I thought you wouldn't be a fan of higher criticism - so why apply it to patristics? And I really wouldn't call someone who went to his death in the arena for his faith a 'charlatan'...
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Bread Worship
- Thread starter antiaging
- Start date
People die for different reasons. There are many that die for a hero. Many died for their devotion to Alexander the Great. Who did Ignatius die for? I don't know. Was it for Christ or for some other person (like John himself)? I know little about Ignatius. I only call into question his writings, their authenticity, the person of Iganatius himself. Higher Criticism questions whether or not there were two Isaiah's. I question whether or not there was more than one Ignatius. I am not in doubt about Isaiah, but I am in doubt about Ignatius. Who is he, and how do we know. Higher Criticisim brings doubt in those things that we can be assured of, and yet at the same time never questions those things that we can't be assured of. Sounds hypocritical to me.Matt Black said:I thought you wouldn't be a fan of higher criticism - so why apply it to patristics? And I really wouldn't call someone who went to his death in the arena for his faith a 'charlatan'...
So in what way is your own selective application of higher criticism not hypocritical?
Darron Steele
New Member
My take:
The Scriptures are the written Word of God, which means that their ultimate Author is God. The `patristic' writings are the words of solely mortals.
Higher criticism when applied to the words of mortals is fitting.
Higher criticism applied against the written Word of God is not fitting.
The Scriptures are the written Word of God, which means that their ultimate Author is God. The `patristic' writings are the words of solely mortals.
Higher criticism when applied to the words of mortals is fitting.
Higher criticism applied against the written Word of God is not fitting.
On what basis do you make that judgment call?
Darron Steele
New Member
Wow! I am not sure how to answer this. I thought it was assumed in the church that God is above mortals in every way. I am not sure on what basis a person who is attached to the church would doubt a distinction between communications of God and communications of men. So, really, I do not know what question I am really answering.Matt Black said:On what basis do you make that judgment call?
I guess I will just try to keep it simple: as a Christian, I believe that God is God and all-wise + all-knowing + all-powerful with all authority over everything, and mortals are just mortals.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ah, I see. There are, however, those of us here who don't believe that the Holy Spirit has been on an extended vacation viz a vis the Church since c.100AD...
cowboymatt
New Member
The only way that your higher criticism dichotomy makes any sense is that if you believe that the authors of the Bible were automons and that God inspired them so that nothing of their humanity came through in their writings.Darron Steele said:My take:
The Scriptures are the written Word of God, which means that their ultimate Author is God. The `patristic' writings are the words of solely mortals.
Higher criticism when applied to the words of mortals is fitting.
Higher criticism applied against the written Word of God is not fitting.
However, since to believe this is naive and doesn't square with what we have in the Bible (different vocabularies, different styles of writing, etc), it would be wise of us to admit that the Bible is the Word of God written in human words (Ladd/Hagner). Thus, if human words were used, higher criticism is appropriate, as long as it is tempered and done in faith.
Darron Steele
New Member
The original action that got me to get back into this thread is the accusation toward DHK by Matt Black of being a hypocrite.
Higher criticism is appropriate when dealing with writings of solely human authorship -- either in the writings' favor or against them. It is not appropriate to user higher criticism against the written Word of God.
I believe that God, being all-powerful, guided the writing of Scripture in such a way that it is still His written Word. I do not dispute a human role in the origins of Scripture, but I believe Paul when he reports that God is the ultimate Author.
I do not believe the same can be said for writings solely of mortals. I do not believe the `patristic' writings had God in any way involved in their origins.
Unbelievers assert `the Bible is just the words of men and should be treated as just the words of men.' Now, DHK is not a hypocrite for placing a distinction between the written Word of God and the `patristic' writings of solely human authorship -- he is simply being a faithful Christian, and viewing Scripture as Paul told us to. What is hypocritical, however, is people attached to the church downgrading Scripture like unbelievers while promoting any section of the church -- and then attacking Bible-believing Christians for not downgrading Scripture. I believe the accusation was unfounded, and I pointed out why.
Higher criticism is appropriate when dealing with writings of solely human authorship -- either in the writings' favor or against them. It is not appropriate to user higher criticism against the written Word of God.
I believe that God, being all-powerful, guided the writing of Scripture in such a way that it is still His written Word. I do not dispute a human role in the origins of Scripture, but I believe Paul when he reports that God is the ultimate Author.
I do not believe the same can be said for writings solely of mortals. I do not believe the `patristic' writings had God in any way involved in their origins.
Unbelievers assert `the Bible is just the words of men and should be treated as just the words of men.' Now, DHK is not a hypocrite for placing a distinction between the written Word of God and the `patristic' writings of solely human authorship -- he is simply being a faithful Christian, and viewing Scripture as Paul told us to. What is hypocritical, however, is people attached to the church downgrading Scripture like unbelievers while promoting any section of the church -- and then attacking Bible-believing Christians for not downgrading Scripture. I believe the accusation was unfounded, and I pointed out why.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ah, I see, so you are now asking the rest of us to rely on your own belief re the Bible and patristic literature. Thanks, but no thanks; I prefer to rely on a higher authority to determine my criterion for belief.
cowboymatt
New Member
Darron Steele said:I believe that God, being all-powerful, guided the writing of Scripture in such a way that it is still His written Word. I do not dispute a human role in the origins of Scripture, but I believe Paul when he reports that God is the ultimate Author.
So if you admit that there is "a human role in the origins of Scripture," then why shouldn't we try to understand as much as we can about the author and audience of a particular text. I understand you concerns and fears about the historical-critical method, but if tempered and carried out in faith it can shed light on Scripture that no other method can.
Matt, that one is easy:Matt Black said:On what basis do you make that judgment call?
1. As a born again believer I take the Bible as true by faith. There is always an element of faith in the Christian walk.
2. The Bible itslef testifies to its own veracity:
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
3. No ECF would ever claim inspiration. The only people that do claim inspiration are leaders of cults. The ECF also upheld the inspiration of the Bible. Thus the Bible remains our sole authority in all matters of faith and doctrine.
So, again, as with Darron, I am being called upon to rely on your own personal individualistic belief; I find that unacceptable - you could very easily be wrong.
But - let's play your higher criticism game re Ignatius - I'll indulge you. So:
1. We have 7 epistles which are widely recognised as being authentic (reasons given below) plus the 6 additional letters in the Greek 4th century MS, The Long Rescension, which are generally regarded as non-authentic and I know of no theologian worth his salt who quotes from the latter or regards them as 'patristic'
2. Of the 7 above, they exist in whole or in part in several MSS:
a. The Greek original, the Medici MS at Florence, from which the Letter to the Romans in missing
b. The Latin version (Ussher's 2 MSS), which is a translation of c1250 from a Greek MS of the same type as 'a' and therefore 'a' and 'b' should fairly be regarded as one witness, not two (per J B Lightfoot)
c. The Syriac version - 4th-5th centuries which, although fragmented, when read in conjunction with the associated Syriac Abridgment (Letters to the Ephesians, Romans and Polycarp) and the associated Armenian MS, can properly be regarded as a MS witness independent of 'a+b' above
d. The Coptic version - again fragmented (1st 6 chapters of the letter to the Smyrneans) but in so far as it does exist is clearly independent of 'a+b' and 'c'
e. The Long Rescension (4th cent) itself: whilst it contains later interpolations plus the 6 pseudo-epistle referred to in #1, where it doesn't contain such additions it may be regarded as a useful secondary source document
f. The Cobertine, 18 S Sab and 519 Sinaticus Greek MSS of the Acts of Martyrdom of Ignatius contain the letter to the Romans, together with their attendant Syriac and Armenian versions.
g. Various quotations - eg: Eusebius, provide important secondary verification of the above
So, quite a bit to rely upon there
But - let's play your higher criticism game re Ignatius - I'll indulge you. So:
1. We have 7 epistles which are widely recognised as being authentic (reasons given below) plus the 6 additional letters in the Greek 4th century MS, The Long Rescension, which are generally regarded as non-authentic and I know of no theologian worth his salt who quotes from the latter or regards them as 'patristic'
2. Of the 7 above, they exist in whole or in part in several MSS:
a. The Greek original, the Medici MS at Florence, from which the Letter to the Romans in missing
b. The Latin version (Ussher's 2 MSS), which is a translation of c1250 from a Greek MS of the same type as 'a' and therefore 'a' and 'b' should fairly be regarded as one witness, not two (per J B Lightfoot)
c. The Syriac version - 4th-5th centuries which, although fragmented, when read in conjunction with the associated Syriac Abridgment (Letters to the Ephesians, Romans and Polycarp) and the associated Armenian MS, can properly be regarded as a MS witness independent of 'a+b' above
d. The Coptic version - again fragmented (1st 6 chapters of the letter to the Smyrneans) but in so far as it does exist is clearly independent of 'a+b' and 'c'
e. The Long Rescension (4th cent) itself: whilst it contains later interpolations plus the 6 pseudo-epistle referred to in #1, where it doesn't contain such additions it may be regarded as a useful secondary source document
f. The Cobertine, 18 S Sab and 519 Sinaticus Greek MSS of the Acts of Martyrdom of Ignatius contain the letter to the Romans, together with their attendant Syriac and Armenian versions.
g. Various quotations - eg: Eusebius, provide important secondary verification of the above
So, quite a bit to rely upon there
Darron Steele
New Member
So, in other words, you dispute that the Bible is the written Word of God, and should be treated as such?Matt Black said:Ah, I see, so you are now asking the rest of us to rely on your own belief re the Bible and patristic literature. Thanks, but no thanks; I prefer to rely on a higher authority to determine my criterion for belief.
So far, that is pretty much all I have asserted. Paul told us to do the same at 2 Timothy 3:16-7.
You seem to be avoiding the issue. The issue is that the `patristics' are not on the same plane as the written Word of God. If you want to treat the words of mortals as a "higher authority" than the written Word of God, I would say it is you who are on shaky ground.
I would not ask anyone to follow my own personal belief if they believe Scripture says something different. I follow the written Word of God, and urge others to do likewise. I believe it is safest to treat Scripture as the written Word of God.
You got caught again demeaning Scripture as the words of mortals. You got called on it. I hope you are not trying to cover it up by misrepresenting my position.
To answer your other post, I have not addressed whether or not I think Ignatius wrote his seven authentic epistles. I know he did. However, I am pointing out to you that your accusation of DHK of being a hypocrite is unfounded. Higher criticism can be rightly applied for or against any `patristic' writer and/or his work. Higher criticism should not be applied against the written Word of God; the written Word of God should be believed.
Last edited by a moderator:
Darron Steele
New Member
Darron Steele said:I believe that God, being all-powerful, guided the writing of Scripture in such a way that it is still His written Word. I do not dispute a human role in the origins of Scripture, but I believe Paul when he reports that God is the ultimate Author.
Cowboymatt: I am tired of being talked to like an ignoramus by you.cowboymatt said:So if you admit that there is "a human role in the origins of Scripture," then why shouldn't we try to understand as much as we can about the author and audience of a particular text. I understand you concerns and fears about the historical-critical method, but if tempered and carried out in faith it can shed light on Scripture that no other method can.
Please click the link www.geocities.com/steeledl/unity2.html and take a decent look at that study. If you still think I know little-to-nothing after a decent look at it, I would say that description applies to you.
I am not disputing anything you said in your post, because I agree with all of it. However, sometimes the simplest way to communicate something is the best way. When it comes to what level of authoritativeness to apply to Scripture, I put it bluntly simple. Just because I put something in simple terms does not mean I know little about it.
Last edited by a moderator:
cowboymatt
New Member
Darron Steele said:Cowboymatt: I am tired of being talked to like an ignoramus by you.
Please click the link www.geocities.com/steeledl/unity2.html and take a decent look at that study. If you still think I know little-to-nothing after a decent look at it, I would say that description applies to you.
I am not disputing anything you said in your post, because I agree with all of it. However, sometimes the simplest way to communicate something is the best way. When it comes to what level of authoritativeness to apply to Scripture, I put it bluntly simple. Just because I put something in simple terms does not mean I know little about it.
I'm sorry if you thought I was speaking to you "like an ignoramus." That is not what I intended, as is clear from the mild tone of my post. I was simply trying to enter a civilized discussion with you on a point where it seemed we disagreed. Again, I'm sorry that what I wrote made you think that I look down on you. That was never my intention.
Darron Steele
New Member
Very well. Let us put it behind us.cowboymatt said:I'm sorry if you thought I was speaking to you "like an ignoramus." That is not what I intended ... Again, I'm sorry that what I wrote made you think that I look down on you. That was never my intention.
No, I'm not saying that. But I am recognising that, in addition to it being the inspired word of God, it is also a human document or, rather, a collection of human documents, physically written by various humans (frequently after being orally communicated by a lot of other humans) under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, at various points in history to very different addressees and socio-politico-cultural contexts and, in so far as that is the case, it should be interpreted in those terms.Darron Steele said:So, in other words, you dispute that the Bible is the written Word of God, and should be treated as such?
I accept that they are not on the same plane....You seem to be avoiding the issue. The issue is that the `patristics' are not on the same plane as the written Word of God.
....however, that does not mean that they are off the scale completely; they are on the same inspirational continuum as the Bible, albeit at a lower point on that scale. Forgive me, but with respect, you seem to be conflating the concepts of inspiration, infallibility, indefectability and canonicity. They are not the same. I have already said as much that I believe the Holy Spirit did not go to sleep or leave the Church when John or his scribe laid down his pen at the end of Rev 22; He continues to inspire Jesus' Church. For instance, there is no doubt in my mind that the Councils of Niacaea I and Constantinople I were inspired by the Holy Spirit to formulate the correct doctrine of the Trinity, as were Ephesus and Chalcedon when it came to defining orthodox Christology. Their decisions however do not form part of the Canon of Scripture, nor can we say that they were infallible in quite the same way as Scripture is; the best we can say is that they possessed a sufficient measure of indefectability when it came to accurately defining doctrine. Something similar can I believe be said about the patristic writings, at least when they are in agreement, which they frequently are (althoughI accept that sometimes they are not).If you want to treat the words of mortals as a "higher authority" than the written Word of God, I would say it is you who are on shaky ground.
Matt,
Of course. But you could be wrong, too. The Pope could be wrong. The ECF's could be wrong. The Hierarchy of the Catholic Cult could be wrong. The denominational leaders in your sect could be wrong.
As a matter of fact, the "hierarchial governing gestapos" of groups like the Catholic Church who claim to have a monopoly on truth, are the ones who are overflowing the most devilish blasphemy, idolatry and heresy of them all. And many of those idolatries and blasphemies come straight from the ECF's.
So, what do we do? Just as God tells us to do. We throw all of that rubbish where it belongs, and get back to Gods instructions found in the scriptures.
We heed this...
And we do as the Bereans did regarding the apostles...we test everything and everybody up against the scriptures. I do it. DHK does it. Darron Steele does it. You do it. Agnus Dei does it. Each one of us, using the scriptures and the Holy Spirits guiding.
When you ask..."who is the authority?", the answer is....
The scriptures
The Holy Spirit
Its Gods checks and balances system, and it works. The Calvinists keep the Arminians in check, and vice versa. The Conservatives keep the Liberals in check, and vice versa. The charismatics keep the fundamentalists in check, and vice versa.
When Gods checks and balances system is discarded for relying on the opinions of those 1600 years ago, or the gestapo of some false church, only chaos and heresy will come of it, as we see on full display in the Catholic Church. 1600 years of heresy added to falsehood, added to blasphemy added to goddess worship. Why? They turned for the "old path" that God warned us to not leave.
God help us to never turn from the scriptures and the Holy Spirit.
Mike
"So, again, as with Darron, I am being called upon to rely on your own personal individualistic belief; I find that unacceptable - you could very easily be wrong."
Of course. But you could be wrong, too. The Pope could be wrong. The ECF's could be wrong. The Hierarchy of the Catholic Cult could be wrong. The denominational leaders in your sect could be wrong.
As a matter of fact, the "hierarchial governing gestapos" of groups like the Catholic Church who claim to have a monopoly on truth, are the ones who are overflowing the most devilish blasphemy, idolatry and heresy of them all. And many of those idolatries and blasphemies come straight from the ECF's.
So, what do we do? Just as God tells us to do. We throw all of that rubbish where it belongs, and get back to Gods instructions found in the scriptures.
We heed this...
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and it profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rightiousness, that the man of God might be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work"
And we do as the Bereans did regarding the apostles...we test everything and everybody up against the scriptures. I do it. DHK does it. Darron Steele does it. You do it. Agnus Dei does it. Each one of us, using the scriptures and the Holy Spirits guiding.
When you ask..."who is the authority?", the answer is....
The scriptures
The Holy Spirit
Its Gods checks and balances system, and it works. The Calvinists keep the Arminians in check, and vice versa. The Conservatives keep the Liberals in check, and vice versa. The charismatics keep the fundamentalists in check, and vice versa.
When Gods checks and balances system is discarded for relying on the opinions of those 1600 years ago, or the gestapo of some false church, only chaos and heresy will come of it, as we see on full display in the Catholic Church. 1600 years of heresy added to falsehood, added to blasphemy added to goddess worship. Why? They turned for the "old path" that God warned us to not leave.
God help us to never turn from the scriptures and the Holy Spirit.
Mike
Who mentioned the Roman Catholic straw man? Not me. I agree that Holy Scripture and Holy Spirit are our rule of faith, I just disagree with you on the Holy Spirit acting individually -v- corporately. It is the corporate action that produces the necessary degree of indefectability; the individual produces eipstemological chaos and contradictions, not checks.