Wednesday, April 06, 2016

Tradition



μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων

 "And in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men" Mark 7:7


 

ἀφέντες τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ κρατεῖτε τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων

 "leaving/abandoning the commandment of God, you are holding onto the traditions of men"

Mark 7:8

 The Aorist participle of "leaving"/ "neglecting" / "abandoning" (aphentes- αφεντες, from aphiaemi αφιημι ) seems to be contrasted with the present active verb of "holding onto" ( κρατειτε )- because they are so focused on teaching as doctrine, the commandments of men (verse 7), or they are so focused on holding onto their own man-made traditions (8b), it caused them to neglect, abandon, leave the commandment of God (the word of God, the Scriptures).  Or, it could be an adverbial participle of means or manner, modifying the way they are holding onto the traditions of man - "by abandoning" or "by neglecting" . . . "you are holding onto". Or it could be a causal participle, "because you neglected the commandment of God, you are holding onto the traditions of man".  Or it could be a temporal participle:  "while neglecting the commandment of God" or "after neglecting the commandment of God".   Any of these three fit the context.  This is exactly what the church started doing little by little in history.

 It is interesting to me that the word for "leaving" ("abandoning" or "neglecting") is also the word used in Revelation 2:4 - "you have left your first love"
ἀλλὰ ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ ὅτι τὴν ἀγάπην σου τὴν πρώτην ἀφῆκες "But I have this against you, that you have left your first love"

 and
Matthew 23:23 - "you have neglected the weightier provisions of the law . . . "

Dr. Plummer pointed out in the video that this word, aphiaemi / αφιημι - has a wide range of meaning, many times, in context, it means "to forgive" sins, and other times "to divorce", but you can see the idea of "leaving", "abandoning", "neglecting", "forsaking" in the basic concept.

This is what the Roman Catholic Church did in history, by clinging to man-man traditions and holding onto them, they neglected and abandoned important doctrines such as justification by faith alone; and emphasized Mary too much and exalted her too much, and created doctrines such as Purgatory; and said that bread and wine turns into the body and blood of Jesus by the words of a RC priest. They emphasized and clung to external works and relics and penances and pilgrimages, and clinging to those things caused them to not see the main issues. Justification by faith alone was there all along in the Bible, and hinted at by some early church fathers, but it was left behind and neglected by their emphasis on external works, focus on non-Biblical things about Mary, statues, priests, penances, relics, etc.

Some Roman Catholics like to say that Protestants treat "tradition as a dirty word" or "always negative" and some (far too many) Evangelicals have done that; but that should not be and everyone should be able to handle the passages that speak of "traditions" in a positive way, since they are the true apostolic traditions.

 2 Thessalonians 2:15

"But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you rom the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. 14 It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15
I have never understood why former Evangelicals who have converted to Rome say that they could not explain or handle verse 15.  As in the following in Scott Hahn's testimony of how he just melted into goo when the question was posed to him about 2 Thessalonians 2:15:    (to see where this is, scroll down to the paragraph with the heading "Teacher at a Presbyterian Seminary")  ( As I recall, a lot of the Surprised by Truth (edited by Patrick Madrid) testimonies also told of how they were unprepared to deal with that verse.)


Then he turned the tables on me. The students were supposed to ask him a question or two. He said, "Can I first ask you a question, Professor Hahn? You know how Luther really had two slogans, not just sola fide, but the second slogan he used to revolt against Rome was sola Scriptura, the Bible alone. My question is, 'Where does the Bible teach that?'"
I looked at him with a blank stare. I could feel sweat coming to my forehead. I used to take pride in asking my professors the most stumping questions, but I never heard this one before. And so I heard myself say words that I had sworn I'd never speak; I said, "John, what a dumb question." He was not intimidated. He look at me and said, "Give me a dumb answer." I said, "All right, I'll try." I just began to wing it. I said, "Well, Timothy 3:16 is the key: 'All Scripture is inspired of God and profitable for correction, for training and righteousness, for reproof that the man of God may be completely equipped for every good work....'" He said, "Wait a second, that only says that Scripture is inspired and profitable; it doesn't say ONLY Scripture is inspired or even better, only Scripture's profitable for those things. We need other things like prayer," and then he said, "What about 2 Thessalonians 2:15?" I said, "What's that again?" He said, "Well, there Paul tells the Thessalonians that they have to hold fast, they have to cling to the traditions that Paul has taught them either in writing or by word of mouth." Whoa! I wasn't ready. I said, "Well, let's move on with the questions and answers; I'll deal with this next week. Let's go on."
I don't think they realized the panic I was in. When I drove home that night, I was just staring up to the heavens asking God, why have I never heard that question? Why have I never found an answer? 

Aside for failing to distinguish between 1 or 2 Timothy, it is amazing to me, that he could not handle this, when one looks at the context of verses 13 and 14; and the date and historical background of when 2 Thessalonians was written.

1.  The historical context of when the Thessalonians epistles were written.  (50-52 AD) Obviously, at this point, the only other letters that Paul has written are Galatians (48-49 AD) and 1 Thessalonians (50 AD), so it seems obvious that the apostle was preaching and teaching content that will be later included in letters such as Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1-2 Timothy, etc. There is no evidence at all that the apostle taught anything that Roman Catholics claim he may have, RC traditions like Mary as a perpetual virgin, or purgatory, or priests as a NT office, or indulgences, or the Papacy, or the Immaculate Conception of Mary, or Transubstantiation, external penances, relics, praying to Mary. No; it is obvious that Paul means was essential doctrine that will be later in the rest of Scripture. There is no evidence that the apostles taught any of those things that Roman Catholics developed centuries later. They read their own traditions back into the word "tradition".

2.  The context of the verse within the paragraph.  Verse 14 identifies the traditions of verse 15 as the gospel ("our gospel"), and verse 13 shows the doctrines of election, salvation, "sanctification by the Spirit", "faith in the truth" as part of the gospel.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
This verse points to the context of the teachings in verses 7-14, and what Paul already taught them in 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12 and 5:14.

1 Corinthians 11:2 - same principle here; 1 Corinthians is early also, around 55 AD, so the same principle goes, and by the rest of the content of the whole letter of 1 Corinthians, especially in the rest of chapter 11 and 15, but not excluding any of the letter.   Paul considers his teaching and letters as spiritual truths (1 Corinthians 2:12-13) that he is passing on/delivering/handing over = "traditioning" to them. Since they have written questions about issues that were raised after he taught them (see 1 Cor. 7:1); and he will also write another letter to them (2 Corinthians, which may have as part of it embedded in it, the same content as the "painful letter" about church discipline mentioned in 2 Corinthians 7:8 and 7:12 and possibly with 2 Corinthians 2:2, or it may also refer to 1 Corinthians 5 about church disciple), (or it may be a lost letter); it seems obvious the traditions are basic gospel issues and teachings.  These essential teachings will all be included in writing, that will eventually all be finished by 96 AD.  All Scripture is written down by either 70 AD or 96 AD.  Also, the context is on the content of what he writes to them in chapter 11.

1 Corinthians 15:3 has the verbal form of "tradition", "to deliver", which is also used in Jude 3 - "the faith once for all delivered to the saints". It seems obvious that the context of 1 Corinthians 15 is about gospel essentials (which agrees with 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15, and that Jude 3 shows that all the truths of the faith necessary for the saints was already delivered once for all. This, along with Jesus' promise that when the Holy Spirit comes, He would lead the apostles into all the truth (John 16:12-13) and bring to their remembrance everything (John 14:26); it is reasonable to assume that all the truths needed would be written down.

 It seems to me easy to see, when 2 Timothy 3:16 says that "all Scripture is God-breathed", that whatever is God-breathed or inspired is revelation from God, and when that revelation is written Scripture; and since it is God-breathed, is also "canon", since "canon" meant "principle", "law", "criterion", "standard", before it meant "a specific list of books" recognized / discerned as "God-breathed".
As Dr. White has said many times, and James Swan in an article below, 

"The canon list is not revelation, it's an artifact of revelation."  

This means it is physical evidence and a result of revelation, a proof that revelation happened in history, since all 27 books were first individual scrolls in the first century, and each one was God-breathed Scripture, the list is merely the "footprint" or evidence or product of them all together. 
 Scripture is sufficient to equip the man of God in the church for "every good work" (2 Timothy 3:17; verse 17 is important to include), for ministry and teaching and counseling people (rebuking, correcting, training). Paul assumes that the "man of God" is a man like Timothy who has already been qualified to be an elder/pastor/teacher/overseer in the local church (see the whole letters of 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus).  Things like the local church (1 Timothy 3:14-16), teaching, being an elder/pastor/teacher, a man of God, a man of prayer, qualified, are assumed in the whole context of the whole letters of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus.  The fact that Paul quoted gospels with law in 1 Timothy 5:18 as Scripture, and that Peter wrote that all of Paul's letters are Scripture (2 Peter 3:16), along with the "once for all" of Jude 3, rounds things out as logical and reasonable to assume that all things that were needed for the church were written down in Scripture.   2 Timothy 3:15 is about the OT only, but 2 Timothy 3:16 expands it to "all Scripture", including by principle, all of the NT books, even those written in the future.

Colossians 2:8 and 2:20-23 are also negative on man-made traditions.  They also point to man-made traditions,  (as Mark 7 and Matthew 15 do), philosophy, and the "elementary principles of this world" (see with Galatians 4:9-11) - these things seem to point the things that Roman Catholicism emphasizes - external rituals and laws, asceticism, rites and things that humans can do to make themselves feel religious - like visiting graves and praying to the dead, kissing relics, and the legalisms of adding things to faith as being necessary to do in order to merit finally that one may be justified before God in the future.

Those gospel essentials or essential doctrines are what Irenaeus (180-200 AD), Tertullian (190-220 AD), Origen (250 AD), and Athanasius (297-373 AD) refer to when they explain what "the tradition of the apostles" or "the faith" or "the preaching" is to their readers in the centuries that follow.  When they explicate what the tradition is, it never includes any of the things that Roman Catholics read back into it.  They are the same basic content as the early creeds, such as the Apostles Creed and the Nicean Creed.  More on that later, Lord willing.

See Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10:1 to 1:11:1
and 1:22:1
and 3:4:2.

Tertullian, Presciption Against Heretics, 13:1-6
Against Praxeas 2:1-2

Origen, On First Principles, 1. preface. 2-8

Athanasius, To Serapion, Concering the Holy Spirit Against the Tropici Heretics, Book 1, 28-32
This work, unforuntately, is not available at the www.ccel.org or www.newadvent.org site.

But the others are there for all to see and read.

52 comments:

Nick said...

Ken, you actually believe Catholics "emphasized Mary more than Jesus or God the Father"? Where in the Mass or Divine Office is Mary emphasized more than the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

Ken said...

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/yLgVKtzE8iI/maxresdefault.jpg

Ken said...

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/11/if-it-looks-like-duck.html

Ken said...

Yeah, I will change it to "emphasize Mary too much and exalt her too much".
but the examples above show the over-emphasis of Roman Catholicism on Mary.

Ken said...

2 more articles of examples of over-emphasis and over-exaltation of Mary:

http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/06/08/we-dont-worship-mary-pt-1/

http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/06/15/we-dont-worship-mary-pt2/

Ken said...

Reading those 2 articles by Tim Kauffman again, he clearly shows that many famous Roman Catholics in history, (some are Popes) have over-exalted her to such an extent that she was given Latria and exalted even to the place of God; though official other documents deny this. I recommend everyone to read those 2 articles and see how the RCC has over-exalted Mary, to such a point that she is not even the Mary of the Bible, but an idol in the minds of those RCs in history.

Ken said...

All Evangelicals/Protestants who are considering converting to Rome need to keep the Marian stuff always before them. They will never convert if they do. It seems one of the strategies of the RC apologists is to concentrate on issues like the canon of Scripture and doubts about interpretations, questions about unity and schism, and put doubts about Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide and when the Protestant asks "what about the Mary stuff?", the answer is, "we will deal with that later". (don't allow that to happen; it is trap!)

Most of the former Evangelicals don't do any or very much of the Mary piety. (I have heard, read, and seen several admit this.) They surrendered to the Pope first, then just surrendered their mind to the Mary dogmas later, the official stuff; but ignore the popular stuff; but several have said Mary is not an emphasis for them; but she is a massive emphasis in history of RCC from 500s onward. (and for Cradle Catholics she is a big part of their culture; maybe the most prominent thing/emphasis.)

Cletus Van Damme said...

Ken,

A commandment against man-made traditions no more nullifies or makes inferior Tradition any more than false gospels and apostolic writings nullifies or makes inferior Scriptural authority.

"Dr. Plummer pointed out in the video that this word - has a wide range of meaning"

So is it perspicuous in then using it to conclude SS's rejection of Tradition is valid?

"by clinging to man-man traditions"

How would you determine Protestant doctrines such as SS and your canon are not in fact the man-made traditions?

"Justification by faith alone was there all along in the Bible, and hinted at by some early church fathers,"

Well that's odd that this perspicuous "essential" was only hinted at by the church fathers.

"it seems obvious that the apostle was preaching and teaching content that will be later included in letters such as... These essential teachings will all be included in writing, that will eventually all be finished by 96 AD.. it is reasonable to assume that all the truths needed would be written down"

This is all question begging and handwaving on the canon.

"As Dr. White has said many times"

Do you agree with White's statement that SS could not have been operative during the apostolic age and times of inscripturation? If that's true, then no verse intended to affirm such was written, and thus you cannot appeal to any as supporting SS without violating authorial intent. And thus SS self-refutes.

"The canon list is not revelation, it's an artifact of revelation."

Is the Protestant canon something all Christians must affirm or not?

You seem to affirm tradition and inscripturation were operating in parallel during the apostolic age - the preaching of the apostolic deposit preceded inscripturation. So at a minimum, this model was operative until the last sentence of the last book was written correct? So why assume that pattern and the rule of faith suddenly changed and shifted in essence in terms of transmission and operation when the last inspired word was penned – would it not be more reasonable to assume the pattern continued by default (especially when the church was already operating for decades) unless there was strong evidence to the contrary? And given your rule of faith, such evidence would have to exist in the writings themselves correct? But if your rule of faith was not operating during inscripturation, I fail to see how that can even be possible, let alone probable since any appeal to support SS would violate the original intent of the words.

What indication do we have that SS was to become the rule of faith once John died or that this mode of transmission would suddenly shift and change? NT books conservatively estimated to be written between 45 – 95 AD. Pentecost happened before then. The church was operating and functioning as various books were being inscripturated over those 60 years – it wasn’t like there was a switch that magically turned on when John penned the last word of Revelation saying “The church and Sola Scriptura may now activate! All unwritten tradition that has been passed down or taught has now been written and anything that wasn’t is now unnecessary!” What we actually see in Scripture when the apostles are preparing for their eventual deaths is not a mad dash to get scribes to inscripturate everything, but rather commands to follow and receive and hand on written and unwritten tradition, and to build up the church through apostolic successors. We do not see commands or instructions that all aforementioned unwritten tradition has been converted to writing or will be at some point after which the church can then blast into operation. Apparently according to your position, that command or conversion just magically “happened” at some point even though it was - irony alert - never written down.

Ken said...

A commandment against man-made traditions no more nullifies or makes inferior Tradition any more than false gospels and apostolic writings nullifies or makes inferior Scriptural authority.

It is not hard to discern between the man-made traditions of the RCC that come centuries later (PVM 500s, Purgatory 600s, Transubstantiation 1215 AD, Unam Sanctum 1302 AD, Trent (1545-1563), ICM 1854, Papal Inf. 1870, BAM 1950),

and some that started earlier - NT priests, ex opere operato powers, emphasis on an external penance rather than repentance, Latin taking over Greek as the source of NT exegesis; baptismal regeneration (But Kauffman put a lot of holes in that - http://www.whitehorseblog.com/category/baptismal-regeneration/
eucharistic literalism - Kauffman and Brian Cuttilon put lots of holes in that claim
https://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/

http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/07/27/eating-ignatius/

Ken said...

So is it perspicuous in then using it to conclude SS's rejection of Tradition is valid?

As I pointed out, SS does not reject all "tradition" (as in 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6; I Cor. 15, Jude 3, 1 Cor. 11:2, etc.) - they show that they are oral apostolic teachers that are gospel and essential truths that are eventually written down in all 27 NT books.

Since Jesus said the HS would lead them into all the truth and bring to their remembrance all that He taught them, and Jude 3 says the faith was delivered once to the saints, all apostolic good inspired traditions were written down;

and since you have no evidence of non-written inspired traditions that are apostolic (even Basil in the 300s shows that they are things that they asserted that were apostolic were things like baptism 3 times, facing east, using oil in chrism, etc. (Basil of Caesarea, On the Spirit, 66) - it you who are question begging and hand waving.

Even during times of revelation still being given and inscripturation, SS was there in principle - 2 Tim. 3:16 and 1 Cor. 4:6 are SS by principle, even though all the books of NT are not written yet.

Ken said...

What indication do we have that SS was to become the rule of faith once John died or that this mode of transmission would suddenly shift and change?

Because even the early church was very slow and careful about what was an apostolic writing and what was not and the rule of faith were those essential doctrines that eventually became the creeds, organized around the Trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:19. Those doctrines in the rule of faith were all in Scripture, so Scripture was the source. Irenaeus tells of preaching the rule of faith to tribes that didn't have the Scriptures yet in their languages. The Rule of Faith functioned as the essentials until all the NT books were brought together under one book cover.

Those gospel essentials or essential doctrines are what Irenaeus (180-200 AD), Tertullian (190-220 AD), Origen (250 AD), and Athanasius (297-373 AD) refer to when they explain what "the tradition of the apostles" or "the faith" or "the preaching" is to their readers in the centuries that follow. When they explicate what the tradition is, it never includes any of the things that Roman Catholics read back into it. They are the same basic content as the early creeds, such as the Apostles Creed and the Nicean Creed.

See Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10:1 to 1:11:1
and 1:22:1
and 3:4:2.

Tertullian, Presciption Against Heretics, 13:1-6
Against Praxeas 2:1-2

Origen, On First Principles, 1. preface. 2-8

Athanasius, To Serapion, Concering the Holy Spirit Against the Tropici Heretics, Book 1, 28-32
This work, unforuntately, is not available at the www.ccel.org or www.newadvent.org site.

They are all doctrines in Scripture. This shows there is nothing essential that was not written down by 96 AD, since all the essential doctrines were there in the creeds.

Ken said...

"Justification by faith alone was there all along in the Bible, and hinted at by some early church fathers,"

Well that's odd that this perspicuous "essential" was only hinted at by the church fathers.

Because they slowly emphasized other external things that tended to eclipse and hide the truth of justification by faith alone:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/08/historical-developments-that-led-to.html

Just as the early heresies caused the early church to clarify on the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the 2 natures of Christ, so also the slow wrong emphasis on external rituals and man-made traditions created heresies that eventually caused the Reformation to clarify the issue of justification, but it was there all along in Romans, Galatians, Acts, John, and James 2 teaches that good works are the fruit and result of true faith, not the cause or merit.

Ken said...

13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. 14 It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

2 Thessalonians 2:13-15

the true inspired traditions were gospel truths, not RCC man-made traditions that came along centuries later and read back into verse 15, which your RCC ignores verse 13 and 14.

Cletus Van Damme said...

Ken,

"and since you have no evidence of non-written inspired traditions that are apostolic"

You affirm non-written traditions. These include: The Protestant canon, that canon is closed, public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, SS is the rule of faith, GHM is the primary or sole method to be applied to it in yielding divine truths. You ironically affirm tradition in condemning tradition.

"SS does not reject all "tradition" - they show that they are oral apostolic teachers that are gospel and essential truths ... Even during times of revelation still being given and inscripturation, SS was there in principle."

These two statements conflict. SS is not the teaching that Scripture is inspired and authoritative. It is more than that, and by definition could not have been operative during NT times, as White freely acknowledges. Tradition as a parallel non-inferior authority to Scripture is not SS.

"Since Jesus said the HS would lead them into all the truth and bring to their remembrance all that He taught them"

Your conclusion that "all apostolic good inspired traditions were written down" does not follow - Jesus' promise is one of the reasons RCism affirms its model.

"Those doctrines in the rule of faith were all in Scripture, so Scripture was the source."

Scripture as interpreted through the lens of authoritative Tradition. Which is why the fathers condemned heretics for foisting their private interpretation and judgment upon Scriptures outside of the scope of the church and Tradition.

"The Rule of Faith functioned as the essentials until all the NT books were brought together under one book cover. "

So SS functions as the rule of faith with an incomplete canon?

On one hand, "When they explicate what the tradition is, it never includes any of the things that Roman Catholics read back into it."
On the other, "It is not hard to discern between the man-made traditions... that started earlier"
So which is it.

"This shows there is nothing essential that was not written down by 96 AD, since all the essential doctrines were there in the creeds."

Okay, so the early creeds delineate orthodoxy since "all essential doctrines" are in them. And RCism affirms them, while Reformed teachers have had no qualms about revising them or rejecting aspects of them - such as with Nicaea and the Apostles Creed. So RCism is Christian by your lights.

"Just as the early heresies caused the early church to clarify on the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the 2 natures of Christ"

And Christology informed their view of soteriology. It's not like justification was neglected on the backburner for 1500 years while the "man-made traditions" accreted to it. Pelagianism, Semipelagianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism heresies all directly tie to soteriology, as did the common practice/worship of the church (baptism, confession, etc). That's why the Eastern patriarch Jeremias told the Lutherans during the Reformation to take a hike.

"but it was there all along "

You affirm Protesant justification is an essential. Thus it is perspicuous. Yet countless generations of "Christians" blew this fundamental doctrine. Why should I believe that "it was there all along"? What would be different if we grant for argument's sake that it wasn't there all along?

"good works are the fruit and result of true faith"

Trent: "For since Christ Jesus Himself, as the head into the members and the vine into the branches, continually infuses strength into those justified, which strength always precedes, accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they could not in any manner be pleasing and meritorious before God"

"not RCC man-made traditions that came along centuries later"

How would you determine that SS and your Protestant canon were not man-made traditions that came along centuries later?

Nick said...

My latest blog post poses a serious problem for Protestants and Sola Scriptura:

http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-ultimate-and-most-effective.html

The assertion is that Scripture Alone does not tell you what Sunday Worship is supposed to look like, and thus what Protestants do on Sundays for "worship" is not actually commanded by God, but rather is man-made and thus a form of idolatry.

Ken said...

Cletus Van Damme wrote:
You affirm non-written traditions. These include: The Protestant canon, that canon is closed, public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, SS is the rule of faith, GHM is the primary or sole method to be applied to it in yielding divine truths. You ironically affirm tradition in condemning tradition.

You are calling two different things "tradition". The tradition that the apostle Paul speaks of 1 Thess. 2:15 and the other passages is God-breathed revelation or oral apostolic teaching, that they were preaching, but was not written (at the time of the Thessalonian epistles, 50-52 AD), and what was written - Galatians, 1-2 Thess.; maybe the gospel of Mark, and the epistle of James.

What you are talking about is theologically developed doctrines, based on Scripture, that naturally come out by proper exegesis and the heresies that force deeper thought on all Scripture.

The "Protestant canon" just naturally reveals itself by the existence of the NT books as individual scrolls (no such thing as a codex or book binding at the time; tying sheets together started around 150-200 and that was developed into the "codex" later in the 200s and 300s), and the OT - in the understanding of the Jews, the fact that the last verse of Malachi is picked up again with the ministry of John the Baptist in Luke 1:17; that Jesus affirmed the three parts of the Jewish canon in Luke 24:44; and affirmed the Jewish canon from Genesis to Chronicles (Luke 11:51)- the Jewish order of the books has Chronicles last. This teaching of Jesus is confirmed by the Jews, Josephus, and Jerome.

The canon is closed is a natural result of John 17:8 and John 14:26 and John 16:13 and Jude 3 and 2 Peter 3:16 and 2 Tim. 3:16 and 1 Timothy 5:18.

The hermeneutics of the grammatical historical method are just the proper rules for proper communication - taking the words of God in Scripture as the author intended them to be taken.

Matthew 22:31 clearly teaches this. God expects us to read the words and hear His voice in the reading of the words.

The Scriptures also point to Christ as the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham and David - Luke 24:25-27; 24:32; 24:44-47; John 5:39; Galatians 3:16. Types and Typology are also a part of proper hermeneutics - Galatians 4:26; Hebrews 11, 12, 13 (about the land of Canaan/Israel/promised land being a type of heaven); Romans 5 (Adam as a type of Christ), Isaac as a type of the resurrection of Christ - Heb. 11:17 and Jonah also (Jonah 1:17 and Matthew 12:39-41)

I have to go and hope to find time to comment on your other comments also.

Ken said...

oops; typo

I meant 2 Thessalonians 2:15


You are calling two different things "tradition". The tradition that the apostle Paul speaks of 2 Thess. 2:15Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) and the other passages is God-breathed revelation or oral apostolic teaching, that they were preaching, but was not written (at the time of the Thessalonian epistles, 50-52 AD), and what was written - Galatians, 1-2 Thess.; maybe the gospel of Mark, and the epistle of James.

Cletus Van Damme said...

Ken,

"The "Protestant canon" just naturally reveals itself by the existence of the NT books"

Come on. This is handwaving. The "NT books" is the very point in question. This amounts to "The canon just naturally reveals itself by the canon". Somehow this got missed for centuries during disputes over books (by both Jews with the OT and christians with the OT and NT), and is further getting missed now since your canon has passages asterisked as possibly inauthentic or non-canonical.

"This teaching of Jesus is confirmed by the Jews, Josephus, and Jerome."

You mean certain sects of Jews - there was no uniform closed canon amongst all Jews in biblical times. And Jews, Josephus, and Jerome aren't Scripture. Which is your ultimate standard.

"The canon is closed is a natural result of John"

So there were no more canonical books written or apostolic preaching after the gospel of John was written?

"The hermeneutics of the grammatical historical method are just the proper rules for proper communication - taking the words of God in Scripture as the author intended them to be taken."

Which means you violate GHM in appealing to Scripture to support SS since the author could not have intended any verses to teach SS, given it was not operative by definition. And apparently the NT writers did not get the memo since they felt no such restraint in how they interpreted and applied OT texts to support their points.

Can you tell me where GHM warrants interpreting a particular text and deriving its authorial intent via a canonical hermeneutic of using a specific set of other texts spanning hundreds of years, different cultures, different languages, different authors, and different genres, coupled with something called the “Holy Spirit” guiding said interpretation? Is that how you interpret other texts for "proper communication"?

"God expects us to read the words and hear His voice in the reading of the words."

That hardly necessitates GHM is the sole or primary hermeneutic for yielding divine truths.
GHM does not claim to nor does it answer which method – including itself – can or should be used in yielding divine truths, or whether it should serve as the primary method, or if and how it should be combined with other methods to yield proper exegesis, or what the relevant sources of divine revelation it is to be applied to in the first place consist of, or how to best apply it as a method (thus different erudite practitioners of GHM coming to conflicting or divergent conclusions and opinions), or which ever-shifting data sources and academic analysis in various fields (archaeology, history, linguistics, textual criticism, philology, sociology, anthropology, etc) integral to GHM get to count in its application and which don’t.

Nor does it answer why church fathers would freely use other exegetical methods in hammering out core doctrines during heresies, or why Jews as supposed GHM practitioners reached different OT exegetical conclusions than the Apostles did as supposed GHM practitioners.

So it still seems to me you affirm non-written traditions I listed in condemning tradition.

Nick said...

When Ken finds the time, I think my Liturgy challenge will prove quite decisive. I don't believe that the Liturgy he does on Sunday can be derived from Scripture, and thus when he gathers on Sunday to sing and read and such, this is the equivalent of the Israelites inventing the Golden Calf as how they chose to represent Yahweh.

Ken said...

Hi Nick,
I did not find your article decisive at all. The overall teaching of the Bible for a church gathering is Scripture reading/teaching, singing praise - in Psalms, hymns, spiritual songs, prayer, and the Lord's supper. When there is someone who is up for baptism, a baptismal service is part of the worship service. IMO testimonies are fine. We are free to organize those things in any order so long as it is glorifying to God. Acts 2:37-46 outlines the main elements of a worship service. I don't see 1 Cor. 10 or 11 as teaching anything close to the RCC transubstantiation or mass or sacrifice. zero.

By the way, Nick, can you explain why, when we read or quote the gospels or 1 Cor. 11 and say "Jesus said, "this is My body" and "this is My blood", why doesn't the bread and wine (or grape juice) miraculously change into the body and blood of Jesus in our worship service, since otherwise we are believing in the Lord and remembering His death and proclaiming His death until He comes ( 1 Cor. 11:25-26 )

We give time to examine ourselves and confess our sins and make things right before partaking of the Lord's supper. Why is that not good enough?

It is not a sacrifice. Jesus was sacrificed once for all. (Hebrews 7, 9, 10, Romans 6:10; 1 Peter 3:18)

check these, which put a lot of holes in the RCC claims about the ECFs and the real presence.

https://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/

and

http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/07/27/eating-ignatius/

http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/12/21/their-praise-was-their-sacrifice-part-1/

(see also parts 2-8)

Ken said...

Cletus,
I will respond to your comments, Lord willing, tomorrow or some day after that, if I find time.

Ken said...

One thing quick:

I did not write:
"The canon is closed is a natural result of John"

What I wrote was this:

The canon is closed is a natural result of John 17:8 and John 14:26 and John 16:13 and Jude 3 and 2 Peter 3:16 and 2 Tim. 3:16 and 1 Timothy 5:18.

meaning:

The canon is closed is a natural result of the teaching of John 17:8 and John 14:26 and John 16:13 and Jude 3 and 2 Peter 3:16 and 2 Tim. 3:16 and 1 Timothy 5:18 all harmonized together.

Nick said...

Ken,

You said: "I did not find your article decisive at all. The overall teaching of the Bible for a church gathering is Scripture reading/teaching, singing praise - in Psalms, hymns, spiritual songs, prayer, and the Lord's supper. When there is someone who is up for baptism, a baptismal service is part of the worship service. IMO testimonies are fine. We are free to organize those things in any order so long as it is glorifying to God. Acts 2:37-46 outlines the main elements of a worship service."

You seem to take the approach that Liturgy is pretty elsastic/subjective, such that a person is free to do basically whatever they want and count is as Divine Worship. This is understandable, but it isn't an acceptable answer theologically.

You say the "overall teaching of the Bible" for worship is gathering to read Scripture, sing songs, prayer, and the Lord's Supper. But you didn't actually quote a verse on this. This is one of those things we often assume is in the Bible...but isn't necessarily there as we think it is.

Your Acts 2 quote doesn't actually give much in the way of sufficient detail at all:
"42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes."

If you think you're going to derive the Christian Liturgy from a few verses like these, then that's no longer exegesis. There is no mention of reading the Bible here or even what is to be read, no mention of singing, and no Protestant denomination I know of lives in close community like this, nor do they "day by day" attend temple together.

Cletus Van Damme said...

Ken,

You can respond whenever you like - no pressure. As to your last statement, the point I was making was not to distort your argument, but rather that none of those passages entail revelation has ended or the canon is closed. If they did, then the books/passages written after the ones you cited don't belong, and the apostolic preaching that you agree was going on and was still occurring after the passages you referenced were written wasn't revelation. But obviously you don't hold that. It's like someone citing Deut 4:2, 12:32, Prov 30:6 to say the canon is closed and so the NT should be chucked.

Ken said...

Come on. This is handwaving. The "NT books" is the very point in question. This amounts to "The canon just naturally reveals itself by the canon".

The canon was revealed by the existence of God-breathed books/letters. If they are God-breathed, then they are automatically "criterion" / "standard" / "law" / "rule".

Just because it took some time to humanly struggle with a few of them, does not mean they weren't already in existence, God-breathed, and therefore "criterion" / "rule" / 'standard".

Ken said...

You mean certain sects of Jews - there was no uniform closed canon amongst all Jews in biblical times.

Jesus made it clear what was understood as the canon of the OT Tanakh - Luke 11:51; 24:44; John 5:39

Jesus held them responsible to read and study and hear the voice of God in Scripture. Matthew 22:31

Ken said...

the apostle expected the Galatians to read his letter and understand what he meant.

"so I say to you now" (Galatians 1:8-9)

the "I say to you now" = in my writing this letter

resort to the written letter = Sola Scriptura in principle

Cletus Van Damme said...

Ken,

Yes, if the canon exists, it exists regardless of our apprehension of it - that's not the point I'm making nor am I confusing ontology with epistemology - the identification/recognition of that canon by the church is the point though. Given you affirm the identified/recognized canon as a Protestant doctrine, and given SS as your rule of faith in which all doctrine is derived/judged by Scripture alone, I'm asking to demonstrate your consistency with SS in affirming your canon and how you distinguish that doctrine from a man-made tradition.

"resort to the written letter = Sola Scriptura in principle "

SS was not "in principle" during NT times. It couldn't have been, by definition - that's White's point. You're redefining SS to mean "Scriptural authority" but it means much more than that - RCism holds to Scriptural authority while rejecting SS. You already apparently agree unwritten tradition was operative during biblical times. So, by your argument, I can just say "Unwritten tradition in principle".

Ken said...

none of those passages entail revelation has ended or the canon is closed.

Taken together as a whole, they imply this.

Jude 3 - "the once for all delivered to the saints faith' - implies that very thing.

Since the promises of leading the disciples into all the truth are for them - in John 14, 16, and not for us (we have to resort to their writings to find the truth/word/gospel; as Irenaeus also told us, "since the tradition does exist, let us resort to the Scriptures" AH 3:5:1 see below) ; the implication is that all the truth was deposited with the disciples/apostles (and Paul being a special addition and seems to be the Lord's replacement for Judas)

Irenaeus Against Heresies, 3:5:1
1. Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him.

Ken said...

seems clear to me that a Sunday worship service is:

Teaching/ preaching the word
Prayers
Singing songs of Praise and thanksgiving

Colossians 3:16 - "singing and making melody in your hearts with Psalms, Hymns, and spiritual songs"

The book of Psalms

The Lord's supper

Nick said...

Ken, you said:

Seems clear to me that a Sunday worship service is:
Teaching/ preaching the word
Prayers
Singing songs of Praise and thanksgiving

Colossians 3:16 - "singing and making melody in your hearts with Psalms, Hymns, and spiritual songs"

The book of Psalms
The Lord's supper


What "seems clear" doesn't seem to have any clear Biblical mandate. Your quote from Colossians 3:16 is not speaking of liturgy, but of day to day stuff, and it's only speaking of singing songs.

You can't just go through the NT and lift a verse from here and there and invent a liturgy, nor can you be so generic as to say the liturgy is Scripture, Prayer, and Lord's Supper. The less details Scripture gives, the more it means you have to make it up, which means the more man-made your liturgy is.

Ken said...

where do you get the idea that a detailed liturgy has to be written out or revealed by God?

Your RCC liturgy is totally man-made also.

Nick said...

Ken,

For you to say "Your RCC liturgy is totally man-made ALSO" is a dangerous claim. That's basically saying "since you Catholics believe in traditions of men, then we Protestants ALSO get to believe in traditions of men".

The idea that you "worship" however you please on Sunday has an exact parallel with the Golden Calf incident in the OT, where the Israelites basically invented their own liturgy.

Liturgy in some concrete form has to be revealed by God, otherwise it means God doesn't care how He is worshiped, which cannot be given that God is opposed to false worship.

Ken said...

We have the Psalms and the theology of the whole bible, the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, and the first 4 ecumenical creeds flesh out the theology that is Biblical about God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

We have verses that say, "sing a new song to the Lord", etc. and "play on the string instruments with skill", etc.

and
the chapters on the Lord's supper, "do this in remembrance of Me", etc.

and
lots of Scripture about teaching and preaching.

exhortations to reading Scripture and prayer.

So:
preaching and teaching from Scripture
Scripture reading
Singing songs of worship and praise that are doctrinal in content
Prayers
The Lord's supper
Baptism when there is someone ready
etc.
these are the contents of a Biblical worship service.

So, I honestly do not see your point, that seems to be that the liturgy HAS to be revealed by God about the specific order of saying words, and I guess, you are including Transubstantiation, a man-made doctrine and superstition that was developed more from the 800s - 1215 AD and then defended by Aquinas later.



Ken said...

We don't "worship the Lord however we please"

rather

we worship the Lord in Spirit and in Truth.

according to the Truth of Scripture.

Praising Him in His attributes and sound doctrinal propositions and content, etc. (singing, praying, preaching in according with sound doctrine.)

Nick said...

Having the Psalms and the Bible and Creeds doesn't tell you what the Liturgy is supposed to be. Simply quoting a verse here and a verse there from Scripture doesn't answer the question, it simply means you will take whatever verses of Scripture you want to be Liturgical and order them however you think is best.

St Paul speaks of women wearing head coverings, and yet nobody I know has that as a requirement. So it's not enough to simply go through and pick out which verses you like.

There are a lot of passages on teaching and preaching and such, but that doesn't mean they are liturgical, nor does it tell you how it is to be done within the Liturgy. Even the Sacraments aren't clearly part of the Liturgy within Protestantism, as many Protestants don't even do the Lord's Supper ever week. And in terms of Baptism, I don't know anywhere in the Bible where it was done in within the Liturgy.

The format of Liturgy that you do on Sunday is pretty fixed and not many people would tolerate changing it. What you need to realize is that the format you're going by is not laid out in Scripture, it's made up by men.

Joe said...

Nick,

You said, "The idea that you "worship" however you please on Sunday has an exact parallel with the Golden Calf incident in the OT, where the Israelites basically invented their own liturgy."

How does the golden calf incident speak to the liturgy at all? They were worshipping a golden statue, not the Lord...

Quoting EJ on your own blog post, and being a Roman Catholic himself:

I also find it strange that you accuse Protestants of engaging in manmade worship and being idolaters, yet you base your opinion of them on a manmade syllogism and not on Church teaching.

and EJ quoting your Catechism: 819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

and finally... The harshness comes from you and not from the Church. I am not saying that Protestants have “bits and pieces” of the truth, as you have put it. It is the Church that has pointed out to us the elements of truth that our separated brothers and sisters have in common with us. You seem to think little of what the Church teaches.

In Him,
Joe

Ken said...

λειτουργούντων δὲ αὐτῶν τῷ κυρίῳ

As they were ministering / (worshiping ) to the Lord . . .
Acts 13:2

The word Liturgy is just a man-made word anyway, based on the Greek word there in Acts 13:2, one of the places it is used.

We are free to worship God with Scripture, reading, preaching, teaching, singing, praying. We don't celebrate the Lord's supper every Sunday either, but rather once a month, which I think is good.

None of what you say really carries any weight with me, since you are right in the sense that that an order of worship is not laid out word for word, but the general idea is for us to worship God by Scripture, prayer, singing, teaching, etc. and we can arrange the order however we want to and that is not a big deal to me.

Nick said...

Ken,

You said: None of what you say really carries any weight with me, since you are right in the sense that that an order of worship is not laid out word for word, but the general idea is for us to worship God by Scripture, prayer, singing, teaching, etc. and we can arrange the order however we want to and that is not a big deal to me.

The main problem I have here is that you haven't actually given any Scriptural verses that say what the "general idea" is for Christian Liturgy. The closest thing you've listed is the Lord's Supper, which you say you only do once a month. I don't even think you've given a verse that says singing is supposed to be done during liturgy.

As for your admission that you only celebrated the Lord's Supper once a month, this is astonishing because either it is part of liturgy or it isn't. If it is part of liturgy, you have no right to only do it 25% of the time. This suggests a person can celebrate the Lord's Supper as rarely as they feel like it, and by extension they can leave out Scripture, prayer, etc, as often as they feel like it. All this reduces down to a liturgical relativism, which really isn't liturgy at all, but more and more a man-made event according to personal taste.


Ken said...

Where does it say in Scripture that the Lord's supper Is REQUIRED to be done EVERY SUNDAY?

Liturgy is just an English word for the order /service of worship of singing, prayers, Scripture reading, teaching and preaching.

It developed from the word for worship, which I showed you.

Liturgy, in the meaning of the later development of it (the rituals and actions and words of a worship service) is not required in Scripture.

So we are free to worship with prayers, Scripture reading, preaching, teaching, singing, and the Lord's Supper once a month if we want to. I do think once a quarter is not often enough, but every week is fine also, but I agree with once a month, and don't have any objections to either every week or once a month. Each church is free to choose which way they go on that, IMO.

Ken said...

There are a good group of folks who are part of the "house church movement" (based on the many verses at the end of the epistles that say, "the church that meets in their house", etc. ) that base a lot of what they do on the info in the NT and have meals together - the original Lord's Supper was at the end of a full meal, after worship in preaching, teaching, praying, singing praises, etc.

The would use Acts 2, I Cor. 11 and 1 Cor. 14:26 (some are continualists in matters of spiritual gifts, etc.)

But many of these folks burn out because using their own home in today's society, etc. is very difficult when the church grows. If the church never grows and it is kept small, that is another thing.

In Iran, other Muslim countries, and other places like China, N. Korea, believers meet secretly in homes.

But Scripture does not require house churches, and it does not require a certain liturgy. It just says that the believers met together regularly, and sometimes in early chapters "day by day", etc. and in the temple, until later; and on Sundays (Acts 20:7, I Cor. 16:1-2 - oh yeah, and taking up a collection / worship by giving to God's work is based on that; see also Revelation 1:10, which is not about meeting for worship on Sunday, but is about John being in the Spirit "on the Lord's day", which seems to also mean "Sunday".)

When they met, it says they worshipped, etc. It doesn't specify the details of how to worship. But we know from the rest of Scripture the ways in which worship is carried out.

Ken said...

As for your admission that you only celebrated the Lord's Supper once a month, this is astonishing because either it is part of liturgy or it isn't."

Does not bother me one bit at all.

Joey Henry said...

Hi Ken,

Just want to drop a comment regarding the liturgy argument that Nick gave. He really believes this is one of his ultimate argument. And it bothers him that his argument is not taken seriously. The reason I don't take it seriously is because of the following:

1. It presupposes an understanding of the application of sola scriptura that is erroneous. For example, it demands that the perfect order, words and programs of the believer's assembly should be laid out in the Bible otherwise it is in violation of the sola scriptura principle. This is simply a wrong understanding of the tenet.

2. There are many things in the Christian life, practice and decision making that is not detailed in Scripture but are controlled, principled and guided by Scripture. For example, we are commanded to take care of our bodies but the Scripture does not detail whether we are to do 10 sit-ups per day or have glutten free diet for breakfast. We are commanded to love but the Scripture does not detail that on Monday we are to give 10 dollars to homeless to show love. In other words, Scripture gives us principles and guidance on which we apply to each of our situations; the details of which vary in different ways.

3. Thus, we are commanded in Scripture to gather together in worship. There are guidelines and principles in Scripture what we are to do in these gatherings. One major objective is for edification which Scripture gives us guidelines such as preaching, singing and exhorting. But it is not limited to those only because we see also as situation permit the celebration of the Lord's Supper or Baptism. Or, the prayer for the sick or rebuking or disciplining or ordaining leaders. There are many things that Scripture provides as priciples and practices that we can apply when we gather. There are liberties on what and when to do it. And so, our commitment to gather together to edify fellow believers and create programs to that end is a full commitment to Sola Scriptura rather than a violation of it.

4. As a practical example: In China, most underground church gathering significantly differ in their practices when they worship together. Theirs is very basic. Sometimes, it is merely the reading of Scripture and prayer during the service. They have to make it quick and fast. At times, it is testimonial and thanksgiving. Are they violating Sola Scriptura or is their practice not in accordance with Scripture? Of course not. The principle is laid out in Scripture the application of which differ in every situation. We dare not say that their "liturgy" is deficient compared to the gathering we have for theirs might be more meaningful due to the persecution they experienced, although short and basic. It is not the form or length of words and ornaments used that the Scripture prescribed after all when we gather together in worship but the heart.

Regards,
Joey Henry

Algo said...

A great presentation on 2 Tim 3 in Sessions One & Two:



https://www.monergism.com/legacy/mt/mp3/patristic-roots-reformation-historical-basis-evangelical-belief-david-t-king

Algo said...

And Regarding 2 Thes 2:15

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2008/04/2-thess-215-comments-answered.html

Algo said...

Also:

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2008/04/tradition-distinguished-abuse-of-2.html

Algo said...

"In Galatians 1:14, Paul makes reference to 'the traditions of my fathers' and in Colossians 2:8, 'the tradition of men'. Charles Hodge notes that Galatians 1:14 and Colossians 2:8 are references 'to what is human and untrustworthy...and frequently in the gospels of the elders.'

Only in the remaining three instances (1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6), where the noun (paradosis) appears, do we find binding Christian tradition in the New Testament. In each of these, the apostle makes reference to authoritative apostolic tradition which he had 'delivered' (1 Cor. 11:2), 'taught' (2 Thess. 2:15), or 'commanded' (2 Thess. 3:6).

In all three cases, the tradition(s) to which he referred could be objectively identified by his readers.

These traditions were not something awaiting the future development of a living voice because, firstly, they had already been 'delivered' to the Corinthians who were 'keeping' them (1 Cor. 11:2), and secondly, they had already been 'taught' to the Thessalonians who were commanded to 'stand fast' in them and 'hold them' (2 Thess. 2:15). Thirdly, they were commanded to 'walk' according to them, clearly indicating that the Thessalonians were already acquainted with them (2 Thess. 3:6).

This being the case, not one of these texts supports the modern Roman view that 'tradition' in the New Testament can refer to a future unfolding of doctrinal development, or unidentified dogma awaiting future definition.

Why? Because the Church was already in possession of these traditions. They were already 'keeping' them, 'holding' them, and 'walking' in them.

The verbs used to describe the relationship of these traditions to Christian observance make no sense unless they had already been identified and defined. Every reference to 'tradition' in these passages has to do with doctrinal or moral rules already delivered."


David T. King Vol I Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith p.112

Ken said...

And it bothers him [ Nick the Catholic ]that his argument is not taken seriously.

Thanks Joey Henry for excellent analysis. You pretty much wrote better what I was trying to say.
Always appreciate your thoughtful comments here.

I am amazed that Nick things those are even good arguments to make.
Ken

Ken said...

Algo,
Good job !!

I have not had time to digest everything, but you are providing all the evidence that the Roman Catholics need.

Thanks for the quote from Anthony Lane's article on Scripture and Tradition - that is a very important article.

The links and quotes and references from King and Webster's books are great.

Thanks bro!

Nick said...

Ken,
In case you were curious, I wrote a new article on the incoherence of the Protestant view of the Sacraments. If the Sacraments are merely an outward testimony of what Jesus has already done for you, then it basically makes Baptism and Lord's Supper indistinguishable from each other. Why celebrate the Lord's Supper to "recall" what Jesus did for you when Baptism is the same purpose to "recall" what Jesus did for you?

Ken said...

Why celebrate the Lord's Supper to "recall" what Jesus did for you when Baptism is the same purpose to "recall" what Jesus did for you?

Because baptism is a one-time event/experience connected with initial repentance and faith in Christ - Luke 24:46-47; 13:1-5; 5:32; Acts 2:38; 3:19; Acts 17:30; 26:20

whereas the Lord's supper is an ongoing continuation that is connected with perseverance, abiding, and sanctification of the person.

John 6:55 - definitional to abiding in Christ - continuing, dwelling with Christ, remaining in Him. John 15:1-16

We need reminders since we are weak and forget (2 Peter chapter 1) and can drift away. (Hebrews 2, 3, 4)

Ken said...

And Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of Me"
1 Corinthians 11:24

Luke 22:19-20