"The Wading Pool" - Questions from the Newly ReformedForum where those new to the Reformed faith may ask questions on Reformed doctrine and practice. This is not a place to begin a thread to forward a theological position but is designed to answer questions of those who might be intimidated to start a thread in another forum. Any user may post a question but only elders and those with special permissions may respond.
Do you believe that the Church received teaching from the apostles as from God?
__________________
David
PCA
Richardson, Texas
Saving faith is an immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, resting upon Him alone, for justification, sanctification, and eternal life by virtue of God's grace.
--C.H. Spurgeon
Do you believe that the Church received teaching from the apostles as from God?
If I understand your question rightly then, yes they did.
1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.
"... Of such also, or of those who make a credible profession of being such, all those particular churches consist, which constitute our Lord's visible kingdom. ... Consequently, all the subjects of His government must have spiritual dispositions, , and yield spiritual obedience- obedience proceeding from an enlightened understanding, an awakened conscience, and a renewed heart."- Abraham Booth 1788
The Following User Says Thank You to rbcbob For This Useful Post:
Do you believe that the Church received teaching from the apostles as from God?
If I understand your question rightly then, yes they did.
1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.
.
That's the understanding I have of it as well. It appears that the apostles spoke from God.
2 Peter 1:16-21 ESV
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased, 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
While the prophets and apostles are foundation stones of the Church (Eph. 2:20), I think we should be careful not to equate them with Holy Scripture. Yes, they spoke from God as they were borne along by the Holy Spirit, but it is Scripture alone for which we reserve the term θεοπνεύστος (God-breathed, 2 Tim 3:16).
Such a distinction comes to light, for example, in Galatians 2:11 when Paul had to rebuke Peter to his face because he and Barnabas on that occasion were not being straightforward about the truth of the gospel (Gal 2:14). The Apostle Peter was not being borne along by the Holy Spirit on that occasion.
DTK
__________________ Sola Scriptura est norma normans non normata
D. T. King, pastor
Christ Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Elkton, Maryland Augustine (354-430): Therefore what He [i.e., Christ] has deigned to speak to us, we ought to believe that He meant us to understand. But if we do not understand He, being asked, gives understanding, who gave His Word unasked. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate XXII, Β§1.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to DTK For This Useful Post:
As noted by DTK, the Apostles did not breath out God's Word but were inspired or borne along by God's Word when they were recording the Scriptures.
I think we need to distinguish between the office and its authority and stating that everything a person said/wrote who occupied that office was God-breathed.
A simple way of thinking about it is that God performed the breathing out (theopneustos) while the authors were inspired (received the Word).
WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site. SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion
While the prophets and apostles are foundation stones of the Church (Eph. 2:20), I think we should be careful not to equate them with Holy Scripture. Yes, they spoke from God as they were borne along by the Holy Spirit, but it is Scripture alone for which we reserve the term θεοπνεύστος (God-breathed, 2 Tim 3:16).
Such a distinction comes to light, for example, in Galatians 2:11 when Paul had to rebuke Peter to his face because he and Barnabas on that occasion were not being straightforward about the truth of the gospel (Gal 2:14). The Apostle Peter was not being borne along by the Holy Spirit on that occasion.
DTK
First let me say I am not disagreeing with you but would like to clarify some points.
I am newly reformed. However, I am not new to Christianity. I was raised by my grandfather who was a Southern Baptist Pastor. Later in life after a struggle with agnosticism I came back into the faith through Roman Catholicism. I am where I am now (PCA) through scripture study. I read my bible daily and study theology often. So, I hope you don't think I'm speaking off the cuff when I say this, but it is my belief that the apostles verbally taught the Word of God to the Church. Their teachings and writings were received by the Church as true. Their writings were received as canonical and used in their absence to hear the word of God. I believe Sola Scriptura is only in effect in the absence of the Apostles. Since we are about 2000 years into their absence it is obvious that is all we have.
So, I agree with you for the most part. However, the dispute amoung apostles can only occur amoung apostles. A lay person had no authority to rebuke Peter because Peter is a direct apostle of Christ. Only Paul could do that. That argument does not destroy apostolic authority but highlights it as the apostles kept one another humble and in the truth.
The inspiration of the Apostlic teaching I believe is from the Holy Spirit and is a special prophetic word only given to the prophets and apostles of God.
2 Peter 1:19 ESV
19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,
1 John 4:6 ESV
6 We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
John 20:22 ESV
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
Paul stated in Galatians 1 that an Apostle was not above question:
I think, again, you seem to be putting forward the idea that Apostles were constantly borne about by the Holy Spirit and that everyting they said or wrote was God breathed. You are equating the Office of Apostle with constant inspiration. Once again, you're missing what Peter states that men spake God's word "as they are borne along" and not all the time simply because they were prophets and apostles.
As noted by DTK, the Apostles did not breath out God's Word but were inspired or borne along by God's Word when they were recording the Scriptures.
I think we need to distinguish between the office and its authority and stating that everything a person said/wrote who occupied that office was God-breathed.
A simple way of thinking about it is that God performed the breathing out (theopneustos) while the authors were inspired (received the Word).
I agree with you as well. However let me clarify a point from the perspective of the Church.
Me as a member of the church has no choice other than to receive the words of the apostles as true because they are God's apostles. So to me everything they taught me is true every writing they gave me (about God, let me specify ) is received by me as scripture and will be in my canon. I don't know any better.
We know that there were things they wrote that were not saved. I believe this is the election of God stepping in. He will preserve his scripture. However, that does not mean the Church didn't receive the now lost documents as scripture because of the authority of who wrote, delivered, dictated, commissioned, or blessed them as true teaching. However, we also know there are no apostolic writings in existance today that are not in the canon, so we do have technically everything we have that they wrote in our bible.
I am going to bow out from interacting with your response. It is clear to me that you are bringing certain presuppositions upon which your questions are based, and this medium (for better or worse) is difficult at times to maintain meaningful communication between participants.
As the text states above, you receive their Words as Scripture because the men were inspired of God and not simply because they were Apostles. Regarding authority, the Apostles had real authority but they did not need to be under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit every time they executed that authority.
One of the mistakes Rome makes, for instance, is the idea that authority requires infallibility. On a submission level, the Church had to submit to the Apostles even when they were not under direct inspiration due to the nature of their authority.
However, we also know there are no apostolic writings in existance today that are not in the canon, so we do have technically everything we have that they wrote in our bible.
Does that make sense?
At a grammatical level, the above statement is simply not true. What that means is simply that all which we still have in existence today which they wrote is in our Bible.
We have all their teachings, David, even though we don't have all the words which they taught. God's canon for the church is set and sure: it is not every word which Christ and his apostles spoke about the faith; rather, it is that which is contained in the Holy Scriptures. Did the apostles teach the same matter in different words at different times? Yes, but that's no matter to us. The canon is the Holy Scriptures, the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 of the New.
__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI
They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin
At a grammatical level, the above statement is simply not true. What that means is simply that all which we still have in existence today which they wrote is in our Bible.
We have all their teachings, David, even though we don't have all the words which they taught. God's canon for the church is set and sure: it is not every word which Christ and his apostles spoke about the faith; rather, it is that which is contained in the Holy Scriptures. Did the apostles teach the same matter in different words at different times? Yes, but that's no matter to us. Did they write anything else to any other churches? Maybe, maybe not. It simply does not matter, and speculation will be fruitless. The canon is the Holy Scriptures.
I don't see how that is untrue. I do not know of any extra-canonical apostolic writing that is considered legit by scholars that is not in our canon.
I also believe the canon is set and will always be set because there are no apostles left to add to it. Also if any of their writings were found it would be too late because we have no way to prove their worth. So I am not arguing for the open canon. I affirm it is closed with the death of the last apsotle.
The reason behind the need to discuss this issue is that the Roman Catholic apolosist who does not believe in sola scriptura, attacks it on a daily basis, and leads people into Roman Catholicism with his arguments will attack you because you do not have a table of contents in the scriptures that tells you what the canon is. This is how to "prove" to you that sola scriptura is unscriptural. I argue against them that we know what the canon is because the people of God received it from the prophets and apostles and I base it on Ephesians 2:20 which I believe clearly teaches that they are authoritative and I back that interpretation up by referencing the Matthew Henry commentary.
The argument of sola scriptura, inspiration, canon is always an argument against the authority of the RCC who claims the sole authority in matters of faith nad practice in this world for themselves.
-----Added 9/30/2009 at 12:30:59 EST-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis
Judas was also an Apostle.
As the text states above, you receive their Words as Scripture because the men were inspired of God and not simply because they were Apostles. Regarding authority, the Apostles had real authority but they did not need to be under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit every time they executed that authority.
One of the mistakes Rome makes, for instance, is the idea that authority requires infallibility. On a submission level, the Church had to submit to the Apostles even when they were not under direct inspiration due to the nature of their authority.
The mistake that Rome makes is believeing that those who are not apostles are apostles. Apostolic succession is a massive Roman error. They use it to attack the authority of the actual apostles that recorded their teachings for us in scripture. I believe the church is apostolic because their teachings are preserved in scripture for us, not because a Roman bishop is actually a succesor of an apostle.
-----Added 9/30/2009 at 12:31:35 EST-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTK
I am going to bow out from interacting with your response. It is clear to me that you are bringing certain presuppositions upon which your questions are based, and this medium (for better or worse) is difficult at times to maintain meaningful communication between participants.
You said, "Their writings were received as canonical and used in their absence to hear the word of God. I believe Sola Scriptura is only in effect in the absence of the Apostles." Are you saying that none of the NT was in existence in any form until the last of the Apostles died?
"Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas
No. PM is no better a medium than this one. I don't think I can be of assistance to you in this medium.
DTK
I'm sorry. I'm sure it's my fault. I'm not the best writer. I understand. Thank you though.
-----Added 9/30/2009 at 12:50:50 EST-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK
You said, "Their writings were received as canonical and used in their absence to hear the word of God. I believe Sola Scriptura is only in effect in the absence of the Apostles." Are you saying that none of the NT was in existence in any form until the last of the Apostles died?
Oh no. Not at all. I believe that many New testament writings were already being used and disagreed over while the apostles were alive.
2 Peter 3:15-16 ESV
15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
I agree with DMK that the canon was closed with the receipt of the last document. That is technically correct. When I say it was closed at the death of the last apostle I mean that the potential for furhter canonical writings was now utterly over, so the canon is closed for certain then. The Roman Catholic Chruch claims that there was no closed canon for about 400 years. I always argue against them by affirming that the canon was closed at the death of the last apostle.
Why? They claim that the canon was decided by a council of men. So they voted on works of people who wrote long after the apostles died.
They do not understand that canonical scripture is not possible without the apostles blessing or it isn't apostolic teaching.
Because for Romanists, apostolic authority has never died. It lives on in their alleged "vicar of Christ" who also continues to sit in the chair of the apostle Peter. It lives on in their "ecumenical" councils under their claim to apostolic succession. In short, for them, the apostles have not died, but live on in the continuing incarnation of Christ and His representatives in the church.
My friend, you are far from the first to deal with the claims of Romanists, and thus every time you deem it necessary to remind us that you've had the benefit of experience in dealing with these people, and that your dealings have qualified you in some special way, it might help you to consider that your experience is not unique.
DTK
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DTK For This Useful Post:
Because for Romanists, apostolic authority has never died. It lives on in their alleged "vicar of Christ" who also continues to sit in the chair of the apostle Peter. It lives on in their "ecumenical" councils under their claim to apostolic succession. In short, for them, the apostles have not died, but live on in the continuing incarnation of Christ and His representatives in the church.
My friend, you are far from the first to deal with the claims of Romanists, and thus every time you deem it necessary to remind us that you've had the benefit of experience in dealing with these people, and that your dealings have qualified you in some special way, it might help you to consider that your experience is not unique.
DTK
I never said my experience was unique. Nor did I ever make any attempt to undermine yours. The only irrefutible thing a person has is the witness of his own experience. I respect yours. You can make up your own mind in regards to mine.
Let me just plainly ask you the question that is at the root of the matter.
How do you scripturally provide the Romanist with the table of contents of scripture? Where does scripture teach it's extent? This is nowdays usually one of the first things they ask evangelical bible believers.
I point him toward Ephesians 2:20. That's all I have on that topic. We can't leave the Romanist with no answer or he would then be correct that sola scriptura isn't scriptural and then grossly undermine our credibility in our basis for separation from Rome on the apologetic front.
I never said my experience was unique. Nor did I ever make any attempt to undermine yours. The only irrefutible thing a person has is the witness of his own experience. I respect yours. You can make up your own mind in regards to mine.
You didn't have to say it; it is a an inference that can be logically drawn from your own words based upon your repeated expression that you are experienced in these matters, implying that the answers others were offering you here don't measure up to your own understanding of how to interact with Romanists.
Quote:
Let me just plainly ask you the question that is at the root of the matter.
How do you scripturally provide the Romanist with the table of contents of scripture? Where does scripture teach it's extent? This is nowdays usually one of the first things they ask evangelical bible believers.
I point him toward Ephesians 2:20. That's all I have on that topic. We can't leave the Romanist with no answer or he would then be correct that sola scriptura isn't scriptural and then grossly undermine our credibility in our basis for separation from Rome on the apologetic front.
I will gladly respond to this question. It’s not up to me, or any other human being, to provide the Romanists with a table of contents for Scripture. God has made himself sufficiently clear by His own sovereign power to make His revelation known for what it is. I answer in the same way that the Reformers have answered before. The question of the Romanist presupposes God’s need for a human agency to declare infallibly a list of canonical books. The Reformed have historically rejected that “canonical” crisis which Rome has attempted to create for very overt purposes, viz., to insist that only an “infallible” church can pronounce infallibly such a canonical list. This is a very self-serving apologetic; design a crisis with a “ready-made” solution, and then assert that Protestants have no answer for this dilemma. How convenient! And yet Protestants fall for the ploy on a regular basis.
We reject the dilemma out of hand. God has never been on the horns of such a dilemma to make himself known, nor are we going to assist the Romanist in playing such a “shell” game. We have more than Ephesians 2:20; we have a whole Bible that God has providentially preserved and authenticated as his own word.
Calvin addressed this matter in two ways, he spoke of 1) the objective authority intrinsic to Scripture itself, which is grounded in the reality of divine authorship, and 2) the means whereby believers themselves recognized the divine authority of Scripture, viz., the internal witness of the Holy Spirit (testimonium interim Spiritus Sancti). Concerning this work of the Spirit, Richard Muller reminds us that ‘[t]he Reformers and the Protestant scholastics were adamant in their belief both that the testimonium is necessary to the subjective receipt of the truth of Scripture, and that the testimonium only ratifies the truth of the text and adds no new information’ See Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), p. 297. To entertain this question by Romanists by trying to provide a canonical list is to declare implicitly that God is unable to make himself known sufficiently. Calvin himself stated…
Quote:
Since for unbelieving men religion seems to stand by opinion alone, they, in order not to believe anything foolishly or lightly, both wish and demand rational proof that Moses and the prophets spoke divinely. But I reply: the testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason. For as God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men’s hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The same Spirit, therefore, who has spoken through the mouths of the prophets must penetrate into our hearts to persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed what had been divinely commanded. Institutes, I.vii.4.
Calvin was merely echoing here the sentiments of Hilary of Poitiers (quote provided upon request), as well as other members of the ancient church. The Creator isn’t dependent on his creatures to identify infallibly his own authoritative word. The Apostle John wrote, “If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son” (1 Jn. 5:9). Needing no support, the witness of God stands by itself. God’s own testimony is decisive and inexpugnable. If Holy Scripture is in reality the God-breathed word, then it must be self-authenticating, and in need of no human sanction. It is nothing less than a compromise of the integrity of God’s own witness to presuppose Scripture to be anything other than the living oracles of the Creator and Redeemer of mankind. To hold in suspension, as it were, the question of God’s speaking in Scripture until some external, authoritative criterion outside of God himself is applied as the deliberative, decisive court of appeal is a de facto assault on the truth that “the witness of God is greater.”
Consider the ploy of the Romanist’ question regarding a list of contents for Scripture: When an allegedly ‘Christian’ apologist’s most effective tool finds its allegiance with what amounts to the essential equivalent of the tempter’s question “Has God indeed said?” (Gen. 3:1), it is reflective of a mindset willing to follow a pattern of argumentation owned by the enemy of the souls of men. It was none other than the method of the devil himself in an attempt to subvert the word of the true and living God, thus inciting other creatures to rebel against their Creator, by questioning the certainty of His explicit command. It is interesting that in commenting on the methodology of the serpent here, Augustine observed that…
Quote:
“In general, all heretics [like the serpent] deceive by the promise of knowledge and find fault with those whom they find believing in all simplicity.” See FC, Vol. 84, Saint Augustine on Genesis, Against the Manichees, Book 2, Chapter 25 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1991), p. 135.
You see, it manifests a willingness to submit the veracity of the Creator’s word to the mere fallibility of creature confidence, thus suspending the declaration of ultimate authority until acknowledged by human opinion. Surely, such methodology falls woefully short of the apostolic injunction of ‘bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.’ (2 Cor.10:5). But not only does this suspension of the truth of Scripture dishonor the explicit Christian methodology commanded by God in Holy Writ to think our thoughts after Christ (2 Cor. 10:5); it confronts us once again with this claim for the existence of a body of apostolic, unwritten, oral tradition which is simply presupposed without any demonstrative proof that can be traced back historically to our Lord or His apostles. This is called petitio principii (begging the question), which is to be sure a logical fallacy of presumption. It assumes in the premises of its argument the very conclusion of what one wants to prove. It is fallacious to compare Scripture with tradition in this respect because it is simply impossible to apply the same objective criteria to unwritten tradition that can be applied to the written text of Holy Scripture.
Appeal is frequently made by Roman Catholic Apologists to that oft-repeated testimony of Augustine, and allege from the following passage that he (Augustine) made the Church the grounds of authority and certainty for believing the Gospel. He writes and asks Manichaeus:
Quote:
But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. NPNF1: Vol. IV, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, Chapter 5. Latin text: Si ergo invenires aliquem, qui Evangelio nondum credit, quid faceres dicenti tibi, Non credo? Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas. Contra Epistolam Manichaei Quam vocant Fundamenti, Liber Unus, Caput V, PL 42:176.
When this was urged against the Reformers, Calvin set forth the context of Augustine’s statement and answers the argument in the following manner:
Quote:
Augustine is not, therefore, teaching that the faith of godly men is founded on the authority of the church; nor does he hold the view that the certainty of the gospel depends upon it. He is simply teaching that there would be no certainty of the gospel for unbelievers to win them to Christ if the consensus of the church did not impel them. And this he clearly confirms a little later, saying: “When I praise what I believe, and laugh at what you believe, how do you think we are to judge, or what are we to do? Should we not forsake those who invite us to a knowledge of things certain and then bid us believe things uncertain? Must we follow those who invite us first to believe what we are not yet strong enough to see, that, strengthened by this very faith, we may become worthy to comprehend what we believe [Colossians 1:4-11, 23] — with God himself, not men, now inwardly strengthening and illumining our mind?” Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, p. 76f. (I.vii.3). See also Turretin’s discussion of this passage from Augustine, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 1, p. 94f. (II.vi.26).
In this latter passage of Augustine quoted by Calvin, the words are rendered elsewhere as:
Quote:
You can find nothing better than to praise your own faith and ridicule mine. So, after having in my turn praised my belief and ridiculed yours, what result do you think we shall arrive at as regards our judgment and our conduct, but to part company with those who promise the knowledge of indubitable things, and then demand from us faith in doubtful things? while we shall follow those who invite us to begin with believing what we cannot yet fully perceive, that, strengthened by this very faith, we may come into a position to know what we believe by the inward illumination and confirmation of our minds, due no longer to men, but to God Himself. NPNF1: Vol. IV, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, Chapter 14. Latin text: Nihil aliud elegisti, nisi laudare quod credis, et irridere quod credo. Cum igitur etiam ego vicissim laudavero quod credo, et quod credis irrisero; quid putas nobis esse judicandum, quidve faciendum, nisi ut eos relinquamus, qui nos invitant certa cognoscere, et postea imperant ut incerta credamus; et eos sequamur, qui nos invitant prius credere, quod nondum valemus intueri, ut ipsa fide valentiores facti, quod credimus intelligere mereamur, non jam hominibus, sed ipso Deo intrinsecus mentem nostram illuminante atque firmante? Contra Epistolam Manichaei Quam vocant Fundamenti, Caput XIV, 42:183. Such was the response of William Whitaker concerning Augustine to the Roman apologist Stapleton. See his A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, p. 321.
We see, then, it is the Reformed position, rather than the Roman, that expresses the genuine Augustinian perspective. Elsewhere in his Confessions, Augustine described essentially the same effect of God’s Truth on him inwardly:
Quote:
Let me hear and understand how in the beginning Thou didst make the heaven and the earth. Moses wrote this; he wrote and departed, — passed hence from Thee to Thee. Nor now is he before me; for if he were I would hold him, and ask him, and would adjure him by Thee that he would open unto me these things, and I would lend the ears of my body to the sounds bursting forth from his mouth. And should he speak in the Hebrew tongue, in vain would it beat on my senses, nor would ought touch my mind; but if in Latin, I should know what he said. But whence should I know whether he said what was true? But if I knew this even, should I know it from him? Verily within me (Intus utique mihi), within in the chamber of my thought, Truth, neither Hebrew, nor Greek, nor Latin, nor barbarian, without the organs of voice and tongue, without the sound of syllables, would say, “He speaks the truth,” and I, forthwith assured of it, confidently (et ego statim certus confidenter) would say unto that man of Thine, “Thou speakest the truth.” As, then, I cannot inquire of him, I beseech Thee, — Thee, O Truth, full of whom he spake truth, — Thee, my God, I beseech, forgive my sins; and do Thou, who didst give to that Thy servant to speak these things, grant to me also to understand them. See NPNF1: Vol. IV, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, Chapter 14.
And again, in his work on The Merits and Forgiveness of Sins (written around the year 411 A.D.), Augustine expressed his mature thoughts in this manner:
Quote:
That statement, therefore, which occurs in the gospel, “That was the true Light, which lighteth every one that cometh into the world,” has this meaning, that no man is illuminated except with that Light of the truth, which is God; so that no person must think that he is enlightened by him whom he listens to as a learner, although that instructor happen to be — I will not say, any great man — but even an angel himself. For the word of truth is applied to man externally by the ministry of a bodily voice, but yet “neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.” Man indeed hears the speaker, be he man or angel, but in order that he may perceive and know that what is said is true, his mind is internally besprinkled with that light which remains for ever (sed ut sentiat et cognoscat verum esse quod dicitur, illo lumine intus mens ejus aspergitur, quod aeternum manet), and which shines even in darkness. But just as the sun is not seen by the blind, though they are clothed as it were with its rays, so is the light of truth not understood by the darkness of folly. NPNF1: Vol. V, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book I, Chapter 37. Latin text: Itaque illud quod in Evangelio positum est. Erat lumen verum, quod illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum, ideo dictum est, quia nullus hominum illuminatur nisi illo lumine veritatis, quod Deus est: ne quisquam putaret ab eo se illuminari, a quo audit ut discat, non dico, si quemquam magnum hominem, sed nec si angelum ei contingat habere doctorem. Adhibetur enim sermo veritatis extrinsecus vocis ministerio corporalis, verumtamen neque qui plantat est aliquid, neque qui rigat, sed qui incrementum dat Deus (I Cor. III, 7). Audit quippe homo dicentem vel hominem vel angelum; sed ut sentiat et cognoscat verum esse quod dicitur, illo lumine intus mens ejus aspergitur, quod aeternum manet, quod etiam in tenebris lucet. Sed sicut sol iste a caecis, quamvis eos suis radiis quodam modo vestiat, sic ab stultitiae tenebris non comprehenditur. De Peccatorium Meritis et Remissione, Liber Primus, Caput XXXVIII, PL 44:130.
Augustine could not have expressed himself clearer; his epistemology regarding spiritual truth is rooted in the immediate and eternal influence of the light that only God can give. Even Ambrose (339-397), in addressing the Arian heretics, scolds them saying, “Judge not, Arian, divine things by human, but believe the divine where thou findest not the human.” See NPNF2: Vol.: Volume X, Of the Christian Faith, Book I, Chapter 13, §79. Latin text: Noli, Ariane, ex nostris aestimare divina: sed divina crede, ubi humana non invenis. De Fide Ad Gratianum, Liber Primus, Caput XIII, §79, PL 16:547.
Hence, we as Protestants acknowledge with Augustine that the Church is most often the initial and outward means by which men are called to faith in Christ. As Heiko Oberman explained with respect to this passage from Augustine, Augustine never exalted the authority of the Church over the Scriptures. “While repeatedly asserting the primacy of Scripture, Augustine himself does not contrast this at all with the authority of the Catholic Church [as Roman apologists assert]: ‘. . . I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me.’ The Church has a practical priority; her authority as expressed in the direction-giving meaning of commovere, to move, is an instrumental authority, the door which leads to the fulness of the Word itself.” See Heiko Oberman, “Quo Vadis? Tradition from Irenaeus to Humani Generis” in the Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 16, 1963, pp. 234-235. Commenting on Augustine’s view, Louis Berkhof wrote: It is true that he also attached great value to the testimony of the Church as a motivum credibilitatis, but he did not regard this as the last and deepest ground of faith.” See Introduction to Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, reprinted 1979), p. 183.
Scripture itself furnishes us with a clear illustration of Augustine’s perspective in the fourth chapter of John’s gospel. After having dealings with Christ, the woman of Samaria returns to her city, and there bears witness to Christ. John 4:39-42:
39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, “He told me all that I ever did.”
40 So when the Samaritans had come to Him, they urged Him to stay with them; and He stayed there two days.
41 And many more believed because of His own word.
42 Then they said to the woman, “Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.”
We see, then, that though it was the woman’s witness which initially induced belief in Christ, nonetheless, the confirmation of their faith came to rest in the testimony of Christ’s own word. While the woman’s witness was true and sufficiently credible to move the inhabitants of the city, it does not follow that she became the infallible bulwark of their subsequent faith. They came to rest, not in her word, but Christ’s. Answering the same argument as proposed by the Roman apologist Stapleton, William Whitaker replied, saying, “The church does indeed deliver that rule [i.e. the Scriptures], not as its author, but as a witness, and an admonisher, and a minister.” (See his work, A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, p. 288).
Moreover, the divine origin of Holy Scripture is made evident by the effect it exerts upon the human heart. For everywhere the Gospel has been preached, men’s hearts have been conquered and subjugated to the commands of Scripture. The words of Holy Scripture have and continue to illuminate the souls of men, engendering internal and external changes, giving the people of God guidance and direction, joy and comfort in the completed redemption of Jesus Christ. Furthermore (as members of the ancient church testified, e.g. Justin Martyr), its divine origin is made evident by fulfilled prophecies, which were inscripturated thousands of years in advance, testifying to events which were subsequently realized in time and space history.
Yet, it is the practice of modern-day Roman apologists to ridicule the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in confirming the hearts of believers, or to pretend that it was a novel concept initiated by the Reformers. In short, the early church never gave any thought to the alleged “canonical” list dilemma that modern day Romanists have invented as an apologetic tool for luring unwary Protestants to Rome.
Last of all, the canon of Scripture is an artifact (a result) of revelation, not an object of revelation itself, as Rome contends.
Now all this was written very hurriedly, but this is how I respond to the blasphemous, alleged dilemma that Romanists propose. When it comes to the question of how we recognize scripture as scripture, they are as far from the testimony of the word of God itself, as well as the ancient church, as they can possibly be.
DTK
Last edited by DTK; 09-30-2009 at 07:58 PM.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to DTK For This Useful Post:
I will gladly respond to this question. It’s not up to me, or any other human being, to provide the Romanists with a table of contents for Scripture. God has made himself sufficiently clear by His own sovereign power to make His revelation known for what it is. I answer in the same way that the Reformers have answered before. The question of the Romanist presupposes God’s need for a human agency to declare infallibly a list of canonical books. The Reformed have historically rejected that “canonical” crisis which Rome has attempted to create for very overt purposes, viz., to insist that only an “infallible” church can pronounce infallibly such a canonical list. This is a very self-serving apologetic; design a crisis with a “ready-made” solution, and then assert that Protestants have no answer for this dilemma. How convenient! And yet Protestants fall for the ploy on a regular basis.
We reject the dilemma out of hand. God has never been on the horns of such a dilemma to make himself known, nor are we going to assist the Romanist in playing such a “shell” game. We have more than Ephesians 2:20; we have a whole Bible that God has providentially preserved and authenticated as his own word.
Calvin addressed this matter in two ways, he spoke of 1) the objective authority intrinsic to Scripture itself, which is grounded in the reality of divine authorship, and 2) the means whereby believers themselves recognized the divine authority of Scripture, viz., the internal witness of the Holy Spirit (testimonium interim Spiritus Sancti). Concerning this work of the Spirit, Richard Muller reminds us that ‘[t]he Reformers and the Protestant scholastics were adamant in their belief both that the testimonium is necessary to the subjective receipt of the truth of Scripture, and that the testimonium only ratifies the truth of the text and adds no new information’ See Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), p. 297. To entertain this question by Romanists by trying to provide a canonical list is to declare implicitly that God is unable to himself known sufficiently. Calvin himself stated…
Calvin was merely echoing here the sentiments of Hilary of Poitiers (quote provided upon request), as well as other members of the ancient church. The Creator isn’t dependent on his creatures to identify infallibly his own authoritative word. The Apostle John wrote, “If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son” (1 Jn. 5:9). Needing no support, the witness of God stands by itself. God’s own testimony is decisive and inexpugnable. If Holy Scripture is in reality the God-breathed word, then it must be self-authenticating, and in need of no human sanction. It is nothing less than a compromise of the integrity of God’s own witness to presuppose Scripture to be anything other than the living oracles of the Creator and Redeemer of mankind. To hold in suspension, as it were, the question of God’s speaking in Scripture until some external, authoritative criterion outside of God himself is applied as the deliberative, decisive court of appeal is a de facto assault on the truth that “the witness of God is greater.”
Consider the ploy of the Romanist’ question regarding a list of contents for Scripture: When an allegedly ‘Christian’ apologist’s most effective tool finds its allegiance with what amounts to the essential equivalent of the tempter’s question “Has God indeed said?” (Gen. 3:1), it is reflective of a mindset willing to follow a pattern of argumentation owned by the enemy of the souls of men. It was none other than the method of the devil himself in an attempt to subvert the word of the true and living God, thus inciting other creatures to rebel against their Creator, by questioning the certainty of His explicit command. It is interesting that in commenting on the methodology of the serpent here, Augustine observed that…
You see, it manifests a willingness to submit the veracity of the Creator’s word to the mere fallibility of creature confidence, thus suspending the declaration of ultimate authority until acknowledged by human opinion. Surely, such methodology falls woefully short of the apostolic injunction of ‘bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.’ (2 Cor.10:5). But not only does this suspension of the truth of Scripture dishonor the explicit Christian methodology commanded by God in Holy Writ to think our thoughts after Christ (2 Cor. 10:5); it confronts us once again with this claim for the existence of a body of apostolic, unwritten, oral tradition which is simply presupposed without any demonstrative proof that can be traced back historically to our Lord or His apostles. This is called petitio principii (begging the question), which is to be sure a logical fallacy of presumption. It assumes in the premises of its argument the very conclusion of what one wants to prove. It is fallacious to compare Scripture with tradition in this respect because it is simply impossible to apply the same objective criteria to unwritten tradition that can be applied to the written text of Holy Scripture.
Appeal is frequently made by Roman Catholic Apologists to that oft-repeated testimony of Augustine, and allege from the following passage that he (Augustine) made the Church the grounds of authority and certainty for believing the Gospel. He writes and asks Manichaeus:
When this was urged against the Reformers, Calvin set forth the context of Augustine’s statement and answers the argument in the following manner:
In this latter passage of Augustine quoted by Calvin, the words are rendered elsewhere as:
We see, then, it is the Reformed position, rather than the Roman, that expresses the genuine Augustinian perspective. Elsewhere in his Confessions, Augustine described essentially the same effect of God’s Truth on him inwardly:
Quote:
Let me hear and understand how in the beginning Thou didst make the heaven and the earth. Moses wrote this; he wrote and departed, — passed hence from Thee to Thee. Nor now is he before me; for if he were I would hold him, and ask him, and would adjure him by Thee that he would open unto me these things, and I would lend the ears of my body to the sounds bursting forth from his mouth. And should he speak in the Hebrew tongue, in vain would it beat on my senses, nor would ought touch my mind; but if in Latin, I should know what he said. But whence should I know whether he said what was true? But if I knew this even, should I know it from him? Verily within me (Intus utique mihi), within in the chamber of my thought, Truth, neither Hebrew, nor Greek, nor Latin, nor barbarian, without the organs of voice and tongue, without the sound of syllables, would say, “He speaks the truth,” and I, forthwith assured of it, confidently (et ego statim certus confidenter) would say unto that man of Thine, “Thou speakest the truth.” As, then, I cannot inquire of him, I beseech Thee, — Thee, O Truth, full of whom he spake truth, — Thee, my God, I beseech, forgive my sins; and do Thou, who didst give to that Thy servant to speak these things, grant to me also to understand them. See NPNF1: Vol. IV, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, Chapter 14.
And again, in his work on The Merits and Forgiveness of Sins (written around the year 411 A.D.), Augustine expressed his mature thoughts in this manner:
Quote:
That statement, therefore, which occurs in the gospel, “That was the true Light, which lighteth every one that cometh into the world,” has this meaning, that no man is illuminated except with that Light of the truth, which is God; so that no person must think that he is enlightened by him whom he listens to as a learner, although that instructor happen to be — I will not say, any great man — but even an angel himself. For the word of truth is applied to man externally by the ministry of a bodily voice, but yet “neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.” Man indeed hears the speaker, be he man or angel, but in order that he may perceive and know that what is said is true, his mind is internally besprinkled with that light which remains for ever (sed ut sentiat et cognoscat verum esse quod dicitur, illo lumine intus mens ejus aspergitur, quod aeternum manet), and which shines even in darkness. But just as the sun is not seen by the blind, though they are clothed as it were with its rays, so is the light of truth not understood by the darkness of folly. NPNF1: Vol. V, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book I, Chapter 37. Latin text: Itaque illud quod in Evangelio positum est. Erat lumen verum, quod illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum, ideo dictum est, quia nullus hominum illuminatur nisi illo lumine veritatis, quod Deus est: ne quisquam putaret ab eo se illuminari, a quo audit ut discat, non dico, si quemquam magnum hominem, sed nec si angelum ei contingat habere doctorem. Adhibetur enim sermo veritatis extrinsecus vocis ministerio corporalis, verumtamen neque qui plantat est aliquid, neque qui rigat, sed qui incrementum dat Deus (I Cor. III, 7). Audit quippe homo dicentem vel hominem vel angelum; sed ut sentiat et cognoscat verum esse quod dicitur, illo lumine intus mens ejus aspergitur, quod aeternum manet, quod etiam in tenebris lucet. Sed sicut sol iste a caecis, quamvis eos suis radiis quodam modo vestiat, sic ab stultitiae tenebris non comprehenditur. De Peccatorium Meritis et Remissione, Liber Primus, Caput XXXVIII, PL 44:130.
Augustine could not have expressed himself clearer; his epistemology regarding spiritual truth is rooted in the immediate and eternal influence of the light that only God can give. Even Ambrose (339-397), in addressing the Arian heretics, scolds them saying, “Judge not, Arian, divine things by human, but believe the divine where thou findest not the human.” See NPNF2: Vol.: Volume X, Of the Christian Faith, Book I, Chapter 13, §79. Latin text: Noli, Ariane, ex nostris aestimare divina: sed divina crede, ubi humana non invenis. De Fide Ad Gratianum, Liber Primus, Caput XIII, §79, PL 16:547.
Hence, we as Protestants acknowledge with Augustine that the Church is most often the initial and outward means by which men are called to faith in Christ. As Heiko Oberman explained with respect to this passage from Augustine, Augustine never exalted the authority of the Church over the Scriptures. “While repeatedly asserting the primacy of Scripture, Augustine himself does not contrast this at all with the authority of the Catholic Church [as Roman apologists assert]: ‘. . . I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me.’ The Church has a practical priority; her authority as expressed in the direction-giving meaning of commovere, to move, is an instrumental authority, the door which leads to the fulness of the Word itself.” See Heiko Oberman, “Quo Vadis? Tradition from Irenaeus to Humani Generis” in the Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 16, 1963, pp. 234-235. Commenting on Augustine’s view, Louis Berkhof wrote: It is true that he also attached great value to the testimony of the Church as a motivum credibilitatis, but he did not regard this as the last and deepest ground of faith.” See Introduction to Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, reprinted 1979), p. 183.
Scripture itself furnishes us with clear illustration of Augustine’s perspective in the fourth chapter of John’s gospel. After having dealings with Christ, the woman of Samaria returns to her city, and there bears witness to Christ. John 4:39-42:
39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, “He told me all that I ever did.”
40 So when the Samaritans had come to Him, they urged Him to stay with them; and He stayed there two days.
41 And many more believed because of His own word.
42 Then they said to the woman, “Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.”
We see, then, that though it was the woman’s witness which initially induced belief in Christ, nonetheless, the confirmation of their faith came to rest in the testimony of Christ’s own word. While the woman’s witness was true and sufficiently credible to move the inhabitants of the city, it does not follow that she became the infallible bulwark of their subsequent faith. They came to rest, not in her word, but Christ’s. Answering the same argument as proposed by the Roman apologist Stapleton, William Whitaker replied, saying, “The church does indeed deliver that rule [i.e. the Scriptures], not as its author, but as a witness, and an admonisher, and a minister.” (See his work, A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, p. 288).
Moreover, the divine origin of Holy Scripture is made evident by the effect it exerts upon the human heart. For everywhere the Gospel has been preached, men’s hearts have been conquered and subjugated to the commands of Scripture. The words of Holy Scripture have and continue to illuminate the souls of men, engendering internal and external changes, giving the people of God guidance and direction, joy and comfort in the completed redemption of Jesus Christ. Furthermore (as members of the ancient church testified, e.g. Justin Martyr), its divine origin is made evident by fulfilled prophecies, which were inscripturated thousands of years in advance, testifying to events which were subsequently realized in time and space history.
Yet, it is the practice of modern-day Roman apologists to ridicule the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in confirming the hearts of believers, or to pretend that it was a novel concept initiated by the Reformers. In short, the early church never gave any thought to the alleged “canonical” list dilemma that modern day Romanists have invented as an apologetic tool for luring unwary Protestants to Rome.
Last of all, the canon of Scripture is an artifact (a result) of revelation, not an object of revelation itself, as Rome contends.
Now all this was written very hurriedly, but this is how I respond to the blasphemous, alleged dilemma that Romanists propose. When it comes to the question of how we recognize scripture as scripture, they are as far from the testimony of the word of God itself, as well as the ancient church, as they can possibly be.
DTK
That was outstanding. Thank you sir. You put a lot of work into that. I really appreciate it.
That is the first post from any forum I have ever printed out so I can study it later in detail with a highlighter.
You are indeed most welcome, but I am simply standing on the shoulders of men much wiser, and with much more understanding and insight than myself, who in my formative years as a Christian took the time repeatedly to point me back again and again to Holy Scripture.
DTK
The Following User Says Thank You to DTK For This Useful Post:
) is received by me as scripture and will be in my canon. I don't know any better.
Linear Mode
