Excerpted from my upcoming book on the Papacy, here are my thoughts on why Matthew 23:9's "Call no man father" is not in any way a problem for Catholicism.
I have today posted two youtube videos with regards to this, the text of which is given below. Here are the links to the two youtube videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07L9G7X3O_E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB2nr5_
Enjoy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.) Call No Man Father?
It is often asserted that we should call no man father, at all. This charge essentially always comes from Protestants who have read Matthew 23:9, where Jesus says:
“Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven.”
While I can appreciate that many individuals may read this verse on their own, it seems to me that the majority of people who take this to mean that the practice of calling priest “Father” have first been told that by others upon being introduced to the verse, effectively being told, “Did you know that while Catholics call priests “father” Jesus says to call no man father?” The seeds of misinterpretation have already been sowed. As is the case with many other verses, like 1 Timothy 2:5, this verse alone is memorized by a huge number of people, recited from memory, and used as a proof text. The problem with this approach is that it fails to take the Bible in context; it fails to recognize that individual verses must be read within their context, and that without doing so, the proper meaning of those verses becomes obscured. So, let’s take a look at the context:
Matthew 23:5-12, “All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels. They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues, greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation 'Rabbi.' As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi.' You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers. Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven. Do not be called 'Master'; you have but one master, the Messiah. The greatest among you must be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.”
Is Jesus saying that we must not call anyone other than God the Father by the title of “Father”? No, the answer to that question is absolutely not for Jesus provides an entire list of titles which, if literally forbidden, would make nonsense out of the rest of the New Testament where all of those titles are used to refer to individuals other than God. Jesus doesn’t just forbid “father,” but He forbids master and teacher as well. I will not take up much of the reader’s time in delving into all of the relevant examples, but a few will suffice:
"For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11)
“And he [Stephen] replied, "My brothers and fathers, listen. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was in Mesopotamia, before he had settled in Haran,” (Acts 7:2)
Are we to assume that Paul and Stephen never bothered to listen to what Jesus says in Matthew 23:9?
The problem is that Jesus often spoke using the form of expression known as hyperbole, in which radical exaggeration is used to stress a particular point. If I tell my friend, “You should have gone to this party, everyone was there,” I am making use of hyperbole in order to point out that there were many people there. Hyperbole is alive and well in today’s culture, and it was certainly quite prevalent in first century Palestine amongst the Jews.
This typically does not make much sense to many fundamentalists, and this is not altogether surprising, for when one is accustomed to reading the Bible as a legal document containing explicit instructions and regulations, nuance is completely lost and some verses cannot be interpreted correctly, leaving one with a bizarre reading. Some parts of the Bible are like that. However, many parts are not, because, quite frankly, that is not the genre of most of the Bible. Jesus was often prone to make hyperbolic statements, statements of radical exaggeration in order to make a point. Sometimes, they can still be taken literally without resulting in the complete loss of their meaning; Jesus’ instruction to sell everything and give it to the poor is not an absolute requirement, but greater holiness results from doing so; one can understand it as subordinating the earthly pleasures and goods in one’s life to obedience to God and love of others, and one can understand this being perfectly achieved for some through the complete renunciation of wealth. However, there are other times when a completely literal interpretation totally destroys the meaning, like in Matthew 5:29-30:
If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna.
Precious few Christians, particularly fundamentalists, interpret Jesus’ words here in Matthew as an absolute, literal command. Jesus was not encouraging mutilation, and if He was, then the majority of Christians on the planet would probably be obligated to become blind amputees. No, Jesus is saying something different. In order to emphasize the effort we should make in avoiding sin, He speaks about what is “better” to do. One is better off as a blind amputee, because the current physical state of our body is not as important as the current spiritual state of our soul. Jesus is using hyperbole, bringing up examples of clearly immoral actions against our body to emphasize the need to remove from one’s life those things which cause one to sin.
Now, for another point – I myself have heard atheist debaters try to argue that Jesus was speaking literally when He said that if your hand causes you to sin, you should cut it off, for the purposes of taking a stance against Christianity on the basis of incredulity at the straw man that has been created and propped up. If this is the manner that hostile non-Christians approach the Bible, taking things out of context, oversimplifying what is written, and taking things with an extreme literalism so that the Christian position is ridiculed and viewed as unpalatable, as untenable…then why should any Christians choose to adopt the same approach???
Did John Calvin believe that we should call no man father? Let’s take a look:
Wicked magistrates are indeed appointed by God, but it is in his anger, and because we do not deserve to be placed under his government. He gives a loose rein to tyrants and wicked men, in order to punish our ingratitude, as if he had forsaken or ceased to govern us. But when good magistrates rule, we see God, as it were, near us, and governing us by means of those whom he hath appointed. The Prophet means that Eliakim will perform the part of a father, because he has been endued with the Spirit of God. At the same time he reminds all godly persons that they will have good reasons for wishing the government of Eliakim, because it tends to the general advantage of the Church.
By the appellation father, he shews what is the duty of a good magistrate. The same thing has been taught by heathen writers, that “a good king holds the place of a father;” and when they wished to flatter those who crushed the commonwealth by the exercise of tyranny, nature suggested to them to call the tyrants by the honorable title of “fathers of their country.” In like manner, philosophers, when they say that a family is the picture of a kingdom, shew that a king ought to hold the place of a father. This is also proved by the ancient titles given to kings, such as “Abimelech,” (Gen. 20:2, 8,) that is, “my father the king,” and others of the same kind, which shew that royal authority cannot be separated from the feelings of a father. Those who wish to be regarded as lawful princes, and to prove that they are God’s servants, must therefore shew that they are fathers to their people.
But what about Matthew 23:9? Clearly, Calvin must have ignored that verse in favor of the traditions of men, just like Catholics…or not. Let’s see what Calvin has to say:
9. And call no man on earth your Father. He claims for God alone the honor of Father, in nearly the same sense as he lately asserted that he himself is the only Master; for this name was not assumed by men for themselves, but was given to them by God. And therefore it is not only lawful to call men on earth fathers, but it would be wicked to deprive them of that honor. Nor is there any importance in the distinction which some have brought forward, that men, by whom children have been begotten, are fathers according to the flesh, but that God alone is the Father of spirits. I readily acknowledge that in this manner God is sometimes distinguished from men, as in Heb 12:5, but as Paul more than once calls himself a spiritual father, (1 Cor. 4:15, Phil. 2:22,) we must see how this agrees with the words of Christ. The true meaning therefore is, that the honor of a father is falsely ascribed to men, when it obscures the glory of God. Now this is done, whenever a mortal man, viewed apart from God, is accounted a father, since all the degrees of relationship depend on God alone through Christ, and are held together in such a manner that, strictly speaking, God alone is the Father of all. (Calvin's Commentaries, Vol. 33: Matthew, Mark and Luke, Part III: Matthew 23:1-12; Mark 12:38-39;
Luke 11:43, 45-46; 20:45-46)
I could hardly make this argument better. Calvin rightly acknowledges the context of Matthew 23; Jesus is effectively using hyperbole in order to emphasize that one must not forget or try to replace the role of God as Spiritual Father of all, as He saw the Pharisees and Sadducees doing. They were supplanting God’s role of Father, and Christ’s role as teacher and master, not realizing that their particular roles were from the Father, and from Christ. Such is made evidently clear in Hebrews 12:9:
Besides this, we have had our earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them. Should we not (then) submit all the more to the Father of spirits and live?
So we see how God’s fatherhood in this chapter is related to earthly fatherhood. God being the ultimate Father does not involve a rejection of human fatherhood; rather, it is the source of human fatherhood, both physical and spiritual. If withholding the role of “father” is required, and using that term as a title is forbidden, than numerous verses of the Bible need to be thrown out. The problem is not with those others verses; the problem is when we take “call no man father” as something other than hyperbole.
Calvin even touches upon the fallback of those who hold to the more-literal view, that titles related to spiritual fatherhood are what Jesus is prohibiting. Such is not the case, otherwise Paul violated that command time and time again, calling the Corinthians his “children” and referring to Timothy as his child and son, when we know that the celibate, and Jewish, Paul was most certainly not Timothy’s father (see Acts 16:1-3). The Apostle Peter refers to Mark as his son, and the Johannine Epistles abound in reference to “fathers and children” – rather awkwardly, if a spiritual fatherhood is not being referred to.
1 John 2:12-13, “I am writing to you, children, because your sins have been forgiven for his name's sake. I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have conquered the evil one.”
And
3 John 4, “Nothing gives me greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth.”
It’s likely that John was referring to his spiritual children, as well as to his fellow spiritual fathers – fellow priests. Only if one has a prior bias against spiritual fatherhood will they insist that these references must be to biological children. We already know Paul used the same kind of terminology in his letters, so there is already a biblical precedent for how the Johannine author speaks.
- Sean
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Matthew 16:18-19, Yet Again...
You replied to Dennis's post on Feb 6, 2008 at 2:54 PM.
Dennis,
"Leaving that aside though, it is audacious for the Catholic church to claim it is the "one true church" when it didn't even come into existance until some one to two hundred years after Christ. (See the quote and link below)"
The link seriously oversimplifies the history and passes over a great deal of it.
"Until that time "true Christianity" existed without any head save Christ himself, as opposed to a pope, and there was no formal organization called the "Catholic Church." Not only that but the first official declaration came from the writtings of St. Ignasious (sorry if I spelled it wrong) in a letter considered apocrypha by so called protestant churches today. "
The main letters of Ignatius are not regarded as Scripture by anyone, but most scholars accept them as authentic, particularly Protestant ones. Aversion to those letters comes about because Ignatius was clearly a Catholic and not a Protestant.
There is a plethora of patristic and early Christian evidence in favor of great authority exercised by the bishop of Rome as a result of his claiming to be the successor of Peter and regarded as such. Have you looked into this?
Care to tell me why Novatian got away with deposing so many people in the eastern churches? (If you are not familiar with this I could give you an overview).
"That being the case I have to disagree with you that all "protestant" churches are break aways from the Catholic church which did even exist when Christianity first began. Evidence of this can be found in the book of Acts which was written between 63 AD and 70 AD. In the chapter eleven verse twenty six the Apostle Luke records that the term "Christian" was first coined with reference to believers and followers of Christ."
The only qualification is that many Protestant churches broke off from other Protestant churches. We also shouldn't consider Protestantism as "non-Catholicism." You can't say the early Christians were "just Christian" and think that possibly gives a historical claim to nondenominational Protestants. Protestant imputational theology was completely absent in the early period, as was sola scriptura and a host of other beliefs. Historically speaking, Protestantism did indeed come out of Catholicism.
You haven't exactly shown that the Catholic Church did not exist very early on - indeed, from the very outset.
"We have also had this discussion before regarding the authority of Peter. Scripture does not indicate that he was the head of the church or that Jesus gave him power above the rest of the Apostles. In Matthew 16:17-18 Jesus said you are the rock [petos in the Greek meaning "detached rock"] which referred to Peter's confession. Then Jesus continues by stating that "upon this rock [petra in the Greek meaning "bedrock"] I will build my church." The first form of the word is feminin while the second is in the masculine voice. Quite clearly Christ was not stating that he would build his church on Peter but rather that he would build it on Peter's confession. "
The confession is not the focus at all.
In first century Koine Greek, there is NO DISTINCTION IN MEANING between petros and petra. If you would like, I can copy and paste quotes from various Protestant sources and scholars that concur that there is no real difference between the two terms in Matthew 16:18. Plus Jesus spoke in Aramaic, and it would have been "cepha" and "cepha" - the same word used for rock in both places. The "detached stone" or "pebbles" argument has been conclusively dismantled and destroyed.
Christ wasn't speaking in GREEK. Rather, Cepha is translated as "Petros" because to call Simon "Petra" would be to give a man a feminine name. Simply put, you don't call the Apostle Paul "Paula" so why would you call Peter "Petra"?
You are assuming that "petra" refers to Peter's confession when there is absolutely no evidence to suggest this - you assume this, and you have not provided anyone in this topic discussion with an exegetical basis for this assumption.
"I have a car, and it is blue." What's blue? The car. The most immediate antecedent for the demonstrative pronoun "taute" is PETROS...so "and upon this rock" (kai taute petra) would refer to the previous noun, Petros. Peter is the rock.
Notice also that Jesus doesn't dwell on the CONTENT of the confession. Verse 17 isn't about the confession; it is about the revelatory process by which Peter received the confession. You seem to have overlooked this.
You also appear to have overlooked verse 19, in which Peter, (you, SINGULAR) is given the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.
So here is the picture of what is going on in this passage:
Jesus asks the Apostles a question, about who others say He is. Then He asks them. And Peter, the usual spokesperson, speaks up and makes his confession in verse 16. Then Jesus calls him blessed because he received that confession from a REVELATION FROM THE FATHER - that is what Jesus focuses on.
Next, Jesus changes Peter's name to Cepha, or "Rock" and since we know biblical name changes involve a person receiving a new role and authority dependent upon the meaning of their new name, we know that Peter's new role was to be "the Rock."
Contextually, then, it is RIDICULOUS to insist that "taute petra" is not referring to the exact same person that Jesus, for the first time, just RENAMED rock and bestowed upon the ROLE of Rock.
Jesus even then gives Peter the keys (says He will give) of the kingdom of Heaven and the authority to bind and loose. While in Matthew 18:18 we read that all of them could bind and loose, ONLY Peter receives the keys. Why? Because of the typological involved.
See Isaiah 22:20-22. Just as Eliakim functioned as the prime minister or "master of the palace" for the king in the Old Testament, Peter was to serve that role in the early Church.
Doctrinally speaking, is the Church built upon Peter's confession? Absolutely.
Doctrinally speaking, is the Church built upon Christ (the other usual preferred referrent of Protestants for this verse)? Absolutely.
Doctrinally speaking, is the Church built upon the faith of Peter? Absolutely.
Yet are ANY of these things, according to a full-out contextually-minded exegesis of Matthew 16, the primary referrent of "taute petra"?
No.
The contextual and grammatical evidence favors the Catholic interpretation, and as many Protestant scholars have admitted, the primary motivation among Protestants for denying the Catholic interpretation has been anticatholic bias.
"we non-Catholics do not believe in this teaching because it is not founded in Scripture"
Well, where does Scripture say to not believe in any particular teaching because it is not founded in Scripture? It doesn't say that; Sola Scriptura is unbiblical, yet another invention of the Protestant Reformers.
- Sean
Dennis,
"Leaving that aside though, it is audacious for the Catholic church to claim it is the "one true church" when it didn't even come into existance until some one to two hundred years after Christ. (See the quote and link below)"
The link seriously oversimplifies the history and passes over a great deal of it.
"Until that time "true Christianity" existed without any head save Christ himself, as opposed to a pope, and there was no formal organization called the "Catholic Church." Not only that but the first official declaration came from the writtings of St. Ignasious (sorry if I spelled it wrong) in a letter considered apocrypha by so called protestant churches today. "
The main letters of Ignatius are not regarded as Scripture by anyone, but most scholars accept them as authentic, particularly Protestant ones. Aversion to those letters comes about because Ignatius was clearly a Catholic and not a Protestant.
There is a plethora of patristic and early Christian evidence in favor of great authority exercised by the bishop of Rome as a result of his claiming to be the successor of Peter and regarded as such. Have you looked into this?
Care to tell me why Novatian got away with deposing so many people in the eastern churches? (If you are not familiar with this I could give you an overview).
"That being the case I have to disagree with you that all "protestant" churches are break aways from the Catholic church which did even exist when Christianity first began. Evidence of this can be found in the book of Acts which was written between 63 AD and 70 AD. In the chapter eleven verse twenty six the Apostle Luke records that the term "Christian" was first coined with reference to believers and followers of Christ."
The only qualification is that many Protestant churches broke off from other Protestant churches. We also shouldn't consider Protestantism as "non-Catholicism." You can't say the early Christians were "just Christian" and think that possibly gives a historical claim to nondenominational Protestants. Protestant imputational theology was completely absent in the early period, as was sola scriptura and a host of other beliefs. Historically speaking, Protestantism did indeed come out of Catholicism.
You haven't exactly shown that the Catholic Church did not exist very early on - indeed, from the very outset.
"We have also had this discussion before regarding the authority of Peter. Scripture does not indicate that he was the head of the church or that Jesus gave him power above the rest of the Apostles. In Matthew 16:17-18 Jesus said you are the rock [petos in the Greek meaning "detached rock"] which referred to Peter's confession. Then Jesus continues by stating that "upon this rock [petra in the Greek meaning "bedrock"] I will build my church." The first form of the word is feminin while the second is in the masculine voice. Quite clearly Christ was not stating that he would build his church on Peter but rather that he would build it on Peter's confession. "
The confession is not the focus at all.
In first century Koine Greek, there is NO DISTINCTION IN MEANING between petros and petra. If you would like, I can copy and paste quotes from various Protestant sources and scholars that concur that there is no real difference between the two terms in Matthew 16:18. Plus Jesus spoke in Aramaic, and it would have been "cepha" and "cepha" - the same word used for rock in both places. The "detached stone" or "pebbles" argument has been conclusively dismantled and destroyed.
Christ wasn't speaking in GREEK. Rather, Cepha is translated as "Petros" because to call Simon "Petra" would be to give a man a feminine name. Simply put, you don't call the Apostle Paul "Paula" so why would you call Peter "Petra"?
You are assuming that "petra" refers to Peter's confession when there is absolutely no evidence to suggest this - you assume this, and you have not provided anyone in this topic discussion with an exegetical basis for this assumption.
"I have a car, and it is blue." What's blue? The car. The most immediate antecedent for the demonstrative pronoun "taute" is PETROS...so "and upon this rock" (kai taute petra) would refer to the previous noun, Petros. Peter is the rock.
Notice also that Jesus doesn't dwell on the CONTENT of the confession. Verse 17 isn't about the confession; it is about the revelatory process by which Peter received the confession. You seem to have overlooked this.
You also appear to have overlooked verse 19, in which Peter, (you, SINGULAR) is given the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.
So here is the picture of what is going on in this passage:
Jesus asks the Apostles a question, about who others say He is. Then He asks them. And Peter, the usual spokesperson, speaks up and makes his confession in verse 16. Then Jesus calls him blessed because he received that confession from a REVELATION FROM THE FATHER - that is what Jesus focuses on.
Next, Jesus changes Peter's name to Cepha, or "Rock" and since we know biblical name changes involve a person receiving a new role and authority dependent upon the meaning of their new name, we know that Peter's new role was to be "the Rock."
Contextually, then, it is RIDICULOUS to insist that "taute petra" is not referring to the exact same person that Jesus, for the first time, just RENAMED rock and bestowed upon the ROLE of Rock.
Jesus even then gives Peter the keys (says He will give) of the kingdom of Heaven and the authority to bind and loose. While in Matthew 18:18 we read that all of them could bind and loose, ONLY Peter receives the keys. Why? Because of the typological involved.
See Isaiah 22:20-22. Just as Eliakim functioned as the prime minister or "master of the palace" for the king in the Old Testament, Peter was to serve that role in the early Church.
Doctrinally speaking, is the Church built upon Peter's confession? Absolutely.
Doctrinally speaking, is the Church built upon Christ (the other usual preferred referrent of Protestants for this verse)? Absolutely.
Doctrinally speaking, is the Church built upon the faith of Peter? Absolutely.
Yet are ANY of these things, according to a full-out contextually-minded exegesis of Matthew 16, the primary referrent of "taute petra"?
No.
The contextual and grammatical evidence favors the Catholic interpretation, and as many Protestant scholars have admitted, the primary motivation among Protestants for denying the Catholic interpretation has been anticatholic bias.
"we non-Catholics do not believe in this teaching because it is not founded in Scripture"
Well, where does Scripture say to not believe in any particular teaching because it is not founded in Scripture? It doesn't say that; Sola Scriptura is unbiblical, yet another invention of the Protestant Reformers.
- Sean
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Extensive Biblical Argument for the Papacy
Originally posted here:
http://syr.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=5731&post=67034&uid=5584629838#post67034
You replied to Ben's post 5 minutes ago.
Ben,
Well, it IS sufficient to establish the Petrine basis upon which the Papacy rests. Obviously, if Peter didn't have a "Pope-like" role, then it would be rather inane to suggest that his successors, were he to have any, possessed such a role.
What I'll do is I'll provide a very extensive biblical argument in favor of the Petrine Primacy and the role of the Bishops of Rome as Peter's successors in that said office.
Peter received a new name as a result of the revelation he received, as indicated by verse 17 - not primarily due to the confession, but due to the fact that he RECEIVED the confession directly from God, and not from "flesh and blood" (semitism for "human beings").
A new name, biblically, designates a new role for the individual in question; Peter received a new name, and his new role or new authority was what his new name meant. Just as Abram became Abraham and thus "Father of a multitude" Simon became Peter and thus "The Rock."
Contextually, how does this fit? Because Jesus had been warning His Apostles about the danger of the leaven of the Pharisees. The importance of Peter's revelation was that it bypassed the danger of such "leaven" that came solely from "flesh and blood." Peter's role as the "Rock" of the Church was such that he would be a bulwark for the faith and would protect it from "leaven" or heretical error by virtue of a charism of infallibility. Peter spoke infallibly in Matthew 16:16, and he likewise spoke infallibliy in the Acts 15 Council of Jerusalem, ending the debate over the need for circumcision. Through HIS MOUTH the issue was ended, because he was the "Rock," the ultimate protection, within Christ's post-resurrection Church, against heresy.
Now, Jesus had used this rock metaphor before, in the very same Gospel:
Matthew 7:24-27, "Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock. And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined."
The importance of setting a foundation upon a "Rock" was thus quite paramount. The REASON Peter was renamed "Rock" and the REASON the Church was built upon Him was because, due to the grace of God and the gift of the Holy Spirit, Peter, as the first Pope, was "preserved from doctrinal error." He was preserved from leaven, and THAT is why he was a suitable foundation for the Church to be built upon - because Peter would be safeguarded from the meager opinions of "flesh and blood."
It is this sort of understanding that forms the basis of passages such as Luke 22:31-32, "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers."
So here's the scenario - Satan demanded to have ALL of them (all the Apostles) but Jesus prayed that the faith of PETER would not fail. Once Peter turned back after denying the Lord, his role would be to strengthen or confirm his brethren; in other words, what was protecting the other Apostles from the efforts of Satan was Jesus, the Rock upon which they were based.
Nicholas Russo and St. Francis de Sales:
"Infallibility is nothing else but a supernatural gift by which the recipient is shielded from all error against faith. But this is clearly expressed in “that thy faith fail not,” implied in the command to confirm his brethren, and supposed in the very failure of Satan’s attempts to destroy the Church, which is personified in the Apostles…. [T]he prayer was offered for Peter alone. By strengthening the head, Jesus wished to prevent the rest from staggering. Peter abides always in his successors. For it would be strange to confer infallibility to Peter only to have it die with him and to leave the rest of his successors vulnerable in times of greater danger. By charging Peter to confirm his brothers, Jesus does nothing less than declare him their head once again. If he has the task of feeding the pastors, must he not be sovereign pastor himself?"
The word for strengthen or confirm here is from sterizo, to “fix firmly” - his brothers in the faith. The Greek verb, used 13 times in the N.T., means to prop up, strengthen, confirm, establish.
Further evidence is found in John 21:15-17, "When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep."
It should be first noted that this "interrogation" by Jesus involves giving Peter the chance to atone for his triple-denial of Christ with a triple-affirmation of love for Christ.
Secondly, we must pay attention to the Greek of the commands Jesus gives Peter - boskein, poimanein, boskein. Boskein effectively means to feed. But poimanein has a little bit broader usage. It can mean to "tend" but also "to govern."
Jesus is giving Peter a pastoral role over the rest of the flock - over his fellow Apostles and the rest of the Church. He is to feed and tend/govern Christ's sheep on behalf of Christ.
1 Peter 5:1-3, "So I exhort the presbyters among you, as a fellow presbyter and witness to the sufferings of Christ and one who has a share in the glory to be revealed. Tend the flock of God in your midst, (overseeing) not by constraint but willingly, as God would have it, not for shameful profit but eagerly. Do not lord it over those assigned to you, but be examples to the flock."
Contrary to the exegesis of some fundamentalists, Peter is not here suggesting that pastoral leaders should not exert authority over those in their care. Rather, Peter is here directly appealing to what Christ said about the Gentiles lording their authority over those under them. Ultimately, Christian leadership and authority must be tempered by SERVICE for others. This is a very strong reason why the Pope is considered the "servant of the servants of God."
Here Peter is insightfully understanding what Jesus had spoken to him, and he is telling the presbyters to tend/govern THEIR flocks rightly, doing so through service and not lordship. And the very fact that Peter is doing this, telling them to perform pastoral care in this manner, is demonstrative of HIS ROLE as an overseer, as a bishop. He is "tending Christ's sheep" as he was told to do in John 21 by instructing them on how they are to tend Christ's sheep among them.
What a hierarchical picture this gives! In fact, 1 Peter could even be understood as a papal encyclical, given its wide circulation to the "chosen sojourners of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Peter 1:1) - namely, the Christians in those areas.
This is a huge geographical expanse in which Peter is effectively instructing all the presbyters in the churches there on how to tend or govern THEIR flocks - and, in doing so, he tends/governs HIS flock, the flock given to him by Jesus Christ, the Chief Shepherd.
It is interesting that the letters of Paul were always letters to specific city-churches; none of them were such widespread encyclical-style letters. Peter is addressing 5 provinces in Asia Minor, a huge expanse.
I don't know what your stance is on traditional authorship of the New Testament material - some would dispute whether or not 1 Peter was even written by Peter, primarily on the grounds of the refined Greek of the epistle. But J. R. Michaels writes: "The notion that Peter had help in the composition of this letter does not stand or fall with the theory about Silvanus. If 1 Peter is, as it appears to be, an encyclical on behalf of the church at Rome ('Babylon') to a wide circle of churches on the frontiers of the Roman Empire in five provinces of Asia Minor ('Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,' 1 Pet 1:2), then the author would likely have had scribal help with vocabulary and style, and his helpers would likely have remained anonymous." (Dictionary of the Later New Testament and its Developments, art. "1 Peter")
Now, as for further biblical support:
Luke 12:41: "Then Peter said, "Lord, is this parable meant for us or for everyone?" And the Lord replied, "Who, then, is the faithful and prudent steward whom the master will put in charge of his servants to distribute (the) food allowance at the proper time?"
This is extremely interesting. OBVIOUSLY, contextually, this parable IS meant for both "us" AND "everyone." And it is especially meant for Peter, given Jesus' reference to the "faithful and prudent steward" whom the master will "put in charge of his servants."
Peter is that faithful and prudent steward that Christ put in charge of his servants - in Matthew 16:18-19, in Luke 22:31-32, and especially in John 21:15-17. In fact, Jesus encouraging Peter to "feed" the sheep in John 21 would seem to parallel with Jesus speaking of the chief steward being in charge of the other servants to distribute the food allowance at the proper time.
Jesus goes on to say, in the passage:
"Blessed is that servant whom his master on arrival finds doing so. Truly, I say to you, he will put him in charge of all his property. But if that servant says to himself, 'My master is delayed in coming,' and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, to eat and drink and get drunk, then that servant's master will come on an unexpected day and at an unknown hour and will punish him severely and assign him a place with the unfaithful. That servant who knew his master's will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely; and the servant who was ignorant of his master's will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more."
This could be seen as a warning particularly to Peter, although all Christians are obviously referrents as well.
Consider that Jesus was speaking of the "Chief Steward" and is speaking about how that one will be put in charge of all his property. What is Jesus alluding to?
Genesis 41:39-44, "So Pharaoh said to Joseph: "Since God has made all this known to you, no one can be as wise and discerning as you are. You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people shall dart at your command. Only in respect to the throne shall I outrank you. Herewith," Pharaoh told Joseph, "I place you in charge of the whole land of Egypt." With that, Pharaoh took off his signet ring and put it on Joseph's finger. He had him dressed in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain about his neck. He then had him ride in the chariot of his vizier, and they shouted "Abrek!" before him. Thus was Joseph installed over the whole land of Egypt. "I, Pharaoh, proclaim," he told Joseph, "that without your approval no one shall move hand or foot in all the land of Egypt."
The office of Chief Steward, here depicted as being held by Joseph in Egypt, was a common office in the ancient world. The person in question effectively played the role of second-in-command to the King (in this case, Pharaoah) and was in charge over what the King was in charge of, given authority over it, to rule on behalf of the King.
Now, you may ask why the Papacy should be deemed legitimate if it is based on an office found in ancient Egypt. That would be a fair question. And here is a fair answer - this office was ALSO found in ancient Israel.
Isaiah 22:20-22, "On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open."
In ancient Israel, you had a King (at the time of Eliakim, King Hezekiah) and the King had as his right-hand-man a Prime Minister, a Chief Steward, also known as the "Master of the Palace."
Isaiah 36:3, "there came out to him the master of the palace, Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, and Shebna the scribe, and the herald Joah, son of Asaph."
As we see in Isaiah 22:20-22, this office would be transferred to Eliakim, symbolized by the giving of the key of the house of David to Eliakim. In the ancient Middle-eastern world, keys symbolized authority, so to speak of giving someone "keys" was to speak of giving them authority. This went so far to the point where some of these individuals in various kingdoms wore literal keys on their bodies to symbolize their authority.
Eliakim had the power to "open and shut" via his royal authority, and was a "father" to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. He was in charge, especially, in the case of the physical absence of the King.
And now we come full circle when we return to Matthew 16:18-19:
"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
We now know exactly which OT passage Jesus is alluding to here, AND the OT office He is alluding to - the OT office of "Master of the Palace." It is entirely historically likely, and many historians can attest to this, that following Israel's time in the land of Egypt, it included this office in the monarchy that it was to establish.
Jesus, as we well know, is a Davidic King, establishing a heavenly, yet STILL DAVIDIC, Kingdom:
Luke 1:32-33, "He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."
If Jesus is enthroned in a new, Davidic Kingdom - the Spiritual Israel - then it makes typological sense for his Kingdom to be structured rather similarly to the Kingdom of Old. Thus, that is why Jesus appoints Peter as the new "Master of the Palace" over the others in the Church.
Eliakim had the power to open and shut; Peter had the power to bind and loose.
Eliakim was a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem; Peter was a father to the inhabitants of the spiritual Jerusalem, the Church - hence the title of Papa, or "Pope."
Eliakim was in charge in the case of the physical absence of the King; likewise, Peter was in charge of the Church immediately upon the Ascension of Christ and the beginning of His physical absence - which explains why Peter immediately "gets to work" in the first half of Acts, including his actions of calling for a replacement for Judas, his role of spokesman and leader at Pentecost, and his prominent and deciding role in the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council.
Now, the issue of successors is also explained by our typological basis. Was Eliakim the sole Master of the Palace, for all time? Absolutely not. He received an office of dynastic succession, an office that was intended to continue past him - the office being greater than the man in the office.
Likewise, Peter received an office that was to continue past HIM - an office that was also one of succession. After all, the primary importance of the Master of the Palace was to rule the kingdom on behalf of the King in the PHYSICAL ABSENCE OF THE KING. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Jesus STILL physically absent? Has the Parousia come yet? ; )
Therefore, the NEED for the succession of the Petrine office remains. The Tradition of the Church is also absolutely unanimous that the Bishops of Rome were the successors of Peter, from Linus to Anacletus to Clement and so on and so forth.
Thus, the importance of papal infalliblity is INTRINSICALLY related to the nature and office of the Papacy itself.
- Sean
http://syr.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=5731&post=67034&uid=5584629838#post67034
You replied to Ben's post 5 minutes ago.
Ben,
Well, it IS sufficient to establish the Petrine basis upon which the Papacy rests. Obviously, if Peter didn't have a "Pope-like" role, then it would be rather inane to suggest that his successors, were he to have any, possessed such a role.
What I'll do is I'll provide a very extensive biblical argument in favor of the Petrine Primacy and the role of the Bishops of Rome as Peter's successors in that said office.
Peter received a new name as a result of the revelation he received, as indicated by verse 17 - not primarily due to the confession, but due to the fact that he RECEIVED the confession directly from God, and not from "flesh and blood" (semitism for "human beings").
A new name, biblically, designates a new role for the individual in question; Peter received a new name, and his new role or new authority was what his new name meant. Just as Abram became Abraham and thus "Father of a multitude" Simon became Peter and thus "The Rock."
Contextually, how does this fit? Because Jesus had been warning His Apostles about the danger of the leaven of the Pharisees. The importance of Peter's revelation was that it bypassed the danger of such "leaven" that came solely from "flesh and blood." Peter's role as the "Rock" of the Church was such that he would be a bulwark for the faith and would protect it from "leaven" or heretical error by virtue of a charism of infallibility. Peter spoke infallibly in Matthew 16:16, and he likewise spoke infallibliy in the Acts 15 Council of Jerusalem, ending the debate over the need for circumcision. Through HIS MOUTH the issue was ended, because he was the "Rock," the ultimate protection, within Christ's post-resurrection Church, against heresy.
Now, Jesus had used this rock metaphor before, in the very same Gospel:
Matthew 7:24-27, "Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock. And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined."
The importance of setting a foundation upon a "Rock" was thus quite paramount. The REASON Peter was renamed "Rock" and the REASON the Church was built upon Him was because, due to the grace of God and the gift of the Holy Spirit, Peter, as the first Pope, was "preserved from doctrinal error." He was preserved from leaven, and THAT is why he was a suitable foundation for the Church to be built upon - because Peter would be safeguarded from the meager opinions of "flesh and blood."
It is this sort of understanding that forms the basis of passages such as Luke 22:31-32, "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers."
So here's the scenario - Satan demanded to have ALL of them (all the Apostles) but Jesus prayed that the faith of PETER would not fail. Once Peter turned back after denying the Lord, his role would be to strengthen or confirm his brethren; in other words, what was protecting the other Apostles from the efforts of Satan was Jesus, the Rock upon which they were based.
Nicholas Russo and St. Francis de Sales:
"Infallibility is nothing else but a supernatural gift by which the recipient is shielded from all error against faith. But this is clearly expressed in “that thy faith fail not,” implied in the command to confirm his brethren, and supposed in the very failure of Satan’s attempts to destroy the Church, which is personified in the Apostles…. [T]he prayer was offered for Peter alone. By strengthening the head, Jesus wished to prevent the rest from staggering. Peter abides always in his successors. For it would be strange to confer infallibility to Peter only to have it die with him and to leave the rest of his successors vulnerable in times of greater danger. By charging Peter to confirm his brothers, Jesus does nothing less than declare him their head once again. If he has the task of feeding the pastors, must he not be sovereign pastor himself?"
The word for strengthen or confirm here is from sterizo, to “fix firmly” - his brothers in the faith. The Greek verb, used 13 times in the N.T., means to prop up, strengthen, confirm, establish.
Further evidence is found in John 21:15-17, "When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep."
It should be first noted that this "interrogation" by Jesus involves giving Peter the chance to atone for his triple-denial of Christ with a triple-affirmation of love for Christ.
Secondly, we must pay attention to the Greek of the commands Jesus gives Peter - boskein, poimanein, boskein. Boskein effectively means to feed. But poimanein has a little bit broader usage. It can mean to "tend" but also "to govern."
Jesus is giving Peter a pastoral role over the rest of the flock - over his fellow Apostles and the rest of the Church. He is to feed and tend/govern Christ's sheep on behalf of Christ.
1 Peter 5:1-3, "So I exhort the presbyters among you, as a fellow presbyter and witness to the sufferings of Christ and one who has a share in the glory to be revealed. Tend the flock of God in your midst, (overseeing) not by constraint but willingly, as God would have it, not for shameful profit but eagerly. Do not lord it over those assigned to you, but be examples to the flock."
Contrary to the exegesis of some fundamentalists, Peter is not here suggesting that pastoral leaders should not exert authority over those in their care. Rather, Peter is here directly appealing to what Christ said about the Gentiles lording their authority over those under them. Ultimately, Christian leadership and authority must be tempered by SERVICE for others. This is a very strong reason why the Pope is considered the "servant of the servants of God."
Here Peter is insightfully understanding what Jesus had spoken to him, and he is telling the presbyters to tend/govern THEIR flocks rightly, doing so through service and not lordship. And the very fact that Peter is doing this, telling them to perform pastoral care in this manner, is demonstrative of HIS ROLE as an overseer, as a bishop. He is "tending Christ's sheep" as he was told to do in John 21 by instructing them on how they are to tend Christ's sheep among them.
What a hierarchical picture this gives! In fact, 1 Peter could even be understood as a papal encyclical, given its wide circulation to the "chosen sojourners of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Peter 1:1) - namely, the Christians in those areas.
This is a huge geographical expanse in which Peter is effectively instructing all the presbyters in the churches there on how to tend or govern THEIR flocks - and, in doing so, he tends/governs HIS flock, the flock given to him by Jesus Christ, the Chief Shepherd.
It is interesting that the letters of Paul were always letters to specific city-churches; none of them were such widespread encyclical-style letters. Peter is addressing 5 provinces in Asia Minor, a huge expanse.
I don't know what your stance is on traditional authorship of the New Testament material - some would dispute whether or not 1 Peter was even written by Peter, primarily on the grounds of the refined Greek of the epistle. But J. R. Michaels writes: "The notion that Peter had help in the composition of this letter does not stand or fall with the theory about Silvanus. If 1 Peter is, as it appears to be, an encyclical on behalf of the church at Rome ('Babylon') to a wide circle of churches on the frontiers of the Roman Empire in five provinces of Asia Minor ('Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,' 1 Pet 1:2), then the author would likely have had scribal help with vocabulary and style, and his helpers would likely have remained anonymous." (Dictionary of the Later New Testament and its Developments, art. "1 Peter")
Now, as for further biblical support:
Luke 12:41: "Then Peter said, "Lord, is this parable meant for us or for everyone?" And the Lord replied, "Who, then, is the faithful and prudent steward whom the master will put in charge of his servants to distribute (the) food allowance at the proper time?"
This is extremely interesting. OBVIOUSLY, contextually, this parable IS meant for both "us" AND "everyone." And it is especially meant for Peter, given Jesus' reference to the "faithful and prudent steward" whom the master will "put in charge of his servants."
Peter is that faithful and prudent steward that Christ put in charge of his servants - in Matthew 16:18-19, in Luke 22:31-32, and especially in John 21:15-17. In fact, Jesus encouraging Peter to "feed" the sheep in John 21 would seem to parallel with Jesus speaking of the chief steward being in charge of the other servants to distribute the food allowance at the proper time.
Jesus goes on to say, in the passage:
"Blessed is that servant whom his master on arrival finds doing so. Truly, I say to you, he will put him in charge of all his property. But if that servant says to himself, 'My master is delayed in coming,' and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, to eat and drink and get drunk, then that servant's master will come on an unexpected day and at an unknown hour and will punish him severely and assign him a place with the unfaithful. That servant who knew his master's will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely; and the servant who was ignorant of his master's will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more."
This could be seen as a warning particularly to Peter, although all Christians are obviously referrents as well.
Consider that Jesus was speaking of the "Chief Steward" and is speaking about how that one will be put in charge of all his property. What is Jesus alluding to?
Genesis 41:39-44, "So Pharaoh said to Joseph: "Since God has made all this known to you, no one can be as wise and discerning as you are. You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people shall dart at your command. Only in respect to the throne shall I outrank you. Herewith," Pharaoh told Joseph, "I place you in charge of the whole land of Egypt." With that, Pharaoh took off his signet ring and put it on Joseph's finger. He had him dressed in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain about his neck. He then had him ride in the chariot of his vizier, and they shouted "Abrek!" before him. Thus was Joseph installed over the whole land of Egypt. "I, Pharaoh, proclaim," he told Joseph, "that without your approval no one shall move hand or foot in all the land of Egypt."
The office of Chief Steward, here depicted as being held by Joseph in Egypt, was a common office in the ancient world. The person in question effectively played the role of second-in-command to the King (in this case, Pharaoah) and was in charge over what the King was in charge of, given authority over it, to rule on behalf of the King.
Now, you may ask why the Papacy should be deemed legitimate if it is based on an office found in ancient Egypt. That would be a fair question. And here is a fair answer - this office was ALSO found in ancient Israel.
Isaiah 22:20-22, "On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open."
In ancient Israel, you had a King (at the time of Eliakim, King Hezekiah) and the King had as his right-hand-man a Prime Minister, a Chief Steward, also known as the "Master of the Palace."
Isaiah 36:3, "there came out to him the master of the palace, Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, and Shebna the scribe, and the herald Joah, son of Asaph."
As we see in Isaiah 22:20-22, this office would be transferred to Eliakim, symbolized by the giving of the key of the house of David to Eliakim. In the ancient Middle-eastern world, keys symbolized authority, so to speak of giving someone "keys" was to speak of giving them authority. This went so far to the point where some of these individuals in various kingdoms wore literal keys on their bodies to symbolize their authority.
Eliakim had the power to "open and shut" via his royal authority, and was a "father" to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. He was in charge, especially, in the case of the physical absence of the King.
And now we come full circle when we return to Matthew 16:18-19:
"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
We now know exactly which OT passage Jesus is alluding to here, AND the OT office He is alluding to - the OT office of "Master of the Palace." It is entirely historically likely, and many historians can attest to this, that following Israel's time in the land of Egypt, it included this office in the monarchy that it was to establish.
Jesus, as we well know, is a Davidic King, establishing a heavenly, yet STILL DAVIDIC, Kingdom:
Luke 1:32-33, "He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."
If Jesus is enthroned in a new, Davidic Kingdom - the Spiritual Israel - then it makes typological sense for his Kingdom to be structured rather similarly to the Kingdom of Old. Thus, that is why Jesus appoints Peter as the new "Master of the Palace" over the others in the Church.
Eliakim had the power to open and shut; Peter had the power to bind and loose.
Eliakim was a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem; Peter was a father to the inhabitants of the spiritual Jerusalem, the Church - hence the title of Papa, or "Pope."
Eliakim was in charge in the case of the physical absence of the King; likewise, Peter was in charge of the Church immediately upon the Ascension of Christ and the beginning of His physical absence - which explains why Peter immediately "gets to work" in the first half of Acts, including his actions of calling for a replacement for Judas, his role of spokesman and leader at Pentecost, and his prominent and deciding role in the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council.
Now, the issue of successors is also explained by our typological basis. Was Eliakim the sole Master of the Palace, for all time? Absolutely not. He received an office of dynastic succession, an office that was intended to continue past him - the office being greater than the man in the office.
Likewise, Peter received an office that was to continue past HIM - an office that was also one of succession. After all, the primary importance of the Master of the Palace was to rule the kingdom on behalf of the King in the PHYSICAL ABSENCE OF THE KING. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Jesus STILL physically absent? Has the Parousia come yet? ; )
Therefore, the NEED for the succession of the Petrine office remains. The Tradition of the Church is also absolutely unanimous that the Bishops of Rome were the successors of Peter, from Linus to Anacletus to Clement and so on and so forth.
Thus, the importance of papal infalliblity is INTRINSICALLY related to the nature and office of the Papacy itself.
- Sean
Christian Courier's Shoddy Scholarship
In a portion of their article with regards to Peter, christiancourier.com has seriously erred. Here is an excerpt of their article:
3.) Chrysostom (c. A.D. 347-407), a theologian who lived in Constantinople, referred to this passage as illustrative of Peter’s great weakness. He suggested that the apostle’s fall “was more grievous than that of the others” (Homily 82). That ancient scholar knew nothing of Peter’s primacy based upon this text.
The article in full can be found at the following location:
http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:ju0AgY7rNX8J:www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/simon_simon_+Peter+strengthens+his+brethren&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Now, it is QUITE a serious charge to make to insist that Luke 22:31-32 was never used by St. John Chrysostom to argue for Petrine Primacy.
It is also a charge that is not backed up by the historical record.
Now, it is true that Chrysostom begins his exegesis of Luke 22 considering the status of Peter's faith and his fall. But apparently, the author of this supposedly scholarly article did not CONTINUE READING. He would have read the following:
"For He Who built the Church upon his confession, and so fortified it that ten thousand dangers and deaths should not prevail against it, He Who gave him the keys of heaven, and made him lord (possessor) of so much authority, and Who needed not prayer for this (for He said not 'I have prayed' but with authority 'I will build' and 'I will give'), how did He need prayer that He might save the soul of one man?"
This is from the EXACT SAME EPISTLE! Apparently, the author of this article decided that he would play the risky game of selective quotation instead of read the ENTIRETY of Epistle 82. (Found here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200182.htm)
And elswhere:
"Again, that coryphaeus Peter, after a thousand wonders and signs and so much warning and counsel, did He not rebuke him when he had fallen this grave fall? Nay, He passed it over, and appointed him first of the apostles. Wherefore He said: 'Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to sift thee as wheat, and I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not'." (In Psalm 129, 2, vol V, 375[369])
"God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler of the whole world [Greek], that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying, 'Simon, Simon, how often hath Satan desired to sift thee as wheat, but I have prayed for thee that thy strength fail not, and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren'." (Hom quod frequenter conveniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[329])
John Chrysostom has spoken; the case is closed. Wayne Jackson, the author of this article, should make a much more serious effort to learn how a Church Father exegeted a passage.
- Sean Hutton
3.) Chrysostom (c. A.D. 347-407), a theologian who lived in Constantinople, referred to this passage as illustrative of Peter’s great weakness. He suggested that the apostle’s fall “was more grievous than that of the others” (Homily 82). That ancient scholar knew nothing of Peter’s primacy based upon this text.
The article in full can be found at the following location:
http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:ju0AgY7rNX8J:www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/simon_simon_+Peter+strengthens+his+brethren&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Now, it is QUITE a serious charge to make to insist that Luke 22:31-32 was never used by St. John Chrysostom to argue for Petrine Primacy.
It is also a charge that is not backed up by the historical record.
Now, it is true that Chrysostom begins his exegesis of Luke 22 considering the status of Peter's faith and his fall. But apparently, the author of this supposedly scholarly article did not CONTINUE READING. He would have read the following:
"For He Who built the Church upon his confession, and so fortified it that ten thousand dangers and deaths should not prevail against it, He Who gave him the keys of heaven, and made him lord (possessor) of so much authority, and Who needed not prayer for this (for He said not 'I have prayed' but with authority 'I will build' and 'I will give'), how did He need prayer that He might save the soul of one man?"
This is from the EXACT SAME EPISTLE! Apparently, the author of this article decided that he would play the risky game of selective quotation instead of read the ENTIRETY of Epistle 82. (Found here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200182.htm)
And elswhere:
"Again, that coryphaeus Peter, after a thousand wonders and signs and so much warning and counsel, did He not rebuke him when he had fallen this grave fall? Nay, He passed it over, and appointed him first of the apostles. Wherefore He said: 'Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to sift thee as wheat, and I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not'." (In Psalm 129, 2, vol V, 375[369])
"God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler of the whole world [Greek], that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying, 'Simon, Simon, how often hath Satan desired to sift thee as wheat, but I have prayed for thee that thy strength fail not, and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren'." (Hom quod frequenter conveniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[329])
John Chrysostom has spoken; the case is closed. Wayne Jackson, the author of this article, should make a much more serious effort to learn how a Church Father exegeted a passage.
- Sean Hutton
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Cory Tucholski's Email Response - Courteous, Respectful, and Exactly what I was Looking For - I look forward to conversing with him
>===== Original Message From "Cory Tucholski" =====
>I was planning on writing a response to your response in due course. The
>problem comes doing this only part time, as well as running another blog on
>fast food management, you have to prioritize your time. I appreciate the
>reminder, as the intended reply had slipped my mind.
>
>It appears as though the holiday theme has no provision for comments on
>pages. Your comment is still safely in the queue--I just checked to make
>sure. I have tried to establish a reputation for not deleting or closing
>comments on my blog because I invite dissenting opinions on my pieces. (The
>one exception has been the celebration of atheist women piece, because I
>posted that as humor and it received 18 comments, all of which were
>repeating what was said above it.) I think that it shows the strength of my
>arguments if no meaningful refutations can be posted, which is usually the
>case.
>
>Your comments, however, deserve more attention that I haven't had time to
>give them. From the surface glance I gave them, they are more detailed and
>meaningful than I'm used to receiving on this site. And that's a very good
>thing. So in the near future, I will step through them and give them the
>time that they deserve.
>
>Meanwhile, I appreciate your patience. Rest assured I didn't delete the
>comment and I haven't closed the comments on any of my article pages. At
>least not intentionally.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Cory
>
>I was planning on writing a response to your response in due course. The
>problem comes doing this only part time, as well as running another blog on
>fast food management, you have to prioritize your time. I appreciate the
>reminder, as the intended reply had slipped my mind.
>
>It appears as though the holiday theme has no provision for comments on
>pages. Your comment is still safely in the queue--I just checked to make
>sure. I have tried to establish a reputation for not deleting or closing
>comments on my blog because I invite dissenting opinions on my pieces. (The
>one exception has been the celebration of atheist women piece, because I
>posted that as humor and it received 18 comments, all of which were
>repeating what was said above it.) I think that it shows the strength of my
>arguments if no meaningful refutations can be posted, which is usually the
>case.
>
>Your comments, however, deserve more attention that I haven't had time to
>give them. From the surface glance I gave them, they are more detailed and
>meaningful than I'm used to receiving on this site. And that's a very good
>thing. So in the near future, I will step through them and give them the
>time that they deserve.
>
>Meanwhile, I appreciate your patience. Rest assured I didn't delete the
>comment and I haven't closed the comments on any of my article pages. At
>least not intentionally.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Cory
>
My email to My Email to Cory Tucholski Concerning My Comment on His Site
Date Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 9:59 PM
From: smhutton
To: tucholskic
Subject: (none)
Urgent New
Mr. Cory Tucholski,
On November 18th, I wrote a comment in response to your article on the Catholic Mass on your website, Josiah Concept Ministries.
It was in response to the article found here:
http://josiahconcept.org/articles/catholic-mass/#comment-4107
At some point, I returned to the page to see if there was some sort of response to my comment, or if they were other comments in general. I returned only to find out that all the comments were gone, and that the "add comment" feature was gone for that article.
Now, I also noticed that the format of your site seems to have changed to rather jolly good Christmas-style colors and such. So, I figure that the change with regards to my comment and the comment feature for your Catholic mass article have to do with the changes made to the site.
In any event, I was wondering if you would be willing to respond to my critique of your article. I am very interested in your thoughts on this matter. I can reproduce the content of my comment and send it to you via email if you would like. Or, if you would prefer, we could start from scratch and have a dialogue on this.
Thank you and God Bless.
- Sean Hutton
From: smhutton
To: tucholskic
Subject: (none)
Urgent New
Mr. Cory Tucholski,
On November 18th, I wrote a comment in response to your article on the Catholic Mass on your website, Josiah Concept Ministries.
It was in response to the article found here:
http://josiahconcept.org/articles/catholic-mass/#comment-4107
At some point, I returned to the page to see if there was some sort of response to my comment, or if they were other comments in general. I returned only to find out that all the comments were gone, and that the "add comment" feature was gone for that article.
Now, I also noticed that the format of your site seems to have changed to rather jolly good Christmas-style colors and such. So, I figure that the change with regards to my comment and the comment feature for your Catholic mass article have to do with the changes made to the site.
In any event, I was wondering if you would be willing to respond to my critique of your article. I am very interested in your thoughts on this matter. I can reproduce the content of my comment and send it to you via email if you would like. Or, if you would prefer, we could start from scratch and have a dialogue on this.
Thank you and God Bless.
- Sean Hutton
Monday, November 26, 2007
1 Timothy 2:5 - Matt Slick Wants a Shorter Email From Me, So a Shorter Email I Will Write
Back on the 19th, I had sent Matt Slick, President of the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry at Carm.org, an email with regards to what I felt what his misuse of 1 Timothy 2:5.
I had anticipated some form of response. The following is the email I received in return:
Monday, November 19, 2007 12:11 PM
From: "carm.org \(carmstuff@yahoo.com\)"
To: smhutton
Subject: RE: My thoughts on 1 Timothy 2:5
Urgent New
your email is way too long.
give it to me in ONE sentence.
Thank you for writing to the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (www.carm.org)
Now, I understand how pressing time constraints can be. I understand that we don't all have an enormous amount of free time, and that sometimes, other things take precedent over responding to a lone email from an amateur Catholic apologist.
In terms of how much that Protestant apologetics website has to deal with and respond to on a daily basis, sure, my email IS probably "way too long."
Still, that being the case, I didn't exactly write an apologetics work similar in length to "War and Peace." I gave a short commentary that could easily be read inside of 10 minutes.
Once again, I DO totally understand if Matt Slick and the staff of CARM just don't have the time to deal with my email. At the same time, I think that if Mr. Slick had the time to post that "debate" in which he invoked 1 Timothy 2:5 against a Catholic on his website, he could have had time to examine criticisms of that application.
I also think that ONE sentence is MUCH too short! As tempted as I was to send my email back to Mr. Slick again, after having removed all punctuation, I did not. Yet I also hesitated to send a ONE sentence email.
In debate, when you let the opposition speak more than you, you aren't typically leaving yourself in a good position. There's a REASON that formal debates give a certain amount of specific time to each participant, so as to create a more fair atmosphere.
I refuse to enter into a dialogue with Mr. Slick, or any member of Carm, in which the entire proceedings will be effectively those individuals lecturing me at length and not providing me with ample time to state my criticism. Presidential debates may have degraded into "sound bites", but debates that I am involved in will not function in that same manner so long as I can help it.
I also understand if Mr. Slick and the members of Carm do not feel that an individual like myself is reputable enough to engage in a debate on this matter. That may be the case...but the substance of my argument stands, regardless of whether or not it comes from me or any of the, say, apologists from Catholic Answers. It should be dealt with.
So, I intend to email Mr. Slick again...and, in one paragraph, I will state my case against his (mis)use of 1 Timothy 2:5. Hopefully, it will work out better this time around, and I will get a substantial reply. Matt Slick wants a shorter email from me, so a shorter email I will write.
- Sean
I had anticipated some form of response. The following is the email I received in return:
Monday, November 19, 2007 12:11 PM
From: "carm.org \(carmstuff@yahoo.com\)"
To: smhutton
Subject: RE: My thoughts on 1 Timothy 2:5
Urgent New
your email is way too long.
give it to me in ONE sentence.
Thank you for writing to the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (www.carm.org)
Now, I understand how pressing time constraints can be. I understand that we don't all have an enormous amount of free time, and that sometimes, other things take precedent over responding to a lone email from an amateur Catholic apologist.
In terms of how much that Protestant apologetics website has to deal with and respond to on a daily basis, sure, my email IS probably "way too long."
Still, that being the case, I didn't exactly write an apologetics work similar in length to "War and Peace." I gave a short commentary that could easily be read inside of 10 minutes.
Once again, I DO totally understand if Matt Slick and the staff of CARM just don't have the time to deal with my email. At the same time, I think that if Mr. Slick had the time to post that "debate" in which he invoked 1 Timothy 2:5 against a Catholic on his website, he could have had time to examine criticisms of that application.
I also think that ONE sentence is MUCH too short! As tempted as I was to send my email back to Mr. Slick again, after having removed all punctuation, I did not. Yet I also hesitated to send a ONE sentence email.
In debate, when you let the opposition speak more than you, you aren't typically leaving yourself in a good position. There's a REASON that formal debates give a certain amount of specific time to each participant, so as to create a more fair atmosphere.
I refuse to enter into a dialogue with Mr. Slick, or any member of Carm, in which the entire proceedings will be effectively those individuals lecturing me at length and not providing me with ample time to state my criticism. Presidential debates may have degraded into "sound bites", but debates that I am involved in will not function in that same manner so long as I can help it.
I also understand if Mr. Slick and the members of Carm do not feel that an individual like myself is reputable enough to engage in a debate on this matter. That may be the case...but the substance of my argument stands, regardless of whether or not it comes from me or any of the, say, apologists from Catholic Answers. It should be dealt with.
So, I intend to email Mr. Slick again...and, in one paragraph, I will state my case against his (mis)use of 1 Timothy 2:5. Hopefully, it will work out better this time around, and I will get a substantial reply. Matt Slick wants a shorter email from me, so a shorter email I will write.
- Sean
Mass Debate Continued...Curiouser and Curiouser...
Interesting enough, when I had checked to see if Cory Tucholski had responded to my comment that I left on his website, I found something that I was hardly expecting.
Nothing.
Well, that's not entirely accurate. What I did find was a fancier, rather pleasant looking background to the page in question, very in keeping with the upcoming Christmas season, and Mr. Tucholski's original post.
The comment I had left was gone.
Gone, too, was a comment that someone else had made, and left, before I made mine. In the spirit of charity, as of this juncture I will refrain from assuming too much as a result of this occurance. It is entirely possible that my comment was removed, and not responded to, for a variety of technical reasons. Perhaps the transition to the much prettier background had to result in the loss of my comment.
However, at the same time, the comment FEATURE is also gone from that page. Simply take a look at the original "Mass Debate" that I posted on the 18th, and check out the link. If you go to it, you will find that Josiah Concept Ministries no longer has a "leave comment" option for that specific article against Catholicism.
It is my intention, as of now, to email Mr. Tucholski and ask why. It is not for me to speculate as to his motivations for doing so, at least not yet. However, I think I am entitled to an explanation, whatever that explanation might be...
- Sean
Nothing.
Well, that's not entirely accurate. What I did find was a fancier, rather pleasant looking background to the page in question, very in keeping with the upcoming Christmas season, and Mr. Tucholski's original post.
The comment I had left was gone.
Gone, too, was a comment that someone else had made, and left, before I made mine. In the spirit of charity, as of this juncture I will refrain from assuming too much as a result of this occurance. It is entirely possible that my comment was removed, and not responded to, for a variety of technical reasons. Perhaps the transition to the much prettier background had to result in the loss of my comment.
However, at the same time, the comment FEATURE is also gone from that page. Simply take a look at the original "Mass Debate" that I posted on the 18th, and check out the link. If you go to it, you will find that Josiah Concept Ministries no longer has a "leave comment" option for that specific article against Catholicism.
It is my intention, as of now, to email Mr. Tucholski and ask why. It is not for me to speculate as to his motivations for doing so, at least not yet. However, I think I am entitled to an explanation, whatever that explanation might be...
- Sean
Monday, November 19, 2007
1 Timothy 2:5: My Response to Protestant Apologist Matt Slick of Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
Below is my email to Matt Slick, President of Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry found at http://www.carm.org.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Slick,
In one of your “dialogues” on Carm.org, http://www.carm.org/dialogues/cath_interpret.htm, I found a dialogue between you and a Catholic individual by the name of Dan – a “Discussion with a Catholic on Interpreting the Bible.”
Having read through the conversation, I immediately spotted something that I feel is a crucial error. I’ll post the entirety of the relevant excerpt, and my response, down below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Matt: The Bible says there is ONE mediator, not two. Praying THRU her is just a way of saying you pray TO her...but without the obvious difficulties involved.
Dan: Do you ask other people to pray for you?
Matt: They are here with me. They are not dead. Jesus is risen, the one mediator. Others are not my mediator. Neither is Mary. Your praying through Mary is praying TO her. Where is this found in the Bible?
Dan: Do you ask others to pray for you?
Matt: Yes. I do. Are they my mediator between God and me? No. Where does it say we can pray to or through Mary?
Dan: I ask my spiritual mother to pray for me. That is all: I say Mary, pray for me. Not Mary, grant me this or that.
Matt: Okay, we're done.....”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, I have MANY, many problems with your approach here. In a response to someone else on facebook, I specifically dealt with what I felt was improper use of 1 Timothy 2:5 in a debate on praying to the saints - Why 1 Tim. 2:5 is not against Co-mediatorship, Why Hebrews 9:27 is not against Purgatory. This can be found at my blog at http://apolobot.blogspot.com.
Mr. Slick, I believe that you are clearly appealing to an interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:5 in this excerpt of his dialogue – and, in my opinion, taking it out of context. The issue of whether or not you have taken this verse out of context and misapplied it to the debate over praying to saints is not an issue about praying to the saints itself – it is primarily concerned with whether or not you have attempted to utilize an invalid prooftext in favor of your position on praying to the saints. I will, therefore, attempt to limit my response to specifically that issue.
I will also be making use of the New American translation of the Bible; if you have a preference for us both using the same translation, and a specific one, please let me know.
In 1 Timothy 2:5, we have Paul saying the following:
“For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human,”
Now, according to you, the Bible says that there is ONE mediator. I would absolutely have to agree with that assessment. However, I suggest we look at the context of 1 Timothy 2 to determine what exactly is meant by this.
In verses 1-2, Paul expresses his wish that supplications, prayers, and petitions be offered for everyone, and he provides a list of figures. In verses 3 and 4, Paul says that, “This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.”
The point, then, of Paul’s argument thus far is that everyone should pray for one another because that is what God desires. God desires everyone to be saved, to come to knowledge of the truth.
I am fully aware of your objection elsewhere on your website to Universalist usage of this passage, to the effect that God desires, and effects, the salvation of all men. I’m no proponent of universalism myself, so I think we can at least be in agreement there.
Only now does Paul introduce his point in which he mentions Jesus as mediator:
“For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as ransom for all. This was the testimony at the proper time.”
It therefore appears clear to me that Paul’s argument is that we should not be partial in who we pray for, because Christ was not partial in whom He died for.
I’m willing to concede that “all” does not need to mean “every single one” here – especially in lieu of the fact that Romans 3:23 says that “all men” sinned when clearly, all men have not.
Additionally, as I wanted to limit the conversation as of now to 1 Timothy 2:5 specifically, and its usage, although I would be most happy to discuss Limited Atonement with you at some other juncture, if you would like.
In any event, the general gist of Paul’s argument is for us not to be partial in who we pray for. This leads us into verses 8 and 9:
“For this I was appointed preacher and apostle (I am speaking the truth, I am not lying), teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. It is my wish, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands, without anger or argument.”
So, Paul’s entire position can be summed up in one word: Pray.
I think this is a position that the two of us can most definitely agree upon!
Paul then continues onward concerning the proper behavior of women and then his discussion of Church leaders in chapter 3.
Now, here is the all-important question, one that I hope you understand the basis of, Mr. Slick…
…where in the text of 1 Timothy 2 does Paul indicate that Jesus is the sole mediator of prayer?
That’s the real question. Because if the answer to that question is false, Mr. Slick, then you took 1 Timothy 2:5 out of context in your debate with Dan. And as D.A. Carson made quite clear in Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ, “A text without a context becomes a pretext for a prooftext.” It could be conceivably possible that you were right in objecting to prayer to the saints against Dan (I definitely don’t think so, of course), but you could have been wrong (this, I do think, otherwise I wouldn’t have bothered writing this email, lol!) in using 1 Timothy 2:5 in order to do so.
When Dan asked, “Do you ask other people to pray for you?” he was in no way dodging your application of 1 Timothy 2:5. It very much appears to be the case that he was appealing to the context, whereas you were not. Your response to him appeared to be dodging the context of 1 Timothy 2 – you brought up the fact that the supposed saints are dead, not “with you”, but that hardly matters when discussing 1 Timothy 2. The objection on the basis that the saints are “dead” is completely separate from the objection that no saint, that no one, can act as a mediator other than Christ.
The idea that other human beings can be mediators of prayer is very much indicated by 1 Timothy 2. Otherwise, there is no way that Paul would express that it was his wish for individuals to pray for one another.
In principle, there is no difference between going to my next door neighbor and saying, “Pray for me” and asking Mary to pray for me. What I mean by this is that both of these examples are examples of someone asking someone else to pray for them. If you are going to use the “only one mediator…of prayer” argument against asking the saints to pray for us, then you must use that same argument against asking fellow Christians on earth to pray for us, if you in any way wish to be logically consistent.
Instead of address this core problem with your usage of 1 Timothy 2:5 head-on, it appears that you took two other approaches:
1.) The aforementioned argument that there is a difference between asking “dead” and live people to pray for us
2.) An argument to the effect that praying “to” a saint is different than praying “through” a saint.
#1 definitely addresses a key difference between asking intercession of “dead” saints and asking intercession of those on earth. But it doesn’t deal with 1 Timothy 2:5, so we can pass it over for right now. I would be more than happy to debate the ramifications of this assessment with you at a later time.
#2 is a different can ‘o worms. But even if you think that prayer is an act of worship and that praying “TO” saints is somehow idolatrous, or something to that effect, that doesn’t mean that asking saints to pray for us is wrong because Jesus is our mediator. Paul made quite a good argument for why we should pray for others (and why he could ASK this of them) in 1 Timothy 2, and Jesus being our mediator formed the basis of that argument.
With all this in mind, other issues aside, it appears that you have taken 1 Timothy 2:5 out of context.
Additionally, Jesus is not the sole mediator of prayer because Sacred Scripture, when speaking of Jesus as our mediator, is never talking about His mediation in terms of mediation through prayer. It always does so in terms of Christ’s sacrifice as the mediator of the New Covenant.
The only other place in the New Testament where Christ is described as “mediator” is in the Letter to the Hebrews, and there, it is quite clear that Christ is our “mediator” in a sacrificial sense. An analogy is drawn between Christ and Moses; Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant sacrifices, and Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant, of His own sacrifice. And even in 1 Timothy 2, it talks about Jesus as mediator in the immediate context of giving Himself as ransom for all – in a sacrificial context.
Now, because of the Protestant idea of “termination” – that Jesus’ sacrifice in its fullness is over and done with – it is thus probably the case that you do not think of Jesus’ role of mediator in an exclusively sacrificial sense.
I’ve noticed that Protestants who hold to this idea of “termination” tend to think of Jesus as mediator in a sense involving prayer as well – and this is because, in my opinion, Hebrews speaks of Christ as mediator in the present, not just in the past. Since many a Protestant thinks Christ’s sacrificial work was completed in its fullness on cavalry, and that there is no perpetual, continual offering in Heaven, Hebrews’ references to Jesus as mediator must therefore not be interpreted in solely a sacrificial sense.
I do not wish to engage in a debate concerning the Mass at this time. However, for now, I would like to stress that a close reading of Hebrews 7-9 will demonstrate that Jesus is described as mediator of the New Covenant in a most sacrificial sense, and therefore, 1 Timothy 2:5’s mention of Jesus as mediator should definitely not be taken as somehow indicating that Jesus is the sole mediator of prayer.
All of this amounts to my rather clear charge, Mr. Slick, that you should not have invoked 1 Timothy 2:5 in your criticism of the Catholic practice of praying to the saints. It is, quite simply, an invalid prooftext that has been taken out of context.
I think Scripture speaks of Christ as mediator in that sacrificial sense – but I would not in any way object to Christ spoken of as ‘a’ mediator of prayer, even the final mediator of prayer. In my opinion, Revelation depicts the angel and the other saints presenting prayers on the throne, before Christ, and He then presents these prayers before the Father. So, all prayer must ultimately pass through Him, anyways.
Please feel free to respond in full when you get the chance. As I said, I would be more than happy to discuss some of the “side” issues with you separately – here I just wanted to address the proper application of 1 Timothy 2:5.
I am posting the contents of this email on my blog after I email it to you. Once you provide a response, I would like to post that there as well. If that is not acceptable to you, please let me know.
Thank you very much for your time. I hope that our discussion will be fruitful.
God bless.
- Sean Hutton
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Slick,
In one of your “dialogues” on Carm.org, http://www.carm.org/dialogues/cath_interpret.htm, I found a dialogue between you and a Catholic individual by the name of Dan – a “Discussion with a Catholic on Interpreting the Bible.”
Having read through the conversation, I immediately spotted something that I feel is a crucial error. I’ll post the entirety of the relevant excerpt, and my response, down below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Matt: The Bible says there is ONE mediator, not two. Praying THRU her is just a way of saying you pray TO her...but without the obvious difficulties involved.
Dan: Do you ask other people to pray for you?
Matt: They are here with me. They are not dead. Jesus is risen, the one mediator. Others are not my mediator. Neither is Mary. Your praying through Mary is praying TO her. Where is this found in the Bible?
Dan: Do you ask others to pray for you?
Matt: Yes. I do. Are they my mediator between God and me? No. Where does it say we can pray to or through Mary?
Dan: I ask my spiritual mother to pray for me. That is all: I say Mary, pray for me. Not Mary, grant me this or that.
Matt: Okay, we're done.....”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, I have MANY, many problems with your approach here. In a response to someone else on facebook, I specifically dealt with what I felt was improper use of 1 Timothy 2:5 in a debate on praying to the saints - Why 1 Tim. 2:5 is not against Co-mediatorship, Why Hebrews 9:27 is not against Purgatory. This can be found at my blog at http://apolobot.blogspot.com.
Mr. Slick, I believe that you are clearly appealing to an interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:5 in this excerpt of his dialogue – and, in my opinion, taking it out of context. The issue of whether or not you have taken this verse out of context and misapplied it to the debate over praying to saints is not an issue about praying to the saints itself – it is primarily concerned with whether or not you have attempted to utilize an invalid prooftext in favor of your position on praying to the saints. I will, therefore, attempt to limit my response to specifically that issue.
I will also be making use of the New American translation of the Bible; if you have a preference for us both using the same translation, and a specific one, please let me know.
In 1 Timothy 2:5, we have Paul saying the following:
“For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human,”
Now, according to you, the Bible says that there is ONE mediator. I would absolutely have to agree with that assessment. However, I suggest we look at the context of 1 Timothy 2 to determine what exactly is meant by this.
In verses 1-2, Paul expresses his wish that supplications, prayers, and petitions be offered for everyone, and he provides a list of figures. In verses 3 and 4, Paul says that, “This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.”
The point, then, of Paul’s argument thus far is that everyone should pray for one another because that is what God desires. God desires everyone to be saved, to come to knowledge of the truth.
I am fully aware of your objection elsewhere on your website to Universalist usage of this passage, to the effect that God desires, and effects, the salvation of all men. I’m no proponent of universalism myself, so I think we can at least be in agreement there.
Only now does Paul introduce his point in which he mentions Jesus as mediator:
“For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as ransom for all. This was the testimony at the proper time.”
It therefore appears clear to me that Paul’s argument is that we should not be partial in who we pray for, because Christ was not partial in whom He died for.
I’m willing to concede that “all” does not need to mean “every single one” here – especially in lieu of the fact that Romans 3:23 says that “all men” sinned when clearly, all men have not.
Additionally, as I wanted to limit the conversation as of now to 1 Timothy 2:5 specifically, and its usage, although I would be most happy to discuss Limited Atonement with you at some other juncture, if you would like.
In any event, the general gist of Paul’s argument is for us not to be partial in who we pray for. This leads us into verses 8 and 9:
“For this I was appointed preacher and apostle (I am speaking the truth, I am not lying), teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. It is my wish, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands, without anger or argument.”
So, Paul’s entire position can be summed up in one word: Pray.
I think this is a position that the two of us can most definitely agree upon!
Paul then continues onward concerning the proper behavior of women and then his discussion of Church leaders in chapter 3.
Now, here is the all-important question, one that I hope you understand the basis of, Mr. Slick…
…where in the text of 1 Timothy 2 does Paul indicate that Jesus is the sole mediator of prayer?
That’s the real question. Because if the answer to that question is false, Mr. Slick, then you took 1 Timothy 2:5 out of context in your debate with Dan. And as D.A. Carson made quite clear in Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ, “A text without a context becomes a pretext for a prooftext.” It could be conceivably possible that you were right in objecting to prayer to the saints against Dan (I definitely don’t think so, of course), but you could have been wrong (this, I do think, otherwise I wouldn’t have bothered writing this email, lol!) in using 1 Timothy 2:5 in order to do so.
When Dan asked, “Do you ask other people to pray for you?” he was in no way dodging your application of 1 Timothy 2:5. It very much appears to be the case that he was appealing to the context, whereas you were not. Your response to him appeared to be dodging the context of 1 Timothy 2 – you brought up the fact that the supposed saints are dead, not “with you”, but that hardly matters when discussing 1 Timothy 2. The objection on the basis that the saints are “dead” is completely separate from the objection that no saint, that no one, can act as a mediator other than Christ.
The idea that other human beings can be mediators of prayer is very much indicated by 1 Timothy 2. Otherwise, there is no way that Paul would express that it was his wish for individuals to pray for one another.
In principle, there is no difference between going to my next door neighbor and saying, “Pray for me” and asking Mary to pray for me. What I mean by this is that both of these examples are examples of someone asking someone else to pray for them. If you are going to use the “only one mediator…of prayer” argument against asking the saints to pray for us, then you must use that same argument against asking fellow Christians on earth to pray for us, if you in any way wish to be logically consistent.
Instead of address this core problem with your usage of 1 Timothy 2:5 head-on, it appears that you took two other approaches:
1.) The aforementioned argument that there is a difference between asking “dead” and live people to pray for us
2.) An argument to the effect that praying “to” a saint is different than praying “through” a saint.
#1 definitely addresses a key difference between asking intercession of “dead” saints and asking intercession of those on earth. But it doesn’t deal with 1 Timothy 2:5, so we can pass it over for right now. I would be more than happy to debate the ramifications of this assessment with you at a later time.
#2 is a different can ‘o worms. But even if you think that prayer is an act of worship and that praying “TO” saints is somehow idolatrous, or something to that effect, that doesn’t mean that asking saints to pray for us is wrong because Jesus is our mediator. Paul made quite a good argument for why we should pray for others (and why he could ASK this of them) in 1 Timothy 2, and Jesus being our mediator formed the basis of that argument.
With all this in mind, other issues aside, it appears that you have taken 1 Timothy 2:5 out of context.
Additionally, Jesus is not the sole mediator of prayer because Sacred Scripture, when speaking of Jesus as our mediator, is never talking about His mediation in terms of mediation through prayer. It always does so in terms of Christ’s sacrifice as the mediator of the New Covenant.
The only other place in the New Testament where Christ is described as “mediator” is in the Letter to the Hebrews, and there, it is quite clear that Christ is our “mediator” in a sacrificial sense. An analogy is drawn between Christ and Moses; Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant sacrifices, and Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant, of His own sacrifice. And even in 1 Timothy 2, it talks about Jesus as mediator in the immediate context of giving Himself as ransom for all – in a sacrificial context.
Now, because of the Protestant idea of “termination” – that Jesus’ sacrifice in its fullness is over and done with – it is thus probably the case that you do not think of Jesus’ role of mediator in an exclusively sacrificial sense.
I’ve noticed that Protestants who hold to this idea of “termination” tend to think of Jesus as mediator in a sense involving prayer as well – and this is because, in my opinion, Hebrews speaks of Christ as mediator in the present, not just in the past. Since many a Protestant thinks Christ’s sacrificial work was completed in its fullness on cavalry, and that there is no perpetual, continual offering in Heaven, Hebrews’ references to Jesus as mediator must therefore not be interpreted in solely a sacrificial sense.
I do not wish to engage in a debate concerning the Mass at this time. However, for now, I would like to stress that a close reading of Hebrews 7-9 will demonstrate that Jesus is described as mediator of the New Covenant in a most sacrificial sense, and therefore, 1 Timothy 2:5’s mention of Jesus as mediator should definitely not be taken as somehow indicating that Jesus is the sole mediator of prayer.
All of this amounts to my rather clear charge, Mr. Slick, that you should not have invoked 1 Timothy 2:5 in your criticism of the Catholic practice of praying to the saints. It is, quite simply, an invalid prooftext that has been taken out of context.
I think Scripture speaks of Christ as mediator in that sacrificial sense – but I would not in any way object to Christ spoken of as ‘a’ mediator of prayer, even the final mediator of prayer. In my opinion, Revelation depicts the angel and the other saints presenting prayers on the throne, before Christ, and He then presents these prayers before the Father. So, all prayer must ultimately pass through Him, anyways.
Please feel free to respond in full when you get the chance. As I said, I would be more than happy to discuss some of the “side” issues with you separately – here I just wanted to address the proper application of 1 Timothy 2:5.
I am posting the contents of this email on my blog after I email it to you. Once you provide a response, I would like to post that there as well. If that is not acceptable to you, please let me know.
Thank you very much for your time. I hope that our discussion will be fruitful.
God bless.
- Sean Hutton
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Baptism, Eucharist and Purgatory
You replied to Drew's post on Nov 15, 2007 at 5:52 PM.
Drew,
I may be responding a little late...but the Catholic voice needs to be heard.
All things considered, I think we have substantial agreement, particularly if you are coming from the Reformed position.
Time to touch on some of what you said...
"There is a "promise of the eternal inheritance" (v.15). This is not a man-made promise, which is destined to fail. This is a God-given promise and He is faithful to fulfill every one of His promises. Not only that, but it's an "eternal inheritance". When we are born again, of "water" [He is not talking about a physical baptism here] and "spirit" (John 3) we inherit the kingdom of heaven, which is Jesus Christ. We are adopted into God's family; spiritually born into His family."
Concerning baptism, you did not explain WHAT "hudor" or water is then referring to in John 3:5.
An analysis of ancient Jewish mikvah baptisms, in tevillahs, shows similar language to that which Jesus uses in John 3. It thus appears to be quite likely that Jesus WAS referring to physical water baptism, therefore eliminating the amniotic fluid argument and the simple figurative argument.
"It was necessary for Christ to die, in order to fulfill the covenant. Shed blood alone is not enough. There must be death as well. It's like a will. The will does not become active until the person is dead. Christ's death on the cross activated the will. Christ still lives though; if He didn't rise from the dead then He wouldn't have been who He said He was. "If we could be saved by blood without death, the animals would have been bled, not killed, and it would have been the same with jesus." (John MacArthur Jr.)"
This I fully agree with. Jesus had to die.
"The penalty for sin is death, symbolized by the shedding of blood that can atone for sin. Can you see why any self effort, works, whatever, is an anathema for the atonement for sin? By GRACE through FAITH is the only Biblical way for salvation. There is no substitute!"
The Council of Trent (1545-1563) I hope you know, affirmed Sola Gratia.
"Nothing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification."
Therefore we are on the same page when it comes to the importance of grace as a result of Christ's atonement. Our differences come in the POST-justificational chronology, where you would assert that works are not meritorious and I would assert that they are.
James 2 says that works justify. Paul's letters indicate the Abraham was justified on SEVERAL DIFFERENT OCCASIONS. That means that justification cannot be solely the one-time legal declaration of God.
In Calvin's conception we are totally depraved and God "declares us" just even though we are not - a nominalistic lie.
That's where your problem starts. God declares us just based upon His MAKING us just, so that His legal ruling actually has some bearing in objective, factual reality. We are declared just because we are MADE just, we are made holy. God is intellectually honest.
"1 Peter 3 "For Christ also suffered ONCE for sins, the JUST FOR THE UNJUST, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the FLESH but made alive by the SPIRIT, by whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison.""
"preached" here is not talking about a "second chance" or "purgatory", as many catholics will claim. The Greek word is from the form Kerusso, which means "to herald" or "proclaim" or "publish". Christ was proclaiming His finished work. "It is finished".
Interesting how you quote from 1 Peter 3, which says that literal, physical WATER, hudor, saved Noah and his family, and says that corresponding to that, BAPTISM saves us now. But more on that later.
1 Peter 3, here, is not typically argued by Catholics as being pro-purgatory, although it can be. It's more so talking about Sheol, the righteous place where the OT saints went. Jesus preached to them, and when He rose, they rose TOO.
Matthew 27:50-53, "But Jesus cried out again in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit. And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split, tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many."
See what I mean?
Additionally, to call Purgatory a "second chance" is a strawman fallacy. Catholics do not think of Purgatory as such - that is more so the Mormon view.
Justification, understood as moving from the state without grace to the state of grace, CANNOT occur after death, as far as I am concerned. Purgatory in no way teaches that it does. It is NOT a second chance. If you die out of the state of grace, that's it, game over...hell.
Correctly outline something before you attack it, please. If you do not first correctly understand Purgatory, I will gladly offer what explanations I can.
"We cannot satisfy the Father. Only His Son, Jesus Christ can and has satisfied Him. Therefore Jesus is the only way we can go to the Father; "No one comes to the Father except through Me.""
Agreed. But the application of John 14:6 is an important matter to delve into, and it refers more so to the necessity of Christ being our mediator than to any "total depravity" on our part. We could not, indeed, make satisfaction for the eternal effects of our sins.
But we CAN make satisfaction, or expiate, the temporal effects of our sins. Scripture is CLEAR on that. I will explain in the coming paragraphs.
"If Jesus' sacrifice had not been sufficient for all mankind, once for all, He would have needed to suffer over and over- exactly like the Old Covenant and the Levitical priests offering. This is not the case though; Jesus' sacrifice was and is sufficient."
Agreed.
"What do Catholics believe?:
The doctrine of the "sacrifice of the mass" was made official by the council of Trent in the 16th century. Ludwig Ott, a theologian of the Catholic Church explains this doctrine: "The holy Mass is a true and proper sacrifice. It is physical and propitiatory, removing sins and conferring the grace of repentance. Propitiation by the offering of this sacrifice, God, by granting the grace of the gift, and the gift of Penitence, remits trespasses and sins however grievous they may be.""
First I must point out that the Mass was considered a sacrifice long before this point. Have you ever read the Didache, which refers to the Eucharist as a sacrifice and uses a prophecy from Malachi I as a prophecy OF it being a sacrifice? This isn't the post-nicene period...the Didache was written before John and Revelation were. The sacrificial understanding of the Eucharist, the CATHOLIC view, predates the symbol-only view that you are proposing. History is not on your side.
"In other words, God's satisfaction regarding sin depends upon the weekly mass. That is why attending mass is so important to Catholics. This, however, is a false doctrine within the Catholic Church. The belief that the bread and wine literally become Jesus' body and blood is also blasphemous; it is meant to be a symbol of communion with Christ; a means of rememberance as Christ commanded us to do; it is not meant to offer his blood again and again."
You have not proven that this is a false doctrine, Drew. You also mischaracterize it.
We do not offer His blood again and again.
"-"...but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God FOR US; NOR was it that He should offer Himself often [Christ offers Himself once, not often], as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood not his own." (9:24-25)"
And you are doing the classical Protestant tactic of taking Hebrews 9:24-25 as a charge against the Catholic sacrifice of the mass. The passage condemns the repetition of Christ's sacrifice, which you claim Catholics do, therefore Catholics are wrong.
Sorry, try again.
First off, what the passage is condemning is the repeated KILLING of the sacrificed animal. In the sacrifice of the Mass, Jesus is not killed again and again and again. There is no repeated physical sacrifice. So there goes an objection on those grounds.
The passage is therefore not addressing the Catholic mass at all.
Additionally, it also condemns REPETITION of the sacrifice of Christ, correct?
It does not, I repeat, does NOT, condemn CONTINUATION.
There is a difference between the two. Repetition is when you do something, stop, do it again, stop, do it again, stop. Continuation is when you do something and CONTINUOUSLY, PERPETUALLY do it, with no "breaks" in between.
THAT is the Catholic understanding of how the sacrifice of the Mass works, Drew, and THAT is why Hebrews 9 is an invalid prooftext for your argument against the sacrifice of the Mass.
Take a look, once more, at Hebrews 9:24:
"For Christ did not enter into a sanctuary made by hands, a copy of the true one, but heaven itself, that he might NOW appear before God on our behalf."
You didn't put "now" in bold - I did.
Why?
Because Christ's role as our mediator was NOT a one-time sacrifice of Himself on Cavalry circa 30-33 AD. That was when the physical death, the physical aspect, of Jesus' sacrifice occured, but that is NOT the totality of the sacrifice.
When you sacrifice an animal, you must then offer up that sacrificed animal to God. And it is THAT action that Catholics believe the Mass to be. It is in THAT sense that we see the Mass as a sacrifice - it is Jesus, the True Priest, offering up Himself, the True Victim, the Lamb, up to God continuously, perpetually, eternally, forever. Is it any wonder that Revelation depicts Jesus as a slain Lamb in Heaven?
Hebrews doesn't attack that view at all - it supports it.
Hebrews 9:11-12, "But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be, passing through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not belonging to this creation, he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption."
Do you have an interpretation of this? I'm curious as to what it is.
In Revelation, Heaven is depicted as having an altar - the same is true in the case of Hebrews 13.
Hebrews depicts the crucified, sacrificed Christ entering the HEAVENLY sanctuary, which the earthly sanctuary was but a copy of, and sprinkling His blood upon the altar, performing His act of Mediation.
Hebrews depicts Moses as mediator because of the sprinkling of the blood of the slain animal. It depicts Jesus as doing the same thing...IN HEAVEN. In the Heavenly sanctuary.
Clearly, the sacrifice was not 100% "done" at Cavalry. You can quote John 19:30 until you are quite blue in the face, my friend - but you need to indicate what the pronoun "it" is referring to when Jesus says "It is finished" or in Hebrew "Kalah."
For the Protestant position, Jesus is saying that His one-time act of Mediation is over and done with. Not so according to the perspective of Hebrews, which depicts Christ as fulfilling His role of Covenantal Mediator of the New Covenant AFTER His death!
"Kalah" or "It is finished" is what the High Priest would say upon the slaying of the lamb during Passover, btw. It's referring to Jesus dying, and does not mean that that was His sole act of mediation in any way, shape or form.
The Mass is the earthly presentation of a continuous, perpetual Heavenly event - Jesus offering Himself to the Father.
I may also point out several more Scriptural arguments in favor of the Catholic Mass:
1.) Paul indirectly refers to the Eucharist as a sacrifice in 1 Corinthians 10:16-21. He refers to the Eucharistic table as the "table of the Lord" - a biblical expression found in Malachi 1 that refers to an ALTAR.
What's on an altar? Sacrifices. And that is why, in his comparison between the Eucharist and pagan sacrifices, Paul says in v. 18:
"Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?"
Did he not just get done saying that eating or drinking the Eucharist is a PARTICIPATION with Christ?!?
2.) Typologically speaking, Jesus is the "new" Passover Lamb. He replaces the Old one. What happened if you killed the old Lamb and didn't eat it?
Your firstborn would be dead in the morning. You had to EAT the Lamb.
Thus, Protestantism's insistence that the Eucharist is not the flesh and blood of Christ creates an incomplete typology in which Christ our Paschal Lamb is killed, but NOT eaten. That doesn't add up, especially in lieu of Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 -
"Clear out the old yeast, so that you may become a fresh batch of dough, inasmuch as you are unleavened. For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."
Synopsis? The Lamb has been sacrificed, so let's eat the Lamb!
This works with John 6 as well, which you no doubt have opinions on. A few thoughts on that:
a.) Jesus' audience thought He was speaking literally.
b.) "Eat the flesh and drink the blood" was a common Jewish idiomatic figurative expression that meant to slander or persecute - it did not mean "believe" or anything of that nature. For examples, see Micah 3:3 or Galatians 5:15. Therefore Jesus was either saying, "Literally eat my flesh" or "Slander me." I'll let you guess which one.
c.) Jesus switches in John 6 from the Greek word for eat "phago" (which literally means eat or consume) and can be used figuratively to the Greek word "trogo" - which has NO figurative application in the Koine Greek of the New Testament and to the best of my knowledge is not used figuratively in Koine Greek in general. It is a LITERAL term used to refer typically to animal eating, and it literally means to chew, to munch, to crunch. If Jesus wished to be understood figuratively, as your "figurative" view requires, WHY would Jesus start using more literal, carnal language with His audience, Drew?
The true blasphemy is not affirming the Real Presence, but denying the Real Presence. Such can be seen in the early writings of Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of the Apostle John:
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
The Gnostic Docetists asserted that Jesus had no physical body; as a result, they refused to confess the Eucharist as the flesh and blood of Christ.
Ignatius, therefore, believed in the Catholic view of the Eucharist and called its detractors heretics. They were the blasphemers.
Is your view of the Eucharist found in early Christianity? No. It did not exist until later Reformers like Calvin and Zwingli. It loses the battle of hisoricity and is CLEARLY a revisionist position that is extensively disproven by the biblical evidence I have thus far brought forth.
More in a couple.
- Sean
* Reply to Your Post
* Delete Post
Post #70
You replied to Drew's post on Nov 15, 2007 at 5:54 PM.
Drew,
Next item on the list: Purgatory.
"Purgatory is a false doctrine, as no amount of prayers or works will atone for even one sin. On judgment day, the payment for our sins is Christ's death and blood, if you are indeed found to be in the truth."
Got something for you, then:
Proverbs 16:6 states, "By kindness and piety guilt is expiated, and by the fear of the LORD man avoids evil" (NAB; RSV has "atoned for" instead of "expiated").
How do you respond to that? It IS inspired Scripture, theopneustos.
Scripture even uses the stronger term "atonement" and indicates humans can make temporal atonement for themselves (see Exodus 30:15-16, Leviticus 17:11, Numbers 31:50).
According to Catholic Apologetist Jimmy Akin, "The claim that only Christ can atone for or expiate our sins arises from a confusion about whether the temporal or the eternal dimension of our sins is being discussed. Only Christ can provide eternal satisfaction for our sins, but we can make temporal amends or reparations for them."
Right on the money. Purgatory involves the expiation or making amends for the TEMPORAL, not the eternal, effects of our sins. It is not a second chance.
Colossians 1:24, "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church,"
Woah woah woah! Something LACKING in the afflictions of Christ?
What is lacking is restitution for the TEMPORAL effects of our sins.
Consider our soul to be a temple. We are born in original sin, with our temples in total state of disrepair, and we cannot repair them on our own.
Because of Christ, we become new creations, and are initially repaired. However, every time we sin, we predispose ourselves to FURTHER sin, and "damage" the temple.
We atone for the temporal effects of our sins by FIXING the temple - through sanctification.
Scripture indicates that primarily our sanctification occurs through SUFFERING. Consider Romans 8, 1 Peter 4, etc.
We are sanctified through suffering, like Paul, and we "fill up" what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ by suffering ourselves, by taking up our OWN crosses.
THAT is the beauty of the Gospel, Drew. Not a baseless justification by which we all get off the hook without intrinscally BEING holy. It's not a matter of Christ being holy, therefore God the Father will put blinders on and "consider" us holy too. Rather, Christ is holy, and He MAKES us holy, and enables us to be "coworkers" with Him in making ourselves even more holy and putting to death the desires of the flesh.
Romans 8:13, "For if you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live."
This is Paul's answer to continuing sin after justification in Romans 7 - NOT imputation of Christ's righteousness!
And how do we do this?
Romans 8:16-17, "The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him."
Thou shalt suffer. You spoke of us being heirs - well, according to Paul, us being heirs is CONDITIONAL. It is not unconditional.
1 Peter 4:1-2, "Therefore, since Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same attitude (for whoever suffers in the flesh has broken with sin), so as not to spend what remains of one's life in the flesh on human desires, but on the will of God."
Christ suffered, so we must suffer.
And what IS Purgatory? It is the final removal of "human desires" from us.
Hebrews 12:14, "Strive for peace with everyone, and for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord."
We NEED to be holy to get into Heaven. Christ being holy, but us being unholy, will not get the job done.
Revelation 21:27, "but nothing unclean will enter it, nor any (one) who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life."
The man with the slightest sinful inclination is not 100% sanctified and holy. Instead of condemning all such people to Hell, our Lord and Savior invites all such people to suffer WITH HIM, and to be fully sanctified as a result.
Hebrews 12:4, "In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood."
And what is the point? We must become SO HOLY so as to be willing to suffer to the very point of death. That's why the author of Hebrews levels this criticism.
Did you notice that all of the Apostles except for John (and Judas who killed himself) suffered martyr's deaths, according to tradition? Why?
Because John was the only Apostle who didn't desert Christ at the time of the crucifixion. He WAS willing to suffer to the point of shedding blood, willing to resist the sin of leaving Jesus. So he was not martyred...and the other Apostles were. See the beauty of God's handiwork, the fairness, the justice?
Hebrews 12:10-11, "They disciplined us for a short time as seemed right to them, but he does so for our benefit, in order that we may share his holiness. At the time, all discipline seems a cause not for joy but for pain, yet later it brings the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who are trained by it."
God's temporal punishment for the temporal effects of our sins is also the CURE for those temporal effects. His punishment involves our suffering "to the point of shedding blood" in order to avoid sin. THAT is what makes us increasingly holy, and that is something that is required for our ultimate entrance into the Kingdom.
Purgatory is post-death sanctification. It is us suffering, after we die, just a little bit more, in order to become perfectly holy. THEN we enter through Heaven's gate.
The Church's teaching on Purgatory thus flows DIRECTLY from the Biblical teaching on PRE-death sanctification through suffering. Our sanctification is both punishment and cure.
Make any sense?
Now, to bring things to a head...
1.) We need to be 100% holy to enter Heaven.
2.) We are made holy, sanctified, through suffering which is both punishment and cure.
3.) IF........IF we are not done with this process of sanctification by the time we die, in order for us to get into Heaven, the process must...
BE COMPLETED.
And that's the explanation for Purgatory.
The Protestant idea of "glorification" is very CLOSE to correct. It insists upon God making us 100% holy and pure after death if we are not already so.
But what it misses out on is the process. It ignores the process. We become holy by suffering, and we suffer as a result of the temporal effects of our sins. When we speak ill of a neighbor, we build up our sinful inclinations that must be painfully torn down if we are to be pure and full, to the point of bursting, of the love of God.
It is here where we bring up 1 Corinthians 3:12-15:
"If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire."
So there will be a revelation, an apokalupsis, of all of our works...EVERY LAST ONE.
Protestants insist that this passage solely means that we will receive rewards for our good works, and receive nothing for our "bad" works.
First off, last time I checked, bad works are sins. So this means that not all sins are hellworthy - some are not deadly, which correlates with 1 John 5:16-17:
"If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly."
Now, Paul describes a "fire" that will burn away the bad works. As a result of this burning, many people will be saved...by the fire, by what the fire does.
The burning away of those false works is thus NECESSARY.
Remember, also, verses like this:
2 Corinthians 5:10,"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad,"
Therefore, 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 is NOT just about recompense for GOOD works...it is about "recompense" for bad works!
What is the recompense for bad works? Punishment!
No wonder that zemiothesatai in this passage, translated here as "suffer loss", can also be translated as "suffer punishment" in the Septuagint, the LXX!
So we are punished by having our bad or false works "burnt up." What this means is that God will reveal to all of us what our false works are, and if we have not been completely "purged" of them, they will be burnt away...
How will they be burnt away? Through suffering.
Hebrews 13:11-13, "The bodies of the animals whose blood the high priest brings into the sanctuary as a sin offering are burned outside the camp. Therefore, Jesus also suffered outside the gate, to consecrate the people by his own blood. Let us then go to him outside the camp, bearing the reproach that he bore."
Jesus suffered outside of Heaven. What must we do? The same thing. Suffer, be "burned."
Burning is a metaphor not just for suffering, but for purification:
Wisdom 3:4-6, "For if before men, indeed, they be punished, yet is their hope full of immortality; Chastised a little, they shall be greatly blessed, because God tried them and found them worthy of himself. As gold in the furnace, he proved them, and as sacrificial offerings he took them to himself."
Such language is all over Scripture and it explains that not only is Paul talking about post-death punishment in 1 Cor. 3:12-15, he is talking about post-death SANCTIFICATION, or purification.
Daniel 12:10, "Many shall be refined, purified, and tested, but the wicked shall prove wicked; none of them shall have understanding, but the wise shall have it."
Sirach 2:5, "For in fire gold is tested, and worthy men in the crucible of humiliation."
Zechariah 13:8-9, "In all the land, says the LORD, two thirds of them shall be cut off and perish, and one third shall be left. I will bring the one third through fire, and I will refine them as silver is refined, and I will test them as gold is tested. They shall call upon my name, and I will hear them. I will say, "They are my people," and they shall say, "The LORD is my God."
It is THIS imagery that Paul is appealing to! 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 therefore MUST be understood in a Purgatorial sense.
1 Peter 1:6-7, "In this you rejoice, although now for a little while you may have to suffer through various trials, so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold that is perishable even though tested by fire, may prove to be for praise, glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ."
Revelation 3:18, "I advise you to buy from me gold refined by fire 14 so that you may be rich, and white garments to put on so that your shameful nakedness may not be exposed, and buy ointment to smear on your eyes so that you may see."
Do you see now?
- Sean
Drew,
I may be responding a little late...but the Catholic voice needs to be heard.
All things considered, I think we have substantial agreement, particularly if you are coming from the Reformed position.
Time to touch on some of what you said...
"There is a "promise of the eternal inheritance" (v.15). This is not a man-made promise, which is destined to fail. This is a God-given promise and He is faithful to fulfill every one of His promises. Not only that, but it's an "eternal inheritance". When we are born again, of "water" [He is not talking about a physical baptism here] and "spirit" (John 3) we inherit the kingdom of heaven, which is Jesus Christ. We are adopted into God's family; spiritually born into His family."
Concerning baptism, you did not explain WHAT "hudor" or water is then referring to in John 3:5.
An analysis of ancient Jewish mikvah baptisms, in tevillahs, shows similar language to that which Jesus uses in John 3. It thus appears to be quite likely that Jesus WAS referring to physical water baptism, therefore eliminating the amniotic fluid argument and the simple figurative argument.
"It was necessary for Christ to die, in order to fulfill the covenant. Shed blood alone is not enough. There must be death as well. It's like a will. The will does not become active until the person is dead. Christ's death on the cross activated the will. Christ still lives though; if He didn't rise from the dead then He wouldn't have been who He said He was. "If we could be saved by blood without death, the animals would have been bled, not killed, and it would have been the same with jesus." (John MacArthur Jr.)"
This I fully agree with. Jesus had to die.
"The penalty for sin is death, symbolized by the shedding of blood that can atone for sin. Can you see why any self effort, works, whatever, is an anathema for the atonement for sin? By GRACE through FAITH is the only Biblical way for salvation. There is no substitute!"
The Council of Trent (1545-1563) I hope you know, affirmed Sola Gratia.
"Nothing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification."
Therefore we are on the same page when it comes to the importance of grace as a result of Christ's atonement. Our differences come in the POST-justificational chronology, where you would assert that works are not meritorious and I would assert that they are.
James 2 says that works justify. Paul's letters indicate the Abraham was justified on SEVERAL DIFFERENT OCCASIONS. That means that justification cannot be solely the one-time legal declaration of God.
In Calvin's conception we are totally depraved and God "declares us" just even though we are not - a nominalistic lie.
That's where your problem starts. God declares us just based upon His MAKING us just, so that His legal ruling actually has some bearing in objective, factual reality. We are declared just because we are MADE just, we are made holy. God is intellectually honest.
"1 Peter 3 "For Christ also suffered ONCE for sins, the JUST FOR THE UNJUST, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the FLESH but made alive by the SPIRIT, by whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison.""
"preached" here is not talking about a "second chance" or "purgatory", as many catholics will claim. The Greek word is from the form Kerusso, which means "to herald" or "proclaim" or "publish". Christ was proclaiming His finished work. "It is finished".
Interesting how you quote from 1 Peter 3, which says that literal, physical WATER, hudor, saved Noah and his family, and says that corresponding to that, BAPTISM saves us now. But more on that later.
1 Peter 3, here, is not typically argued by Catholics as being pro-purgatory, although it can be. It's more so talking about Sheol, the righteous place where the OT saints went. Jesus preached to them, and when He rose, they rose TOO.
Matthew 27:50-53, "But Jesus cried out again in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit. And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split, tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many."
See what I mean?
Additionally, to call Purgatory a "second chance" is a strawman fallacy. Catholics do not think of Purgatory as such - that is more so the Mormon view.
Justification, understood as moving from the state without grace to the state of grace, CANNOT occur after death, as far as I am concerned. Purgatory in no way teaches that it does. It is NOT a second chance. If you die out of the state of grace, that's it, game over...hell.
Correctly outline something before you attack it, please. If you do not first correctly understand Purgatory, I will gladly offer what explanations I can.
"We cannot satisfy the Father. Only His Son, Jesus Christ can and has satisfied Him. Therefore Jesus is the only way we can go to the Father; "No one comes to the Father except through Me.""
Agreed. But the application of John 14:6 is an important matter to delve into, and it refers more so to the necessity of Christ being our mediator than to any "total depravity" on our part. We could not, indeed, make satisfaction for the eternal effects of our sins.
But we CAN make satisfaction, or expiate, the temporal effects of our sins. Scripture is CLEAR on that. I will explain in the coming paragraphs.
"If Jesus' sacrifice had not been sufficient for all mankind, once for all, He would have needed to suffer over and over- exactly like the Old Covenant and the Levitical priests offering. This is not the case though; Jesus' sacrifice was and is sufficient."
Agreed.
"What do Catholics believe?:
The doctrine of the "sacrifice of the mass" was made official by the council of Trent in the 16th century. Ludwig Ott, a theologian of the Catholic Church explains this doctrine: "The holy Mass is a true and proper sacrifice. It is physical and propitiatory, removing sins and conferring the grace of repentance. Propitiation by the offering of this sacrifice, God, by granting the grace of the gift, and the gift of Penitence, remits trespasses and sins however grievous they may be.""
First I must point out that the Mass was considered a sacrifice long before this point. Have you ever read the Didache, which refers to the Eucharist as a sacrifice and uses a prophecy from Malachi I as a prophecy OF it being a sacrifice? This isn't the post-nicene period...the Didache was written before John and Revelation were. The sacrificial understanding of the Eucharist, the CATHOLIC view, predates the symbol-only view that you are proposing. History is not on your side.
"In other words, God's satisfaction regarding sin depends upon the weekly mass. That is why attending mass is so important to Catholics. This, however, is a false doctrine within the Catholic Church. The belief that the bread and wine literally become Jesus' body and blood is also blasphemous; it is meant to be a symbol of communion with Christ; a means of rememberance as Christ commanded us to do; it is not meant to offer his blood again and again."
You have not proven that this is a false doctrine, Drew. You also mischaracterize it.
We do not offer His blood again and again.
"-"...but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God FOR US; NOR was it that He should offer Himself often [Christ offers Himself once, not often], as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood not his own." (9:24-25)"
And you are doing the classical Protestant tactic of taking Hebrews 9:24-25 as a charge against the Catholic sacrifice of the mass. The passage condemns the repetition of Christ's sacrifice, which you claim Catholics do, therefore Catholics are wrong.
Sorry, try again.
First off, what the passage is condemning is the repeated KILLING of the sacrificed animal. In the sacrifice of the Mass, Jesus is not killed again and again and again. There is no repeated physical sacrifice. So there goes an objection on those grounds.
The passage is therefore not addressing the Catholic mass at all.
Additionally, it also condemns REPETITION of the sacrifice of Christ, correct?
It does not, I repeat, does NOT, condemn CONTINUATION.
There is a difference between the two. Repetition is when you do something, stop, do it again, stop, do it again, stop. Continuation is when you do something and CONTINUOUSLY, PERPETUALLY do it, with no "breaks" in between.
THAT is the Catholic understanding of how the sacrifice of the Mass works, Drew, and THAT is why Hebrews 9 is an invalid prooftext for your argument against the sacrifice of the Mass.
Take a look, once more, at Hebrews 9:24:
"For Christ did not enter into a sanctuary made by hands, a copy of the true one, but heaven itself, that he might NOW appear before God on our behalf."
You didn't put "now" in bold - I did.
Why?
Because Christ's role as our mediator was NOT a one-time sacrifice of Himself on Cavalry circa 30-33 AD. That was when the physical death, the physical aspect, of Jesus' sacrifice occured, but that is NOT the totality of the sacrifice.
When you sacrifice an animal, you must then offer up that sacrificed animal to God. And it is THAT action that Catholics believe the Mass to be. It is in THAT sense that we see the Mass as a sacrifice - it is Jesus, the True Priest, offering up Himself, the True Victim, the Lamb, up to God continuously, perpetually, eternally, forever. Is it any wonder that Revelation depicts Jesus as a slain Lamb in Heaven?
Hebrews doesn't attack that view at all - it supports it.
Hebrews 9:11-12, "But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be, passing through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not belonging to this creation, he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption."
Do you have an interpretation of this? I'm curious as to what it is.
In Revelation, Heaven is depicted as having an altar - the same is true in the case of Hebrews 13.
Hebrews depicts the crucified, sacrificed Christ entering the HEAVENLY sanctuary, which the earthly sanctuary was but a copy of, and sprinkling His blood upon the altar, performing His act of Mediation.
Hebrews depicts Moses as mediator because of the sprinkling of the blood of the slain animal. It depicts Jesus as doing the same thing...IN HEAVEN. In the Heavenly sanctuary.
Clearly, the sacrifice was not 100% "done" at Cavalry. You can quote John 19:30 until you are quite blue in the face, my friend - but you need to indicate what the pronoun "it" is referring to when Jesus says "It is finished" or in Hebrew "Kalah."
For the Protestant position, Jesus is saying that His one-time act of Mediation is over and done with. Not so according to the perspective of Hebrews, which depicts Christ as fulfilling His role of Covenantal Mediator of the New Covenant AFTER His death!
"Kalah" or "It is finished" is what the High Priest would say upon the slaying of the lamb during Passover, btw. It's referring to Jesus dying, and does not mean that that was His sole act of mediation in any way, shape or form.
The Mass is the earthly presentation of a continuous, perpetual Heavenly event - Jesus offering Himself to the Father.
I may also point out several more Scriptural arguments in favor of the Catholic Mass:
1.) Paul indirectly refers to the Eucharist as a sacrifice in 1 Corinthians 10:16-21. He refers to the Eucharistic table as the "table of the Lord" - a biblical expression found in Malachi 1 that refers to an ALTAR.
What's on an altar? Sacrifices. And that is why, in his comparison between the Eucharist and pagan sacrifices, Paul says in v. 18:
"Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?"
Did he not just get done saying that eating or drinking the Eucharist is a PARTICIPATION with Christ?!?
2.) Typologically speaking, Jesus is the "new" Passover Lamb. He replaces the Old one. What happened if you killed the old Lamb and didn't eat it?
Your firstborn would be dead in the morning. You had to EAT the Lamb.
Thus, Protestantism's insistence that the Eucharist is not the flesh and blood of Christ creates an incomplete typology in which Christ our Paschal Lamb is killed, but NOT eaten. That doesn't add up, especially in lieu of Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 -
"Clear out the old yeast, so that you may become a fresh batch of dough, inasmuch as you are unleavened. For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."
Synopsis? The Lamb has been sacrificed, so let's eat the Lamb!
This works with John 6 as well, which you no doubt have opinions on. A few thoughts on that:
a.) Jesus' audience thought He was speaking literally.
b.) "Eat the flesh and drink the blood" was a common Jewish idiomatic figurative expression that meant to slander or persecute - it did not mean "believe" or anything of that nature. For examples, see Micah 3:3 or Galatians 5:15. Therefore Jesus was either saying, "Literally eat my flesh" or "Slander me." I'll let you guess which one.
c.) Jesus switches in John 6 from the Greek word for eat "phago" (which literally means eat or consume) and can be used figuratively to the Greek word "trogo" - which has NO figurative application in the Koine Greek of the New Testament and to the best of my knowledge is not used figuratively in Koine Greek in general. It is a LITERAL term used to refer typically to animal eating, and it literally means to chew, to munch, to crunch. If Jesus wished to be understood figuratively, as your "figurative" view requires, WHY would Jesus start using more literal, carnal language with His audience, Drew?
The true blasphemy is not affirming the Real Presence, but denying the Real Presence. Such can be seen in the early writings of Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of the Apostle John:
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
The Gnostic Docetists asserted that Jesus had no physical body; as a result, they refused to confess the Eucharist as the flesh and blood of Christ.
Ignatius, therefore, believed in the Catholic view of the Eucharist and called its detractors heretics. They were the blasphemers.
Is your view of the Eucharist found in early Christianity? No. It did not exist until later Reformers like Calvin and Zwingli. It loses the battle of hisoricity and is CLEARLY a revisionist position that is extensively disproven by the biblical evidence I have thus far brought forth.
More in a couple.
- Sean
* Reply to Your Post
* Delete Post
Post #70
You replied to Drew's post on Nov 15, 2007 at 5:54 PM.
Drew,
Next item on the list: Purgatory.
"Purgatory is a false doctrine, as no amount of prayers or works will atone for even one sin. On judgment day, the payment for our sins is Christ's death and blood, if you are indeed found to be in the truth."
Got something for you, then:
Proverbs 16:6 states, "By kindness and piety guilt is expiated, and by the fear of the LORD man avoids evil" (NAB; RSV has "atoned for" instead of "expiated").
How do you respond to that? It IS inspired Scripture, theopneustos.
Scripture even uses the stronger term "atonement" and indicates humans can make temporal atonement for themselves (see Exodus 30:15-16, Leviticus 17:11, Numbers 31:50).
According to Catholic Apologetist Jimmy Akin, "The claim that only Christ can atone for or expiate our sins arises from a confusion about whether the temporal or the eternal dimension of our sins is being discussed. Only Christ can provide eternal satisfaction for our sins, but we can make temporal amends or reparations for them."
Right on the money. Purgatory involves the expiation or making amends for the TEMPORAL, not the eternal, effects of our sins. It is not a second chance.
Colossians 1:24, "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church,"
Woah woah woah! Something LACKING in the afflictions of Christ?
What is lacking is restitution for the TEMPORAL effects of our sins.
Consider our soul to be a temple. We are born in original sin, with our temples in total state of disrepair, and we cannot repair them on our own.
Because of Christ, we become new creations, and are initially repaired. However, every time we sin, we predispose ourselves to FURTHER sin, and "damage" the temple.
We atone for the temporal effects of our sins by FIXING the temple - through sanctification.
Scripture indicates that primarily our sanctification occurs through SUFFERING. Consider Romans 8, 1 Peter 4, etc.
We are sanctified through suffering, like Paul, and we "fill up" what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ by suffering ourselves, by taking up our OWN crosses.
THAT is the beauty of the Gospel, Drew. Not a baseless justification by which we all get off the hook without intrinscally BEING holy. It's not a matter of Christ being holy, therefore God the Father will put blinders on and "consider" us holy too. Rather, Christ is holy, and He MAKES us holy, and enables us to be "coworkers" with Him in making ourselves even more holy and putting to death the desires of the flesh.
Romans 8:13, "For if you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live."
This is Paul's answer to continuing sin after justification in Romans 7 - NOT imputation of Christ's righteousness!
And how do we do this?
Romans 8:16-17, "The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him."
Thou shalt suffer. You spoke of us being heirs - well, according to Paul, us being heirs is CONDITIONAL. It is not unconditional.
1 Peter 4:1-2, "Therefore, since Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same attitude (for whoever suffers in the flesh has broken with sin), so as not to spend what remains of one's life in the flesh on human desires, but on the will of God."
Christ suffered, so we must suffer.
And what IS Purgatory? It is the final removal of "human desires" from us.
Hebrews 12:14, "Strive for peace with everyone, and for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord."
We NEED to be holy to get into Heaven. Christ being holy, but us being unholy, will not get the job done.
Revelation 21:27, "but nothing unclean will enter it, nor any (one) who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life."
The man with the slightest sinful inclination is not 100% sanctified and holy. Instead of condemning all such people to Hell, our Lord and Savior invites all such people to suffer WITH HIM, and to be fully sanctified as a result.
Hebrews 12:4, "In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood."
And what is the point? We must become SO HOLY so as to be willing to suffer to the very point of death. That's why the author of Hebrews levels this criticism.
Did you notice that all of the Apostles except for John (and Judas who killed himself) suffered martyr's deaths, according to tradition? Why?
Because John was the only Apostle who didn't desert Christ at the time of the crucifixion. He WAS willing to suffer to the point of shedding blood, willing to resist the sin of leaving Jesus. So he was not martyred...and the other Apostles were. See the beauty of God's handiwork, the fairness, the justice?
Hebrews 12:10-11, "They disciplined us for a short time as seemed right to them, but he does so for our benefit, in order that we may share his holiness. At the time, all discipline seems a cause not for joy but for pain, yet later it brings the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who are trained by it."
God's temporal punishment for the temporal effects of our sins is also the CURE for those temporal effects. His punishment involves our suffering "to the point of shedding blood" in order to avoid sin. THAT is what makes us increasingly holy, and that is something that is required for our ultimate entrance into the Kingdom.
Purgatory is post-death sanctification. It is us suffering, after we die, just a little bit more, in order to become perfectly holy. THEN we enter through Heaven's gate.
The Church's teaching on Purgatory thus flows DIRECTLY from the Biblical teaching on PRE-death sanctification through suffering. Our sanctification is both punishment and cure.
Make any sense?
Now, to bring things to a head...
1.) We need to be 100% holy to enter Heaven.
2.) We are made holy, sanctified, through suffering which is both punishment and cure.
3.) IF........IF we are not done with this process of sanctification by the time we die, in order for us to get into Heaven, the process must...
BE COMPLETED.
And that's the explanation for Purgatory.
The Protestant idea of "glorification" is very CLOSE to correct. It insists upon God making us 100% holy and pure after death if we are not already so.
But what it misses out on is the process. It ignores the process. We become holy by suffering, and we suffer as a result of the temporal effects of our sins. When we speak ill of a neighbor, we build up our sinful inclinations that must be painfully torn down if we are to be pure and full, to the point of bursting, of the love of God.
It is here where we bring up 1 Corinthians 3:12-15:
"If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire."
So there will be a revelation, an apokalupsis, of all of our works...EVERY LAST ONE.
Protestants insist that this passage solely means that we will receive rewards for our good works, and receive nothing for our "bad" works.
First off, last time I checked, bad works are sins. So this means that not all sins are hellworthy - some are not deadly, which correlates with 1 John 5:16-17:
"If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly."
Now, Paul describes a "fire" that will burn away the bad works. As a result of this burning, many people will be saved...by the fire, by what the fire does.
The burning away of those false works is thus NECESSARY.
Remember, also, verses like this:
2 Corinthians 5:10,"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad,"
Therefore, 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 is NOT just about recompense for GOOD works...it is about "recompense" for bad works!
What is the recompense for bad works? Punishment!
No wonder that zemiothesatai in this passage, translated here as "suffer loss", can also be translated as "suffer punishment" in the Septuagint, the LXX!
So we are punished by having our bad or false works "burnt up." What this means is that God will reveal to all of us what our false works are, and if we have not been completely "purged" of them, they will be burnt away...
How will they be burnt away? Through suffering.
Hebrews 13:11-13, "The bodies of the animals whose blood the high priest brings into the sanctuary as a sin offering are burned outside the camp. Therefore, Jesus also suffered outside the gate, to consecrate the people by his own blood. Let us then go to him outside the camp, bearing the reproach that he bore."
Jesus suffered outside of Heaven. What must we do? The same thing. Suffer, be "burned."
Burning is a metaphor not just for suffering, but for purification:
Wisdom 3:4-6, "For if before men, indeed, they be punished, yet is their hope full of immortality; Chastised a little, they shall be greatly blessed, because God tried them and found them worthy of himself. As gold in the furnace, he proved them, and as sacrificial offerings he took them to himself."
Such language is all over Scripture and it explains that not only is Paul talking about post-death punishment in 1 Cor. 3:12-15, he is talking about post-death SANCTIFICATION, or purification.
Daniel 12:10, "Many shall be refined, purified, and tested, but the wicked shall prove wicked; none of them shall have understanding, but the wise shall have it."
Sirach 2:5, "For in fire gold is tested, and worthy men in the crucible of humiliation."
Zechariah 13:8-9, "In all the land, says the LORD, two thirds of them shall be cut off and perish, and one third shall be left. I will bring the one third through fire, and I will refine them as silver is refined, and I will test them as gold is tested. They shall call upon my name, and I will hear them. I will say, "They are my people," and they shall say, "The LORD is my God."
It is THIS imagery that Paul is appealing to! 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 therefore MUST be understood in a Purgatorial sense.
1 Peter 1:6-7, "In this you rejoice, although now for a little while you may have to suffer through various trials, so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold that is perishable even though tested by fire, may prove to be for praise, glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ."
Revelation 3:18, "I advise you to buy from me gold refined by fire 14 so that you may be rich, and white garments to put on so that your shameful nakedness may not be exposed, and buy ointment to smear on your eyes so that you may see."
Do you see now?
- Sean
The Particular Judgment, and Purgatory as a Confessional...
You wrote on Aug 11, 2007 at 5:16 PM.
Okay...here's some thoughts...
Numerous Catholic apologists insist that there is a "particular" judgment each person goes through after they die.
Interestingly, they insist that Hebrews 9:27 lends support to this idea:
"Just as it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this the judgment,"
The idea is, essentially, that judgment occurs IMMEDIATELY after physical death.
However, as I mentioned in my stock answer on Hebrews 9:27, Protestants often use the same verse to prove the immediate GENERAL judgment in an effort to disprove Purgatory.
The following verse, in my opinion, means that verse 27 CANNOT be used as a prooftext for EITHER position:
Hebrews 9:28, "so also Christ, offered once to take away the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to take away sin but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await him."
The whole idea of "immediacy" would appear to be totally disproved by the comparison given, by the analogy drawn. There is a LARGE gap of time between Christ's death and the Parousia, therefore, since a parallel is given here, the text is saying that there will be a gap of time (perhaps the 1,000 year reign, figuratively speaking, but still a gap) between our own physical death and the FINAL, or general, judgment. The particular judgment is not taught by Hebrews 9:27.
Now, having considered the evidence of the Particular Judgment from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and in the witness of the Fathers, I am NOT saying, in any way, that the Particular Judgment is not doctrine. I am simply dismissing Hebrews 9:27 as a prooftext for it - and I am tempted to do the same with 1 Corinthians 3:12-15. 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 more properly is speaking of the "day" as the day of the GENERAL judgment, the day Purgatory ends, effectively.
However, that isn't to say that we don't know, quite immediately, where we are going right after we die - the particular judgment can be affirmed without either of the two previous passages as scriptural support for it.
The damned? Well, pardon me for being blunt, but they are going to rather immediately realize what is going on, and their reaction will be: "Oh, shit."
The saved? Well, while many of them are going to have to undergo quite a bit of purification, they are still, in virtue of being in the state of grace, going to be breathing a sigh of relief.
The words of Captain Hook in the movie "Hook" come to mind for those who, in the particular judgment, are assured of their ultimate salvation, but are told something before they can even get near the gate of Heaven..."Now brace yourself lad, because this is really going to hurt."
It won't hurt anywhere near the fires of Hell and eternal loss, but it IS going to hurt. Sanctification can be painful.
Hebrews 12:11, "At the time, all discipline seems a cause not for joy but for pain, yet later it brings the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who are trained by it."
Now, I was thinking about Purgatory being primarily about an emotional catharsis, akin to "watching a movie of your past life" - similar to Scrooge seeing his past deeds in a Christmas Carol, or Adam Sandler seeing (supposedly past) deeds in "Click."
However...
After having read Scott Hahn's book on Confession, I was thinking that perhaps the "movie theater" may not be the best analogy for Purgatory...and as I searched my mind for the appropriate earthly parallel, I fixed upon one thing in particular...
Confession.
Purgatory is going to be like being in the confessional...but it is not going to be like private confession. EVERYTHING will be revealed, in line with 1 Corinthians 3, and similar passages. This isn't going to be like private auricular confession. It is going to be like the ancient public confessions that we hear about so much in apologetics.
Those that will end up going to Hell? They are the ones that completely and totally spurn the use of "The Last Confessional." They are going to be the ones that mocked and derided the sanctity of confession and the confessional booth during life, the ones who said, "I go often enough" or the ones who almost never go. And one of the worst aspects of their final punishment is that they are going to be denied entrance to the final confessional, by virtue of their own free choice.
I was thinking about how Scott Hahn mentioned how we sometimes try to justify ourselves in the confessional. Well...there isn't going to be any room for that. We are going to have to go over ALL our past sins, one, by one, by one, by one, until every last sin has been confessed. Only THEN do we get absolution.
Now, I'm not necessarily suggesting that our suffering in the confessional on earth is self-sanctifying - I would concede most definitely to whatever the Church holds on the matter, as I know all too well that the sacrament is not received until the words of absolution.
But, then again, what we will be confessing in this "Last Confessional" is VENIAL sins at most - since if we HAVE unconfessed mortal sins at this juncture, we won't even be ALLOWED into the Last Confessional. So perhaps there is some sanctifying value after all, in the suffering itself...
We "suffer loss" - experience punishment - in the retelling of all of our unconfessed venial sins, and in the public exposition of our most sinful inclinations. It's hard enough to tell the parish priest our sins. Imagine confessing to our friends, parents, and, ultimately, to God Himself.
I wouldn't even be surprised if Jesus, in His throne, conducts the Confession Himself, with there no longer being a need for His holy priests to act as alter Christus.
In this confession, which (may) last until the Final Judgment, depending on how much we have to (validly) confess (bye bye, scrupulosity!) - God is going to give us, effectively, a "transcript" to go off of - there will be no opportunity to miss a single, solitary sin.
I find this imagery solidly satisfying...and I think it rather "acceptable" that the Church's dogma of Purgatory draw upon the Sacrament of Confession. Instead of having our sins read off to us, as charges in a trial - WE are going to have to accuse ourselves, as Catholics have always been taught to do in the confessional.
Your thoughts?
- Sean
Okay...here's some thoughts...
Numerous Catholic apologists insist that there is a "particular" judgment each person goes through after they die.
Interestingly, they insist that Hebrews 9:27 lends support to this idea:
"Just as it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this the judgment,"
The idea is, essentially, that judgment occurs IMMEDIATELY after physical death.
However, as I mentioned in my stock answer on Hebrews 9:27, Protestants often use the same verse to prove the immediate GENERAL judgment in an effort to disprove Purgatory.
The following verse, in my opinion, means that verse 27 CANNOT be used as a prooftext for EITHER position:
Hebrews 9:28, "so also Christ, offered once to take away the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to take away sin but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await him."
The whole idea of "immediacy" would appear to be totally disproved by the comparison given, by the analogy drawn. There is a LARGE gap of time between Christ's death and the Parousia, therefore, since a parallel is given here, the text is saying that there will be a gap of time (perhaps the 1,000 year reign, figuratively speaking, but still a gap) between our own physical death and the FINAL, or general, judgment. The particular judgment is not taught by Hebrews 9:27.
Now, having considered the evidence of the Particular Judgment from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and in the witness of the Fathers, I am NOT saying, in any way, that the Particular Judgment is not doctrine. I am simply dismissing Hebrews 9:27 as a prooftext for it - and I am tempted to do the same with 1 Corinthians 3:12-15. 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 more properly is speaking of the "day" as the day of the GENERAL judgment, the day Purgatory ends, effectively.
However, that isn't to say that we don't know, quite immediately, where we are going right after we die - the particular judgment can be affirmed without either of the two previous passages as scriptural support for it.
The damned? Well, pardon me for being blunt, but they are going to rather immediately realize what is going on, and their reaction will be: "Oh, shit."
The saved? Well, while many of them are going to have to undergo quite a bit of purification, they are still, in virtue of being in the state of grace, going to be breathing a sigh of relief.
The words of Captain Hook in the movie "Hook" come to mind for those who, in the particular judgment, are assured of their ultimate salvation, but are told something before they can even get near the gate of Heaven..."Now brace yourself lad, because this is really going to hurt."
It won't hurt anywhere near the fires of Hell and eternal loss, but it IS going to hurt. Sanctification can be painful.
Hebrews 12:11, "At the time, all discipline seems a cause not for joy but for pain, yet later it brings the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who are trained by it."
Now, I was thinking about Purgatory being primarily about an emotional catharsis, akin to "watching a movie of your past life" - similar to Scrooge seeing his past deeds in a Christmas Carol, or Adam Sandler seeing (supposedly past) deeds in "Click."
However...
After having read Scott Hahn's book on Confession, I was thinking that perhaps the "movie theater" may not be the best analogy for Purgatory...and as I searched my mind for the appropriate earthly parallel, I fixed upon one thing in particular...
Confession.
Purgatory is going to be like being in the confessional...but it is not going to be like private confession. EVERYTHING will be revealed, in line with 1 Corinthians 3, and similar passages. This isn't going to be like private auricular confession. It is going to be like the ancient public confessions that we hear about so much in apologetics.
Those that will end up going to Hell? They are the ones that completely and totally spurn the use of "The Last Confessional." They are going to be the ones that mocked and derided the sanctity of confession and the confessional booth during life, the ones who said, "I go often enough" or the ones who almost never go. And one of the worst aspects of their final punishment is that they are going to be denied entrance to the final confessional, by virtue of their own free choice.
I was thinking about how Scott Hahn mentioned how we sometimes try to justify ourselves in the confessional. Well...there isn't going to be any room for that. We are going to have to go over ALL our past sins, one, by one, by one, by one, until every last sin has been confessed. Only THEN do we get absolution.
Now, I'm not necessarily suggesting that our suffering in the confessional on earth is self-sanctifying - I would concede most definitely to whatever the Church holds on the matter, as I know all too well that the sacrament is not received until the words of absolution.
But, then again, what we will be confessing in this "Last Confessional" is VENIAL sins at most - since if we HAVE unconfessed mortal sins at this juncture, we won't even be ALLOWED into the Last Confessional. So perhaps there is some sanctifying value after all, in the suffering itself...
We "suffer loss" - experience punishment - in the retelling of all of our unconfessed venial sins, and in the public exposition of our most sinful inclinations. It's hard enough to tell the parish priest our sins. Imagine confessing to our friends, parents, and, ultimately, to God Himself.
I wouldn't even be surprised if Jesus, in His throne, conducts the Confession Himself, with there no longer being a need for His holy priests to act as alter Christus.
In this confession, which (may) last until the Final Judgment, depending on how much we have to (validly) confess (bye bye, scrupulosity!) - God is going to give us, effectively, a "transcript" to go off of - there will be no opportunity to miss a single, solitary sin.
I find this imagery solidly satisfying...and I think it rather "acceptable" that the Church's dogma of Purgatory draw upon the Sacrament of Confession. Instead of having our sins read off to us, as charges in a trial - WE are going to have to accuse ourselves, as Catholics have always been taught to do in the confessional.
Your thoughts?
- Sean
Why the "Context" Argument - one of the best arguments of the other side - doesn't mean Mary had sex
You wrote on Jul 6, 2007 at 6:17 AM.
You replied to Kevin's post on Jul 2, 2007 at 10:03 AM
Kevin,
"There is no logical reason why the townspeople would connect neices and nephews to Mary and Joseph. Why would they leave out other reletives such as their parents if they were our Lord's cousins? Why is it that these individuals are always associated with Mary and not their supposed birth mother assuming that Mary wasn't their birth mother?"
Behold, the best argument, in my opinion, that opponents of Mary's perpetual virginity bring to the table - the contextual argument.
However, this argument completely evaporates if we go with the predominatly eastern orthodox view that the brethren of Jesus were children of Joseph from a previous marriage.
Now, by what logical reason would they connect nieces and nephews to Mary and Joseph?
Your argument would appear to totally destroy the "cousins" hypothesis (it leaves the children of just Joseph hypothesis intact) - however, I don't see the context as precluding either hypothesis.
If the "brethren" were children of Mary's sister, for example, they would be close enough in relation - especially in the culture of the time - for the Jews to wonder where Jesus got "these things." The Jews were wondering how Jesus was this special when His father and mother were, apparently, at least to them, not so special, and did not have "these things." They would similarly look at Jesus' cousins, notice their effective "normality" and this would be an indication that nowhere in Jesus' family could they find additional examples of the traits Jesus possessed.
It may seem SIMPLER, and perhaps more natural, to assume that these siblings MUST be children of Mary and Joseph. But the line of thinking of the Jews does not NEED to include these brethren as Jesus' siblings.
Perhaps you'd like to tell me why Jesus' siblings at one point rebuked Him - something totally uncalled for in Jewish culture at that time, for the younger to rebuke the older (if they were indeed literal children of Mary and Joseph) and something that they surely would have been rebuked for themselves.
If Mary was a consecrated temple virgin to the Lord, and never INTENDED to have sex with Joseph, but was merely married to him in order for him to be her legal guardian since an unmarried Jewish girl couldn't "legally" live with a man like Joseph without being married to him...well, then that would be a good reason why they couldn't have a normal sexual relationship. However, it appears that an unbiblical "bible alone" mentality is closing off this possibility for you...
- Sean
You replied to Kevin's post on Jul 2, 2007 at 10:03 AM
Kevin,
"There is no logical reason why the townspeople would connect neices and nephews to Mary and Joseph. Why would they leave out other reletives such as their parents if they were our Lord's cousins? Why is it that these individuals are always associated with Mary and not their supposed birth mother assuming that Mary wasn't their birth mother?"
Behold, the best argument, in my opinion, that opponents of Mary's perpetual virginity bring to the table - the contextual argument.
However, this argument completely evaporates if we go with the predominatly eastern orthodox view that the brethren of Jesus were children of Joseph from a previous marriage.
Now, by what logical reason would they connect nieces and nephews to Mary and Joseph?
Your argument would appear to totally destroy the "cousins" hypothesis (it leaves the children of just Joseph hypothesis intact) - however, I don't see the context as precluding either hypothesis.
If the "brethren" were children of Mary's sister, for example, they would be close enough in relation - especially in the culture of the time - for the Jews to wonder where Jesus got "these things." The Jews were wondering how Jesus was this special when His father and mother were, apparently, at least to them, not so special, and did not have "these things." They would similarly look at Jesus' cousins, notice their effective "normality" and this would be an indication that nowhere in Jesus' family could they find additional examples of the traits Jesus possessed.
It may seem SIMPLER, and perhaps more natural, to assume that these siblings MUST be children of Mary and Joseph. But the line of thinking of the Jews does not NEED to include these brethren as Jesus' siblings.
Perhaps you'd like to tell me why Jesus' siblings at one point rebuked Him - something totally uncalled for in Jewish culture at that time, for the younger to rebuke the older (if they were indeed literal children of Mary and Joseph) and something that they surely would have been rebuked for themselves.
If Mary was a consecrated temple virgin to the Lord, and never INTENDED to have sex with Joseph, but was merely married to him in order for him to be her legal guardian since an unmarried Jewish girl couldn't "legally" live with a man like Joseph without being married to him...well, then that would be a good reason why they couldn't have a normal sexual relationship. However, it appears that an unbiblical "bible alone" mentality is closing off this possibility for you...
- Sean
Protestant Prooftexts for Sola Scriptura
You wrote on Jul 6, 2007 at 6:29 AM.
You replied to Shaun's post on Mar 28, 2007 at 12:11 AM
Shaun,
"I said before that the Word of God is our ONLY authority...Where in the Bible does it say that?
2 Tim. 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."
Lol. You know, the other day I showed a Protestant this passage, asked them if it supported Sola Scriptura, and they just laughed in surprise and asked if any Protestants actually used it.
First off, in CONTEXT, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is talking about the Scriptures of the Old Testament.
It says that they are "able" to make Timothy wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Not that they WILL make Timothy wise.
As for, "All Scriptire is God-Breathed" - do I disagree with that? Nope. But the Greek there is parse graphe - which more so means, "each" or "every" Scripture. Notice that it says, "All Scripture (singular)" instead of "The ScriptureS (plural)".
The significance of this? Paul is saying that EACH scripture, that is, each verse, each chapter, each book (probably each book, as chapter and verse divisions did not exist at this time) is inspired, God-breathed.
Therefore, if Paul was saying that the Scriptures were SUFFICIENT here, then he would be saying that EACH Scripture by itself was sufficient - a falsehood if there ever was one.
What does Paul write? That Scripture is "useful" - the Greek, ophelimos - for a variety of things.
Does useful indicate exclusivity? Does it indicate sufficiency? Absolutely not.
What is Scripture useful for?
1.) Teaching 2.) Rebuking 3.) Correcting 4.) Training in righteousness
Notice that Scripture is only USEFUL, not SUFFICIENT, for these tasks.
Additionally, are you going to try and argue that ALL Christians are supposed to perform these four roles?
2 Timothy 4:1-2, "I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power: proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching."
Another list of duties:
1.) Proclaim the word 2.) Be persistent 3.) Convince 4.) Reprimand, encourage
Slightly similar to the previous list, hm?
Paul is telling Timothy, in context, that Scripture is useful for helping him carry out his duties as a bishop. Paul never says, nor implies, that ALL CHRISTIANS can pick up a Bible and personally interpret it, or are called to fulfill the same functions Timothy was called to fulfill by virtue of his office.
"so that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."
MAY be competent. Not WILL BE competent.
Equipped for every good work? Certainly. Scripture certainly teaches us a good deal about morals.
But to say that a solider is, "equipped for every campaign" because they are armed with a useful machine gun that will make them competent is NOT the equivalent of saying that having a machine gun will make them sufficient.
This example is NOT saying that Scripture Alone is the way to go.
And if that wasn't enough, what does, "man of God" mean, Shaun?
Does it mean, according to many biblical fundamentalists, a saved Christian?
No. In the Old Testament, it has about 66 occurences, unless I am off by a couple. And it ALWAYS is referring to a male religious leader.
1 Timothy 4:13-14, "Until I arrive, attend to the reading, exhortation, and teaching. Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate."
Ordination. Notice that part of Timothy's role is "exhortation and teaching" - what Paul says Scripture MAY equip him to do.
1 Timothy 5:20, "Reprimand publicly those who do sin, so that the rest also will be afraid."
Once again, the job of a Church leader.
1 Timothy 6:11, "But you, man of God, avoid all this. Instead, pursue righteousness, devotion, faith, love, patience, and gentleness."
Timothy is a man of God - an ordained Church leader. There is no Scriptural basis for saying that "man of God" refers to ALL saved Christians - therefore, the most 2 Timothy 3:16-17 would be saying if it taught (and it does not) the sufficiency of Scripture is that a Christian leader can make use of Scripture alone - such license is still not given to the INDIVIDUAL by the text.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 is not evidence for Sola Scriptura. THere, that's one down. Now onto 1 Corinthians 4:6.
If "you might learn not to exceed what is written" means go ONLY by the Old Testament and the letters Paul has written UP TO THAT POINT, then his later letters don't count - and that includes, ironically, his SECOND letter to the Corinthians.
Additionally, why does Paul write this?
1 Corinthians 4:4-5, "I am not conscious of anything against me, but I do not thereby stand acquitted; the one who judges me is the Lord. Therefore, do not make any judgment before the appointed time, until the Lord comes, for he will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will manifest the motives of our hearts, and then everyone will receive praise from God."
Basically, don't do so much speculation on such matters - like, for example, saying that you will DEFINITELY get into Heaven. It's not set in stone until you are dead.
1 Corinthians 10:12, "Therefore, whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall."
The Corinthians should avoid the false wisdom of vain speculation - but this chapter is not trying to teach us that the Corinthians should go SOLELY by what Paul has literally written down BEFORE he wrote 1 Corinthians Chapter 4.
Once you back away from extreme literalism with this verse, you lose your Sola Scriptura argument. Paul does not mean, "Do not go beyond what is written," as if it was the 11th commandment.
"The Scriptures, therefore, are the only authority. Any practice not found in them is of human origin and is, therefore, false- as we all agree, "He who says he has no sin deceives himself and the truth is not in him". Everyone- even church leaders."
I'm afraid, Ed, that I don't quite see that from the argument you presented - the term, "Non sequitur" comes to mind.
You gave no evidence that Scripture alone is an authority...and I have provided evidence that Church leaders are an authority.
Sola Scriptura appears to be quite unbiblical - and if so, it is self-contradicting, and therefore, quite false.
ANY practice not found in Scripture is therefore false?
If you want to use Paul's verse in 1 Corinthians 4 to prove that, then you better take 2 Corinthians out of your Bible.
Other than that, you don't have any verses that come close to giving Scripture this exclusive, exclusionary role.
And realize that your statement, ironically, means that the canon of the Bible is false...for the canon of the Bible - the list of its books, is not PART of Scripture, but came long after. It is EXTRA-biblical. Your Table of Contents page is not Scripture, my friend.
It is the product of Tradition. Thus, the Bible is the product of Tradition...so to separate the two is unecessary and off the mark.
And as for Tradition...
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
If even ONE of these Traditions was NEVER written down in the Bible, then Sola Scriptura is false.
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15)
And this would seem to disprove your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 4:6...for it clearly establishes that what is taught ORALLY is on an equal level with what is WRITTEN...therefore, Paul's "do not go beyond what is written" didn't mean what you thought it did.
- Sean
You replied to Shaun's post on Mar 28, 2007 at 12:11 AM
Shaun,
"I said before that the Word of God is our ONLY authority...Where in the Bible does it say that?
2 Tim. 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."
Lol. You know, the other day I showed a Protestant this passage, asked them if it supported Sola Scriptura, and they just laughed in surprise and asked if any Protestants actually used it.
First off, in CONTEXT, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is talking about the Scriptures of the Old Testament.
It says that they are "able" to make Timothy wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Not that they WILL make Timothy wise.
As for, "All Scriptire is God-Breathed" - do I disagree with that? Nope. But the Greek there is parse graphe - which more so means, "each" or "every" Scripture. Notice that it says, "All Scripture (singular)" instead of "The ScriptureS (plural)".
The significance of this? Paul is saying that EACH scripture, that is, each verse, each chapter, each book (probably each book, as chapter and verse divisions did not exist at this time) is inspired, God-breathed.
Therefore, if Paul was saying that the Scriptures were SUFFICIENT here, then he would be saying that EACH Scripture by itself was sufficient - a falsehood if there ever was one.
What does Paul write? That Scripture is "useful" - the Greek, ophelimos - for a variety of things.
Does useful indicate exclusivity? Does it indicate sufficiency? Absolutely not.
What is Scripture useful for?
1.) Teaching 2.) Rebuking 3.) Correcting 4.) Training in righteousness
Notice that Scripture is only USEFUL, not SUFFICIENT, for these tasks.
Additionally, are you going to try and argue that ALL Christians are supposed to perform these four roles?
2 Timothy 4:1-2, "I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power: proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching."
Another list of duties:
1.) Proclaim the word 2.) Be persistent 3.) Convince 4.) Reprimand, encourage
Slightly similar to the previous list, hm?
Paul is telling Timothy, in context, that Scripture is useful for helping him carry out his duties as a bishop. Paul never says, nor implies, that ALL CHRISTIANS can pick up a Bible and personally interpret it, or are called to fulfill the same functions Timothy was called to fulfill by virtue of his office.
"so that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."
MAY be competent. Not WILL BE competent.
Equipped for every good work? Certainly. Scripture certainly teaches us a good deal about morals.
But to say that a solider is, "equipped for every campaign" because they are armed with a useful machine gun that will make them competent is NOT the equivalent of saying that having a machine gun will make them sufficient.
This example is NOT saying that Scripture Alone is the way to go.
And if that wasn't enough, what does, "man of God" mean, Shaun?
Does it mean, according to many biblical fundamentalists, a saved Christian?
No. In the Old Testament, it has about 66 occurences, unless I am off by a couple. And it ALWAYS is referring to a male religious leader.
1 Timothy 4:13-14, "Until I arrive, attend to the reading, exhortation, and teaching. Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate."
Ordination. Notice that part of Timothy's role is "exhortation and teaching" - what Paul says Scripture MAY equip him to do.
1 Timothy 5:20, "Reprimand publicly those who do sin, so that the rest also will be afraid."
Once again, the job of a Church leader.
1 Timothy 6:11, "But you, man of God, avoid all this. Instead, pursue righteousness, devotion, faith, love, patience, and gentleness."
Timothy is a man of God - an ordained Church leader. There is no Scriptural basis for saying that "man of God" refers to ALL saved Christians - therefore, the most 2 Timothy 3:16-17 would be saying if it taught (and it does not) the sufficiency of Scripture is that a Christian leader can make use of Scripture alone - such license is still not given to the INDIVIDUAL by the text.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 is not evidence for Sola Scriptura. THere, that's one down. Now onto 1 Corinthians 4:6.
If "you might learn not to exceed what is written" means go ONLY by the Old Testament and the letters Paul has written UP TO THAT POINT, then his later letters don't count - and that includes, ironically, his SECOND letter to the Corinthians.
Additionally, why does Paul write this?
1 Corinthians 4:4-5, "I am not conscious of anything against me, but I do not thereby stand acquitted; the one who judges me is the Lord. Therefore, do not make any judgment before the appointed time, until the Lord comes, for he will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will manifest the motives of our hearts, and then everyone will receive praise from God."
Basically, don't do so much speculation on such matters - like, for example, saying that you will DEFINITELY get into Heaven. It's not set in stone until you are dead.
1 Corinthians 10:12, "Therefore, whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall."
The Corinthians should avoid the false wisdom of vain speculation - but this chapter is not trying to teach us that the Corinthians should go SOLELY by what Paul has literally written down BEFORE he wrote 1 Corinthians Chapter 4.
Once you back away from extreme literalism with this verse, you lose your Sola Scriptura argument. Paul does not mean, "Do not go beyond what is written," as if it was the 11th commandment.
"The Scriptures, therefore, are the only authority. Any practice not found in them is of human origin and is, therefore, false- as we all agree, "He who says he has no sin deceives himself and the truth is not in him". Everyone- even church leaders."
I'm afraid, Ed, that I don't quite see that from the argument you presented - the term, "Non sequitur" comes to mind.
You gave no evidence that Scripture alone is an authority...and I have provided evidence that Church leaders are an authority.
Sola Scriptura appears to be quite unbiblical - and if so, it is self-contradicting, and therefore, quite false.
ANY practice not found in Scripture is therefore false?
If you want to use Paul's verse in 1 Corinthians 4 to prove that, then you better take 2 Corinthians out of your Bible.
Other than that, you don't have any verses that come close to giving Scripture this exclusive, exclusionary role.
And realize that your statement, ironically, means that the canon of the Bible is false...for the canon of the Bible - the list of its books, is not PART of Scripture, but came long after. It is EXTRA-biblical. Your Table of Contents page is not Scripture, my friend.
It is the product of Tradition. Thus, the Bible is the product of Tradition...so to separate the two is unecessary and off the mark.
And as for Tradition...
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
If even ONE of these Traditions was NEVER written down in the Bible, then Sola Scriptura is false.
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15)
And this would seem to disprove your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 4:6...for it clearly establishes that what is taught ORALLY is on an equal level with what is WRITTEN...therefore, Paul's "do not go beyond what is written" didn't mean what you thought it did.
- Sean
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
