Mocha Press

Resolved 08?

2008-06-19T12:39:00.000-07:00

I heard from Cory how resolved went. How about the rest of y'all?

I'll be back in Cali Saturday for those of you who might still be around. I get my Monday's and Saturday (afternoon) free. Those of you who are around, I'd love to hear from you.

And random story -

I was meeting a friend for breakfast and she asked me how David Scudder was, and I was 5 minutes in before I was like "wait, you've never met David Scudder...?" And she's like "oh, you just talked about him so much in the past"

I was like "wow, wups"

haha.

Assurance

2007-11-20T23:22:00.001-08:00

I've been thinking a lot about assurance lately (mostly on the fact that I seem to have less of it than I used to), but I had some questions.

Assurance - true assurance is good, false assurance is bad - all agreed. Assurance also given as a gift of God. But should we seek assurance? If so, how? I have a friend that wanted to always pray for someone else to have more assurance. Good or bad?

Not having assurance, this seems to always be a result of sin, but is it necessarily sinful of itself? Kind of like how conflict is the result of sin, but conflict may not be sinful in itself, as Christ had a lot of conflict with the Pharisees. Is a lack of assurance the same thing? Or is it like holiness, that to actually lack it is sinful?

Finally, on a positive remark, I remember what David Jones pointed out to us after a servant leadership meeting, that assurance isn't just something that we look to when we're struggling with sin and need encouragement, but it's something to look to when it seems we're victorious and we need to remain humble.

Luke 10

17 The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!” 18 And he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19 Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you. 20 Nevertheless, do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”

Have a good thanksgiving all. I miss you all a great deal, Lord willing I can get off my slothful rear eventually and visit some of you on campus!

On Martyrdom

2007-11-05T14:44:00.001-08:00

Hello! Long time no see. Here's some food for thought...

So I'm reading Foxe's Book of Martyrs. As bedtime reading. Yes, my light bedtime reading. But seriously, it's so insane; I read some passages and my jaw drops. My heart pounds. I go back and reread.
I wonder how many generations of Christians have been inspired by the story of Polycarp? Or how many have considered the Apostle Peter's upside down crucifixion as astonishing? (he didn't consider himself worthy enough to die in the same manner as his Lord Jesus Christ, so he requested to be crucified head down.)

Here is one passage on the martyrdom of the apostle James. This is an astonishing, as were all the early accounts of persecution. This is what true Christian forgiveness looks like! Read on:

After the martyrdom of Stephen, suffered next James the holy apostle of Christ, and brother of John. 'When this James,' saith Clement, 'was brought to the tribunal seat, he that brought him and was the cause of his trouble, seeing him to be condemned and that he should suffer death, was in such sort moved therewith in heart and conscience that as he went to the execution he confessed himself also, of his own accord, to be a Christian. And so were they led forth together, where in the way he desired of James to forgive him what he had done. After that James had a little paused with himself upon the matter, turning to him he saith, "Peace be thee, brother;" and kissed him. And both were beheaded together, A.D. 36.'

Can you imagine doing this? ... Wow...

Hebrews 11:35-38:

Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life. Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated— of whom the world was not worthy—wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.

Lord, what does it take to be one of whom the world is not worthy? What a scary thought. But isn't it the call of the Christian life? To be willing to die for Christ! and thus -- be more than willing to live for Him. This is us, counting the cost. But also, seeing the army march onto us, knowing that we would never survive. (see Luke 14:25-33)

Funny how we are able to make these grandiose promises to Christ about Him being worth more than anything else we have or know, but when it actually comes down to it, we skimp out. Or, even if we've experienced times when we've stood firm in the face of persecution -- but then, turn around and make mini-idols of the small things in our lives (i.e., possessions, acceptance, achievement, etc). How two-faced we can be!

Christians in America have it so easy because of all the religious freedom we have. We dont' fear death because of our religion. But people elsewhere do, and this strengthens their faith. So I wonder, is this comfortability a curse in disguise? Without the cost of following Christ spelled out in blood in front of our eyes, are we satisfied with our lukewarm faith and our lukewarm churches? And will we just be .. spit out of His mouth? (Revelation 3:15-16) That's probably an even scarier thought.

Paul, how did you say this? For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. (Philippians 1:21) How can I say this with my life, and not just let it be some kind of lip service?

Faith and sin

2007-09-20T12:29:00.000-07:00

Got a good question in a small group discussion on Tuesday and I wanted to know what you guys thought. I have my own personal answer, but when I gave it, the person was not entirely convinced, so I'll post it after a little input from you guys.

The question:

If sin is a lack of faith, and we need faith to be saved, what is it when we sin? Are we "not saved" when we sin? Or is there a range of "faith," where we can achieve a minimum level to be saved, but not enough to avoid sinning? Can faith and sin coexist?

~~~~~

Who's ready for school to start? And when are you guys going to post your bios?

Not of the world

2007-08-16T09:15:00.000-07:00

Another good article I found on John Piper's Desiring God page. He reflects on a couple studies that have shown that teenagers with deeper biblical and doctrinal understandings of their faith are more likely to live lives set apart from the patterns of the world:

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2007/2312_Good_Doctrine_Makes_Better_Teenage_Saints/

He concludes:

"Yes. [We should] Pray for sure. And work our heinies off teaching and preaching and modeling the Truth. And resist an entertainment model for youth ministry. And cultivate a joyfully blood-earnest atmosphere for worship. And call for our youth and our retirees to go risk their lives somewhere for the risen King Jesus. This is where serious truth-driven ministry takes us."

"Amazing Grace How Strange the Sound...."

2007-08-14T09:44:00.000-07:00

Hey all!!

Josiah pointed me to this article in the most recent edition of the magazine "Modern Reformation." It is quite good, definitely a refreshing look at what grace is.

http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=450&var3=main&var4=Home

*Panayiota

What is everyone up to?

2007-07-08T12:28:00.001-07:00

Hey all, how have you been? What have you been up to?

Read anything interesting lately?

On Faith

2007-07-03T11:14:00.000-07:00

Hello, Jessica here.

The Washington Post hosts an online forum called "On Faith" where religious leaders and other notable people in society write columns in response to questions that the moderators pose. These columnists include Jewish leaders, Islamic leaders, Christian leaders in seminaries and elsewhere, atheists, and more.

Questions they have posed include, "Do you believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God? If so, what exactly does that mean? If not, who was he?" and "Can a Christian, Muslim or Jew embrace eastern spiritual practices -- yoga or Buddhist meditation, for example -- and remain true to the laws of the God of Abraham?"

The most recent question is, "Do you believe in heaven or hell? If not, why not? If so, who's going there and how do you know?"
Now, I very rarely visit this column. I usually go when someone points me to it, at a frequency of once every two months or so. And when I go, I usually don't have time to read most of the posts, but I choose a few to see where their position lies. I'll read something by a Jewish guy, skim over something else (i.e., Sam Harris), and then open up the "Christian" posts to see what they say. People I've read include T.D. Jakes, N.T. Wright, Al Mohler, Richard Mouw (president of Fuller Seminary), and syndicated columnist Cal Thomas.

Why am I surprised by what I read? I really shouldn't be, anymore. I "know" about the state of American Christianity, liberal theology and what not. After all, the Apostle Paul did say in 2 Timothy 4,

"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths."

and yet I am still dumbfounded when I read what some of these people write.

To the latest question on whether heaven and hell exists, and who goes there,

Chester Gillis, Professor of Theology at Georgetown and old Chair of Theology, writes, "I do not know if heaven and hell exist, but I believe they do. I would not presume to know who is, or is not, going to either fate."
I don't know if heaven and hell exist, but I believe they do? What kind of statement is that? It either does or doesn't.

Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, makes some statements about heaven and hell with scripture references but largely misses the point. He writes, Heaven is Hope's address, Grace's goal and Faith's destination. Hell is evil's lair, injustice's reward, and hatred's bosom. ... Hell is Death's invitation to eternity; eternity without God. Who will enter? Only Heaven knows.
nice and fluffy, but its Compelling Factor is about negative 2. hell is death's invitation to eternity without God! oooh. if I hate God in this world, why would I want to be anywhere else but Hell? Heaven knows who will enter? Who's heaven? It's ridiculous.
Are these our nation's Christian leaders? or rather, the leaders of the leaders?

[ continued ]

N.T. Wright's response, as expected, raised more questions then he answered. He says that Heaven and Hell are not the final destination, but there will be a bodily resurrection onto life (the new heavens and the new earth) but ignores the resurrection to judgment (John 5:28-29). He muddles the concepts of people being saved "out of every nation, tribes, peoples and languages" (Rev 7:9, prooftext for limited atonement) and the universalist idea that all people will be saved. Again, there are some good points that he raised, but overall seemed to make the discussion more confusing than anything.

Other responses by Christians include Gardner Calvin Taylor, who says, "I believe heaven is the immediate presence of God. I believe hell is the total absence of God. As to who will be in heaven, I plead a reverent agnosticism."
Chuck Colson writes, "We aren’t sent to hell by God, we send ourselves there by refusing God’s gracious offer." (not horrible, but his piece asserts man's free will and thus, denies God's sovereignty)

Perhaps the one redeeming columnist answer was Cal Thomas' answer. He writes,

Because God is holy, He cannot abide the unholy and that is why hell exists…for the unholy who would pollute perfection. God is, indeed, love and that is why – while we were yet sinners – He sent His only Son to die for us that we might escape hell. Imagine in a court of law the plaintiff who has been wronged offering to pay the penalty for the one who is guilty and you get a tiny sense of what it cost God to redeem us from hell.
....
Scripture repeatedly teaches the existence of a literal Heaven and a literal hell. Whether you believe depends on whether you think God is telling the truth and His Word is reliable. Waiting to find out for sure is too late. Tickets are “on sale” now. Choose your destination. Both are one-way journeys. The trip to Heaven is a free gift that has already been paid for, but like any gift you have to receive it. The trip to hell you must pay (and pay and pay) yourself.

Thank you, Cal Thomas. And note that none of the Christian leaders (seminary professors, seminary chairs, theology professors, senior ministers, etc) said anything like this. This surprised me because heaven and hell is a relatively simple doctrine (compared to other essential but more complex doctrines such as the Trinity, or penal substitution)

A couple thoughts:

Respected Christian leaders and teachers do not necessarily have right theology, though they will be judged more strictly if they lead people astray (James 3:1)
When presenting a Christian doctrine on a public forum, one can make correct statements, but if he or she fails to present the whole case or purposely ignores a portion of the doctrine, he or she will at best misguide people, or at worst lead them into a heretical doctrine.
This is a call for us to pray. and pray hard, for the leaders in the society, for the seminary professors, the theology teachers, for those who are training the leaders. (1 Tim 2:1)
Don't be surprised at all the false teaching or the lack of good teaching, though you should mourn that it's happening. All the NT epistles warned us about false teachers (again, see 2 Timothy 4:3-4), and Jesus said, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves." (Matthew 7:15)
This is a call for us to stand. To take a stand for the Truth, to persevere and endure in the face of opposition. I love the theme verse for the Desiring God 2007 National Conference: Revelation 14:12, "Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus."

Hebrews 12:1-2 (one of my favorite verses) reads,

"Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God."

Grace to you and Peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,

- Jessica

Passing the torch

2007-06-05T08:26:00.000-07:00

*waves* Hello out there.... (out there)....

Well, I guess if no one is going to answer me, I'm just going to keep posting more questions!

In light of the eminent (immanent?) graduation of the senior class (+Eric), let's ask for advice!

If you were to recommend one extra-biblical practice that has been beneficial to your spiritual walk to the incoming class of 2011 what would it be?

To restate - We know that reading your Bible, going to church, making good friends, keeping accountable, praying continuously are all good for your spiritual walk, because the Bible says so and encourages us to pursue such things, but what is something that you've found greatly beneficial that may not be so explicitly stated in the Bible that you would suggest to someone in addition to all of the above?

Put answers in the comments, mine will come later.

What have you been convicted by lately?

2007-05-28T16:03:00.000-07:00

On Thursday, two weeks ago or so, I went up for a frisbee and collided with someone else, with their knee slamming into my thigh. I walked it off and finished out the game, but the next day I was in a bit of pain. "No worries, just a bruise" I thought and I figured I'd just walk it off.

That continued for a week and a half, each day the pain was just continual. It was always at a "walk it off" stage, but it just refused to be walked off.

All the while, my prayers were continually, "God heal me....if it is your will."

But then a few things all sort of came together that really convicted me -

1) My pastor gave a sermon on biblical healing. Jesus and the leper in

12While he was in one of the cities, there came a man full of leprosy.^[a] And when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and begged him, "Lord, if you will, you can make me clean." 13And Jesus^[b] stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, "I will; be clean." And immediately the leprosy left him. 14And he charged him to tell no one, but "go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for your cleansing, as Moses commanded, for a proof to them."

He pointed out that this broken world isn't meant for us. That God does do healings. God does desire to rescue us, and will ultimately do so in glorified bodies. To top it off, he pointed out that healing was a sign of the Kingdom of Heaven to come.

2) I read an article by Vincent Cheung on healing and unbelief, where he quotes an author who remarks on how often we lack faith when it comes to healing. Do we think that God cannot or does not want to please his children?

3) And finally, I was reminded of that passage in Scripture:

24And from there he arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon.^[g] And he entered a house and did not want anyone to know, yet he could not be hidden. 25But immediately a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit heard of him and came and fell down at his feet. 26Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27And he said to her, "Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." 28But she answered him, "Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." 29And he said to her, "For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter." 30And she went home and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone.

And I was just blown away. This woman wouldn't take "no" for an answer, even willingly accepting Christ's rebuke that she was a dog if he would heal her daughter.

Those three together really just rebuked me. Why didn't I believe that God would heal His people? Did I believe he lacked the power? Or the desire?

Simply put, I wanted a way out, a "just in case" because I didn't actually believe God's promises. Now, given, there are solid biblical reasons that God does not heal. We have the example of Paul and his thorn in the side. We have the fact that Jesus makes clear that the blessing is only for some (), but why was I so doubtful that the blessing didn't apply to me?

I do not have, because I do not ask.

16Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.

2007-05-25T14:51:00.000-07:00

(this is my testimony that I wrote for the Missions Team at my home church in my application for support for my trip to South Africa this summer. I cut out the South Africa specific stuff.)

I grew up in the Greek Orthodox Church; both my parents were Greek Orthodox (my mom converted from Catholicism when she married my dad), and we went to church every Sunday until my junior year of high school. Through I considered myself a Christian, I did not really believe much of anything besides that God existed. It was not until the end of my junior year that I began to think about “big picture” questions about God and my purpose on this earth. Most of my questions started after talking with my friend in my Psychology class, Brian Thompson, a believer who attended FBCD. He recommended to me Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. It was the first “Christian” book I ever read, and while I agreed with Lewis’ arguments for the existence of God, his ideas about Christ and salvation were new to me.

God had been working in my heart throughout this time. It was no coincidence that God had put many Christians in my life, especially believers from FBCD. The high school pastor at the time, Job Lara, was one of my club volleyball coaches, his daughter played with me on my high school team, and many other FBCD high school students were in my classes. The only bible in my house at the time was one my sister owned but never read. A comment in school one day by a student who said the three magi of the Christmas story were not in the bible prompted me to prove him wrong, and I began reading the gospel of Matthew. This turned into a daily occurrence, and I found myself looking forward every day to reading the more and more of Matthew and the Bible.

A few weeks before Easter of my senior year one of my friends, Steven Partnoff, asked me if I would like to go to Mexico on a mission trip during spring break. Looking back, I have no idea why my parents agreed to let me go on a trip out of the country with a group that had an obvious evangelical mission; only God working to allow me to go to Mexico can account for it. During the training for the Mexico mission trip I met Pastor Jon Castillo, and he asked me a question that made me think hard about why I attended the Greek Orthodox Church. When I told him that was where I went to church he asked, “Are you getting fed?” Though I did not admit it aloud, the undeniable answer was “No.” The training meetings, meanwhile, were teaching me more about Christ than I had ever learned before, and I was overjoyed to learn that we could study the bible to find out what it meant and that it contained God-given revelation and truth. I fit in well with the high school group, and the first couple days in Mexico were very fun. Before worship on the third night, all the students were gathered outside the main hall and told that we needed to take worship seriously by preparing our hearts; we could only go back inside when we felt prepared to worship God. I, as did everyone else, took a while to pray, and realized that I had been struggling with jealousy issues towards on of my teammates on the trip and that it was eating away at me. I asked God to take those feelings away. When I felt prepared I went into the worship hall. Something about the worship cut deep to my soul and I found myself on my knees within minutes. I wanted to give my life to Christ and I did.

Many Christians in their testimonies talk about the realization of their own sinfulness and need for a Savior as the turning point in their lives, but this wasn’t exactly what was going on in my heart and head that night. I knew that I was not perfect, but I thought I was in general a “good” person. There was just an overwhelming feeling that Jesus was the way, I did not have him, and so I wanted him. The rest of that week was the best week of my life, and—praise God!—the jealousy I was struggling with went away. I did not tell anyone about my decision because I myself did not realize what had actually occurred. It was only looking back later that I pinpointed that night as the night I made a decision to follow Christ.

The next few months was a time of intense growth and joy at knowing I had a God who created me and loved me so much he sent his Son to take the just punishment for my and the world’s sins. My parents saw me becoming more involved with FBCD, going to bible studies, college wrap-up, and helping with Vacation Bible School that summer. They were not too pleased, partly because they felt I was rejecting how they brought me up and partly because they felt I had been brainwashed. Since then I have learned that my dad is an atheist and my mother, though she believes in a God, is a relativist and pluralist. When I asked for her permission to go to South Africa on a mission trip this summer I was surprised when she asked more questions about the logistics rather than reacting with skepticism and disapproval about the actual trip. She easily agreed to let me go. Praise God! My dad does not approve of my faith and there is definitely a lot of tension when we talk about these issues, but God has blessed me with parents who love me and support me even though we disagree on these matters. They are even helping to fund my trip.

Coming to Stanford has grown me—a lot! It is an environment very hostile to Christianity, but equally important have been the trials any student faces at this time of their lives. The atmosphere here is one of self-reliance, individualism, achievement, and success. I have continually struggled with relying on God and not my own strength; my experiences as a student have taught me to rely on Christ’s promised unwavering strength. It is so easy to think in terms of what I need to get done every week and let myself believe I do not have the time to spare for a good quiet time in the morning, or else just get so caught up in the workload that I feel overwhelmed and stressed. This happened a couple weeks ago during midterms when on Monday night I broke down and felt there was no way I would make it through the week with all the things I needed to get done. These times teach me that I am correct in thinking I cannot do everything. I cannot do all my reading, write my papers, get enough sleep, invest in time with friends, go to bible study, and stay on top of my spiritual life when I try to do these things on my own. But with God’s power, through seeking him in prayer, thirsting for his word, casting my burdens on him, and trusting that his grace is sufficient for every day, I can have confidence that He will carry me through whatever work I have and at the end of the day I will be right where He wants me.

(What I didn't include in the app: so basically what happened was I had a crush on Brian, then after a few months found out he liked another girl and they were dating. This was the "teammate" I had jealousy issues with. Soon Brian, Sarah (his girlfriend), and I are all in the college group in our church. This past summer I spent sooo much time hanging out with both of them and we all took a trip to Vegas together. Fast-forward to this past spring break: Brian and Sarah are now married and expecting their first baby in June and I got to visit them and hang out at their new house. We have a great friendship. God redeems!!)

Tradition Tradition Tradition Tradition!

2007-05-23T00:10:00.000-07:00

Discussing ECFs, we get into their position on tradition. An excerpt from an email just sent off -

In an earlier e-mail, you [Mickey] also commented:

. . . [I] wonder if he uses "tradition of the Apostles" as shorthand for the Gospel and the Scriptures.

Athanasius sets up this dichotomy between Scripture and what has been heard from the Fathers several times in the quotes that I gave you. I can't prove that every time he or another ECF uses the term "tradition," he doesn't just mean Scripture itself; however, I can provide a long list of quotes from ECFs in which they do explicitly distinguish between Scripture and tradition, suggesting that, in the common vocabulary of the time, tradition meant what it still means today--an authoritative oral teaching handed down apart from Scripture. Whether or not the material content of that teaching entirely overlaps with the material content of Scripture is to this day an open question. Like Catholics today, some ECFs seem to lean one way and others in the opposite direction. But, either way, the oral teachings are a critical component of the deposit of faith; at the very least, they represent the correct understanding of the truths contained in Scripture, and thus Scripture cannot stand alone as the sole rule of faith without them.

I sent several of these before, so sorry for the repeat; but I think all of them clearly show that the ECFs did not habitually use "tradition" as shorthand for Scripture:

Ok, so you say each of these usages of the word "tradition" has defniite content apart from Scripture. What is it? The assumption of Mary, purgatory, or what? To quickly examine two of your quotations, I think it's clear that their content of tradition is not what you claim it is.

Irenaeus: "It comes to this, therefore, that these [heretics] do now consent neither to Scripture nor to Tradition . . . . Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings [on this question]? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?" (Against Heresies 3:2:2, 3:4:1)

To take this as one example. What does Irenaeus mean by tradition here? A little searching finds that this passage comes from book 3 -

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html

In which he clearly establishes his authority upon apostolic tradition, I agree.

But what is apostlic tradition for Irenaeus? It is sacred Scripture, as can be seen in his introduction and first chapter. (I find it interesting that he refers to Matthew as being written in Aramiac btw). Emphasis and commentary added:

1. WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.²

He begins his first section by saying what we have learned from the Apostles has been handed down in the Scriptures. I think this clearly implies formal sufficiency, as clearly if the Apostles also taught a manner of interpreting the Scriptures, he wouldn't make such a broad claim that the Scriptures is the "ground and pillar of our faith."

For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews³ in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

Mark hands down what was preached by Peter. Luke record's Paul's preaching. No secret traditions here.

And what is the content of all this preaching, the tradition that he appeals to finally?

2. These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics.

Simply that Christ is God!

So if you want to establish your point that the fathers are in your favor, you have to give the content of your tradition that these people are quoting as well. In his preface he makes clear what he's doing with this book that you are quoting from -

Wherefore, since the conviction of these men and their exposure is in many points but one work, I have sent unto thee [certain] books, of which the first comprises the opinions of all these men, and exhibits their customs, and the character of their behaviour. In the second, again, their perverse teachings are cast down and overthrown, and, such as they really are, laid bare and open to view. But in this, the third book I shall adduce proofs from the Scriptures, so that I may come behind in nothing of what thou hast enjoined; yea, that over and above what thou didst reckon upon, thou mayest receive from me the means of combating and vanquishing those who, in whatever manner, are propagating falsehood.

This whole book is Scripture proofs, which undermines your entire point if an appeal to tradition is necessary (or sufficient). He is making a Scriptural case for Christ being God here, and he appeals to tradition by tracing it back to Scripture.

Next case, and I bet I could keep searching too

Tertullian: "If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted . . . . If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer" (De Corona 3-4).

What is Tertullian talking about here? He's talking about pious and optional traditions. What you deleted here is critical! The text in full, emphasis added.

-And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line, when we have an ancient practice, which by anticipation has made for us the state, i.e., of the question? If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent. To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel. Then when we are taken up (as new-born children), we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week . We take also, in congregations before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal-times, and enjoined to be taken by all alike. As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honours. We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord's day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday. We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign. If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer. That reason will support tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has. (Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4)

So here's the question. If you appeal to Tertullian for authoritative tradition, then you must also disown the Roman Catholic Church, for it does not follow any of these traditions. People aren't immersed three times, they are sprinkled. People don't refrain from bathing for a whole week. People don't cross themselves (on the forehead!) every step.

He doesn't appeal to this tradition as authoritative and binding upon your conscience, he appeals to tradition as setting forth something beneficial for one's piety. Which is certainly something I can agree with!

This is not to say that "tradition" and "Scripture" were always mutually exclusive concepts for the ECFs. Sometimes, "tradition" seems to encompass the totality of truths handed down by the Apostles, in writing and otherwise. Also, "tradition" is arguably occasionally used just to mean Scripture; I was reading Gregory of Nyssa, and I saw him say "the Gospel tradition" apparently referring to Scripture itself. However, when the meaning of "tradition" can be divined from the text, it is usually presented as something complementary to but apart from Scripture. Thus, when we see ECFs emphasizing the importance of "tradition," the default conclusion must be that they are speaking of something in addition to Scripture.

I think that still remains to be proven, as a quick search on google has shown with the two quotes I've given.

slowing down....

2007-05-20T20:17:00.000-07:00

All -

As I have a lot less time (and as a whole, a lot less energy=p) these days, I'm going to have to pick and choose what I respond to. Sorry in advance.

I think there's still a few bits of "talking past one another" here. Let me see if I can clear some things up, especially over this major issue.

I think Scripture supports the concept of justify to be the equivalent of being declared righteous (the same word translates both phrases). It is the act of a righteous judge (God), declaring "yes, you are righteous." It is an instantaneous declaration.

Now, this is done on the basis of only one possibility as God does not clear the guilty. We actually have to be righteous and perfect in order for us to be justified.

Thus the key distinction between infusion and imputation.

Either God looks upon me or God does not. If God looks upon me, then however much I cooperate with the divine grace, my sin still taints what I do, and my guilt from previous sins hangs over me (all have sinned), I am still guilty.

The other option, and this is what makes the Gospel the Gospel, is that God looks not upon me, but chooses instead to look upon a substitute. The guilty sentence that I earned is placed upon Christ, and the "just, righteous" sentence that Christ earned (if we may use so base a term for a relationship between a father and son, though the concept of "wages" is there), is placed upon me.

So a lot of skipping here. No snipping. If you'd like me to cover a point specifically that I didn't, feel free to bring it up. I can't promise a response, but I'll try.

And I'd like to get to some scripture, as that's where this debate is going to have to go. So hopefully I can do some exegesis at the end.

On 5/18/07, Charles F. Capps wrote:

Well, let's see . . .

I. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth…

Agreed…

…not by infusing righteousness into them…

Disagreed, of course…

…but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

We wouldn't put it in this way, but I guess we agree with much of this. He pardons our sins and accounts/accepts us as righteous for Christ's sake alone, yes. Apart from Christ, nothing done by us suffices to justify us, yes. We receive and rest on Him and His righteousness by faith, which faith we have not of ourselves; it is the gift of God, yes.

Again, though, we would phrase the entire process differently. We would say that becoming a child of God in the New Covenant in place of a child of Adam frees us from the curse of subjection to the Levitical Law (Rom 8:2). In baptism, we receive adoption by God by uniting ourselves to Christ and receiving His own divine life infused into our souls. If you want to use the term "righteousness," then we are infused with "righteousness" when we are infused with Christ's divine life, which we call sanctifying grace.

Here is where the "righteousness is a sentence" would come into play. If by "infused with righteousness" you mean "infused with holiness" then I think I can agree. We are given holiness, the new heart that loves God rather than the old one that hates Him. But the righteousness of Christ is a sentence laid down by God.

This righteousness is a sentence given to Christ and all who are united with him by faith, not because of their faith or any subsequent obedience, but because of Christ and His life on earth, being fully without sin and perfect. He is declared righteous truly.

All others cannot look to themselves, or even to Christ in them, as their works are tainted by sin. They must look to a substitute. That's why I have to make the distinction between the works done in me (through Christ) and the works done in Christ (through Christ). It's His works, and His righteousness (the sentence, passed down by God).

Returning to your terminology, we would see God imputing Christ's righteousness to us to be inexorably accompanied by God infusing Christ's righteousness into us. If God accounts us as righteous, how can we not be (Rom 8:31-34)? As God says in Isaiah 55:11: "so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose." By virtue of God declaring us righteous on Christ's account, we are righteous on Christ's account.

I'm not too sure your application of the passages are good, but I do affirm that we are made holy by God, while we are declared holy by God. I agree with you here. I think.

But I do see what is said above as different from what the council of Trent said -

"If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema." (Canon 14).

Justification, by faith alone, says exactly what is being declared anathema here. It is resting in Christ alone for righteousness and looking not to what we've done, however much we have become holy by God's gracious work in us.

Thus, if Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, apprehended by faith (also given to us), then you're actually a protestant. Which would make this whole discussion rather silly, though I would say very beneficial =D.

Catholics are often accused of undermining the totality and sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice by encouraging prayer through Mary or by repeatedly offering the Sacrifice of the Mass. We will address these points later, but for now I would like to turn the tables for a moment and argue that Protestants, by limiting salvation in Christ to a merely forensic justification, actually underestimate the power of the cross. According to you, Christ's sacrifice simply covers our dung with snow and causes God, when He finds us worthy of eternal damnation, to declare our sentence paid and usher us into heaven. Christ's sacrifice has now done its work. AND YET WE ARE STILL DUNG. So then, because nothing unclean will enter heaven (Rev 21:27) you say God instantaneously/painlessly transforms our dung into gold.

My point is this: you regard Christ's sacrifice as sufficient to justify us but unable to sanctify us (where by "sanctify" I mean not an imputed veneer of holiness but rather actual "de-dung-ification"). The reason you are forced to argue that God the Father snaps His fingers and de-dung-ifies us after the Last Judgment is because, under your view of salvation, Christ's sacrifice fails to do so. The fuller, Catholic picture of justification includes, in addition to the external imputation of freedom from the curse of the law, the infusion of sanctifying grace that does just what it's title suggests--sanctifies us. Sanctification is something that transforms us--it is not just something that changes the way that God sees us without correspondence to our actual state. So we would say that something very important is "wrought in us" when we are baptized.

Well, Christ's sacrifice isn't limited just to the declaration of righteousness of course. Maybe the synergistic protestants may think so, but certainly the holiness is bought by the blood of Christ as well. So we are still dung, we are changing into gold, and we will be transformed (in a blink) all by the power of the cross.

Thus, while your argument may work with other protestants, it has no effect here, as I do affirm all those things you say we deny.

We are made holy. We are gradually being purified. We are given a new heart, not a heart of stone but of flesh (Eze. 36:22ff), we are given a spirit of God that moves in us to no longer hate God, but delight in Him (Romans 8:5ff).

But the declaration of righteousness is, as you say correctly, forensic, because it's a declaration that we are in the right. We are worthy. We are pure and perfect.

And in order for God to make that declaration, he cannot look upon me, because I still am unclean, impure, unholy, however much I've become holier and purer as God has worked His grace in me. He must look upon Christ and join me in Christ (through faith). So my sentence (condemned) is Christ's, and Christ's sentence (righteous) is mine.

We would also point to Scripture (Heb 10:14; 2Pet 1:9; etc.) to support our idea of infused righteousness.

Once again, if you mean "holiness" I agree. God makes us holy along with justifying us. But righteousness isn't infused in us, we are counted righteous, just as Abraham was. (Romans 4:3)

II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.

The act of faith and the sacrament of baptism together constitute God's chosen instrument of justification. As long as the person is justified, the faith is not dead faith, but it worketh through love. Disregard for works of charity renders faith dead and therefore represents a free choice to cast off justification (Jas 2:17).

Justification – meaning the initial event of becoming justified – may therefore be said to be by faith alone (where this faith, this openness to receiving Christ's righteousness, by definition includes an openness to having the grace of God work charitably through us). However, justification – meaning the state of being justified – is negatively upheld through the grace of God by the continued openness to this, that is, by the lack of mortal sin. As John says, it is impossible for someone to commit mortal sin and yet continue to abide in Christ (1Jn 3:4-9). For this reason, referring more to the condition of being in a justified state than to the initial event of justification itself, James wrote that "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (2:24).

Once again, the distinction must be made at a definitional level. Justification is a declaration, not a process. Thus, it's an on-off switch. Either you have it or you don't.

I would say those who fail to bear fruit never were justified. If they were, they would have also been purified and made holy.

With regards to James 2, I would say that he is using the term justified in a different sense than Paul. Over and over you see James dealing with very practical topics, living life rightly. The book is referred to as the "proverbs of the NT." So I would say his usage of the term "justified" is "proven true."

Luke 7:35 uses it in a similar manner -

Yet wisdom is justified by all her children."

Is wisdom wisdom? Tautology. But wisdom is displayed, proven to be wisdom, by her children. In the same way faith is still faith, but it's displayed and proven to be faith. And a man is proven to be a child of God by his works.

III. Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction of his Father's justice in their behalf. Yet inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them, and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for any thing in them, their justification is only of free grace, that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.

Agreed.

IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify the elect; and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins and rise again for their justification; nevertheless they are not justified until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.

Yep, this is fine.

V. God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may by their sins fall under God's Fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.

Apart from "and although they can never fall from the state of justification," we agree.

As I wrote above, we believe that faith without works of love is dead (Jas 2:17)--and dead faith is not associated with justification. A rejection of love is a rejection of God (because God is love--1Jn 4:8) and hence a rejection of Christ and hence a rejection of justification, because our justification derives solely from the righteousness of Christ. Such a complete rejection of love we call mortal sin (1Jn 5:16-17). Unlike you, we believe that it is possible for someone who is truly justified to reject this justification; we believe our position is necessitated by free will (but, since you do not believe in free will, you argue that God causes a perfect correlation to occur between those who are truly justified and those who persevere). Without addressing the underlying difference of free will vs. unconditional election, we would point to Scripture to support our position.

HEB 10:

28: A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29: How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

I strongly feel that Paul is not speaking hypothetically in verse 29 (especially in light of verses 36 and 38). Neither can "sanctified" mean "temporally set apart" because in verse 14 Paul states, "For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified." If I remember correctly, you claim Paul is operating under two different definitions of "sanctified." As you would say, this objection raises up a possibility without establishing it--and I would add that this possibility is an unlikely possibility at best considering how close verse 14 is to 29 both textually/spatially and topically.

Obviously that conclusion is driven by the strength of "sanctified" and why that necessitates some gymnastics in v.29.

Here's a very brief outline of why I think "sanctified" may have two different interpretations, and I would also suggest even if it doesn't, it seems that Paul does not seem quite as concerned as you might think, judging by the way he finishes up that very passage, where he affirms that he actually believes this is not going to happen. -

32But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, 33sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. 34For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. 35Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. 37For,

"Yet a little while,
and the coming one will come and will not delay;
38but my righteous one shall live by faith,
and if he shrinks back,
my soul has no pleasure in him."

39But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.

Briefly - the perfection of Christ's sacrifice from Hebrews 10

1For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sin? 3But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin every year. 4For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

v.1 we have the concept of being made perfect being introduced. The distinction between the two sacrifices is being made. The law sacrifice and Christ.

What does being made perfect mean? Well from verse 2 it must include the "no longer have any consciousness of sin" along with "being cleansed." In contrast to this, the sacrifices are offered every year (v.3) so there's a reminder of sin.

v.4 tells us (once again, setting up contrasts) that the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin.

5Consequently, when Christ^[a] came into the world, he said,

"Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
but a body have you prepared for me;
6in burnt offerings and sin offerings
you have taken no pleasure.
7Then I said, 'Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.'"

8When he said above, "You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law), 9then he added, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He abolishes the first in order to establish the second. 10And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

v.5 starts the great contrast (Hebrews is a book of contrasts, Christ and angels. Christ and men. Christ and Moses. Christ and the law) - In contrast to the law, which cannot take away sins. Christ has come. Contrasted to the OT law of sacrifices and offerings (v.5-6), He comes and abolishes that.

v.10 then establishes the big connection. Those sacrifices could not remove sins, could not cleanse the conscience. But Christ's offering of His body does all that.

11And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when Christ^[b] had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

The contrast continues and is finished. many offerings - no cleansing. One offering, perfected. v.14 links us back to v.1 which points us to verse 2 -

For those who are dead in Christ, we have been cleansed and perfected. No more does sin stand against us, condemning us, but rather it has been taken away.

Additionally, the interjection of "enables us to be made perfect" ruins the whole contrast, thus is unacceptable. Thus those being sanctified are now perfect, sins taken away. There's no future aspect to these passages, as it's all looking back.

Thus they cannot be condemned anymore, as there is no sin to condemn them with. Christ makes full atonement for all sins -> it's all been punished. So thus I must interpret the other punishment threatened as punishment for sins that weren't taken away.

But that cannot have happened to those who have already been perfect, so it requires a different interpretation of "sanctified."

PHP 1:6 [discussed in an earlier one of my e-mails]

2PET 2 [discussed in one of George's]

VI. The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respect, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament.

I think we’re ok with that.

I hope this helps!

kt,
Charlie

Ok, the moment you've all been waiting for.... hardcore nudity!!

whoops, Simpsons episode, I mean....exegesis!

I hope to prove with this passage the forensic aspect of justification - done not on the basis of our holiness (or as you would say, righteousness infused, though I still would say that "righteousness" is the wrong term here), but on the basis of faith alone -

Romans 4 -

1What then shall we say was gained by^[a] Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh?

Paul transitions from Romans 3, which had just declared that all had fallen short, but were justified by God's free gift on the basis of Christ's propitiation (Romans 3:25), which basically means "turning away wrath." He moves onto Abraham forefather of the Jews. How was Abraham saved?

2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

As Abraham comes before the Mosaic law, Paul broadens his rejection of being justified by the "law" to simply that of works. But notice that he points out that if Abraham was justified by these works, there's something to boast about, but this cannot be the case before God.

I might rephrase this to direct it against "free will" as many commonly see it. If people are justified finally on the basis of passively accepting Christ's sacrifice, then they have something to boast about, they did not reject God. But this cannot be so! There is no grounds for boasting, thus no room for "passive acceptance."

And how passive is an action that determines whether or not we are ultimately saved? It seems like verbal slight of hand here to call it "passive" if you can say God does 99.99999% and we refuse to allow God to do 0.00001% we won't be saved. I'm not saying it's wrong for you to hold that position, but let's call a spade a spade at least.

3For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." 4Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

Paul then points out that in contrast to any works, Abraham was justified (counted righteous again), on the basis of belief.

Immediately, Paul makes clear that it's not "working out with love" that justifies Abraham, but faith. As if it's "working out with love" then his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. Instead, Abraham, like me, like everyone, must not work (or more precisely, not trust in our work, even if done in holiness and love), but trust god who justifies the ungodly.

Ungodly! God justifies the ungodly. Not those who through faith worked out in love persevere and thus are holy, but ungodly!

6just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

7"Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
8blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin."

this blessing is echoed again in the Psalms, where Paul quotes David as pointing to those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, not on the basis of their cooperation with grace, but are covered and not counted against them. (by the blood of the Lamb of God)

9Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Notice as well, Paul rejects any concept of "cooperation with grace" by pointing to the fact that justification happens before Abraham was circumcised. The circumcision that Abraham underwent was not an act of obedience (however passive you might call it) that resulted in God justifying Abraham, but was a fruit of the faith that Abraham had before.

In the same way, man is justified (declared righteous) not by our cooperation, or passive going along, but by faith and faith alone, through Christ alone.

You said you'd get to how Catholics actually believe in the perfection of Christ's sacrifice. So here are some questions to ponder. I'm not expecting an answer (as I am no longer to able to answer everything), but I would hope you would read and think -

If Christ's sacrifice perfects us, why is there further punishment as purging in purgatory?

I would say all sins are paid for, so there no longer is punishment for sins or for impurity, but perfection is bought and paid for. Delivered partially in life, wholly upon death (or the second coming).

If Christ's sacrifice perfects us, why do some fall away? Was it not perfect enough for them?

I would say none that Christ dies for, being perfected, will fall away. This is in accord to the entirety of the Scriptures, specifically note John 6:37-39, John 10:27-28, where Christ makes clear that those given to Him by God will never fall and will be saved.

And regarding the Eucharist, I had to do some reading but I'm curious why you don't see it as truly a sacrifice -

1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."[185] In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."[186]

Not just a memorial, but also a sacrifice- what kind of sacrifice? an efficacious one. body given up, blood poured out all over again. Reading on, we see Eucharist to be of exactly the same as the sacrifice on the cross.

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."[188]

But that flatly contradicts the one sacrifice once for all which is spoken of in Hebrews 10.

Lots of lead up to the final question -

If Christ's sacrifice on the cross (as Hebrews 10 knows nothing of continual sacrifice) perfects once for all, why is there a continual sacrifice upon the altar, during which it is necessary to offer Christ repeatedly?

Sorry for the many words, you have given more than me =p and once again I apologize for not being able to answer every point. If there are points specifically, you'd like me to address, please put them somewhere prominent, and I'll try to get to them. Otherwise I'm just going to pick and choose, on the basis of not having the time or energy. Thanks much again for the discussions, and hopefully email will suffice for now.

Mickey

High School

2007-05-19T01:42:00.000-07:00

One of my good friends from high school, with whom I played with on the worship team, recently decided to convert to Catholicism.

Read about it here.

Evangelism Sermon

2007-05-16T00:01:00.000-07:00

Since I promised... the following are my notes in the raw... (with a few things removed to remove clutter) that I used for my sermons these past 2 Sundays. I hope it encourages and challenges you.

How Shall They Believe?

Romans 10:1-15

People don’t know what the gospel is.

People don’t know why other people need it.

How to witness to family member – same as everyone else!

Have a Passion for the Lost (1)

- This is very strong language. We see the seriousness of what Paul is saying here in the previous chapter, Romans 9:1-3 (read, comment).

o “Great sorrow and unceasing anguish”

- Desire their deliverance

o Paul is willing to trade his salvation!

- Pray for them

o God also desires that all people be saved

o 1 Tim 2:1-4 – prayer for the lost is good, because God wants all to be saved!

o 2 Pet 3:9 – God is delaying the apocalypse so that more may be saved!

Identify the Problem of the Unbeliever (2-3)

- Unbelievers need the righteousness of God (3) – “ignorant of the righteousness”

o Most are self-righteous (Prov 20:6, 21:2) – “I’m a good person”

o God does not like self-righteousness (Prov 26:12, Is 65:5, Luke 16:15).

o Attempting to justify oneself is futile (Job 9:20, Matt 23:25-28).

o God does not save you because you’re more worthy (Titus 3:5).

- Unbelievers need more than spirituality (2a) – “a zeal for God”

o God’s righteousness does not come from being “religious.”

- Unbelievers need to know God (2b) – “not according to knowledge”

o epignosis (different kind of knowledge than gnosis, fuller)

o Isa 5:13 – people go into exile for lack of knowledge

o Hos 4:6 – destroyed for lack of knowledge; forgotten the law

§ ignorance is willfull.

§ “forgotten” = ignored, ceased to care

§ These are not “honest mistakes”

o Relationship with God

- How do you convince someone of this?

- Why should they believe that this is a problem?

Recognize the Purpose of the Law (4-5)

- What it doesn’t do (4)

o It cannot justify you

§ I had a talk with my Latin teacher… he wouldn’t stop justifying himself…

- What it does do (5)

o Silences you (Rom 3:19a)

§ Shows you that you have no excuses: b/c conscience = “with knowledge”

§ Lady in San Fran who wouldn’t continue after the first question

o Sentences you (Rom 3:20)

§ Shows you where you deserve to go

§ No preacher, teacher, or evangelist can faithfully or effectively present the gospel if he does not first convince his hearers of their damning unrighteousness apart from Christ. - MacArthur

§ “You can’t judge people”

· The law does the judging. Let people convict themselves.

§ If God judges you by his law, will you be guilty or innocent?

§ Being guilty, where should God send you?

§ What are you going to do about it?

o Sends you to Christ (Gal 3:24)

§ Note: Law->No Hope->Anger

§ They need to: Admit sin->Admit Punishment->Express Concern->Gospel

Understand the Promise of Salvation (6-13)

- Two questions: how do you get it and who is it for?

o Do people understand the gospel? No!

§ Catholic guy (David?) at the mall.

- How it is done (6-10)

o The “formula” is not complicated (6-8,10)

§ No pilgrimage, baptism, priest

o Keep this question in mind: does the Devil know/do that?

o Repentance: Turn from sin (9a) (Acts study)

§ “Jesus is Lord” means that you are not!

§ Conviction of sin (John 16:8)

· Realize you’ve broken God’s law!

§ Contrition over sin (Ez 43:10, 2 Cor 7:8-11, Ps 51:17, Ps 38:18)

· Be sorry for what you’ve done!

· Hate it because it’s wrong, against God, God hates it

§ Confession of sin (James 5:16, 1 John 1:9, Ps 32:5, Neh 9:2)

· Get specific!

§ Conversion from sin (Rom 6:12f, Ez 14:6, Is 55:7, Matt 3:8)

· Stop sinning, and start doing good!

o Faith: Turn to Jesus (9b)

§ Jesus does NOT need your acceptance. You need his mercy.

- Who it is for: everyone! (11-13)

o List people: mall, school, work, family, etc.

Boldly Preach the Gospel (14-15)

- The questions Paul is asking are all rhetorical and the answer is always a negative one (i.e. “they can’t” or “no”). We can see this from the context. (Read and explain).

- The lost cannot be saved without believing (14a)

- The lost cannot believe without hearing (14b)

o What does it sound like it means?

- The lost cannot hear without a preacher (14c)

o Mark Cahill Quote

o A preacher is anyone who speaks God’s truth to someone else

- The preacher cannot preach unless he goes (15a) (Story of Lazarus – pers. evang.)

o Notice that the assumption is that the Christians go out, not that we bring the unbelievers in; It’s everyone’s job to share the gospel with everyone they know.

o What do you think happens when we die?

o Do you have a religious background?

o Did you get one of these?

- The goer cannot regret it (15b) (Jer 20:9)

o You will have the eternal thanks of everyone you talk to – everyone

Mark Cahill

- What is worse than a massacre? People who know what it takes to get to heaven, and be right with God, and don’t tell anyone. People who walked around the VA Tech campus as believers in Jesus Christ, and didn’t strike up a conversation or hand a tract to Cho, the Jewish professor, or any of those other students, and didn’t tell them about judgment day. Those people are just as selfish as Cho was. He didn’t want to live this life God’s way. That is also the description of someone who knows what it takes to get to heaven and will not tell anyone. Total, utter, selfishness and nothing less.

- Please Christians don’t live your life more selfishly than a mass murderer

On a slightly different note... an examination of the views of an early church father

2007-05-11T19:05:00.000-07:00

Background: Origen (185-254 A.D) grew up in Alexandria and then moved to Caesarea and taught in the church there. He was one of the last non-bishop theologians and is remembered especially for his consistently anti-Gnostic stance, and his work arguing against Celsus (a prominent secular critic of Christianity). Unless noted otherwise, all quotes are from Origen's On First Principles and cited as book.chapter.section.

The Concept of a Savior in Origen’s Cosmological System

Different wars require different weapons and tactics. Likewise, different rescue options require very different strategies. For instance, there is no need of a flotation device to rescue someone from a burning building. In much the same way, one’s view of the world will greatly influence what kind of a savior is needed to save the world, if indeed a savior is even required. In Christianity there were different views of the world and hence different views of the nature of the savior. The early church father Origen, wrote many works about the nature of the Christian savior, Jesus Christ. He also believed in a very well defined cosmological system into which one would expect to be able to place his conception of Jesus Christ. Central to Origen’s cosmology is the belief that “the sun also, and the moon and the rest of the heavenly bodies are living beings” (1.7.4) and so have souls, as do men, angles, and daemons. Origen further argues that the “entire creation” will be subjected to Christ, which “implies the salvation, proceeding from Christ, of those who are subject” (1.6.1). Yet he reasons that the Lord “desired… to save the body, just as it was likewise his will to save also the soul” and that “the whole man would not have been saved unless he had taken upon him the whole man” (Dialogue with Heraclides 136). Despite the fact that Origen’s concept of salvation is a part of his cosmological system there is a tension between the two as it is difficult to understand how a salvation could come from Christ that was effective for the souls in non-human bodies, as the nature of Christ was a dichotomy between the human and divine and nothing else.

In order to understand Origen’s cosmology the first step is to grasp his concept of the soul. He held that “before the ages” there were souls, called “minds”, which later became angels, daemons, and people. In addition, he believed that, “all souls and all rational natures, whether holy or wicked, were made or created. All these are incorporeal in respect to their proper nature, but though incorporeal they were nevertheless made. For all things were made by God through Christ” (1.7.1). This is an important distinction for it indicates that each of the souls were on a level playing field at the beginning, and that Christ, who would later become the savior was not one of these souls who was made, but rather they were made through him. Furthermore, these souls were “all pure” until they fell due to their sin. Origen describes the Fall this way:

Before the ages minds were all pure, both daemons and souls and angels, offering service to God and keeping his commandments. But the devil, who was one of them, since he possessed free-will, desired to resist God, and God drove him away. With him revolted all the other powers. Some sinned deeply and became daemons, others less and became angels; others still less and became archangels; and thus each in turn received the reward for his individual sin (1.8.1).

Thus Origen believes that while every soul sinned, some sinned to a greater degree, and that the final state of the soul was a punishment for the sin. This is further emphasized when he says, “there remained some souls who had not sinned so greatly as to become daemons, nor on the other hand so very lightly as to become angels. God therefore made the present world and bound the soul to the body as a punishment” (1.8.1). Origen also extends this idea to the conclusion that the heavenly bodies, the sun, moon, and stars, are also souls that “have been given bodies of one sort or another” (1.7.4)

This cosmological system leads to several conclusions about the character of God, the need of a Savior, and the nature of that savior, namely Jesus Christ. Origen sees God as the creator, judge, and one who desires to bring all creation once again into subjection to him (1.6.1). As the creator, God made all souls as well as the world, though the world was made later and souls were placed in bodies afterwards. It is indeed interesting that God calls the world good (Genesis 1) even though Origen says that God “made the present world and bound the soul to the body as a punishment” (1.8.1). But in light of God’s desire to restore the souls to unity and Origen’s argument that God uses these punishments to do so (1.6.3), it makes sense that God would call the world good for it serves to bring about His ultimate goal. Origen also places a large emphasis on the free will of the souls. He argues that “God is no ‘respecter of persons’” (1.8.1) and so punishes and rewards each soul according to their actions which they freely chose to do. Through this argument Origen presents God as having a broad purpose, restoring the souls to subjection to Him (1.6.2), but not as much a specific purpose for every single soul. For instance he reasons that,

All these duties (the roles of different angels) are not performed by accident or chance, nor because the angels were naturally created for them, lest in so doing we should chare the Creator with partiality. Rather must we believe that they were conferred in accordance with merit and virtue and with the activity and ability of each individual spirit, by God the most righteous and impartial governor of all things (1.8.1).

Yet this reasoning arguably limits the role of God in the world. For God, who cannot be impartial, instead of designing a world with each actor having a specific purpose becomes simply a judge whose role is to respond to the actions of the souls and hand out the “most appropriate and righteous judgment… being settled in accordance with merit” (1.8.1). However, at the same time, Origen recognizes that God is active in the world, for He is the creator and assigns the judgments specifically, rather than simply by chance, though their basis is merit (1.8.1). Further, Origen points out that God took an active role in seeking to reconcile creation to Him. For “(the savior) descended to earth to grieve for the human race and took our sufferings on himself before he endured the cross and deigned to assume our flesh” (Homilia in Ezechiel 6.6) . But why was such intervention by God necessary?

Origen argues that all of creation is need of a savior as all have rebelled against God (1.8.1), been cast from His presence, and are currently in a state of punishment for their sin (1.6.1, 1.7.4, 1.8.1). All souls are guilty of sin, even before they enter the body to which they are constrained, and so regardless of their form, every soul is separated from God. Though each man is punished according to his sins and rewarded according to their good acts (1.6.3), “salvation procede(s) from Christ” (1.6.1). Origen argues that salvation is necessary because “the end is always like the beginning” and so though all sinned they “in their turn are restored, through God’s goodness, through their subjection to Christ and their unity with the Holy Spirit” (1.6.2). Furthermore, he says, “had there been no death of Christ, there would certainly have been no resurrection and there would have been no ‘firstborn from the dead’” (Homilia in Ezechiel 6.6)2. An interesting caveat about Origen’s conception of salvation is that he believes that in the end all souls will be saved, including the enemies of God, daemons (1.6.1), and even Satan himself (Gregg). It may take more time for the souls that are currently in rebellion and actively opposing the people of God (1.6.3) to be saved as they, due to their free will are not forced to salvation. Yet they, “over may ages, are by these stern methods of correction (various punishments for sin) renewed and restored, first by the instruction of angels and afterwards by that of powers yet higher in rank” (1.6.3). So despite initial resistance, eventually all will believe, though a savior is needed as part of the process of bringing about that belief.

What kind of savior would fit in Origen’s cosmology? If, as he argues, all souls have sinned but at the very end of things all will again be brought into subjection to God then it follows that all need a savior. This is particularly true as Origen mentions no distinctions between the souls before they fell, which would imply that the only difference between them now is the degree to which they sinned and the body to which they are constrained. Further evidence that these are the only major distinctions between the souls is that all of the souls have free will and that all of them sinned, none resisted completely. So if all souls need a savior then the savior should be able to save all of the souls. As will be discussed later Origen argues that the savior, Jesus Christ, himself had a soul of the same nature as every other soul (2.6.3), which would then mean that he is sufficient to save all souls if only the souls were to be saved. But Origen emphasizes that the body will be saved as well stating that “even for those destined for eternal fire or for punishment there will be an incorruptible body through the change of the resurrection” (de Principiis 2.10.3) . If one were to base their conception of the savior solely on the basis of Origen’s cosmology then they would expect that the savior would not only be a “soul like all souls” (2.6.3) but would also somehow take on the bodily nature of every being that he intended to save, namely all of creation. Since Origen emphasizes that “God is no ‘respecter of persons’” (1.8.1) and cannot be charged with partiality, it seems counter-intuitive that He should not endeavor to save all souls as well as all bodies, so as not to treat the bodies of men different than the bodies of other souls. If this is the case one would also expect the savior to be able to identify with those he is saving and to either somehow nullify their sin or provide a method and reason for the souls to strive to be near to God as Origen says that the angels, who sinned the least, do (1.8.1).

However, the kind of savior that Origen depicts when he describes Christ is notably different from what one would expect. Origen’s focus when it comes to Christ is the nature of Christ, namely that it is both fully human and fully divine at the same time. He argues that Jesus Christ is comprised of both a divine nature and a human nature, each of which is essential. The divine nature is the Logos, the Word of God, through whom God created the world (2.6.3). On the other hand the human nature was a soul, the nature of which “was that which belongs to all souls” (2.6.5). It was the soul that had sinned the least, and had, “from the beginning of its creation and after, clung inseparably and persistently to him, to the Wisdom and Logos of God… It entered itself into his light and his glory. So it was made, in the proper sense, one spirit with him” (2.6.3). But in order to be able to save mankind this soul, while being like all other souls (as Origen claimed was essential in his Dialogue with Heraclides 136) was different in the sense that,

The capacity to choose good and evil present in all souls, this soul, which belongs to Christ, chose to love justice in such a way that justice was rooted unchangeably and inseparably within it, in proportion to its immeasurable love…. Thus it is true both that we must believe Christ to have had a human and rational soul and that we must judge him to have had neither sense nor possibility of sin (2.6.5).

Origen states that although the Savior is both God and man, “the Logos of God is more truly ‘in one flesh’ with the soul (of Jesus) than a man is with his wife” (2.6.3). Yet, in consistency with his emphasis on free will and God’s impartiality Origen says that, “God’s assumption of that soul was not a chance affair nor a case of favoritism. Rather, it was accorded to that soul by reason of the merit of its virtues” (2.6.4).

This argument of Origen however, focuses solely on the issue of reconciling the two natures of Christ. The question remains, why did Christ not take on more natures if he was truly meant to be a Savior for all souls. As he only took on the nature of man he must not be the Savior of all souls, but that statement does not align with Origen’s emphasis on the ultimate reconciliation of all souls with God. Thus there is an apparent discrepancy between Origen’s cosmology and the Savior that plays an integral part in it.

Are there possible explanations for this apparent discrepancy? One possibility is that although all sinned and are in need of a Savior, due to the different levels of sin and hence levels of the fall, a different kind of Savior is needed for different souls. For instance, the angels, as they did not fall as far are still able to stand before God and are given by God the right to rule and instruct those who fell below them (1.8.1-2). Therefore they may not need a Savior who identifies with them and pays the penalty for their sin as Christ does for men. This seems especially possible as the angels already desire to serve and stand before God (1.8.1) even without a Savior. Scripture also lends support to this idea in I Peter 1:12, which indicates that the angles have not experienced or fully comprehend the salvation of men through Christ. Therefore this shows that this Savior was probably not intended for them. This theory would hold for the souls in the heavenly and daemonic bodies as well. Another possible explanation is that the Savior is only interested in the bodily (in addition to spiritual) salvation of humanity and that when it comes to the rest of creation God is content to save only the soul. There is not much evidence to support this theory, except for the fact that Origen only specifically emphasizes the fact that the bodily salvation of men is necessary. Yet, in contrast, it may be inferred that God cares about the bodily salvation of all souls if He cares about it in regards to humanity and is a God that does not show partiality (1.8.1).

There is indeed a tension between Origen’s cosmological view of salvation and his “earthly” view of it. The surviving texts of Origen’s works do not seem to specifically address this discrepancy and so we are left pondering the question of how salvation, particularly the salvation of men through Jesus Christ, reconciles with Origen’s cosmology. Origen himself recognized that some of his beliefs would be difficult to understand reconcile for he said,

These are the ideas that were able to make their way into our minds as we took up these very difficult questions about the incarnation and the deity of Christ. If someone comes up with better ideas and can confirm what he says with plainer assertions from the Holy Scriptures, let them be accepted instead of what we have written (2.6.7).

In light of recent discussions...

2007-05-11T17:07:00.000-07:00

I've been reading some of Sam Storms' stuff. He made this post today, and I thought that in light of our recent discussion with Charlie and George, it might be an interesting read. It was helpful for me to explore what I think about the Roman Catholic Church.

Jumping Ahead (3)

2007-05-11T13:19:00.000-07:00

On 5/9/07, Charles F. Capps <ccapps@stanford.edu> wrote:

Thanks again for your patience in explaining yourself to us, Mickey; we are new to the way you describe justification and we are still trying to wrap our minds around it. I would like to say right now that we were both very impressed yesterday with how consistent you were in your reasoning and how well your position held up to our objections.

Regarding Php 1:6 very briefly, I will try to explain why I think this particular passage is consistent with our stance as well as with yours. First of all, reading the passage in context, I have no problem with what Paul is saying.

3: I thank my God in all my remembrance of you,
4: always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy,
5: thankful for your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now.
6: And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

Paul is commending the Philippians on their works of charity, and for this reason he says that he has no doubt that God will bring them into their inheritance as sons with Christ, and therefore heirs with Christ (Rom 8:15-17). (Aside from your problem with synergism) would we be correct to say that you interpret this passage in a similar way? In other words, you think that Paul is saying: "I have utmost confidence that your act of faith actually justified you"--presumably on account of the Philippians' works of charity, which provide a clue as to whether or not other Christians are actually among the elect or merely in a temporal covenantal relationship with Christ.

Yes, I would understand it in a similar way. I don't know how much Paul's infallibility of an apostle plays into his statements here, but I think that interpretation is reasonable.

Now moving on to your questions regarding synergism. No, we agree that even our act of faith is a work done in us by Christ, just like you do. The good act of faith itself is moved and accomplished by grace alone. So yes, God is the one who began the good work in us. In the same way, God is the one who carries the salvation of the elect to completion. The carrying to salvation is "done" or "powered" or "accomplished" or however you want to put it by God's grace alone, not by our efforts. The only issue we take with your position is this: God does not carry the salvation of the reprobate to completion not because He desires their damnation but because they freely refuse to cooperate with His grace.

So you would say that God began a good work in them by enabling faith, which we passively go along with. Along with that, you would say all have received this enablement.

So, in what ways is that "begun a good work" carried to completion in the reprobate?

It seems inconsistent to me because I see you as banking on God's saving graces, yet still trying to maintain that we somehow have free will in accepting God's grace, and in accepting God finishing it.

Yet, Paul does not make any remark that "you who have passively started the good work done by God, will carry it to completion, provided that you continue availing yourself to God's grace." Rather, he puts the emphasis solely upon God and His actions throughout. God begins the good work (faith) and He will finish it (salvation).

If in fact, God begins this good work in all people, then Paul is actually lying, for God doesn't complete it in all people, but only in those who "passively go along." I wonder also how "passive" this action is, if indeed it is a determining factor, but the nature of the human condition is another topic we have to address in the future.

Now you seem to be objecting that God's grace is only enabled by our cooperation – or our lack of dis-cooperation, however we like to word it. This is true enough if you mean "if and only if we refuse to cooperate, we would not receive the grace." But, going back to the family analogy, I think it is fair to say that the parents who adopt a child and eventually give him the inheritance are the sole movers in the process. It is the parents who do the adopting, not the child, and it is the parents who confer the inheritance, not the child. Even though the son did absolutely nothing to earn his right to that inheritance which is gratuitously being bestowed on him by the parents, it is nonetheless his by default as a member of the family. However, he retains the power to reject it by rejecting membership in the family at any point.

I think I understand your point, though I do have a few quibbles with the analogy (as we are spoken not only of as "adopted" but also "reborn," so in what ways did you have a choice in being reborn?) But I digress. An analogy is helpful for clarifying your position, but it doesn't establish it.

We realize the distinction we are making is subtle and might be frustrating to you who are coming from the perspective of not believing in free will, but at the same time we really do not think that we are creating a distinction that is not there.

I see nothing wrong with making man "passive" in salvation. But what I'm saying is that he is wholly passive, contributing nothing to his salvation. Your view of man is more active than mine, as he has to at least "not resist," whereas I would say God, being the unstoppable force, cannot be resisted, and changes our hearts so we cannot resist.

I would say that is exactly what Philippians 1:6 teaches, that man is wholly passive in salvation. God begins the good work, and He carries it to completion.

For a view that affirms independent free will in man, God begins the good work, but then depending upon whether or not they accept it or not, He carries it to completion if they do, and He does not if they do not.

To sum it up - If indeed God gives the gift of faith to all people, in what sense does God carry to completion the gift of faith given (but rejected) to the reprobate?

Jumping ahead (cont)

2007-05-10T22:13:00.000-07:00

Another email exchange. I need to get on the attack eventually, or at least present a positive defense of justification by faith alone, which I'm hinting at over and over, but haven't gotten to.

And if you guys haven't read the hitchens wilson debate, I'd highly suggest it. Douglas Wilson is doing a splendid job of demonstrating the utter irrationality of the atheistic worldview.

Gar,.

This is what I get when I speak off the cuff. Let me see if I can do some damage control. I'd like to get into positive presentations eventually, but I've been lazy.

On 5/10/07, George Capps <gcapps@stanford.edu> wrote:

Thanks again for your replies, Mickey. One more clarification (again, just
so I can get your position straight).

I'm afraid your exegesis on 2Pet 2:1 confused me more than anything
else. In your blog, you seemed to suggest that these false teachers were
probably never even temporally justified at all--that "the Master who
bought them" just means "the God who created them." However, in your
e-mail, you say that "the Master who bought them" means "Jesus who
delivered them" as God delivered even wicked Israelites from Egypt.

Once again, I'm hesitant to speak of "temporal justification", as I'm not sure that those words are necessitated by Scripture. I view justification as "being declared righteous" (as the same word is used to translate those two ideas). It is a legal declaration by God as sovereign judge over all creation, and that sentence is given to all the elect. They are righteous on the basis of Christ's righteous life lived while he walked the earth and on the basis of nothing within themselves, or even "infused" in them.

(another distinction that I've discovered, you would say we are righteous on the basis of Christ in us (our works, while we live). I would say we are righteous on the basis of us in Christ (His works, while he lived)).

I would prefer to speak of "temporal setting apart" or "in a covenant with God." This summarizes well what I was talking about. People can keep the covenant or break it. For the elect, Christ as kept it and now that covenant keeping is considered as "done" by all those who have faith, apart from any personal "covenant keeping" or "covenant breaking" they do. Those who are justified of course, will persevere in covenant keeping (to a degree), but it's not because they kept the covenant that they are justified, but because Christ did.

Regarding 2 Peter, I think I would go back to a general "God" since that's how God revealed himself previously in the OT. I can't name names (was it Jesus? or God the Father?), but if I had to guess, I'd say God the father. I'm not particularly committed to that though.

Since I don't see how non-temporally-justified reprobate could be said to be
delivered from anything other than a state of non-existence, this implies
to me that you think these false teachers were temporally justified--that,
thanks to Jesus' blood which made the Christian community possible, they
were temporarily delivered from the defilements of the world by living as
an apparent member of that community.

Just as creation of people in general and the deliverance of Israel in
particular out of Egypt were two entirely separate events, I feel that "the
God who created them" and "Jesus who delivered them" are two
non-overlapping interpretations of "the Master who bought them." Are you
willing to commit to one or the other? If the former, do you think it
possible that these false teachers were never temporally justified at
all? And, if the latter, does this interpretation necessarily entail
temporal justification?

That's true, they are non-overlapping. As that post was based upon another research, whom I think has done better study on it than myself, I would probably go with his conclusion over mine. It's God who created them.

That said, that interpretation does not necessarily entail being in a covenant at all, and rather could refer to all those who blaspheme God in the way these false teachers have.

But, it seems these false teachers were members of the physical church (though obviously not members of the True Church), and thus are in a covenant, so the option of temporal setting apart (sanctification) can be understood there. With that case, I would say these false teachers are breaking the covenant and were never (?? not 100%, but Peter's language is strong) justified (eternally).

Thanks!

Cheers,

George

Hope this helps.

Jumping ahead

2007-05-09T12:50:00.000-07:00

Our last discussion was on justification. Here's the last series of emails sent out on it. They are clipped together.

And I hope no one thinks I'm a heretic here, but I basically think Douglas Wilson is right in this area, so I spoke of a temporal justification (being grafted into the physical body of Christ) as well as an eternal justification (being grafted into the spiritual body of Christ). I think I tried to explain it clearly. Let me know what you guys think.

On 5/9/07, George Capps <gcapps@stanford.edu> wrote:

Hi, Mickey. This one will be short. And, once again, I am not in any way
meaning to challenge you here--I just want to understand what you were
trying to tell us.

Your doctrine of temporal justification of the reprobate was unfamiliar to
me; I was really intrigued by it and was wondering if you could clarify
what it is and how, aside from its temporariness and to whom it applies, it
differs from eternal justification of the elect. For example, you admitted
that the temporally justified are "in Christ" (cf. Gal 5:4), are "set
apart" (cf Heb. 10:29), have received grace (cf. Gal 5:4), but are not
"made holy." Peter speaks of reprobate who had previously "escaped the
defilements of the world" through Jesus but have now fallen to a position
worse than their original state (2Pet 2:20). Without actually being made
holy, in what sense do the temporally justified escape defilement? Also,
is the grace from which they eventually fall irresistible grace like that
given to the elect? How can they have grace of any sort acting through
them and yet not grow in holiness?

I would say that they are set apart in the same sense that Israel was set apart from the rest of the nations. Yet they fell in the desert and did not enter into Canaan. In the same way, one can be a covenant member of a church, hear the preaching of the Word, see the good works of the saints, partake of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper, yet not take it in faith. Eventually that lack of faith may decisively manifest itself on this earth (or maybe not, as Matthew 7:22ff teaches) and they fall away. Yet, they were never really a member of the true church in the sense of them being one of the elect. Not all Israel is Israel.

They thus escape temporal defilement by living in a community of believers in the church. They are "set apart" in that sense. The community of God acts as salt and preserves and protects them from worse physical manifestations of the spiritual sins that are already present in their hearts.

And no, the grace is not irresistible. It's not the same grace. That grace is an outward grace, like the sun and the rain are. The inward grace is the irresistible one. It's a changing of the heart. Opening the eyes of the blind, new heart of flesh instead of stone.

The grace is not acting through them, but is wholly outside of them (though sometimes it can manifest itself in inward actions, like the person who does charity work because other people do it too).

Does temporal justification always begin with some kind of invalid act of
faith, and is its loss contemporaneous with either the denial of Christian
truth or the committing of a grave sin (cf. Eph 5:5 or Gal 5:19)?

Not necessarily. We're born in rebellion, and some (Esau and Ishmael) are born as members of the covenant didn't necessarily have faith. This is where Ryan would disagree with me, as I believe baptizing infants is part of the NT church and he doesn't. So he might have a different answer here.

But I would say all those who are baptized as adults rather than infants must have had some sort of "faith." And usually false faith is not one specific instance of denial like saying "Today I believe Jesus isn't God" but is actually a continual life lived out in rebellion to God, just like they were before they entered the covenant, it's just it looked different for a time.

Temporal justification could sometimes apply to the elect, could it
not? In other words, one could be temporally justified, fall away, repent,
and become eternally justified?

Hypothetically, yes. I say hypothetically because it depends on how you define your terms. Eternal justification is settled in God's eyes, so in what way is their temporal justification really temporal if it's actually eternal? A person may fall into sin, but if he's eternally justified, he hasn't lost that.

Last question: what is the relation between Christ's sacrifice and temporal
justification? You already said that the process of being set apart
somehow requires the blood of the covenant (Heb 10:29). Also, in 2Pet 2:1,
it speaks of false teachers who will "deny the Master who bought them,
bringing upon themselves swift destruction." It think it becomes
increasingly clear as you read on that these folks are headed for damnation
(in fact, I think he's still talking about them in 2:20). If so, in what
sense did Jesus "buy" them? Does this relate to temporal justification?

Regarding 2 Peter 2:1, I've posted about that on my blog before - http://mcshoo.blogspot.com/2007/03/tulip-20-2-peter-21ff.html

And being "bought" i see in the same sense as "delivered" from Egypt (through the passover lamb). Israel was delivered and bought in that sense, but they weren't bought in the spiritual sense.

If God bought someone, paid for their sins by His Son, then there's nothing more to be paid. They no longer have sin against their account but rather stand righteous in God's eyes.

Thanks so much for your patience, Mickey. I was really impressed with how
thoroughly you knew your position and with its internal consistency. From
what little I understand of it, I can already see how this temporal
justification idea really helps bring that position in line with
scripture. I'm interested in learning more about it.

I'll be honest and say that many people don't think it's right, and one of the major proponents of it has been accused of gross heresy. But I think it's more consistent, and not only that, but true.

On 5/9/07, George Capps <gcapps@stanford.edu> wrote:

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but you were saying that, from humans'
perspective in this life, there is never 100% assurance of
salvation. While each of us can be sure that we were justified back when
we made our act of faith, none of us (not even Paul) can be sure that that
was an eternal justification and not a temporal justification. We can grow
in confidence when we see ourselves working good deeds, but unless we hold
fast to the end we might discover that it was only temporal justification
after all. Right?

It depends on what you mean by 100%. All our emotions do seem to be subjective and no one can really say "absolutely sure" except God. No one else has an exhaustive knowledge of the truth and thus can say with absolute certainty that "A is true."

But if we profess faith with a true believing heart, then it is a faith that will save us. That's where the assurance comes from. And that's how we can speak of eternal security and preservation of the saints (which are used as "Christians" to protestants). That rests in the promises of God. When Paul writes that "God, who began a good work in you will carry it to completion" (Phil. 1:6) he's talking about facts. That faith was the original good work will be carried to completion. Thus a true believer can point to God's beginning work in their lives and rest in the promises that God will carry to completion that work to the last day. They need not fear that they will fall away, as it is God who preserves them. One of the means by which God preserves them is that He warns them to work out their salvation, to make their calling and election sure. In that warning, the believer hears and obeys and thus does persevere, or, in the passive sense "are preserved", as it is ultimately by God that we persevere

If you might permit to ask a question about your view on that passage...

How do you understand that passage just quoted? Afterall, if the act of faith itself is something wholly of man (enabled by God). In what way has God begun a good work in someone? And in what way does the promise apply, that He will carry it to completion?

After all, if the good works of God are just enabled and it requires our going along (or, as you would say, "refusal to resist"), then how does God carry anything to completion?

Another thing -

I'm not 100% on this "justified" term. I think the concept as I'm using it simply means "in a covenant with God" rather than the legal declaration "Not Guilty" that first comes to mind.

I double checked the verses you cited, and it's not there. It may be there, but I'm not 100%.

So, if just to keep from equivocating, I might move away from stating "temporal" justification, as if there's a time when God says "not guilty" but not more, but I would speak of being "in a covenant with Christ." Some are there eternally (the elect) some are there temporally. John 15, Romans 11 and so.

This also would introduce a distinction between our positions, as I understand you would say that there are times when God says "not guilty" yet that sentence gets changed. Correct?

E-boxing

2007-05-05T22:54:00.000-07:00

On 5/4/07, George Capps <gcapps@stanford.edu> wrote:

Hi, Mickey! Thanks for the reply. You have a lot of good thoughts, and I look forward to pondering them in greater depth.

I read your blog post, and I have an out-standing question concerning exactly how you interpret 2Tim 3:16-17. I'm not challenging you here--I'm just trying to wrap my brain around what exactly you believe. Maybe you were already planning on addressing my query in your future post on tradition--if so, you can ignore this.

Given your understanding of what "that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" means, would verses 16-17 have been a true statement if Paul had written them at the very beginning rather than at the very end of his ministry, when none of the Gospels and only a very few of his epistles had been written? In other words, to what extent does your interpretation rest on the fact that 2Tim was written late?

Hmmm, I'm not too sure this question is relevant to my current position. If Paul is stating that Scripture is sufficient, then I, having all Scripture, am now fully equipped. When was this applicable directly to that early Christian? I'm not entirely sure. I will readily concede that while the Apostles were alive Scripture was being written, so what was necessary was being written, so at precise points, Scripture was technically insufficient.

I say technically because people were saved in the OT, without an infallible authority, even through they did not have a full revelation of Jesus Christ as we now do today.

With regards to how much it rests upon 2Tim being written late, I'm not sure, I can't assign probabilities. I do believe Paul wrote it, and it means what I've emphasized it meant (full sufficiency). So if he wrote it early on (before the Gospels even), it simply means that it was sufficient then as well.

While I remain unconvinced that we can assume that Timothy was in possession of all Scripture written up to that point, I am going to assume for sake of argument that he was. Since we both agree that, at the very least, Paul's statement must have been true at the time he was writing it with respect to pre-2Tim (inclusive) scripture (otherwise his use of the present tense would not have been justified), it seems to me that your sufficiency interpretation leaves two options:

1) Paul's statement was true at the time he was writing it because one could and still can get by with only the books that were written at the time. While later-written books provide reinforcement perhaps, they are not strictly necessary (kind of like the way you say that the right ending of Mark is not strictly necessary for the Bible to be sufficient). If a modern-day Christian was for some reason missing some pages from his Bible such that he had never seen the books written after 2Tim and no one had ever told him about them, the rest of the Bible would be sufficient, even today, to make him complete, equipped for every good work; based on these pre-2Tim (inclusive) books alone, he would have no excuse for falling into error on the few doctrinal issues that you see as being key.

I think I would agree with that. I see Christian life as a massive oak tree, one can lop off many branches yet it still holds and stands and is an oak tree. Along with this, a lot of doctrines (if not all of them) are reinforced throughout Scripture, so there aren't essential doctrines that are found in one word or one verse, though it may be clearer in some passages than others.

2) In every age, Paul's statement is only applicable to the corpus of scripture in existence at that time. Thus, his statement applied to pre-2Tim (inclusive) books only until a new scriptural document was written and distributed, at which point it became false with respect to pre-2Tim books alone and was only true with respect to all scripture including the latest document. The truths solely contained in post-2Tim scripture (eg, Revelation, Gospel of John, etc.)--regardless of whether those truths were in written form or not--were NOT needed to make a man perfect at the time that Paul was writing 2Tim, but they became necessary once they were written down.

Now, if you subscribe to option #2, you must only be able to project it into the future (ie, to the books written after 2Tim), because, if you project it into the past, you run into trouble. I presume we both agree that, in 40 AD (once the Christian era had begun but before any or hardly any of the NT had been written), the existing corpus of scripture alone would have been insufficient. Therefore, in 40 AD, the OT supplemented by the (inspired, perhaps) oral teaching of the Apostles was required for sufficiency to be achieved. Since you see v. 16-17 as precluding supplementation by oral teaching ("If there were traditions that were needed to help Timothy . . . , Paul would have reminded Timothy of them . . . Instead of pointing to both Scripture and (extra-Scriptural) tradition, Paul points to Scripture as the sole source of all things needed to make Timothy perfect . . . ."), these verses would NOT have been true in 40 AD, and Paul's statement cannot be applied to just any historical corpus of scripture with respect to its own particular age. So . . . am I right in presuming that, as you understand it, v. 16-17 could not have been written in 40 AD?

I'm not necessarily committed to that position as essential to my view. It is certainly possible that Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (also as he had many visions over the course of his life), foresaw all of Scripture.

Additionally, Paul did at least write his letters after Luke, whom he quotes as Scripture in 1 timothy 5:18, so it does seem to lend evidence that Paul at least wrote after Luke did, which from what my little study bible, is supposed to be written in 60something. So, that certainly does lend evidence that Paul writes later than 40AD.

I will concede that there were times when Scripture was spoken.

I guess my question boils down to this: to which of these two options do you ascribe? Given that v. 16-17 was a true statement when 2Tim was being written and your argument that the verses preclude supplementation by tradition, you must be arguing that the truths contained in later written scripture were not necessary at that time. Are they still not necessary (option #1), or did they become necessary once they were written (option #2)? If so, why? Was there perhaps some key transition in Salvation History that coincided with these truths becoming necessary?

I would go with a modified #1 -All Scripture is sufficient, what is written after 2 Timothy supplements and reinforces the rest of it, and is useful, but I imagine the early Christians could be saved without reading it and understanding them.

These are the only two options I can imagine, but if you ascribe to something else, what is it?

Thanks! And I look forward to reading the future posts :-)

Hope that helps, all off the cuff through, so I do need to continue doing more research. Thank you both for challenging questions!

--George

--
-Mickey
630.857.8412
mcshoo.blogspot.com

Responding to avalanche 1

2007-05-03T23:14:00.001-07:00

Email I just sent off to some Roman Catholics in response to their original email (which is here)

I finally have started replying.

Ok, I'm going to be linking various sources as well as writing a lot. Let me promise you that I'm not just copy-pasting, but I've actually read each word that the articles I'm linking to includes, as well as tried to confirm the point by other sources. (Though I guess if they're all dependent upon one another, it's just one mass self-deception... haha).

Once again, thank you for this original email. I'm going to try to respond to it now, finally. More to come.

1 Timothy 3 detailed in this post, where I try to answer all your objections and give a positive presentation for the sufficiency of Scripture. What follows is a first attempt at getting caught up and responding to what you've written.

Tradition

So, we ask, "Are there any indications from Paul's writings that there are these unspoken assumptions as to what Timothy already has when Paul states that scriptures are able to make him complete?" As far as I can see, the answer is a resounding YES! The Pauline epistles are chock full of references to paradosis--usually translated as "tradition"--and other teaching that Paul handed down orally to the individual churches he visited (2 Thes 2:15, 2 Thes 3:6, 1 Cor 11:2, etc.). When he wrote letters, he wasn't repeating everything that he had taught them; he was mostly elaborating on specific points, clarifying disputes, and providing exhortation. If sola scriptura was really the foundation of the Christian faith, then his letters should have been bristling with references to this pivotal doctrine that all essential teachings are one day going to be written down in inspired form, and that his followers should be sure to get their hands on a collection of these writings just as soon as they were compiled. On the contrary, time and again, Paul emphasizes the importance of the unwritten doctrines he had communicated to the churches before writing any of his letters, without giving any indication that all the essentials will one day be written down by an inspired author. When Paul tells Timothy that scripture is able to make him complete, surely it is reasonable to suppose that he is assuming that Timothy already has the apostolic teaching handed on to him by Paul.

Regarding Tradition as you speak of, quoting verses isn't sufficient to demonstrate your point. We both agree that these traditions existed, but what were they? How would you deal with the fact that Paul entrusts these traditions to entire churches, and encourages people to circulate the letters, implying that these traditions were all over the region. What happened to the rest of the churches and their traditions? How did everything get collected at Rome? And I do see Paul telling them to hold fast to the Gospel repeatedly, which is what I would say the NT emphasizes.
(snip)

The Canon

As Charlie and I reiterated on numerous occasions, a belief in sola scriptura presupposes that the corpus of scripture is known for sure. By the definition of sola scriptura, that corpus could only be known for sure if it is attested to in scripture. But scripture nowhere says what documents comprise scripture. Therefore, you need some outside source to tell you which books are in the Bible. Since an essential element of faith and morals is coming from an outside source, sola scriptura isn't true.

Now, given this was a few weeks back, and if you'd like to clarify this a little bit in light of what we discussed the previous weeks, you're welcome to, but let me see if I can respond here.

I don't view the canon of Scripture as separate from Scripture itself. Namely, the canon exists because God inspired Scripture. What is Scripture is what God inspired. And I believe Scripture itself is sufficient to give me a sufficient knowledge of that canon, but not necessarily an infallible one. My knowledge can grow and mature over time, just like my knowledge of the doctrine of God grows and matures over time.

For example, I now believe that the longer ending to Mark is what Mark originally wrote and God-inspired, though previously I was dubious about it. Similarly for other textual variants, as better research and older sources are unearthed, my knowledge of what is God-inspired increases. It doesn't mean that the canon changes, but simply my incomplete knowledge of it becomes more complete. And it's certainly possible for my knowledge to be wrong here, but I can have a sufficient knowledge of the canon, just like those who lived in the days of Jesus had a sufficient (but not infallible) knowledge of what was God inspired. Jesus holds them accountable to this repeatedly, "is it not written?" I think God now today holds you and me accountable in the same way. We have a sufficient knowledge of Scripture, sufficient enough to condemn us should we disobey. We don't have an infallible one, just like the Jews did not.

Your response was always, "But scripture is self-attesting!" To me, this could mean two things: either every line generates such warm, fuzzy feelings in anyone who reads it with an open mind and an honest heart that there is no doubt (which we both agreed, with all due respect to sacred scripture, is not the case), or scripture says what it is. But we also both agree that the Table of Contents is not a scriptural document. Therefore scripture does NOT say what it is. When we brought up these points, you declared that your position was nonetheless tenable because scripture says that "the Word of God will not fail" or something like that (I'm not sure where it says this, but I'll take your word for it). Even if we take your assumption that "Word of God" refers only to the written Word, I still don't see how this guarantees that the particular Table of Contents in your Bible is the right one. Sure, based on "the Word of God will not fail," it is internally consistent with sola scriptura to say that no scriptural document will ever be irretrievably lost (as countless ancient manuscripts have been), and arguably even internally consistent (if you are a really zealous interpreter) to say that the true canon will continue to exist among a least some group of Christians somewhere in the world at all points in history. However, this is a far cry from saying that scripture self-attests to the canon of your Bible and self-attests against that of mine.

Hmmm, let me try to clarify. I was ambiguous simply because I didn't know the answer sufficiently. Yeah, horray for being challenged. Self-authenticating means that the Bible is the Bible because of it's nature of being God-breathed. I cannot place my ultimate trust on what is canon and what is not upon a council, because that would be taking man's word over God's Word. (ahaha). That said, I do see God's promises to preserve His Word through His people. His sheep hear His voice and accept it as the voice of God and not of man. Well, as I see the remnant preserved through the Reformers, I thus accept their testimony against yours =p. Thus we have to settle this on a theological ground, through I do have some more points to make for now.

Your basic assumption here seems to be that, until Rome muddied the waters by adding the deuterocanonical Apocrypha to its canon in the 1500s, all Christians from the time of the apostles had used one and the same canon. Only if this is true could you, with a strained overextension of "the Word of God will not fail," argue that the scripture "self-attests" to its contents by implicitly guaranteeing the universal integrity of its canon throughout history.

(snip brief history of the canon)

Regarding the apocrypha, it's an issue I'm willing to discuss, but I think our discussions would be better served moving on. I will make a few points, which you're welcome to respond to, but I'll move on.

The apocrypha are never quoted, and you point out that other books are never quoted either, but that isn't the same. The other books are already clearly accepted (except by the Sadducees, but Jesus clearly quotes the rest of Scripture so their position isn't in contention). The apocrypha is what was in contention. And though there are books that are more or less apocryphal in some senses (some books are now accepted by the Greek Church but not the Roman one, correct?), they seem to stand or fall as in groups.

Regarding internal testimony, Jesus speaks of the death of the righteous (Luke 11:51), from Cain to Zechariah, while Zechariah isn't the latest man of God to be killed timewise, but is the last person to be killed if we look at it from the perspective of the Jewish canon, which has 2 Chronicles last.

I don't see what is wrong with accepting God's providential ordination of the Jews who accepted the Protestant canon for their OT. If they had accepted some of the apocrypha I think the Protestant canon would be different.

And two contradictions have been pointed out repeatedly, I'd like to hear what you think of them: From this site.

What is more, these books have historical errors. It is claimed that Tobit was alive when the Assyrians conquered Israel in 722 B.C. and also when Jeroboam revolted against Judah in 931 B.C., which would make him at least 209 years old; yet according to the account, he died when he was only 158 years. The Book of Judith speaks of Nebuchadnezzar reigning in Nineveh instead of Babylon. [Judith 1:5, I can't find a reference to the Tobit case]

Finally, Protestants reject apocrypha for the contradictions in theology (as we see it) to the NT, prayers to the dead most specifically in 2 Macabees 12:43, and justification by works in Tobias 4:11, 12:9 . You're probably more familiar with these things than I am. That's a theological issue though, so will have to come later.

You say -

The Jewish custom had some effect on eastern Christians writers, many of whom either accepted this official Pharisaic canon or else some combination of the Pharisaic canon and what is now the Catholic canon. Most of the western Christian writers continued using the same Septuagint canon as always. The first recorded time that a group of bishops met to discuss the question of the canon was in Hippo in 393 AD, followed a short time later by the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. Both times, the North African bishops declared canonical the current Catholic list. In 405, Pope Innocent I privately affirmed this decision in a letter to another bishop.

From what I understand, the Council of Hippo and Carthage have different lists than the council of Trent

William Webster writes:

Those councils actually contradict the Council of Trent on an important point. Firstly, Hippo and Carthage state that 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras are canonical. They are referring here to the Septuagint version of 1 and 2 Esdras. In this version 1 Esdras is the Apocryphal additions to Ezra while 2 Esdras is the Jewish verion of Ezra-Nehemiah from the Jewish canon. The Council of Trent however states that 1 Esdras is actually Ezra from the Jewish canon and 2 Esdras is Nehemiah from the Jewish canon. Trent omits the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras. Secondly, Hippo and Carthage state that Solomon wrote 5 books of the Old Testament when in actuality he wrote only 3.

Certainly you would say they don't contradict, but whatever the case, it seems clear that they don't agree with Trent at least.

Finally, quotations from early church fathers that demonstrate they believed in Sola Scriptura. Emphasis and brief explanation added.

Cyril of Jerusalem -

This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture-proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.

(A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.17).

Cyril emphasizes that his own words carry no authority unless proven by the Holy Scriptures. If an extra scriptural tradition existed as you claim, he would be dead wrong, as there were doctrines that could be proven from Tradition but not necessarily Scripture.

But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture. For since all cannot read the Scripture, but some as being unlearned, others by business, are hindered from the knowledge of them; in order that the soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the Articles which are few we comprehend the whole doctrine of Faith...And for the present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts (Ibid., Lecture 5.12).

Notice here, he points out that "the whole knowledge of godliness" are proven from the Scriptures, and he also speaks of holding to "traditions," which clearly demonstrate that these traditions is exactly the whole of the Bible, taught by word of mouth to these people. He makes clear that this faith is taught as tradition and is proven from Scripture.

I would say that this meaning of tradition is what many references to tradition are referring to.

Gregory of Nyssa:

The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations, but while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet (dogma); we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings. (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendrikson, 1995), Second Series: Volume V, Philosophical Works, On the Soul And the Resurrection, p. 439).

What is the rule for every dogma? The Holy Scriptures. And they alone.

Basil the Great, the bishop of Caesarea from 370 to 379 A.D.

Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendrikson, 1995), Second Series: Volume VIII, Basil: Letters and Select Works, Letter CCLXXXIII, p. 312)

Scripture is said to be sufficient, no need of Basil's assistance even.

From Sola Scriptura! ch. 2 by James White "Sola Scriptura and the Early Church"

Basil of Caesarea -

Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. (Schaff and Wace, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Sereies II (Grand Rapids.: Eerdmans, 1980) VII:23)

Tradition or church is not what decides, but Scripture.

Augustine -

What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought... Therefore, I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher. (Augustine, De bono viduitatis)

Scripture fixes doctrine.

Whatever they may adduce, and wherever they may quote from, let us rather, if we are His sheep, hear the voice of our Shepherd. Therefore let us search for the church in the sacred canonical Scriptures. (Augustine, De unitate ecclesiae, 3)

The voice of Jesus is said to be contained in the Scriptures.

If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning His church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospels, let him be anathema (Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani, Bk 3, ch. 6. Migne (PL 43:351)

Anything outside of Scripture, anathema.

Athanasius

For indeed the holy and God-breathed Scriptures are self-sufficient for the preaching of the truth (Athanasius: Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione) [Mickey: I can translate the Greek supplied!]

No comment necessary.

But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention, and for the sake of which principally I have written these things (Athanasius, Ad Episcopos AEgyptiae)

Let this, then, Christ-loving man, be our offering to you, just for a rudimentary sketch and outline, in a short compass, of the faith of Christ and of His Divine appearing usward. But you, taking occasion by this, if you light upon the text of the Scriptures, by genuinely applying your mind to them, will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said. For they were spoken and written by God, through men who spoke for God. (Athanasius, De Incarnatione Verbi Dei)

These three all demonstrate clearly that he believed in the sufficiency of Scripture for teaching and all things.

In response to the Arians -

Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in the divine Scripture. (Athanasius, De Synodis, 6)

No comment necessary.

Yike, this is long. Sorry. But you guys started it! =D haha. Another avalanche to come.

On a completely different note...

2007-05-01T13:19:00.000-07:00

What have you guys been reading and learning?

I've been trying to finish up Pilgrim's Progress for a while. I'm always reading that book in fits and starts. Maybe it's because I often find it incredibly convicting and am far too afraid to continue reading. I've found a couple sections simply incredible. I've already posted on one on my blog, maybe I'll post on another in the near future.

What about you guys?

A quick note on labels

2007-04-29T13:24:00.000-07:00

mocha - miscellaneous thoughts
mousings - posting by Mickey
chewings - posting by Eric
apologies - dealing with apologetics
bio - personal testimony
(not just) guesting - guest post

Those of you posting, feel free to add your own personal bio as well as a special label for your own posts. Edit this post as necessary.

Word avalanching

2007-04-29T13:15:00.000-07:00

Their response to my last email. Their point about circular reasoning is right, the rest I'm going to challenge them on.

Oh, and another resource for this stuff is William Webster's page.

Hello, Mickey and Ryan.

Thanks for your recent e-mails! In replying, we'd first like to clarify why we view our position as more grounded, and less circular; in order to do this, we will try to explain our position more lucidly. Then we will try to justify the ideas on which we claim to ground our position and address the concerns you have raised about them.

CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS

If I understand Charlie correctly, he pointed out that the Protestant faith was viciously circular whereas the Catholic one was circular, but better grounded.

Protestant circle (from my view): God inspired Scriptures testify that they're God inspired and sufficient.

Yes, I need to sustain that, and Lord willing, that email (essentially responding to George's earlier email on 2 Timothy 3) will come soon. Personally, I see nothing wrong with such a circle.

Catholic circle: 1. Historically reliable documents testify to Christ. 2. Christ testifies to the Pope and the Church 3.Church testifies to the infallibility of Scriptures and itself.
...
Or do we fall into the same sized circle that you claim Protestants fall into of "It's tradition, because the Church said so, and the Church says it because it's tradition"

First of all, we are not prepared to concede that the Catholic circle is a "circle" at all. Once more, here's the Catholic position:

History
implies
reasonable accuracy of the Gospels as historical texts; Jesus' actions and teaching are reflected in the writings of his earliest followers
implies
Christ is God, and He set up a Church and gifted it with His divine authority
implies
We can have confidence that what the Church defines as Tradition is Tradition, and what the Church defines as Scripture is Scripture.

The key is to differentiate between "inspired," "infallible," and "historically reliable." We derive our claim that Christ set up a Church and gifted it with His authority from 1. the Gospel text taken as historically reliable but not necessarily infallible or inspired; 2. the testimony of early Christians (i.e. other historical evidence); and 3. logic and pragmatic considerations. None of these presupposes a belief in the authority of the Church. Once having established the authority of the Church, we can trust that what it defines to be divine revelation is in fact divine revelation (here is where "infallible" and "inspired" come in). Thus, we are only circular in our reasoning insofar as we claim to derive probable conclusions from the application of reason to historical data (which we supplement with faith) despite providing no basis for trusting the human reason that we are applying to our data. The principles of reason and historical criticism are our premises. Now you might disagree with our derivation of ecclesiastical authority from the three aforementioned sources, but that doesn't make our argument circular. It just makes us wrong.

Now, theoretically, even if you could debunk this argument by disproving our derivation, we could always fall back onto a genuinely circular argument--ie, Scripture and Tradition establish the authority of the Church by virtue of their infallibility, and the Church establishes the infallibility of Scripture and Tradition by virtue of its authority. Thus, AT WORST we are circular, which, as you point out, is at least internally consistent ("I have no problems embracing the circle"). Maybe it's unfair for us to repeat this since you have not yet had a chance to defend yourself against our previous e-mail, but . . . at BEST the reasoning of sola scriptura is circular, and that is only with Olympic-caliber interpretive gymnastics directed at making 2Tim 3:15-17 say what you want it to say and at deriving the Protestant canon from "the Word of God will not fail" in a single logical step.

DERIVATION OF THE CHARISM OF INFALLIBILITY AS WELL AS APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION FROM 1. THE BIBLICAL TEXTS, 2. THE WRITINGS OF EARLY CHRISTIANS AND 3. HUMAN REASON

. . . entails a claim that you can prove the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope/Church as well as apostolic succession from Scripture.
&
So, the follow up questions are:
where's the connection between Peter = prime minister and charism of infallibility?

1. You ask for additional exegetical support for the charism of infallibility and Apostolic succession. Some of this at the beginning will be repetition. We just want to make sure that our argument is clear.

First, we consider infallibility. We turn to Christ's words to Peter in Mt 16:18-19. The language in verse 18 is pretty strong. If Peter is the rock on which Jesus will build His Church and the Church is the "pillar and bulwark of truth" (1Tim 3:15) against which the Gates of Hell will not prevail, can we imagine Peter teaching false doctrine? You might come up with other things that "the Gates of Hell will not prevail" could mean, but surely its meaning at least includes freedom from error in serious matters of faith--the Gates of Hell would unquestionably be prevailing if they succeeded in getting the Church to fall away from the truth. If the Church is guaranteed to be free from error, then by definition the Church is infallible.

As we have discussed, verse 19a is a direct reference to Is 22:22 (cf. Rev 3:7). Just to reiterate our points: the keys of the kingdom were a commonly known symbol in Jewish political culture; they were held by the chief steward / prime minister of the Davidic kingdom. A command from the holder of the keys carried the same authority as a command from the king. All of these facts are corroborated by the scholarly works to which we directed you and from which we briefly quoted in one of our earlier e-mails. The keys were not held by a single historical chief steward; they were passed down from chief steward to chief steward. We do not have to turn beyond Is 22 to establish this point. Jesus is clearly instituting an office in His Church (the Kingdom of Heaven) analogous to the pre-existing office in Israelite politics (the kingdom of David). Since Jesus' declaration of the Church's infallibility is associated with his establishment of this office on which the Church is founded, it stands to reason that the Church's infallibility is operating through this office and that therefore the office carries the charism of infallibility. At the moment, this isn't a necessary conclusion, but it is at least reasonable.

The conclusion gathers further weight if we take the Prime Minister analogy further. As shown, the prime minister has the power to act with the king's authority if he so chooses. Since, in the case of the kingdom of heaven (unlike the kingdom of David), the king's authority is infallible authority, the prime minister of the Kingdom of Heaven ought to have the power to speak with infallible authority if he so chooses.

This leads us once more to the point that our reading of Mt 16:18-19 does not prove too much. The pope does not claim infallibility in all aspects of life/opinions. You say, "Certainly prime ministers make (and made) errors, sometimes they didn't act exactly as the king would have wanted to act, right?" and we say you're absolutely right! We have plenty of sinful popes to shame us. But this is irrelevant to our position. We hold that the pope is preserved from error only when he speaks "ex cathedra," i.e. as the chief steward, the holder of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Just as the chief steward of the kingdom of David might give advice to the lesser stewards that he doesn't necessarily intend to be taken as orders carrying the full weight of royal authority, popes can release encyclicals instructing us on how to best live out our Catholic faith without ordering us on pain of disobedience to the King of Heaven to adhere to his every phrase.

Having said this, if the words of the chief steward of the kingdom of David--even those not meant to carry the full authority of the king and those spoken outside the context of his office entirely--would have been accepted with a great deal of respect simply by virtue of his office, how much more should we respect the words of the chief steward of Christ's Kingdom! This is what Pope John Paul II means in the excerpt you quoted, Mickey. The Keys are the symbol of an office which demands a great deal of respect from us; we believe we should hold the words of the pope in high esteem simply by virtue of the fact that the pope is the prime minister of Christ's Kingdom. The respect demanded by the Keys extends even to those cases when the pope is not invoking his full authority as chief steward. So no, we would certainly not disregard JPII's comments as irrelevant just because they are not spoken ex cathedra, but neither do they contradict what we have been saying in the least.

Finally, the case for Petrine infallibility becomes all but inescapable as we consider Mt 16:19b, in conjunction with Mt 18:18 (cf. also Lk 10:16). Christ grants Peter, and later His Apostles as a unit, the power to bind and loose as heaven does. If heaven is infallible in its decisions to bind and loose--something you can hardly deny--then, by a simple step of logic, Peter's decision as an individual to bind and loose is infallible. In 18:18, the Apostles as a combined body are granted a similar infallible authority. Regardless of what binding and loosing means, we feel you are forced to acknowledge that Christ granted Peter as an individual, and later His Apostles as a body, some form of infallible authority. When you combine this evidence with "the Gates of Hell will not prevail" that comprises its context, it becomes clear that the Church will be preserved from error through this infallible authority granted to Peter as an individual and the Apostles as a combined body.

Now, for succession: returning to the Prime Minister analogy, since the office the kingdom of David was characterized by succession with inheritance of authority, it stands to reason that the authority granted by Jesus to the analogous office in the Kingdom of Heaven will likewise be heritable. Are proofs from analogy the strongest type of proofs? No. While we think verse 19 argues very strongly for the authority of Peter as chief steward of the Kingdom of Heaven, we acknowledge that the analogy does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus intended the Keys to be passed down from Peter. We only claim to lay the grounds for the case for Apostolic succession through this analogy. The case will be further strengthened in subsequent sections as we turn to the testimony of ECFs and pragmatic considerations.

Nevertheless, other quotes from Scripture support the case for succession of Apostolic authority. 2Tim 2:2; Acts 1:20-26, 6:1-6, 14:23; and 1Tim 3:1 all suggest that the concept of succession was one with which the early Church was quite familiar.

Along with that, your view needs to be consistent with the view of the "general consent of the Church Fathers" (I believe you used that term). As ambiguous as that sounds, I think it is reasonable for you to demonstrate explicitly that the early Church held the same exact view you hold now (or at least, a simpler version of it).
&
Primarily, we must find them appealing to an infallible teaching authority in addition to appealing to Scripture to settle doctrinal disputes in the Early Church.
&
Did the early church fathers believe (universal consent again) the same interpretation on this passage as the Roman Catholic Church now asserts?

2. We have already given quotes demonstrating the ECF belief that, if a church's teachings differ from those of Rome, then that church is de facto schismatic (Opatus, Cyprian); indeed "all the churches must agree" with the church of Rome "because of its superior origin" (Iranaeus). (See a few additional ones that I have come across more recently below.) I think it is entirely accurate to say that this is at least a "simpler version" of the more precisely defined doctrine we claim for Rome. Admittedly, these authors are not offering a precise definition of infallibility. But you could imagine asking Iranaeus, "What exactly do you mean by that? If the bishop of Rome says that 2+2=5, would all the other bishops have to agree with him?" We both agree that Iranaeus would say, "No, of course not." If the bishop of Rome invokes his authority as successor to Peter and, addressing the whole Church, teaches that Jesus was both fully God and fully Man, would Iranaeus and Opatus and Cyprian and the others think that the other bishops are obliged to follow suit? Their quotes sure seem to suggest "yes"--frankly, I don't see how you could deny it. The underlying belief that you can be sure Rome's teachings aren't wrong is so strongly implied by these statements that, even if it isn't stated in exactly those words, it is a necessary conclusion--a single logical step away.

As the Church matured and transitioned from an age of martyrdom when it focused on survival to an age of social acceptance and institutionalization when it was more active in stifling divisive forces, it became important to define exactly what was meant by this widespread, Scripture- and Tradition-based belief that the See of Peter had responsibility over what Christians believed and that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it. So the doctrine crystallized in the form that we now know it--that the teachings of the bishop who sits in the See of Peter, when making official (ie, invoking his authority as the successor to Peter) proclamations addressed to the whole Church on a matter of faith and morals or when approving the documents put out by a universal council of bishops in which he took part, will be free from error. The doctrine DEVELOPED only in the sense that it became more precisely defined so as to be more practical.

By the way, a few other somewhat more explicit quotes from pre-500AD:

Pope Julius I (341 AD) Letter of Julius to the Eusebians (in Athanasius' Apologia Contra Arianos 1:2:35): "Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us [the Church at Rome], and then for a just decision to be passed from this place? If then any such suspicion rested upon the Bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the Church of this place; whereas, after neglecting to inform us, and proceeding on their own authority as they pleased, now they desire to obtain our concurrence in their decisions, though we never condemned him. Not so have the constitutions of Paul, not so have the traditions of the Fathers directed; this is another form of procedure, a novel practice. I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us."

Leo the Great (445 AD) Letter 10 12: "Although [the bishops] have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. From this model has arisen a distinction between bishops also, and by an important ordinance it has been provided that every one should not claim everything for himself: but that there should be in each province one whose opinion should have the priority among the brethren: and again that one whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal Church should converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head.

Jerome (396 AD) Letter 15 2: "I . . . join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails."

Innocent I (408 AD) Letter 2 29:1: ". . . [Y]ou have strengthened . . . the vigor of your religion with true reason, for you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the Pope] and have shown that you know what is owed to the Apostolic See, if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the Apostle [ie, Peter] himself, from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of his name have emerged. Following him, we know how to condemn evils just as well as we know how to approve what is laudable. Or rather, guarding with your priestly office what the Fathers instituted, you did not regard what they had decided, not by human but by divine judgments, as something to be trampled on. They did not regard anything as finished, even though it was the concern of distant and remote provinces, until it had come to the notice of this See, so that what was a just pronouncement might be confirmed by the authority of this See, and from there [might be promulgated to the] other churches--just as all waters proceed from their own natal source and, through the various regions of the whole world, remain pure liquids of an incorrupted head . . . ."

Peter Chrysologus (449 AD) Letter 25 2: "We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own See, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome."

Ephraim of Syria (350 AD) Homily 4 1: "[Jesus said:] Simon my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples." (This doesn't address succession but does indicate that the ECF interpretation of Matt 16:18 is one of Petrine infallibility with regards to matters of faith.)

Record of the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) session 2: "After the reading of the foregoing epistle [of Pope Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: 'This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe. Thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo!'" (Leo was pope from 440-461.)

This one very explicitly states the widespread belief that the charism of Peter's Office was passed on to his successors:

Philip the Legate (431 AD) (Acts of the Council of Ephesus): "There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Universal Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors."

Frankly, we're not sure what more you can really ask from these ECFs, both the ones I have quoted here and the ones in my previous e-mail. They were addressing the controversies and burning questions of their day, not the controversy of Mickey Sheu and Ryan Haynes vs. George and Charlie Capps. Nevertheless, in doing so, ECF after ECF clearly referenced a belief in a) the primacy of the authority of Peter among his contemporaries, an authority that pertained both to juridical matters as well as to doctrinal ones; b) the transfer of apostolic authority via succession among all bishops (including that of the See of Peter); and c) the need for all churches to be in communion with Rome on matters of religion. How could they demand that the churches follow Rome no matter what unless they knew that Rome was preserving the truth? They don't have to use the word "infallible" for a belief in some kind of freedom from error to be the self-evident basis for their statements.

Surely with all the early heresies being fought, this must have happened all the time. "No, you Arians are wrong because we have the infallible testimony of (insert Pope here)"

Sure this happened! At the very least they things like said, "No, you Arians are wrong because you differ from the teachings of the Church at Rome." Let's see what I can find in a few minutes of searching.

It was in the context of refuting the heretical teachings of Marcion and Valentius that Iranaeus wrote, "For it is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this Church [of Rome], on account of its pre-eminent authority . . . ." Immediately after this, Irenaeus shows that a letter written by Pope Clement contradicted the heresies. To emphasize that Clement's word is final, Irenaeus gives his entire Apostolic pedigree, tracing his line of succession back to Peter. Note that Irenaeus used a passage from Clement, not a passage from Scripture in this case, to prove the heretics wrong. This is from Against Heresies 3:3. The entire chapter is given here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm , and it is a good read, both for the question of Rome's authority and for a detailed description of his belief that the popes and bishops mentioned had "the preaching of the apostles still ringing in their ears."

Augustine (411 AD), speaking of the Pelagian Heresy, wrote that he couldn't understand why people went on believing the heresy after Rome had spoken: "For on this matter two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!" (Sermon 131 10).

We realize that you'd love other, even more explicit references. These are the results of a very brief search. I am confident that there are others, and I will let you know if I come up with some more. But the point is that, even if ECFs didn't always use the word "infallible," they argued against heretical statements on which Rome had pronounced by invoking the authority of Rome.

. . . [E]ven if we concede that Jesus is making Peter infallible, why apostolic succession? And why an infallible teaching office?
&
How does this demonstrate a succession of Popes all with the same power as Peter?

3. Why Apostolic succession in general and Petrine succession in particular? For the simple reason that the Church did not cease to exist when the Apostles died. If you concede that Christ gave Peter His infallible authority and yet argue that this authority was not passed on, you must claim that up to Peter's death his infallible authority was necessary to settle disputes and to keep the Church maintained in the truth, but when he died suddenly that was no longer necessary . . . presumably because the Christian community finally had its Scriptures. We think you do in fact hold this or something like it, but we find it to be strongly argued against by the preponderance of historical evidence and personal experience. If the Scriptures, apart from a teaching body with the authority to declare how those Scriptures apply to the social and intellectual context of a given age, were so perspicuous as to admit no divergent conclusions, then all the ECFs would teach justification by faith alone and all the Arians would have known that of course Jesus was fully divine and we wouldn't be having this argument right now.

We write this with all due respect to the Scriptures. You claim that the Holy Spirit safeguards Scripture through the individual and, by extension of many individuals, through the community; we claim that the Holy Spirit safeguards Scripture through the Church. We really don't think this entails less respect for Scripture.

You argue that the burden of proof for Jesus intending the Keys to be passed on lies with us; given the clear succession associated with the prime minister office referenced and the apparent need, based on historical evidence of rampant heresy alone, for an unerring teaching authority to ensure that the meaning of Scripture isn't corrupted as it enters new ages and new contexts, I think that Jesus' intent for succession would have to be the default conclusion. We add to this quotes from the NT talking about appointing other men after you, (2 Tim 2:2, Acts 1:20-26, etc.) and the testimony of the earliest Christians that the Apostles DID appoint authoritative successors (Clement of Rome--first century AD!--goes so far as to say that they did so on the instruction of Jesus in the quote I previously sent you), and the idea that there was no need for an Apostolic authority after the Apostles died becomes all but untenable.

Secondly, this idea of an infallible Apostolic tradition is continually appealed to. If this tradition exists and is closed like you say, then in order for the Church to be a servant of Tradition and Scripture as they say, they must back up their doctrines with references to Tradition and Scripture. Namely, "The Assumption of Mary is true because of this verse in the Bible, and these words from the Apostle Peter which were not recorded but handed on orally" Can Rome produce the oral tradition to support its arguments? Or do we fall into the same sized circle that you claim Protestants fall into . . .

Well, first of all, yes! The Church does say, "Such-and-such a belief goes back to the earliest times and thus is likely Apostolic in origin; it is supported by these lines of Scripture and by these quotes from ECFs. It is central to our identity as Catholic Christians and reflects how we view the universe. Therefore, we hereby define this as a dogma of the faith." As we said before, even if they don't follow of necessity from Scripture alone, these dogmatic definitions never just come out of the blue.

Second of all, whether or not the name of a particular Apostle is specifically associated with, for example, the Assumption has nothing to do with whether or not we fall back into the same-sized circle. Even if an early document said, "Peter taught the Assumption," it would still be Tradition-with-a-capital-T not because of the name of the Apostle but because the Church said so. After all, the document isn't infallible and thus we wouldn't know for sure if it was accurate in making this historical statement.

We do not even claim that the association between the name of the particular Apostle(s) responsible and any extrabiblical doctrine has survived. As we said before, the very earliest bishops, two or three generations removed from the Apostles themselves, considered their teaching in general to be derived from the Apostle(s) who taught their predecessors. We have given quotes to support this in a previous e-mail. Therefore, these authors did not bother to repeat, "We got this doctrine from my predecessor who got it from the Apostles" before every statement concerning a belief relevant to a Catholic vs. Protestant debate. Even if the Church never referenced a particular Apostle when dogmatically defining an extrabiblical doctrine, it would in no wise contradict our claims.

Furthermore, it is not fair for you to insist that the Church do so because there was no reason for early Christians to have preserved such associations between names and doctrines. There was certainly reason to preserve the teaching, but there was no reason to continue passing down the information that, for example, it was Jude who taught purgatory while Peter and Bartholomew preached on the truth of the Assumption. Even if there ever was such heterogeneity among the messages of different Apostles (highly unlikely), this would only serve to have conceptually segmented beliefs rather than to have united them into a coherent whole. Hence, because an association between the name of an Apostle and any given piece of Tradition does not follow from our claim, and because the absence of an association does not contradict our claim, you cannot use that absence against us.

Now, I say this without having conducted a thorough search to see how often key extrabiblical doctrines are associated with the teachings of a particular Apostle. A brief search quickly turned up one. In chapter 8 of The Lives of Illustrious Men, Jerome records that Peter endorsed Mark's Gospel and sent it "to the churches to be read by his authority." He says that other ECFs, such as Clement and Papias, taught this as historical fact, too. Since "fit to be read in the churches" was synonymous with "Scriptural" among the ECFs (their controversies were always over the "canon of books to be read in the churches"), here we have the tradition of a specific Apostle making an extrabiblical statement on a key extrabiblical matter of faith an morals--namely, that the Gospel of Mark is Scripture. I strongly suspect that I could find other quotes like this if I kept searching, and I will let you know if you find others. But I'm not sure why it matters.

Moving on, the Church does claim that the truth of, say, the Assumption was handed on orally, and this is evinced by the widespread belief that it occurred from early times. However, this can ultimately only be distinguished from other widespread early beliefs that do not derive from valid Apostolic teaching because the Church said so. We can't a priori look at the writings of a given ECF and say, "Ah, that teaching is in Tradition, but this one is just tradition." Before it is dogmatically defined by the Church, there is no infallible source containing the Tradition to which to appeal like there is for a Scripture-based argument. Therefore, the Church can appeal to reasonable justification (certainly not formal proof, but reasonable justification) for which it is making the decision dogmatically to define an extrabiblical doctrine (eg, this belief is widely attested to among the earliest Christians, it makes a lot of sense given what we already know), but it can't point its finger to some concrete object called Tradition and say, "Here--here's the line in Tradition-with-a-capital-T where this teaching can be found, so its obviously right." We realize this lack of concreteness frustrates someone from a sola scriptura mentality who takes for granted the nicely-bound pocket New Testament that he can whip out at moment's notice, but we don't think that our arguments are therefore fallacious or even unreasonable.

Sorry this is so long! After much discussion, we decided to keep it all down to one e-mail to try to make our thoughts more coherent. As you can see, it did nothing to stem the proliferate tendencies of these kinds of e-mail discussions. Regardless, you had a lot of specific concerns, and we tried to address them thoroughly one by one. We look forward to hearing from you again soon.

keep throwin',

George and Charlie

Sufficiency of Scripture and 2 Timothy 3

2007-04-29T01:29:00.000-07:00

As of late, I've been talking with some Roman Catholics who (really) know their stuff, and they've challenged me on Sola Scriptura, specifically in it's defense from 2 Timothy 3. So here's my attempt at defending Sola Scriptura from 2 Timothy 3. As I have no intention of reinventing the wheel, I've done a bit of research. The two major sources for my material has been The Roman Catholic Controversy by James White (abbreviated RCC, not to be confused with the Roman Catholic Church), and Sola Scriptura! edited by Don Kistler (abbreviated SS)

To begin with, I need to define the position I will be defending here. One negative, one positive.

What Sola Scriptura is not -

Sola Scriptura is not a claim that all truth is found in the Bible.
Sola Scriptura is not a claim that for all time God has spoken only through the Bible.
Sola Scriptura is not a claim that every verse is equally clear to every person.
Sola Scriptura is not a claim that the Church has no place in interpreting the Bible.
Sola Scriptura is not a denial of all traditions.

Now, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not any of these, what is it?

Sola Scriptura states that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the infallible rule of faith for the Church.
Sola Scriptura states that all that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture, and not in another source.
Sola Scriptura states that all that is not found in Scripture (by good and necessary consequence) is not binding upon a Christian.
Sola Scripture states that all tradition is checked by and subject to Scripture.

Sola Scriptura is simply this, that "all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it in there and understand." (SS p.3)

Ok, so having defined the position I'm trying to defend, let me launch into 2 Timothy 3 to defend the sufficiency of Scripture.

To set the context. Paul is writing to Timothy during what seems to be the last years of his life. In contrast to the book of Philippians where he seems to have an assurance that he will be released to do more ministry (Philippians 1:25), he is evidently preparing for death (2 Timothy 4:6-8). Within the letter, Paul repeatedly warns Timothy of the times to come, and to prepare for them. Chapter three is one of such occasion.

I'm going to quote the whole chapter and focus on the last few verses.

2 Timothy 3 (ESV translation)

1But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. 2For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, 4treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. 6For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, 7always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. 8Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith. 9But they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.

v.1-9 emphasize exactly the opposition that Timothy will be facing. There will be times of difficulty because people will be depraved (I note that "disobedient to parents" is located in a list of pretty serious sins, makes you (me!) think). Timothy is encouraged to avoid such people (v.5) for they have nothing.

10You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, 11my 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. 12Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.

In contrast to these people Paul encourages Timothy, reminding him of all that Paul has taught him and all that Paul has endured at the hands of such men. He warns Timothy that the life that he's encouraging Timothy to live will entail persecution at the hands of evil men.

14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom^[a] you learned it

The word "but" begins verse 14, signifying a contrast from the previous verse. In contrast to the evil people and impostors in verse 13 who go from bad to worse deceiving and being deceived, Timothy is encouraged to continue in what he has learned and has firmly believed. Their deceiving and being deceived is set up against Timothy continuing in what he has learned and firmly believed. Paul then makes a point to note that Timothy is to do this knowing "from whom(plural) [he] learned it", reminding Timothy of how this teaching has borne fruit in the lives of his mother and grandmother (2 Timothy 1:5).

Paul then proceeds remind Timothy exactly what was taught to him.

15and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Now, Timothy had followed Paul for so many years through so many trials. He had direct access to a source of great theology and knowledge. If there were traditions that were needed to help Timothy stop from being like the deceivers, Paul would have reminded Timothy of them. But Paul doesn't say "remember those traditions I taught you," (I will deal with the "traditions" passages in a separate post) but he instead reminds Timothy of the source of his faith, the sacred writings. They are "able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."

16All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God^[b] may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Paul then proceeds to explain why these sacred writings are thus able. They are not written by mere men, but rather "breathed out by God." When Scripture speaks, it's God speaking. The Scriptures thus carry with it God's very own authority. Because they are not written by men, but by God, they carry with it God's authority, and God's power. They are thus supernatural and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. All these things lead Paul to conclude that Scripture allows for the man of God to be "competent, equipped for every good work."

The word translated "competent" is ἄρτιος. What does that mean? Thayer's Lexicon says it means "fitted; complete, perfect," my Greek NT dictionary (UBS 4th edition) says, "fully qualified," Vincent's Word Studies (acessed via e-Sword) says "complete; but the idea is rather that of mutual, symmetrical adjustment of all that goes to make the man: harmonious combination of different qualities and powers."

Related to that word is the word translated "equipped" ἐξηρτισμένος which is the passive perfect participle of ἐξαρτίζω (notice the resemblance to the above word?). Thayer's has "to complete, finish - to furnish perfectly, to finish, accomplish," Greek NT dictionary - "to equip," Vincent's Word Studies - "fills out the idea artios; fitted out."

It's clear that these words are broad in scope. Scriptures come with the authority of God behind it, they are not only useful, but furnish completely, fills out, makes fully qualified. What does this mean? It means that the Scriptures are sufficient for every good work. Indeed, theNIV translates this (which in essence is another definition) as " so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Now, the objection is that if this verse proves sufficiency, it proves too much, for Paul is speaking only of the Old Testament here. In response, i would point out that through Paul is referring to the Old Testament in his initial statement, he broadens his answer to include all that is Scripture. Paul has already quoted Luke as Scripture earlier, and clearly knows that he himself is inspired by God (as I argue here). Vincent Cheung comes to the same conclusion after examining how Paul refers to Scripture elsewhere and the Bible's view on authority in his article "Sufficient and Profitable" (the link is to the relevant excerpt, the entire article is in his book The Ministry of the Word) He concludes with saying,

"Since the New Testament documents are regarded as inspired and even called "Scripture," we may with complete certainty regard them as "God-breathed." Both the Old Testament and the New Testament are "Scripture," and they make up one book that is our Bible. Therefore, there is no problem in regarding the verse as asserting, "The whole Bible is God-breathed." In fact, there is no excuse in thinking otherwise."

Finally, though I feel like I've already addressed this by making a positive presentation, one objection has been brought forth that Paul is speaking to Timothy ceteris paribus argument for "Tradition," where it is claimed that Paul is speaking to Timothy with the knowledge that Timothy already knows tradition so now Scripture is able to make him complete.

My objector wrote, "If a man just has Tradition, he isn't complete. But then the Bible comes along, and suddenly he has been made complete; the Bible made him so. Thus, it is a true statement that the Bible is able to make a man complete. Whether or not the Bible is sufficient depends on the unspoken assumptions as to what the man in need of being completed already has."

In response to this objection there are two remarks -

1) This certainly cannot be established by the text, it may indeed be true (and I have to deal with the "traditions" passages in a future post), but it's certainly not sustainable here. There is no indication of "now the Scripture is able to..." being implied at all. So the objection raises up a possibility without establishing it.

2) In a positive presentation against this possibility, I would say that the context prevents us from understanding Paul to be speaking that way. Paul is talking specifically about not being like these evil men. Paul reminds Timothy of what he's had since birth, the sacred writings. If indeed Paul was talking of (extra-Scriptural) traditions that he's been taught as well, it makes no sense not to remind Timothy of them as well, as he is exhorting Timothy to not be like these evil men. Instead of pointing to both Scripture and (extra-Scriptural) tradition, Paul points to Scripture as the sole source of all things needed to make Timothy perfect, fully equipped for every good work.

So Scripture is sufficient for every good work. If something is not spoken of, it's not necessary.

Examining Roman Catholicism

2007-04-27T00:43:00.000-07:00

What follows are two emails I sent off in their entirety. I've realized that we've just given them far too much leeway with their interpretations of things, and the only way to examine their claims is challenge them to support it.

Email 1 - following up on Tuesday's discussion on what tradition is and what it means.

Hey all -

Thanks for the conversation. As usual, I'm glad to know that we're able to have an open and honest conversation, even though the spiritual distance between us (among us?) is huge.

If I understand Charlie correctly, he pointed out that the Protestant faith was viciously circular whereas the Catholic one was circular, but better grounded.

Protestant circle (from my view): God inspired Scriptures testify that they're God inspired and sufficient.

Yes, I need to sustain that, and Lord willing, that email (essentially responding to George's earlier email on 2 Timothy 3) will come soon. Personally, I see nothing wrong with such a circle.

Catholic circle: 1. Historically reliable documents testify to Christ. 2. Christ testifies to the Pope and the Church 3.Church testifies to the infallibility of Scriptures and itself.

(of course, I think I can be clearer on what you mean by "Church" but permit me that loose summary)

I can concede 1, but 2 entails a claim that you can prove the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope/Church as well as apostolic succession from Scripture. Matthew 16 is a step in that direction, and I need to respond to that email as well, but even if we concede that Jesus is making Peter infallible, why apostolic succession? And why an infallible teaching office? You need to establish that from Scripture (as you claim).

Along with that, your view needs to be consistent with the view of the "general consent of the Church Fathers" (I believe you used that term). As ambiguous as that sounds, I think it is reasonable for you to demonstrate explicitly that the early Church held the same exact view you hold now (or at least, a simpler version of it).

To satisfy that, I think you need to establish two things that are reasonable if such a claim is to be considered:

Primarily, we must find them appealing to an infallible teaching authority in addition to appealing to Scripture to settle doctrinal disputes in the Early Church. The quotations previously provided do seem relevant, but you need to establish that they speak of tradition in the same way that you do, which I'm not entirely convinced. Surely with all the early heresies being fought, this must have happened all the time. "No, you Arians are wrong because we have the infallible testimony of (insert Pope here)"

Secondly, this idea of an infallible Apostolic tradition is continually appealed to. If this tradition exists and is closed like you say, then in order for the Church to be a servant of Tradition and Scripture as they say, they must back up their doctrines with references to Tradition and Scripture. Namely, "The Assumption of Mary is true because of this verse in the Bible, and these words from the Apostle Peter which were not recorded but handed on orally" Can Rome produce the oral tradition to support its arguments? Or do we fall into the same sized circle that you claim Protestants fall into of "It's tradition, because the Church said so, and the Church says it because it's tradition"

Now, I have no problems embracing the circle, as ultimately all arguments are circular, and to base my faith in the inspired Word of God on something less than the inspired Word of God is to weaken the Word of God.

So, in summary I would like -

Exegesis of relevant passages establishing

1) Primacy of the Peter over all Christendom.
2) Establishment of the office of the Pope, complete with the chaism (is that spelled right?) of infalliblity along with apostolic succession

As the claim is also that this is the general consensus of the Early Church, you need:

A number of testimonies appealing to the authority of the church as infallible to establish doctrine. I've looked at the quotations and I find them wanting, or at least they need to be set in context more for me to accept them.

Statements along the lines of, "This was what Peter said to us... and that proves..." from ECF where the statement from Peter is not something in Scripture.

~~~~

Quotations from ECF implying they believe in Sola Scriptura to come. Thanks much. Next Tuesday again? Maybe we can talk on something more explicit... Faith Alone?

Email 2 - responding to a response to my request for information regarding the RC interpretation of Matthew 16

On 4/19/07, Charles F. Capps <ccapps@stanford.edu > wrote:

Hey Mickey,

You asked me to supply scholarly evidence for my claims about the office of the prime minister / chief steward in Jewish political culture and how it relates to the keys of the kingdom mentioned in Mt 16:19, Is 22:22 and Rev 3:7. I checked out a handful of books from Green, mostly studies on Isaiah, that contain information about the historical setting of these verses, and I've transposed relevant quotes and bibliographical information below.
Oh wow, thanks much. And sorry for the late reply.

To refresh your memory, we are arguing that in giving Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, Jesus was making an unmistakable reference to the keys of the kingdom of David in Jewish politics, the same famous set of keys that appears in Is 22:22. These keys are held by the prime minister of the kingdom as a symbol of the power to lock/unlock (cf. bind/loose). Just as the command of the prime minister of the kingdom of David carried the authority of the king of the kingdom of David, the decree of the prime minister of the kingdom of heaven carries the authority of the King of Heaven.

We are _not_ arguing that everything the pope says is therefore infallible. We touched upon this over dinner. It is only when the pope speaks _as the holder of the keys_; i.e. only when he speaks _as the occupier of the office of prime minister of the kingdom of heaven_ that he speaks with Christ's authority. Catholics' technical term for this is the pope speaking _ex cathedra_ (from the Chair of Peter).

ok. Alright, but this certainly is quite the restriction upon the "keys" is it not? Say a prime minister makes a decree. Does he have to preface his decree with a "I am prime minister right now, so I say this"? Or do his decrees have authority because he's prime minister, whether he states it or not?

In my readings, I've also come across this statement by Pope John Paul II, who saw the powers much broader (and, I would argue, more consistently) as applying even when the charism of infallibility is not invoked.

In Pope John Paul II's statement to the staff of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (English translation from "Inside the Vatican" (January 1996), p.13), referenced in The Roman Catholic Controversy by James White (footnote 27) italics added by myself
It is not possible, however, to overlook one of the decisive aspects that lies at the base of the malaise and uneasiness in certain parts of the ecclesiastical world: it is a question of the way authority is conceived. In the case of the Magisterium, authority is not exercised only when the charism of infallibility is invoked; its exercise has a wider field, which is required by the appropriate defense of the revealed deposit.

For a community based on shared adherence to the Word of God and on the resulting certainty of living in the truth, authority for determining the content to be believed and professed is something that cannot be renounced ... However, this does not entitle one to hold that the pronouncements and doctrinal decisions of the Magisterium call for irrevocable assent only when it states them in a solemn judgment or definitive act, and that, consequently, in all other cases one need only consider the arguments or reasons employed.
Of course, I guess he wasn't stating that from an infallible position, so maybe the point is completely irrelevant. But if that's the case, then someone with the keys doesn't understand the keys themselves, which makes you really wonder.

There's one thing I should note before moving on to the quotes: one of the things I remember reading from Catholic apologists is that the prime minister of Judah would serve as a representative of the king with the king's full authority especially during the king's absence. For instance, Mark Bonocore states (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num18.htm):

"So, Peter's primal authority (symbolized by the Keys) is manifested from the time of Jesus' Ascension onward. Just like the OT prime minister of the Kingdom, Peter can only act with the King's authority in the King's physical absence."

I did not find anything to this effect in the brief bit of researching I did today. It is possible our apologists have been sort of exaggerated the historical force "the office of prime minister is particularly relevant during the king's absence" facet of the argument, although I doubt it because I have not extensively investigated their sources. I still thought I should mention the fact that I have not found anything to corroborate such a claim, however, seeing that I did appeal to it as fact on Tuesday.

Cool. Thanks for your honesty on this point, it is much appreciated.

*quotations which all seem to be fine, with which I pretty much all agree with are at the bottom for Ryan and George. *

So I agree that the passage teaches that Peter acts as a representative, with authority, similar to that of the prime minister, supreme rabbi, a chief steward... but I would also say the same for the other apostles, who are given the "binding and loosing" ability in Matthew 18.

I also note that in one of the quotations (Davies and Allison), the authority is explained as "binding and loosing" which is given to all the apostles in Matthew 18:15-20 (which sets this "binding and loosing" specifically within the church context, "two or three are gathered") and John 20:19-23 (where the language is similar, and it's explicitly with regards to forgiveness).

Now, I think the idea of a prime minister is certainly there. But, to take it back to the text, how does that determine papal infallibility? Certainly prime ministers make (and made) errors, sometimes they didn't act exactly as the king would have wanted to act, right? The text doesn't seem to lend itself to a distinction between the keys and the power of binding and loosing.

So, the follow up questions are:

where's the connection between Peter = prime minister and charism of infallibility?
How does this demonstrate a succession of Popes all with the same power as Peter?
Did the early church fathers believe (universal consent again) the same interpretation on this passage as the Roman Catholic Church now asserts?

Is 22:20-22:

20: In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah,
21: and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
22: And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Mt 16:18-19:

18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Rev 3:7:

7: "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: `The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

-

And here is the scholarly support for our claims about the office of prime minister in the kingdom of David:

1. Davies, W. D. and Dale C. Allison, Jr. _A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Gospel According to Saint Matthew: Volume II_. Ed. J. A. Emerton and C. E. B. Cranfield and G. N. Stanton. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991.

"…the major opinion of modern exegetes…has it that Peter, as a sort of supreme rabbi or prime minister of the kingdom, is in [Mt] 16:19 given teaching authority…This is the traditional Roman Catholic understanding." (p. 638)

Davies and Allison also quote the Epistle of Clement to James, 5 (which in turn is quoting St. Peter): "Since, as I have been taught by the Lord and Teacher Jesus Christ, whose apostle I am, the day of my death is approaching, I lay my hands upon this Clement as your bishop; and to him I entrust my chair of discourse, even to him who has journeyed with me from beginning to end…Wherefore I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing, so that with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in heavens. For he shall bind what ought to be bound, and loose what ought to be loosed, as knowing the rule of the Church."

2. Herbert, A. S. _The Book of the Prophet Isaiah: Chapters 1-39_. Ed. P. R. Ackroyd, A. R. C. Leaney, J. W. Packer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.

"[with regard to Is 22:22] the key of the house of David: a symbol of full authority delegated by the king (cp. Matt 16:19; Rev. 3:7)."

3. Sweeney, Marvin A. _Isaiah 1-39_. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

"Shebna is identified as the chief steward of the Davidic house, a position that gives him authority to act on behalf of the king as well as supervision of the royal palace complex…" (p. 301).

4. Watts, John D. W. _Word Biblical Commentary: Volume 24: Isaiah 1-33_. Colombia: Nelson Reference and Electronic, 2005.

"He [i.e. the prime minister] will make decisions that carry royal authority and can not be appealed." (p. 349)

"[The position of prime minister] must have been very much like that of a vizier in Egypt. 'All affairs of the land passed through his hands, all important documents received his seal, all the officials were under his orders. He really governed in Pharaoh's name…'" (p. 347)

5. Wildberger, Hans. _Isaiah 13-27_. Trans. Thomas H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.

"The power of the keys, which is given to Eliakim at this point, apparently goes far beyond the literal meaning; it means the overall responsibility and authority for the dynasty of the Davidic family, their possessions, and all their affairs." (p. 399)

Wildberger also notes that the Hebrew word for authority (I don't have a Hebrew font so I can't reproduce it here) that is used in Is 22:21 is the same word that "is used elsewhere when the full authority of the king is being discussed" (p. 398).

"Throughout the history of the church, Isa. 22:22 has played an even more important role elsewhere; this verse, significantly altered in Matt. 16:19, is used to paraphrase the full authority accorded to Peter: 'I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.' This passage is quoted 'correctly' insofar as it is…directed towards Peter, who, one might say, is elevated to serve as the one in charge of the palace, the vizier of Christ, and as such is to carry on the affairs of his ascended Lord on earth…one must not overlook that the charge to Peter occurs within a tradition according to which the vizier of the king, in a most unique way, was granted expansive powers." (p. 402)

6. Wolf, Herbert M. _Interpreting Isaiah: The Suffering and Glory of the Messiah_. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1985.

"Eliakim's close relationship with the king is indicated by his holding the key to the house of David (v. 22). In many matters of government, Eliakim would have the final word because the king would delegate authority to him. The imagery of the key of David is applied to Christ in Revelation 3:7. On His shoulders will rest all the powers of government…" (p. 132)

7. See also http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/greek-3/msg01345.html.

-

The books I found that seemed to deal most explicitly with the subject of the office of prime minister / chief steward in Jewish politics were unfortunately not in Stanford's library (all I found there, as you can tell, were books about Isaiah or Matthew). If you are not satisfied with the above sources, however, you might want to consider looking the following up: _The Royal Steward_ by H. J. Katzenstein and _Ancient Israel_ by R. de Vaux.

Hope this helps.

keep throwin',

Charlie

Dueling Fathers

2007-04-25T01:06:00.000-07:00

Previously, one of our debating buddies sent me (by my request) a list of quotations from the church fathers. A number of them looked interesting, though many of them did not prove the point that he wished for them to prove. Some of them, however, looked like they might, and I asked for references. I'm planning on looking these things up and trying to understand them in context, but if you guys want to help with that too, I'd be much indebted.

Here's the compilation of quotations with references. Most of them can be found online here, they say

Irenaeus (~190 AD): "It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority."

Iranaeus: Adversus Haereses 3:3:1-2, 4:26:2

Tertullian (200 AD): "Moreover, if there be any [heresies] bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origin of their churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter. In just this same way the other Churches display those whom they have as sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the episcopate by the Apostles. Let the heretics invent something like it. After their blasphemies, what could be unlawful for them? But even if they should contrive it, they will accomplish nothing; for their doctrine itself, when compared with that of the Apostles, will show by its own diversity and contrariety that it has for its author neither an Apostle nor an apostolic man. The Apostles would not have differed among themselves in teaching, nor would an apostolic man have taught contrary to the Apostles, unless those who were taught by the Apostles then preached otherwise. Therefore, they will be challenged to meet this test even by those churches which are of much later date--for they are being established daily--and whose founder is not from among the Apostles nor from among the apostolic men; for those which agree in the same faith are reckoned as apostolic on account of the blood ties in their doctrine. Then let all heresies prove how they regard themselves as apostolic, when they are challenged by our churches to meet either test. But in fact they are not apostolic, nor can they prove themselves to be what they are not. Neither are they received in peace and communion by the churches which are in any way apostolic, since on account of their diverse belief they are in no way apostolic."

Tertullian: The Prescription Against Heretics 19, 32; On Modesty 21:9-10

APOSTOLIC TRADITION

Papias (~130 AD): "Whenever anyone came my way, who had been a follower of my seniors, I would ask for the accounts of our seniors: What did Andrew or Peter say? Or Phillip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any of the Lord's disciples? I also asked: What did Aristion and John the Presbyter, disciples of the Lord say? For, as I see it, it is not so much from books as from the living and permanent voice that I must draw profit."

Papias: quoted by Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 3:39

Tertullian (200 AD): "For wherever both the true Christian rule and faith shall be shown to be, there will be the true Scriptures, and the true expositions of all the true Christian traditions."

Origen (225 AD): "Seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the Apostles, and remaining in the churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition."

Origen: De Principiis Preface 2; Homiles on Jeremias; Homily 1

Eusebius (325 AD): ". . . [Ignatius of Antioch] urged them to hold fast to the tradition of the Apostles to which he thought it necessary, for security's sake, to give form by written testimony."

Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History 3:36

Athanasius (359 AD) (speaking of the Church Fathers agreeing how to set the date for Easter, a matter not falling under Tradition with a capital T): "Without prefixing Consulate, month, and day, they wrote concerning Easter, "It seemed good as follows," for it did then seem good that there should be a general compliance; but about the faith they wrote not "It seemed good" but "Thus believes the Catholic Church," and thereupon they confessed how they

Sola Scriptura in the Early Church

2007-04-24T23:50:00.000-07:00

I'm just typing and copy pasting, if someone wants to attach explanations to them that would be much appreciated for preparation for a future email to our debate fellows. And if people want to continue doing research and pulling up quotes, more than welcome to add to it.

http://www.christiantruth.com/solascriptura.html

Cyril of Jerusalem -

This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture-proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures

(A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.17).

But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture. For since all cannot read the Scripture, but some as being unlearned, others by business, are hindered from the knowledge of them; in order that the soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the Articles which are few we comprehend the whole doctrine of Faith...And for the present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts (Ibid., Lecture 5.12).

Gregory of Nyssa:

The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations, but while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet (dogma); we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings. (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendrikson, 1995), Second Series: Volume V, Philosophical Works, On the Soul And the Resurrection, p. 439).

Basil the Great, the bishop of Caesarea from 370 to 379 A.D.

Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendrikson, 1995), Second Series: Volume VIII, Basil: Letters and Select Works, Letter CCLXXXIII, p. 312)

From Sola Scriptura! ch. 2 by James White "Sola Scriptura and the Early Church"

Basil of Caesarea -

Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.

(Schaff and Wace, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Sereies II (Grand Rapids.: Eerdmans, 1980) VII:23)

Augustine -

What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought... Therefore, I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher. (Augustine, De bono viduitatis)

Whatever they may adduce, and wherever they may quote from, let us rather, if we are His sheep, hear the voice of our Shepherd. Therefore let us search for the church in the sacred canonical Scriptures. (Augustine, De unitate ecclesiae, 3)

If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or ocncerning His church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospels, let him be anathema (Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani, Bk 3, ch. 6. Migne (PL 43:351)

Athanasius

For indeed the holy and God-breathed Scriptures are self-sufficient for the preaching of the truth (Athanasius: Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione) [Mickey: I can translate the Greek supplied!]

But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention, and for the sake of which principally I have written these things (Athanasius, Ad Episcopos AEgyptiae)

Let this, then, Christ-loving man, be our offering to you, just for a rudimentary sketch and outline, in a short compass, of the faith of Christ and of His Divine appearing usward. But you, taking occasion by this, if you light upon the text of the Scriptures, by genuinely applying your mind to them, will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said. For they were spoken and written by God, through men who spoke for God. (Athanasius, De Incarnatione Verbi Dei)

In response to the Arians -

Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in the divine Scripture. (Athanasius, De Synodis, 6)

Research helps

2007-04-24T23:43:00.000-07:00

Hi all -

If you're interested in helping do the research for the discussions me and Ryan have been having, feel free to muse around in the two websites that I find most beneficial toward these kinds of discussions -

James White runs a ministry solidly grounded on biblical exegesis along with rigorous research. Plus, his ministry is not intended as primarily a countercult ministry, but also gives a faithful positive presentations. This is probably the most prominent countercult ministry coming from a Reformed background.

www.aomin.org

Alongside with this is the ultimate compendium of all things theological (except dating, I don't know why they don't have a section on dating =p). It is far and away the best place to go for articles on all sorts of issues ranging from ancient heresies to positive presentations of the sovereignty of God and the canon and everything in between.

www.monergism.com

Edit: Evan Winslow has pointed me to the CARM, which I also do recommend, though not as enthusiastically. Sometimes I don't think his points are well-founded. For example, his "errors in the Apocrapha" page, while interesting, isn't really great except as an ad-hominim argument (namely, a "if you accept that, then you must believe this too"). Everything else I think in the spirit of charity can be (and should be) passed by. So what if the heart drives away spirits? If they believe it's Scripture, then they believe it. Just because it doesn't seem right doesn't mean it isn't.

The one example that actually does work is the citation of Judith:

Judith 1:5, "Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him."

King Nebby was king of the Babylonians. That is historically established and consistent with the rest of Scripture.

Whatever the case, do some digging and enjoy!

Getting thunked

2007-04-20T14:13:00.000-07:00

Hey all -

Last Tuesday I had a dinner conversation with some Roman Catholics on authority. To put it lightly, I got thunked. haha so God humbles the proud, even though I think it would have been more glorifying for me to thunk them =D.

But anywho, they've sent some long emails my way on some points I've challenged them on. I'm planning to write back eventually, but if you guys want to read things over and suggest topics to address or things to say, that'd be cool.

Help us work on our logic/reasoning skillz too =D

Begin email -

Hi, Mickey. Thanks so much for having dinner with us the other night! The discussion was very stimulating, and you certainly left me with a greater respect for your positions. I know we were totally talking past each other on more than one occasion, which can be very frustrating, so Charlie and I appreciate your patience and good-humor throughout.

You asked for quotes from early Christian writers teaching extrabiblical doctrines as apostolic in origin. I will send an e-mail in a minute with some of these.

I also wanted to clarify a few things that I didn't do a very good job articulating at dinner, which was probably one of the reasons for our many impasses in which we kept repeating the same comebacks at each other over and over again without getting anywhere.

I have to admit that, in the past when I have discussed II Tim. 3 with sola scriptura folks, I have focused on verses 16 and 17. That is why I was somewhat taken aback when you started hammering on the "is able" of verse 15.

I have been thinking over your approach to these verses, and must say that I remain unconvinced that they teach sola scriptura. Let's go through this verse-by-verse.

In verse 15, the scriptures "are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (my old King James version reads "are able to make thee wise unto salvation," which may have been closer to what you were quoting during dinner). This is exactly what Catholics believe--that the scriptures contain wisdom that leads to holiness and instructions that lead to salvation. This phrase implies neither the sufficiency of scripture for salvation nor even the necessity of scripture for salvation. All one can conclude from this verse alone is that scripture is at least one source of instruction that leads to salvation. Whether or not there are other sources as well is left open. It could be that the instruction imparted by scripture in combination with the instruction imparted by some other entity is necessary for salvation--in this case, scripture would be necessary but not sufficient. It could be that the instruction imparted by scripture is sufficient for salvation but that the instruction imparted by some other entity is equally efficacious at achieving salvation, in which case scripture would be sufficient but not necessary. It could be that scripture alone is sufficient for salvation, in which case scripture would be both necessary and sufficient. It could be that scripture in combination with some other entity imparts all the instructions needed for salvation but that a third entity is equally efficacious at doing so; in this case, scripture would be neither necessary nor sufficient. In all these theoretical cases, scripture imparts instructions for salvation and thus "are able to instruct you for salvation" is consistent with all four.

In fact, not only is your interpretation (that scripture is both necessary and sufficient) only one of four equally possible interpretations, but the rest of the verse precludes your interpretation. Paul explicitly states that Timothy has "from childhood been acquainted" with the very same writings credited with instruction for salvation. Therefore, the sacred writings referred to in verse 15 are necessarily the OT. Since we both agree that the OT is not sufficient for salvation, the phrase "are able to instruct you for salvation" cannot possibly mean "provide all the truths whose knowledge is necessary for salvation." Rather, it means exactly what it says--that the OT provides instruction that leads to salvation "through faith in Christ Jesus," that is, when read in light of Christian doctrine that has been imparted to Timothy orally.

Verse 15, therefore, does not prove sola scriptura, and in fact does not even lend it support because it is patently referring to the OT.

Verses 16: "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness . . ." We both believe that all scripture is inspired by God. We both believe that all scripture is profitable for teaching, etc. Again, this does not say that scripture is sufficient for adequate teaching, reproof, correction, and training. It doesn't even say that scripture is necessary for adequate teaching, reproof, correction, and training. All it says is that scripture is a useful foundation for such teaching, reproof, correction, and training, which we both believe.

Verse 17: ". . . that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." This says that the teaching, reproof, correction, and training, when aided by and based in scripture, makes the man of God complete. This is the end of Paul's discussion of scripture, and, since he has given no indication that there is an alternative, equally efficacious route to completion that does not include scriptural teaching and training, it is safe to conclude that the scripture-based training and teaching of verse 16 is necessary to make the man of God complete, even if it does not explicitly say so. Even if we also assume that scripture is necessary for this teaching and training, then this would only mean that scripture is necessary for the man of God to be complete. You are still far from demonstrating the sufficiency of scripture from these verses.

Let's look at this more closely, especially since you placed great stock in the "is able" of verse 15. I claim that the "is able" has nothing to do with sufficiency. This kind of touches upon Charlie's ceteris paribus argument. I could tell you were confused when he started bandying this jargon around, and we didn't do a very good job of explaining ourselves. Basically, you can consider the following analogy: say I am standing next to a 10-foot-high wall, and I say, "I am able to jump over the wall." Everyone would agree that this is a false statement. But now let's say I am standing next to the 10-foot-high wall, and I have a pole-vault pole in my hand. Now when I say, "I am able to jump over the wall," everyone would agree that this is a true statement. Whether it is true or false depends on the unspoken assumptions; to say, "I am able to do X" does not necessarily imply that I am able to do it without the aid of anything other than my body. Are you able to go to China? Yes, of course. But not if your body were the only thing you were allowed to use to get there. Similarly, even if Paul's exact words were "the Bible is able to make a man complete," it wouldn't necessarily mean that the Bible is sufficient to make a man complete. To illustrate, let's suppose that the Bible AND Tradition are alone able to make a man complete--that the two of them combined are sufficient. If a man just has Tradition, he isn't complete. But then the Bible comes along, and suddenly he has been made complete; the Bible made him so. Thus, it is a true statement that the Bible is able to make a man complete. Whether or not the Bible is sufficient depends on the unspoken assumptions as to what the man in need of being completed already has.

So, we ask, "Are there any indications from Paul's writings that there are these unspoken assumptions as to what Timothy already has when Paul states that scriptures are able to make him complete?" As far as I can see, the answer is a resounding YES! The Pauline epistles are chock full of references to paradosis--usually translated as "tradition"--and other teaching that Paul handed down orally to the individual churches he visited (2 Thes 2:15, 2 Thes 3:6, 1 Cor 11:2, etc.). When he wrote letters, he wasn't repeating everything that he had taught them; he was mostly elaborating on specific points, clarifying disputes, and providing exhortation. If sola scriptura was really the foundation of the Christian faith, then his letters should have been bristling with references to this pivotal doctrine that all essential teachings are one day going to be written down in inspired form, and that his followers should be sure to get their hands on a collection of these writings just as soon as they were compiled. On the contrary, time and again, Paul emphasizes the importance of the unwritten doctrines he had communicated to the churches before writing any of his letters, without giving any indication that all the essentials will one day be written down by an inspired author. When Paul tells Timothy that scripture is able to make him complete, surely it is reasonable to suppose that he is assuming that Timothy already has the apostolic teaching handed on to him by Paul.

Suppose you remain unconvinced, maintaining that, even if the language used in 16-17 doesn't necessarily imply it, your sola scriptura interpretation of "that the man of God may be complete" is still plausible and is in fact what Paul actually meant. Now, I think that such an interpretation is overzealous at least, but never mind--your understanding of 16-17 still rests on an equally dubious interpretation of what "all scripture" means. "All scripture," of course, can mean two things: it can mean any scripture in the sense of "every scriptural document" or even "every line of scripture;" or it can mean the totality of the body of scriptural writing. For example, when it says, "All scripture is inspired by God," we would both agree that "all" could have either meaning here. The totality of scripture is inspired by God, as is any subset thereof. Personally, based on my interpretation of the rest of these three verses, I think that this first option could easily be the one that Paul meant. I believe that every scriptural document contains instructions for salvation, that it is profitable for teaching, reproof, etc., and that it helps you achieve completion. Therefore, saying that "all" is synonymous with "every" wouldn't bother me one bit. However, translating "all" as "every" would bother you very much since you believe that only the totality of scripture, once it has been completed, is sufficient, and you interpret the rest of the verses as stating sufficiency. But if the phrase did have the second meaning above, then Paul couldn't possibly mean what you think he means by "are able . . . [to make] the man of God . . . complete" because it wouldn't have been a true statement at the time he was writing it. Your position requires that Paul mean "the totality of OT and NT scripture once all scripture has been written," in which case he would have said "all scripture WILL make the man of God complete" because "all scripture" would not yet have existed. Therefore, either Paul does not mean "sufficient for salvation" by 15-17 or else he does not mean "scripture alone" by "all scripture." Either way, sola scriptura is not being taught.

"OK, OK," you say. "That's just a quibble about the tense of a verb. St. Paul is writing for the benefit of all who will come after 90 AD." Yeah, but . . . think about it. Besides getting the tense of the verb wrong, Paul would be giving seemingly practical advice to Timothy which in fact would not have been relevant and thus would not have benefited him for another several decades. If Paul had really meant, "The totality of scripture once it has been completed will be all you need," he would have made it clear. He would have made sure that Timothy did not interpret "all scripture" as "all scripture with which you are familiar," which would have been the obvious conclusion. While it is possible that Paul includes recent NT writings in the category "all scripture," it is in fact most reasonable to assume that he is referring to the exact same scripture as in verse 15, which is patently the OT. While his statements may certainly apply to any scripture, including later NT scripture, they MUST also be applicable to smaller subsets of scripture, such as the OT or the OT plus part of the NT, and therefore your understanding of these verses (which would only apply to the totality of scripture ever written) cannot be correct.

Charlie and I therefore think that sola scriptura is internally inconsistent because it does not teach sola scriptura. However, we also think that sola scriptura is internally inconsistent for a second reason. Again, the three of us went around and around about this at dinner with neither side understanding what the other was trying to say. I'm going to try to re-articulate my problem with your position.

As Charlie and I reiterated on numerous occasions, a belief in sola scriptura presupposes that the corpus of scripture is known for sure. By the definition of sola scriptura, that corpus could only be known for sure if it is attested to in scripture. But scripture nowhere says what documents comprise scripture. Therefore, you need some outside source to tell you which books are in the Bible. Since an essential element of faith and morals is coming from an outside source, sola scriptura isn't true.

Your response was always, "But scripture is self-attesting!" To me, this could mean two things: either every line generates such warm, fuzzy feelings in anyone who reads it with an open mind and an honest heart that there is no doubt (which we both agreed, with all due respect to sacred scripture, is not the case), or scripture says what it is. But we also both agree that the Table of Contents is not a scriptural document. Therefore scripture does NOT say what it is. When we brought up these points, you declared that your position was nonetheless tenable because scripture says that "the Word of God will not fail" or something like that (I'm not sure where it says this, but I'll take your word for it). Even if we take your assumption that "Word of God" refers only to the written Word, I still don't see how this guarantees that the particular Table of Contents in your Bible is the right one. Sure, based on "the Word of God will not fail," it is internally consistent with sola scriptura to say that no scriptural document will ever be irretrievably lost (as countless ancient manuscripts have been), and arguably even internally consistent (if you are a really zealous interpreter) to say that the true canon will continue to exist among a least some group of Christians somewhere in the world at all points in history. However, this is a far cry from saying that scripture self-attests to the canon of your Bible and self-attests against that of mine.

Your basic assumption here seems to be that, until Rome muddied the waters by adding the deuterocanonical Apocrypha to its canon in the 1500s, all Christians from the time of the apostles had used one and the same canon. Only if this is true could you, with a strained overextension of "the Word of God will not fail," argue that the scripture "self-attests" to its contents by implicitly guaranteeing the universal integrity of its canon throughout history.

We started to get into a discussion of the history of the canon at dinner, and then the subject got changed. Several years ago, I put a lot of research into the historical development of the OT canon because I had been having a discussion with a Protestant. Now, I will admit that I grew up being taught that everyone used the Catholic canon until one day Martin Luther came along and just out-of-the-blue kicked out some OT books that didn't suit his fancy. To my surprise, the Protestant claimed exactly the opposite--that everyone had used the Protestant canon until Rome, smarting from the Reformation, arbitrarily added in the deuterocanonicals just to spite the Protestants. Thinking that an elementary survey of history would prove my friend wrong, I looked into the matter and found that the truth, not surprisingly, was somewhere in between and that I was proved as wrong as he was.

Most of this is off the top of my head from what I remember from five years ago, and I haven't bothered to recheck everything, so I'm not going to guarantee that I don't get a little detail wrong here or there. But I'm pretty sure that what follows is a pretty balanced overview of the history of the OT canon. And, for our purposes, the general picture is what is important.

Back in the time of Jesus, there was no consensus canon among the Jews. Different sects had their own combination of writings. The Pharisees, for example, had exactly or almost exactly the same canon as the Protestants do today--they believed that divine revelation had ceased with Ezra. I think the Essenes had something similar, minus Esther and maybe one other book. The Sadducees--the priestly class and the religious elite of the time--emphatically insisted that only the Pentateuch was inspired and that the rest was not scripture. Many other Jews in Palestine, as well as most of the Jews scattered throughout the Mediterranean world, used the Septuagint (a standard Greek translation) as their Bible. For all intents and purposes, the Septuagint contained the books of the Catholic canon, although there was no official Table of Contents and sometimes there were minor variations (eg, perhaps Esther was left out of one compilation of manuscripts while another included 3 and 4 Maccabees in addition to 1 and 2--that sort of thing).

There is no internal evidence in the NT to indicate which canon was accepted by Jesus or the NT authors. Approximately 2/3 of NT quotes are taken from the Septuagint translation, but this doesn't prove anything. None of the deuterocanonical books are directly quoted as scripture in the NT, but neither are lots of other canonical books (Ecclesiastes, Esther, Song of Solomon, Obediah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations, Nahum). There are certainly a number of allusions to deuterocanonical books, but this doesn't prove that they're canonical because Jude openly quotes such patently apocryphal works as The Assumption of Moses and The Book of Enoch without thereby conferring canonicity on them.

As Christianity began to spread throughout the Mediterranean world, most Christians naturally adopted the OT canon of the Jews in their region, which was generally that of the Septuagint. But not always--in fact, the earliest surviving OT canon written by a Christian, Melito in ~170 AD, actually includes only the protocanonical books (ie, the Protestant canon) minus Esther. Very few of his contemporaries explicitly wrote out canons, but many of them quoted from deuterocanonical books as though they were scripture.

Meanwhile, after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, the Jewish faith underwent an upheaval. The priestly class ceased to exist, and, of the many Jewish sects in Palestine, the Pharisees emerged as the dominant force in Jewish religion and came to define the subsequent character of the faith. In approximately 90-100 AD, they set in stone their canon, which was identical to the current Protestant canon.

The Jewish custom had some effect on eastern Christians writers, many of whom either accepted this official Pharisaic canon or else some combination of the Pharisaic canon and what is now the Catholic canon. Most of the western Christian writers continued using the same Septuagint canon as always. The first recorded time that a group of bishops met to discuss the question of the canon was in Hippo in 393 AD, followed a short time later by the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. Both times, the North African bishops declared canonical the current Catholic list. In 405, Pope Innocent I privately affirmed this decision in a letter to another bishop.

At approximately the same time, ~400 AD, Jerome was working on his famous translation of the Bible into Latin. For this, he wanted to translate the OT straight from the original Hebrew, so he went to Palestine and studied Hebrew with the Jewish scholars. Influenced by them, Jerome decided that the deuterocanonical books were not canonical. However, when Pope Damasus indicated his approval of the North African councils, Jerome deferred and included the deuterocanonicals in his Vulgate. Indeed, when a fellow scholar criticized him for reneging and including later Greek additions (yep, that would be Bel and the Dragon!) to the book of Daniel when he had previously declared them apocryphal, Jerome retorted that he had to follow "the judgment of the churches." Nevertheless, he retained personal reservations, and in his Vulgate prefaces he compromised by relegating the seven deuterocanonical books to a position of "lesser" inspiration, or something like that--hence the term "deuterocanonical."

So, throughout the Middle Ages, the deuterocanonical books were considered part of scripture, although, following Jerome, they were often labeled in the manuscripts as somehow being "lesser" than the others. However, a third local council of bishops, this time at Florence in 1442, again restated what is now the Catholic canon, making no distinctions between the protocanonical and deuterocanonical books.

Jerome's opinion was still influential among scholars, and, when critical thinking became in vogue (for the first time in centuries) during the early Renaissance, many of the Humanists reconsidered whether the deuterocanonical books should even be there at all, especially in light of the fact that the contemporary Jews rejected them and in light of the theological difficulties inherent in Jerome's cumbersome idea of "lesser" inspiration.

This was the state of affairs when Luther came along. The Church had not yet made an infallible pronouncement on the question of the canon, but every church council that had discussed the matter had endorsed the same canon (the current Catholic one), without any distinction being made among the various books. Jerome's prefaces in which the deuterocanonical books were relegated to a lesser status were frequently included in Biblical manuscripts of the time, however, and there was some discussion among leading thinkers as to the seven books' canonicity.

So Luther's actions did not come out-of-the-blue--many of his contemporaries were questioning the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals. Luther was simply the one audacious enough to take the next step and outright reject them. By all accounts, however, his motives for doing so were not because of critical scholarship but because the books of Maccabees clearly state the benefit of praying for the dead, which contradicted his interpretation of Paul. Fortunately, he was able to hang his hat on the historical controversy that had surrounded Maccabees and the other deuterocanonical books.

The problems that Luther had with the NT, however, were not so conveniently solved. You claimed that Luther never wanted to throw out James. This isn't true. Not only did he famously declare it "an epistle of straw" having "nothing of the nature of the gospel about it," but he also wrote that James "wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore, I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books . . . . 'One man is no man' in worldly things; how, then, should this single man alone prevail against Paul and all the rest of Scripture?" His followers, however, convinced him that this would be too radical for potential converts to tolerate and James was quietly slipped back into Luther's canon.

Finally, due to the controversy generated by the Reformation, the Council of Trent in 1546 officially and infallibly declared the true canon to be that endorsed by the previous three councils that had discussed the subject--Hippo, Carthage, and Florence. Far from being a reversal from years of Christian practice, this was a reaffirmation of the dominant (though admittedly not overwhelmingly dominant) practice in Church history.

Of course, I haven't even begun to discuss the development of the NT canon and how the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation were at least as if not more hotly contested during the first few centuries of Christianity. It was in fact the Councils of Hippo and Carthage which are credited with settling the debate. Clearly, there has NEVER in the history of Christianity been a single, universally agreed-upon canon; the period of broadest consensus was probably between 400 AD and 1500 AD, when the current Catholic canon prevailed, albeit with the question as to whether or not the deuterocanonical books were somehow inspired to a lesser degree than the others. For Catholics, this isn't an insurmountable problem, because we never claimed that our faith comes from the Bible alone. Christians were able to get along fine for centuries without a firm idea of what constituted scripture because they had the successors of the apostles and apostolic Tradition to guide their faith. This historical confusion SHOULD be a problem for Protestants because it implies that, if "the Word of God will not fail" means that the canon will remain intact and self-evident, then this passage was not very good at fulfilling itself during the first several centuries AD, and, thereafter, you have no way of knowing whether the Catholic or the Protestant canon is the right one since both are attested to in a fairly widespread manner throughout subsequent Christian history. The assumption for historical consistency upon which rest your claims concerning "the Word of God will not fail" is not true, and therefore this verse does NOT self-attest to your Table of Contents. You have to rely on the authority of the Pharasaic Council of Jamnia in 90 AD or else the authority of Jerome or else the authority of Martin Luther in order to know that your canon, not ours, is the one that fulfills "the Word of God will not fail." Therefore, there is an essential matter of your faith that is not contained within the Bible, and therefore you do not truly believe in sola scriptura.

So, in the end, I emerged from dinner with a better appreciation of the biblical basis of your position concerning sola scriptura, but I retain serious reservations about its internal consistency. I hope that I have articulated these out-standing reservations a little better.

I am sorry that this e-mail got so long--I promise I didn't mean for it to be this long. I'm not expecting an instant reply or thorough rebuttal of the jumble of long-winded points. Even if you don't get this far, I won't be offended :-) The document that you actually asked for is coming right up . . .

Have a good evening!

Cheers,

George

P.S. Sorry, I can't help saying one more thing, since it was alluded to during dinner: a brief note on whether or not Jesus' "adelphoi" were his full brothers. The Greek "adelphos" typically had about the same connotation as English "brother" and thus usually meant full-blooded brother (but, like in English, could be used more loosely). However, in Aramaic there were no separate words for "brother," "cousin," and indeed "kinsman" in general. Thus, in Jesus' culture, it would have been natural to have referred to Jesus' relatives using a word whose primary Greek translation would have been brother (note that contemporary Greek translations of the OT frequently translated the Hebrew word for kinsman as "adelphos" when it was clearly referring to uncles or cousins--hence, Jacob is called Laban's "adelphos" and Abraham is called Lot's "adelphos"). So, while the use of the Greek "adelphos" suggests that Jesus had full brothers, it certainly does not preclude the possibility that they were cousins or other kinsmen, colloquially termed "brothers" in the unspecific translation conventions of the time.

So (besides the fact that Christians from the earliest times were apparently unfazed by the patent and frequent references to Jesus' adelphoi when they claimed that Mary had no other children), we ask: is there any internal evidence in the NT to suggest that these adelphoi are not Jesus' full brothers? If not, then the default conclusion would be that they are in fact full brothers, since this is admittedly the primary meaning of the Greek word. But if there is internal evidence to suggest that adelphoi did not necessarily or even probably imply full brothers in the case of Jesus, then the possibility that these early Christians are right with respect to Mary's perpetual virginity must be entertained. The internal evidence is as follows:

1. James the Less and Joses are listed together as adelphoi of Jesus in Matt. 13:55 and Mark 6:3. Later on in those same Gospels (Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:40), they are again listed together and said to be sons of the other Mary at the foot of the cross (presumably Mary the wife of Clopas of John 19:25, who was said to be a relative of Mary the mother of Jesus). Now I will admit that this evidence is inconclusive for two reasons. First, it could be argued that the James and Joses in the first case are different from the James and Joses in the second case. Given the juxtaposition of the two names, I think that this is unlikely, but it is possible. Second, it could perhaps be pointed out that, in Matt. 27:56 and Mark 15:40, it never actually says that Mary the mother of James and Joses is Mary the wife of Clopas and not Mary the mother of Jesus. However, since the context is Jesus' crucifixion (at which neither James nor Joses were present), it would be highly illogical, even ludicrous, for the author to have referred to her as anything other than the mother of Jesus if that is indeed what he meant. Nevertheless, I will admit that there is room for ambiguity here.

2. Somewhat more convincing to me is the fact that, in John 19:25, Mary the wife of Clopas is said to be the adelphe (feminine form of adelphos) of Mary the mother of Jesus. Especially in view of Jewish custom, it seems highly unlikely that two full sisters, the children of the same parents, would both be named Mary. This strongly suggests that adelphe does not necessarily mean full-sister, which implies that adelphos does not necessarily mean full-brother either.

3. Even if we accept on the basis of this evidence that adelphos did not necessarily mean full-brother, you could still argue that it sometimes does in the case of at least some of Jesus' adelphoi. However, Jesus at his death entrusted his mother to John, who took care of her for the rest of her life; in view of the fact that the cultural duty to care for one's parents in their old age was very strong in Jewish society, this strongly suggests that Mary did not have any other surviving sons.

Obviously, nothing has been formally proven. But I think that our position is very reasonable, even in light of internal scriptural evidence alone.

The Dreaded T-Word

2007-04-15T22:20:00.000-07:00

Food for thought from "The Dreaded T-Word and Why Women Avoid It" by Carolyn Custis James (email me if you want the article)

"You can't read too far into the New Testament before you begin to wonder if our modern theological timidity would raise a few apostolic eyebrows"

"Far from diminishing her appeal, a woman's interest in theology ought to be the first thing to catch a man's eye. A wife's theology should be what a husband prizes most about her"

"As the wife of a seminary professor, I have encountered more than one distraught student wife who has discovered theology is her husband's mistress"

"Maybe the fact that so many women have withdrawn from the conversation partially explains why theology has become such a cerebral endeavor in the church...Rather than being detriments, I tend to think our instinct for relationship and practical matters are assets in understanding theology, because they compel us to take our theology to heart-to explore how knowing God makes a difference in our lives"

Stewardship and Mending Walls

2007-04-15T20:48:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite poems of all time is Robert Frost's Mending Wall; the line that always strikes me hardest is the last--"Good fences make good neighbors."

There's something unnatural yet very human about boundaries and line-drawing. Next time you fly from SJC to LAX, peer out the window of the plane. The mountains, the rivers, the plains, the rolling hills, and the oceans of God's creation run together in some sort of fractal beauty. But you always know where the people are, because the roads are straight and the fields square.

I always wonder if it reflects the difference between the way God and us approach questions of ultimate significance; of good and evil; and of right and wrong.

For example, Josiah and I were talking about being good stewards of the environment. Suppose I built a road through a lush forest, committing myself to tending to the plants within two inches of the road. As for the rest of the forest, beyond two inches of the road, we would leave fair game for the rest of human civilization to build, raze, deforest, tend, water, and as they willed. Josiah and I agreed, that would be "bad stewardship."

And then came the question, "At what distance from the road--5 inches, 5 meters, 5 kilometers?--is our stewardship 'good'?" Granted, it's a silly question to ask--and we mostly all agree upon it--but let me rephrase the question in a more classical, moral dilemma.

Suppose you are the captain of a rescue ship. On an island resort, a volcano has just erupted and there are two parties of people trapped--one group on the north end, and one on the south. You can only save one group from the impending lava. At the north, there are 500 people. At the south, there are 499. Which group do you save? Why? Is it more right to save one group over the other? What if there was only one person on the southern end? And what if that one person was Einstein, or the President of the USA? What if the lone person on the south was your brother? Or wife? Or husband? Or mother-in-law?

How do you measure the value of human life to determine which group to save? Is there some number to attach to each individual by which the sum gives us a "better" choice?

To many, the question isn't absurd. But, in reality, I wonder if it is the same as asking, "At which distance of 'environmental protection' around the road 'good'?" That is, we want to know the threshold--the dividing line--that differentiates the "good" from the "bad." We want to know what this boundary is.

For farmers, it is so they can use the most of their land without infringing on someone else's land.

For humans? Why do we want to know where the boundary is between "good" and "bad"? Between "better" and "best"? Is it so we can be "good" or "better" people?

Even so, the more important question is: Is God's view of good and evil as simple as our dividing line? Or as complex as His natural creation? And if it is as complex and beautiful as His divine creation--can we know His standards of good and evil? And how?

For we all know--good fences don't always make good neighbors; and good, ethical boundaries don't always make good people.

Oh--and what is good stewardship of the Earth? :-D

A Dialogue Worth Watching

2007-04-13T10:35:00.000-07:00

I started watching this video that's a dialogue between a Christian group and a Muslim group. If you have a couple hours of time (I know, it's long), it's definitely interesting to watch.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1254885045777648482&hl=en

Couple points to note:
The "dialogue" is structured in sort of "debate" style.
The Christian talks for 30 minutes
Muslim panel questions him for 10 minutes
The Muslim talks for 30 minutes
Christian panel questions him for 10 minutes

It was interesting to me that after having heard the Christian position on Christ (that Christ is divine), the Muslims immediately brought up the question of the Trinity--"How can God be one and yet God the Father and Christ both be God?"

Also interesting to see how the Muslim speaker revered the Bible--he warns his fellow Muslims to not misquote the Bible.

It seems the fundamental contradiction of Christianity--for the Muslim--is our belief in the divinity of Christ.

What is also of great interest (and irony) to me is how the Muslims started drawing up passages of the Bible that Josiah, Mickey, and I were reading in our early Christian doctrines class. For example, at one point, the Muslim said, "Jesus says, 'Why do you say I am good? No one is good except God.'" I chuckled to myself. But, I think it is interesting that the dialogue (granted, my sample size of 1) between Christians and Muslims looks a lot like early Christian dialogue among themselves regarding the divinity of Christ.

Other points to note from the Muslim stance: God cannot have "children" (sons), God cannot have "feelings", God--being one--should know about everything that happens to himself (i.e., Jesus should know, if he is God, when he will return), God is not a God of confusion--the Trinity is a confusing doctrine (and therefore erroneous), Christ is God's begotten son but to "beget" requires sex and sex is a lowly animal function and God is not animalistic, the crucifixion of Christ is not supported by the Bible (because Christ was not willing to die--a sacrifice should be willing), etc.

Conclusion? Some Muslims know the Bible (and its history) better than the average Christian. For the American church and all its programs, we lack a basic training in the Bible--a basic training that someone of another religion, with another holy book, could learn better than we. I think there's something fundamentally wrong with a church that seeks to entertain its congregation, than to prepare them in the very rudiments upon which our faith stands. And it is a great travesty that the average Christian does not question as much as he ought, taking for granted a great number of doctrines which have taken hundreds of years and a great amount of intelligence (Augustine, et al.) to develop.

I'm sometimes put to shame how well people outside the church scrutinize the Bible, wrestle with its "inconsistencies," put forth great questions (which have been dealt with by Scripture in history), and yet the people of the church don't know the Bible beyond John 3:16 or anything of church history.

And not just that--we don't care to learn those things. It's like some sort of response to ultra-stiff Christians who quote Scripture or the self-righteous Christian that knows doctrine inside out; we've settled for emotive religion.

"Why am I Christian? Because it makes me feel good."
"Christianity works for me. I don't know if it will work for you."
etc. etc.

Whatever happened to "honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15)? It seems, in history, that the Christian is either always prepared to give a defense (but never exudes any hope) or is always hopeful (but never has a defense). We may be the generation of Christians who champion the idea of living a Christian "life," but forget that it includes a "Christian" (self-)education.

Essay for Christian Doctrines and Thought (III)

2007-04-11T03:32:00.000-07:00

Prompt:

how might this passage have been understood as Christians of the first few centuries began to think carefully about Jesus’ relationship to God, and about the character of Jesus as a savior-figure? What does this passage seem most clearly to “put forth,” and what kinds of ideas and “pictures” of God or of Jesus might it combat or “rule out”?

I chose John 14:

John 14 begins with a quote where Jesus argues that if the Jews believed in God then they should also believe in him. This does not imply that Jesus was separate from God, but rather it seems that a new theology is being introduced. The Jewish creed of the Old Testament that God is one would cause most of the early readers of this passage to have difficulty in accepting that Jesus was truly divine as that would mean that there was more than simply one God. So the first argument of the passage is that belief in Jesus (consisting of a belief that Jesus was a savior and that he was divine – verse 6) should flow naturally from a belief in God Himself. This argument is then fleshed out through a series of statements in which Jesus emphasizes that he shares an intimate connection with God. For instance, verse 7 “If you had known me, you would have known my Father also.” In verses 21 and 23 Jesus states that loving him will necessarily imply a love of that person by God, which again indicates that there is a special relationship between Jesus and God.

The question for the early church at this point would be the cause of this special relationship. Is it caused simply because God chose to bless Jesus, who was just a man, and love him in a way that God had not loved any other man (John 17:23-24). Or is the relationship between God and Jesus due to the fact that Jesus himself is divine. This passage seems to imply the latter of those options, particularly in verses 8-11. In verses 10 and 11 Jesus says, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” The second part of the phrase implies that at the very least Jesus was indwelled, at least for a time, by the Spirit of God. However, the first part of the phrase is the decisive one. For God to dwell in a man did not require a man to be divine in the mythology of the ancient Greeks and Romans who often depicted their gods either taking on the appearance of humans or in Jewish beliefs where the Spirit of God was imparted to prophets for a time and gave them their prophecies. Yet, in order for a being to be in God necessitates that the being is itself divine; otherwise God is allowing an impure (due to the inherent sinfulness of man emphasized in Paul’s letters) and inferior being to dwell in Himself.* Further evidence that Christ must be divine is seen in verse nine, where Jesus implies that the very character of God is inherently evident when one looks at the character of Jesus (see also v7). This implies that Jesus himself possessed divine character, something that the Jews would never attribute to a man.

If an early Christian studying this passage were to then conclude that Jesus was divine and that Jesus was in a sense “equivalent” with God, as believing in one brought with it belief in the other (v1), how would they see the relationship between Jesus and the Father? At first glance verses 16, 28, and 31 seem to indicate that that there is a definite hierarchy in the relationship, with Jesus subservient to the Father (it seems also that the Holy Spirit likewise obeys the Father, who sends it, vs15 and 26, though the Spirit’s relation to Jesus is not directly addressed in this passage). While there is nothing in the passage that directly contradicts such an interpretation there are several things which seem to lessen its repercussions. First of all, in verse 16 although Jesus says that he will ask the Father, he already knows what the Father’s answer will be, and knows so in a definite sense, not merely one of hopeful anticipation (or else he could not make the promise of v18). This implies an intimate knowledge of the will and plan of God, also seen in verse 26. So while in one sense the Father “commands” the Son (v31) in another sense the two work in tandem.

Verse 28 is perhaps the most difficult of the passage, especially when taken on its own. However, it must be compared with the greater context of the book of John, as the early church would have been able to consider the letter as a whole. In 17:11, 21-23 there is distinct emphasis on the unity of Jesus and the Father, both in purpose and character, which could not be true if they were unequal deities. This leads to the conclusion that is implied in the very first verse of the passage, that the relationship between the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is one that readers may not necessarily have picked up on from the Old Testament, but one that at the same time should not run contrary to their belief in God.

* One possible counter-argument to this reasoning could be verse 20 in which Jesus talks about “being in” the disciples, which according to this reasoning does not make sense if Jesus is divine and the disciples are not. However the difference between vs7-11 and v20 is the first part of v20 in which the future tense is used (also v18). When this is combined with the fact that Jesus was sent into the world, he did not originate there (John 17:14-16), and his prayer in chapter 17 it seems as if the state of his being in the disciples and they in him is something that came as a result of his coming into the world, and that did not exist naturally. On the other hand, this is not the case for the relationship between Jesus and the Father (particularly see John 17:24).

I don't get it.

2007-04-11T00:41:00.000-07:00

(of many of course)

Random question, but one that I've been thinking about on and off a great deal recently and I was wondering if Owen addresses it.

Paul talks of indwelling sin throughout the epistle to the Romans. My question is, "where does it come from?"

After all, doesn't the Bible also say that the old is gone and the new has come. That we are given a new heart that loves God and our heart of stone that doesn't love God has been removed

Paul speaks in Romans 7 of our minds delighting in the law of God, but another law in his members waging war.

What are those members and where did they come from? I don't get it! I think I were to be consistent (throwing out all the stuff in Scripture about the ongoing war with sin) with the "new creation" talk, I would say that I shouldn't be sinning anymore, after all my heart doesn't want to sin. But this indwelling sin throws me for a loop. I don't understand where it comes from.

I can answer why. (For God's glory). I can even tell you how to pursue sanctification (by putting off unrighteousness and putting on Christ). Of course, I can't apply it perfectly (there's that indwelling sin again!), but I have no idea what happened that I can't. It's confusing.

And I don't think the appeal to our incomplete knowledge works here, since it's clear that Paul knows what he's dealing with, and he writes to the Romans expecting them to know what he means by "in our other members" in Romans 7. So I honestly have no idea.

Any thoughts?

The Mortification of Sin

2007-04-10T10:31:00.000-07:00

We've been reading "The Mortification of Sin" (by John Owen) for our Bible Study on Thursdays, and as I've been playing some catch-up, I thought I'd share a couple of thoughts.

Owen starts out with a reflection on Romans 8:13.

For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live (Romans 8:13).

The discussion of his first chapter then ponders on how the conditional "if" should be interpreted. Owen concludes:

The intention, then, of this proposition as conditional is, That there is a certain infallible connection and coherence between true mortification and eternal life. If you use this means, you shall obtain that end. If you do 'mortify' you shall live.

In case your English is a little rusty, like mine is--and having only been trained in the way of numbers and no the way of words--I'll sum up what he means, in short: That "putting to death" the deeds of body is the means by which one obtains life. By "life" here, neither Owen nor Paul mean "salvation." Owen will clarify later.

The second point that Owen makes is:

The choicest believers, who are assuredly freed from the condemning power of sin, ought yet to make it their business, all their days, to mortify the indwelling power of sin.

Before one objects, "How can he get that from this verse?!" let's return the verse. Romans 8 :13 refers to a group of people--"you"--and Owen ponders, who is this "you" referring to? Romans 8:1 talks about those for whom "there is [...] no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1). And Owen concludes that verse 13 continues to address this group of people. As for why Owen infers the "ought" from these verses, it is probably because he takes Scripture very seriously. If Scripture teaches us that "if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live," then how should we--as those in Christ Jesus--ignore this command? A follower of Christ may, indeed, ignore "putting to death the deeds of the body," but Owen draws out the implication of neglecting that duty in chapter 2. Suffice it to say, if we are not fighting sin by the Spirit, it triumphs over us, and as we "live according to the flesh," we "die." Therefore, it only makes sense that a follower of Christ ought to "mortify" sin.

Owen's third point:

The principal efficient cause of the performance of this duty is the Spirit: 'if by the Spirit'.

I'll use Owen's own words to elaborate. "All other ways of mortification are vain; all helps leave us helpless; it must be done by the Spirit."

Owen's fourth point:

The intention of the apostle in this prescription of the duty mentioned, is, that the mortification of indwelling sin, remaining in our mortal bodies, in order that it may not have life and power to bring forth the works or deeds of the flesh, is the constant duty of believers.

Owen is mostly discussing what is meant by the phrase "deeds of the body." He defines the "body" as "indwelling sin, the corrupted flesh or lust." "Deeds" Owen defines as the outward actions, though he goes on to say that "deeds" encompasses even the intent of the sinful heart. He then comes to the conclusion we just put forth. A couple sentences that I liked in this section: With regards to the mortification (putting to death) of sin, Owen writes, "that is, have its power, life, vigour and strength to produce its effects, taken away by the Spirit. [...]. But the whole work is by degrees to be carried on towards perfection all our days." It is great encouragement to know that the "killing off" of indwelling sin--though I have been freed from its bonds--isn't instantaneous and takes a good deal of time. For how often have we judged ourselves un-Christian the moment we make the slightest sin? Or how often have we imagined that we sin no more (barring the arrogance of that thought itself ;) )?

And, finally, Owen's last point.

Supposing what was said before, of the connection between mortification and eternal life, as of means and end, I shall add only, as a second motive to the duty prescribed, that, the vigour, and power, and comfort of our spiritual life depend on the mortification of the deeds of the flesh.

That is, the "life" promised is not only eternal life--but is one's spiritual life (here on earth) as well.

Well, that sums up the first chapter. It gets more interesting, in the future chapters. And if I ever remember to get to the future chapters, you shall read about them too. :-D

Essay for Christian Doctrines and Thought (II)

2007-04-08T09:18:00.000-07:00

Prompt:

how might this passage have been understood as Christians of the first few centuries began to think carefully about Jesus’ relationship to God, and about the character of Jesus as a savior-figure? What does this passage seem most clearly to “put forth,” and what kinds of ideas and “pictures” of God or of Jesus might it combat or “rule out”?

I chose Philippians 2:

When reading Philippians 2:6-11, early Christians may have understood it as supporting the divinity of Christ, ruling out any ideas that he was less than God. On the other hand, these verses leave open to interpretation the question of how Jesus’ humanity and divinity co-existed. Finally, because Christ and God are distinct entities in this passage, early Christians would have ruled out the idea that God and Christ were one and exactly the same entity.

The first words relevant to our discussion are “form” and “equality with God.” Namely, Paul writes in Philippians, “[…] Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:5-7). By stating that Jesus is in the form of God, Paul asserts Jesus’ divinity. Since Jesus “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,” Jesus was “equal” to God and was not trying to become God, because he already was God. It is also possible to interpret this phrase as suggesting that Jesus was never equal with God and did not consider equality with God something worthwhile to pursue. But in light of the passage’s context as being one about humility, the second interpretation is untenable. To wit, if Paul has in mind that Jesus was like God and never considered equality with God—or divinity—as something to attain, then Paul’s point about imitating Christ’s humility is moot. This interpretation makes Christ, who refrains from deification, an example of reverence to God. On the other hand, if Paul has in mind the divinity of Christ, then Christ’s emptying of himself and his willful submission to “humanity” despite his divinity is the supreme example of humility. Therefore, to render Paul consistent with himself, the first few verses must clearly imply Christ’s divinity.

With respect to Christ’s humanity, verses 5-7 may suggest that Christ set aside his divinity and became human, as Christ “emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” This reading is possible, but the verb “emptied” could be synonymous with the verb “humbled,” and the adverbial, participial phrases—“taking the form of a servant” and “being born in the likeness of men”—could describe exactly how Christ “emptied” himself instead of describing the result of Christ “emptying” his divinity. Paul does not write that Christ “emptied himself, setting aside his divinity”; rather, Paul wrote that in emptying himself, Christ took on the form of a servant and was born in the likeness of men. Verse 8 elaborates: “And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.” It is also likely, from the context and grammar, that Paul intended the verb “emptied” to point to Christ’s humbling of himself on a cross and not to his relinquishing of divine being. Here, we see the beginnings of the idea that Christ is both divine and human, while he walked on earth. From this text alone, it is inconclusive whether Paul intended to suggest that Christ set aside his divinity or that Christ took on a human nature in addition to his divinity.

Furthermore, early Christians could have also argued that Christ was never fully human. Instead of writing that Jesus took on the “form of men,” Paul writes that Jesus took on the “form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” So Jesus descends from being in the form of God to being born in the likeness of men. If this difference is significant, then the text appears to suggest that while Jesus was fully divine, he became something like a human, but not of human “form.” However, the difference could also be a difference in sequence and not of ontology. That is, the difference may not point to how Christ as God was different from Christ as human, but rather that Christ was first God then humbled himself to servant status. As a servant, Christ was then born in the likeness of men.

In conclusion, Philippians 2:5-11 present a strong case for the divinity of Christ. Early Christians could have used it as excellent evidence of Christ’s divinity. However, Paul does very little in these verses to clarify the relationship between Jesus’ humanity and divinity, leaving much of it to interpretation. Furthermore, the distinction between God and Christ (God exalts Christ in verses 9-11), which was not discussed, rules out the idea that God and Christ are exactly one and the same.

Essay for Christian Doctrines and Thought (I)

2007-04-08T00:02:00.000-07:00

Prompt:

how might this passage have been understood as Christians of the first few centuries began to think carefully about Jesus’ relationship to God, and about the character of Jesus as a savior-figure? What does this passage seem most clearly to “put forth,” and what kinds of ideas and “pictures” of God or of Jesus might it combat or “rule out”?

I chose Mark 1:

Since this passage seems to be on the long side, I'm going to restrict myself to highlighting a few main ideas that jump out at me. Mark begins his Gospel proclaiming that it actually is not his Gospel, but rather that of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (v.1), so obviously the paper is not about some mere moral teacher as some might think, but rather someone who bears an intimate relationship with God, close enough to be called the Son of God. The title of Christ points directly to the messiah-ship that Jesus bore, that He was coming as savior and Lord. Certainly no one would argue that Jesus is a mere human.

In verse 2 and 3, Mark quotes Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3, which both prophesy of a messenger coming to "prepare the way of the Lord." Mark then immediately transitions from such a quotation into a passage on the ministry of John the Baptist. From other Gospels, we know that John considers himself the direct fulfillment of those passages (Matthew 3:1-3) and seeing Mark's direct transition from quoting that same passage to the ministry of John the Baptist, it becomes a necessary conclusion that John is the fulfillment of the same passage. As this is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who is emphasized through the rest of the Gospel, our only possible conclusion is that John fulfilled his duty, preparing the way for the Lord. From that, we see that the identity of the Lord is in fact Jesus Christ. This demonstrates conclusively that Jesus was not just a human given God powers in being named the Son of God, but He actually was the Lord (YHWH in Isaiah 40:3, which is God's covenant name, given to Moses on Mount Sinai among other places, written as LORD). The divine title applied to God throughout the Old Testament is now applied to Jesus Christ by Mark, leaving us no doubt as to the identity of Jesus Christ. He is no mere mortal, but the LORD come in flesh.

In verse 7-8, John the Baptist declares that Jesus is greater than he is, and instead of baptizing with water, he will baptize with the Holy Spirit (which we see fulfilled in Acts 1:8 and Acts 2:1-4), signifying Christ's authority over the Holy Spirit, in the sense that He is able to baptize with it, as one does not send someone that is greater than himself, but rather one sends servants as representatives. Thus John the Baptist proclaims not only the divinity of Christ by calling people to prepare the way, but he also gives us an idea of an authority structure, with Jesus Christ (the LORD) as in authority over the Holy Spirit*.

The next episode is that of Jesus being baptized in verses 9-11. During this baptism, the heavens opened and the Spirit descended upon him like a dove with a voice coming from heaven, "you are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased." Immediately we have a distinction in the persons of God. The Father speaks from heaven, declaring that Jesus is the His Son, while the Spirit descends (presumably from the Father) upon Him. And ba-bam , we have a distinction in the three persons of the Trinity. Jesus is declared fully God by Mark in verses 2-8, and then we see that there is a distinction between the Father, Son, and Spirit. We also see more of the authority structure within the Triune Godhead. The Holy Spirit descends from the Father upon the Son, and it is the Father who is well pleased with the Son, so the Father is over the Son (in authority) is over the Holy Spirit.

The previous asterisks are there because it actually isn't entirely true that Christ is in authority over the Holy Spirit, as that actually only happens after Christ dies and is raised to the right hand of God (Acts 2 is when he baptizes with the Holy Spirit, after His death and resurrection). In verse 12, we see this demonstrated, that Jesus is driven out into the wilderness where he was tempted by Satan. Who is he driven by? The Holy Spirit, immediately after his baptism. Once again,we see a distinction between the Holy Spirit and Christ, and in fact, we are also given the impression that Christ is subservient to the Holy Spirit. Which I think is the case while Christ lives on earth. But that's another point to make elsewhere.

The rest of chapter 1 is just a continued affirmation of all that was said above. Jesus declares that the time is at hand (v.14-15), fulfilling the prophecies that the Lord was coming and was ushering in the Kingdom of God. Jesus then proceeds to demonstrate his authority: Over people (v.16-20), over knowledge (v.21-22), over evil spirits (v.23-27), which proclaims that Christ is the Holy One of God, another claim of His deity, over health (v.29-31), over all things, all the while preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God (v.39).

What do we understand from this passage? Simply this, Mark did not understand Jesus as a mere man, but as God come in flesh, distinct from God the Father and the Holy Spirit, but closely related. Within this passage we see clear testimonies to the divinity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity, of one God existing in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with a hierarchy, Father, Son, then Spirit, though on earth it is Father, Spirit, then Son. And the call is the same for them as it is for us, repent for the Kingdom of God is here.

Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

In praise of music

2007-03-30T13:16:00.000-07:00

One of the biggest blessings for me has been that of song. By God's grace, He's wired us so that we are somehow better able to remember things when they are put to song. And by God's grace, He's raised up a generation of musicians to better do that and improve and deepen our worship of God.

This has been one song that's been in my head lately. It's really simple to sing. Only a few lines. No fancy chord progression or anything. But it's filled me with such a peace and hope.

Turn Your Eyes upon Jesus -

Turn your eyes upon Jesus,
look full in His wonderful face
And the things of this earth will grow strangely dim,
in the light of his glory and grace.

I love this song. It is a continual reminder to meditate upon Jesus and who He is. It pushes me to the Word of God, that I might better know Christ as He has revealed Himself. It encourages me to stop focusing upon myself and my personal failings and the anxieties of this world, but reflect upon a God who is so glorious, so awesome, so gracious, that He sent His Son so that I might have life, joy, hope, and eternal fellowship with Him. It reminds me of the promises of God, that He for His own glory, had mercy upon me, a sinner, and having spared me from death by giving His Son, now graciously pours out all other gifts to me.

And the things of this earth grow dim, the tests, the future, the wondering, the questioning, the church, the girl problems (or lack thereof!), all held by a gracious hand of a loving God.

Ephesians 1:16-23

16I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, 17that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, 18having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might 20that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, 23which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.