The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Book Two Catholic Philosophy
Introduction
The Middle Ages was dominated by the Church and thus intellectual thought was also dominated by churchmen.
There is a dualism present in the Middle Ages, the dualism of clergy and laity, of Latin & Teuton, of the kingdom of this world and the kingdom of God, of spirit of flesh and of Pope and Emperor.
The early part of the Middle Ages is dominated by Augustine and Plato. The latter part is dominated with St. Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle.
The misery of the Middle Ages "heightened the intensity of religious feeling". Nothing in the world which was full of death and war and strife was of value except for virtue because that steadfast virtue would lead to eternal bliss.
Part I. The Fathers
Ch. I The Religious Development of the Jews
"The Christian religion, as it was handed over by the late Roman Empire to the barbarians,
consisted of three elements: first, certain philosophical beliefs, derived mainly from Plato and
the Neoplatonists, but also in part from the Stoics; second, a conception of morals and history
derived from the Jews; and thirdly, certain theories, more especially as to salvation, which were
on the whole new in Christianity, though in part traceable to Orphism, and to kindred cults of
the Near East" (Russell, 308).
The most important Jewish elements in Christianity according to Russell:
1. A sacred history that justifies the ways of God to man
2. The existence of a select few whom God especially loves, i.e. The Chosen People or the elect
3. A new concept of what is righteousness. Practical philanthropy as part of the Christian concept of virtue comes from the Jews.
4. The Law
5. The Messiah, the Christians simply moved the prosperity from a temporal plane to a heavenly one
6. The Kingdom of Heaven
Judaism became different from other contemporary religions when it became exclusive and monotheistic. "Jeremiah and Ezekiel, especially, seem to have invented the idea that all religions except one are false, and that the Lord punishes idolatry" (Russell, 310).
The captivity periods in Jewish history were understood to be a justification of the nationalistic and doomsday prophets of earlier times.
The Jews looked to God as a parental relationship and the Jews could be purified through God's punishment.
Judaism also moved from a sacrificial religion to a non-sacrificial one when the Temple was destroyed.
Isaiah greatly increased the belief in a Messiah, possibly as a result of Persian influence.
The Hellenization of Jews was difficult. Jerusalem fell in between the Seleucid and the Ptolemies. When in 175 B.C. the Seleucid king Antiochus IV sought to fully hellenize the Jews he was met with resistance. In 170 B.C. the Jews revolted. This is the history told in the First Book of Maccabees.
It was during this time that the Jews started to believe in an immortality in order to account for the good suffering and the belief that God would reward the good.
Some Jews living in the diaspora were hellenized, but the survival of Judaism is the result of brave Jews in Jerusalem who fought to preserve the original and uniqueness of their monotheistic faith.
The Jewish focus on the Law made them an intensely conservative group.
Both Jews and Christians think a lot about sin, but Christians thought of themselves as sinners while Jews mainly did not.
After the Roman destruction of the Temple in AD 70 the Jews of the Diaspora became increasingly important, especially the very Hellenized Jews of Alexandria.
Philo, a contemporary of Christ, is the perfect illustration of Greek influence on Jews. Philo was orthodox in his religion and a Platonist in his philosophy. He was very important to the early Christian Fathers.
Showing posts with label Philo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philo. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
Sunday, November 12, 2006
The Christianity of John and the Institutionalization of the Church
(Originally written November 12, 2006 in Book 11)
John and the Logos Mystery
The Problem of Incarnation
Even if the problem of reconciling the notion of Jesus being the son of God and monotheistic YHWH was completed, the problem of the Incarnation had to be solved. Paul was blissfully unconcerned with this problem. It was enough for Paul to simply state that Jesus was God.
John identifies Christ as Logos. The Logos was with God in the beginning and through the Logos all was created. Then the Logos became flesh and dwelled among his creation for a time, but his own creation did not recognize it.
John and Paul's views compared
John, using the term "Logos" introduced a technical Greek philosophical term to Judaism and the mystery cults.
Paul and John's views are similar. Neither knew Jesus personally and each were driven by a profound mysticism.
Linehan: Didn't John know him?
Both were Jewish and both opened Christianity to Jews and Gentiles alike. Both agreed that salvation was not continued existence in time, but a rebirth free of sins, frustration and defeat.
John rose above the provincialism of Jesus and interpreted the personality of Jesus from the broad perspective of non-Jewish thought.
John was mystical in the sense of Hellenized Alexandria. He was more philosophical than Paul.
John's Jesus was not Paul's resurrected God, he was the Logos of Hellenistic Philosophy
Origins of the Logos Doctrine
The Logos had a faint beginning in Heraclitus, but was developed by Stoicism.
Stoicism's logos influenced much of Hellenistic philosophy and even some Jewish sects.
The Jewish logos appears in Philo, a Jewish philosopher of the Diaspora.
Philo was an Alexandrian Jew. Alexandria was the center of logos - thinking.
Philo was a younger contemporary of Jesus but seems never to have heard of him.
Philo was a younger contemporary of Jesus, but seems never to have heard of him.
Phil worked to harmonize Judaism with the current philosophical trend of the Roman world. In doing so he provided a basis for Christianity to develop.
YHWH began as an anthropomorphic being, but became so cosmic a deity that He seemed indifferent to man.
The changing of the times saw all religions seek to bring man closer to God and Philo attempted this within Judaism.
The logos of Philo was how God interacted with man; how He bridged the chasm between man and God, and how He revealed Himself to man.
John's Account of the Logos
John's use of the Logos in Christianity made it philosophically respectable to the world.
John saw Jesus as the eternal and divine Logos which happened to take a human form at a particular point in space and time.
How did the logos take form of man? John's answer was we do not know how and must accept it on faith.
Why did it come about? John stated that God so loved the world he sent the logos to save it.
Philo was interested with the logos for epistemic and metaphysical functions. John was interested with he logos for its redemptive qualities.
John's emphasis of love, kindness and mercy did not add anything new to YHWH. His non-emphasis of wrath is what added something to YHWH.
The Effects of Institutionalism
John and Paul were the most important figures in shaping the conception of God in Christianity.
After John and Paul, Christianity (like every other institutionalized movement) began to settle down and be reinterpreted.
What the Message Gained and Lost
Mysticism as a basis was too exclusive for the masses. Non-mystics had to reinterpret the message for themselves.
Salvation as an inner change became a notion that was to happen down the road and not immediately.
The otherworldliness of Paul became a Christian notion of separating one's self from the physical world.
The Church moved from mysticism and logos to an appeal to the magic of the sacraments, a new rigorous ascetic law, a fear worship of God and fear of hellfire instead of love and identification with the divine.
The Church and its Mystics
The Church and Christian mystics have had trouble achieving a Christian unity
The mystic views the Church as unnecessary and dangerous; the Church views the mystic as a maverick and a trouble-maker.
The amazing part of Christianity is the Church's use of mystics to continually revitalize itself.
The Church as an institution owes its longevity to the mystics. The massive lifespan of Christianity has caused its adherents to claim a divine establishment.
The Institutionalization of the Jesus Movement
Initially the disciples and Paul wanted to institutionalize the Church.
As the Apostles and Paul died off, interpretation of their writings became key. Heresies and orthodoxy became an issue.
The ideal of Orthodoxy
Christianity distinguished itself from the other mystery cults by being intolerant of the other ones. While every cult claimed to posses the key to salvation they allowed other cults to exist. With an intolerant God, Christianity could not be tolerant of rival salvation processes.
The Christians demanded uniform worship, the demanded orthodoxy. Determining what was orthodoxy was the growth of the Church as an institution.
Irenaeus, a bishop of the 2nd century put forth a view held by the Church still today. Bishops received (originally) the true doctrine from the authority of the Apostles. Successive bishops received this authority upon appointment and disagreements between bishops were to be solved by our infallible episcopate vote.
John and the Logos Mystery
The Problem of Incarnation
Even if the problem of reconciling the notion of Jesus being the son of God and monotheistic YHWH was completed, the problem of the Incarnation had to be solved. Paul was blissfully unconcerned with this problem. It was enough for Paul to simply state that Jesus was God.
John identifies Christ as Logos. The Logos was with God in the beginning and through the Logos all was created. Then the Logos became flesh and dwelled among his creation for a time, but his own creation did not recognize it.
John and Paul's views compared
John, using the term "Logos" introduced a technical Greek philosophical term to Judaism and the mystery cults.
Paul and John's views are similar. Neither knew Jesus personally and each were driven by a profound mysticism.
Linehan: Didn't John know him?
Both were Jewish and both opened Christianity to Jews and Gentiles alike. Both agreed that salvation was not continued existence in time, but a rebirth free of sins, frustration and defeat.
John rose above the provincialism of Jesus and interpreted the personality of Jesus from the broad perspective of non-Jewish thought.
John was mystical in the sense of Hellenized Alexandria. He was more philosophical than Paul.
John's Jesus was not Paul's resurrected God, he was the Logos of Hellenistic Philosophy
Origins of the Logos Doctrine
The Logos had a faint beginning in Heraclitus, but was developed by Stoicism.
Stoicism's logos influenced much of Hellenistic philosophy and even some Jewish sects.
The Jewish logos appears in Philo, a Jewish philosopher of the Diaspora.
Philo was an Alexandrian Jew. Alexandria was the center of logos - thinking.
Philo was a younger contemporary of Jesus but seems never to have heard of him.
Philo was a younger contemporary of Jesus, but seems never to have heard of him.
Phil worked to harmonize Judaism with the current philosophical trend of the Roman world. In doing so he provided a basis for Christianity to develop.
YHWH began as an anthropomorphic being, but became so cosmic a deity that He seemed indifferent to man.
The changing of the times saw all religions seek to bring man closer to God and Philo attempted this within Judaism.
The logos of Philo was how God interacted with man; how He bridged the chasm between man and God, and how He revealed Himself to man.
John's Account of the Logos
John's use of the Logos in Christianity made it philosophically respectable to the world.
John saw Jesus as the eternal and divine Logos which happened to take a human form at a particular point in space and time.
How did the logos take form of man? John's answer was we do not know how and must accept it on faith.
Why did it come about? John stated that God so loved the world he sent the logos to save it.
Philo was interested with the logos for epistemic and metaphysical functions. John was interested with he logos for its redemptive qualities.
John's emphasis of love, kindness and mercy did not add anything new to YHWH. His non-emphasis of wrath is what added something to YHWH.
The Effects of Institutionalism
John and Paul were the most important figures in shaping the conception of God in Christianity.
After John and Paul, Christianity (like every other institutionalized movement) began to settle down and be reinterpreted.
What the Message Gained and Lost
Mysticism as a basis was too exclusive for the masses. Non-mystics had to reinterpret the message for themselves.
Salvation as an inner change became a notion that was to happen down the road and not immediately.
The otherworldliness of Paul became a Christian notion of separating one's self from the physical world.
The Church moved from mysticism and logos to an appeal to the magic of the sacraments, a new rigorous ascetic law, a fear worship of God and fear of hellfire instead of love and identification with the divine.
The Church and its Mystics
The Church and Christian mystics have had trouble achieving a Christian unity
The mystic views the Church as unnecessary and dangerous; the Church views the mystic as a maverick and a trouble-maker.
The amazing part of Christianity is the Church's use of mystics to continually revitalize itself.
The Church as an institution owes its longevity to the mystics. The massive lifespan of Christianity has caused its adherents to claim a divine establishment.
The Institutionalization of the Jesus Movement
Initially the disciples and Paul wanted to institutionalize the Church.
As the Apostles and Paul died off, interpretation of their writings became key. Heresies and orthodoxy became an issue.
The ideal of Orthodoxy
Christianity distinguished itself from the other mystery cults by being intolerant of the other ones. While every cult claimed to posses the key to salvation they allowed other cults to exist. With an intolerant God, Christianity could not be tolerant of rival salvation processes.
The Christians demanded uniform worship, the demanded orthodoxy. Determining what was orthodoxy was the growth of the Church as an institution.
Irenaeus, a bishop of the 2nd century put forth a view held by the Church still today. Bishops received (originally) the true doctrine from the authority of the Apostles. Successive bishops received this authority upon appointment and disagreements between bishops were to be solved by our infallible episcopate vote.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
The Religious Development of the Jews
(Originally written July 16, 2006 in Book 5)
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter I - The Religious Development of the Jews
"The Christian religion, as it was handed over by the late Roman Empire to the Barbarians consisted of three elements: first, certain philosophical beliefs, derived mainly from Plato and the Neoplatonists, but also in part from the Stoics; second, a conception of morals and history derived from the Jews; and thirdly, certain theories, more especially as to salvation, were on the whole new in Christianity though in part traceable to Orphism, and to kindred cults of the Near East" (Russell, 308).
Russell believes these six things are the most important Jewish elements in Christianity:
1) A sacred history: from Creation to an end in the future, with it a way of justifying God's ways to man.
2) The Existence a small section of mankind who God specially loves.
3) A new conception of righteousness
4) The Law
5) The Messiah
6) The Kingdom of Heaven
Linehan - if the Messiah is the fifth most important thing Christianity got from Jewish tradition than Christianity is merely a philosophical theory and not a very consistent one. Actually, Russell is just way off. Without Christ (the Messiah) there would be no Christianity. The most important thing Christianity took from Judaism is obviously Christ himself.
Jewish religion undertook a drastic change when they were in captivity.
The 1st commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me' was a new innovation in religion. Monotheism in a strict sense was very new.
"Jeremiah and Ezekiel seem to invented the idea that all religions except one are false, and that the Lord punished idolatry" (Russell, 310).
The Jewish religion became exclusive and fiercely nationalistic. The Jews distinguished themselves from other ancient peoples through fierce national pride. Unlike all other ancient peoples, the Jews never conformed when they were conquered.
Sidenote: It's hard to take Russell's words seriously because he is misrepresenting when the Books of the Old Testament were written. Russell claims that the Law was written post-exile, in order to preserve national unity. He claims the Book of Isaiah is written by two prophets - one pre-exile and one post-exile. The second prophet, 'Deuteron-Isaiah' is what is used in Messianic prophecies by Christians. Sidenote done.
The Jewish kingdom remained a small theocracy state after Ezra and Nehemiah. The theocracy existed around Jerusalem and was a disputed territory between the Ptolemies and Seleucids.
The Jews lived under their own rule for a while until the Seleucid king, King Antiochus IV was determined to hellenize his whole kingdom. The Jews rebelled against Antiochus IV in 170 B.C. when the Seleucids fought against Egypt. Then, Antiochus identified Yahweh with Zeus and the Jews everywhere outside of Jerusalem rebelled. This caused the Maccabean revolution. This is also (Russell contends) when Jews began to fully adhere to their strict morality.
Russell attacks religion by belittling the Jews belief and pointing out 'trivial' things they fought for. "The Jews of this time showed immense heroism, although in defense of things that do not strike us as important, such as circumcision and the wickedness of eating pork" (Russell, 316).
King Herod replaced the Maccabees through Marc Antony's help. The Jews didn't like him but suffered him well. The Zealots wanted to overthrow him and Roman rule entirely however.
In A.D. 66 the Zealots got the revolt they were looking for but were defeated and the Jewish Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70.
Philo, a Jewish philosopher who lived around the time of Christ is the best illustration of how a Jew can be influenced by Greek thought. Phil was orthodox in religion, but Platonic in philosophy. He was used by the Church Fathers to reconcile the Scriptures with Greek thought.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter I - The Religious Development of the Jews
"The Christian religion, as it was handed over by the late Roman Empire to the Barbarians consisted of three elements: first, certain philosophical beliefs, derived mainly from Plato and the Neoplatonists, but also in part from the Stoics; second, a conception of morals and history derived from the Jews; and thirdly, certain theories, more especially as to salvation, were on the whole new in Christianity though in part traceable to Orphism, and to kindred cults of the Near East" (Russell, 308).
Russell believes these six things are the most important Jewish elements in Christianity:
1) A sacred history: from Creation to an end in the future, with it a way of justifying God's ways to man.
2) The Existence a small section of mankind who God specially loves.
3) A new conception of righteousness
4) The Law
5) The Messiah
6) The Kingdom of Heaven
Linehan - if the Messiah is the fifth most important thing Christianity got from Jewish tradition than Christianity is merely a philosophical theory and not a very consistent one. Actually, Russell is just way off. Without Christ (the Messiah) there would be no Christianity. The most important thing Christianity took from Judaism is obviously Christ himself.
Jewish religion undertook a drastic change when they were in captivity.
The 1st commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me' was a new innovation in religion. Monotheism in a strict sense was very new.
"Jeremiah and Ezekiel seem to invented the idea that all religions except one are false, and that the Lord punished idolatry" (Russell, 310).
The Jewish religion became exclusive and fiercely nationalistic. The Jews distinguished themselves from other ancient peoples through fierce national pride. Unlike all other ancient peoples, the Jews never conformed when they were conquered.
Sidenote: It's hard to take Russell's words seriously because he is misrepresenting when the Books of the Old Testament were written. Russell claims that the Law was written post-exile, in order to preserve national unity. He claims the Book of Isaiah is written by two prophets - one pre-exile and one post-exile. The second prophet, 'Deuteron-Isaiah' is what is used in Messianic prophecies by Christians. Sidenote done.
The Jewish kingdom remained a small theocracy state after Ezra and Nehemiah. The theocracy existed around Jerusalem and was a disputed territory between the Ptolemies and Seleucids.
The Jews lived under their own rule for a while until the Seleucid king, King Antiochus IV was determined to hellenize his whole kingdom. The Jews rebelled against Antiochus IV in 170 B.C. when the Seleucids fought against Egypt. Then, Antiochus identified Yahweh with Zeus and the Jews everywhere outside of Jerusalem rebelled. This caused the Maccabean revolution. This is also (Russell contends) when Jews began to fully adhere to their strict morality.
Russell attacks religion by belittling the Jews belief and pointing out 'trivial' things they fought for. "The Jews of this time showed immense heroism, although in defense of things that do not strike us as important, such as circumcision and the wickedness of eating pork" (Russell, 316).
King Herod replaced the Maccabees through Marc Antony's help. The Jews didn't like him but suffered him well. The Zealots wanted to overthrow him and Roman rule entirely however.
In A.D. 66 the Zealots got the revolt they were looking for but were defeated and the Jewish Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70.
Philo, a Jewish philosopher who lived around the time of Christ is the best illustration of how a Jew can be influenced by Greek thought. Phil was orthodox in religion, but Platonic in philosophy. He was used by the Church Fathers to reconcile the Scriptures with Greek thought.
Friday, February 3, 2006
Notes on the Formation, Interpretation and Composition of Scriptures
(Originally written February 3, 2006 in Book 23)
A Faith for all Season
Chapter 2 - The Need for Holy Scripture
Originally, God created a perfect world in this perfect world there was no distinction between special and general revelation. God's words and God's works (creation) were together. God's works (man) rebelled gains God's words. God could no longer be in the presence of His works because of their sinfulness and neither could God's word. Thus, each is still full of general revelation (God's works) but special revelation (His words) are nowhere to be found. Salvation can not be provided by general revelation, special revelation is needed. God provide that special revelation: the Scriptures and Jesus Christ.
Scripture as the Word of God
Theologians throughout history have affirmed what Jesus said: that scripture was and is the word of God (John 10:35)
The Church's belief of scripture as the word of God's is closely linked with the doctrine of divine inspiration of Scripture.
The doctrine of divine inspiration of Scripture comes from 2 Timothy 3:16-17. All Scripture is inspired by God. The NIV translates it as "God-breathed" The Greek in this passage uses the word "theopneustos" (literally God + Breath)
2 Peter 1:20-21 confirms that the authors were not simply inspired to write something; but the words themselves were inspired by God. No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation for the prophecy never had its origin in the will of men, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Both Paul and Peter were referring to Scripture as the Old Testament, but applying to the New Testament is justified by 3 things:
1) Jesus saw his mission and message as in accordance with the Old Testament
2) Jesus made his apostles agents of divine revelation inspired by the Holy Spirit
3) Jesus stated that future believers would come to faith through the apostolic word
The Scripture is useful in two ways:
1) Doctrine
2) Practice
The Scripture can be used to accomplish 4 Things:
1) Teaching: the idea of proclaiming the truth
2) Rebuking: the idea of combating doctrinal error
3) Correction: the act of leading someone away from an ungodly lifestyle (this is about ethics, not doctrine)
4) Training in righteousness: helping people lead godly lives
The Scriptures make the man of God complete
Nobody profits from understanding the Scriptures if they do not accept and follow them.
Sometimes the words verbal and plenary are used to describe the traditional Christian doctrine of Biblical inspiration
Verbal, Plenary Inspiration
Plenary means full, therefore "plenary inspiration" is full inspiration
"Verbal inspiration" is the idea that the words of Scripture are the exact words God wanted written.
Most Christians do not believe that God dictated to the writers. He allowed them to keep their personalities and styles in their books. God dictating is what Islam believes is the origin of the Qu'ran.
Some Christians believe that God inspired feelings and ideas in the writers. This takes in account for the differing styles in the books. This view however states that the Bible is only quantitatively superior to other works.
The historic consensus of theology is qualitatively superior to other works.
Modern Protestants take the Scriptures as both the word of God and the words of men. This view is that God supervised the writing to get what he wanted said written, but allowed the human authors to keep their humanity and individuality in their work.
Modern Alternatives to Verbal, Plenary Inspiration
Karl Barth: a 20th century Swiss theologian
In his "Church Dogmatics", Barth acknowledges only Jesus Christ as special revelation.
According to Barth's view the Bible is not special revelation and there is no general revelation. The only way God reveals himself is through Jesus Christ.
Revelation only occurs through the risen Jesus Christ living inside of Christian.
Barth denies that the Bible is the "word of God". He states that the Bible can only become the word of God when Jesus Christ uses it to convict us.
Barth believed that knowledge of God was beyond any man's capabilities.
Barth's form of theology is Dialectical theology.
Dialectical theology is when God comes to us as the One who is beyond comprehension and he judges anyone who attempts to comprehend him.
However, Barth changed his views later in life. He states that God can actually be known, but not because man is capable of knowing him. Man can know God because God bridged the gap between humanity and God through Jesus Christ.
In Barth's view the Bible, while not revelation in and of itself, is a witness to revelation in the person of Jesus Christ.
Another school of modern theology bases their beliefs, not on the revelation being in Jesus Christ, but in the belief that the revelation of God comes from the historical events of God's redemption.
Scripture, in this view, is ancient writer's attempts of documenting God's saving acts and those acts' impacts on our lives.
As in the case with Barth's theology, revelation does not lie in the text of the Scripture, but in the "encountered results of what God did for them" (Dorman, 25).
This view holds that the Scriptures are the writers' interpretation of the significance of God's actions. In this view, we are not competed to believe what God did, only what his actions did to impact the writers.
Another modern theology is a partial-inspiration theory. There are various forms of this theory.
This view states that all Biblical statements that deal with spiritual matters are true and from God, but statements regarding historical matters are not necessarily accurate.
The partial inspiration theory does attempt to link the text of the Bible with special revelation.
This view states that the Bible can in fact be erroneous, but is still important on matters of faith.
The Historical events of the Bible are regarded as parables and allegories is the partial-inspiration theory.
The Interpretation of Scripture
Allegory - "the expression through symbolic figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human conduct or experience" (Dorman, 27)
The idea that readers of Scripture must reinterpret the events recorded in them as allegories is rooted in the Greek philosophy of dualism.
According to this dualistic theory, historical events and realities, including the language, are mere images or shadows of the divine realities.
Ancient Judaism and Christianity believed, contrastingly, that God had in fact spoken and acted at specific instances in history. Jesus Christ is the prime example of this.
It is because this belief that the early church generally avoided interpreting the Scriptures allegorically.
During the second century A.D. some of the Church had trouble seeing the connection between God in the Old Testament and Jesus Christ. Marcion is a prime example of this.
Marcion believed that the Bible showed two gods:
1) the Old Testament was a warlike, judgmental deity
2) The New Testament god was kind and loving.
Because of his view of two differently described, Marcion rejected the Old Testament as Scripture and purged the gospel of any Jewish tradition.
Origen considered some of the descriptions of God in the Old Testament as cruel and sub-Christian, but refused to reject the Old Testament like Marcion. He instead removed the offensive passages by interpreting them allegorically.
Origen held that not every Christian was capable of finding the spiritual or allegorical meaning of the text. He believed that this spiritual interpretation was given to the apostles who passed it on to the teachers of the Holy Church. This laid the way for the Catholic view that only its teaching office was able to interpret.
Origen's spiritual interpretation came from two sources:
1) The Holy Spirit was the author of Scripture
2) An influence of Dualism, passed on to him by Philo, who had allegorized the Old Testament in order to synthesize it with Greek philosophy.
Origen held that the literal meaning of the text was inferior to the spiritual meaning because the literal meaning came from the human writer and the spiritual came from the Holy Spirit.
The Antiochean school of theology was opposite to the theology of Origen. They held that the primary meaning of Scripture was its literal, historical sense.
The works of Lucian (of Antioch) set the tone for the Antiochean interpretation of Scripture. Lucian sought to interpret the Scriptures through its Semitic perspective rather than through a Greek philosophical one.
Theodore, a later Antiochean, saw that the literal approach unified a record of God's redemptive work in time, whereas the allegorical method saw it as a collection of timeless truths.
The Antiochean school did not have any lasting effects on theology because of two reasons:
1) Lucian, its founder was also seen as the founder of Arianism. Arianism was a heresy that denied the full divinity of Christ.
2) Nestorious was found to be a heretic. Nestorious was taught by Theodore and therefore Theodore and the entire Antiochean School was condemned as well.
Because of the condemnation of the Antiochean School, one form or another of allegorical interpretation was held by the Church for the next 1,000 years.
The end of allegorical total domination came with the Protestant Reformation.
Luther stated that unless the text is plainly demands us to interpret it allegorically, it is to be interpreted literally, otherwise Scripture is a worthless fable.
Luther's approach to a more literal based interpretation of Scripture was called the grammatical-historical exegesis (exegesis is a fancy word for interpretation).
Luther stressed the perspicuity of Scripture. This basically means that the Bible is clear enough for any reasonably informed person to understand it.
Luther's emphasis on the literal interpretation of the Scriptures opened the doors to new theological insight which were previously shut by the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. It also, unfortunately opened the doors to a terrible form of interpretation, the "historical-critical" method.
During the 18th century history was defined by the Rationalists (an Enlightenment Philosophical offshoot) as a closed continuum of cause and effect. Basically, it denied any possibility for miracles. The "historical-critical" method was born out of this view. It declared that the miracles in the Bible were actually myths of the Bible. This method turned Jesus into a human teacher of ethics and denied him of any supernatural being.
This view of Jesus came under attack by late 19th century theologians. These theologians were ironically trained in the "historical-critical" method. They stated that the Gospels were written in such a way that it was impossible to separate a non-miraculous Jesus from a supernatural Christ.
The "historical critical" method seeks to find the meaning of Christ behind the Biblical texts.
The allegorical approach used by Origen sought to find the meaning of Christ above the Biblical text.
The literal approach used by the Antiochean school and the Reformers sought to find the meaning of Christ with the Biblical text.
The historical-critical method denies that Scripture is the word of God.
The Authority of Scripture
Christians have sought to confirm the authority of Scriptures in four ways:
1) The presuppositional approach
-This states that we know the Bible is the word of God because it claims to be.
-God is the author
-This approach does not give any criteria that can distinguish its claims to being divine revelation from the claims of other texts being of divine revelation, like the Qu'ran
-Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so
2) The Ecclesiastical Approach
-Christians can know Scripture is the word of God because the Church says it is (this is the Roman Catholic approach)
-It is true that the New Testament grew out of the very life of the Church
-Jesus loves me this I know for the Church it tells me so
3) The Spiritual Approach
- This view holds that the ecclesiastical approach places the Church above the Bible
- The inner witness of the Holy Spirit affirms the authority of Scripture
- Absolute assurances of the authority of Scripture can only come from God
- Jesus loves me this I know for the Spirit tells me so
4) The Evidentialist Approach
-There are many convincing proofs that Jesus Christ rose from the dead
-belief in the Bible comes from faith in Christ
-This view holds that the Bible is a generally historically accurate document
-It holds that the evidences from the Bible when combined with reasonable argument establishes that Jesus Christ was crucified, died, buried and rose from the dead beyond a reasonable doubt
-It holds that Jesus' resurrection proves He is the son of God and as such he is trustworthy in all he says
-Jesus trusted the Scriptures we should to
-Because of this we are obliged to follow Jesus and put our whole trust in the Bible as the word of God
The four categories of the authority of Scripture can be placed in two:
1) Fideism
2) Evidentialism
Fideism is based on the term faith, when faith means belief not related to knowledge. The presuppositional, ecclesiastical and spiritual approaches are all fideism.
Evidentialism bases faith upon evidences available to all people. It takes the seriously the historical nature of divine revelation. It refuses to confine knowledge of God to a subjective experience.
All four approaches agree that Scripture is the Church's rule of faith and practice.
The Sufficiency of Scripture
Protestant Reformers believed that the Scripture was alone sufficient while the Roman Catholic Church stated extra-Biblical teachings could be incorporated into Christian dogma.
Roman Catholicism holds that the same spirit which inspired the Scripture still inspires the teaching office of the Church (who they believe is the only fit persons to interpret Scripture).
Their non-Biblical dogmas must meet "apostolic" criteria to be included. There are two criteria it can meet:
1) Any oral tradition whose origins can be traced back to the apostles qualifies
2) The authoritative pronouncements of the ecclesiastical teaching office, whose origin (according to Catholicism) goes back to the apostle Peter qualifies
Protestants believe that only Scripture is apostolic in nature.
The apostles were more than filled with the spirit, they were commissioned by Christ as agents of revelation.
The Protestant definition of "apostolic" is based on the apostle's unique eyewitness experience of Christ's life, death and resurrection gave them the sole authority to write authoritative works to be included in the Scriptures.
The Formation of the Canon
The early church considered the Hebrew Scriptures as the Canon. The need for Scripture that witnessed to Jesus Christ became an issue in the middle of the second century.
It had become more difficult to separate genuine historic oral tradition concerning Christ from the pure myths of Christ.
The need for a church sanctioned canon became more apparent after Marcion produced his canon of some of Paul's letters and the Gospels (purged of any Jewish influence)
The Muratorian Canon is the earliest known list of books which were considered Christian Scripture appeared around AD 200.
In the first half of the third century Origen traveled extensively and recorded which books were considered as Scripture by the various local churches.
He categorized these books three ways:
1) Undisputed
2) Disputed
3) False
The letters of Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were categorized as undisputed.
2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Hebrews, James and Jude were categorized as disputed.
The false category included all of the heretical gospels.
Athanasius, the most influential theologian of his day, recorded all 27 books included in todays New Testament in a letter in 367 AD.
The Council of Carthage, in 407 AD affirmed todays canon.
The Reformation saw Luther exclude the Apocrypha from the Old Testament Canon. Thus, the Roman Catholic Bible has nine more books in it than the Protestant one. Luther excluded these because the Jewish Scriptures did and he believed that Jesus and his disciples held the Jewish Scriptures as authoritative.
A Faith for all Season
Chapter 2 - The Need for Holy Scripture
Originally, God created a perfect world in this perfect world there was no distinction between special and general revelation. God's words and God's works (creation) were together. God's works (man) rebelled gains God's words. God could no longer be in the presence of His works because of their sinfulness and neither could God's word. Thus, each is still full of general revelation (God's works) but special revelation (His words) are nowhere to be found. Salvation can not be provided by general revelation, special revelation is needed. God provide that special revelation: the Scriptures and Jesus Christ.
Scripture as the Word of God
Theologians throughout history have affirmed what Jesus said: that scripture was and is the word of God (John 10:35)
The Church's belief of scripture as the word of God's is closely linked with the doctrine of divine inspiration of Scripture.
The doctrine of divine inspiration of Scripture comes from 2 Timothy 3:16-17. All Scripture is inspired by God. The NIV translates it as "God-breathed" The Greek in this passage uses the word "theopneustos" (literally God + Breath)
2 Peter 1:20-21 confirms that the authors were not simply inspired to write something; but the words themselves were inspired by God. No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation for the prophecy never had its origin in the will of men, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Both Paul and Peter were referring to Scripture as the Old Testament, but applying to the New Testament is justified by 3 things:
1) Jesus saw his mission and message as in accordance with the Old Testament
2) Jesus made his apostles agents of divine revelation inspired by the Holy Spirit
3) Jesus stated that future believers would come to faith through the apostolic word
The Scripture is useful in two ways:
1) Doctrine
2) Practice
The Scripture can be used to accomplish 4 Things:
1) Teaching: the idea of proclaiming the truth
2) Rebuking: the idea of combating doctrinal error
3) Correction: the act of leading someone away from an ungodly lifestyle (this is about ethics, not doctrine)
4) Training in righteousness: helping people lead godly lives
The Scriptures make the man of God complete
Nobody profits from understanding the Scriptures if they do not accept and follow them.
Sometimes the words verbal and plenary are used to describe the traditional Christian doctrine of Biblical inspiration
Verbal, Plenary Inspiration
Plenary means full, therefore "plenary inspiration" is full inspiration
"Verbal inspiration" is the idea that the words of Scripture are the exact words God wanted written.
Most Christians do not believe that God dictated to the writers. He allowed them to keep their personalities and styles in their books. God dictating is what Islam believes is the origin of the Qu'ran.
Some Christians believe that God inspired feelings and ideas in the writers. This takes in account for the differing styles in the books. This view however states that the Bible is only quantitatively superior to other works.
The historic consensus of theology is qualitatively superior to other works.
Modern Protestants take the Scriptures as both the word of God and the words of men. This view is that God supervised the writing to get what he wanted said written, but allowed the human authors to keep their humanity and individuality in their work.
Modern Alternatives to Verbal, Plenary Inspiration
Karl Barth: a 20th century Swiss theologian
In his "Church Dogmatics", Barth acknowledges only Jesus Christ as special revelation.
According to Barth's view the Bible is not special revelation and there is no general revelation. The only way God reveals himself is through Jesus Christ.
Revelation only occurs through the risen Jesus Christ living inside of Christian.
Barth denies that the Bible is the "word of God". He states that the Bible can only become the word of God when Jesus Christ uses it to convict us.
Barth believed that knowledge of God was beyond any man's capabilities.
Barth's form of theology is Dialectical theology.
Dialectical theology is when God comes to us as the One who is beyond comprehension and he judges anyone who attempts to comprehend him.
However, Barth changed his views later in life. He states that God can actually be known, but not because man is capable of knowing him. Man can know God because God bridged the gap between humanity and God through Jesus Christ.
In Barth's view the Bible, while not revelation in and of itself, is a witness to revelation in the person of Jesus Christ.
Another school of modern theology bases their beliefs, not on the revelation being in Jesus Christ, but in the belief that the revelation of God comes from the historical events of God's redemption.
Scripture, in this view, is ancient writer's attempts of documenting God's saving acts and those acts' impacts on our lives.
As in the case with Barth's theology, revelation does not lie in the text of the Scripture, but in the "encountered results of what God did for them" (Dorman, 25).
This view holds that the Scriptures are the writers' interpretation of the significance of God's actions. In this view, we are not competed to believe what God did, only what his actions did to impact the writers.
Another modern theology is a partial-inspiration theory. There are various forms of this theory.
This view states that all Biblical statements that deal with spiritual matters are true and from God, but statements regarding historical matters are not necessarily accurate.
The partial inspiration theory does attempt to link the text of the Bible with special revelation.
This view states that the Bible can in fact be erroneous, but is still important on matters of faith.
The Historical events of the Bible are regarded as parables and allegories is the partial-inspiration theory.
The Interpretation of Scripture
Allegory - "the expression through symbolic figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human conduct or experience" (Dorman, 27)
The idea that readers of Scripture must reinterpret the events recorded in them as allegories is rooted in the Greek philosophy of dualism.
According to this dualistic theory, historical events and realities, including the language, are mere images or shadows of the divine realities.
Ancient Judaism and Christianity believed, contrastingly, that God had in fact spoken and acted at specific instances in history. Jesus Christ is the prime example of this.
It is because this belief that the early church generally avoided interpreting the Scriptures allegorically.
During the second century A.D. some of the Church had trouble seeing the connection between God in the Old Testament and Jesus Christ. Marcion is a prime example of this.
Marcion believed that the Bible showed two gods:
1) the Old Testament was a warlike, judgmental deity
2) The New Testament god was kind and loving.
Because of his view of two differently described, Marcion rejected the Old Testament as Scripture and purged the gospel of any Jewish tradition.
Origen considered some of the descriptions of God in the Old Testament as cruel and sub-Christian, but refused to reject the Old Testament like Marcion. He instead removed the offensive passages by interpreting them allegorically.
Origen held that not every Christian was capable of finding the spiritual or allegorical meaning of the text. He believed that this spiritual interpretation was given to the apostles who passed it on to the teachers of the Holy Church. This laid the way for the Catholic view that only its teaching office was able to interpret.
Origen's spiritual interpretation came from two sources:
1) The Holy Spirit was the author of Scripture
2) An influence of Dualism, passed on to him by Philo, who had allegorized the Old Testament in order to synthesize it with Greek philosophy.
Origen held that the literal meaning of the text was inferior to the spiritual meaning because the literal meaning came from the human writer and the spiritual came from the Holy Spirit.
The Antiochean school of theology was opposite to the theology of Origen. They held that the primary meaning of Scripture was its literal, historical sense.
The works of Lucian (of Antioch) set the tone for the Antiochean interpretation of Scripture. Lucian sought to interpret the Scriptures through its Semitic perspective rather than through a Greek philosophical one.
Theodore, a later Antiochean, saw that the literal approach unified a record of God's redemptive work in time, whereas the allegorical method saw it as a collection of timeless truths.
The Antiochean school did not have any lasting effects on theology because of two reasons:
1) Lucian, its founder was also seen as the founder of Arianism. Arianism was a heresy that denied the full divinity of Christ.
2) Nestorious was found to be a heretic. Nestorious was taught by Theodore and therefore Theodore and the entire Antiochean School was condemned as well.
Because of the condemnation of the Antiochean School, one form or another of allegorical interpretation was held by the Church for the next 1,000 years.
The end of allegorical total domination came with the Protestant Reformation.
Luther stated that unless the text is plainly demands us to interpret it allegorically, it is to be interpreted literally, otherwise Scripture is a worthless fable.
Luther's approach to a more literal based interpretation of Scripture was called the grammatical-historical exegesis (exegesis is a fancy word for interpretation).
Luther stressed the perspicuity of Scripture. This basically means that the Bible is clear enough for any reasonably informed person to understand it.
Luther's emphasis on the literal interpretation of the Scriptures opened the doors to new theological insight which were previously shut by the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. It also, unfortunately opened the doors to a terrible form of interpretation, the "historical-critical" method.
During the 18th century history was defined by the Rationalists (an Enlightenment Philosophical offshoot) as a closed continuum of cause and effect. Basically, it denied any possibility for miracles. The "historical-critical" method was born out of this view. It declared that the miracles in the Bible were actually myths of the Bible. This method turned Jesus into a human teacher of ethics and denied him of any supernatural being.
This view of Jesus came under attack by late 19th century theologians. These theologians were ironically trained in the "historical-critical" method. They stated that the Gospels were written in such a way that it was impossible to separate a non-miraculous Jesus from a supernatural Christ.
The "historical critical" method seeks to find the meaning of Christ behind the Biblical texts.
The allegorical approach used by Origen sought to find the meaning of Christ above the Biblical text.
The literal approach used by the Antiochean school and the Reformers sought to find the meaning of Christ with the Biblical text.
The historical-critical method denies that Scripture is the word of God.
The Authority of Scripture
Christians have sought to confirm the authority of Scriptures in four ways:
1) The presuppositional approach
-This states that we know the Bible is the word of God because it claims to be.
-God is the author
-This approach does not give any criteria that can distinguish its claims to being divine revelation from the claims of other texts being of divine revelation, like the Qu'ran
-Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so
2) The Ecclesiastical Approach
-Christians can know Scripture is the word of God because the Church says it is (this is the Roman Catholic approach)
-It is true that the New Testament grew out of the very life of the Church
-Jesus loves me this I know for the Church it tells me so
3) The Spiritual Approach
- This view holds that the ecclesiastical approach places the Church above the Bible
- The inner witness of the Holy Spirit affirms the authority of Scripture
- Absolute assurances of the authority of Scripture can only come from God
- Jesus loves me this I know for the Spirit tells me so
4) The Evidentialist Approach
-There are many convincing proofs that Jesus Christ rose from the dead
-belief in the Bible comes from faith in Christ
-This view holds that the Bible is a generally historically accurate document
-It holds that the evidences from the Bible when combined with reasonable argument establishes that Jesus Christ was crucified, died, buried and rose from the dead beyond a reasonable doubt
-It holds that Jesus' resurrection proves He is the son of God and as such he is trustworthy in all he says
-Jesus trusted the Scriptures we should to
-Because of this we are obliged to follow Jesus and put our whole trust in the Bible as the word of God
The four categories of the authority of Scripture can be placed in two:
1) Fideism
2) Evidentialism
Fideism is based on the term faith, when faith means belief not related to knowledge. The presuppositional, ecclesiastical and spiritual approaches are all fideism.
Evidentialism bases faith upon evidences available to all people. It takes the seriously the historical nature of divine revelation. It refuses to confine knowledge of God to a subjective experience.
All four approaches agree that Scripture is the Church's rule of faith and practice.
The Sufficiency of Scripture
Protestant Reformers believed that the Scripture was alone sufficient while the Roman Catholic Church stated extra-Biblical teachings could be incorporated into Christian dogma.
Roman Catholicism holds that the same spirit which inspired the Scripture still inspires the teaching office of the Church (who they believe is the only fit persons to interpret Scripture).
Their non-Biblical dogmas must meet "apostolic" criteria to be included. There are two criteria it can meet:
1) Any oral tradition whose origins can be traced back to the apostles qualifies
2) The authoritative pronouncements of the ecclesiastical teaching office, whose origin (according to Catholicism) goes back to the apostle Peter qualifies
Protestants believe that only Scripture is apostolic in nature.
The apostles were more than filled with the spirit, they were commissioned by Christ as agents of revelation.
The Protestant definition of "apostolic" is based on the apostle's unique eyewitness experience of Christ's life, death and resurrection gave them the sole authority to write authoritative works to be included in the Scriptures.
The Formation of the Canon
The early church considered the Hebrew Scriptures as the Canon. The need for Scripture that witnessed to Jesus Christ became an issue in the middle of the second century.
It had become more difficult to separate genuine historic oral tradition concerning Christ from the pure myths of Christ.
The need for a church sanctioned canon became more apparent after Marcion produced his canon of some of Paul's letters and the Gospels (purged of any Jewish influence)
The Muratorian Canon is the earliest known list of books which were considered Christian Scripture appeared around AD 200.
In the first half of the third century Origen traveled extensively and recorded which books were considered as Scripture by the various local churches.
He categorized these books three ways:
1) Undisputed
2) Disputed
3) False
The letters of Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were categorized as undisputed.
2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Hebrews, James and Jude were categorized as disputed.
The false category included all of the heretical gospels.
Athanasius, the most influential theologian of his day, recorded all 27 books included in todays New Testament in a letter in 367 AD.
The Council of Carthage, in 407 AD affirmed todays canon.
The Reformation saw Luther exclude the Apocrypha from the Old Testament Canon. Thus, the Roman Catholic Bible has nine more books in it than the Protestant one. Luther excluded these because the Jewish Scriptures did and he believed that Jesus and his disciples held the Jewish Scriptures as authoritative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)