The Limitations Of HIstorical Study

Doubting Thomas,

And perhaps you should at least consider the possibility that you might be wrong and that the Baptist position is the Scriptural position after all; in which case there can be no doubt that the promise of Christ to be with His people as they evangelize, baptize, and instsruct "even unto the end of the world" is a promise of baptist church perpetuity - the lack of historical documentation for their existence notwithstanding.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, that was a promise to the apostles that He'd be with them till the end of the age, and He was (A.D. 70).

You may disagree, but in doing so you'd be making a midrash.

And calling any congregation in the early church a Baptist church is an anachronism.

 

The historic Anabaptist position has been to refer to the Fall of the Church under Constantine. Of course, this causes problems with the formation of the canon, etc. Personally, I take first-century extrabiblical documents with a grain of salt, second-century writings with a pinch, third-century with a tablespoon, and fourth-century documents with a whole cup brimming over with salt. Then by the time you get to Augustine, I think it's already all she wrote. I take the earliest councils under advisement but don't trust them to be correct. And my position has its own problems.

 

How would this relate to any apostles who lived past A.D. 70, such as John? Was His promise no longer valid?

 

I think a good book by a Baptist that seems to debunk the whole "Constantinian Fall" paradigm is D.H. Williams Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism.

 

Jonathan & Don - Yep, 'tis I! Thanx for the "accolade" - just enjoying the dialog. Can't seem to get many folks to respond!

I had wondered how you were doing since we visited at Campbellsville. Best - Bro. B.

 

Which goes to prove my original contention in this thread - that we cannot base one iota of our faith on historical research because, in the end, all such efforts boil down to "I think."

God will not judge us on the basis of what we thought about some book that some man wrote about events that none of us can really prove anything about. He will judge us on the basis of "thus saith the Lord."

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Alright...let me rephrase it: A great book by a Baptist that debunks the whole "Constantinian Fall" paradigm is D.H. Williams Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism.

God surely will judge us on based what we do with the revelation He has given us, which makes it important that we interpret it correctly rather than trying to squeeze it into a paradigm foreign to the thought of those who first wrote and received the Holy Scriptures.

 

Because it debunks notions regarding church history/Scriptural interpretation which did not even arise until within the past few centuries. In other words, those events so described in that book contradict such ahistorical ideas as "baptist successionism" which equally fallible men came up with relatively recently in attempts to square their positions with Scripture.

If that verse means what you imply it means, then why did God give some (and not others) to be teachers in the Church?

That's a little naive, considering that several others make that same claim and arrive at different conclusions as to what the "Biblical model of Christianity" is. In addition to that, folks were practicing Christianity for several decades before the New Testament was completed and about three centuries before the canon was more or less finalized. Are you suggesting you know more about "Biblical Christianity" than they?

[ September 21, 2003, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: Doubting Thomas ]

 

I'm suggesting:

1. You don't have any way of knowing if "they" were correct in their views of Christianity by any means other than comparing what "they" wrote with the Scriptures.

2. There were anti-Christ schisms before the apostles themselves were dead and when you base your interpretations of the Scripture on what "they" said, you may well be basing your interpetations on the very heresies that the apostles condemned. Again, the only way you have of knowing is by comparing what "they" said with the Scriptures.

3. That I can know just as much as "they" about Christianiy merely from studying the Scriptures. If I find the writing of some people in the historical record which conforms to the Scriptures, then I may cautiously say that they were of the truth.

But when the historical record is lacking in information about the existence of such people, it does not prove their non-existence nor does it militate against what I know the Scriptures to teach. Ultimately, my understanding must come directly from the Scriptures or else I must be in perpetual doubt about the accuracy thereof.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Wow. I can see this is going nowhere.

Looks like early apostolic fathers such as Polycarp and Ignatius were anti-Christian schismatics since they did not agree with Mark Osgatharp. Never mind that they were taught by the Apostle John and were martyred for their faith. Likewise most all the early apostolic church fathers were at least persecuted (if not martyred) for their faith in Christ. They also spoke out strongly against heresy. But since they would not have agreed with Mark Osgatharp's interpretaion of Scripture on several key issues, they--and not the heretics they spoke against--must have been the wolves in sheeps clothing. Meanwhile there are these alleged independent baptist groups who must have existed despite the fact that there is no evidence of it from that time period. Why? Because Mark Osgatharp's interpretation of Scripture demands it.

Meanwhile REAL heretics such as the Arians were fond of using Scripture to disprove the Deity of Christ. In fact, they cried, "foul", when extrabiblical terminology was employed in the Creeds to defend the Trinity.

BTW, my statement on the Canon is not "pure Catholic propaganda", though you would like it to be. The fact is that no one made an official statement which exactly mirrors the extent of our NT Canon until Athanasius in 367. Until then there was a variety of lists that, although having some basic agreement, consistently left out books such as Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, Jude, and 2 & 3 John, and Revelation. Despite this, God's people were continuing to worship God and practice their faith based on what had been handed down by the Apostles, interpreting the Scriptures which they did have available according this Apostolic "rule of faith".

The bottom line is that, although no individual is infallible, I'm at least going to give some benefit of the doubt to those early Christians who, although believing differently than what you or I have been taught about some issues, themselves were taught by the apostles and who willingly gave up their lives for Christ. I am not, however, going to pretend that some other group of hypothetical believers existed just so that I'll have someone in Church history who agrees with me and the interpretation of Scripture that I have been taught 2000 years after the fact.

 

Here, Here. Let's have our theology shaped by our knowlege of church history not our (supposed) church history shaped by our theology

BTW, on the formation of the canon:-

During the early centuries of the Church, there were many documents that claimed to hold "true" Christian teaching. Due to misinterpretation of various teachings, it became important to identify which were truly canonical and "inspired", and which were not. For instance, the very first version of the "New Testament", in AD 140, was written by an anti-Semite, Marcion, who deleted all references to Jesus' Judaism. This convinced the leaders of the Church that there was a dire need to authoritatively decree which books were to be considered truly inspired.

Marcion was the first to have published a formal canon list in about 140 A.D.. It consisted of Luke and ten of Paul's letters. A number of other letters, Acts of various apostles, and other writings began to circulate at this time. Some supported various groups of the time including the Montanists, Gnostics, Docetists, and others who were later declared to be heresies. Irenaeus declared that there could only be four gospels and the Muratorian Canon was soon published which included the four Gospels, thirteen letters of Paul, two letters of John, Jude, Revelation, the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Revelation of Peter (somewhat contested). The book of Hebrews was not included, although widely used and discussed even by Clement much earlier. The list of books in the canon continued to be debated throughout the third century until Eusebius published a list at the beginning of the fourth century. Books still in question included James, II Peter, II and III John, and Jude. Another canon was released by consensus in 367 A.D. which names the 27 books we know today. Additional books, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, I Clement, and the Letter of Barnabas were considered suitable for study but not as scripture. This last list of books was finally accepted by the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. and the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D

The general rules to be included in the later canons were:

It had to be written or sponsored by an apostle.
It had to have orthodox content.
It had to be publically used by a prominent church or a majority of churches.
Some books which appeared to meet these rules were later dropped when proved to be forgeries, such as the Acts of Paul. Approximate dating of the development of the New Testament: AD 200 AD 250 AD 300 AD 400

Selection of New Testament books as canonical was slow, the present Canon appearing for the first time in the Festal Epistle of Athanasius (A.D. 367). Ironically, it was not the deuterocanonical books that were the stumbling point, initially, but apparently the NT Scripture of the Book of Hebrews. Once this agreement on Canon was reached in it's final version, all major Christian churches used the same Canon. Basically, the Canon proclaimed in AD 367 by Athanasius is the same exact version of the Bible that the Catholic Church uses today.

The New Testament canon developed over a period of time and those of the early church fathers were as follows:-

Muratorian Canon
Four Gospels, Acts, Pauls Letters: Romans, I & II Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col. I & II Thess., I & II Tim., Titus, Philemon, James, I & II John, Jude, Revelation of John, Revelation of Peter, Wisdom of Solomin. Additionally the 'Shepherd of Hermas' was recommended for private study.
Origen's collection
Four Gospels, Acts,Pauls Letters: Romans, I & II Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col. I & II Thess., I & II Tim., Titus, Philemon, I Peter, I John, Revelation of John.
Disputed texts were:-
Hebrews, James, II Peter, II & III John, Jude, Shepherd of Hermas, Letter of Barnabas, Teaching of Twelve (Didache), Gospel of the Hebrews.
Eusebius's collection
Four Gospels, Acts, Pauls Letters: Romans, I & II Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col. I & II Thess., I & II Tim., Titus, Philemon, I Peter, I John, Revelation of John.
Disputed texts were:-
Hebrews, James, II Peter, II & III John, Jude.
Purposely excluded: Shepherd of Hermas, Letter of Barnabas, Teaching of Twelve (Didache), Gospel of the Hebrews, Revelation of Peter, Acts of Peter
Council of Carthage
Four Gospels, Acts, Pauls Letters: Romans, I & II Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col. I & II Thess., I, & II Tim., Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, I & II Peter, I, II, & III John, Revelation of John.
Pope Damascus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, stated the canon of Scripture, and listed exactly the same books the Catholic Church uses today. In the Synod of Hippo (A.D. 393) this same Canon was officially stated and adopted for all the Church, both East and West. However, it is evident that it found many opponents in Africa, since three councils there at brief intervals--Hippo, Carthage, in A.D. 393; Third of Carthage in A.D. 397; and Carthage in A.D. 419 - found it necessary to reiterate again and again the official catalogues. This canon, containing the Deuterocanonical books, was once again by the Second Council of Nicaea in 787; and then by the Council of Florence in 1442.

So tell me how your NT was compiled?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Matt,
Excellent post, my friend! However, watch out--your use of the word "Catholic" when describing the Church may bring the charge of "Roman Catholic propaganda" your way.

 

Kath'oulos - according to the whole. I don't believe I mentioned the prefix 'Roman' and no such usage was intended. Mark may have done, but that's a different matter... (Still waiting to hear whether his NT fell out of the sky, all books intact)

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Matt, Excellent post

 

Okay, Mark. Go ahead and judge those who disagree with your interpretation of Scripture as anti-Christ heretics. You are, after all, infallible, so your interpretation must be right. Since, you persist on subjecting both Scripture and the early Church which gave us the Scripture to your subjective viewpoint, I guess I have nothing more to say to you. You'll maintain your anti-historical misconceptions no matter what I say, so what's the use.

 

It is no Myth that there was no set Canon until the Council of Carthage in AD 397. Of course the NT Canon is the official Canon not because of the Church Fathers but because it is the inerrant Word given to the Biblical writers BUT it did require the Church Fathers to have to determine (and I believe through the leadership of the Holy Spirit) which books were not the Word of God and which ones were part of the Canon. We Protestants (OR Baptists for my Landmark friends ) like to say they discovered the Canon rather than Canonized it. Regardless of that terminology you still come up with the same conclusion.

The Church Fathers and Church Tradition are not irrelevant. The early Church Councils systemized our theology on the Trinity and Christology. That does not mean that tradition is equal to Scripture but Tradition is not irrelevant. Western Christianity (Both Protestant and Roman Catholic) is often referrred to as Augustinian. Ever heard the joke that the Protestant Reformation was Augustine vs Augustine? That is Augustine's view of Salvation (The Protestants) vs. Augustine's view of the Church (Roman Catholic)