James White irc chat

[Guest]

Looks like we cross-posted, Steve.

[Guest]

It has been said that Martin Luther had some uncertainties about the book of James.

So could we say:

MARTIN LUTHER A HERETIC???

[Guest]

It has been said that Martin Luther had some uncertainties about the book of James.

So could we say:

MARTIN LUTHER A HERETIC???

Great point.

[Guest]

Martin Luther called the book of James "an epistle of straw". I have read that he relegated it to last place in his translation of the Bible.

Christ is the authority for His disciples, not the Canon of Scripture. The New Testament Canon as we have it today did not exist until Athanasius defined it in the 4th century. If the canon is accepted as infallible, then Athanasius must have made an infallible choice in the fourth century where he chose exactly the same books for his "New Testament Canon" as we have today. He called his list "wells of salvation" and stated that the plagues of Revelation would be added to anyone who added to his list and that anyone who subtracts from his list will have his name subtracted from those who partake of the Tree of Life.

Interestingly enough, Athanasius himself did not include the book of Esther in his Old Testament Canon, but did include Baruch! Should we have Bibles that do the same? If not, then by what authority do we include Esther and reject Baruch?

The Canon of Scripture is not my authority. Jesus Christ is my authority and His words are recorded in the gospels. Making the Canon one's chief authority is Bibliolatry. Here is the basis for truth which I see for disiples of Christ, and that which was taught by second century teachers:

1. Jesus Christ is the One who revealed the Father as He truly is. Learning His words and obeying them is the primary duty and privilege of His disciples.

2. Those whom Jesus taught --- his disciples are next to whom we should look as our authority. They taught the same things that Jesus taught, and in addition showed how Christ's teaching was to be applied in the lives of disciples.

3. The early overseers whom the disciples taught and appointed in the first churches who wrote discourses, also showed how Christ's teachings were to be applied as well as the apostles' teachings. Some of them wrote discourses explaining these things. Their writings are also consistent with the teachings of Christ and His apostles.

If there is any conflict in any of these early Christian teachings, then Christ's words come first and are the supreme authority --- the apsotles second, and the early overseers third. However, I seem them as being in harmony.

The early Christians also drew heavily on the writings of the major prophets to support their teachings ---- in particular Isaiah.

Clement's letter to the Corinthians shortly after the death of Peter and Paul, was widely read in second century Christian assemblies. Clement is believed to be the fellow-labourer with Paul whom Paul mentions in one of his letters. He was also an overseer in the assembly at Rome.

Whether or not one regards Clement letter as "inspired", it is well worth reading in understanding that the disorder in the Corinthian church went from bad to worse, and how Clement tried to correct the situation. At one point, he advised the Corinthians to take up Paul's letter and reread it.

[Guest]

I don't know why you chose not to continue the convo .... Neither do I understand why you chose to ignore Dr. White's numerous attempts to discuss the matter with you. It saddens me to think that you just came over looking for fodder and found it in my rebuke.

I didn't notice this until I was sharing it with my wife. If you will review my open letter to Dr. White, I think you will come to understand why I chose not to participate --

First, there is nothing edifying that can come following an exchange such as yours at least in that forum at that time. If I had continued the dialog, it would surely have devolved even further, and I confess a weakness in my heart that I may well have responded in kind if I had continued at that point. It was clear to me that I was to walk away from this situation.

Second, I did come back to see if clearer heads had prevailed, and they surely had not, so participating further in that forum would have had no value. As stated, I am happy to continue the discussions and have given Dr. White an opportunity to explain his views if he thinks I mischaracterized them. At this point, I will take him at his word as stated in the forum that he meant no disingenuity or mockery in his comments, though I would welcome his participation in this forum.

I do take exception to your point that I was looking for "fodder." I was looking for honest dialog and interchange, and didn't find it. I hoped to provide balance and input into the perspectives shared by Steve, and his motives, the history of which I thought the members might not have the advantage.

From my perspective, the channel participants are the ones who were looking for fodder, and seeking points of conflict to stir up. As a new guest, it felt as if there was a "gauntlet" of confession one had to pass through to gain acceptance by your group, and that all discussion was initially geared at discerning to what extent I met the "measure," so to speak before I gained acceptance and permission to express my opinions. I surely failed, but I ask you to question whether that approach is the welcome approach of a Christian fellowship or rather the approach of a cultic following.

I don't know who your primary ministry is directed to, but I think I need to add (by way of suggestion and not rebuke) that there is a time and a place for wise rebuke, and would suggest to you that if one first patiently and humbly gains the respect of an individual, he is then in a significantly better position to offer helpful rebuke and still be around to savor the aroma of the correction that would follow a true and honorable rebuke in young Christians, who may well have a fair number of wrong beliefs that need correction and guidance.

[Guest]

I believe that the exchange in context speaks for itself. I have explained myself and have no need to pursue it further.

God Bless,

Rich

[Guest]

My main point was not even doubt as to the reliability of our present canonical texts, but rather to the possibility that other texts (if present pre-canon) might have been included if available. If we were to discover them now, does somehow the timing of their discovery render them incapable of apostolic authority?

Basically, the only point I was trying to make (and remain convinced of) is that the authority of the bible to my mind is derivative of the authority of the apostles and not to the canonical authorities. The authority of the available canon rests on their reliability as attested to by those before me, but it is open to my mind as to newly discovered texts which should be subject at least to as rigorous a review as the present canon. However, if other letters of Paul were to be found, for example, I would hope that scholars could agree as to their authenticity and then I would have even more guidance than I presently have as to God's word. [underline added]

Darin,

I want to interject briefly here about the open canon issue. I'm only speaking for myself.

I haven't read the whole exchange on this. I probably won't have time, and I don't even know when I'll be back to read replies to this post. I'm not trying to post a drive-by--I'm posting this more as a clarification/elaboration on a part of the argument. (I'm also not really interested in wading through the irc transcript to judge people's attitudes, BTW. Not really a profitable use of time for me, trying to figure out whether which person behaved badly in which way--unless, perhaps, I were in some kind of spiritual authority or mentoring role over you or Rich. Which I'm definitely not. )

1.) I wouldn't say that everything written by an apostle was supposed to be scripture, any more than anything spoken by a prophet was prophecy. But I'll assume that you're talking about letters written by the apostles for the church.
2.) It's the underlined parts that are being most challenged, I think. When we talk about the canon, we're talking about the list of writings that God inspired. And your hypothetical situation involves assuming that God inspired writings, and then let them be lost to the Body of Christ. You're saying, "If X, then wouldn't we say Y?" As far as I know, it's not Y that people find objectionable so much as it is X. I can entertain hypotheticals, I just don't expect that this one will possibly happen.
3.) Even aside from any questions about the possibility of authoritative, inspired writings being lost. I have a hard time imagining what kind of evidence could be found that would provide a solid basis for believing that a newly-discovered document was actually written by one of the apostles--not because I think we can't prove anything about what happened 2000 years ago, but because strong evidence means strong attestation. I don't see how to get that with some hidden document. If such a document said, "I, Paul, define justification as etc etc etc," I might read it with some measure of interest. But I don't see how I could ever regard it as authoritative.
4.) FYI, personally, I don't like "closed canon" as the terminology to explain/describe this position. I would prefer saying that the canon is complete to saying that the canon is closed.

[Guest]

This probably deserves its own thread.

I appreciate the dialogue on this topic (and the spirit with which it was given). I certainly am no scholar and am not even all that studied on the subject, though I have read a number of treatments and considered it a good bit, so I have some inclinations and opinions, but am certainly open for correction or refinement of those views.

1.) I wouldn't say that everything written by an apostle was supposed to be scripture, any more than anything spoken by a prophet was prophecy. But I'll assume that you're talking about letters written by the apostles for the church.

I don't think I see the need for defining the apostles teachings as "Scripture" or not. I recognize the OT canon as Scripture, primarily as the apostles and Christ seem to have done so. One thing that has always interested me is why the Septuagint was so often cited by Christ and the apostles if it is not the preferred text for us today (that's clearly a digression). With regard to the New Testament, I'm not all that sure that even our present NT canon was in mind when Scripture was referred to by the apostles. So, the distinction you make seems somewhat artificial to my untrained mind.

I don't think we have authoritative teachings that really give us a solid understanding of the extent to which the apostles were gifted, generally, with inspired understanding of spiritual matters or whether God only spoke through them when they were "ex cathedra" so to speak (again, like Steve, I find it ironic that Reformed folks (making an assumption about your position) bear R.C. tendencies like this). To tell you the truth, if we found (and somehow authenticated) a letter written from the apostle Paul to his mom, explaining justification, I would probably not consider it significantly different from other NT epistles unless it somehow contradicted it (though this is a default position for me without solid reasons to believe otherwise and not a dogmatic assertion).

2.) It's the underlined parts that are being most challenged, I think. When we talk about the canon, we're talking about the list of writings that God inspired. And your hypothetical situation involves assuming that God inspired writings, and then let them be lost to the Body of Christ. You're saying, "If X, then wouldn't we say Y?" As far as I know, it's not Y that people find objectionable so much as it is X. I can entertain hypotheticals, I just don't expect that this one will possibly happen.

I'm not sure I understand your logic proposition, but I think again that God inspired the apostles themselves and not specific writings. Though it's not really knowable, He likely did supernaturally preserve some or all of our texts but that doesn't mean that he would not have preferred that we have all of them. I do trust that He preserved exactly what He willed to do, but I remain willing to allow Him the possibility to have preserved some for future revelation.

3.) Even aside from any questions about inspiration. I have a hard time imagining what kind of evidence could be found that would provide a solid basis for believing that a newly-discovered document was actually written by one of the apostles--not because I think we can't prove anything about what happened 2000 years ago, but because strong evidence means strong attestation. I don't see how to get that with some hidden document. If such a document said, "I, Paul, define justification as etc etc etc," I might read it with some interest. But I don't see how I could ever regard it as authoritative.

I do agree with this and can't imagine it happening, but consider your point the most likely

4.) FYI, personally, I don't like "closed canon" as the terminology to explain/describe this position. I would prefer saying that the canon is complete to saying that the canon is closed.

I prefer "present" or "sufficient."

[Guest]

Jugulum,

I misspoke, and I appreciate your correcting me (though you may not have been mindful of doing so). I wrote (above):

"were we to find another genuine book from the hand of the apostles, it would have a right to its place in the canon on the same basis that informed earlier Christians to include Romans and Galatians."

I still think a genuine letter from Paul would be as authoritative as those we now have, but you are correct in saying that it would lack the attestation of the early church, which formed a major part of the deliberations about the canon as we have it now. This would present only a difficulty in determining its validity, but, since we are only speaking hypothetically, I think the point I was making remains valid. I was mistaken in saying we would have "the same basis that informed earlier Christians to include Romans and Galatians"—since those books were accepted largely upon the basis of early attestation.

[Guest]

it would lack the attestation of the early church, which formed a major part of the deliberations about the canon as we have it now

That's a good point, though I suppose it's still possible that a discovery would include evidence that the early church considered it authentic as well.

It is hypothetical, I suppose, but it goes a way to coming to an understanding of how we view the texts and the canon.