Saturday, April 21, 2012

Benedict XVI and the Word of God

On April 20, 2012, Vatican Information Services reported a message from Benedict XVI to Cardinal Levada (the head of the CDF). Among the points found in the message were the following (as reported by VIS):
"Thanks to the charisma of inspiration", the Benedict XVI goes on, "the books of Sacred Scripture have a direct and tangible appeal. Yet the Word of God is not confined to writing, for although the Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, the revealed Word has continued to be announced and interpreted by the living Tradition of the Church. Thus the Word of God, fixed in the holy texts, is not an inert matter at the heart of the Church but the supreme rule of her faith and her life force. The Tradition she draws from the Apostles advances with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and grows through reflection and study on the part of believers, through the individual experience of spiritual life and the preaching of bishops".

Hence the need for deeper study on the theme of inspiration and truth in the Bible, because it is "fundamental for the life and mission of the Church that Sacred Scripture be interpreted according to its nature; and inspiration and truth are constituent characteristics of that nature".
First, note the denial that the Word of God has been confined to writing while acknowledging that Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Hopefully you've seen this Roman claim elsewhere. But where else is the Word of God to be found?

Benedict XVI refers to the "Tradition she draws from the Apostles," but the only tradition that is traceable to the apostles is Scripture. There is not a body of extra-scriptural tradition that can be reliably alleged to be apostolic. I do not mean to suggest that only us Christians lack that tradition. Even within the Vatican there is no access to earlier tradition. The Vatican Secret Archives don't contain notes from the Apostle Paul that are not in Scripture. The cardinals don't get together every year and hand on oral tradition from mouth to ear to the next generation of cardinals. In general, they have what we have.

Benedict XVI went on to claim that the apostolic tradition, "advances with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and grows through reflection and study on the part of believers, through the individual experience of spiritual life and the preaching of bishops." This is clearly wrong. What the Holy Spirit does is to preserve Revelation and to open the eyes of men to it. The Revelation is itself a fixed quantum. It does not grow, even if believers' understanding of it grows. The Holy Spirit has given believers great understanding over the ages, but that understanding is not itself Revelation, or a growth or advancement of the Revelation.

It is interesting to see Benedict XVI claim that "the Word of God, fixed in the holy texts, is not an inert matter at the heart of the Church but the supreme rule of her faith and her life force." That is true of Christians, where "the Word of God" refers to the Scriptures. It's not really true that the Word of God is the supreme rule of faith for those in the Roman communion, however.

For those in the Roman communion, the magisterium's dogmatic proclamations are the supreme rule of faith. If one finds any discrepancy between the dogmatic proclamations of Rome and the Scriptures, one is to simply accept what Rome has dogmatically proclaimed. But Rome's dogmatic proclamations are not the Word of God. Therefore, it follows that Rome's supreme rule of faith is not the Word of God, but the word of the magisterium.

Benedict XVI goes on to say that it is "fundamental for the life and mission of the Church that Sacred Scripture be interpreted according to its nature ... ." But isn't it remarkable that Rome has found so few occasions for exercising its alleged gift of infallible interpretation of Scripture. How many verses have been infallibly interpreted? People have attempted to make lists, but the lists all tend to show the same result: not many. No whole chapters, and obviously no whole books.

Moreover, the few verses that have been interpreted in connection with allegedly infallible papal decrees have been wrongly interpreted (Genesis 3:15 is the most obvious example), so that defenders of papal infallibility have been forced to qualify the alleged gift to simply limit it to the definition of dogma itself, without regard to the interpretation on which it was actually founded.

-TurretinFan

83 comments:

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Is the RCC Canon closed?

2nd Q: His statement sounds a lot like what Pentecostals and othe Charismatics say and think, isn't it?

turretinfan said...

1) Trent appears to do that.
2) Can't say.

Nick said...

TF said: "note the denial that the Word of God has been confined to writing"

On what authority do you say the Word of God has been "confined to writing"?
If your answer is simply "where else is the Word of God to be found?," this entails your *opinion* is stating the WoG was confined to writing.

Logically speaking, the unwritten WoG could be passed down through some unknown lineage of cave dwellers. This means that just because *you* don't know where else it is to be found, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

turretinfan said...

a) How does a question entail my opinion?
b) Who cares if something is logically possible, if it is not true?

Pete Holter said...

“Thus the Word of God, fixed in the holy texts, is … the supreme rule of her faith and her life force.”

Amen! This is a keeper. :)

“The Tradition she draws from the Apostles advances with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and grows through reflection and study on the part of believers, through the individual experience of spiritual life and the preaching of bishops.”

This reminds me of something John Paul II wrote:

“Theology’s source and starting-point must always be the word of God revealed in history, while its final goal will be an understanding of that word which increases with each passing generation. Yet, since God’s word is Truth (cf. Jn 17:17), the human search for truth—philosophy, pursued in keeping with its own rules—can only help to understand God’s word better. It is not just a question of theological discourse using this or that concept or element of a philosophical construct; what matters most is that the believer’s reason use its powers of reflection in the search for truth which moves from the word of God towards a better understanding of it” (Fides et Ratio).

I love that! It also reminds me of this from the International Theological Commission:

“The Scriptures are ‘inspired by God and committed to writing once and for all time’; hence, ‘they present God’s own Word in an unalterable form, and they make the voice of the Holy Spirit sound again and again in the words of the prophets and apostles’ (Dei Verbum, 21). Tradition is the faithful transmission of the Word of God, witnessed in the canon of Scripture by the prophets and the apostles and in the leiturgia (liturgy), martyria (testimony) and diakonia (service) of the Church…

“The Holy Spirit not only inspired the biblical authors to find the right words of witness but also assists the readers of the Bible in every age to understand the Word of God in the human words of the holy Scriptures. The relationship between Scripture and Tradition is rooted in the truth which God reveals in his Word for our salvation: ‘the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures’ (Dei Verbum, 11), and through the ages the Holy Spirit ‘leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness (cf. Col 3:16)’ (Dei Verbum, 8). ‘[T]he word of God is given to us in sacred Scripture as an inspired testimony to revelation; together with the Church’s living Tradition, it constitutes the supreme rule of faith’ (Verbum Domini, 18).

“… the Word of God for all time can be proclaimed authentically only on the foundation of the apostles (cf. Eph 2:20-22) and in apostolic succession (cf. 1Tim 4:6)” (Theology Today, 7, 8, 10).

I pray that the document from the Pontifical Biblical Commission will be a powerful witness to our faith in the divine inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures!

With love in Christ,
Pete

Craig Ostrowski said...

TF,
Nick pointed out that you said, "note the denial that the Word of God has been confined to writing". He then asked, "On what authority do you say the Word of God has been "confined to writing"?

Could you please respond to that question?

Dozie said...

The worst thing about dealing with Protestants, especially of the TF stripe, is coming to the frustrating recognition that they are mostly shabby thinkers. This group of Protestants often do not know how much they do not know and therefore treat everyone as being on the same level as they are. Where I come from, it is said that it is only a child who can't tell who can really beat him up. In the family, this child will hit father, mother, and older sibling and may not know why he or she is left alone - he is a child. When TF takes on the pope, he demonstrates how childish he really is.

Hebrew Student said...

I think the whole question of whether the whole word of God can be found in scripture goes back to the question of Sola Scriptura. Unless we are going to argue that God says superfluous and unnecessary things to his people, if the scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide for the church, then, obviously, they alone contain the word of God.

Hence, the Protestant position on the word of God goes back to Sola Scriptura, and the authority for that goes back to God himself as, not only is it taught in scripture, but a denial of Sola Scriptura leads directly to a postmodern view of meaning in language, as I have pointed out many times on here.

Also, Dozie, please cut out the ad hominem. "Mostly shabby thinkers?" "Do not know how much they do not know?" "Childish?" A demonstration of these things in argument is far more powerful then your pontification that this is the case. When you pontificate, you make it look like you are loosing the debate, and all you can do is take it out on the other side with insults. Insults are helpful in convincing yourself and your fans, but they are utterly unhelpful in convincing those who disagree.

ChaferDTS said...

"On what authority do you say the Word of God has been "confined to writing"?"

On the authority of 2 Tim 3:16-17 as nothing but Scripture is stated to be given by inspiration of God. Scripture alone is stated to be given by inspiration of God. This is what makes Scripture special.

"If your answer is simply "where else is the Word of God to be found?," this entails your *opinion* is stating the WoG was confined to writing. "

The foundation of the Christian faith is already setted forth. Did you miss Eph. 2:20 in your Bible ? Since we presently have no present day apostles or prophets we wont find the " word of God " outside of Scripture. The " oral word of God " was speaken by the prophets and the apostles while Scripture was being written. These conditions no longer exist. Since Scripture is completed we have no need for the function of prophets or apostles. You are no better than Mormons , Pentecostals & Charismatics and any group that wants to claim some sort of new divine revelation as being given today by God outside of Scri[ture. Do you wish to contend that when the Pope speaks from the claimed chair of Peter that what he is saying is " given by inspiration of God " just like Scripture is ?

Dozie said...

"Hence, the Protestant position on the word of God goes back to Sola Scriptura, and the authority for that goes back to God himself as, not only is it taught in scripture, but a denial of Sola Scriptura leads directly to a postmodern view of meaning in language, as I have pointed out many times on here."
Going back to the scandal of Evangelical mind, it has been my experience during over a decade of following Protestant argumentations on the internet, whenever theology goes beyond the simplistic assertions of the five solas, more often than not, the protestant will get lost in the discussion. They don’t seem to have the language or vocabulary for doing theology in the first instance. Sadly, the Protestant mind has not developed beyond kindergarten and I am not sure what to attribute this to. It is even more sad that the Protestant does not know he is ill equipped. There is an on-going discussion at Greenbaggins now, for example, in which TF is having a very difficult time following the arguments and the distinctions being made by the Catholic. If a Christian principle is not listed in Scripture in ABC format for the Protestant, he or she will have a trauma of a time making sense of it.
It is therefore unfruitful for a Catholic to engage a Protestant in theological discussion/debate unless there is a prior expression of the standard of grammar to be used. It is even more absurd for a 5th grader to stand up and presume to critique the pope.

Hebrew Student said...

Dozie,

Something tells me that you need to shrink your head back to its normal size. "Simplistic assertions of the five solas." Proof please! "Don't seem to have the language or vocabulary for doing theology in the first place." Ya, I guess folks like B.B. Warfield and Jonathan Edwards didn't have the language or vocabulary for doing theology, even though they are considered to be two of the greatest theologians to ever live, and Edwards is considered to be the greatest thinker America has ever produced. However, they "don't have the language or vocabulary for doing theology." Could it be your prejudice [and, could I say, downright bigotry] that is making you say these things?

Worse than that, I went over and read the discussion at Greenbaggins. It is amazing how the Catholic there is avoiding an exegesis of Isaiah 53. There is not a commentator on God's blue earth who would argue that God is not the one who is bruising and punishing the suffering servant for the sake of our transgressions. Yet, if you believe the suffering servant is the Son [as all Christians do], the whole thing comes apart. The problem is the difference between a philosophy that begins with scripture, and seeks to understand all things from the lens of scripture, and a philosophy that seeks to begin with the autonomy of the human mind, as if the human mind were not affected by the fall, ala Aquinas. "How can the Father punish the Son for the sins of his people without destroying the relationship?" The very question itself shows the problem, because there is no contradiction in the statement itself. You can't get A and ~A out of that question. Yet, because this Catholic cannot understand how this could be the case, it must not be the case. There are many things, about the Triune nature of God and the union and relationships of the persons of the Godhead which we do not know, and never could know because we are not God. However, they are not contradictory; they do not reduce to A and ~A. The fact that he begins with his own finite reasoning, and blatantly contradicts Isaiah in so doing to me shows that, in reality, Roman Catholicism still has not come to grips with the seriousness of sin, and the depth to which sin has affected their reasoning in the fall.

Nick said...

1) The question is phrased to suggest the WoG cannot be found anywhere else and thus the case is closed.

2) I agree if something is not true then we shouldn't care, the point though is that there is no argument/proof that the cave example is false.

Pete Holter said...

Greetings in Christ, Dozie!

My brother, may you increase in the grace and love of God. Our pope would be appalled by your comments here. Repent, and believe the good news! :)

“Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person” (Colossians 4:6).

“…in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15).

“speaking the truth in love… Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear” (Ephesians 4:15, 29).

With love in Christ,
Pete

Pete Holter said...

Hey TurretinFan,

You indicated to Jeff that you “like this piece you provided from Augustine Against Faustus…” have you read this book from Augustine, i.e., Book 14? It’s Augustine’s fullest treatment on the atonement that I’ve seen.

In this book he writes that “A man may deny that Christ was cursed who denies that He died,” which is to say: “ ‘He died,’ and ‘He was cursed,’ are the same” (Against Faustus, Bk. 14, 4).

Here are some additional thoughts from this book:

“Confess that He died, and you may also confess that He, without taking our sin, took its punishment” (7).

“…when Moses said, ‘Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,’ he said in fact, ‘To hang on a tree is to be mortal, or actually to die’ ” (7).

“Be assured, ‘Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree’ is no old wife’s railing, but a prophetical utterance. Christ, by the curse, takes the curse away, as He takes away death by death, and sin by sin. In the words, ‘Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,’ there is no more blasphemy than in the words of the apostle, ‘He died,’ or, ‘Our old man was crucified along with Him,’ or, ‘By sin He condemned sin,’ or, ‘He made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin,’ and in many similar passages. Confess, then, that when you exclaim against the curse of Christ, you exclaim against His death” (12).

With love in Christ,
Pete

“ ‘He died,’ and ‘He was cursed,’ are the same” (Against Faustus, Bk. 14, 4).

Pete Holter said...

Hey, TurretinFan!

Zenit has put out a translation of the full text:

To the Venerable Brother
Cardinal William Levada
President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission

I am pleased to send you, Venerable Brother, to Cardinal Prosper Grech. O.S.A., to the Secretary and to all the Members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission my cordial greeting on the occasion of the annual Plenary Assembly which is being held to address the important topic “Inspiration and Truth of the Bible.”

As we know, such a topic is essential for a correct hermeneutic of the biblical message. Precisely inspiration, as action of God, makes it possible to express the Word of God in human words. Consequently, the topic of inspiration is decisive for the appropriate approach to the Sacred Scriptures. In fact, an interpretation of the sacred texts that neglects or forgets their inspiration does not take into account their most important and precious characteristic, that is, their provenance from God. Moreover, in my Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini, I recalled that “The Synod Fathers also stressed the link between the theme of inspiration and that of the truth of the Scriptures. A deeper study of the process of inspiration will doubtless lead to a greater understanding of the truth contained in the sacred books.” (n. 19).

Because of the charism of inspiration, the books of Sacred Scripture have a direct and concrete force of appeal. However, the Word of God is not confined to what is written. If, in fact, the act of Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, the revealed Word has continued to be proclaimed and interpreted by the living Tradition of the Church. For this reason the Word of God fixed in the sacred texts is not an inert deposit inside the Church but becomes the supreme rule of her faith and power of life. The Tradition that draws its origin from the Apostles progresses with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and grows with the reflection and study of believers, with personal experience of the spiritual life and the preaching of Bishops (cf. Dei Verbum, 8, 21).

In studying the topic “Inspiration and Truth of the Bible,” the Pontifical Biblical Commission is called to offer its specific and qualified contribution to this necessary further reflection. In fact, it is essential and fundamental for the life and mission of the Church that the sacred texts are interpreted in keeping with their nature: Inspiration and Truth are constitutive characteristics of this nature. That is why your endeavor will be of real usefulness for the life and mission of the Church.

With good wishes to each one of you for the fruitful development of your works, I would like, finally, to express my heartfelt appreciation for the activity carried out by the Biblical Commission, committed to promoting knowledge, study and reception of the Word of God in the world. With such sentiments I entrust each one of you to the maternal protection of the Virgin Mary, who with the whole Church we invoke as Sedes Sapientiae, and I impart from my heart to you, Venerable Brother, and to all the members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission a special Apostolic Blessing.

From the Vatican, April 18, 2012

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI
[Translation by ZENIT]

Anon said...

The catholic apologetics that are "bible-based" are fairly new, probably from the mid 19th or early 20th century (though most catholic apologists will try to deny this, of course). I think we all understand why. & they're mostly based on de-contextualized & misinterpreted verses, never whole chapters or books. If you go back to the times of Luther and the reformers, for example, there were no catholic apologetics. At least not "bible-based" apologetics.

Natamllc said...

Mar 4:18 And others are the ones sown among thorns. They are those who hear the word,
Mar 4:19 but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.


Nick, Peter, Dozie and any others who will live contrary to the Word of God following the RCC religious order.

Reading the full text Peter provided of Benedict XVI convinces me even more of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit I received this morning while pondering this particular thread and the question about the sole and prominent place the Word of God is to have in the heart of the True Disciple of Christ as a human being while going on their own journey through this life, this life Jesus was born into as well and lived as the Son of Man.

I would point you to one portion of the verses of Mark 4 cited above.

:19 ..."and the desires for other things"...

It is clear that the Roman Catholic Church is a religious organization centered around "the desire for other things", both human things and angelic things.

Notice this of this from the Vatican, April 18, 2012 BENEDICTUS PP. XVI :::>

"...As we know, such a topic is essential for a correct hermeneutic of the biblical message. Precisely inspiration, as action of God, makes it possible to express the Word of God in human words. ...".

That is it, there! Your religious orders are always in human words and those words may have come from some inspiration of Divine Words, to be sure. But when, as I have witness in the other comments in here, already, if when reading God's Word under the leading and anointing of the Holy Spirit, you are not being transformed and conformed into the very image and likeness of Christ becoming His Holy Dwelling Place, His Body, His Church, you most likely are not being anointed by the Holy Spirit or (Christ's) by His Spirit but by some other spirit, whether human or otherwise and in fact the Words of God by the Apostle Paul is apropos in this case:

Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Dozie said...

"If you go back to the times of Luther and the reformers, for example, there were no catholic apologetics. At least not "bible-based" apologetics".

Could we then say: If you go back to the times of Luther and the reformers, for example, there were Protestant apologetics. At least "bible-based" apologetics. So continues the scandal of the evangelical mind.

αγριόχοιρος said...

"Could we then say: If you go back to the times of Luther and the reformers, for example, there were Protestant apologetics. At least "bible-based" apologetics. So continues the scandal of the evangelical mind."

Dozie a return to "Bible based apologetics" was the very battle cry of the Reformers. I suggest you invest your time reading a good church history book instead of posting angry comments in responding to subjects you know nothing about.

Anon said...

thanks for spending that much time & energy writing so many paragraphs without saying anything or answering properly to my argument. & thanks for using the old, lame & pathetic tactic of many catholics of "throwing the ball" against the opposite side without being able to refute the argumentation :)
With love in Christ
Anon

Anon said...

lol, what scandal??? if there were reformed apologetics & they were, of course, bible based, what's the scandal?? rofl

turretinfan said...

Craig:

He already provided a perfectly adequate response, namely: show me where else it is.

Craig Ostrowski said...

TF,
I don't think that was an adequate response at all. For example, even if we either don't know where to find the Word of God, or dispute what it is, that in no way logically entails that it is confined to writing. But that is what you need in order to sustain your position.

turretinfan said...

Pete Holter: Not sure why you mentioned those items about Against Faustus here, but yes - I saw them. It is interesting how Augustine has no problem saying that Christ took the punishment for our sin, while Bryan Cross seems to get ulcers from the idea.
-TurretinFan

Dozie said...

"Dozie a return to "Bible based apologetics" was the very battle cry of the Reformers".

Just because you tell a lie for too long does not in any way turn the lie into truth. Not only did the reformers not do bible based apologetics; they were incapable of doing so. They were capable however of distorting the truth about God and his Church (Luther's mutilation of the bible, for example). It may help you to know that whatever Luther and his cohorts knew about the bible or even what the bible was, they did so solely because of the Catholic Church. In the end,what was Luther but a wasted resource of the Catholic Church (educated most likely for free as is the custom of the Church to educate priests at no cost to them).

turretinfan said...

Dozie:

The only good thing about your comment is that the time spent reading it is little. You speak falsely about history. What shall we infer from that? Are you simply ignorant of history, having been misled by the evil institution to which you give allegiance, or are you aware of the facts of history and yet promote falsehoods such as "Not only did the reformers not do bible based apologetics; they were incapable of doing so. "

-TurretinFan

turretinfan said...

"There is an on-going discussion at Greenbaggins now, for example, in which TF is having a very difficult time following the arguments and the distinctions being made by the Catholic. " << ROFL

EBW said...

And what do they do when their decrees are wrongly interpreted ? Renew it !

Now since the decree on the interpretation of holy scripture, profitably made by the council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning... Vatican I

And what do they do when the Bible is wrongly interpreted ? Decree !

Behold the word of god from the pope-god.

Eric

Pete Holter said...

Hi TurretinFan!

I mentioned them here because Dozie and Hebrew Student mentioned the thread so I took a look. If you decide to delete this comment or ask me not to post on this here, I won’t pursue it.

Augustine holds that physical death is the punishment for sin and that Jesus died a physical death on our behalf. Therefore, Jesus received our punishment for sin. I don’t think Bryan Cross is disturbed by this. He is disturbed by the suggestion that Jesus received the wrath of God against sin.

You make a good point in that exchange:

“Where in any of her authoritative documents does Rome deny:

“1) That the wrath of God was poured out upon the person of Jesus Christ

“…you haven’t actually shown that your own church dogmatically rejects the idea that God’s wrath was poured out on Christ on the cross.”

Is it true then that you are not offended by what the Church teaches about the atonement and that this is not an impediment for you becoming Catholic?

In Christ,
Pete

Craig Ostrowski said...

TF,
Since your implicit claim is that the word of God is confined ONLY to scripture it is indeed your burden to prove that is it is not. So just asking where else can the word of God be found as if that somehow amounts to proof of your position is not unlike me searching for my keys, not finding them, and then concluding that they don't exist. That's simply absurd. Therefore at the very least you are forced to admit your "defense" of your position is wholely inadequate and that theoretically the word of God can indeed exist outside of scripture. Once you do that then the following statement of yours becomes an evasively worded meaningless hit piece.

"First, note the denial that the Word of God has been confined to writing while acknowledging that Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Hopefully you've seen this Roman claim elsewhere. But where else is the Word of God to be found?"


So, let me ask you if you believe that the word of God has been completely, wholely, and totally confined to writing such that it doesn't exist outside of writing?

Pete Holter said...

Hey TurretinFan!

I think that Augustine’s explanation of what Christ suffered on the Cross seems to be a “weaker” view of the atonement than some of what Pope Benedict has written on it. Here are a couple of paragraphs from his more recent Jesus of Nazareth book (pp. 231-232) that I thought you might like to see:

“We have spoken a number of times already of the fundamental text in Romans 3:25, where Paul, evidently drawing upon a tradition of the earliest Jewish Christian community in Jerusalem, refers to the crucified Jesus as ‘hilastērion’. This, as we have seen, was the name given to the covering of the Ark of the Covenant, on which the expiatory blood was sprinkled on the great Day of Atonement during the expiatory sacrifice. Let us explain straightaway how the Christians now interpreted this archaic ritual: it is not through the blood of animals touching a holy object that God and man are reconciled. In Jesus’ Passion, all the filth of the world touches the infinitely pure one, the soul of Jesus Christ and, hence, the Son of God himself. While it is usually the case that anything unclean touching something clean renders it unclean, here it is the other way around: when the world, with all the injustice and cruelty that make it unclean, comes into contact with the infinitely pure one—then he, the pure one, is the stronger. Through this contact, the filth of the world is truly absorbed, wiped out, and transformed in the pain of infinite love. Because infinite good is now at hand in the man Jesus, the counterweight to all wickedness is present and active within world history, and the good is always infinitely greater than the vast mass of evil, however terrible it may be.

“If we reflect more deeply on this insight, we find the answer to an objection that is often raised against the idea of atonement. Again and again people say: It must be a cruel God who demands infinite atonement. Is this not a notion unworthy of God? Must we not give up the idea of atonement in order to maintain the purity of our image of God? In the use of the term ‘hilastērion’ with reference to Jesus, it becomes evident that the real forgiveness accomplished on the Cross functions in exactly the opposite direction. The reality of evil and injustice that disfigures the world and at the same time distorts the image of God—this reality exists, through our sin. It cannot simply be ignored; it must be addressed. But here it is not a case of a cruel God demanding the infinite. It is exactly the opposite: God himself becomes the locus of reconciliation, and in the person of his Son takes the suffering upon himself. God himself grants his infinite purity to the world. God himself ‘drinks the cup’ of every horror to the dregs and thereby restores justice through the greatness of his love, which, through suffering, transforms the darkness.”

In Christ,
Pete

turretinfan said...

Yes, in some senses that is a stronger wording. The contact transference of the sins of the people onto the sacrificial victims by virtue of the hand of the person or the priest being laid on the head of the victim is a standard sacrificial image. The sacrificial victim then receives the punishment of death that the sins deserve.

Unfortunately for the purposes of persuading Bryan to drop his ill-advised criticism, Benedict is not as explicit as Augustine is about punishment bearing. In fact, while Benedict no doubt thinks that Jesus received suffering, I suspect he might object to designating that suffering punishment.

Moreover, the cup that Christ drinks up for us is the cup of the wrath of God.

See John 18:11 and compare Revelation 14:10; 16:9.

That wrath is primarily manifested through death, which has led some to erroneously conclude annihilationism.

-TurretinFan

turretinfan said...

Wikipedia? You have to be kidding me.

Craig Ostrowski said...

TF,
That info came from both wikipedia and the Jewish Encylcopedia. I don't think "You have got to be kidding me" equates to a credible counter argument.

Craig Ostrowski said...

TF,
Everything in your edits indicates that you have to assume your position rather than demonstrating it. That doesn't bode well for your position and nor can it ever establish your position. As for where the word of God can be found, it can be found in oral preaching as well, as 1 Peter 1:12 indicates. Nowhere does the context limit this preaching to only the prophets and apostles, but that's what you need it to do in order to maintain your presuppositions.

Pete Holter said...

TurretinFan wrote, “Benedict is not as explicit as Augustine is about punishment bearing. In fact, while Benedict no doubt thinks that Jesus received suffering, I suspect he might object to designating that suffering punishment.”

That might be true. But I don’t think that he would object to what Augustine means when he speaks of “punishment.” The “punishment” and the “curse” do not seem to be something added on to His death, or a description of the nature of His death as distinguishing it from non-punitive deaths; but Augustine seems to be saying that the bare fact of His dying is the “punishment,” it is the “curse.”

For example, in his exposition of Psalm 88—which you touched on in your penal substitution debate—Augustine says that “the passion had strength as far as it had any, only over the body” (3), and that “it is those who are cut away from the hand of God, who believed that Christ was cut off from His hand” (4). If this is the case, then Benedict’s understanding may perhaps be more pleasing to you than Augustine’s.

For, whereas Augustine says that “He, without taking our sin, took its punishment,” Pope Benedict seems to go further in understanding how it was that, not only did Jesus suffer death—the punishment owed to sin—but He was also, in this death, “taking our sin” upon Himself:

“In Moses, on the summit of the mountain face to face with God, who made himself an intercessor for his people and offered himself — ‘blot me out’ — the Fathers of the Church saw a prefiguration of Christ who from the very top of the Cross was truly before God, not only as a friend but as Son. And not only did he offer himself — ‘blot me out’ — but with his pierced heart he had himself blotted out, he himself became sin, as St Paul himself says, he took upon himself our sins to ensure our salvation. His intercession was not only solidarity but identification with us: he bears all of us in his Body. And thus his whole life as a man and as Son is a cry to God’s heart, it is forgiveness, but forgiveness that transforms and renews.

“I think we should meditate upon this reality. Christ stands before God and is praying for me. His prayer on the Cross is contemporary with all human beings, contemporary with me. He prays for me, he suffered and suffers for me, he identified himself with me, taking our body and the human soul. And he asks us to enter this identity of his, making ourselves one body, one spirit with him because from the summit of the Cross he brought not new laws, tablets of stone, but himself, his Body and his Blood, as the New Covenant. Thus he brings us kinship with him, he makes us one body with him, identifies us with him. He invites us to enter into this identification, to be united with him in our wish to be one body, one spirit with him. Let us pray the Lord that this identification may transform and renew us, because forgiveness is renewal and transformation” (General Audience, June 1, 2011).

Also, from this same audience, I thought you might appreciate his observation pertaining to “unconditional election”:

“Moses recalls the founding story of the origins, of the Fathers of the people and of their being totally freely chosen, a choice in which God alone took the initiative. Not for their own merits did they receive the promise, but because of God’s free choice and his love (cf. Deut 10:15).”

And something along the lines of “the perseverance of the saints”:

“Once the work of salvation has been begun it must be brought to completion; were God to let his people perish, this might be interpreted as a sign of God’s inability to bring the project of salvation to completion. God cannot allow this: he is the good Lord who saves, the guarantor of life, he is the God of mercy and forgiveness, of deliverance from sin that kills.”

The more time I’ve spent with the writings of Pope Benedict, the more I’ve grown to love him, and the more I’ve grown in gratitude to God for him. I hope you’ll come to have this same experience. :)

With love in Christ,
Pete

turretinfan said...

I don't think that either wikipedia or the Jewish Encyclopedia requires any particular "counter-argument" amongst educated Christians.

Craig Ostrowski said...

TF,
I guess that response says volumes about your position.

Kelly Wilson said...

Keep in mind that for Benedict --- although I haven't read this specific correspondence --- the Word of God is Jesus Christ. Scripture, in that sense, testifies to Christ, but is not Christ. Scripture testifies in a unique way, but certainly is not the only way in which Christ is given testimony.

turretinfan said...

Mr. Wilson,

Do you have a particular passage of Benedict XVI's writings in mind?

-TurretinFan

Kelly Wilson said...

Yeah, I haven't been here in a while...

Let me look into the sources...

Craig Ostrowski said...

TF,
I never claimed that it was an authority that needs to be obeyed. To say that I did is either a bad misunderstanding of my argument or an attempt to evade it. How about just examining and reply to something which seemingly refutes your position rather than ignoring it? Similarly, how about finally identifying what in scripture says that all of the word of God was completely confined to writing. You don't have to fly around the universe looking for the answer, as Pat Madrid told James White. You only have to stay right here on earth and answer those questions.

Craig Ostrowski said...

TF,
I don't receive notifications when you edit comments. Anyhow, while you say that the word of God is proclaimed when the bible is read, that's not what 1 Peter 1 says. It says that the word of God is the good news preached to you. That in no way indicates a recital of something written.

///All that's necessary for me to maintain my conclusion that the Word of God is only found in the Bible is not to find the Word of God anywhere else. Kind of like the way that we maintain our conclusion that there are no little green aliens. Conclusions and presuppositions are different things.///

It's hard to have a decent discussion with someone who maintains holding his unproven presupposition is all that's necessary.

Nick said...

"All that's necessary for me to maintain my conclusion that the Word of God is only found in the Bible is not to find the Word of God anywhere else."

Have you personally looked everywhere else?
Have you checked every library in the world to make sure you're not missing a book?

Costrowski said...

Nick,
TF doesn't have to check every library in the word. All he has to do is to show where the bible says that **ALL** of the word of God has been completely confined to writing such that it can never escape those confines outside of a mere oral recital of that writing. This is the answer that we've been waiting for ever since this discussion began.

Nick said...

"Thanks for illustrating the unreasonableness of your demand to prove a universal negative."

I asked a simple question, two actually: (a) Have you personally looked everywhere else? (b) Have you checked every library in the world to make sure you're not missing a book?

If your answer to those questions is "No," then how can you "not to find the Word of God anywhere else" if you have not even looked?

Craig Ostrowski said...

TF,
Bringing in non-sequiturs can't and won't help your case. If your claim is that the word of God is confined to the written bible then it is indeed your burden to demonstrate it. As for Revelation 22, not even Calvin made that claim. He thought it referred to the book of life, so I guess it's not as perspicuous as you'd like it to be.

Nick said...

"And why, pray tell, is it my responsibility to look?"

Why is it your responsibility to look?...so you can have proof for your claim. It is like a Muslim saying "I have the Koran, I don't need to look if there are any other Scriptures out there". If you say, "Well, Ahmed, have you looked to see if there are other Scriptures out there?," it is certainly not an acceptable answer for him to say "I don't have to".

"If you want to allege it is out there, show me where it is."

My ability to show cannot be the deciding factor, for let's say I'm too buys and poor to travel the world searching.

"To return to the Martian example, have you looked behind every parked car in your country?"

No, I don't have the means to do so. So I can't say Martians (whatever they may be) don't exist.

Lee Gerrietts said...

The more I read these comments the more I scratch my head in amazement. How is this so difficult to understand? I can imagine that Nick and Craig would make these demands to prove a universal negative if it weren't debating Romanism & Reformed theology.

Lee Gerrietts said...

should be "can't"

Craig Ostrowski said...

Lee,
It doesn't matter whether it's Romanism & Reformedism. (LOL) The simple request is that a claim is being made that cannot be supported, and then all kind so mental gymnastics have been utilized in order to avoid the question which is where does scripture say that **ALL** of God's word has been **COMPLETELY ** confined to scripture such that it cannot appear anywhere else outside of mere recital of scripture? Without identifying such scripture it's clear that TF's position is unsupportable. The best he can do is to say that he doesn't know where else God's word can be found and scripture doesn't place the limits that he tries to force it to do. So the canard about proving universal negatives can and should be put to rest. Maybe you guys don't want to do that, but you certainly won't convince anyone of your position who gives a fair reading to this dialogue, albeit strangely edited by TF.

αγριόχοιρος said...

Craig what's truly sad is you probably believe this.

Craig Ostrowski said...

αγριόχοιρος
How is that a counter argument?

ChaferDTS said...

It is a logical fallacy to demand TF to prove a universal negative. You and Nick made a claim therefore you and Nick have the burden of off. Scripture is expressly stated to be given by inspiration of God. Since you believe that it exist elsewhere outside of Scripture today the burden of proof is on you to show it. The only way for you to do this is to show the present day existance of prophets and apostles of God today. If there are no prophets or apostles today then the Word of God does not exist outside of Scripture today. You would have to prove extra biblical revelation from God thats outside of Scripture today. Some groups such as Mormons have that very same claim with their book of Mormon and also Adventist have that as well with the so called writings of Ellen G White as good examples. The foundation of the Christian faith has already been made with the complection of Scripture. We have the apostles and prophets stated to be the foundation in Eph. 2:20. We have no apostles or prophets today. In addition we have 2 Tim 3:15-18 as teaching that Scripture is given by inspiration of God. If the Word of God exist today outside of Scripture it is your responsibility and burden to prove it. And not run off and demand others to prove a universal negative. It is one thing to claim something and it is another when it comes to proving it. Where is your proof ?

Craig Ostrowski said...

ChaferDTS,
You, TF and others keep making a fundamental error because I'm not asking you to prove a univesal negative per se. All I'm asking is for you guys to show where it says in the bible that the word of God is completely confined to writing such that it exists nowhere outside of that writing. Pointing to 2 Timothy 3:15 doesn't help you because all it says is that the writing is inspired. We have no dispute there. If you think that the word of God can only exist in oral form through prophets and apostles, then it is your burden to prove that, and not merely presuppose it. I've already pointed to 1 Peter 1:12 which states that the word of God is preached. If you think that verse MUST be limited to only prophets and apostles then please make that case. As for me, I don't see anything in the text which mandates that this preaching MUST be limited ONLY to the prophets and apostles. Nick and I have only been pointing out that your whole case is built on presupposition after presupposition and although we have seen many ad hominems and diversions, we have yet to see where the bible states your case. So please stop with the false claim that you have to prove a universal negative. It's a canard propped up to mask what is lacking behind it.

Hebrew Student said...

Craig,

As I said before, the premise that the word of God can only be found in scripture is founded upon Sola Scriptura. Not only does 2 Timothy 3:16-17 say that the scriptures are God-breathed [a term used of nothing but scripture, not only in the NT, but also in Church history to my knowledge], but it also says that they are profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. Now, does God say things that are superfluous and unnecessary? Of course not. Hence, if the scriptures are sufficient to function as the regula fide, then why would God speak anything outside of them?

The point is, Craig, that the question you are asking takes us right back to the question of Sola Scriptura which is one of major dispute between us. It is something that logically flows from the position itself. Hence, if the scriptures teach Sola Scriptura, they teach that all the word of God has been committed to writing.

Finally, I think it is worth pointing out that 1 Peter 1:12 is talking about the preaching of the gospel, which is something that is clearly Biblical. There is no doubt that we are to be passing down the message of the scriptures in various ways, including preaching, writing, dialoguing, video, audio, etc. As this verse points out, the apostles did the same thing. They proclaimed the message of the Gospel in oral form, just as we do today. However, you will never find the apostles teaching a message that is extra-scriptural anywhere in the NT, which is perfectly consistent with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Hence, what TF, ChaferDTS, et al are asking you to do is to argue against Sola Scriptura. Show us these words that are God-breathed outside of the scriptures. If Sola Scriptura is wrong, then what is this other God-breathed revelation to which we must hold?

Craig Ostrowski said...

Hi Hebrew student,
The fact that scriptures are God-breathed and sufficient for teaching in no way indicates that they are the ONLY thing that is God-breathed and sufficient for teaching, so I fail to understand why that verse keeps being raised in defense of the claim that ALL of the word of God has been confined to scripture. The two concepts are simply not the same.

Yes, you are correct that this discussion is tied in to the doctrine of sola scriptura but again, it is not the same issue. So, this brings up back to the question of where does scripture indicate that **ALL** of the word of God has been **COMPLETELY** confined to scripture? I don't see where anyone has answered this question.

As for 1 Peter 1:12, it seems to me that you are saying it is only speaking about a recital of the words of scripture. I don't see that. To me it seems that the oral preaching of the good news by those who are sent is the word of God as well. I grant you that the passage doesn't used that exact phrase, but it seems to me that the context indicates as much.

Another issue in your comment is that it appears as though you imply that if the word of God were to exist outside of scripture then it must somehow be a different message. I don't see that either. The meaning of the message can be the same without a rote recital of the same words. This message which is the word of God is found in the tradition of the Church.

At this point it seems as though we are now just repeating ourselves, so I may bow out unless and until someone can make a case where scripture indicates that ALL of the word of God has been COMPLETELY confined to writing. I don't see where it does and nor do I see where anyone has made that case.

Nick said...

I'm not sure if this conversation is dead or not, but I'd like to add another factor. On top of addressing whether the oral Word of God (1 Thess 2:13) was wholly confined to writing at some unspecified/unverified time, there is also the issue of addressing whether or not authoritative Pastors would also cease existing at a certain time as well.

The options, as I see them, are three:

(1) There is no such thing as an authoritative preaching/teaching office; every Christian is equally authoritative.
(2) There is such a thing as an authoritative preaching/teaching office, but it is by self-appointment.
(3) There is such a thing as an authoritative preaching/teaching office, and it is by succession through the ages.

Logically, Option 1 is another form of Option 2. These first two "options" go against Scripture, history, and reason. Thus, Option 3 is the only valid one, and this requires the burden of also showing when and how this temporary/permanent loss of authoriative preaching/teaching office occurred.

turretinfan said...

Nick: your set of options is not well defined. For example, among many other options it omits "there is such a thing as an authoritative preaching/teaching office, but it is by appointment of local churches," and "there is such a thing as an authoritative preaching/teaching office, but it is by appointment of the king." Both of those are approaches that were used in Rome before the present cardinalate.

Nick said...

Everything has to reduce down to either self-appointment or succession. If a group of local churches or congregation or king wants to appoint a pastor, the question is: who gave those churches or congregation or king the authority to appoint? If nobody gave them that authority, then it reduces down to self-appointment, even if there are intermediate steps.

turretinfan said...

"Everything has to reduce down to either self-appointment or succession."

No it doesn't.

"If a group of local churches or congregation or king wants to appoint a pastor, the question is: who gave those churches or congregation or king the authority to appoint? If nobody gave them that authority, then it reduces down to self-appointment, even if there are intermediate steps. "

a) Even if no one gave them the authority, it's still not "self-appointment" when thy appoint someone else.

b) God can give them authority to appoint, without using the mechanism of "succession."

Nick said...

"Even if no one gave them the authority, it's still not "self-appointment" when thy appoint someone else."

Yes it is, but the key here is *indirectly*. For example, take any major Protestant Denomination, such as the PCA. The PCA appoints the various men who meet their standards. But the question is, who gave the PCA leadership the authority to appoint? If you go back far enough, it eventually comes to a time when a group of men felt they should start what became the PCA and appointed themselves to do so.

God can appoint directly, but some objective criteria would be needed to distinguish between those who think God called them from those who know so.

Craig Ostrowski said...

Hebrew Student,
The nature of God is not in dispute here, at least not as far as I can tell. Now as for your argument that if scripture is sufficient then it follows that the word of God doesn’t exist outside of it, that is clearly wrong. This can be seen in a number of ways. For example, when Paul wrote the verse in question he was specifically talking about the OT being sufficient. Your response is that he was talking about the nature of scripture rather than the OT alone. But if that’s the case, then according to your logic the nature of the sufficiency of the OT would mean that the word of God ceased to exist after the last book of the OT was written. Of course that logically results in a denial of Christ. Therefore just because something is sufficient it does NOT logically follow that it is all there is. Nor does that even examine the question of what exactly are the intended parameters of that sufficiency. But that’s not the issue here. The issue is still whether or not the word of God is completely and totally confined to writing. So far as I can tell, no one has made that case.

I don’t agree with your ‘word-specific’ argument and I think I can easily show that this accusation is false just by pointing to my use of 1 Peter. Nowhere in that text does it use the exact phrase “word of God” and yet I pointed to it because I think the context indicates it.

I won’t bother replying to your tangent on Mary because it’s irrelevant to the issue here. Again, since this discussion has essentially been repeating itself for a while I may not reply until someone makes a case for the issue in question rather than any number of tangents.

αγριόχοιρος said...

"I may not reply until someone makes a case for the issue in question rather than any number of tangents."

The case has been made that Scripture is without question the word of God. In echoing your denomination's position you claim the word of God exists elsewhere, and you, just like your church, have been able to produce verifiable words of God which exist outside of Holy Writ.

Just another journey through the maze of Rome where argumentum e silentio's are not only considered valid, but embraced.

αγριόχοιρος said...

Edit: have been *unable*

Hebrew Student said...

Craig,

How can this be specifically referring to the OT canon when Paul already called Luke scripture in his first letter in 1 Timothy 5:18?:

1 Timothy 5:18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing," and "The laborer is worthy of his wages."

The first quote is clearly from Deuteronomy 25:4, but the second quote is clearly from Luke 10:7! Yet, here Paul cites a NT book scripture, only one letter before speaking these words about 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Secondly, the text says nothing about the canon. That is not the issue in question. Paul's discussion is about the nature of *every* scripture [πασα γραφη (2 Timothy 3:16)], whether Old or New Testament.

Also, although it is not relevant to my argument, I find it strange that you would say that we must deny Christ if we only accept the Hebrew scriptures, when Christ himself said that these scriptures testified of him [John 5:39]! I have spoken with Jews about this topic, and all I can say is thanks a lot for throwing that whole discussion under the bus. When Jesus Christ ascended into heaven, all the early church had to prove that Jesus was the messiah to the Jews was the Hebrew scriptures. To say that they do not testify of Jesus Christ is to destroy the whole foundation of how it is that the early church got its start in the very heart of Jerusalem. It would be utterly impossible if they do not speak of Christ. The difference is not in whether they speak of Christ, but the fulness of their revelation of him. The NT is much fuller in its revelation of who Christ is, but the OT certainly doesn't deny Christ!

Also, as far as the "word specific" argument, my point is that, if words are to have their normal function, then they carry meaning beyond the simply phonological cluster of sounds that are there. If what is said is consistent with how those words form their meaning, then you are still preaching the word of God, even if you aren't using the exact phonological clusters. Thus, the preaching of the Gospel in 1 Peter is still Biblical even if it is not a recitation. The only way you could show that it is not Biblical is if the meaning of the preaching found in that text did not match the meaning of the Biblical text. Only then would it prove some kind of "Sacred tradition."

Finally, related to that point, my point about the Marian dogmas is to point out that you cannot take the kind of preaching that is done where we exegete the meaning of a passage, and compare it to what Rome has done in its traditions. The scriptures not only have nothing to do with Marian dogmas such as the Queenly Coronation, but contradict dogmas such as the perpetual virginity. There simply is no comparison. Rome is not about the task of interpreting the scriptures; they are about the task of changing the meaning of the scriptures by imposing a foreign context upon the scriptures in the form of "Sacred Tradition." The point is, there simply is no comparison between what we do when we exegete a passage, and what Rome does when it defines tradition.

Craig Ostrowski said...

Hebrew Student,
You asked how could 2 Timothy 3:16-17 be referring to the OT and the answer is because in verse 15 Paul explicitly states that the specific scriptures he is talking about are the ones which Timothy has known since his infancy. Since none of the NT was written at the time of Timothy’s infancy that would rule out any of the NT as being that to which Paul is primarily referring. So it doesn’t matter whether Luke is scripture or not (of course it is) because the context indicates that the OT is sufficient and so any attempt to make this passage support the claim that the complete word of God has been completely confined to writing denies Christ since the incarnation took place after the OT was written.

I think you are misreading my argument. Of course the OT testifies to Christ, but if the written OT is sufficient, then NT revelation isn’t needed which amounts to a denial of Christ.

I don’t see how your explanation of your word search argument adds or detracts to what has already been said. I have shown that your accusation doesn’t work because I didn’t look for a specific word in order to make my argument and neither did I ask you for any specific words. I’m asking you to show me where any context indicates that the complete word of God has been totally confined to writing and I can’t see where you have done that. The best you came up with was that sufficiency of a group of writings indicates that there is nothing outside of that group, but I’ve shown why that is false. So, the question still stands.

As for tangents about Mary, I find no need to deal with them. While you may wish to turn this into a discussion about Rome the question at hand doesn’t depend on Rome. Logically speaking Rome could be in complete error and yet the word of God could exist outside of that sufficient group of writing.

Hebrew Student said...

Craig,

The problem is that Paul expands what he is talking about in verse 16 by using the phrase πασα γραφη. What I cited comes *after* what you cited. Paul expands what he is talking about to include *every* scripture [not just the OT] in verse 16. That argument has not been touched. The point of referring back to 1 Timothy is to show that Paul does include Luke in his discussion of "every scripture."

Secondly, you made your word-specific argument in the context of dealing with the passage from 1 Peter. You tried to argue that the apostles were not simply engaging in the dictation of scripture. Using the argument above, I argued that they would not have to, in order to still be preaching the word of God since language is far more complex than simple words. It is in *that* context that we were speaking about individual words, namely, a discussion of the word of God in relation to the proclamation of that word in 1 Peter.

Also, you are misrepresenting my argument on another level. The reason I am referring to the Marian dogmas is because it is so plain and obvious that what Rome has done with things like the Queenly Coronation and the Perpetual Virginity is *nothing* like what the apostles are doing in 1 Peter. Simply expositing the meaning of the gospel, which is Biblical, is totally different than something that has nothing to do with scripture, such as the Queenly Corination, or something which is blatantly contradicted by scripture, such as the Perpetual Virginity. It was in the context of your use of 1 Peter that these arguments were made. Please deal with them in *that* context.

Finally, my argument is not the "sufficiency of a group of writings indicates that there is nothing outside of that group." My argument is that a group of writings proclaiming the word of God who does not say things that are superfluous indicates that there is no word of God outside of those writings. Understanding who the God is who wrote these things is crucial. *That* argument simply has not been touched other than to say that the passage in question is referring only to the OT, which it clearly is not, as Paul expands his scope in verse 16 using πασα γραφη. If Paul is talking about more than just the OT in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, then the notion that the word of God exists only in scripture has been established.

Craig Ostrowski said...

Hebrew Student,

Let me begin with the last argument of your last comment. You said,

“My argument is that a group of writings proclaiming the word of God who does not say things that are superfluous indicates that there is no word of God outside of those writings.”

I fail to see how that is any different than how I summarized your argument and what you denied:

“the sufficiency of a group of writings indicates that there is nothing outside of that group."

Since I believe that you confirm my argument here I don’t see what there is to which I need to respond.

I agree that all of scripture, as in the complete corpus is sufficient for its intended purpose, but the fact still remains that it always was and didn’t just become so when Paul wrote this letter to Timothy. This fact puts us right back into my argument that Paul was primarily talking about the OT. And yes, I did cover this before. But even if you want to argue that the body of scripture was NOT sufficient until Paul wrote this letter to Timothy then the logic of your argument denies the canonicity of anything written after this letter (at least Revelation) as well as anything the apostles orally preached after this letter was written because according to your argument what was already written (up to this letter to Timothy) is sufficient and therefore the word of God CANNOT exist outside of this sufficient corpus. So whichever way you turn your argument is self-defeating.

As for your ‘specific word’ argument, I still don’t see how it helps you because first of all, I demonstrated that I wasn’t using the tactic that you accused me of using. Secondly, if they preached some different words than what was written, according to your sufficiency argument is cannot be the word of God.

As for your attack on Rome, I already explained why it logically doesn’t prove that the complete word of God was completely confined to scripture and so once again, I see no need to respond to a logical non-sequitur.

Natamllc said...

We ought to stop pussy footen' around now!

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.


Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one."
Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?"
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be broken--
Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?
Joh 10:37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;
Joh 10:38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."


Hebrew Student responding to Craig: Not only does 2 Timothy 3:16-17 say that the scriptures are God-breathed [a term used of nothing but scripture, not only in the NT, but also in Church history to my knowledge], but it also says that they are profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Again, Peter about Paul:

2Pe 3:15 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,
2Pe 3:16 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.


One of the ironies of those verses of "Scripture" by Peter is the fact that both men used other men to write their words at times if not every time! Peter used Silvanus to write 1 Peter and Paul used Tertius to write Romans.

I come back to my earlier comments from Mark 4 and what he wrote, here "... and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, ...".

Here we have followers of the Roman Catholic Church declaring that they are the "true church" and Peter is their Apostle of the things of God and mind you Jesus said the Scriptures cannot be broken and from Peter a succession of Popes has occurred that has seen that succession broken, yet we have the Lord Himself making the point that He, the Word, the Scriptures, cannot be broken!

We also see that Christ and the Word on "one".

We also see that Peter makes reference to Paul's writings linking them to "Scripture".

Can someone of the RCC faith state unequivocally that about their writings, too, that their writings, that have come down through the ages, are "Scripture"?

Nick said...

Hebrew Student,
Two issues I should point out:

(1) 1 Timothy 5:18 is *not* clearly quoting from Luke, as Calvin and others have pointed out it is more likely an authoritative oral statement of Christ. In support of this, they reference the parallel case in 1 Cor 9:9-14.

(2) More importantly, the 'pasa graphe' in 2 Timothy 3:16 is most accurately translated "every [individual book or passage of] Scripture" (since pasa means 'every' and 'graphe' is singular for 'writing'). So Paul is not talking about "all Scripture as a whole" here, and that's why you wont find any Protestant scholars touching pasa graphe with a 10-foot pole.

-The TDNT (Vol 1, P130) says on 'graphe': "3. graphe for a Single book. There are no NT instances except perhaps 2 Tim. 3:16, though contemporary parallels suggest that this means "every passage."

-The NET Bible says this on the 2 Tim 3:16 footnote: "There is very little difference in sense between every scripture (emphasizing the individual portions) and “all scripture” (emphasizing the composite whole). The former option is preferred, because it fits the normal use of the word “all/every” in Greek (πᾶς, pas) as well as Paul’s normal sense for the word “scripture” in the singular without the article, as here. So every scripture means “every individual portion of scripture.”"

Hebrew Student said...

Nick,

First of all, how can this be an oral statement when the word γραφη is used? Doesn't γραφη mean "writing?" Also, if it is a mere oral tradition, then why is the word order exactly the same in Paul and in Luke? That is quite a coincidence, if it is not a quotation. Also, I fail to see how the parallel holds up because in 1 Corinthians the introduction is "written in the law of Moses" whereas the introduction in 1 Timothy is simply "the scripture says." One is allowing the quotation from the entirety of scripture, whereas one specifically mentions the law of Moses.

Also, in case you didn't notice, I did translate πασα γραφη as "every scripture." The point is, if it is referring to every scripture, it is not just referring to the scripture of the OT. If he had wished to do that, all he would have needed to do is use the η γραφη, and he would be referring to the OT. As the Hornian division of Pragmatic labor states:

The use of a marked (relatively complex and/or prolix) expression when a corresponding unmarked (simple, less 'effortful') alternate expression is available tends to be interpreted as conveying a marked message (one which the unmarked alternative would not or could not have conveyed) [Huang , Yan. Pragmatics. Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics. p.40]

The question is, if Paul were simply meaning to refer to the OT, then why did he use the more marked πασα γραφη rather than the simpler expression η γραφη which would be much simpler, and would be much more in line with what he used in the previous verse cited [τα ιερα γραμματα]. That cannot be answered if Paul is merely talking about the OT alone.

The point is not whether Paul is viewing all scripture as a whole here, but what *scope* he has in mind. Is he meaning to say these things about the passages of the OT alone or the NT as well as the OT? If you say the former, then you have no way of explaining why the switch to πασα. However, if the purpose of every scripture being profitable is to fully equip the man of God for every good work, then wouldn't it be superfluous for God to say anything outside of the text of scripture? If we agree that God does not say things that are unnecessary, then hasn't the premise that the word of God exists only in scripture been established?

Craig Ostrowski said...

Hebrew Student,
You argued:

"wouldn't it be superfluous for God to say anything outside of the text of scripture? If we agree that God does not say things that are unnecessary, then hasn't the premise that the word of God exists only in scripture been established?"

If your premise is true then the prophecies of Elijah which are not recorded in scripture are not the word of God, and yet we are told by the bible that he prophesied. Moreover, in order for your premise to be true, anything Jesus said that was not recorded in scripture similarly wasn't the word of God. That also applies to His apostles and any other prophets whose prophecies have not been recorded. Therefore I think we can dismiss your premise that it would be superfluous for God to say anything outside of the text of scripture.

Hebrew Student said...

Craig,

The point is that my argument is based in the nature of God as revealed in scripture. If God has a purpose for everything he does [Ephesians 1:11], then it is pointless to suggest that God would superfluously say something outside of the scriptures, if he says that those scriptures are sufficient. *That* is what makes my argument different than the way you represented me. I am *not* saying that sufficiency=nothing outside of it. What I *am* saying is a being who speaks in a sufficient book, who doesn't say anything superfluous, will not speak outside of that book.

Secondly, no one believes that Sola Scriptura applies to a time when scripture is being written. Sola Scriptura speaks to a time when that word of God has finished being written down, which fits well with the context, considering the fact that this is Paul's last letter to Timothy before he dies, giving him instructions on how to run the church after his death [2 Timothy 3:1-13; 4:6-8]. It is in that context that he has this discourse about the God-breathed nature of *every* scripture, and its full equipping nature. The intended purpose is, in fact, mentioned in the text: "teaching, correcting, rebuking, and training in righteousness," namely, the regula fide.

Secondly, if they preached some different words than what was written, according to your sufficiency argument is cannot be the word of God.

The problem is that this *is* the "specific word" argument! What if they preached different words, but the meaning of the text was exactly the same as what what is found in scripture? At that point, it would be the same as scripture at the level of meaning, and thus, still the word of God. This argument only works if you reduce the language of scripture down to individual words. The problem is that no language functions in that way. Although all languages have words, those words function in the ways I described above. Hence, if the preaching of the word of God is at the level of the semantics and pragmatics of Biblical language, and not at the level of the individual words themselves, then the preaching of the word of God could still be confined to scripture.

Hebrew Student said...

Craig,

You can dismiss this only if you commit the word fallacy. Cannot the teachings of those prophecies and the things Jesus said that were not recorded be recorded in some other place in another portion of the text? Could not the content of the teachings of the Prophecies of Elijah be found in the other prophets that spoke against the idolatries of Israel?

Again, this only works if you reduce language down to individual words. Meaning in language is far more complicated than that. I know you don't think you are committing this fallacy, but, this post demonstrates to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are.

Craig Ostrowski said...

Hebrew Student,
I still don’t see how this statement of yours along with the paragraph in which it appears doesn’t affirm my argument and thus disproves your own –

“What I *am* saying is a being who speaks in a sufficient book, who doesn't say anything superfluous, will not speak outside of that book.”

The fact is either God said things that were not confined to writing or he didn’t, but you seem to be trying to eat your cake and have it too. So, if this is true, then the argument of your second paragraph falls as well. Secondly, it doesn’t matter what those who hold to sola scriptura believe so much as it does what the logic of their argument entails. Thus the logic of your argument regarding Paul’s letter to Timothy demands that each and every scripture is sufficient and if you don’t equivocate on the meaning of sufficiency, then the NT is superfluous as well as anything written after the first scripture to be written as it was sufficient.

As for your word specific argument, once again, I reject it. This time I do so because the same concept can be explained in different ways whereby each manner of conveying that concept clarifies certain aspects of it. So, this in no way depends on your word specific argument just I didn’t depend on it earlier.

Craig Ostrowski said...

Hebrew Student,
We have no reason to believe that the content of Jesus' other words or the unwritten prophecies of Elijah or anyone else is the exact same as something found elsewhere in scripture. As I said in my previous reply to you even if the concept were the same it could be explained in different ways so as to shed more light on different aspects of that same concept. For example, just look at the way Jesus exegeted Exodus 3:6 in Mark 12:26. According to Jesus the content of His message in Mark 12:26 is present in Exodus 3, but I don't think it's so obvious that it doesn't need to be explained. We could also look to Jesus' exegesis of Genesis in regards to divorce as recorded in Matthew 19. According to Jesus the content of His teaching appears in Genesis, but I think, or at hope, we can agree that it needs to be explained.

I think this demonstrates that I am not in any way committing your word specific fallacy.

Hebrew Student said...

Craig,

The point I am making is that you are taking the phrase "Word of God" in a very wooden, literal fashion. The term "word" as it is found in scripture seems to convey more the nuance of "teaching" or "saying." Thus it is much more of a semantic and pragmatic category than a category of individual words or even discourse. In fact, I can push your argument far stronger than you have. Jesus probably originally spoke in Aramaic. However, we don't have the Aramaic, and therefore, we don't have the words of Jesus. Of course, such would be absurd, as that is not what we mean when we talk about the word of God.

In other words, when I say that the word of God is confined to scripture, what I am saying is that the teachings of God in terms of their semantics and their pragmatics, are confined to the scriptures. You will not find a single teaching of God outside of the teachings that are found in the scriptures; that is what I am saying. You may find words [taken in a wooden and literal fashion] that Jesus or Elijah spoke that are not found in scripture, but the *content* of those words and the *teaching* of those words that are not found in scripture will be found in the content and teaching of the scriptures.

Hebrew Student said...

Craig,

We have no reason to believe that the content of Jesus' other words or the unwritten prophecies of Elijah or anyone else is the exact same as something found elsewhere in scripture.

We do if we believe that the scriptures fully equip the man of God for every good work, and thus, teaching something else would be superfluous and unnecessary.

Craig, the reason I brought up the "word fallacy" is because you seem to be looking at where the word of God is found in terms of individual words, rather than in terms of the meaning of the text. It is true that the text of scripture is verbally inspired, but when the message of the text is faithfully taught, that is the word of God. It is the word of God, not because of the wooden literal "words," but because it is consistent with the semantics and pragmatics of the text itself. That is how Elijah can have prophecies that are not recorded in scripture, and how Jesus can have episodes of teaching that are not found in scripture. Yet, the *content* of that teaching can still be found in the scriptures.

Craig Ostrowski said...

Hebrew Student,
I don't see anything in your last two comments which hasn't been sufficiently dealt with already. In fact, I felt this way for some time now. If I posted another argument in reply I would just be repeating myself as I think you are, and so I think this discussion has been exhausted. Maybe you don't agree. Let whatever readers there may be decide.

Nick said...

Hebrews Student,

This will be my last post since this thread seems to be getting redundant. I do look forward to future exchanges though.

(1) You asked how 1 Tim 5:18B can be an oral statement if Paul used the term "written". The answer is, the 'written' does not necessarily apply to the second quote, only the first. I'm not saying it is impossible, only that it's not for sure, and even Calvin saw this. The word order being the "same as in Luke" proves nothing, for if it were a direct quote of Christ's oral teaching, it should be the same word order. In other words, 5:18B *is* a quotation, just not necessarily a quotation of a written document. The parallel to 1 Corinthians is important, especially for those espousing a Scripture-interprets-Scripture hermeneutic, for it shows "the scripture says" and "written in the law of Moses" can very well be equivalent phrases.

Either way, this doesn't affect my other arguments, particularly 2 Timothy 3:16f. All I'm showing is how much your overall argument relies on special pleading, i.e. discounting evidence and plausible alternate interpretations, which is a dangerous hermeneutic.


(2) You said: >>The point is, if it is referring to every scripture, it is not just referring to the scripture of the OT. If he had wished to do that, all he would have needed to do is use the η γραφη, and he would be referring to the OT.>>

Paul was not bound to use a certain style of grammar. He had the freedom to express things various ways. Paul could have said "all the following 66 books are inspired by God," which would have cleared up a lot, but he didn't. My contention, based on the actual grammar Paul did use, is that he began by talking about the OT as a whole, then switched to *individual portions* of Scripture. The very fact that it isn't clear what Paul's scope was is in itself devastating. It goes against the very nature of Perspicuity to have to rely on Greek Grammar rules from Greek scholars.

(3) You said: "The point is not whether Paul is viewing all scripture as a whole here, but what *scope* he has in mind. Is he meaning to say these things about the passages of the OT alone or the NT as well as the OT?"

The truth is, both are important questions, scope and extent are two crucial proofs you must establish, else 2 Tim 3:16f collapses as a SS proof text. If Paul is only speaking of individual portions, then he's saying "every individual portion of the OT [and NT] is sufficient to equip the Man of God," which isn't an interpretation any Protestant should accept. Taking one portion of Scripture as an example, do you really believe the genealogical lists of Numbers are sufficient to fully equip the Man of God?

Now do you see the problem with the Greek grammar saying "every individual portion" regardless of the scope?

turretinfan said...

Now seems like an ideal time to point out how much virtual ink has been spilled without the Roman side having done anything other than demonstrate that proving universal negatives is not always possible, even when they are true.

Craig Ostrowski said...

Now seems like the perfect time to start showing where scripture anywhere indicates that the word of God has been completely confined to writing.