Was the early church "high and dry" being without Scripture until the 3rd centrury?

[Kurt_G]

Hello, michaelp… when this thread got “restarted”, I remembered some comments/questions I had before the holiday break!..

(Regarding Acts 15 / Jerusalem Council / Early Church Authority)

From your Post #210:

michaelp:

…I would go along with this model also if we had apostles who were verified as apostles according to the rules that Paul laid out in 2 Cor 12:12.

Running from place to place thru Christmas holidays, I could never get your response out of my mind… it was new for me, and I mulled it over for quite some time!

If I understand your position, the reason this group of Christians excercised such authority, and claimed to know the mind of the Holy Spirit, was due to the authority of the apostles who were present. Is this right?

If we read it closely, though, we see quite a few places mentioning “the apostles and presbyters”. Nowhere does Scripture mention just the apostles. This means it’s not just the apostles who claim authority to speak for God. The presbyters claim the same authority to speak for God, according to Holy Scripture .
(Acts 15:23 with 15:28)

In summary then, you would see the chapter as relating to the authority of Jesus’ apostles, while I see it as relating to the authority of Jesus’ Church.

In addition, the sequence of action in Acts 15 follows (sort of) Jesus’ directions for settling disputes, as given in Matthew 18.

When the violator will not listen to you, bring 2 or 3 witnesses along and try to settle it (Paul and Barnabas).
When the violator will not listen to them either, take it to The Church…(the apostles and presbyters). This looks like the pattern of Acts 15.

I also read your paper, michaelp… pretty neat. It took me a while to answer this, because I’m probably missing something obvious to you and others. But you are pretty easy to read and follow, and I hope you won’t hammer me too hard just because we differ on Acts 15.

God Bless Us All!

 

[StubbleSpark]

Okay, on to the nuts and bolts.

Truth is defined as that which is real or actual. Or the conformity of the mind to the real or actual.

There is an apple on a table. Touch it, smell it, look at it. You are using your senses to understand something of the world around you. As believers in the Judeo-Christian God, we believe that this is part of His plan. That he meant for us to use our senses to interact with the external, the objective, the actual, the real.

Our faith in this plan and in the idea that created universe is both real and ordered to His desire is why modern science has sprung out of the Judeo-Christian culture and no other. In particular, Catholic culture which synthesized the theology and science of the Jews with the science and philosophy of the Greeks.

According to Anthony Rizzi in his book The Science Before Science, “Three things are absolutely essential for science, including modern sciences. One must understand that:
a. The world exists independent of us and is orderly
b. WE can understand it.
c. We should have no aversion to observing and working with nature (in particular to do experiments).” (p. 187)

He also says, “Modern science developed in the heart of the Catholic Church, not in Egypt or China or in Japan or undiscovered North or South America or anywhere else. We and everyone else have obtained science from this culture that grew out of “the poisoned” garden, which turns out, after all to be the well-kept one.” (p. 187)

He also quotes Palmer and Colton when comparing the continuing advances made possible by our theological base with the lack of advances made by Muslims who believe God’s sovereign activity to be completely inscrutable to us mere mortals:

“If any historical generalization may be made safely, it may be safely said that any society that believes reason to threaten its foundations will suppress reason. Thomas’ doctrine … gave freedom to thinkers to go on thinking. Here Latin Christendom may be contrasted with the Muslim world. It was ruled, in about the time of Thomas Aquinas, that … the Gate was closed. Arabic thought, so brilliant for several centuries, went into decline.” (A History of the Modern World p. 38)

Science and faith are much closer than many people would like to believe these days. Rizzi points out that we do not KNOW the Earth is a sphere because none of us have seen if from space and none of us have done experiments to prove it (fly a plane in a straight trajectory and see if you end up where you started). Most of us, BELIEVE the Earth is round because of the authority of those who told us so: teachers, scientists, astronauts, etc. We may chose also to BELIEVE in the photographic evidence of the roundness, but this still is not the same as first-hand knowledge. Faith activates and motivates science.

If we abandon certain fundamental truths for sake of conveniently justifying some new endeavor, science becomes corrupted and evil and threatens human dignity. For example, if you negate the possibility of the unborn having souls to justify embryonic stem cell research, humans cease being sacred creations and become mere “product”:

godspy.com/reviews/Welcome-to-Our-Brave-New-World-An-Interview-with-Wesley-Smith-by-John-Zmirak.cfm

Now, back to the apple…

(by the way, Rizzi’s book is only available at www.authorhouse.com )

 

[michaelp]

StubbleSpark:

Okay, on to the nuts and bolts.

Truth is defined as that which is real or actual. Or the conformity of the mind to the real or actual.

There is an apple on a table. Touch it, smell it, look at it. You are using your senses to understand something of the world around you. As believers in the Judeo-Christian God, we believe that this is part of His plan. That he meant for us to use our senses to interact with the external, the objective, the actual, the real.

Our faith in this plan and in the idea that created universe is both real and ordered to His desire is why modern science has sprung out of the Judeo-Christian culture and no other. In particular, Catholic culture which synthesized the theology and science of the Jews with the science and philosophy of the Greeks.

According to Anthony Rizzi in his book The Science Before Science, “Three things are absolutely essential for science, including modern sciences. One must understand that:
a. The world exists independent of us and is orderly
b. WE can understand it.
c. We should have no aversion to observing and working with nature (in particular to do experiments).” (p. 187)

He also says, “Modern science developed in the heart of the Catholic Church, not in Egypt or China or in Japan or undiscovered North or South America or anywhere else. We and everyone else have obtained science from this culture that grew out of “the poisoned” garden, which turns out, after all to be the well-kept one.” (p. 187)

He also quotes Palmer and Colton when comparing the continuing advances made possible by our theological base with the lack of advances made by Muslims who believe God’s sovereign activity to be completely inscrutable to us mere mortals:

“If any historical generalization may be made safely, it may be safely said that any society that believes reason to threaten its foundations will suppress reason. Thomas’ doctrine … gave freedom to thinkers to go on thinking. Here Latin Christendom may be contrasted with the Muslim world. It was ruled, in about the time of Thomas Aquinas, that … the Gate was closed. Arabic thought, so brilliant for several centuries, went into decline.” (A History of the Modern World p. 38)

Science and faith are much closer than many people would like to believe these days. Rizzi points out that we do not KNOW the Earth is a sphere because none of us have seen if from space and none of us have done experiments to prove it (fly a plane in a straight trajectory and see if you end up where you started). Most of us, BELIEVE the Earth is round because of the authority of those who told us so: teachers, scientists, astronauts, etc. We may chose also to BELIEVE in the photographic evidence of the roundness, but this still is not the same as first-hand knowledge. Faith activates and motivates science.

If we abandon certain fundamental truths for sake of conveniently justifying some new endeavor, science becomes corrupted and evil and threatens human dignity. For example, if you negate the possibility of the unborn having souls to justify embryonic stem cell research, humans cease being sacred creations and become mere “product”:

godspy.com/reviews/Welcome-to-Our-Brave-New-World-An-Interview-with-Wesley-Smith-by-John-Zmirak.cfm

Now, back to the apple…

(by the way, Rizzi’s book is only available at www.authorhouse.com )

Good stuff brother. I agree . . .

You ought to watch my introduction to theology series, especially the course titled “Christian Epistomology.” It is availible at www.thetheologyprogram.com. It follows in your line of reasoning, I think.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Kurt G.:

Hello, michaelp… when this thread got “restarted”, I remembered some comments/questions I had before the holiday break!..

(Regarding Acts 15 / Jerusalem Council / Early Church Authority)

From your Post #210:

Running from place to place thru Christmas holidays, I could never get your response out of my mind… it was new for me, and I mulled it over for quite some time!

If I understand your position, the reason this group of Christians excercised such authority, and claimed to know the mind of the Holy Spirit, was due to the authority of the apostles who were present. Is this right?

If we read it closely, though, we see quite a few places mentioning “the apostles and presbyters”. Nowhere does Scripture mention just the apostles. This means it’s not just the apostles who claim authority to speak for God. The presbyters claim the same authority to speak for God, according to Holy Scripture .
(Acts 15:23 with 15:28)

In summary then, you would see the chapter as relating to the authority of Jesus’ apostles, while I see it as relating to the authority of Jesus’ Church.

In addition, the sequence of action in Acts 15 follows (sort of) Jesus’ directions for settling disputes, as given in Matthew 18.

When the violator will not listen to you, bring 2 or 3 witnesses along and try to settle it (Paul and Barnabas).
When the violator will not listen to them either, take it to The Church…(the apostles and presbyters). This looks like the pattern of Acts 15.

I also read your paper, michaelp… pretty neat. It took me a while to answer this, because I’m probably missing something obvious to you and others. But you are pretty easy to read and follow, and I hope you won’t hammer me too hard just because we differ on Acts 15.

God Bless Us All!

This is good. I agree with most all of it. I just see a difference when someone claims to speak infallibly for God. I think that the CHurches model in teaching requires us to say that to some degree we speak for God when someone has the gift of teaching. But to say one speaks infallibly for God is by definition taking on the role of a prophet. If this happens, then the requirements of a prophet come into play.

When the apostles and elders spoke in Acts 15, it could have fallen under the authority of the Apostles even if other were involved. Just like the Gospel of Luke and Mark were written by those who were not one of the 12, but they spoke under the authority and guidence of the apostles who has shown the signs of an apostle. Therefore, they carry the same authority since the apostles were still living. That is the best that I can do to explain Luke and Mark.

Michael

 

[StubbleSpark]

Two people are brought to the apple and both get a chance to take in its “appleness” through their senses (except taste, if they eat the apple, the apple would cease to exist). Both are asked the same question: Is the apple real?

The first person, Peter, responds with a quick, “Yes.” Why? “Because it exists.” he answers.

The second person, J. Smith, is more hesitant. He has been reading up on modern physics and has been convinced by the many scientists who say quantum mechanics show us the nature of the fundamental building blocks of matter depend on whether and how we observe them. If an electron does not exist until we measure it, then we can safely assume that any part of the universe does not exist as long as it is not being observed. “So,” he says, “I agree the apple is real in as much as we OBSERVE that it exists. If there is no one to experience the apple, then it ceases to be.”

Peter is incredulous. “So if we were to leave the room right now and close off all means of observing the apple, it ceases to exist?”

“Correct.” says J. Smith.

“And when we return to the same room to find the apple still there, that would not be proof that it continued to exist in the room in our absence?”

“No. The only certainty we have is that the apple exists when we are observing it. So empiriologically, there is no guarantee the apple is there at all once the door is closed.”

Peter scratches his head. “So what becomes of the apple when we close the door?”

“That’s the whole point. The apple does not BECOME anything. The matter loses all potentiality and there is nothing. There is no becoming. Only non-existence. If there is no one around to measure any changes, then there are no changes. Basically, because you cannot prove the apple continues to exist without somehow observing its continued existence, you only prove my point.”

Peter smiles, “The matter that makes the form of the apple real in its applely existence does not exist when we do not observe it, right? So how does this matter ‘know’ to cease when it is not being watched? Where does it go and how does it ‘know’ to reassemble when we return?”

J. Smith huffs, “We are not quite sure how that happens, but there are theories concerning action-at-a-distance. It is a mystery, but one scientists are hard at work at.”

“I have heard these theories that there is some sort of communication between the matter and the observer and that everything takes place at a pace faster than light – which is why no one ever sees an apple forming into existence when they walk into the room. It seems like an awful lot of work just to explain your belief that the universe is not real but a figment of your imagination.”

“What do you mean?” J. Smith asked, surprised.

 

[rlg94086]

michaelp:

This is good. I agree with most all of it. I just see a difference when someone claims to speak infallibly for God. I think that the CHurches model in teaching requires us to say that to some degree we speak for God when someone has the gift of teaching. But to say one speaks infallibly for God is by definition taking on the role of a prophet. If this happens, then the requirements of a prophet come into play.

When the apostles and elders spoke in Acts 15, it could have fallen under the authority of the Apostles even if other were involved. Just like the Gospel of Luke and Mark were written by those who were not one of the 12, but they spoke under the authority and guidence of the apostles who has shown the signs of an apostle. Therefore, they carry the same authority since the apostles were still living. That is the best that I can do to explain Luke and Mark.

Michael

So what about the authority of those who were under the guidance and authority of those who were under the guidance and authority of the apostles?:whacky: I can’t follow your logic. Are you saying that the authors of Luke and Mark didn’t have full authority? So their writings were only partially infallible? That doesn’t make sense. If they did have full authority, then why were they unable to pass it on to others? Is there something in Scripture that says authority can’t be passed on?

God Bless,

Robert.

 

[StubbleSpark]

“Well,” says Peter, “when you say the universe does not exist unless we observe it, you are basically subjectifying it. You are taking something that exists, truly and really, outside the person and making its existence contingent upon the mind of the person. Your view negates the existence of the universe and the whole possibility of discovering it through science!”

“That’s impossible!” snorts J. Smith, “First of all, I never said the universe did not exist at all and secondly, my observations are based on that very same science whose goal is to reveal the universe! You just cannot handle the earth-shaking conclusions that we have reached.”

“To answer your first point, by claiming the universe is a pure being of reason, you are in fact denying its existence. You just haven’t thought through your logic to its conclusion. To answer your second point: you are still the one in error because you mistakenly believe that the only way we can understand the ontological universe is through epiriological means. But things like math and science rely on a simplified and paired-down version of reality. When those simplified versions butt against common sense, you know that you do not have all the necessary data at play. How can you deny the world exists when we’re all standing on it?”

“But I am still allowed my own opinions when it comes to interpreting the data, so who are you to say I am wrong?”

“Certainly, you are allowed your own opinions, but if they are wrong, then they are wrong. No amount of wishful thinking can change that. BELIEVING something is real does not make it real. It either exists or it does not. Truth is not subject to relativity. Truth cannot abide relativism because relativism negates the very possibility for truth. In other words, that which is dependent upon a person’s opinion (or subjective viewpoint) for validation never was true to begin with. Just as there is a danger in elevating the empiriological over the ontological, there is a danger in confusing the subjective experience with the objectively existing. It is no coincidence that those who indulge in one error also hold fast to the other. Both promise something impossible: that the universe is somehow subject to our minds. It may FEEL like a kind of power. And it may look more scientific than traditional religion, but these are all empty signs – legacies of lies which are perpetuated to distract people from their responsibilities.”

“Whatever,” says J. Smith, “I don’t believe you and you don’t believe me, so who are you to say that I am wrong?” He trudges off, leaving Peter and the still existing apple.

 

[michaelp]

rlg94086:

So what about the authority of those who were under the guidance and authority of those who were under the guidance and authority of the apostles?:whacky: I can’t follow your logic. Are you saying that the authors of Luke and Mark didn’t have full authority? So their writings were only partially infallible? That doesn’t make sense. If they did have full authority, then why were they unable to pass it on to others? Is there something in Scripture that says authority can’t be passed on?

God Bless,

Robert.

Hey Robert,

Most of this stuff has been covered earlier in the thread. I don’t mean to put you off, but it is hard to continually restate things on the same thread right now. I may have time later.

I do appreciate your contributions though.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

“Well,” says Peter, “when you say the universe does not exist unless we observe it, you are basically subjectifying it. You are taking something that exists, truly and really, outside the person and making its existence contingent upon the mind of the person. Your view negates the existence of the universe and the whole possibility of discovering it through science!”

“That’s impossible!” snorts J. Smith, “First of all, I never said the universe did not exist at all and secondly, my observations are based on that very same science whose goal is to reveal the universe! You just cannot handle the earth-shaking conclusions that we have reached.”

“To answer your first point, by claiming the universe is a pure being of reason, you are in fact denying its existence. You just haven’t thought through your logic to its conclusion. To answer your second point: you are still the one in error because you mistakenly believe that the only way we can understand the ontological universe is through epiriological means. But things like math and science rely on a simplified and paired-down version of reality. When those simplified versions butt against common sense, you know that you do not have all the necessary data at play. How can you deny the world exists when we’re all standing on it?”

“But I am still allowed my own opinions when it comes to interpreting the data, so who are you to say I am wrong?”

“Certainly, you are allowed your own opinions, but if they are wrong, then they are wrong. No amount of wishful thinking can change that. BELIEVING something is real does not make it real. It either exists or it does not. Truth is not subject to relativity. Truth cannot abide relativism because relativism negates the very possibility for truth. In other words, that which is dependent upon a person’s opinion (or subjective viewpoint) for validation never was true to begin with. Just as there is a danger in elevating the empiriological over the ontological, there is a danger in confusing the subjective experience with the objectively existing. It is no coincidence that those who indulge in one error also hold fast to the other. Both promise something impossible: that the universe is somehow subject to our minds. It may FEEL like a kind of power. And it may look more scientific than traditional religion, but these are all empty signs – legacies of lies which are perpetuated to distract people from their responsibilities.”

“Whatever,” says J. Smith, “I don’t believe you and you don’t believe me, so who are you to say that I am wrong?” He trudges off, leaving Peter and the still existing apple.

Good stuff. Very creative. Can I use it?

 

[rlg94086]

michaelp:

Hey Robert,

Most of this stuff has been covered earlier in the thread. I don’t mean to put you off, but it is hard to continually restate things on the same thread right now. I may have time later.

I do appreciate your contributions though.

Michael

No problem. It’s a long thread, so I guess I was being lazy . I will take some time and go through it.

Thanks for the kind words.

Robert.

 

[StubbleSpark]

MicaelP,

In your paper, you correctly identify relativism as an insidious, anti-Christian force eating away our society.

So imagine my surprise when you went on to explain that God actually requires some amount of relativism in belief. The point of my last 4 or 5 posts (the 3 links to the articles on heresies, the posts about the apple) was to show without a doubt that anything that is contingent upon individual judgment to determine its trueness cannot be true. It breaks the very definition of truth by subjectivizing the objective. Relativism, in any form, is anti-truth because relativism demands that truth is contingent upon the individual’s judgment.

You profess that you are not an “absolute relativist” and this is the special balance that you say God expects from us.

Just a point here, you might as well put Catholics into the category of “extremist absolute objectivists” because we believe there is no such thing as a balance between truth and what is not truth (relativism).

But your quote from Romans 14:14 does sound convincing, doesn’t it? The problem is that if it means what you think it means, then there is nothing to stop me from using it to justify anything wrong: from abortion to suicide.

That cannot be what Paul is saying. If it is, then, he also disagreeing with Christ (Mt 7:21, 19:16-17) as well as with himself (Rom 2:5-8, 2 Cor 5:10, 11:15).

Could it be that he is not talking about objective right and wrong in Rom 14:14, but about living in accordance with the Torah?

I mean, there is a reason why you should not eat ham: pigs are dirty creatures who eat anything, even disease-infested garbage. There are reasons why you have to drain blood from animals when you kill them. We know today that many of the mandates for food preparation required of the Jews by the Torah actually protected them from things like bacteria – long before any of us mortals knew of the existence of bacteria. Gee, thank you, all-knowing God, for keeping your people safe.

But in the end, these rules are not meant to describe good and evil and should not be taken to mean that. They are not like the Ten Commandments – which are the word of God made stone. Or the law of God as communicated through the prophets. These are different and we should thank God for sending us His apostles who, working in union with the Holy Spirit, were able to teach us that distinction.

This is a MAJOR point of confusion between Protestants and Catholics because Protestants do not make the distinction between the Torah and the law of Christ (especially when interpreting books like Romans, Hebrews and Galatians). But not making that distinction makes more than half of the New Testament superfluous and meaningless.

 

[Kurt_G]

michaelp:

…But to say one speaks infallibly for God is by definition taking on the role of a prophet. If this happens, then the requirements of a prophet come into play.

Michael

I think it’s just a difference of opinion…It looks like Acts 15:28 has, not one person, but a BODY of people, claiming to collectively speak for God…“It is the decision of the Holy Spirit, and of us,…”
This is strong language for a group… it seems the group itself is claiming infallibility, at least in the case of Acts 15.

It might even be the first time that “non-apostles”, (elders/presbyters) participate in claiming to speak for God.

michaelp:

…When the apostles and elders spoke in Acts 15, it could have fallen under the authority of the Apostles even if other were involved…

Michael

If Jesus intended the authority for His Church to be as the Catholic Church holds, I think we would see just what we see in Acts 15. It seems to offer the “bridge” from the apostles to the presbyters/elders, showing them all working together, preparing a transfer from one generation to the next.

If, on the other hand, Jesus intended this authoritative Church to lose this “infallible charism” with the death of the last apostle, there was ample chance to say/show it in this Scripture.

It would have been easier in Acts 15 to just mention “the Apostles”. But Scripture specifically says (more than once) “the Apostles and presbyters”. I think there was an important reason for this…

I can see how folks read it otherwise, but I think Scripture builds the case here for a continuing infallible Church.

God Bless Us All!

 

[StubbleSpark]

Also, I think you give the postmodernist relativist too much power by trying to play by his rules.

By charting every possible choice we need to make on your diagrams, you are only playing into THEIR beliefs that right and wrong fall on some sort of continuum that depends mostly on personal perspective.

This is not a refutation of relativism at all. I am confused as to why you would experience revulsion at the scourge of our society and faith yet fall back on their methods for dissecting reality.

(I wonder what God’s diagram looks like? I know, I’ll ask His Church …)

The first step in countering relativism is knowing that there is no truth in it. It is baseless, meaningless, anti-human, anti-religion, and anti-God puffery. Nothing achieved through relativism can even be considered truth – even if it agrees with an objective truth – because, as a methodology, it depends on there being no such thing as Truth.

Okay, I think that is it for me on the paper. Although I may go back to it later. Please don’t forget to answer my digression question about Maccabees. I am interested in what you have to say.

Cheers

 

[StubbleSpark]

michaelp:

Good stuff. Very creative. Can I use it?

Y’okay.

 

[michaelp]

StubbleSpark:

Also, I think you give the postmodernist relativist too much power by trying to play by his rules.

By charting every possible choice we need to make on your diagrams, you are only playing into THEIR beliefs that right and wrong fall on some sort of continuum that depends mostly on personal perspective.

This is not a refutation of relativism at all. I am confused as to why you would experience revulsion at the scourge of our society and faith yet fall back on their methods for dissecting reality.

(I wonder what God’s diagram looks like? I know, I’ll ask His Church …)

The first step in countering relativism is knowing that there is no truth in it. It is baseless, meaningless, anti-human, anti-religion, and anti-God puffery. Nothing achieved through relativism can even be considered truth – even if it agrees with an objective truth – because, as a methodology, it depends on there being no such thing as Truth.

Okay, I think that is it for me on the paper. Although I may go back to it later. Please don’t forget to answer my digression question about Maccabees. I am interested in what you have to say.

Cheers

One interesting fact about the majority of postmoderns today is that you can’t pigeon hole them into a purely relativistic framework. To be sure some (Rorty, Derrida, etc) can be called relativist (although some are pragmatists), but others are just skeptical on the human ability to attain to absolute certianty, which can be spun into a relativistic epistomology. But it is not wise to do so. Their issues run much deeper and are more legitimate than that. The Church needs to learn how to deal with them other than calling them ignorant and anti-truth. Most are just disallusioned with modernism and its truth claims. They get confused when science, which is supposed to lead the way to truth, changes from day to day and conflicts. “If science cannot come to truth” they think to themselves, “who can?” One day science tells us that such and such causes cancer. The next day they tell us that it prevents cancer.

The Church has the answer in the Gospel to be sure. But we must approach the postmodern with gentlemess and understanding. They think that we are niave. And in alot of ways they are right. They think that we are oblivious to the truth claims of others. Many times they are right. Many times their confusion come by way of love, not hate. They want everyone to be accepted by God because they don’t want anyone to go to a place called hell. This disturbs them. It does me as well. Think about how terrible the doctrine of hell is. They don’t want anyone to end up there. Hence, there pluralistic worldview. It does not necessarily always come out of a spirit of hate, but it may come out of a spirit of love.

They think that truth, while out there, is unknowable . . . this is wrong. Christ came so that we may know truth. We have this message, but we must communicate it with compassion and love, not with demonizing hatered.

Just my thoughts.

Michael

 

[StubbleSpark]

I hope you do not think I am acting out of hate when I attack relativism with guns blazing. The object of my anger is not the people who cling to relativism. Having grown up heavily reliant on this “philosophy” I have a good idea how it spiritually corrupts. The object of my hate is relativism itself.

I hate relativism like I hate cancer and for very similar reasons. Very very good and innocent people of all ages and dispositions have fallen to that disease and chances are very good that it will either kill you or me.

But relativism is different because it is not an affliction programmed into our genes or lurking in the unhealthy environment we live in. It is endemic to our culture, to be sure, but whether or not you cling to it requires an act of free will on the part of the believer. So when I attack relativism, I give it a really strong whack. And, because most people these days are not accustomed to debating style, I suppose a lot of them might take it personally, But in the end, they cannot defend their position because relativism is a self-defeating philosophy.

And usually, I make a very concious decision on how strongly I attack relativism based on the people involved and the situation. If I am fairly certain the person is experienced at debate, then I cut a little deeper. But, if they are kind of weak-willed, then I use the art of indirect comment which I am really good at because of my experience with Asian languages. I might say something like, “That sounds like an excuse to justify bad behavior.” And leave it at that.

I believe the use of force is justified sometimes. If I had to rescue someone from a burning building and they resisted me and all I can get a hold of is a clump of their hair, then I will drag them by their hair and chuck them out the window if I have to. Whether or not they ever get sane enough to thank me is not an issue at all.

The thing is, when I attack relativism with my words, I am not even laying a finger on that person. I guess you can feel sorry for that individual, but they do not even have a single bruise! If I cannot attack with my words even, then what chance do we ever have of defending what is good and right in the world! Attacking something with words IS non-violence!

In the end, when I draw out the big guns, those words stay in their brains and those people cannot ever bring up the topic of relativism again because they know what I will say and they know that there is no logical counter argument. When this happens, they will try to talk around the issue by bringing up things that relativism makes possible for them in a weak attempt to demonstrate their greater “freedom” to do things like cheat on their spouses, endorse homosexual marriage, or get abortions. Sometimes all it takes is one knowing (yet kind) glance from me, and (this has happened) they stop in mid-sentence and walk away.

If, while working in union with the Holy Spirit, I can install a psychological thought-checking mechanism (even if it is subconscious), then that is something. And in the fight against relativism, we’ll take what we can get.

 

[StubbleSpark]

Also, when dealing with relativism, we can see a lot of weird paradoxes. Most people in society today believe it is wrong to tell someone that their beliefs are wrong (there is one paradox). But when we defend the objective nature of truth, we are defending God’s Truth, and the reality of His created universe. And when it comes down to it, God’s universe is actually a really good, holy, and beautiful thing.

The relativist decries the concept of Hell as a denial of God’s love (they are right, but what they don’t get is WHO is primary actor doing the denying), and says we are better off going it alone.

But what about the atheist? He does not believe he has an eternal soul. When he dies, pft, that’s it. The relativist, because he has no certainty of truth, can only offer pale words of condolence. The Children of God, on the other hand, tell the atheist without a doubt: You are wrong. You were gifted with an eternal soul and you have every opportunity to spend your afterlife basking in the blissful glow of our Creator.

Is this not a kindness? This drives relativists crazy because it is an instance where we judge someone as being wrong AND then tell them that they are MORE worthy, holy, and beautiful than any human can comprehend. To them, this is an unexplainable anomaly. To us, it just reality.

In Anthony Rizzi’s The Science Before Science, he talks about a phenomenon called “philosophical idealism.” This philosophy purports that, because all comprehension happens inside the brain, we have no certainty of anything in existence – only our ideas of them (in other words, all reality is a subjective function of thought). Unfortunately, this is the standard in academia – that we are “locked” inside our heads with no chance of escape.

He talks about Kant’s hand in this:
"Immanuel Kant codified the philosophical idealist’s position … One of Kant’s goals was to make Newtonian physics have a certainty that it did not have. However, Kant thought that one could not know the thing itself. Hence, without in any way setting up a straw man, Kant and Kantians MUST say, “Kant doesn’t know anything about anything.” … We non-Kantians can be simultaneously more accurate and kinder; we can say, “The foundational principles of Kant’s philosophical system were wrong, but still he knew a lot of things.”

That made me laugh.

 

[rschermer2]

michaelp:

Only the New Testament in the since that you have defined it. This is not the essence of it, nor does it gain authority only when your three element have come together. It is a nice way to break the issues down, but in no way deals with what I originally placed in the post.

Most of the early Chuch has 80% of the New Testament and lived by their dictates as inspired. They were not waiting for these three elements to combine, they were living according to the teaching of the Apostles as they recorded them. The same thing that we do since the Church “officially” recognized (Protestants)/determined (Catholics) the NT. What I am saying, is that this make very little difference in thought or practice.

Michael

Hello Michael,

I really appreciate your thoughts on all of this and I agree with you. I think many here agree with you as well but there seems to be a fundamental disconnect in understanding when it comes to this.

I hope I can clarify how I see it and I look forward to peoples responses.

Did 80% of what is today the NT exist by the end of the first century? I’m willing to accept that.

But what exactly caused these early writings to be accepted by the late 4th century as the ONLY INSPIRED writings? The answer to this seems to be tradition.

I think everyone knows these writings existed very early on, and everyone accepts that, it is the point that tradtion demonstrated for all those debating the issue in the 4th century what was and was not INSPIRED.

So, while I agree with you when you say that the Content of the NT existed in written form well before the 4th century, in fact almost all of it existed prior to the close of the 1st century, I think it must be recognized that it was sacred tradition that reveled them to us as inspired.

Look forward to your comments.

RS

 

[banjo]

rschermer2:

Hello Michael,

Did 80% of what is today the NT exist by the end of the first century? I’m willing to accept that.

RS

In John Cardinal Newman’s An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctirne p.125 it states, *“The New Testament consists of twenty-seven books in all, though of varying importance. Of these, fourteen are not mentioned at all till from eighty to one hundred years after St. John’s death…” *

That would mean that more than 50% of the NT was not in circulation in the late second century.

 

[upciguy26]

“The Church did not have Scripture for the first 300 years of existence.”

I have heard this arguement many times on this website. It is a very unbalanced and illinformed arguement. I am not saying this to argue for either side (Protestant or Catholic) right now, just to correct a misrepresentation (although this is often done by Catholics arguing for the necessary role of infallible tradition in the early Church).

If you have studied the first centuries of the church you would quickly find out that the early Church WAS NOT “high and dry” with regards to the New Testament (much less the old). Much of the church had MOST of the New Testament from its very inception.

1. Paul’s letters were immediately accepted as Scripture and passed into circulation very early. By the second century it was being passed on as a groups called the Pauline corpus. Many early fathers demonstate this by quoting from these documents (Clem quotes from Romans, 1 Cor. Gal, Eph, Col. 2 Thes at least; Polycarp Ignatius and Justin all quote from many of Paul’s letters; Ignatius and Justin do as well). And of course, it goes without saying that the Romans had Romans, Corinthians had Corinthians, Ephesians had Ephesians, etc . . .
   Even Peter, speaking to scattered bretheren, talks about the Pauline letters suggesting that his many readers from many different places may have had copies (2 Pet. 3:16).
2. The Synoptic Gospels (Matt, Mk, Lk) were all accetped without question very early on by the Church. They were in immediate circulation. Many of the early writers quote from them with great authority showing that they were widely accepted and circulated. Again Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justin all quote from some, if not all the Gospel (including John) demonstrating that most of the Church had been exposed to the Gospels. Paul even quotes from Luke calling it Scripture (1 Tim 5:18).
3. Acts was also understood to be inspired very early (at least by the begining of the second century. The Muratorian fragment includes Acts. Irenaus had a copy. There is no reason to assume that Acts was not accepted and circulated very early as was Luke’s gospel.
4. The Muratorian Canon refers to 90% of the New Testament as being accepted by 190.

As can be evidenced by just taking the Synoptics, Acts, and the Pauline courpus, by the first century, 80% of the New Testament was in circulation throughout the entire church. Most of the major local churches probebly had all of these letters and other churches more than likely knew of them and had access to them. In other words, the essentials of the Gospel were in written, inspired form throughout virtually the entire Church.

Therefore, the arguemnt that the Church did not have the New Testament until the 4th century is absolutely wrong, uninformed, and misleading. The argument that infallible tradition is necessary for the establisment of the early church is “folk theology” and many people on this site are engaging in it. It does not represent the truth, but mutilates it so that a desired goal can be accomplished.

I am not saying that you are doing this willingly, but, please, study the issues first. Represent the truth correctly. Bad and misleading argumentation doesn’t get anyone very far.

I am certainly open to debate about this issue. I pray that you all are doing well.

Michael

I’m glad someone besides me grasps this idea on this forum. Good post.