The law, the commandments, and Christians.

fhansen said:

So you're really going to maintain that disagreement on truth means the truth cannot be determined?

Click to expand...

There was no disagreement for the rest of the books of the canon. The disagreement was with the apocrypha.

fhansen said:

Again, we have a situation where figures in history contested the inspiration and canonicity of certain New Testament books. According to your methodology, we must discount those books as being inspired.

Click to expand...

You misunderstand my argument. The books of the NT were set from the beginning based on the common agreement among the people, the councils, and the scholarship. Any person, even Luther, would not have prevailed if his intention was to change the canon. However, removing the apocrypha merely retuned to the ancient argument and disagreements. If the books can’t be fully recognized as inspired then they are most likely not.

Hentenza said:

There was no disagreement for the rest of the books of the canon. The disagreement was with the apocrypha.

Click to expand...

So?? The antilogema, which includes the NT books already cited, were hotly contested in the early centuries. It seems as if you prefer believing that the NT somehow magically appeared complete, or that all were soon unaminously inspired all at once to agree on the canon. Anyway, it doesn't work that way in the church, things are always messier-as it is in most of history, in fact.

Hentenza said:

You misunderstand my argument.

Click to expand...

Not at all. You're just avoiding the question.

Hentenza said:

Any person, even Luther, would not have prevailed if his intention was to change the canon.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what you're insinuating happened with the Reformation. But the canon has not changed but has instead remained the same as its been for at least 1700 years.

fhansen said:

So?? The antilogema, which includes the NT books already cited, were hotly contested in the early centuries. It seems as if you prefer believing that the NT somehow magically appeared complete, or that all were soon unaminously inspired all at once to agree on the canon. Anyway, it doesn't work that way in the church, things are always messier-as it is in most of history, in fact.

Click to expand...

The antilegomena was fully resolved by the 4th century in contrast with the apocrypha which was still not universally accepted even by the time of the reformation. I gave you two examples earlier about the writings of two cardinals early in the 6th century which still regarded the apocrypha as not inspired. We can thread this through time if you wish.

fhansen said:

Not at all. You're just avoiding the question.

Click to expand...

What question?

fhansen said:

That's exactly what you're insinuating happened with the Reformation. But the canon has not changed but has instead remained the same as its been for at least 1700 years.

Click to expand...

No. I stated that the reformation put the apocrypha to its initial place as separate from the canonical books.

Hentenza said:

The antilegomena was fully resolved by the 4th century in contrast with the apocrypha which was still not universally accepted even by the time of the reformation. I gave you two examples earlier about the writings of two cardinals early in the 6th century which still regarded the apocrypha as not inspired. We can thread this through time if you wish.

Click to expand...

Your argument is only that conflicting positions means that the church can't possibly discern the truth, for some reason. And apparently that, even if they did, that would somehow necessarily stop the controvery? Sorry, there are people today who believe that many inspired books were left out of the NT, so controversy and disagreemments never necessarily end. And the antilgomena controversy still rasied its head again during the Reformation.

Hentenza said:

What question?

Click to expand...

You've avoided addressing the obvious truth which has been demonstrated, that controversy cannot/does not negate canonicity.

Hentenza said:

No. I stated that the reformation put the apocrypha to its initial place as separate from the canonical books.

Click to expand...

And then called into question the canonicity of the historically accepted NT, except for the fact that even it wasn't historically accepted as such without controversy.

fhansen said:

Your argument is only that conflicting positions means that the church can't possibly discern the truth, for some reason.

Click to expand...

I’m a historian. I can only offer what historiography gives me. What is giving me is that there is/was unresolved conflicting positions with regards to the inspiration and position of the apocrypha in relation to the canon of inspired scripture. In your tradition you consider it resolved but only because you ignore the opposite position. There is, however, other factors creating subjectivity between the positions which allows for some on one camp to disregard the other. For example you honestly believe that from your church’s position there is no conflicting position which results from unconscious bias. Nothing wrong with that since all of us have it but as a historian I am trained to remove as much of it as possible so, for me, if there are conflicting verifiable epistemological positions then more information is needed before an objective interpretation can be arrived at. In this instance the case is still open.

fhansen said:

And apparently that, even if they did, that would somehow necessarily stop the controvery? Sorry, there are people today who believe that many inspired books were left out of the NT, so controversy and disagreemments never necessarily end. And the antilgomena controversy still rasied its head again during the Reformation.

Click to expand...

I agree. We have one posting in the controversial theology forum as we speak. However, outside of the quacks the canon of the NT has been set for centuries.

fhansen said:

You've avoided addressing the obvious truth which has been demonstrated, that controversy cannot/does not negate canonicity.

Click to expand...

But that would only be if you resolve both sides of the controversy which you have not done. My contention remains that the inclusion of the apocrypha in the OT canon has not been universally accepted throughout the history of the church. I’ve given you examples.

fhansen said:

And then called into question the canonicity of the historically accepted NT, except for the fact that even it wasn't historically accepted as such without controversy.

Click to expand...

I have not questioned the canonicity of the historically accepted NT but have called into question the canonicity of the apocrypha given the historically ongoing controversy. Please don’t misrepresent my argument.

Hentenza said:

I’m a historian. I can only offer what historiography gives me.

Click to expand...

But you're not doing that-you're going by personal preference instead of objectivity. The canon of the OT was controversial at the beginning and still is (at least for some who've separated from the decision of the ancient churches)...and that matters in your opinion. The canon of the NT was controversial from the beginning and still was/is for some...and that doesn't matter in your opinion. You've decided which canons you prefer- and that's all you've done. Your horse is dead and you haven't come close to proving otherwise-no need to keep beating it.

Hentenza said:

Don’t ignore historical fact. Even John of Damascus in the eighth century agreed with Athanasius and Jerome that the books of the apocrypha were not canonical and should be placed in a separate category.

Click to expand...

Again, Jerome accepted the canon decreed by the Catholic Church. There are over 10,000 Catholic saints.

Hentenza said:

But that would only be if you resolve both sides of the controversy which you have not done. My contention remains that the inclusion of the apocrypha in the OT canon has not been universally accepted throughout the history of the church. I’ve given you examples.

Click to expand...

You've succeeded in ratifying the church's approximately 1700 year-old decision regarding the NT canon while rejecting the church's approximately 1700 year-old decision regarding the canon of the OT.

Hentenza said:

I have not questioned the canonicity of the historically accepted NT but have called into question the canonicity of the apocrypha given the historically ongoing controversy. Please don’t misrepresent my argument.

Click to expand...

I didn't. The reformation "then called into question the canonicity of the historically accepted NT..."-the same reformation that supposedly "put the apocrypha to its initial place as separate from the canonical books" as you stated.

fhansen said:

But you're not doing that-you're going by personal preference instead of objectivity.

Click to expand...

But I am not. I even cited those that disagreed with you and you just ignored it.

fhansen said:

The canon of the OT was controversial at the beginning and still is (at least for some who've separated from the decision of the ancient churches)...and that matters in your opinion.

Click to expand...

Is not my opinion. I cited sources and you ignored them. The decision of ancient churches is your biased since the acceptance of the apocrypha was/is universal.

fhansen said:

The canon of the NT was controversial from the beginning and still was/is for some...and that doesn't matter in your opinion.

Click to expand...

Not really because 99% of churches recognize the present NT.

fhansen said:

You've decided which canons you prefer- and that's all you've done.

Click to expand...

Again I have posted detractors of the apocrypha that you have ignored. Until you address them your acceptance is biased on just your church’s beliefs.

fhansen said:

Your horse is dead and you haven't come close to proving otherwise-no need to keep beating it.

Click to expand...

My horse is fine and kicking. Address my posts.

Hentenza said:

But I am not. I even cited those that disagreed with you and you just ignored it.

Is not my opinion. I cited sources and you ignored them. The decision of ancient churches is your biased since the acceptance of the apocrypha was/is universal.

Not really because 99% of churches recognize the present NT.

Again I have posted detractors of the apocrypha that you have ignored. Until you address them your acceptance is biased on just your church’s beliefs.

My horse is fine and kicking. Address my posts.

Click to expand...

I have addressed your posts, and the ignoring has been all yours. and any historian without a dog in this fight would agree.

fhansen said:

I have addressed your posts, and the ignoring has been all yours. and any historian without a dog in this fight would agree.

Click to expand...

Ok then address post 353 fully.

Hentenza said:

The fact remains that Jerome had the same problem that the Jews had with the apocrypha which is that they were not recognized as scripture. In fact the books were written during the intertestamental period between Malachi and the birth of Jesus were most everyone agrees that there were no prophetic utterances. Josephus believed the same.

Even within the Catholic Church during the reformation there was no unity regarding the apocrypha. For example, Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Luther, wrote a commentary in 1518 titled “A Commentary on All the Historical Books of the Old Testament” in which he did not include the apocrypha.

A second example would Cardinal Ximenes who made a distinction between the apocrypha and the Old Testament in his book “Complutensian Polyglot” (1514-1517).

So there was no unity in the Catholic Church regarding the apocrypha which is why it was decided in the counter reformation council of Trent to make it official and have a 73 book Bible.

Click to expand...

What you’re doing is like saying that Arianism was so widespread and strong for centuries in the Christian world that therefore Arianism is true, an argument the JWs make by the way. But what did the Church do? Even despite widespread popularity and possible support from Constantine and definite support from his sons later on, Arianism was struck down by the Church (even tho it persisted for some centuries later), which then proceeded to work out the doctrine of the Trinity and the Nicene Creed. Similarly, despite Jerome’s opinion, despite Josephus’s opinion, the Church carried on with its mission of clarifying, defining, and preserving the faith as needed. Same with Cajetan and Ximenes; despite their opinions the Council of Trent, shortly thereafter, reaffirmed the historic Church canon. As with other errors that were introduced at that time, Trent needed to address them and confirm the true faith.

So…again, why would it matter what a handful of church figures or Jews believed regarding the OT while it does not matter what some Reformation figures believed regarding the NT? Both canons were controversial IOW. There are controversies all the time raised by Catholics objecting to Catholic teachings, incidentally. Honestly, you’re just not being objective or even-handed in your approach here.

fhansen said:

What you’re doing is like saying that Arianism was so widespread and strong for centuries in the Christian world that therefore Arianism is true, an argument the JWs make by the way. But what did the Church do? Even despite widespread popularity and possible support from Constantine and definite support from his sons later on, Arianism was struck down by the Church (even tho it persisted for some centuries later), which then proceeded to work out the doctrine of the Trinity and the Nicene Creed. Similarly, despite Jerome’s opinion, despite Josephus’s opinion, the Church carried on with its mission of clarifying, defining, and preserving the faith as needed. Same with Cajetan and Ximenes; despite their opinions the Council of Trent, shortly thereafter, reaffirmed the historic Church canon. As with other errors that were introduced at that time, Trent needed to address them and confirm the true faith.

So…again, why would it matter what a handful of church figures or Jews believed regarding the OT while it does not matter what some Reformation figures believed regarding the NT? Both canons were controversial IOW. There are controversies all the time raised by Catholics objecting to Catholic teachings, incidentally. Honestly, you’re just not being objective or even-handed in your approach here.

Click to expand...

My brother I did not argue that something is like this or that. I gave you specific examples based on the historiology of this subject. You are accusing me of things that I’m not even arguing about. Never did I mention Arianism or the Trinity or the Nicene Creed.

What you did was agree with the fact that both cardinals were indeed against the canonicity of the apocrypha so the council of Trent was necessary for the CC to make it official. The tension about the apocrypha is a historical fact based on the historiology of the subject but you deny that in favor of your bias toward the CC. You simply can not be objective.

Hentenza said:

Never did I mention Arianism or the Trinity or the Nicene Creed.

Click to expand...

Um...I never once mentioned that you did. It was used as analogy.

Hentenza said:

What you did was agree with the fact that both cardinals were indeed against the canonicity of the apocrypha so the council of Trent was necessary for the CC to make it official.

Click to expand...

Even if that were true, so what? But the reason in any case was to counter the canon as enumerated by the Reformers. And as @Valetta said in a previous post: "All of the European Bibles contained the 73 books chosen by the Catholic Church, in the same order [as the Council of Carthage], until the reformation".

So what did Trent actually do? It reaffirmed the list that was set down some 1300 years earlier! IOW, there's a long, continuous historical legacy of the Church's actual canon, which would be the most impressive and convincing truth that's been presented by anyone here so far to any objective observer. But you somehow manage to simply deny or overlook this fact anyway.

fhansen said:

Um...I never once mentioned that you did. It was used as analogy.

Even if that were true, so what? But the reason in any case was to counter the canon as enumerated by the Reformers. And as @Valetta said in a previous post: "All of the European Bibles contained the 73 books chosen by the Catholic Church, in the same order [as the Council of Carthage], until the reformation".

So what did Trent actually do? It reaffirmed the list that was set down some 1300 years earlier! IOW, there's a long, continuous historical legacy of the Church's actual canon, which would be the most impressive and convincing truth that's been presented by anyone here so far to any objective observer. But you somehow manage to simply deny or overlook this fact anyway.

Click to expand...

Tell you what, when you can prove universal acceptance of the apocrypha as inspired in the last 1700 years then we can have a meaningful conversation but for now all you are proving is your bias.

Even in the Orthodox Church, which they also call “the” church, the books of the apocrypha varied regionally. Nicephorus, the patriarch of Constantinople in the ninth century denied the apocrypha as canonical. He cited the number of canonical Old Testament books at twenty-two and stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not received as canonical by the Church. The perspective of the Trullan Council was also reiterated by Zonaras and Theodore Balsamon, the Patriarch of Antioch in the twelfth century. Both wrote commentaries on the canons of the council of Carthage in the fourth century. They wrote that those books which were authorized for reading in the Church were the same as the ones listed by Athanasius, Amphilochius and Gregory of Nazianzus.

Again, I can continue to cite histographical evidence that shows that the apocrypha was not universally accepted. You can’t make a positive argument for canonicity in view of this controversy unless you just ignore the evidence in favor of your bias.

Hentenza said:

Tell you what, when you can prove universal acceptance of the apocrypha as inspired in the last 1700 years then we can have a meaningful conversation but for now all you are proving is your bias.

Even in the Orthodox Church, which they also call “the” church, the books of the apocrypha varied regionally. Nicephorus, the patriarch of Constantinople in the ninth century denied the apocrypha as canonical. He cited the number of canonical Old Testament books at twenty-two and stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not received as canonical by the Church. The perspective of the Trullan Council was also reiterated by Zonaras and Theodore Balsamon, the Patriarch of Antioch in the twelfth century. Both wrote commentaries on the canons of the council of Carthage in the fourth century. They wrote that those books which were authorized for reading in the Church were the same as the ones listed by Athanasius, Amphilochius and Gregory of Nazianzus.

Again, I can continue to cite histographical evidence that shows that the apocrypha was not universally accepted. You can’t make a positive argument for canonicity in view of this controversy unless you just ignore the evidence in favor of your bias.

Click to expand...

Ok, here’s what we really have. In truth, there have been dissenters regarding both the OT and NT canons from the beginning. Both canons, totaling 73 books, were recognized by 99% of the churches (apparently your criterion for universal acceptance and validity as per post #369) for centuries. Dissensions for both canons were revived centuries later mainly by Reformers wanting to justify erroneous doctrine. They backed off on the NT canon while continuing to dissent on the OT canon.

Incidentally, truth isn't determined or confirmed by majority vote, just as the earth was never flat just because most thought it was at one time. If all Eastern Orthodox and Catholics, and all other Christians for that matter, considered the deuterocanon to be inspired, that in itself would not make it so.

fhansen said:

Ok, here’s what we really have. In truth, there have been dissenters regarding both the OT and NT canons from the beginning. Both canons, totaling 73 books, were recognized by 99% of the churches (apparently your criterion for universal acceptance and validity as per post #369) for centuries.

Click to expand...

My statement referred to the NT as my post 369 clearly states. You can’t prove what number of the early churches (prior to the 4th century) even considered or read the apocrypha. You can’t even prove that the apocrypha was even included in the Septuagint during apostolic times.

fhansen said:

Dissensions for both canons were revived centuries later mainly by Reformers wanting to justify erroneous doctrine. They backed off on the NT canon while continuing to dissent on the OT canon.

Click to expand...

Once the CC progressively became powerful after the 4th century the apocrypha was added formally but not universally since the east was still regionalized and even had different books than the CC.

Hentenza said:

My statement referred to the NT as my post 369 clearly states. You can’t prove what number of the early churches (prior to the 4th century) even considered or read the apocrypha. You can’t even prove that the apocrypha was even included in the Septuagint during apostolic times.

Click to expand...

We can demonstatrate that both canons involved some degree of controversy in the early churches. And later. And so?

Hentenza said:

Once the CC progressively became powerful after the 4th century the apocrypha was added formally but not universally since the east was still regionalized and even had different books than the CC.

Click to expand...

The East, in the main, accepted the apopcrypha as well, and still does. Additionally the doctrinal concerns that the Reformers objected to are not an issue with the East.

DamianWarS said:

you're conflating not to mention bifurcating law. in ex 20 the 10 are introduced. Ex 24 there is a blood covenant (all before the tablets) In between those chapters is a whole pile of laws and commandments not of Moses but of God and this is the covenant that was formed to which the 10 are an inseparable part. the covenant is not just regarding the 10, it's the whole thing. so when you say "actively breaking" what you are really are saying is there are some we can actively break and others we can't but the distinction is biblically indefensible and we need to relay on post biblical tampering to understand what laws of the old covenant are not obsolete and what laws are obsolete.

the 4th is not a moral claim. by letter the instruction is regarding ritual rest. your remarks about the 4th are not about rest they are about devotion to God and I suspect you mean something other than physical rest. the 4th is also unambiguously on the 7th day, I'm not sure what day you keep but if your tradition can speak for you it's not the 7th day. the 4th is also as much about not working for yourself as it is not causing others to work. this would demand us to go off the grid during the Sabbath which is something I doubt anyone actually does. there's a manpowered system at the end of all these services we use daily. if they are non-essential then our participation in them violates the 4th. I don't know what you keep or not keep but I suspect it's not the 4th according to the 4th, and it's some traditional/modern contextual variant of it.

the 4th points to Christ and he fulfills it in the same way he fulfills other ritual/ceremonial/symbolic components of the law like the sacrafice or circumsion (all commandments of law). I don't break the 4th in the same way I don't break the everlasting covenant of circumcision made with Abraham or in the same way I don't break sacrafical laws or other ceremonial aspects of the law. why does the 4th not come under the same scrutiny?

Click to expand...

Sorry for such a late reply here-the forum problem simply wouldn't allow this to post previously.

I’ll give a real-life practical example so we're not just reciting theory here. I knew a man who became Christian in his 20’s or 30’s, grew in faith, along with hope and love as he continued in his walk with God. He had the usual struggles and dry periods, backsliding at times but overall growing nearer and nearer to God over a period of years. Now, much later in life he was very surprised to find himself in love with a woman not his wife. All the thoughts and desires that come with that territory came flooding in and the human mind is quite capable of justifying adultery because it can just plain seem so right and natural. Love, itself, might even seem to compel it.

And yet, among other reasons, there is that stark law against such activity. “But”, the man retorted…”did God really say that?” “Did He really mean that?” “Or are there circumstances where that law might not apply, such as mine???” “What is the Spirit saying here?” “What about polygamy, maybe; didn’t the Jews practice that in the past?” Ultimately the Holy Spirit won out over his desires as, gradually, he became aware, with much time and struggle, that love should and would oppose them. But that law was very instrumental in causing him to question himself and in keeping his passions at bay. The point is that the human heart and the human mind lack perfect knowledge, perfect understanding, perfect wisdom, perfect spirituality, perfect virtue and holiness regardless of whether or not one identifies as “born again”, "regenerated", etc. And so they can and may fail.

But the law, the commandments which Jesus and Paul specifically upheld, serves as a beneficial reminder of “what love would do” even as our flesh and everything that we think is right in the moment may strongly object. There’s a reason why the early churches and the early fathers had no problem continuing to uphold the ten commandments even while seeing themselves as no longer under the law- and that reason didn’t flow from ignorance. We cannot be justified by works of the law, by the removal of a little piece of flesh from the body or by mere external obedience of the moral law, by the Letter. But that doesn’t mean that the need for obedience is thrown out the door by the gospel/NC, or that a believer suddenly just obeys perfectly and/or without need for conscious effort and participation with the Spirit.

And, as I demonstrated, the 4th does come under scrutiny; still observed but in a new way as a day of devotion-and of rest. More on the teaching:

1193 Sunday, the "Lord's Day," is the principal day for the celebration of the Eucharist because it is the day of the Resurrection. It is the pre-eminent day of the liturgical assembly, the day of the Christian family, and the day of joy and rest from work. Sunday is "the foundation and kernel of the whole liturgical year" (SC 106).

fhansen said:

We can demonstatrate that both canons involved some degree of controversy in the early churches. And later. And so?

Click to expand...

None as much as the apocrypha which is the topic of discussion.

fhansen said:

The East, in the main, accepted the apopcrypha as well, and still does. Additionally the doctrinal concerns that the Reformers objected to are not an issue with the East.

Click to expand...

But their apocrypha was not the same as the one in the west. It is true that the doctrinal issues during the reformation pertained to the west not the east since the reformation was against the CC.