tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post113587811988541628..comments2024-03-24T03:21:03.154-04:00Comments on CAMPONTHIS: 2005... Year in Review...COT's 6th month aniversary postSJ Camphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1137387240485260002006-01-15T23:54:00.000-05:002006-01-15T23:54:00.000-05:00The papal councils are the image of the papal beas...The papal councils are the image of the papal beast, who is the Antichrist, from the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ.<BR/><BR/>The reformers understood this truth and today's remnant does also.<BR/><BR/>To know Christ is to know Antichrist.John Kettnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15102555347483966286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1136928789108367722006-01-10T16:33:00.000-05:002006-01-10T16:33:00.000-05:00When I visit this blog I feel the way Wayne and Ga...When I visit this blog I feel the way Wayne and Garth did in the presence of Alice Cooper. "I am not worthy! I am not worthy!" Great blog! Keep up the good work!Ron Henzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02433743384047640111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1136923258054439532006-01-10T15:00:00.000-05:002006-01-10T15:00:00.000-05:00Just one final comment, since you've closed off di...Just one final comment, since you've closed off discussion. <BR/><BR/>You write, "To insist otherwise is to engage in a debate that the canon itself is not interested in engaging."<BR/><BR/>This is perfectly true, since a "canon" cannot engage in debate specifically because it has no mind and no volition. It is *people* who engage these questions. To personify the canon is only to seem as if one is avoiding the inevitable issues that have been raised. Canons ask questions like walls complain about their color.<BR/><BR/>The canon came through men and was authoritatively settled by men, both instances of which were God-ordained. This is the only coherent position available to any Christian. Unfortunately for you, it happens to only be available to Catholic and Orthodox by virtue of their shared ecclesiology of "apostolic succession." <BR/><BR/>Till next we meet...Jeremiah Kier Cowarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01908986883828914539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1136769964217738002006-01-08T20:26:00.000-05:002006-01-08T20:26:00.000-05:00Where, Breuss? Chapter and verse, please.Where, Breuss? Chapter and verse, please.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02238001380092215123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1136723634556642272006-01-08T07:33:00.000-05:002006-01-08T07:33:00.000-05:00"It is a category mistake to give metaphysical ans..."It is a category mistake to give metaphysical answers to epistemic questions (or vice-versa)."<BR/><BR/><BR/>On this we must agree to disagree. It's not that there is no epistemic answer to give... the answer is being sought in the wrong place... the epistemic *has* no answer to give because it is answering the wrong question.<BR/><BR/>To address the metaphysical *is* to finish the debate. To insist otherwise is to engage in a debate that the canon itself is not interested in engaging.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03880337516584157981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1136708318600985982006-01-08T03:18:00.000-05:002006-01-08T03:18:00.000-05:00Quite the contrary from saying that metaphysical i...Quite the contrary from saying that metaphysical inspiration can be severed from the canon, I have explicitly said there is no difference between any Christian communion (Catholic, Protestant, etc.) on the metaphysical issue. In this respect, you are arguing for something that no one is arguing against. <BR/><BR/>It is a category mistake to give metaphysical answers to epistemic questions (or vice-versa). But, I understand why you do it--because you haven't got an epistemic answer to give. No one does. Every Evangelical I've read on this issue (including White, Geisler, etc.) addresses the metaphysical issue (which no one raised) and thinks he's thereby finished the debate.<BR/><BR/>You mention Christ, and your comments are very good. I have just one question for you though. Where did you go primarily in order to find out about Christ? From the Scriptures? How do you know which ones those are? You're still not answering the question. The answer is that you inherit them from the judgment made by the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). I understand that you don't want to answer that way. But, it's the reality nonetheless. Because contra your comments about 1st century usage (you have no historical evidence that all 27 books were used in the 1st century), as I've said, many Fathers of the Church (e.g., Tertullian) who were quite a bit after the 1st century denied the canonicity of several of the books of the current NT. And, as I said, it's not until St. Athanasius that we get a Father giving the full canon of all and only the 27.<BR/><BR/>The rest of your comments are remarkably Catholic, though you likely did not see this and didn't intend it. I can only think this is so because you feel the inexorable tug toward the only place that gives you an answer the the epistemic problem presented to you. Yes, it is absolutely true that "Because self-attestation is grounded in Christ himself, apostolicity...becomes the dominant criterion for canonicity." Which is exactly what the Catholic claims. The apostles (or those closely associated with them) under divine inspiration wrote the books of the canon. And it was those who are there successors through the apostolic authority (ie, the bishops) who authoritatively settled the dispute in the 4th century over which books actually belong in the NT. So, yes, apostolicity is the dominant criterion.<BR/><BR/>And yes, absolutely "God ordained both the ends and the means...in recognition of the canon" Both the end of the creation of the canonical books and the means of *recognition* of those books are God-ordained. This is the perfect way to view the situation. Either way (ends or means), it's God-ordained in its creation and its recognition, which keeps the metaphysical closely linked with the epistemic. The recognition itself is God-ordained. This is just what Catholics mean by knowledge of the canon coming to you by virtue of the God-ordained authority of those who thereby recognize the canon. You have reasoned quite well here for the Catholic presentation of the canon issue.Jeremiah Kier Cowarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01908986883828914539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1136684021434748002006-01-07T20:33:00.000-05:002006-01-07T20:33:00.000-05:00I believe you are the one who has missed, ignored,...I believe you are the one who has missed, ignored, or rejected my point. The metaphysical *is* the answer to your epistemic notion.<BR/><BR/>The self-attestation of scripture begins and ends with Christ's resurrection, which is itself its own authoritative revelation. Revelation (and its correlating canonical issues) is first and foremost a historical event which certainty is bound to Christ himself. The certainty of the canon rests in Christ Himself, not the church and certainly not tradition.<BR/><BR/>Because self-attestation is grounded in Christ himself, apostolicity (and its inherent self-attestation) becomes the dominant criterion for canonicity.<BR/><BR/>God ordained both the ends and the means (1st century church acceptance and use of apostolic writings) in recognition of the canon, but the authenticity never is grounded in the means. Thus, metaphysical inspiration can not be severed from the canon.. the issue is one and the same.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03880337516584157981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1136683005961542452006-01-07T20:16:00.000-05:002006-01-07T20:16:00.000-05:00Joel...It's not up to me to determine or figure ou...Joel...<BR/><BR/>It's not up to me to determine or figure out the canon. The canon has already done it for me.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03880337516584157981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1136682736278086352006-01-07T20:12:00.000-05:002006-01-07T20:12:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03880337516584157981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1136589767575560452006-01-06T18:22:00.000-05:002006-01-06T18:22:00.000-05:00All right, Breuss, let's try it. Using nothing but...All right, Breuss, let's try it. Using nothing but the text of the Bible, how do you discern the correct canon?Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02238001380092215123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1136587061385804982006-01-06T17:37:00.000-05:002006-01-06T17:37:00.000-05:00Just a brief reply, since I'm astonished that the ...Just a brief reply, since I'm astonished that the points I'm raising are being so well missed (and therefore making this exchange a bit pointless).<BR/><BR/>Merely saying something is so, doesn't make it so. You can deny the conclusion all you want, but unless you simultaneously undermine the argument, you're doing little better than beating a dead anything.<BR/><BR/>First, self-attestation doesn't exist in the NT books (per my comments above). Second, even if it did, it wouldn't settle anything as regards your knowledge, unless you want to make the outrageous claim that any religious writing that self-attests its own authenticity is thereby divinely inspired (as was also argued above). <BR/><BR/>A dichotomy between the order of being and that of knowing could not be denied by anyone. Is Jesus the Son of God? Yes. Does everybody know that? No. Voila! A ready-made distinction between what is real and whether or not I know it's real. <BR/><BR/>Ultimately, the only answer to the question "How do you know which books belong in the Bible?" has only one answer, a Catholic/Orthodox one--they belong their because the God-ordained authority falling in the line of the apostles told us that they belong there. Without such an authority, there is no possible way to definitively argue against Tertullian's list of the canonical books. ...unless of course you'd like to show the way. You'd be the first to succeed, but undoubtedly not the first or last to try. Hey, someone has to win the lottery, right? Might as well be you, eh?Jeremiah Kier Cowarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01908986883828914539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1136573556612690252006-01-06T13:52:00.000-05:002006-01-06T13:52:00.000-05:00Again, to beat the dead horse, there's nothing epi...Again, to beat the dead horse, there's nothing epistemic about the canon.<BR/><BR/>*How* it came to be* and self-attestation are one and the same. You falsely dichotomize the two and create a problem that isn't there.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03880337516584157981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1136487485466088402006-01-05T13:58:00.000-05:002006-01-05T13:58:00.000-05:00Mr. Wane,Your second point was already settled and...Mr. Wane,<BR/><BR/>Your second point was already settled and agreed-upon in my last post. But to repeat, nobody is asking the metaphysical question of how the canon comes to be. Obviously, the only answer to that question, on which everyone agrees, is that God determines it.<BR/><BR/>But as Joel reiterates, the question is how do *you* (or anyone else for that matter) know which books belong there? To say the 27 are merely self-attesting is disingenuous, for as you must readily admit, you cannot point to the place in each and every one of them where they self-proclaim their own canonicity. And even if they did, plenty of other books self-proclaim their authenticity as being revelations from God (e.g., the Qur'an). Moreover, many of the NT books do not even declare their authorship (e.g., the Gospels). And even if they did, a self-proclamation of authorship is not enough to make a book's own case for itself as belonging in the canon.<BR/><BR/>You cannot get around this epistemic problem. You must address it head on in order to justifiably maintain that you have *knowledge* that the 27 books in the NT actually belong there. Otherwise, it's your wishful thinking along with that of every other Christian who denies either Sacred Tradition or the apostolic succession of the Magisterium.Jeremiah Kier Cowarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01908986883828914539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1136484573050206462006-01-05T13:09:00.000-05:002006-01-05T13:09:00.000-05:00"There's nothing epistemic about the self-attestin..."There's nothing epistemic about the self-attesting canon. The canon would be the canon were there no councils to recognize it as such."<BR/><BR/>But how would you know it was the right one? You have no way of deciding between Athanasius' or Tertullian's canon, and even less of prescribing your choice to others. There was no concensus prior to the Councils of Hippo and Carthage.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02238001380092215123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1136431772680171332006-01-04T22:29:00.000-05:002006-01-04T22:29:00.000-05:00There's nothing epistemic about the self-attesting...There's nothing epistemic about the self-attesting canon. The canon would be the canon were there no councils to recognize it as such.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03880337516584157981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1136418438720779562006-01-04T18:47:00.000-05:002006-01-04T18:47:00.000-05:00Joel: no no no, your posts were excellent. It's no...Joel: no no no, your posts were excellent. It's not as though I thought you weren't making your case. You were. It's just that I couldn't resist making it a bit of nail-in-the-coffin, type argument. But, I don't do so out of maliciousness. It's out of my concern that Protestants actually come to terms with just how overwhelmingly difficult this issue is for them. It is insurmountable, really. And I just like to make sure that when it's raised, those on the other side see the full force of it. One can only hope and pray that something good might come as a result, eh?Jeremiah Kier Cowarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01908986883828914539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1136396508025498362006-01-04T12:41:00.000-05:002006-01-04T12:41:00.000-05:00Thanks, Jeremiah. That was a more thorough explana...Thanks, Jeremiah. That was a more thorough explanation than I had ready.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02238001380092215123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1136330203529656122006-01-03T18:16:00.000-05:002006-01-03T18:16:00.000-05:00One can hardly resist jumping in on the canon issu...One can hardly resist jumping in on the canon issue, especially a Catholic, as it is such a weak spot for Protestants. <BR/><BR/>Breuss, the problem for the Protestant Christian with regard to the canon is an epistemic one (ie, a knowledge issue). The Catholic is not asking how it is that the canon came to be. Of course, all Christians are united in that respect. It came to be through God inspiring various authors in their writings--making the writings "God-breathed." But, this is a metaphysical question, on which all are united. The canon question, however, is epistemic as well as metaphysical. <BR/><BR/>After we're all agreed as to who determines the canon (ie, God), we have the further question of how it is we Christians come to *know* which books belong in the Bible. And I'm afraid that question simply cannot be answered in a Bible-Alone Christianity. Because I must first have a Bible and know which books belong there in order to even be a Bible-Alone Christian. And I'm afraid it's not overwhelmingly obvious to me that, say, Jude, 2 & 3 John, 2 Peter, the Apocalypse, etc. actually belong there. Or at least, this was how many Church Fathers argued (eg., Tertullian). In fact, if I'm not mistaken, it was not until St. Athanasius that we see the first full mention of our current 27 (and only these 27) books of the NT actually belonging there. And then the councils of Hippo and Carthage (ie, a magistra) settled it. <BR/><BR/>If you'd like to dispute Tertullian and side with St. Athanasius' list of the 27 books of the NT, on the basis of what would you do this? There is no reasonable answer for the Protestant on this issue, I'm afraid. The only way to answer the epistemic question is by giving a Catholic/Orthodox answer.Jeremiah Kier Cowarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01908986883828914539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1136304644731907552006-01-03T11:10:00.000-05:002006-01-03T11:10:00.000-05:00"There's no table of contents, but the process is ..."There's no table of contents, but the process is the same. The church cannot create canon, but merely recognize it. Therefore, tradition had zilch to do with giving us a canon."<BR/><BR/>That process is precisely what Sacred Tradition is: recognizing what is and isn't the teaching of the Christian faith.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02238001380092215123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1136269379025205962006-01-03T01:22:00.000-05:002006-01-03T01:22:00.000-05:00And thus a significant difference between RCism & ...And thus a significant difference between RCism & Protestantism on authority...<BR/><BR/>Some take it too far one way or the other--but I have to agree with Breuss...pilgrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06341946961084387134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1136263337850721252006-01-02T23:42:00.000-05:002006-01-02T23:42:00.000-05:00There's no table of contents, but the process is t...There's no table of contents, but the process is the same. The church cannot create canon, but merely recognize it. Therefore, tradition had zilch to do with giving us a canon.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03880337516584157981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1136261511624896732006-01-02T23:11:00.000-05:002006-01-02T23:11:00.000-05:00"Sacred Tradition did *not* give us the canon. The..."Sacred Tradition did *not* give us the canon. The church does not and can not create canon... it merely recognizes it as such."<BR/><BR/>Breuss, I'll acept that if you can show me a table of contents in the Bible. Otherwise, you can't get away from the fact that you have to rely on Sacred Tradition to know what the actual canon should be.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02238001380092215123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1136259786045993592006-01-02T22:43:00.000-05:002006-01-02T22:43:00.000-05:00Sacred Tradition did *not* give us the canon. The...Sacred Tradition did *not* give us the canon. The church does not and can not create canon... it merely recognizes it as such.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03880337516584157981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1136223550232569712006-01-02T12:39:00.000-05:002006-01-02T12:39:00.000-05:00"There's nothing "sacred" about "tradition"."Witho..."There's nothing "sacred" about "tradition"."<BR/><BR/>Without Sacred Tradition, you don't have a reliable Bible.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02238001380092215123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1136168465238189342006-01-01T21:21:00.000-05:002006-01-01T21:21:00.000-05:00Further evidence for the record of R.C. Sproul sho...Further evidence for the record of R.C. Sproul should be submitted. He is absolutely the most genial anti-Catholic I have ever heard in my life (with the possible exception of Norman Geisler). I don't mind anti-Catholicism. Why would I? What in the world does a Church with the intellectual and liturgical tradition of Catholicism have to fear from any opponent?! What I mind is incivility. Or, if that's too strong, then let's call it a lack of geniality in one's opposition to the other side. That was the gist of my original anti-anti-Catholic posting regarding the "Year in Review" here...since we're concerned with keeping the record straight.Jeremiah Kier Cowarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01908986883828914539noreply@blogger.com