Mark C. Hanson

Sacred Tradition & Oral Torah

2010-05-30T01:33:00.003-06:00

Oral Torah

I have read, reread and then reread again Mark S. Kinzer’s paper on oral Torah entitled Messianic Judaism and Jewish Tradition in the 21st Century: A Biblical Defense of “Oral Torah”. Below are a few of my thoughts after digesting it.

First of all, I found it interesting that I saw patterns emerging of certain themes that one also finds in Protestant/Roman Catholic debates, namely issues regarding an authoritative interpretive magisterium and sacred oral tradition versus a specific application of the priesthood of all believers that does not find a place for an authoritative group that gives normative interpretations of Sacred Scripture and believes that Sacred Writ is sufficient in and of itself.

Mark Kinzer sets out on his thesis right away in his paper when he asks the poignant question, “Is the Written Torah sufficient for instructing the Jewish people in how we should live as individual, families, and local communities? While it is certainly foundation and indispensable, it is not sufficient. The Torah requires a living tradition of interpretation and application if it is to be practiced in daily life.”

Kinzer seems to find a proto Old Testament magisterium in Deuteronomy 17:8-13 where GOD establishes a central judiciary to hear cases that are too difficult for the local courts. Kinzer states, “In light of the prominent placement of Deuteronomy 1:9-18, and its verbal resemblance to Deuteronomy 16:18-20, it is evident that the central judiciary (again mentioned in Deuteronomy 17:8) carries on Moses’ function just as the local courts carry on the function of the tribal courts of the wilderness period.” The rulings in these cases are binding and non-optional. All of Israel “must carefully observe all that they instruct you to do”, Deuteronomy 17:10. The phrase, “carefully observe” appears frequently in Deuteronomy, always requiring obedience to the words of Torah. This phrase though is also used in regards to the high court.

This specific passage proceeds to insist that the parties “not turn aside from the decision that they declare to you, neither to the right nor to the left,” and solemnly warns those who would transgress the courts decisions by declaring that the disobedient will be put to death and purged from Israel (Deuteronomy 17:11-13).

Through the rulings of the central court (proto Old Testament magisterium) they are teaching Torah. They are sitting in the seat of Moses and functioning in his role that he himself occupied during the wilderness wandering. Their words have a parallel authority with that of the Torah given by Moses. Frank Crusemann summarizes this,

The conclusion we must draw from this is absolutely clear: The decision of the court have the same significance and the same rank as the things that Moses himself said – which means Deuteronomy itself. The Jerusalem high court rendered decisions with the authority of Moses and it had his jurisdiction. It spoke in the name of Moses and extrapolated forward the will of YHWH. The development and structure of deuteronomic law cannot be separated from the institution of the Jerusalem central court…According to Deut. 17:8f. this court speaks with the same authority as Deuteronomy itself – the authority of Moses.

Thus “Deuteronomy established an institution that carries on the Mosaic role of interpreting and applying the Torah in new and unforeseen circumstances” (Kinzer). The court existed to render judgment regarding beyn Torah le-mitzvah le-chukim ul-mishpatim (“between Torah and commandment, statues and ordinances”). In other words, it refers to cases where there seems to be a collision of norms where one must interpret how to apply the Torah in difficult situations. In II Chronicles 19 we see such a high court existing within the walls of Jerusalem. Farther back in Numbers 11 we see seventy elders who ascended Sinai with Moses and saw the GOD of Israel (Exodus 24:9-11). These seventy elders were not assigned subordinate groupings of people, resembling district-limited jurisdiction that we saw in other parts of Exodus/Deuteronomy, instead their role seems to be applied to all of Israel. Not only had they ascended to Sinai with Moses but their appointments occurred in the Tent of Meeting which corresponded to the future Temple in Jerusalem. They also received a measure of the prophetic spirit of Moses in Numbers 11:17, 25-30. Thus, they seem to be in succession with the Seat and authority of Moses.

To summarize what was stated earlier, the written Torah operated more like case law or a normative principle framework type basis and so it lacked the needed legal details that were required to carry these laws out in the day to day life of Israel. Also, the Torah itself anticipated future times where certain laws might seem contradictory and would need a central body to sort this out. So this central court carried on the Mosaic teaching office to continue to interpret and contextualize Torah to new daily life of Israel.

An interesting thesis appears later when Kinzer quotes Crusemann as saying that there was also authority in the community of Israel itself, “The Jews established (kiyyemu) and accepted as a custom (kibbelu) for themselves and their descendants and all who jolined them, that without fail they would continue to observe these two days every eyar, as it was written and at the time appointed.” David Novak restates this thesis, “GOD confirmed what the Jewish authorities on earth had themselves decreed for the people”

Regarding the revelatory nature of the oral Torah, Kinzer first rebuts the view that “GOD gave to Moses on Sinai two separate and complementary Torah’s – one to be conveyed in Written form, the other to be transmitted orally. The Written Torah is the Pentateuch; the Oral Torah was passed on by word of mouth from one generation to the next, and was ultimately written down in the Talmud”. He believes this to be a naïve position and “a view that developed in Medieval times. Kinzer instead takes the view that all of the oral Torah is more or less an authoritative explication of the revelation of GOD given to Moses which was written down in the Pentateuch, Written Torah. I would disagree somewhat with this view and say that both further revelation from GOD to Moses was contained in oral Torah alongside with authoritative interpretations of the Written Torah, existing together in one stream in the living tradition of the teaching body of Israel. Kinzer does make a concession to this point of view when he quotes Rabbi Dr. Moshe Zemer, “Therefore Moses was given orally certain general principles, only briefly alluded to in the Torah, by means of which the Sages may work out the newly emerging particulars in every generation”. Kinzer tends to like the view of oral Torah as “dynamic, flexible, reflecting the infinite diversity of circumstances that face the Jewish people in the course of its journey through history…The appearance of the oral Torah in written form could easily lead to a misunderstanding of its essential nature as the flexible, contingent application of the Written Torah to new situations” So Kinzer does not see the oral Torah as “solidified code, given once for all to Moses on Sinai, existing in an oral form” but instead sees oral Torah as a Divinely guided process in which the Jewish people seek to apply and then live out the reality of Torah in their lives in continuity with the wisdom of the generations that has accumulated before them now being contextualized in their present time.

How did the Rabbis then see the written Torah and oral Torah as interacting together? Kinzer states, “The Talmud consistently distinguishes between obligations that are d’oraita and those that are d’rabbanan, and treats the former s taking precedence over the latter.” Halivni, “there are differences with respect to severity of observance between a law which is biblically commanded and a law which is rabbinically ordained” So kal va-chomer (from the greater to the lesser) is often used when two laws, d’oraita (Scriptural law) and d’rabbanan (rabbinic law) seem to contradict each other. In other words they made an distinction between the “greater things of the law” versus ”the lesser things of the law” like Jesus did when HE was here on earth. Michael Wyschogrod, “The oral Torah is depend on and is inconceivable without the written Torah. It is the written Torah that is the primary document of revelation. Only in the case of the written Torah is there an authorized text, which, when written as specified, brings into being a physical object – the Torah scroll – that is holy”

We see Jesus operating in the same manner when HE talks about the weightier matters of the Law (a similar thesis to Walter Kaiser, Jr.). Jesus sees a problem with the overemphasis of the “tradition of the elders” that ends up obscuring the primary authority of the biblical text. HE says, “Why do you transgress the commandment of GOD for the sake of your tradition?” Again, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice”. Obviously sacrifice had been commanded by GOD but their was a hierarchy of importance as to which law served the other. Thus rabbinic tradition must serve those Biblical commands versus undermining or superseding them. In Matthew 23:23-24 (Luke 11:42), “Woe to you, Pharisaic Scribes, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the Torah, justice and mercy and faithfulness; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!” Kinzer, “once again, we see Yeshua’s prophetic emphasis on love and righteousness in human relationships (“justice and mercy and faithfulness”) as the central thrust of the Torah, over against fine details of ritual observance (in this case, tithing). Yet what often foes unnoticed is Jesus' unequivocal affirmation of even these fine details (“these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others”). Jesus does not condemn these ritual norms but subordinates them to what he believes to be the “weightier matters of the Law”. What is even more fascinating is that the rituals that he upholds and still refers to as a part of Torah are not even found in the written Torah but are instead Rabbinic tradition (oral Torah)! He saw the Pharisees and Sanhedrin as sitting on the authoritative seat of Moses, “The Pharisaic Scribes sit on Moses seat; so carefully observe all that they say to you”. Samuel Lachs brings this text back to our earlier point, “This is based on Deut. 17:10, which is the biblical basis for rabbinic authority replacing that of the priests.”

More importantly we see Jesus claiming ultimate authority for interpreting Torah. The Torah pointed to HIM and found its fulfillment in HIM. HIS disciples, which were a part of the authoritative witnesses and official legates of the King who had inaugurated HIS kingdom as the Jewish Messiah that would now bring the GOD of Israel to the whole earth, were given authority to “bind and loose”. Thus the Apostles were the newly appointed leaders of the recently inaugurated Jewish Messianic kingdom, replacing the wicked tenants (Sanhedrin) who had been left to steward the King’s vineyard but had acted wickedly and thus were thrown out. This would view would naturally fit in with a teaching of Apostolic succession much like we saw a succession of the 70-elders continuing the authority of Moses from generation to generation found in Deuteronomy 17.

Sacred Tradition: God's "Oral" Word

2010-05-30T01:29:00.002-06:00

During the entire history of the development of revelation we see a side by side presence of oral tradition (The concept of Oral Torah will be a future topic of conversation in this forum) with sacred Jewish Scripture in the cult of Israel. This duel expresion of the vox Dei carried over into the early church as well. Jaroslav Pelikan,

From the earliest times the Jewish scribes, who were the faithful custodians of the written text of the holy Torah, were at the same time passing down from master to pupil and by word of mouth various traditions about both customers and teaching, as well as about the meaning of the written text itself, that were not part of the Torah but of the tradition; the collection of such traditions was the basis of the Talmud. When the Christians accepted the Torah and the rest of the Tanakh but added their New Testament to it, that did not put an end to this process, either. Writing in the fourth century, the Christian theologian Basil of Caesarea insisted that such pious actions as making the sign of the cross or facing the East when praying, neither of them commanded in the Bible, were not simply popular customers but unwritten traditions that had come down from the apostolic beginnings of Christianity and that were therefore of no lesser authority than the written apostolic traditions which were enshrined in the Bible. It was all normative and binding Christian tradition, regardless of the medium, written or unwritten, through which it was conveyed.

Jaroslav emphasizes the importance of the spoken word when he states, "This primacy of what "God said" over the written word, even the written word of God, has its grounds in the human psyche and in the very nature of human language" Jaroslav balances this by saying, "What is lost when the spoken word (as we often say, perhaps more portentously than we realize) is reduced to writing must be balanced against what is preserved in that same process and by means of it."

I think we often take it for granted that one of the main criteria for a book being canonical was whether it should be read in a corporate liturgical context or not. In today's self-sufficient and independent cultural milieu, sole-silent reading is unfortunately preferred over the spoken word given in a corporate community context.

F.F. Bruce in The Canon of Scripture,

Jesus wrote no book: he taught by word of mouth and personal example. But some of his followers taught in writing as well as orally. Often, indeed, their writing was a second-best substitute for the spoken word. In Galatians 4:20, for example, Paul wishes that he could be with his friends in Galatia and speak to them directly so that they could catch his tone of voice as well as his actual words but, as he could not visit them just then, a letter had to suffice. Some New Testament documents were evidently designed from the outset to be written compositions [II Corinthians], not substitutes for the spoken word. But in the lifetime of the apostles and their colleagues their spoken words and their written words were equally authoritative.

Here are a couple of quotes from Craig Blomberg on the trustworthiness and wide use of oral tradition,
Other studies show that the disjunction between orality and literacy need not be as marked or that cultures may prefer written or unwritten forms for various ideological reasons unrelated to accuracy of preservation. What is more, oral traditions continued to circulate alongside the written texts until at least the mid-second century and were sometimes even preferred by early Christians as more trustworthy. And a more careful investigation of the written traditions of the Gospels (especially variants among manuscripts, canonical parallels and second-century quotations of the Gospels) shows that Kelber [a scholar who emphasized disjunction between orality and literacy] has also exaggerated the rigidity of textuality.

Blomberg again,
Careful studies of ancient Jewish culture and surrounding nations demonstrate that oral traditions held sacred were preserved with remarkable care. The New Testament world was an oral culture, producing prodigious feats of memory. Rabbis at times had memorized the entire Scriptures (our Old Testament). Such abilities did not preclude the freedom to retell stories with all kinds of minor variation in detail so long as the point of each story or teaching was left intact. The alleged tendency of traditions to develop from simple to complex has been repeatedly refuted; if anything, there was a slight tendency to abbreviate more lengthy narratives.

Sacred Tradition

2010-05-30T01:20:00.001-06:00

Don Garlington,

It is notable that Dunn’s [Protestant Theologian] book, The Partings of the Ways, was originally delivered as a series of lectures at the Gregorian Pontifical University in Rome. In the course of those lectures, Dunn paused to consider the place of tradition. His immediate concern was that of priesthood in the Letter to the Hebrews in relation to the Catholic doctrine of priesthood. Dunn confesses to some bewilderment at the way the argument of Hebrews can be “so lightly ignored or set aside by those Christian traditions which wish to continue to justify a special order of priesthood within the people of God, a special order whose priestly ministry is distinct in kind from the priesthood of all the faithful.”...But to use Heb 5:1 to justify Christian priesthood in the manner of the Second Vatican Council, while ignoring the clear thrust and argument of the letter as a whole, seems to him to constitute a form of eisegesis and special pleading that cannot really be justified from tradition. He confesses to no quarrel in principle with tradition [The teaching of the early church fathers, Prof. Christopher Hall, “The hermeneutical and historical proximity of the fathers to the New Testament church and its apostolic tradition demands that we listen carefully to their exegetical insights, advice and intuitions.”] taking up and developing a possible but less probable interpretation of some text. But can it be justified in making doctrinal use of an interpretation that runs counter to the main point of the text itself? In this case, he remarks, it is no longer simply a matter of tradition interpreting scripture, but of “tradition riding roughshod over scripture.”

A New Perspective on Mary: Unity in the Body through the Holy Spirit

2010-05-13T16:05:00.000-06:00

Introduction

The heart of this paper comes from my personal passion for the unity of the Church, the advancement of Christ's kingdom and a desire for Christian's to thrive so that they might be in a position to advance the kingdom of God. I want to respond to the amazing paradox that though there are hundreds of thousands of Christians zealous for God's revelation and equally zealous in their desire to apply it, they wind up fighting against each other, rather than fighting against the “forces of darkness” and advancing the kingdom of God.

What do I believe has caused this paradox to exist and what can help solve this paradox? I believe that many Christians do not understand what it truly means to be a Christian and what the Gospel of Christ is (Christ's inaugurated kingdom). Because of these misunderstandings among a large number of the faithful of all three Christian traditions: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant; false boundary lines are drawn concerning the definition of what a Christian is and hence unneeded ecclesial schism and division is caused. Unfortunately this has resulted in whole ecclesial communities and movements whose primary distinctions are as a result from an ignorance of church history, an over-reaction against theological error, and a lack of hermeneutical and exegetical acumen. No small amount of damage to the Church's ability to advance against the gates of hell has been affected. This paradox of division in the Body of Christ not only has caused great harm to the Church but also in the lives of many Christian families and individuals as well. Many sons and daughters of the Church who have been raised in this context are now disenchanted with the Church and are at odds with her. How can these faith communities advance the kingdom of God when many of their parishioners' lives have been shattered and are in ruin?

It is my desire to propose a theological reflection surrounding the Theotokos that would contribute to a "unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” I truly believe that a theology of Our Lady that emphasizes her as a will help contribute to the Church's unity that would assist in the reversal of the schism and division that is affecting so many churches and families across the United States and beyond. I believe along with Max Thurian, Brother of Taizé that, “Instead of being a cause of division amongst us, Christian reflections on the role of the Virgin Mary should be a cause of rejoicing and a source of prayer.” [1]

How the Problem Developed

As alluded to earlier, I believe that the various schisms that exist within the Church are a result of the theological pendulum that has been swinging since the inception of Christianity, and Mariology has been no exception to this phenomenon. Mariology has been and continues to be one of the most polarizing issues between Catholics and Evangelicals. The Mariology pendulum is the tendency of men and movements to overcompensate when correcting Marian theology or practice. Once the proverbial pendulum has begun to change direction away from one error, it often passes the mark of truth and swings into the opposite error. I want to avoid both the almost cultic Marian maximalist view and the typical Protestant minimalism that we see so often in Evangelical circles. It would be worthwhile then, before proposing a thesis on Mariology to first draw a brief sketch as to how Mariology developed over the last two centuries.

A particularly helpful work that assists with this endeavor is Truly Our Sister, A Theology of Mary in the Communion of Saints by Elizabeth Johnson. In this incisive volume, Elizabeth points out that as early as the fourth century Mariology began to be twisted when,

Places in nature where female deities had been honored with pilgrimage and prayer, such as grottoes, springs, promontories, mountains, lakes, and woods, became associated with Mary. Shrines and temples to the goddess were rededicated to Mary the Mother of God. Artistic symbols of the goddess accrued to Mary; her dark blue cloak, turreted crown, link with the moon and the stars, and with water and the sea. [2]

So rather than stopping this syncretistic approach the officials of the church allowed this to go rather unchecked because of its appeal to cultures where the goddesses were venerated. By the end of the first millennium, the Church had slowly detached Mary from redemptive history and isolated her as a mediator of all graces. Jaroslav Pelikan, notes, “In both birth and death, therefore, she is different from other people; in both birth and death she resembles her divine Son. More and more, the attributes ascribed to her seem closer to those of Christ than to those of common mortals. She was conceived in a special way, she performs miracle, she intercedes for us, she was assumed into heaven.” [3] Mary had become a new mediator between believers and the harsh Judge, Jesus. Rather than seeing Him as our personal mediator and one who could sympathize they saw Him like an Italian mobster who was ruthless and angry and whose only soft spot was for his mother. Elizabeth expresses this phenomenon, “The mother of God came to be seen as a particularly potent help to sinners, a heavenly power who because of her maternal heart would take the sinner’s side. Since she was also the mother of the Judge who was bound to honor her with filial piety, she was uniquely positioned to persuade him to save poor sinners.” [4]

The majority of the medieval Church expressed this sentiment. A few samplings of this are below:

· Bernard of Clairvaux - [God] wills us to have everything through Mary.

· Bonaventure - The Blessed Virgin chose the best part because she was made Queen of Mercy, while her Son remained King of Justice; and mercy is better than justice.

· Bernardine of Siena - Every grace which is communicated to this world has a threefold procession. For from God to Christ, from Christ to the Virgin, from the Virgin to us, it is dispensed in a most orderly fashion…I do not hesitate to say that she has received a certain jurisdiction over all graces…They are administered through her hands to whom she pleases, when she pleases, as she pleases, and as much as she pleases.

The pattern and thread to all of this is that in Sacred Theology Mary had replaced Jesus and even more so, the Holy Spirit. Moving past the medieval era into the Reformation this dynamic increased even more as devotion to Mary equaled being a faithful child of the Church. This polarization occurred in the context of the Reformers emphasizing that Christ was the only Mediator. They asserted that Christ had been replaced by the hierarchical structure of the Saints. They showed how central the Incarnation was to Christ being our mediator because His human nature enabled Him to sympathize with us. Hebrews 4:14-16 was essential to this view,

Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.

It should be noted though that the Reformer’s Mariology was significantly different from today’s evangelical view. For instance, John Calvin accepted Mary's perpetual virginity and the title "Mother of God" (meaning Jesus was God and she was His mother), as also did Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli. In addition, Zwingli and Luther believed that Mary was sinless.

Some went even farther such as the pre-Lutheran reformer, John Wycliffe, who in the following statement reflected the Marian spirit of the age, "It seems to me impossible that we should obtain the reward of Heaven without the help of Mary. There is no sex or age, no rank or position, of anyone in the whole human race, which has no need to call for the help of the Holy Virgin. [5]" Even both Zwingli and Bullinger would join in the “Hail Mary, full of grace” but not as a prayer for intercession to Mary but as an expression of honor to her and the role she played in salvation history. Calvin would also call Mary “the treasurer of grace” and said how Christ “chose for himself the virgin’s womb as a temple in which to dwell” (Institutes 2.14.1).

Though the Counter-Reformation addressed some of the concerns of the Reformers regarding the out of control Mariology, the overall projection of Marian theology remained unabated and continued into modern times.. The zenith of this Marian upsurge reached its crest during the papal proclamations of the two Marian dogmas, the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950). The idea that Mary was conceived without original sin was rejected by Augustine, Bernard of Clairvaux, the Dominicans and Thomas Aquinas, among other well-known scholars of the Church. Augustine did believe though that God’s amazing, penetrating grace was bestowed on her “for vanquishing sin in every part” (On Nature and Grace 36.42).

So themes of the Blessed Virgin's mediating God's grace and offering protection for the children of the Church filled the volumes of theologians, was proclaimed loudly in homilies, and was expressed with great passion by popes. Apparitions abounded along with lay societies dedicated to Mary. Jaroslav Pelikan, “The theologians and bishops of the church, who ought to watch and to warn the faithful of the excesses in such piety, are actually the ones who encourage the excesses. In the autumn of 1950, in the very week when he proclaimed the dogma of the Assumption, Pope Pius XII had several vision of the Virgin, during which he also saw the sun do a dance in the sky to the honor of Our Lady of Fatima.” [6]

Slowly in the undercurrent of the Church though, an ever-growing undertow of concern was developing regarding the cult of Mary that had developed in the Church. During the 1950's, leading up to Vatican II, a split among theologians started to occur. On one side was the Marian maximalist or christotypical group that saw Mary "as an altogether special creature whose privileges paralleled those of Christ." They desired to see Mary defined as Mediatrix of All Graces. The other group, labeled ecclesiotypical was based on biblical, liturgical and ecumenical renewal movement along with a zeal for the patristics. Their Mariology was based on Mary as an ideal disciple who was herself a recipient of grace amidst the community of the faithful. Some of these theologians were Yves Congar, Heribert Mühlen, J. M. R. Tillard, and Avery Dulles and even favored the removal of the anathemas attached to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Edward Schillebeeckx, one of the ecclesiotypical group had written before Vatican II on Mariology. His views would greatly influence the counsel,

In the faceoff the mariological tendencies which were dominating at that time, to give Mary a place in so-called’ objective redemption’, I stressed that Mary must not be put on the side of Jesus Christ but on the side of reception by the community of faith. Because of the attempt to ‘keep Mary on our side’, at that time I preferred not to use the title ‘Mary co-redemptrix’ which was current in marian circles at that time, and preferred vaguer references like ‘companion in redemption’. That applies to her, as it applies to all Christian believers who through their fiat of faith enter into the state of redemption and, being redeemed, in return, by virtue of this grace of redemption, also become grace for others. [7]

The ecclesiotypical group won out in Vatican II but there were still disappointments felt by this group because of the inadequacies of biblical exegesis regarding Mary in the Marian chapter. There seemed to be a capitulation to the minority group when after the third session of Vatican II had rejected the title “Mary Mother of The Church” by a majority of 1559 votes (October 29 1964), Pope Paul VI added it back in at the conclusion of the council. Also there seemed to be a complete lack of development regarding the Holy Spirit, which left the door open for continual false attributions to be made to Mary that should be made to the Holy Spirit. Another setback was Pope John Paul II's Marian encyclical Redemptoris Mater in 1987 that harkened back to the days of the christotypical group. John Paul II,

Thus there is a mediation: Mary places herself between her son and humankind in the reality of their wants, needs, and sufferings. She puts herself ‘in the middle,’ not as an outsider but in her position as mother. She knows that as such she can point out to her son the needs of humankind, and in fact she ‘has the right’ to do so. Her mediation is thus in the nature of an intercession. [8]

Still yet it was Paul VI's apostolic letter entitled Marialis Cultus written 13 years earlier that still continues to burn brightly in championing the Council's view of Mary as set forth in the Constitutions. In Marialis Cultus, Paul VI outlined 4 principles for how the Church could honor and incorporate the memory of Our Lady in keeping with Scripture, Tradition and the conciliar statements of Vatican II. They are as follows: [9]

1. Biblical: Honor of Mary should be Biblical and based on sound exegesis rather than proof-texting. He desired that Mary be seen within the great themes of salvation history versus a separate schema as the maximalist group had pre-Vatican II.

2. Liturgical: Honor and memory of Mary should flow from and lead back to our focus on our weekly remembrance of the Paschal Mystery and be integrated in with the liturgical seasons that celebrate various aspects of redemptive history.

3. Ecumenical: Mary should be seen within the lens of sound Scriptural foundations and have Christ as its center and goal. Special care should be given to "avoid any exaggeration which could mislead other Christians about the true doctrine of the Catholic Church."

4. Anthropological: Memory of Mary should be closely related to the sciences of psychology and sociology especially as it relates to women.

Moving Forward

Having traced some of the development of Marian theology, I want to take a look at two important discussions regarding Marian theology and ecumenism that have taken place very recently and that have a bearing on the thesis of this paper. The first discussion being between the Church of Rome and the Anglican Church and second being between the Church of Rome and American Evangelicals. These two meetings resulted in the production of two documents, namely: Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ: The Seattle Statement, produced by the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (February 2004) & Do Whatever He Tells You: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Christian Faith and Life: A Statement of Evangelicals and Catholics Together (November 2009). I will be taking a look at these documents and the consensuses reached as a beginning point and possible foundation for moving forward in the Church's quest for unity that could be advanced by appreciating the life and ministry of The Blessed Virgin.

In both ecumenical discussions each side strongly agreed to the wording of the Second Vatican Council, “No creature could ever be counted as equal to the Incarnate Word and Redeemer. . . . The Church does not hesitate to profess the subordinate role of Mary” (Lumen Gentium 62). Both sides also agree on the biblical theology of Mary which we will now turn our attention to in order to offer a brief cursory view. When Gabriel announces to Mary that she will bear the coming Messiah, he states that Mary is “full of grace.” Mary then is a special example of humility and openness to the gracing power of the Holy Spirit. She responds in great faith to the angel’s announcement by saying, “Let it be with me according to your word.” Mary responds in song (The Magnificat) and states that “all generations will call me blessed.” So both Catholics and Evangelicals want to rightly call her blessed in the fullest Biblical sense. This is why both sides can now call her the Blessed Virgin Mary. According to Sacred Scripture Mary is the long-awaited daughter of Israel who would bear the “consolation of Israel.” She is seen as the conclusion and summit of a long list of virtuous mothers such as: Sarah, Rachel, and Hannah, Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth.

It seems right to also describe her as the New Eve, as other patristics did such as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus because she fulfilled Genesis 3:15, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." As the New Eve, Mary fulfilled the promise to the first Eve that the seed of a woman would conquer sin and death that was the result of the Fall. Both sides also agree on the theological importance of referring to Mary as the Theotokos, “the God-Bearer” as the Council of Ephesus (431) deemed her to be, in opposition to the heresy of Nestorianism. This heresy asserted that Mary, the mother of Jesus gave birth to the humanity of Christ, instead of the divine Logos, God as a man. Thus Nestorius believed Mary should be called Christotokos, Greek for the "birth giver of Christ" and not Theotokos, Greek for the "birth giver of God". This was an unorthodox view because the Apostolic teaching is that the Virgin Mary is Theotokos because she gave birth to God as a man. Jesus was 100% GOD and 100% man, two natures in one person. In the word of the Chalcedonian creed,

“Born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

Both tradtions agree to the importance of being rigorous in opposing those who would confuse the term Theotokos with any pagan myths of goddess worship, fertility cults and the like. Our common honor of Mary is because it is inextricably bound up with what is said about Jesus our Lord. We both want to emphasize an orthodox Christology and one that gives honor to both the events and people involved with His Incarnation and Paschal Mystery. It is the goal of both traditions to balance any reflection on Mary by remembering that at the Magnificat and at all other times, Mary always glorified God and her Son and never herself. See Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) regarding this point in the context of Marian apparitions,

Private revelation ... can be a genuine help in understanding the Gospel and living it better at a particular moment in time; therefore it should not be disregarded. It is a help which is offered, but which one is not obliged to use ... The criterion for the truth and value of a private revelation is therefore its orientation to Christ himself. When it leads us away from him, when it becomes independent of him or even presents itself as another and better plan of salvation, more important than the Gospel, then it certainly does not come from the Holy Spirit. [10]

Pneumatological-Ecclesiological View of Mary

I now move towards discussing the recent groundbreaking idea of a pneumatological-ecclesiological view of Mary. A view that emphasizes Mary as fully graced and Spirit-filled. When Gabriel appeared to her, he called her “full of grace” or “highly favored”. Mary filled with the Spirit, exclaimed, “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (Luke 1:28). She is spilling over with the fullness and joy of the Spirit. When Gabriel announced that Mary would be conceive by the Holy Spirit, the long awaited Messiah she says, “I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said.” (Luke 1:38). At the wedding in Cana she told her servants, “Do whatever He tells you” (John 2:5). In both instances, we see a complete faith and trust in God and in his Incarnate Son. We see a woman overshadowed, filled, consumed by the Holy Spirit. Saint Augustine emphasizes the important of her spirit-filled discipleship that is so often overshadowed by her motherhood, “Indeed the blessed Mary certainly did the Father’s will, and so it was for her a greater thing to have been Christ’s disciple than to have been his mother, and she was more blessed in her discipleship than in her motherhood. Hers was the happiness of first bearing in her womb him whom she would obey as her master” (Sermon 72A.7).

Mary’s faith was not of one of passivity but one of courage and valor. It was an active-obedience faith where she walked in the steps she was called to walk in. She is an example of what a woman of God should be. This ministry continued after the ascension of her Son as we see her praying with the other disciples at the house in Jerusalem during Pentecost. It was Luke’s intention as the author to ensure that all readers knew that she was there. Both in his gospel as well as in Acts we see the thread of Mary’s fearless trust in God, such as when the disciples fled in fear during Jesus’ arrest and yet Mary remained. She was the consummate expression of someone who was overshadowed, filled, enabled and made fruitful by the power of the Spirit.

We also see Mary the wife, who was an ezer kenegdo/helpmate (an equal and corresponding help), and assisted and honored her husband Joseph. Often Mariology downplays the part of Joseph but it should be noted that in Scripture we have God revealing himself three times in a supernatural way to Joseph and only once to Mary. Thus Joseph’s part in redemptive history needs to be better articulated and integrated with contemporary Mariology. Seeing Mary as fully female and fully human in need of redemption like any other human but as someone that fully submitted to the Spirit gives hope to both men and women.

The Holy Spirit in the Communion of Saints

It is important to interpret Mary’s unique role that she played in salvation history within the great cloud of witnesses, the communion of saints where her faith finds significance “amid multiple relationships of mutuality formed by the Spirit.” [11] So Mary find her place as a graced woman of God in the larger context of the communion of saints, which is the whole host of believers both here on earth and in heaven above who are children of God the Father in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. In the words of Schillebeeckx, “Mary must not be put on the side of Jesus Christ but on the side of the community of faith which is on the receiving end. [12]” With Schillebeeckx and Johnson, I propose a companionship model versus a hierarchical model to describe the communion of saints. They are a cloud of witnesses, partners, companions, comrades and co-disciples, not super-saints in heaven who are “situated between God and those on earth, with some more and some less powerful in intercessory pull…in heaven as benefactors who act as patrons for earthly petitioners.” [13] For too long the Church has created a caste-like system in their version of the communion of saints and have subsequently closed a blind eye to the abuses that have stemmed from it. See Pelikan,

Although the official teaching of the church, with its separation between veneration and adoration, is a modern version of the distinction espoused by Augustine, the piety oat Lourdes or at Guadalupe or at Fatima demonstrates how blurred that distinction often becomes in the common mind. “St. Jude, help!” may mean officially: “St. Jude, I ask you for your intercession to our Lord Jesus Christ, before whom you and I both stand in judgment and in prayer. As you prayed with and for your fellow believers when you were alive, I ask you to pray with and for me now, that, if it be God’s will, I amy obtain divine help.” But in the personal life of the person who utters the prayer, St. Jude can help directly, therefore Roman Catholics often pray to him directly. [14]

The more biblical view is where we are mutual partners in the Spirit, instead of a hierarchical one. Romans 14:7-9, “For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.” These clouds of witnesses in heaven, “are proposed not as exemplars to be imitated or helpers to be invoked, but as witnesses whose journey encourages those who are still on the way. It is a matter of being inspired by the whole lot of them and the wonderful testimony of their lives to the living God.” [15]

Still yet there are some believers that I would call “paradigmatic saints" which are “specific persons emerge whose lives embody one or more central values of the faith in a strikingly concrete form.” [16] It is in this group of paradigmatic saints that the Blessed Virgin belongs. She is in the presence of God among the community of the faithful who pray for the believers here on earth and still offer encouragement by their own past life here on earth for those of us still running the race so as to win. Her submitting to the Spirit so faithfully and humbly is what made her such a powerful witness to the world. Mary embodied what the Church is to embody corporately, a pure love for God humble submission to the Spirit. It is this pneumatalogical view that we want to emphasize. Elizabeth Johnson puts it so beautifully when she says,

The key to our theologizing is this: Mary is a woman of Spirit. She entrusted her life to the utterly gracious reality of the transcendent. Whether she was taking initiative, rejoicing, criticizing, pondering, suffering, or otherwise finding her way through ordinary days, her loving partnership with Spirit-Sophia inscribes in our history a story of grace. In this she is sister to all who respond to the gift of the Spirit in their own lives, in ways seen and unseen. Together they form the communion of saints. [17].

By being partakers of the Spirit we are at one with the rest of the Saints. Ephesians 2:18, “For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit” and Ephesians 4:4, “There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called”. It is here that our reform of the communion of saints needs to turn. Many Protestants such as Elsie Gibson bewail the fact that Mary has replaced the Holy Spirit in so much of Catholic theology, “When I began the study of Catholic theology, every place I expected to find an exposition of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, I found Mary. What Protestants universally attribute to the action of the Holy Spirit was attributed to Mary.” [18] Mary is addressed with titles such as intercessor, mediatrix, co-redemptrix, helper, advocate, mediator of all graces, defender, consoler, counselor. It seems rather obvious from the witness of Sacred Scripture that these titles belong to the Holy Spirit and its operations and energies within the Trinity. Tradition should be read in union with Scripture not in such a way where it runs counter to the very main themes of Scripture itself. When the latter happens, tradition is not interpreting Scripture but instead it is essentially doing an “end run” around Scripture and ignoring it. So it is the Holy Spirit and not Mary that is the source of all life, including the Church.

In the light of what for me is now a clear new look (though of course it is old in Christianity), it is not Mary but the Holy Spirit who is ‘the mother of all believers’, the true ‘mother of the church’. For if we look deeper into our Christian tradition of faith, then we discover that even before ecclesiological titles of honor (e.g. the church as the “ark of the covenant”, the “seat of wisdom”, the “gates of David”, the “refuge of sinners”, the comforter of the oppressed”, etc.) are by mariological transference also bestowed on Miriam, the mother of Jesus (see the Litany of Our Lady), these ecclesiological titles of honor were themselves also transferred from even more original Christian honorific titles for the Holy Spirit – the primal source of all ecclesiological and subsequently mariological transferences. [19]

Future discussion about Mary and Mariology then must revolve around the communion of saints in the Spirit who is the source and mother of the Church. All articulation of Marian dogma and doctrine should be carefully examined in light of a biblical pneumatology and Christology and then ecclesiology. [20]

Theology and Praxis

Theology is more than just theory but it is inextricably bound and linked to practice. How can this New Perspective on Mary with a pneumatological and ecclesiological emphasis and framework be applied to ecumenism in the Church today? So many times, ecumenism only happens at the high academic level and the agreements, perspectives and new visions are never passed down to the common lay people. How can this hurdle be surpassed? I propose a three-prong plan. The first prong is to publish books, papers and blog articles on the New Perspective on Mary in language and principles that the common lay person can understand. The second prong would be to hold local conferences on this topic with the cooperation of the panoply of Christian traditions that are represented in that specific community. The third prong is to serve together in the community alongside other ecclesial communities as an express representation and application of the life of Mary and the other saints that gave their life in service and humility to God. Most often it is our love expressed in deeds that God uses to convert the soul and soften the heart in contrast with polemical argumentation for the various dogmas of Christianity.

In closing, I leave with a quote from Evangelicals and Catholics Together that so succinctly expresses the vision that I have attempted to lay out in this paper:

This Mary is not simply a passive instrument of God’s plan. She actively participates in the Spirit’s charismatic activity, which from generation to generation serves as a model for men and women who seek to proclaim the gospel “in the power of the Spirit.” Consequently, there is a pneumatological continuity between Mary’s unique vocation and the ongoing vocation of the Church that allows Evangelicals, with Ambrose (Expos. in Luc. 2.6–7) and Vatican II (Lumen Gentium 63), to affirm her role as a type of the Church (ecclesiae typus). [21]

Footnotes

[1] Evangelicals and Catholics Together. “Do Whatever He Tells You: The Blessed Virgin Mary in

Christian Faith and Life: A Statement of Evangelicals and Catholics Together.” First Things.

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/10/do-whatever-he-tells-you-the-blessed-virgin-mary-in-

christian-faith-and-life (accessed May 10, 2010).

[2] Elizabeth A. Johnson, Truly Our Sister: A Theology of Mary in the Communion of Saints

(New York, NY: Continuum, 2003), 74.

[3] Jaroslav Jan Pelikan,. The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York, NY: Abingdon Press,

1959), 137.

[4] Elizabeth A. Johnson, 120.

[5] Thurston, Herbert. "Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15.

New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 10 May 2010

/15459a.htm>.

[6] Jaroslav Pelikan, 140.

[7] Rev Father Edward Schillebeeckx and Professor Catherina Halkes, Mary: Yesterday, Today,

Tomorrow (New York, NY: Herder & Herder, 1993), 18.

[8] John Paul, II, “Redemptoris Mater: On the Blessed Virgin Mary in the life of the Pilgrim

Church,” The Holy See, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031987_redemptoris-mater_en.html (accessed May 10, 2010).

[9] Paul VI, “MARIALIS CULTUS: FOR THE RIGHT ORDERING AND DEVELOPMENT OF DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY,” The Holy See, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_p-vi_exh_19740202_marialis-cultus_en.html (accessed May 10, 2010).

[10] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, “Theological Commentary to the Third Part of the Secret of Fatima,” Crossroads Initiative, http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/553/Third_Secret_of_Fatima_Joseph_Cardinal_Ratzinger.html (accessed May 10, 2010).

[11] Elizabeth A. Johnson, 308.

[12] Rev Father Edward Schillebeeckx and Professor Catherina Halkes, 9.

[13] Ibid., 315.

[14] Jaroslav Pelikan, 136-137.

[15] Elizabeth A. Johnson, 311.

[16] Ibid,, 313.

[17] Ibid., 305-306.

[18] Elsie Gibson, “Mary and the Protestant Mind,” Review for Religious 24 (1965): 397.

[19] Rev Father Edward Schillebeeckx and Professor Catherina Halkes, 28,29.

[20] Rev Father Edward Schillebeeckx and Professor Catherina Halkes. 29.

[21] Evangelicals and Catholics Together. “Do Whatever He Tells You: The Blessed Virgin Mary in

Christian Faith and Life: A Statement of Evangelicals and Catholics Together.” First Things. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/10/do-whatever-he-tells-you-the-blessed-virgin-mary-in-christian-faith-and-life (accessed May 10, 2010).

Bibliography

ANGLICAN - ROMAN CATHOLIC INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION (ARCIC). “Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ: The Seattle Statement.” The Holy See. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/angl-comm-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20050516_mary-grace-hope-christ_en.html (accessed May 10, 2010).

Dulles, S.J., Avery Cardinal. “PATHS TO DOCTRINAL AGREEMENT: TEN THESES AVERY DULLES.” Theological Studies 47, no. 1 (1986): 40-41.

Evangelicals and Catholics Together. “Do Whatever He Tells You: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Christian Faith and Life: A Statement of Evangelicals and Catholics Together.” First Things. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/10/do-whatever-he-tells-you-the-blessed-virgin-mary-in-christian-faith-and-life (accessed May 10, 2010).

Johnson, Elizabeth A. Truly Our Sister: A Theology of Mary in the Communion of Saints. New York, NY: Continuum, 2003.

Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan. The Riddle of Roman Catholicism, New York, NY: Abingdon Press, 1959.

Reck, William A. Dear Marian Movement: Let God Be God. New York, NY: Riehle Foundation, 1997.

Schillebeeckx, Rev Father Edward, and Professor Catherina Halkes. Mary: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow. New York, NY: Herder & Herder, 1993.

Tavard, George H. The Thousand Faces of the Virgin Mary Zacchaeus Studies: Theology). Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996.

Pope considers Luther's "By Faith Alone" Says It's True, if Faith Is Not Opposed to Love

2008-11-20T08:20:00.006-07:00

Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-24309?l=english

Pope Clarifies Luther's Idea of Justification

Says It's True, if Faith Is Not Opposed to Love

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 19, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI says Martin Luther's doctrine on justification is correct, if faith "is not opposed to charity."

The Pope said this today during the general audience dedicated to another reflection on St. Paul. This time, the Holy Father considered the Apostle's teaching on justification.

He noted that Paul's conversion experience on the road to Damascus "changed his life radically: He began to regard all his merits, achievements of a most honest religious career, as 'loss' in face of the sublimity of knowledge of Jesus Christ."

"It is precisely because of this personal experience of the relationship with Jesus that Paul places at the center of his Gospel an irreducible opposition between two alternative paths to justice: one based on the works of the law, the other founded on the grace of faith in Christ," the Pontiff explained. "The alternative between justice through the works of the law and justice through faith in Christ thus becomes one of the dominant themes that runs through his letters."

What is law

But in order to understand this Pauline teaching, Benedict XVI affirmed, "we must clarify what is the 'law' from which we have been freed and what are those 'works of the law' that do not justify."

He explained: "Already in the community of Corinth there was the opinion, which will return many times in history, which consisted in thinking that it was a question of the moral law, and that Christian freedom consisted therefore in being free from ethics. [...] It is obvious that this interpretation is erroneous: Christian liberty is not libertinism; the freedom of which St. Paul speaks is not freedom from doing good."

Instead, the Pope said, the law to which Paul refers is the "collection of behaviors extending from an ethical foundation to the ritual and cultural observances that substantially determined the identity of the just man -- particularly circumcision, the observance regarding pure food and general ritual purity, the rules regarding observance of the Sabbath, etc."

These observances served to protect Jewish identity and faith in God; they were "a defense shield that would protect the precious inheritance of the faith," he remarked.

But, the Holy Father continued, at the moment of Paul's encounter with Christ, the Apostle "understood that with Christ's resurrection the situation had changed radically."

"The wall -- so says the Letter to the Ephesians -- between Israel and the pagans was no longer necessary," he said. "It is Christ who protects us against polytheism and all its deviations; it is Christ who unites us with and in the one God; it is Christ who guarantees our true identity in the diversity of cultures; and it is he who makes us just. To be just means simply to be with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Other observances are no longer necessary."

And it is because of this, the Bishop of Rome continued, that Luther's expression "by faith alone" is true "if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love."

"Paul knows," he added, "that in the double love of God and neighbor the whole law is fulfilled. Thus the whole law is observed in communion with Christ, in faith that creates charity. We are just when we enter into communion with Christ, who is love."

CBMW on Over-Reacting to Feminism

2008-06-05T15:54:00.004-06:00

Donald Bloesch astutely observes:"In opposing militant feminism, however, we must not make the mistake of enthroning patriarchal values that have often held women and children in bondage and oppression."1 Similarly, in the context of noting the harmful results of egalitarianism, which he says are anarchy or matriarchy, he issues a sober warning: "a very real danger in the patriarchal family is tyranny in which the husband uses his power to hold his wife and children in servile dependence and submission."2

1 Donald Bloesch, Is the Bible Sexist? (Westchester, Il: Crossway, 1982) 104.

2 Ibid., 89.

Excerpt from "I Corinthians 11:3: A Corrective to Distortions and Abuses of Male Headship"by Steven Tracy - http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-8-No-1/A-Corrective-to-Distortions-and-Abuses-of-Male-Headship

CBMW on Anglo-American Common Law & Wife-Abuse

2008-06-05T15:20:00.004-06:00

CBMW comments on the unbiblical patriarchal abuse that the Anglo-American common law presupposed,

For centuries, Anglo-American common law granted the husband the right as head of the household to beat his wife as long as he did not cause permanent damage.1

1 Riva B. Siegel, "‘The Rule of Love': Wife Beating as Prerogative and Privacy," Yale Law Review 105 (1996) 2117-2130. A brief, helpful history of domestic violence against women in the western world can be found at "Herstory of Domestic Violence: A Timeline of the Battered Women's Movement," www.mincava.umn.edu/ reports/herstory.asp, 2002.

Excerpt from "I Corinthians 11:3: A Corrective to Distortions and Abuses of Male Headship"by Steven Tracy - http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-8-No-1/A-Corrective-to-Distortions-and-Abuses-of-Male-Headship

"Silent in The Churches" - CBMW States Not Absolute

2008-05-22T13:05:00.009-06:00

When Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:12, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent," we do not understand him to mean an absolute prohibition of all teaching by women. Paul instructs the older women to "teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women" (Titus 2:3-4), and he commends the teaching that Eunice and Lois gave to their son and grandson Timothy (2 Timothy 1:5; 3:14). Proverbs praises the ideal wife because "She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue" (Proverbs 31:26). Paul endorses women prophesying in church (1 Corinthians 11:5) and says that men "learn" by such prophesying (1 Corinthians 14:31) and that the members (presumably men and women) should "teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" (Colossians 3:16). Then, of course, there is Priscilla at Aquila's side correcting Apollos (Acts 18:26).

It is arbitrary to think that Paul had every form of teaching in mind in 1 Timothy 2:12. Teaching and learning are such broad terms that it is impossible that women not teach men and men not learn from women in some sense. There is a way that nature teaches (1 Corinthians 11:14) and a fig tree teaches (Matthew 24:32) and suffering teaches (Hebrews 5:8) and human behavior teaches (1 Corinthians 4:6; 1 Peter 3:1).

If Paul did not have every conceivable form of teaching and learning in mind, what did he mean? Along with the fact that the setting here is the church assembled for prayer and teaching (1 Timothy 2:8-10; 3:15), the best clue is the coupling of "teaching" with "having authority over men." We would say that the teaching inappropriate for a woman is the teaching of men in settings or ways that dishonor the calling of men to bear the primary responsibility for teaching and leadership. This primary responsibility is to be carried by the pastors or elders. Therefore we think it is God's will that only men bear the responsibility for this office.

Excerpt from "Are you saying that it is all right for women to teach men under some circumstances?" by John Piper and Wayne Grudem - http://www.cbmw.org/FAQs/Questions-&-Answers/Are-you-saying-that-it-is-all-right-for-women-to-teach-men-under-some-circumstances

CBMW On Making Decisions With Your Wife

2008-05-22T12:48:00.004-06:00

Complementarians are not always as quick, however, to recognize the same perversion in heavy handed male authority in which males treat women as inferiors by making decisions unilaterally, selfishly, and insensitively. Teaching which emphasizes female submission without equally emphasizing the man's responsibility to delight in his wife and share with her as an equal partner distorts male headship. The Father's headship over the Son teaches us that biblical headship makes submission not a matter of mere duty, but a delightful response from a woman who is loved, partnered with, and trusted as an equal.

While complementarians by definition believe that God has given the man final domestic and ecclesiastical authority, the woman as the man's equal is given significant and varied authority (the right or power to do something).¹ While it goes beyond the scope of this article to flesh out the full extent of female authority, we should note that in Scripture godly women have authority to proclaim the gospel (Acts 1:8; Phil 4:2-3), prophesy (Isa 8:3; Acts 2:17-18; 21:8-9), run a household (Prov 31:10-31), manage commercial enterprises (Prov 31:10-31), give men corrective accountability (1 Sam 25:18-38; Luke 18:1-8; Acts 18:26), and serve as co-laborers with men in ministry (Judges 4; Rom 16:1-6, 6; Phil 4:2-3).

1 This is the definition of ἐζουσία, used in John 5:27 to indicate "authority."

Excerpt from "I Corinthians 11:3: A Corrective to Distortions and Abuses of Male Headship"by Steven Tracy - http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-8-No-1/A-Corrective-to-Distortions-and-Abuses-of-Male-Headship

Pope Benedict: "Christ is the only way"

2008-04-18T10:31:00.002-06:00

Address during Meeting with Representatives of Other Religions
http://www.ewtn.com/uspapalvisit08/words/Interreligious.asp

Spiritual leaders have a special duty, and we might say competence, to place the deeper questions at the forefront of human consciousness, to reawaken mankind to the mystery of human existence, and to make space in a frenetic world for reflection and prayer. Confronted with these deeper questions concerning the origin and destiny of mankind, Christianity proposes Jesus of Nazareth. He, we believe, is the eternal Logos who became flesh in order to reconcile man to God and reveal the underlying reason of all things. It is he whom we bring to the forum of interreligious dialogue. The ardent desire to follow in his footsteps spurs Christians to open their minds and hearts in dialogue (cf. Lk 10:25-37; Jn 4:7-26).

Highlights of Pope Benedict's Address Bishops

2008-04-17T10:57:00.008-06:00

Here are some of my favorite excerpts from Pope Benedict's Address to the Bishops of the United States.
Excerpts from: http://ewtn.com/USPapalVisit08/words/Bishops.asp

Pope Benedict challenges Catholics to live for CHRIST in all parts of their live and not to be just "Sunday Christians".

How, in the twenty-first century, a bishop can best fulfill the call to "make all things new in Christ, our hope"? How can he lead his people to "an encounter with the living God", the source of that life-transforming hope of which the Gospel speaks (cf. Spe Salvi, 4)? Is it consistent to profess our beliefs in church on Sunday, and then during the week to promote business practices or medical procedures contrary to those beliefs? Is it consistent for practicing Catholics to ignore or exploit the poor and the marginalized, to promote sexual behavior contrary to Catholic moral teaching, or to adopt positions that contradict the right to life of every human being from conception to natural death? Any tendency to treat religion as a private matter must be resisted. Only when their faith permeates every aspect of their lives do Christians become truly open to the transforming power of the Gospel.

Pope Benedict encourages Catholics to have a living, vibrant relationship with CHRIST, who only can fulfill our deepest longings.

For an affluent society, a further obstacle to an encounter with the living God lies in the subtle influence of materialism. People today need to be reminded of the ultimate purpose of their lives. They need to recognize that implanted within them is a deep thirst for God. It is easy to make the mistake of thinking we can obtain by our own efforts the fulfillment of our deepest needs. This is an illusion. Without God, who alone bestows upon us what we by ourselves cannot attain (cf. Spe Salvi, 31), our lives are ultimately empty. People need to be constantly reminded to cultivate a relationship with him who came that we might have life in abundance (cf. Jn 10:10). The goal of all our pastoral and catechetical work, the object of our preaching, and the focus of our sacramental ministry should be to help people establish and nurture that living relationship with "Christ Jesus, our hope" (1 Tim 1:1).

Pope Benedict exhorts Catholics to be salt & light politically.

Clearly, the Church's influence on public debate takes place on many different levels. In the United States, as elsewhere, there is much current and proposed legislation that gives cause for concern from the point of view of morality, and the Catholic community, under your guidance, needs to offer a clear and united witness on such matters. Even more important, though, is the gradual opening of the minds and hearts of the wider community to moral truth. Here much remains to be done. Crucial in this regard is the role of the lay faithful to act as a "leaven" in society. Yet it cannot be assumed that all Catholic citizens think in harmony with the Church's teaching on today's key ethical questions. Once again, it falls to you to ensure that the moral formation provided at every level of ecclesial life reflects the authentic teaching of the Gospel of life.

Pope Benedict states the importance the Biblical family has to the fabric of society. He expresses grief at the increase of infidelitiy and divorce along with the low-view of marriage that our society has.

The family is also the primary place for evangelization, for passing on the faith, for helping young people to appreciate the importance of religious practice and Sunday observance. How can we not be dismayed as we observe the sharp decline of the family as a basic element of Church and society? Divorce and infidelity have increased, and many young men and women are choosing to postpone marriage or to forego it altogether. To some young Catholics, the sacramental bond of marriage seems scarcely distinguishable from a civil bond, or even a purely informal and open-ended arrangement to live with another person. Hence we have an alarming decrease in the number of Catholic marriages in the United States together with an increase in cohabitation, in which the Christ-like mutual self-giving of spouses, sealed by a public promise to live out the demands of an indissoluble lifelong commitment, is simply absent. In such circumstances, children are denied the secure environment that they need in order truly to flourish as human beings, and society is denied the stable building blocks which it requires if the cohesion and moral focus of the community are to be maintained.

Pope Benedict states his opposition to homosexual unions and states that the Roman Catholic clergy must promote Biblical marriage.

It is your task to proclaim boldly the arguments from faith and reason in favor of the institution of marriage, understood as a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman, open to the transmission of life. This message should resonate with people today, because it is essentially an unconditional and unreserved "yes" to life, a "yes" to love, and a "yes" to the aspirations at the heart of our common humanity, as we strive to fulfill our deep yearning for intimacy with others and with the Lord.

Pope Benedict says that we must be transformed by the renewing of our mind in CHRIST and submit ourselves to the Law of CHRIST. One of the ways we must do this is in the area of opposing abortion.

Perhaps America's brand of secularism poses a particular problem: it allows for professing belief in God, and respects the public role of religion and the Churches, but at the same time it can subtly reduce religious belief to a lowest common denominator. Faith becomes a passive acceptance that certain things "out there" are true, but without practical relevance for everyday life. The result is a growing separation of faith from life: living "as if God did not exist". This is aggravated by an individualistic and eclectic approach to faith and religion: far from a Catholic approach to "thinking with the Church", each person believes he or she has a right to pick and choose, maintaining external social bonds but without an integral, interior conversion to the law of Christ. Consequently, rather than being transformed and renewed in mind, Christians are easily tempted to conform themselves to the spirit of this age (cf. Rom 12:3). We have seen this emerge in an acute way in the scandal given by Catholics who promote an alleged right to abortion.

Infant Baptism & Jewish Proselyte Baptism

2008-04-15T14:42:00.004-06:00

“Infant Baptism” by Jordan Bajis - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website, http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7067.asp

A significant parallel exists between Jewish proselyte baptism (when pagans were converted to Judaism) and early Christian baptism. The contacts between early Christian baptism and proselyte baptism, with the similarities in terminology, interpretation, symbolism, and the rite itself, are especially notable. What is of greatest interest, however, is that the baptism of the early Church followed that of proselyte baptism, in which children and infants were baptized with the convert’s family. This is especially significant when one realizes that the very early Church was made up primarily of converted Jews.

Saturday Body Shop

2008-04-03T12:14:00.032-06:00

Last Saturday, March 29, I embarked on replacing my side-mirror, fender and two headlight covers. The project was completed around 8:00 after 9-hours of hard labor.

Things were still going well here

"The Bolt"

"The Bolt" fought valiantly for several hours

I made a key alliance with David Thompson who

helped me get past "The Bolt" and get the job done

Sweet Victory!

The Carnage of Battle

Easter Dinner at Micah & Emma Valine's

2008-03-25T12:06:00.002-06:00

Sunday afternoon, I had Easter dinner at the Valine's. The food was AWESOME! We had as an appetizer: pears, dates stuffed with cream cheese and almonds and diced lamb meat. For dinner we had a spinach casserole, diced and spiced potatoes, rolls and asparagus along with a red zinfandel wine. Micah, Emma, Emma's mother and I all had a great time visiting with each other while being entertained by Sebastian.

Nicole, Jack and I

2008-03-25T11:33:00.011-06:00

Last Friday, March 21, Jack and I visited Nicole. We had some pizza & wine, and had a great time just visiting and having some good laughs.

Saturday morning, Jack and I went to the Cracker Barrel. They have the best gravy and biscuits there. Jack and I had a waitress from south Russia who used to live off the Volga. It was interesting to converse with her.

Yes, I was very tired;)

Lackland & Randolph AFB

2008-03-25T11:05:00.003-06:00

Ever since I was young I was fascinated with the Air Force and its aircraft. The other day I was working out at Randolph AFB and saw a slew of T-38 trainers out on the tarmac. Randolph AFB is where future pilot-trainers gain their piloting instruction. Lackland AFB besides being where the Air Force has its basic training for enlistee's also has quite a few daily C-5 traffic.

Brian Howell Joins the Faithful

2008-03-21T15:17:00.005-06:00

Brian Howell joined Josh Goforth and I at Starbucks for a wonderful discussion about canonicity, textual criticism, & Apostolic tradition and the subsequent implications that has for how we interpret the sacred text of Holy Scripture.

Austin Again

2008-03-21T15:08:00.004-06:00

On March 9, I drove up to Austin after having lunch with the Goforth's and ate at Maudi's (Mexican restaurant) and had Marble Slab ice cream with Josh Langham (Denver Seminary friend who now lives in Austin). I had the cinammon-flavored sweet cream. After that we met Robert Lorg at the cinema to watch a movie.

The Problem with Evangelicals

2008-03-08T13:25:00.003-07:00

"Evangelicalism is a many-splintered thing with more denominational expressions than one can count, and like much of the rest of the church is to a large extent biblically illiterate or semiliterate" (The Problem with Evangelical Theology, ix) - Ben Witherington

Evangelicals are very fad-oriented with their spiritual formation primarily revolving around the latest book by one of the latest charismatic speakers. You have a plethora of micro-denominations that seem to have no objective or physical unity with other Christians from different denominations and theological traditions. Most evangelicals do not have a connection with the saints and "cloud of witnesses" that have gone on before them. They are "reinventing the wheel" so to speak with great frequency.Evangelicals quote the Holy Spirit inappropriately with abandon. They seem to be fond of saying, "GOD is leading me to do" [fill in the blank], or "GOD is not giving me a peace about" [fill in the blank]. I am not denying that the Holy Spirit speaks to our hearts, gives us discernment or even words of knowledge but in my 25-years of experiencing Christianity the majority of the time GOD had not told them anything at all. What is really going on is that Christians like to bring in the Holy Spirit into the conversation as kind of a trump card to stop what could have been a good discussion on what both Holy Scripture and common sense may have to say about the subject.

Evangelicals rely on the amount of time they spend practicing spiritual disciplines (prayer, fasting, going to church, being involved in a small group, and reading the WORD) as some kind of litmus test of their spirituality, when their obedience to GOD is in shambles. These spiritual disciplines (prayer, fasting, reading the WORD) are means of grace in which we pursue to be closer to the heart of GOD so that we might live our lives in such a way to be a fragrant aroma to HIM.

GOD is concerned with how we are walking in the Spirit and showing the fruits of the Spirit in all of life. HE is interested in how we are "doing to the least of these" to our family and friends that GOD has in our life. HE is also interested in our external unity and love for all Christians whether they be charismatic, Roman Catholic, mainline Protestant or Eastern Orthodox.

April and Kristi

2008-03-08T13:14:00.005-07:00

On February 21-22, my cousin April and her friend Kristi came to visit my family here in San Antonio. We had a great time of eating, playing cards & mexican dominoes, shopping at La Cantera and watching Vantage Point.

April, Kristi and AngelaApril, Kristi, Angela and Me
April

Deer at My Parents House

Brackenridge Park

2008-03-08T13:10:00.005-07:00

When I am on my lunch break I often go to Brackenridge Park near the San Antonio river. It is so peaceful and beautiful there.

Lucy and I

2008-03-08T12:48:00.012-07:00

Austin, TX

2008-03-08T12:25:00.009-07:00

On Sunday, Nicole Little, Robert Lorg, his daughter Courtney and I hung out in Austin together. On the drive to Austin from San Antonio, Nicole and I went through West Lake Hills on Loop 360. The large homes, mansions and great view of Austin from West Lake Hills was breathtaking. Robert bought our dinner at a nice Mexican restaurant first and then treated us to a game of bowling at Main Event Entertainment. Before we went bowling, Nicole took Courtney to play some of the kids games while Robert and I played a game of pool, while drinking a Corona with lime.

Saturday Afternoon at Randolph

2008-02-11T13:14:00.000-07:00

Saturday afternoon I decided to take a walk at Randolph AFB. It was perfect outside, slight breeze, sunny and in the 70's. The walking trail goes through the taxiway over by the airstrip before it goes through the golf course. It is always interesting to look at the KC-135's and the T-38's on the tarmac.

Evening with Landon Jackson

2008-02-08T13:17:00.000-07:00

My longtime friend of 25 years, Landon Jackson came through town yesterday on his way to Fort Carson in Colorado Springs. Landon and I hung out for the evening. Here is Landon showing me some pictures of his various Army deployments and missions.

Apostle's Oral Authority Equal With Their Written Authority

2008-01-30T08:33:00.000-07:00

Read the following excert from The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce (dubbed the Dean of Evangelical Scholars),

Jesus wrote no book: he taught by word of mouth and personal example. But some of his followers taught in writing as well as orally. Often, indeed, their writing was a second-best substitute for the spoken word. In Galatians 4:20, for example, Paul wishes that he could be with his friends in Galatia and speak to them directly so that they could catch his tone of voice as well as his actual words but, as he could not visit them just then, a letter had to suffice. Some New Testament documents were evidently designed from the outset to be written compositions [II Corinthians], not substitutes for the spoken word. But in the lifetime of the apostles and their colleagues their spoken words and their written words were equally authoritative.

A Thomistic TULIP

2008-01-29T08:18:00.000-07:00

Roman Catholic Apologist James Akin in The Salvation Controversy,

We propose a Thomist version of TULIP:

T = Total inability (to please GOD without special grace)
U = Unconditional election
L = Limited intent (for the atonement's efficacy)
I = Intrinsically efficacious grace (for salvation)
P = Perseverance of the elect

There are other ways to construct a Thomist version of TULIP, of course, but that there is even one way demonstrates that a Calvanist would not have to repudiate his understanding of predestination and grace to become Catholic.

Strategizing with Dave

2008-01-29T07:56:00.000-07:00

Yesterday evening, Dave and I got together first at Starbucks and then at Jims to strategize our next venture. It should be interesting...

Fire at work

2008-01-17T06:27:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, we had a minor fire in our building but were forced to evacuate nonetheless. My supervisor had a Sprint wireless card on hand so I was able to continue working from our "safe zone".

Pope Benedict XVI's Intention for January

2008-01-16T10:28:00.000-07:00

That the Church may strengthen her commitment to full visible unity in order to manifest ever more clearly her nature as a community of love in which is reflected the communion of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Richard and Miles Goforth

2008-01-14T15:38:00.000-07:00

This last Saturday night, I went to Josh and Noelle's house along with Mark and Terry Fisher to eat and visit. Josh and Noelle are doing such a great job at raising their four boys. Miles and Richard love to ask me questions and especially are fascinated with my key chain and my cell phones.

Miles and I at the Goforth's home

Sunday after Mass at Our Lady of The Atonement Catholic Church

Richard looking at my work cell phone, with Miles tagging along

Jesse and Emily from New Life Community Church

2008-01-02T11:43:00.000-07:00

I spent Tuesday afternoon with Jesse and Emily DeWett from New Life Community Church. We had a good visit and along with some great Mexican food at Cazadores.

Isaac, Lucy and I - December 31, 2007

2008-01-02T11:27:00.001-07:00

Working in The Snow: Chris King

2008-01-02T11:19:00.000-07:00

Sunday evening, Chris King and I unloaded virtually all of my storage boxes out of the shed, into the house, down the stairs and into the back basement room. It was snowing, windy and bitterly cold. We barely finished by the night-time. Chris and I wrapped up the evening with a meal at the Golden Corral and then watched National Treasure: Book of Secrets.

Sunday Lunch in Greeley with Pastor Mowery

2008-01-02T11:12:00.000-07:00

I Am Legend

2007-12-19T06:54:00.000-07:00

Last night, Dave and I went to see I Am Legend at the IMAX here in San Antonio. It was a great watch and was all the more intense because it was viewed on an IMAX screen.

After the movie we went to IHOP

The night was long when Dave discovered that his starter had "fallen out of its place"

Evening with Nathan Huber and Andrew Moreland

2007-12-06T06:41:00.000-07:00

Last night, Nathan Huber, Andrew Moreland and I went out for some food & drinks, watched some basketball and waxed eloquent about various topics such as, "What does it mean to be a Christian".

Working out at Randolph AFB

2007-12-06T06:29:00.003-07:00

My roommate Levon and I on the way to Randolph AFB to work out

Big 12 Championship Game - Oklahoma vs. Missouri

2007-12-05T13:57:00.001-07:00

On December 1, 2007, Robert Lorg and I attended the Big 12 Championship between Oklahoma and Missouri at the Alamodome. Oklahoma beat Missouri 38-17 to Oklahoma.

My Kids

2007-12-01T12:42:00.000-07:00

November 24, 2007

My Worldview

2007-11-29T14:41:00.000-07:00

I thought I would write down what I call my "worldview". What I mean by, "worldview" is the framework in which I approach things whether it be my job, my family-life, or church, etc. For me it all starts out with GOD. HE is the creator and we are HIS creatures. Man's chief end in life is to glorify the Triune GOD, Father, Son and Holy Spirit and enjoy HIM forever.

GOD defines what is right and wrong for humans. True thinking is to think HIS thoughts after HIM. Not that we cannot be creative but we are called to think within the same moral framework that HE does. We are called to do what pleases HIM. For instance, HE created the institution of marriage so true thinking of marriage will be to think of marriage in the same way as HE thinks of it. GOD in HIS imminence gave us HIS Word through HIS prophets and apostles. This Word has always been safeguarded by HIS people, in the Old Covenant, the nation of Israel and in the New Covenant, the Church. HIS written Word exists in Sacred Scripture, the Bible. Sacred Tradition (oral teaching of the Apostles) is passed down through the Church and both complements and clarifies Sacred Scripture. Christians are called to follow GOD's Word in all that it says. By studying and applying GOD's Word, one renews HIS mind in CHRIST to think rightly.

The goal of the Church and its faithful is to advance the kingdom of GOD, which is HIS desire to redeem all of creation from the effects of sin. Since all people are born with an inclination to be selfish and sinful, this also affects all human institutions & relationships and causes many of them to be corrupt. But the redemption that was made possible for humans by CHRIST's death on the cross can change the soul of man for good. Once someone's heart has been changed to seek GOD above all else, instead of a narcisstic, self-centered selfishness, real change will occur.

This ends in four goals I have for my life:

1. I want to promote unity among Protestants, Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians. If the world sees we are unified in CHRIST and our love for one another, they too will be attracted to our Savior.

2. I want to have a Godly, passionate, love-filled marriage. Marriage is to be a testimony to a watching world of the love CHRIST has for HIS Church. My relationship with my wife will always be my earthly priority. My role as a father will always flow through my being a husband first.

3. I want to raise children that will love GOD and who will go out and advance HIS kingdom. I believe the husband and wife must diligently but gently lead their family in the paths of GOD. I believe that men are responsible to protect their families and to provide for them (1 Tim. 5:8). Parents are not to provoke their children to wrath (Ephesians 6:4), but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. The husband and wife must raise children who do what is right from the heart. This means that they must shepherd the heart of the child instead of taking a behavioristic approach. This means that outward conformity is not the goal but instead a heart inspired love and submission to CHRIST is the objective. In order to do this the parents must spend a great deal of time training their children's hearts by showing them how to think and act in various situations that come along the way. Parents must provide their children with a Godly example first and foremost. Children should be taught that honor and respect for authority (parents, employer, the government, etc) should stem from a heart desire to please God, not because of a fear of punishment or because of manipulation or a bribe. I believe that believing parents have an obligation before God to provide their children with a godly understanding of the world in which they are growing up. This means that the truth of God is to be taught diligently to children when "they sit in the house, walk by the way, lie down, and rise up" (Deut. 6:1-6).

4. I want to befriend non-believers in order to reach them with the hope of the Gospel (That through following JESUS their lives can be transformed and have perfect fellowship with GOD).

Pain and Wisdom

2007-11-20T06:47:00.002-07:00

Aeschylus,

In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of GOD.

Roman Catholic Bishops Weigh in on Voting

2007-11-18T16:48:00.000-07:00

www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-bishops_15nov15,1,4869541.story

chicagotribune.com

Catholic bishops say voters' souls at stake

By Manya A. Brachear

Tribune religion reporter

November 15, 2007

BALTIMORE

A photo caption accompanying this story contains corrected material, published Nov. 17, 2007.

Proclaiming a sense of new energy and empowerment, the nation's Roman Catholic bishops on Wednesday issued instructions to Catholic voters that their eternal salvation could be at stake when they cast ballots.

Bishops emphasized that voters must consider the church's teachings on abortion and other moral issues when they select a candidate for the White House or any other office. If they don't, bishops said, it's not clergy who will judge them but God.

"It is important to be clear that the political choices faced by citizens have an impact on general peace and prosperity and also the individual's salvation," the bishops said in the document, titled "Faithful Citizenship." "Similarly, the kinds of laws and policies supported by public officials affect their spiritual well-being."

Bishops have drafted a similar document every four years since the 1976 presidential election, when concerns centered on Soviet dominance in Eastern Europe and recovery from the Watergate scandal. But the guidelines issued Wednesday for the first time spelled out possible consequences as well as giving much more nuanced instruction to the Catholic electorate than in years past.

Voters are implored not to support abortion-rights political candidates but also advised that views on abortion should not be the sole factor. Catholics should also weigh church teaching on such moral issues as immigration, just war and poverty, bishops said.

"It was groundbreaking not in the sense that it changed any doctrine or added any doctrine," said Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Conn. "What we did provide for the first time in this document is some concrete guidance in how a voter goes about making prudential judgments."

Rev. Thomas Reese, senior fellow of the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, said previous statements in his memory have not spelled out such specific consequences. The statement reflects the bishops' frustations with pro-choice Democratic politicians and Republican leaders who focus solely on ending abortion, he said.

For many bishops, approving the statement recalled the heyday of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in the 1970s and 1980s, when the group earned a reputation for going against the grain and exercising moral authority. "The Challenge of Peace," a historic pastoral letter that tried to explain church teaching on war, peace and the nuclear arms race, was issued in 1983 under the leadership of the late Joseph Bernardin when he was archbishop of Cincinnati.

Bishop William Weigand of Sacramento noted that the document was approved on the anniversary of Bernardin's death. "In a way it replicates what we did 30 years ago," he said.

The document does not tell voters which candidates or party to favor. It also does not address whether priests should deny communion to Catholic politicians who stray from church teaching. Cardinal Francis George, the newly elected president of the conference, said bishops probably would discuss the issue this week behind closed doors.

The voting guidelines followed a letter issued by outgoing President Bishop William Skylstad of Spokane, Wash., calling for a responsible transition in Iraq.

"Our nation must focus on the ethics of exit than on the ethics of intervention," Skylstad wrote. "The morally and politically demanding but carefully limited goal of responsible transition should aim to reduce further loss of life and address the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, the refugee crisis in the region, the need to help rebuild the country and human rights, especially religious freedom."

Russell Shaw, information director for the bishops' conference from 1969 to 1987, said it's too soon to tell whether the bishops have emerged from the sexual abuse crisis and entered a new era of influence. But the bishops' optimism is clear.

"They are looking for hopeful signs that they have turned the corner," said Shaw, who observed the meeting this week.

Fighting back from financial woes caused by the abuse crisis, the conference reorganized last year, resulting in a more collaborative process to develop such statements. They debated the statement publicly for the first time.

As a result of the public debate, bishops were able to shape the document on the floor. Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Chicago insisted that the guidelines urge Catholics to consider the religious roots of current conflicts overseas.

"The people who coalition forces are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq and a dozen other locales are not the poor and oppressed seeking to throw off their chains," he said. "They are jihadist fanatics who believe they are doing God's will."

Bishop Robert Baker of Birmingham, Ala., praised the document, which he says "gets to the guts of the moral and conscience formation."

"We've never gone that far in clarifying those issues," he said. "Bishops can't always get inside a person's head."

Whether they can get inside the ballot box is another question, though the initiative may get an extra boost when Pope Benedict XVI visits the United States in April, the peak of primary season.

The Catholic electorate tends to be diverse ethnically, politically and even religiously, noted Gregory Smith, a research fellow at the Pew Institute on Religion and Public Life. Adherence to Catholic social teachings often corresponds with church attendance, which varies, and just as many Catholics voted for President Bush in 2004 as for John Kerry.

Karl Maurer, a director of the conservative Catholic Citizens of Illinois, said "If the statement had been more stern and more clear" it would impact the behavior of voters as well as the politicians they have to choose from, he said.

Alexia Kelley, executive director of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, said the bishops' guidelines convey an important message about the breadth of Catholic social tradition. "The key is what people hear from their pastor and get in the pews," she said.

-----------

mbrachear@tribune.com

Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune

Interesting: On Protestant Ministers Who Wish to Become Catholic Priests

2007-11-15T12:12:00.000-07:00

http://www.atonementonline.com/newsblog.php?registered_name=blogger&section_id=160

For former protestant ministers who wish to become Catholic priests

Posted Monday, June 11, 2007 - 09:34 AM

Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Minimum Profile of Formation for Former Protestant Ministers Who Desire to Be Ordained Catholic Priests.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its task of assisting the bishops of the church to address the desire of former Protestant ministers who wish to be ordained Catholic priests, has prepared this minimum profile of formation for such candidates to the priesthood.

It is understood that former ministers of Protestant ecclesial communities require particular attention in their formation for Catholic priesthood, particularly as regards those areas of Catholic theology which would be lacking in their previous studies. The bishop, in his care for these candidates, must apply this minimum profile in the light of both the circumstances of the local church and the needs of the candidate (cf. John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, Ch. 5). The study resources listed, while fundamental, are not exhaustive.

Human Formation
Although many former Protestant ministers present themselves as candidates for the Catholic priesthood later in life and in some cases as married persons, the need for human formation is ever present. As the candidate is called in priestly ordination to be the living image of Jesus Christ, due attention to human formation will only assist the candidate in reflecting in his person the humanity of Jesus, the incarnate Son of God.

Intellectual Formation

- Philosophy
The study of philosophy is a crucial stage of intellectual formation for it leads the candidate to a deeper understanding of the human person, founds the dynamic relationship between faith and reason, and provides a vital context for understanding the mysteries of salvation which are the focus of theological studies. When assessing the previous academic preparation of former Protestant ministers, the bishop must evaluate his philosophical preparation to ensure that the candidate receives adequate formation in those areas which may be lacking in that previous preparation (resource: John Paul II, Fides et Ratio).

- Sacred Scripture
In addition to a proper focus on Old and New Testament theology and exegesis, former Protestant ministers should receive specific formation in Catholic hermeneutics. Such a formation would not only include an emphasis on the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, but also on the ecclesial context of the interpretation of sacred Scripture (resources: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 80-87, 101-141; Pontifical Biblical Commission, “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church”).

- Dogmatic Theology
The intellectual formation of priests is based above all on the study of sacred doctrine. In the case of former Protestant ministers, the bishop must ensure that the study of theology gives particular attention to Christology, ecclesiology and Mariology. Additionally, the Petrine ministry, apostolic succession and the theology of the priesthood should be areas of special emphasis. Some references to the fathers of the church may be helpful for the candidates (resources: Catechism, Nos. 142-1065, Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris Mater, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus).

- Liturgical and Sacramental Theology
The sacramental ministry of priests continues Christ’s saving work in the church. It must be kept in mind that Catholic sacramental ministry is altogether different than the ministry for which most former Protestant ministers would have been prepared. The bishop should ensure that special attention is given to the theology of the Eucharist as the source and summit of the church’s life as well as to the sacraments of penance and anointing of the sick (resources: Catechism, Nos. 1066-1690; Pope John Paul II, Misericordia Dei).

- Moral Theology
As former Protestant ministers will have had some previous preparation in the area of moral theology, this formation should focus on the areas that are distinctive to Catholic moral teaching. An emphasis on the fundamentals of Catholic moral theology and the church’s understanding of human sexuality as well as the rich tradition of Catholic social teaching will be invaluable in confronting the complex moral issues of the day (resources: Catechism Nos. 1691-2557; Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor and Evangelium Vitae, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae).

- Canon Law
For former Protestant ministers who seek to become Catholic priests the study of canon law is an area of particular concern in that it is largely without precedent in Protestant ecclesial communities. Special attention should be given to the canons concerning the Petrine ministry and which regulate marriage and the other sacraments (resources: Code of Canon Law, Sacra Disciplinae Leges).

Spiritual Formation
Formation in the spiritual life is intimately bound with the intellectual preparation for priesthood. The bishop should ensure that former Protestant ministers receive a formation in Catholic spirituality and devotional practices, with particular attention to eucharistic devotion and Marian devotion (resources: Catechism, Nos. 2558-2865; Pope Paul VI, Marialis Cultus; Congregation for Divine Worship, Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy).

Pastoral Formation
The preparation of all candidates for the priesthood has as its object to make them true shepherds after the example of Christ. Pastoral formation allows for the practical application of the mysteries studied in theology. In the case of former Protestant ministers, particular attention should be given to their preparation for the celebration of the sacraments and the direction of souls (resources: Congregation for the Clergy, Directory on the Ministry and Life of Priests).

Duration
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith requires that former Protestant ministers should undergo a period of no less than three years of formation in Catholic theology. The purpose of this period of time is to give candidates the opportunity for a certain maturation in the Catholic faith that, through reading, coursework and discussion, candidates will internalize the tradition of the church.

Assessment
In order to assure that a candidate has the requisite scientia debita for ordination to the priesthood, the bishop should provide for an assessment of the candidate in each area of theological study, with particular reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. As an evaluative tool, as assessment or examination of the candidate should ensure that a satisfactory level of academic competency has been attained.

News Flash - Lack of Sleep Leads to Irrationality

2007-10-24T07:38:00.000-06:00

http://health.msn.com/centers/sleep/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100172301&gt1=10512

Sleepless Nights Make for Grumpier Brains

Mind's emotion centers less controlled when weary, MRI study shows

By Robert Preidt

MONDAY, Oct. 22 (HealthDay News) -- Ever get a little testy after a bad night's sleep? Scientists may now know why.

A new study finds that a lack of sleep causes the brain's emotional centers to dramatically overreact to negative experiences.

A shutdown of the prefrontal lobe -- a brain region that normally keeps emotions under control -- is the reason for heightened emotional response in sleep-deprived people, said the researchers from Harvard Medical School and the University of California, Berkeley.

Reporting in the Oct. 23 issue of the journal Current Biology, the team said its study is the first to determine, at the neural level, why lack of sleep can lead to emotionally irrational behavior and may help improve understanding of the link between sleep disruptions and psychiatric disorders.

"This adds to the critical list of sleep's benefits," Matthew Walker of the University of California, Berkeley, said in a prepared statement. "Sleep appears to restore our emotional brain circuits, and, in doing so, prepares us for the next day's challenges and social interactions. Most importantly, this study demonstrates the dangers of not sleeping enough. Sleep deprivation fractures the brain mechanisms that regulate key aspects of our mental health."

The study included 26 healthy people who were assigned to either a normal sleep group or to a sleep deprivation group, where they were kept awake for 35 hours. Afterwards, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used to measure the participants' brain activity.

"We had predicted a potential increase in the emotional reaction from the brain (in people deprived of sleep), but the size of the increase truly surprised us," Walker said. "The emotional centers of the brain were over 60 percent more reactive under conditions of sleep deprivation than in subjects who had obtained a normal night of sleep."

He said it's almost as though lack of sleep causes the brain to revert "back to a more primitive pattern of activity, becoming unable to put emotional experiences in context and produce controlled, appropriate responses."

The Lord's Supper & The Church of Rome

2007-10-12T13:40:00.000-06:00

Excerpt from the 1981 Anglican/RC International Commission on the Eucharist,

Christ's redeeming death and resurrection took place once and for all in history. Christ's death on the Cross, the culmination of His whole life of obedience, was the one perfect and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the world. There can be no repetition of, or addition to, what was then accomplished once for all by Christ.

http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/arcic/doc/e_arcic_eucharist.html

Pope Benedict XVI on Conversion, Salvation in Christ & Saint Hilary of Poitiers

2007-10-11T23:30:00.000-06:00

Excerpt from: http://www.theorthodoxchurch.info/blogs/news/2007/10/pope-urges-prayer-for-full-unity.html

Today [October 11, 2007], before his ecumenical appeal, Benedict XVI continued his reflections on the figures of the “Early Church Fathers”, speaking of St Hilary of Poitiers. The “great” 4th century bishop was remembered above all for his “defence of our faith in the divinity of Jesus Christ, Son of God and God as the Father”. He fought against the Arians, who believed Jesus was a created being, to confirm instead Christ’s divinity. In the words of the pope he “Hilary’s insight was the importance of our Trinitarian baptismal faith: I baptise you in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit”.

Benedict XVI’s final observation was that for Hilary, “humanity finds salvation in Christ alone”. By becoming human, Christ in fact took upon himself the nature of every man. “This is why the journey towards Christ is open to every individual” even if personal conversion is always required.

Roman Catholics & Eastern Orthodox Discuss Union

2007-10-11T23:26:00.000-06:00

Excerpt from: http://www.theorthodoxchurch.info/blogs/news/2007/10/pope-urges-prayer-for-full-unity.html

Vatican City (AsiaNews) – A fresh appeal for Christian unity, in particular between Catholics and Orthodox was made by Benedict XVI today [October 11, 2007], who at the end of his general audience asked the faithful to pray for the successful outcome of the meeting of the International Mixed Commission for theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church currently underway in Ravenna.

It is “discussing a theme of particular ecumenical importance: ‘the ecclesiological and canonical consequences of sacramental nature of the Church – ecclesial communion, conciliation and authority’. I ask you to join me in prayer – concluded the pope – so that this important encounter help the journey towards full communion between Catholics and Orthodox, and that they may soon share in the one and same Chalice of the Lord”.

The mixed commission meeting began Monday and continues through to Sunday. It is made up of 60 members, 30 Catholics and 30 Orthodox, and is jointly presided by Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and His Excellency Ioannis (Zizioulas), metropolitan of Pergamo.

Catholics and Orthodox Unite Against Abortion, Homosexuality and Euthanasia

2007-10-11T23:12:00.000-06:00

Excerpt from: http://www.theorthodoxchurch.info/blogs/news/news.html

In his meeting with French Catholic bishops on Wednesday, Alexy II [Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow] said the coincidence of the positions by the Orthodox and Catholic Churches on many issues “proves of effective cooperation between them (the churches)”. In his view, the Orthodox and Catholics “jointly come against abortions, euthanasia and homosexual marriages” that run counter Christian values.

The French Catholic Bishops' Conference was one of the sides that organised my visit to your country. We are very grateful for this. I see in it one more step towards developing cooperation between the Orthodox and Catholics in preaching traditional Christian values,” the patriarch said. In his words, “The base of such cooperation is the coincidence of the positions of our Churches on many issues that the present-day world raises. Our views are close in public and personal moral, the public mission of believers, family values, bioethics and many other problems.” “We jointly come against abortions, euthanasia, homosexual marriages and other similar phenomena of the present-day world that run counter Christian ideology,” Alexy II stressed. “The coincidence of our stances is not accidental. We have common roots based on ancient Apostle traditions of Christianity. This is the fundamental of our effective cooperation,” the patriarch said.

Eastern Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II Speaks Against Homosexuality

2007-10-11T23:09:00.000-06:00

Excerpt from: http://in.news.yahoo.com/071003/139/6lhga.html

London, Oct 3 (ANI): The Telegraph quoted Patriarch Alexy II as telling MPs at the Council of Europe that civilisation was threatened by a split between Christian morality and human rights, which were being used to excuse declining moral standards.

"We can see it in a new generation of rights that contradict morality, and in how human rights are used to justify immoral behaviour," he told a meeting of the council's Parliamentary Assembly in Strasbourg.

Alexy II went on to say that sinners could be accepted despite their sins, but ignoring the moral teachings of the Bible threatened Europe's standing in the world.

Earlier this year, Alexy II had banned a gay rights parade through Moscow. (ANI)

Martin Bucer On Ecumenism

2007-09-28T00:17:00.000-06:00

The Colloquy of Regensburg (1541) was a meeting between Roman Catholics and Protestants to bridge the tearful schism that existed between them. Martin Bucer, along with John Calvin and Phillip Melanchthon attended the Colloquy. Bucer expressed regret over the schism and hope for the future, "Both sides have failed. Some of us have over-emphasized unimportant points, and others have not adequately reformed obvious abuses. With GOD's will we shall ultimately find the truth."

The Evangelical Catholic Vision

2007-09-22T19:42:00.000-06:00

Excerpt from: The Evangelical Catholic Vision

"Go and Make Disciples." Matthew 28:19

The EC's vision is that the Catholic Church be experienced as a vibrant, evangelical movement. We work towards the renewal of individuals, campus ministries, and parishes through an emphasis on interior conversion, devotion to the Scriptures, formation in the habits of discipleship, intense Christian community, and a commitment to evangelization.

How many of us, lay and ordained, charged with providing pastoral care have ever received the practical training needed to effectively recognize, reach, inspire, encourage and help the spiritually hungry? Our hearts are filled with love for God and for those we serve, but we are unsure how to implement ministries that help people enter into a meaningful and life-transforming relationship with Jesus Christ. Our best attempts at offering interesting talks, community gatherings, and other events often leave us disappointed at how few they have attracted and how little they have impacted the lives of our students, parishioners and the life of the parish as a whole.

The EC seeks to provide solutions to these problems so that our vision, and the Church's mission, can become reality.

Roman Catholic Catechism on Abortion

2007-09-19T00:20:00.000-06:00

I agree with...

PART THREE - LIFE IN CHRIST; SECTION TWO - THE TEN COMMANDMENTS; CHAPTER TWO - "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF"; ARTICLE 5 - THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.

My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."

Dei Verbum on Apostolic Succession and Sacred Tradition

2007-09-19T00:05:00.000-06:00

I agree with...

DEI VERBUM Chapter II

Article 8. And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.

Article 10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort.

Dei Verbum on The Obedience of Faith

2007-09-18T23:57:00.000-06:00

I agree with...

DEI VERBUM Chapter I

Article 5. "The obedience of faith" (Rom. 13:26; see 1:5; 2 Cor 10:5-6) "is to be given to God who reveals, an obedience by which man commits his whole self freely to God, offering the full submission of intellect and will to God who reveals," and freely assenting to the truth revealed by Him. To make this act of faith, the grace of God and the interior help of the Holy Spirit must precede and assist, moving the heart and turning it to God, opening the eyes of the mind and giving "joy and ease to everyone in assenting to the truth and believing it." To bring about an ever deeper understanding of revelation the same Holy Spirit constantly brings faith to completion by His gifts.

Sacred Scripture in The Life of The Church

2007-09-18T22:48:00.000-06:00

I agree with...

Section One, Chapter III of the Catholic Catechism

V. SACRED SCRIPTURE IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH

131 And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life. Hence "access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."

132 Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture.

133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.

The 8th Commandment & The Roman Catholic/Protestant Debate

2007-09-16T23:27:00.000-06:00

I am personally frustrated and appalled at the hypocrisy that exists within conservative and Reformed evangelical circles when they debate Roman Catholic teachings. As Christians we are called to work with reality and truth. Any scholar worth his cent should be able to properly articulate a position that he is critiquing to the point that those who hold to this opposing position would completely agree with the way their position was articulated. Sadly most anti-Roman Catholic apologists do not do the hard and necessary research to make sure that they properly understand the teaching of the Church of Rome before they critique it. In essence, these anti-Roman apologists are wasting their time and energy (and those of countless others) when they could instead disagree and discuss the real differences they have with the Church of Rome rather than on differences that simply do not exist.

A dozen statements by the Catechism, councils, and various Catholic theologians & popes can be brought to bare to clarify a given teaching of Rome yet many conservative "scholars" still refuse to abandon what they erroneously think the Church of Rome believes. They simply refuse to allow the Church of Rome to define what they mean by various terms or phrases. They do not have the grace or wisdom to allow the Church of Rome to explain what they really mean. In doing so they transgress the 8th Commandment. Well, if these evangelical theologians are loyal to the WORD of GOD as they claim, may they start by first obeying the 8th Commandment!

The Sufficiency of Scripture Question

2007-09-16T23:05:00.000-06:00

The issue regarding the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture is actually more important to the Roman Catholic/Protestant debate than is the issue of the authority of Scripture.

The reason I state this is as follows:

The Vatican sees Scripture as authoritative because it is the expression of the Depositum Fidei (the faith once and for all delivered to the saints by the Apostles). Sacred Tradition they believe is simply "oral teaching" of the Apostles and simply "fleshes out" and clarifies the Scriptures, but never contradicts them.

The Magisterium who are called to preserve and pass on from generation to generation the WORD of GOD do not see themselves as superior to Scripture. Roman Catholic Catechism, Section One, Chapter 2, Statement 86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully."

The Church of Rome believes in the material sufficiency of Scripture but not the formal sufficiency of Scripture. Material sufficiency means that Scripture has all the truths necessary for faith and practice but not all these truths are clear without the help of Sacred Tradition. Thus, they would depart from the traditional Protestant view of the perspicuity of Sacred Scripture. Here are some supporting statements for the Roman Catholic Church's view on this:

French theologian Yves Congar states, "[W]e can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. This position can claim the support of many Fathers and early theologians. It has been, and still is, held by many modern theologians."

So the Church of Rome believes that Sacred Tradition helps interpret the authoritative Scriptures, "[W]e find fully verified the formula of men like Newman and Kuhn: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione, `All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.' ...`Written' and `unwritten' indicate not so much two material domains as two modes or states of knowledge" (Tradition and Traditions [New York: Macmillian, 1967], 410-414).

So the real issue at hand is not whether Scripture is supreme but:

A. Is Scripture materially sufficient (Roman Catholic view - Scripture has all the truths necessary for faith and practice but not all these truths are clear without the help of Sacred Tradition) or is it formally sufficient (Protestant view - Scripture gives us all we need for faith and practice. Scripture does not need an authoritative interpreter or Sacred Tradition to interpret it correctly)?

B. What material can one bring to the table to interpret the Scriptures?

C. Is the Church the infallible interpreter of Scripture?

Hermeneutics & Narrative Criticism

2007-09-06T03:33:00.000-06:00

To the extent that narrative criticism engages a close reading of texts with a view to understanding their plots, themes, characterizations, and other features of the "surface structure" of biblical books as literature, we may enthusiastically welcome the discipline. As Stephen Mailloux puts it, intentions [authorial intentions] are best described or defined in terms of "the intended structure of the reader's response."

Blomberg, Craig L., Klein, William W., Hubbard, Jr., Robert L., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (revised and updated) Thomas Nelson, Inc. (Nashville, TN: 2004), 70.

HILARIOUS - 8 Reasons I Don't Share My Faith

2007-09-03T00:13:00.000-06:00

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=a79e78aaeda80516ae2a

Sacred Tradition: Saint Paul & Sola Scriptura: Part 5

2007-09-02T01:10:00.000-06:00

As mentioned in my first Part 1 of the Sola Scriptura and Paul series, back in 2006, I was on a Roman Catholic/Evangelical discussion board. I have included part of that discussion here to communicate what I believe about Sacred Tradition & Sola Scriptura:

Me: Paul refers to oral tradition when he mentions Jannes and Jambres in II Timothy 3:8-9, "Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, these people are enemies of the truth. Their minds are sick, and their faith isn't real. But they won't get very far with their foolishness. Soon everyone will know the truth about them, just as Jannes and Jambres were found out." Jannes and Jambres were the magicians who opposed Moses before Pharaoh in Exodus 7:11,22. If you search the Old Testament Scriptures and you will never find their names. Paul relies on Jewish tradition for his source. Imagine that, an Apostle passing on oral tradition?

John: You beg the quesiton. What makes the reference to Jannes and Jambres true is not oral tradition, which is unreliable, but the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, who is the divine author of the inscripturated word. Remember, Paul says that ALL Scripture is God breathed. Oral tradition is always suspect.

Me: John are you aware that all of the historical narratives in the Pentateuch that Moses wrote were either events that Moses himself saw or that were passed down? Are you aware that many of these historical narratives were not always transmitted orally but in writing as well? When you take Bibliology at any conservative Christian school (I received my B.A. in Biblical Studies from The Masters College, a very conservative school), including the most staunch Reformed schools, this is what is taught.

The Holy Spirit providentially made sure that the stories of old did not become corrupt in their transmission. All of the historical narratives that exist in Scripture were either written by the eyewitness or the narrative was commited in writing using either written or oral historical material that had been passed on for generations. It seems that you are assuming that the Holy Spirit just appeared to various people and told them what to write such as Moses and gave him all of the historical information. This is what I used to think too until I studied Bibliology. The Holy Spirit did not appear to Paul and tell him that Jannes and Jambres were the names of the Egyptian magicians or to Jude to let him know that the Archangel, Michael fought with Satan over Moses' body.

This is simply not how it worked. Do you know that the prophecy that Matthew alludes to in Matthew 2:23 concerning that the Messiah would be born in Nazareth is not in Scripture at all? This is because this prophecy was one that was not committed to a Canonical writing.

Gilbert: You see when the Apostles referred to traditions they were referring to the Old Testament and what the Apostles had written in letters but as yet had not been collected and put together as some still hadn't been written yet.

Me: This is simply no evidence for this either in Scripture or in history, in fact the evidence is quite to the contrary.

First, the Old Testament is repeatedly referred to by the Apostles or their legates as "the Scriptures" (et. Matt. 21:42; 22:29; 26:54; Mark 12:24; 14:49; Luke 24:27, 32,45; John 5:39; Acts 17:2,11; Acts 18:24,28; Romans 1:2; 15:4, I Corinthians 15:3-4; II Timothy 3:15), "as it is written", "it is written", "David says," "Moses says", "Isaiah boldly says", etc.

You also stated that tradition referred partially to Apostolic writings that did not exist yet? How could the Apostles tell the Thessalonians to follow something that does not exist? Also, you state that the traditions passed on to them was only what they had in writing and not what had been preached to them orally. This is simply not possible when you look at the text. This is why it is so incredibly important to not posit any meaning of the text that would have not been understood by the recipients themselves. Accurate hermeneutics is to determine the meaning that the recipients would have naturally understood themselves. I will demonstrate from the text of Scripture why this is not so:

1. For instance, how can you take your posited meaning of the word tradition when Paul commanded the Thessalonians in II Thessalonians 3:6 to follow his "tradition" (which was clearly oral teaching while in person) because in verse 7 it says, "For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you,…[Verse 10] For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."? For the Thessalonians to somehow understand this as some teaching that is in writing and not what Paul commanded them in person is not even a remote possibilty as a meaning that the Thessalonians would have understood when they received the letter.

2. You are assuming that only what was in writing was the Word of God, Paul claimed in I Thessalonians 2:10-13 that his oral teachings were the very Word of God, "You are witnesses, and so is God, of how holy, righteous and blameless we were among you [They were physically there with the Thessalonians, Paul's second missionary journey - Acts 17:10] who believed. For you know that we dealt with each of you as a father deals with his own children, encouraging, comforting and urging you to live lives worthy of God, who calls you into his kingdom and glory. And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe."

3. Paul says to follow what was said by him orally as well as what is in writing, II Thessalonians 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

4. Paul commands Timothy, "The things which you have heard from me ["The traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter"] in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also."

Roberta: What makes you think he passed on oral tradition? Let's see what PAUL HIMSELF has to say about who taught him, and what.:) "But I certify you brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man, For I neither recieved it of man, neither was I taught it, but by revelation of Jesus Christ". (Galatians 1:12) Interesting, Paul makes quite clear the source of his preaching, the LORD JESUS CHRIST himself.

Me: You are correct that the Gospel was given to Paul by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. This is one of the qualifications of being a disciple: receiving personal teaching directly from the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul was special in one sense among the Apostles in that he was not a personal disciple of Jesus Christ while He was here on earth. This is why it was necessary for Paul to have a supernatural encounter with Jesus so that he could be on equal par with the other Apostle's in their authority ( i.e. they had authority given directly from Christ).

One of Paul's points in Galatians 1:12 is to prove his Apostleship by stating that he did not receive the Gospel like others from the preaching of the Apostles but that he heard the Gospel from Jesus Himself. The Gospel message is the preaching of Christ's inaugurated kingsom and how Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament Messianic prophecies. This is why Paul spent so much time like the other Apostles showing how Christ fulfilled the Old Testament Scriptures. Paul on the other hand is not stating that EVERYTHING he teaches or writes in his letters was received directly from Jesus Christ. In fact, in I Corinthians 7:12, "To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord…" Paul in I Corinthian 7:12 is stating that the teaching he is about to give comes from his Apostolic authority given to him by Christ (which assumes the Holy Spirit's inspiration) and was not given to him directly from Christ or that was a teaching of Christ while He was earth. This is why Paul often gives many doctrinal pronouncements from his own study of Scripture that are infallibly authoritative interpretations and applications of the Old Testament through his authority as an Apostle.

Robin: So how did he come by this gospel that is nowhere in the OT?

Me: The Gospel is in the Old Testament in that it prophecies that Jesus would suffer and then rise again from the dead.

Luke 24:27, "Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures."

Luke 24:44-47 [After Christ's resurrection], "Now He said to them, 'These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.' Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, 'Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem."

John 5:39, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me"

Isaiah 53, "Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majestyThat we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. He was despised and forsaken of men,A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth. By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due? His grave was assigned with wicked men,Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.

Psalm 16:10, "For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay."

Psalm 22:16-18, "For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me; They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots."

Acts 18:28, "For he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ."

Acts 16:25-26, "Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith"

Roberta, Christ and the Holy Spirit illuminated the Scriptures to Paul and the other Apostles showing him how He was the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy.

Roberta: By revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ, who made the world, and so why then cannot this same Lord Jesus, give Paul the names of the magicians of Pharaoh? You ASSUME that he got this from tradition, scripture does not say this, sorry.

Me: Roberta in your quotation of Galatians 1:11,12, "I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it [The Gospel] from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." Since when were the names of the magicians of Pharoah part of the Gospel? Yes, Jesus had the ability to give those names to Paul but why should He when it was already established history? I think that Protestants like to take a very mystical approach to the Scriptures. Let us say for an analogy that Jesus came in our own time in Washington, D.C. and I was one of His disciples. After he ascended to heaven I planted a church in Chicago by showing you how Christ had personally showed me in the Old Testament (the only writings that you had at the time because remember you were just hearing the Gospel for the first time) how He fulfilled the prophecy regarding the Christ, the Messiah. I also during this six months relayed to you everything that Jesus had taught me personally. Then, after my six-months with you I had to move on to Cleveland to plant a church there. A while later I wrote you a letter to you to encourage you to continue in the teachings that I had taught you while I was there. I also relayed to you what Christ had told me once in a conversation that many false prophets would come. I then used Joseph Smith as an example of a false prophet. Did I get the name of Joseph Smith from a revelation from the Holy Spirit, no I got it from history. Were the Apostles banned from speaking at all unless their words came directly from a revelation from the Holy Spirit. Could I not relate to you in an epistle a historical event to illustrate an event without having to receive a supernatural revelation from the Holy Spirit? Could the Holy Spirit not move me to use my history knowledge to use an event to illustrate my point. As an Apostle I could say, "Christ said the 'First shall be last and the last shall be first', for it is written in the Scriptures, 'Humble yourselves before the Lord and He will lift you up' and "Pride cometh before a fall'. Look at the great fall that Spain incurred in its pride and arrogance in 1588 when the Spanish Armada was defeated by England with Queen Elizabeth at the throne. Can nothing be truth unless it is in Scripture or revealed to me through a supernatural revelation from the Spirit? How can I know that George Washington was the first President of the United States.

Roberta: And before some wag jumps up and suggests that Paul got the names from the traditions of Judaism, here is what he thought of man's traditions-read 1 Cor 1:17-31

Me: Let us look at the passage,

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom [human philosphy, not established human history], lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise [human philosophy not human history]; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate [the amazing mystery of the cross dumbfounds the intelligent Note Paul did not say that what the intelligent knew concerning history, science or the human body was wrong]." Where is the wise man [the human philospher that rejects Christianity]? Where is the scholar [The Jewish scholar who rejects the Christianity because he demands signs]? Where is the philosopher of this age [Man's philosophical speculations are not comparable to Christ's death on the cross and His subsequent inaugurated Kingdom]? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord".

A similiar passage is found in Colossians 2:8, "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ."

Paul is saying to reject Godless philosophy (Philosophy means: The love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline and investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods) which rejects Christ as the One whom all philosophy should be centered around. Paul speaks about "empty deception", (deceive means to cause one to believe what is not true), Paul is talking about do not be lead astry by things that are not true. Whenever Paul or Christ condemned the traditions of men it was because these traditions were "empty deception", things stated to be true that were not because they were not true and went against Christ. Human history, is not "empty deception" but is the story of God's Providence in the affairs of men and is factually true.

Roberta: Paul tells us that what he recieved was from a revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ, Catholicism tells us it was from oral tradition.

Me: Paul tells us that He received the Gospel from Jesus Christ not the history of the Jews. Roman Catholics are not the only ones to state this, Protestant scholars and the Reformers all tell us that Paul received the Jannes and Jambres information (and other such examples like this) from Jewish history.

Roberta: hmm…..Catholicism or Jesus.

Me: Laymen inacurracies and eisegesis or the position of every Christian tradition including Protestant scholars, the Reformers and the testimony of Scripture?

Roberta: Sorry folks, Jesus wins.

Me: All truth is God's truth and Jesus always wins(:

Roberta: can any catholic name for me ANY of their ORAL traditions that are NOT written down?….so……drum roll…..they aren't ORAL traditions any longer, are they. You can READ them somewhere or other….And only SCRIPTURE has the promise of being God-breathed.oral tradition does not. The preaching of Paul is no longer oral, it is written.

Me: I am not aware of anyone saying that any Apostolic oral traditions (teachings) are still floating around that have not been committed to writing. Robin, can you say that ALL of the preaching of Paul has been committed to writing in the Canon of Scripture? The Apostles taught "faithful men" what they had been taught by the Lord Jesus Christ (in the context of the facts that they were already aware of through history). These "faithful men" such as Paul's "son in the faith" Timothy had heard the Word of God both orally and in writing from the Apostles themselves (I Thessalonians 2:10,13, "You are witnesses, and so is God, of how holy, righteous and blameless we were among you who believed… And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe."

These "faithful men" such as Timothy were told to turn around and to "entrust these [The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses] to other "faithful men who will be able to teach others also". Other contemporaries of Timothy who were also disciples of the Apostles were Ignatius, Clement (See Phillipians 4:3), Polycarp and Papias. Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle Peter and the Apostle John. Ignatius wrote letters which we still have today to the churches of the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Philadelphians, Smyrneans, and Romans, and also wrote a letter to Polycarp. Polycarp along with Papias were also disciples of the Apostle John and we have writings from them as well. Clement of Rome, a disciple of the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter wrote a letter to the church in Corinth which we still have with us today. Ireneaus was a disciple of Polycarp who again was a disciple of the Apostle John. It is very important to study the works of these men to help illuminate the meaning of the Scriptures. This is why the Patristic writings are more valuable than even the modern-day commentaries that are produced today (which by the way these commentaries depend often on insights from the Patristics too).

John: Whereas when Catholicism refers to sacred traditions they refer to some unknown writting no one has ever say and are only revealed when a need arises they then write their socalled sacred tradition, but listening to them you would be made to believe that in some archive in the Vatican there is a vast amount of writtings that have never been seen by those outside of the Vatican , this is a huge hoax there are no such treasure of unpublished writings from the original Apostles, why even the holy scriptures are just copies, there are no originals anything from the Apostles.

Me: The Roman Catholic Church does not claim that they have unpublished writings from the Apostles. The life and teachings of Jesus Christ existed primarily in oral form for about 20 years until it was written down in the Gospels.

John: So what? The "oral tradition" is not what makes the Scriptures trustworthy or true, it is the Holy Spirit who caused the human authors to "breath out" God's word without the slightest error in the propositions of Scripture. If we were dependent upon "oral tradition" it would hardly provide any warrant for believing what was set down was true.

Me: Where in the Holy Scriptures do you get this from? The Apostle's teaching whether oral or written was authoritative. The Holy Spirit was "breathing through them" orally and verbally with infallibility, see below:

I Thessalonians 2:13 says that the Gospel that the Apostles preached in person was the infallible Word of God, "When you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe."

Galatians 1:8, "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!"

The Galatians were to judge even writings from the Apostles by the Word of God that had been preached to them first in person before they had EVER received a letter! Sean, the book of Jude was written by Jude who was not an Apostle. How do you think the various churches determined whether or not a letter was an authentic Apostolic letter or not? They determined it by the preaching they had received by the Apostle's themselves!

Acts 2:42, "They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching [oral teaching] and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer."

Acts 6:7, "The word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith." The Jewish priests were being obedient to the oral preaching of the Gospel which would not be enscripturated in any form for approximately another 15 years.

II Timothy 1:13-14, "What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us."

John: IMO, part of the problem your having is that perhaps you assume that all non-Catholics are Protestants? FWIW most calling themselves Prots today have no relationship to the religion of the Reformers. I think most would be shocked (I know I was some 12 or more years ago) if they took the time and went back and read Luther, say, Bondage of the Will or Calvin's Institutes, not to mention works by Knox and the early Puritans. Also, reading these men will show that the father of the Reformation was Augustine and what RC's take as schismatics were really men returning to the tradition and soterilogy of Augustine and Paul before him. I would say most of the ersatz-Evangelicals today are Arminians and mystics of one sort or another and have more in common with RC's than anyone in the Reformed tradition (although that too is under attack by the Neolegalists wolves of the Federal Vision and the liberals of the so-called "New Perspectives on Paul" ilk). So while I might excuse Armstrong as simply being ignorant of what is entailed in Protestantism, his opening argument remains a red herring.

Me: For what its worth a good number of the people that call themselves Reformed have quite a degree of difference in their doctrine from the original Reformers. You are right that the original Reformers were trying to return to the writings of the Patristiscs because of their hermeneutical proximity to the Apostles though they did not always agree with the Patristics. It is interesting that you bring up Augustine. The main thing that Augustine has in common with the Reformers was his belief in election, when it comes to baptismal regeneration and his believe concerning justification and works he is thoroughly Roman Catholic.

This is from http://catholica.pontifications.net/?page_id=866 (By the way please read this in the context of GV's wonderful explanation of the Roman Catholic view of justification and sanctification).

But surely St Augustine, doctor of grace and tireless opponent of Pelagianism, believed in the Reformation understanding of justification by faith alone! Well, not really. Augustine appears to have had this disgusting habit of talking about being "made" righteous–it's not his fault, of course; he was working from the Vulgate–and of conflating justification, sanctification, and regeneration. Like the other Fathers of the early Church, Augustine spoke of justification as a process, a process from a state of sin to a state of holiness. We can find some instances where the Fathers appear to talk about imputed righteousness and justification by faith (see Thomas Oden's The Justification Reader); but on the whole one does not find even an incipient Lutheranism in the patristic period.

Surely this cannot be, we protest (in good Protestant protesting fashion). But consider the words of one of our own, Alister McGrath (Reformation Thought):

Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, 'justifying righteousness' is
imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous. Melanchthon drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former 'justification' and the latter 'sanctification' or 'regeneration.' For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing . . .
The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. Melanchthon's concept of forensic justification diverged radically from this. As it was taken up by virtually all the major reformers subsequently, it came to represent a standard difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic from then on.

John: Again, you seem to agree that tradition, in whatever form, is subservient to the final authority of Scripture alone. If that is your position then these early writings have no more authority to command assent then any other book written even yesterday. Are some of these books of some value and should be read? Of course. I think men should read the Apocryphal books as well. But the only truth that can be found in any other book must be traced back to the propositions of Scripture. Scripture alone has a monopoly on truth for it is a "lamp shining in a dark place." What Protestants object to, historically, is the vaulting of tradition over the final authority of Scripture alone.

Me: In the infancy of the early church (as I showed earlier using the Scriptures) oral teaching and written teaching by the Apostles or their legates was viewed as equally authoritative. So while the only sure, surviving source of Apostolic teaching is the 27-book New Testament Canon of Scripture, I would not relegate the Patristic writings down to equal par with William Hendrickson's New Testament Commentary series or even John Calvin's commentaries. The reason is that their hermeneutical proximity to the Apostles is without comparison. Many of them as stated earlier were contemporaries with the Apostles or their legates.

Roberta: lol! I'm sorry, but I fail to see how what Jesus had for breakfast every day qualifies as scripture, is pertinent to eternal life, or needs be written down. Are you somehow trying to show scripture inadequate because the gospels and he epistles etc fail to tell us what Jesus favourite colour was, or who his childhood friends were, what brand of sandals he preferred etc?

Me: The Patristic writings do not deal with such trifle issues(: Part of the Patristic writings further expand on subjects that sometimes the Apostles may have only briefly alluded to in their Epistles. I am not taking the position though that salvation is not clearly and fully layed out in Scripture because it most assuredly is. The Gospel is the central message of the New Testament and so the Apostles could not help but to repeat it over and over in their writings.

Me: 1 Cor. 11:34, "If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that your meetings may not result in judgment. The other matters I shall set in order when I come." Paul states that he will give further instruction orally.

Robin: no, he said he will set the rest in order when he comes- you have surely heard of the BOOK of SECOND Corinthians haven't you?

Me: Paul stated, "The other matters I shall set in order when I come". How can you interpret "when I come" as Paul saying, he is sending a letter? Is this how the Corinthians would have naturally understood Paul? I think we know they would have most assuredly not. Every last Protestant commentator will say that Paul was talking about a physical visit to Corinth that he was planning.

Me: 2 Thess. 2:15, "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. "

Robin: notice the word "taught" is PAST tense.

Me: This is EXACTLY my point. He in the past gave them oral teaching and now he is saying "hold fast to the teaching that I gave you when I was there living among you". That is a lot of teaching to hold fast to!

Me: 1 Thess. 2:13, "And for this reason we too give thanks to God unceasingly, that, in receiving the word of God from hearing us, you received not a human word but, as it truly is, the word of God, which is now at work in you who believe.

Roberta: Are you suggesting that Paul taught verbally anything different than he wrote? And why do you assume that what was verbal is NOT now written in scripture?

Me: Well, if Paul spent some time in Thessalonica do you really think that he would repeat all of his teaching all over again in his letters to them. This would not make sense and would have defeated the whole purpose concerning why he spent that length of period of time with them. Remember his letters were part of a two-way correspondence between himself and the church in Corinth. They would ask him questions and he would send back answers. He also would encourage and exhort them in certain areas that he felt they needed to be encouraged and exhorted in (based on reports that he heard about them or from what they said to him in their letters to him).

Me: 2 Thess. 3:6, "We instruct you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us.

Robin: past tense. I am sorry, but this negates this constant evolution of tradition/Tradition that seems to flow unceasingly from Catholicism.

Me: The Church of Rome to my understanding does not believe that they can create new doctrine. They do believe that the Church can continue to have a greater understanding, clarity and extent of the Deposit of Faith or the historic Apostolic teaching.

Me: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were polemic works written by the authors for very specific purposes because of the different audiences that they were trying to target. This is why some of the authors spent more time narrating certain events surrounding Jesus than did others. None of the authors claim to record all of the teaching that Christ gave to the disciples in his 3-years of teaching. If you sit back and think about it, I can read the whole book of Mark in about 45 minutes. In fact, I can read all four Gospels in less than 3 hours and a good part of the Gospels contain the same parts that the other Gospels contain. Do you really think that we can say that we can know everything that Jesus taught and commanded the Apostles in 3 hours?

Me: 2 Thess. 2:15, "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours."

Roberta: right, and how does this justify oral teachings after the apostles? Paul says by oral or by letter of "ours."

Me: If you say that 2 Thessalonians 2:15 was only for the Thessalonians then to be consistent you would have to say II Timothy 3:15-17 would have to be just for Timothy. We know that this is not true so how are you going to try and keep Paul's oral commands that he gave to the Thessalonians and to others as well? I would say by studying the Patristics.

Sacred Tradition: Saint Paul and Sola Scriptura - Part 4

2007-08-24T23:15:00.000-06:00

As mentioned in my first Part 1 of the Sola Scriptura and Paul series, back in 2006, I was on a Roman Catholic/Evangelical discussion board. I have included part of that discussion here to communicate what I believe about Sacred Tradition and Sola Scriptura:

Mary: Based on the NT being scripture, all of the Catholic add ons would be null and void. Marian doctrine, purgatory, communion with saints, apostolic succession, etc cannot be supported by the NT and because of the significant influence in worship would rule out their addition to Christianity, in that they seriously violate the description of worship described in scripture.

Me: Below are some hermeneutical principles (Property of Reformed Pendulum) that I hold to that I think are very pertinent to this conversation concerning whether or not we are bound to only what was narrated in the New Testament regarding worship:

1. We affirm that unless Holy Scripture commands us to do something or to abstain from something (either an outward action or an inward heart attitude), what is only in narrative form or described, does not function as a precept, principle or model, unless it can be amply and convincingly demonstrated that the author intended the narrative pericope (selected portion of Holy Scripture) to function in this way.

2. We deny that any so-called "Biblical normative patterns", when based on repeated patterns of behaviors found in narrated Holy Scripture (and not within the author's explicit intent to teach a didactic principle through the narrated story), is to function as either a principle or a model for the life of the believer.

3. We affirm that we are neither bound to follow "patterns" found in narrative portions of Holy Scripture and neither are we limited to participating in any given behavior because of a lack of "patterned example". To do so is to go beyond what is written and to place a man-made artificial interpretative framework on Holy Scripture.

4. We affirm that the majority of Biblical characters adhered to a particular patterned sociological framework (which may have adhered to a greater or lesser extent to God's eternal unchanging Law) because they were a brought up in the ways of their culture that existed before the giving of the Mosaic Law. Thus, any given sociological framework that Biblical characters adhered to does not function as either a model or example for the believer as such, unless it is found to be the author's intent to do so.

Peter: You are aware that Peter called Paul's letters "scripture" in 2nd Peter chapter 3, right? Did he have a different meaning for them from when Paul used the term "scripture?" Not according to Peter. And also, the gospels of Luke. Matthew and Mark, as well as the book of Acts were already written by the time Paul wrote 2nd Timothy, as was also the epistle of James as well as 1 Peter and possibly 2nd Peter.

Me: Yes, Peter was referring to Paul's writings as Scripture because he was an Apostle. An Apostle was an OFFICIAL legate of Christ. An Apostle had received teachings from Christ directly. Christ was God so His teachings were the teachings of God. Hence, the Apostle's teachings were God's teachings. Scripture is simply testimony of what the Apostles had heard directly from Christ. The assumption that the Apostles fell into a trance-like state and wrote Scripture is foreign from Scripture itself and from a study of the early church. ALL of the churches that received Paul's letters as Scripture also received his oral teaching on equal par with his writings. Paul commanded it - II Thessalonians 2:15. It is ridiculous to posit that Paul could say something in writing and somehow it is more authoritative than if he said something orally.

Paul: Really? We call them OT & NT because we inherited that distinction from the Tradition of the Apostles. The OT Scripture when understood is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" while, the NT Scripture when understood can Save - I would say that is a very Big difference!

Me: All Scripture when seen as pointing to Christ can lead us to salvation.

Paul: One only needs to look at when these letters were written. Paul's last letter, 2nd Timothy, dates about 65 AC. By that time, Luke, mark, and Matthew were written as was the book of Acts (the disputes as to when they were written exists between the true believers of Christ and those who belong to the secular world, those who deny the inspiration of these scriptures.) Do the research for yourself and you'll see.

Me: I agree with this but the reasons people accepted these books was because they were in concordance with Apostolic teaching. My point though is that the earliest New Testament writing that became Scripture (The Apostle James' epistle) was written in 45-49 A.C. This was about 15-20 years after the birth of the Church at Pentecost! Please look at this again, not 15-20 months…but 15-20 years! Now, John is saying that the Apostle's oral teaching did not carry equal weight with Scripture because the Apostle Paul rebuked Peter in Galatians 2:11. Did Paul pull out the Epistle to the Galatians and say look here, you are saying something against Scripture. He did not because Galatians had not been written yet! In fact, at the most only one New Testament Epistle may have been written, the book of James. Remember Peter had been told by the Holy Spirit directly (not through Scripture) that he was not to separate himself from the Gentiles (Acts 10:9-20). Just read through Acts. In Acts 2:42 it says they devoted themselves to the Apostle's teaching. This was again 15-20 years before ANY New Testament Scripture was written.

In Acts 17:11, "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true" What was Paul proclaiming? Let us look earlier in Acts 17:3, "explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ". The Bereans were confirming that Jesus Christ was the Messiah. If Jesus Christ was the Messiah then EVERYTHING He said including new revelation was ultimate and authoritative. Jesus Christ was "the prophetic word made sure". The whole Old Testament (Law and the Prophets) pointed to Him. If He was the ultimate authority based on what the Old Testament said then EVERYONE was obligated to listen to Him and to obey Him, even new revelation. One of the things that He commanded was that the new believers in His newly inaugurated kingdom were to listen to and obey the Apostles because they had authority directly from Christ.

Paul claimed in I Thessalonians 2:10-13 that his oral teachings were Scripture. ANYONE who rejects this rejects what is clear in Scripture, "You are witnesses, and so is God, of how holy, righteous and blameless we were among you [They were physically there with the Thessalonians, Paul's second missionary journey - Acts 17:10] who believed. For you know that we dealt with each of you as a father deals with his own children, encouraging, comforting and urging you to live lives worthy of God, who calls you into his kingdom and glory. And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe." Look at II Thessalonians 3:6-7, "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you." Paul says to REJECT all men who did not receive their oral, in-person teachings as authoritative.

John: Don't take offense Mark, but I have no idea if you and I are brothers in Christ and given the line of argument you're pursuing it hardly gives me reason to hope. The fact is you don't know me and I certainly don't know you.

Me: Since when did one's belief in [your definition of] the doctrine of Sola Scriptura become a standard for "being saved". Please tell me where this is in Scripture? In Scripture, if someone confesses the name of Christ we are to assume they are Christians until proven otherwise. Frankly, I am not sure that I want to call myself a Protestant anymore. Many Protestants are mainly marked by their all-out avoidance of anything Roman Catholic rather than following Scripture.

John: [quoting me] "Your position is not held by virtually any evangelical scholar…" Ad populum is a fallacy.

Me: It is not dispositive but it is informative(; It should make one take pause, especially if the very tradition that you say you are loyal to, the Reformed tradition, takes another position.

John: None of which mitigates against the principle of sola Scriptura. There is no argument in that Jesus taught many things not set down in Scripture and there were truths taught by the Apostles which were transmitted orally. However, the only things we can know about what Jesus or his disciples taught are either set down in Scripture or are validly inferred from Scripture since "those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased." FWIW, and since head counts seem important to you, you would be hard pressed to find even one credible Reformed scholar who would disagree. See also John 20:31; I Cor. 10:11; 14:37; I John 5:13; Heb. 1:1-2; 2:2-4.

Me: Roman Catholics and Protestants all agree that the Canon of Scripture is closed so no disagreement there. The area of disagreement is whether or not purported Apostolic Tradition can help us find out what is being inferred from Scripture. This is what many of the Reformers believed. The closing of the Canon does not equate to the the modern Protestant view of Sola Scriptura. I would highly suggest that you buy the book called Solo Scriptura by Keith Mathison. He explains that the modern view of Sola Scriptura is not the one taken by the Reformers.

John: Indeed it does and quite specifically, but you reject it. All scripture is given by inspiration of God [i.e., is God breathed], and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God **may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.** Dr. Crampton and his masterful refutation of Robert Sungenis attack on sola Scripture in his book, By Scripture Alone, writes concerning this passage: "The passage says that Scripture is inspired and is profitable. The man of God may by Scripture be fully equipped . . . Both David (Psalm 19:7) and James (James 1:25) assure us that Scripture is "perfect," and Paul is clearly saying that the man of God may be "fit" and "fully equipped for every good work" by means of Scripture alone, which is inspired and infallible. This is the Protestant teaching of sola Scriptura."

Me: Whoa, where in the text does it say the man of God is made complete by Scripture alone? Look at a dictionary, to make something complete does not mean that there was nothing there before. Are we complete without the Holy Spirit? Your position is self-contradictory, because the two Scripture passages you used are speaking of the Old Testament Law, Psalm 19:7 (The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple.) and James 1:25 (But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.). So, if the Old Testament Law of God made one complete ALL BY ITSELF then I could use this as an argument to reject the New Testament because I was already made complete by the perfect Law. Do you see what I am saying?

John: First, it is not clear that the passage is reference to the OT alone since clearly Timothy's Grandmother and mother were believers and were exposed to the Gospel.

Me: John, Scripture means God's Word in writing. Timothy's mother and grandmother did not have New Testament Scripture!

John: Timothy himself was a young man when Paul wrote his letters so it is simply presumption on your part that the passage is a reference to the OT only.

Me: How is this presumption when:

A. Paul sets the scope of what he means by Scripture when he says, "you have known from infancy".

B. Not ONE New Testament document existed in Timothy's infancy. How is this presumptious? I thought you said that we are to let Scripture interpret Scripture?

John: Whatever God had revealed and any point in redemptive history as His word was inscripturated this was sufficient for believers and was profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Me: If this statement is taken to its logical conclusion, then Apollos in AD 39 with the Old Testament Scriptures had EVERYTHING he needed for doctrine from the Old Testament all by itself and did not need any of the new Apostolic teaching whatsoever. We know this is not true because in Acts 2:42a it states, "They [believers] devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching [new revelation from CHRIST that would not be written down in canonical writings for 15-20 years]".

This is from James Akin, http://208.56.92.160/theology/solascriptura/lvl09000.htm

This layer of uncertainty is even more problematic for the advocate since to say something helps make a man complete and equipped can presuppose that he already has certain other pieces of equipment. For example, if a man is going on a hiking trip and he has all the equipment he needs except a canteen. He then goes into a sporting goods store and buys one. When he does, he says, "There. Now I am complete, equipped for all of my hiking adventures." This does not at all imply that the canteen alone was all the equipment he needed to be completely furnished. It was only the last piece of equipment. The statement that it made him complete presupposed that he had all the other equipment he needed. In the same way, the statement that Scripture works to complete the man of God can presuppose that the man of God already has certain other articles in his possession that pertain to doctrine (such as the oral teachings of the apostles). Even if a single source does give a person all the equipment he needs, this does not teach him how to use the equipment. He may need training in how to use his equiptment. Just because a person has all the tools he will need to survive in the woods on a hiking trip does not mean he knows how to use the tools. In the same way, even if Scripture gives one all the basic equipment one needs to do theology, it may be unclear to the point that one needs to use Apostolic Tradition to arrive at the correct interpretation of it.

John: Or, as the prophet Isaiah put it; "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." This is sola Scriptura and is why Christians should reject the teachings of Rome which are claimed to be "Apostolic" and the teaching of all other apostates and heretics. Scripture alone is the standard.

Me: This is what I have been trying to say. Isaiah said, if people assert something that is not in agreement with the Scriptures then we reject it. I am saying if something is purported as oral Apostolic Tradition but is not in agreement with Scripture it is not true teaching. I am not sure what is so scary about this proposition and/or how it disagree with Isaiah. Isaiah did not say, "we have the Law and the Testimony so reject everything else", instead he said "if something disagree with the Law and the Testimony reject it". The latter is what I am saying.

John: OK, so how does this fly in the face of sola Scriptura? All Scripture is God breathed. All of it is infallible. The meaning of all Scripture is not manifold, but one. The principle applied just as much to OT saints (as already demonstrated) as must as it does NT saints who have the benefit of God's complete revelation. You might say it's even more applicable and important today now that the cannon has been closed with the death of the last Apostle and is why Rome and her allies, whatever they may call themselves, even "Protestant," have consistently attacked and tried to undermine this foundational principle.

Me: Again from James Akin (http://208.56.92.160/theology/solascriptura/lvl09000.htm),

And when we turn to the Greek of 2 Timothy 3:16, we find that there is, indeed, a mistranslation. The phrase rendered "All Scripture" is pasa graphe, which means "Every Scripture" — they key word being "every," not "all." This is an important distinction, and it makes grammatical sense of the phrase, given our knowledge of what the singular term "scripture" means (for "every individual book of Scripture" and "every individual passage of Scripture" certainly make grammatical sense).Had Paul wanted to refer to the entire corpus of Scripture, he would have used a different Greek phrase — something like hai pasai graphai ("the whole of the scriptures"), not pasa graphe, which means simply "every scripture" (a fact which even some of the biggest advocates of using 2 Timothy 3:16-17, such as anti-Catholic James White, have admitted). This is important because it makes it totally impossible to use the passage to prove [My note: The current Protestant version of] sola scriptura, because if one tries to use it in that way it will prove way too much. Since the passage says "Every Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, etc.," if this proved the sufficiency of Scripture, it would actually prove the sufficiency of each passage of Scripture for theology or at least the sufficiency of each book of Scripture for theology. This would mean that not only would the Bible as a whole be enough to prove every point of theology, but each individual passage or book would be sufficient. So you could do theology not only by Scripture alone but by Matthew alone or by Mark alone or Luke alone or what have you. You could do theology sola Matthew, sola Mark, sola Luke, or, to go to the shortest books of the Bible, even sola Jude or sola 3 John if you wanted.

Can we agree that grammatically that making something complete does not always mean that the ingredient that brought completion was the only ingredient? James 1:4, "Let your perseverance be perfect so that you may perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." I ask you again, does this mean that if a believer perseveres that they do not need the Bible since if they persevere they are perfect, complete, lacking in nothing? What about the means of grace (not meritorious grace mind you) or what is commonly called the means of sanctification: Prayer, fellowship of the saints, reading the Word, hearing the Word, etc.

John: What oral tradition and whose and how do you know which is true and by what standard will you judge? How about written tradition? At least that I don't have to take anyone's word for.

Me: When I said oral tradition, I meant Apostolic oral teaching that was passed from John to Polycarp for example. Any purported oral teaching of the Apostle's is written down in various writings of the Patristics. I am not positing Apostolic oral teaching that is still in its oral form today.

By what standard will I judge? Scripture!

John: The idea that there were Apostolic teachings not set down in Scripture and passed on through the ages by oral transmission is pure speculation, highly questionable and subjective. Hardly an adequate basis for anyone interested in "discover[ing] the meaning of Scripture."

Actually, it seems to me to be, on the face of it, quite a dangerous and suspect method. I'll stick with the Reformed hermeneutic mentioned in part above.

Me: What is suspect about II Thessalonians 2:15 where Paul says to keep his teachings whether written or word of mouth? Also the Reformers frequently appealed to the Patristics and were not totally against the idea of oral Apostolic Tradition given to the Patristics as a way to help interpret the Scriptures.

John: I guess you've never played "telephone" as a kid. Suppose there were some things which the apostles taught that were as infallible and as revelatory as any proposition set down in Scripture, but God in His wisdom did not see fit to include it in his written word? Are we to take the word of a bunch of totalitarians in Rome who claim to be the storehouse of all extra-biblical revelation even claiming for themselves Apostolic authority? Considering they lie concerning any number of things clearly set down in Scripture it is hard for me to see any warrant to trust them in anything else they say. So what do you have in mind? Be specific. Where do we find this "Apostolic oral tradition"? The De Vinci Code?

Me: The writings of the Patristics (some of whom were disciples of the Apostles) and judged in light of Scripture.

John: IMO if you reject the principle of Scripture alone then everything is up for grabs.

Me: How is everything up for grabs if you do not accept any teaching that disagrees with Scripture?

John: I would agree to a point. It seems that many of the First Century churches, and certainly subsequent centuries, have had very poor understanding of many doctrines which today we take for granted. As I've said I have no interest in reinventing the wheel either. However, what settles the issue are sound arguments from Scripture alone and nothing more. As for head coverings, I think this goes back to the problem of translation. There is very little question per the KJ what Paul meant and, while I too know very little NT Greek, I do know enough to conclude KJ is correct and when it comes to the necessity of head coverings "we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." Of course, I don't fault people who misunderstand 2 Cor 11, accept the modern translations, and are just trying to honor God by requiring their wives and daughters to cover their heads.

Me: You state that "However, what settles the issue are sound arguments from Scripture alone and nothing more". I am saying that you cannot make a sound argument from the text of Scripture if:

A. You are not reading the right manuscript that is the closest to the original

B. You are not aware of outside information that only the recipients would be privy to and is not included in the text: For instance: When Paul is quoting the Corinthians such as in I Corinthians 7:1. Because of outside scholarship we know that the saying, "It is good for a man not to marry" was not something that Paul promoted but something that the Corinthians had said to Paul in a letter of which Paul was merely quoting first and then gave his response.

The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

2007-08-21T22:06:00.000-06:00

AD 250 - A Glorious Snapshot of The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

By the middle of the third century, then, a great change had taken place in the outward form of the church. In the time of the Apostles there was no test of faith other than belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. The church had been unorganized beyond the local congregation; but the apostles through their knowledge and authority had provided the unity of the church. By 250 there was a firm organization of the church in each main area of the empire, with a bishop at the head of city and district churches. A canon of the NT listed the authoritative Scripture. A universally recognized creed taught how Scripture was to be understood. And all this stood fast in apostolic authority: the bishops ruled in apostolic succession; the canon was apostolic writing; and the creed presented the apostolic teaching. It was in this form that the church came out of the struggle with Gnosticism, Marcionism, and Montanism. And it was in this form that it faced the difficult future that lay ahead of it

Boer, Harry A Short History of The Early Church Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI: 1975, 77

Sacred Tradition: Saint Paul and Sola Scriptura - Part 3

2007-08-21T06:33:00.000-06:00

As mentioned in my first Part 1 of the Sola Scriptura and Paul series, back in 2006, I was on a Roman Catholic/Evangelical discussion board. I have included part of that discussion here to communicate what I believe about Sacred Tradition & Sola Scriptura:

John: You're wrong and that ALL the spoken words of the Apostles and their colleagues were equally authoritative. This is pure presumption and easily disproved. A great example to highlight your error is Gal 2:11; But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. Clearly playing the hypocrite had no authority whatsoever even when done by a man that RC's consider their first pope.

Me: First, I am enjoying this interchange, iron-sharpening-iron and want to emphasize that I really do not think in the big scheme of things that whether or not you convince me or vice-versa that we would change much of our doctrine. We are both brothers in Christ and I do not want you to think that in my passionate explanations below that I am angry or upset at you:)

Back to our discussion though. You simply state, "You're wrong". You have to prove your premise first before you can state your conclusion in a dogmatic manner. Prove to me your premise from the an inductive interpretation of the text and then I will believe your conclusion. Your position is not held by virtually any evangelical scholar who has studied the Bible in Greek, including the history of the development of the canon of Scripture hundreds of times more than you and I have ever studied the issue combined. I believe that I am in much safer company to hold to a position that virtually all Biblical evangelical scholars hold to. Remember, I am a Protestant and not a Roman Catholic. The position that I am espousing does not mean that you are destined for Rome.

I believe that the Apostles kept each other in check to make sure they were all preaching what they had heard preached to them in person by our Lord Jesus Christ. Peter was wrong in separating from the Gentiles because he was promoting something that was not the Gospel of the Kingdom given to them from Jesus Christ. Did the Gospel first drop out of the sky in the form of a book? No. It was given orally to the apostles. They spoke and preached the Gospel orally and later on they wrote it down.

Do you know that Scripture refers to the Apostles's oral preaching of the Gospel as preaching the Word of God. This preaching was ALL before one book of the New Testament existed. The reason that their preaching could be called the Word of God because it WAS the Word of God because they were teachings from Christ. I See I Thessalonians 2:13, where Paul says, "And for this reason we too give thanks to God unceasingly that in receiving the word of God from hearing us [in person, Paul's second missionary journey, Acts 17:10 - this letter was written after that], you have received not a human word, but as it truly is, the word of God." Were not Christ's teachings divine when spoken orally to the disciples? This whole issue really goes back to Christ's authority not the Apostle's authority. Christ is the Incarnate Word. Every word that proceeded from His mouth was divine and the very words of God because He was God. So insofar that the Apostles preached the Word of God, say for instance Peter on Pentecost, he was preaching the Word of God! This is what the New Testament Scripture is, the teachings of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ written down on paper.

Please tell me how you are following Paul's explicity command (II Thessalonians 2:15) to follow not only what is in writing but what is given by word of mouth.? PRACTICALLY how did the early church know what was Scripture and what was not Scripture?

John: Your point that there were other things written and spoken is immaterial and irrelevant. We know for example per John 21:25 that "there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written." We can infer that there were other Pauline letters that have been lost and which God evidently did not see necessary to preserve.

Me: John, you keep on giving a priori arguments which assume your conclusion is correct without having proved your premise first. You need to tell me why my argument is "immaterial and irrelevant". Scripture itself does not say that EVERYTHING that is needed for faith and practice is included within its pages. Can you read Greek? I will tell you that I cannot. The NASB and the NIV take significantly different translations in a few areas such as the end of I Corinthians 7. How do you know which translation is the best? How do you know what the text means? You have to use outside sources to interpret the Bible correctly. For instance, though some of the teachings of the Apostles, such as infant baptism, were EXPLICITLY taught orally by the Apostles to the faithful, it is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. It can be inferred though from Scripture AFTER already knowing that the Apostolic Tradition was infant baptism. If you were born in the middle of a forest and learned to read but you had heard NOTHING about God, Christianity, etc. and ALL you had was just you and the Bible, I absolutely guarantee you that you would not be able to confidently infer infant baptism. This is what I am trying to say, that oral Apostolic Tradition helps us in the interpretation of Scripture, which IS supreme.

John: You imply that writing is a "second-best substitute," but again this is nothing more than your own opinion. Peter had a different opinion: 19 And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. Peter said that Scripture is the prophetic word "made more sure." Hardly a "second-best substitute."

Me: I did not say that Scripture was a "second-best substitute". However, the Apostles, in Scripture did sometimes state that they would rather speak in person and not by way of letter. I am not sure why we are all afraid to take Scripture at its face value.

Let me ask you a question, can we not say that it would have been easier to understand, say the head covering passage in I Corinthians 11 if you had the chance to ask the Apostle Paul in person to clarify what he meant? By admitting this we are not saying that the Scriptures are second-rate. Far be it! Because it has been committed in writing we can ensure that nothing can be changed over the centuries.

What I am trying to say is that those who lived during the time of Paul had a MAJOR hermeneutical advantage to understanding various epistles than we do.

Concerning, II Peter 1:19-21 let us read it in context starting with verse 12, "So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me [Jesus Christ made it clear to Peter in person not by one of the Gospels]. And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things. We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you [in person] about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty [saw Jesus Christ and His majesty in person]. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. [Peter is talking about the transfiguration that he, James and John witnessed]. And we have the word of the prophets made more certain [the testimony of the power Jesus Christ and the subsequent glorification of Christ by God the Father that they witnessed in the flesh as prophecied in the Old Testament], and you will do well to pay attention to it [our proclamation of Jesus as Lord and God], as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts." Essentially, the word of the prophets was made sure when it was fulfilled in time and history through the person of Jesus Christ.

John: You're argument is invalid for a number of reasons some of which I've already given that you either ignored or didn't understand. You said;"Paul states that the Old Testament Scriptures are USEFUL but not SUFFICIENT for "teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training inrighteousness." You have not deduced the idea of Scripture'sinsufficiency from the passage. Instead you've imposed this idea onthe passage. This is *eisegesis.* Second, as already mentioned, there are a number of universal statements in the passage which controvert your "insufficient" eisegesis which you've re-labeled exegesis and I guess hoped that no one would notice ;-P.

OK, let me back up. Please tell me how Paul is referring to anything but the Old Testament Scriptures in this passage? How could Timothy know the New Testament Scriptures from infancy?

My first premise that has been proven from the text of Scripture is that Paul IS referring to the Old Testament Scriptures at least in time and history when he wrote it. I doi believe that the underlying principle that Paul is stating can be applied to the New Testament as well but the principle that you are drawing from it is self-contradictory. With this said I want you to answer my question, How can the Old Testament be completely sufficient as you say (formal sufficiency) at one time in the New Testament period and then later insufficient?

The answer to this question is that in the Greek from what I understand (I will try and support this in the next few days) that when it states ALL Scripture it is not speaking of ALL Scripture as a whole unit but any given part of Scripture can make the man of God complete. Meaning that Paul is saying Timothy, "Psalms (or Proverbs or Exodus, etc.) is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Let us go back to the passage starting with verse 15, "and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures [Old Testament Scriptures and most likely the LXX/Septuagint], which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Brent Arias,

All modern copiers are technology inspired and are profitable for copying, faxing, scanning and color printing that the man of business may be completely sufficient, perfectly equipped for every enterprise. What does this statement tell us? Does it say that a business man does not need secretaries, accountants, product developers and a host of other human and material components for his enterprise? Using James' [White] mode of thinking, the above statement DEMANDS the interpretation that a copy machine is the ONLY thing a business man needs. Yet James' interpretation is not demanded by the text - nor is it the best possible understanding.

Nevertheless, lets look at another example:

All modern copiers are profitable for scanning and color printing that the man of business may be completely sufficient, perfectly equipped for every enterprise. Also, telephones are profitable for business transactions and instant communication that the man of business may be completely sufficient, perfectly equipped for every enterprise.Now, there are two nearly identical statements in the above paragraph. Does one contradict the other? No. Neither statement is demanding that a copier or a telephone is the ONLY thing needed for business.

What is being stated is that both products are PROFITABLE for making the "man of business" completely sufficient.1

Let me explain this, Paul states that we must rightly divide the Word of God. That also means that we can wrongly divide it as well. Having the Bible alone is not enough to fully equip the man of God in that though he may have all the raw material he may not have the necessary skill or instruments to interpret it properly.

Let us look at James 1:4, "And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." Now, does this mean that if a believer perseveres that they do not need the Bible since if they persevere they are perfect, complete, lacking in nothing? What about the means of grace (not meritorious grace mind you) or what is commonly called the means of sanctification: Prayer, fellowship of the saints, reading the Word, hearing the Word, etc. No one will accept that type of exegesis, so I am not sure why were are interpreting II Timothy 3:16-17 to mean something that it does not mean.

John: Finally, as I've already said and should have been clear to you, it does not make a difference to the principle of sola Scriptura whetheror not Paul was including his own letters, all four gospels,Revelation, or just the OT. Whatever is set down by God in Scripture is "prophesy made more sure" and even OT saints were required tomeasure everything by "the law and the prophets" which is Scripture alone.

Me : I am not saying oral tradition over Scripture. I am saying use oral tradition as a way to discover the meaning of Scripture.

John: Now, if you want to discuss the closing of the canon, start anew thread, but begin with explaining Heb 1:1, 2a for us; "God, whoat sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto thefathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son . . . ."

Me: The canon would be an excellent thing to discuss. Very quickly the text says that Jesus in His prophetic office was the last of the line of prophets. The revelation of God is culminated in His revelation and in His teachings. He passed these teachings on to his Apostles who committed their teaching to others orally and in writing. Then Paul commanded in Scripture (II Thessalonians 2:15) to follow what was in writing and what was passed by word of mouth.

John: FWIW Protestants do not deny that there were othermodes of revelation prior to the close of the canon, only that withthe coming of the Father's Son and the close of the canon they havenow ceases.

Me: I agree Jesus Christ's teachings was the culmination and fulfillment of all past prophecy.

John: The first part of your objection has already been met. As for thesecond, since all the biblical writers have long gone to their rewardwe have no access to what they taught except what is explicitly setdown in Scripture or what is deduced from Scripture by good andnecessary consequence.

Me: How do you know that we do not have access to anything else they taught? Also, when you state, "or what is deduced from Scripture by good and necessary consequence" could not oral Tradition help us with deducing what is in Scripture?

John: I guess I'm not foolish or gullible enough to believe what others claim to be the words of the Apostles or claim to speak for them. I don't believe the ecstatic utterances of mystics and Charismatics either. Just because the showmen in Rome wear big funny hat and havepeople kiss their . . . rings gives them no special disposition orApostolic authority. Theirs is a breach and an abuse of power. Besides, there is a vast amount in the so-called infallible and "Apostolic" tradition of Rome that disagrees with and contradicts Scripture and itself. On top of that they routinely add to Scripture, like the teaching of papal infallibility, the ascension andsinlessness of Mary and on and on.

Me: I also at this point, while questioning the current Protestant formulation of Sola Scriptura, I am not convinced that the Roman Catholic magisterium is infallible either. I am simply stating that purported oral tradition is necessary for helping us deduce neccessary inferences from Scripture such as infant baptism.

Footnote - 1. www.catholicsource.net/articles/solascr_arias.htm

Sacred Tradition: Saint Paul and Sola Scriptura - Part 2

2007-08-17T22:34:00.000-06:00

As mentioned in my first Part 1 of the Sola Scriptura and Paul series, back in 2006, I was on a Roman Catholic/Evangelical discussion board. I have included part of that discussion here to communicate what I believe about Sacred Tradition and Sola Scriptura:

John: Well, Mark, until the NT canon was complete the OT Scriptures were all believers needed before the fuller revelation provided by the NT writers were complete and the canon was closed. Your argument is besides the point. Also, your argument assumes that none of the NT books were in circulation at the time of Paul's letter to Timothy. Paul teaches Timothy and us to day Scripture alone. I guess you just don't believe Paul.

Me: I think it would be helpful to discuss what the New Testament actually is. It is primarily made up of a collection of letters of correspondence between Apostles (Of the 13: Peter, Paul, Andrew, James the brother of John, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddaeus, Simon and Matthias, it seems that only Peter, Paul, James, Matthew and John had their letters preserved and thus canonized) or occassionally an Apostle's legate (John-Mark, Luke, Jude and possibly Barnabas or Apollos) to local church bodies. As an example, when the believers of, say Corinth, received a letter from Paul it was not as if they thought, "Well the first and third letter that we received from Paul is just a letter, but the second and fourth is SCRIPTURE, so we really had better pay more attention to the second and fourth letter because it is more authoritative than the other two". Read the following excert from The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce (dubbed the Dean of Evangelical Scholars),

Jesus wrote no book: he taught by word of mouth and personal example. But some of his followers taught in writing as well as orally. Often, indeed, their writing was a second-best substitute for the spoken word. In Galatians 4:20, for example, Paul wishes that he could be with his friends in Galatia and speak to them directly so that they could catch his tone of voice as well as his actual words but, as he could not visit them just then, a letter had to suffice. Some New Testament documents were evidently designed from the outset to be written compositions [II Corinthians], not substitutes for the spoken word. But in the lifetime of the apostles and their colleagues their spoken words and their written words were equally authoritative.

So, it is very, very clear in the New Testament that the Apostles spoken word was just as authoritative as the written word. Look at the words of Paul, II Corinthians 10:8-11, "For even if I boast somewhat freely about the authority the Lord gave us for building you up rather than pulling you down, I will not be ashamed of it. I do not want to seem to be trying to frighten you with my letters. For some say, 'His letters are weighty and forceful, but in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing .' Such people should realize that what we are in our letters when we are absent, we will be in our actions when we are present." Other Scriptures attesting to this fact are Acts 2:38; 2 Th. 2:15; 3:6; II Timothy 2:2; I Cor. 11:2; I Corinthians 15:1-2). To believe anything different is to go against not only the New Testament itself but also Evangelical scholarship and the Magisterial Reformers.

You stated that "until the NT canon was complete the OT Scriptures were all believers needed before the fuller revelation provided by the NT writers were complete and the canon was closed.". This seems self-contradictory, how can something be sufficient if only by itself and then later insufficient? Also where do you find this argument and this progressive dichotomy in Scripture?

My argument from the standpoint that Paul does not seem to be speaking to Timothy about the New Testament Scriptures ("from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures") is not besides the point. It is the only intellectually honest exegesis of the text. Please show me exegetically (even assuming, which I affirm, that Paul's letters were being circulated among the churches) how Paul was speaking about his own letters in addition to the Old Testament Scriptures? Unless you can do that then the premise of the argument stands and if it stands then the conclusions stands. Until the premise is proved wrong then you cannot prove the conclusion wrong. The conclusion is that the Old Testament Scriptures made complete the "man of God". Making something complete and being complete in and of itself are two entirely different things. Scripture is given "so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." If I give you four tires so that your transportation vehicle may be complete does that mean all you need to transport yourself is just the four tires? Grammatically you are inserting your own presupposition that Paul in this text is saying that the Scriptures alone are sufficient. Also, the argument falls apart even more because he is clearly speaking about the Old Testament Scriptures. I am not saying that the argument ends here but you are using the text wrongly to try and prove your point. You cannot assert an interpretation that the original recipient would have not taken himself.

Below are some hermeneutical principles (Property of Reformed Pendulum) that I think it would be important for us to agree on:

1. We affirm that lower textual criticism, the study of all extant Biblical manuscripts to determine what was the original text of the Bible, is the first essential step to Biblical interpretation.

2. We deny any hermeneutical approach that presupposes that Holy Scripture may be interpreted correctly only and always by relying on the "plain reading of the text" to the exclusion of lexical, semantical, syntactical, cultural and historical research.

3. We deny that the various authors of the Bible were trying to communicate in such a way that their writings would always be easily understood at a face value reading by anyone that was not living during that time period.

4. We affirm that there are times in order to discover the original meaning of the Biblical text, one must research the Biblical texts in their respective original languages (whether Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek). In addition, one also may need to undertake specific studies of the classical world, the ancient Mid-Eastern world, the Hellenistic period, Jewish tradition, church history, the Patristics, etc.

5. We affirm the need to reconstruct as much as possible the historical situation of the recipients/audience of any given Canonical book in order to completely understand the author's intention and meaning.

6. We affirm that a passage cannot mean what it never could have meant to its author or his readers.

7. We deny that any application can be made from a textual pericope (a specific section of the Biblical text) that does not flow from the author's original intent.

8. We affirm the legitimacy of questioning any application that claims the support of Holy Scripture but is based soley on passages where it is not the intent of the author to teach that application.

9. We affirm that it is possible for an Old or New Testament writer to support a relative application by an absolute principle and in so doing not make that application absolute.

10. We affirm that the commands in God's Word are to be followed in the same exact way as commanded (unless revised by further revelation) in so far as we share the same particular cultural expressions/customs and life situations.

11. We affirm that even when we do not share the same particular cultural expressions/customs and life situations that were backdrops on which various commands were given in God's Word that principles can be extracted and applied transculturally.

12. We affirm that the larger context of the book in which the passage appears may limit the application or it may promote a universal universal application (in keeping with the already stated principles).

13. We affirm that later Biblical revelation may limit the application of a particular passage even if the book in which it appears does not.

14. We affirm that if any given command or application is at variance with the standard cultural norms of the day that it could very likely indicate a transcultural or timeless mandate.

15. We affirm that the authority of the New Testament is derived from the Apostles themselves who were given authority directly by the Lord Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh.

You stated, "Paul teaches Timothy and us to day Scripture alone. I guess you just don't believe Paul.". Show me in Scripture where it says this? In fact, I am following Paul's very explicit command in II Thessalonians 2:15, "stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." You are only wanting to follow what is in letter and are not presently open to what Paul could have commanded by word of mouth. Though I agree, purported Apostolic Tradition MUST agree with and not contradict Scripture.

John: What was that you said about eisegesis? What you need to do is demonstrate that something else is needed. That Scripture alone is, in and of itself, INSUFFICIENT, since, after all, that is the point of the Protestant contention with Rome's doctrine.

Me: Eisegesis in that you are making the text mean something that it would have never meant to its recipient and then drawing a conclusion from that. Concerning whether or not Christians need anything other than written letters from Paul, etc., II Thessalonians 2:15, "stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." If Paul's himself implied that his letters were not sufficient in order to have the COMPLETE apostolic teaching then how can anyone assert the contrary?

John: Well, you can think this, but that's a far cry from demonstrating the truthfulness of your claim. Also, your position denies the universal imperatives throughout the passage such as; All scripture is given so that the man of God may be PERFECT [lacking nothing], thoroughly furnished unto ALL good works. There is no basis for your inference that Scripture only "contributes" to every good work. Your inference is invalid. Also, implied in your remarks above is the notion that the Holy Spirit works apart from the Word and I can find no support for such a notion anywhere in Scripture. After all, we're told that the sword of the Spirit IS the Word of God.

Me: I do not need to disprove something that is not there. My position does not deny the universal imperatives that Paul gave Timothy. I heartily agree that ALL Scripture is given so that the man of God may be PERFECT [lacking nothing], thoroughly furnished unto ALL good works. Agreeing with this does not mean that I have to say that the man of God did not have anything else with him already that the Scriptures then make complete (such as the Holy Spirit). Remember, one cannot even interpret all of Scripture properly without extra-biblical sources (in order to help the 21 st century interpreteter understand the pre-knowledge that Paul assumed the recipients had).

John: How do you know that any of the books of the bible were authored by God? Also, I most certainly do not reject all tradition (I like to think that I stand in the tradition of the Reformers , but tradition like all else must be brought into submission to Scripture. "We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ . . . ." Paul tells us in Scripture we have the "mind of Christ" revealed to us. So while some traditions might be useful, only God's Word is infallible and inerrant. It is Scripture alone that stands in judgment over all else and all else must be brought into submission to Scripture, tradition included. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

Me: How do I know that any of the books of the Bible were authored by God? The Old Testament books are harmonious, internally consistent, historically reliable and contain prophecy of many things including the coming Messiah that came to pass. Nothing short of supernatural. Jesus Christ, being the Word Incarnate spoke the very words of God because He was God. Therefore, His authority is ultimate. He gave authority to His Apostles to preach and advance the Gospel of His Kingdom (The Gospel is essentially the proclaiming of the inaugurated kingdom of Christ). This Gospel teaching was proclaimed first orally all over Asia Minor and Europe during the first century. The Gospel message was continually upheld and clarified through both Apostolic writings and visits as well as through writings and visits from Apostolic legates. The Church corporately as a whole judged writings as to whether they were authentically Apostolic in nature by the information they had already received from the oral preaching they had heard. Those books that agreed with Apostolic teaching and had Apostolic authority were declared canonical and Scripture. I trust that the Church of the first few centuries through the power of the Holy Spirit "guarded the treasure" that had been entrusted to them (like Paul commanded Timothy) and judged which books were canonical and which ones were not.

I am encouraged that you do not reject all tradition but that you bring it into submission to Scripture. I have no quarrel with this whatsoever. I would equally reject tradition that is said to have been oral teaching from an Apostle if it flies in the face of Scripture. I am just trying to say that Scripture is materially sufficient in that it has all we need for salvation but when it comes to ALL doctrinal matters one needs outside information to interpret it properly or to fully see some of the things that it infers. I would reject the idea that Scripture is formally sufficient, in that ALL of it can be properly interpreted if ALL I had was just me and the Bible. I certainly DO believe that the way to SALVATION is abundantly clear with just me and my Bible but not everything else. I also agree that only Scripture is inerrant and infallible. Scripture is ultimate in its authority, properly interpreted.

John: In summary; we know nothing of what Paul might or might not have said or any other biblical writer, included Jesus Christ Himself, apart from what has been set down in God's Word for the sole benefit of those called by His name. Peter said in Scripture we have "the prophetic word made more sure . . . ." Paul too addressing the partial revelation provided to the first century believers in 1 Cor 13:9,10; "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away." Nothing else is needed in addition to Scripture for the canon is closed and we can only come to know God's thoughts through the propositions of Scripture alone. You don't believe it, so what? You want more than Scripture alone? Again, you're in good company. Seems to me on this list you're in the majority.

Me: You state that "we know nothing of what Paul might or might not have said" outside of the 27-book New Testament canon. How do you know this? Have you examined this to make sure this is the case? Concerning I Corinthians 13:9,10 it is talking about the eschaton, the parousia, the second-coming of Christ not the completion of the canon. Very few scholars hold to that view. Even John MacArthur who is very conservative does not hold to that view. It is logically unfeasible for that passage to mean the completion of the canon. For what information did the completion of the canon give the believer that Paul did not have already? If you do not believe this I would be happy to discuss this with you at further length. Concerning your desire to be more in concourse with the Reformers read the following excerpt (Evangelicals and Tradition) by Protestant theologian Rick Wade who wrote this article for a Protestant Ministry called Probe Ministries, ( http://www.probe.org/content/view/911/148/),

In the first few centuries after Christ, oral and written tradition was thought of as being the same thing. The "canon" was acknowledged in either form. By the 4th and 5th centuries tradition and Scripture were distinguished more carefully, but still were seen as being of one piece. In the 14th century, however, tradition became a separate source of truth when it was realized that some traditions couldn't be proved from Scripture. There were now, then, two sources of revelation–Scripture and Church–tradition, rather than one source in two forms.
What the Reformers wanted to do was not to pit Scripture against tradition per se and throw out the latter. They wanted to let go of man-made traditions and go back to the true apostolic tradition. "The sixteenth-century Reformers were cognizant of this distinction and highly valued the Tradition located in the Fathers as a means of interpreting biblical truth.. . . The Reformation was not about Scripture versus tradition but about reclaiming the ancient Tradition against distortions of that Tradition, or what eventually became a conflict of Tradition versus traditions." They wanted to avoid citing the church fathers as authorities for doctrines or practices, which were incongruent with Scripture. They rejected the idea that the ancient Tradition had become secondary to the traditions of medieval Catholicism.
Tradition with a small "t" had begun to interpret Tradition with a capital "T"; the Reformers thus emphasized Scripture as delivering true apostolic Tradition to argue against Rome's claim to authority. At first, it was the oral Tradition or teachings of the apostles which was authoritative in the churches, because that was what people received. As the apostles' writings became available, they were accepted as authoritative because they were recognized as mirroring the Rule of Faith. In the early church, Scripture and the Rule were never placed in opposition to one another; they taught the same thing.It's important to note, too, that the Tradition was never held above Scripture.

Does this issue carry any significance beyond historical information? Should the Rule of Faith have any meaning for us today? I think it does.

First, it opens to us the teachings of the church fathers, providing a wonderful resource for understanding our faith. Once we recognize that the church didn't fall so precipitously in the patristic era and following, we can look to the church of
earlier times for understanding and inspiration.

Second, by looking at the core message taught in the early church we can be reminded of the central truths of Christianity, which will give us a basis for evaluating doctrinal teachings today. Paul warned Timothy of the destruction caused by false teachings, and encouraged him to remember his teaching and to "continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of." (II Tim. 3:14) What Prof. Christopher Hall says makes sense: "The hermeneutical and historical proximity of the fathers to the New Testament church and its apostolic tradition demands that we listen carefully to their exegetical insights, advice and intuitions."
Third, by seeing what is most important we can work to correct the disunity in the church. Think about what separates Christians in America. Right now worship style is a major issue. Ideas about end times and modes of baptism are two other divisive issues. When we think about our differences, however, do we stop to think about our similarities? Do we even know what people of other Christian traditions believe? We shouldn't minimize significant differences between churches. But by keeping our lines so carefully drawn, are we dishonoring our Lord who prayed for unity among His people? (Jn. 17:20-23)
Maybe a look back will remind us of what is most important and around which we can unite. We can begin to break down the walls constructed by our differences over matters which aren't so clear or which aren't as important as the central truths. Without taking hold of the Tradition flowing from the apostles into and through the early church, Williams believes we will see an increasing sectarianism "characterized by an a historicism and spiritual subjectivism," and we will be more susceptible to accommodation to the world.

Pain

2007-08-15T19:53:00.000-06:00

Suffering leads to pain and pain to darkness. Will the light shine again?

New Classes At Denver Seminary

2007-08-15T19:46:00.001-06:00

I am taking two classes this semester at Denver Seminary, Biblical Interpretation and Church History II (Reformation through Present). I cannot wait to start.

Sacred Tradition: Saint Paul and Sola Scriptura - Part 1

2007-08-14T13:35:00.000-06:00

Back in 2006, I was on a Roman Catholic/Evangelical discussion board. Below is an interaction I had with another believer regarding Sola Scriptura and Paul.

Me: [Regarding the exegesis of II Timothy 3:15-17, "And how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.] Timothy did not have the bulk of the New Testament documents (especially from infancy) so Paul here is speaking of the Old Testament. So if we take your premise and then apply it to what Paul was actually referring to then we could say that the Old Testament Scriptures are all that we need. This is obviously NOT what Paul is saying. Paul states that the Old Testament Scriptures are USEFUL but not SUFFICIENT for "teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness". I think Paul is saying that the Old Testament is useful for such things as training in righteousness and that this CONTRIBUTES to being thoroughly equipped for every good work because the Holy Spirit is certainly necessary for being equipped for these good works as well.

John: Scripture is given to that the man of God may be perfect — in the sense of being fully and totally complete — and this is so he might be equipped for "all" and not some good works. Nothing else is necessary or required, therefore Scripture alone is taught in Scripture.

Me: How do you know that I John, II John and III John were actually written by the Apostle John or how do you know that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, etc.? You are actually relying on oral tradition by the Church that these books were written by the author that is included in your Bible. By the way, I am writing this as a Protestant and am not promoting traditions that fly in the face of Scripture but I think to reject all tradition is neither Biblical nor Apostolic in nature. Also, you might want to consider that Paul used extra-Biblical tradition in II Timothy 3:8, when he used the names of Jannes and Jambres (which are not found in the Old Testament) when he referred to their mutual opposition to Moses. Jude also quotes from the Book of Enoch in Jude 14,15. I think oral Tradition is very helpful in opening up the meaning of the Scriptures, but the Scriptures must still reign supreme overall.

John: [Refers to I Corinthians 11:2, "Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you."] This too has been addressed. The traditions which Paul and the other delivered are those set down in Scripture, not some living and contradictory tradition which RC's raise to the level, if not above, the Word of God.

Me: Let us back up. Paul had spent about a year and a half in Corinth helping establish the church there (Acts 18:1,11). Then in Paul's SECOND letter to the Corinthians, which in the Canon is referred to as I Corinthians he says in Chapter 11, Verse 2, "Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.". Paul is referring to the year and a half of teachings that he had given them. It would be totally illogical to assume that Paul is then going to repeat a year and a half worth of teachings in I & II Corinthians (including the information that he had sent to them in his two other letters to the Corinthians that we do not have). Remember his letters to the Corinithians are letters in response to questions posed by the Corinthians. His letters are filled with clarifications of what he has already taught. These letters were never meant to be sufficient for the Corinthians apart from Paul's in-person teaching.

To drive my point home even more Paul says in Chapter 11, Verse 34 that "The remaining matters I shall arrange when I come". Well if his letters were sufficient by themselves or the Old Testament Scriptures sufficient by themselves, why does he need to come and visit again? It is very clear that we do not have the natural contextual background (without further study) to understand Paul's letters that the Corinthians naturally did. In summary, my question to you is how do you know that the traditions that Paul delivered were as you say all set down explicity in Scripture. This is an assumption that you cannot prove anywhere from Scripture without twisting it and taking it out of its historical context.

Roman Catholic Scholar Louis Bouyer on Justification

2007-08-07T08:34:00.000-06:00

In my desire to show how the LORD is moving in the hearts of many Roman Catholics to proclaim the Biblical view of salvation, within a framework of fruitful interaction with Protestant theology, I have included this excerpt by the Roman Catholic scholar, Louis Bouyer from The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism,

Luther's basic intuition, on which Protestantism continuously draws for its abiding vitality, so far from being hard to reconcile with Catholic tradition, or inconsistent with the teaching of the Apostles, was a return to the clearest elements of their teaching, and in the most direct line of that tradition.

Salvation is a grace, a gift of God, not the work of man. Therefore, man can be saved by faith in the Savior and by this means alone…. The essential, for salvation, is to recognize that God is its author, that it depends, not on one's own strength, but on God's. In this realization, where a radical distrust of self is but the obverse of absolute confidence in God, consists faith; nothing else can possibly replace it.

Faith alone saves us means, if it means anything, that we, on our part, have nothing to add to it, nothing outside or independent of it. Any such addition would result, of necessity, in a denial of the essential. For if, believing in principle in the saving action of God, we were obliged to add something of our own initiative, what would be the result? We would fall back at once into the impossible situation from which grace had rescued us; we would have to accomplish our salvation in part, in the hope that God would do the rest. But our actual state of wretchedness comes from our incapacity for any effective initiative, even incomplete, toward salvation; in short, we have not only to be assisted to save ourselves; we need to be saved.

In other words, either we are not saved by divine grace, acknowledged and accepted by faith, or this grace, which is in God, is the sole cause of our salvation, and faith, which is in us, the sole means of access to it. For if there is something needed for salvation that has a source other than grace received by faith, we are confronted again with the impossible task of the salvation of man by man. The gospel, however, is the good news that someone else-God in Christ–has done for us what we could not do.

At once we can see that Luther's view of salvation, so understood, is in perfect harmony with Catholic tradition, the great conciliar definitions on grace and salvation, and even with Thomism.

Roman Catholic Apologist Peter Kreeft & Justification

2007-08-07T08:14:00.000-06:00

One of my burning desires is to see educated, scholarly discussion and interaction between Roman Catholics and Protestants on various theological issues such as justification. In an effort to show others that there are many famous Roman Catholic theologians that hold to a Biblical view on justification, I have posted this excerpt from an article entitlted, "Justification by Faith" by Roman Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft, found on the Catholic Education Resource Center - http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0027.html

The Protestant Reformation began when a Catholic monk rediscovered a Catholic doctrine in a Catholic book. The monk, of course, was Luther; the doctrine was justification by faith; and the book was the Bible.

In Romans Luther discovered the simple bombshell truth that God had forgiven his sins freely, not because of Luther’s works in Germany but because of Christ’s work on Calvary. That discovery freed Luther’s spirit and ignited a fire that swept over Europe. The watchword of the Reformation became Saint Paul’s summary of the gospel: “The just (justified, saved) shall live [have eternal life] by faith [in Christ]” (Rom 1: 17)

But many Catholics to this day have not learned the Catholic and biblical doctrine. They think we are saved by good intentions or being nice or sincere or trying a little harder or doing a sufficient number of good deeds. Over the past twenty-five years I have asked hundreds of Catholic college students the question: If you should die tonight and God asks you why he should let you into heaven, what would you answer? The vast majority of them simply do not know the right answer to this, the most important of all questions, the very essence of Christianity. They usually do not even mention Jesus!

Until we Catholics know the foundation, Protestants are not going to listen to us when we try to teach them about the upper stories of the building. Perhaps God allows the Protestant/Catholic division to persist not only because Protestants have abandoned many precious truths taught by the Church but also because many Catholics have never been taught the most precious truth of all, that salvation is a free gift of grace, accepted by faith.

The split of the Protestant Reformation began when a Catholic discovered a Catholic doctrine in a Catholic book. It can end only when both Protestants and Catholics do the same thing today and understand what they are doing: discovering a Catholic doctrine in a Catholic book.

6 Questions Protestants Should Contemplate

2007-08-07T07:47:00.000-06:00

1. Why do you see faithful, Jesus-seeking, heart-committed practicing Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox believers as somehow second-rate Christians or not Christians at all?

2. Why is our current experience of Evangelicalism missing 1500-years of connection with the rest Church history?

3. Do you know that at the time of the Apostles that Apostolic oral tradition was seen as equally authoritative with their writings, which would eventually make up the New Testament Canon?

4. Do you know that the early church was built on the idea of Apostolic Succession?

5. Do you know that the prevailing view among Protestants up until the late 19th Century was to view Roman Catholic baptism as valid? Some of the Protestant theologian pedigree that held to this are: John Calvin, John Knox, Theodore Beza, William Perkins, Samuel Rutherford, Richard Baxter, Francis Turretin, Charles Hodge, and A.A. Hodge.

6. Do you know that Protestantism is split regarding its view of salvation and justification: lordship salvation versus non-lordship salvation. The lordship position as articulated by famous Protestant theologians of the past such as Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, A.A. Hodge, etc. being in more agreement with the current 21st century Roman Catholic view on justification than the non-lordship salvation position?

Marriage and The Christian - Catholic Biblical Quarterly by Q. Quesnell

2007-07-31T22:01:00.002-06:00

A married person as a Christian is called on in faith to express before the world God’s love in its aspect of forgiveness. The Christian’s love for the person to whom he has committed himself is called on to remain faithful even when rejected; and to pursue relentlessly, powerfully, sweetly, even when its object flees it—as men did God’s.

Q. Quesnell, “Made Themselves Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 30 (1968) 356.

My new job: U.S. Army

2007-07-28T22:57:00.001-06:00

I have taken a new job working as a Department of Defense contractor for the U.S. Army as a systems administrator for MEDCOM. I am working on location at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, TX. I thank the LORD for this blessing!

Movies and Barnes & Noble

2007-07-28T22:52:00.000-06:00

Tuesday evening, I went out with Josh Goforth to watch Live Free or Die Hard. Afterwards we checked out the Religious book section at Barnes & Noble before I took a look at Josh's new IPhone...I am so jealous:)

Derek Henderson: Best Defensive Lineman

2007-07-28T22:37:00.000-06:00

My friend, Derek Henderson, came out on top today at the AFL (Arena Football League) combine with his rating of #1 in the Defensive Lineman position. Among the many performance measurements he busted open was his 35.5" vertical jump.

Derek and I go way back. We first met in June 1998 at Fair Oaks Park in Sacramento, CA while playing basketball. We were both there because of the Hope Chapel church picnic. We hit it off immediately and hung out and talked with each other every day after that. We even took a Spanish class together in June 0f 1999. Derek has a great sense of humor and has me in stitches all the time. He is a great encourager.

Congratulations Derek on all of your hard work. Its paying off and I look forward to watching you on ESPN!

Arena Football League Combines

2007-07-28T04:35:00.001-06:00

This morning, Derek Henderson, my longtime friend, will be participating in the combines for the Arena Football League in New Orleans, LA. He is listed as a Defensive Lineman here - http://www.mslcombines.com/index.php?id=21

Show them how we do it West Coast style!

How Firm A Foundation

2007-06-07T23:53:00.000-06:00

This hymn below, How Firm A Foundation, has many special memories tied to it. First, I think of every morning when my Mom would listen to Vernon McGee and his Walk Thru The Bible Radio program. How Firm A Foundation was always the opening hymn that would be played before the show would start. Also, in San Antonio, on 9/11/01, I met with other men at my pastor's home where we prayed for the 9/11 victims. We also sang a few hymns together as well but the one that sticks out in my mind was when we all sang How Firm A Foundation together. I remember the tears that streamed down my pastor's cheeks when he sang the fourth part below. Last but not least I remember a hymn CD that my Mom bought for me to listen to when I was going through some deep waters while living in Concord, CA. The hymn that I would play over and over was How Firm A Foundation. So it is with much history and heart-felt praise that I sing this hymn to the LORD whenever I have the opportunity.

How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in His excellent Word!
What more can He say than to you He hath said,
You, who unto Jesus for refuge have fled?

Fear not, I am with thee, O be not dismayed,
For I am thy God and will still give thee aid;
I’ll strengthen and help thee, and cause thee to stand
Upheld by My righteous, omnipotent hand.

When through the deep waters I call thee to go,
The rivers of woe shall not thee overflow;
For I will be with thee, thy troubles to bless,
And sanctify to thee thy deepest distress.

When through fiery trials thy pathways shall lie,
My grace, all sufficient, shall be thy supply;
The flame shall not hurt thee; I only design
Thy dross to consume, and thy gold to refine.

The soul that on Jesus has leaned for repose,
I will not, I will not desert to its foes;
That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake,
I’ll never, no never, no never forsake.

After Nathan's Wedding

2007-06-07T22:41:00.002-06:00

Here are some pictures after Nathan Huber and Rebecca Moreland's wedding.

Brandon Huber and I

Andrew Elster

Josh and Noelle

Shayne Bernier

Josh Wheeler

Brian Howell

2007-06-07T22:38:00.000-06:00

Brian Howell is one of the most Christ-loving, faithful, honoring, loyal, real as real can get, friends that I know. I was so happy to rekindle my friendship with him when I saw him again at Nathan and Rebecca's wedding. I look forward to sharing many conversations and experiences together with him in the years to come.

Pope warns Catholic politicians who back abortion

2007-05-09T10:54:00.000-06:00

Pope warns Catholic politicians who back abortion
By Philip Pullella

Wed May 9, 8:46 AM ET

Pope Benedict on Wednesday warned Catholic politicians they risked excommunication from the Church and should not receive communion if they support abortion.

It was the first time that the Pope, speaking to reporters aboard the plane taking him on a trip to Brazil, dealt in depth with a controversial topic that has come up in many countries, including the United States, Mexico, and Italy.

The Pope was asked whether he supported Mexican Church leaders threatening to excommunicate leftist parliamentarians who last month voted to legalize abortion in Mexico City.

"Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon (church) law which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion, which is receiving the body of Christ," he said.

"They (Mexican Church leaders) did nothing new, surprising or arbitrary. They simply announced publicly what is contained in the law of the Church... which expresses our appreciation for life and that human individuality, human personality is present from the first moment (of life)."

Under Church law, someone who knowingly does or backs something which the Church considers a grave sin, such as abortion, inflicts what is known as "automatic excommunication" on themselves.

The Pope said parliamentarians who vote in favor of abortion have "doubts about the value of life and the beauty of life and even a doubt about the future."

"Selfishness and fear are at the root of (pro-abortion) legislation," he said. "We in the Church have a great struggle to defend life...life is a gift not a threat."

"ALWAYS A GIFT"

The Pope's comments appear to raise the stakes in the debate over whether Catholic politicians can support abortion or gay marriage and still consider themselves proper Catholics.

In recent months, the Vatican has been accused of interference in Italy for telling Catholic lawmakers to oppose a draft law that would grant some rights to unwed and gay couples.

During the 2004 presidential election, the U.S. Catholic community was split over whether to support Democratic candidate John Kerry, himself a Catholic who backed abortion rights.

Some Catholics say they personally would not have an abortion but feel obliged to support a woman's right to choose.

But the Church, which teaches that life begins at the moment of conception and that abortion is murder, says Catholics cannot have it both ways.

"The Church says life is beautiful, it is not something to doubt but it is a gift even when it is lived in difficult circumstances. It is always a gift," the Pope said.

Only Cuba, Guyana and U.S. commonwealth Puerto Rico allow abortion on demand in Latin America. Many other countries in the region permit it in special cases, such as if the fetus has defects or if the mother's life is at risk.

Brazil, the world's most populous Catholic country, is mulling bringing the debate to a referendum.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070509/wl_nm/pope_abortion_dc&printer=1;_ylt=A0SOwlrH_EFG02wAvQxn.3QA

Dog Grooming

2007-05-09T10:42:00.000-06:00

This last Sunday afternoon, May 6, Isaac and I took on the task of grooming our two dogs, Elvis and Copper. I shaved Elvis (he now looks like a large rat - LOL) and then bathed both Elvis and Copper. They smelled so much better afterwards:)

Lucy's Fort

2007-05-09T10:31:00.000-06:00

Lucy is currentlly fascinated with creating "forts" out of various household items, linens, toys and any other items she can get her hands on. Her is a picture of one of her recently created "forts".

Colorado Rockies

2007-05-09T10:28:00.000-06:00

A quick shot from my car of the magnificent view I see every morning of the Rocky Mountain grandeur.

Blackjack Pizza

2007-05-09T10:25:00.001-06:00

To make some extra money, I have been working at Blackjack Pizza as a delivery driver on Friday and Saturday nights. At the end of my shift, when it is late and I am very tired, I help out with the dishes as seen below.

Elitch Gardens

2007-05-09T10:22:00.000-06:00

On April 29, my son Isaac and I went to Elitch Gardens together. Isaac is very brave and goes on all of the roller-coasters with me. We had a great time together.

Denver Nuggets Playoff Game

2007-05-09T10:21:00.000-06:00

On April 30, Pastor Ken Mowery and I attended the Denver Nuggets playoff game against the San Antonio Spurs. Allen Iverson and Carmelo Anthony had some spectacular plays during the game. Denver kept the game close to the very end but San Antonio pulled out with the win Being from San Antonio, I did not mind the Spurs winning the game though :)

Manuel and Elva's Marriage

2007-05-09T10:04:00.000-06:00

My neighbors next door, Manuel and Elva, renewed their marriage vows on April 21. I was honored to be invited and to attend. Manuel and Elva have been the best neighbors I have ever had. They frequently invite me over to partake of a Mexican dish and to visit. Manuel has helped me with many home improvement projects. He is a very skilled landscaper and tiler. I am blessed to have friends like Manuel and Elva.

Chris and Mike

2007-04-10T13:57:00.000-06:00

Chris King

Chris Robbing My Pantry

Mike Patrick

Rick's Wedding: January 27, 2007

2007-04-10T13:33:00.000-06:00

Matt, Sarah, Rick, Aunt Lynda & Uncle Glenn

Hanging Out At The Rehearsal
Rick and I Listening to Pastor Stan
"It's Finally Here"
He Who Finds A Wife Finds A Good Thing

My New Dog: Copper

2007-03-16T01:10:00.000-06:00

Copper Is Thankfully Smart

Copper Relaxing On Her Bed

Copper Hanging Out

Copper and Barney

Lucy Walking Elvis and Isaac Walking Copper
Elvis and Copper Chilling Out

Hebrews 11:1

2007-02-19T21:55:00.000-07:00

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.