Jerome's Hebrew Questions on the Book of Genesis

There is a translation of Jerome's Hebrew Questions on Genesis done by C.T.R. Hayward and published by Clarendon Press at Oxford. The text of the "Questions" is not very long, and probably not valuable on the whole to most readers. There are not a lot of profound exegetical thoughts, for example. On the other hand, it is useful to show the state of the Hebrew and Septuagint texts in Jerome's day. Thus, from a textual critical standpoint, it is a very interesting and potentially useful work.

I've gleaned a few quotations that I found to be of interest as I was going through the work. They all relate to the Scriptures.

1) Preface, pp. 28-29:

For just as we ourselves are lowly and poor little ones, and neither have riches, nor are worthy to receive them when they are presented; so they also should recognize that they cannot put knowledge of the Scriptures (that is, the riches of Christ) on par with the riches of the world.

2) Preface, p. 30:

This one thing I say: that I would wish, along with hatred of his name, also to have knowledge of the Scriptures, and to value as a trifle the images and shadows of ghosts, whose nature is said to be to terrify little children and to chatter in dark corners.

3) At Genesis 16:17, p. 50

There is a difference of opinion why was called Isaac, but only one etymology of the name; for Isaac means 'laughter'. Some people say that because Saraa had laughed, he was therefore called 'laughter'; but this is incorrect. Others, however, say that it was because Abraham laughed; and this is what we approve. For it was in consequence of Abraham's laughter that his son was called Isaac; only then do we read that Saraa also laughed. But it should be known that four persons in the Old Testament were called by their names without any concealment before they were born: Ishmael, Isaac, Solomon, and Josias. Read the Scriptures.

4) At Genesis 32:8-9, pp. 70-71

Now in the Book of Names, the statement which explains Israel as meaning 'a man seeing God' or 'a mind seeing God', a cliché of almost everybody's speech, seems to me to explain the word not so much accurately as in a manner that is forced. For Israel in this verse is written in these letters, iod, sin, res, aleph, lamed, which means 'prince of God', or, 'directed one of God', that is, euthutatos theou. But 'a man seeing God' is written with these letters: 'man' is written with three letters aleph, iod, sin (so that it is pronounced is), and 'seeing' with three, res, aleph, he, and is pronounced raa. Then el is written with two letters, aleph and lamed, and means 'God' or 'strong one'. So although those men are of powerful influence and eloquence, and the shadow of those who have understood Israel as 'man or mind seeing God' weighs down upon us, we are led rather by the authority of Scripture and of the angel or God who called him Israel, than by the authority of any secular eloquence.

- TurretinFan

Augustine on the Bread and Cup as Sign, Symbol, Sacrament, Figure and other Figurative Descriptions

Another way in which we can understand that Augustine did not hold to transubstantiation is that Augustine describes the body and blood in terms of them being a sign, symbol, sacrament, or other figurative designations. Perhaps more can and should be said about what Augustine means by "sacrament," and perhaps some of the following examples will make that clear, but the bottom line is that Augustine believed that the designation "this is my body," should be understood spiritually, not carnally, physically, and as expressing a change of substance of what was bread before the consecration.

I've also included other examples of Augustine's usage, from discussion of other "sacraments," such as chrismation. Surely no one thinks that the water of baptism or the oil in chrismation is transubstantiated, yet you will see similar discussion of them.

1. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, The Manichean Debate, Part 1, Vol. 19, trans. Boniface Ramsey, Answer to Adimantus, a Disciple of Mani, 12, §3 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2006), p. 192.

For from the words of scripture that the blood of an animal is its soul, apart from what I said above, namely, that it is no concern of mine what happens to the soul of an animal, I can also interpret that commandment as a sign that was given. After all, the Lord did not hesitate to say, This is my body (Mt 26:26), when he gave us a sign of his body.

2. NPNF1-03, On the Trinity, Book 3, Chapter 10, Sections 20-21

20. But because these things are known to men, in that they are done by men, they may well meet with reverence as being holy things, but they cannot cause wonder as being miracles. And therefore those things which are done by angels are the more wonderful to us, in that they are more difficult and more known; but they are known and easy to them as being their own actions. An angel speaks in the person of God to man, saying, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;” the Scripture having said just before, “The angel of the Lord appeared to him.” [Ex. iii. 6, 2] And a man also speaks in the person of God, saying, “Hear, O my people, and I will testify unto thee, O Israel: I am the Lord thy God.” [Ps. lxxxi. 8, 10] A rod was taken to serve as a sign, and was changed into a serpent by angelical power; [Ex. vii. 10] but although that power is wanting to man, yet a stone was taken also by man for a similar sign. [Gen. xxviii. 18] There is a wide difference between the deed of the angel and the deed of the man. The former is both to be wondered at and to be understood, the latter only to be understood. That which is understood from both, is perhaps one and the same; but those things from which it is understood, are different. Just as if the name of God were written both in gold and in ink; the former would be the more precious, the latter the more worthless; yet that which is signified in both is one and the same. And although the serpent that came from Moses’ rod signified the same thing as Jacob’s stone, yet Jacob’s stone signified something better than did the serpents of the magicians. For as the anointing of the stone signified Christ in the flesh, in which He was anointed with the oil of gladness above His fellows; [Ps. xlv. 7] so the rod of Moses, turned into a serpent, signified Christ Himself made obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. [Phil. ii. 9] Whence it is said, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life;” [John iii. 14, 15] just as by gazing on that serpent which was lifted up in the wilderness, they did not perish by the bites of the serpents. For “our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed.” [Rom. vi. 6] For by the serpent death is understood, which was wrought by the serpent in paradise, [Gen. iii] the mode of speech expressing the effect by the efficient. Therefore the rod passed into the serpent, Christ into death; and the serpent again into the rod, whole Christ with His body into the resurrection; which body is the Church; [Col. i. 24] and this shall be in the end of time, signified by the tail, which Moses held, in order that it might return into a rod. [Ex. iv. 4] But the serpents of the magicians, like those who are dead in the world, unless by believing in Christ they shall have been as it were swallowed up by, [Ex. vii. 12] and have entered into, His body, will not be able to rise again in Him. Jacob’s stone, therefore, as I said, signified something better than did the serpents of the magicians; yet the deed of the magicians was much more wonderful. But these things in this way are no hindrance to the understanding of the matter; just as if the name of a man were written in gold, and that of God in ink.

21. What man, again, knows how the angels made or took those clouds and fires in order to signify the message they were bearing, even if we supposed that the Lord or the Holy Spirit was manifested in those corporeal forms? Just as infants do not know of that which is placed upon the altar and consumed after the performance of the holy celebration, whence or in what manner it is made, or whence it is taken for religious use. And if they were never to learn from their own experience or that of others, and never to see that species of thing except during the celebration of the sacrament, when it is being offered and given; and if it were told them by the most weighty authority whose body and blood it is; they will believe nothing else, except that the Lord absolutely appeared in this form to the eyes of mortals, and that that liquid actually flowed from the piercing of a side [John xix. 34] which resembled this.

3. NPNF1-08, Expositions on the Psalms, Psalm 3, Section 1

And in the history of the New Testament by that so great and so wonderful forbearance of our Lord; in that He bore so long with him as if good, when He was not ignorant of his thoughts; in that He admitted him to the Supper in which He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood; finally, in that He received the kiss of peace at the very time of His betrayal; it is easily understood how Christ showed peace to His betrayer, although he was laid waste by the intestine war of so abominable a device. And therefore is Absalom called “father’s peace,” because his father had the peace, which he had not.

4. NPNF1-03, Of the Formal Admission of the Catechumen, Chapter 26, Section 50 (note that the sacrament he's discussing is probably not the Lord's Supper, but note that his comments are general and helpful in illustrating what Augustine means by "sign" and the like)

On the subject of the sacrament, indeed, which he receives, it is first to be well impressed upon his notice that the signs of divine things are, it is true, things visible, but that the invisible things themselves are also honored in them, and that that species, in reference to the outward and sensible sign of the salt, which is then sanctified by the blessing, is therefore not to be regarded merely in the way in which it is regarded in any common use. And thereafter he ought to be told what is also signified by the form of words to which he has listened, and what in him is seasoned by that (spiritual grace) of which this material substance presents the emblem. Next we should take occasion by that ceremony to admonish him that, if he hears anything even in the Scriptures which may carry a carnal sound, he should, even although he fails to understand it, nevertheless believe that something spiritual is signified thereby, which bears upon holiness of character and the future life. Moreover, in this way he learns briefly that, whatever he may hear in the canonical books of such a kind as to make him unable to refer it to the love of eternity, and of truth, and of sanctity, and to the love of our neighbor, he should believe that to have been spoken or done with a figurative significance; and that, consequently, he should endeavor to understand it in such a manner as to refer it to that twofold (duty of) love.

5a. Sermon 227 (Works of Saint Augustine, A Translation for the 21st Century: New City Press)

So they are great sacraments and signs, really serious and important sacraments. Do you want to know how their seriousness is impressed on us? The apostle says, Whoever eats the body of Christ or drinks the blood of the Lord unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor 11:27). What is receiving unworthily? Receiving with contempt, receiving with derision. Don't let yourselves think that what you can see is of no account. What you can see passes away, but the invisible reality signified does not pass away, but remains. Look, it's received, it's eaten, it's consumed. Is the body of Christ consumed, is the Church of Christ consumed, are the members of Christ consumed? Perish the thought! Here they are being purified, there they will be crowned with the victor's laurels. So what is signified will remain eternally, although the thing that signifies it seems to pass away. So receive the sacrament in such a way that you think about yourselves, that you retain unity in your hearts, that you always fix your hearts up above. Don't let your hope be placed on earth, but in heaven. Let your faith be firm in God, let it be acceptable to God. Because what you don't see now, but believe, you are going to see there, where you will have joy without end.

5b. (Alternative Translation) Trans. by Sr. Mary Sarah Muldowney, R.S.M., Sermons on the Liturgical Seasons, Sermon 227 (CUA Press, 2008) pp. 197-98.

Then, after the consecration of the Holy Sacrifice of God, because He wished us also to be His sacrifice, a fact which was made clear when the Holy Sacrifice was first instituted, and because that Sacrifice is a sign of what we are, behold, when the Sacrifice is finished, we say the Lord's Prayer which you have received and recited. After this, the 'Peace be with you' is said, and the Christians embrace one another with the holy kiss. This is a sign of peace; as the lips indicate, let peace be made in your conscience, that is, when your lips draw near to those of your brother, do not let your heart withdraw from his. Hence, these are great and powerful sacraments. Do you wish to know how they are commended? The Apostle says: 'Whoever eats the body of Christ or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.' What does it mean to receive unworthily? To receive in mockery, to receive in contempt. Let the Sacrament not appear of trifling value to you because you look upon it. What you see passes; but the invisible, that which is not seen, does not pass; it remains. Behold, it is received; it is eaten; it is consumed. Is the body of Christ consumed? Is the Church of Christ consumed? Are the members of Christ consumed? God forbid! Here they are cleansed; there they will be crowned. Therefore, what is signified will last eternally, even though it seems to pass. Receive, then, so that you may ponder, so that you may possess unity in your heart, so that you may always lift up your heart. Let your hope be, not on earth, but in heaven; let your faith be firm and acceptable to God. Because you now believe what you do not see, you are going to see there where you will rejoice eternally.

6. NPNF1, Letter 98 (to Boniface), section 9

For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood, in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith. Now believing is nothing else than having faith; and accordingly, when, on behalf of an infant as yet incapable of exercising faith, the answer is given that he believes, this answer means that he has faith because of the sacrament of faith, and in like manner the answer is made that he turns himself to God because of the sacrament of conversion, since the answer itself belongs to the celebration of the sacrament. Thus the apostle says, in regard to this sacrament of Baptism: “We are buried with Christ by baptism into death.” [Rom. vi. 4.] He does not say, “We have signified our being buried with Him,” but “We have been buried with Him.” He has therefore given to the sacrament pertaining to so great a transaction no other name than the word describing the transaction itself.

7. NPNF1-2, On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 1 (this is provided simply as Augustine's own explanation of what he means by signs)

As when I was writing about things, I introduced the subject with a warning against attending to anything but what they are in themselves, even though they are signs of something else, so now, when I come in its turn to discuss the subject of signs, I lay down this direction, not to attend to what they are in themselves, but to the fact that they are signs, that is, to what they signify. For a sign is a thing which, over and above the impression it makes on the senses, causes something else to come into the mind as a consequence of itself: as when we see a footprint, we conclude that an animal whose footprint this is has passed by; and when we see smoke, we know that there is fire beneath; and when we hear the voice of a living man, we think of the feeling in his mind; and when the trumpet sounds, soldiers know that they are to advance or retreat, or do whatever else the state of the battle requires.

8. NPNF1-2, On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 3

Our Lord, it is true, gave a sign through the odor of the ointment which was poured out upon His feet; [John xii. 3–7; Mark xiv. 8.] and in the sacrament of His body and blood He signified His will through the sense of taste; and when by touching the hem of His garment the woman was made whole, the act was not wanting in significance.

9. NPNF1-04, On Baptism against the Donatists, Book 4, Chapter 10, Section 15

Nor is the water "profane and adulterous" over which the name of God is invoked, even though it be invoked by profane and adulterous persons; because neither the creature itself of water, nor the name invoked, is adulterous. But the baptism of Christ, consecrated by the words of the gospel, is necessarily holy, however polluted and unclean its ministers may be; because its inherent sanctity cannot be polluted, and the divine excellence abides in its sacrament, whether to the salvation of those who use it aright, or to the destruction of those who use it wrong. Would you indeed maintain that, while the light of the sun or of a candle, diffused through unclean places, contracts no foulness in itself therefrom, yet the baptism of Christ can be defiled by the sins of any man, whatsoever he may be? For if we turn our thoughts to the visible materials themselves, which are to us the medium of the sacraments, every one must know that they admit of corruption. But if we think on that which they convey to us, who can fail to see that it is incorruptible, however much the men through whose ministry it is conveyed are either being rewarded or punished for the character of their lives?

10. Trans. by Sr. Mary Sarah Muldowney, R.S.M., Sermons on the Liturgical Seasons, Sermon 213, Section 8 (CUA Press, 2008), pp. 128-29.

'I believe in the forgiveness of sins.' If this power were not in the Church, there would be no hope; if there were no remission of sins in the Church, there would be no hope of future life and of eternal salvation. We give thanks to God who gave this gift to His Church. Behold, you are about to come to the sacred font; you will be washed in baptism; you will be renewed in the saving laver of regeneration; when you rise from these waters, you will be without sin. All the sins which in the past haunted you will be wiped out. Your sins will be like the Egyptians following the Israelites, pursuing only up to the Red Sea. What does 'up to the Red Sea' mean? Up to the font consecrated by the cross and blood of Christ. For, because that font is red, it reddens. Do you not see how the member of Christ becomes red? Question the eyes of faith. If you see the cross, see the blood, too. If you see what hangs on the cross, see what drips down from it. The side of Christ was pierced with a lance and our purchase price flowed forth. Therefore, baptism is signified by the sign of Christ, that is, by the water in which you are immersed and through which you pass, as it were, in the Red Sea. Your sins are your enemies. They follow you, but only to the Red Sea. When you have entered [the water], you will escape; they will be destroyed, just as the Egyptians were engulfed by the waters while the Israelites escaped on dry land. And why does Scripture say: 'There was not one of them left'? Because, whether you have committed many or few, great or small sins, even the smallest of them has not remained. But, since we are destined to live in the world where no one lives without sin, on that account the remission of sin depends, not solely on the washing in holy baptism, but also on the Lord's daily prayer which you will receive after eight days. In that prayer you will find, as it were, your daily baptism, so that you may give thanks to God who has given to His Church this gift which we acknowledge in the Creed. Hence, when we have said: 'I believe in the holy Church,' let us add, 'and in the remission of sins.'

11. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Exposition of the Psalms, Part 3, Vol. 16, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Exposition of Psalm 44, §19 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2000), p. 297:

Who, then, is the God who was anointed by God? Let the Jews tell us that. After all, these scriptures are theirs as well as ours. God was anointed by Go, and when you hear the word, "anointed," understand that it means Christ, for "Christ" is derived from "chrism," and the name "Christ" means "Anointed one." Nowhere else were kings and priests anointed; it was done only in that kingdom where Christ's coming was prophesied, where he was anointed, and from where the name Christ was to come. Nowhere else at all do we find this, in any other nation or kingdom. So God was anointed by God, and with what kind of oil? Spiritual, obviously. Visible oil is a sign; invisible oil is a sacramental mystery, for the spiritual oil is within. God was anointed for us, and sent to us. He was God, but he became man so that he could be anointed; yet he was man in such wise that he was God, and he was God in such a way that he did not disdain to be man. He is true man and true God, and there is no falsehood in him, for he is in every respect true, in every respect the very Truth. God became man, and it can be said that "God was anointed," because God became man, became Christ the Anointed One.

12. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Exposition of the Psalms, Part 3, Vol. 16, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Exposition 2 of Psalm 33 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2000), p. 33:

The psalmist wants to speak openly now about the sacrament that the Lord held in his hands. Taste and see how sweet the Lord is. The psalm is opening its meaning to you know, surely? It shows you that the feigned insanity and persistent madness of David was a sane insanity, a sober intoxication, for he was prefiguring something. Like King Achis the Jews replied, "How can this be?" when the Lord kept telling them, Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will not have life in you (Jn 6:54). King Achis, who stands for error and ignorance, was sovereign in them as they objected, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (Jn. 6:53). If you do not know, taste and see how sweet the Lord is; but if you do not understand this, you are King Achis. David will alter his behavior and withdraw from you; he will forsake you and go away.

13. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine Part 3, Vol. 10, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermons (341-400) on Various Subjects, Sermon 352, §4 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1995), pp. 141-42:

And when Moses entrusted him with the task of bringing the people in, he summoned him, and changed his name, and called him Jesus; so that the people of God would enter the promised land not under Moses but under Jesus, that is to say, not under the law but under grace. But just as that man wasn't the true Jesus, but a model one, so too that promised land wasn't the real one, but a model one. It was a temporary one, you see, for the first people; whereas the one that has been promised to us will be eternal. But eternal realities were being promised and foretold under temporal, time-bound, models and symbols. So just as he wasn't the real Jesus, and neither was that the real promised land, but the model or symbol of it; so too that rock wasn't really Christ, but only symbolically, and so with all the other things.

14. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine Part 3, Vol. 7, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermons (230 - 272B) on Liturgical Seasons, Sermon 260A, §3 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1993), p. 187.

So now they should stop saying to us, "What is there for you to give us, if we already have baptism?" They are so unaware of what they are saying, you see, that they are not even willing to read what holy scripture assures us of: that right inside the Church itself, that is to say, in the communion of the members of Christ, many were baptized in Samaria, and did not receive the Holy Spirit, but remained only in the baptismal state, until the apostles came to them from Jerusalem; while on the other hand Cornelius and those who were with him were found worthy to receive the Holy Spirit even before they received the sacrament of baptism. In this way God has taught us that the sign of salvation is one thing, salvation itself another; the form of godliness one thing, the power of godliness another.

15. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine Part 3, Vol. 7, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermons (230 - 272B) on Liturgical Seasons, Sermon 232, §7 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1993), p. 28.

And now then, my dearest friends, we have recognized the sacrament. Listen. He was walking with them, he is hospitably entertained, he breaks bread, and he's recognized. And we too must not say that we have not known Christ. We have known him if we believe. It's too little to say we have known him if we believe; we have him with us if we believe. They had Christ with them at a meal together; we have him inside in our spirits. It's a greater thing to have Christ in your heart than in your house. Our hearts, after all, are more inwardly attached to us than our houses. So now then, where ought the faithful to recognize him? The faithful know where; the catechumens, though, don't know; but nobody is shutting the door in their faces, to stop them knowing.

Perhaps that last one could better have gone in the previous section on the presence of Christ, but I thought it makes sense to include it here, as an example of the link between the issue of it being only a sacrament and the presence of Christ being a spiritual, inward presence.

- TurretinFan

Did Augustine Call Mary the "Mother of God"?

A dear reader notified me that a Roman apologist (or perhaps just a friend in the Roman church) had provided the following to them as allegedly representing Augustine's views:

"Mary was that only one who merited to be called the Mother and Spouse of God". (Sermon 208)

You'll notice that the person has provided a citation - the citation makes it look authentic. But, of course, I didn't stop there.

I grabbed a copy of Augustine's "Sermons on Liturgical Seasons," since that contains the range of sermons including Sermon 208. The quotation, however, was not to be found in Sermon 208 - a sermon on the occasion of Lent.

So, I did a little more digging. Alfonso de Liguori's "Glories of Mary," provides this same quotation and gives the Latin original ("Haec est quae sola meruit Mater et Spousa vocari.") as well as a more precise citation to an appendix of the Benedictine edition of Augustine's works.

In fact, upon locating the sermon, I discovered that it is listed as Sermon 208(a) on the occasion of the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It's not an authentic work. There are probably a variety of ways we could prove that, but the easiest way is that it is now recognized that there was no feast of the assumption in North Africa during Augustine's lifetime. Thus, the sermon was written at some later date, and merely ascribed to Augustine.

It's sad to see that some of Rome's advocates either knowingly or unwittingly are using falsehoods to try to promote their religion. It's one reason this blog exists - to shed the light of truth on the matter. And the truth is that Augustine did not call Mary "the Mother of God," nor would he have. In his authentic works he describes Mary this way:

At that time, therefore, when about to engage in divine acts, He repelled, as one unknown, her who was the mother, not of His divinity, but of His [human] infirmity.

NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate CXIX, §1, John 19:24-30.

-TurretinFan

Ergun Caner in Others' Books

It is interesting to note how Ergun Caner is described in books other than those books that he himself authored.

In March 2006, I (John) had the unique privilege of interviewing two of today's top Islamic-Christian scholars, Dr. Ergun Mehmet Caner, and his brother, Dr. Emir Fethi Caner. Ergun serves as president of Liberty Theological Seminary in Lynchburg, Virginia, while Emir serves as dean of the college at Southwestern Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. Combined, they have addressed tens of thousands of individuals, authored best-selling books, and have been featured on major networks such as CNN and NPR and BBC. But what strikes people most when encountering the Caner brothers is not primarily their scholarship, media exposure, or writings, but their astonishing personal stories about their conversion to Christianity out of a devout Muslim family tradition -- tradition that even included their own father moving to America to build Islamic mosques.

John Ankerburg, Middle East Meltdown, pp. 29-30.

"You have to understand that there are three types of Muslims who come to America. First, there are the cultural Muslims. They're just born into Islam, but they're not devout in any way. The extreme devout, which we were, are orthodox, and you don't have contact with non-Muslims. Surah 5 of the Qur'an teaches that you 'take no friends from among the Jews and the Christians.' So it's a very isolated community from which we came."

John Ankerburg, Middle East Meltdown, p. 30 (quoting Ergun Caner).

Regarding the above, I cannot vouch for whether Caner actually said what Ankerberg quotes him as saying.  However, this does show what Ankerberg apparently understood the Caners' testimony to be.

Ergun was born in Turkey as the son of an Islamic leader. He came to know the Lord as a practicing Muslim after immigrating to America with his family.

Leigh Gray, Loving God, Loving People: Living Out the Vertical in a Horizontal World. p. 106.

When I was in high school, I lived in Vincennes, Indiana. I was lucky to have the coolest youth minister in the world, at least in my eyes, and that was all that mattered. His name was Ergun Caner. He took an interest in me, and we hung out all the time. We would talk after church, sing in the sanctuary long after the service was over, and play tennis after school. He would do those great embarassing things that youth ministers are famous for, like come to your school lunchroom and call you out. He inspected my boyfriends and made suggestions for improvements. I just couldn't get enough of him.

Leigh Gray, Loving God, Loving People: Living Out the Vertical in a Horizontal World. p. 105

I have not heard anything from Ms. Gray regarding whether she is just confused or whether her impression of Caner's biography was based on Caner's own statements to her.  I would be interested if anyone knows whether Ms. Gray has commented.

-TurretinFan

The Story of Codex 61 aka Codex Montfortianus

The following is taken from "The Story of the Manuscripts," by George Edmonds Merrill (link to book).

---

Codex 61, or Montfortianus, derives its name from one of its former possessors, Rev. Thomas Montfort, D. D., of Cambridge. It is now at Trinity College, Dublin. This manuscript is of special interest among the cursives from the part it has played in the discussion of the interpolated verse in the First Epistle of St. John (v. 7), the verse of the " Three Heavenly Witnesses." It contains the whole New Testament, written apparently by three or four different hands, and is composed of four hundred and fifty-five paper leaves, only one of which is glazed. This single glazed leaf is the one containing the verse mentioned. A witty Irish prelate, quoted by Scrivener, [Plain Introduction, p. 173, Note.] said of this coincidence :—

We often hear that the text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses is a gloss, and anyone that will go into the College Library may see as much for himself.

When Erasmus published his two earliest editions of the New Testament he did not insert this verse, and was severely blamed for the omission. His defence was that it was not found in the manuscripts used by him, and he pledged himself to insert it in his revisions if any Greek copy could be found containing it. In his third edition he printed the verse (in 1552), saying that he found it in a Codex Britannicus discovered in England. The verse, as printed by Erasmus, is in exact verbal agreement with the text upon this glazed leaf of Montfortianus, and it is wholly agreed that the Codex Britannicus must have been the one now known by this name. The earliest owner of the manuscript whose name we know was Froy, a Franciscan friar, from whom it passed to Thomas Clement; next it was owned by William Chark; then by Montfort; then by Archbishop Usher; from whose hands it came into possession of the college in Dublin. It will be noticed that the name of the third owner was William Chark, and when we come to speak of the next cursive it will be found that he was also at one time the possessor of the Codex No. 69. In 61 the Revelation has been thought to have been copied from 69, when both were in the hands of Chark. Certainly the margins of both copies bear many notes in his handwriting, and it would have been a strong temptation to have had the opportunity of completing 61 by adding the Revelation from so good a source. As it stands, the text of this added Scripture is found to be of higher critical value than any other part of the volume.

---

By way of appendix, I would like to point the reader to a work that collated this codex. In the introduction, at page 61, the collator suggests that the portion of the manuscript that includes the Johanine Comma is a copy of Codex Lincolniensis, and that the Comma is an unauthorized interpolation to that copy (link to page).

Update: May 20, 2025

Nick Sayers has pointed out that 1552 should be 1522, and that the text of Montfortianus does not have "exact verbal agreement" with Erasmus' printed text.  I agree with him that it seems that the book from which the quotation comes (link to that book) has the typo he identified.  The third edition is 1522, not 1552.  I believe he's correct about the lack of "exact verbal agreement" as well, but I haven't checked myself.

Augustine on the Presence of Christ

When people try to claim that Augustine held to the modern Roman view of transubstantiation, one particular problem for them may be in dealing with Augustine's comments regarding the presence of Christ. The following are comments from Augustine that demonstrate that he did not hold to the idea of a bodily, carnal, fleshly, physical presence, but instead indicated that the only presence of Christ in his church during this age is divine and spiritual. As in my previous post, I have numbered the quotations for ease of reference.

1. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractate 50 on John (John 11:55-57), §§ 12-13

12. But what follows? “For the poor ye have always with you, but me ye will not have always.” We can certainly understand, “the poor ye have always;” what He has thus said is true. When were the poor wanting in the Church? “But me ye will not have always;” what does He mean by this? How are we to understand, “Me ye will not have always”? Don’t be alarmed: it was addressed to Judas. Why, then, did He not say, thou wilt have, but, ye will have? Because Judas is not here a unit. One wicked man represents the whole body of the wicked; in the same way as Peter, the whole body of the good, yea, the body of the Church, but in respect to the good. For if in Peter’s case there were no sacramental symbol of the Church, the Lord would not have said to him, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.” [Matt. xvi. 19.] If this was said only to Peter, it gives no ground of action to the Church. But if such is the case also in the Church, that what is bound on earth is bound in heaven, and what is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven,—for when the Church excommunicates, the excommunicated person is bound in heaven; when one is reconciled by the Church, the person so reconciled is loosed in heaven:—if such, then, is the case in the Church, Peter, in receiving the keys, represented the holy Church. If, then, in the person of Peter were represented the good in the Church, and in Judas’ person were represented the bad in the Church, then to these latter was it said, “But me ye will not have always.” But what means the “not always;” and what, the “always”? If thou art good, if thou belongest to the body represented by Peter, thou hast Christ both now and hereafter: now by faith, by sign, by the sacrament of baptism, by the bread and wine of the altar. Thou hast Christ now, but thou wilt have Him always; for when thou hast gone hence, thou wilt come to Him who said to the robber, “To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” [Luke xxiii. 43.] But if thou livest wickedly, thou mayest seem to have Christ now, because thou enterest the Church, signest thyself with the sign of Christ, art baptized with the baptism of Christ, minglest thyself with the members of Christ, and approachest His altar: now thou hast Christ, but by living wickedly thou wilt not have Him always.

13. It may be also understood in this way: “The poor ye will have always with you, but me ye will not have always.” The good may take it also as addressed to themselves, but not so as to be any source of anxiety; for He was speaking of His bodily presence. For in respect of His majesty, His providence, His ineffable and invisible grace, His own words are fulfilled, “Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world.” [Matt. xxviii. 20.] But in respect of the flesh He assumed as the Word, in respect of that which He was as the son of the Virgin, of that wherein He was seized by the Jews, nailed to the tree, let down from the cross, enveloped in a shroud, laid in the sepulchre, and manifested in His resurrection, “ye will not have Him always.” And why? Because in respect of His bodily presence He associated for forty days with His disciples, and then, having brought them forth for the purpose of beholding and not of following Him, He ascended into heaven, [Acts i. 3, 9, 10.] and is no longer here. He is there, indeed, sitting at the right hand of the Father; and He is here also, having never withdrawn the presence of His glory. In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, “Me ye will not have always.” In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes. In whichever way, then, it was said, “But me ye will not have always,” it can no longer, I suppose, after this twofold solution, remain as a subject of doubt.

2. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 50, John 11:55-57, 12:1-11, §4.

Let them come to the church and hear where Christ is, and take Him. They may hear it from us, they may hear it from the gospel. He was slain by their forefathers, He was buried, He rose again, He was recognized by the disciples, He ascended before their eyes into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and He who was judged is yet to come as Judge of all: let them hear, and hold fast. Do they reply, How shall I take hold of the absent? how shall I stretch up my hand into heaven, and take hold of one who is sitting there? Stretch up thy faith, and thou hast got hold. Thy forefathers held by the flesh, hold thou with the heart; for the absent Christ is also present. But for His presence, we ourselves were unable to hold Him.

3. NPNF1, Contra Faustus, Book 20, Chapter 13

How can Faustus think that we resemble the Manichæans in attaching sacredness to bread and wine, when they consider it sacrilege to taste wine? They acknowledge their god in the grape, but not in the cup; perhaps they are shocked at his being trampled on and bottled. It is not any bread and wine that we hold sacred as a natural production, as if Christ were confined in corn or in vines, as the Manichæans fancy, but what is truly consecrated as a symbol. What is not consecrated, though it is bread and wine, is only nourishment or refreshment, with no sacredness about it; although we bless and thank God for every gift, bodily as well as spiritual. According to your notion, Christ is confined in everything you eat, and is released by digestion from the additional confinement of your intestines. So, when you eat, your god suffers; and when you digest, you suffer from his recovery. When he fills you, your gain is his loss. This might be considered kindness on his part, because he suffers in you for your benefit, were it not that he gains freedom by escaping and leaving you empty. There is not the least resemblance between our reverence for the bread and wine, and your doctrines, which have no truth in them. To compare the two is even more foolish than to say, as some do, that in the bread and wine we worship Ceres and Bacchus. I refer to this now, to show where you got your silly idea that our fathers kept the Sabbath in honor of Saturn. For as there is no connection with the worship of the Pagan deities Ceres and Bacchus in our observance of the sacrament of the bread and wine, which you approve so highly that you wish to resemble us in it, so there was no subjection to Saturn in the case of our fathers, who observed the rest of the Sabbath in a manner suitable to prophetic times.

Alternative translation:

But I do not know why Faustus thinks that we practice the same religion with respect to the bread and the cup, since for Manicheans to taste wine is not religious but sacrilegious. For they recognize their God in the grape; they refuse to recognize him in the cup, as if he had caused them some offense by being crushed and bottled. But our bread and cup, not just any bread and cup, is made sacramental to us by a particular consecration; it was not naturally such, as Manichaeans say in their folly on account of Christ, who is supposedly bound in the ears of grain and branches. Hence, what is not consecrated, though it is bread and cup, is food for refreshment, not the sacrament of religion, apart from the fact that we bless and give thanks to the Lord for every gift of his, not only spiritual but also bodily.
But for you in your myth Christ is presented as bound in all foods, destined still to be bound in your stomach and to be released by your belches. For, even when you eat, you restore yourselves a loss to your God, and when you digest your food, he is restored at a loss to you. For, when he fills you, your intake squashes him. And this, of course, would be attributed to his mercy when he suffers something in you and for you, were it not that he again leaves you empty so that he may escape after being set free by you. How, then, can you set our bread and cup on a par with this and say that an error far removed from the truth is the same religious practice? For your are more foolish than some people who think that, on account of the bread and the cup, we worship Ceres and Liber.

I thought that I should mention this point so that you might notice the folly from which there comes that idea of yours that, on account of the Sabbath, our patriarchs were devoted to Saturn. For, just as we are far removed from Ceres and Liber, gods of the pagans, although we embrace in our rites the sacrament of the bread and the cup (which you praised in such a way that you wanted to be our equals in it), so our patriarchs were far removed from the chains of Saturn, although in accord with the time of prophecy they observed the sabbath rest.

(Works of Saint Augustine, A Translation for the 21st Century: New City Press)

4. Tractate 80 on John (John 15:1-3), At Section 3

“Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Why does He not say, Ye are clean through the baptism wherewith ye have been washed, but “through the word which I have spoken unto you,” save only that in the water also it is the word that cleanseth? Take away the word, and the water is neither more nor less than water. The word is added to the element, and there results the Sacrament, as if itself also a kind of visible word. For He had said also to the same effect, when washing the disciples’ feet, “He that is washed needeth not, save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit.” [Chap. xiii. 10.] And whence has water so great an efficacy, as in touching the body to cleanse the soul, save by the operation of the word; and that not because it is uttered, but because it is believed? For even in the word itself the passing sound is one thing, the abiding efficacy another. “This is the word of faith which we preach,” says the apostle, “that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth that Jesus is the Lord, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” [Rom. x. 10.] Accordingly, we read in the Acts of the Apostles, “Purifying their hearts by faith;” [Acts xv. 9.] and, says the blessed Peter in his epistle, “Even as baptism doth also now save us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer [1 Pet. iii. 21.] of a good conscience.” “This is the word of faith which we preach,” whereby baptism, doubtless, is also consecrated, in order to its possession of the power to cleanse. For Christ, who is the vine with us, and the husbandman with the Father, “loved the Church, and gave Himself for it.” And then read the apostle, and see what he adds: “That He might sanctify it, cleansing it with the washing of water by the word.” [Eph. v. 25, 26.] The cleansing, therefore, would on no account be attributed to the fleeting and perishable element, were it not for that which is added, “by the word.” This word of faith possesses such virtue in the Church of God, that through the medium of him who in faith presents, and blesses, and sprinkles it, He cleanseth even the tiny infant, although itself unable as yet with the heart to believe unto righteousness, and to make confession with the mouth unto salvation. All this is done by means of the word, whereof the Lord saith, “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.”

5a. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Exposition of the Psalms, Part 3, Vol. 16, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Exposition 1 of Psalm 33, §10 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2000), p. 21.

10. And he was carried in his own hands. How on earth are we to understand this, my brothers and sisters, how is it humanly possible? How can someone be carried in his own hands? A person can be carried in the hands of others, but not in his own. Well, we have no way of knowing what it literally means in David’s case; but we can make sense of it with regard to Christ. Christ was being carried in his own hands when he handed over his body, saying, This is my body (Mt 26:26); for he was holding that very body in his hands as he spoke. Such is the humility of our Lord Jesus Christ, and this humility is what he recommends to us most strongly.

5b. (but compare the added caveat in the second sermon) John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Exposition of the Psalms, Part 3, Vol. 16, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Exposition 2 of Psalm 33, §2 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2000), p. 24.

In the light of this, what is the meaning of he affected? It means he was full of affection. What could ever be as full of affection as is the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, who in consideration of our infirmity accepted temporal death amid such violence and degradation, to free us from everlasting death? He drummed because a drum can be made only by stretching a skin across a wooden frame, so David's drumming was a prediction that Christ was to be crucified. He drummed on the doors into the city; and what else are the doors into the city but our hearts, which we had shut against Christ? But from the drum of his cross he opened the hearts of us mortals. He was carried in his own hands; how was this possible? Because when he entrusted to us his very body and blood, he took into his hands what the faithful know about, and so in a sense he was carrying himself when he said, This is my body.

6. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine Part 3, Vol. 10, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermons (341-400) on Various Subjects, Sermon 354, §2 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1995), p. 156.

Now many people receive the sacrament of his body; but not all who receive the sacrament are also going to have the place in his company promised to his members. Nearly all people indeed say the sacrament is his body, because all are feeding together in his pastures; but he is going to come and separate them, and place some on the right, some on the left. And each section is going to say, Lord, Lord, when did we see you and minister to you? or else Lord, when did we see you and not minister to you? Each section is going to say that; to one, all the same, he will say, Come, you blessed of my Father, take possession of the kingdom; to the other, Go into eternal fire, which has been prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt 25:31-41).

7. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine Part 3, Vol. 7, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermons (230 - 272B) on Liturgical Seasons, Sermon 265A, §§6-7 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1993), p. 244.

If that's the only thing they are willing to hear, why don't they pay attention to what he said himself on another occasion: I and the Father are one? And then they must consider why it was said: The Father is greater than I. As he was about to ascend, you see, to the Father, the disciples were saddened that he would be leaving them in his bodily form; and so he said to them, What I told you: I am going to the Father, has filled your hearts with sadness. If you loved me you would rejoice that I am going to the Father; because the Father is greater than I (Jn. 16:6; 14:28). That amounts to saying, "The reason I am withdrawing from your sight this form of a servant, in which the Father is greater than I, is so that you may be able spiritually to see the Lord, once the form of a servant has been removed from in front of your eyes of flesh."
7. So on the one hand, because of the true form of a servant which he had taken, it was true what he said, The Father is greater than I, because obviously God is greater than man; and on the other hand, because of the true form of God in which he remained with the Father, it was true what he said, I and the Father are one. So he ascended to the Father insofar as he was a man, but he remained in the Father insofar as he was God, because he had come forth to us in the flesh without departing from the Father. What I am saying is, there ascended to the Father the Word which had become flesh to dwell among us (Jn 1:14). And he promised us his continued presence, saying, Behold I am with you all days, until the consummation of the age (Mt 28:20).

8. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine Part 3, Vol. 10, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermons (341-400) on Various Subjects, Sermon 375C, §6 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1995), p. 343.

What a splendid touch, what belief, what insistence! And this is what a woman did, worn out with loss of blood, like the Church afflicted and wounded in its martyrs by shedding of their blood, but full of the strength of faith. She had previously spent her fortune on doctors, that is on the gods of the nations, who had never been able to cure her; to this Church the Lord has presented not his bodily but his spiritual presence. So now this woman who's touching and the Lord who's being touched know each other. But in order that those who needed to know how to obtain salvation might be taught how to touch, he said, Who touched me? And the disciples answered, The crowds are jostling you, and you can say, Who touched me? As though you were in some lofty place where nobody can touch you, is that how you ask who touched you, while you are being jostled continuously by the crowds? The Lord said, Someone touched me (Lk 8:45-46). I felt one woman touching me more than the whole crowd jostling me. The crowd knows well enough how to jostle; if only it could learn how to touch!

9. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine Part 3, Vol. 10, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermons (341-400) on Various Subjects, Sermon 361, §7 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1995), p. 229.

So you are enduring a great storm; you don't want to answer the one who is trying to corrupt you, because you want to be nice to him, since he's offering you a drink; but the tidal wave of that craving is rearing up its crest, and threatening to engulf your heart like a boat. Christian, Christ is asleep in your boat; wake him up, he will command the storm, and everything will be calm. At that time, you see, when the disciples were being tossed about in the boat and Christ was asleep, they represented Christians being tossed about while their Christian faith is asleep. You can see, after all, what the apostle says: For Christ to dwell, he says, by faith in your hearts (Eph 3:19). As regards, you see, his presence in beauty and divinity, he is always with the Father; as regards his bodily presence, he is now about the heavens at the right hand of the Father; but as regards the presence of faith, he is in all Christians. And the reason, therefore, that you are being tossed about hither and thither is that Christ is asleep; that is, the reason you don't overcome those cravings that are stirred up by the gusts of evil persuasion, is that faith is asleep.

10. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine Part 3, Vol. 20, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Expositions of the Psalms (Volume 6), Exposition of Psalm 127, §8 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2004), p. 105.

Now let each one of us discern what kind of fear he or she has. Is it the kind that charity casts out or the chaste fear that abides for ever, for eternity? Each of you must test it now. I will spell it out, and you test it. Our bridegroom has gone away. Question your conscience: Do you want him to come back, or would you prefer him to delay his return? Go on, ask yourselves, brothers and sisters! I have knocked at the doors of your hearts, but he alone hears the reply from within. The answers given by all your consciences cannot reach my ears, because I am only a man. But he, who is absent as far as bodily presence goes, is present in all the power and vigor of his majesty, and he has heard you. If we say, "Look, Christ is almost here! Tomorrow will be judgment day!" how few people will reply, "Good! Let him come!" Those who do react like that are the ones who love much, and if you then tell them, "Oh no; he has been delayed," they will dread any delay, and their dread is chaste fear. And just as chaste fear dreads any delay in his coming, so, when he has come, will it dread his going away. But this fear is tranquil and unworried, another proof that it is chaste fear. We are not likely to be forsaken by him once he has found us, are we? Not anyone who believes in him. After all, he sought us before ever we began to seek him.

- TurretinFan

Augustine - Christ's Words in John 6 are Figurative

The following are some quotations from Augustine on the question of whether Christ's words in John 6 are figurative. I've numbered the quotations for ease of reference, if anyone wishes to remark on them in the comment box. Augustine's writings are quite extensive, so I don't promise that this is a complete list of all his statements to the effect that Christ's words in John 6 are figurative, and should be understood spiritually.

1. NPNF1: Vol. II, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, Chapter 16 (section 24).

If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

2. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 25, §12.

“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already.

3. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 26, §1.

Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe on Him. For to believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. A babe within, a new man within. Where he is made new, there he is satisfied with food.

4. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 26, John 6:41-59, §18.

In a word, He now explains how that which He speaks of comes to pass, and what it is to eat His body and to drink His blood. “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. Consequently, he that dwelleth not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwelleth not, doubtless neither eateth His flesh [spiritually] nor drinketh His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth], but rather doth he eat and drink the sacrament of so great a thing to his own judgment, because he, being unclean, has presumed to come to the sacraments of Christ, which no man taketh worthily except he that is pure: of such it is said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”

5(a). John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Exposition of the Psalms, Part 3, Vol. 18, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Psalm 98, §9 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2002), p. 475.

But the Lord insisted: It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life (Jn 6:54). “Understand what I have told you in a spiritual way. You are not asked to eat this body that you can see, nor to drink the blood that will be shed by those who will crucify me. What I have revealed to you is something mysterious, something which when understood spiritually will mean life for you. Although it is to be celebrated in a visible manner, you must understand it in a way that transcends bodily sight.” Exalt the Lord our God, and worship his footstool, because he is holy.

5(b). NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm 99 (98), §8.

It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He saith not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learnt that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learnt. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and saith unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.

6. NPNF1-7, Tractates on John, Tractate 27, Section 1

And He explained the mode of this bestowal and gift of His, in what manner He gave His flesh to eat, saying, “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” The proof that a man has eaten and drank is this, if he abides and is abode in, if he dwells and is dwelt in, if he adheres so as not to be deserted. This, then, He has taught us, and admonished us in mystical words that we may be in His body, in His members under Himself as head, eating His flesh, not abandoning our unity with Him. But most of those who were present, by not understanding Him, were offended; for in hearing these things, they thought only of flesh, that which themselves were. But the apostle says, and says what is true, “To be carnally-minded is death.” [Rom. vii. 6.] The Lord gives us His flesh to eat, and yet to understand it according to the flesh is death; while yet He says of His flesh, that therein is eternal life. Therefore we ought not to understand the flesh carnally.

7. NPNF1-7, Tractates on John, Tractate 27, Section 3

“But Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples murmured at it,”—for they so said these things with themselves that they might not be heard by Him: but He who knew them in themselves, hearing within Himself,—answered and said, “This offends you;” because I said, I give you my flesh to eat, and my blood to drink, this forsooth offends you. “Then what if ye shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before?” What is this? Did He hereby solve the question that perplexed them? Did He hereby uncover the source of their offense? He did clearly, if only they understood. For they supposed that He was going to deal out His body to them; but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: “When ye shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before;” certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting.

-TurretinFan

The "Little Extra" of Believing the Word of God

Over at the interesting, and often thought-provoking, non-Calvinist blog "Diglot" (anonmyously authored), I found the following statement:

I think that today’s Christianity in large part has fused the basics of the Christian gospel message together with many peripheral beliefs. When you become a Christian in today’s Western culture, you are not merely “accepting Christ” but you are also accepting an entire package of doctrines and beliefs. All these little extra beliefs are implicitly touted as being inextricably wrapped up with the basic message of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.

What are the “little extras” I am talking about? Things like being told that as a Christian you have to believe that the world was created 6000 years ago, that evolution is not true, that everything in the Bible (especially the Old Testament) actually happened, that the Gospel of John is a faithful record of what Jesus actually said and did, etc. However, it seems that when many Christians realize that these things are not even remotely true, their entire faith collapses. Not just their Christian faith, but even their most basic faith in any God.

But Jesus said:

John 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

You cannot have Jesus and reject Moses, because Jesus bore witness to Moses. If you believe the words of Jesus, you will believe the words of Moses. If you don't believe Moses, you don't believe Jesus.

Believers are not simply those who "accept Christ," but those who believe and trust in the Word of God. Thus, Scripture contrasts the two positions:

Psalm 106:12 Then believed they his words; they sang his praise.

vs.

Psalm 106:24 Yea, they despised the pleasant land, they believed not his word:

And again:

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

vs.

John 5:38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.

And sometimes we see the two tied directly together:

John 12:46-48
I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Unbelief in the Bible is unbelief in God. I wish I could offer hope to those who reject the Old Testament but claim to love Jesus, but I cannot. Perhaps God will have mercy on them (after all, we are all sinners and imperfect), but the fruit of the lives of such men is that they have not believed the Word of the Lord.

This is not a little extra, but the central issue - a line that divides heretics from orthodox Christians - those that accept the once delivered faith from those who create a new faith that excludes those parts that they do not wish to hold.

It is not a tragedy when unbelievers identify themselves as unbelievers. After all, it is better for an unbeliever to recognize his situation than for him to falsely imagine himself to be a believer.

Mark 2:17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

So, dear reader, here is a challenge for you: do you believe the Word of the Lord? Is it your rule of faith and life? Do you measure the claims of your church by that standard, or do you interpret the Scriptures according to what your church insists it means? Do you measure the historical and cosmological claims of "science" by what the Bible says, or do you interpret the Bible in light of what "science" tells you? Have you accepted or relegated the Word of the Lord?

Psalm 18:30 As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.

-TurretinFan

Addressing Two Responses to the Cosmological Argument

The cosmological argument argues for the existence of an uncaused cause that is eternal and unchangeable. There are two main responses to this argument.

1) That doesn't mean that the uncaused cause is Jesus.

There's no particular reason to argue with this response. We know about Jesus from the Bible, not from the cosmological argument.

2) If God exists as an uncaused cause, why not just assume that the universe itself is an uncaused cause?

The answer here is a bit nuanced. The cosmological argument shows that nature does not admit of an uncaused cause. Therefore, we must turn to the supernatural. However, just because the supernatural must have brought nature into being does not mean that nature can bring itself into being. In other words, this second response is an example of category error.

Let me try to clarify that a bit further. One of the foundation principles of the cosmological argument is that nothing comes from nothing. Yet, we see and say that God made all things from nothing. Does this disprove one of the premises upon which the cosmological argument is founded? No - because "nothing comes from nothing" is the way that nature operates. God is supernatural. Thus, the fact that God brings something from nothing does not violate the principle.

Perhaps it becomes even easier when you look at it this way. The cosmological argument is an argument for the fact that a creation miracle must have occurred. However, that does not mean that miracles are an ordinary part of nature. If you see a turtle on a fencepost, you don't think, "wow, I guess turtles CAN climb fences," you think, "someone put the turtle there."

You can easily see that it is absurd to say: "if someone can put a turtle there, why not just assume that the turtle can put himself there?" Yet, it is less obvious (particularly to atheists) to say that "if God can create the world from nothing, or be self-existent, or be timelessly eternal - then why not assume that the universe can be the same?"

I'm sure there are plenty of other responses, but if you ever find yourself in a discussion in which the cosmological argument comes up, perhaps you'll be able to help folks see that the universe is like a turtle on top of the fence post. Someone must have put him there - we know that because the turtle can't possibly have put himself there - just as we know that something outside of nature must have caused nature to exist.

And that something - whose identity is outside the argument - is the Lord God.

-TurretinFan

Built on the Wrong Foundation

Francis Beckwith explains (in a blog entry / column titled: "Transubstantiation: From Stumbling Block to Cornerstone"):

The Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is a real stumbling block to some Protestants who are seriously considering Catholicism. It was for me too, until I explored the subject, historically and scripturally.

Transubstantiation is one of those Roman dogmas that spectacularly fails the tests of history and Scripture, so it was interesting to read what Beckwith wrote. It was particularly interesting because Beckwith views transubstantiation as a cornerstone, whereas for us (Reformed), the cornerstone of our theology is the Word of God.

Beckwith begins by allegedly setting for the doctrine of transubstantiation:

Catholicism holds that bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ when they are consecrated by the priest celebrating the Mass. Oftentimes non-Catholics get hung up on the term transubstantiation, the name for the philosophical theory that the Church maintains best accounts for the change at consecration.

There's a tiny problem that Beckwith hasn't accurately represented his church's position. The position of Rome is that:

And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the veritable Body of our Lord, and His veritable Blood, together with His soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; but the body itself under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connexion and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who hath now risen from the dead, to die no more, are united together; and the divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatical union thereof with His body and soul. Wherefore it is most true, that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof.

And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.

- Trent, Session XIII, Chapters 3-4

Notice what is actually involved:

1) The bread becomes not just the body of Christ, but the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, and no longer remains bread.

2) The wine becomes not just the blood of Christ, but the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, and no longer remains wine.

These can perhaps be seen in the first three canons that Trent set forth in the same session:

CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

Notice that is not simply viewed as "the best explanation." It's so central to the Roman faith that if you deny it, you are under Trent's anathema. It's as central as the divinity of Christ is, to a Christian.

Beckwith argues:

There are several reasons why it would be a mistake to dismiss transubstantiation simply because of the influence of Aristotle on its formulation. First, Eastern Churches in communion with the Catholic Church rarely employ this Aristotelian language, and yet the Church considers their celebration of the Eucharist perfectly valid. Second, the Catholic Church maintains that the divine liturgies celebrated in the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome (commonly called “Eastern Orthodoxy”) are perfectly valid as well, even though the Eastern Orthodox rarely employ the term transubstantiation. Third, the belief that the bread and wine are literally transformed into Christ’s body and blood predates Aristotle’s influence on the Church’s theology by over 1000 years. For it was not until the thirteenth century, and the ascendancy of St. Thomas Aquinas’ thought, that Aristotle’s categories were employed by the Church in its account of the Eucharist. In fact, when the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) employed the language of substantial change, St. Thomas had not even been born!

I answer:

First, the primary reason to reject transubstantiation has nothing to do with Aristotle. The primary reason to reject transubstantiation is that it is not taught by Scripture. In fact, the teachings of Scripture contradict transubstantiation.

Second, it is unclear what relevance Beckwith thinks that the approval of Eastern-rite liturgies that don't use the term "transubstantiation" is. Even the Latin-rite New Order of the Mass doesn't use the term "transubstantiation." (as can be seen by reviewing this pdf). Those points are totally irrelevant to the question.

Third, yes - the term "transubstantiation" (transsubstantiatio) was used by the 4th Lateran Council, 10 years before Aquinas was born. But the 4th Lateran Council affirmed much less than what Trent affirmed:

There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. In which there is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us.

(Fourth Lateran Council, Canon 1)

Notice that there is nothing there about each species being the whole Christ, nothing there about the soul and divinity being present, and nothing about the substance of the bread being absent. No doubt the teachings of the Fourth Lateran Council were in error, but they were not as extreme as Trent was.

As for the claim about "1000 years," it's a hollow claim. He continues that claim this way:

It was that third point that I found so compelling and convinced me that the Catholic view of the Eucharist was correct. It did not take long for me to see that Eucharistic realism (as I like to call it) had been uncontroversially embraced deep in Christian history. This is why Protestant historian, J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood.” I found it in many of the works of the Early Church Fathers, including St. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 110), St. Justin Martyr (A.D. 151), St. Cyprian of Carthage, (A. D. 251), First Council of Nicaea (A. D. 325), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (A. D. 350), and St. Augustine of Hippo (A. D. 411) . These are, of course, not the only Early Church writings that address the nature of the Eucharist. But they are representative.

The problem is that Beckwith has been convinced to accept the Roman view despite the evidence. The evidence of "Eucharistic realism" is one thing, and perhaps it is an important thing to the Roman position.

Nevertheless, there is no teaching during the first 800 or so years of the church that has these characteristics:

1) The bread becomes not just the body of Christ, but the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, and no longer remains bread.

2) The wine becomes not just the blood of Christ, but the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, and no longer remains wine.

Yet that is what Trent teaches and makes central to the Roman faith. You may find fathers who echo the Scriptural metaphor of the bread being the body and the cup being the blood. You may even find some fathers who go further, and insist that the relationship is more than a mere symbol, but instead is a symbol with power. You may find fathers that talk about a spiritual presence. But you won't find what Trent teaches.

I openly challenge the Roman apologists to bring forth any example of a church father who says that after the consecration the bread is the blood of Christ, much less any church father that teaches both (1) and (2) as explained above. In short, any father of the church that teaches what Trent makes central to the faith.

Two of my favorite example of the metaphors of the fathers are from Ignatius:

You, therefore, must arm yourselves with gentleness and regain your strength in faith (which is the flesh of the Lord) and in love (which is the blood of Jesus Christ).
Greek text: Ὑμεῖς οὖν τὴν πραϋπάθειαν ἀναλαβόντες ἀνακτίσασθε ἑαυτοὺς ἐν πίστει, ὅ ἐστιν σὰρξ τοῦ κυρίου, καὶ ἐν ἀγάπῃ, ὅ ἐστιν αἷμα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

See J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, eds. and trans., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their Writings, 2nd. ed., The Letters of Ignatius, To the Trallians, Chapter 8 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), p. 163.

And again:

Ignatius (@ 110 AD): I take no pleasure in corruptible food or the pleasures of this life. I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ who is of the seed of David; and for drink I want his blood, which is incorruptible love.
Greek text: Oὐχ ἥδομαι τροφῇ φθορᾶς οὐδὲ ἡδοναῖς τοῦ βίου τούτου. Ἄρτον θεοῦ θέλω, ὅ ἐστιν σὰρξ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, «τοῦ ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ», καὶ πόμα θέλω τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ, ὅ ἐστιν ἀγάπη ἄφθαρτος.

See J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, eds. and trans., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their Writings, 2nd. ed., The Letters of Ignatius, To the Romans, Chapter 7 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), p. 175.

And, of course, there are fathers who seem to have taken a view that is inconsistent with the crassly carnal view of Rome, such as Tertullian:

Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, 'This is my body,' that is, the figure of my body.

ANF, Vol. 3, Against Marcion, 4.40.

Beckwith doesn't really make a Biblical argument. He does reference the Bible though, and he does so in this way:

This should, however, not surprise us, given what the Bible says about the Lord’s Supper. When Jesus celebrated the Last Supper with his disciples (Mt. 26:17-30; Mk. 14:12-25; Lk. 22:7-23), which we commemorate at Holy Communion, he referred to it as a Passover meal. He called the bread and wine his body and blood. In several places, Jesus is called the Lamb of God (John 1: 29, 36; I Peter 1:19; Rev. 5:12). Remember, when the lamb is killed for Passover, the meal participants ingest the lamb. Consequently, St. Paul’s severe warnings about partaking in Holy Communion unworthily only make sense in light of Eucharistic realism (I Cor. 10:14-22; I Cor. 11:17-34). He writes: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? . . . Whoever, therefore eats and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” (I Cor. 10:16; 11:27)

But, of course, nowhere does Scripture confuse the symbols and call the bread his blood or the cup his body. Nowhere does the Scripture deny that the bread is still bread or that the cup still contains actual food.

Moreover, Scripture is rich in metaphor - including metaphor:

• in which the body of Christ is called "true meat" and his blood is called "true drink" (John 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.)
• in which Christ is called the "bread from heaven" (John 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.)
• in which Christ is called the "bread of Life" (John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.)

as well as other metaphors in which Jesus is a vine (John 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.), a door (John 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.), and a shepherd (John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.). But, of course, no amount of evidence that metaphor is abundant or that exactly the opposite metaphors are also used, will persuade those who seek to impose their heretical doctrine on Scripture.

Beckwith concludes:

In light of all these passages and the fact that Jesus called himself the bread of life (John 6:41-51) and that he said that his followers must “eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood” (John 6:53), the Eucharistic realism of the Early Church, the Eastern Churches (both in and out of communion with Rome), and the pre-Reformation medieval Church (fifth to sixteenth centuries) seems almost unremarkable. So, what first appeared to be a stumbling block was transformed into a cornerstone.

Notice how blindly Beckwith cites John 6! That metaphor ("Bread of Life") is exactly the opposite of the metaphor ("This is my body"), but yet Beckwith seems to easily grasp one metaphor while stumbling over the other as though it were intended quasi-literally (I don't say "literally" because literally that would mean that both the accidents and substance of a body were present - this "substance-only" idea is not "literal").

Beckwith fails to consider that Jesus explains his hard words that he uttered in John 6:53, only a few verses later:

John 6:61-63
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

And if Beckwith had studied Augustine more, he would have seen that Augustine explains this the same way:

It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He saith not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learnt that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learnt. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and saith unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.

NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm 99 (98), §8.

So, while there may be some vague "Eucharistic realism" out there in the fathers, that does not convert Jesus' metaphors into the Tridentine absurdity, in which the bread is said to be not only the body of the Lord, but his blood, soul, and divinity as well - and not at all to be bread, except as to appearances. Had Beckwith founded himself on the Word of God, rather than on the traditions of men, he would not be led into this error. Since he has rejected, however, the Word of God, he has a new cornerstone for himself.

-TurretinFan

Sola Scriptura in Cyril of Alexandria's "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos"

The Orthodox Research Institute has published an English translation of Cyril of Alexandria's work, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos." It's not a huge tome, weighing in at about 50 pages of English text. Nevertheless, I think it serves to illustrate the Sola Scriptura approach of Cyril. Most of the following will be quotations from this single work. Italics are in the original, but any bolding is my own:

From this viewpoint, it follows that the one Christ has been divided into two things, into God and a man. But this is alien to the apostolic teaching and is in fact an invention of a demonic imagination. For the divine word proclaims to us that at the end of the ages, the Logos became man, not indeed that he was transformed into human nature, but that he took himself this nature.

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 1, Section 2

What is implicit in Cyril's analysis is that if it is not in the Scriptures, it is not part of the apostolic teaching. We see him express the same thing negatively here:

But, if they say that the divine visitation has come upon a man born of a woman, then this is also what happened in the case of all the prophets. If this is true, then it is necessary to find in the divine Scripture two separate confessions, one, which praises God the Logos in himself, and another, which glorifies a man like us in words appropriate to human beings.

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 1, Section 2

The same thing is repeated:

[After quoting John 1:1, John 1:14, and Hebrews 2:14] Do you hear then the one saying that the Logos was made flesh and the other that he partook of the same? But, if Jesus were born the man from a woman and afterwards the Logos descended upon him, as said before, it is necessary to find everywhere two completely separate confessions. Now, however, that the divinely inspired Scripture attributes to him conjointly the things, which belong by nature of man, the economy of the union is clearly seen.

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 1, Section 3

Notice as well that in the quotation above Cyril says that the orthodox is "clearly seen" in Scripture, thereby affirming the perspicuity of Scripture on this issue.

Now consider Cyril's rather sharp remarks about his theological opponents:

But we recognize that their words are full of madness and delirium that it is as if they were spoken in sleep or drunkenness. We shall say to them the words of the Savior, "You err, knowing neither the Scriptures nor the power of God" (Matt. 22:29). You ought to sober up and stop sinning, because you have become sick through ignorance of God.

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 1, Section 6

What is implied in Cyril's rather non-irenic comments is that ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of God. The two go hand in hand.

And again:

If, then, they apply the indwelling to him in a similar manner as in the saints, their blasphemy will be obvious to everyone, and it will be clear that their teaching is entirely alien to the apostolic teaching.

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 1, Section 7

Notice that Cyril's emphasis is on the fact that their ideas are not part of the apostolic teaching. In fact, they are foreign to it.

However, of course, the heretics did try to argue from the Scriptures. So Cyril analyzed their arguments. Consider his approach:

But look, they say, the Apostle openly confessed Him to be a man. For, in a letter to Timothy, he writes this: "a man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5). They say this, because they want to disturb the mind of the most sincere [believers]. But, if anyone prudently examines the apostolic verse, he will cast his vote against their impiety on the basis of this very verse. However, we shall not cut short the verse like they do, but taking into account a little of what precedes this verse, we shall be able to understand correctly the confession of the economy which is made here.

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 2, Section 12

There are at least three things to note in the preceding quotation. First, the perspicuity of Scripture is shown in Cyril's comment about "if anyone prudently examines the apostolic verse." Second, the sufficiency of Scripture is shown by Cyril's comment, "on the basis of this very verse." Third, the hermeneutical principle that Scripture interprets Scripture is shown by Cyril's appeal to context.

It's not a lone appeal either, for he continues:

If this is the case, then, let us bring right into the middle of our discussion the Lord's statement, which they presumptuously say must be understood, as if in the Gospels he confessed that he was a mere man: "why do you seek to kill me a mere man, who has spoken the truth to you?" (John 8:40). But if one gives his mind as a love of truth to the verses of the Gospels and especially to the context, in which the Savior has spoken, then he will fully understand their cunning and will justly call them censorious and slanderous.

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 2, Section 15

Notice again in the preceding quotation the double affirmation of Scripture's perspicuity and the necessity to read Scripture in context, letting Scripture interpret Scripture.

Notice as well Cyril's explanation for the faulty conclusion of the heretics:

But they are silent about all these verses and seize upon this word "man," and in this, they are similar to the Jews of that time. For the Jews waited for the Savior to teach, not really because they wanted to believe or to be taught, but because they were planning to seize upon something he would say, as the evangelist reports. These men too read or rather speculate about the divine Scriptures in order to find an accusation against him, who laid down his life for them.

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 2, Section 15

This is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. The latter seeks to seize the Word for its own purposes, the former comes to the Word seeking to learn.

He even gets stronger:

[After quoting John 5:17, 19, 22-23, 25, and 27-29 and John 6:35] But they bypass all these verses as if they do not hear or rather, because they intentionally pretend to be deaf. They carry on about this statement, "but now you are seeking to kill me, a man, who has told you the truth," in order to disturb the minds of the most sincere [believers]. But they should consider, if they are right, that he who spoke what was said before is he, who has said this statement also.

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 2, Section 16

Notice how Cyril is bringing in the concept of tota scriptura - all of Scripture must be considered, not only a select verse or fragment of a verse. That is because Scripture interprets Scripture.

Cyril continues on with sola Scriptura:

We should be content with what we have said and seek nothing more. For those who are right thinking and instruct themselves by listening to the divine Scriptures will say in good faith that there is nothing absurd about him being at once God and man, if in saying these things sometimes he is called God and sometimes man. The one designation by no means annuls the other.

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 2, Section 16

Notice that Cyril has proposed a self-magisterium. A person educates himself by reading the Bible. Such a person is "right thinking" to Cyril. When Cyril says that we should be content with what we have said and seek nothing more, he means that we should accept and limit ourselves to what Scripture teaches.

Cyril also addresses a counter-argument based on something akin to sola Scriptura:

If they insist on saying, "where the Virgin is called Theotokos in Scripture," let them clearly hear the angel proclaiming this piece of good news to the shepherd and saying: "For today to you a Savior is born, who is Christ the Lord" (Luke 2:11). He does not say, "Who shall be Lord" or in whom the Lord shall dwell," but "who is Lord."

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 3, Section 23

Notice that Cyril doesn't answer: "well, we don't have to prove our doctrines from Scripture," nor does he make vague comparisons to the fact that the word "Trinity" is not in Scripture. Instead, he answers the argument by showing where the Scriptures teach that Christ was God-become-man, not a human that was later indwelt by God. He accepts the major premise of his objectors (if it is not in Scripture it is not orthodox) but he rejects the minor premise (it is not in Scripture).

In view of the above, it should not be surprising to hear Cyril describe Paul this way:

Again, they should not whisper about this by putting forward the passion and resurrection and the fact that God raised him up. For already the reasoning, which applies to the economy, has been proven by what we have already said. If, however, they want to learn more clearly who it was who was crucified, then let them hear the teacher of the whole world, when he writes in his epistle to the Corinthians, "for I received from the Lord and delivered to you, that our Lord Jesus Christ on the night, on which he was betrayed, took bread," etc. (1 Cor. 11:23). Do you observe that the one who suffered for us is openly declared to be Lord?

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 3, Section 24

Is the quotation above itself a compelling proof that Cyril practiced sola Scriptura? Of course not. But it is not by itself. It is part of a larger context in which it becomes obvious that Cyril thinks that the Scriptures teach the reader important things plainly.

Hear then Cyril's conclusion to his work:

He did, indeed, show that the one who was born from the Virgin, that is himself, was both son of David and Lord. However, those who heard this testimony were confounded and did not contradict him, as the evangelist says in the narrative: "For no one was able to reply to his word and dared from that time to ask him any more questions" (Matt. 22:46). May the same thing happen to these [heretics] as well. May they somehow abandon their madness and come to know the preaching of true religion. As for us, beloved, let us hold this faith forever, keeping it in mind, preaching it plainly and boldly with our mouths, being prepared willingly to suffer everything for it. For this is the prediction of the prophets, the preaching of the Apostles and the cause of the Kingdom of Heaven. This is the guide of eternal life. This is the wealth of the Fathers. This is our own true treasure, for the sake of which it is right that we sell and give away all things. If anyone ever wanted to steal this from us, let us despise him as an enemy of Christ and of our salvation, because we are persuaded by the commandment of the Apostle: "Whether we ourselves or an angel was to preach to you a different gospel from that which we preached let him be anathema" (Gal. 1:8).

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 3, Sections 29-30.

For Cyril, as we have seen, it was crucial to keep doctrines Scriptural, and it was right to call down the anathema of Galatians 1:8 on those who were departing from Scripture's teaching on an important point.

Someone might wonder, "perhaps TurretinFan has simply cited the portions of the rebuttal relating to Scripture, but has left out the rebuttal from the Fathers and from the authority of the Church." Do not fear, I have not left out such items. In fact, the church is only rarely mentioned in the treatise. There is, of course, no mention of the Roman bishop (Cyril of Alexandria was no Romanist, after all) - and there is only a limited reference to councils. I think the limited reference to councils is illuminating, because Cyril is dogmatically condemning as heretics those against whom no counsel has yet proclaimed. He compares them to condemned heretics, and argues that his own position is founded on the unshakable rock. In the context of the work, that means Scripture, not the see of Peter, or apostolic succession generally:

These things and things like them are common to all those, who attempt to scatter the flock of true religion, as indeed the end of the aforementioned heresies has shown. What advantage did the deceit of Arius bring him? What advantage was there in the heresy of Eunomius and those, who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit? What profit in the heresy of Paul of Samosata or in the madness of the one called Apollinaris? All these men had a shameful end to their present life and were thrown out of the boundaries of the Church. They shall be thrown out of "the Church of the first-born in heaven" (Heb. 12:23), because their names have been erased from "the Book of the Living and shall not be inscribed with the just" (Ps. 68:29). The same end will come upon these current blasphemers, especially those, who have become the leaders of this perversity, if they do not quickly become aware of their madness and attempt to return to the place, from which they have fallen. For they shall hear from the Savior, "Just as a piece of cloth stained with blood is not clean, so you also will not be clean. Because you lost my land and killed my people, who shall not remain forever" (Isaiah 14:19-20). As for us, who have build our faith firmly upon the unbreakable rock, let us keep the true religion to the end. Let us not be disturbed at all by our opponents, but rather we will have the love of the Lord as an invincible weapon. Let us boast in Him for all things and laugh at the lowliness of our opponents and say the words of the prophet: "God is with us: Know all nations and be dismayed, be dismayed in your strength. If you regain your strength, you shall be dismayed; if you deliberate, the Lord will scatter your deliberations. And whatever words you might speak; it shall not persist among you, because the Lord God is with us" (Isaiah 8:8-10).

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 1, Section 11.

So, quite the contrary, although Cyril believes that the Church will vindicate him, Cyril is bold to call these men heretics prior to any ecclesiastical decision on the matter. He doesn't wait for a council to condemn them, but argues that their positions are heretical on the strength of Scripture alone. May we be stirred up to follow this example of Sola Scriptura that we have seen in Cyril.

-TurretinFan

P.S. The following excerpt may also be interesting from the standpoint of a discussion on penal substitution:

When, therefore, this is the case, obviously, he demonstrated his love for us by means of a great philanthropy and has partaken of our own nature in order that he might raise it up and deliver it from bondage to the devil. No one, then, should be ashamed in hearing about a child and a baby and anything else that has been written about him in a purely human fashion. For he underwent all things not for his own sake, but for our sake. He preserved everywhere what is proper to human nature in order that the economy might not be regarded as a mere fiction.

- Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Those Who are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos," Part 3, Section 26.