Assurance

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!

Faith and sin

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?

What is everyone up to?

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

Read anything interesting lately?

What have you been convicted by lately?

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.

High School

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.

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

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...

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.

Responding to avalanche 1

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...

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

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.

A Dialogue Worth Watching

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.

Serving one another

All -

I claimed to have a response to the question I posed. Well I do, but Grace's mom has graciously left a response on my blog which I think deserves to be posted instead (I'll probably post it in mine too).

M. Z. Ahern said...

The question put to girls is, “Does this make you feel awkward?” Perhaps the phrasing should be re-thought. Should it matter whether or not a guy doing things for us that we are physically capable of doing for ourselves -- like carrying our luggage or opening a door for us or helping us with our chair -- makes us feel awkward? Should we not rather be asking, “Has he done a good thing?” If we know he has done a good thing, yet we feel awkward about it, we need to keep our feelings to ourselves and pray that God would bring those feelings in line with reality. And we need to focus on expressing appreciation, as Hannah did, for the goodness of what he has done… right?

And I would say, yes, he has indeed done a very good thing, and in doing what did he is serving and honoring women in general (not just this particular woman) in a manner that points to the glory of Christ. Keep on doing it, men! You exhibit godly, Christ-like, servant-masculinity when you do.

For most of history, these gestures would have been understood to be a way of serving and honoring women. Royalty had servants to open their doors and carry their luggage even though they were physically capable of doing these things for themselves. We are a confused people. A few have chosen to impute back-handed insults and demeaning intentions: that men do these things chauvinistically, as a way of asserting their superior strength or power. Others just wonder why it is traditional for guys to do these things that women are perfectly capable of doing for themselves.

Consider the following excerpt:

Respecting Women

A two-year-old boy should be taught to respect his baby sister because she is a girl. A five-year-old boy should be required to say “yes, ma’am” to his mother simply because she is a woman. Young boys need to be taught to stand when a woman enters the room. They should be taught to hold open doors for women. They should seat their mother at the dinner table. These are not arbitrary or random cultural practices which have no meaning. They are a constant daily reminder to males – whose lusts when unmortified always degrade women – that women must not be degraded, but rather honored. Manners are therefore a form of sexual discipleship; they are a sexual discipline. A boy who has learned to honor women everywhere will have difficulty in despising one in the back seat of a car.

…The impulses to dishonor in sexual desire are strong – our earthly members tend toward sin, Paul tells us – and so we need constant rebukes and admonitions. The cultural discipline of honoring women is very important. It is no accident that feminists have succeeded in getting women treated “equally” with men, and now that women are no longer singled out for honor, that men around them just go with their lusts. The results have not been at all favorable for women. After decades of established feminism, the end result is that far more women, in their relationships with men, are treated like dirt.” (Douglas Wilson, Future Men, Girls and Sex, p.136)

Girls, the most important reciprocal service you can give guys is graciously and appreciatively affirming them in this masculine honoring of your sex. Our cultural climate does not make this sort of honoring an easy thing for them to do. Christian men often want to do the right thing but get conflicting messages.

Thanks to the several generations before you, your generation is coming at this discussion with so many ill-founded assumptions that you may not realize just how enormous and life-encompassing the discussion is. As you think about how to practice your faith in these matters, remember to always take your questions back to First Principles, which generally means look to the Creator’s design, order, and purposes. He made us male and female. Why? Male and female do not equal each other. Genesis tells us we complement -- complete, perfect -- each other.

Remember that manners are a very tangible practice of your faith, of “theology coming out your fingertips”; remember that good manners are a matter of the Christian virtue of esteeming others more highly than oneself: being considerate of others, being kind with tone, words, gestures, and deeds.

And remember that just because several generations before you have fumbled the torch and not passed on the reason behind most Christian traditions does not mean that very good reasons for them do not exist. One generation gets lazy and lukewarm and passes on only the doing of a tradition without any explanation of the reasons why; the next generation then loses all connection to meaning and within a generation or two, the tradition which once was a visible sign of an invisible reality, is now dropped and one more chunk of Christian capital is lost.

--Peggy Ahern

Keep It Real

So.... time to lower the bar.

Corn starch + proper amounts of water = hours of endless fun at Casa Italiana.

Ask the legendary David Scudder. (I really should have named this blog "DavidScudder.blogspot.com") It would be like bobis80. :-D

Speaking of which... David Scudder t-shirts, anyone? LOL

Hey we have people!

Maybe we can actually have conversations!

One of my friends asked me this:

How should a girl respond when a guy offers to do something that can be handled on my own? Like the other day someone offered to carry my luggage, but it wasn't really heavy at all.

Hannah also threw out this:

What's the equivalent way that girls can serve guys?

I have my answer, but I want to hear what you guys think, and feel free to chuck out other questions too.

Beginnings

Dear Friends,

So here begins the journeys of young men of faith.

But first, a brief introduction to this blog, its name, and its purpose.

The Name
Some of you may be wondering why we've named it "mocha press." And while I wish I had a better (and more significant) reason other than, "I was talking about coffee with my friends," I really don't. Nonetheless, here's an attempt: we hope that this virtual space will become a place of open dialogue about Christian theology, where friends can openly share thoughts on Scripture and all sorts of heresies. The atmosphere will be informal (as in a coffeehouse) and the dialogue satisfying, God-willing. It'll be as informal as sipping mocha on the porch; yet, hopefully, deeper and richer than your usual coffee conversation.

And I hope that is a satisfactory explanation for its name.

The Purpose
Our purpose in starting and contributing to this space is three-fold. Our prayer, however, is that our work here would eventually blossom into something greater, which is, as we will outline later, our ultimate goal.

1. Magnify Christ in our Study of Scripture
   

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

As highlighted by Paul, all Scripture (at that time, Scripture encompassed the Old Testament--how blessed we are to have the entire canon!) is useful "for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness [...]." Therefore, we intend this blog to be Christ-centered by being Scripture-focused. In making our writings public, we hope to put our thoughts to the test and to grow together "in righteousness, that [we] may be competent, equipped for every good work." Toward that end, we will scrutinize Scripture.


2. Correct and Sharpen our Minds in Conversation
   

Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another. (Proverbs 27:17).


As with 2 Timothy, we know that Scripture is useful for teaching, correction, and training in righteousness. Furthermore, not only do we make this a public space, but we also make it a corporate blog--instead of an individual blog. The desire is that through our dialogue amongst each other and through our wrestling with the Word, our minds would grow together as we critique and debate together. The hope is that our fraternity would sharpen our minds and prepare us for the Goal.


3. Encourage our Brothers and Press On to the Goal
   

But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained. (Philippians 3:13-16).


Again, we quote Paul. The third and final goal of starting this endeavor is to encourage each other to press on toward the goal. Consider this our "cross-country" training team; together we train in preparation for our individual races. Where God will place us individually, we cannot say just yet, but we hope that the accountability and dialogue afforded by this virtual space will train and prepare us for our place in the Kingdom.

Therefore, the purpose of this blog is threefold--to study Scripture together, to sharpen each others' minds, and to encourage each other to press on toward the Goal that is Christ.

The Purpose
And lastly, but most importantly, we pray that the final fruits--Lord-willing--of our labor will be another step forward in response to the Great Commission.

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. (Matthew 28:19-20).

Through our labor, we hope to take the deeper understanding of the Gospel with us wherever we should go. And by bringing the Gospel to the nations, we pray that Christ would be magnified, even if we should perish.