The chief deficiency of Protestantism, according to Jason and the Callers, is that we only have a Bible that needs to be interpreted while they — Roman Catholics — have a pope who is the final word on interpretation. In other words, Protestants have multiple opinions about the Bible’s meaning while Roman Catholics have one truth thanks to its one pope (please don’t notice, by the way, when the church had more than one).
Given this anti-Protestant polemic (the new acceptable prejudice), I had a good chuckle when devout Roman Catholics had to come to the rescue to explain what Francis meant in his recent universalistic sounding homily.
Andrew Preslar did a pretty good impersonation of a Protestant reading his Bible when he wrote:
The key to understanding the Pope’s remarks is to understand that there is a difference between being redeemed–as are all men (objectively), because of Christ’s death and resurrection–and being saved or in a state of grace–as are only those who receive God’s grace by faith and abide in his love. It is also important to notice that the Pope was not teaching that atheists can be saved merely by doing good works. He made two distinct though related points; namely, that atheists can do good works and that Christ has redeemed everyone. For these reasons, we can “meet one another in doing good.” [1] Of course, the Pope’s point about the universality of the Atonement is disputed by Calvinists, and the teaching of Vatican II concerning the possibility of salvation apart from explicit faith in Christ is widely debated in non-Catholic Christian circles. Without here entering into these debates by way of argument, I want to describe how I think about this matter now, as a Catholic, with special reference to evangelism.
Bryan Cross couldn’t resist getting in on the fun of private interpretation:
Whatever the merits of these explanations of Francis, they flatly contradict the claim that Protestantism suffers from a diversity of opinions. Roman Catholicism does as well. You have the former Protestant line of Francis’ meaning, and then you have the cradle-left-leaning-social-justice Roman Catholic version. Link to NCR comments on homily. Protestants have to interpret the Bible and Roman Catholics (post-Vatican 2) have the freedom to interpret their bishops. Without any temporal power to enforce the right interpretation – whether Geneva’s City Council or the Roman Inquisition, we’re all Protestants now.
If Jason and the Callers had the slightest awareness of history, they would know that they jumped from the frying pan of denominationalism into the fire of Roman Catholic opinion making. But to justify their rational, autonomous decisionism, they continue to think they have chosen the church of Cappadocia circa 389 AD.
Modernity does make its demands.
Old Life 
Michael, we don’t have Josephus alone, but if you have a better, potentially hostile, jewish historical witness outside the NT canon, do tell. This is the guy who came in with Titus. Granted it’s been a while since I’ve done serious apologetic reading on the historicity of Christ, but if memory serves he has two works which are ‘our’ best on the veracity of the historical person of Jesus. He’s also the closest in time to the life of Jesus. He was widely considered The jewish historian of record. Kline points out that the tripartite construction analysis is already a biased approach in favor of an anachronistic reading of canonical development favoring a reconstructionist approach over appeal to ANE or even timely historical witness-Josephus. Barber’s analysis is trading on an approach that DETERMINES not receives the canon. This is an inherent bias, and I’ll take Josephus and whatever bias he may have over later developments.
LikeLike
Michael, I also want to point out that so far your appeals to canon haven’t had anything to do with the content of those books and we’re not talking about NT revelation, but rather the existence of an ecclesial body that says; ‘here’s the canon’. So, it seems to continue to be an authority question for you. Just remember protestants have ecclesial authority too, but it’s subjugated. Sufficient but not exhaustive nor infallible; ‘councils may and do err’. Anyway, just a reminder.
LikeLike
Michael,
Yes, that’s the article.
By “postmodern” I mean that you appear to have arrived at truth in a highly subjective way. I identify the true church a la Belgic 29 (biblical criteria). You seem to identify it via warm fuzzies.
LikeLike
“We” do have the apologetic value of Josephus’ record witnessing to Christ’s historicity. Yet, this is valuable to those who require an external witness apart from the NT Church. Josephus is not a disciple therefore he is given some extra credence by skeptics. Thank God for the unneeded witness. He gave the Jews of His day one in John the Baptist of His coming to fulfill all things.
I also find nothing in Barber that points to the idea that he thinks the Church does not “receive” the canon. Nor is that something I think, but I do think we should have a way to come to a knowledge of the Canon that is definitive not speculative.
Just remember protestants have ecclesial authority too, but it’s subjugated. Sufficient but not exhaustive nor infallible; ‘councils may and do err’.
I appreciate the reminder, but this is exactly why I can’t in good conscience accept the Reformed confessions that definitively say what books constitute the canonical limits of God’s Word and say we can only dogmatically “know” what the Scriptures teach.
LikeLike
Michael,
Make the Biblical (yes, Biblical) case for the RCC being “God’s directive and order”? No tradition allowed. That’s circular.
LikeLike
Drew,
I’m back.
You asked:
I think you missed the thrust of my third question. I understand the necessity from the Roman point of view of Tradition and the Magisterium to shed light on the Scriptures following the ascension of Christ. My question is more along the lines of, how did God’s people prior to that point know what was taught in the Scriptures? Did they have an infallible Tradition and Magisterium (i.e. was there an infallible body of works or spiritual governing body that could instruct David as to what God revealed in the Pentateuch)?
I don’t think we need a infallible magisterium to come to the recongition of the infallible one when it comes. All true authority is from God alone. I think this is exactly what the Bereans did. They search what they could know and recognized the authorized messager of Paul and the message of the Apostles of Christ. He was “sent”. Therefore, he could speak as one sent with authority and was recognizable as coming from God and presenting His truth.
I’m afraid I simply don’t understand your answer to my fourth question. I’m assuming that we both agree that the Scriptures are the word of God (as 2 Tim says, “God-breathed”) although we disagree concerning what constitutes those Scriptures. My question is, is Tradition breathed by God in the same sense or not? If not, is Tradition still the revelation of God but just in a different sense? Is the Tradition in every sense equal to the Scriptures to the point that they could be considered a third testament or a continuation of the NT or is there a qualitative difference between the Scriptures and Tradition that gives one authority over the other?
That was kind of why I answered the way I did. It isn’t that clear. I am willing that the canon be the 66 book canon or the 73 book canon. But it is a tradition that will get us to either one, therefore our canon can only be as reliable as our gift of being given it from the proper tradition, the apostolic tradition. This does mean God has given us more in His coming than just His wirtten word. We can by the guiding promises of the Spirit have all that Christ said even if it was not written. We can have all that all the Apostles taught even if it was not written, by the gift and promised protection of the Spirit. Does this make me fearful as a historical “bible only” type of guy. Yes. But God is good and can be trusted even if I don’t like the unknown possibilities.
If we can truly get to a rightful “Sola Scripture” canon without a existing community then we don’t need a “T” tradition, but other wise I see no way around it. The canon testifies to a existing community. Therefore there is a community in which that canon is received and created by the same Spirit who formed it.
Drew, does that help?
LikeLike
Erik,
Make the Biblical (yes, Biblical) case for the RCC being “God’s directive and order”? No tradition allowed. That’s circular.
I have never said it that way. What I have said is the Scriptures testify to a single rightful community that has unity, like the OT rightful community is testified in the OT. If somebody found the OT, but couldn’t find the Jews then the logical conclusion would be they were extinct or I need to keep looking. It shows there is a “chosen people.”
LikeLike
Michael, but then you’re saying RC ‘wins’ because it claims it. That is nothing but circular reasoning. More importantly this is one of those ‘reasons’ that eclipses the sole infallible authority of Christ over his church. ‘My sheep hear my voice’. Apart from Christ revealed in His scriptures by the Holy Spirit, we have nothing but subjugated authority. There’s nothing insufficient about that authority. It’s real and authoritative but bounded by it’s submission to it’s head. ‘Councils may and do err’.
LikeLike
Michael,
Glad to see you addressed my other questions too and I’ll get to those but I will make a comment your first response to me with Barber’s articles here. By the way, I know you’re dealing with this on a lot of fronts at the moment so thanks for taking the time to deal with me. I’m not so much interested in pitting him against Protestant scholars to determine a historical question about what was seen as the OT canon. Let me lay out the issue here as I see it and say why I have a problem with the Roman rendering of the issue.
1. The testimony of the OT (whichever version you choose) and the NT is that God revealed Himself to His covenant people, prior to the advent of Christ, in many ways, one of which being the Scriptures that we have come to know as the OT.
2. These Scriptures contained within them God’s revealed will for and to His covenant people.
3. There was false teaching also being circulated amongst God’s covenant people.
4. God held His covenant people responsible to receive and obey His revelation in the Scriptures against the competing claims of the false teachers.
The issue at stake here is not whether or not any particular consensus arose among groups of Jews on the issue of canon, nor when the canon became closed. The issue is that God revealed Himself, in His own words, in some books and not in others and that His people were responsible to receive the revelation that He had given at that time. In light of that, did God give a way for His word to be recognized and received by those people or not? So, perhaps I’m not seeing the other options here but it seems to me that leaves you with 3 options:
1. God did not provide a way for His people at that time to distinguish between His word and false teaching. This seems to me to be the most troublesome option because God’s word was given to point His people to Christ and lead them to life in Him but this option would preclude that and leave the people of God in darkness.
2. God did provide a way for His people at that time to distinguish between His word and false teaching but it is different from the way He provides after the ascension of Christ. This option has the possibility of being the broadest as there could be any number of ways that God could have used to differentiate, including the Reformed notion of the witness of the Holy Spirit. However, if the Romanist was to advocate for this view, it would then fall to them to tell us how this was and why God ceased to use this method to the point that it is invalid as a standard now. This view seems to me to be the least consistent with Roman theology.
3. There existed then, as there does today, an infallible Tradition and/or Magisterium which distilled to God’s covenant people what the word of God was. This option seems to me to be the most consistent with Romanist thought concerning the canon as a whole but if they did adopt this view, then what was that Tradition or Magisterium? I didn’t see any sort of identification of such in Barber’s piece or any other Romanist I’ve encountered, but rather the opposite.
If I am missing your actual position on this issue, I apologize but perhaps you can see why it is not easy to see what your position on this matter is.
LikeLike
Michael, how does your NT unity case work as ‘chosen people’? In one instance Barber is trading on the idea that the OT community is splintered along partisan lines, yet they have a canon. Our current NT church age is splintered denominationally as was the Apostolic order at different moments; John Mark, Barnabas and Paul. Rome has got a breadth of theological diversity rivaling liberal protestantism not to mention a breadth of fealty from agnostic Jesuits to trads to declarations of the religious that the magisterium is not the church. Your view of NT canon must admit protestants as canonical community as it stands. Tridentine RC isn’t the primitive church much less the church in practice or teaching during Paul’s missionary journeys. Rome doesn’t start to become Rome ’till pope Gregory. This is getting tough to substantiate.
LikeLike
Michael,
How do you defend the RCC Mass, which the Belgic calls a “cursed idolatry”? Where does the Bible teach that the Church should be offering Christ up as a sacrifice again, and again, and again, as if his one sacrifice was not sufficient?
What if the visible, “unified” Church that you have identified does things in opposition to what Scripture has commanded? Who wins – Scripture or that visible church?
LikeLike
Michael,
My contention is that when Protestants convert out of motivation for a unified, visble church they sacrifice far too much in terms of what Scripture teaches. They gain one thing but in so doing lose another that is way more important.
LikeLike
Drew,
It would probably be more in the category of your #3 option from my understanding but not near as definitive as the NT Church. Shadow and reality type of thing. Isreal’s Canon would have been part of the tradition of the nation even if it was or was not definitatively limited by the people. It has more to do with the people of the Nation, rather than a “magisterium.” But, it does seem Christ calls the people he teaches to do what those who sit on the chair of Moses tell the to do, but don’t do what they do. So, he calls them to trust what is clearly taught, but don’t be like the evil brood presenting that teaching. For clarity on much of this I would need to do more searching.
LikeLike
I’ll probably be able to get back to other concerns tomorrow, guys.
Peace,
MichaelTX
LikeLike
Strike two, Michael.
You were the one who asked about transubstantiation and baptism, while sean brought up the priesthood, which reasonably follows from Rome’s sacrifical system which you assume to be true. But neither are the answers to your questions rocket science, though they are spiritually discerned.
(Which is just the problem. Romanism is all about a sensual and external religion.)
Yeah, the comment tsunami has begun and now you are swamped, but maybe you should have thought about that before you started championing romanism as a novice, on top of failing to demonstrate a prior grasp of protestantism.
Which might as well be the syndrome endemic to Bryan Cross and the Called To Confusion cadre.
Jason Stellman for example, either doesn’t know, hasn’t heard or suppresses the reformed answers to the questions he poses and therefore jumps to the self justifying conclusion that he really did fight the Church, “But the Church Won” anyway.
(Perfomative) ecclesial deism indeed.
LikeLike
Erik,
The Mass is not a recrucifing of Christ. It is our joining the one and for all time crucified and living one who was slain before the foundation of the world. It is a sacrifice because it is that one same sacrifice. We are just able to come to it in the Mass, because we come to Him who calls us to Him. If it is not Christ we come to then the Belgic is right, if it is then it is completely wrong.
LikeLike
Bob,
I will try and answer a question if you have one. If you ask please understand you will be getting an answer from me. I am fallible. I also am neither Brian nor Stellman, though we have all come to the same fallible conclusion. This is exactly why I still am seeking an alternative view where Sola Scriptura would be valid. Please remember I am a husband and father of four and they are my priority.
LikeLike
Sean,
then you’re saying RC ‘wins’ because it claims it. That is nothing but circular reasoning. More importantly this is one of those ‘reasons’ that eclipses the sole infallible authority of Christ over his church. ‘My sheep hear my voice’. Apart from Christ revealed in His scriptures by the Holy Spirit, we have nothing but subjugated authority. There’s nothing insufficient about that authority. It’s real and authoritative but bounded by it’s submission to it’s head. ‘Councils may and do err’.
I am not nor have I said the Catholic Church wins, though my conclusion has been it is the visible historic NT community. How has “what” eclipsed Christ’s authority over His Church. If the Catholic Church is not used to present our one Lord’s authority to the people of the earth then I would also not be part of it. I do believe there is something insuficiient about the authority of the Reformed eclesiology. It is leaving me disciding the Canon of my authority. I can not see this being right. I’m not a leader in the Church. I’m a leader In my home and I want to have an answer for those under me.
LikeLike
Sorry, the second paragraph shouldn’t be italicizes. It is mine.
LikeLike
Michael,
If Christ’s body is at the right hand of the father how are you sacrificing it again? And why? And on what authority?
“It is a sacrifice because it is that one same sacrifice.”
???
LikeLike
It seems like the RCC is doing directly the opposite of what is talked about in Hebrews 10, and my contention is that this is intentional in order to foster dependency in the laity on the priesthood:
Christ’s Sacrifice Once for All
1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5 Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,
“Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
but a body have you prepared for me;
6 in burnt offerings and sin offerings
you have taken no pleasure.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’”
8 When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), 9 then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
And this doesn’t even consider the Second Commandment prohibition of the use of images in worship.
LikeLike
Erik,
Don’t you think it would be quite biblically ingotant of me to not know these teachings. This is exactly the passage I was alluding to. It is the one sacrifice offered by the one same and only High Priest which we who are being sanctified by that we come into contact with in the Mass. We are lead to the one and only truly salvific sacrific for which all the OT sacrifices only pointed. It is real hey were shadow. Only the high priest went into the Holy of Holies and only Inc a year, but now all come before the holy One through the body of Christ.
LikeLike
“It is leaving me disciding the Canon of my authority.”
This doesn’t make sense to me. Within reformed churches, part of our membership vows include submission to our elders. Likewise our elders confess fidelity to our confessions. Given the range of theological opinion among Catholic priests (e.g. Fr. McBrien at ND, Kung), it is hard for me to see how Catholics are less bound by personal authority. The same question arises when deciding who to submit to – why am I leaning any less on my own authority by joining the Roman Catholic church than say the Eastern Orthodox church or the PCA? Finally, if you want to approach the issue sociologically, do you really think the beliefs of the typical evangelical or confessional protestant are less orthodox than your typical Roman Catholic layperson? The data don’t bear this out – indeed RCs in america rank with mainline protestants in terms of heterodox beliefs (most believe the eucharist to be strictly symbolic interestingly enough).
It seems to me that the church, through her earthly leaders, has the authority to provide definitive teaching of what the scriptures mean. They do not have the authority to add, take away, or alter those scriptures. The problem the church has with authority is that it has no power other than moral suasion. If I don’t like something my church does, I can hit the road (unless I’m a scientologist) and join a similar one. Democracy and religious liberty (anarchy) have given us the smorgasbord of denominations – not the reformation. Once a church discredits itself morally (abuse cover-up by Cardinals?) or undercuts its own rationale for existing (ECUSA?) it has nothing left but sentimentality to hold onto members. We aren’t a very sentimental country.
LikeLike
Erik,
Can you tell me what you believe the New Covenant is?
LikeLike
sdb,
Not sure how much of our discussion over the canon/sola scripture contradiction you have caught, but if one is outside of a “confession” and part of that confession contains a list of the Scriptures and also say we only can dogmatical say what is found in the Scripture, then that leaves the discider to discide apart from Scripture if that is true. Most Reformed confessions say both so I can not confess them until I would see this logical problem resolved. I do not believe God had called me personally to discern the limits of the canon. I do not believe myself to be qualified for such a task.
Does that help?
LikeLike
Michael, how do you justify your Elders, and church officers “Priests” vowing never to marry, when Scripture says Elders and Deacons should be the husband of one wife. With they’re children not being hellions. Why asks Pual?
Because if they can’t manage their own households how will they manage Christs church?
How do you square this clear instruction for marriage in the new testament in both in 1 Tim 3, and Titus, and have the RCC come up with a whole new program forbidding Elders to marry? They will not allow they’re Priests to marry!
This is a prohibition that is not found in Scripture!!
How is that not a contradiction of new testament instruction?
LikeLike
Michael,
Strike three and you’re out.
I am not asking any questions. I am telling you that you are incompetent to deciding whether or not Rome is the true church because you can’t even give us the most elementary prot answers/rebuttals to your questions, all the while you tell us you used to be a prot. Not cool, particularly as the spiritual head of your family.
FTM Rome is hypocritical in (performatively) asserting perspicuity for Roman history and the popish fatwas, all the while denying it to Scripture. IOW perspicuity is a given. The question is, who or what qualifies and do we listen to Scripture or Rome to decide? Particularly since the last inconsistently appeals to Scripture for her authority in the first place. Or we could cut out the middle man and go straight to the Word. It ain’t a tough choice.
And as far as that goes, while it is true that protestant Whitaker says the canon is a tough question, it’s pretty much a red herring. You could and should just forget about it and concentrate on answering something closer to home. Is justification by faith alone the true gospel or is Rome’s semi pelagian version to be preferred?
But if you can’t answer that then you need to get off the internet and get your nose in the good book for the sake of your family, if nothing else.
ciao
LikeLike
MichaelT, Rome the “only rightful manifestation”? What about the Bishop of Cyprus?
LikeLike
Bob S,
I don’t understand you. I haven’t reread you first post to me until now, because you have not treated me like anything but a waste of your time. So first, can you explain to me why you lack Christian charity towards me, which is a real sign of our justification?
I don’t think I’m being sensitive here. It seems obvious you don’t care to talk to or hear from me.
Concerning your thoughts, there is a distinction of the sign and the reality truly received by and through the sign. Catholic doctrine has no problem with this. What is received it truly what is signified by the tangible sign. The “sign” is not the reality but the door through which the reality is truly there. We have faith because the reality is there, not the reality is there because we have faith.
I have On Christian Doctrine in my kindle right now. Thanks for the recommendation.
I am not from “old school” reformed Protestantism. And, I do have a sincere respect for the faithfulness that I hear among you guys. I do like that you guys seem to dig hard into understanding your communities confession and seek to keep your elders accountable to those confessions. I also see that if a “old school” reformed guy finds himself out of accord with your confessions you all find this to be something that must be dealt with through study and interaction with your elders. I see all this as good things. I do have respect for faithful “old school” guys. I would not be here if I had not found “true” interaction with people who care about knowing their faith and understanding others. I realize there is a true desire to be faithful to Christ and believe what is true among many I have come in contact with here.
Bob, I don’t find your disassembling of Catholic doctrine on the sacraments sufficient to compel my dismissal of my understanding. There is a lot of Scripture not dealt with there. Is there a good book or article you could recommend that would do just that? I am primarily seeking answers from the reformed view on the canon right now, but I do still desire to know more from differing points of view on other things, too. I also find the “real” Catholic understanding of Justification to be more Scriptural than the Reformed “covering” with the righteousness of Christ.
Sorry, the canon/sola scriptura question is not something I could just blow off. I still don’t understand why there isn’t a good answer for it. The Reformation is built on having the Scriptures for all doctrine, but there seems to be no way in Reformed ecclesiology to get to a sure knowledge of them.
LikeLike
Hart,
You need my whole phrase.
I say the Catholic Church is the only rightful manifestation of the visible Church
I don’t exclude Cyprus’s visible manifestation, but neither does Rome. It sure would be a long trip to the Divine Liturgy in Cyprus for me to be directly in their local communion though.
LikeLike
Doug,
Not all Rites in the Catholic Church requires celibate priest. Not even the Roman Rite has always required it and it could be changed if the Church leaders desired to do so. Personally, I think it is a good thing that I don’t have to via for the attention of my pastor with his wife and kids. Paul points to this as a good thing, too.
Was Paul unqualified for ministry?
LikeLike
Michael, be careful. I’ve given you a ‘sure’ way with covenant. You may not agree or understand it all, but if Barber is your ‘sure’ way or because Rome ‘claims’ to be the sure way. Those are different from not having been presented a reasonable and reliable case. Even your own MOC only requires a reasoned principle not a certain one. You make faith claims in your Roman fealty statements, they may have MOC way behind them somewhere but there isn’t a question that the surety/certainty claims trads are making, are noumenal ones. Just keep it fair.
LikeLike
Sean,
I haven’t discredited Kline’s ideas in any way. I think they are great so far. I just haven’t seen those ideas used to dismiss or limit the actual canon, yet. Still searching.
LikeLike
Kline never got into to actually examining books in regard to his theory. You also recommended his book on the topic and I asked you if he does show what I ask and you never said if he does or not. We haven’t got back to that yet. Barber isn’t an end all or anything for me. I read it for the first time the day I recommended it to you for some background. Did you end up reading Brown’s article?
LikeLike
Michael, the treaty form is intended to be a limiting factor. Kline doesn’t engage a direct polemic against apocryphal books other than they weren’t part of the historical covenant treaty between God and His people, they are deuterocanonical-written during the intertestamental period. They also don’t form the collection of the earliest reliable testimony; Josephus. IOW, they aren’t temple documents.
I haven’t read Brown’s article, yet.
LikeLike
Sean,
than they weren’t part of the historical covenant treaty between God and His people
This is the part I never noticed him trying to get at. He gave some categories to what he thought could be included in the ANE treaty documents, but never did any asserting or examining of actual texts. It kind of make it hard to argue or examine non existent arguments. Does he get into that in his book?
I hope you do get a chance to read Brown’s article. Like I said before it is one of the few articles I have read over at C2C.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/the-canon-question/
I found in had good depth and clarity for a article on this subject.
Later,
Mike
LikeLike
Michael, he’s a biblical theologian he’s working within the historical narrative of the mosaic covenant. The apocrypha was never part of the covenant treaty. It’s just not in existence. That’s why there’s been such issues with it, it’s an intertestamental consideration. It was never in the corpus of the mosaic/Israelite covenant. It’s just not part of the narrative. So yeah, he’s dealing with it, but his primary purpose isn’t to construct a polemic against the apocrypha it’s a byproduct of canon/rule of faith being intrinsic to covenant-treaty form.
LikeLike
Sean,
The apocrypha was never part of the covenant treaty. It’s just not in existence. That’s why there’s been such issues with it, it’s an intertestamental consideration. It was never in the corpus of the mosaic/Israelite covenant. It’s just not part of the narrative.
Isn’t this the dispute?
LikeLike
Michael, no this isn’t the dispute. The dispute is inclusion for canonical purposes, but if canon is intrinsic to treaty form, how does the apocrypha make the cut? So far, all you’ve said is that Rome says so. If you don’t like that then your argument would need to be canon is not coterminous with covenant treaty.
LikeLike
if canon is intrinsic to treaty form, how does the apocrypha make the cut?”
This is the argument for or against that I am waiting to hear. Does he get to it in his book?
LikeLike
Michael, yes he gets more in depth into what ANE treaty form is and parallels that with OT documents.
LikeLike
Again, he’s not going to take the apocryphal books written in the intertestamental period and scrutinize them. He’s going to bring into bold relief the ANE treaty form inherent in the mosaic covenant.
LikeLike
Does he get into trying to prove this “intertestimental” period being disqualified by some mandate, biblically or otherwise?
LikeLike
Sean,
It just seems so far there is just an a priori thing going on. I can’t buy the book right now. Does he even get into that or do you know of a work that does?
LikeLike
MichaelT, that’s odd. I thought at one time the Eastern church was schismatic. The wonders of Vatican 2.
LikeLike
Michael, as I remember it, there’s no prophet in the intertestamental period. I think Macc. points this out. The lack of prophetic voice/prosecutorial primarily and covenant lawsuit would rule it out of covenantal consideration. Not to mention authorship issues. I’ll flip through it when I get home.
LikeLike
Sound good Sean. I wouldn’t think “no prophet” necessarily means “no Holy Spirit Scripture” being not all OT Scripture was written by prophets. And it is not like there aren’t plenty of scholarly folks who argue “authorship” problems with other stuff.
LikeLike
Michael, you’re already poo pooing it? I never said all OT scripture was written by prophets. They’re kinda important to the mosaic administration however-covenant lawsuit, prophecy. You’re gonna have to get the book at some point ‘cuz I can’t do the whole thing per the combox. I may send it to you if I can spare it.
LikeLike
Hart,
There are even more recent schismatic communities that are still considered valid “Churches” with valid Apostolic Succession and Sacraments. Anathemas only apply to those who affirm what they know and understand is anathemas. Just because a leader in a “Church” receives an anathema doesn’t mean everybody in that community or even that person is going to hell.
LikeLike
Sean,
I’m not meaning to poo on it. Just voicing my concerns with what you have said. I do want to hear good arguments, I promise.
LikeLike