wasn’t around in the 1st century, how would I know?” True, but then don’t make wild speculations that are absolutely unfounded.

 

[GKC]

Indeed.

Reminds me of a story regarding the production of the film “Into Great Silence”, (hated it! but if you haven’t seen it, GKC, it sounds like something right up your alley) in which the producer approached the Carthusian monks for permission to film a documentary of their lives. They replied that they would “think about it”. For 16 years they thought about it!

(A postscript to the film informs us that this permission came more than sixteen years after Gröning first approached the general prior with the proposal — an illuminating insight into the deliberateness of life in this world.)

I hope and pray Edwin is not that deliberate!

I am not familiar with that story. Why would you suspect I’d like it?

(I’ll check the link, later; got to run right now).

Edwin grinds slowly, but very fine.

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

I am not familiar with that story. Why would you suspect I’d like it?

(I’ll check the link, later; got to run right now).

Edwin grinds slowly, but very fine.

GKC

I suspect you’d like the* film*, not necessarily the* story* that it took 16 years for the Carthusian monks to decide to give permission to the filmaker.

I think you’d like the film because you are absolutely a person who sees “films”. I go see movies. And all the better if the movie has Hugh Jackman in it.

(And I suspect you like poetry, too. *hate *poetry. Just say what you mean instead of speaking in shadows and whispers, for Pete’s sake!)

Anyway, this film is 3 hours of silence, watching "in formal austerity, assiduously stripping away the superfluous and superficial to create space for the essential, the transcendent. Into Great Silence is both a work in a kindred spirit, and an immersion in a divesting of inessentials, not merely as a creative discipline or aesthetic philosophy, but as a total commitment, a way of life, a world unto itself.

The title refers to the discipline of silence observed by many contemplative religious orders, and in particular to the discipline of nighttime silence, which is stricter than during the day. Into Great Silence is an odyssey, or perhaps a pilgrimage, into a world of such silence: the Grande Chartreuse monastery in the French Alps, head monastery of the Carthusian order." (source cited earlier).

Doesn’t that sound just like something you’d love? Don’t know what the heck I was thinking when I took DH to see it. I already knew that it was a film and not a movie.

 

[polang1234]

I don’t believe that Kelman have faith in Jesus Christ, because if he/she does why didn’t he/she join the Church that Christ build.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t believe that Kelman have faith in Jesus Christ, because if he/she does why didn’t he/she join the Church that Christ build.

Of kelman’s faith in Christ, I have no doubt. He is just of the tradition of Apollos, fervent in his faith, but in need of being taken aside (as Priscilla and Aquila did) in order to receive the fullness of Truth.

 

[GKC]

I suspect you’d like the* film*, not necessarily the* story* that it took 16 years for the Carthusian monks to decide to give permission to the filmaker.

I think you’d like the film because you are absolutely a person who sees “films”. I go see movies. And all the better if the movie has Hugh Jackman in it.

(And I suspect you like poetry, too. *hate *poetry. Just say what you mean instead of speaking in shadows and whispers, for Pete’s sake!)

Anyway, this film is 3 hours of silence, watching "in formal austerity, assiduously stripping away the superfluous and superficial to create space for the essential, the transcendent. Into Great Silence is both a work in a kindred spirit, and an immersion in a divesting of inessentials, not merely as a creative discipline or aesthetic philosophy, but as a total commitment, a way of life, a world unto itself.

The title refers to the discipline of silence observed by many contemplative religious orders, and in particular to the discipline of nighttime silence, which is stricter than during the day. Into Great Silence is an odyssey, or perhaps a pilgrimage, into a world of such silence: the Grande Chartreuse monastery in the French Alps, head monastery of the Carthusian order." (source cited earlier).

Doesn’t that sound just like something you’d love? Don’t know what the heck I was thinking when I took DH to see it. I already knew that it was a film and not a movie.

Well, you may do me too much honor. I like action movies. My wife likes Hugh Jackman. That’s a win-win.We go to many genre related movies. Films are usually found at the art cinema, lensed by auteur directors/writers.

INTO GREAT SILENCE sounds like something meaningful to do, and to live. To watch, for three hours, I’m not sure.

I do like poetry and had a comment or two on another site, with someone who does likewise, recently. My tastes, generally, are plebeian. But I did make it through 3 readings of Charles Williams’ REGION OF THE SUMMER STARS and TALIESSIN THROUGH LOGRES. I knew there was something in there and was determined not to give up until I found it.

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

But I did make it through 3 readings of Charles Williams’ REGION OF THE SUMMER STARS and TALIESSIN THROUGH LOGRES. I knew there was something in there and was determined not to give up until I found it.

GKC

Readings? As in poetry readings? Like, sitting in a cafe listening to the poet recite his poetry?

I am not sure I can be friends with someone who’s been to a poetry reading.

 

[GKC]

Readings? As in poetry readings? Like, sitting in a cafe listening to the poet recite his poetry?

I am not sure I can be friends with someone who’s been to a poetry reading.

No, like reading the two books 3 times each. They are all he completed of a proposed very long lyric cycle on the Arthurian legends, before his sudden death. Mr. Williams died the year I was born, but I would have been happy to have listened to him lecture, on Arthur, or Dante, or such, something that he was reported to be very good at, according to C.S. Lewis.

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

No, like reading the two books 3 times each. They are all he completed of a proposed very long lyric cycle on the Arthurian legends, before his sudden death. Mr. Williams died the year I was born, but I would have been happy to have listened to him lecture, on Arthur, or Dante, or such, something that he was reported to be very good at, according to C.S. Lewis.

GKC

Ah, very good, then, friend.

 

[Contarini]

Readings? As in poetry readings? Like, sitting in a cafe listening to the poet recite his poetry?

I am not sure I can be friends with someone who’s been to a poetry reading.

I’ve not only been to them, I’ve participated in them. My wife writes a lot more (and better) poetry than I do, though.

And I want to see Into Great Silence. I saw Of Gods and Men a few weeks ago and loved it. One of the few movies that makes you want to become holy!

My experience with Taliesin is similar to GKC’s, though. Took me several attempts to see something in it, assisted by my wife’s enthusiasm for CW and an excellent reading/explication of “Bors and Elaine” that I heard at our local “C. S. Lewis and Friends” society.

For that matter, it took me several efforts to get into CW’s prose fiction, let alone his poetry. Fortunately, by the time I met the woman who is now my wife, I was a huge CW fan (she loves CW, although the writer who first brought us together was none other than the original GKC!)

Edwin

 

[GKC]

I’ve not only been to them, I’ve participated in them. My wife writes a lot more (and better) poetry than I do, though.

And I want to see Into Great Silence. I saw Of Gods and Men a few weeks ago and loved it. One of the few movies that makes you want to become holy!

My experience with Taliesin is similar to GKC’s, though. Took me several attempts to see something in it, assisted by my wife’s enthusiasm for CW and an excellent reading/explication of “Bors and Elaine” that I heard at our local “C. S. Lewis and Friends” society.

For that matter, it took me several efforts to get into CW’s prose fiction, let alone his poetry. Fortunately, by the time I met the woman who is now my wife, I was a huge CW fan (she loves CW, although the writer who first brought us together was none other than the original GKC!)

Edwin

So, you read the “thrillers”. How about his non-fiction?

GKC (not the original; smaller)

 

[kelman]

Again Jesus told his Apostles to GO OUT and SPREAD the good news. Where did Jesus say go out and write down the good news and let me speak to my People through the written word???

Are you saying the Apostles acted out of the expressed will of God? Are you also denying that God speaks to His people ”through the written word”?

When Peter was about to die he told the church that he would put forth the written word so that the truth would always be with us. He didn’t say you’ll find the truth in my successor, in fact, of course, he never mentions “successor”. All throughout Scripture God repeatedly tells us that it is His Word which guides us: ”Your Word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path”(Psalm 119:105)

And clearly, from the very beginning when the “finger” of God wrote the Ten Commandments, His prophets and later His Apostles were to “write it in a book”. Ex 17:14 “And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book,…” And the Lord Jesus specifically tells John to “write it in a book” "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book,…"

He did not, he said that for us to learn the truth to go to the CHURCH,….

No, Peter did not say to go to the church to learn truth. In fact, neither did Paul. He said to go to God and His written word to defend against false teachers. And this command the ECFs obeyed as they used the written Scripture to defend against false teachings. In Acts 20, Paul speaks about the “ravening wolves” who will enter the church and then commends them to go: **"…to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up,…" **

…. he said the Church is the pilar of all truth not the bible

Notice, if you will, that God did not say “the church is the truth”. It is Scripture(God’s written word) which is “the truth”. And the job of the church is to preserve and uphold these truths – not to make up new ones.

 

[kelman]

There’s little reason to think that “Thomas” was, in fact, the Thomas of Scripture.

There never seems to be a lack of scholarly disagreement. In any case, I have no problem accepting the authorship as given…and if it’s not correct?..no big deal.

You gladly avail yourself of this scholarly consensus when it suits your theological prejudices, while tossing it aside when it doesn’t–in another post you say that you think Hebrews was written by Paul, a view that is held by no credentialed modern scholar I know of.
Explain to me how this is not purely arbitrary?

So, you agree with all scholarly consensus? And if you don’t, then it seems it is your question which is “purely arbitrary”. Since I am not a “credentialed modern scholar”, you shouldn’t have any problem with my personal view that Hebrews was penned by Paul. Besides, it’s not as if some ECFs and scholars didn’t hold the same view.

If you appeal to the consensus of the early Church–well, again we are back to the question of why you regard that consensus as authoritative only for questions of canon.

The RCC has a different OT canon than that of the Jews of Jesus’ day and that of the early churches so why do you think I should consider it to be “authoritative” for canonical questions or any other questions, for that matter? The early churches, which recognized and received the books of the NT, is not the same entity as the modern RCC.

On another note, accepting what the early churches received and recognized is not “submittting to their authority” - it is simply accepting what they received.

for it frequent use of “secret” and “mysterious” phrases and while many ECFs considered it heretical, not all did.

I’m not quite sure how this is answering my point, which is that we reject Thomas as canonical because the early Church did.

No doubt, the early church rejected the book because they too saw the deficiences you mentioned. Do you really think only those who lived during that earlier period of history are capable of seeing deficiences?

Well, of course it means I find the textual links between the books of the Bible to be convincing.

Fair enough. But the early Church, which made the same judgment you do, did so because they understood Scripture according to the “rule of faith,” which they believed to be apostolic tradition. If you reject this way of understanding Scripture, I fail to see why the links would still seem convincing. Obviously this would take an entire separate thread–perhaps many of them–to deal with.

Actually, there’s nothing to “deal with”. To the early church Scripture was “the rule of faith” as it is to me also. The apostolic letters, which is apostolic tradition, were already in circulation even as the Apostles still preached. They did not depend on church tradition or councils to recognized the NT letters. So, in fact, it is not I who rejects the early churches understanding of Scripture.

Not sure I understand precisely. In any case, I do “identify” with those who founded the NT church . You’ll have to more specific as to what you think the “other respects” are.

Do you believe in the validity of prayer for the dead?

Apples and oranges. We’re talking about Scripture not unbiblical practices which crept into the church.

I believe you’ve seen a coherent case made for rejecting the RCC but you just reject the coherent case.

If it’s a coherent case for rejecting the RCC, it’s a still more coherent case for rejecting Protestantism in all its forms, including the forms that claim not to be Protestant. (Eastern Christianity is in a somewhat different boat, but since that’s not the position you are arguing for I think we can lay it to one side.)

By God’s grace, at least there are still Protestant churches that have not succumbed to doctrines and practices which are alien to Scripture. Therefore, the better coherent case is made for accepting Protestantism. Besides, you have at least two “ancient communities” which insist “they” are the one true church with both making apostolic claims and claims of being led by the Holy Spirit. Even so, both disagree on many very important theological issues. Both can’t be right, although, both can certainly be wrong.

 

[kelman]

The RCC did not establish the canon of the NT - of that there is no doubt. What constitutes the organization of the Roman Catholic Church today did not exist when the canon was received by the early churches.

Hardly, a “prejudicial assumption”, it is simply a historical fact. Without a pope and magisterium there is no RCC and none of these existed in the early church nor is there any scriptural basis for them.

For instance, you make much of the scholarly claim (which as you note, is accepted by most mainstream Catholic scholars) that there was no monarchical episcopate at Rome until the second half of the 2nd century. Again, I question why you accept that claim so gladly while rejecting not only the claim that Peter didn’t write 2 Peter, but the far better established claim that Paul didn’t write Hebrews. You simply aren’t consistent in your appeals to both modern scholarship and ancient Christian tradition.

First, where did I “reject” any claims about 2Peter? I’ve never even looked into the issue so clearly I did not “reject” any scholarly claims about its authorship. Second, did I appeal to scholars concerning Paul’s authorship of Hebrews?..no, I did not. I said that some ECFs believed Paul wrote it and that I think so too. Third, I have read a number of church historians(both Protestant and Roman Catholic) about the lack of a monarchical episcopate. I have no problem accepting those findings because they are consistent with Scripture. So, I’m not the one being inconsistent.

However, the claims of the Roman Communion do not rest on the existence of an Ignatius-style “monarchical episcopate” at Rome early on. A collegial government by presbyters, one of whom (if we accept the witness of Hermas) was in charge of relations with other churches, supports Catholic claims about the Papacy perfectly well.

There’s no evidence of one “authoritative” bishop in Rome and nothing in the early church supports a papacy. Even if the Hermas “witness” were true, how does one bishop, acting essentially as an envoy, rise to the level of “evidence” for a papacy?..it doesn’t. No, there simply is no biblical or historical evidence for the papacy.

No, in fact, is was the RCC who “rethought” the OT canon.

So you accept that the RCC was in existence in the fourth century?

Actually, the RCC “rethought” the canon at Trent.

Because the deuterocanonical books were certainly accepted in the Western Church by the late fourth century–there’s no doubt about this. There were scholars over the centuries who questioned whether they should be put on the same level as other OT books, but the practice of the Church was to include them.

No, they certainly were not accepted as inspired Scripture by all in the West. Jerome distinquished between the two groups of books – one inspired, the other not. He agreed they(the Apocrypha) were circulated by the church as “good spiritual reading” but not recognized as authoritative Scripture. And, of course, a host of ECFs also rejected those books as inspired Scripture.