Sola scriptura in the Bible?

Eric,

you've hit on the central tautology of sola scriptura -- it's self-negating. If there's no reference to it in Scripture, it can't be true. Not that that matters to a lot of people, Luther included.

The other big hole in Sola Scriptura is the table of contents. Who has the authority to say what is and isn't authoritatively Scripture?

The first protestants discarded some books and retained others. There was heated debate about discarding the Epistle of St. James - with Luther favoring discarding it! Who can make such decisions and how?

Does sola scriptura include the maps in the back?

For fun, check out my Peachy Faith Pages at http://hometown.aol.com/smockmomma/faith.html

Wow,

I've made the big time. Woo!

I will concede that in and of itself, there is no one verse in the Bible which specifically mandates the concept of sola scriptura. However, that doesn't mean the concept has no biblical legitimacy. The concept of the Trinity is never laid out in Scripture in a few verses that go, "Okay, guys, here's the deal. God is One but exists in three Persons..." Yet we know from the totality of Scripture the doctrine of the Trinity because Scripture speaks to it.

The best Scripture for sola scriptura I could refer you to at this time is II Corinthians 10:3-5, where Paul talks of spiritual warfare as holding captive every vain imagination which exalts itself against the knowledge of God. The knowledge of God is revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, whose voice we follow and whose Word we are to put in our hearts. God's World alone through the Scripture should be enough to govern our lives in every aspect. Certainly traditions for worship can be useful, but when you get to the point that tradition in and of itself replaces the Word of God, you have a dangerous situation, especially considering the fact that so many mainline churches, both Protestant and Catholic, breeze through ranks of kids born, baptized, raised, and confirmed in the church with no personal relationship with Jesus Christ, but merely a ritualistic weekly (if even that) visit to sing hymns and hear some nice homilies but never really connect to the relevance of the Gospel or of Christ's profound love for them.

Another argument I would make is regarding the weapons of spiritual warfare Paul talks of in Ephesians. Paul talks of incessant prayer, wielding the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God, of bearing the shield of faith, being gird about with the belt of truth, of bearing the helmet of salvation, of wearing the breastplate of righteousness, and having our feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace as the elements and armor of our spiritual warfare. Church tradition is not mentioned in this deal.

Another element is that when Paul writes of orderly worship in I Corinthians, he fails to order the Corinthian church to work on a very strict liturgy from which NEVER to diverge. In fact, he gives broad principles regarding maintaining a service which flows in the Spirit and maintains divine order rather than descend into chaos (an argument some make regarding more charismatic evangelical Protestant services, one which is valid if and when pastors in charge there fail to hold the service to the public worship requirements Paul lays out in I Corinthians).

I would also add that while the church has the role of preaching, teaching, and expounding the Scripture in public worship and for training and instructing the body of Christ, that nonetheless, every Christian is sealed with the Holy Spirit and possesses the Holy Spirit and as such, is able to be trained and instructed in the Word of God by the agency and inspiration of the Holy Spirit independently. By no means do I advocate Lone Ranger Christians who eschew church attendance and submission to preaching, but I do think that the Lord freely gives of His Spirit for the instruction and empowerment of His Church to live by the Word of God. (See John 14:26).

Obviously the retort to that is that Christ was referring to his apostles alone (and their successors) and not the great masses of laity in the church from thence to the Lord's return. I don't accept that interpretation.

The prophet Joel prophesied and the Apostle Peter confirmed the beginning of the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Pentecost was the "pouring out of the Holy Spirit upon all flesh" and that young and old, men and women, sons and daughters would see visions and dream dreams and prophesy.

Pentecost was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit not just for the select few apostles who were the governors of the Church, but upon ALL in attendance in the upper room, which the Bible marks at about 150 if memory serves.

Additionally, reading through the book of Acts we see a very liberal outpouring and baptism of the Holy Spirit among average joe laymembers of the early church, including a few Gentiles that Peter evangelized. They were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues and praised God. Peter was then thoroughly convinced that that was confirmation of a vision the Lord gave him about eating unkosher meat: the vision was symbolic of the need to reach the "unclean" Gentile nations with the Gospel.

So you have just saved unclean Gentiles being filled with the Holy Spirit. I'm not saying then and there they were ready to train and instruct others. Obviously James warned us against people presuming to be teachers (James 4:1). But there's obviously a distinction between the five fold ministry anointing (apostles, pastors, teachers, prophets, and evangelists) which relatively few are called to and the grace of God poured out to the entirety of the laity to read the Scriptures and be tutored and instructed in godliness through the Holy Spirit giving us understanding as pertains to Scripture.

At any rate, I have to get back to work and I've put a lot out there to consider.

Just want to remind you all that I consider you folks as true brothers and sisters in the faith as you also rely on the free gift of God's grace through the shed blood of Jesus Christ for your salvation.

We agree on a lot and disagree on some issues. You have a great site and I trust that my doctrinal criticisms aside, you realize that I pray for your continued maturation in faith and relationship with our Lord.

D'oh. Pardon my prior rambling post. I'll have to search the Scriptures and get the references lined up to answer your questions #1-3 in your original post. I'll have to do this outside work since I'm already behind for the day. But there are some good juicy Scriptures regarding Scripture, authority of Scripture, testing the spirits (is it God? Satan? just my corrupt sinful nature, the flesh's desires), etc. I'll get around to that and post for your consideration.

Get to chew on the meat of the Word. Yummy. Anyway. Back to work. Keep up the interesting posts, guys.

Ken, that was an interesting and helpful summation of the Sola Scriptura viewpoint. But I still can't understand a couple points. First you reference books of the Bible, but how do you know they are inspired? The history of the Canon has been pretty controversial and contentious, and there is no "obvious" book of the Bible that includes the list of the other books.

Also, you use arguments to establish your view on the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on lotsa folks. But I could use scripture to show that it was poured out especially on the apostles, especially on Peter, and that Jesus Our Lord started a Church and gave it authority. I realize you can say you have a different interpretation, but with personal interpretations come contradictions. How can you know the truth?

For example, when arguing with a "Christian" who denies Christ divinity, I could use the Gospel of John, or some other texts to show that Jesus is God. But what do I do if this Christian says, "that part was added, here's the *real* Bible," and hands me some wacko version? The only way I know to argue that is by history and the Church.

I am unabashedly "anti-Sola Scriptura," but I ask these questions about the Protestant viewpoint respectfully.

Dev,

The best I can say to your argument at this point is that the Bible as compiled is internally consistent and all threads together and points to Jesus Christ as the Messiah.

The Scripture witnesses with our spirits because it is the divinely inspired Word of God and hence has the relevance which resounds in our hearts.

I believe the Church as divinely guided in compiling the canon. I do dismiss the Apocrypha, as do Jewish scholars who find them to have no reliable connection to Old Testament prophets.

I think the issue with the canon is more controversial with the NT than the OT. Jesus continually referred to "the Law and Prophets." Jesus cited prophecies and the Law as well as the Psalms. And the historical books of the OT accurately record the history of Israel and Judah and contain spiritual insights.

The New Testament, let's look at it. Revelation is written by John, as is John I-III and the Gospel of John.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are very reliable accounts of Jesus's ministry, all by very well respected and anointed martyrs of the early church. The rest of the NT is written by James, Paul, Peter, and an unknown author (but probably James) with the book of Hebrews. Hebrews is a discourse which largely crossreferences the OT to convince Jewish believers to be encouraged in their newfound faith in Christ.

So the Bible is composed of the Law and the Prophets which Jesus ratified in his teachings, and by the accounts of martyred apostles (with the exception of John who died a natural death, but was present with Christ at the transfiguration). In other words, those who wrote the Bible were either tight with Jesus having lived with him for 3 years in ministry, tight with the early church (see Mark and Luke), or were accounts which Jesus specifically a-ok'd by citing them (the Law and the Prophets, but never the apocrypha).

Firstly, it isn't solo Scriptura. That is a Southern Baptist thing. It is sola Scriptura supra omne, which means the same thing as prima Scriptura, as was observed recently, in, I think, First Things. But you know Protestant pastors, things have to alliterate, and prima doesn't alliterate with sola.

Where is it in the Bible? Mainly in the Tanach, and in Jesus practice. "To the Law and to the Testimony" "What sayeth the Scripture" over and against the holy tradition of the rabbis.

If you look at the writings of the Reformers, it isn't the Bible alone, but the Bible as the authority over even tradition, but looking at the Bible together, collegially, including with those who have died, such as the doctors and the fathers. The Bible is objectively true, our interpretations aren't, but contra the post-modernists, we -do- have the transcendant objective, signified, right in front of us, and we can struggle together to overcome our various preconceptions when we read it and try to rightly understand it, in the hermeneutical spiral.

-- a "Protestant" M.Div.

The early apostles of the Church strongly condemned the gnostic fallacies which Satan sowed in the Church to deceive the body of Christ.

Any wacko can claim to be a Christian but deny Christ came in the flesh. Obviously said person is not a Christian, but is under the influence of the anti-Christ, who opposes Christ and denies Christ came in the flesh.

All the scriptural and logical arguments of those who deny Christ's incarnation, sinless nature, crucifixion, and resurrection will fall flat on their faces in light of the Truth of the Gospel. Paul thoroughly logically eviscerates those who deny the bodily resurrection of Christ in I Corinthians 15.

And if you ask why I hope these epistles by Paul as divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, I'd tell you it's because of a few evidentiary items

a) he references the Law and Prophets and the teachings of Christ and expound on them in a consistent theological manner that doesn't conflict with Christ's teachings
b) Paul was specifically commissioned by miraculous intervention by God to be an apostle
c) Paul was an individual who gave himself to consistent, perpetual prayer, and as such lived very much in communion with God, hearing constantly from the Lord as he prayed and meditated upon and preached the Gospel. I'm very confident that Paul prayerfully wrote his epistles and did so writing freely as inspired and empowered by the Holy Spirit.

Thanks for that post, Steve.

As I have said, I'm not against tradition in and of itself. I'm not trying to tear down any and all traditions because I want something new and fresh. But I do think tradition can often get in the way of true worship because we as human being tend to idolize ritual and idolize certain ways of doing things rather than perpetually subjecting ourselves to teaching of Scripture to be "transformed by the renewing of our minds" with the Word of God.

I'm definitely not against tradition, Ken. It is just that, if tradition and Scripture disagree, then Scripture is right, for it is the very words of God.

As to ritual and liturgy, that stuff is in the Bible. I think that "we" erred when we through the baby out of the bathwater, and with the regulative principle of "if it isn't in the Bible, it is forbidden" also managed to overlook the evidence for liturgical worship in the New Testament. The idea that 'the worship of the early Church was simple' seems to me to be based in the idea that there weren't 1400 years of believing worship prior to the inauguration of the New Covenant, missing the passages showing liturigcal worship (even "smells and bells" in John's Apokalypse!) and unaware Darwinian assumptions about development.

One other thing, I'm not saying this to try to get anyone to leave the Catholic Church!

In this particular thread, I'm just trying to clarify what the Protestant position(s) is/are.

One serious matter that has dogged dialogue for the past 500 years has been a failure to understand each others views. This is true on both sides of the Alps.

It doesn't help to go tilting after straw men.

I don't doubt the early church had some traditions. Indeed, they were translated over from Jewish worship traditions.

Baptism itself is based on a ritual for conversion, the mikvah.

This is why John baptized in water: it was a ceremony for cleansing, signifying the cleansing from sin, a repentance.

And Holy Communion is inextricably intertwined with Passover. Jesus as the Messiah was able to translate these Jewish worship observances into sacraments for us to follow. Of course, a lot of tradition goes along with these sacraments. Some are equally valid, some are suspect.

I disagree with infant baptism. All water baptism in Jesus's ministry, in John the Baptist's ministry, and in the early church was for signifying repentence from sin and were done by adults freely choosing to be baptized. But Catholics, Methodists, Episcopalians, and other churches "baptize" babies. Jesus was baptized, but not at birth. He was dedicated at birth. A child dedication ceremony in a Christian church would be following in proper Scriptural context AND proper tradition.

Communion, however, is a sacrament with wide latitude in observance, so long as it's done in a proper worshipful attitude. Some churches eschew using real wine, others use real wine. Some use wafers, others unleaved bread. Some pass around a loaf of bread and have people break off a piece. As long as it is observed with due reverence, it's all good.

Ken:
The biggest problem I have with the sola scriptura argument is the question of literacy. Back in the Ancient world, the literate were about 1-2% of the population. How then can illiterate people decide which books are inspired if they can't read them? Protestants seem to forget that for much of history the vast majority of people were either illiterate or functionally literate. Indeed I've never understood this peculiar conceit of the Protestants to fetichize literacy as evidence of teh soundness and validity of sola scriptura.

Ummm no. The Protestant understanding of communion always amazes me. You're literalists with respect to the entire Bible except for John 6. It's as if the Protestants are as astonished as the crowd when Jesus told them in blunt, clear, unmistakable language that Communion is the Real presence. Yet you appear to 'disbelieve' what Jesus is plainly telling you. Hence my vociferous but respectful disagreement about proper respectful observance of communion is valid. It isn't if you simply believe that communion is some fellowship observance feast and not the Real presence commemorating Calvary
xavier
Infant baptism: think anticipation. Johnhad to grow up in order to baptize Jesus. Yet Jesus did give command the Apsotles not to keep the children away from him and reminded everyone that they can't enter the kingdom of heaven if they don't have the children's innocence. That could be one argument for infant baptism.
I don't see it as contrary to the scriptures I see no explicit prohibition for child baptism nor a preference for adult baptism in the New Testament or the the subsequent texts

I’m a Protestant espying the Tiber. M.Div Steve’s comments are much more nuanced, but still suffer from a fatal flaw I haven’t the guff to post – right now. I’m mainly interested in some of Ken’s comments. So here goes.

“The best Scripture for sola scriptura I could refer you to at this time is II Corinthians 10:3-5, where Paul talks of spiritual warfare as holding captive every vain imagination which exalts itself against the knowledge of God.”

Huh? This passage certainly seems to be more about sola Christus than sola scriptura. But then again, that’s just my “interpretation.”

“The knowledge of God is revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, whose voice we follow and whose Word we are to put in our hearts.”

Well, it’s nice o see you agree with V2’s Dei Verbum.

“God's World [sic] alone through the Scripture should be enough to govern our lives in every aspect. Certainly traditions for worship can be useful, but when you get to the point that tradition in and of itself replaces the Word of God, you have a dangerous situation…”

Whoomp! There it is! The Protestant Pavlovian reflex to see “Bible” for “word of God”. This reflex runs flatly against the grain of the Bible itself. I cannot urge you strongly enough simply to peruse a thorough concordance for “word” in the NT alone. The word of God is always three things in descending order of frequency: 1) the creative and revelatory power of God [eg. Gen 1, Heb 1:3, 2 Pet 3:5, etc.], 2) the truth of God preached orally by his servants [eg., 1 Pet 1:25, 1 Thes 2:13, Titus 1:3, etc.], 3) Christ himself [John 1, Heb 4:2, 11-13, Rev 19:13, etc.], and 4) the written Scriptures.

It may be a numerical toss-up between 3) and 4), but the main point is clear: the word of God is and always has been much more than a book. It is undeniable that the word of God was manifested and recognized in the NT Church as the spoken word of the apostles, even where it seemed to contradict the OT. Given this incontrovertible fact, that the word of God was once primarily verbal [which even James White and Tim Enloe concede], what basis is there at all to say a) that the word was only “waiting” to be “enscripturated” and/or b) that the oral word of God ever lost its power [cf. Isa 40:8]?

“Paul talks of incessant prayer, wielding the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God, of bearing the shield of faith, being gird about with the belt of truth, of bearing the helmet of salvation, of wearing the breastplate of righteousness, and having our feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace as the elements and armor of our spiritual warfare.”

And? Paul also refers to the (verbally preached) Gospel as the “word of truth” in Eph 1:13. Again, “the Word of God” is not spelled “the Bible” ... even though “the Bible” may as well be spelled “the Word of God” (i.e., not all animals are horses, but all horses are animals).

“Church tradition is not mentioned in this deal.”

Big deal. “Trinity”, “Incarnation”, “hypostatic union”, etc. are not “mentioned” in the Bible in just the same way you say Tradition is not mentioned.

“…when Paul writes of orderly worship in I Corinthians, he fails to order the Corinthian church to work on a very strict liturgy from which NEVER to diverge.”
Oy. Ken, you act as if liturgy is incontrovertible dogma. I’m not even Catholic and I realize that liturgy may well cloud the word of God, which is why it can mutates mutandis be changed. But liturgy clouds the word of God when it violates both the Bible and the whole of the Church’s liturgical tradition, nit just when it looks or sounds or smells funny.

“In fact, he gives broad principles regarding maintaining a service which flows in the Spirit and maintains divine order rather than descend into chaos…”

Sounds like tradition to me: boundaries of faith provided without explicit written biblical orders. Tradition, like Paul, says, “You can this far but no further. Feel free to roam [no pun intended].” If orderly worship is so very important, why doesn’t the Bible include detailed provisions for its regulation? Why leave it in the hands of mere men? Is God a God of chaos? No. Might the Church today, then, have the same sort of parameter-setting authority as Paul had for directing worship? A terrifying idea. How dare Rome suggest it.
“I would also add that while the church has the role of preaching, teaching, and expounding the Scripture in public worship and for training and instructing the body of Christ…”
Good.
“…that nonetheless, every Christian is sealed with the Holy Spirit and possesses the Holy Spirit…”
Oh, here it comes…
“…and as such, is able to be trained and instructed in the Word of God by the agency and inspiration of the Holy Spirit…”
Wait for it. Wait for it…
“…independently.”
Bingo. At last, a frank admission of Protestant ecclesiology. I guess the eye really can say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And I guess the head really can say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” And I guess that if one part suffers, every part doesn’t suffer with it. Thanks for clearing that up. I always thought there was something a bit off about Paul (1 Cor 12:21, 26).
The headship of the pope is never separate from the rest of the Body. The pope, unlike any Christian, according to you, cannot “be trained and instructed in the Word of God by the agency and inspiration of the Holy Spirit independently.” His vicar-ious authority stems, first, from his union with Christ as a Christian and, second, fmr his communion with the whole Body, in that the Body is the repository for the Truth. This is what the sensus fidelium is about. Papal, and magisterial, authority is above, but never separate from, the laity’s (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-26).
“By no means do I advocate Lone Ranger Christians who eschew church attendance and submission to preaching, but I do think that the Lord freely gives of His Spirit for the instruction and empowerment of His Church to live by the Word of God. (See John 14:26).”
Having said what I just said, I can only ask, “Why?” Why do you not advocate Lone Ranger Christianity? I know Hebrews commands such practice (10:25, 13:7, 17), but your power-of-one ecclesiology seems to free itself from such musty constraints. Where the spirit of the Lord is here is freedom, not submission to prideful man, right? Sorry to be so honest, but it looks like a bad case of not putting your money where your mouth is.
If it didn’t risk the damnation of countless people, I’d like to see what would happen if, for just two years, every Protestant on earth retreated from every other Protestant and studied only the Bible. I’d love to see what kind of liturgies and creeds and disciplines and devotions emerged from this hot-house of sola scriptura. And I’d be astounded beyond all belief – or perhaps back into Reformed belief – to see any significant unity or clarity when they re-convened to discuss the consistent, unambiguous, perspicacious biblical truth as the Holy Spirit most certainly and privately lead each of them.
On second thought, that’s disgusting.
(My scenario conveys the thrust of Mr. Bonocore’s “patristic challenge” to James White: Bonocore would like to see even one Church Father – since, dontchaknow, Dr. White clarified for us that they were actually sola scripturists – that teaches the whole of Dr. White’s Reformed theology. The same perspicacious book, read as the sole rule of faith, guided by the same Spirit, should result in the same truth at least once before Luther and Calvin straightened everything out.
“In other words, those who wrote the Bible were either tight with Jesus having lived with him for 3 years in ministry…”
He…
“…tight with the early church (see Mark and Luke)…”
could go…
“…or were accounts which Jesus specifically a-ok'd by citing them (the Law and the Prophets…”
all the…!
“…but never the apocrypha).”
Oh! No, wait! This is incredible, folks! A last minute spill ends his Olympic dreams!
See Jesus. See Jesus quote. See Jesus quote the Deuterocanonicals. http://www.catholic-truth.org/Essays/bibleorigins1.htm
A final issue, which is central to my journey: the Eucharist. Ken, you say:
“Communion, however, is a sacrament with wide latitude in observance, so long as it's done in a proper worshipful attitude. Some churches eschew using real wine, others use real wine. Some use wafers, others unleaved [sic] bread. Some pass around a loaf of bread and have people break off a piece. As long as it is observed with due reverence, it's all good.”
The details you mention are *not* the point. I agree with you Ken that “due reverence” is crucial – but I think we radically disagree with what that reverence (or “discernment/recognition” [cf. 1 Cor 11:29]) means. Paul’s point in 1 Cor 11 is that people should recognize – and therefore revere – the Eucharist for what it really is: not mere food for gobbling, but the actual, propitiatory body and blood of Christ the Passover Lamb at the new altar (1 Cor 5:8, 10:18, 11:20-22, 27-29, 33-34; cf. Heb 13:9-12). If Paul says the Eucharist is a participation in Christ’s body and blood, I believe him. If Jesus says I must “gnaw” his flesh to live forever (Jn 6:53-58), I believe him. To affirm his spiritual presence while denying the presence of his real blood and real flesh is to sever Christ’s hypostatic union: since the Incarnation, if Christ shows up, he shows up bodily – and Paul says his blood and body show up at the Meal. If our participation (koinoonia) in Christ’s body and blood are merely ornamental or symbolic, then so must our participation in the divine nature be merely symbolic (2 Pet 1:4, koinoonoi). The two participations are all of a piece.

That’s enough for now. It’s late, I gotta sleep. I apologize for any harsh words, if such there be herein. Ken, I‘m not picking on you; you just presented a lot to consider and you are obviously open to dialogue. I aim only to speak the truth in love. Honestly.

The Church should instruct its believers to read the Word and when necessary, to read in and of itself.

I'd be inclined to agree on transubstantiation but I believe Christ died once and for all for sins and his one time sacrifice presented eternally the propitiation of sin for all who believe in Him. Communion invokes the presence of the Lord, but not in bodily form. Transubstantiative doctrines place Christ as the victim again and again and again and again, at each mass, of the horrors of Crucifixion. Jesus bodily dwells now and has since His Resurrection in an incorruptible, imperishable resurrected body, having once and for all given himself for the sins of the world. He doesn't take bodily form in wafer and wine at the Mass.

Hi, Ken -- Good news: we don't believe that the Mass puts the Lord Jesus through the Crucifixion again either! For one thing, Christ, having died and risen, cannot die again. I've heard that before somewhere... but anyway, you know that already.

We don't understand this as a case of multiple offerings: rather, the one event of His saving Crucifixion becomes present at different times and places, whenever the Eucharist is celebrated. The celebration of Mass doesn't change Jesus; instead, it does something to us: it makes us, here and now, witnesses to the one event.

Classically, Catholic teaching has said that the Mass is the same sacrifice as the Crucifixion. Before it was offered "in a bloody manner", with suffering unto death. Now it is offered "in an unbloody manner".

We Catholics have to keep in mind that the prime actor in the Eucharistic sacrifice is Jesus offering himself freely, to reconcile man to fellowship with God. In the service of the Eucharist, He does something frankly mystical: he gives us the opportunity, the invaluable gift, to be present at Calvary. He gives us the honor of playing a role in His self-offering. His divine self-offering began before all ages, and did not stop at His human death, but goes on and draws even closer to us, as he offers Himself to each of us personally.

Hey, praise God: we're closer than you probably thought.

Ken, try to step back and think about how your words would be received if you rejected the doctrine of sola scriptura. The concept of the Trinity is never laid out in Scripture in a few verses that go, "Okay, guys, here's the deal. God is One but exists in three Persons..." Yet we know from the totality of Scripture the doctrine of the Trinity because Scripture speaks to it.
I'm sure this sounds reassuring to another sola scriptura advocate, but without assuming as true what you're trying to prove, it's meaningless. I can link to a number of "oneness" sects who say that the totality of scripture DENIES the doctrine of the trinity. Without the authoritative guidance of the Church, there would probably be no defined trinitarian doctrine. Certainly not in the full Christian understanding. If you're already starting off with a belief in the trinity, then you can certainly find scripture passages to support your belief.

Certainly traditions for worship can be useful, but when you get to the point that tradition in and of itself replaces the Word of God, you have a dangerous situation, Again, only makes sense if you assume as true what you're trying to prove. Yes, God speaks through the scriptures. Catholics believe this as much as protestants do. But the question is, does He ONLY speak through the scriptures? Jesus told His disciples "He who hears you hears Me, and he who hears Me hears the one who sent me." Trying to set up Tradition and Scripture against each other is false.

The best I can say to your argument at this point is that the Bible as compiled is internally consistent and all threads together and points to Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Again, working backwards. Of COURSE the Bible as compiled is internally consistent and points to Jesus Christ as the Messiah. That doesn't make it self-evident. There were plenty of other writings from the same time period that were consistent with the gospel message, that pointed to Jesus as the Messiah, and had (or were at least to have had) apostolic authorship, yet they were left out of the canon by the CHURCH. Various local churches had differing canons. That certainly doesn't seem to suggest the canon of scripture is self-evident.

I believe the Church as divinely guided in compiling the canon. So why is the Church ONLY inspired in this instance? It is certainly possible that God would choose only one instance to inspire the Church, but nothing in scripture or history even hints that this would be the case. Again, it sounds good if you're trying to reassure yourself about your doctrine, but is entirely circular.

I do dismiss the Apocrypha, as do Jewish scholars who find them to have no reliable connection to Old Testament prophets. Jewish scholars also believe that Jesus bar Joseph has no reliable connection to the messiah promised in the hebrew scriptures. Do you accept their authority on this as well?

Lots of nice-sounding words, but completely evades the simple question: what is the Biblical support for sola scriptura? You haven't made one point that doesn't require a pre-dermined belief in that doctrine to make sense. And with no historical evidence that the early Church held this belief (where it might have been "assumed" by the writers), then vague hopes about "well, overall it kinda hints that maybe it's true" just don't fly.

Xavier,
The Jewish population was nearly 100% literate. I think that literacy in the Roman empire at that time was much higher than the 1-2% you state. People used reading and arithmatic in every day life. Much of the evidence for the text of the New Testament comes from ostraca that people wore around their necks like holy medals.

Going back to the original question, how is Scripture determined. Protestants have traditionally looked to the Temple Scroll for the Tanach, and the unpassable sheliach authority of the apostles to write for Jesus (the promise that the Holy Spirit would lead them to all truth is part of this). So, the question then before the Council of Nikaea wasn't "what shall we make Scripture?" but "what -is- Scripture?"

At least, that is how I learned it.

The answer to number 2 is number 1: Scripture. John gives a -doctrinal- test for true versus false teachers in his first encyclical, whereas the Didachae, which I suss as having been written by the elders of the church in Jerusalem in exile in Pella, Anatolia, only gave a behavioral test.

Xavier,
On the Lord's Supper. John 6 isn't the best passage to prove real presence, for in His explanation to the disciples, He says "the flesh counts for nothing, My words are spirit and truth"

BUT (and this is the text that the Lutherans use) 1 Corinthians 10:16-17xx tells us that we are really having koinonia with the body -and blood- of Christ, and that if we fail to recognize Him when we take the elements, we sin badly.

Don't confuse the Zwinglian position for all of Protestantism. Calvin held that we were partaking of Christ's body and blood spiritually in the elements. The Lutheran position as I have just recently been taught it is that the bread really becomes the body of Christ and the wine, His blood, but we don't know how that works metaphysically or physically, so we say "in with and under" because we don't know. Just that it is.

As to infant baptism, that is something I am really struggling to understand right now.

Geistesweisheit, it is a pity that you won't tackle what I wrote yet. I have much to learn.

My position on transubstantiation is, best put, in flux.

What I mean by respectful observance of communion is that I take it duly remembered Christ's body and blood, His sacrifice for my sins, his redemptive work in my life.

If in fact the communion wafer and wine become the Real Presence of Christ, the physical presence of Christ, then my position is that this occurs by the will and power of God independent of whether it is observed by a Catholic priest or a Methodist pastor or a Baptist deacon holding a communion service at a men's Bible study.

Jesus said where two or more are gathered in my Name, there I am in the midst of them.

When we bless the bread and wine and prepare our hearts to receive Communion, doing so reverently, if in fact your interpretation of Scripture is correct, then transubstantiation can and does occur not by the agency of any priest but by the will and power of God, who sees the faith and obedience of His people and blesses them by conveying His physical presence in the Communion.

The Temple authorities, both Sadducees and Pharisees, also culled and safeguarded and promulgated the Law and the Prophets. They similarly developed various extraneous commentaries and rules and regulations and traditions and juridical decisions, etc, which were flimsily and incorrectly based on Scripture. Jesus eviscerated their arguments every time. Jesus's heaviest rebukes in Scripture were for these officials, although they played a vital role in mainting holy writ.

Christ is the Bread of Life. We live not by bread alone, but by the true Bread of Heaven, Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh. We have to beware the leaven of the Sadducees and the Pharisees, the winds of doctrine both liberal and legalistic who distort the word of God to the detriment of the believer.

One should submit to spiritual authority within the church, true. But the church authorities must submit to sound doctrine of Scripture and when they move away from said sound doctrine, the laity have the right and the duty to compel the church authorities to do so.

Ken,
Jesus did correct certain of the doctrines of the rabbis, which they claimed to be received tradition from Moses. Most notably the Sermon on the Mount.

But He didn't reject -everything-, and I don't recall Him ever rejecting liturgy, and He defended the sacred precincts rather violently the two recorded times that He cleansed the Temple courts.

It is indeed true that we are to 'worship Him in spirit and in truth" and that "where two or more gather together in My name, there I am with them" and that is an important thing to remember. I can't remember his name, but a former L'Abri Worker had a ministry in Russia before the fall of the iron curtain, and people really thought that they couldn't pray, unless there was a holy ikon present. It blew their minds to discover that they could pray any time, any where.

Liturgy can become rote - for those who do not believe, or who are not paying attention, but if you believe and are paying attention to a rightly ordered liturgy, it is no more rote than singing a hymn, and immensely more meaningful, as all the elements of our worship to God in response to His gracious acts towards us, are contained in a flowing, sensible order.

Unfortunately a large percentage of American evangelical churches have moved away from revering God to a very lite, low-content, low to no reverence liturgy based more, it seems, on late night variety shows in the past decade. It is difficult to see how these are better than the horribly disordered services the Corinthians were having.

Well, it is too late at night for me to spiel intelligently on one of my pet peeves ;-)

Steve, after a night of sleep, I found my guff. I'm glad to, er, "teach" you, if that's how you want to view it.

The key to understanding the new role of Scripture in Christ is the Holy Spirit. Whereas OT Jews had to hear and recite the word of God, the Tanakh scrolls, Christians can, by the power of the Spirit, internally possess and *live* the word of God. The Holy Spirit makes the word of God flesh, in Christ historically *and* in Christ-in-Christians eternally. "testimony on human hearts" 2 Cor 3, “word on their hearts” Jer, etc. John and Jesus esp. walked in the living prophetic tradition of Elijah just like the OT existed as the en-papered tradition of the Jews.

What is perhaps the clearest case of Tradition not only not getting in the way of the Bible, but in fact hoisting it high for all to heed? It predates the venerable Tradition of the trinitarian and christological doctrines established at and held since various ecumenical councils. It predates the much discussed Tradition of the Canon. It even predates the Bible itself. What is this seismic Tradition? It is simply the Christian tradition of honoring the Bible at all. The Christian tradition *could* have at some point done away with the OT and the apostles’ writings, and relied solely on Montanist-type ecstasy for guiding the Church. (Marcion and Montanus are the cases in point.) It *could* have been that the apostles’ writings were barred from any public access and simply adored as holy objects, endowing all worshippers with magical power and eternal life, regardless of what words were in them. It *could* have been that Paul one day declared, on apostolic authority – let’s say in Berea, to spice it up – that the Gospel forbid any further consultation of the OT. It *could* have been that Jesus declared he really did come to do away with the Law and the Prophets in order to declare the Gospel of God. And it *could* have been that the Jews one day tossed the Tanakh out the window in favor of the superior Babylonians’ legal code. (In fact, this is something like what the Samaritans did. They accepted only the Pentateuch since it alone had the namesake of Moses explicitly in it. Hm, sounds strangely like Protestant canonical logic.)

Ex hypothesi, by what authority could we have resisted this simultaneously Apostolic, Messianic and Mosaic declaration? We have no such authority. We submit to the Bible simply because, in conjunction with the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, the Church – that organized body of Christians into which we are born – tells us to. The Jews did not chuck the OT because Moses, and then the Prophets, with the power and voice of God, told them not to. The apostles did not chuck the OT because Jesus, with the power and voice of God, told them not to. Early Christians did not chuck the apostles’ writings because the apostles, with the power and voice of Christ, told them not to. We do not chuck the Bible (contra Jesus Seminar, etc.) because the Church has always told us not to. Forget debating Mormons, JWs, Muslims, et al. from the Scriptures. How would we resist someone even more radical that says the Bible itself, in its entirety, is bunk, and that the true Christian religion has been surviving for centuries, like a precious hidden “remnant”, in the succession of verbal prophecies in Omar, Nebraska? (Oddly, I’m hearing Reformed-like logic again, but now about Church history.) We would – and could – only say, “Well, that’s an interesting theory, Monsignor, but true Christianity is biblical. That’s just the way we have always done it. It’s our Tradition and that’s non-negotiable.” At which point a Protestant would step in and say, “In fact, Christianity is based solely on the Scriptures. That’s what true Christianity is, and always has been, about! It’s the Christian way.”

There's no *biblical* argument for the Bible. But there is the unbroken Judeo-Christian defense of it. I can imagine a Xnity without a Bible, but not without Christians.

Gotta go teach. Peace!

furthermore...

My "Tadition of the Bible" proposal may sound absurd -- but that's just because it's true. Everything in you that is, I presume and hope, saying, "No, no it *couldn't* have been different. The Jews, Jesus, the Apostles, the Church, et al., could *not* have chucked the Bible. That's impossible. God would never allow it." -- all that is just the power of Xn Tradition within you.

Ironically, you're inadvertently traditional instinct is right: God would *not* ever allow the Bible to be dropped from Judeo-Xn Tradition since He Himself is sovereign over the maintenance and preservation of Tradition -- just like the Catholic Church teaches.

Steve, you're wise enough to deny *"sola" Scriptura* in favor of *prima Scriptura*. It's a poor game to flat out deny the role and value of Xn Tradition, which, happily, is a fact you concede. The exegesis done "collegially" [your word] in light of the Doctors and Fathers of the Church is nothing less than what the Catholic Church means by interpreting Scripture in the light of Sacred Tradition. It should warm your Prtoesatnt heart that it's true that Tradition is, and must be, interpreted in light of Sacred Scripture. In synthesis, the Church's witness as a whole must be scrutinized and purified by the Word of God, in the forms of Scripture and Tradition. Please, I beg you, cf. Dei Verbum 8-12.

My demonstration of "the Bible Tradition" may seem so fundamental, so obvious, to you that you simply say, "Okay, fine. Of course we have to accept *that* tradition. But otherwise, from there on out, it's *prima Scriptura*. Etc." But the problem is that admitting the need for "the Bible Tradition", as I call it, eo ipso demolishes the "prima" in *prima Scriptura*. If the Church's "Bible Tradition" logically and historically precedes our reception and submission to the Scriptures, whence *prima Scriptura*? To be logically consistent, we must admit *prima Traditione*.

Nevertheless, the light of mystery blurs the sharp of edges of human logic. Neither I nor the RCC claims we can really be "sola Traditionalists" since, again, Tradition is inextricably bound up with the Scriptures. Tradition is formally primary; Scripture is materially primary; but their "hypostatic union" (or "hylomorphic unity") exist as one entity: the Word fo God. Hence, in truth, the RCC should be accused of holding endorsing "sola Dei Verbum". Sola Traditione *et* Scriptura.

(NB: the claim that the RCC follows *sola ecclesia* as its rule of faith -- since it defines the canon and meaning of Scripture in the life of Xns -- cuts both ways. Each of us, in the Protestant schema, defines the canon and meaning of Scripture in our own lives. What's the principled difference? I might as well say I follow "sola Geistesweisheitus" as my rule of faith. As it stands these days, I have lost the confidence-bordering-on-hubris I once had as a Presbyterian to say I can or should or *could* willfully, serenely and authoritatively interpret the Bible *apart from* the vast chorus of the historical, visible Church which the Holy Spirit has built [cf. Eph 4:11-16].

Jesus doesn't deny us the freedom to interpet the Scriptures [cf. Luke 10:26], but he always provides a clear way for us to know the Truth [cf. Luke 10:37]. God sent Jesus to personally and visibly resolve disputes among his disciples [cf. Luke 9:46-50]. Jesus sent his apostles to personally and visibly settle squabbles [cf. 1 Cor 4:19-21, 11:2, 34b; 2 Cor 10:8-11, 13:2-4; Philemon; Heb 13:22, etc.]. The Church sent people - for the first *and ensuing* generations - to personally and visibly settle disputes [cf. Acts 15:22-35; 1 Tim 4:12; 2 Tim 2:1-2; Titus 2:1, etc.] Why should I expect anything less from the God Shepherd *today*?)

Steve,

I think the whole point on focusing on Scripture rather than the triad of "Scripture, tradition, and reason" that many churches (particularly the Episcopals) cite is because we hold Scripture as the eternal, inerrant, divinely inspired Word of God while we realize that the other two elements whereby we worship God (tradition and reason) are very much subject to idolatry and corruption respectively.

Jesus was constantly reproving the Pharisees for their traditions which were extra-Scriptural or were hunky dory in principle but had gone out of whack in practice. For example, Jesus denounces those who refuse to help their parents out of their material resources, instead saying their money is Korban, and already earmarked for the Temple. And as far as reason goes, we know there is a certain level of intellectual and/or spiritual pride can beset those who see themselves as better versed in matters theological.

I don't deny the role of tradition and reason in aiding our knowledge and worship of God, but ultimately they must be grounded in the Scripture and in our utter spiritual poverty and reliance on God's grace and His revelation of Scripture through the Holy Spirit, both individually in our studies of Scripture, and corporately in the church through the use of his anointed servants in the five fold ministry (apostles, prophets, teachers, pastors, evangelists).

As for Paul correctly the disorderly worship of the Corinthians, I agree SOME evangelical services have descended into error and disorder. In my experience, most are extremely well-ordered and regulated by a worshipful congregation and a disciplined pastor who keeps his congregants from prophesying or what not out of turn.

But on the other hand, I look at traditional services in both Catholic and Protestant churches and see the antithesis of Paul's vision of orderly Christian worship. Paul talked of congregants sharing Scripture and psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, of prophesying, of speaking in tongues, of giving the interpretation of said tongues, etc. In very liturgical denominations you have a very scripted, ordered service which isn't subject to the Holy Spirit moving through prophecy, the laying on of hands, the sharing of Scripture, etc, but by a very contrived and controlled series of motions.

As an evangelical, my desire is for the whole Church to be united in spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ and in moving in the power and anointing of the Holy Spirit to dramatically advance the kingdom. The early church did this remarkably well by uniting in prayer, by staying immersed in the instruction of the Word, and by being subject to the Spirit, and not to manmade liturgical scripts.

That's all for now. Back to work.

The Our Father -- man-made liturgical script?

The Eucharistic formula (1 Cor 11) -- man-made liturgical script?

The Nicene Creed -- man-made liturgical script?

Routine prayers during service (e.g., for communal confession, benediction, etc.) -- man-made liturgical script?

ETC. ETC.

For starters, please see: 1) Mike Aquilina's _The Mass of the Early Christians_, 2) Scott Hahn's _The Lamb's Supper_, 3) and Louis Bouyer's _Eucharist_.

Yawn, how boring and tacky and ritualistic those early Xns were.

I guess it's cuz they didn't have a canonized Bible to know the truth of pure, non-liturgical, biblical worship. They should have known the OT is a horrible place to get ideas about running a church service: incense, candles, robes, rituals, etc.

G.

I'd love to read the books. But that isn't an option at the moment.

I'd also like very much to see an attempt at the order of worship in heaven in Revelation, if anyone has done that work (in English)

Ken:

I hear ya, brother: never a shortage of unread books! I just point you to those as substantive investigations of the surprisingly Catholic nature of biblical worship and vice versa. Blog comment boxes are swell, but they hardly foster the right kind of meditation and learning needed in such a discussion. Blogs are just spark plugs.

As for the "Revelation script": head to a local Catholic parish for Mass and keep your ears, eyes and heart open. I could swear I've heard four living beasts hollering at times.

For informational purposes:

Hermann Ridderbos in his _Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures_ points out that the Hebrew original for 'apostle' is 'sheliach'. A sheliach has a very specific legal definition. They can represent the one who sends them as though they were him, but they cannot pass this on to another by appointment or inheritance.

Jesus told the 11 that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth, and we take that as Jesus telling them of the coming inspiration of the New Testament scriptures. That is the 'didaskalia' that Paul talks about. It has all been inscripturated. When Irenaus separated the terms episcopos and presbyteros, he would not have had the authority to make the episcopos (previously identical to presbyteros) into an heir of the apostles, as a sheliach cannot pass on his office to another.

This is our understanding of there not being a secret, unwritten holy tradition to stand alongside or above the actual words of God written down as the Scriptures. And again, the early Church didn't decide what to make Scripture and what not, but rather merely discerned what had been written down by one of the 11, or by an amanuensis of one of the 11. (12 counting Matthias, but none of the texts seem to go back to him). Mark of course, for Peter, and Luke for Paul (an extraordinary case, and you can't make a rule from such)

This is all fascinating discussion, especially G's points.

I've read Hahn's Last Supper, and I recommend anyone reading this to go read it and then go to mass. You'll be freaked out, I guarentee.

If you're lamenting the lack of 'echolalia' in the pews of the Catholic church, namely the roman rite, you haven't been looking hard enough. There's lots of branches within Catholicism that celebrate charismatic gifts. Surf for it, you'll find it.

Re: the real presence and John 6.
If Jesus was speaking figuratively, the term 'eat my body' spoken at that time would mean 'defile me'. However, spoken literally would mean 'cannibalism', something expressly forbidden in Jewish tradition. If the jews left Jesus, it was because he meant the latter. The former interpretation (which they initially assumed) led them to clarify (is this guy a nut or something?... ask him again...). So Jesus repeated himself, using the word Sarx, meaning flesh. Disgusted, the Jews left, finally understanding he DID mean cannibalism. Did Jesus say 'Hey guys, come back, I didn't mean nibble my fingers, I meant defile my body!'? No, he let them go, and asked his apostles if they're going too. To whom shall we go? Peter said.

As for some guy's home-cooked definition/interpretation of where apostles' lines are drawn, I question his education and motives greatly. Answer me this if that definition is correct: why did the apostles bother to elect Matthias after Judas died? He wasn't mentioned anywhere before (that I can readily think of) and he certainly wasn't gifted with the powers the other apostles were. The apostles made him their EQUAL, as was Paul, who had developed his faith independantly of the original 12 (13). He calls himself a father of the faith equal to the others (too dark to search for the quote).

Another thing conveniently ignored by protestants I talk to is this: when they quote letters, especially timothy, they do so only by verse. They totally ignore the fact that Timothy is an instruction manual on how Bishops, Deacons and Priests are to live and conduct themselves. If the baptist (presbyterian, church of christ, you name it...) is the TRUE REMNANT, where are their: Priests, Bishops and Deacons? Simple question. Paul saw it fit to nail those jobs down for a reason. Or do you throw those lines out with the ones about women wearing hats?

RE: the trinity of 'truth' (i.e. tradition, reason and scripture)
I disagree that scripture can be immune to corruption. Martin Luther himself, besides wanting to chuck out James ("epistle of straw") AND Revelation, added words to his own translation of scripture. Read 'Where we got the bible from' (forget the author, again it's late and I can't find it right now). Luther added the word 'alone' to a line that stated we are saved by faith in Christ. Uh oh, I smell an added Jot and Tittle. And scripture is the most corruptable of all 3 when subjected to the ignorant lust of the masses. I've read countless articles jusifying homosexuality in the scriptures (tearing all authority to shreds in the process). Want to know why there's so many statues, stain glass windows, and pictures in the catholic church? Most of the people who attended during the middle ages were illiterate and the visual images helped to focus their meditations and remind them of biblical events and characters. Nothing to do with idol worship. Hey if that's all it takes, isn't lincoln's monument a target of idol worship? Plenty of americans pray at the base of his big throne and statue for guidance, right? What about rushmore?

RE: infant baptisms
The proof is not on Catholics to prove that baptisms are not for children, it is for the accuser to bring forth the charges and the defender to respond. But for ammunition's sake: Nowhere is it forbidden to baptize children. It is forbidden for men to sleep with men, women with animals, men with women outside of marriage, and christians to worship false gods or follow heretics (btw, who decides who is the heretic, if not a bishop?). Baptism of children is mentioned nowhere because it is not an issue, i.e. paul et. al. did not have a problem with it. The Centurion's ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD was baptized the same day. Everyone from Granny to little Goober. No exceptions mentioned. Jesus said let the little children come to me. Baptism is said to replace circumcision (which was done to children just born). Find anything, anything that directly contradicts and is undeniably clear that opposes the above proofs for infant baptims. (Also, maybe Jesus wasn't baptized by John because either: John was the same age as Jesus, and perhaps himself wasn't able to baptize at the age of 9 days old, or #2 Jesus wanted to wait until his spiritual preparation was complete before opening the kettle of fish for everyone).

One final note about papal authority. JPII IS the hermeneutic (hate that mushy word). The anglican church, in its fight for survival, is only now realizing the power and necessity of a top-guy to preserve unity among the church. Archbishop of canterbury is just a chairman, nothing more, and many anglican bishops around the world are condemning his lack of power to guide the church through rough times. Maybe in a year or less, they'll realize that they'll be doomed to the same repeating schizmatic history until they re-unite with Rome.

I don't follow the pope because I'm a mindless robot. I follow him because I have the humility to realize that without a final arbiter of tradition and truth, christianity dies (just like christ said re: the branches and vine). Protestantism is just a bridge between agnosticism and Catholicism. The more 'traditional' protestant churches (traditional meaning as close to catholicism as they dare to go without getting spooked) are losing numbers at alarming rates, and losing doctrinal ground to 'liberalist' scholars who have hijacked the church councils (episcopalianism, presbyterianism, anglicanism...) and tear pages out of the bible like they're on fire.

If we need lawyers and judges to interpret a constitution (imagine a country where we were free to interpret the bill of rights however we saw fit) how can we possibly expect to interpret a 2000-3500 year old document, from at least 2 different languages and a foreign country, correctly from the comfort of our lazy boy? We'd be re-inventing the wheel every time, and nobody's opinion would be more or less valid than another's. We'd all be shepherds without a flock. Imagine the sheep running the farm. Pretty baaaad.

Clayton,
Your message is not quite, it seems to me, in the eirenic spirit commended in Ut Unam Sint.

I agree with you that Hahn's book is fantastic. It isn't enough though, to help me defend liturgy to low-churchers.

That is an interesting comment on John 6. What is your source?

Herman Ridderbos' credentials, which you doubt, from the book, are: Professor of New Testament Studies at the Theological Seminary in Kampen, the Netherlands, for over 30 years.

As to agenda, well, he is a Reformed theology professor, but if we are going to get into the deconstructionist hermeneutic of suspicion, wouldn't Catholic authors by the same coin, be held in suspicion? We should weigh things by the arguments and data, not by poisoning the wells.

My point, was not to try to persuade you to become Protestant, but to let you collectively know better what the protestant argument is, which was misrepresented earlier in this thread. If you want to convince a protestant to come under the Roman See in full, it doesn't help if you give an argument that he knows is based upon a straw man.

I agree that it is very irritating when people quote "verses" and sentence fragments, though I don't know of any denomination free of this mispractice. The Bible isn't written according to the much-later versification, but according to discourses and pericopes.

I'm not arguing against having bishops in the modern sense. I am arguing that they don't have the exact same authority as the original apostles, who were inspired to give us Scripture.

As to where are they in protestant denominations? FWIW: As Anglo-saxon became Middle-English, it lost not only regular grammar due to the Danish and Norman conquests, but also tended to lose the middle consonants. Hence, Hlaford became lord, hlafdige became lady, and presbuteros (from the Greek) became prestor and then priest. In the New Testament, presbuteros and episcopos are used interchangeably, they are the same office. You will find that most protestant denominations have elders and deacons, if not always by precisely those names.

I think it is something of an urban legend that Luther wanted to ditch James (and now Revelation, too, you say?)

What is the exact verse of faith versus faith alone? Let us look at it in the original Greek? Translation errors are common in any translation. Typically, they aren't very significant, especially when you look at the whole text. There -are- translations with agendae, such as the NRSV, that ought to be discarded, of course.

The use of imagry in the 13th century is one of the prime reasons for corruption of the faith which lead to the Protestant -and- Catholic Reformations. I am deeply troubled when I see a major movement in evangelical churches today moving away from the word to images (Willow Creek)

You mistake me for an accuser on the question of infant baptism. Instead, I'm perplexed and trying to understand it. I'd have a job and a ministry if I could find it to be true. The basic question "show me" is a good one, not a bad one. Come, let us reason together.

I never accused you of being a mind-numbed robot!!!! Where do you get that from me???

Actually, the political order in America *is* that of the people reading the Constitution as written, and being armed to defend it. But that is another argument, and the answer to the old question quis custodes ipsos custodiet?

Steve,

I apologize if I sounded harsh. I posted late last night, and should've been asleep. I don't imply that you think I am a robot, but I am very used to having that implication stuck to me by my non-catholic and 'intellectually agnostic or atheistic' peers.

Questioning the source of the interpretation is quite ok. I'm so used to intentionally skewed stories against the Catholic church that I wanted to know what this guy was about.

If we assume that Bishops are equal to Apostles (for the sake of pure theory), the letters make sense. Here are the (Bishops) travelling here and there across Christendom (interesting how they remain in generally the same region) not only setting up churches, but training and lecturing local priests and deacons as well. There's obviously a continuing heiarchy going on here (continuing because Matthias was elected, and Christ built his church on a rock that would not fall into error and would last until He returned). Why must the authority be continuous instead of just once for all? Show me where in scripture it says cloning people is immoral. How about euthanasia or birth control? Christ started the ball rolling, then handed the keys to Peter. Once Peter died, then what? There's no more forgiveness of sin or binding and loosing? The election of Matthias is proof enough that apostolic succession occurred. The bible refers to Peter first among all apostles when listing the names, Peter makes several decisions on Church constitution which the other apostles agree with (he is corrected for wrong actions, but his final authority is evident), and Christ specifically uses Peter on numerous occasions, much of which looks to me like "management training".

The quote regarding the implications of a 'figurative interpretation' of Christ's John 6 speech can be found in Scott Hahn's other book, Rome Sweet Home. I have both, but unfortunately I've lent the RSH book out about a year ago and don't have a clue to whom (funny, it was my 2nd book... I lost the 1st one too!). I remember that quote, though. Another good book to read.

The use of images was most definitely NOT the cause of the reformation. From what I have gathered, here is the Church's historical explanation: The plague killed millions of europeans during the middle ages. The hospitals (however primitive) were obviously staffed by nuns, priests and monks. Guess who died in a disproportionate number alongside the peasants? The clergy. Around this time in Italy the church was granted several italian provinces surrounding Rome by a prince. These wealth producing states were under direct control of the pope, and became a prize to be contested for by wealthy families (who would bribe cardinals to vote for them). Thus we had at that time in history some undesirable leadership. Couple that with a quickly deteriorating clergy, and demand for funds to build the latest basilica in Rome, and you get poorly-trained recruits with little understanding and training of true church doctrine, going around the countryside, mis-representing holy mother church and ticking people off and selling indulgences (a riduclous concept when you actually study the early church and the properties of purgatory). One of them, Martin Luther, a monk of 2 years and with obviously little understanding of the church's TRUE teachings arrived at a "correct objection of the material he was given and the limited training he held".

After both sides (old men can be quite stubborn) got their hackles up, and feudalist enemies of the Pope faced off against the 'untouchable' bishops, they went their separate ways for about 500 years. Only recently, once the two churches began talking again, did they realize that both were acting like stubborn idiots who were arguing over nothing at all, and a reconciliation between the two was reported, probably 4 years ago now.

We no more pray to statues than you pray to pictures of your wife and kids in your wallet when you're out of town. We pray directly to God, but ask the physically dead but spiritually alive saints to pray for us, just as you pray for any one here. We do not ask Mary or St. Michael what the weather will be like tomorrow: that is divination and is directly forbidden. "Saint Michael, protect me from harm today": Good. "Saint Michael, should I go with the blue jacket or the red one?": Bad. If it's graven images you object to, (graven meaning carved in stone) what about paintings or stain glass? Weren't the 10 commandments 'graven' in stone? It's not the graven part that is bad, it is the worship thereof, or anything not God. Veneration means honor, not unlike the honor Jesus showed to Mary (fulfilling mosaic law of honoring his mother).

If every American can interpret and act however he/she sees fit without fear of recrimination (sola constitua?), why pay taxes for federal judges to make rulings based upon it? Aren't you handing over your authority to judge to them? If you disagree with their interpretations, why can't you be free to draw a border around your property, buy some guns, raise your own flag, and declare sovreignty? Get the whole neighborhood involved. A protestation of sorts, against judicial authority? Then the kids get involved and draw lines across the bedroom threshold, within which much partying and playing of loud music throughout the night. Hey, it's ok: they have a copy of the constitution on the wall for everyone to see!

Sounds silly, but this is exactly a parallel situation to what Luther did by fostering a break from tradition and authority. If he had the patience to stay and fix the situation, like St. Theresa and St. Francais Xavior, he would be canonized for his devotion to the truth while striving to maintain church unity.

Steve,

I hope you got the email I sent you. It's good (but humbling!) to see Clayton also saw the "Matthias dilemma" I think Ridderbos has.

As for Jn 6, verse 51 is the key. The same body Christ calls us to *literally gnaw* (as the Greek says in 6:54-58) is the body he would offer on the cross. Denying the coporeality of his edible body (based on 6:63) is therefore equivalent to denying the corporeality of his crucifixion. In the context of John's gospel, the words "spirit and flesh" generally refer to the "divine and mortal" (cf. Jn 1:13, 3:7; cf. also Matt 16:17 ["flesh and blood" = "man"], Rom 8:5f. ["flesh" vs. "spirit"] and 1 Cor 15:50). Thus, Christ's WORDS are "spirit" -- he does not say his FLESH! -- because they are divinely inspired, not merely humanly contrived.

The verse Clayton mentions into which Luther jammed "sola" is Rom 3:28 (and possibly also Gal 3:24). Luther plainly admitted this insertion, contrary to its absence in the Greek, in his letter "On Translation" ["Vom Dolmetschen"]. I've read it myself in German. Luther insisted "the whole text" (your words) clearly demanded the word "alone". Funny that Paul didn't think so.

Then again, Paul's the same kooky guy that wrote Gal 5:16 ("you"), 19-21, 6:7-9 -- TO CHRISTIANS. How silly! He should have known that we are saved by faith alone! But alas, in his "zeal without knowledge", Paul went on to write such outrageous things as 1 Cor 5:9-10 and Eph 6:7-8. Then again, what can you expect from a guy that followed Jesus, that Galilean heretic who said such things as Matt 16:27, Jn 5:28-29, and Rev 22:12.

Prots have Paul's main JUDAIC point backwards (not a surprise given Luther's amazing anti-Semitism and consequent disregard for any prurient Jewishness in his pure Paul). Paul is always denying the efficacy of the MOSAIC LAW apart from faith in Christ, NOT upholding the efficacy of faith in Christ apart from moral obedience.

Surely you know that the only place "faith alone" appears in the Bible is in James 2:24 -- where it is flatly denied? And surely you've heard of the "Phineas dilemma"? Phineas had "righteousness credited to him" JUST LIKE Abraham did -- but because of Phineas's ACT of courage (cf. Ps 106:30-31). James picks up on the same thoroughly biblical idea in Jam 2:25. Do you see now why Luther disliked that epistle (and Hebrews and Jude and Revelation) so much?

www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/ B/BartlingLuther/BartlingLuther.rtf

You two are mainly trying to persuade me of things I already believe :-)

I do believe in real presence. I just think that the 1 Cor. passage is clearer, and thus better to use to convince someone. It convince me.

Faith without works is dead - even Luther insisted on that. It is faith -through- which we receive the grace of justification. Faith itself is not a work according to Eph. 2:8-9. But real faith -will- produce works. Like James wrote, if there no good works, then there probably isn't any faith (because we, unlike God, can't see the heart, or indeed all the works a person might do in secret)

As to images, Clayton that is the best discussion that I've seen and I'm going to re-read it carefully. I think I will learn something. You probably know that praying to the saints is something that gives us Evangelicals the willies. It isn't that we don't believe that the saints are good people, or in the mighty cloud of witnesses observing (and logically, praying) for us, we are just scared about the whole idea of praying to them, that it might be a violation of the 1st commandment, etc.

My point on that was not what you thought. It was that the use of images -instead of the word- allowed the illiterate who couldn't read a missal to come to erroneous and superstitious beliefs, which still exist in some quarters, though they aren't official church teachings. Clayton that is a good summary of the Protestant side of the Reformation. If only Cajetan had been pope. If only Luther weren't so cantankerous. Melancton hoped, even on his deathbed, for the unity of the Church. Connie Willis describes the effect of the black death in her Doomsday Book, which I recommend. In it, she also adds a theory that the faithful priests and religous, by tending the sick, died. But those who -weren't- faithful, fled to isolated areas and survived to influence the Church significantly. And that of course, led to problems of the sort that you noted. And it was Luther's father confessor that led him to the Gospel - it wasn't that the Church didn't teach or believe the Gospel, but that it had become obscured for various reasons, such as those you have mentioned.

I do not understand the different levels of veneration, honor and worship that you do. That is my ignorance. I'd like to learn better.

This is prolly the liveliest dead string I've ever seen in blogdom. I'm diggin' it.

Now, gentlemen, if I may...

Steve, as for justification, I highly recommend James Akin's articles

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/faith_al.htm

and

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/justcath.htm

Do I believe we are saved by faith alone? Sure I do -- provided "faith" is understood as more than faith. If you admit works of obedience are essential for salvation, whence sola fide? The RCC no more teaches works are a result of human effort than faith itself is (Eph 2:10).

Further, pounding the aorist tense of Rom 5:1 does NOT establish its perpetuity or irrevocability, only its definiteness in the span of history, our lives, and God's providence. Ironically, a progressive tense for Rom 5:1 would "seal the deal" for Reformed soteriology, since that would stipulate we are, by faith in Christ, perpetually and irrevocably called righteous. As it stands, Paul is emphasizing the great FACT of the Romans' HAVING BEEN justified by faith, and therefore argues they must not live according to the flesh. If I am "justified" (aoristaoristaorist) in court on May 15, does that entail my living righteously on May 16, let alone forever? No, clearly not. BUT, returning to the same merciful and holy judge on May 17 would grant me the same pardon I had on May 15.

Veneration: I think the key is intention. It's worship as soon as you believe it's worship. Was David worshiping creation when he praised its magnificence in Psalm 19? No. Do you really think you're at risk of worshipping Luther when you see a biography about him, or a painting of him? I doubt it. In fact, I bet your heart is stirred *by that image* to thank God for delivering his indefectible Church out of some dark times. [NB: It would actually be *God's grace* conveyed *by* that image that stirs your heart.] It's almost the same for icons, EXCEPT that saints are understood to have heavenly intercessory power, just as we embattled Xns have earthly intercessory power in Christ.

No devout Catholic asks an icon to pray for them, but only for the brother or sister in Christ evinced by that image to pray. There is only one mediator between God and man -- but there is, by the grace of God, a glorious plenitude of mediators between Christ and you and me! A large crowd at a rock concert, rather than detracting from a star's glory, magnifies it.

An icon reminds me to humbly recognize the *work of grace* in an earlier saint; it does not hypnotize me to worship that saint but the God that saved her. Xns are monuments of grace in progress; "saints" are monuments of grace completed; icons are "monuments of monuments" of completed grace. A crucifix is a monument of Christ's work on the cross, which was itself the living monument of God's work in him in heaven and on earth. Fallen Xns are so to speak anti-icons of grace, and Scripture therefore calls us to remeber (devenerate?) them in our walk of faith (Heb 4:11). The other shoe dropping sounds like ... veneration for obedient Xns (Heb 11).

(Incidentally, your arg that images led the laity into error is pretty weak sauce. Isn't it painfully obvious that written words also lead people into error? 2 Pet 3:16)

It would be salutary (pun intended) for you to consider the biblical seeds for venerating saints in light of Php 3:17, 4:29, 1 Cor 16:18, 1 Tim 5:17, Titus 2:2 [semnos/sebo: venerable/venerate], Luke 1:41-45, 2 Pet 2:10-12, Jude 8 [the implication of these last two being that celestial beings are worthy of veneration], etc.

Please also cf. the Catechism of the Catholic Church 476-77, 1159-1162, 2129-32.

In closing, let me share a rather mystical experience I had three or four years ago, when I was deeply entrenched in my Protestantism: I was meditating on Php 2. I had been dwelling on and cherishing the saving passion of Christ and by the time I got to 2:16, I was frothy with devotion. But suddenly, inexplicably, upon reading 2:16, everything in me shouted, "No, Paul, don't worry! If even just because of my faith, know that you did not run in vain! My faith is proof that your labors have endured!" And then I was really calm. I had prayed to Paul. And yet, that did not in the least undermine my faith that Christ alone was most highly exalted and that every knee would bow to HIM, not Paul or me (2:9-11). I could not have been convinced that Paul did not hear me or praise God for my plea. What a great cloud of witnesses indeed.

BTW: I'm still interested, not drooling, to hear a response to the many substantive comments I made about the relationship between tradition and scripture AND the docetic "hypsotatic problem" of consubstantiation.

NB: another tradition Prots might hate to love: the identity of the authors of Matthew's, Mark's and John's Gospels -- based on patristic testimony and ancient Church Tradition.

Short comment now, lots of meat there, G., Thank you!

Lutherans do -not- believe in consubstantiation.

They believe that when they receive the Cup and the Host, they are receiving Christ's body and blood "in, with and under" meaning (as I was told by a local Missouri Synod pastor) that we believe that we are really receiving Christ's body and blood, we just don't know what the physics and metaphysics are. We don't confess with the A.D. 1215 council that we *know* how God does it. We just believe that it *is*.

We don't believe that works merit forgiveness of all of our sins and sinfulness, but we do and have always, since A.D. 1521, believed and taught that good works must proceed from justification in the sanctification process, or there is no reason to believe the person has received justification from God. The bishops and the Council of Trent don't seem to have understood that, and the Majesterium is no longer rejecting what we really mean by sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus now that they know what we mean.

That doesn't mean that there aren't evangelicals out there who hold to "easy believism" or "cheap grace" as Boenhoeffer called it, but it is error, or possibly even heresy, NOT traditional Lutheran, Reformed, or Anabaptist thought.

That article by James Akin is -excellent-!

But I would add that pistis (so I was taught) also includes the concept of being faithful to, and one could liken conversion to Christ to repenting of treason and pledging fealty to ones rightful Lord, with all the commitment and intended obedience implied. Indeed was not treason to God the first sin? How can one be a Christian if one intentionally remains in rebellion against God?

Good Qs, Steve. I'm still too busy to say too much.

All I'll ask for now is why you so strongly reject consubstantiation. That's all the "with" in your formula means: the elements' substances are "with" (con-) the Lord's whole substance. The RCC denies this and says the Lord's whole substance replaces the elements', leaving only the elements' accidents.

Why does the RCC "split hairs" and presume such "secret knowledge"? Because Christ said "this IS my body", not "this contains/veils/represents my body" (a construction Aramaic and Greek allow for), and not "this is my body and blood and bread and wine". You must remember the Albigensian/Catharist (anti-Tradition, anti-corporeal) context of the Lateran council ca. 1215 AD.

Yet more resources than you'd ever want:

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ11.HTM

Good night, bud.

BTW, I have a blog, if you want to get to know a bit more about me -- www.xanga.com/rocketagent . Just no incriminating comments please! I'm still an undercover Catholic seeker here in Taiwan on an evangelical mission. Please don't blow my cover! :)

I reject that Lutherans especially LCMS believe in consubstantiation because from Luther on down they deny it.
http://fearsomepirate.blogspot.com/2003_09_28_fearsomepirate_archive.html

Discusses this at some length.

Likewise Pastor H****** has instructed me that Lutherans do -not- teach consubstantiation.

http://www.lcms.org/cic/bodyblood.htm

http://www.lcms.org/cic/resurrectedbody.htm

I need to hear what your definition of consub. is. I won't be so crass as to say, "No, you're wrong, I don't care what your catechism and pastor say: you do believe in consubstantiation." As it stands, I'm having extreme difficulty in seeing a difference between the Lutheran theory of the Euch and what consubstantiation means.

http://www.franciscan-sfo.org/TEXT/TRANSUB.HTM

or

http://www.wels.net/sab/qa/commun-real-01.html

?

BTW, lest it seem I'm intent on bickering about secondary issues: it's very encouraging to hear how doggedly *realist* you are as a Lutheran about the Eucharist. It's nice to find a realist in the arid symbolist-Protestant dance around the Eucharist.

G,
I'm more of a Lutheran/Anabaptist at present. I can't get my mind around infant baptismal regeneration not being a different Gospel, and/or contrary to/not taught in Scripture. The verse extracts the LCMS uses to promote the doctrine are part of discourses that don't teach what they say they do.

I don't understand the whole philosophical debate within real presence. I did come to the conclusion from Scripture that it -is- real presence. I've walked out of a 'baptist' church when they inserted 'symbol' into Jesus' words of institution.

I understand that the LCMS does not take a stand on the philosophy, and that Luther didn't want to dogmatize a philosophical explanation of real presence, as the council in 1215 had done. He and they do not deny real presence, but affirm it.

Now, whether their view looks like consubstantiation, I don't know nearly enough to offer an opinion on that, but they would deny that philosophical definition as dogma.

Bapt. regen.:

Raised as a Presbyterian, it is just ingrained in me as the efficacious symbol of God's prevenient grace on/in/for us. For me, baptism, infant or not, is simply (!) the work of God's grace as dispensed in/by the Body of Christ. It underscores for the totality of grace fmo start to finish, rather than hagning it on all *my* lucid, mature, ardent confession of personal faith. God saves us by baptizing us in Xn families and *into* his family. The idea just doesn't bother me; never has.

Plus, forgetting the LCMS for the moment, bapt. regen. has been the tradition of the Church for millenia. At least Luther got that and real presence right. (BTW, as sola Scrip falls for me, I am also inclined to defer to the ancient, apostolic tradition of transubstantiation over against consub. *That* deference of faith preempts and informs any of the endless philosophical wrangling I might do about consub, transub., impanation, etc.)

Here's yet more resources:
http://www.catholicoutlook.com/sacraments.html

click on "Baptism"

oof, must sleep

I'll stir the coals just to be polite, but it seems a cold wind has finally extinguished this old post. Farewell, Steve. You've got my email and a load of my thoughts on issues various and sundry.

I'm here, it is just not the easiest to get back in the archives for this.

I just came across this. It may be of some interest.

http://66.241.246.76/merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=1885767749&Category_Code=BST

Shape of Sola Scriptura
Quantity in Basket: none
Code: 1885767749
Price:$13.60
Author: Keith Mathison.
In what shape do we find the doctrine of Sola Scriptura today? Many modern Evangelicals see it as a license to ignore history and the creeds in favor of a more splintered approach to Christian living. In the past two decades, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists have strongly sought to undermine Sola Scriptura as unbiblical, unhistorical, and impractical. But these groups rest their cases on a recent, false take on Sola Scriptura. The ancient, medieval, and classical Protestant view of Sola Scriptura actually has a quite different shape than most opponents and defenders maintain. Therein lies the goal of this book -- an intriguing defense of the ancient (and classical Protestant) doctrine of Sola Scriptura against the claims of Rome, the East, and modern Evangelicalism.
364 pages, Paperback