Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 10-08-2008, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Rest assured that the moderators have discussed all of these issues. We decided to leave this thread in BCH because it is has some connection to BCH issues.

That was very liberal of you! But please help me out: what BC or H does this thread convey?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And I would point out that JPHolding, while an embarrassment to True Christianity, however defined, has still attracted some participants in this forum as contributors or supporters - Bede and GDon in particular come to mind.

Isn't that irrelevant if Bede or GDon or whoever make and argue their own cases? If they don't, then they don't do BC&H.

spin

andrewcriddle · 10-08-2008, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticdude

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

It's more complicated than that. There were certainly pre-modern theologians who made statements about the bible which appear to be claims of inerrancy.

You may have a different understanding of "modern" than Rohrbaugh. I don't think he meant that nobody in the history of Christianity made a claim for inerrancy until the 19th century. I think he meant that the claim of inerrancy was never made by the biblical authors themselves. Surely Rohrbaugh knows of Augustine, Origin, Calvin, Spurgeon, Irenaeus, etc.

I am reluctant to speculate about what Rohrbaugh meant.

However one could argue that the claims of Biblical inspiration and authority made by Origen and Augustine are different from modern claims of Biblical inerrancy. (Particularly in the case of Origen.) The modern claims IIUC put more emphasis on the authority of the literal sense of the text than did the ancient claims.

(I'm not sure why Spurgeon is mentioned above. He is after all 19th century).

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse · 10-09-2008, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticdude

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Is Rohrbaugh aware that you have published his statements?

Email is not private, and what i published is already protected by fair-use doctrine.

...If anything, my failure to tell Rohrbaugh I'd be quoting him, is what provides assurance that Rohrbaugh gave his honest opinion...

You have published his comments without his knowledge or permission, for the purpose of embroiling him in a public dispute, then. Hmm.

The question is not, of course, whether Rohrbaugh can sue anyone for this.

Quote:

There are atheists who are quite willing to have a "private" email exchange with someone, with a view to extracting some unguarded comment or piece of private information. Having done so, they then gloatingly publish it all around the web, and other atheists endorse it, without any regard for the fact that it was obtained by means of deception and breach of confidence. I know that JPH has had this done to him.

I have already argued here that even if such accusations against me were true...

No accusation was made against YOU. But in fact you have done just this.

Quote:

I suggest that if someone can refute what JPH has to say they do so. Sitting around trying to attack him personally may be effective, or more likely counterproductive.

Thanks for telling us how strongly you disagree with ... We have to wonder why you'd bother ... when it appears that you disapprove ... it's clear to me you've never read ... you'll suddenly discover that ad hominems aren't as counterproductive as you wish skeptics to believe they are.

I don't think I need comment on this confession.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith · 10-09-2008, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

However one could argue that the claims of Biblical inspiration and authority made by Origen and Augustine are different from modern claims of Biblical inerrancy. (Particularly in the case of Origen.) The modern claims IIUC put more emphasis on the authority of the literal sense of the text than did the ancient claims.

It would be interesting to see this fleshed out more. I have a quote from Origen on my page about the temptation of Jesus (emphasis added):

Who indeed that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day, both the evening and the morning, came into being without a sun and moon and stars? And that the first was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden toward the east, and placed in it a visible and palpable tree of life, so that one tasting of the fruit through his bodily teeth might take on life? And again that one took hold of good and evil from masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is also said to walk about in the paradise at evening and Adam [is said] to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that any one doubts that these things figuratively disclose certain mysteries, the history having happened in seeming and not bodily. But Cain also, going out from the face of God, certainly appears to learned men as moving the reader to seek out what the face of God is and what someone going out from him is. And why must one say more, since those who are not wholly sightless can gather together myriads of such kinds of things recorded as having happened, but which did not happen literally? But the gospels too are filled with the same form of words, the devil leading Jesus up into a high mountain in order to show him thence the kingdoms of the whole world and their glory. For who is there of those who do not read such things carelessly that would not condemn those who suppose that with the eye of the body, which requires a height so as to perceive things lying under and adjacent, the kingdom of the Persians and that of the Scythians and that of the Indians and that of the Parthians were seen, and the way in which their kings are glorified by men? And fully along with these there are other myriads from the gospels to convince the accurate man that, among the histories that happened literally, other things that have not transpired have been placed.

His understanding of the scriptures to me seems altogether incompatible with that of most of those who espouse inerrancy in our day. Yet he seems to have treated the scriptures as authoritative in some way. (My question being: In what way exactly?)

Ben.

Roger Pearse · 10-09-2008, 06:31 AM

Is there a distinction between how he treats the OT and the NT, I wonder?

Ben C Smith · 10-09-2008, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Is there a distinction between how he treats the OT and the NT, I wonder?

A bit further up he says:

But it is not only concerning those [scriptures] before the advent [of Christ] that the spirit performed these things, but rather, since it happened to be the same [spirit] and from the one God, he has done the same thing both with the gospels and with the apostles, and not even these [texts] hold a wholly unmixed history, things having been interwoven according to the bodily, but not having happened; nor even do the lawmaking [books] and the commandments wholly make apparent what is reasonable.

By scriptures before the advent I gather he means the Old Testament; by the gospels and the apostles I gather he means the New. This seems to be why he gives examples both from Genesis and from the gospels.

Ben.

andrewcriddle · 10-09-2008, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

It would be interesting to see this fleshed out more. I have a quote from Origen on my page about the temptation of Jesus (emphasis added):

.................................................. ............
His understanding of the scriptures to me seems altogether incompatible with that of most of those who espouse inerrancy in our day. Yet he seems to have treated the scriptures as authoritative in some way. (My question being: In what way exactly?)

Ben.

I could track down references in Origen. But basically IIUC Origen held that the scriptures are the fully inspired word of God, and that they contain passages which are false in the literal sense because that is what God intended.

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith · 10-09-2008, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I could track down references in Origen. But basically IIUC Origen held that the scriptures are the fully inspired word of God, and that they contain passages which are false in the literal sense because that is what God intended.

I know where to find passages in Origen that deal with the literal and the allegorical (or symbolic), but I would be interested in passages to support the proposition that Origen thought the scriptures were the fully inspired word of God. (That is my sense, too, but I am not sure I could support it very well at present.)

I know that in the Latin translation of his Homilies on Luke he calls the four gospels approved (probata, with no parallel in the Greek).

Ben.

andrewcriddle · 10-09-2008, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I could track down references in Origen. But basically IIUC Origen held that the scriptures are the fully inspired word of God, and that they contain passages which are false in the literal sense because that is what God intended.

I know where to find passages in Origen that deal with the literal and the allegorical (or symbolic), but I would be interested in passages to support the proposition that Origen thought the scriptures were the fully inspired word of God. (That is my sense, too, but I am not sure I could support it very well at present.)

Some of the relevant passages are not online. However from the Philocalia

Quote:

If the words of the Lord are pure words, as silver tried in a furnace, approved of the whole earth, purified seven times; it is just as true that the Holy Spirit has dictated them, through the ministers of the Word, with the most scrupulous accuracy, lest the parallel meaning which the wisdom of God had constantly in view over the whole range of inspired Scripture, even to the mere letter, should escape us. And perhaps this is why the Saviour says, "One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished." For if we study Creation we see that the Divine skill is shown not only in heaven, in the sun, moon, and stars, being everywhere evidenced in those bodies, but also upon earth no less in commoner matter: so that the bodies of the smallest living creatures are not scornfully treated by the Creator, much less the souls existing in them, each having some peculiar gift, something to ensure the safety of the irrational creature. And as for plants, neither are they overlooked, for the Creator is immanent in every one, as regards roots, and leaves, appropriate fruits, and varying qualities. So, too, we conceive of all that has been recorded by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, believing that the sacred foreknowledge has through the Scriptures supplied superhuman wisdom to the race of man, having, so to speak, sown the seeds of saving truths, traces of the wisdom of God, in every letter as far as possible.

Quote:

And it is fitting to believe that not a single tittle of the sacred Scriptures is without something of the wisdom of God; for He Who gave me a mere man the command, "Thou shalt not appear before me empty," how much more will He not speak anything "empty." When the Prophets speak, it is after receiving of His fulness; and so everything breathes what comes of His fulness; and there is nothing in Prophecy, or Law, or Gospel, or Apostle, which is not of His fulness. And just because it is of His fulness, it breathes His fulness to those who have eyes to see the things of that fulness, and ears to hear the things of that fulness, and a faculty to perceive the sweet odour of the things of that fulness. But if in reading the Scripture thou shouldest sometime stumble at a meaning which is a fair stone of stumbling and rock of offence, blame thyself. Do not despair of finding meanings in the stone of stumbling and rock of offence, so that the saying may be fulfilled, "He that believeth shall not be ashamed." First believe, and thou shalt find beneath what is counted a stumbling-block much gain in godliness.

Quote:

If at anytime in reading the Scripture you stumble at something which is a fair stone of stumbling, and rock of offence, blame yourself; for you must not despair of finding in this stone of stumbling and rock of offence thoughts to justify the saying, "He that believeth shall not be ashamed." First believe, and thou shalt find beneath what is deemed a stumbling-stone much gain in godliness. For if we really received a commandment to speak no idle word, because we shall give account of it in the day of judgment; and if we must with all our might endeavour to make every word proceeding out of our mouths a working word both in ourselves who speak and in those who hear, must we not conclude that every word spoken through the Prophets was fit for work? and it is no wonder if every word spoken by the Prophets had a work adapted to it. Nay, I suppose that every letter, no matter how strange, which is written in the oracles of God, does its work. And there is not one jot or tittle written in the Scripture, which, when men know how to extract the virtue does not work its own work.

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith · 10-09-2008, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Some of the relevant passages are not online. However from the Philocalia....

Excellent. Many thanks, Andrew.

Ben.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-09-2008, 06:31 AM	#45
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	Is there a distinction between how he treats the OT and the NT, I wonder?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.