Recently I was interacting with some Muslims about the longer ending of Mark 16. One Muslim on his web-site says that the longer ending of Mark discredits all of Christianity itself!
Christians are honest about the manuscripts, so that is actually a very positive point about the manuscript evidence of Mark 16:9-20. We have nothing to fear from the archeological and manuscript evidence. The evidence is positive for the OT and NT.
Mark 16:1-8 includes the empty tomb, the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, which includes the crucifixion and the necessity of His death - so, this is not a strike against Christianity itself. (and solid manuscript evidence of His trial and sufferings and crucifixion and death in Mark chapters 14-15)
6 And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him.
7"But go, tell His disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.'"
8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. " Mark 16:6-8
The fact that the last few verses (Mark 16:6-8), which are not disputed, contains the testimony of the crucifixion, empty tomb, and the resurrection, should stop the mouths of those who want to cast doubt on the rest of Mark and all of Christianity, just because of Mark 16:9-20.
The death and resurrection of Christ are included in the rest of Mark (1:1-16:8), including Jesus' predicting his trial and death and resurrection in chapters 8-9; so it is valid and contradicts the Qur'an denial of real history (the crucifixion and death of Jesus Al Masih) in Surah 4:157.
Islam denies real history - in Surah 4:157, (but believes the miracle of the virgin birth of Christ, which Muslims affirm in Surah 19:19-21; Surah 3:45-48), whereas even liberal and skeptic and unbelieving scholars in the west like John Dominic Crossan, the late Robert Funk, John Shelby Spong, and Bart Ehrman ALL agree that the historical Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and died in history under Pontius Pilate, the Romans, and the Jewish council (Caiaphas, Annas, chief priest, scribes, Pharisees, etc.) around 30 AD.
Furthermore, the correct doctrinal content of Mark 16:9-20 is testified to and repeated in Matthew, Luke, John, and Acts. (the resurrection appearances and the Great Commission in 16:15 are in Matthew 28, Luke 24; John 20-21; and Acts chapter 1) The only questions in the Mark passage are about
a. appearing to them in "another form" (that may be another way of talking about Luke 24:13-33 and that they did not recognize Jesus until He opened their eyes.)
b. including baptism as he does in Mark 16:16 - even so, baptism is not included in the condemnation.
c. the part about tongues and snakes. (although God did do a miracle and protected Paul from the snake bite in Acts 28)
The rest of it is all orthodox (correct) in doctrine.
I asked this Muslim, "Have you read Dr. White's discussion of the longer version of Mark (16:9-20) in his book, The King James Only Controversy??" ( pp. 225-227 in the first edition, 1995) (He has a newer edition out which is even better)
Dr. White answers the questions that arise about this passage, and shows the evidence that many manuscripts that do contain the passage.
So, the issues of the longer ending of Mark (16:9-20) in no way takes down the rest of the Scriptures of the NT or the Bible, nor Christianity itself.
There are no real contradictions in the gospels; (they have all been answered) and there is no evolution from Mark to John, etc. That idea of "evolution" of the gospels and "redaction", etc. is an anti-supernatural bias against miracles and against God being able to speak and reveal Himself through prophets and books. Since Islam agrees with the truth of God, monotheism, and that He send prophets and books; Islamic apologists should not use arguments from liberals who operate from the same anti-supernatural bias.
The telescoping and including some details that other Gospels don't; and other writers excluding details are not contradictions, they are actually stronger evidences of a real eyewitness testimony, because if it was the exact same words four times, they would know that there was collusion. (as a detective or policemen know when investigating the historical circumstances of a case.)
In 1993, on a street in Istanbul, Turkey, during the month of Ramadan, one of my Turkish neighbors asked me, "why do you have four gospels? there must only be one Injeel!" (Injeel is the word for "gospel".) As we stood there at the intersection, and he spoke his broken English and I my broken Turkish, other young men began to gather round. I asked him, "what do you think? If there is a car accident here at the intersection; then, in a Turkish court of law, what is better; one witness on one corner, or one witness on each corner, making it four witnesses?" He paused and said, "Doru!" ("that's right!") "Dort tane daha iyidir!" ("Four of them are better!") Then he explained his new understanding to the other 10-15 or so other young Turks who had gathered around in curiosity. Then he asked me, "I would like an Injeel in Turkish, can you get one for me?" Yes, and I did. He enjoyed reading it in secret for about 3 months. Then his father discovered him reading it, pulled a knife on him (threatening), ripped it up and burned most of it. (he later told me) A few days later, one page of the Turkish NT (Injeel, "Incil" (In Turkish, the letter "c" is a "j" sound) was on my doorstep. It seemed to be a warning - "don't give the Injeel to my son!". My Turkish friend later also told me he was sad, because he enjoyed reading the Injeel; and that Isa Masih (Jesus the Messiah) was the most noble and sinless character he had ever read about. He said the Injeel was very different than what the Mollahs ("Hoca" - Turkish, pronounced, "Hoja") had said that the Christian Bible was about.
"How shall they hear without a preacher?"
Monday, March 21, 2011
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Luther is in Hell? So Says Robert Sungenis
If the word "condemned" actually means what I think it does, Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis has determined Luther's eternal fate. Commenting on John Paul II, Sungenis states-
Although the pope wasn’t in Regensburg to sign the final draft of the Joint Declaration (and neither was Cardinal Ratzinger), Cardinal Cassidy, who was representing the Catholic Church, eagerly put his signature on it. This was the end of a process begun by John Paul II in November of 1980, when he had already given implicit sanction to Luther’s faith alone doctrine by stating at a Lutheran church in Germany that the Lutherans had a “profound religiousness and spiritual heritage” and that Martin Luther was driven by a “burning passion of the question of eternal salvation,” which ended in him telling the Lutheran bishops that “Rome’s excommunication of Luther had expired when he died,” which fact he then encouraged them to use in order to pave the way for the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue. What the pope didn’t tell them is that if an excommunication is not rescinded before the person dies, the Church considers his soul condemned; and the false doctrine that caused the excommunication is still heresy. Instead, John Paul II told them: “There is a need for a new evaluation of the questions raised by Luther and his teaching.” Apparently the Council of Trent wasn’t good enough for John Paul II. [source]
Although the pope wasn’t in Regensburg to sign the final draft of the Joint Declaration (and neither was Cardinal Ratzinger), Cardinal Cassidy, who was representing the Catholic Church, eagerly put his signature on it. This was the end of a process begun by John Paul II in November of 1980, when he had already given implicit sanction to Luther’s faith alone doctrine by stating at a Lutheran church in Germany that the Lutherans had a “profound religiousness and spiritual heritage” and that Martin Luther was driven by a “burning passion of the question of eternal salvation,” which ended in him telling the Lutheran bishops that “Rome’s excommunication of Luther had expired when he died,” which fact he then encouraged them to use in order to pave the way for the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue. What the pope didn’t tell them is that if an excommunication is not rescinded before the person dies, the Church considers his soul condemned; and the false doctrine that caused the excommunication is still heresy. Instead, John Paul II told them: “There is a need for a new evaluation of the questions raised by Luther and his teaching.” Apparently the Council of Trent wasn’t good enough for John Paul II. [source]
Tidbits
1. Internet Explorer 9 and Being Assimilated by Quick Time
I upgraded all my computers to IE 9 a few days ago. I figured something wouldn't work correctly. I've got a few different audio / video programs, but I've set all the defaults to Windows Media Player. With IE 9, all audio began opening in a separate window with a small Quick Time bar with no controls. So I looked over all the Internet options stuff which was all still set to WMP. I tried a variety of things, but Quick Time decided it was not going to leave, so I completely removed the program. The ironic thing is about a month ago I explained to a friend with the same problem he didn't know how to work his Internet options. Kudos to Quick Time for hijacking my computers.
2. How's Family Radio Doing?
I've been meaning to check in with Family Radio now that doomsday is even closer. I'd be curious if Mr. Camping has been answering any questions about the recent earthquakes. Patrick Madrid actually posted an interesting X-File on the recent earthquakes here. Here's a great overview of Harold Camping from a URC minister (part two here). Also, here's a recent mp3 of testimonies of ex-Camping followers.
Camping Countdown clock:
3. House Church Revisited
A while back I put together a brief article on the house church movement for James White's website: Tradition and the House Church Movement. After I wrote this article, the main leaders of this movement contacted me, and we went back and forth a bit. Recently the pastor of my church touched on this subject, and the audio link can be found here.
4. Catholic Answers Grows Up in Regard to Luther
I never thought I'd see the day when Roman Catholics would be correcting Roman Catholics about Luther. They're now saying some of the stuff I've said for years. This post, Catholic Church and Luther asks "What is the Catholic Churches views toward Martin Luther today?" The normal response is heretic or madman. This time someone actually said, "The Catholic Church has no infallible official view, with respect to Martin Luther." That is indeed true. Hubert Jedin was a German Roman Catholic historian from the Universities of Breslau and Bonn. He was a specialist in the history of the Council of Trent. He pointed out that Catholicism never condemned Luther by name at Trent, and that no official judgment on Luther exists by which a loyal Catholic is bound. There are many Roman Catholic scholars that are quite benevolent toward Luther, a partial list of these can be found here.
Also interesting was someone quoting Patrick O'Hare's The Facts About Luther and then having another participant state:
Ohare's book should not be used as a citation in this day and age. His book was a popular polemic intended to arm catholics to fire back at the vitriolic anti-catholic culture of America in that day (1900ish). But Ohare wasn't very good about carefully citing his sources by modern standards. It's really hard to substantiate some of his claims when you're challenged. Read the book if you like, but get corroborating evidence before citing him. In some cases he doesn't name sources, for other claims he names sources that have been since lost and there does appear to be some distortions, maybe even falsehoods in there.
That's amazing, I never thought anyone besides me would post something like this on Catholic Answers. The actual O'Hare section was as follows:
Martin Luther looked around and saw the damage that Sola Scriptura and 'private interpretation' of Holy Scripture was doing to his 'reformation', and made the following remarks...
"This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet" De Wette III, 61. quoted in O'Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.
I've covered this quote before. Luther isn’t talking about the devastating effect of sola scriptura. He’s talking about the devastating effect of the devil, who, Luther says, was at peace in his papal fortress, but now with the gospel being loudly proclaimed, must find a different way to keep men enslaved to sin and darkness. One of the Roman Catholic participants corrected the person posting this by stating,
His last years and months were more anti-papal and pro-evangelical Christianity more than he ever was. Luther didn't make this statement as a "what have I done!!?" type of sentiment Catholics would like it to say but rather he was disappointed that so many Christians who had started off by making the right decision (in his mind) to leave Catholicism made poor choices in going in Zwinglian directions or Reformed type theology (even though Calvin wasn't a contemporary there were Calvinist type overtones already) and Anabaptist thinking, etc. He felt Lutheranism was reformed Christianity and lamented that so many made the poor choice, in his opinion, of not following his lead. He was sad that there was chaos, but he wasn't regretful.
5. The King's Speech
I went to see this yesterday (finally) and thought it was very well done. Yes, it indeed deserved to win awards over Inception.
I upgraded all my computers to IE 9 a few days ago. I figured something wouldn't work correctly. I've got a few different audio / video programs, but I've set all the defaults to Windows Media Player. With IE 9, all audio began opening in a separate window with a small Quick Time bar with no controls. So I looked over all the Internet options stuff which was all still set to WMP. I tried a variety of things, but Quick Time decided it was not going to leave, so I completely removed the program. The ironic thing is about a month ago I explained to a friend with the same problem he didn't know how to work his Internet options. Kudos to Quick Time for hijacking my computers.
2. How's Family Radio Doing?
I've been meaning to check in with Family Radio now that doomsday is even closer. I'd be curious if Mr. Camping has been answering any questions about the recent earthquakes. Patrick Madrid actually posted an interesting X-File on the recent earthquakes here. Here's a great overview of Harold Camping from a URC minister (part two here). Also, here's a recent mp3 of testimonies of ex-Camping followers.
Camping Countdown clock:
3. House Church Revisited
A while back I put together a brief article on the house church movement for James White's website: Tradition and the House Church Movement. After I wrote this article, the main leaders of this movement contacted me, and we went back and forth a bit. Recently the pastor of my church touched on this subject, and the audio link can be found here.
4. Catholic Answers Grows Up in Regard to Luther
I never thought I'd see the day when Roman Catholics would be correcting Roman Catholics about Luther. They're now saying some of the stuff I've said for years. This post, Catholic Church and Luther asks "What is the Catholic Churches views toward Martin Luther today?" The normal response is heretic or madman. This time someone actually said, "The Catholic Church has no infallible official view, with respect to Martin Luther." That is indeed true. Hubert Jedin was a German Roman Catholic historian from the Universities of Breslau and Bonn. He was a specialist in the history of the Council of Trent. He pointed out that Catholicism never condemned Luther by name at Trent, and that no official judgment on Luther exists by which a loyal Catholic is bound. There are many Roman Catholic scholars that are quite benevolent toward Luther, a partial list of these can be found here.
Also interesting was someone quoting Patrick O'Hare's The Facts About Luther and then having another participant state:
Ohare's book should not be used as a citation in this day and age. His book was a popular polemic intended to arm catholics to fire back at the vitriolic anti-catholic culture of America in that day (1900ish). But Ohare wasn't very good about carefully citing his sources by modern standards. It's really hard to substantiate some of his claims when you're challenged. Read the book if you like, but get corroborating evidence before citing him. In some cases he doesn't name sources, for other claims he names sources that have been since lost and there does appear to be some distortions, maybe even falsehoods in there.
That's amazing, I never thought anyone besides me would post something like this on Catholic Answers. The actual O'Hare section was as follows:
Martin Luther looked around and saw the damage that Sola Scriptura and 'private interpretation' of Holy Scripture was doing to his 'reformation', and made the following remarks...
"This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet" De Wette III, 61. quoted in O'Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.
I've covered this quote before. Luther isn’t talking about the devastating effect of sola scriptura. He’s talking about the devastating effect of the devil, who, Luther says, was at peace in his papal fortress, but now with the gospel being loudly proclaimed, must find a different way to keep men enslaved to sin and darkness. One of the Roman Catholic participants corrected the person posting this by stating,
His last years and months were more anti-papal and pro-evangelical Christianity more than he ever was. Luther didn't make this statement as a "what have I done!!?" type of sentiment Catholics would like it to say but rather he was disappointed that so many Christians who had started off by making the right decision (in his mind) to leave Catholicism made poor choices in going in Zwinglian directions or Reformed type theology (even though Calvin wasn't a contemporary there were Calvinist type overtones already) and Anabaptist thinking, etc. He felt Lutheranism was reformed Christianity and lamented that so many made the poor choice, in his opinion, of not following his lead. He was sad that there was chaos, but he wasn't regretful.
5. The King's Speech
I went to see this yesterday (finally) and thought it was very well done. Yes, it indeed deserved to win awards over Inception.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
God’s Sovereignty in Election motivates Evangelism and Missions
2 Peter 3:9 is a call to evangelism and missions without contradicting God's sovereignty in Election
The recent discussions and blogs about Rob Bell's new book , Love Wins and his heretical views gives us good opportunity to address these related issues on the gospel, heaven, hell, judgment, universalism, God's sovereignty, evangelism, and missions.
Context of 2 Peter chapter 3: The Second Coming of Christ (“Where is the promise of His coming?” (2 Peter 3:4), judgment, fire (destruction of the present earth and atmosphere (2 Peter 3:7) and hell or the Lake of fire ( see also Mark 9:48, Matthew 5:22-30; Revelation 20:10-15; and Revelation 14:10 - unbelievers are tortured forever and ever in the presence of the lamb (!) ) the New Heavens and the New Earth (2 Peter 3:10, 13).
2 Peter chapter 3 is telling us the main reason why time continues to go on now.
Because God is not finished saving His elect people from all nations – Revelation 5:9 [notice that they are already, past tense, redeemed or purchased for God with the blood of the lamb!] (some out from every nation, people, tribe, and tongue”; Rev. 7:9 ; Rev. 21:3 (they are His “peoples” – a people from all peoples; some ancient manuscripts have the plural (Greek - laoi - λαοὶ )– which fits with Rev. 5:9 and 7:9) ; John 10:16 ("I have other sheep, I must bring them also; and they will hear My voice").
‘The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. “ 2 Peter 3:9
The Lord’s patience toward “you” (believers) includes the believers and their diligence in “making their calling and election sure” – 2 Peter 1:10, but also for them to be involved in evangelism and missions.
Dr. White showed the context and contrast between the mockers/skeptics/unbelievers (they) in verses 3-5 and that they are a different group from the “you” of verse 9. On the recent Dividing Line Program, at the end where he has a good discussion with a man named Lars, who is on his way, and growing in the doctrines of grace, it seems, but says he struggles with Irresistible Grace (or better, "effectual grace") the most out of the 5 points of Calvinism.
The Lord is patient toward believers (the elect in Christ, who already know they are justified and saved) to get on with being diligent in evangelism and missions, for the elect can only be saved if they hear the message and repent and believe.
“. . . regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation” (v. 15) – salvation for who? For those who have yet to repent (v. 9) , who will repent in the future at the preaching of the gospel.
The Delay of the Second Coming of Christ should motivate
1. Holiness and godliness ( 2 Peter 3:11-12, 14)
And
2. Evangelism and missions (2 Peter 3:9 and 15)
The elect among all nations who have not repented yet are not saved yet.
They must hear the message (Romans 10:13-15) in order to then repent and believe. (Romans 10:9-10)
"How shall they believe in Him in whom they have not heard?" And how shall they hear unless there is a preacher?" And how shall they preach unless they are sent?"
(see Romans 10:13-15)
2 Timothy 2:10 – “For this reason, I endure all things for the sake of the elect, in order that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it, eternal glory.” Notice the purpose of Paul’s suffering and endurance (see verses 8-9) is “in order that the elect be saved. They are not saved yet. We don’t know who the elect are. We must preach and teach and suffer and serve and endure and some of us should go and learn languages and be with people in an unreached people group that needs to hear the gospel in their own language. This is one of the clearest verses that show that God’s sovereignty in election motivate evangelism, and should motivate us to be willing to suffer and endure hardship in evangelism, discipleship, church-planting, and counseling and shepherding the flock.
The doctrine of Election does not save people, but election guarantees the results of our preaching and evangelism and missions – some people will be saved!
John 10:16 “other sheep I have, I must bring them also”
Acts 18:9-10 - “keep on preaching, do not be afraid, for I have many people in that city” (but they have yet to repent and believe in Christ)
Acts 13:48 - “they heard the message, and as many as were appointed to eternal life, believed.”
Acts 16:14 – Lydia was listening . . . “. . . And the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.” This, in my opinion, is perhaps the clearest verse on effectual grace, otherwise known as “Irresistible Grace”.
“Evangelism and missions are not imperiled by the biblical truth of election, but empowered by it, and their triumph is secured by it. “ (John Piper, The Pleasures of God, Multnomah, 1991, p. 149)
On that same Dividing Line program, Lars was bringing up the issue of Jesus weeping over Jerusalem ( Luke 19:41-44) He (and many others) seems to confuse that with Matthew 23:37, which it actually does not say Jesus wept. Dr. White has a good discussion of that in The Potter's Freedom.
To help him think through the issue, Dr. White asked Lars, “Will God be weeping in eternity?”
“The tears of Christ are not tears of frustration of not being able to save them . . .”
In the John 11 passage, where “Jesus wept”, “they are the tears over the consequences of sin and His entering into our experience of death and separation.”
John Piper’s book, The Pleasures of God is one of the best books I have read on the issue of God’s delight and pleasure in His own glory and "being God"; and it is the deepest book on God's sovereignty that I have read. ( I am still on page 30 of Jonathan Edwards book, The Freedom of the Will, after starting it over 10 years ago! The syntax and sentences are just too cumbersome for me.) Piper explains how God can both delight in His own will in saving people from all nations, and delight in judging other wicked sinners. He shows how God does not delight in the death of the wicked. (Ezekiel 18:23, 32; 33:11) But Piper also shows that God also delights in His exercise of righteous justice and judgment in the death of the wicked. (Deuteronomy 28:63)
John Piper's book, The Pleasures of God: Meditations on God's Delight in Being God
Piper discusses Psalm 135:6, Ezekiel 18:32, and Deuteronomy 28:63. The Biblical writers use the same Hebrew word in these passages for “delight” or “take pleasure in” or “please”.
The Lord does whatever He pleases. Psalm 115:3, 135:6
“The does not delight or take pleasure in the death of the wicked” Ezekiel 18:32
So this shows that God is not a sadist or a sinner, when He punishes the wicked by eternal death in hell. It is justice.
When God judges sin - “The Lord does delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you” (Deuteronomy 28:63)
“So we are brought back to the inescapable fact that in some sense God does not delight in the death of the wicked (that is the message of Ezekiel 18), and in some sense he does (that is the message implicitly of Psalm 135:6-11 and explicitly of Deuteronomy 28:63”. (Piper, ibid, p. 65, my emphasis)
“Election is the guarantee that God not only invites people to be delivered, but also actually delivers them. 'You shall call His name Jesus, because He shall save His people from their sins.' (Matthew 1:21) God undertakes with omnipotence to save His people. He plans it in election, and he achieves it through the work of His Son, and He applies it infallibly by His Holy Spirit through faith. The predestined are called, the called are justified, the justified are glorified.” (Romans 8:30) The destiny of God’s people, rooted in election, is unshakable sure.” (Piper, ibid, p. 143-144)
Peter goes on 2 Peter 3:15-16 to indicate that God's patience with the people of God in them getting out and serving and witnessing and evangelizing the lost, and God's work in saving people; and desiring their repentance, but also that He is sovereign in election and predestination, is what the apostle Paul has already written about. Peter affirms all of Paul's letters as Scripture. That would seem to point to passages that deal with the mystery of God's sovereignty, and His patience and goodness that leads people to repentance. We are reminded of such passages as I Timothy 2:4; Romans 2:4; 9:15-18; 9:22-24; and 11:22-26 that Peter may have in mind. (possibly also relating to 2 Corinthians 5:11; Ephesians chapter 1; Colossians 1:24-27)
Peter exhorts the elect people of God scattered throughout areas of Asia Minor, Bythinia, Pontus, Galatia, Cappodocia (1 Peter 1:1-2) [all areas in modern day Turkey] and 2 Peter 3:1 says it is the second letter he is writing to them.
Obviously God is omniscient, and has the events of the future fixed by His own authority (Acts 1:6-8), but it seems from a human perspective, Peter is exhorting the church that holiness, godliness, evangelism, and missions, make it seem like we are "hastening" (NASB, ESV) or "speeding" (NIV) the coming day of God. 2 Peter 3:11-12 Whatever that might mean, it certainly shows us in context one of the reasons why time continues until the second coming of Christ. God uses the means of holiness and godliness and service and love and suffering and evangelism and missions in accomplishing His purposes in the world.
11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat." (2 Peter 3:11-12 NIV)
The recent discussions and blogs about Rob Bell's new book , Love Wins and his heretical views gives us good opportunity to address these related issues on the gospel, heaven, hell, judgment, universalism, God's sovereignty, evangelism, and missions.
Context of 2 Peter chapter 3: The Second Coming of Christ (“Where is the promise of His coming?” (2 Peter 3:4), judgment, fire (destruction of the present earth and atmosphere (2 Peter 3:7) and hell or the Lake of fire ( see also Mark 9:48, Matthew 5:22-30; Revelation 20:10-15; and Revelation 14:10 - unbelievers are tortured forever and ever in the presence of the lamb (!) ) the New Heavens and the New Earth (2 Peter 3:10, 13).
2 Peter chapter 3 is telling us the main reason why time continues to go on now.
Because God is not finished saving His elect people from all nations – Revelation 5:9 [notice that they are already, past tense, redeemed or purchased for God with the blood of the lamb!] (some out from every nation, people, tribe, and tongue”; Rev. 7:9 ; Rev. 21:3 (they are His “peoples” – a people from all peoples; some ancient manuscripts have the plural (Greek - laoi - λαοὶ )– which fits with Rev. 5:9 and 7:9) ; John 10:16 ("I have other sheep, I must bring them also; and they will hear My voice").
‘The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. “ 2 Peter 3:9
The Lord’s patience toward “you” (believers) includes the believers and their diligence in “making their calling and election sure” – 2 Peter 1:10, but also for them to be involved in evangelism and missions.
Dr. White showed the context and contrast between the mockers/skeptics/unbelievers (they) in verses 3-5 and that they are a different group from the “you” of verse 9. On the recent Dividing Line Program, at the end where he has a good discussion with a man named Lars, who is on his way, and growing in the doctrines of grace, it seems, but says he struggles with Irresistible Grace (or better, "effectual grace") the most out of the 5 points of Calvinism.
The Lord is patient toward believers (the elect in Christ, who already know they are justified and saved) to get on with being diligent in evangelism and missions, for the elect can only be saved if they hear the message and repent and believe.
“. . . regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation” (v. 15) – salvation for who? For those who have yet to repent (v. 9) , who will repent in the future at the preaching of the gospel.
The Delay of the Second Coming of Christ should motivate
1. Holiness and godliness ( 2 Peter 3:11-12, 14)
And
2. Evangelism and missions (2 Peter 3:9 and 15)
The elect among all nations who have not repented yet are not saved yet.
They must hear the message (Romans 10:13-15) in order to then repent and believe. (Romans 10:9-10)
"How shall they believe in Him in whom they have not heard?" And how shall they hear unless there is a preacher?" And how shall they preach unless they are sent?"
(see Romans 10:13-15)
2 Timothy 2:10 – “For this reason, I endure all things for the sake of the elect, in order that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it, eternal glory.” Notice the purpose of Paul’s suffering and endurance (see verses 8-9) is “in order that the elect be saved. They are not saved yet. We don’t know who the elect are. We must preach and teach and suffer and serve and endure and some of us should go and learn languages and be with people in an unreached people group that needs to hear the gospel in their own language. This is one of the clearest verses that show that God’s sovereignty in election motivate evangelism, and should motivate us to be willing to suffer and endure hardship in evangelism, discipleship, church-planting, and counseling and shepherding the flock.
The doctrine of Election does not save people, but election guarantees the results of our preaching and evangelism and missions – some people will be saved!
John 10:16 “other sheep I have, I must bring them also”
Acts 18:9-10 - “keep on preaching, do not be afraid, for I have many people in that city” (but they have yet to repent and believe in Christ)
Acts 13:48 - “they heard the message, and as many as were appointed to eternal life, believed.”
Acts 16:14 – Lydia was listening . . . “. . . And the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.” This, in my opinion, is perhaps the clearest verse on effectual grace, otherwise known as “Irresistible Grace”.
“Evangelism and missions are not imperiled by the biblical truth of election, but empowered by it, and their triumph is secured by it. “ (John Piper, The Pleasures of God, Multnomah, 1991, p. 149)
On that same Dividing Line program, Lars was bringing up the issue of Jesus weeping over Jerusalem ( Luke 19:41-44) He (and many others) seems to confuse that with Matthew 23:37, which it actually does not say Jesus wept. Dr. White has a good discussion of that in The Potter's Freedom.
To help him think through the issue, Dr. White asked Lars, “Will God be weeping in eternity?”
“The tears of Christ are not tears of frustration of not being able to save them . . .”
In the John 11 passage, where “Jesus wept”, “they are the tears over the consequences of sin and His entering into our experience of death and separation.”
John Piper’s book, The Pleasures of God is one of the best books I have read on the issue of God’s delight and pleasure in His own glory and "being God"; and it is the deepest book on God's sovereignty that I have read. ( I am still on page 30 of Jonathan Edwards book, The Freedom of the Will, after starting it over 10 years ago! The syntax and sentences are just too cumbersome for me.) Piper explains how God can both delight in His own will in saving people from all nations, and delight in judging other wicked sinners. He shows how God does not delight in the death of the wicked. (Ezekiel 18:23, 32; 33:11) But Piper also shows that God also delights in His exercise of righteous justice and judgment in the death of the wicked. (Deuteronomy 28:63)
John Piper's book, The Pleasures of God: Meditations on God's Delight in Being God
Piper discusses Psalm 135:6, Ezekiel 18:32, and Deuteronomy 28:63. The Biblical writers use the same Hebrew word in these passages for “delight” or “take pleasure in” or “please”.
The Lord does whatever He pleases. Psalm 115:3, 135:6
“The does not delight or take pleasure in the death of the wicked” Ezekiel 18:32
So this shows that God is not a sadist or a sinner, when He punishes the wicked by eternal death in hell. It is justice.
When God judges sin - “The Lord does delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you” (Deuteronomy 28:63)
“So we are brought back to the inescapable fact that in some sense God does not delight in the death of the wicked (that is the message of Ezekiel 18), and in some sense he does (that is the message implicitly of Psalm 135:6-11 and explicitly of Deuteronomy 28:63”. (Piper, ibid, p. 65, my emphasis)
“Election is the guarantee that God not only invites people to be delivered, but also actually delivers them. 'You shall call His name Jesus, because He shall save His people from their sins.' (Matthew 1:21) God undertakes with omnipotence to save His people. He plans it in election, and he achieves it through the work of His Son, and He applies it infallibly by His Holy Spirit through faith. The predestined are called, the called are justified, the justified are glorified.” (Romans 8:30) The destiny of God’s people, rooted in election, is unshakable sure.” (Piper, ibid, p. 143-144)
Peter goes on 2 Peter 3:15-16 to indicate that God's patience with the people of God in them getting out and serving and witnessing and evangelizing the lost, and God's work in saving people; and desiring their repentance, but also that He is sovereign in election and predestination, is what the apostle Paul has already written about. Peter affirms all of Paul's letters as Scripture. That would seem to point to passages that deal with the mystery of God's sovereignty, and His patience and goodness that leads people to repentance. We are reminded of such passages as I Timothy 2:4; Romans 2:4; 9:15-18; 9:22-24; and 11:22-26 that Peter may have in mind. (possibly also relating to 2 Corinthians 5:11; Ephesians chapter 1; Colossians 1:24-27)
Peter exhorts the elect people of God scattered throughout areas of Asia Minor, Bythinia, Pontus, Galatia, Cappodocia (1 Peter 1:1-2) [all areas in modern day Turkey] and 2 Peter 3:1 says it is the second letter he is writing to them.
Obviously God is omniscient, and has the events of the future fixed by His own authority (Acts 1:6-8), but it seems from a human perspective, Peter is exhorting the church that holiness, godliness, evangelism, and missions, make it seem like we are "hastening" (NASB, ESV) or "speeding" (NIV) the coming day of God. 2 Peter 3:11-12 Whatever that might mean, it certainly shows us in context one of the reasons why time continues until the second coming of Christ. God uses the means of holiness and godliness and service and love and suffering and evangelism and missions in accomplishing His purposes in the world.
11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat." (2 Peter 3:11-12 NIV)
Friday, March 18, 2011
Becoming a Minister in the United Reformed Church
John and I were chatting via e-mail the other day about what men have to go through to be ordained. Recently I've spent a good deal of time with the Church Order of the United Reformed Church, and I'd like to share their take on this (and it also gives me a chance to fool around with Blogger's updated editor that I've avoided for a few years now).
This is what one must do to be ordained in the United Reformed Church:
Article 3
Competent men should be urged to study for the ministry of the Word. A man who is a member of a church of the federation and who aspires to the ministry must evidence genuine godliness to his Consistory, which shall assume supervision of all aspects of his training, including his licensure to exhort, and assure that he receives a thoroughly reformed theological education. The council of his church should help him ensure that his financial needs are met. (See Appendix 1)
This simply means one interested in ministry is to be sent off to seminary. The key phrase though is "licensure to exhort." This is aquired by the following:
Guidelines for a Licensure Exam
1. CREDENTIALS
a. A seminary faculty recommendation.
b. A brief statement of personal faith and confessional commitment.
2. PROCEDURE
a. The prospective licentiate must apply to his Consistory for the exam, securing the required credentials. At least thirty days before the exam, the Consistory is to announce publicly its intention to examine the prospective licentiate, providing opportunity for other Consistories to render observation and/or objections.
b. The prospective licentiate must be examined by his Consistory, and the successful completion of the exam will be certified to other Consistories within the federation.
c. An exhorting license is normally valid for one year, and extension may be requested annually in writing and may require another interview.
3. CONTENT
a. The prospective licentiate must submit two written sermons for review by his Consistory.
b. The oral exam must address the following: first, the licentiate's godly walk; second, his commitment to the Reformed faith; third, his understanding of public worship; and fourth, matters of exegetical and homiletical method.
So that doesn't sound too bad. Then comes the following:
Article 4.
At the conclusion of such training, a student must approach his Consistory to become a candidate for the ministry of the Word, which shall arrange for his examination at a meeting of the classis of which his Consistory is a participant. No one shall be declared a candidate for the ministry until he has sustained an examination at a meeting of this classis, in the presence of his Consistory, of his Christian faith and experience, of his call to the ministry, of his knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, both in the original languages and in English translations, of the Three Forms of Unity, of Christian doctrine, Christian ethics and church history; of the Church Order, and of his knowledge and aptitude with regard to the particular duties and responsibilities of the minister of the Word, especially the preparation and preaching of sermons. Upon sustaining this exam in the presence of his Consistory and with the concurring advice of the delegates to this meeting of classis, his Consistory shall declare him a candidate for the office of minister of the Word. (See Appendix 2.)
So off to Appendix 2:
Appendix 2
Guidelines for a Candidacy Exam
1. CREDENTIALS
a. A recommendation from the prospective candidate's council.
b. A medical evaluation of health.
c. A diploma certifying reception of a Master of Divinity degree or an equivalent academic degree.
d. A transcript of all seminary grades.
e. A statement of testimony from the prospective candidate.
2. PROCEDURE
a. The prospective candidate's Consistory must request a meeting of classis for this exam.
b. The inviting Consistory must circulate copies of the required credentials among the Consistories of classis.
c. The inviting Consistory must make known that the candidate has sustained his candidacy exam and is available for call to the churches.
d. If the candidacy exam is sustained, and should the candidate accept a call within the same classis, the ordination exam is ordinarily waived, to avoid duplication of work within the classis. Taking note of this possibility, delegates hearing the candidacy exam should determine whether the performance is sufficient to warrant such a waiver.
3. CONTENT
a. The prospective candidate must submit three written sermons for evaluation. Two of these must be on an assigned Old Testament text and an assigned New Testament text. The third sermon must be a catechism sermon on a Lord's Day or question and answer of his choosing. One of these sermons must be preached in a public worship service.
b. The two areas to be covered in this exam are
1. biblical and confessional commitment, and.
2. ministerial competence. The former regards the prospective candidate's knowledge of and loyalty to Scripture and the Confessions; the latter investigates his theological and ministerial knowledge and ability. This exam should, therefore, investigate the following specific areas:
1. Practica: the prospective candidate's personal and spiritual life, his relationship with the Lord, his growth in faith, his background and preparation for ministry, his understanding of ministerial office and his motives for seeking entrance thereto, liturgics, homiletics, pastoral care, evangelism.
2. Bible knowledge: the prospective candidate's doctrine of Scripture, canonicity, hermeneutics, etc., and familiarity with the contents of the various books of the Bible.
3. Biblical exegesis: an Old Testament and a New Testament passage should be assigned to the prospective candidate at least three week in advance (one of them in connection with one of his assigned sermons); the examiner should inquire concerning the meaning of the text and the prospective candidate's ability to work with the original languages and with a suitable exegetical method.
4. Confessional knowledge: the history and content of the Three Forms of Unity, the prospective candidate's willingness to subscribe to them by signing the Form of Subscription.
5. Reformed doctrine: the teaching of Scripture and the Confessions regarding the six major areas of Reformed doctrine (Theology, Anthropology, Christology, Soteriology, Ecclesiology, and Eschatology).
6. Church history: the flow of church history, in terms of major persons, heresies, etc., with special emphasis on the Reformation and the history of the Reformed churches.
7. Ethics: the meaning and function of the Decalogue, also in relation to Christian motivation and character, and to contemporary moral problems.
8. Church Polity: the history and principles of Reformed church polity, and the content of the Church Order.
Now that's a hefty challenge, but you're still not done.
Article 6.
The lawful calling to the office of minister of those who have not previously been in that office consists of:
First, the election by the council of one who has been declared a candidate according to the regulations prescribed herein, after having prayed and received the advice of the congregation;
Second, the examination of both doctrine and life, which shall be conducted to the satisfaction of the delegates to the classis of which the calling church is a participant, according to the regulations adopted by the federation (see Appendix 3);
Finally, the public ordination before the congregation, which shall take place with appropriate instructions, admonitions, prayers and subscription to the Three Forms of Unity by signing the Form of Subscription, followed with the laying on of hands by the ministers who are present and by the elders of the congregation, with the use of the appropriate liturgical form.
And this entails the following:
Appendix 3
Guidelines for an Ordination Exam
1. CREDENTIAL: A valid letter of call
2. PROCEDURE
a. Exceptional case.: If the ordination exam would occur in the same classis in which the candidacy exam was sustained, then the ordination exam may be waived by the delegates conducting the candidacy exam.
b. The candidate's calling Consistory must invite classis to participate in an ordination exam.
c. The candidate is to preach a sermon in a public worship service which he conducts under the auspices of his calling Consistory.
d. Upon sustaining the exam, the classis shall declare the candidate eligible to be ordained as a minister of the Word and sacraments among the United Reformed Churches in North America.
3. CONTENT
The two areas to be covered in this exam are .1. biblical and confessional commitment, and .2. ministerial competence. The former regards the prospective candidate's knowledge of and loyalty to Scripture and the Confessions; the latter investigates his theological and ministerial knowledge and ability. This exam should, therefore, investigate the following specific areas:
1. Practica: the prospective candidate's personal and spiritual life, his relationship with the Lord, his growth in faith, his background and preparation for ministry, his understanding of ministerial office and his motives for seeking entrance thereto, liturgics, homiletics, pastoral care, and evangelism.
2. Church polity: the history and principles of Reformed church polity, and the content of the Church Order.
3. Confessional knowledge: the history and content of the Three Forms of Unity, concerning the prospective candidate's willingness to subscribe to them by signing the Form of Subscription.
4. Reformed doctrine: the teaching of Scripture and the Confessions regarding the six major areas of Reformed doctrine (Theology, Anthropology, Christology, Soteriology, Ecclesiology, and Eschatology).
5. Ethics: the meaning and function of the Decalogue, also in relation to Christian motivation and character, and to various contemporary moral problems.
So there you have it. The URC isn't a "me in the woods with my Bible" type of thing, that's for sure.
This is what one must do to be ordained in the United Reformed Church:
Article 3
Competent men should be urged to study for the ministry of the Word. A man who is a member of a church of the federation and who aspires to the ministry must evidence genuine godliness to his Consistory, which shall assume supervision of all aspects of his training, including his licensure to exhort, and assure that he receives a thoroughly reformed theological education. The council of his church should help him ensure that his financial needs are met. (See Appendix 1)
This simply means one interested in ministry is to be sent off to seminary. The key phrase though is "licensure to exhort." This is aquired by the following:
Guidelines for a Licensure Exam
1. CREDENTIALS
a. A seminary faculty recommendation.
b. A brief statement of personal faith and confessional commitment.
2. PROCEDURE
a. The prospective licentiate must apply to his Consistory for the exam, securing the required credentials. At least thirty days before the exam, the Consistory is to announce publicly its intention to examine the prospective licentiate, providing opportunity for other Consistories to render observation and/or objections.
b. The prospective licentiate must be examined by his Consistory, and the successful completion of the exam will be certified to other Consistories within the federation.
c. An exhorting license is normally valid for one year, and extension may be requested annually in writing and may require another interview.
3. CONTENT
a. The prospective licentiate must submit two written sermons for review by his Consistory.
b. The oral exam must address the following: first, the licentiate's godly walk; second, his commitment to the Reformed faith; third, his understanding of public worship; and fourth, matters of exegetical and homiletical method.
So that doesn't sound too bad. Then comes the following:
Article 4.
At the conclusion of such training, a student must approach his Consistory to become a candidate for the ministry of the Word, which shall arrange for his examination at a meeting of the classis of which his Consistory is a participant. No one shall be declared a candidate for the ministry until he has sustained an examination at a meeting of this classis, in the presence of his Consistory, of his Christian faith and experience, of his call to the ministry, of his knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, both in the original languages and in English translations, of the Three Forms of Unity, of Christian doctrine, Christian ethics and church history; of the Church Order, and of his knowledge and aptitude with regard to the particular duties and responsibilities of the minister of the Word, especially the preparation and preaching of sermons. Upon sustaining this exam in the presence of his Consistory and with the concurring advice of the delegates to this meeting of classis, his Consistory shall declare him a candidate for the office of minister of the Word. (See Appendix 2.)
So off to Appendix 2:
Appendix 2
Guidelines for a Candidacy Exam
1. CREDENTIALS
a. A recommendation from the prospective candidate's council.
b. A medical evaluation of health.
c. A diploma certifying reception of a Master of Divinity degree or an equivalent academic degree.
d. A transcript of all seminary grades.
e. A statement of testimony from the prospective candidate.
2. PROCEDURE
a. The prospective candidate's Consistory must request a meeting of classis for this exam.
b. The inviting Consistory must circulate copies of the required credentials among the Consistories of classis.
c. The inviting Consistory must make known that the candidate has sustained his candidacy exam and is available for call to the churches.
d. If the candidacy exam is sustained, and should the candidate accept a call within the same classis, the ordination exam is ordinarily waived, to avoid duplication of work within the classis. Taking note of this possibility, delegates hearing the candidacy exam should determine whether the performance is sufficient to warrant such a waiver.
3. CONTENT
a. The prospective candidate must submit three written sermons for evaluation. Two of these must be on an assigned Old Testament text and an assigned New Testament text. The third sermon must be a catechism sermon on a Lord's Day or question and answer of his choosing. One of these sermons must be preached in a public worship service.
b. The two areas to be covered in this exam are
1. biblical and confessional commitment, and.
2. ministerial competence. The former regards the prospective candidate's knowledge of and loyalty to Scripture and the Confessions; the latter investigates his theological and ministerial knowledge and ability. This exam should, therefore, investigate the following specific areas:
1. Practica: the prospective candidate's personal and spiritual life, his relationship with the Lord, his growth in faith, his background and preparation for ministry, his understanding of ministerial office and his motives for seeking entrance thereto, liturgics, homiletics, pastoral care, evangelism.
2. Bible knowledge: the prospective candidate's doctrine of Scripture, canonicity, hermeneutics, etc., and familiarity with the contents of the various books of the Bible.
3. Biblical exegesis: an Old Testament and a New Testament passage should be assigned to the prospective candidate at least three week in advance (one of them in connection with one of his assigned sermons); the examiner should inquire concerning the meaning of the text and the prospective candidate's ability to work with the original languages and with a suitable exegetical method.
4. Confessional knowledge: the history and content of the Three Forms of Unity, the prospective candidate's willingness to subscribe to them by signing the Form of Subscription.
5. Reformed doctrine: the teaching of Scripture and the Confessions regarding the six major areas of Reformed doctrine (Theology, Anthropology, Christology, Soteriology, Ecclesiology, and Eschatology).
6. Church history: the flow of church history, in terms of major persons, heresies, etc., with special emphasis on the Reformation and the history of the Reformed churches.
7. Ethics: the meaning and function of the Decalogue, also in relation to Christian motivation and character, and to contemporary moral problems.
8. Church Polity: the history and principles of Reformed church polity, and the content of the Church Order.
Now that's a hefty challenge, but you're still not done.
Article 6.
The lawful calling to the office of minister of those who have not previously been in that office consists of:
First, the election by the council of one who has been declared a candidate according to the regulations prescribed herein, after having prayed and received the advice of the congregation;
Second, the examination of both doctrine and life, which shall be conducted to the satisfaction of the delegates to the classis of which the calling church is a participant, according to the regulations adopted by the federation (see Appendix 3);
Finally, the public ordination before the congregation, which shall take place with appropriate instructions, admonitions, prayers and subscription to the Three Forms of Unity by signing the Form of Subscription, followed with the laying on of hands by the ministers who are present and by the elders of the congregation, with the use of the appropriate liturgical form.
And this entails the following:
Appendix 3
Guidelines for an Ordination Exam
1. CREDENTIAL: A valid letter of call
2. PROCEDURE
a. Exceptional case.: If the ordination exam would occur in the same classis in which the candidacy exam was sustained, then the ordination exam may be waived by the delegates conducting the candidacy exam.
b. The candidate's calling Consistory must invite classis to participate in an ordination exam.
c. The candidate is to preach a sermon in a public worship service which he conducts under the auspices of his calling Consistory.
d. Upon sustaining the exam, the classis shall declare the candidate eligible to be ordained as a minister of the Word and sacraments among the United Reformed Churches in North America.
3. CONTENT
The two areas to be covered in this exam are .1. biblical and confessional commitment, and .2. ministerial competence. The former regards the prospective candidate's knowledge of and loyalty to Scripture and the Confessions; the latter investigates his theological and ministerial knowledge and ability. This exam should, therefore, investigate the following specific areas:
1. Practica: the prospective candidate's personal and spiritual life, his relationship with the Lord, his growth in faith, his background and preparation for ministry, his understanding of ministerial office and his motives for seeking entrance thereto, liturgics, homiletics, pastoral care, and evangelism.
2. Church polity: the history and principles of Reformed church polity, and the content of the Church Order.
3. Confessional knowledge: the history and content of the Three Forms of Unity, concerning the prospective candidate's willingness to subscribe to them by signing the Form of Subscription.
4. Reformed doctrine: the teaching of Scripture and the Confessions regarding the six major areas of Reformed doctrine (Theology, Anthropology, Christology, Soteriology, Ecclesiology, and Eschatology).
5. Ethics: the meaning and function of the Decalogue, also in relation to Christian motivation and character, and to various contemporary moral problems.
So there you have it. The URC isn't a "me in the woods with my Bible" type of thing, that's for sure.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
The Nature and Character of God and “Apostolic Succession”
God the Father passed His authority on to Jesus (cf. Matthew 28:18), Who passed it on to the apostles (cf. Luke 10:16 and Matthew 28:19), who passed it on to their successors.That’s the shorthand view that a fairly knowledgeable (and formerly Reformed) Roman Catholic cited to me on a discussion board. But is the God of the universe, the “Covenant Lord,” our “jealous God” One who would wind up giving “His” authority to someone like Rodrigo Borgia, Pope Alexander VI?
Calvin famously began his work, Institutes of the Christian Religion , with these words:Nearly all the wisdom we posses, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves (1.1.1). … It is certain that man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God’s face, and the descends from contemplating him to scrutinize himself. For we always seem to ourselves righteous and upright and wise and holy—this pride is innate in all of us—unless by clear proofs we stand convinced of our own unrighteousness, foulness, folly, and impurity. Moreover, we are not thus convinced if we look merely to ourselves and not also to the Lord, who is the sole standard by which this judgment must be measured … So it happens in estimating our spiritual goods. As long as we do not look beyond the earth, being quite content with our own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue, we flatter ourselves most sweetly, and fancy ourselves all but demigods … As a consequence, we must infer that man is never sufficiently touched and affected by the awareness of his lowly state until he has compared himself with God’s majesty (1.1.2).Just as a personal note, I have handwritten in the margin of my copy of Institutes, “This is the main problem I see with the RCC.” The Roman Catholic Church does not truly consider its own state in comparison with God’s majesty. Oh, to be sure, they say plenty of good things about God.
Others have written about Aquinas and his “Platonism/Plotininianism/Dionysianism (the notion that there is a sort of chain of being in the universe on which God is at the top and we at the bottom and we climb it by grace and cooperation with grace).” Without going too deeply into this topic, we see that our old friend Pseudo-Dionysius (and his NeoPlatonism) made it into Aquinas’s theology in a big way. Pseudo-Dionysius is one of those works of fiction that was viewed as authentic during the Medieval era, and which subsequently was adopted virtually wholesale into Roman dogma. And there was no shortage of popes who waxed at length about how wonderfully close to God that they were.
More properly, the Reformers, following a Scriptural investigation of God, came to understand the absolute gulf between God and man.
Just to illustrate this, let’s look at a simple mental exercise. On one side of an equation, you have one. On the other side, you have infinity.
One / InfinityThat’s a pretty big gulf.
Then consider how you might, on the numerical side, come closer to “infinity”.
One / InfinityIn this “great chain of ratios,” do you ever, on the left hand side, come closer to reaching the limits of the right hand side? No, you can’t. This is a “category” error. And so is the “great chain of being” theology that posits God not as “wholly other,” but merely at the top of some kind of “great chain of being”.
Two / Infinity
Three / Infinity
Ten / Infinity
One Hundred / Infinity
One Thousand / Infinity
One Million / Infinity
The Roman Catholic Faith, with its emphasis on “the Church” as “the Ongoing Incarnation of Christ,” has succumbed to the error of those who tried to build the Tower of Babel. They said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves” (Gen 11:2-4). What a tragedy.
Here’s a selection from the works of A.A. Hodge that I have, for years, used as my personal signature on discussion boards:
And the sphere of a creature's knowledge, be it that of an infant, or of a man, or of a philosopher, or of a prophet, or of saint or archangel in heaven, will float as a point of light athwart the bosom of that God who is the infinite Abyss for ever; From A.A. Hodge, Evangelical Theology, God-His Nature And Relation to the Universe, pg 16.In the first place in the Roman Catholic chain of succession, a misunderstanding of God and His nature are fundamental to its whole system of authority.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Cullmann on Kerygma, Gospel, Tradition and Apostolic Authority
And beginning with Moses an all prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. And their eyes were opened and they knew him. They said to each other, Did not our hearts burn within us . . . while he opened to us the scriptures? (Luke 24:27, 31, 32).Thus begins Cullmann’s account of “The Tradition,” from which I’ve cited several times now, and which, I have heard from someone reliable, is probably the best account of the relationship of “scripture and tradition”. As I work through this, of course, I’ll check Cullmann’s analysis against other writers on the topic, and of course, against the witness of Scripture.
Last time I cited Bryan Cross’s view of succession (in contrast to Sullivan’s). In the recent Catholic Answers thread that bore my name, some of the folks there were a bit saddened that I didn’t stay and answer all their questions. Of course, I answered a number of their questions, but there ended up being more than 400 comments and I just didn’t get to read all of them, much less respond to them. One of the writers there, Pete Holter, a (as I understand it) former Reformed believer, provided this account (somewhat abbreviated):
God the Father passed His authority on to Jesus (cf. Matthew 28:18), Who passed it on to the apostles (cf. Luke 10:16 and Matthew 28:19), who passed it on to their successors.This “passing on,” in the Roman Catholic account, takes a similar flow as that given in shorthand form by many Roman Catholics. In many of these accounts, indeed, in the official account, the words “authority” and “tradition” and “succession” sort of get muddled together until, in the Roman Catholic mind, there is just one thing: and the Roman Catholic Church and its teachings and Magisterium have the very authority of God on earth. It’s been that way since the muddling, and that’s good enough for us!
I think Cullman’s “The Tradition” admirably isolates those threads – authority and tradition and succession – he defines them well, and he talks about what genuinely gets “handed on” from God, what just sort of gets picked up along the way, and what gets distorted.
My copy of this article is found within Cullmann’s 1956 collection of essays, “The Early Church” (London: SCM Press Ltd). In his own words:
Firstly, I shall try to prove that the New Testament regards the Lord exalted to the right hand of God as the direct author of the tradition of the apostles, because he himself is at work in the apostolic transmission of his words and deeds. Secondly, by examining the conception of the apostolate, I shall attempt to determine the connection between the apostolic tradition and the post-apostolic tradition, and the difference between them. Thirdly, I shall enquire whether this distinction is confirmed by the history of the early Church, and whether, in creating the canon, the Church itself deliberately separated apostolic from ecclesiastical tradition, so as to make the former the norm of the latter (pg. 59)Over the next couple of posts, I'd like to follow Cullmann's account, bringing in other information as I go. Christ, of course, is the final and perfect Revelation of God. As the writer to the Hebrews begins by saying, “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.”
Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”But God does not give an unclear view of himself in the Old Testament, and it is this God we see when we see Christ.
Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me (John 14:8-11).
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Apostolic Succession In Perspective: Review and Introduction
Before I start back into some of the historical processes regarding the Synagogue and teachings and elders, I’d like to stop and take stock of what I’ve written, and put it into the perspective of the overall discussion.
Here’s a key statement from the Keith Mathison piece; which may be found in Bryan Cross’s extended dialogue with Michael Horton:
The Inquirer has to determine:
1. Whether there is a succession of authority from the Apostles to the bishops of the present day
2. Whether Christ gave to St. Peter and his successors “the primacy”.
Of course, the answer to both of these is “no”.
There are three things, according to Cross, the authority of which are not dependent on [“not entailed by”] the enquirer’s “discovery” of them:
1. Christ is the son of God
2. The Apostles’ authority during the first century
3. The Catholic Magisterium extending down through the centuries by an unbroken succession from the Apostles to the present day.
He says, “without apostolic succession the only ground for the authority of any confession or pastor is its or his general agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture,” but that is a meaningless philosophical construct that doesn’t matter, because if “apostolic succession” is not historically viable understanding of “church authority,” then it is not, and the “philosophical necessity” posited by Bryan is just simply meaningless.
It’s at point 3 where Protestants can and do and must understand and draw the line that this item #3 was not “from the beginning” – this point #3 was a development that occurred, took place in the second part of the second century in the forges of what Oscar Cullmann called the “post-Apostolic” period, the period of the Apostolic Fathers. The early generations of the church relied on an “oral tradition” to carry through the Apostles’ teaching (δόγματα –see Papias, for example); but this oral tradition failed to stem the tide of [mostly local Roman] heresies in the turbulent capital of the Roman world, which itself was the site of the comings and goings of people and religions from all over the world. Names like Carpocrates and Basilides and Valentinus and probably a dozen others all claimed to draw upon Christianity in some way, according to Everett Ferguson, “Church History Volume 1: From Christ to Pre-Reformation” (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan 2005). It was during this time that “the early church adopted strategies that with varying degrees of effectiveness continued to be employed in subsequent centuries (pg 105).
The orthodox church, the church which relied on the (δόγματα) of the Apostles at first relied upon an “oral tradition” to defend and distinguish itself from this “gnostic soup,” but that attempt could not provide the defense that was needed. And I’ve described it in the past. It is at this point we see the emergence of other defense mechanisms that were more successful, and which seemed to have been solidified in the subsequent centuries:
1. The fixing of a canon of the New Testament as a doctrinal norm
2. The standardization of an office of monarchical bishop, present in some areas of the east but not in the west
3. The notion of “succession”
These “developments” gave shape to the church that Irenaeus knew in the late second century, and which writers like Tertullian and Hippolytus wrote about early in the third century.
The short “short summary” of the result of this process is provided by Francis A. Sullivan, “From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church” (New York: The Newman Press ©2001 by the Society of Jesus [“Jesuits”] of New England). Sullivan says:
In my posts citing F.F. Bruce and Roger Beckwith on the synagogue structure that was in place during New Testament times (and which I hope to continue to work with), the following statement from Sullivan is evident:
The history of this entire period and of course, the leadership structure of Medieval church history, scream mightily that this is the point at which Protestants can and do and should draw the line, and say, “we reject this so-called authority, the rotting fruit of which is evident throughout history, and the supposed cleaning-up of which [at Trent] was merely cosmetic. Roman dogma had permitted a creeping rot to infest itself, and from Trent onward effectively anathematized the Gospel, the kerygma, “the precepts or the teachings (δόγματα) of the Apostles”.
John Calvin went into tremendous detail about much of this in his Institutes. Without having the historical perspective that we have today, Calvin wrote a summary of this process that someone like Francis Sullivan is only now catching up to.
I’ll stop here for now, with a reminder. Viisaus noted in a recent comment, “Or in other words, the Reformers pointed out that it was more important to be successors of apostles in SPIRIT rather than (to claim) to be their successor in FLESH.” I would extend that remark – not only successors of the Apostles in Spirit, but in the very teachings (δόγματα) of the Apostles, which, in our day, can be found only in the Scriptures.
Here’s a key statement from the Keith Mathison piece; which may be found in Bryan Cross’s extended dialogue with Michael Horton:
Of course the inquirer has to determine whether there is a succession of authority from the Apostles to the bishops of the present day, and whether Christ gave to St. Peter and his successors the primacy. But just as our discovery of Christ does not entail that the basis or ground of His authority is our judgment that He is the Son of God, and just as a first century Roman citizen’s discovery of the Apostles would not entail that the basis or ground of their authority is his judgment that they were sent by Christ, so the contemporary inquirer’s discovery of the Catholic Magisterium extending down through the centuries by an unbroken succession from the Apostles to the present day does not entail that the basis or ground of this Magisterium’s authority is the inquirer’s judgment that it is the divinely authorized teaching authority of the Church Christ founded. The reasons by which he grasps its authority are not the ground of its authority, whereas without apostolic succession the only ground for the authority of any confession or pastor is its or his general agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture.It is said that “it all comes down to authority,” and this, in many ways, is the focal point of Roman Catholic claims to authority. Let’s take a look at the authority claim that Bryan is making (which I believe to be consonant with what Rome has taught in the past, although, I would say, Rome is in some ways “re-calibrating” this “story” in our lifetimes):
The Inquirer has to determine:
1. Whether there is a succession of authority from the Apostles to the bishops of the present day
2. Whether Christ gave to St. Peter and his successors “the primacy”.
Of course, the answer to both of these is “no”.
There are three things, according to Cross, the authority of which are not dependent on [“not entailed by”] the enquirer’s “discovery” of them:
1. Christ is the son of God
2. The Apostles’ authority during the first century
3. The Catholic Magisterium extending down through the centuries by an unbroken succession from the Apostles to the present day.
He says, “without apostolic succession the only ground for the authority of any confession or pastor is its or his general agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture,” but that is a meaningless philosophical construct that doesn’t matter, because if “apostolic succession” is not historically viable understanding of “church authority,” then it is not, and the “philosophical necessity” posited by Bryan is just simply meaningless.
It’s at point 3 where Protestants can and do and must understand and draw the line that this item #3 was not “from the beginning” – this point #3 was a development that occurred, took place in the second part of the second century in the forges of what Oscar Cullmann called the “post-Apostolic” period, the period of the Apostolic Fathers. The early generations of the church relied on an “oral tradition” to carry through the Apostles’ teaching (δόγματα –see Papias, for example); but this oral tradition failed to stem the tide of [mostly local Roman] heresies in the turbulent capital of the Roman world, which itself was the site of the comings and goings of people and religions from all over the world. Names like Carpocrates and Basilides and Valentinus and probably a dozen others all claimed to draw upon Christianity in some way, according to Everett Ferguson, “Church History Volume 1: From Christ to Pre-Reformation” (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan 2005). It was during this time that “the early church adopted strategies that with varying degrees of effectiveness continued to be employed in subsequent centuries (pg 105).
The orthodox church, the church which relied on the (δόγματα) of the Apostles at first relied upon an “oral tradition” to defend and distinguish itself from this “gnostic soup,” but that attempt could not provide the defense that was needed. And I’ve described it in the past. It is at this point we see the emergence of other defense mechanisms that were more successful, and which seemed to have been solidified in the subsequent centuries:
1. The fixing of a canon of the New Testament as a doctrinal norm
2. The standardization of an office of monarchical bishop, present in some areas of the east but not in the west
3. The notion of “succession”
These “developments” gave shape to the church that Irenaeus knew in the late second century, and which writers like Tertullian and Hippolytus wrote about early in the third century.
The short “short summary” of the result of this process is provided by Francis A. Sullivan, “From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church” (New York: The Newman Press ©2001 by the Society of Jesus [“Jesuits”] of New England). Sullivan says:
While most Catholic scholars agree that the episcopate is the fruit of a post-New Testament development, they maintain that this development was so evidently guided by the Holy Spirit that it must be recognized as corresponding to God’s plan for the structure of his Church (pg 230).Sullivan is among those theologians who are sort of at the forefront of the “recalibration” that I noted above. Even though this represents a tremendous concession (and the Bryan Crosses of the world resist it with all the wishful thinking they can muster), it is still not going far enough. It is at this point, around these historically-verifiable elements of church history, where Protestants must (and will, I believe) take issue with Roman Catholics: while there is no question that God enabled “the one true church” to survive this period, the resultant “structure” was merely an expedient of the time, crafted by the individuals of the time, and not some sort of divinely-mandated “structure” that God intended for all time. (Here is the point at which to understand the method of God in his response to Paul’s plea: “My grace is sufficient for you.” What worked in the past will be a disaster for the future. Do not rely on “the structure,” God says. “Rely on me.”)
In my posts citing F.F. Bruce and Roger Beckwith on the synagogue structure that was in place during New Testament times (and which I hope to continue to work with), the following statement from Sullivan is evident:
This structure was in development during the New Testament era, but even at the close of that period the Church did not yet have a structure adequate to meet the challenges it would face during the second century. Catholics see no reason to think that the Holy Spirit, who guided the Church during the period of the New Testament, would have ceased to guide it during the development of the basic structure necessary for its long-term survival (230).And of course, upon this, again, it turns. It is mere assumption that this is some sort of “divinely mandated structure.” In a comment the other day, PeaceByJesus reminded us of the meaninglessness of claims to “unbroken succession” from that time till the Reformation.
The history of this entire period and of course, the leadership structure of Medieval church history, scream mightily that this is the point at which Protestants can and do and should draw the line, and say, “we reject this so-called authority, the rotting fruit of which is evident throughout history, and the supposed cleaning-up of which [at Trent] was merely cosmetic. Roman dogma had permitted a creeping rot to infest itself, and from Trent onward effectively anathematized the Gospel, the kerygma, “the precepts or the teachings (δόγματα) of the Apostles”.
John Calvin went into tremendous detail about much of this in his Institutes. Without having the historical perspective that we have today, Calvin wrote a summary of this process that someone like Francis Sullivan is only now catching up to.
I’ll stop here for now, with a reminder. Viisaus noted in a recent comment, “Or in other words, the Reformers pointed out that it was more important to be successors of apostles in SPIRIT rather than (to claim) to be their successor in FLESH.” I would extend that remark – not only successors of the Apostles in Spirit, but in the very teachings (δόγματα) of the Apostles, which, in our day, can be found only in the Scriptures.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Tidbits
I'm very appreciative of John's recent posts that keep this blog informative, interesting, and controversial. I'm swamped with other things at the moment. Here are though just a few tidbits I've caught in my free time.
First make sure to check out the widget on the top right. Pick your own Bible translation as a tool to read the verses cited here on the blog. Also, the little "L" next to a cited Bible verse will launch Libronix to that very verse if you use that software. But, simply hover over the verse on the blog entry, and it will display the verse. It's a great little widget, a worthy addition to any blog.
Fan club Update
Yes, I've got my own fan club. I'm hardly writing anything, but I still have some folks who treasure my every insight:
James is knowledgeable about Luther and that fact is well known here on the Lutheran threads. It is important to understand that Protestants here REALLY want to view Luther in a positive fashion. When James Swan writes a post which seems to exonerate Luther in regards to this or that charge, I think that most Protestants breathe a sigh of belief. They trust James to give them the straight story. The question is whether they should. [source]
You can tell me about the other three articles all you want and you can whine about how I “ignored” them, but I will not be in the near future I believe that they ALL reveal your extreme pro-Luther bias and that they all portray him as being VERY different from the historical facts. In doing this, I am only practicing your “specialty”. You troll around various sites, including this one, so that you can write articles about how people (like me) are so mean to innocent Holy little Marty. You don't expect to be challenged or expect anyone to check your facts though do you? That being your MO, you certainly cannot have a problem, at least philosophically, with me “critiquing” your articles about the Peasant’s War. You see, I think that they ALL contain evidence Luther is being systematically misrepresent in an effort to keep people from seeing who he really was and what he actually did. That being said, as we (meaning I) move forward, I will be comparing your representation of Luther’s “role” in the war with those of trustworthy Protestant Scholars. [source]
One wonders by the flow (or lack thereof) of words as to the nature of the person who wrote them. The ironic thing about this man's passion is that current Roman Catholic scholarship (including the current pope), is fairly docile toward Luther. He does though make a good point. Sources should be scrutinized, including mine.
The Private Magisteriums Speak
I had another wonderful recent endorsement from the Catholic Champion, but he either deleted it or I simply can't find it. He did though make the following curious comment:
With the state of the Church being what it is, it is easy to get discouraged. Most of the theologians in the Church today have inherited a modernist mentality which severely impairs their ability to understand and communicate the Catholic faith effectively. At times it appears that the only theologians that are safe to read are the ones who lived before the mid 19th century. As a result you almost get the impression that you are living a faith that only exists in the minds of dead authors. This of course is not the case, I am exaggerating a bit [source].
Yes, these are the same type of scholars the Pope puts on committees. Oh well. The Champion would probalby enjoy hanging out with Gerry Matatics for an afternoon (yes, I've done that...saw him on his world tour a few years ago).
Here's a tidbit from a Romanist blog about Dr. White. It asserted he is "a major enemy of the Catholic Church." Now, I would speculate, those in authority in Rome have probably never heard of him. This person though has the authority to declare Dr. White a "major enemy." How does that work? How does a private individual speak for the entire church, declaring who one of its "major enemies" are?
First make sure to check out the widget on the top right. Pick your own Bible translation as a tool to read the verses cited here on the blog. Also, the little "L" next to a cited Bible verse will launch Libronix to that very verse if you use that software. But, simply hover over the verse on the blog entry, and it will display the verse. It's a great little widget, a worthy addition to any blog.
Fan club Update
Yes, I've got my own fan club. I'm hardly writing anything, but I still have some folks who treasure my every insight:
James is knowledgeable about Luther and that fact is well known here on the Lutheran threads. It is important to understand that Protestants here REALLY want to view Luther in a positive fashion. When James Swan writes a post which seems to exonerate Luther in regards to this or that charge, I think that most Protestants breathe a sigh of belief. They trust James to give them the straight story. The question is whether they should. [source]
You can tell me about the other three articles all you want and you can whine about how I “ignored” them, but I will not be in the near future I believe that they ALL reveal your extreme pro-Luther bias and that they all portray him as being VERY different from the historical facts. In doing this, I am only practicing your “specialty”. You troll around various sites, including this one, so that you can write articles about how people (like me) are so mean to innocent Holy little Marty. You don't expect to be challenged or expect anyone to check your facts though do you? That being your MO, you certainly cannot have a problem, at least philosophically, with me “critiquing” your articles about the Peasant’s War. You see, I think that they ALL contain evidence Luther is being systematically misrepresent in an effort to keep people from seeing who he really was and what he actually did. That being said, as we (meaning I) move forward, I will be comparing your representation of Luther’s “role” in the war with those of trustworthy Protestant Scholars. [source]
One wonders by the flow (or lack thereof) of words as to the nature of the person who wrote them. The ironic thing about this man's passion is that current Roman Catholic scholarship (including the current pope), is fairly docile toward Luther. He does though make a good point. Sources should be scrutinized, including mine.
The Private Magisteriums Speak
I had another wonderful recent endorsement from the Catholic Champion, but he either deleted it or I simply can't find it. He did though make the following curious comment:
With the state of the Church being what it is, it is easy to get discouraged. Most of the theologians in the Church today have inherited a modernist mentality which severely impairs their ability to understand and communicate the Catholic faith effectively. At times it appears that the only theologians that are safe to read are the ones who lived before the mid 19th century. As a result you almost get the impression that you are living a faith that only exists in the minds of dead authors. This of course is not the case, I am exaggerating a bit [source].
Yes, these are the same type of scholars the Pope puts on committees. Oh well. The Champion would probalby enjoy hanging out with Gerry Matatics for an afternoon (yes, I've done that...saw him on his world tour a few years ago).
Here's a tidbit from a Romanist blog about Dr. White. It asserted he is "a major enemy of the Catholic Church." Now, I would speculate, those in authority in Rome have probably never heard of him. This person though has the authority to declare Dr. White a "major enemy." How does that work? How does a private individual speak for the entire church, declaring who one of its "major enemies" are?
Sunday, March 13, 2011
“Keep Your Greek”
I’d like to make a little disclaimer at the outset. The Koinonia Blog, published (I think) by the good folks at Zondervan, announced that it was sponsoring a “Keep Your Greek Blog Tour”. Bloggers who would be willing to review the small work, Keep your Greek: Strategies for Busy People, could get a free review copy of the book.So I took them up on it. And really, knowing Biblical Greek does play a big role in the subject matter that we’ve been discussing. (I don’t discuss it much because I don’t know that much about it).
We live in an amazing time. Thanks to the Internet, a run-of-the-mill guy like me, with a wife, six kids, a job as a marketing writer, an hour-long commute, an iPhone, and an internet connection, can have [generally free] access to some of the finest scholarly resources available. Given that I am now 50-something years old, I’ve made a conscious decision to use those resources to try to understand one facet of the real world that we live in – arguably the most important – and that would be, the Scriptural nature of the one true church of Jesus Christ.
Contrast that with the kind of thing that Erasmus had to go through in order to understand the Greek language – and to re-assemble the first Greek New Testament of the Reformation era. Or worse, what Reuchlin had to go through in order to learn Biblical Hebrew.
The Reformers, then, building on this knowledge of Biblical languages, were able to go back to the sources (“ad fontes”). That’s something their immediate predecessors (as theologians of the church) could not do. I’ve already said a lot about the fact that the endless (and competing) appeals to authority seem to do little to accomplish anything in these discussions. It was the ability of the Reformers to go back to the original Biblical sources and take a stand on things where older, Medieval writers were stuck in a “he said, he said” kind of log-jam that characterized so many of the Medieval discussions of theology.
When I was contemplating leaving the Roman church, the kind of thing that really sealed the deal for me was when someone like James White would say, “Here’s what the text actually says…” The original languages of Scripture provide us with a very secure footing that the Medievals (working from an error-filled Latin text) never had.
The resources that we all have access to today are simply incredible.
Learn Greek
At one level, learning Greek is not that hard. Using a system of “cognates,” that is, words that look the same in both English and Greek, and have similar meanings, it seems to me that anyone, with minimal instruction, can gain a basic understanding of how simply to recognize what a Greek word says when you see it (to be able to sound it out, if not to be able to take the meaning of the word).
For example, I started with some not-so-Greek words, using basic Greek lettering:
β ε δYou can probably recognize some of those words, even though I’m using Greek letters. Some Greek letters sort of look like English letters. From here you go on to adding some words with Greek letters that you don’t know: for example:
β α τ
κ α τ
κ α β
δ ο τ
λ = “l” (as in “leg”)And before you know it, you are coming upon Greek words that you know, like:
γ = “g”
ω = “long ‘o’”
σ and ς = s
αγγελος = “angels”This is how I came into the language, and I didn’t find that part of it too oppressive. What really is difficult, though, is that, as Mounce puts it, “For whatever reason, many do not know enough English grammar to learn Greek grammar” (Basics of Biblical Greek, Third Edition, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan ©2009, pg 22).
αποστολων = “apostles”
The grammar is the hard part. Without going into too much detail, we have three noun “cases” in English: subjective, possessive, and objective. In Greek, this expands out a bit into nominative, genitive, accusative, ablative, dative, locative, instrumental, and vocative (that last being rarely used, but hey, it’s in there). And verbs, too, may be identified by person, number, voice, tense, aspect, and mood. At some point, you have to learn what all of that means in English, before applying it to Greek, and I think that’s what some of the major challenge is.
Most Seminarians are required to take Greek (and Hebrew). And from what I understand, many recoil from it. But there’s something that a Seminary student has access to, that I don’t have, that many of us don’t have in our day, and that is, a disciplined, regular schedule.
So while I was able to learn a lot of things “about” Greek on my own, I have not yet been able to get into the language in any real way. And that’s the point of this little book. Learning Greek, while not overly difficult, is the result of a disciplined, regular schedule of working at it and expanding your knowledge base in a way that gives you that “sure foundation” that most of us don’t have access to. And that’s the purpose of this little book, and of my appeal here.
Keep Your Greek
Given all that it takes to learn Greek, you have a tremendous incentive to Keep your Greek. The author makes that point early and often: “
If you’re a teacher of God’s Word, the main reason to keep your Greek is the same reason that led you to study it in the first place. Greek gives us certain insights into the text of the New Testament [and the LXX Old Testament, as well as the writings of the early Greek church fathers] that are impossible to achieve any other way. This goes well beyond looking up particular words in the original, even though that is useful. It includes understanding the syntax and structure of sentences, so that we can discern what the author is drawing attention to and how all the parts relate to each other (from the Introduction).This last item came home to me in a recent Seminary lecture on Christology. The introduction to the Gospel of John reads like this:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Greek is a language that is “highly inflected,” and so word order is critical to meaning, far more so than in English. “This means that in Greek the relationships between words are shown more extensively by changes in the forms of words themselves than by their relative positions in sentences,” according to one workbook that I have.
So look at these two phrases:
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν / and the Word was with GodYou’ll note in that second phrase, the word order of λόγος and θεόν / θεὸς are reversed. There are also varying definite articles:
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος / and the Word was God
ὁ λόγος = “the Word”; τὸν θεόν and θεὸς (no definite article) = “God”All of these things, and more, are conscious choices made by John as he wrote this Gospel – each adds a new facet to the Trinitarian structure of the relationship between θεὸς and λόγος that gives an incredible meaning to that one verse, that you just can’t get by reading it in English (even the best English translation available).
The bottom line is that understanding of Greek helps you to better understand the Biblical text.
From there, the author proceeds to give a number of practical strategies for getting back into the language, none of which, he maintains is going to “improve your Greek dramatically overnight.” Instead, the focus is on principles and motivations for staying with it on a regular basis. Of not losing what you’ve got.
* Develop a habit of reading some Greek every day
* Don’t become dependent on certain crutches, such as your Interlinear Bible
* Use Bible software wisely
* The importance of studying vocabulary
* Reviewing verb paradigms
* Tips and tricks for regaining understanding as you re-approach Greek texts
* And of course lists of resources, both online and off-line
This is a short work, less than 100 pages. And except for a brief passage from John 5 (the purpose of which is to demonstrate how one of the author’s techniques, “skimming the text,” will help you pick up some of the nuance that you may have forgotten), there is not much Greek in it at all.
But I found this work helpful from the point of view of reminding me why I wanted to try and study Greek in the first place: “Keep in mind that you want to know Greek so that you can teach God’s Word with depth of understanding, observing its subtleties and nuances, many of which cannot be conveyed in translation” (pg. 83).
The Reformers understood the value of knowing Greek and Hebrew. It enabled them to change the world, and more importantly, it enabled them to bring the one-true-church back to better understanding of its Lord. So often, the Lord said, “It is written…” For most of us, it was written in Greek.
I’d like to thank Turretinfan and Rhology for helping this Luddite to get as much Greek into this post as he did.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Ignatius did not believe in Apostolic Succession. But he believed that “Christ was the (Old Testament) Word Made Flesh”
This is from John Behr’s introduction to Irenaeus of Lyons “Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching” (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, pgs 9-11). Note that while the book is devoted to Irenaeus, the Introduction discusses church history prior to Irenaeus. This is his discussion of Ignatius:
The reason for this emphasis, I believe, is because, as Irenaeus relates it, the “Apostolic Preaching” as he describes it in this work is an intense review of the Old Testament Scriptures.
The Reformers, who for the first time in a thousand years began to understand the Hebrew Scriptures, were in a position to make this connection that had been lost for a long, long time in the church.
The case of St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing in the first years of the second century, is especially revealing. He refers to the Epistles of the Apostle Paul (Ephesians 12:2), yet he never cites them. For Ignatius, it is Christ who is both the content and the ultimate source of our faith, as it has been laid down for us by the apostles. Ignatius goes far beyond the other writers of his period in exalting the role of the apostles. In the various typological parallels that he is fond of drawing between, on the one hand, the bishop, deacon and presbyters, and on the other, the Father, Christ and the apostles (e.g. Trallians 3), the apostles are always placed on the eternal, universal level, along with Christ and His Father. This eternal and universal level is then reflected [emphasis added] in the Church, in her historically and geographically specific existence, in the threefold order of bishop, deacon and presbyters. Accordingly Ignatius repeatedly states that as a bishop he, unlike the apostles, is not in a position to give orders or to lay down the precepts or the teachings (δόγματα), which come from the Lord and the apostles alone (cf. Magnesians 13; Romans 4:3; Ephesians 3:1 etc.).Behr concludes this section: “For Ignatius and the other apostolic fathers, the Christian Gospel, the Revelation of Jesus Christ, was essentially a christocentric reading of Scripture, as it has been delivered by the apostles …”
So strong is his emphasis on the apostolic revelation of Jesus Christ, that it is determinative for Ignatius’ reading of Scripture (the Old Testament). For instance, according to Ignatius, we are to give heed to the prophets, for they also lived according to Jesus Christ and were inspired by His grace (Magnesians 8:2). In a significant passage in Philadelphians chapters 8-9, Ignatius reports a discussion which he had perhaps had with some members of his community. After exhorting his listeners to do nothing apart from that which is “according to the teaching of Christ,” he describes how he heard some saying that “If I do not find [it] in the archives, I do not believe [it to be] in the Gospel” that is, they would only accept the Christian message insofar as it is in accord with the “archives,” that is, with what was already written, the Old Testament Scriptures. Ignatius’ reply was “it is written”; referring not to written New Testament texts, but to his conviction that the Old Testament does indeed contain the revelation of Christ. His opponents, however, were not persuaded by this Christological interpretation of the Old Testament. Realizing later on where the essential differences lay, Ignatius then restated his position much more clearly in his letter:
But for me the archives are Jesus Christ, the inviolable archives are His cross and death and His resurrection and the faith which is through Him-in these I desire to be justified by your prayers. The priests are noble, but greater is the High Priest, entrusted with the Holy of Holies, who alone is entrusted with the secret things of God, since He is the door of the Father, through which enter Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and the prophets and the apostles and the Church—all these, into the unity of God. But the Gospel has something distinctive: the coming of the Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, His passion and the resurrection; for the beloved prophets made their proclamation with Him in view, but the Gospel is the completion of incorruption (Phil. 8:2-9:1)
Jesus Christ, His passion and resurrection is, for Ignatius, the only complete revelation of God; this alone is salvific. Hence it is only through this door, Jesus Christ, that the prophets, apostles, and the whole Church enter to the Father. When Ignatius states that “To me the archives are Jesus Christ,” he is not implying that Jesus Christ is a different, higher authority than Scripture; rather, for Ignatius, the Old Testament simply is Jesus Christ—the Word made flesh. All Scripture pertaining to the revelation of God is identical with the revelation of God given in Christ as preached by the apostles; and, in reverse, all that the Gospel proclaims has already been written down as Scripture.
The reason for this emphasis, I believe, is because, as Irenaeus relates it, the “Apostolic Preaching” as he describes it in this work is an intense review of the Old Testament Scriptures.
The Reformers, who for the first time in a thousand years began to understand the Hebrew Scriptures, were in a position to make this connection that had been lost for a long, long time in the church.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Ratzinger on the “real evil in the dispute between the east and west”
Doing some research for some future postings on the topic of “Apostolic Succession,” I came across this little gem from Ratzinger’s work, “God’s Word: Scripture-Tradition-Office”:“The concealing of the old theological idea of the sedes apostolica, which was after all from the outset a part of the Church’s understanding of herself [NOT!], by the idea of the five patriarchates must be regarded as the real evil in the dispute between East and West, an evil that also had its effect upon the West, inasmuch as—despite the retention of the concept of the sedes apostolic—a largely administrative and patriarchal concept of the importance of the Roman See developed that could hardly help any outsider to have a clear grasp of the real essence of the Roman claim, as distinct from any other claims”(pg 35).
So, not only was the concept of the “five Patriarchates” a real evil in itself for challenging Roman claims—it caused Rome to exaggerate its own claims, making it hard for any outsider to have a clear grasp of the real essence of the Roman claim.
I have recently noted the avoidance of responsibility for one’s actions as just simply a juvenile, adolescent trait. This of course is only one trait that is typical of the ongoing Roman mindset.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
"Basic Advice on How to Interpret Luther"
Carl Trueman analyzes Rob Bell's use of a Luther quotation.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
On “Ash Wednesday”, remember, it is “for freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.”
For all you Catholics out there, today is “Ash Wednesday,” traditionally held to be the beginning of the Lent season – the 40 days prior to Easter, reputedly a very old tradition of the early church. For all you Protestants, you should know that there’s a difference between “tradition” and “Tradition” in Catholic understanding.
This is essentially a reprint of a blogpost I had written about a year ago. I’m reprinting it here as a reminder that many of us will see folks walking around today with little black dots on their foreheads, and they no doubt will have been taught that this little black dot is somehow a mark of piety.
It’s true that Lent is one of the earliest church traditions. But it’s also one of just a handful of such “traditions.” Most of these are really just practices, which in fact are no longer practiced. Yves Congar, in his “The Meaning of Tradition,” (and derived from his scholarly “Tradition and Traditions” and a textbook for Roman Catholic seminarians), provides a list (pg. 37) of some of the traditions that can be traced to the early church:
-- The Lenten fast (Irenaeus, Jerome, Leo)
-- Certain baptismal rites (Tertullian, Origen, Basil, Jerome, Augustine)
-- Certain Eucharistic rites (Origin, Cyprian, Basil)
-- Infant baptism (Origen, Augustine)
-- Prayer facing the East (Origen, Basil)
-- Validity of baptism by heretics (pope Stephen, Augustine)
-- Certain rules for the election and consecration of bishops (Cyprian)
-- The sign of the cross (Basil, who lived 329-379)
-- Prayer for the dead (note, this is not “prayers to the dead”) (John Chrysostom)
-- Various liturgical fests and rites (Basil, Augustine)
Again, while such practices as Lenten fasts the sign of the cross are still practiced, many of these “apostolic traditions” – really those extending earlier than the 4th century – such as prayer facing east, and Cyprian’s rules for electing and consecrating bishops are, well, in the dustbin of history.
Note, too, that the only way we can trace these “traditions” is not because they are somehow held “orally”; rather, we know of the origins of these practices because we trace their beginnings through the writings of various fourth and fifth century writers.
Yves Congar was one of the leading experts on the early church. He was influential at Vatican II, and John Paul II named him a Cardinal in 1994. (I mention this because Congar was a noted liberal, as well, and I’ve had some Catholic apologists dismiss “liberal” theologians as if their writings had no official standing in Rome.)
Congar wrote, “We should be prepared to find that the apostles had not recorded in writing all the rules they gave the churches in view of the fragmentary and occasional nature of their writings.” (pg 34)
Catholics are wont to trumpet the fact that their church has “tradition,” but the paucity of actual extra-Scriptural traditions means that any other “unwritten traditions” from the Apostles were either unimportant enough to be forgotten, or written down as Scripture.
David King, in his work “Holy Scripture: A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura,” explains this very well:
So now, for those Protestants concerned that you might be missing out on “the fullness of the faith,” you can know that many of the “infallible [T]raditions” are accretions that were added in post-apostolic times.
And when all is said and done, the best advice about this day comes from the pen of the Apostle Paul:
I am not among those who think that the practice of asceticism in the early church was a good thing. Even if the early church did not explicitly adhere to a doctrine of “sola Scriptura,” what was preventing them from adhering even to this not-unclear admonition from Paul? In the light of this passage of Scripture, what good reason is there for anyone to walk around today with a black dot on his forehead? NOT having a dot on your forehead today also means something in that context.
This is essentially a reprint of a blogpost I had written about a year ago. I’m reprinting it here as a reminder that many of us will see folks walking around today with little black dots on their foreheads, and they no doubt will have been taught that this little black dot is somehow a mark of piety.
It’s true that Lent is one of the earliest church traditions. But it’s also one of just a handful of such “traditions.” Most of these are really just practices, which in fact are no longer practiced. Yves Congar, in his “The Meaning of Tradition,” (and derived from his scholarly “Tradition and Traditions” and a textbook for Roman Catholic seminarians), provides a list (pg. 37) of some of the traditions that can be traced to the early church:
-- The Lenten fast (Irenaeus, Jerome, Leo)
-- Certain baptismal rites (Tertullian, Origen, Basil, Jerome, Augustine)
-- Certain Eucharistic rites (Origin, Cyprian, Basil)
-- Infant baptism (Origen, Augustine)
-- Prayer facing the East (Origen, Basil)
-- Validity of baptism by heretics (pope Stephen, Augustine)
-- Certain rules for the election and consecration of bishops (Cyprian)
-- The sign of the cross (Basil, who lived 329-379)
-- Prayer for the dead (note, this is not “prayers to the dead”) (John Chrysostom)
-- Various liturgical fests and rites (Basil, Augustine)
Again, while such practices as Lenten fasts the sign of the cross are still practiced, many of these “apostolic traditions” – really those extending earlier than the 4th century – such as prayer facing east, and Cyprian’s rules for electing and consecrating bishops are, well, in the dustbin of history.
Note, too, that the only way we can trace these “traditions” is not because they are somehow held “orally”; rather, we know of the origins of these practices because we trace their beginnings through the writings of various fourth and fifth century writers.
Yves Congar was one of the leading experts on the early church. He was influential at Vatican II, and John Paul II named him a Cardinal in 1994. (I mention this because Congar was a noted liberal, as well, and I’ve had some Catholic apologists dismiss “liberal” theologians as if their writings had no official standing in Rome.)
Congar wrote, “We should be prepared to find that the apostles had not recorded in writing all the rules they gave the churches in view of the fragmentary and occasional nature of their writings.” (pg 34)
“What do the written documents we possess tell us of the preparation for baptism, of the Eucharistic celebration, of the way to deal with sinners, and so on? St. John tells us he has not written everything concerning Christ, at least with regard to his miracles (Jn 30:30; 21:35). The apostles preached before they wrote (cf. 1 Cor 15:1); they preached more than they wrote, and their letters speak of certain of their actions that are not recorded in writing. St. Paul gave this advice to the Thessalonians: “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess 2:15); he congratulated the Corinthians because they “maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor 11;2); just as without repeating them he reminded the Thessalonians of the instructions he had given them verbally (1 Thess 4:1-2; 2 Thess 2:15); finally he told the Corinthians that he would settle a certain number of points at his next visit (1 Cor 11:4).” The existence of unwritten traditions is therefore a certainty…”However, as I noted above, the only “unwritten apostolic traditions” that exist, from the time of the earliest church, are the items listed above.
Catholics are wont to trumpet the fact that their church has “tradition,” but the paucity of actual extra-Scriptural traditions means that any other “unwritten traditions” from the Apostles were either unimportant enough to be forgotten, or written down as Scripture.
David King, in his work “Holy Scripture: A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura,” explains this very well:
“Roman apologists use [these texts mentioning tradition, including 1 Thess 4:1-2; 2 Thess 2:15] often when objecting to the principle of sola Scriptura. What they attempt to prove is that if we hold only to those traditions delivered in Scripture, then we are not receiving God’s full or complete revelation, leaving the impression that the Roman communion has access to special revelation not contained in holy Scripture. So then, failure to hold to the traditions passed down orally in the Church is disobedience to the complete revelation of God. However, as has been repeatedly shown, the problem is that they cannot even identify what these orally ‘preserved’ traditions are. (pg 119)
So now, for those Protestants concerned that you might be missing out on “the fullness of the faith,” you can know that many of the “infallible [T]raditions” are accretions that were added in post-apostolic times.
And when all is said and done, the best advice about this day comes from the pen of the Apostle Paul:
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.It is “for freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.”
Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations—"Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh (Col 2:8-22).
I am not among those who think that the practice of asceticism in the early church was a good thing. Even if the early church did not explicitly adhere to a doctrine of “sola Scriptura,” what was preventing them from adhering even to this not-unclear admonition from Paul? In the light of this passage of Scripture, what good reason is there for anyone to walk around today with a black dot on his forehead? NOT having a dot on your forehead today also means something in that context.
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
“Ooh, ooh, he said ‘chair’” – “Florilegia” (“assertions of authority”) vs. the Reformation discipline of Textual Criticism
When you’ve been involved with the sort of Protestant-vs-Roman-Catholic argumentation that we deal with on a daily basis, it’s easy to discern some patterns. As Turretin noted in the 17th century, the Roman Catholic method of defending itself is to make a claim of over-arching authority; this claim is asserted and re-asserted, as if the re-assertion carries more weight than the original assertion.
This method of argument-by-authority was very common in the early medieval years. In fact, the long lists of patristic citations that we often see have their origin in the medieval “florilegia,” which actually were books, or lists of patristics citations. The one whose list of citations was more authoritative carried the day. Peter Lombard’s “Sentences” was just such a book of citations. And once Lombard’s “Sentences” was established as authoritative, then every theologian had to “comment” on Lombard’s “Sentences”. This is just how the business was practiced back then.
The Medieval Historian Jacques Le Goff describes this practice:
Bryan Cross’s article on The Chair of St. Peter is not the first place where he’s listed a long string of patristic quotes to support the idea that there was some sort of notion that there was anything like an early papacy in place.
In a previous discussion when Bryan had done this, Turretinfan worked through the entire list (a) tracking down sources, (b) providing greater context, and (c) providing some much-too-kind analysis. The bottom line is that virtually none of these “patristics citations” meant what Bryan thought they did, and if they did say what he was saying, they turned out to be forgeries in some way.
Pastor David King pointed this out to Bryan Cross; in fact, in doing so, he cited the Roman Catholic theologian Yves Congar. Keep in mind who Congar was, and his importance. According to Avery Dulles, “Vatican II could almost be called Congar’s Council”. Here, in short, is the Congar quote that Bryan disagreed with. (Again, I’ll refer you to Turretinfan’s much-too-kind article and also the original source of the quote at Green Baggins for context):
So Rome, and Rome alone, is said to have asserted its own authority. In response to this, Bryan posted a long series of citations, which seemed to have been showing that the early church – in all places, outside of Rome, somehow thought that there was an early papacy.
Let’s look at how Bryan’s first set of citations ended up. I’ll just reproduce Turretinfan’s conclusions here, but the reader may feel free to look at T-fan’s explanations for each one of these. The cumulative effect is quite impressive:
Note again the shape of the argument: Bryan throws up long lists of patristics quotes; this is offered, without blushing, to be an impressive bit of evidence. And the typical Protestant response is to patiently go back to each and every one of those quotations, to provide more context, and to show that in each case, the original “supporting” quote is shown to be something quite different from what is originally asserted by the Roman Catholic.
This method of argument-by-authority was very common in the early medieval years. In fact, the long lists of patristic citations that we often see have their origin in the medieval “florilegia,” which actually were books, or lists of patristics citations. The one whose list of citations was more authoritative carried the day. Peter Lombard’s “Sentences” was just such a book of citations. And once Lombard’s “Sentences” was established as authoritative, then every theologian had to “comment” on Lombard’s “Sentences”. This is just how the business was practiced back then.
The Medieval Historian Jacques Le Goff describes this practice:
Some of the sureties were especially favoured and referred to as ‘authorities’. Obviously it was in theology, the highest branch of learning, that the use of authorities found its greatest glory, and, since it was the basis of spiritual and intellectual life, it was subjected to strict regulation. The supreme authority was Scripture, and, with it, the Fathers of the Church. However, this general authority tended to take the form of quotations. In practice these became ‘authentic’ opinions and, in the end, the ‘authorities’ themselves. Since these authorities were often difficult and obscure, they were explained by glosses which themselves had to come from an ‘authentic author’ [or, an “authentic interpreter” who could “tell us what this means.”]So as we can see, Roman Catholics have been historically conditioned to swallow, unquestioningly, long, untrue assertions of authority. It wasn’t until the rise of the Reformation-era discipline of textual criticism that such things were found out and able to be catalogued.
Very often the glosses replaced the original text. Of all the florilegia [collections of quotations] which conveyed the results of intellectual activity in the Middle Ages, the anthologies of glosses were consulted and ransacked the most. Learning was a mosaic of quotations or ‘flowers’ which, in the twelfth century, were called ‘sentences’ (sententiae or opinions). The collections or summae of sentences were collections of authorities. Robert of Melun was already protesting in the middle of the twelfth century against according credit to glosses in these sentences, but in vain. [The 20th century Dominican theologian] Pere [Marie-Domenique] Chenu acknowledged that the sentences of the inferior thinker Peter Lombard, which was to be the theology textbook in universities in the thirteenth century, was a collection of glosses “whose sources can only be discovered with difficulty”, and furthermore that, even in the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, “one can see a largish number of texts acting as authorities which can only be identified through the distortions of the glossae.”
Of course the men who used authorities stretched their meanings to the point where they barely impeded personal opinions. Alain of Lille, in a saying which was to become proverbial, stated ‘the authority has a wax nose which can be pushed in all directions’… (Jacques Le Goff, “Medieval Civilization,” (First published in France as La Civilisation de l’Occident Medieval, © 1964 by B. Arthaud, Paris) English Translation, © 1988, 1990, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pgs. 325-326.)
Bryan Cross’s article on The Chair of St. Peter is not the first place where he’s listed a long string of patristic quotes to support the idea that there was some sort of notion that there was anything like an early papacy in place.
In a previous discussion when Bryan had done this, Turretinfan worked through the entire list (a) tracking down sources, (b) providing greater context, and (c) providing some much-too-kind analysis. The bottom line is that virtually none of these “patristics citations” meant what Bryan thought they did, and if they did say what he was saying, they turned out to be forgeries in some way.
Pastor David King pointed this out to Bryan Cross; in fact, in doing so, he cited the Roman Catholic theologian Yves Congar. Keep in mind who Congar was, and his importance. According to Avery Dulles, “Vatican II could almost be called Congar’s Council”. Here, in short, is the Congar quote that Bryan disagreed with. (Again, I’ll refer you to Turretinfan’s much-too-kind article and also the original source of the quote at Green Baggins for context):
it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16.16-19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy (from Yves M.-J. Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (London: Burns & Oats, 1966), pp. 398-399).
So Rome, and Rome alone, is said to have asserted its own authority. In response to this, Bryan posted a long series of citations, which seemed to have been showing that the early church – in all places, outside of Rome, somehow thought that there was an early papacy.
Let’s look at how Bryan’s first set of citations ended up. I’ll just reproduce Turretinfan’s conclusions here, but the reader may feel free to look at T-fan’s explanations for each one of these. The cumulative effect is quite impressive:
I. In General - it is important to note up front that Bryan’s thesis itself does not contradict what Congar said....Secondly, this list is obviously cut-and-paste....Also, perhaps as an artifact of the cut-and-paste, Bryan has Hilary writing something that’s actually an amalgamation of different items, cobbled together by some editor (Bryan?).
II. Ephraim the Syrian - In short, this work is probably not a work written by Ephraim the Syrian....this work does not appear to exist in a complete English translation. This suggests to me, though obviously it does not prove it, that Mr. Cross is reliant on a secondary source that has provided him only with the quotation itself, and not with the context.
III. Hilary of Poitiers - the alleged quotation from Hilary is actually an amalgamation of various quotations, cobbled together by some editor (Bryan?)....this particular sentence has been identified as questionable - a possible later interpolation, because of its terrible Latin....So, we are at a dead end here. Is this really Hilary? Who knows! I would be surprised if it were Hilary, but it may be. Even if we assume that it is Hilary, all it shows is that Peter had some sort of primacy of honor above that of Paul (that’s not what Galatians teaches, but that’s another story). It doesn’t suggest that Peter had universal jurisdiction, nor that his superiority (of whatever kind) to Paul was passed on to someone else.
IV. Jerome - Bryan Cross provides a single quotation from Jerome .... Jerome explains himself this way ....Jerome views Damasus as leader of the church of Rome, the Roman church, not the leader of the universal church .... Moreover, Jerome acknowledges that pope Liberius likewise fell into heresy, which does not fit the modern day paradigm of Roman primacy.... “The sword of God, which is the living Word of God, strikes through the things which men of their own accord, without the authority and testimonies of Scripture, invent and think up, pretending that it is apostolic tradition.”
V. Macarius of Egypt - (a relatively obscure 4th century “saint”), .... Macarius clearly thinks that Peter is someone important (“in spite of being what he was”), but at the same time he does not paint an unrealistic picture of him.....I should point out that there is some question about the authenticity of these homilies....
VI. Cyril of Jerusalem - Bryan provided the following quotation from Cyril of Jerusalem....Let’s set aside the fact that Cyril is relating to us the fictional account of Peter’s and Paul’s showdown with Simon Magus, the first heretic. What does the text say? It gives Peter and Paul equal billing as “chief rulers of the church,” and it says Peter carries the keys of heaven....Let’s set aside the fact that Cyril is relating to us the fictional account of Peter’s and Paul’s showdown with Simon Magus, the first heretic. What does the text say? It gives Peter and Paul equal billing as “chief rulers of the church,” and it says Peter carries the keys of heaven.
VII. Basil the Great aka Basil of Caesarea - For Basil, Bryan again combined quotations.....This is one example that Basil is giving regarding the fact that a name calls to mind a whole host of different details of a person. [One of these citations was not even Basil, but “pseudo-Basil”] .... Basil of Caesarea denied explicitly the headship of any man over Christ’s Church. Yet, Mr. Cross, apparently wholly unfamiliar with the history of eastern vs. western relations, cites Basil as a proponent of papal primacy that was utterly foreign to Basil’s ecclesiology. Basil did not apply Matthew 16 to the bishop of Rome, and Mr. Cross should be ashamed of his attempt to mislead others.
VIII. Eulogius of Alexandria - Bryan provides the following quotation from the 6th century Alexandrian Eulogius .... This quotation is quite far from contradicting anything that Congar said.
IX. Sergius, Metropolitan of “(A.D. 649 A.D.)”, writing to to Pope Theodore, says -A .D. “is redundant but because the date itself is not the right year” .... [this writer is] not someone I would think of as a church father. He is writing in the middle of the 7th century, and it appears that the only extant version of his writing is something preserved by Romans at Rome.
X. St. Maximus the Confessor “(c. 650)” of Constantinople - Two quotations were provided by Mr. Cross....Tracking this one down was a little harder than some of the others....The quotation is the first half of a selection “From a letter which was written to Rome,” PG 91:137-40. More specifically, these are extracts taken from a letter of Anastasius’s Letter to John the Deacon. John the Deacon (aka Johannes Hymonides) and Anastasius, librarian of the Roman church, are both Roman.
XI. Conclusion - Congar seems to be justified in stating, “Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than judicial.” [This means, when they said something about Peter, they intended it to be describing Peter the man, not any “successor”].
This may seem like somewhat of an overkill in response to Mr. Cross’ string citation of Fathers. Indeed, in the interest of fairness to Mr. Cross, I should point out that after I and Pastor King had posted sections of the above into the comment box, Mr. Cross seemed to retreat from his original position .... Of course, even this limited position seems hard to defend, beyond a few fathers suggesting that Peter himself was the rock or that Peter himself personally held the keys. And, of course, such a view does not amount to papal primacy, and consequently does not contradict Cardinal Congar’s admission that “Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy ....”
I hope the reader will find this exploration of the fathers and their writings (both authentic and spurious) to be edifying.
Note again the shape of the argument: Bryan throws up long lists of patristics quotes; this is offered, without blushing, to be an impressive bit of evidence. And the typical Protestant response is to patiently go back to each and every one of those quotations, to provide more context, and to show that in each case, the original “supporting” quote is shown to be something quite different from what is originally asserted by the Roman Catholic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
