For those who think there was no primacy in rome until constantine (according to the heritics constantine started the roman church). We see here that St Clement of Rome, third successor to peter, living at the time of john the apostle, who knew the apostles, writes a letter to the church in corinth to handle some problems. St Clement points out that its better to obey God than man ,and to obey God meant obedience to the people in charge of the church he established. We also see that others who knew St Clement , living in early 100 a.d called the name of the church Catholic(see ignatius of antioch)
St. Clement of Rome: Soteriology and Ecclesiology
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
At Last a study bible with Solid foot notes by some of the best Theologians in the 20th century !! For those who love gods word (Catholics&Protestants) then this is the edition for you. Scott Hahn & Curtis Mitch are amazing people and have put allot of time into this for all generations to come. Scott Hahn was a former protestant now Catholic, who is respected by both sides. Scott Hahn is known for his amazing books and his understanding of the Covenant. Scott Hahn's discovery of what the covenant means unlocks the mystery of gods divine plan and the orthodox practices of the Israel and the the church today.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
"The tragedy of Iraq's Christians is that it does not interest anyone"
"The tragedy of Iraq's Christians is that it does not interest anyone"
To illustrate the same point several days ago, we noted the silence of CNN's website in the midst of another wave of jihadist attacks against Christians in Iraq. Dancing with the Stars merited a mention, along with Sarah Palin baking cookies other human interest pieces. Another escalation in the latest campaign to convert or expel non-Muslims from the Middle East? Not so much.
Of course, this has been a big year in the U.S. for pontifications on "tolerance," in connection with the Ground Zero mosque, the Qur'an burning that wasn't, and other issues. But the relative silence in the mainstream media on this topic demonstrates that the banner of tolerance is taken up only for fashionable groups.
There is an obvious, but irrational fear that speaking out too openly for the sake of persecuted minorities in Muslim lands goes off-message from the politically correct duty play up Islam's purported tolerance, makes it seem like the West is unfairly picking on Muslims, is in a "crusader war," and so forth.
In practice, all that amounts to is discarding justice for the sake of public relations, which is what the obsession with "hearts and minds" so often amounts to: appearances.
And of course, there is the state of denial, which is almost hallucinatory in the face of repeated stories like this, that non-Muslims are in long-term danger based on anything contained in Islamic teachings. Funny, then, how these things keep happening, not just since 2003, not just since 9/11, not just since 1948, or any other point in history that is cited as the root of Muslim grievances against non-Muslims, but for the entire history of Islamic conquest and rule.
"The tragedy of Iraq's Christians is that it does not interest anyone, Chaldean Catholic says," by Joseph Seferta for Asia News, November 13:
I belong to the Chaldean Catholic Church, which makes up the majority of Christians in Iraq. Others include Assyrians, as well Syrian, Armenian and Byzantine Christians, both Catholic and Orthodox. Christians under Saddam Hussein totalled some one million, but now only half that number remains in the country, the rest having fled and are living as refugees, particularly in Syria and Jordan.
The atrocity committed by Muslim fanatics, which resulted in dozens of Syrian Catholics dead and dozens of others wounded, was a big blow to the struggling Christian minority. It has been followed by other assassinations of Christians in their homes and shops. All these fanatics (known by various names) in the Middle East and other Muslim-majority countries, are bent on imposing Shari'a and running Islamic states that have no place for Christians in them.
Christians in the Middle East, of course, predate Muslims by hundreds of years and go back to Apostolic Times. Since the 7th Century Islamic conquest, they have been made second-class citizens with hardly any rights at all. They have undergone many waves of persecution, which have greatly reduced their numbers and influence. They suffer prejudice and discrimination on a daily basis, while Muslim minorities here in the West enjoy full rights and have built hundreds of mosques.
Tragically, Iraq's Christians had nothing to do with the American invasion, but they always wrongly get accused of siding with the "Christian" West. Now they feel both isolated and betrayed by their own government as well as the international community. They have always been model citizens, serving their country in every field, and their only desire is to be left alone to live and worship in peace. But they have become a soft target for extremists.
There is now a real danger that Christians in the Middle East and in Iraq in particular, of being exterminated, due to both persecution and large-scale emigration, unless something is done urgently to stem the tide and save them. Too many cannot bear their suffering any longer and are sick and tired of waiting for someone to come to their aid. People either do not know or do not seem to care about them. Even the recent Middle East Synod convoked by the Holy Father was a disappointment, due to lack of both unity and courage. It is now high time that the United Nations seriously tackle this huge problem, for otherwise we will end up with the catastrophe of an Iraq and even a Middle East devoid of any Christians.
In October 2007, 138 Muslim leaders issued 'A Common Word between Us and You', a substantive invitation to Christians to dialogue based on the commandments to love God and love one another, found in the Bible and the Qur'an. The problem is that no such thing exists in the Qur'an.
While love is central in Christianity, it is hardly relevant in Islam. The few Qur'anic verses that mention love mean something that is totally different from the New Testament. In the Qur'an, Allah's love is conditional upon man's blind obedience to his laws. Thus, we read in verse 4:107, for example, "Allah loveth not the impious and the guilty."
Love in the Qur'an is just an attribute rather than a part of God's very essence (as in "God is love", 1 John 4:8). The concept of love of neighbour does not exist either. There is only love for fellow Muslims, who, for example, are told in 5:59, "Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends", and in 9:29, "Fight those who believe not in Allah or his Apostle, even if they are the People of the Book [Christians and Jews] until they submit".
To illustrate the same point several days ago, we noted the silence of CNN's website in the midst of another wave of jihadist attacks against Christians in Iraq. Dancing with the Stars merited a mention, along with Sarah Palin baking cookies other human interest pieces. Another escalation in the latest campaign to convert or expel non-Muslims from the Middle East? Not so much.
Of course, this has been a big year in the U.S. for pontifications on "tolerance," in connection with the Ground Zero mosque, the Qur'an burning that wasn't, and other issues. But the relative silence in the mainstream media on this topic demonstrates that the banner of tolerance is taken up only for fashionable groups.
There is an obvious, but irrational fear that speaking out too openly for the sake of persecuted minorities in Muslim lands goes off-message from the politically correct duty play up Islam's purported tolerance, makes it seem like the West is unfairly picking on Muslims, is in a "crusader war," and so forth.
In practice, all that amounts to is discarding justice for the sake of public relations, which is what the obsession with "hearts and minds" so often amounts to: appearances.
And of course, there is the state of denial, which is almost hallucinatory in the face of repeated stories like this, that non-Muslims are in long-term danger based on anything contained in Islamic teachings. Funny, then, how these things keep happening, not just since 2003, not just since 9/11, not just since 1948, or any other point in history that is cited as the root of Muslim grievances against non-Muslims, but for the entire history of Islamic conquest and rule.
"The tragedy of Iraq's Christians is that it does not interest anyone, Chaldean Catholic says," by Joseph Seferta for Asia News, November 13:
I belong to the Chaldean Catholic Church, which makes up the majority of Christians in Iraq. Others include Assyrians, as well Syrian, Armenian and Byzantine Christians, both Catholic and Orthodox. Christians under Saddam Hussein totalled some one million, but now only half that number remains in the country, the rest having fled and are living as refugees, particularly in Syria and Jordan.
The atrocity committed by Muslim fanatics, which resulted in dozens of Syrian Catholics dead and dozens of others wounded, was a big blow to the struggling Christian minority. It has been followed by other assassinations of Christians in their homes and shops. All these fanatics (known by various names) in the Middle East and other Muslim-majority countries, are bent on imposing Shari'a and running Islamic states that have no place for Christians in them.
Christians in the Middle East, of course, predate Muslims by hundreds of years and go back to Apostolic Times. Since the 7th Century Islamic conquest, they have been made second-class citizens with hardly any rights at all. They have undergone many waves of persecution, which have greatly reduced their numbers and influence. They suffer prejudice and discrimination on a daily basis, while Muslim minorities here in the West enjoy full rights and have built hundreds of mosques.
Tragically, Iraq's Christians had nothing to do with the American invasion, but they always wrongly get accused of siding with the "Christian" West. Now they feel both isolated and betrayed by their own government as well as the international community. They have always been model citizens, serving their country in every field, and their only desire is to be left alone to live and worship in peace. But they have become a soft target for extremists.
There is now a real danger that Christians in the Middle East and in Iraq in particular, of being exterminated, due to both persecution and large-scale emigration, unless something is done urgently to stem the tide and save them. Too many cannot bear their suffering any longer and are sick and tired of waiting for someone to come to their aid. People either do not know or do not seem to care about them. Even the recent Middle East Synod convoked by the Holy Father was a disappointment, due to lack of both unity and courage. It is now high time that the United Nations seriously tackle this huge problem, for otherwise we will end up with the catastrophe of an Iraq and even a Middle East devoid of any Christians.
In October 2007, 138 Muslim leaders issued 'A Common Word between Us and You', a substantive invitation to Christians to dialogue based on the commandments to love God and love one another, found in the Bible and the Qur'an. The problem is that no such thing exists in the Qur'an.
While love is central in Christianity, it is hardly relevant in Islam. The few Qur'anic verses that mention love mean something that is totally different from the New Testament. In the Qur'an, Allah's love is conditional upon man's blind obedience to his laws. Thus, we read in verse 4:107, for example, "Allah loveth not the impious and the guilty."
Love in the Qur'an is just an attribute rather than a part of God's very essence (as in "God is love", 1 John 4:8). The concept of love of neighbour does not exist either. There is only love for fellow Muslims, who, for example, are told in 5:59, "Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends", and in 9:29, "Fight those who believe not in Allah or his Apostle, even if they are the People of the Book [Christians and Jews] until they submit".
Second Thoughts on sola scriptura
My beliefs, through my transition from the generically Arminian church of my childhood to classical Reformed Presbyterianism, were marked by several significant developments in my beliefs, one certainly maintained its place at the bedrock of my entire theology. This is no surprise for despite the doctrinal differences of the some 20,000 to 30,000 denominations within Protestantism, there is perhaps one that underlies every last one of them and that is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Latin for “by Scripture alone”). What the doctrine means is rather self-explanatory given its translation. Simply put, the doctrine states that only that which is contained in the Scriptures or can be directly derived therefrom should be received with the certainty of infallibility. In other words, anything that is not in and of the Scriptures is necessarily the wisdom of men and therefore does not possess the infallibility of God’s inspiration. The consequence of this doctrine is that any idea that cannot be found in the Scriptures is immediately suspect at best and should probably be discarded. No matter what denominational affiliation a Protestant is aligned with, he maintains some form of Sola Scriptura for it is the bedrock of the whole experiment.
Sola Scriptura, of course, sounds like a doctrine that is so obviously true that to question it could only indicate a doubt in the infallible divine inspiration of Scripture. However, I assure you that the doubts I began to consider that finally led me to shed my belief in Sola Scriptura were only because of my firm conviction in the absolute infallible divine inspiration of Holy Scripture. I must also say that my beliefs that must replace Sola Scriptura are still being worked out in my mind and heart. I simply do not yet know precisely how I will articulate the alternative at this time. This is the collection of thoughts that led me to consider Sola Scriptura as itself a man-made doctrine that is internally inconsistent and ultimately leads to an ironic conclusion characterized by complete uncertainty.
The first and most obvious question that anyone should ask of Sola Scriptura is whether or not it abides by its own principle. Can the idea that the Scriptures alone are the only source of infallibly inspired truth be proven from Scripture alone? I don’t want to spend a great deal of time on that question but I should note that I have yet to be convinced of the affirmative answer. The Scriptures say many things about themselves, even that they are inspired by God and perfect, but I personally have not found a verse that asserts the singular and exclusive infallibility of Scripture. The statement “All Scripture is God-breathed…” does not imply that only Scripture is God-breathed any more than the statement “all limes are green” implies that only limes are green.
The rest of this essay of sorts will deal with the final “deal-breaker” for me and that is what I will call the “canon dilemma.” For those of you who may be unaware, a “canon” is simply a measure, a standard, and the canon of Scripture is merely the table of contents, the list of which books constitute the Bible as we know it. To put the “canon dilemma” succinctly, we are told in 2 Timothy 3:16 that “all Scripture is breathed out by God…” but ask yourself how it is that we know what counts as the “Scripture” to which this verse refers as being “breathed out by God.” 2 Timothy did not originally come to us already nestled between 1 Timothy and Titus as a part of a closed and complete anthology conveniently known as “Scripture” such that we could easily conclude that the “Scripture” of 2 Tim. 3:16 obviously refers to the other 65 books included. This is perhaps the biggest misconception that many Protestants have about the Bible, that since its beginning, the Church has always had a complete, definitive, and leather-bound collection of 66 books known as “Scripture” to which it could be quickly refer in the need of clarification or insight. Rather, at the time of St. Paul’s writing of 2 Timothy, not all the books of the New Testament had even been written yet let alone compiled into a definitive collection known as the “New Testament.” Therefore, any thoughtful person upon reading 2 Timothy in this light will ask two questions: (1) What is the “Scripture” to which 2 Tim. 3:16 refers as being “breathed out by God?” (2) By what standard can we even read 2 Timothy as a book of Holy Scripture in the first place? I’ll elaborate on each of these questions.
To restate the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, it is the idea that only that which is contained in Scripture can be received with certainty of infallible divine inspiration. But think about this. When you open up your Bible to the first few pages and you come to the table of contents, has it ever occurred to you that that list is not itself a part of Scripture? That list, otherwise known as the canon, cannot be found within any book of the Bible. For what ever reason, God did not see fit to reveal to us a chapter-and-verse table of contents of what books possess that criterion of God-breathed Scripture. Therefore, given the Sola Scriptura principle, it would seem that any attempt to declare which books count as Scripture and which books do not is necessarily an extra-biblical claim that would be deemed uninspired and fallible because we don’t have an inter-Scriptural canon. Now, as some of you know, this isn’t a new discovery for R.C. Sproul has long put forth the idea of the canon as a “fallible collection of infallible books.” But as much as I respect Sproul, this presents some serious problems for me.
Firstly, the “fallible collection of infallible books” idea subtly begs the question “How do you know that the books are infallible?” and opens up an epistemological mess. We Protestants often take the canon for granted in assuming that the reason that James or Romans is an inspired canonical book is “because it’s in the Bible.” Well, if the Bible as we know it is a “fallible collection” due to its organization by an extra-biblical council, then for a book to merely have a place within it does not necessarily entail that it is indeed inspired and infallible. A certainty of infallibility cannot rest upon that which is fallible. So, right off the bat, we are left with a gaping epistemological problem as to how we can know for certain the individual books’ infallibility. Now, if we were to follow the principles of Sola Scriptura we would assert that we can only maintain inspiration and infallibility as regards those tenets which are contained within Scripture or can be explicitly derived thenceforth. But, as stated previously, the collection of Scripture is not found within Scripture, which is why Sproul refered to it as a “fallible collection.” But frankly, even if Romans contained a list of what books counted as Scripture, we couldn’t use this book to determine its and the other included books’ infallible canonicity without already presupposing Romans’ infallible inspiration in the first place. This is the issue presented by the second question above. I can’t approach 2 Timothy to read that “all Scripture is God-breathed” until I am sure that 2 Timothy is even worthy of being read as Scripture in the first place. And if 2 Timothy’s place within the canon is merely a result of a fallible collection of an extra-biblical council, how can I know for certain that God did in fact breathe the words “all Scripture is God-breathed?” Therefore, on this point, I am nervously faced with what appears to be a logical dilemma for Sola Scriptura. On the one hand, it cannot put its assurance in the inspiration of the council that organized the canon, thereby rendering an infallible collection of infallible books, without violating its own principle; the canon must be a fallible collection. On the other hand, it is faced with the epistemological obstacle that one cannot know for certain a characteristic of a written text based upon what that text says about itself without already presupposing the text to be trustworthy or in this case, infallible. The resulting circular argument would go as follows:
Me: “Hey, how do you know that the Bible is inspired by God?”
Other guy: “Because 2 Tim. says that ‘All Scripture is God-breathed…’”
Me: “Ok, but how do you know that 2 Tim. is a legitimate book of that Scripture?”
Other guy: “Because it’s in the Bible.”
Do you see the circle? The other guy presupposes the inspiration of Scripture to argue for the inspiration of Scripture. Therefore, on this point, it seems to me that Sola Scriptura fails to offer us the very certainty requisite for adherence to its own principle.
Continuing this, a popular argument from Protestants when confronted by the fact that the collection that we now know as “the Bible” is the product of a church council is to say that the council merely “passively recognized” those books which all Christians had always known were Scripture. Aside from the fact that that is an historically flawed view, even if we assume the organization of the canon to be a “passive recognition” of those books, by what criterion where they universally recognized as the Word of God? If Sola Scriptura has always been the true doctrine of the Church, how did the early Christians who did not yet have a definitive and authoritative collection of what counted as “Scripture” practice this doctrine? If they were following Sola Scriptura, what was the intra-Scriptural standard from which they recognized the correct books of the Bible? It is important to note that the early Church received many letters from the Apostles and yet only a select few were ultimately considered as the inspired and infallible Words of God. Beyond that, there were other letters written by bishops after the Apostles that were commonly considered as a part of Scripture such as the Letters of St. Clement. Church history therefore presents two problems for me concerning Sola Scriptura. For its first three-hundred years, the Church functioned without any canonical collection, fallible or otherwise, so if Sola Scriptura is the true Biblical standard for interpretation, etc., how did the Church practice this doctrine during this period? Secondly, for the reasons previously stated, the principles of Sola Scriptura would have prevented them from having a foundation on which to even consider certain books as infallibly inspired just as it does to us today.
Now this question of the certainty of Scripture is not one that has been ignored by the various Reformed confessions. The language of the Westminster Confession states that:
“…our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.”
So, our assurance of Scripture’s infallibility rests upon an inward work of the Holy Spirit’s witness that takes place within our hearts that testifies to the proper and true books of Scripture, the true canon. I know I am treading upon nervous ground here, but given the principle of Sola Scriptura, how is a Spiritual inward working in our hearts an any more appropriate foundation on which to place canonical certainty than a Spiritual inward working in the Church? If you have Catholics on one side that argue that our certainty of Scripture is based on the inward working and guidance of the Holy Spirit in the magisterium that organized the canon and Protestants on the other that argue that our assurance is based on the Holy Spirit’s inward working in the hearts of believers, the difference does not seem to be Sola Scriptura. Rather, the difference is only in regards to the object on which assurance rests which in both cases is extra-biblical and therefore fails as an adequate foundation of certainty within Sola Scriptura. In fact, it seems that all one has to do to distinguish the Catholic position from the Protestant is to take that phrase from the Confession and replace “our hearts” with “the Church.”
I encountered this in a discussion with a blog friend of mine who once wrote a post critiquing the Catholic position on this issue and defending Sola Scriptura. In it, he began by stating “the Word of God has the authority to interpret itself.” Ok, even though this sounds right, I’ve already shown some philosophical problems with that statement in its begging of the question but in the next sentences he wrote as if directly proceeding from his first statement that “the Spirit indwelling a believer then opens the eyes of the faithful, through their faith and prayer, to interpret the Word correctly.” That may be in accordance with the Westminster Confession, but how is this an example of the Word of God interpreting itself? I challenged him on this again claiming that the only difference between his second statement and the Roman position he was attacking was the use of the words “a believer” rather than “the Church.” In terms of Sola Scriptura, there is no principled difference between these two statements. My basic problem is that an assurance based upon an inward working of the Holy Spirit in a believer’s heart seems no more in accordance with Sola Scriptura than a Spirit-induced testimony in the Church. Sola Scriptura may have a consistent basis for certainty in the canon, but we have to play by the rules and merely replacing the work of the Spirit in the Church with a work of the Spirit in our hearts as a foundation of certainty is not adhering to it. Given the principle of Sola Scriptura, our certainty of the canon must rest upon none other than an explicit or necessarily consequential warrant from Scripture itself. Unfortunately, that option seems circular for the reasons above.
Related to this is my next concern, which is that of the binding of the conscience. Sola Scriptura maintains that only that which is contained in Scripture can bind the consciences of men. Well, since the list which properly constitutes which books belong in Scripture is not contained within Scripture itself and the canon was fallibly organized by the extra-biblical Synod of Hippo, was that council violating the consciences of believers by authoritatively establishing a canon outside of Scripture? Moreover, logically speaking, could someone as a Protestant decide for himself that, say, James isn’t a valid part of the canon? As opposed as he would be, on what grounds, beside any denominational vows he had taken, could his conscience be bound? For no where in Scripture does it state that James is Scriptural except within James itself and if he already believed that James was invalid, nothing from within that book could convince him otherwise. As far-fetched as this example seems, Martin Luther himself did this very thing with not only James, but Jude and Revelation as well. Even if we accept what I understand to be Calvin’s understanding, that true Christians “know the voice of the Shepherd” which is the Scriptures, this doesn’t resolve the issue of someone deciding that James or Esther is not canonical and inspired. What would the argument against them be: “The majority of Christians hear, and have always heard, the Words of God in Esther, therefore you should too?” Again, the basis of the certainty in the inspiration and canonicity of any book is not founded upon Scripture alone. Again, if the canon is a “fallible collection” then it seems totally plausible that someone might come to object to a certain book’s place within it for whatever reason and Sola Scriptura would have no way of binding his conscience against his beliefs. Sola Scriptura again seems to implode on itself. If only that which is contained in Scripture can rightly bind the consciences of men, it seems as though you have to first improperly bind consciences in order to possess an established and organized canon with which you can then go out and properly bind consciences.
Next, is a brief offshoot of this dilemma and it concerns interpretation. Keith A. Mathison once expressed in an article in Modern Reformation a different concept stating that “All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture.” However, when I first read it, I obviously agreed, but as I pondered it more and more, I was rather surprised to hear that so confidently said by a Protestant. To this day, I catch myself wondering, “Did he realize what he was actually saying?” As far as I am concerned, this has devastating implications for Sola Scriptura. Firstly, there’s the simple title. If all appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture, then a doctrine that translates “Scripture Alone” somewhat looses its essential quality. Consider this argument:
All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture.
Interpretations are by definition external and separate from that which they interpret.
Sola Scriptura maintains that any claim external to Scripture itself is necessarily uninspired and therefore fallible.
Therefore, all appeals to Scripture are fallible.
This is no surprise; everyone obviously holds this to be true whether he believes in Sola Scriptura or not. But in the context of my other concerns, the lack of certainty seems to be stacking up. First, Sola Scriptura seems to fail to give us a certainty with regards to the very canon of Scripture. If we now are forced to assert the absolute fallibility of all interpretations of this fallible collection of what we are somehow assured to be infallible books, it seems as though we are rapidly descending into a hermeneutical cacophony in which every man believes what is right in his own eyes whether the “man” is a literal individual or figurative as a denomination comprised thereof. Coincidentally enough, that’s exactly what has appeared to have happened as I survey the impossibly complex landscape of contemporary Protestantism. It seems readily apparent that Luther’s hope that the supposedly “plain” words of Scripture would so obvious as for there to be little doubt of orthodoxy was mistaken.
All in all, I have increasingly come to view Sola Scriptura as one of the many man-made philosophical tenets that is too absolute to be practically tenable. It leaves many loose ends that have to be accounted for and the ways in which this accounting is gone about are unsatisfactory for me. It is perhaps the ultimate irony that to maintain a doctrine which states that only that which is contained in Scripture is infallibly inspired and authoritative requires a person to deny that we can definitely know with a certainty of infallibility what “Scripture” is in the first place.
I have removed the paragraph in which I offered up a half-baked, tentative theory I have of my alternative. If you recall the first paragraph, I have still not worked out thoroughly the belief that will replace Sola Scriptura. Too much attention was being directed towards concluding paragraph and I want my objections to be criticized if you all think they need to be.
by Caleb Roberts
http://genureflection.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/second-thoughts-on-sola-scriptura/#comment-146
Sola Scriptura, of course, sounds like a doctrine that is so obviously true that to question it could only indicate a doubt in the infallible divine inspiration of Scripture. However, I assure you that the doubts I began to consider that finally led me to shed my belief in Sola Scriptura were only because of my firm conviction in the absolute infallible divine inspiration of Holy Scripture. I must also say that my beliefs that must replace Sola Scriptura are still being worked out in my mind and heart. I simply do not yet know precisely how I will articulate the alternative at this time. This is the collection of thoughts that led me to consider Sola Scriptura as itself a man-made doctrine that is internally inconsistent and ultimately leads to an ironic conclusion characterized by complete uncertainty.
The first and most obvious question that anyone should ask of Sola Scriptura is whether or not it abides by its own principle. Can the idea that the Scriptures alone are the only source of infallibly inspired truth be proven from Scripture alone? I don’t want to spend a great deal of time on that question but I should note that I have yet to be convinced of the affirmative answer. The Scriptures say many things about themselves, even that they are inspired by God and perfect, but I personally have not found a verse that asserts the singular and exclusive infallibility of Scripture. The statement “All Scripture is God-breathed…” does not imply that only Scripture is God-breathed any more than the statement “all limes are green” implies that only limes are green.
The rest of this essay of sorts will deal with the final “deal-breaker” for me and that is what I will call the “canon dilemma.” For those of you who may be unaware, a “canon” is simply a measure, a standard, and the canon of Scripture is merely the table of contents, the list of which books constitute the Bible as we know it. To put the “canon dilemma” succinctly, we are told in 2 Timothy 3:16 that “all Scripture is breathed out by God…” but ask yourself how it is that we know what counts as the “Scripture” to which this verse refers as being “breathed out by God.” 2 Timothy did not originally come to us already nestled between 1 Timothy and Titus as a part of a closed and complete anthology conveniently known as “Scripture” such that we could easily conclude that the “Scripture” of 2 Tim. 3:16 obviously refers to the other 65 books included. This is perhaps the biggest misconception that many Protestants have about the Bible, that since its beginning, the Church has always had a complete, definitive, and leather-bound collection of 66 books known as “Scripture” to which it could be quickly refer in the need of clarification or insight. Rather, at the time of St. Paul’s writing of 2 Timothy, not all the books of the New Testament had even been written yet let alone compiled into a definitive collection known as the “New Testament.” Therefore, any thoughtful person upon reading 2 Timothy in this light will ask two questions: (1) What is the “Scripture” to which 2 Tim. 3:16 refers as being “breathed out by God?” (2) By what standard can we even read 2 Timothy as a book of Holy Scripture in the first place? I’ll elaborate on each of these questions.
To restate the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, it is the idea that only that which is contained in Scripture can be received with certainty of infallible divine inspiration. But think about this. When you open up your Bible to the first few pages and you come to the table of contents, has it ever occurred to you that that list is not itself a part of Scripture? That list, otherwise known as the canon, cannot be found within any book of the Bible. For what ever reason, God did not see fit to reveal to us a chapter-and-verse table of contents of what books possess that criterion of God-breathed Scripture. Therefore, given the Sola Scriptura principle, it would seem that any attempt to declare which books count as Scripture and which books do not is necessarily an extra-biblical claim that would be deemed uninspired and fallible because we don’t have an inter-Scriptural canon. Now, as some of you know, this isn’t a new discovery for R.C. Sproul has long put forth the idea of the canon as a “fallible collection of infallible books.” But as much as I respect Sproul, this presents some serious problems for me.
Firstly, the “fallible collection of infallible books” idea subtly begs the question “How do you know that the books are infallible?” and opens up an epistemological mess. We Protestants often take the canon for granted in assuming that the reason that James or Romans is an inspired canonical book is “because it’s in the Bible.” Well, if the Bible as we know it is a “fallible collection” due to its organization by an extra-biblical council, then for a book to merely have a place within it does not necessarily entail that it is indeed inspired and infallible. A certainty of infallibility cannot rest upon that which is fallible. So, right off the bat, we are left with a gaping epistemological problem as to how we can know for certain the individual books’ infallibility. Now, if we were to follow the principles of Sola Scriptura we would assert that we can only maintain inspiration and infallibility as regards those tenets which are contained within Scripture or can be explicitly derived thenceforth. But, as stated previously, the collection of Scripture is not found within Scripture, which is why Sproul refered to it as a “fallible collection.” But frankly, even if Romans contained a list of what books counted as Scripture, we couldn’t use this book to determine its and the other included books’ infallible canonicity without already presupposing Romans’ infallible inspiration in the first place. This is the issue presented by the second question above. I can’t approach 2 Timothy to read that “all Scripture is God-breathed” until I am sure that 2 Timothy is even worthy of being read as Scripture in the first place. And if 2 Timothy’s place within the canon is merely a result of a fallible collection of an extra-biblical council, how can I know for certain that God did in fact breathe the words “all Scripture is God-breathed?” Therefore, on this point, I am nervously faced with what appears to be a logical dilemma for Sola Scriptura. On the one hand, it cannot put its assurance in the inspiration of the council that organized the canon, thereby rendering an infallible collection of infallible books, without violating its own principle; the canon must be a fallible collection. On the other hand, it is faced with the epistemological obstacle that one cannot know for certain a characteristic of a written text based upon what that text says about itself without already presupposing the text to be trustworthy or in this case, infallible. The resulting circular argument would go as follows:
Me: “Hey, how do you know that the Bible is inspired by God?”
Other guy: “Because 2 Tim. says that ‘All Scripture is God-breathed…’”
Me: “Ok, but how do you know that 2 Tim. is a legitimate book of that Scripture?”
Other guy: “Because it’s in the Bible.”
Do you see the circle? The other guy presupposes the inspiration of Scripture to argue for the inspiration of Scripture. Therefore, on this point, it seems to me that Sola Scriptura fails to offer us the very certainty requisite for adherence to its own principle.
Continuing this, a popular argument from Protestants when confronted by the fact that the collection that we now know as “the Bible” is the product of a church council is to say that the council merely “passively recognized” those books which all Christians had always known were Scripture. Aside from the fact that that is an historically flawed view, even if we assume the organization of the canon to be a “passive recognition” of those books, by what criterion where they universally recognized as the Word of God? If Sola Scriptura has always been the true doctrine of the Church, how did the early Christians who did not yet have a definitive and authoritative collection of what counted as “Scripture” practice this doctrine? If they were following Sola Scriptura, what was the intra-Scriptural standard from which they recognized the correct books of the Bible? It is important to note that the early Church received many letters from the Apostles and yet only a select few were ultimately considered as the inspired and infallible Words of God. Beyond that, there were other letters written by bishops after the Apostles that were commonly considered as a part of Scripture such as the Letters of St. Clement. Church history therefore presents two problems for me concerning Sola Scriptura. For its first three-hundred years, the Church functioned without any canonical collection, fallible or otherwise, so if Sola Scriptura is the true Biblical standard for interpretation, etc., how did the Church practice this doctrine during this period? Secondly, for the reasons previously stated, the principles of Sola Scriptura would have prevented them from having a foundation on which to even consider certain books as infallibly inspired just as it does to us today.
Now this question of the certainty of Scripture is not one that has been ignored by the various Reformed confessions. The language of the Westminster Confession states that:
“…our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.”
So, our assurance of Scripture’s infallibility rests upon an inward work of the Holy Spirit’s witness that takes place within our hearts that testifies to the proper and true books of Scripture, the true canon. I know I am treading upon nervous ground here, but given the principle of Sola Scriptura, how is a Spiritual inward working in our hearts an any more appropriate foundation on which to place canonical certainty than a Spiritual inward working in the Church? If you have Catholics on one side that argue that our certainty of Scripture is based on the inward working and guidance of the Holy Spirit in the magisterium that organized the canon and Protestants on the other that argue that our assurance is based on the Holy Spirit’s inward working in the hearts of believers, the difference does not seem to be Sola Scriptura. Rather, the difference is only in regards to the object on which assurance rests which in both cases is extra-biblical and therefore fails as an adequate foundation of certainty within Sola Scriptura. In fact, it seems that all one has to do to distinguish the Catholic position from the Protestant is to take that phrase from the Confession and replace “our hearts” with “the Church.”
I encountered this in a discussion with a blog friend of mine who once wrote a post critiquing the Catholic position on this issue and defending Sola Scriptura. In it, he began by stating “the Word of God has the authority to interpret itself.” Ok, even though this sounds right, I’ve already shown some philosophical problems with that statement in its begging of the question but in the next sentences he wrote as if directly proceeding from his first statement that “the Spirit indwelling a believer then opens the eyes of the faithful, through their faith and prayer, to interpret the Word correctly.” That may be in accordance with the Westminster Confession, but how is this an example of the Word of God interpreting itself? I challenged him on this again claiming that the only difference between his second statement and the Roman position he was attacking was the use of the words “a believer” rather than “the Church.” In terms of Sola Scriptura, there is no principled difference between these two statements. My basic problem is that an assurance based upon an inward working of the Holy Spirit in a believer’s heart seems no more in accordance with Sola Scriptura than a Spirit-induced testimony in the Church. Sola Scriptura may have a consistent basis for certainty in the canon, but we have to play by the rules and merely replacing the work of the Spirit in the Church with a work of the Spirit in our hearts as a foundation of certainty is not adhering to it. Given the principle of Sola Scriptura, our certainty of the canon must rest upon none other than an explicit or necessarily consequential warrant from Scripture itself. Unfortunately, that option seems circular for the reasons above.
Related to this is my next concern, which is that of the binding of the conscience. Sola Scriptura maintains that only that which is contained in Scripture can bind the consciences of men. Well, since the list which properly constitutes which books belong in Scripture is not contained within Scripture itself and the canon was fallibly organized by the extra-biblical Synod of Hippo, was that council violating the consciences of believers by authoritatively establishing a canon outside of Scripture? Moreover, logically speaking, could someone as a Protestant decide for himself that, say, James isn’t a valid part of the canon? As opposed as he would be, on what grounds, beside any denominational vows he had taken, could his conscience be bound? For no where in Scripture does it state that James is Scriptural except within James itself and if he already believed that James was invalid, nothing from within that book could convince him otherwise. As far-fetched as this example seems, Martin Luther himself did this very thing with not only James, but Jude and Revelation as well. Even if we accept what I understand to be Calvin’s understanding, that true Christians “know the voice of the Shepherd” which is the Scriptures, this doesn’t resolve the issue of someone deciding that James or Esther is not canonical and inspired. What would the argument against them be: “The majority of Christians hear, and have always heard, the Words of God in Esther, therefore you should too?” Again, the basis of the certainty in the inspiration and canonicity of any book is not founded upon Scripture alone. Again, if the canon is a “fallible collection” then it seems totally plausible that someone might come to object to a certain book’s place within it for whatever reason and Sola Scriptura would have no way of binding his conscience against his beliefs. Sola Scriptura again seems to implode on itself. If only that which is contained in Scripture can rightly bind the consciences of men, it seems as though you have to first improperly bind consciences in order to possess an established and organized canon with which you can then go out and properly bind consciences.
Next, is a brief offshoot of this dilemma and it concerns interpretation. Keith A. Mathison once expressed in an article in Modern Reformation a different concept stating that “All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture.” However, when I first read it, I obviously agreed, but as I pondered it more and more, I was rather surprised to hear that so confidently said by a Protestant. To this day, I catch myself wondering, “Did he realize what he was actually saying?” As far as I am concerned, this has devastating implications for Sola Scriptura. Firstly, there’s the simple title. If all appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture, then a doctrine that translates “Scripture Alone” somewhat looses its essential quality. Consider this argument:
All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture.
Interpretations are by definition external and separate from that which they interpret.
Sola Scriptura maintains that any claim external to Scripture itself is necessarily uninspired and therefore fallible.
Therefore, all appeals to Scripture are fallible.
This is no surprise; everyone obviously holds this to be true whether he believes in Sola Scriptura or not. But in the context of my other concerns, the lack of certainty seems to be stacking up. First, Sola Scriptura seems to fail to give us a certainty with regards to the very canon of Scripture. If we now are forced to assert the absolute fallibility of all interpretations of this fallible collection of what we are somehow assured to be infallible books, it seems as though we are rapidly descending into a hermeneutical cacophony in which every man believes what is right in his own eyes whether the “man” is a literal individual or figurative as a denomination comprised thereof. Coincidentally enough, that’s exactly what has appeared to have happened as I survey the impossibly complex landscape of contemporary Protestantism. It seems readily apparent that Luther’s hope that the supposedly “plain” words of Scripture would so obvious as for there to be little doubt of orthodoxy was mistaken.
All in all, I have increasingly come to view Sola Scriptura as one of the many man-made philosophical tenets that is too absolute to be practically tenable. It leaves many loose ends that have to be accounted for and the ways in which this accounting is gone about are unsatisfactory for me. It is perhaps the ultimate irony that to maintain a doctrine which states that only that which is contained in Scripture is infallibly inspired and authoritative requires a person to deny that we can definitely know with a certainty of infallibility what “Scripture” is in the first place.
I have removed the paragraph in which I offered up a half-baked, tentative theory I have of my alternative. If you recall the first paragraph, I have still not worked out thoroughly the belief that will replace Sola Scriptura. Too much attention was being directed towards concluding paragraph and I want my objections to be criticized if you all think they need to be.
by Caleb Roberts
http://genureflection.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/second-thoughts-on-sola-scriptura/#comment-146
Friday, November 12, 2010
Historic Papal Document on Scripture Released!
Today the Holy Father, whose papacy has focused much on the importance of Scripture, released a new Apostolic Exhortation on Scripture, Verbum Domini. You can read it here. An Apostolic Exhortation is considered "ordinary papal magisterium" though it is not quite as weighty as an "Encyclical Letter." The letter is a follow-up to the Synod on Scripture held in 2008.
Now we know why it has taken so long to come out--the PDF version is about 200 pages long! This is an extensive treatment!
For some perspective, the last major papal document on Scripture was Divino afflante Spiritu, which was released by Pius XII in 1943. Before that the two other major papal documents on Scripture were Leo XIII's landmark Providentissimus Deus (1893) and Benedict XV's, Spiritus Paraclitus(1920). All three of those documents were encyclicals. Again, today's new document is not.
So, today's document is an important milestone--it is the first major papal document on Scripture in 57 years! The last magisterial document which really dealt with Scripture in an extensive way was Dei Verbum (1965), which is one of the documents of the Second Vatican Council. So the last magisterial document treating Scripture extensively is 45 years old!
So today's document is historic! Keep your eyes glued to TheSacredPage.com. We'll have more on this soon!
Article by Michael Barber at Thesacredpage.com
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.pdf
Now we know why it has taken so long to come out--the PDF version is about 200 pages long! This is an extensive treatment!
For some perspective, the last major papal document on Scripture was Divino afflante Spiritu, which was released by Pius XII in 1943. Before that the two other major papal documents on Scripture were Leo XIII's landmark Providentissimus Deus (1893) and Benedict XV's, Spiritus Paraclitus(1920). All three of those documents were encyclicals. Again, today's new document is not.
So, today's document is an important milestone--it is the first major papal document on Scripture in 57 years! The last magisterial document which really dealt with Scripture in an extensive way was Dei Verbum (1965), which is one of the documents of the Second Vatican Council. So the last magisterial document treating Scripture extensively is 45 years old!
So today's document is historic! Keep your eyes glued to TheSacredPage.com. We'll have more on this soon!
Article by Michael Barber at Thesacredpage.com
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.pdf
Canterbury Tales by Taylor Marshall: Pius XII on the Missing Red Lamp of the Real Prese...
Canterbury Tales by Taylor Marshall: Pius XII on the Missing Red Lamp of the Real Prese...: "I don't know about you, but since I've become Catholic, I have been alarmed by the 'dislocation' of the Holy Eucharist within Catholic churc..."
Like a scene from a horror film": Shi'ites cut their heads for Ashura in Britain
"Like a scene from a horror film": Shi'ites cut their heads for Ashura in Britain
Posted by Robert on November 11, 2010 6:31 AM
[1]
If someone wants to cut his head and stalk down the street with the blood streaming down, that's his business, I suppose. It isn't illegal. But others are likewise free to find it unnerving, disgusting, and possibly a danger to the public health. And it is certainly a sign of an increased assertiveness on the part of Shi'ite Muslims in Britain, and a manifestation of a value system that differs radically from that held by most in the West. Islamization of Britain Update: "Muslims Cut Bodies for Faith," by David Jarvis and Shekhar Bhatia in the [2] Express, November 7 (thanks to all who sent this in):
ISLAMIC fanatics are mutilating themselves at a British mosque in a bloody ceremony carried out only yards from a busy high street.
Shia Muslims use a five-bladed chain called a Zanjeer to whip their own backs and make cuts in their foreheads with razor blades in homage to their faith.
Bare-chested men were left bleeding heavily during the ritual known as Matam - self-flagellation - which a witness described as being "like a scene from a horror film".
The Sunday Express found that up to 800 men performed the bloody ceremony in secret at the Imamia Mosque in Forest Gate, east London, last year.
The Matam takes place during the annual Shia Ashura ceremony and commemorates the death of Husayn, a grandson of the prophet Muhammad. It is practised largely in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and India as well as Yemen and Afghanistan but this is the first time it is known to have taken place in Britain.
Huge wooden screens were put up around the mosque to keep the event secret and prevent passers-by on busy Romford Road seeing the bloodletting.
The Sunday Express visited the mosque last week and learned that the ceremony took place last December and is due to be repeated next month. One man who witnessed the ceremony last year was so alarmed by what he saw he nearly passed out. He said: "There was blood everywhere. There were pools of blood on the ground and my clothes were splattered with blood. It was very scary.
"I was told it was part of a religious ceremony but the anti-western sentiment was clear. If the public had seen what was going on they would have reported it to the police. It was like a scene from a horror film."...
Scotland Yard said it was aware of the annual Ashura event at the mosque but had no knowledge of the bloodletting which it said it had no power to ban.
A spokesman said: "If it is on private property and no offence is being committed this is not a matter for the police. The Ashura is an annual community event which has taken place in Newham for many years."
Newham Council said it had no knowledge of the Matam taking place and the Ministry of Justice said self-flagellation was not an offence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from Jihad Watch: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/11/like-a-scene-from-a-horror-film-shiites-cut-their-heads-for-ashura-in-britain.html
Posted by Robert on November 11, 2010 6:31 AM
[1]
If someone wants to cut his head and stalk down the street with the blood streaming down, that's his business, I suppose. It isn't illegal. But others are likewise free to find it unnerving, disgusting, and possibly a danger to the public health. And it is certainly a sign of an increased assertiveness on the part of Shi'ite Muslims in Britain, and a manifestation of a value system that differs radically from that held by most in the West. Islamization of Britain Update: "Muslims Cut Bodies for Faith," by David Jarvis and Shekhar Bhatia in the [2] Express, November 7 (thanks to all who sent this in):
ISLAMIC fanatics are mutilating themselves at a British mosque in a bloody ceremony carried out only yards from a busy high street.
Shia Muslims use a five-bladed chain called a Zanjeer to whip their own backs and make cuts in their foreheads with razor blades in homage to their faith.
Bare-chested men were left bleeding heavily during the ritual known as Matam - self-flagellation - which a witness described as being "like a scene from a horror film".
The Sunday Express found that up to 800 men performed the bloody ceremony in secret at the Imamia Mosque in Forest Gate, east London, last year.
The Matam takes place during the annual Shia Ashura ceremony and commemorates the death of Husayn, a grandson of the prophet Muhammad. It is practised largely in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and India as well as Yemen and Afghanistan but this is the first time it is known to have taken place in Britain.
Huge wooden screens were put up around the mosque to keep the event secret and prevent passers-by on busy Romford Road seeing the bloodletting.
The Sunday Express visited the mosque last week and learned that the ceremony took place last December and is due to be repeated next month. One man who witnessed the ceremony last year was so alarmed by what he saw he nearly passed out. He said: "There was blood everywhere. There were pools of blood on the ground and my clothes were splattered with blood. It was very scary.
"I was told it was part of a religious ceremony but the anti-western sentiment was clear. If the public had seen what was going on they would have reported it to the police. It was like a scene from a horror film."...
Scotland Yard said it was aware of the annual Ashura event at the mosque but had no knowledge of the bloodletting which it said it had no power to ban.
A spokesman said: "If it is on private property and no offence is being committed this is not a matter for the police. The Ashura is an annual community event which has taken place in Newham for many years."
Newham Council said it had no knowledge of the Matam taking place and the Ministry of Justice said self-flagellation was not an offence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from Jihad Watch: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/11/like-a-scene-from-a-horror-film-shiites-cut-their-heads-for-ashura-in-britain.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)