02-24-2011, 12:40 PM
@Shamasha Paul: there are some from the ACOE forum who would find your post amusing, as I am the only historic confessional Protestant on it; I guess, from and ACOE prospective, that the similarity with the RCC would be more obvious than to those on my side of the aisle. Nonetheless, thanks for your reply. As a CP I certainly appreciate that there is diversity within the church universal - even our confession speaks of "true churches" - and don't expect complete uniformity of faith and practice (at least on adiaphora). My main reason for my initial post was what I see as confusing linguistic matters with hermeneutics and ecclesiology. I can't imagine that any "courage to reject the Pericope Adulturae" is required on a website promoting Peshitta primacy; in fact, the courage would be to stand up for it (not my purpose as an invited guest). I also can't imagine that anyone on this site has the authority to accept or reject anything vis-a-vis doctrine and practice; there may be scholarly opinions, but no church recognises the office of independent scholar or autodidact (nor should one). We can only be Bereans for ourselves, and we're never off the hook.
Regarding canonicity, the decisions in the West might have been binding within jurisdictions, but they certainly affected others as barriers to fellowship - just like one person's behaviour is his own, but the consequences aren't necessarily. No human government can repeal the law of noncontradiction, which covers canonicity; I suspect that this argument won't be answered to everyone's satisfaction this side of heaven.
As for being a Semite, that we share, albeit different branches on the tree. I too abhor addition to Scripture, but find subtracting from it equally odious. I would love for what you say to be true, however my jury is still out. Pushing envelopes can be a boon to the church, particularly when that envelope is nothing more than a synonym for Pharisaical selfrighteousness obscuring the Gospel like pigeon excrement on public artwork (eg white middle class cultural norms taken for normative Christian behaviour). When the envelope is confessional integrity, it's another matter entirely. A third option might be pushing things to their logical conclusions and seeing where they lead; I trust that you confine your pushing to options one and three.
One last thing, assuming I haven't put you into a MEGO coma: "I fail to see how any of this makes the P/A more credible as to its possible canonicity. I look to the evidence in the manuscripts as my final judge, and to context within the material itself" is a statement you know to be not completely true. You, like the rest of humanity, have certain presuppositions constituting the worldview through which you filter all of reality: Semite, ACOE deacon, etc & soforth. There is no neutrality, rather differing degrees of bias. This is not to say that people can't shift paradigms; I'm just curious if your position is a change, or just a new-and-improved version of what you've always agreed with. Prithee inform me.
Regarding canonicity, the decisions in the West might have been binding within jurisdictions, but they certainly affected others as barriers to fellowship - just like one person's behaviour is his own, but the consequences aren't necessarily. No human government can repeal the law of noncontradiction, which covers canonicity; I suspect that this argument won't be answered to everyone's satisfaction this side of heaven.
As for being a Semite, that we share, albeit different branches on the tree. I too abhor addition to Scripture, but find subtracting from it equally odious. I would love for what you say to be true, however my jury is still out. Pushing envelopes can be a boon to the church, particularly when that envelope is nothing more than a synonym for Pharisaical selfrighteousness obscuring the Gospel like pigeon excrement on public artwork (eg white middle class cultural norms taken for normative Christian behaviour). When the envelope is confessional integrity, it's another matter entirely. A third option might be pushing things to their logical conclusions and seeing where they lead; I trust that you confine your pushing to options one and three.
One last thing, assuming I haven't put you into a MEGO coma: "I fail to see how any of this makes the P/A more credible as to its possible canonicity. I look to the evidence in the manuscripts as my final judge, and to context within the material itself" is a statement you know to be not completely true. You, like the rest of humanity, have certain presuppositions constituting the worldview through which you filter all of reality: Semite, ACOE deacon, etc & soforth. There is no neutrality, rather differing degrees of bias. This is not to say that people can't shift paradigms; I'm just curious if your position is a change, or just a new-and-improved version of what you've always agreed with. Prithee inform me.