Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
I saw that. Dwelling on that little remark is very humbling.
How long has this particular discussion been going on now?
However, I suspect in some if not many cases the one speaking "down" to another Freeper actually regards him as a child, relatively as Paul did here:
For ye are yet carnal: for whereas [there is] among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. – I Corinthians 3:1-7
But for most of us, there is a better way:
When Jesus was teaching about the new birth to Nicodemus, what did he say?
“Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God! That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” - v 5,6
Nicodemus asks, “How can these things be?”
Jesus replies, “And no one hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him. He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.” v 13-18
How can someone be born again? Not by man’s power, for he cannot raise his arm to heaven. But God, taking the initiative, seeking those who did not seek him, came down.
And now, “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life.”
The reference is to Numbers 21:
“6 Then the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. 7 And the people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD and against you. Pray to the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. 8 And the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.”
Taken at face value, that means that no one can save himself. But if we would be healed or saved, we must look to the one lifted up, Jesus Christ, just as the ancient Jews had to look to the serpent lifted up.
What else do we find? When Jesus healed:
Mat 9:2 And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.”
Luk 8:50 But Jesus on hearing this answered him, “Do not fear; only believe, and she will be well.”
Mat 8:10 When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith.
Does Jesus give them faith? No, he says “I found such faith”!
In the verses with believe (pisteuo, which occurs 264 times in 220 verses in the Greek concordance of the KJV), I didn’t find Jesus GIVING belief. There are verses where he healed without mentioning belief. There are verse where “he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. And he marveled because of their unbelief.” - Mark 6
Nor have I found a verse indicating God gives us faith in him AFTER we are born again - that being born again happens prior to our belief. There are a ton indicating we need to believe, but I haven’t seen much indicating that belief follows conversion.
“And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. 43 To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”
44While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” - Acts 10
“everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name”
Now surely, if predestination was the heart of the Gospel, Peter would have preached it correctly. “If God calls you, you will have belief and be saved!”
“30Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.” - Acts 16
Surely Paul knew the Gospel. “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31And they said, “Do not blaspheme the sovereign God! Are you a Pelagian? Be saved, if God permits it, you and your household, and you will believe.”
Ummm...no. “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Calvin was wrong. “Regeneration is [NOT] monergistic: that is, entirely the work of God the Holy Spirit [independent of the individual’s belief] and is always the decisive element in effectual calling.”
What do we find in Ephesians 1? You brought it up: “19and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might 20that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places”
His power toward us who believe. I suppose someone COULD claim that means his power comes first, and then we believe - but that is NOT the plain sense of the passage. His power is exercise to us who believe.
Lets look at “1 Pet.1:3; cf. 1 Pet.1:23”:
“3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4to an inheritance that is imperishable” That does not suggest we receive faith as a result of conversion. God caused me to born again: “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” He gave it, I did not take it. But he gave it in his sovereign will “to all who did receive him, who believed in his name”.
” 22Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, 23 since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;”
Ummm...”Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth” What is that? We purify our souls? And why do we do this? “since you have been born again...through the living and abiding word of God”. Sounds like “13For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” 14How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?”
And what does else does it say in Romans 10?
“8But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Tell me that means we passively await his rescue. For if the heart is justified, you will believe? No, that isn’t it.
“Elsewhere John teaches that belief in the Incarnation and Atonement, with faith and love, holiness and righteousness, is the fruit and proof that one is born of God (1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4). There is no conversion without new birth.”
“29If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him.”
Yep. Everyone who practices righteousness has been born of Him.
“9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.”
True, true. We may stumble, but we do not wallow and rejoice in it!
“7Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.”
Yep! True, true. You must be born again.
” 1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him...3For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. 4For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world.”
Yep! True, true. “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God”. Not everyone who agrees with Mr Rogers on doctrine. Nor everyone who agrees with Mad Dawg on doctrine. Nor everyone who agrees with Petronski or annalex on doctrine. Not even all who agree with Dr E, but “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God”! I’ve got a hunch that Baptists won’t be alone in Heaven...
Calvin writes:
1 Whosoever believeth He confirms by another reason, that faith and brotherly love are united; for since God regenerates us by faith he must necessarily be loved by us as a Father; and this love embraces all his children. Then faith cannot be separated from love.
The first truth is, that all born of God, believe that Jesus is the Christ; where, again, you see that Christ alone is set forth as the object of faith, as in him it finds righteousness, life, and every blessing that can be desired, and God in all that he is. 8989 Literally, “and the whole God — totum Deum.” — Ed. Hence the only true way of believing is when we direct our minds to him. Besides, to believe that he is the Christ, is to hope from him all those things which have been promised as to the Messiah.
Nor is the title, Christ, given him here without reason, for it designates the office to which he was appointed by the Father. As, under the Law, the full restoration of all things, righteousness and happiness, were promised through the Messiah; so at this day the whole of this is more clearly set forth in the gospel. Then Jesus cannot be received as Christ, except salvation be sought from him, since for this end he was sent by the Father, and is daily offered to us.
Hence the Apostle declares that all they who really believe have been born of God; for faith is far above the reach of the human mind, so that we must be drawn to Christ by our heavenly Father; for not any of us can ascend to him by his own strength. And this is what the Apostle teaches us in his Gospel, when he says, that those who believe in the name of the only-begotten, were not born of blood nor of the flesh. (John 1:13.) And Paul says, that we are endued, not with the spirit of this world, but with the Spirit that is from God, that we may know the things given us by him. (1 Corinthians 2:12.) For eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor the mind conceived, the reward laid up for those who love God; but the Spirit alone penetrates into this mystery. And further, as Christ is given to us for sanctification, and brings with it the Spirit of regeneration, in short, as he unites us to his own body, it is also another reason why no one can have faith, except he is born of God.”
Up until the last sentence, I agree. And I agree with it, if it means that no one can have faith unless God reveals himself. I agree with John: “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God”. Now, if there is something in the Greek that says it means we must be born again before we believe...well, I don’t see it in the English translation. Young’s has it, “1Every one who is believing that Jesus is the Christ, of God he hath been begotten”, which I think supports me - look around you, children, the ones you see who believe Jesus is the Christ are the ones who have been born again. For a warning against false prophets, that seems a pretty fair rendering.
But I’ll leave it to those who know Greek to say if there is more hiding that I don’t see in the English.
Thanks for helping me with this, Lorica.
You have been an inspiration to me today.
You knew that, I suppose. :-)
Nah... It was you, after all, who initially brought the book into the conversation; so...the hat tip goes to you. :)
““”So, was this great sin against Christ the will of God? Of course it was.”” / No sin is the will of God!”
I hope st s will forgive me for saying it feels a bit odd to be strongly in agreement! We’ve argued so much for so long...
Yet I strongly agree. I think of this passage:
“33 Peter answered him, “Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away.” 34 Jesus said to him, “Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” 35 Peter said to him, “Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you!” And all the disciples said the same...73After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, “Certainly you too are one of them, for your accent betrays you.” 74Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know the man.” And immediately the rooster crowed. 75And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.”
Jesus told Peter he would betray him, denying him three times. Peter did so.
“And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and rejoiced that he had done God’s will and done it perfectly.”
Umm....no.
“And he went out and wept bitterly.” Jesus knew what would happen, but he did not make it happen. Every time we sin, we defy God. It doesn’t upset God’s plan, but it does upset God...so to speak. It grieves God when we sin. We act outside his will, while his purposes remain unchanged and unstoppable.
We should weep at our sin, not rejoice. Sin isn’t God’s will.
About three weeks now.
Any progress?
I don't think I have seen you comment on this before, MD. What is your answer to the MOAS (mother of all scriptures) we use for Sola Scriptura?:
The most common reply to this I have seen is that it only refers to the OT. While I do have an answer to that which I would be happy to give, just for now we can just leave it at that. So, this passage would then appear to say that the OT is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness SO THAT the man of God may be THOROUGHLY EQUIPPED for every good work. To be thoroughly equipped for EVERY good work, wouldn't one have to have everything he needs to know spiritually as well? If yes, then doesn't this mean that at least the OT has everything we need to know for faith and Christian living? We would say that "everything we need to know" means authority. Why doesn't this show Sola Scriptura?
The other argument I have seen is that the word "useful" leaves the door open for other authority. But even if that was true, at the least this passage must mean that nothing that contradicts scripture could be useful, right? Nothing that contradicts scripture could trump what is God-breathed.
This is what baffles me about the strength of opposition Catholics have to Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura says that God's word is the final authority. But to Catholics this is a horrible thought. How can God's word be the final authority when we have all these smart men who wrote all these great things without the inspiration of God? That just seems to me to be a very odd position to take. :)
Indeed, my observation has been that many Catholics have failed to see that Sola Scriptura can be used by them too. By all rights any Catholic could say that Apostolic succession is supported by Sola Scriptura in that "these ......" passages support it. While I would certainly argue the interpretation I could not argue against the invocation of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura does not mean you have to interpret my way.
It's just a guess, but perhaps one reason Catholicism is so against Sola Scriptura is that when it was first called that by the early Reformers it referred to Catholic beliefs that were being accused of not just being extra-scriptural, but full blown anti-scriptural. The truth is that while Sola Scriptura is clearly offended by what is anti-Biblical, it is not necessarily offended by what is extra-Biblical.
So if I was a Catholic, I wouldn't be angry at or afraid of Sola Scriptura at all. I would say "Fine, the Bible says that God wants the Catholic Church to have all power and authority on earth and the Catholic Church has the power to declare the Pope infallible ex Cathedra, and anything else it wants to declare, etc. etc. Here are the passages that show that.......... As long as none of our declarations is patently anti-Biblical, then Sola Scriptura is satisfied." No worries.
That is, as long as my scriptural interpretations were strong enough to convince enough people. The only reason I might be against Sola Scriptura would be if I thought that my scriptural arguments for the Catholic Church having so much power were very weak, and I needed outside authority to massage scripture into meaning/saying what the Catholic Church needs it to say. Otherwise, as a Catholic, Sola Scriptura would be my friend.
I don't know how better to reply than to use myself as an example by way of illustration. I hope the RM Bro will give me some grace on that score.
I don't know that I'm the greatest example . . . though I might try a lot harder than some assume . . .
I mostly like to write forcefully about issues, ideas, dogma, doctrines, practices . . . some hot button topics of which are contrary to my understanding of God's Biblical priorities.
Certainly a lot of what I write can be construed as being written DOWN TO some readers.
However, that's not my thought, per se. That's not my attitude, per se. That's not my heart, per se.
I'm writing DOWN TO such ideas, practices, actions, dogma, doctrines, practices etc.
I recognize it is easy for all of us to take offense when ANY OF OUR PET ANYTHINGS are deemed less than wonderful by someone else--particularly in a fiercely rejecting way.
However, imho, IF we have no malice in our hearts toward others; or no guilt before God about whatever . . . the speaker or writer can say even deliberately mean and awful things straight from hell--and it can be water off a duck.
How can anything EXTERNAL to us cause negative anything to arise in us--IF--there is nothing negative there?
And IF something negative IS THERE, then WHATEVER outside of us has TRIGGERED such a negative reaction, that WHATEVER, has done us a favor to surface our ugliness.
Some folks have noticed that I turn away a lot of wrath toward me with a soft answer or ignoring it altogether. Others consider me the singularly main or one of 2 main fountains of evil wrath from hell on FR.
Yet I'm the same person behaving more or less consistently from week to week and month to month.
Some Roman Catholic et al's/Vatican associates et al I've had a fairly warm exchange with for a long time. Some were major combatants in earlier years and some have always had at least a civil exchange with me. Some long standing combatants with fiercely hurt and hostile feelings toward me have recently begun to exchange reasonably warm and certainly civil posts with me.
Yet, I haven't changed greatly in being me. I'm still prone to being hostile to blasphemy and to gross idolatrous heresies I perceive to be greatly hostile to some of God's top level priorities.
I might even still be quite ready to write in a fiercely hostile way against some specific examples of such theological/RELIGIOUS junk [from hell, in my perspective] in a general very impersonal way [i.e. not even indirectly personal]--but a way that is pointedly against the actions or the ideas or the customs or the dogma etc.
I don't, per se, consider such writing to be WRITING DOWN TO anyone--unless, maybe it's satan. I suppose philosophically, if the shoe fits an individual because of what Holy Spirit is saying to THAT INDIVIDUAL about applying what I've written to THAT INDIVIDUAL'S life--THEN THAT is between Holy Spirit and that individual. I've discharged my duty. Holy Spirit uses the result as He sees fit in whatever lives it might fit for.
I'm certainly not once size fits all. I KNOW FROM TONS OF EXPERIENCE WITH 100'S IF NOT thousands of people, that GOD REALLY DOES use me to surface all kinds of things in other people--often much of it negative. It happens when I'm being sweetness and light. It happens when I'm being fiercely satirical--it just happens a lot. Goes with the territory. Yet, some folks just don't seem to profit from such an experience in anything like the short term--though an added percentage outraged in the short-term do prove to profit in the long term.
We can speak of a PRESS WITHIN toward a certain action, writing say. One of my presses within is toward being of redemptive value to others regardless of whether they think I'm the devil incarnate, or not.
I do NOT see that as writing down to such persons. We are all fellow strugglers--hopefully toward the Mark of the High Calling. Perhaps next week or month or year, the favor will be returned. I know that my tone and wording can sometimes come across leaving folks convinced that I'm one of the most arrogant blokes they've ever been exposed to. Yet, others who know me far better hereon are convinced I'm one of the most humble persons they've ever known. I'm the same person. I'm not a Jekyl & Hyde. Some of both is most likely in the eye of the beholder.
I'm on page 170 of TEN SERIES OF MEDITATIONS ON THE MYSTERIES OF THE ROSARY. In a lot of ways, it's another world--another planet--certainly another culture. And even if I agreed with every idea in it--the presentation of the ideas would still be a very jangly other worldly other culture.
I believe that something of that culture that I'm reading in that book is and has always been quite warp and woof of the fabric of Roman Catholicism et al/ Vatican associated folks and congregations represented hereon from the beginning. And I don't think I understood really how big the gulf was--culturally--meaning a huge set of customary values, behaviors, perspectives etc.
I tend to see--perhaps from my years in Asia--all people more or less quite similarly whether they are Buddhist, Hindu, animist, . . . whatever . . . probably because I see them first as psychological and spiritual creatures INSTEAD OF PRIMARILY AS RELIGIOUS creatures.
There is in the MYSTERIES book an extremely familiar culture that I lived closely to for 2 years in the person of a Mary Knoll nun in China. And other such folks I've touched over the years fell into a very similar sort of presentation of their persons and their RELIGIOSITY.
There's a kind of formal [though it can be quite informal in a formal sort of way LOL] graciousness and lofty civility that seems to be a kind of given substrate of that perspective.
Oh, there can be every bit as much mean-spirited, harsh etc. skull duggary and sinfulness with and out of such persons as there can be in any other value orientation. However, it seems like as long as it's expressed in the traditional, gracious, lofty civility terms so entrenched in the Roman Catholic et al perspective, then things go reasonably smoothly regardless of how awful the particulars are.
As some have discovered, I CAN BE gracious and even have a rather gracious heart attitude toward even folks coming at me relentlessly with chain saws.
However, my communication style of preference is much more intensely vigorous, even fierce--even more Middle Eastern one might say. I've written speculating on the sources of that before and don't need to repeat them here. However, I have a new appreciation for the stark differences in the two cultures. That is, the ones of all my upbringing, training and conditioning vs the characteristic Roman Catholic et al substrate.
In some respects, I'm like the worst . . . nightmare . . . of some . . . who came to dinner . . . and stayed.
I love words. I love playing with words. I love intensely vivid words. I love saying intense things about intensely important Christian priorities.
And, I confess, I love smacking down ornery, fiercely fiesty perspectives which seem to me to be grossly illogical, grossly unBiblical, overly harsh etc. I can easily match one and raise one or match one and raise a dozen in such exchanges--and enjoy every minute of it without any hostility TOWARD THE PERSON(s) OR PERSONHOOD OF THE PERSON(s) at all. It's probably one of the few sports I enjoy. LOL. In fact, if my ego or other crud gets hooked. I don't enjoy it at all and usually back way off.
Therefore what?
I certainly don't want to talk down to persons as less than I or lower than I or any such. Within my own skin and perceptions, I don't think I do that very often at all.
I am aware that others perceive me quite differently far more often than I'd like.
Some of that I've been willing to moderate in the interest of Brotherly Christian affections on FR . . . and maybe to help make the RM's job a bit easier. LOL.
I can imagine continuing to moderate as The Lord might lead.
HOWEVER, I'll always be me. And even being the best me that I can be, by God's help, is going to be fiercely offensive to some people some of the time--and maybe even some people most of the time. And that won't be, per se, my responsibility or any of my sinful fault.
I have a deep caring and even affection for most of the folks who feel the most negative toward me. And I have some significant Godly caring for all of them. That doesn't mean I have the least inclination to, from my perspective, molly coddle what I perceive to be idiocy or perverse crud from hell--any more than I'd want them to molly coddle such in me. I really do treat them as I'd prefer to be treated, as outrageous as that might seem.
Anyway--all THAT was triggered, Dear A-G by your wise comments. FWIW. LOL.
The Muslims are excluded because the God of Abraham IS our Trinitarian God and includes Christ. "I and the Father are one". We cannot say that the Father is the God of Abraham, but Christ is not. That would make Christ some "other" God and there would be a big mess. :)
Nail, meet head...
You know what is interesting is that Christ always calls them HIS sheep. MY sheep..that shows ownership before they hear His voice..
Sheep are the dumbest of animals, but one thing is they always know the voice of their shepherd.. just recently, somewhere in the mid east, a shepherd fell (or jumped) off a cliff and thousand of sheep jumped off after him and died too..
When a sheep falls down on his back, he can not get up himself..
So when Jesus told the disciples this they would have understood that the flock that follow His voice were already His..those that were not His would not.
Sola Scriptura is hitting me the same way. And I'm resisting being put into a "pro-" or an "anti-" camp.
(More systematic and rigorous answer SHOULD follow. Don't know if it will. I owe you something on your post 4894 and I may never get there either! I have to prepare a class on Christifidelis Laicos (or whatever it's called) and a little pamphlet on what are Guelphs and Ghibellines and why we should care. (Answer: we shouldn't.)So this is all impressionistic and not really an argument so much as the soup out of which an argument might condense someday -- or might not.)(pause while I load coffee maker)
Did you catch the earlier discussion about "Whether God can sin?" My (alleged) contribution was that the whole conversation is skewed by the (largely unconscious) acceptance of the notion that Freedom is about choosing between good and evil - and either choice can be seen as equally free. But if one abandons that idea of freedoms and takes up the idea the freedom is to know and to be able to do the good, then the "choice" of sin is not an ability, but a disability. In THIS view the very question "CAN God do evil?" can't be asked. It has to be phrased, "Is God so weak that He might FAIL to exercise freedom?" A different understanding of freedom is a game changer.
So I'm looking for something analogous with Sola Scriptura. And the suspicion that there IS something out there is why I said "bogus." I did not mean "I disagree with it." (Or I don't mean that now. Who knows what I meant last week?) What I'm thinking is maybe we are asking the wrong question, or asking it the wrong way.
To proceed: You know my joke about the Church and Coffee? We know Xty is true because it spread throughout the known world before the discovery of coffee. -- and to cap off the silliness I suggest that for centuries people were standing around after Mass (or whatever) with a doughnut in one hand and saying, "I just have this feeling that I should have something warm in my other hand ...."
Well, I sorta kinda wonder if Sola Scriptura doesn't leave us in a similar place. For a century or so all the Christians are saying, "Gosh, I got the leather, I got the zipper, I just feel they should somehow be connected with pieces of papyrus, parchment, or vellum with words on 'em."
Once we start out with "Sola Scriptura, true or false, discuss amongst yourselves," we are trapped forever. Your excellently posed nuanced view will be considered. The verses which seem to mention oral tradition favorably will be presented with an "Ah-HAH!" and scoffed at reflexively, and then debated. The dates of the closing (officially or by common use) of the NT canon will be discussed.
And maybe all the while we are missing the real point (of which I have to say that, right now, I have no idea what that might be.)(But I have some guesses.)
I wonder how much the development of Scholasticism and its decay into Nominalism led to a desire to present a grand theological TOE (Theory of Everything) which would have the internal clarity of structure of a geometry textbook. I wonder how misguided that might have been. At least with Thomas, I get the impression NOT that he is trying to present a "system" but that he is trying to portray accurately something external to himself. But when we got to Calvin and (to a lesser extent, Luther) I get the idea that these guys have one "Big IDEA", and it's a good one, and they are going to use it as their hermeneutic for EVERYTHING.
So Scripture is used as a kind of collection of statements of different kinds, some postulates, some theorems, some reflections on postulates and theorems. And the excellence of the "System" will be judged by its comportment and congruence with scripture.
The model which sneaks into this approach is some sort of crystalline logical structure which, if only we could solve some algorithmic questions, could be computerized.
BUT
We are not about making a kind of Newton's Principia of God Almighty. Somebody mentioned the effusive Alphonsus Liguori the other day. And another madman of Love is the (ahem, third order Dominican) St Louis de Montfort, who comes right out and talks about "worship" of our Lady. And I can just hear the thumps as our antagonists pounce all over him. But he's not speaking with theological discipline, He's effervescing, he's rockin' and rollin'.
And while this ADHD dyslexic guy LOVES attempts at theological precision and comprehensiveness so much that I'll read guys with whom I disagree (Whitehead?) just for the pleasure of it - when I get to heaven I want to quit theologizing and just gaze upon Him about whom I have wasted so many little grey cells. THAT's the point, after all.
SO, back to Scripture. I'm mulling over the dynamic and fluid situation, from the Ascension and Pentecost, through the writing of Paul's stuff, through the setting down of Mt. Mk., Lk.,and Jn and the exquisite Heb. and the wild and crazy Rev. What were they all doing and thinking before there was a Scriptura to be all Sola about? Why did they want or why were they moved to set things down and say "This is the REAL DEAL?" We know it was, in part, a reaction to Marcion, but what was Marcion thinking, what did HE say about his version of Luke and Paul that resonated with the people he ensnared?
The Sola Scripturites will want that period to have been as short as possible while we will be comfortable with its taking a few centuries for the idea of an authoritative or canonical scripture to settle down, coalesce, and harden. But unless we develop a myth that the Apostles stayed alive long enough to hand off their reliability to a collection of books, I think it might be good to consider the Church before the Muritorian canon and to wonder how they thought of themselves. WHAT was Jerome thinking when he said ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. To whom was he speaking? Did he think only the literate could know Christ?
This is way too long and self-indulgent. But I am proposing we have put ourselves into an impossible situation because we are asking the wrong question.
That's enough words.
Who atones for your sins?
John Calvin
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.