Doesn't the RCC de facto commend someone's writings when they declare them a "doctor of the church"? Not on the level of scripture, of course, but by implication worthwhile and non-heretical.
Nobody is suggesting that the Holy Spirit isn't working through hearts and minds today.
Nobody wants to say that. But to not continually evaluate teachings and put new things in and maybe even take old things out is to act as though the Holy Spirit stopped speaking authoritatively thousands of years ago.
Sure. Which is what all expressions of the Christian faith would claim to have, irrespective of whether we believe that to be the case or not.
'Tradition is the living faith of the dead. Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living,' as Jaroslav Pelikan put it.
Trouble is, what some might claim to be a living tradition might not appear that way to someone else.
@Gramps49 - yes, of course and there are certainly figures and writings in any religious tradition who are going to be seen as exemplars - just as we might cite artists or musicians in particular genres or scientists in particular fields of study.
Besides, a consensus was never completely achieved back in the day. The egregious split between the 'Eastern' and 'Oriental' Orthodox doesn't show much sign of being resolved after 1600 years or however long it's been.
Then there's the ancient Assyrian Church of The East and other permutations.
There's a broad consensus across the entire Christian spectrum on various issues of course, and the contents of the NT is one of them.
As far as I know, only the Ethiopians have additional books in their NT that differ from everyone else's.
I know you are asking a rhetorical question. Why doesn't the Holy Spirit sort these people out and get them to agree and achieve a consensus?
Some Holy Spirit if he can't even do that ...
Meanwhile, @Gramps49 you wrote that there'd been 'a move' to include Dr MLK's letters in the scriptural canon which suggested there'd been some kind of formal initiative.
Now you are pushing back at me for discussing the barriers to achieving consensus on admitting any additional material to the canon as if this idea has come from nowhere or I'd made it up.
But there we go ...
We all have some kind of penumbra of additional material around those scriptures we consider canonical. The weight we put on that material is going to vary according to a whole rangeof factors.
Besides, a consensus was never completely achieved back in the day. The egregious split between the 'Eastern' and 'Oriental' Orthodox doesn't show much sign of being resolved after 1600 years or however long it's been.
Then there's the ancient Assyrian Church of The East and other permutations.
There's a broad consensus across the entire Christian spectrum on various issues of course, and the contents of the NT is one of them.
Who suggested you're sock puppets?
So, a consensus was never really achieved back in the day, but there's a broad consensus re: the contents of the NT... Whew!
Some Holy Spirit if he can't even do that ...
If the Holy Spirit wasn't integral to the selection and arrangement of the NT back then, by all means, no worries. But if it was, I'm not sure why suggesting a do-again, if not a do-over, isn't just as easily achieved today.
Besides, a consensus was never completely achieved back in the day. The egregious split between the 'Eastern' and 'Oriental' Orthodox doesn't show much sign of being resolved after 1600 years or however long it's been.
Then there's the ancient Assyrian Church of The East and other permutations.
There's a broad consensus across the entire Christian spectrum on various issues of course, and the contents of the NT is one of them.
As far as I know, only the Ethiopians have additional books in their NT that differ from everyone else's.
I know you are asking a rhetorical question. Why doesn't the Holy Spirit sort these people out and get them to agree and achieve a consensus?
Some Holy Spirit if he can't even do that ...
Meanwhile, @Gramps49 you wrote that there'd been 'a move' to include Dr MLK's letters in the scriptural canon which suggested there'd been some kind of formal initiative.
Now you are pushing back at me for discussing the barriers to achieving consensus on admitting any additional material to the canon as if this idea has come from nowhere or I'd made it up.
But there we go ...
We all have some kind of penumbra of additional material around those scriptures we consider canonical. The weight we put on that material is going to vary according to a whole rangeof factors.
You have misread what I was saying. Read for comprehension, friend.
It is one thing to say there had been a move to include the Birmingham letter in Scripture, but it was more among black ministers and lay people. I did say THERE HAS BEEN NO FORMAL MOVE TO SUGGEST THIS. But it is still widely read in black Protestant organizations and many theologians, including white theologians, as a classic work on Christian non violent ethics.
I gave many examples of contemporary writers who have written many thought-provoking pieces on Christian thought that we can consider sacred if not scriptural. While, in theory, the canon is still open, the one criterion that the writer should have been in close proximity to Jesus, i.e. have firsthand--okay second hand--no more than third hand knowledge of him and his teachings strongly suggests it will not be a contemporary writer. Now if, for some sudden reason, biblical archeologists can come up with a lost gospel or epistle that fits into the general body of the current canon, that can lead to some interesting debate--but I will admit, those debates are WAY ABOVE MY PAYGRADE.
To the question posed by the Riv: "Can't the Holy Spirit," create meaningful consensus anymore? I answer why should she? The current Holy Bible has many different traditions and perspectives as it is. If she didn't bother to do that then, why should she be so concerned about finding consensus now?
You have misread what I was saying. Read for comprehension, friend.
It is one thing to say there had been a move to include the Birmingham letter in Scripture, but it was more among black ministers and lay people. I did say THERE HAS BEEN NO FORMAL MOVE TO SUGGEST THIS.
Sorry, @Gramps49, but no one has misread what you said. Perhaps instead of telling others to read for comprehension, you should write for comprehension.
There was a move several years ago to place Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letters from the Birmingham Prison in the canon, but it was never formally proposed by any church tradition.
You now say “there was no formal move to suggest this,” but what you said originally was that there was a move several years ago to add the Letter to the canon, but that “it was never formally proposed by any church tradition.” (Emphasis added.)
To support your initial claim, you cited an article that didn’t actually say anything about there being such a move. When that was questioned, you said:
There was a move several years ago to place Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letters from the Birmingham Prison in the canon, but it was never formally proposed by any church tradition.
Was there more to this “move several years ago” than what is reflected in the article to which you linked? Because the only thing the writer of that article says about adding the Letter from Birmingham Jail to the canon is this:
I have long thought that if the canon of Scripture was ever re-opened, Martin Luther King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail should be the top candidate for addition.
I would think that a “move . . . to place” the Letter in the canon of Scripture would mean organized efforts advocating for both (re)opening the canon and for adding the letter, and taking concrete actions to try and make that happen, like petitioning decision-making bodies. This is just one person saying that if the canon is reopened, she’d like to see the Letter added to it.
Other than several black ministers calling the Letter from the Birmingham Jail an epistle for modern times, there has been no formal move to insert it into the canon.
Leaving aside that these ministers were never identified or quoted, “calling the Letter from Birmingham Jail an epistle for modern times” simply is not the same as a move to add the Letter to the canon of Scripture.
The bottom line is you made a claim and we took you to mean precisely what you claimed, and we responded to what you actually wrote. And now you’re back-peddling and blaming others for not reading for comprehension rather than just acknowledging that your initial claim was overstated.
Then, even if it was agreed there'd have to be some kind of consensus as to what to add, what to remove and the criteria for doing so.
Not necessarily. The Orthodox Church wouldn't give me communion if I showed up for it, so I don't feel like there needs to be consensus about the Biblical canon across all the various branches of Christianity.
I feel like there are the churches that really emphasize the Word, and there are the churches that really emphasize the Table, and these are often not the same churches.
@Ruth, I'd love it if the Orthodox Church gave you communion.
I couldn't promise that but I'd happily share the antidoron with you if you turned up at our parish, although I appreciate that isn't any consolation.
On the NT canon, well, where did the post-Reformation churches get that from? They continued to recognise the one accepted by the RCs who in turn continued with the one they shared with the Orthodox before the Great Schism.
Whether there needs to be consensus across Christendom as a whole is open to debate. There's already a consensus on the NT canon, other than with the Ethiopians who have additional books that nobody else accepts.
The point @Gramps49 raised - and yes, I did read for comprehension, my friend - about what would happen if archaeologists and historians found an 'authentic' new Gospel or epistle - however that would be defined - is a question I've already alluded to.
I asked it of the late Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and we had some good natured banter over it. I was a Protestant then.
He felt that it would be something that would involve all the Christian churches and scholars from across the spectrum. He also suggested there would need to be an Ecumenical Council, something @Ex_Organist disputes.
It's hypothetical of course and above all our pay grades I suspect, as @Gramps49 observes.
Whatever the canon includes or doesn't include doesn't diminish the value or excellence of non-canonical material whether it be the letters of Dr MLK or a particular devotional or theological work valued by any of the various Christian traditions.
I know some Orthodox who are very sniffy about Aquinas for example, others who believe he can be read with profit.
All truth is God's truth. It takes all of us a long time to align with it.
I'm sure all of us here who read the scriptures will have our favourite bits and least favourite parts and that will vary from Shipmate to Shipmate.
I don't see anything wrong with us having our own 'private canon' or 'window verses' so long as we don't elevate our own personal opinions over everyone else's.
Trouble is, what some might claim to be a living tradition might not appear that way to someone else.
That's the trouble? For the bone fide Holy Spirit? It can't facilitate meaningful consensus anymore?
It might be in process, but that's a long process that we're still in the throes of. And there are many spirits to be tested.
I'm sure every Christian has their own private canon, just like we all have our own preferred "window verses" as one pastor called them.
Ah, the "God moves in mysterious ways" bit. Oh well.
That's what I think of when people say "The Holy Spirit moves toward unity!" It's a rather crazy subjective thing, with lots of moving parts.
Personally, I'm skeptical of unity in religious movements. It usually requires earthly authority. Historically, that has been a rather bloody process.
Then again, I'm Protestant. So I would think that. And I'm not really upset by the "window verses" notion. Objectivity in religious matters is for authoritarians. I'm not one. I just seek to protect myself and others from authoritarians. Again, Protestant.
Trouble is, what some might claim to be a living tradition might not appear that way to someone else.
That's the trouble? For the bone fide Holy Spirit? It can't facilitate meaningful consensus anymore?
It might be in process, but that's a long process that we're still in the throes of. And there are many spirits to be tested.
I'm sure every Christian has their own private canon, just like we all have our own preferred "window verses" as one pastor called them.
Ah, the "God moves in mysterious ways" bit. Oh well.
That's what I think of when people say "The Holy Spirit moves toward unity!" It's a rather crazy subjective thing, with lots of moving parts.
Personally, I'm skeptical of unity in religious movements. It usually requires earthly authority. Historically, that has been a rather bloody process.
Then again, I'm Protestant. So I would think that. And I'm not really upset by the "window verses" notion. Objectivity in religious matters is for authoritarians. I'm not one. I just seek to protect myself and others from authoritarians. Again, Protestant.
Except that there have been plenty of authoritarian Protestants in history.
And plenty of Protestant sects can be authoritarian to a greater or lesser extent.
Popes and Patriarchs don't have a monopoly on authoritarianism.
Trouble is, what some might claim to be a living tradition might not appear that way to someone else.
That's the trouble? For the bone fide Holy Spirit? It can't facilitate meaningful consensus anymore?
It might be in process, but that's a long process that we're still in the throes of. And there are many spirits to be tested.
I'm sure every Christian has their own private canon, just like we all have our own preferred "window verses" as one pastor called them.
Ah, the "God moves in mysterious ways" bit. Oh well.
That's what I think of when people say "The Holy Spirit moves toward unity!" It's a rather crazy subjective thing, with lots of moving parts.
Personally, I'm skeptical of unity in religious movements. It usually requires earthly authority. Historically, that has been a rather bloody process.
Then again, I'm Protestant. So I would think that. And I'm not really upset by the "window verses" notion. Objectivity in religious matters is for authoritarians. I'm not one. I just seek to protect myself and others from authoritarians. Again, Protestant.
Except that there have been plenty of authoritarian Protestants in history.
And plenty of Protestant sects can be authoritarian to a greater or lesser extent.
Popes and Patriarchs don't have a monopoly on authoritarianism.
@Bullfrog, what exactly is meant by “window verses”? I’m making a guess, but I don’t know how accurate my guess is.
It's a term I picked up from a pastor way back.
A window verse is a passage of Scripture that a Christian will use as a "window" through which they see the whole gospel, or a much bigger message.
One big one is "I am the way, the truth, and the light, etc." "In Christ there is neither male nor female, etc." "For it is by grace you have been saved, etc."
Everyone has them, it's not a bad thing in itself, but it's a good to be self aware about.
"No tyrant like a petty tyrant." True dat. You don't even need to be ordained, all you need is power.
I think to @Gamma Gamaliel , I'm not trying to sneer at Orthodox or Catholics, but my own theological training makes me very intensely anti-authoritarian, including against my own blood soaked ancestors, who may be rotting in hell as I type.
@Bullfrog, what exactly is meant by “window verses”? I’m making a guess, but I don’t know how accurate my guess is.
It's a term I picked up from a pastor way back.
A window verse is a passage of Scripture that a Christian will use as a "window" through which they see the whole gospel, or a much bigger message.
One big one is "I am the way, the truth, and the light, etc." "In Christ there is neither male nor female, etc." "For it is by grace you have been saved, etc."
Everyone has them, it's not a bad thing in itself, but it's a good to be self aware about.
Heh, not everyone. I got put on the spot a couple weeks ago to name mine and could only fadge up a whole chapter--really, five chapters in a row.
You shouldn't be. I didn't say i had them memorized, just that that's the smallest text division i use in any way similar to the windows concept. In fact, i use it to stop panic attacks.
You shouldn't be. I didn't say i had them memorized, just that that's the smallest text division i use in any way similar to the windows concept. In fact, i use it to stop panic attacks.
It's wise. The other thing I've learned about the Bible is that it's bloody dangerous to use tiny bits of it at a time. That whole "taken out of context" thing.
That's true. I myself have trouble understanding single verses--something about "there's no context to this" just makes my eyes glaze over, and I can't take in what the single verse might have to say. Probably the result of sitting through too many "fill in the blank" style Bible studies--dire.
Originally posted by Bullfrog: I'm sure every Christian has their own private canon
I have never previously thought of it in this way, but my own private canon is the records of my parish church. Presbyterian churches have committees of ordained elders - the Kirk Session - and our Kirk Session records date back to 1713. Ours are a history of ordinary men trying to manage a parish in a Godly way. Not always succeeding, but always striving, as parish life threw up problems and issues.
Comments
Nobody wants to say that. But to not continually evaluate teachings and put new things in and maybe even take old things out is to act as though the Holy Spirit stopped speaking authoritatively thousands of years ago.
And the purpose is to have a living religion.
'Tradition is the living faith of the dead. Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living,' as Jaroslav Pelikan put it.
Trouble is, what some might claim to be a living tradition might not appear that way to someone else.
@Gramps49 - yes, of course and there are certainly figures and writings in any religious tradition who are going to be seen as exemplars - just as we might cite artists or musicians in particular genres or scientists in particular fields of study.
That's the trouble? For the bone fide Holy Spirit? It can't facilitate meaningful consensus anymore?
Besides, a consensus was never completely achieved back in the day. The egregious split between the 'Eastern' and 'Oriental' Orthodox doesn't show much sign of being resolved after 1600 years or however long it's been.
Then there's the ancient Assyrian Church of The East and other permutations.
There's a broad consensus across the entire Christian spectrum on various issues of course, and the contents of the NT is one of them.
As far as I know, only the Ethiopians have additional books in their NT that differ from everyone else's.
I know you are asking a rhetorical question. Why doesn't the Holy Spirit sort these people out and get them to agree and achieve a consensus?
Some Holy Spirit if he can't even do that ...
Meanwhile, @Gramps49 you wrote that there'd been 'a move' to include Dr MLK's letters in the scriptural canon which suggested there'd been some kind of formal initiative.
@Nick Tamen called you out on that one.
Now you are pushing back at me for discussing the barriers to achieving consensus on admitting any additional material to the canon as if this idea has come from nowhere or I'd made it up.
But there we go ...
We all have some kind of penumbra of additional material around those scriptures we consider canonical. The weight we put on that material is going to vary according to a whole rangeof factors.
Who suggested you're sock puppets?
So, a consensus was never really achieved back in the day, but there's a broad consensus re: the contents of the NT... Whew!
If the Holy Spirit wasn't integral to the selection and arrangement of the NT back then, by all means, no worries. But if it was, I'm not sure why suggesting a do-again, if not a do-over, isn't just as easily achieved today.
As for a 'do-again' or a 'do-over' now, well first of all there'd have to be a general feeling that such a thing was necessary.
Good luck with that ...
Then, even if it was agreed there'd have to be some kind of consensus as to what to add, what to remove and the criteria for doing so.
I don't imagine things were 'easy first time around.
You have misread what I was saying. Read for comprehension, friend.
It is one thing to say there had been a move to include the Birmingham letter in Scripture, but it was more among black ministers and lay people. I did say THERE HAS BEEN NO FORMAL MOVE TO SUGGEST THIS. But it is still widely read in black Protestant organizations and many theologians, including white theologians, as a classic work on Christian non violent ethics.
I gave many examples of contemporary writers who have written many thought-provoking pieces on Christian thought that we can consider sacred if not scriptural. While, in theory, the canon is still open, the one criterion that the writer should have been in close proximity to Jesus, i.e. have firsthand--okay second hand--no more than third hand knowledge of him and his teachings strongly suggests it will not be a contemporary writer. Now if, for some sudden reason, biblical archeologists can come up with a lost gospel or epistle that fits into the general body of the current canon, that can lead to some interesting debate--but I will admit, those debates are WAY ABOVE MY PAYGRADE.
To the question posed by the Riv: "Can't the Holy Spirit," create meaningful consensus anymore? I answer why should she? The current Holy Bible has many different traditions and perspectives as it is. If she didn't bother to do that then, why should she be so concerned about finding consensus now?
What you initially said was:
You now say “there was no formal move to suggest this,” but what you said originally was that there was a move several years ago to add the Letter to the canon, but that “it was never formally proposed by any church tradition.” (Emphasis added.)
To support your initial claim, you cited an article that didn’t actually say anything about there being such a move. When that was questioned, you said:
Leaving aside that these ministers were never identified or quoted, “calling the Letter from Birmingham Jail an epistle for modern times” simply is not the same as a move to add the Letter to the canon of Scripture.
The bottom line is you made a claim and we took you to mean precisely what you claimed, and we responded to what you actually wrote. And now you’re back-peddling and blaming others for not reading for comprehension rather than just acknowledging that your initial claim was overstated.
It might be in process, but that's a long process that we're still in the throes of. And there are many spirits to be tested.
I'm sure every Christian has their own private canon, just like we all have our own preferred "window verses" as one pastor called them.
Not necessarily. The Orthodox Church wouldn't give me communion if I showed up for it, so I don't feel like there needs to be consensus about the Biblical canon across all the various branches of Christianity.
I couldn't promise that but I'd happily share the antidoron with you if you turned up at our parish, although I appreciate that isn't any consolation.
On the NT canon, well, where did the post-Reformation churches get that from? They continued to recognise the one accepted by the RCs who in turn continued with the one they shared with the Orthodox before the Great Schism.
Whether there needs to be consensus across Christendom as a whole is open to debate. There's already a consensus on the NT canon, other than with the Ethiopians who have additional books that nobody else accepts.
The point @Gramps49 raised - and yes, I did read for comprehension, my friend - about what would happen if archaeologists and historians found an 'authentic' new Gospel or epistle - however that would be defined - is a question I've already alluded to.
I asked it of the late Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and we had some good natured banter over it. I was a Protestant then.
He felt that it would be something that would involve all the Christian churches and scholars from across the spectrum. He also suggested there would need to be an Ecumenical Council, something @Ex_Organist disputes.
It's hypothetical of course and above all our pay grades I suspect, as @Gramps49 observes.
Whatever the canon includes or doesn't include doesn't diminish the value or excellence of non-canonical material whether it be the letters of Dr MLK or a particular devotional or theological work valued by any of the various Christian traditions.
I know some Orthodox who are very sniffy about Aquinas for example, others who believe he can be read with profit.
All truth is God's truth. It takes all of us a long time to align with it.
Ah, the "God moves in mysterious ways" bit. Oh well.
I'm sure all of us here who read the scriptures will have our favourite bits and least favourite parts and that will vary from Shipmate to Shipmate.
I don't see anything wrong with us having our own 'private canon' or 'window verses' so long as we don't elevate our own personal opinions over everyone else's.
That's what I think of when people say "The Holy Spirit moves toward unity!" It's a rather crazy subjective thing, with lots of moving parts.
Personally, I'm skeptical of unity in religious movements. It usually requires earthly authority. Historically, that has been a rather bloody process.
Then again, I'm Protestant. So I would think that. And I'm not really upset by the "window verses" notion. Objectivity in religious matters is for authoritarians. I'm not one. I just seek to protect myself and others from authoritarians. Again, Protestant.
Except that there have been plenty of authoritarian Protestants in history.
And plenty of Protestant sects can be authoritarian to a greater or lesser extent.
Popes and Patriarchs don't have a monopoly on authoritarianism.
Aye. "New Presbyer is but old Priest writ large".
It's a term I picked up from a pastor way back.
A window verse is a passage of Scripture that a Christian will use as a "window" through which they see the whole gospel, or a much bigger message.
One big one is "I am the way, the truth, and the light, etc." "In Christ there is neither male nor female, etc." "For it is by grace you have been saved, etc."
Everyone has them, it's not a bad thing in itself, but it's a good to be self aware about.
"No tyrant like a petty tyrant." True dat. You don't even need to be ordained, all you need is power.
I think to @Gamma Gamaliel , I'm not trying to sneer at Orthodox or Catholics, but my own theological training makes me very intensely anti-authoritarian, including against my own blood soaked ancestors, who may be rotting in hell as I type.
Heh, not everyone. I got put on the spot a couple weeks ago to name mine and could only fadge up a whole chapter--really, five chapters in a row.
I'm impressed!
It's wise. The other thing I've learned about the Bible is that it's bloody dangerous to use tiny bits of it at a time. That whole "taken out of context" thing.
I'm sure every Christian has their own private canon
I have never previously thought of it in this way, but my own private canon is the records of my parish church. Presbyterian churches have committees of ordained elders - the Kirk Session - and our Kirk Session records date back to 1713. Ours are a history of ordinary men trying to manage a parish in a Godly way. Not always succeeding, but always striving, as parish life threw up problems and issues.