Getting the facts right on “unbelief”

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 17, 2019

Atheism, Intelligent Design, theism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This item somehow missed the post last night. A study of atheists and agnostics, funded by Templeton, came up with some illuminating facts:

2. In all six of our countries, majorities of unbelievers identify as having ‘no religion’. Nevertheless, in Denmark fully 28% of atheists and agnostics identify as Christians; in Brazil the figure is 18%. 8% of Japan’s unbelievers say they are Buddhists. Conversely, in Brazil (79%), the USA (63%), Denmark (60%), and the UK (52%), a majority of unbelievers were brought up as Christians. (1.1, 1.2)
3. Relatively few unbelievers select ‘Atheist’ or ‘Agnostic’ as their preferred (non)religious or secular identity. 38% of American atheists opt for ‘Atheist’, compared to just 19% of Danish atheists. Other well-known labels – ‘humanist’, ‘free thinker’, ‘sceptic’, ‘secular’ – are the go-to identity for only small proportions in each country. (1.3)
Unbelief in God doesn’t necessarily entail unbelief in other supernatural phenomena. Atheists and (less so) agnostics exhibit lower levels of supernatural belief than do the wider populations. However, only minorities of atheists or agnostics in each of our countries appear to be thoroughgoing naturalists. (2.2, 2.3 More. –

Stephen Sullivant, Miguel Farias, Jonathan Lanman, Lois Lee, Understanding Unbelief: Atheists and agnostics around the world – Interim findings from 2019 research in Brazil, China, Denmark, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States

It would appear to explain a lot. Read the rest; it’s free.

See also: Why is the New York Times into witchcraft now? The good news is, we have far less to fear from hexes than from anti-free speech legislation and crackdowns on academic freedom at the universities. We really must encourage them all to spend more time, much more time, on hexes.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

KF, The time has come to reveal that I have used different names to post comments here. It was an interesting learning experience to participate in the discussions taken place in this serious website. You’ve done a tremendous work maintaining this forum active. Well done. Keep it going. You’re on the good side of history. Stay in it. Thanks.OLV_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
02:23 AM
2
02
23
AM
PDT}

KF, Your comment @113 is very important too. BTW, I want to expand on what I wrote @108 trying to correct my previous comment @4 on Christianity not being a religion. After listening to the messages in the two video links @108, where the term “religion” is understood as the outward expression of an internal reality, I realized that a more accurate statement would have been that true Christianity is not a worthless religion, but a religion acceptable to God, because it’s based on a relationship that was initiated by God through His grace poured on individual sinners that were brought to saving faith in Christ as their eternal Lord. This clarification should be added to the ones @111 which try to correct some misconceptions that were expressed in this discussion.OLV_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT}

KF, I appreciate the insightful comments you have posted in this discussion. They have made quite a difference in the understanding of the fundamental concepts we have discussed, which can’t be compromised.PaoloV_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT}

KF, Good clarification of such a fundamental term. Thanks!PaoloV_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT}

PV, literally, God-breathed, as in to speak, one must breathe out. KFkairosfocus_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

KF @112: “the authority and power of scripture comes from the theopneustos factor, which is there from the moment of composition — even, before the ink dried.” “the authority and power of scripture comes from the theopneustos factor, which is there from the moment of composition — even, before the ink dried.” “the authority and power of scripture comes from the theopneustos factor, which is there from the moment of composition — even, before the ink dried.” Should this be repeated more times? BTW, the Greek term KF used means “given by inspiration of the Spirit of God : divinely inspired“ That was in C1 long before the councils in C4.PaoloV_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

F/N: Back to focus, using dictionary stack, on
atheism Also found in: Thesaurus, Legal, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia. Related to atheism: Richard Dawkins, New atheism a·the·ism (??th?-?z??m) n. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. [French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a-1 + theos, god; see dh?s- in Indo-European roots.] a?the·ist n. a?the·is?tic, a?the·is?ti·cal adj. a?the·is?ti·cal·ly adv. American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. atheism (?e?????z?m) n (Philosophy) rejection of belief in God or gods [C16: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos godless, from a-1 + theos god] Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014 a•the•ism (?e? ?i??z ?m) n. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. [1580–90] Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved. atheism the absolute denial of the existence of God or any other gods. — atheist, n. — atheistic, adj. See also: God and Gods -Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
There is of course a classic definitional move since at least the 1880's, to redefine as ABSENCE of belief in God. This is often used rhetorically to suggest that as only those who make an affirmation have a burden of proof, this is a default and it is theists who have a burden of proof that it is doubtful can be met. Nonsense. We all have intellectual duties of care in general and as regards worldviews and linked cultural agendas. There are associated duties to truth, right reason, prudence (including warrant), sound conscience, fairness, justice, etc. So, when one holds a belief about a core issue on the root of reality, it is not isolated from wider worldview commitments and duties under comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power. Also, given that post Godel, not even sufficiently complex mathematical systems are subject to proof beyond doubt, that one cannot provide absolute demonstration is not at all the same as that one does not have adequate warrant to hold responsible certainty about key points of knowledge. In this context, the issue is reasonable, responsible faith in a credible worldview. Where, the claim one has "absence of belief in" God is often patently evasive. Why such a strange lack? Could it be that one knows enough to realise that trying to disprove the reality of God is an almost impossible task, once there is no demonstrable incoherence in the theistic concept of God? (Where, we note, that the old attempt to use the problem of evil to lead to such a contradiction has failed; a failure that is particularly evident, post-Plantinga.) Now, such is significant, especially given point 7 from the cited six-country study on atheists:
7. Also perhaps challenging common suppositions: with only a few exceptions, atheists and agnostics endorse the realities of objective moral values, human dignity and attendant rights, and the ‘deep value’ of nature, at similar rates to the general populations in their countries. (3.1)
A key to this, is the point that our mental lives are inescapably under moral government, through undeniably known duties to "truth, right reason, prudence (including warrant), sound conscience, fairness, justice, etc." The attempt to deny such rapidly undercuts rational discussion and the credibility of thought and communication, much as is implicit in what would happen were lying to be the norm. So, one who rejects the objectivity of such duties discredits himself. However, it is also possible to hold an inconsistency; accepting objective morality but placing it in a framework that undermines it. A start-point is to see that our rationality is morally governed through said duties. This means, our life of reason operates on both sides of the IS-OUGHT gap, requiring that it be bridged. That can only be done in the root of reality, on pain of ungrounded ought. And no, BB, indoctrination, socialisation and even conscience do not ground ought. We need that the root of reality is inherently and essentially good and wise, a serious bill to fill. You may dispute this (so, as a phil exercise, provide an alternative _____ and justify it _____ ), but it is easy to show that after many centuries of debates there is just one serious candidate: the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. One, worthy of loyalty and of the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. This is the heart of ethical theism. ET provides another angle. How much of reality do we know, how much of what is knowable do we actually hold, and how much of that is certain beyond future correction? The ratio is obviously trending infinitesimal. So, what if what is required to know God is, is beyond what one happens to know, or what one is willing to acknowledge? In short, the positive affirmation that there is no God is an act of intellectual irresponsibility, given our inability to show that being God is incoherent and our effectively infinitesimal grasp of what is knowable. Indeed, as it is easy to see that reality has a necessary being root (something of independent existence that therefore has neither beginning nor end), given that traversal of the transfinite in finite temporal-causal steps is a supertask and given that were there ever utter non-being, as such has no causal powers that would forever obtain, if a world is, something always was. Thus, the question is, what that necessary being is, and that is further shaped by our being under moral government starting with our rationality. Where also, a serious candidate to be a necessary being either is, or is impossible of being as a square circle is impossible of being. God is clearly such a serious candidate (if you doubt, kindly justify: ____ ), and so the one who poses as knowing that God is not implies having warrant to hold God impossible of being. Where, given the centrality of root of reality, ducking the question is clearly irresponsible. So, atheism is intellectually questionable. KFkairosfocus_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

SA, I should say NT documents, as Ac 2 underscores through copious use of OT cites and exposition. The Christian faith has been scripture-based from the outset; the concept, Messiah or Christ, is rooted in scripture as a key part of hebraic eschatology. The NT came about as amplification on fulfillment placed on record in the age of messiah and was organically tied to the founding, apostolic generation. I repeat, the authority and power of scripture comes from the theopneustos factor, which is there from the moment of composition -- even, before the ink dried. KF PS: Notice, Lk 24:
13 That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles1 from Jerusalem, 14 and they were talking with each other about all these things that had happened. 15 While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. 16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. 17 And he said to them, “What is this conversation that you are holding with each other as you walk?” And they stood still, looking sad. 18 Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered him, “Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?” 19 And he said to them, “What things?” And they said to him, “Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. 21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened. 22 Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning, 23 and when they did not find his body, they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive. 24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.” 25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
Also, Ac 1:
Ac 1: 1 In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach [--> implication, how was this CONTINUED through his Spirit and Apostles and church?] , 2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. 3 He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.
kairosfocus_{June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT}

Clarifications: Christians are people who know their own spiritual poverty. They look to Jesus for what they do not have, and know that in Him they have all that they need. (Colin Smith) Jesus said that blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Humility goes against the trajectory of religion. In all religions salvation is hoped for at the end. One does things hoping to please God and gain His favor. In Christianity salvation is at the beginning. Christians do things in response to having received God's grace (undeserved favor). Christians are sinners that have been saved by God's grace, through genuine repentance and faith in Christ's redemptive crucifixion and resurrection. That is not in any religion. However, as pastor Begg indicated in the videos posted @108, our relationship with Christ is religious too. But it's unique. Note that not all who claim being Christians really are. BTW, no bishop in Rome or anywhere else has the primacy in the church. That's misleading misinformation at best. Let's make that clear. The church -the community of Christ's followers everywhere- is one and it belongs to its founder Jesus Christ alone and it doesn't have any main headquarters on Earth.PaoloV_{June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

KF
Yes, the very first churches were founded before documents
Thank youSilver Asiatic_{June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

KF @104: Yes, agree.PaoloV_{June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

SA and KF, After listening to these two messages: Religion (video 1) Religion (video 2) I have realized that some of my statements, at the beginning of our discussion about "religion" in relation to the Christian faith, were inaccurate and must be corrected. My mistake. You may want to watch the above messages if possible in order to understand this better. Pastor Alistair Begg explains it quite well. Please, accept my correction. Thanks.PaoloV_{June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

SA, I have even more reason to hold points of concern given your last, and though UD is not in the main on such matters I believe these cases illustrate diverse ways of thought and their effects. For instance, the Christian Faith was a movement within Judaism c 30 AD, but by c 70 AD, there had been a generation-length process that led to an independent character even though there were many Christians who were practising Jews and saw themselves as serving the Messiah of the Hebrew Scriptures, rightly so. Do not overlook that Paul was seized captive in 57 AD in the Temple while completing Nazirite vows and could rightly call to the Pharisees among the Sanhedrin as a valid member of their party, pupil of Gamaliel. At the same time, the emergence of the gentile mission established (after Cornelius and Co) that one need not become a Jewish proselyte to be a Christian, the focal issue of the 49 AD council. In that context, the core of what is now the NT was written, being written, received and recognised as having the same theopneustos power as the existing OT corpus. My point is, such a writing speaks with the voice of God from the moment it is written, and its power and authority come from that voice. Church leaders and councils recognise this, on the inner and outer signs such documents have. Those documents specifically shaped the understanding of the faith, and were part of its founding process, though the cornerstone is Jesus of Nazareth and the core claim: messiah. It is that confession that is the cornerstone of the faith. Councils and their debates or conclusions are secondary -- they sought to recognise, they did not create out of whole cloth or arbitrarily impose. Yes, the very first churches were founded before documents including the creed of 1 Cor 15:1 - 11 were composed, and such could have been all over the Mediterranean basin. However, it is clear that by 40 - 50, theopneustos-level writings were being composed, the Passion narrative of Mk may date to 37. The 1 Cor 15 confession may not have been reduced to writing until 55, but was formally composed 35 - 38 (the authority lies in the substance, not the reduction to text -- which creates record). The letter of 49 AD is clearly scripture, and not merely incidentally so as background information like the letter to the Governor when Paul was taken from Jerusalem by night. Galatians and 1 and 2 Thess are about 50, the bulk was by 67 or so. These came about organically with the churches but take their essential nature from the theopneustos factor, not from in effect being voted in. KFkairosfocus_{June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

PS: Charles Hodge gives more detail on how serious theology is developed:
CH 1: In every science there are two factors: facts and ideas; or, facts and the mind. Science is more than knowledge. Knowledge is the persuasion of what is true on adequate evidence. But the facts of astronomy, chemistry, or history do not constitute the science of those departments of knowledge. Nor does the mere orderly arrangement of facts amount to science . . . . The Bible is no more a system of theology, than nature is a system of chemistry or of mechanics. We find in nature the facts which the chemist or the mechanical philosopher has to examine, and from them to ascertain the laws by which they are determined. So the Bible contains the truths which the theologian has to collect, authenticate, arrange, and exhibit in their internal relation to each other. This constitutes the difference between biblical and systematic theology. The office of the former is to ascertain and state 2the facts of Scripture. The office of the latter is to take those facts, determine their relation to each other and to other cognate truths, as well as to vindicate them and show their harmony and consistency. This is not an easy task, or one of slight importance . . . . CH 2: Every science has its own method, determined by its peculiar nature. This is a matter of so much importance that it has been erected into a distinct department. Modern literature abounds in works on Methodology, i.e., on the science of method. They are designed to determine the principles which should control scientific investigations. If a man adopts a false method, he is like one who takes a wrong road which will never lead him to his destination. The two great comprehensive methods are the à priori and the à posteriori. The one argues from cause to effect, the other from effect to cause . . . Every one knows how much it cost to establish the method of induction on a firm basis, and to secure a general recognition of its authority. According to this method, we begin with collecting well-established facts, and from them infer the general laws which determine their occurrence . . . . CH 5: . . . The man of science comes to the study of nature with certain assumptions. (1.) He assumes the trustworthiness of his sense perceptions. Unless he can rely upon the well-authenticated testimony of his senses, he is deprived of all means of prosecuting his investigations. The facts of nature reveal themselves to our faculties of sense, and can be known in no other way. (2.) He must also assume the trustworthiness of his mental operations. He must take for granted that he can perceive, compare, combine, remember, and infer; and that he can safely rely upon these mental faculties in their legitimate exercise. (3.) He must also rely on the certainty of those truths which are not learned from experience, but which are given in the constitution of our nature. That every effect must have a cause; that the same cause under like circumstances, will produce like effects; that a cause is not a mere uniform antecedent, but that which contains within itself the reason why the effect occurs. Second, The student of nature having this ground on which to stand, and these tools wherewith to work, proceeds to perceive, gather, and combine his facts. These he does not pretend to manufacture, nor presume to modify. He must take them as they are. He is only careful to be sure that they are real, and that he has them all, or, at least all that are necessary to justify any inference which he may draw from them, or any theory which he may build upon them. 10Third, From facts thus ascertained and classified, he deduces the laws by which they are determined . . . . The Bible is to the theologian what nature is to the man of science. It is his store-house of facts; and his method of ascertaining what the Bible teaches, is the same as that which the natural philosopher adopts to ascertain what nature teaches. In the first place, he comes to his task with all the assumptions above mentioned. He must assume the validity of those laws of belief which God has impressed upon our nature. In these laws are included some which have no direct application to the natural sciences. Such, for example, as the essential distinction between right and wrong; that nothing contrary to virtue can be enjoined by God; that it cannot be right to do evil that good may come; that sin deserves punishment, and other similar first truths, which God has implanted in the constitution of all moral beings, and which no objective revelation can possibly contradict. These first principles, however, are not to be arbitrarily assumed. No man has a right to lay down his own opinions, however firmly held, and call them “first truths of reason,” and make them the source or test of Christian doctrines. Nothing can rightfully be included under the category of first truths, or laws of belief, which cannot stand the tests of universality and necessity, to which many add self-evidence. 11But self-evidence is included in universality and necessity, in so far, that nothing which is not self-evident can be universally believed, and what is self-evident forces itself on the mind of every intelligent creature . . . . In the second place, the duty of the Christian theologian is to ascertain, collect, and combine all the facts which God has revealed concerning himself and our relation to Him. These facts are all in the Bible . . . It may be admitted that the truths which the theologian has to reduce to a science, or, to speak more humbly, which he has to arrange and harmonize, are revealed partly in the external works of God, partly in the constitution of our nature, and partly in the religious experience of believers; yet lest we should err in our inferences from the works of God, we have a clearer revelation of all that nature reveals, in his word; and lest we should misinterpret our own consciousness and the laws of our nature, everything that can be legitimately learned from that source will be found recognized and authenticated in the Scriptures; and lest we should attribute to the teaching of the Spirit the operations of our own natural affections, we find in the Bible the norm and standard of all genuine religious experience. The Scriptures teach not only the truth, but what are the effects of the truth on the heart and conscience, when applied with saving power by the Holy Ghost . . . . [I]n theology as in natural science, principles are derived from facts, and not impressed upon them. The properties of matter, the laws of motion, of magnetism, of light. etc., are not framed by the mind. They are not laws of thought. They are deductions from facts . . . It is no less unscientific for the theologian to assume a theory as to the nature of virtue, of sin, of liberty, of moral obligation, and then explain the facts of Scripture in accordance with his theories. His only proper course is to derive his theory of virtue, of sin, of liberty, of obligation, from the facts of the Bible. He should remember that his business is not to set forth his system of truth (that is of no account), but to ascertain and exhibit what is God’s system, which is a matter of the greatest moment. If he cannot believe what the facts of the Bible assume to be true, let him say so. Let the sacred writers have their doctrine, while he has his own.
kairosfocus_{June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

KF
indeed that was a focal point on the debate over an iota.
Debate resolved in Council, through the authority of the Church. The same process was used in the discernment of New Testament canon.
why a document was scripture from the moment of composition, on the recognition of such status from the outset
There was debate within the Christian community for centuries. The Church made a final declaration on what the New Testament contained. It is the authority of the Church that resolved the debates. The fact that some local communities recognized the sacred character of books is merely from the power of the authoritative teachers (bishops) who were the same men (or their successors) who met in council. The local churches are not separate from the Church. There are debates at the local level, and these are resolved with the authority of the Council. The New Testament came after the local churches already existed.
Christian faith emerged as a faith in its own right (more than just an odd sect of Judaism) across the same forty-year window that the core of the NT was written and recognised as scripture — thus one cannot properly claim that the one or the other came first
Here is our disagreement. I believe you are saying that Christianity "emerged" across a forty-year window. So, that prior to the existence of the New Testament writings, there was no Christian faith. But that contradicts what Paul says as he writes to existing Christian communities who possessed the faith, before the New Testament was written. The Christian faith did not emerge over 40 years. It came from Christ and was given to the apostles. They spread the faith before the New Testament was written. The New Testament comes from the Church, which pre-existed the writings.
mutual recognition among the apostolic circle and the reception by early communities as functional scripture forming a de facto corpus that went with the already existing hebraic canon was an organic phenomenon of the founding generation of the Christian faith, rather than a product of rulings by councils or decrees of local bishops
The councils are part of the organic process. Local apostolic communities had the authority of bishops, who made local decisions on what the inspired scripture was. The authority of writings was known from the origin, and in the early years, it was known if an apostle wrote the text and if it was divine by that aspect. But there was considerable debate. The Councils do not make arbitrary decisions. They make authoritative decisions by the power of God. That is how the debates were resolved.Silver Asiatic_{June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

PaV, I am afraid, you are hitting close to the mark. This is Grudem:
"[i]n systematic theology, summaries of biblical teachings must be worded precisely to guard against misunderstandings and to exclude false teachings." [Systematic Theology, Zondervan (1994), p. 24.]
I keep thinking how carefully worded key statements in Mathematics, the Sciences, Philosophy and Law are. KFkairosfocus_{June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

KF @102: “key statements must be carefully worded to avoid undue ambiguity” “key statements must be carefully worded to avoid undue ambiguity” “key statements must be carefully worded to avoid undue ambiguity” Should it be repeated more? The contextual meaning of words is extremely important. However, unfortunately very few care about this. Perhaps that’s a reason why communication between people is broken. Most conversations seem like individuals talking past each other. Really sad. Also, when we read any text, we shouldn’t make it say more than it does.PaoloV_{June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

SA, I note as fair comment that you keep repeating phrasing which is open to questionable interpretations; despite our already expressed concerns. This reminds of the principle of systematic theology (and a lot of other disciplines) that key statements must be carefully worded to avoid undue ambiguity, indeed that was a focal point on the debate over an iota. It finds reflection in Jesus' remark on jots and tittles [small distinctions between Heb letters]. More generally, linguistic communication pivots on distinctions as Paul observed on musical notes in 1 Cor 14. BTW, hence the importance of precise technical language and terms; e.g. the triune view of Godhead. I suggest you read again the above, especially on the theopneustos power root of why a document was scripture from the moment of composition, on the recognition of such status from the outset, on the mutual recognition of a corpus of scripture across C1 [i.e. it is established fact that the Christian faith emerged as a faith in its own right (more than just an odd sect of Judaism) across the same forty-year window that the core of the NT was written and recognised as scripture -- thus one cannot properly claim that the one or the other came first], and also the already linked fuller discussion by Grudem: https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/canon-scripture-wayne-grudem . Yes, we find by 95 - 115, use of 25 of 27 books (two short ones were not used incidentally) as scripture in the first surviving post-apostolic writings, and later in that Century we see the Muratorian list, then across the first several centuries, we can reconstruct the entire NT less 11 vv from cites, and finally we come to the conciliar lists of 367 and 397. The existence of theopneustos power writings (functional scripture) mutual recognition among the apostolic circle and the reception by early communities as functional scripture forming a de facto corpus that went with the already existing hebraic canon was an organic phenomenon of the founding generation of the Christian faith, rather than a product of rulings by councils or decrees of local bishops [overseers] etc. KFkairosfocus_{June 24, 2019
June
06
Jun
24
24
2019
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT}

Agreed, the Scriptures came from the Church. The Church existed for 400 years before the final New Testament was compiled. In fact, the Church existed before the Gospels were written. St. Peter preached the Gospel without having texts - he preached what Jesus had taught him directly and from what he experienced. St. Paul did the same thing. So, the Church was not founded on the New Testament, but rather, the New Testament emerged out of the Church community that was created by Christ and founded on the apostles.Silver Asiatic_{June 24, 2019
June
06
Jun
24
24
2019
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

The scriptures were written for those of us who weren’t there when Jesus ministered in the Middle East, was crucified and got resurrected. They were written and circulated within the church long before the C4 councils reviewed and discussed them. John 20:29-31 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.PaoloV_{June 24, 2019
June
06
Jun
24
24
2019
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

SA, on canon: https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/canon-scripture-wayne-grudem KF PS: I noted Ac 2 as first sermon, noting how it is rooted in the scripture principle, this is that. This has ever since been the pattern: scripture grounds preaching and its substance is built on it. As I noted above, what we have is a recognition of fresh, gospel driven writings with theopneustos, as part of the fulfillment of the promise of messiah. The NT era and general church age are part of the fulfillment of say 2 Pet 1. The gospels, history, epistles and apocalypsis came first, they were clearly collected quite early and the collection was used with Septuagint, leading to structure of the Bible as two testaments, long before councils acknowledged then centuries long practice. PPS: I add, Jesus taught 26 - 30, by 35 - 8 Creed was there in what 1 Cor 15 records, by 37 - 49 initial writings, with bulk at same time as Pauline Mission and then the persecutions, final works early 90s.kairosfocus_{June 24, 2019
June
06
Jun
24
24
2019
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

KF
The Christian faith has been scriptural from its outset, indeed the very first sermon by the church pivoted on drawing out the significance of texts, cf. Ac 2.
The New Testament, as a scriptural text, did not exist when that sermon you reference was preached. The authoritative Church is the "pillar and ground of truth". The New Testament came from the Church. The Christian Faith did not come from the Scriptures. It came from Christ, preaching to the apostles, then the apostles establishing local communities and writing the texts. The New Testament came later. The Christian faith came before the New Testament was written.Silver Asiatic_{June 24, 2019
June
06
Jun
24
24
2019
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

KF
Such shows that the councils recognised established facts rather than imposing essentially arbitrary lists and rulings.
Again, there remained disagreement and variation on what the canon of the New Testament should be through the 4th century as I already pointed out. The councils gave authoritative rulings on what the New Testament was. That was an action of the Church, which had authority given by Christ to determine the canon. You are speaking as if the local communities were independent of Church authority, but that is not true. The local churches complied with the rulings of the Councils and that's how an official text was made known to all the local churches.Silver Asiatic_{June 24, 2019
June
06
Jun
24
24
2019
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

SA, It may help to read what KF wrote @91 & @95 in order to further reduce misunderstandings.PaoloV_{June 24, 2019
June
06
Jun
24
24
2019
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

SA, pardon but it's not clips without context or reasoning. Notice, particularly highlights and interleaved comments. The above demonstrates that in the key window, 40 - 70 AD, the established hebraic scripture principle was understood by the earliest Christians as being extended by the Living Word, who authorised record by his commissioned, Spirit empowered Apostles and certain close associates who served as co-authors and/or aides (here, Mark, Luke, likely Apollos; also note others recognised as co-authors and scribes, similarly James the just and Jude). Consequently, within that mid-C1 text [right time, place, people] we see a personal and mutual recognition of Scripture-writing inspiration, theopneustos, which brought the emerging writings into the circle of documents useful to build sound conviction [from infancy up], to teach truth with the voice of God, to rebuke, correct and train towards being fully equipped to do good works. Thus, too, the need for skill to cut a straight furrow [rightly divide] on the part of leadership based on sound knowledge and capability extends across not only OT but the NT also. Then, their successors continued to recognise the writings with theopneustos power, as the first circle of post apostolic writers [95 - 115 AD] shows, involving 25 of 27 plus of course the OT, with use of Septuagint implying recognition of the legitimacy of sound translations. Also, note solemn warnings against false scripture-twisting teachers, often described as wolves pouncing on the flock, sometimes as disguised as sheep . . . and by extension as false shepherds. Paul also warns against spurious documents purporting to be from him, taking steps to authenticate . . . both of which further underscore the force of the accepted scripture principle by c 50 - 68 AD. This is 200+ years before formal recognition of lists of books by councils. Such shows that the councils recognised established facts rather than imposing essentially arbitrary lists and rulings. Likewise, the Nicene creed demonstrates beyond doubt that such councils and leaders sought to teach based on the counsel of the text, rather than imposing novelties, though of course novel terminology was used in key cases, indeed the notorious debate over an iota shows how careful they were to secure sound summary that would correct heresies, here, Arianism -- and Constantine accepted the summary for the sake of Empire unity despite his own clear Arian sympathies, which continued in his family leading to the 381 reaffirmation and expansion. The theopneustos principle and power are antecedent to such councils and demonstrably date to the point of composition and mutual recognition. The Christian faith has been scriptural from its outset, indeed the very first sermon by the church pivoted on drawing out the significance of texts, cf. Ac 2. Therefore, I suggest a rebalancing of remarks in such light. KFkairosfocus_{June 24, 2019
June
06
Jun
24
24
2019
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT}

SA, We all should keep reading it until we get it right.PaoloV_{June 23, 2019
June
06
Jun
23
23
2019
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT}

SA, In any book we may read, the most valid interpretation of the written text is the author’s interpretation.PaoloV_{June 23, 2019
June
06
Jun
23
23
2019
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT}

Yes, guys. I have read the New Testament several times. In fact, I read it every day and have done so for decades. No need to paste long selections. I know the text. It's a question of authoritative interpretation. If you do not believe that any such authority exists, then any interpretation must be accepted.Silver Asiatic_{June 23, 2019
June
06
Jun
23
23
2019
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

SA, there are various points of agreement, some of discomfort or disagreement. Let me quote a classic text or two on the eve of Peter's martyrdom and likely about the time of Paul's:
2 Peter 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son,[i] with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. [--> Parallel with the glory at Sinai] 19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed [--> recognition of OT], to which you will do well to pay attention [--> study, live by it] as to a lamp shining in a dark place [--> light of truth dispels darkness of untruth, a key function of scripture], until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture [--> notice focus on written, God inspired communication, in a recognised body of writings, a canon by implication] comes from someone's own interpretation. [--> both as originally spoken and now as soundly taught and applied, not twisted to deceive] 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along [--> with typhonic force] by the Holy Spirit [--> nature and power of inspiration]. False Prophets and Teachers 2 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies [--> the counterfeit, so the need for a yardstick of correct and corrective reference against what snuck in under false colours -- wolves in shepherds' clothing cf Ac 20 and misled out again], even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. [--> effect of scandals caused by the counterfeit] 3 And in their greed [--> a mark of the false] they will exploit you with false words. [--> contrast, GENUINE words coming from God and not twisted to exploit] Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep . . . . 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. [--> take the full weight of that "other"] 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. [ESV]
Likewise note allusion to Mark etc in Luke's prologue and thesis statement:
Luke 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. [ESV, note implication of using other sources and being a written yardstick of certain, holy truth. Paul cites Lk in a Pastoral Epistle.]
Now, again, notice these from Paul:
1 Cor 14:36 Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. 2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. 2 Tim 3:10 You, however, have followed my teaching [--> this implies the written also, not just oral], my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, 11 my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. 12 Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed [--> The underlying Gk, Pistis, speaks to convincing rhetorical proof], knowing from whom[a] you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings [--> thus OT, first learned from Mother and Grandmother], which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. [--> cf. esp Isa 52:13 - 53:12 as a classic text from Ac 8:26 etc, also cf Heb] 16 All Scripture [--> note class of document, characteristics to follow, extends from OT to the then emerging NT, long before councils formally acknowledged by listing the even then historic documents as scripture] is breathed out by God [--> plenary, verbal inspiration working through human authors, a partnership of inspiration] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness [--> the end and intended application, cf Isa 55:1 - 12], 17 that the man of God[b] may be complete, equipped for every good work. [All ESV]
There is more. Here is a key one from Paul's School, likely by Apollos (in my view as advised):
Heb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son [--> thus, the gospel proper and the Gospels etc that bear it], whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature [--> This is in the Nicene Creed, as part of the Sonship . . . creator is a primary defining characteristic of God, hence the assiduous attacks on this principle under false colours of science], and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. [--> one reference is to the partly intelligible to us laws of creation and providence sustaining the cosmos, another is to law in our hearts the law of our morally governed nature, a third is to written scripture, which we may search diligently as the Berean Jews of Ac 17:11 to see if teachings are so] After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. [--> key gospel themes] [ESV]
Note the recognitions and claims. Note the provenance, c 40 - 67 AD. The stories of kings and councils locking out arbitrarily and imposing what they will -- cf Dan Brown's silly claims and many others of like ilk -- are examples of false teaching intended to undermine and discredit manifest truth bought at horrific cost. KFkairosfocus_{June 23, 2019
June
06
Jun
23
23
2019
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

Ephesians 5:23 Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Acts 11:26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians. Acts 26:28 And Agrippa said to Paul, “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?” Romans 12:9 [ Marks of the True Christian ] Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. 2 Corinthians 9:1 [ The Collection for Christians in Jerusalem ] Now it is superfluous for me to write to you about the ministry for the saints, 1 Peter 4:12 [ Suffering as a Christian ] Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something 1 Peter 4:16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. Acts 11:26 whole year. Luke notes definite periods of time (18:11; 19:8, 10; 24:27; 28:30). Christians. Whether adopted by believers or invented by enemies as a term of reproach, it is an apt title for those “belonging to Christ” (the meaning of the term). It occurs elsewhere in Scripture only in 26:28; 1Pe 4:16. Christians. A term of derision meaning “of the party of Christ.” Cf. 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16. called Christians. The word “Christian” occurs three times in the New Testament: here, 26:28, and 1 Pet. 4:16. It means a person belonging to or following Christ. The name may have originated in the church, or it may at first have been a derogatory term used by outsiders. Acts 26:28 in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian? His question is an evasion of Paul’s question and an answer to what he anticipates Paul’s next question will be. His point is that he will not be persuaded by such a brief statement. Christian. See note on 11:26. You almost persuade me. A better translation is “Do you think you can convince me to become a Christian in such a short time?” Recognizing his dilemma, Agrippa parried Paul’s question with one of his own. would you persuade me to be a Christian. The king used a delaying tactic, arguing that a half-hour speech is insufficient time to become a Christian. In the first century, “Christian” (cf. 11:26) was probably a term of contempt (1 Pet. 4:16). Romans 12:9 Love. Believers’ love for fellow Christians and perhaps also for other people. sincere. True love, not pretense. In view of the preceding paragraph, with its emphasis on social concern, the love Paul speaks of here is not mere emotion but love in action, as delineated in the rest of the chapter (cf. Jas 2:1–4, 14–17; 1Jn 3:16–18; 4:19–21). evil . . . good. See Am 5:15. “Evil” and “good” frame vv. 9–21. love. The supreme NT virtue, which centers completely on the needs and welfare of the one loved and does whatever necessary to meet those needs (cf. Matt. 22:37–39; Gal. 5:22; 1 Pet. 4:8; 1 John 4:16; see notes on 1 Cor. 13). hypocrisy. See note on Matt. 6:2. Christian love is to be shown purely and sincerely, without self-centeredness or guile. be genuine. In classical Greek drama, the hypokrites (actor) wore a face-mask. The Christian’s loving behavior should not be acting a part or wearing a mask, but an authentic expression of goodwill. 2 Corinthians 9:1 Paul addresses the question of the collection of money for the distressed believers in Jerusalem, which the Corinthians had started but not completed. ministering to the saints. The offering they were collecting for the believers in Jerusalem (see note on 8:4). This section concerns the collection of money for poor Christians in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 19:21, 22; Rom. 15:25–28; 1 Cor. 16:1–4). Colossians 3:18 submit. See notes on Eph. 5:22, 23. The Gr. verb means “to subject oneself,” which denotes willingly putting oneself under someone or something (cf. Luke 2:51; 10:17, 20; Rom. 8:7; 13:1, 5; 1 Cor. 15:27, 28; Eph. 1:22). See note Eph. 5:22–32; “The Christian Family” at Eph. 5:22. 1 Peter 4:12 do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal. See 1:6–7 and note on 1:7; 2:20–21 and note on 2:21. the fiery trial. Peter probably wrote this letter shortly before or after the burning of Rome (see Introduction: Background and Setting), and at the beginning of the horrors of a 200 year period of Christian persecution. Peter explains that 4 attitudes are necessary in order to be triumphant in persecution: 1) expect it (v. 12); 2) rejoice in it (vv. 13, 14); 3) evaluate its cause (vv. 15–18); and 4) entrust it to God (v. 19). some strange thing happened. “Happened” means “to fall by chance.” A Christian must not think that his persecution is something that happened accidentally. God allowed it and designed it for the believer’s testing, purging, and cleansing. 1 Peter 4:16 Christian. In the earliest days of the church, “Christian” was a derisive term given to those followers of Christ (cf. Acts 11:26; 26:28). Eventually, followers of Christ came to love and adopt this name.PaoloV_{June 23, 2019
June
06
Jun
23
23
2019
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply