I'm presently researching a paper on baptism which I'm happy to say has taken me to Luther's Large Catechism and Calvin's Institutes, and finally to Zwingli's thought as well. I have always really disliked Zwingli and felt that he was a pathetic theologian. I feel so more strongly than ever now. Here is a quote from an article on Zwingli, who along among the Reformers rejected the sacramentality of water baptism.
All this raises an interesting question. Zwingli was not the first theologian to have a strong view of the sovereignty of God. Augustine and Luther are two others that come immediately to mind, both of whom touched Zwingli deeply. Yet neither of these, nor any other theologian for that matter, sensed a tension like Zwingli between sovereignty and sacraments. Thus, one concludes that there was something else in Zwingli’s equation other than his view of God.
That “something else” is his incipient philosophic dualism. Simply put, Zwingli believed that the flesh was evil, the spirit was good, and “ne’er the twain shall meet.” He was not a complete dualist in the Manichaean sense. Nevertheless, based on passages such as John 6:3 and Galatians 5:17, he saw a yawning chasm between the spirit and the flesh. “As long as we are in the flesh, we are never without sin. For the flesh and the spirit are contrary the one to the other, so that we do not do the things which in the spirit we would do. . . . All who are in the flesh are sinful.” This is because the flesh is always evil. As he says, “The flesh is mire; hence whatever comes from man is stained.”
That says it pretty well! From HERE.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
The Reformation and NT Canon
[...]As for Protestantism, the Anglicans and Calvinists always kept the entire New Testament But for over a century the followers of Luther excluded Hebrews, James, Jude, and Apocalypse, and even went further than their master by rejecting the three remaining deuterocanonicals, II Peter, II and III John.
The trend of the seventeenth century Lutheran theologians was to class all these writings as of doubtful, or at least inferior, authority. But gradually the German Protestants familiarized themselves with the idea that the difference between the contested books of the New Testament and the rest was one of degree of certainty as to origin rather than of instrinsic character. The full recognition of these books by the Calvinists and Anglicans made it much more difficult for the Lutherans to exclude the New Testament deuteros than those of the Old. One of their writers of the seventeenth century allowed only a theoretic difference between the two classes, and in 1700 Bossuet could say that all Catholics and Protestants agreed on the New Testament canon. [...]
From HERE.
The trend of the seventeenth century Lutheran theologians was to class all these writings as of doubtful, or at least inferior, authority. But gradually the German Protestants familiarized themselves with the idea that the difference between the contested books of the New Testament and the rest was one of degree of certainty as to origin rather than of instrinsic character. The full recognition of these books by the Calvinists and Anglicans made it much more difficult for the Lutherans to exclude the New Testament deuteros than those of the Old. One of their writers of the seventeenth century allowed only a theoretic difference between the two classes, and in 1700 Bossuet could say that all Catholics and Protestants agreed on the New Testament canon. [...]
From HERE.
Monday, March 03, 2008
382 Synod of Rome: The Perfect Canon of the New Testament
From the fecund NewAdvent.org:
[...]
In the middle decades of the fourth century the increased intercourse and exchange of views between the Orient and the Occident led to a better mutual acquaintance regarding Biblicalcanons and the correction of the catalogue of the Latin Church. It is a singular fact that while the East, mainly through St. Jerome's pen, exerted a disturbing and negative influence on Western opinion regarding the Old Testament, the same influence, through probably the same chief intermediary, made for the completeness and integrity of the New Testament canon. The West began to realize that the ancient Apostolic Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch, indeed the whole Orient, for more than two centuries had acknowledged Hebrews and James as inspired writings of Apostles, while the venerable Alexandrian Church, supported by the prestige of Athanasius, and the powerful Patriarchate of Constantinople, with the scholarship of Eusebius behind its judgment, had canonized all the disputed Epistles.
St. Jerome, a rising light in the Church, though but a simple priest, was summoned by Pope Damasus from the East, where he was pursuing sacred lore, to assist at an eclectic, but not ecumenical, synod at Rome in the year 382. Neither the general council at Constantinople of the preceding year nor that of Nice (365) had considered the question of the Canon. This Roman synod must have devoted itself specially to the matter. The result of its deliberations, presided over, no doubt, by the energetic Damasus himself, has been preserved in the document called "Decretum Gelasii de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris", a compilation partly of the sixth century, but containing much material dating from the two preceding ones. The Damasan catalogue presents the complete and perfectCanon which has been that of the Church Universal ever since. The New Testament portion bears the marks of Jerome's views. St. Jerome, always prepossessed in favour of Oriental positions in matters Biblical, exerted then a happy influence in regard to the New Testament; if he attempted to place any Eastern restriction upon the Canon of the Old Testament his effort failed of any effect.
The title of the decree--"Nunc vero de scripturis divinis agendum est quid universalis Catholica recipiat ecclesia, et quid vitare debeat"--proves that the council drew up a list of apocryphal as well as authentic Scriptures. The Shepherd and the false Apocalypse of Peter now received their final blow. "Rome had spoken, and the nations of the West had heard" (Zahn). The works of the Latin Fathers of the period--Jerome, Hilary of Poitiers, Lucifer of Sardina, Philaster of Brescia--manifest the changed attitude toward Hebrews, James, Jude, II Peter, and III John. [...]
[...]
In the middle decades of the fourth century the increased intercourse and exchange of views between the Orient and the Occident led to a better mutual acquaintance regarding Biblicalcanons and the correction of the catalogue of the Latin Church. It is a singular fact that while the East, mainly through St. Jerome's pen, exerted a disturbing and negative influence on Western opinion regarding the Old Testament, the same influence, through probably the same chief intermediary, made for the completeness and integrity of the New Testament canon. The West began to realize that the ancient Apostolic Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch, indeed the whole Orient, for more than two centuries had acknowledged Hebrews and James as inspired writings of Apostles, while the venerable Alexandrian Church, supported by the prestige of Athanasius, and the powerful Patriarchate of Constantinople, with the scholarship of Eusebius behind its judgment, had canonized all the disputed Epistles.
St. Jerome, a rising light in the Church, though but a simple priest, was summoned by Pope Damasus from the East, where he was pursuing sacred lore, to assist at an eclectic, but not ecumenical, synod at Rome in the year 382. Neither the general council at Constantinople of the preceding year nor that of Nice (365) had considered the question of the Canon. This Roman synod must have devoted itself specially to the matter. The result of its deliberations, presided over, no doubt, by the energetic Damasus himself, has been preserved in the document called "Decretum Gelasii de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris", a compilation partly of the sixth century, but containing much material dating from the two preceding ones. The Damasan catalogue presents the complete and perfectCanon which has been that of the Church Universal ever since. The New Testament portion bears the marks of Jerome's views. St. Jerome, always prepossessed in favour of Oriental positions in matters Biblical, exerted then a happy influence in regard to the New Testament; if he attempted to place any Eastern restriction upon the Canon of the Old Testament his effort failed of any effect.
The title of the decree--"Nunc vero de scripturis divinis agendum est quid universalis Catholica recipiat ecclesia, et quid vitare debeat"--proves that the council drew up a list of apocryphal as well as authentic Scriptures. The Shepherd and the false Apocalypse of Peter now received their final blow. "Rome had spoken, and the nations of the West had heard" (Zahn). The works of the Latin Fathers of the period--Jerome, Hilary of Poitiers, Lucifer of Sardina, Philaster of Brescia--manifest the changed attitude toward Hebrews, James, Jude, II Peter, and III John. [...]
Pray for Hebba
Over the last few days I have had some extensive and in depth discussions on Islam andf Christianity with a young lady whom we will call Hebba. While I can't go into details I I will tell you that our meeting and speaking with each other was totally random and unplanned. She is from a region that is about 100% Muslim and she has, to my knowledge, never met a Christian before.
Please pray that the Holy Spirit would open her heart to the Gospel and give me the ability to speak truth in love. Pray for her family as well, that like Noah's family, they wold all enter the ark together.
Please pray that the Holy Spirit would open her heart to the Gospel and give me the ability to speak truth in love. Pray for her family as well, that like Noah's family, they wold all enter the ark together.
Apostates of Islam, Parable, by Abu Daoud
An article of mine called 'Apostates of Islam' which will be of great interest to readers has been published by Saint Francis Magazine. They have also published a short parable of mine which has been posted on the blog before.
Please visit their website to download the PDF file.
Please visit their website to download the PDF file.
What am i reading? Andrew Walls, Forsyth
You always ask yourself: what is Abu Daoud reading these days? I know the question keeps you up at night, so here are my two current books: The Missionary Movement in Christian History, and The Day of the Jackal. Both great reads :-)
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Eusebius on the NT Canon
We often don't realize how tenuous the formation of the NT Canon was. The topic is relevant because of several recent posts on this blog about the Didache and 1 Clement, both of which were in wide use and respected. Also, the authorship of Hebrews was in dispute (as it us now). Here is an important section from Eusebius, and notice that he classifies Revelation as spurious (!):
It will be well, at this point, to classify the New Testament writings already referred to. We must, of course, put first the holy quartet of gospels, followed by the Acts of the Apostles. The next place in the list goes to Paul's epistles, and after them we must recognize the epistle called I John; likewise I Peter. To these may be added, if it is thought proper, the Revelation of John, the arguments about which I shall set out when the time comes. These are classed as Recognized Books. Those that are disputed, yet familiar to most, include the epistles known as James, Jude, and II Peter, and those called II and III John, the work either of the evangelist or of someone else with the same name.
Among Spurious Books must be placed the `Acts' of Paul, the `Shepherd', and the `Revelation of Peter'; also the alleged `Epistle of Barnabas', and the `Teaching of the Apostles' [Didache], together with the Revelation of John, if this seems the right place for it; as I said before, some reject it, others included it among the Recognized Books. Moreover, some have found a place in the list for the `Gospel of Hebrews', a book which has a special appeal for those Hebrews who have accepted Christ. These would all be classed with the Disputed Books, but I have been obliged to list the latter separately, distinguishing those writings which according to the teaching of the Church are true, genuine, and recognized, from those in a different category, not canonical but disputed, yet familiar to most churchmen; for we must not confuse these with the writings published by heretics under the name of the apostles, as containing either Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthias, and several others besides these, or Acts of Andrew, John, and other apostles. To none of these has any churchman of any generation ever seen fit to refer to his writings. Again, nothing could be farther from apostolic usage than the type of phraseology employed, while the ideas and implications of their contents are so irreconcilable with true orthodoxy that they stand revealed as forgeries of heretics. It follows that so far from being classed even among Spurious Books, they must be thrown out as impious and beyond the pale.
Note that in the last paragraph the teaching of the church (orthodoxy) helps to determine the canonicity of the disputed books! So much for sola scriptura :-)
It will be well, at this point, to classify the New Testament writings already referred to. We must, of course, put first the holy quartet of gospels, followed by the Acts of the Apostles. The next place in the list goes to Paul's epistles, and after them we must recognize the epistle called I John; likewise I Peter. To these may be added, if it is thought proper, the Revelation of John, the arguments about which I shall set out when the time comes. These are classed as Recognized Books. Those that are disputed, yet familiar to most, include the epistles known as James, Jude, and II Peter, and those called II and III John, the work either of the evangelist or of someone else with the same name.
Among Spurious Books must be placed the `Acts' of Paul, the `Shepherd', and the `Revelation of Peter'; also the alleged `Epistle of Barnabas', and the `Teaching of the Apostles' [Didache], together with the Revelation of John, if this seems the right place for it; as I said before, some reject it, others included it among the Recognized Books. Moreover, some have found a place in the list for the `Gospel of Hebrews', a book which has a special appeal for those Hebrews who have accepted Christ. These would all be classed with the Disputed Books, but I have been obliged to list the latter separately, distinguishing those writings which according to the teaching of the Church are true, genuine, and recognized, from those in a different category, not canonical but disputed, yet familiar to most churchmen; for we must not confuse these with the writings published by heretics under the name of the apostles, as containing either Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthias, and several others besides these, or Acts of Andrew, John, and other apostles. To none of these has any churchman of any generation ever seen fit to refer to his writings. Again, nothing could be farther from apostolic usage than the type of phraseology employed, while the ideas and implications of their contents are so irreconcilable with true orthodoxy that they stand revealed as forgeries of heretics. It follows that so far from being classed even among Spurious Books, they must be thrown out as impious and beyond the pale.
Note that in the last paragraph the teaching of the church (orthodoxy) helps to determine the canonicity of the disputed books! So much for sola scriptura :-)
That Hideous Strength at Fisher of Men
One of CS Lewis' best books is the last one in the Space Trilogy: That Hideous Strength. JD over at Fisher of Men has some great insights into evil from this book:
But Who Will Watch the Watchmen?
[...]N.I.C.E.’s weakness was its lack of power structure. The purported plot to completely abolish true mankind had to remain completely clandestine in order to appeal to the competing interests of the selfish workers of N.I.C.E. Only through manipulating flaws inherent in organizational power structures and through delusion were the Macrobes able to gain significant enough momentum to put the world under their sway.[..]
But Who Will Watch the Watchmen?
[...]N.I.C.E.’s weakness was its lack of power structure. The purported plot to completely abolish true mankind had to remain completely clandestine in order to appeal to the competing interests of the selfish workers of N.I.C.E. Only through manipulating flaws inherent in organizational power structures and through delusion were the Macrobes able to gain significant enough momentum to put the world under their sway.[..]
Ignatius, Jerome, and Bishops
Vulcan Hammer has posted about the question of bishops in the early church. Check it out:
Positive Infinity on Bishops
Positive Infinity on Bishops
Saturday, March 01, 2008
The Didache and the Jerusalem Council
Here is an argument that proposes that part of the Didache is in fact the Apostolic Decree from the Jerusalem Council (!)
The 'Apostolic Decree' commonly describes the letter reputedly composed by James and the Jerusalem apostles in c. AD 49 and sent to Gentile converts in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. The meeting that gave rise to this document (described in Acts 15.1-22) discussed the question of whether circumcision should be required of Gentiles wishing to convert to the (Jewish) Jesus movement. Luke's record of this 'decree' (Acts 15:23-29) emphasises that the requirements laid on these Gentile converts did not include circumcision.
Paul, in Galatians 2.1-10, appears to refer to the same meeting. Crucially, however, Paul omits mention of any 'decree'. This is surprising if Luke's account is accurate, since an appeal to the apostles' authoritative ruling should have silenced Paul's critics; those demanding the circumcision of Gentile converts. Scholars have generally explained this anomoly by suggesting that, although a Jerusalem meeting took place, no 'decree' was ever issued. Rather, Luke came across some rules for Gentile admission without circumcision, devised elsewhere, and imported them into his account of the Jerusalem meeting to give them added authority.
Another option, not previously considered, is that the Jerusalem meeting did produce a decree but that its contents were sufficiently ambiguous to support both pro- and anti-circumcision interpretations. This would explain Luke's reading of events as well as Paul's unwillingness to quote a document whose contents might have been turned to opposite effect. [...]
The 'Apostolic Decree' commonly describes the letter reputedly composed by James and the Jerusalem apostles in c. AD 49 and sent to Gentile converts in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. The meeting that gave rise to this document (described in Acts 15.1-22) discussed the question of whether circumcision should be required of Gentiles wishing to convert to the (Jewish) Jesus movement. Luke's record of this 'decree' (Acts 15:23-29) emphasises that the requirements laid on these Gentile converts did not include circumcision.
Paul, in Galatians 2.1-10, appears to refer to the same meeting. Crucially, however, Paul omits mention of any 'decree'. This is surprising if Luke's account is accurate, since an appeal to the apostles' authoritative ruling should have silenced Paul's critics; those demanding the circumcision of Gentile converts. Scholars have generally explained this anomoly by suggesting that, although a Jerusalem meeting took place, no 'decree' was ever issued. Rather, Luke came across some rules for Gentile admission without circumcision, devised elsewhere, and imported them into his account of the Jerusalem meeting to give them added authority.
Another option, not previously considered, is that the Jerusalem meeting did produce a decree but that its contents were sufficiently ambiguous to support both pro- and anti-circumcision interpretations. This would explain Luke's reading of events as well as Paul's unwillingness to quote a document whose contents might have been turned to opposite effect. [...]
Syriac and Aramaic
Both are Semitic languages (like Arabic, Hebrew, and Maltese), and here is the detail regarding their relationship to one another:
The Syriac Bible
The Syrian Orthodox Church believes that the Holy Bible, which comprises of the Old Testament and the New Testament, is the divine word of God. Its Fathers labored in translating the Holy Scriptures into Syriac since the very dawn of Christianity. These Syriac translations of the Bible are the oldest and most ancient in any language. Further, the Syriac New Testament is quite unique for it presents the teachings of our Lord in an Aramaic dialect (Syriac) which is akin and would have been mutually comprehensible with the Palestinian dialect of Aramaic in which Christ taught. Since the translation of the Bible into Syriac started as early as the first century, the Syriac version preserves the very ancient renditions of the original texts. In fact, the Syriac Church Fathers produced a number of translations of the Bible and revisions of these translations from the original languages of the Bible.
The words of Christ were first transmitted in his native language, the Palestinian dialect of Aramaic, either orally or in a written form. It is from this Aramaic tradition that the Greek Gospels were derived. The Syriac New Testament as we know it today is an early translation of the Greek text back into Syriac, the Aramaic dialect of Edessa (Modern Urfa in Southeast Turkey). The Syriac Old Testament is a translation from the original Hebrew and Aramaic (a different Aramaic dialect from Syriac which is known by the name 'Biblical Aramaic'). [...]
The Syriac Bible
The Syrian Orthodox Church believes that the Holy Bible, which comprises of the Old Testament and the New Testament, is the divine word of God. Its Fathers labored in translating the Holy Scriptures into Syriac since the very dawn of Christianity. These Syriac translations of the Bible are the oldest and most ancient in any language. Further, the Syriac New Testament is quite unique for it presents the teachings of our Lord in an Aramaic dialect (Syriac) which is akin and would have been mutually comprehensible with the Palestinian dialect of Aramaic in which Christ taught. Since the translation of the Bible into Syriac started as early as the first century, the Syriac version preserves the very ancient renditions of the original texts. In fact, the Syriac Church Fathers produced a number of translations of the Bible and revisions of these translations from the original languages of the Bible.
The words of Christ were first transmitted in his native language, the Palestinian dialect of Aramaic, either orally or in a written form. It is from this Aramaic tradition that the Greek Gospels were derived. The Syriac New Testament as we know it today is an early translation of the Greek text back into Syriac, the Aramaic dialect of Edessa (Modern Urfa in Southeast Turkey). The Syriac Old Testament is a translation from the original Hebrew and Aramaic (a different Aramaic dialect from Syriac which is known by the name 'Biblical Aramaic'). [...]
Erik Twist: Why Catholic? Part 3
Third entry on this series is here.
I remember well hanging out with Erik back in his anti-liturgy days when he would argue for women's ordination and other things like that :-)
But that was a long time ago, and in a different country.
I remember well hanging out with Erik back in his anti-liturgy days when he would argue for women's ordination and other things like that :-)
But that was a long time ago, and in a different country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)